Are mens’ rights websites dangerous hate groups? Chuck Rudd calls the Southern Poverty Law Center out for mission creep.
The Southern Poverty Law Center—a non-profit civil rights organization that made its bones going after the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis—has turned its cannons on my virtual homeland: The Manosphere. The SPLC, created in 1971 by civil rights activist Morris Dees, publishes a quarterly “Intelligence Report” covering the latest movements and trends among so-called extremists and hate groups. This quarter’s issue features no less than three articles covering the Manosphere.
First, what is the SPLC’s stated purpose?
The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.
To expose the rampant hatred and seething violence of the Manosphere, the group’s lengthiest piece mentions a handful of high-profile cases of men committing acts of violence against women.
The SPLC report begins with Thomas Ball who last year set fire to himself at the footsteps of the Cheshire Co., New Hampshire courthouse after a decade long child custody battle. They discuss George Sodini, the involuntarily celibate lunatic who sought revenge against women by shooting up a women’s fitness center. The SPLC report mentions Anders Breivik, the Norwegian right-wing, anti-Jihadist, anti-feminist who killed 77 of his fellow Norwegians. They mention Scott Evans Dekraai who recently killed his ex-wife and five others after a custody dispute. They also cover the crimes of Marc Lepine and Darren Mack and sprinkle crumbs of admittedly supportive comments from Manosphere bloggers and website commenters.
What the SPLC doesn’t do is connect the words written at sites like A Voice for Men and The Spearhead and others to violent action against women. It’s overt guilt-by-association rather than guilt itself. None of the violent men mentioned—or Thomas Ball who committed violence against himself—were associated with the Manosphere. No forums; no known comments; no known web affiliations. None were a visible presence on the sites targeted by SPLC, and there have been no reported cases of men linked to these sites committing criminal acts or engaging in violence.
♦◊♦
At the widely read blog Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowen recently linked to a piece of research which finds that the increase of porn usage in various countries is not associated with an increase in sexual violence. In fact, the increase of porn—which feminists have at one time or another called misogynistic or hate-based—is correlated with a decline of sexual violence against women all across the world.
I’d argue that Manosphere sites have a similar effect. There’s no question that a lot of content in the Manosphere is unsavory and offensive. Some of that is for, as it is called in the internet, ‘lulz’. Some is an airing of grievances or just irrational frustration that might otherwise manifest itself violently. This is the “safety-valve argument” that has been put forth by scholars such as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger and famed jurist and legal scholar Richard Posner who favors someone writing rather than just passively staring at a screen.
This argument also has some empirical evidence to back it up. Researchers from the University of Kansas and the University of Wisconsin studied the blogging patterns of several dozen prominent political bloggers and found that the most commonly-cited reason for entering the political blogosphere was “to blow off steam”. Perhaps Sodini, Ball, or Mack would have benefited from a forum outside of their own head.
The SPLC’s report suggests that the group is either behind the times or hard up for opponents. They are brick and mortar; the internet is fluid. The groups like the KKK that the SPLC previously condemned were ones that pushed for violent action. But the websites of the Manosphere are loosely affiliated networks of men with similar frustrations – not similar desires to act in violent ways. The KKK, the Nation of Islam, and neo-Nazis have buildings and P.O. Boxes and franchisees and mailing lists and meetings and, hell, uniforms. And most importantly, they have a hierarchy and chains of command. All of this is infrastructure for concerted violent attacks which are the ultimate—and rightly confronted—fear.
♦◊♦
Roosh V, a popular seduction blogger and author, was mentioned in the list of “misogynist” bloggers. Libertarian outpost Reason magazine giggled at the SPLC’s reliance on a blog called “ManBoobz” and at the group’s turn from gutting organizations that openly state their violent intentions to badgering internet writers and ex-pat PUA bloggers. Reason spots the ridiculousness of the report:
Take note, America: Having consensual sex (Roosh is not a rapist, but a seducer*) with someone you don’t actually like and then never calling her/him again will land you in a reputation-ruining** SPLC report.
*and a pig
Roosh is a Larry Flynt type—part Gonzo, part self-styled cad. He has faced the ire of foreign governments and their citizens before, so this is nothing new. The question isn’t whether Roosh is offensive or unethical; the question is whether an influential think tank is right in singling out non-violent websites whose main focus is seduction or men’s rights. Instead of being targeted for his violent or hateful intentions, Roosh drew attention during the course of his grand European tour in which he hopped from country to country, carrying out a “scorched disco” strategy and writing books about his encounters. After traveling through Iceland and Denmark, some Estonian bloggers began to post about the coming beard-tornado that is Roosh. But the response of the Estonians or the Danes or the Icelanders was far different from that of the SPLC. People in those countries recognized Roosh as an undesirable—an asshole, they might say—but they didn’t label him a perpetrator of hate or extremism. To put Roosh V on the SPLC watch list would be to track Andrew Dice Clay or Tucker Max. And that Roosh is on that list calls into question the other anti-Manosphere arguments put forth by the SPLC.
Roosh offered speculation for his placement in the crosshairs of Dees and company:
The reason SPLC included me was because game overlaps with a lot of the men’s rights issue. Anything that empowers men is hereby declared misogynistic, and they will attack it. You don’t see them attacking commercial publications like Ask Men, Maxim, or The Art of Manliness because those teach guys how to be obedient worker bees who buy consumer products. The SPLC list had none of those sites.
Asked if he thinks his blog and his books will be harmful to women in a Sodini-like manner, Roosh responded:
Nothing I’ve written will harm women. If anything, it will give them sexual pleasure from the men who successfully seduce them with my teachings. The irony of [the SPLC’s argument that I am] hating American women is that I’m teaching thousands of guys how to have sex with them and therefore give them orgasms, which of course is one of the most pleasurable human experiences.
