The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement
[TW for the comments to this post; discussions of rape and abuse.]
The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization devoted to tracking and exposing hate groups, has just published a detailed report on the misogyny and violent rhetoric so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement — as well as the actual violence inspired by this sort of hatred of women. It’s a piece you all should read, even though few of the details will be new to long-time readers of this blog.
Arthur Goldwag, an expert on conspiracy-mongers and the far right, argues (I think correctly) that the Men’s Rights movement is largely a backlash against the many successes of feminism over the last several decades:
It’s not much of a surprise that significant numbers of men in Western societies feel threatened by dramatic changes in their roles and that of the family in recent decades. Similar backlashes, after all, came in response to the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and other major societal revolutions. What is something of a shock is the verbal and physical violence of that reaction.
[Thomas] Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations.
The Men’s Rights Movement, as it exists today, is not a civil rights movement; it is a regressive, hateful reaction against a civil rights movement — that is, feminism.
Those who truly care about the rights of men, and who are not motivated by a hatred of women or feminism, need to repudiate the hate and the violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights Movement as it exists today. Only then can there be a Men’s Rights Movement worthy of the name.
EDITED TO ADD: The SPLC has also put up a guide to some of the more hateful sites in the manosphere. Longtime readers will be familiar with most of them.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And a piece debunking some Men’s Rights Myths.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN, AGAIN: The discussion of the SPLC report on the Men’s Rights Subreddit is surprisingly reasonable, so far. (I mean, compared to what I expected. Meanwhile, over in this thread, the Men’s Rightsers are behaving as they usually do.)
Posted on March 8, 2012, in actual activism, anti-MRA information, antifeminism, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, terrorism, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 760 Comments.
I haven’t read Elam’s latest opus yet since I figured David would do a post on it.
I predict lots of impotent rage and baaawing about being called out as a hateful sexist who skirts barely on the legal side of advocating violence against women.
I became a feminist because I became aware of the diversity and humanity of women, not because I thought they were all perfect or had to be upheld as some sort of superhuman ideal. I became a feminist because of an unshakeable belief that women are just ordinary people. I became a feminist because I don’t want a person’s gender to define or predestined them.
Feminism (to me) doesn’t mean being women’s biggest fan. It means understanding how meaningless such a thing would be, when women are just people.
/soapbox
Ok I missed this post…
The thing is, I would be for egalitarianism but as I mentioned before the attitudes and beliefs towards women in society are still rooted in oldschool gender roles and misogyny. Like I mentioned, I think the laws are fine, but it’s the attitude. The rape threats, the slut-shaming, the condescension, the belief that women aren’t as intelligent or capable…unfortunately these ideas still exist. I think this is what feminism is currently trying to fight.
And despite the fact that most men aren’t in power, it doesn’t change the fact that governments, major corporations, the military, banks, etc are run by men, with a patriarchal model. This is not an equal society and it has negative affects on everyone.
So yeah, that includes gender roles and beliefs about men having to be strong all the time (which leads to higher suicide rates, not going to the doctor as often) There are issues men have to deal with but they aren’t all the same as women’s so I do think that men’s groups are needed and I don’t think they have to be opposed to each other issues either. The current MRM are just hateful though, this is an undeniable fact.
So I just think at the moment cis men and women have different battles to fight, and they should help each other, but separate movements are needed. The same can be said for LGBT and race issues. Everything intertwines but they are all separate issues. I think this is the basis for kyriarchy, I need to read up on it more. Anyway this is just how I see it.
Also Manboobz has become the main feminist blog I follow. Next comes Jezebel, then Feministing and occasionally Feministe and Shakesville. Very, very few times have I come across misandry on those sites and when it does come up, it is usually called out. I really don’t understand the hate for Valenti…as for Amanda Marcotte I haven’t read enough of her writing but the stuff I have read doesn’t warrant for the shit she gets from the MRM and Roissy. They’re obsessed with her, I don’t know why.
Also I’m sorry about your sexual assault. It’s not your fault. Please don’t think that :(
I hope that makes sense I’m kinda in that wide awake but very tired mode, I think its time for bed ~_~
Mags is actually likable when she’s engaging rather than snark-sniping. Did anyone else catch that she said her being sexually assaulted was her fault? That’s a profoundly sad thing to believe.
I got into feminism relatively recently, as in within the past year. Atheist blogs were my gateway drug to Ophelia Benson and from Butterflies and Wheels to (somewhat) wider feminism. Of course, it helped that my family is pretty damn liberal. I have tended to form friendships with women more often than men as well, though I’ve had no shortage of male friends (proportionally, anyway). What I see in feminism is not a demonization of all men just cuz patriarchy but a concern for the systematic repression of women they are women in my own society and in others. Not every man in a sexist or patriarchal society is deemed a sexist or patriarch; the problem is systematic and refusing to be co-opted by it is liberating for men as well as women. Sorry if that rampant misandry makes you throw up in your mouth at all, Mags.
