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.
Quoted for fervent truth.
If that’s true (which I somewhat doubt) I weep for the profession, and declare that whatever law school graduated you should be writhing in shame. That was one of the most error filled, poorly understanding of civics pieces of bullshit I have seen in awhile.
Also, as another factchecking note (shit, you could do a line by line with that thing), I wanted to make a note that there is no such case as New York vs. Javonovich. There is a People v Jovanovic (263 A.D.2d 182) which ruled that in the case at issue the Rape Shield Law had not been properly applied. In other words, that the statute was misinterpreted by the trial judge. Here’s what the court says about the Rape Shield Law, and, as I have pointed out umpteenth fucking times, it’s about relevance of evidence (citing the court in Jovanovic, because, why not, fuckwad cited it as an example):
Here’s what the court said about the application of the horrible draconian rape shield law (sarcasm alert there) in other cases:
Also, Jovanovic’s word alone suggests this was a false allegation. The prosecution in fact scheduled a retrial and only dropped the case because the victim did not want to be put through another trial. Jovanovic’s civil case against the city was dismissed, meaning that he could not even state a case to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
tl;dr Fuck off ignorant lying trolls.
RE: Molly Ren
Well, I’m on the ace spectrum. (I’m a demisexual; you can google it, but in my case, it boils down to: I’m a black vulture boy. I mate for life. There is absolutely nothing morally upright or prudish about this, just how my interests are wired at this time.) So I most certainly CAN enjoy sex the way normal sexuals can… but apparently under different, much narrower circumstances. To me, sex on its own is boring. It’s sex WITH MY HUSBAND that’s freaking awesome; he’s the defining characteristic, and should he and I ever part ways, I am completely unbothered by the idea of never getting laid again. It’s like only enjoying macaroni and cheese if you eat it with one specific person.
Which is why I’m always completely lost when people talk about the unstoppability of male lust; I DON’T FEEL IT. NWO babbles on about being tempted and crap, and I seriously have no comprehension of that feeling. Sexual frustration is just… not something I really experience.
RE: Viscaria
It’s okay. I’m not offended. (That’s saved for the people who tell me I’m acting out a religiously-backwards purity ideal.) I guess for horny people, it makes sense that they equate wanting sex with being horny. But if you think about it, there are a lot of fun things about sex. Depending how you do it, there’s the physical contact aspect, the intimacy aspect, the sensation aspect, the kink aspect… one could enjoy any of those things on a nonsexual level and still have a good time.
On another note (I promise no essay this time), I’m getting really fed up with your ablist shit, NMMNG.
Um, no. Your link does not suggest this either, in any way shape or form, but on top of that, you are dismissing people’s self defintions and speaking about their own sexualities. People with schizoid conditions have a variety of sexualities, some of them are probably asexual, but you don’t get to fucking tell them what they want from their sexualities.
I’d just like to say that Roberta isn’t doing much for the sleazy-lawyer stereotype.
@darksidecat
The case is technically known as people vs javanovic, outside of newyork it is informally known as ‘new york vs javanovic,’ something you would know if you were half as well informed as you claim to be.
You should do some more research on the case. There was ample evidence of innocence far outside of Javanovic’s word. Including the word of the accuser’s mother, who stated that her daughter was lying and had a history of making similar lies. Nevermind the email records.
Interesting that you persist in calling a probable false accuser a “victim” however. Not even “alleged victim.” Good to see that you approach these cases with an open mind. My opinion of rape shield laws is hardly unique to me, BTW. They’re very controversial within the legal profession.
If the evidence of innocence was so ample, why did they need the stuff excluded by the rape shield law?
And we’re not in a court of law, genius. I’m sure you’d love it if we had to call a victim’s story into question every time we referred to her/him until there was an actual conviction, but that’s not how it works around here.
@Rutee
……………wow. I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling. Holy god.
I don’t even need to respond. I’ll just tell you to check your sources again.
I don’t even need to respond.
Roberta has discovered a novel strategy for defending her claims. Do you use that one in court, too?
Come on, say something funny! It’s March Madness!
So, Roberta, what is the conviction rate in other criminal cases, if Rutee is incorrect? How do they compare to the conviction rate of rape cases?