Picture Fred Phelps cheekily offering his “services” to homosexuals.
♦◊♦
The SPLC’s organizational intentions are virtuous on their face, but it seems that they’ve run out of ammunition to sustain their relevance. Thus, the umbrella terms “hate group” or “extremist organization” are cast over these de-centralized, non-organized websites and blogs. This is a far cry from tackling actual, demonstrable impairments of civil rights or personal freedoms. It’s called “mission creep”, and it’s kind of creepy.
Founder Dees has a bit of a sketchy past himself. He has been criticized for using his organization as a vehicle for his own personal gain. Part of the mission creep involves railing against caricatures of bigotry and extremism in order to gin up fear and the donations that closely follow. An article written in 2000 by Ken Silverstein for Harper’s quotes a former SPLC lawyer saying that the group sought to profit off of “black pain and white guilt.”
Dees’ divorce records show a man who was seemingly more extreme in deed than any of the bloggers mentioned in the SPLC report. Questions of the legitimacy of the divorce proceedings could not be verified by the SPLC’s public relations department (though I will update if they return my call). The documents detail Dees’ volatile marriage to his ex-wife, Maureene:
Although Maureene was subjected to a number of degrading sexual episodes by Morris during the marriage which will be discussed hereafter, neither Morris nor Maureene ever wanted or sought a divorce until Morris established his permanent relationship with Vicki Booker McGaha in August of 1977. It was Morris’ absolute refusal to give up his mistress, whom he was supporting and whom he had made pregnant, that directly caused termination of Maureene’s marriage and forced her to institute these divorce proceedings.
And two years later, amidst Dees’ cheating, he gave permission to Maureene—to whom he was still married—to begin seeing other men. In one incident, Dees and a private investigator set up Maureene in a sting. Dees and the P.I. busted out of a bathroom and began snapping pictures of Maureene and her lover in bed together. From the docket:
Morris was acting crazy, and Maureene thought he was going to kill everybody in sight. He told her that he had five detectives with him (R.592). He hit her and gave her a busted jaw. (R. 592).
If the divorce document is true, it is interesting to note that the SPLC is ignoring the violent misogynist in their own midst while taking aim at rhetoric contained on a few websites.
—Photo: -Tripp-/Flickr
About Chuck Ross
The Southern Poverty Law Center—a non-profit civil rights
Non-profit? The SPLC is ridiculously profitable. In 2010, their revenues were about $35 million, while their net assets were about $230 million: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4482
To keep filling their coffers, the creeps at the SPLC must brand an ever-widening proportion of public discussion as hate speech. There’s just not enough real hate in America for them.
The SPLC is not unique. I think some people have the idea that nonprofits are not really “businesses.” Except, many businesses are organized as nonprofits. It is a legitimate way of doing business. These organizations compete with each other for government and philanthropic dollars. Nonprofit directors can bring in millions of dollars through their compensation packages.
People don’t think of these organizations as businesses because instead of, say, a large national retail chain competing with a small regional one, you have a large national animal rights organization competing with your local animal shelters. People would think that because they have similar missions, they would cooperate. Sometimes they do, but there can also be intense competition between them. Ideological “turf” is extremely important. Sometimes these groups cut corners or stomp on who their ideological allies should be in order to maintain dominance in the market, just like corporations do.
I wonder if the SPLC has a consistent policy when it comes to different ethnic and racial subgroups on the web. Surely there are websites out there visited predominantly by African American men, for example, that may not be very flattering towards women or that may be clearly anti-feminist. I’m willing to believe that white guys are worse than any other when it comes to this, but surely they are not alone. I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing that it’s only when white men call for treating women as sex objects that it’s hate speech to the SPLC. Surely there are hip-hop lyrics that are the equivalent of the most rabid MRM or pseudo-MRM rhetoric. Is the SPLC going to single out those music producers for hate speech?
Of course, my writing this could be construed as racism and therefore the GMP is now affiliated with hate speech and must also be closely watched by law enforcement.
P.S. Also, past a certain point, the longer the list of “hate groups,” the more meaningless the list becomes. At first it may be helpful to generate donations in the short term, but over the long term it undermines the group’s credibility. Anyone familiar with Joe McCarthy could tell you that – see the bad guys everywhere and you’ll look like an imbecile.
“I’m willing to believe that white guys are worse than any other when it comes to this”
Why on earth would you think that?
http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=Daryush+Valizadeh&s4=t15#USA
he’s lived many places…hasn’t he?
http://www.godhatesfags.com is on the hate list and they aren’t violent. It’s a hate list. You can be very damaging with hate without necessarily being violent. A Voice for Men or Spearhead – neither of these site’s articles nor their subscribers write or talk like they are out to do anything but continually bash women. The thin veil of a good cause to help men and boys is quickly ripped away to reveal a most misogynistic agenda. Oh, the problems they purport to care about are real; homeless men, imprisoned and raped men, male suicide, boys behind in school, raising our boys to be “heroes” and “tough guys” instead of 3 dimensional humans, custody courts, I get it. Hell, I used to think they actually cared about these things and stood for them. But after reading nearly every article, it became very clear they just hate women, and all their “actions” if you can even call them that, have done nothing but put men further back in caves. They rabidly attack any sign of a differing opinion and call differing commenters “trolls” and usually want them “banned” after they inflict much verbal abuse. They also target and try to publicly slander people who they deem as “bigots”. Register Her is also an interesting site (and a complete joke).