Sleep well, Mags. I am going to bug you more about Elam later! Specifically, why are you still supporting him to a certain extent when you don’t agree with the registering of people who aren’t public figures, and it’s pretty clear that he means those people harm?
The whole issue of advocating violence is a pretty firm line in the sand for me. If a group advocates violence, I’m not going to support them no matter how much I might agree with them in other ways. I’m really interested in animal rights, but I won’t support ALF. I always disliked PETA because of their stupid advertising, but it was when I realised that they were killing pets that they went from organization I don’t like to organization I actively oppose. Which is actually part of my issue with the MRM – there are just way too many people advocating violence in one way or another, and far too few MRAs calling it out when it happens.
Moewicus, that was the one line that really jumped out at me, too.
“I’ve been sexually assaulted, but that was my own fault.”
Yikes.
because they are women*
Moewicus, that was the one line that really jumped out at me, too.
“I’ve been sexually assaulted, but that was my own fault.”
Yikes.
It’s also exactly the kind of belief feminism seeks to address. The idea that victims are responsible for their own sexual assault co-opts people for the patriarchy–or rather kyriarchy, I suppose–whether they are male, female, or other. In other words, it’s not about blaming all guys and just guys for some vague crime.
And yeah – – Magdelyn, it isn’t your fault that you were assaulted. I know that it’s a natural instinct when you’re assaulted to go over the whole thing in your head and try to think of things that you could have done to prevent it, and blame yourself for not magically being able to do so, but really – not your fault. Nobody has to sexually assault anyone – if they do so, that’s a choice that they made, and they’re the only ones responsible for it.
In terms of the idea that patriarchy = men = men are evil, I’m still not sure why anyone interprets the theory that way, but they’re wrong. Even in a really extreme version of patriarchy, like Saudi, men are not inherantly evil, and not all men take advantage of the power that the social system gives them. I met some men there who were good people, and the mutaween don’t approve of those men any more than they approved of me. The fundamental problem is the system, the way that society is organized and the attitudes that it encourages and discourages, not the individual people who live in it.
“assault” means it’s the other person’s fault. Otherwise it’s not assault. If you were assaulted, then someone perpetrated that. You can’t make someone commit a crime, nor should you coddle criminals.
What a low opinion of men a person would have to have to think that someone that committed an assault is not responsible for their own behavior. It would have a be a situation where the individual was mentally disabled. I have a disabled son, and the burden would still lie with him, regardless of his capacity. I would try to explain as best I could to him, and do what I can, but the burden of guilt would not shift.
For women that prefer to think they MADE someone else do something, maybe that’s their way of taking the power and control back. But, unfortunately, that anger when not directed where it belongs can come out elsewhere, self. of…
oh look…
Well is there a group pointing out that she didn’t have power or control over that situation? Is that painful? Maybe. Maybe. Maybe someone feels more in control over a certain situation by putting forward the agenda that men are animals, and helpless victims, nonthinking creatures that can be tricked into committing an imposition on another. Well, a feminist does not engage in that kind of misandry.
The world being boiled down and simplified to men being big babies might be more safe and comforting for some, but it’s wrong, and so feminism will continue to expose that.
I don’t remember *becoming* a feminist. I remember having both my grandmothers, my mother and my aunt be college educated at a time when this was REALLY not the thing.
I remember being raised Catholic and not getting why girls could only be nuns. I remember the third grader who looked at me and said “Only boys can be priests because God loves them more.”
I remember the 1950s and I remember the racism and the factories firing women who’d worked there during the war. War’s over now honey, get back on home and find yourself a beau. I remember the 60s and 70s and the utter lack of sex education, I remember the girls who went away” to visit an aunt” and who came 6 or 7 months later thinner and tired and SO angry and sad.
I remember driving across a state line to get married because the family disapproved. I remember not being able to buy a car or apply for a job without my husband’s written permission. I remember the friend of mine who was sexually assaulted and the response from her boss was to ask if she had led him on. Oh and to fuss at her for not being on birth control . ‘My father wouldn’t sign the slip, ” she said, I remember how desperate she was not to have to carry her rapist’s child.
I remember her funeral. I remember the doctor who was too busy with his wife (in early labor in another room) and I remember they gave me something called ‘twilight sleep’. I didn’t want it but my husband had signed the paper so that was okay. My infant son was born sound asleep because the doctor couldn’t be bothered to actually figure out that I was (even full term with a 7.5 pound baby) too small to be given dosages intended for people taller and heavier.
