MRAs: The way to defeat feminism is not through debate but by “inflicting … pain” on feminists.
Men's Rights "Activism"
What can you do when you realize that you’re losing the war of ideas? You can rethink some or all of your ideas, seriously considering the unnerving possibility that you might be, well, wrong. You can reconsider how you present your ideas.
Or you can give up on ideas entirely, and attempt to pressure or harass or even terrorize others into some form of surrender. That’s what the the uber-radical Weathermen did in the 1960s and 70s, turning first to violent direct action in the aptly named “days of rage” and then to bombs when the revolution that many in the New Left had been prophesying failed to materialize. That’s what the anti-abortion movement has been doing for decades now, with some in the movement harassing women trying to get abortions while more radical antis bomb clinics and kill doctors. .
And now we’re seeing rhetoric from Men’s Rights Activists that suggests some in that movement may also be giving up on talk. Consider A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam, who declared in a fundraising letter a couple of months back that:
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
Elam is – presumably deliberately — vague about what exactly he means when he talks about “inflicting … pain,” and as far as I know he has never explicitly endorsed violence. But he has spoken openly about “stalking” individual feminists and otherwise “fucking their shit up” by, among other things, posting personal information about them on the AVfM-sponsored site Register-Her.com for all would be vigilantes to see. And in the “activism” section of his website he has reprinted a manifesto explicitly calling for the firebombing of courthouses and police stations.
Elam isn’t the only MRA who has officially given up on “debate and reason” in favor of “inflicting … pain” on feminists. The “counter-feminist” wannabe philosopher who calls himself Fidelbogen makes a similar argument in a recent post on his blog:
Feminism is your enemy, and the obligation to treat feminists as fellow human beings is officially waived. They are not fellow human beings, they are ALIENS.
Dehumanizing the enemy always a good start.
[L]et’s not hear any crap about so-called “hate speech”. You see, there is simply no way that you can resist evil, denounce tyranny, or call pernicious things by their right names, without crossing a fine line into “hate speech” or something very like it. Extremism against a bully is no vice, and since bullies have their own moral economy, you are entitled to pay them in their own coin.
It’s not hate speech if you really do hate them?
The important thing to understand about the feminists is, that they will not change their outward behavior unless social heat and pressure are inflicted upon them.
Fidelbogen, a sometime contributor to A Voice for Men, is also vague about what exactly he means by this “social heat and pressure.” He continues:
What, do you think they will stop what they are doing just because somebody intellectually convinces them they are mistaken? They will do no such thing, because they are people with an agenda who know they are “right”, and they lack the gift to see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
IRONY ALERT. IRONY ALERT.
Over on Reddit, meanwhile, the charming JeremiahMRA – who used to post comments here as Things Are Bad – thinks the “inflict pain” policy should be extended to all women, any time they engage in “bad behavior.” Responding to a poster asking how to handle a disagreement with his mother, he explained his theory in (sometimes redundant) detail, receiving several dozen net upvotes for his post:
The ONLY way you change women’s bad behavior is by punishing them if they won’t start acting like adults. …
The only way you change a woman’s bad behavior is by making sure they know it hurts them. …
Reasoning with her will not work. The only answer is to use the power he has as her SON to threaten to hurt her emotionally. Women are emotional creatures. Nothing else will work. This is what it means to be a man: you do what you have to do so that things will be better in the end, even if you don’t like it. …
It isn’t about convincing her what’s right, it’s about showing her she will suffer if she doesn’t do what’s right. That is the only thing that will work.
The Men’s Rights Movement likes to pretend that is it a civil rights movement. But threats, harassment, hate speech, and emotional blackmail aren’t the tactics of a legitimate civil rights movement. These are the tactics of angry narcissists clinging to retrograde prejudices, who have given up on the war of ideas because on some level they know that history is against them, and that they will never win.
Posted on March 4, 2012, in a voice for men, antifeminism, bullying, hypocrisy, irony alert, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, paul elam, reactionary bullshit, terrorism, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 454 Comments.