“neither of these site’s articles nor their subscribers write or talk like they are out to do anything but continually bash women”
Women or feminists? You use misogyny as well, which, by definition is a hatred of women, which does not apply when it’s feminism that is the focus. Please make a distinction, because I know far too many people seem to think they are synonymous, and your argument would not stand if it relied on feminism rather than women. After all, isn’t hating ideologies what the SPLC is all about? Rather hypocritical of them to call others a hate group for doing precisely what they themselves are doing. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that SAVE Services is included in that list. SAVE (stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is a politically recognized and supported domestic violence advocacy group that strives to include male victims and female perpetrators. It doesn’t even discuss feminism or women, beyond women are included in both victims and perpetrators. Save was targeted because of it’s opposition to the current wording of VAWA, which, if you check the link bellow, actually excludes children from benefiting from it’s grant programs due to it’s single minded focus on women… is that misogynistic, or responsible?
Forgot the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Violence_Against_Women_Act#Any_claim_to_helping_children_needs_to_be_removed_or_verified
The Spearhead published an article last year titled “How Female Sufferage Destroyed Western Civilization”. I would say that’s pretty misogynistic, wouldn’t you?
AVFM isn’t as blatant in its misogyny as The Spearhead, but Elam has made some disgusting comments insinuating that women who are raped are “begging for it”
I don’t attend the spearhead, So I can’t speak for that. As for AVfM, I think Paul lets his rage go unchecked, unfocused, rather than putting it to better use, but I am aware of the article you are referring to, as well as the out of context hatchet job manboobz did (which is clearly where you’ve gotten your information from). Paul was saying some women, under certain circumstances, are asking to be raped in the same context as a man walking down the back ally’s of a suburban slum at 3 AM wearing a $4,000 suit, a $15,000 Rolex, $800 Italian leather shoes and counting his fistful of money and singing “I’m so rich, rich, rich, got lots of money, money, money” is asking to get mugged. It’s not in a literal sense, but sometimes, you just do so many stupid things all combined that leave yourself vulnerable that it is entirely moronic to think anything else would happen. But for some reason, many feminist don’t think anything bad should ever happen to a woman, even if she does so many stupid things and leaves herself so utterly vulnerable as to make it so expecting anything else, given we don’t live in a perfect world, is actually unlikely. Why is that? Why is it feminists believe women (and for some reason, only women) should be except from the harsh realities of society, and not held accountable for, at the very least, some of their own safety?
If you were to switch it – for instance if a scantily clad man was attacked sexually by a bunch of women – I doubt anyone would be talking about how HIS behavior led to his attack. People would be like “what’s with those crazy chicks!?” Of course it is important not to make stupid decisions that make you a target for rape, or theft, etc – but I’m really tired of the “she was begging for it” rationalization as it puts the victim on trial and all but excuses the perpetrator. Basically, “how could he help himself?” Is the message in that mentality. I don’t care if she’s half naked at 3am, walking down dark alleys and stoned- she isn’t raping anyone! To suggest that the rapist in question was somehow triggered by her behavior, lets him off the hook and sends everyone: law enforcement, courts, public opinion, down the road of victim blaming. She ends up being on trial, and HER behavior is questioned, and no one is even talking about the behavior of the sicko who made the choice to rape. It’s the rarest form of rape anyway – so it’s annoying to even talk about. Most people are raped by someone they know.
“People would be like “what’s with those crazy chicks!?””
I suspect people would be far more likely to assert things like “you can’t rape the willing”, or “dude got lucky, a bunch of chicks at once”, “I wish I was that guy”, etc etc etc.
Furthermore, I DID provide a reversed gender scenario (wasn’t rape, but still a crime committed against him… or is it you have no sympathy for a rich man being mugged, making seeing the analogy difficult? Could this be because he is a man, or because the crime committed against him wasn’t of the designated crime?
” but I’m really tired of the “she was begging for it” rationalization as it puts the victim on trial and all but excuses the perpetrator.”
While I personally think this assertion is hyperbole (as I don’t see people excusing the perpetrator, only claiming the crime was (potentially) preventable), I do understand it. But on the flipside, the response (such as the quote above) asserts that woman’s actions shouldn’t be questioned…This leads to presumptions that she is always telling the truth, that because she said a rape occurred, it actually did. People suggest that, to question her at all, is to victim blame her (but if police can’t question, how are they to get any details to conduct their investigation? how are they to prove or disprove who’s side of the story is correct? Are you like Jessica Valenti, who believes the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be reversed, for men only, in cases of rape accusations (is this feminist equality?)?
Furthermore, all too often, attempts to educate women/girls about possible risk modifying actions are also deemed victim blaming, despite there not actually being a victim, and as you even admit “Of course it is important not to make stupid decisions that make you a target for rape” … How can people know what is a stupid decision that can increase risk if nobody is allowed to talk about them? How can anyone learn when girls are told you need never be held accountable for your own safety, your actions, and the consequences that come of those, are never to be questioned. This is harmful to women, not helpful.
That said, Paul’s article uses far stronger tones, hyperbole and an unapologetic stance that is very much hostile to feminist ideals, but he makes it clear in that article, he doesn’t actually believe women beg to get raped, nor do they deserve it.
“To suggest that the rapist in question was somehow triggered by her behavior”
This is the problem, feminists always try and make a correlation between “this could have been prevented” and “she triggered it”. They may be close, but they are not the same.
“She ends up being on trial, and HER behavior is questioned, and no one is even talking about the behavior of the sicko who made the choice to rape”
To the second part… nobody is talking about it because everyone agree’s, if he did in fact rape her, he’s a sicko. There is no question whether rape was acceptable or not, it’s not, what is in question, and this is where feminists fail, is “DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN?”? Unless you agree with Jessica Valenti, that men should not be given their due process, what needs to be determined is if the act occurred, if it occurred as described (by one party or the other) and if it was a misunderstanding (or was intent involved). For some reason, feminists seem to be opposed to this part of the investigation, because it dares to question a woman’s honesty. Is that feminist equality, only men need ever be questioned, that a woman’s word is golden truth, pure and without reproach?