I remember. quite simply, over half a century of being shown and told that I am less-than because of my ladyparts. And I remember thinking it was bullshit.
I remember meeting feminists, hearing them speak, seeing them march and organize and knowing that I wanted to do that too.
need to know,
that was powerful and moving, thank you
I vividly remember my first “click” moment. It was in Sunday school. We were learning about Adam and Eve, and my little seven year old self was profoundly sad to learn that women were to blame for sin and for all of the hardships that human beings experience. I didn’t know what feminism was at the time. But I starkly remember the feelings of shame and sadness I felt at that moment.
My next “click” moment was later on, around the age of 12, when I realized that my mother’s day didn’t end until after 9 PM. She got us up in the morning and sent us off to school, then went to work, then came home and made dinner and cleaned up afterward. She never got off her feet until late in the evening. Meanwhile, my father went to work, came home, and sat down in front of the television until dinner, then went back to the television after dinner. They worked the same number of hours at their jobs (my mother actually made more than he did), but my father did zero cooking, zero housework, and zero childcare. I realized that this was incredibly unfair, but no one seemed to say anything about it, and in fact they seemed to think it was perfectly normal. So basically yeah, I was meant to be a feminist from childhood.
I will say that things are better. Every couple my age makes at least some effort to share housework. Actually, all of the men are the ones who do all the cooking. Yes, the women still do the lion’s share of childcare, and they’re also the ones who have to use sick time at work to stay home when their children are ill, but it’s still not as bad as it was with my parent’s generation. And that’s something.
My “click” moment? I became an anti-feminist once it dawned on me that feminism is just chivalry on steroids.
I know why I became a feminist. My family history is the kind that would make the newspapers had the times been different. I remeber hearing at five how my grandmother had repeatedly tried to flee her husband, who was a true psychopath and routinrely tried to kill her and the children. Finally, she took her daughters in the middle of the night and fled to another town while he was passed out drunk. Like all the other times, the cops picked her up for vagrancy and took her before a judge. I guess this judge couldn’t ignore the bruises of how badly she had been beaten or the bruises on my mother and aunt. So he told her she had one month to find work and a home or he would order her to be taken back to her abuser. Until then, her gave her a jail cell as shelter and saw to it that she knew where the local soup kitchen was. At that time the first womens shelter was just opening in toronto. If your family wouldn’t shelter you there was nowhere to go. Then welfare intervened and they helped, but it was like the inquisition, they would show up and question employers, friends, neighbors and toss her house like a police raid to be sure she wasn’t seeing any men. All that just to get food stamps. Her second husband was another kind of abuser, but he didn’t beat her so much so she stayed until he died.
The cycle of abuse was a long one in my family, happily, all of her children realized that abusive behaviour is a choice and they didn’t have to be that way. My uncles can be real chauvinists sometimes, but they see that women are people and capable beings because feminism and changing values showed them that. Unfortunately, what I read on MRA sites is exactly the same thinking and behaviour of the abusers in my family (including my grandmother).
@pillow
Where?
Where are the MRAs arguing that men abusing women is at all acceptable? The most they’ve ever said about DV is that the system should be more gender neutral and should not automatically assume the male is the abuser. Something I think most reasonable people would agree with.
zhinxy:
The problem with the $PLC is that they use accusations of anti-semitism or racism or sexism to intimidate any opposition to their agenda. They have listed EVERY immigration restrictionist group as a hate group. They are practically a branch of the media since the media just reports their press releases as fact.
The $PLC is the left-wing equivalent of people calling Obama a terrorist because he had guilt-by-association with William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Farrahkhan, Ghadafi. Obama was friends with Wright who went to visit Ghadafi at the height of Libyan sponspored terrorism with Jeremiah Wright. Therefore Obama = Terrorist! It’s disgusting.
I became a feminist after hearing about MRAs.
I didn’t want to write all MRA’s off as bigoted assholes, I read this article, liked to A Voice for Men and can now finally say “Yea, MRA is a hate group” …. They allude to murdering feminists like…. EVERY EPISODE of their podcast o.O
I almost wish there was an alternative men’s rights movement.
Where they could advocate for some of the legitimate issues that they identify without all the misogyny and focus on hating feminists which is way too prevalent in the current movement.
@Roberta:
Here are two right in the Southern Poverty Law Center article.
@Roberta:
Want a movement dedicated to equality between the sexes?
Why not Feminism?
@kirby
Because feminism does nothing to address men’s issues and often seeks to deny of minimize men’s issues.