@felix
Here’s the comment I wrote:
“The problem isn’t that feminists explicitly support false accusations of rape. The problem is that feminists want to create a legal environment which would enable and facilitate false accusations of rape. Look at the maniacal assault that feminists have launched against due process on college campuses. Last year’s OCR letter has effectively enshrined a presumption of guilt for any male accused of sexual misconduct. Rape shield laws are another example. They improperly restrict a defendant’s ability to testify in his own defense, and bar defense attorneys from attacking the credibility of what is often the sole piece of evidence against the accused (the accuser’s testimony). Rape trials have the highest conviction rate of any serious crime, 67%. That’s more than double the conviction rate for murder trials. It’s not hard to see why this is so when a man can be convicted without any evidence outside of his accuser’s testimony, and when a man is statutorily forbidden to challenge said accuser’s testimony. If you know anything about criminal law, you will know that the only way to discredit witness testimony (a form of evidence) is to discredit the witness him/herself. Rape shield laws make any attempt to discredit the accuser’s testimony illegal. This effectively bars the defense from presenting any case at all, and it’s hardly surprising that such an extreme percentage of these cases result in conviction.
Many feminists also have some pretty loony views on what kind of conduct actually constitutes “rape” in the first place. For example, the idea of sexual “coercion.” Which holds that a man is a rapist if he in any way “pressures” a woman to CONSENT to sex. This pressure can be anything from threatening to end a relationship, to simple nagging (“come on, don’t you love me?” etc), to unintentional environmental pressures. This idea would effectively make any attempt to negotiate sex within a relationship a felony offense. Some feminists even believe that sex should be seen as rape even when the woman does manifest consent, if that consent was given with reservations or mixed feeling of any kind.”
What’s the problem, exactly?
The problem is this:
If you know anything about criminal law, you will know that the only way to discredit witness testimony (a form of evidence) is to discredit the witness him/herself. Rape shield laws make any attempt to discredit the accuser’s testimony illegal.
Rape shield laws are there so you can’t say, “Your honor, the witness is a slutty slut, so obviously she wanted it!”
Do you think they should be able to do this?
@katz
I’m a criminal trial attorney, and what you’re espousing is a popular misconception concerning how rape shield laws actually function. I suggest reviewing the wikipedia page on the topic. It’s a good primer for the uninitiated.
Look up the case of New York vs Javonovic as a key example of how these laws can go wrong, and send innocent people to prison. In that case there was overwhelming evidence of innocence, but it was deemed as inadmissible under New York’s rape shield law. The jury never saw the evidence, and they sent him to prison for 2 years until the appellate court finally stepped in.
It’s an extreme example, but rape shield laws routinely keep relevant exculpatory evidence out of court.
Are nagging, threats and ‘environmental pressure’ the usual way you get sex?
@Magpie
1: I’m female
2: No, but I don’t think nagging for sex should be illegal. Threatening violence to compel someone to consent is already illegal, as it should be.
@ Roberta
I guessed you were female from your name, apologies if I implied otherwise.
I reckon sex is really only sex if you doing it because you want sex, if you see what I mean?
@Magpie
Where would that leave sex workers? Or mutual sexual favors? Or all those people who have sex when they aren’t really in the mood just because they want to make their partners happy? (something every person who’s ever been in a longterm relationship has done)
Consent just means that you voluntarily agreed to have sex. It doesn’t matter why you are agreeing to have sex (unless you are under duress).
Speaking of what MRAs are actually good at, I noticed that Elam’s biggest fan Alex Novy is following me on Jezebel. I guess disagreeing with him a couple of times here is enough to put me on his must-internet-stalk list?
On a different note, feeling pretty disgusted with the idea that political movements should teach children to try to hurt their parents emotionally.
I reckon there needs to be another word for sex work sex, to distinguish it from the just-for-fun kind.