Rutee just did a mistressful job of fact-checking. Go for it, tell us how she’s wrong.
Just look at the data within the source that Rutee linked.
Apparently Rutee doesn’t understand the concept of a plea bargain.
Roberta, so what you are saying is-if a victim lies once, they lie always? Outside of the mother claiming her daughter is a liar, there needs to be more than “My daughter lies a lot.”
Also, you made the claim, back it up. Rutee did zir’s job in backing up zir’s claim so either admit you are wrong or provide the cite.
Plus, you did not say “rape charges end result” you said, and I quote:
Emphasis mine.
You also still need to back it up.
ROBERTA IN A COURT OF LAW
by Katz
PROSECUTOR: Your honor, as confirmed by the lab tests, it was the victim’s blood that was on the knife found in the defendant’s pocket!
ROBERTA: I don’t even need to respond. I’ll just tell you to check your sources again.
—-
PROSECUTOR: Your honor, four different witnesses saw the defendant drag the victim’s body to the car.
ROBERTA: I don’t even need to respond. I’ll just tell you to check your sources again.
—-
PROSECUTOR: Your honor, the defendant is currently gnawing on the victim’s thigh bone!
ROBERTA: I don’t even need to respond. I’ll just tell you to check your sources again.
FINIS
I was specifically talking of cases that went to trial. As I thought was fairly obvious. Considering that something like 85% of felony convictions result from a plea bargain and most of these don’t result in any jail time.
I was specifically said “serious crimes.” Crimes that will result in years behind bars, not a fine.
Rape trials have a conviction rate of 67% in the United States. Murder trials, by comparison, have a conviction rate in the high 30’s.
If a ‘victim’ lies once, that doesn’t mean they’re always lying, obviously. But if someone has a reputation and history of lying about sexual assaults, then that doesn’t exactly make them a credible witness in court. It’s hard to send someone to prison for years on nothing more than the word of a known liar.
That wasn’t the only evidence of innocence in that case, either. There were also email records where the accuser basically admitted that the sex was consensual.
I am aware of the case Roberta, I have read it before.
And you need to back up your claim that rape trials result in conviction in 67% of cases.
@poster
Correct. Which is why Rutee’s response is so mind blowing. I specifically said trials and I specifically said serious crimes. I’m not discussing plea bargains for vandalism that result in a fine and no jail time.
@darksidecat :
I have Avoidant personality disorder (AvPD) and I have several schizoids traits. I’m reading forums about personality disorders (mainly AvPD and SPD) since a few years and I have a few books about it so I know a lot more about it than you. You are the ableist.
@LBT
If you want to be in a relationship with a person, and have sex with them because they have made it clear that that is the requirement for being in a relationship with that person, can you really claim to have been compelled against your will?
If “Have sex with me or I’m leaving” is rape, then:
Is “Buy me a Ferarri or I’m leaving” theft?
Is “Take me out to dinner or I’m leaving” kidnapping and unlawful detention?
Is “Clean out the garage or I’m leaving” slavery?
If those are the requirements for being in a relationship with your partner, then you can either accept or refuse those terms. No one is required to be in a relationship, and you can still freely choose what you’re willing to do to sustain it.
If you want to be in a relationship, and have sex you aren’t interested in to maintain that relationship, then that is the free choice that you have made. If you want money, and work a job you don’t like in order to make that money, then that is the free choice you have made.
In this case sex is the means rather than the end. You want something that sex will give you (a relationship), but you don’t want the sex itself. So you willingly have sex in order to get/keep a relationship.
Where do you “practice” where it is a habitual matter to miscite cases? Especially as having the name of the state in the case is more common in federal cases than in state cases, and this was the latter. Also, your fake citation is doubly misleading due to the fact that the dismissed civil case is Jovanovic v City of New York. Also, you might want to try to spell the defendant’s name correctly even once before calling others misinformed.
One person saying the victim has been known to be a liar is not anything near “ample evidence”. It wasn’t even enough to survive a dismissal in a civil case, after it had been made clear the emails were allowable in court (also, the case opinion contains text and descriptions of the emails, their contents do not at all present “ample evidence” that the victim was lying). My suspicion is that your mention of the emails is for the exact purpose the court in this case says that rape shield laws are positive and should be allowed-that you think kinky women are unrapeable.