NOW has repeatedly opposed legislation aimed at reducing the discrimination that fathers experience in child custody cases. Feminists have also created primary aggressor policies for police that make male DV victims more likely to be arrested than helped if the reach out for assistance.
I also frequently see feminists arguing that false accusations of rape and abuse do not exist, and thus we should do away with all due process and presumption of innocence business. At least for rape, anyway. Probably want to keep that stuff for crimes that women can potentially be accused of.
Roberta there is stuff all over the MRA sites about how men should be able to hits their wives to “maintain discipline and ensure she undertands personal accountability”. They also advocate that women “had it coming” by “nagging”.
What exactly do you think these guys mean when they talk about fucking our shit up? Not doing dishes?
Roberta, citation needed. You are tiresome.
Mags, being assaulted wasn’t your fault. No one deserves that. I also find you likeable when engage rather than troll.
@Roberta Sandolval
Sure they do.
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2005/12/dont-just-blame-victim-prosecute-her.html
@Roberta: Come in from the field and stop hanging out w/Strawfeminists.
As a feminist, I know women can be accused of rape!
Roberta:
eremiahMRAin MensRights
[–]JeremiahMRA[S] -1 points 23 hours ago
If a woman hits you, and you leave the room, she only gets more angry because she wants you to dominate her. Perhaps she cools down, but she’ll do it again, in due time. You should probably read the articles I linked. The first makes the point that generally men TRY the very strategy you’re talking about, but it doesn’t work, and only makes things worse. Finally, the guy snaps because she has made him so pissed off. It doesn’t matter if you don’t think it’s “right”, that’s what happens, and it could have been prevented. The second article makes the point that with a little corporal punishment, things never would have escalated to that point anyway.
That last line is REALLY important. Ever met an abuser who didn’t state their partner did something to deserve it? Abusers will almost always claim to be the true victim when the police come knocking, in the hopes of getting away with it. And it often works. It also shows how he believes that wife beating should be allowed for good discipline.
Also: inb4 “but but but false accusatyions of *rape* destroy a man’s life, unlike false accusations of burglery or carjacking”
Here’s a very true story:
My Uncle was actually falsely accused of rape. It went to court and everything. He was found not guilty.
And you know what? He’s perfectly fine. He started a photography business. Met a nice woman and they have a very happy life together. He bought a puppy at Christmas. He lives a very happy life, unhindered by any supposed lingering stigma of being falsely accused.
Put that in your pearls and clutch them.
@Halite
Congratulations, you can link to one study from one locality. Who knows what kind of methodology that study employed, either? Do you want me to link you to dozens of studies finding much higher rates of false reporting?
Studies on this issue have placed results all over the map. From 1% all the way to 91% in one (seriously flawed) study. Most of the good studies converge at about 8-10%. That’s high enough to be concerned about the issue.
I strongly suggest you read the article I’ve linked below. It’s written by two feminist lawyers and published in Slate. So there’s no attacking the source. The article discussing the issue in length and compares and contrasts numerous study’s on the issue.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/10/how_often_do_women_falsely_cry_rape.html
@pillow
Wow, that comment is completely repugnant. Thank god it was downvoted. See my comment about wishing there was an alternative MRM.
@Halite
http://www.details.com/culture-trends/critical-eye/201106/kevin-driscoll-rape-charges-jail-assault-stigma-reputation?currentPage=1
>>>NOW has repeatedly opposed legislation aimed at reducing the discrimination that fathers experience in child custody cases.
Yep, organizations like NOW often oppose legislation supposedly aimed at solving non-existent problems…
@Blackbloc
Thanks for helping me make my point. There’s a whole profession that disagrees with you, BTW. Even feminist family court attorneys will readily admit that fathers get the shaft.
See here: http://www.seattleweekly.com/2012-01-18/news/ripped-apart/
Seattle Weekly, not exactly a bastion of MRA propaganda. Written by a feminist, as well.
Roberta, its comments like that that are all through the MRA sites. Its in the articles it is in the comments sections. Some of the MRAs want nothing more than to see women either enslaved or exterminated.
There are social justice movements in real life that seek to address the problems of male victims of rape, lack of housing and custody issues with mothers unjustly and illegally denying access to children. And many feminists work with and support those groups. Get it out of your head that all feminists hate men to the point where we are actively attempting to obstruct or deny justice for men.
VAWA had specific provisions to help men, yet the MRAs want to see it burn because women would be helped too.
Roberta, you’re not exactly breaking new ground here. Step it up.
Hey, Mags.
I’m sorry that shit happened to you. I’ve been where you were, and it sucked. I stand by what everyone else said; it wasn’t your fault.