Those examples are still doing because you want to do it (I hope!). Not to avoid an argument, or because you don’t want to walk home in the dark, or because he’ll chuck you out if you don’t, and so on.
@magpie
Do you really think it’s rape if someone consents to sex because they want to avoid an argument? Badgering your partner to have sex with you is certainly morally questionable, but there’s no real force in that scenario.
No one has an inalienable right to be in a relationship with their SO. So if your partner says: “have sex with me or I’m gone,” your ability to make a free choice is still intact. People have the right to set the terms of their own love life. If your partner says: “these are the terms of being in a relationship with me,” then you are free to either accept or reject those terms. There’s no force or compulsion involved.
“He’s going to do it anyway, so I may as well let him,” and, “If I say yes will you let me get some sleep?” don’t really strike me as consent.
In the asexual community this thing comes up a lot. An asexual person is partnered with a sexual person and sometimes allows sex to be done to them even though they have no interest and don’t enjoy it, just for the sake of their partner (who apparently doesn’t care how much their partner dislikes it) and their “needs.” (Very reminiscent of the old timey douche ad I read that referred to sex as “marital obligations.”) You can say that it’s consent, but I’d call it very … rape-flavored consent (if I have to use the c-word). I don’t think they would call it rape, but it sure as heck isn’t enthusiastic. “Since I don’t really have any other choice, I guess I will allow this to be done to my body” is just as voluntary as, “Now go apologize to Timmy for calling him a doo-doo-head.”
Just want to point out that I’ve been in more than one long-term relationship, and I’ve never had sex just to make my partner happy. If I’m not in the mood, sex isn’t happening. If the other person isn’t in the mood, I don’t expect them to have sex with me just because I feel like it either. I’m fairly sure that I’m not the only person who can say this.
No one has an inalienable right to be in a relationship with their SO. So if your partner says: “have sex with me or I’m gone,” your ability to make a free choice is still intact.
In a vacuum, I guess this would make sense.
In a world where women are told that their social worth depends on having a man at all costs, and where her life might be so entangled with his that it makes splitting up difficult if not impossible … not so much.
And some people know that and will use it to their advantage.
Specially when there’s kids.
@chocomintlipwax
If someone genuinely doesn’t have a choice, then they are being raped. So long as someone does have a reasonable choice, then their consent is legitimate.
If someone only consents because they fear that sex will be forced on them if they don’t, then that can be rape. If they consent to sex just to shut their SO up, then I certainly don’t think that’s rape. If their partner genuinely wont stop badgering them then they can always get up and leave the room (or tell their partner to leave).
There’s a concept in the law known as duress. Duress exists if someone doesn’t have a reasonable choice except to submit to someone else’s demands. If someone consents under duress, then it is rape. If they begrudgingly consent when they aren’t under duress, then the sex is consensual, but they should probably find a new partner.
@chocomint
So you don’t have the right to end a relationship if you aren’t sexually satisfied. I’d also take issue with your assertion that we live in a society where women are told their nothing if they don’t have a man.
Someone who would make such an ultimatum is being shitty and manipulative, but at the end of the day they still aren’t forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone is still free to make a voluntary choice.
Going back to the top of the page, what does “unintentional environmental pressures” mean?
@Magpie
Peer pressure. Cultural norms. That sort of thing.
For example: a high school girl who has sex with her boyfriend because all her friends are doing it and she thinks it’s expected of her. Even though she doesn’t really want to be having sex yet.
thanks
Roberta, the father’s rights movement and the men’s rights movement are really quite distinct, surprisingly so. FRAs tend to be more focused, more moderate, and more activist than those who identify as MRAs online. And, yes, because of that, FRAs have had some influence in the real world.
The MRAs I’ve found online by and large pay little attention to groups like fathers and families; I’ve seen some of the more extremist MRAs dismiss fathers and families and Glenn Sacks as “sellouts.”
who have given up on the war of ideas because on some level they know that history is against them, and that they will never win.