“Most people are raped by someone they know.”
Opening a lot of room for different subjective interpretations of the events. Do you seriously think police can get evidence of both the act and intent, without ever questioning the she within the he said/she said narrative? Or, again, do you suggest men should prove their innocence, rather than the courts proving their guilt? Is that what feminist equality looks like to you?
“Is that feminist equality, only men need ever be questioned, that a woman’s word is golden truth, pure and without reproach?”
Oh good grief. Of course not. Real rapes happen to women. To women who know their rapist. Real rapes happen to men. To men who know their rapist. So we should cut the dramatics out here on both sides and start working to figure out ways to yes, advocate for being safe and protecting oneself, and also STOPPING THE PERPS who commit actual crimes. Cause they do. To men and women both.
You’re not replying to what I said, you’re replying to what you want to argue. There are feminists advocating for men to be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. THAT”S what I am referring to in my question, but instead of acknowledging that, you instead pretend I’m making some “rape doesn’t happen” assertion, and arguing against that. How does “real rapes happen” play any part in justifying “guilty until proven innocent” as being equitable… unless your going to assert women don’t lie and thus when someone says a rape happened, then a real rape happened and the man should be deemed guilty. Now if you don’t believe women’s words are sacred, or that men should be deemed guilty until proven innocent, than the question wasn’t directed at you.
+1
You may have a point with the “he got lucky” likely response to a male rape – that is another double standard that drives me crazy.
I don’t think women, by virtue of being women, are truthful and their word is gold. Nor do I subscribe to any “feminist equality” whatever that is.
Let me be very clear – everyone: men and women, boys and girls, should definitely be educated on how to keep themselves as safe as possible. If I leave my 4 year old alone in the park, and he gets kidnapped – yes, there is some blame headed my way and not just the kidnapper’s. If I fall asleep with a cigarette in my hand and the house burns down, by all means blame me and not the murderous villainous fire. What I am talking about is the slippery slope we head down when we start questioning the behavior and attire of the victim of rape more than the behavior of the rapist. This leads to underreporting and the shame involved causes many victims to either not report, or drop charges. The fact is, rape is more likely to go unreported, than claims to be falsely made. Do false accusations happen? Of course – but it is very rare, especially when compared to how many rapes go unreported, and I wasn’t discussing that (nor do I think it is ok, etc, etc).
My very best friend was brutally raped by a complete stranger when she was sixteen. When she was telling me the details of what led to her rape, I wanted to kill her because of all the stupid decisions SHE made. She got into the car, didn’t know him, got high, etc. It is tempting to blame her for what happened to her, but rape is such an epidemic, I think it’s more productive to talk about prevention from the perpetrator’s side of things. Prevention is put squarely on the shoulders of women, and their behavior. Is that where the focus really should be?
“Nor do I subscribe to any “feminist equality” whatever that is.”
What “that is” is the tendency for feminists to insist “feminism is about equality”. This assertion feminism is about equality includes the feminism of these feminists (and they are feminists, even if you choose to relegate them to the radical faction, they do remain feminists) who are calling for the presumption of guilty until proven innocent. So if feminism is about equality, and feminist’s are calling for guilty until proven innocent… is that what equality looks like to feminists… or said otherwise, is that feminist equality?
” What I am talking about is the slippery slope we head down when we start questioning the behavior and attire of the victim of rape more than the behavior of the rapist. ”
1: Are you certain the (alleged) victim does get questioned MORE than the accused? Or is it a matter of the alleged victim being questioned at all being deemed being questioned too much, in conjunction with the accussed’s questioning, regardless of how much, largly gets ignored because he’s presumed guilty right from the start and deserves to be questoned?
2: When discussing date rate, it becomes a question of “was consent given”, which very much is about what the woman did (or didn’t) do, as what the man did (IE, having sex) isn’t usually in question. In this case, if is about comparing the woman’s perception of events against the man’s, which would involve, at the very least, equal amounts of questioning.
3: When discussing stranger rape, there usually isn’t a man ready for questioning, and it is the woman’s account of events police investigate to catch the criminal. So by the time the man is caught, there really isn’t much need for questioning him, as the evidance has already led to catching him.
That said, I do understand what you mean, in that the woman’s behaviour should be used to excuse her victimization, her attire is not consent, dancing is not consent, kissing is not consent… except that if her combined behaviours left room for ambiguous interpretations, the guy should be given some degree of understanding in that situation. No means no is clear, leaves no room for misinterpretation. I was drunk and never would have slept with him if I was sober, sure I was dancing with him very sexually and making out with him on the dance floor, yes I went back to his place after for more drinks, yes I made out with him and even took off my own shirt and his, and no, I didn’t say no when he took off my panties, while he ate me out, or when he inserted his penis in me, but I did refuse to put the condom on for him and I didn’t want to sleep with him, I don’t like him like that, it’s just that I was drunk… well, should this behaviour NOT be questioned? Sure her dancing and kissing him isn’t consent, but likewise it doesn’t demonstrate the “I’m not interested in him like that” ether.
“This leads to underreporting and the shame involved causes many victims to either not report, or drop charges.”
I would think rape-victim advocates constantly telling the media that police don’t take rape seriously, that women won’t be belived and will be hounded and tormented all over again, and all for nothing because only 6% of rapists get convicted (ignoring the fact that that’s 6% of reported rapes lead to conviction, the remainder includes those reports that were withdrawn for whatever reason, those that found the wrong guy was accussed and those that maliciously lied, and even were found guilty of filing a false report… IE, rape victim advocates use proven false rape reports to promote the idea that rape isn’t taken seriously)… I think this all promotes victims not to report far more than anything the police do.