Also, augh, Roberta, can you PLEASE go away? You lost all my liking after you said my rape was consensual. (Yes, I said yes. While crying and curled up in a fetal position. You want to call that consensual, fine, but seriously, most people with a functioning set of ethics realize they should not fuck someone when they’re crying and had the yes dragged out of them. Most people with a functioning set of ethics will STOP when after this happens and the “sex” begins, the person they’re fucking just lies completely prone and lifelessly, crying silently with a blank expression.)
I almost wish there was an alternative men’s rights movement.
“Almost”? Why?
Either men face gender-based injustice that requires them to have their own movement, or they don’t. If they do, then you should absolutely be supportive of a MRM which isn’t about Hatin’ Them Bitches. If you don’t, then why would you care if there is an MRM?
I don’t understand the “almost”, unless you like things the way they are.
@LBT
I never said your rape was consensual. If you said yes while crying in the fetal position then he must have subjected you to duress. Which is rape, morally and legally. I never said or implied that any “yes”, procured through any means, makes sex consensual. Holding a gun to someone’s head (literally or metaphorically) and demanding they say yes is very obviously rape.
If you can’t reasonably say no, then it’s rape. So long as you could have reasonably said no, but said yes instead, then it isn’t rape.
If your partner is very obviously distressed (to the point where they’re crying) while your having sex when them then of course you should stop and ask what’s wrong. Only a rapist would not.
@Roberta:
If I had to guess, (and this is really just guessing), the 1-2% number for false accusations probably comes from cases where the victim later said that the charges were made up. Any higher numbers probably come from cases that are deemed “unfounded,” as in not enough evidence to prove (but also not disproven).
This seems to be the reality of the situation. Some women truly do make false accusations (very few). Some are hassled by police and by courts who go into the case not believing them about a traumatic event, and decide that its not worth the harassment and so claim that they just made it up. Others do stick through the process, but the courts don’t find the evidence in their favor. A good portion probably never bring it up through fear of horror stories from other victims. And another portion actually do carry through the whole case to a conviction.
So, when focusing on small accusations in rhetoric, we usually speak about just that first case (the one where the accusation is indeed false). The statistics for “false rape accusations” usually come from the first three (including failing to obtain a conviction). Focusing on the small number of false accusations makes the entire system more hostile to potential victims. That’s why feminists don’t generally focus on them; it fucks everything up for their main focus, the actual rape victims.
tl;dr: Focusing on false rape accusations contributes to a hostile system against victims that enhances the problem of rape.
I don’t know why I put that “almost” there. I absolutely DO wish there was an alternative MRM.
I still it’s possible to salvage what exists. Or at least channel that energy in more productive directions.
unfortunately i am not in the frame of mind to engage your provocation.
That’s our mags. When the questions get too tough, pretend to leave the thread or run for the fainting couch, then talk about how dreamy guys are for a while.
I’m sorry that you were abused, and no, it was NOT your fault that you were molested or assaulted, unless you implanted a mind-control device in the person who assaulted you and forced them to do those things.
But being a survivor, or adoring men-as-concept, doesn’t give you a hall pass. If you stay dumb stuff, people will point out that you are saying dumb stuff. If you say “well I really believe X” but your actions indicate that you believe Y, then somebody may actually notice that fact, and say so.
@kirby
No. If an accusation was classified as false simply because there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Then 60-70% of rape allegations would be classified as “unfounded.” That very clearly isn’t the case.
Unfounded doesn’t mean false allegation, btw. False allegations are not typically classed as unfounded. Unfounded means that someone reported something to the police that didn’t meet the legal definition of rape.
“I had 3 beers and he talked me into to sleeping with him.” Allegations of that sort. I have a cousin who is an assistant DA in a college town and he hears allegations of this kind all the time. That would be classed as unfounded.
MRAs feel compelled to speak about false allegations because many feminists either deny their existence or insist that they are so rare their not even worth thinking about. Using this line as a justification for arguing that it should be easier to find someone guilty of rape.
MRAs argue against eliminating the presumption of innocence for accused rapists and use the fact that false allegations exist as a justification for that position.
I sure hope your courtroom skills are better than this. “Your Honor, my client did not brutally murder his ex-wife by shooting her twice in the head and burying her in the woods … well, maybe he did. But still! Not guilty!”
Seriously, though, if you come here and claim you want to get along with people, and the second thing out of your mouth in every thread is snarls and anger, don’t start whining that people here don’t roll over and get all sweetness and light.
This hinges bigtime on what you consider “reasonable.” And quickly drifts into the scary, victim-blamey grounds of “well, I didn’t know he was going to hurt me, and maybe he wouldn’t have, maybe I could have said no…” which ought to be a moot point because anyone going through this logic clearly did not want to have sex, regardless of whether they could have “reasonably refused it or not.