********
can’t win a game of chess against an opponent too stupid to understand the rules
Yes you can -_o
If you break the rules of a game, you forfeit…
The question is EWME, what are the rules of your game? :D
@David: absolutely superb post, but I’d like to add a bit on this one statement: That’s what the anti-abortion movement has been doing for decades now, with some in the movement harassing women trying to get abortions while more radical antis bomb clinics and kill doctors.
Women going to health clinics for a NUMBER of reasons (includnig pre-natal care and checkups) have been harassed because of the belief that is a clinic offers abortion among a number of other services that ALL women ALL the time are getting abortions.
You are absolutely right that the harassers believe the women they harass are getting abortions, and some are (as they have a perfect legal right to do so), but not all women are.
I’d say dude needs a therapist, but I wouldn’t want to inflict him one. He’d probably just end up stalking them anyway
*inflict him on one
How many fucking times does this have to be made clear to you? Administrative hearings at the college level ARE NOT COURTS. Also, the stats make it abundantly clear that the vast majority of people who are accused of sexual harassment and/or assault by other students are NOT DISCIPLINED IN ANY WAY for it. Bullshit meme is bullshit.
I actually really do hope to see a legitimate men’s rights group that tackles the issues men face today rationally that actually helps men rather than encourage them to stew in anger, resentment and hate.
If reading this site has taught me anything, it’s that there are genuine problems men face that aren’t being adequately addressed – things like rape, lack of domestic abuse assistance, and so on. I’d really like to see a legitimate men’s rights group take on these real live problems suffered by real live men, too. Hell, I’d probably volunteer with such a group.
Roberta, you said:
“Rape cases have the highest rate of conviction, 67%?”
Citation needed.
@Roberta- I… fail to see where you actually disagree with Magpie. You keep saying that “duress” is a reasonable precursor to rape, and that’s basically what we’re talking about.
For example, agreeing to have sex even though you are tired and have work the next day because your partner wants sex isn’t rape. Agreeing to have sex because your partner is going to keep the TV on VERY LOUD and pester you every 10 minutes while you are trying to sleep and follow you out to the den if you try to go sleep on the couch, that seems to fit your definition of duress.
What you have to remember is that so many of the tactics you dismiss as “shitty but consensual” are part of the arsenal of abusers, and come in hand with systematic isolation and undermining of self worth, and sometimes threats of violence or actual violence. You have to look at the bigger picture.
I’m not sure, but couldn’t there be a distinction between “rape as a bad thing” and “rape as a legally prosecutable thing”? It seems like @Roberta is saying “those examples, do you want them to be illegal?” and I don’t think you have to say “yes” to say that they’re rape.
Dude what the hell. This is why asexuals don’t feel very welcomed in sex pozzie space, I’m pretty sure they don’t appreciate you calling them having sex “rape flavored consent”. Please do not talk about things you don’t know about, its embarrassing and frankly offensive.
Just because some asexuals don’t fit your model of “enthusiastic consent” does not mean they cannot consent at all. And your thing about their partner is a way misrepresentation of how many of their relationships are. Also believe it or not some asexuals enjoy sex.
@ M Dubz
Captain Awkward is the best! (http://captainawkward.com/)
The boundaries stuff has been so great for me, even though I have nothing particularly “wrong” with my relationship.
@ Jawnita
I hope your friend starts feeling better without turning into a giant ass. The problem with game (one of them) is that it assumes that if you do it “right” people are obligated to respond favorably, when in reality those people have their own individual thoughts and feelings. You can do everything right and still fail because other people have personal autonomy. So, I hope that something that gets across to your friend is that *trying* counts as a success. Asking someone out, or chatting with a co-worker is an example of one’s personal success in being social, not the response received.
@jumbofish
wat.
What? No :( this is terrible. I’ve never done this, and I sure as hell hope I never unwittingly pressured any partner I’ve had into doing this. This isn’t actually a common thing among LTRs, is it, guys? :(
The only sex I’m interested in is “let’s have sex because sex is fun and we both want to have it right now” sex.
