Showdown: #MenCallMeThings versus The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
The most common “critique” of the #mencallmethings hashtag that blew up on Twitter last week was that the women posting examples of misogynistic shit they got called online were making a big deal out of nothing. As the always-charming Ferdinand Bardamu so memorably put it:
It’s funny, then, that when MRAs find themselves described with less-than-flattering language they have a strange tendency to act like they’ve suddenly been struck with a case of the vapors. Witness the reaction of MRAs when someone calls them the “c-word.” No, not “cunt” – “creep.” As one outraged Men’s Rights Redditor recently put it, in a comment with 30+ net upvotes:
Creep shaming is probably one of the most insidious and anti-equality things you can do. The ability to label men as “creepy” is just one privilege that women enjoy, and a constant source of fear of ostracizing that all men must fear in our society.
When MRAs feel themselves being oppressed by such clearly man-hating language, they often refer to something called the Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, which, well, catalogues their language grievances in detail. According to the author of the Catalogue,
Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.
Such shaming tactics, the author of the Catalogue says, with no evident awareness of the irony, are often used by “histrionic … female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic” and the male “gynocentrists” who ally with them.
Here are some of the awful “shaming” remarks that get directed at MRAs, according to the Catalogue of Shaming Tactics:
“Stop whining!”
“Suck it up like a man!”
“You need to get over your anger at women.”
“You’re afraid of a strong woman!”
“You are so immature!”
“You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”
“Are you gay?”
“That’s a sexist stereotype!”
“You need therapy.”
“You make me feel afraid.”
“Weirdo!”
“Loser!”
“You are so materialistic.”
“No woman will marry you with that attitude.”
“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
Did someone just use the word "creep?"
Is that last one even an insult? It’s a fairly accurate description of a lot of MRAs, who take a certain pride in being “insensitive to the plight of women.”
So now that we’ve seen the horrible abuse that MRAs have to put up with on a daily basis, let’s take a quick look at some of the things that women and feminists regularly get from their detractors, as posted to the #mencallmethings hashtag and sent to Sady Doyle, who originated the hashtag. (These are all taken from a great post she did in the aftermath of #mencallmethings’ big blowup.) I think you will find the comparison instructive. Let’s start with the more straightforward slurs. (TRIGGER WARNING for, well, just about everything in the quotes that follow.)
Slut, cunt, bitch, whore, ugly, dyke, lesbo, unfuckable, crazy, delusional, liar, hysterical, autistic bitch child, feminazi, ballbuster, humorless, heartless whore, man hater, misandrist, stupid little girl, shrieky hysterical moron, airhead, spoiled little princess, stupid bitch, stupid fucking cunt, stupid feminazi cunt, an ugly bitter little woman, cumm guzzling closet lesbian, a pseudo-intellectual Insane Oversensitive Humourless Female supremacist.
Now let’s move on to complete sentences:
“You’re an ugly fucking cunt.”
“That sort of smirk is why God invented anal sex.”
“you’re so ugly you look like you have downs syndrome, you’d be thankful to be raped.”
“hope you catch a sexually transmitted disease or vagina cancer, cuntwit.”
”Stick a dildo up your dry vagina.”
“the only time your mouth should be open is when i’m putting my d–k in it”
“Your just a gay cunt who deserves to be punished.”
“A firm backhand to her whore face would provide her with a much needed attitude adjustment.”
“Fuck you bitch….ya need to get beat like ur pops use to do to u.”
“I hope you never have children, your daughters would be such sluts and end up murdered in a gutter by someone like me.”
You’re “not worth the effort to murder.”
“[The] only tragedy is that a bullet didn’t rip through ur brainstem after u were used 4 ur 1 & only purpose in this world.”
“what a long winded bitch. You certainly do need to be gagged.”
“You’re an annoying bitch with no friends.I’d love to run you over with my truck.”
“you stupid bitch, I should fuck the crazy right out of you.”
”i surely hope that one day you get raped.”
“[You] can’t be a female scientist, that phrase is an oxymoron,”
“it’s painfully obvious you’re a woman, get off the internet.”