I’d rather say–if you didn’t want to have sex, but someone had sex with you anyway, then it’s rape. I realize this raises the theoretical problem of people running around saying “YES I WANT SEX” while secretly not wanting it, but for some reason I can’t see that being too prevalent.
Roberta is the most boring troll I’ve ever seen.
I got into feminism because Wonder Woman. Seriously. I was making her costume for a convention and started reading her comics, which lead to me researching her cultural impact, which led to feminism. And they say comic books don’t teach us anything.
@Roberta, you are creating strawfeminists. But I think you knew that. Who are these “many” feminists who claim that false rape accusations do not exist?
I notice, as well, that you are carefully unaware of “many” MRAs who argue that most accusations of rape are false and malicious.
I’m interested in where your friend the ADA practices. “Unfounded” isn’t actually a legal definition; perhaps it’s the definition his or her office uses to classify different reports of crimes. Particularly as something that might not meet the legal definition of “rape” might meet the legal definition of other degrees of sexual assault. It’s also pretty common for prosecutors to determine that the report, itself, describes a crime, but that they do not have enough evidence to get a conviction.
RE: Roberta
“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?”
You asked. I answered. THAT was how the sex was “required.” YOU’RE the one who asked me to prove I’d been compelled. So there ya go. I was compelled. YOU’RE the one who put the burden of proof on me. Would you like to me to go into more detail, just to be sure? I mean, you seem really concerned for the guy, I just want to reassure you that he WAS, in fact, a rapist. I mean, I’d hate to be a false rape accuser or something contributing to the downfall of my fellow men…
@ Roberta:
Well, usually I would say “there’s always masculism,” but I’m not sure you’d fit in so well.
You know women can be rapists too, right? Of men or other women? The patriarchal notion that women are sweet, passive creatures without the strength or will to harm anyone, especially a man, is a myth that feminism is working to dispell. The same is true of the patriarchal notion that men cannot be victims, because real men always want to have sex and real men could not be overcome or manipulated by a girl.
I’ll add that even if feminism was the “grr women good man delicious breakfast” movement you seem to think it is, working to get the public to acknowledge that women can be rapists would be important in order to help female victims of female rapists.
@holly
Sure, and we can debate what and what is not a situation in which someone could reasonably say no. Voluntarily having sex when that you didn’t really want to have still isn’t rape, though.
That would be an absurd standard, at least legally. Whether or not someone “wanted” to have sex is a subjective question of someone’s internal feelings that’s lacking in any falsifiability (ability to be proven either true or false). You can’t hold someone criminally responsible for subjective, internal, and contradictory feelings of another person. Perfect knowledge of which he has no access to.
What does “wanted” even really mean? It’s not concretely defined. How can someone know whether or not their partner really wants to have sex.
See what a mess it would be?
Lastly, whether or not someone agreed to do something is a matter of objective fact and is reasonably falsifiable in court. It’s an empirical question. Someone either agreed to have sex or they didn’t. It was either rape or it wasn’t. If the question hinged on the subjective internal feelings of the victim it would create a whole mess of due process issues. Including allowing the defendant to argue it wasn’t rape because deep down the victim really wanted it. Even though she appeared to not consent on the surface.
Consent is a voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. How much you really wanted to do it way deep down inside is completely immaterial. So long as your agreement was voluntary, then you consented.
After three beers Roberta, I’d be too drunk to legally consent. Does this mean I should never go to a bar again? Or does this mean that maybe the person trying to get me into bed should get my phone number and ask for sex when I’m SOBER?
@LBT You said yes because he told you he would leave you if you didn’t?
Sorry, but that’s his right. He can leave you for any reason and you can leave him for any reason. That alone is not enough to unlawfully compel. He’s still a complete fucking scumbag, but he’s not legally a rapist.
I don’t know why people act like whether someone wanted to have sex is this grand unknowable mystery, that we must have some objective standard because “want” is just too fuzzy, too fuzzy… then have no problem understanding that a gift is when you want to give someone your money and theft is when you don’t. A guest is when you want someone in your home and trespassing is when you don’t.
There’s a lot of laws based on the fuzzy subjective emotions of the victim, when you get down to it, but rape is the only one where people play dumb and pretend they can’t possibly know someone doesn’t want to fuck them, they’re not mind-readers.
Actually I linked to Shakesville, which is a pretty Big Deal in the feminist blogsphere, so if these “many” feminists that you talk about were saying false rape accusations don’t happen, I’d assume that at least some of the many would congregate there. And they don’t.
Also, you pointed to one man who had his life ruined by a false accusation and I know one man who didn’t. I’d call that about even.