(something every person who’s ever been in a longterm relationship has done)
Yeah, no. A lot of people? Maybe. Everyone? No.
M Dubz-
Yes! Charlie Nox was the one I was trying to think of. The other two look really good, too.
Starskita-
Very good point about what “counts.” I’ll pass it along.
Thanks, everyone!
Roberta
“No one has an inalienable right to be in a relationship with their SO.”
True enough. How does it follow that someone has an inalienable right to sex within a relationship? That’s what you are implying in that paragraph, at least in my reading of it. And yes nagging does fit on the continuum of emotional or mental abuse and is used by abusive partners to get what they want (by bullying their partners). Why would someone nag for sex unless the other person wasn’t consenting? And for many feminists, that’s where the line is drawn, not on why the consent wasn’t being given.
I’ve always found it sadly ironic that the MRA’s definition of “making things better for men” seems to be “making things worse for women.”
So far, all I can hear is what they want to TAKE AWAY from women, rather than what they want to HELP MEN WITH.
As in:
-Take away child support so men only do not have to pay it (which is not for women but custodial children, and can be given from women to men as well so it’s not a sexist construct).
-Take away access to birth control and/or abortion (unless the man decides that he wants his woman to have her insides scooped out, then it’s ok).
-Treating women like “sluts, whores, etc” as though their only worth to men is through punishing their orifices (I am disturbed to some extent that there are actual modern day people who think that my genital configuration actually makes me less human).
-torturing/stalking/etc women (and maybe some of the men who aren’t big and strong and might actually be able to kick his ass) who actually think that equal rights is something we should strive for (and not gender-preferred rights because that just assumes that my gender needs “special help” because it is inferior and I find that absolutely nauseating).
You know what? There is a name for these things- “what the vast majority of men used to think only a few generations ago. These dipshits aren’t unique or “new” or even close to “edgy”. They’re the same old oppression shuffle that’s been threatening to kill women or silence them since women first said, “Hrm, being legally and socially treated like a slave totally sucks and we really only have nowhere to go but UP towards equality, so let’s try and change this, ok?”
What makes me think how lucky we are that SO MANY MEN do NOT still think this way- that so many men are respectful of all gender diversity, that so many men are allies and actually mean what they say when they say that they think that both women and men should be judged on their individual capabilities, not their gender alone. That so many men, even men who are afraid to call themselves “feminists” are breaking from stilted, toxic gender roles (don’t show emotion except for violent anger, men must always be “tough”, etc) while still retaining an essential masculinity that is both powerful and deeply attractive.
These MRA’s really show me that there’s a fundamental shift going on here- the vast majority of society thinks that women are part of the human race and that as such we should be legally and socially respected on par with men (and vice versa), while the minority makes blogs that the rest of us laugh at because most civilized people think it’s backwards and archaic just like the flat world society and the KKK.
Yeah, it’s more like 13% in the US.
I think there’s a really big and important difference between “If we can’t negotiate a way for both of us to be sexually satisfied in this relationship, maybe it’s best if we end it” and “have sex with me right now or I’ll dump you.”
It’s one thing to need sex to be a part of your relationship; it’s another to use that for cheap ultimatums. The first can certainly be a distressing situation but it is legitimate. The second is just emotionally blackmailing someone into sex.
It should also be noted thaqt in several cultures and religions that once two people are married, its not only their right to be in that relationship, its a duty.
I’m sure lots of people do tyhings “to shut their partners up” in LTRs, not me. Anything thats given grudgingly is a sure fire way of building up resentment and anger which kills longterm happiness in my opinion. There may be times when I’m not horny but decide to offer sex, it won’t be because my partner is nagging. I’ll do it as a small gift and to maintain the happiness we both share in the relationship. Not because someone feels entitled to make that demand.
Although even the nicey-nice version can still be dickish if you’re raising a child together, your partner is ill, or your partner is financially dependent on you.