“I will fuck your ass to death you filthy fucking whore. Your only worth on this planet is as a warm hole.”
“Do you need to file a hurt feelings report?”
As I noted before, despite my general unpopularity in the MRA world, I tend to get fewer of these things than, for example, most feminist bloggers with a similar degree of internet notoriety. But I get them. Here, for example, is the latest comment I’ve gotten from the guy who calls himself Nugganu, a sort of follow-up to a previous comment I quoted earlier in which he imagined me raped by ten black men:
He certainly does have a vivid imagination.
But, yeah, somehow it’s a little hard for me to feel a ton of sympathy for MRAs who so regularly work themselves into a lather over “shaming language” like “creep” and “loser” and “you are insensitive to the plight of women.”
Posted on November 13, 2011, in antifeminism, creepy, douchebaggery, evil women, homophobia, hypocrisy, men who should not ever be with women ever, misandry, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, racism, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, reddit, shaming tactics, sluts, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 462 Comments.
It’s almost as if they think that women deserve to be called those names and threatened with those things.
Men, of course, need to be treated with kid gloves if they are MRAs, because they are so much more delicate than women.
I find it telling that when describing gang rape scenarios, a lot of MRAs make sure it’s black men doing the raping. What’s with that?
Comments like nugganu’s… I don’t understand why some people are so eager to go “You should be punished — with sex!” A bukkake session with ten guys, where everyone involved was consenting, is not inherently evil. It’s like, does nugganu *want* people to associate sex with punishment, and go “sex, ewww!” or what?
Sorry this is incoherent. I just, just don’t understand.
I was completely unaware that “creepy” was a gendered insult. Shows what I know.
“Creep shaming is probably one of the most insidious and anti-equality things you can do. The ability to label men as “creepy” is just one privilege that women enjoy, and a constant source of fear of ostracizing that all men must fear in our society.”
God, it’s the internet! Stop whining you big babies! The internet doesn’t care about your “hurt feelings”.
I will continue calling guys (and girls) creeps if they are behaving like creeps.
I’ll consider stopping the use of the word creep when MRAs find a way to convince the men who use cunt, slut, bitch, whore, fatty and ugly as insults to stop.
Since I don’t forsee that happening anytime soon…. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPZmPaHme0
nugganu IS gay, isn’t he? I mean, all-male bukkake events aren’t usually a feature of heterosexual fantasies.
Not to mention the self-loathing – you’d think he was one of those squeamish American women, the way semen makes him wax poetic: junk, gack, spooge…
And then there’s the racism. The word that comes to mind is “abscess”.
““I will fuck your ass to death you filthy fucking whore, ” it read. “Your only worth on this planet is as a warm hole to stick my cock in.””
I’m sorry, but that’s just creepy.
Hey @nugganu, do fuck off now, would you? Kthx bye
I suspect it derives from the same kind of impulse that compels people to write vitriolic homophobic letters, including phenomenally detailed descriptions of the kind of acts that the writer imagines the recipient gets up to. So detailed, in fact, that it can’t help but betray the fact that the writer thinks about this kind of thing a lot.
It’s more than likely that nugganu is taking one of his own fantasies and, because he’s deeply ashamed that such images have entered his mind unbidden, he’s desperately trying to project them onto someone else.
The really sad thing is that only prudes and puritans would care. As you say, while a bukkake session with ten guys might raise eyebrows in some circles, it’s not illegal in a great many places, and if that’s the kind of thing nugganu gets off on, who am I to censure?
You only get to one of two things in life, if you want to maintain anything remotely like consistency and integrity:
1) Label a behavior wrong and seek the high ground to criticize it by refusing to engage in it yourself.
2) Answer things that you dislike by engaging in the same behavior, but then STFU with the complaining when you get what you give.
One or the other, the high road or the low. You can refuse to fight, you can bring a gun to a knife fight, but you can’t bring a gun to a knife fight and then complain that the other person’s knife is unfair.
You can complain about language used against you as wrong, and refuse to respond in kind. You can admit that your language is sexist, and claim that it is fair because both sides do it. You cannot complain about the language used against you, while using language that you admit is at least as bad as what you’re supposedly defending against.