…
Actually you know what? I’m bored. I don’t feel like retreading the whole “but some rape accusations are false and we should therefor focus on them!” argument when every time it comes up someone with better Google-fu than me at the moment (though I could spend some time chasing cites from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-3 and come up with some good stuff. Also: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/faq-but-dont-all-these-dna-exonerations-mean-that-women-lie-about-being-raped/) dumps a bunch of links that say YES FALE RAPE ACCUSATIONS HAPPEN and YES FEMINISTS PAY ATTENTION TO THEM (like say, at Shakesville) but they don’t happen at a rate any higher than any other “major” (Index? Is that the term) crime so why in the sweet yellow hell does every conversation about rapes end up focused on how some rapes are false, and a man’s life might be RUINED I TELL YOU RUINED so let’s talk about that because it’s more relevant to my interests.
I’ve got rocks to study, not trolls to educate. (I’d have a better time educating the rocks, tbh).
You’re a complete fucking scumbag, telling people that you get to decide whether they were raped or not, and I think you’re not really as dense about the whole “how human beings work” thing as you pretend to be.
Yes, leaving someone for any reason is a right. Saying “I’ll leave you unless” in a way calculated to cause extreme emotional duress… no, actually not a right. Saying “I’ll leave you unless” and then having sex when someone’s crying–do you think this is what goddamn consensual sex looks like?
Roberta: From Boycott American Women. . [I]f you were allowed to beat your wife we wouldn’t be dealing with this crap.”
Seems pretty clearcut to me that being allowed to beat women is something they see as a good thing.
Or Paul Elam (often cited when someone is challenged to show a, “moderate” member of the MRM.
“There are women, and plenty of them, for which [sic] a solid ass kicking would be the least they deserve… The real question here is not whether these women deserve the business end of a right hook, they obviously do, and some of them deserve one hard enough to leave them in an unconscious, innocuous pile on the ground if it serves to protect the innocent from imminent harm. The real question is whether men deserve to be able to physically defend themselves from assault … from a woman.”
Men need to be able to “defend yourself”, and by implication in ways which aren’t legal forms of defense now. That’s an appeal to the idea of beating women for being “threatening” to the social order; which is the implicit content in the, “protect others from imminent harm”.
Combine that with his desire to “out” feminists, and threats to publish the specific details of where they live and work, couple to any discoverable routines, and his comment that had Thomas Ball not killed himself he would have been a “good soldier” and his “understanding” of the motives of Anders Brievik… to claim he’s not advocating violence is either delusional, or distortional.
I also frequently see feminists arguing that false accusations of rape and abuse do not exist, and thus we should do away with all due process and presumption of innocence business. At least for rape, anyway. Probably want to keep that stuff for crimes that women can potentially be accused of.
Bullshit. Citation needed. Facts, or it didn’t happen.
Congratulations, you can link to one study from one locality. Who knows what kind of methodology that study employed, either? Do you want me to link you to dozens of studies finding much higher rates of false reporting?
Yes. Actually rigorous studies, not magazine and newspaper opinion articles (because those are far from neutral, and can most certainly be impeached. No one is vetting the writers for agenda, and no guarantee about the accuracy of their claims can be made. Opinion pieces are chosen because they are interesting, not for any other reason)
In a lot of reading on the issue, the highest rate I’ve seen supported is about 8 percent. Given the pathetic rate of prosecution, and the low rate of conviction for rape; and the lack of lasting stigma to being charged (not the same as convicted), it’s not that large an issue.
If we accept the most prevalent numbers, rape is falsely accused about the same as any other crime.
So, what makes rape special? Why do you want to make it easier to get away with rape, by making this aspect of it the bigger deal than the actual rapes?
@pillow
Nowhere in the world is 3 beers enough to make someone incapable of legal consent (unless you are incredibly tiny and a tremendous lightweight). A popular misconception is that any amount of drinking means that someone can’t consent legally.
It varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but standard is almost always incapacitation by alcohol, not just impairment by alcohol. Incapacitation means that you are so drunk that you are unable to properly understand the who, what, where, why, and when of what’s happening. Nearly, or actually, passed out.
Having a few drinks and somewhat impaired judgement is never legally rape. So long as you are awake, alert, and consciously aware of what’s happening, then you can consent.
It’s not often that a troll reveal to be a complete monster can still be so goddamn boring.
Revealed to be, that is.
I’m still stuck on this quote:
Um… how frequently exactly? Once an hour? Every day perhaps? Maybe once a month? Then it should be easy for you to find a few examples (i.e. more than one) of feminists actually wanting to eliminate the legal system for rapists. Go ahead, we’ll wait. :P
Or, more likely, you’re just making a false accusation here. Because I don’t “frequently” see feminists arguing that false accusations don’t exist at all (I don’t think I’ve ever seen that, actually, but I guess it’s possible I read someone somewhere who said that once and forgot about it). And, I have absolutely NEVER seen feminists argue that we should eliminate due process and the presumption of innocence, but only for the case of rape!?!?