These are tricky situations and if you’re not okay with an open relationship (another thing that’s good to negotiate, bad to demand), you might have to put other priorities above sexual satisfaction temporarily.
@blitzgal :
According to RAINN :
60% of rape are not reported. If a rape is reported, there’s 50.8% chance of arrest. If an arrest is made there’s 80% chance of prosecution. If there’s a prosecution, there’s a 58% chance of a conviction. If there’s a conviction, there’s 69% chance of jail time for the rapist.
If you take into account unreported rapes, most rapists walk free.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
Oh man, are you a poe? The average rate of conviction of felony trials is over 90%. Rape is exceptionally low by the standards of the rest of the criminal justice system (Check out, for instance, this survey of state courts; 93% Felony convictions, Figure 3; http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/psc07st.pdf)
Is that so? Because even survey courses cover the amazingly high rate of conviction in felony trials. And it’s not like being old is an excuse, they were 73% 40 years ago and they’ve only been increasing…
I’ve brought up Elam’s disturbing above quote several times, both in speaking to John the Other and GWW on Youtube, and I’m always told, “Oh, the violent talk is metaphorical! He’s talking about the pain of having your lies exposed!”. Frankly, that doesn’t make it any better. I’m well aware that the violent rhetoric and empty threats are just that–empty–but it’s still incredibly disturbing, and absolutely pathetic for what is purportedly a legitimate social movement.
I don’t see “I’m not really turned on myself, but I want to make you happy” as rapey, necessarily. Sometimes the pleasure one gets out of sex is not one’s owm but vicarious, through one’s partner, and that’s okay too. But otoh I totally understand the position of “I want my partner to be turned on every time we have sex,” since that is basically my position as well. And expecting that your partner will have sex with you when not turned on is INCREDIBLY shitty.
I tend to find “enthusiastic consent” a problematic term, in general. I think the key element that makes up consent is whether you want sex (whether you want it out of desire, to cure a headache, to have a child, because your partner’s happiness makes you happy, because it’s your job, etc.). Being harassed into sex means one doesn’t want sex, which means it’s nonconsensual.
Also, yes, asexuals can consent to sex. For fuck’s sake.
I also don’t see a higher conviction rate as creating “a legal environment which would enable and facilitate false accusations of rape.” Isn’t it possible that so many cases are dismissed as being unprovable (especially on “only” a woman’s word) that the cases that do make it all the way to court are the ones most like to be successfully prosecuted?
And I don’t believe the bullshit that men are convicted easily on only the victim’s testimony. Have you all heard of the case in Pitt Meadow’s, BC? The charges against the suspects in a gang rape case were let go, while the person who *video taped* it has been convicted of distributing obscene materials/child pornography. Video tape, plenty of witnesses (who are refusing to come forward, cowards), multiple suspects, and the prosecution doesn’t think they can make the case against the people who gang raped a 16 year with dozens of witnesses.
Tell me again how men are convicted on just the word of a woman?
http://www.canada.com/news/Pitt+Meadows+teen+pleads+rape+witnesses+come+forward/6193471/story.html
“The average rate of conviction of felony trials is over 90%.”
Wow, thanks Rutee. Speaking of taking people at their word…I’ll have to remember to fact check Roberta from now on.
Roberta, you’re an attorney? What’s your specialty? Do lots of false accusation cases?
“But threats, harassment, hate speech, and emotional blackmail aren’t the tactics of a legitimate civil rights movement.”
Nevermind the fact that all the “legitimate” civil rights movements of the past had elements that engaged in these tactics.
Or are you not aware that feminists in 1960′s Britain frequently engaged in acts of vandalism and death threats?”
Yes, who could forget Martin Luther King’s “I will fuck their shit up speech”
Most schizoids are asexual and yet they can have sex. Some have girlfriends or boyfriends.
@crumbelievable
so did GWW block you?