“but it is very rare,”
Is it? We don’t know for certain because police don’t investigate a reports that don’t turn out results, they only investigate reports that find proof of malicious false reporting while trying to prove the rape did occur. Can you imagine the stink rape victim advocates wopuld make if police did investigate those reports that didn’t pan out? So because rape victim advocates are protecting false reporters, it’s dishonest to claim they don’t happen often.
” I think it’s more productive to talk about prevention from the perpetrator’s side of things. Prevention is put squarely on the shoulders of women, and their behavior. Is that where the focus really should be?”
What do you propose to stop people who are willing to risk jailtime to commit an act they know to be illigal? Isn’t the law, and threat of jail, already a form of prevention from the perptrator’s side of things? So when you say prevention is put squarely on the shoulders of women, you are being dishonest. You are taking our laws for granted, while refusing to take the accountability for your own safety for granted too. As you said above “If I leave my 4 year old alone in the park, and he gets kidnapped – yes, there is some blame headed my way”, so why is rape different? Is teaching a child not to go with strangers more acceptable than teaching a woman the exact same thing? Are children to be deemed more accountable for their own safety than grown women? I don’t think so.
Correction:
“That said, I do understand what you mean, in that the woman’s behaviour should be used to excuse her victimization”
should read “shouldn’t be used”
You have some valid points. I think we’re both right in one way or another. However, I think you assume the police feel under pressure from rape crisis centers, and that is really not the case. In some cities, police chiefs take sexual assault very seriously, and they have great relationships with local rape crisis centers (like in my community). In other cities, the police treat rape survivors like crap right off the bat (as has been reported to the agency I volunteer at). Some cities, the police are excellent, but the DA won’t prosecute anything – therefore rape survivors’ advocates are trying to get him voted out (this is going on right now, in yet another city I will not name because I’m trying to remain anonymous).
I’ll admit, my being directly involved with a rape crisis agency makes me a bit biased, maybe even jaded, but I do see first hand how rape cases are handled by varying counties, and the way victims are treated is often quite shocking. Other times – the system is working well. More often than not, the system is working to shame the victim.
Oh, and if you are drunk, you legally cannot consent, regardless of what you say or do. Your scenario is a legal description of date rape.
“I think you assume the police feel under pressure from rape crisis centers”
The crisis centres themselves? No, but if you wish to deny police agencies and judges aren’t required to attend feminist driven, VAWA funded “educational” programs on sexual assault and domestic violence, well, there isn’t much point to continuing this discussion. And I don’t doubt different police agencies respond to these programs differently, with some even overcompensating in their opposition to it, but I’ll show you, how your own response, provides an example of why that is…
Where in your entire comment do you even leave room for the possibility that an accuser is speaking false? You refer to how police “treat rape survivors”, the way “victims are treated”, how the “the system is working to shame the victim”. At no point do you even leave room for the possibility these accusers are lying. At no point do you acknowledge how the accused are treated in some cases, such as by prosecutors like Nefong and Kellott. If you are unable to even examine both sides of the equation, why should one accept that your claims of imbalance and unfair treatment are accurate. Because for all you know, as unfair as you feel the accuser is being treated, they may very well be getting the light treatment compared to the accused (I can’t know, you don’t even acknowledge them, let alone whether you feel they should have a right to due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty). You say you are trying to get a DA voted out because he won’t prosecute rape accusers, but is he not doing so because he isn’t upholding justice, or because there isn’t enough evidence to bring to court? I don’t know, because, again, you don’t tell us, so it looks to me that he isn’t doing what you want, so you want him out… but doing what you want isn’t the same as not doing his job, because DA’s like Nefong and kellott were doing what you want, and got spanked because they were doing their jobs WRONG for doing so.
“Oh, and if you are drunk, you legally cannot consent, regardless of what you say or do. Your scenario is a legal description of date rape.”
I call bullshit on this assertion. If a little alcohol absolved one of accountability for their choices, DUI (drunk driving) would not be a prosecutable crime, because one could not be deemed capable of making the choice to drive or not drive, and as such, could not be held accountable for making that choice. Furthermore, it is this kind of asinine assertion, an assertion that generally only applies to one gender (you will never hear someone assert a man was raped because he was drunk, even while they are accusing that same drunk man of raping the woman who raped him), that makes so many people turn away from the feminist movement and even the rape hysteria industry (and it’s ever expanding self interest fear-mongering and redifinitions).
Furthermore, suggesting that women should not be held responsible for their choices while drunk, while insisting they still be allowed to make the choice to drink, is rather ludicrous, and results in such injustices as happened in Nova Scotia, where a woman woke her passed out husband up by hitting him over the head, they argued, it escalated to physical violence (don’t know which started the physical, assuming you don’t accept the slapping across the head as the start), she beat him with a broom until he restrained her, then when released, she went into her friends house, where she was now safe, got a knife, returned to the street and stabbed him to death. She claimed battered woman’s syndrom (despite her actions showing she was clearly not afraid) and the judge let her go without charge. The reason… Because, while she did have alternatives such as abuse shelters and friends and family, she was drunk! MURDER was deemed an acceptable alternative to staying in her damn friends house BECAUSE SHE WAS DRUNK!. Is that what you want? where women can go around killing people because they are drunk and can’t be held accountable for their actions? Or perhaps you support the idea a woman can’t drink alcohol, since she can’t be held responsible for her actions while influenced by it?