It’s not “probable” that she made a false accusation. It wasn’t probable enough to even get past dismissal in a case with a preponderance standard. You don’t have shit. Also, I welcome everyone who has access to go read the case, as I have fucking properly cited it so that they can do so.
I think your opinion is unique, as even most bigoted right wing douches in the legal profession have a better understanding of the legal system than you demonstrate.
You still have not backed up your claim Roberta. You are disputing what Rutee stated-fine-however disputing what someone else posted is not citing the source you got the 67% conviction rate from.
@darksidecat
Are you seriously denying that rape shield laws are controversial within the legal profession?
http://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=scholarlyworks
@Boggi
like this but minus the spaces
Roberta said
This makes me want to puke, by the way. Way to be an apologist for our legal system’s broken ass, ineffective, rapist-friendly biases when it comes to all manner of sexual assault. And to do it with such narrow-minded binary thinking. If you’re a lawyer, you could make an AWESOME esquire scumbag. Keep it up!
So, pressure to get consent is ok – cause as you seem to have a grasp on, is once consent is “obtained”, no manner under what absurd pretenses, it’s game over for the victim. “She said yes” – case over.
“Unintentional environmental pressures”? Opps I forgot you’re a human and not a fuck toilet, sorry! It was just a confluence of unintentional environmental pressures, sorry they forced their way into your body like that! Let’s chalk this up to a failed attempt to negotiate sex, babe! If you just consent that won’t happen!”
Puuuuuuuuuuuuuuke.
@Boggi
Wtf it works when you space it too? huh. Anyway just go to the section on blockquoting:
http://wpbtips.wordpress.com/2009/06/19/formatting-text-pt-2/
no more mr nice guy, I found a few old random quotes of yours:*
August 25, 2011 at 6:48 am
December 9, 2011 at 9:30 am
When you were called on the ableism in the previous comment, you had this to say (partial quote):
December 9, 2011 at 7:53 pm
But, you know, DSC is ableist. Because you have AvPD and read stuff on the internet.
In other news, women shouldn’t be able to vote! But that’s not sexist of me, because I am a ladygirl, and furthermore I read feminist blogs.
*I think you’ve been called on this stuff on a number of other occasions, but my googlefu is lacking, so we’ll say this is all there is. It’s still plenty.
IANAL, so I have to wonder… I’ve seen ‘alleged burglar’, ‘alleged murderer’, etc… often, because there is this thing called presumption of innocence. However, that’s the first I hear of the usage of ‘alleged victim’. Is there also a similar legal concept that people haven’t been victims of a crime until proven otherwise? Because it’s funny how that only ever comes up in cases of rape (when’s the last time you heard someone say ‘the alleged burglary victim’ or ‘the alleged murdered individual’?)
Is it just me, or do these metaphors make no sense? I mean, I see where they came from, but they’re clearly the product of someone who either seriously doesn’t understand what rape is and why it’s wrong, or understands and is deliberately obfuscating. Oh, wait: Lawyer!
PS for Boggi: The closing tag needs to be /blockquote.
Roberta, how do you go from “I consent to be in a committed relationship with you” to “I rescind all rights to my personal autonomy, and therefore my partner no longer needs my consent”? I don’t recall that being in the usual matrimonial vows…I don’t recall it being THE only model of relationships, though many do go that route. Also, you seem to be basing your framework of retionships as transactional. They don’t actually function that way. Its not ” I give you sex so you give me a pairbond”. Do you really think that’s all a long term relationship boils down to?
@katz
So my points make sense but they are still wrong for reasons you don’t care to elaborate on? Gotcha.
@pillow
Of course not, but that doesn’t mean some relationships don’t function that way. Who’s giving up their right to personal autonomy?
You can still refuse sex in a relationship. I’m not arguing that you consent by default because you are in a relationship with someone. I’m simply arguing that someone has the right to end a relationship if their sexual needs aren’t being met.