Well you can, but it just makes you look ridiculous.
Well, yeah Snowy… that’s my point.:)
Of course, I also love how insults related to female genitalia aren’t gendered while “creepy” is somehow gendered. Makes perfect sense.
Nugganu is just pissed he can’t write porn well. Throat yogurt? Come on. I don’t know if that’s supposed to be come or spit (possibly from someone with a cold). This is why you have to have a beta reader, dude.
Ewwwww gosh I’m trying to eat breakfast here!
It is 1:11 in the afternoon… time to start the heavy drinking.
Throat Yogurt was the name of my prog-rock band in the early 00s. We we were like Dream Theater, but, y’know, more yogurt inspired. Good times, good times.
Did you have many backstage bukkake sessions?
Backstage! Pshah! They were the closing act. Didn’t play well in rural Wisconsin, however. That might have been a tactical error.
[goes to Google "Throat Yogurt Wisconsin"]
I get what you’re saying, Daphne B., but you have to understand; the position nugganu is assigning to David is the “female” position (because he can’t imagine gay sex as anything other than straight sex with one of the players swapped out with the wrong gender; it’s definitely not its own thing) which is, in his mind, inherently derogatory. And then added to the humiliation of being “the girl”, “the guys” are all <i
I get what you’re saying, Daphne B. I am not nugganu (yay me!) but this is what it seems to me that he is thinking: The position nugganu is assigning to David is the “female” position (because he can’t imagine gay sex as anything other than straight sex with one of the players swapped out with the wrong gender; it’s definitely not its own thing) which is, in his mind, inherently derogatory. And then added to the humiliation of being “the girl”, the other men involved are all black, which adds an additional layer of humiliation because in nugganu’s mind black people are lesser people than white people.
@improbable joe, there are only two things on the mras list that are conceivably gender based insults and none of them are violent or sexualized threats.
That one appears gendered, and is likely most often a gendered insult. Also, it is something a feminist is extremely unlikely to say.
This is primarily a homophobic insult, but can be used to gender police as well. Also, yet again, something a feminist is unlikely to say. In addition, the flip side, being called a “dyke” for being a woman who does not mean gender stereotypes is damned common too.
Most of the things on the list are actual direct criticisms regarding a negative attitude towards women, or sexual based shaming (which women get in droves too, and in regards to topic that are in no way related to dating or sex, which doesn’t happen nearly as much to men). Some of these are not even conceivable as insults against the person at all:
And these are clearly not in the ballpark of
You know, I am not the most unabrasive person at all times (shocker, I know), so I have been called an asshole and a number of other insults. This is not even in the same ballpark as, when someone sees your comment on the issue of capitalism, sending you a detailed threat about raping you and biting off your nipples because you happen to have a more feminine coded nym (and, yes, that is an actual personal example).
Ohes noes hideous double post I apologize :-$
darksidecat, I’m not sure what your point was there, or at least why it was directed towards me. Plus, I’d even say that “Suck it up like a man!” when directed at an MRA would actually be sort of an ironic redirection of MRA-style tactics, versus being an serious directive in a gendered way.
And as far as being abrasive, I’m probably high on the list and besides a death threat from a Muslim fundamentalist and a couple of guys wanting to punch me, I’ve never experienced remotely what the average woman gets on a daily basis. What’s more jarring to me is the lack of any link between the strength of what women say and the force of the backlash against them. At least when I get threatened it is because I went on a long diatribe about the personality flaws of the specific person who got pissed off at me. Women just have to exist to get shit flung at them. So the abrasiveness isn’t even an issue.
These guys are cowards, they mainly attack women. If a guy post on their blog, they will dismiss what he says, accuse him of being a woman (I was called Amanda Marcotte by the Hookinpsmart crowd), and finally will ban him – I was banned last year from Hookingupsmart. If it’s a woman, they will allow her to post and constantly harass her and call her a feminist – and they will harass her on her blog as well. They need to think that most men are like them and that all women are feminists. That’s one of the reason they tend to avoid confrontation with guys and only attack women.