Lastly, isn’t it rather demeaning to a woman to suggest she isn’t capable of taking responsibility for her own actions, just because she had some alcohol, even when a man can and will be? Do you really see women as so incompetent for themselves that, even though they can make the choice to drink, they can not thereafter handle the responsibility to make their own choices? And if not, then who is, and where does it stop? Does a woman who gets drunk at a work function, slaps her boss, calls him a cocksucker for never noticing her and then tries to stick her tongue down his throat in front of his wife… should she not incur any consequences for her actions ether? I’m sure you would want to argue she should not have gotten drunk at a work function, but after that first drink, once the alcohol is in her system, can she be held responsible for the choice to have more drinks? Where does it end?
Sorry, but if you replaced men with women in that paragraph you could just as easily be describing any feminist site I’ve ever visited (with maybe one exception). The difference is that only MRA and masculist sites are being called out for misogyny and this being identified as the core concept of the movement. If you’re willing to accuse a voice for men are you willing to accuse jezebel?
Also I dispute that god hates fags aren’t violent. They mightn’t actually attack people but showing up at a funeral slandering the dead? I’ve never seen an MRA do that, or a WRA. The comparison is inaccurate in the extreme.
Really? You’re comparing AVFM to Jezebel?
Have you read articles on Jezebel calling for people to “inflict enough pain on the agents of hate in order to shock society out its current coma”? Or an editorial saying that men who are raped are “begging fo it”?
I have some problems with articles that Jezebel has published but nothing they’ve ever written has been so distrubingly hateful as anything on AVFM or any MRA website for that matter.
“Have you read articles on Jezebel calling for people to “inflict enough pain on the agents of hate in order to shock society out its current coma”?”
Nope, But I have seen an article from Jezebel calling for people to inflict pain on the targets of their hate for fun and laughs
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
Do you actually have a link to this article of AVFM, or is your link limited to manboobz’s account of it?
I’ve seen some stuff on how violent or harmful AVFM is, but the one I remember was quoting a small part of a larger article that changed the context. Cut down it looks like he’s calling for violence but the next paragraph proved it to be purposely done for effect to show the hypocrisy of another article.
It also depends what kind of pain you mean, I find some authors to be quite over the top and let too much anger through. Their message can be pretty decent except it’s loaded with anger that turns people off to listening, I really wish they’d calm down a lil. It’s ok to be annoyed, angry, but it does make it harder to understand people. I think it was Joanna who was pushed away by someones anger, I tried to say the same message without that anger and it allowed her to understand the point and empathize (Sorry if it wasn’t her, my memory is pretty terrible:S).
When I read each side’s stuff I do my best to gloss over any misandry, misogyny, anger or hatred and understand WHY they feel that way, what would make someone hate women or men? I also read things that generalize as all and mentally change that to some as I know not everyone in a group is the same, if I focused on the generalizations it could be annoying but I do my best to ignore it when trying to understand it.
It’s like when a friend says all women are this, all men are that, and you ask them is it all men/women and they say no, some, and it turns out to be a woman/man who has quite an impact on them such as a love interest. Casual generalizations are tossed about like candy, I probably do it myself (call me out on them! so I am aware), and this carries over into peoples online writings.
“It also depends what kind of pain you mean, I find some authors to be quite over the top and let too much anger through.”
I very much agree with this, and ironically, when I said as much, when I said I think the anger needs to be focus and directed, instead of letting it rage free, lashing out at anyone who may question our arguments (even out of simple curiosity, wanting to test the strength of an argument before accepting it themselves), or challenge us to improve… I got told by Paul Elam himself to get the fuck off his website if I don’t like it. So, understandably, I’m not a fan of his. That said, I don’t find AVfM’s writing to be hateful, just, as you said, angry, and anger is understandable, angry writing is acceptable so long as it doesn’t cross into hate (which I don’t feel it has), it’s just where it goes from there I have disagreements about.
I agree with the rest of your comments too, especially the undertone that both sides are guilty of the same actions they accuse the other of.
I so wanna get both sides together and give them a time-out. Shake hands n get over it all, work together, it’s bloody annoying!
Yep really, jezebel, maboobz the lot of them.
What you fail to mention is Roosh V’s involvement with a website called “Fat Girl Jihad”. As much as he’d like to pretend that he is only helping lonely dudes get laid, he can’t hide from the fact that he has an incredible hatred of American women.
Also I think it needs to be noted that Mensactivism.org was also listed there.
The entry for it accused them of using a lurid headline about a Pakistani woman that killed and cooked her husband for lusting for their daughter. What SPLC didn’t say was that mensactivism.org copied that headline verbatim from the source it cited, which is pretty standard practice at that site. And by the way the source of that “lurid” headline was The Examiner.
I’m all for calling out the venom among MRAs but this peice wasn’t about calling out the venom among MRAs. This piece was about broad brush painting all MRAs as a hate movement when that is certainly not true. If this were a piece about feminist sites I bet money that if Shakesville were listed as a hate site and all that was mentioned was how they call all MRAs abusers and rapists there would be outrage (and I would agree with said outrage if for no other reason than the conversations they have had about discrimination against fat people). But since we are talking about MRAs its okay to paint up the vilest 2% as representation of the entire movement?
All I hope is that the next time someone, even the nastiest MRA, goes around generalizing feminists like this that feminists remember how they supported generalizations of MRAs sites like this. Plain and simple this place didn’t do its research. It just copy/pasted what Manboobz said about them.
(And to piggy back on Mark’s defense of SAVE Services I’ve noticed that SAVE is one of the few places that has actually spoken up about having some sort of accountability for the money that goes into VAWA. Unless its now hatred to keep track of money that’s being spent to help victims? Are women so badly and regularly abused that we shouldn’t even “waste time” on making sure the money is being used properly?)
“But since we are talking about MRAs its okay to paint up the vilest 2% as representation of the entire movement?”