And threatening to end a relationship if you don’t get more sex does not create duress on your partner. No one has an unconditional right to be a relationship with their SO. You or your partner can end the relationship for any reason you like, and that can include being sexually unsatisfied.
I will never understand why some people are so keen to find the boundary between actually illegal and merely shitty human behavior. It’s like B__Don or whoever going off on how long he’s allowed to keep going after his girlfriend says “stop”: Why are you so keen to find out exactly how much of a douche you can be with legal impunity?
I know helping rapists walk free is your job, but does it have to be your hobby too?
Roberta: I don’t even need to respond. I’ll just tell you to check your sources again.
@debaa
Why don’t you try reading my comment again? With a little comprehension this time.
If someone holds a gun to your head to get your consent, then that is obviously (and legally) rape. If someone has no reasonable choice except to consent to sex, then their consent is compromised and the sex that follows is rape.
When I say “pressure,” I’m envisioning things that fall well short of creating any kind of unlawful duress.
Legally, consent is a binary. It could never be anything else. Consent, in a legal sense, just means that someone voluntarily agreed to engage in sexual activity without being unlawfully forced or compelled to do so.
Threats of violence, threats of confinement, and certain kinds of blackmail create unlawful duress. Saying “please” does not.
Well, I still do not see that restraints on slut shaming are an undue burden on the legal system.
Plenty of rapists still get away with raping.
I suppose MRAs will not be happy unless rape is completely legalized.
Okay Quackers, let me try again.
Got it!…?
I got it!
…
Now I’ll stop spamming. ^__^
Yeah because calling out your ableist crap is so ableist…..
I’m not cool with you deciding that I must have schizoid pd because I’m asexual. seriously fuck off
(ps armchair diagnosing everyone you don’t like or disagree with is ableist period )
Our friend Roberta:
Concern Troll is very concerned.
Okay roberta, how about this:
“Consent” is obtained, sexual intercourse starts, woman changes mind, halfway through. She at that moment, withdraws her consent.
Her partner continues to have sex with her.
She *just* said no, he *just* ignored her.
Is that rape at that moment? Cause the whole “obtaining consent” thing only really even matters if women get to have their choices respected in the first place, which seems like an odd thing to expect of say, rapists.
@debbaa
Yes. If someone consents to sex and then withdraws their consent half-way through the encounter, then yes it’s rape if their partner doesn’t stop when they are asked to do so.
That is legally and morally rape, and I’ve never argued otherwise.
@Jumbofish:
I didn’t say that most asexuals, or you in particular, are schizoids, I’m sorry if you interpreted it that way. I said that most schizoids are asexuals. It’s obvious there are a lot of asexuals who are NOT schizoids.
And I still maintain that dismissing the knowledge of someone with AvPD about personality disorders like if he’s an ignorant moron is ableist.
Okay, would the woman who withdrew her consent have any realistic chance of getting her rapist convicted in court?
@jumbofish
I don’t think NMMNG’s diagnosing asexuals as schizoid, so much as he is IDing most schizoids as asexual. Which is still problematic for all the reasons that DSC said, so I’m not defending the statement, just saying you may have misread it. I have not seen anything linking schizophrenia to asexuality myself, so I’m pretty skeptical of his claim as well.
and ninja’d
and I meant SPD not schizophrenia. Oh edit button, wherefore art thou
edit button met with preview button and ran away together. I hear they are very happy!
and the quote button jumped over the moon!
@debbaasseerr
Depends on quite a few factors. If she asks her partner to stop, and just ignores her and keeps going, and she doesn’t do anything else to try and stop him, then probably not. If she starts to physically resist after he ignores her request to stop, then probably yes.
In the first scenario there are just too many questions which would frustrate a prosecution. Did he hear her when she said stop? Did he think she changed her mind because she only said stop once and then let him finish without a word? Did she say stop forcefully or did she say it in a way he might of interpreted as her just playing coy? Etc.
Keep in mind that everything has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You have to prove that: not only did she withdraw consent, but he clearly understood that she withdrew consent. That’s close to impossible in a he said – she said case with plenty of plausible deniability.