I love how she does not even research her quotes when she does a video on feminism, but heinous stuff from leaders of MRA can be “metaphorical”. She is awful.
I’m thinking her angle is that she is religious and conservative, so just latches on. She’s very very aggressive, to be specific, passive aggressive. She’s smiling in a corner when IPV happens, saying “oh well, you drove him to it, we can’t let the feminists win.”
She does the “hmmm I was wondering… ” bit on my videos when MRAs are proven wrong. Goal post shifter and disingenuous. She linked me a bunch of sources for DV to “prove” that it’s equal, and when I showed on screen one of the sources she blocked me, and started spreading around something another MRA said about me personally which is not true, nor is it verifiable in any way. This post was actually triggering for me, and I can’t comment on it directly. Too true, too true, too close to home. And I’m not even a rad fem.
However… I don’t like when liberal wishy washy fems talk shit about rad fems. Now I’m veering off subject, tho.
Speaking as someone on the ace spectrum who has survived sexual abuse due to it (it was “corrective” in nature)–
Sometimes I choose to bang my husband on an ace day. It is NOT rapey. I get to define what rape is, and I choose to do it because I enjoy his pleasure on a nonsexual level. It’s just like cuddling, only… er. Stickier. At any point, I can freely say no, and I won’t be badgered, gaslighted (gaslit?), guilt-tripped, or manipulated.
I WILL say that there is a strong societal pressure on ace folks to have sex they don’t want and don’t enjoy, because it is a “required” part of a relationship. It’s how I ended up in an abusive position–I was essentially being raped to desensitize me to sex because he thought this would help me overcome my prudery and “fix” me. So yeah, I’ve actually been that ace guy lying there, wishing to god he’d come already so he would start talking to me like a human being again and I’d be free for another few days or so.
And in relation to what Roberta was saying, no, I didn’t leave. Not because “I am nobody without a partner,” but because at the time, I wanted one, but it was put to me in no uncertain terms that if I wanted that, I HAD to put out. If I was unable to like it, then I had to either learn to deal with it or just never ever date. It was a pretty shitty choice all around.
I don’t know if I’m blocked from posting because I don’t feel like commenting on her stufff anyway. What’s funny though is that she pretty much confirmed what I’d thought about her: that she thinks herself to be so much better than other women, so all the shit talk that MRAs say about women doesn’t bother her. I mentioned something Elam had said to me about women not being self-sufficient and GWW’s response basically amounted to, “I agree that women aren’t self-sufficient, except for me, because I didn’t take any money from my ex husband. Elam likes me because of that. All the other women who do though–screw them.”
“Or are you not aware that feminists in 1960′s Britain frequently engaged in acts of vandalism and death threats?”
This really irks me. I am not, standing on the ground that those feminists won for their daughters (I have a career, a mortgage, contraception and abortion rights, and all my finances under my own name), going to criticize how they got there and what they saw as necessary. It also smacks of “they’re just not ladylike” and “it would be convenient if feminists just sat down and shut up.” My mother lived through 1960’s Britain, with endless damaging effects, so piss off.
Jeezus, LBT. That is some shit right there *hugs if you want them*
In light of what pillowinhell and ozy and LBT have said, I realize that my knee-jerk reaction to the idea of having sex to please a partner wasn’t fair. I was conflating choosing to do something for your partner’s pleasure with feeling pressured to have sex when you don’t want to, and those aren’t the same at all. Lots of people have lots of different kinds of relationships and sex and I shouldn’t go calling something “terrible” just because it’s not the kind of relationship or sex I want to have. Sorry, everybody.
@crumbeilevable- The attitude among so many conservatives of personal exceptionalism and group depravity really really irks me (see, I’m one of the good women, not like those feminist bitches. Also, women seeking abortions are dirty dirty sluts, but my baby has gross fetal abnormalities!) It’s like, if people are out to get your rights, they don’t care if you’re a “good” one or a “bad” one. They basically just want to oppress you, and you are acting in your own worst interest in the long run to ally yourself with oppressors.