I was completely unaware that “creepy” was a gendered insult.
Amazing, isn’t it, that the nastiest counterpart they can come up with is an insult that isn’t even gendered?
What a bunch of creeps.
I don’t know if women are labeled creeps as often or in the same way as men. So it’s not an inherently gendered term, but to the extent that it’s come to mean “someone who doesn’t avoid giving off rapist signals,” it’s used in a gendered way.
That’s separate from the question of whether it’s an insult. If creepiness is reasonably well defined, and the word “creep” is applied only to people who clearly display creepiness, calling someone a creep is just pointing that out.
An interesting thing is that most insults I often hear them from men as well. I mean real insults (“Loser”, etc) of course, “That’s a sexist stereotype!” “You need therapy.” “You make me feel afraid.”, etc can really (and often are) true statement. Heck, I need therapy myself and that nothing to be ashamed of, and I do think many of these angered people should seek counsel. (which they are unlikely to do, because, guess what, Real Men(tm) are told they don’t need it)
On the other side, I never heard (but maybe it happens) a women wishing someone else to be raped, especially with such details.
And for the word creep, I believe they think it is the equivalent of slut because they both are more used for one gender and both have the goal of stopping, by use of shame, the behavior it describes. Except on one side, we have: a person have sex often/with many people/enjoy sex/dress sexy, and on the other side, a person who behave in a way that is threatening, intrusive, repulsive, etc.
These men are highly disturbed. I’m tempting to theorize that they are so disturbed that they are a species something below human because their brain and nervous symptoms do not contain certain elements of humanity. They hate women so much because women won’t have sex with them and that’s why I think there is so much cheerleading for CP in their circles. Women shun them so they turn to vulnerable children who are open-hearted, easy to manipulate and cannot fight them off.
They probably want to take Chris Hansen to court.
“They probably want to take Chris Hansen to court.”
Oppression according to MRA’s: Not being allowed to cause physical or verbal abuse on another person.
It’s kind of impressive that MRAs can go so long in denial of some basic common sense things. For all they tout logic, they’re remarkably unwilling to apply it to themselves.
It’s been said before, but if a large number of people have the same opinion of you, saying that it is all because everyone else is flawed is pretty illogical. If you do the same thing over and over and get the same result, you almost have to make up a conspiracy or oppression in order to explain it.
The difference is that real oppression generally happens to people for things they have no control over. Skin color, gender, and national origin aren’t things we can control. If you’re being called a creep, that’s a personality assessment. Attitude and personality can, with time and effort, be changed. No amount of self-reflection will give me a penis and change my genetic make-up.
In order to continue believing that they don’t have a problem, they have to believe that they’re oppressed and that the world is set against them. If that isn’t the case, the harsh reality that they’ve got a problem comes crashing in. Then they have the responsibility to do something about it.
@Naira: Do MRAs really tout logic? Seems to me that they just spew bullshit, and then declare it “logical” by fiat.
@Improbable Joe: Good point. It might be interesting to see how much they actually know about logical or reasoned-out argumentation. Picking the reasoned arguments out of a list, to see if they can at least recognize it.
“I was completely unaware that ‘creepy’ was a gendered insult.”
It is in these guys’ world. This is the way their reasoning operates: these guys are men and they get called creeps; therefore, “creep” is an insult aimed at men. Because, after all, they’re men and people tell them to stop acting like creeps all the time. That makes these guys feel like they’ve got proof; they’ve been targeted as creeps and they’ve got the battle scars to prove it. QED.
If you’re outside the system you can see what’s wrong with such logic, but if you’re inside the system, which these guys are, the faultiness inherent in this brand of thinking can escape you. Which is why guys of this stripe think that the insults aimed at them are insults aimed only at them. Useful to know, but, as is usually the case, the people most in need of the lesson are also the ones who are most incapable of profiting by it.
BTW, I used to like “Oblivious Miser” as the inscription for my tombstone. (“Oblivious misers” is the INTJ spoiler alert from the Myers-Briggs dating guide.) But now I think “Autistic Bitch Child” sounds even cooler. I do so hate uncertainty; drat you, internet!!