If she physically resisted him, and he physically forced her to continue sex as she struggles against him, then all that goes out the window. There’s no doubt that her withdrawal of consent was clearly communicated by her and clearly understood by him.
WELCOME TO THE SORRY STATE OF AFFAIRS, IDIOT.
…………that’s an interesting response.
Rape can be hard to prosecute. It’s a crime that often leaves no evidence and typically occurs behind closed doors with no witnesses.
That sucks, but what’s the alternative? Until someone develops a perfect lie detector rape will always be hard to prove.
Asexual here. Not schizoid.
Well, I suspect they are an undue burden on lazy and incompetent lawyers.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mra
This is so funny, this is what they are whining about now, and are going to send over their members in droves. Get over there and vote! Does not require any registration, and don’t forget to go to the last pages where MRAs have submitted their own definitions, they need some downvotes.
I love you guys, but this thread is making you look really bad. Stop and take a deep breath. Remember that
1) You may not know as much as you think you do about a given topic and
2) Opinions can differ among reasonable people.
As an observer (and not even an impartial one, but one predisposed to be sympathetic to Manboobz commenters and unsympathetic to RobertaSandoval and NMMG) I would point out two things:
One, regardless of whether Roberta Sandoval is a criminal trial lawyer (and I’m reminded of Sean Connery’s line in The Untouchables – who would claim to be that, who wash naught?) she has been perfectly civil, has not called anyone any names, and has the sort of attitudes about the law that one would expect (and indeed hope for!) in someone who is a career advocate for those accused of crimes. Her position, while it may be wrong and even wildly wrong, is perfectly reasonable and could be engaged reasonably. This has been the road not taken.
Two, regardless of whether you think it’s a correct or useful way of characterizing the disorder, schizoid personality disorder is absolutely characterized in the medical books as being associated with asexuality. It’s just so tiresome to read people who obviously don’t know squat about something saying “maybe but I know oodles about this and I’ve never heard etc.” Listen, it’s not as hard as you think to tell when someone is bullshitting. Stop doing it.
Over at pandagon the commenting culture used to be really cool and I give Amanda Marcotte a lot of credit for that – she was tough on trolls and did a good job keeping things pretty clean. However, over the years it became a real drag because no one was really allowed to show up and say ANYTHING (much less disagree with Marcotte) because they would be shouted down by the regulars. Now I don’t even read the comments more than once or twice a month because it’s just too depressing. I hope that doesn’t happen here as I really enjoy y’all’s work.
Really not concern trolling; check my comment history. I’ve said some stuff people didn’t like, for sure, but I’m an ally. Cool your jets. A conversation has at least two sides to it, and dumbass MRA trolls don’t count.
So, tell me again how men are convicted only on the word of a woman? What you wrote above says clearly that it’s going to be hard to prove successfully.
It depends on what’s being alleged. If you alleged that someone held you done and forcibly raped you as you fought and screamed, then your word can be enough to convict. Because all of those questions of mens rea don’t apply to that allegation.
If you allege that you meekly told him to stop a single time and he kept going anyway, then that would be virtually impossible to prove. Because there are legitimate questions about whether or no the correct mens rea existed.
Once again you clearly state the problem! One of the things loony feminsts have with their wacky ideas of consent which you distorted is exactly this.
No other crime puts this kind of burden on the victim.
Changing the way we prosecute rapes? Putting the weight of the law on men to not rape people instead of on women to not get-raped? No shit there’s no easy alternative, but our legal system FAILS right now, and throwing our collective hands up in the air and going “oh well, rape happens, how’s that perfect lie detector coming along?” doesn’t cut it.
feminsts! Their wacky spelling schemes have edited my coherence!
Change the way we prosecute rapes… how, exactly? Please be specific.
Ape
Keep insisting all you want but you are totally concern trolling XD
Roberta, being meek and quietly saying no also happens to be the response of people who are experiencing shock at their no being disregarded and realizing they are now being raped. Your analogy would mean bruises and physical damage and plays in to the “its only rape if x amount of violence was perpratrated” myth.
There are many ways to commit rape that don’t leave physical evidence. Date rape drugs are one. Using the persons fear of being hurt even more is another. The person being raped is already in a vulnerable position, has already been shown that what they want will be disregarded and now you want a rape victim to speak out in a way that vastly increases the chances of them being beaten to a pulp?