@Roberta:
[blockquote]I’ve actually seen some positives changes within the men’s rights movement in the last few years. There’s been a gradual shift away from “feminism, Grrrr!” and a gradual movement towards a more issues centered discussion. At least on the men’s rights subreddit, there has. I don’t know about MGTOW forums.[/blockquote]
You seem reasonable enough and are certainly more openly communicative than any other MRA that has ever posted here, so I’m glad for that. Unfortunately, people like you seem to occupy a severe minority in the MRM. Let’s take that subreddit for example. It’s true that there seem to be a group of MRAs who speak out against the misogyny that frequently pops up within the MRM and who are legitimately concerned with men’s issues. But did you know that one of the moderators for that subreddit, AnnaChrist…or something…is a fan of r/beatingwomen who wrote that one false rape accuser deserved to have her throat slashed? The fact that this creep has not been swiftly booted from the subreddit tells me that his brand of violent rhetoric and misogyny has quite a bit of appeal to MRAs.
I thought that’s how you quoted people…ah well, I’ll stick with the quotation marks.
@crumbelievable: it is, but with instead of [ ]
oh no, the carroty things disappeared! It’s this one “<"
@Crumbelievable :
Here’s how you quote people
<blockquote> Quotation … <blockquote/>
Let me see,,.
And? I work with attorneys every day. They’re just like any other group of people. You have your really stellar folks who know their shit, and then you have…..the rest of them. The ones who can’t fill out a simple form properly because they can’t be bothered to read the instructions, or the ones who have their secretaries do it all for them. Let’s just say I’ve dealt with enough attorneys to know that they don’t automatically deserve any extra deference on my part just by being attorneys.
RE: M Dubz
It’s okay. It was a long time ago and I’m in a much better place now; I’ve got an awesome partner now who is totally consentastic. But yeah, discussions of ace sexuality and pressure for sex is a bit of a hot button with me.
RE: Viscaria
It’s okay, I think I get where you’re coming from. It can be a very, VERY fine line between, “I do this because I want to,” and “I do this because I feel I should,” especially when manipulators and abusers are concerned. I’ve experienced both, but my husband is DEFINITELY the first camp, as far as my feelings go.
After reading this thread, I’m realizing that I really have no idea what asexual means, even though I’ve read resources on it. Having “an ace day” and “some asexuals enjoy sex” were things which I thought couldn’t happen with my current understanding of what ace meant, and I’d like to hear more about these points. *goes to find more resources*
And I mean no disrespect to attorneys in general by my comment. Most of the ones I deal with are lovely people. My main point is that they’re just people, like everyone else.
@Crumbelievable
What a liar she is. Does she know what’s going on in the lives of every single woman on the planet? My friend from highschool isn’t getting one penny from the father of her son who disappeared a little after he found out she was pregnant. She told me the same of another mother who lives in her building. Another friend of mine told me she refused child support but the court enforced anyway.
I fail to see how a father contributing a couple hundred a month to his kids makes a woman not self sufficient. He’d be paying and contributing a lot more if they were together. I have my own issues with child support, I don’t think it should be forced by law, I do think a man should have a choice whether he wants to be a father or not, especially in cases where women trick men into being fathers (which is not as fucking common as MRAs like to think) but I fail to see how a woman is not self-sufficient if she works, takes care of her kids and the father pays support each month. I think even if child support wasn’t enforced by law, most men would still pay it because they love their kids regardless if they have custody or not.
I actually brought this question up on Facebook. I asked if fathers should be able to opt out of paying it. Women chimed in with a variety of opinions, but not one man. I thought that was interesting.
@LBT, I think I was confusing “wanting sex for reasons other than horniness” and “having sex that you don’t want.” I’m still very much against people feeling pressured to have sex they don’t want, but I have no business poking my nose into why people are having the sex they do want.
I’m going to shut up about this now, before I say some other hurtful thing.