It’s not just a small percent though. AVFM and The Spearhead are perhaps the two biggest and most popular MRA sites out there. Even on the MRA subreddit, which has about 20,000 members, one of their moderators is a frequent contributor to the “Beating Women” subreddit, and has said that a false rape accuser deserved to have her throat slashed.
If this guy doesn’t represent moderate MRA views, why is he a moderator?
That’s a fair question.
He is above me on the mod ladder, so it was before my time. He isn’t a “frequent contributor” and he hasn’t posted in over a year. I made sure to ask that he wasn’t doing that before I let the other mod invite me. But no excuses for his commenting on that sub – same as there is no excuse for a group of feminists on Reddit, who troll with the most vile and violent comments…because they think its funny. Three very well known feminists, who I will not mention, love this group.
I’m not going to link to the things they said or did because they are too vile. Last week, three of their members taunted a suicidal man in a thread. Because they thought it was OK to do it to a man. The man logged out and while I’d like to give you an update, I’m not going to say out of respect to his family.
Plenty of blame to go around. God I wish the hate would just stop everywhere.
As do most of us. I really have never understood the dynamic. I mean I guess it makes sense, anonymity on the web…it allows anyone to say anything. But it’s so ugly.
Very much agreed, anonymity robs some of their humanity. Or perhaps they let it rob them.
Both, likely.
“Last week, three of their members taunted a suicidal man in a thread”
Where’s the proof that those commenters were contributing members of SRS and not just some random trolls? Even Paul Elam is saying that those people were “assumed feminists”
Should I say that people on Youtube making sexist jokes are assumed MRA’s then?
Yes, we have proof and the SRS mods already took care of them. There were other trolls involved. I really rather not go down this road, because I have hundreds of screenshots of them saying some of the most awful things. If you don’t believe me, well, ask an SRS mod, or pretend it doesn’t happen to us too.
It happens everywhere, Vachette. It’s not cool in either direction. It’s rude at best, bullying torment at worst. We should all be against it.
I obviously think that the people who bullied that MRA were terrible. I’m glad that the SRS banned them because that’s what they deserved. And I’m glad that the man didn’t go through with it.
Real quick what is “SRS”?
It stands for “Shit Reddit Says”
It’s a subreddit (like a small subforum on Reddit) that highlights the rampant racism, homophobia and sexism that is all over Reddit. It also frequently calls out r/mensrights for all the sexism and misogyny that goes on there (Recently, an MRA poster saying that women inherently have less of a sense of justice than men was given 7 upvotes and only one thumbs-down), so MRAs hate SRS.
but its actually produces more hate than another other reddit.
By “sexism” I assume you mean “sexism against women” Because from what I’ve seen the people from SRS don’t seem to have a problem with sexism against men
Do those places represent the entire MRM?
But to answer your, “If this guy doesn’t represent moderate MRA views, why is he a moderator?” because even in places where there are moderate people there can still be mods that excuse the worst of behavior. Or does that mean that I can actually judge all of Feministe and the people that hold it in good graces as bad because one of its mods have allowed people to defend the idea that all men are rapists?
I’m all for clearing out all the misogyny, misandry, racism, etc…. but I’m not playing this game of “well this bigotry is okay but this one has to go” anymore.
I’m not talking about a mod simply allowing someone to post that a false rape accuser should have her throat slashed, because obviously, allowing a post does not mean condone it.
I’m talking about a mod who HIMSELF said that a women should have her house burned down and her throat slashed.
So completely unlike a prominent feminist announcing that people who defend accused rapists (who turned out to be innocent) are “rape loving scum.”
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/marcotte-and-empathy-a-letter-to-the-editor/
The only difference being that misogyny is relegated to some back corner of the internet whereas misandry is acceptable fare for mainstream newspapers.
Not that I’d defend the guy on reddit, its a horrible thing to say, but if MRAs and masculists are to be called out on their misogyny theres an even longer history of misandry within feminism to denounce.
“If this guy doesn’t represent moderate MRA views, why is he a moderator?”
I’ll leave Kyle to speak for reddit and return to you how , if the multiple editors of jezebel don’t represent feminist views, why are they all still editors and the vast majority of their comments positive.
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
What about the government sponsored SCUM society in Europe? Given how much the SCUM manifesto gets associated with feminism due to Solanas being held up as an icon of feminism after attempting to kill Andy Warhol, you’d think feminists would try to shut that down, but not a word.
“None of the violent men mentioned—or Thomas Ball who committed violence against himself—were associated with the Manosphere.”
Not true. This past year, Paul Elam, founder of AVFM, posted a song written for his site which explicitly named Thomas Ball in its lyrics, saying that “his death will not go in vain”. Also, AVFM has a tab for Activism that you can click to be directed to Ball’s manifesto.
Just last week, the MRAs on Reddit were campaigning to get Ball his own Wikipedia article.
“Just last week, the MRAs on Reddit were campaigning to get Ball his own Wikipedia article.”
You realize that there are 31,500 subscribers, and anyone in the world can log in and write anything. Even in an email to Potok, he conceded this point.
I think they were complaining because their article on Ball kept getting deleted or something…I don’t know.
My main point was that Rudd is wrong to say that there’s no connection between the MRM and people like Thomas Ball when in fact the connection is plain as day.
Also, Rudd here has written some pretty foul things of his own on his “Gucci Little Pig” website, recently accusing Fluke of being a lesbian because one of her fingers was longer than the other. He’s part of the problem.
http://glpiggy.net/2012/03/06/sandra-flukes-2d4d-ratio-and-pirates/
Oh I see, you’re talking about people posting whatever they want on the Subreddit…gotcha.
The Reddit mention is not nearly as problematic to me as the AVFM one, since, far from some random guy, Paul Elam is a popular figure in the MRM and seems to be well-respected.