@pillow
I completely agree. I’m referring to the likelihood of getting a conviction in court. Not whether or not that qualifies as rape.
What you describe is absolutely rape. It’s just hard to prove unless there was clear force or a clear threat of violence. If there wasn’t clear force or a clear threat of violence, then it’s virtually impossible to prove in court. That’s all I’m saying.
@Apeman
Oh noooooo!
Who is it that we’re alienating with our cruel cruel comments?
I really appreciate a lot of what you do & read often even if I don’t comment regularly. But I wanted to point out that the 60s/70s radical group you want is the
Weather Underground – a **splinter group** of the Weathermen. Although the Weather Underground was founded by people who had been active in the Weathermen, founding the WU was done out of impatience with the less radical beliefs and tactics of a group that embraced “confrontational non-violence” designed to show the violence and brutality of the police and other government agents of control by provoking the system into violence. They embraced self-defence against violence initiated by the government, but limited it to the situation involved. They did not have an ideology that because some students were physically attacked in Kent, Ohio, that this justifies a physical attack against government or its employees on a different day and/or in a different location. It was the non-violence against which the Weather Underground rebelled. They agreed with confrontational non-violence, but extended the analysis, asserting that the Kent State & Jackson State attacks -along with many other violent incidents- justified an assumption of an ongoing war posture. In war, one’s enemy is not necessarily firing at any given moment, but firing towards the enemy is still considered generally ethical even so. If the US government is acting to kill young people through the draft and ever expanding war abroad while attacking those staying in the US with police (and, say, the killing of Fred Hampton) and the national guard, then the lefty youth generally targeted by these policies are justified in fearing for their lives and thus attacking threatening persons without warning. Such was the reasoning of the Weather Underground.
The relationships between and among the groups “Weathermen” and “Weather Underground” as well as between the members thereof are complicated. Some have asserted that there really was no splinter group, just a shift in though to ever more radical and violent thinking and action. However, it’s clear that there continued to be a “Weathermen” group after the initiation of the “Weather Underground” and it’s entirely possible that the conflation of the two groups was a knowing fabrication of the Nixon administration, who did quite a number of dispicable things in this vein of which we can have more confidence.
So… It’s possible that the Weather Underground and the Weathermen are more connected than most who participated in them have said so far. It’s also possible that they were, in fact, wholly separate in the sense that no one outside the limited Weather Underground new of the violent attacks even if some people in the Weathermen knew the identities of some people in the Weather Underground.
Given this confusing situation in which only the Weather Underground are certainly implicated and the Weathermen were known to have been criticized by the Weather Underground and by the people who eventually founded the Weather Underground for not taking the analysis of self-defense to its “proper conclusion”, it seems pretty grossly unfair to say that the Weathermen were responsible for the actions of the Weather Underground and/or that the two had the same philosophy. (If they had, there would be no reason to form the Weather Underground.) For those reasons, I think you should really edit the OP just so as not to pass on errant mythology.
This is no way changes your major points, but I think it’s worthwhile in getting the history right if we’re going to reference it. Thank you for all the work you do. I hope this is seen as helpful and not nit-picking.
Ooh, a tone troll! Thanks ApeMan1976, we’ll be sure to tone it down for you, like proper ladies.
The negative reception that Robertathelawyer is receiving is likely as much due to her condescending nature in her posts as much as WHATshe posts. I would also like to remind her that: a) siding with the MRA’s will not keep you safe from their disdain, and b) OH YES….there is indeed documentation (most popularly, in Susan Faludi’s “Backlash) that women in the US are indeed considered more valuable when they are with a man; that they MUST have one at whatever cost. Why the fuck do you think there are such high DV rates? Sorry for the unprofessional terminology, but–DUH.
(And Katz: WIN on the faux “courtroom scene”–LOL!!!)
Okay Roberta…now you’re starting to sound a little like us wacky feminists…. I would like to know where your 87 percent figure came from, as its far, far higher than anything I’ve heard. Also, what exact scenario has you going about feminist ideas of consent/rape?