Decisions, decisions…
I’m tempting to theorize that they are so disturbed that they are a species something below human because their brain and nervous symptoms do not contain certain elements of humanity.
Okay, I have plenty of contempt for MRA bullshit, but this is way over the line, even as a joke.
@Dracula: why is that over the line?
Because denying the basic humanity of those who disagree with you is never okay, no matter how stupid their ideas are.
And why is that true? I mean, I sort of agree with the sentiment, but I’m not 100% sure of the logical reasoning. Is it just that it sounds like the way the bad guys dehumanize the good guys?
I can’t speak to Dracula’s motivations in saying it was over the line, but I can say that I agree, for the following reasons:
(1) Just because someone is behaving in a way that is truly vile doesn’t mean we have the right to deny their humanity.
(2) When we classify people we find unpleasant as less than human it allows us to distance ourselves from their behaviour, which in turn allows us to believe that we, as actual humans, could never do anything like that. That makes it harder to acknowledge our own mistakes.
That’s part of it. It makes little sense to say you believe in equality, then turn around and call your opponents subhuman. The other part is that it’s factually incorrect and emotionally offensive.
Would anyone deny that they are disturbed? Or lacking in certain vital components of what we consider to be decent human beings? Maybe the phrasing could use some work, but I’m not sure I can disagree with the underlying sentiment, the same way I’d agree about avoiding calling people subhuman.
Also what Viscaria said.
@ Improbable Joe, you don’t see what’s wrong about dehumanising people in the way NC4OM did?
What does “emotionally offensive” mean?
What does “emotionally offensive” mean?
It means it offends me on an emotional level. I think dehumanizing anyone degrades us all, as a species.
Improbable Joe: Would anyone deny that they are disturbed? Or lacking in certain vital components of what we consider to be decent human beings? Maybe the phrasing could use some work, but I’m not sure I can disagree with the underlying sentiment, the same way I’d agree about avoiding calling people subhuman.
Saying someone isn’t of the same species is othering. That’s not on. It’s what Meller does when he says Feminists aren’t really women.
Are they disturbed? Probably. But so am I. There are any number of topics (torture, esp. torture in the course of interrogation) which get me hot under the collar. One could, correctly, say I was disturbed. That doesn’t mean I am deranged, nor even wrong.
And a person who isn’t a decent human being (say Brievik) is still a human being. To move him to the other is to deny my humanity. It’s to pretend I could never do something like that.
I know, all too well, that such a thing is possible.
So I’m with Dracula. The MRM may be disturbed, and far from being decent human beings but they are human beings, just (painful as the thought may be) like me.
Well of course “creepy” is a big deal to them! It’s not like when they tell women they should die horribly for daring to speak online. “Creepy” is being directed at them. Add that’s just mean! Don’t you have any compassion? WAAAAAH
Have you no shameeee!! XD
Yeah, I guess… sometimes though I feel like “too far” doesn’t go far enough. I’m kind of with you, but I want to kick ass harder?
Improbable Joe, I think this is the kind of situation where the best way to kick ass harder is to take and hold the high ground, so to speak.
Dracula, I agree with you in principle, but from an emotional standpoint it feels like we’re all forced to tiptoe around while the bad guys stomp around like Mechagodzilla.
Dracula, I think what Joe is saying is that the only language these guys understand is foul and hateful. Reasonable arguments go right over their heads lol.
That’s not a bad thing, Joe. I remember you posting some really good stuff over at Skepchick during the Elevatorgate apocalypse, and there was a marked false equivalence being drawn between Rebecca Watson’s supporters and the really rabid trolls: the virulent woman-hating hyperbole being used by the trolls bore no relationship at all to the arguments being made in support of Rebecca. So let them stomp about like Mechagodzilla (lovely imagery), there’s no need to adopt their tactics.