I don’t speak for Paul. What do you mean by well respected? We could back and forth with these claims and counter claims all day. So, how do we stop the hate and the violence? How do we get back to talking about the problems?
I didn’t see your post before I posted.
This website seems to be a good start. I don’t always agree with that’s written here, but I think overall GMP does a service by addressing issues like masculinity and violence againt boys. That’s all I have to say about that.
Anyway here’s the thing:
I’m fully aware that there are some MRAs who are legitimately concerned with men’s issues–the Subreddit is surprisingly one of the few places I’ve found
And I think I’ve seen your name in the comments at NSWATM, which is a website that does seem to be legitimately concerned with men’s issues, so I’ll assume you are one of those MRAs. if so, I’m glad.
However, I have seen enough to understand that misogyny and violent rhetoric dominate most of MRA discourse, to the point where I cannot support it. I would like to see something good come rom the MRM but I’m not very hopeful.
And you wonder why the cycle continues? You see only what you want to see. You defend one group who does the very thing you claim another group does. And I get this from both sides, denial and blame. You won’t stop either, because youve made up your mind the right and wrong. Gender wars!
There’s no gender war going on. That’s another invention of MRA paranoia, and a way for MRAs to justify their extremist atittudes.
Also, no, the feminist movement doesn’t do what the MRM does. You’re going to say I’m biased but I don’t care. When one of the most popular feminist sites starts talking about how male sufferage destroyed Western civilization, then you’ll have a point.
” That’s another invention of MRA paranoia,”
You’re seriously going to try and pin the term “gender war” on the MRM and label it a result of paranoia?
“Also, no, the feminist movement doesn’t do what the MRM does. You’re going to say I’m biased but I don’t care.”
“I don’t care”… That shows an open mind and a willingness to be self critical…But seriously, just goes to show you as ideologically driven, rather than reason driven.
” When one of the most popular feminist sites starts talking about how male sufferage destroyed Western civilization, then you’ll have a point.”
Care to describe patriarchy theory to me? You point to one article, but patriarchy is a fundamental theory for many feminists.
Male sufferage hasn’t happened yet, but several sites are describing how men standing up for their rights is a threatening action. You seem to be one of them.
” to the point where I cannot support it.”
But this article isn’t about supporting it, it is about the SPLC calling it a hate group and trying to dismantle it. Nobody is asking you to like us, you’re clearly come from the feminist ideology that is being blamed for contributing to or perpetuating men’s current problems, largely by your own blaming of men for doing the same to women. But to silence us… That doesn’t follow with your next line:
“I would like to see something good come rom the MRM but I’m not very hopeful.”
It won’t if the MRM gets shut down as a hate group, but if it does get shut down, you can be sure something very bad will happen, just as if the KKK had managed to shut down the civil rights groups as hate groups (rather than the other way round). Men are waking up to the injustices we face, if feminism keeps railing against acknowledging that, as well as railing against those who do, the results will be very ugly. And I point to feminism because Manboobz had his sausage hands all over this SPLC thing.
“The results will be very ugly”
What do you mean, ugly? This sounds like another veiled threat which MRAs are so fond of making. MRAs rarely say “I’lll hurt you if you oppose me”, but I’ve seen a lot of talk about how society will collapse and widespread violence will break out if MRA’s needs are not met. MRA leaders talk about “inflicting enough pain to shock society out of its coma”, and you wonder why that gets the SPLC’s attention?
London Riots are being attributed as a consequence of fatherlessness, which is one of the issues the MRM is fighting against and gotten resistance to from feminists like NOW and Women’s bar association. The civil rights movement resulted in a great many riots as well. Men have been dropping out of the marriage racket for decades, to the point I can’t go a weak without seeing a “where are all the good men” or some hateful peter pan syndrome article. None of these were organized, and so were not someone carrying out “veiled threats”. It is a reality that when you push too hard against a group of people, they eventually push back, and men are a rather large group of people, not easily subjugated.
“will break out if MRA’s needs are not met”
Nice strawman. It isn’t about “if MRA’s needs are met”, it’s about “if things keep going the way they’re going”.
But go ahead and pretend I’m making veiled threats (rather than predictions based on historical precedent) with plans to incite riots (to suggest it is a threat is to suggest I or we have both means and intention to carry out those consequences), it’s easier to play the victim than to face the consequences of your ideology.
Yep, when feminists have been spouting the same hate for years (but only rarely acting on it) and haven’t been called out I do have to ask why theres a sudden fervour now men are doing it.
I’m glad you’re generously willing to admit that “some” MRAs are concerned with men’s rights. In return I’ll generously accept that some feminists are genuinely interested in equality.
You have things backwards. Thomas Ball did not have associations with the men’s rights movement, that does not mean the men’s right’s movement does not see the issues that caused his actions and choose to use (part of) those actions to bring attention to those issues. IE, Thomas Ball did not do what he did for the MRM, nor because of the MRM, as he was not involved with the MRM.
Exactly
I’ll address the comment Kyle, by emailing Vachette and placing it on Mod, though I personally would like the see the question re-written. I’ve seen that quote before, and in other places, and I don’t understand the motivation for it.
The quote is obviously wrong headed out and in very bad taste, but I can’t control what other people write. I haven’t seen that quote, but i don’t doubt it was said. Those kind of people speak for me and most others as much as Radfems speak for the feminists here. Labels suck.
Truth hurts.
Which truth? There are articles saying feminism is a hate-movement and can link to hate speech by feminists, is it any more true than this?
The few do not equal the many.
SPLC is just another feminist infested organization. Move on, nothing to see, if they like to discredit themeselve with such nonsense, let them do it. We’re going our way, no way to stop us.