Close, Joanna… what I’m saying is that I feel like there’s an urge to purity of behavior that leads people to avoid offense or “lowering yourself” as though it is a worthy goal in itself that is at least equal to other goals. I’m not 100% on board with that… I don’t mind getting down in the muck a little bit. I don’t think we need to be excessively “foul and hateful” but I also hate it when someone makes a strong statement in a positive direction and people decide that it needs to be weakened and diluted to avoid being offensive.
@Xanthe: if you remember me, you probably saw some of the ass-kicking that Aquaria was doing at the same time across multiple websites. You know, sometimes the rhetoric is to refute the false claims in a calm and rational manner. Sometimes it is for the spectators watching the conversation, even though you know it isn’t going to convince the person you’re arguing with. And sometimes, it is for us, so we can read it and do some fist-pumping and say “fuck yeah!”…
… and if we’re worried about lines and going too far, we lose most of those fist-pump moments. I worry about avoiding offense leading to stifling passion, that’s all.
Their catalogue of shaming tactics is so ridiculous. First, they declare all of the arguments to be ad hominem attacks even though several of them are factual statements. Many of the MRA’s really are extremists, scare others, and make generalizations about women. People telling them that are giving them helpful advice. They’re not going to win too many hearts and minds with the way they talk. Whenever they bring up important topics about helping men and boys, their message gets lost in all the vitriol.
I think it’s important to know what they said before someone used a “shaming tactic” on them. Usually, the thing they said is so vile, they really should be ashamed. People should be ashamed when they act like assholes. I also agree with Naira that if they’re hearing the same arguments over and over, they need to look inward and wonder if maybe they are the ones with the problem and not the rest of the world.
Just a question, not connected to the general topic of this thread… The MRA’s you mock here are pretty extreme types, comparable to radical feminists. There are other MRA’s who are more moderate and actually concentrate on real issues — people who actually do distance themselves from the ones you all mock here and are actually interested in real-life situations rather than imaginary wrongs. Do you draw a distinction between them, or do you act as if the MRA’s you mock here actually spoke for all?
I’m not myself involved in this fight, I’m just curious about you guys’ take on this.
Improbable Joe: I can be a lot less than, “pure” if pure means being gentle. I can be lethally polite, in fact.
I can also people shit for brains when the occasion demands. Depends on the situation, but if I deny the basic humanity of my opponents, I can lose the sense of focus required.
Not least because I know the odds of persuading them is slim; and if I lose the quiet sorts, who are afraid to wade in… then I’m not doing it to persuade, but to please myself.
That’s wanking in public.
@thebionicmommy: Naira totally ripped me off with that whole “if they’re hearing the same arguments over and over, they need to look inward” business. I’ll take it as flattery rather than theft… :)
Improbable Joe, it’s more like great minds think alike!
@ Joe, yes Aquaria was awesome – though I can’t help thinking she might have been someone Dawkins was thinking of when he asked for “explain this to me without using the word fuck in every sentence”. I don’t have a problem with anger and passion at all, it’s hyperbolic ranting being mistaken for an argument that is not the same thing.
@thebionicmommy: I would call it “great minds think alike” other than the fact that I posted that exact thing here on Thursday, and Naira responded to the post. :)
http://manboobz.com/2011/11/08/please-killl-yourselves-mras-respond-to-mencallmethings/comment-page-8/#comment-80135
@Xanthe: I think Dawkins was being an idiot and a tone-troll in that instance, so maybe that’s not the best example to sway me… :D
“Because denying the basic humanity of those who disagree with you is never okay, no matter how stupid their ideas are.”
Dracula, it’s not a matter of “disagreeing with me” – they lack empathy, compassion and any trace of postive human emotions.
Something went wrong somewhere. Could it be genetic?
Lacking empathy doesn’t make you not human. Neither does being a jerk. And acting like an asshole does nothing to prove you aren’t capable of positive emotions.
Hey, Dracula, leave the human-judging to humans. You can decide whether someone’s a vampire or not (although I would suggest you disqualify Edward Cullen).
@ Joe: Oh, I think Dawkins was in the wrong and showed his need for some consciousness-raising of his own. I notice he got quite a few diatribes as well as passionate responses that avoided the fuck word so the message should have gotten across somehow!