Feminists want rapists accused IN COURT with evidence, not thrown summarily in jail with no trial and no jury. I know feminists would like the accusations taken just a bit more seriously than police deciding “slut was probably asking for it, don’t investigate”- that’s because rape should actually be investigated like the crime it is!
I became a feminist after I found out that it’s not just me, and i’ts not just nerds.
Actually, that was the very first source of statistics regarding ‘false rape accusations’. And the number was 63%. But *Go on*.
“Many feminists”, hm? I always see it as “False accusations for rape are not more common than for other crimes”.
You are the best lawyer, for real, yo.
Then they do so without regards to the facts. The SPLC article pointed out a couple of the basics, though.
Roberta: I never said your rape was consensual. If you said yes while crying in the fetal position then he must have subjected you to duress. Which is rape, morally and legally. I never said or implied that any “yes”, procured through any means, makes sex consensual. Holding a gun to someone’s head (literally or metaphorically) and demanding they say yes is very obviously rape.
Yes, you did. You said any sex where “consent” was given wasn’t rape if the person who “consented” had the means to leave, these are your words.
If you can’t reasonably say no, then it’s rape. So long as you could have reasonably said no, but said yes instead, then it isn’t rape.
Your words say that what happened to LBT isn’t rape. What your words mean may be ugly, but you used them. Own them.
And the apologetics continue… what Roberta claims to have given (yes, you were raped), Roberta immediately taketh away: Sorry, but that’s his right. He can leave you for any reason and you can leave him for any reason. That alone is not enough to unlawfully compel. He’s still a complete fucking scumbag, but he’s not legally a rapist.
Roberta’s definition of rape is very narrow. Roberta definition of false accusation is very wide.
Roberta’s denial of a violent streak is also great, the big names are, “just being rhetorical”, the rank and file, are, “just the odd person, I wish we didn’t have them”.
That sort of enabling apologia is why the MRM is what it is… rape apologist and violent people; many of whom lament they are denied the right to be violent at whim.
And then she, working to cover their right to rape and abuse, wonders why people who like women don’t flock to her standard.
Mythago: Roberta has claimed to be a, “criminal trial lawyer” as well as being related to an ADA.
@holly
I don’t get to decide anything. The law does. Read my previous comment there, skippy.
We can’t make it illegal to give partner’s ultimatums about your relationship. If “have sex with me or I’m gone” is rape, then “buy me a new car or I’m gone” would be theft. “Clean out the garage or I’m gone” would be slavery. A relationship is an agreement between two people. One which either can terminate for any reason.
If “blow me or I’m leaving” is rape in your view, what about someone who honestly feels unsatisfied sexually? What if they communicate to their partner that they just aren’t sexually satisfied in the relationship? They don’t want to pressure their partner but they want to leave because their needs aren’t being met. Can they tell their partner this? Is it rape if they tell their partner and their partner agrees to have sex more often to save the relationship?
What’s the fundamental difference between these two scenarios. In a way we could delineate legally. Do you want it to be a felony to negotiate sex within a relationship? What if someone doesn’t explicitly say that they’ll leave if they don’t get more sex, but implies it through other ways? Even unintentionally?
It’s still awful what happened to her and her partner was a monstrous human being for continuing sex with her when she was in such obvious distress. But he still didn’t break any laws. Condemnation is easier than comprehension.
Shut up, Roberta. You’re boring and you’re a liar. It’s not a good combination.
@pecunium
The article I linked references several studies on the subject. Take a look at them if you don’t trust the motives of two feminist legal experts.
Need to Know and pillow, thank you for your stories. I’ll be thinking about them all day.
Roberta, you would sound more credible if you weren’t so quick to defend men regardless of situation and, like LBT, didn’t sound so much like a victim blamer.
Yeah, the abuser LBT referenced may have had the “right” to be an abusive ass, but that doesn’t change the fact that he used emotional threats to coerce sex out of the situation. That’s so textbook emotional abuse, I’m stunned there’s a question over her own “choosing” the situation.
Also, LBT, I’m so sorry. Emotional abuse wrapped around sexual is the very worst of the worst.
Holly: . Saying “I’ll leave you unless” and then having sex when someone’s crying–do you think this is what goddamn consensual sex looks like?
No, she doesn’t say that (quite). She says that’s not what “rape” looks like. It’s a subtle piece of sophistry, which lets her claim she’s only worrying about, “false” accusations.
Of course Roberta has so narrowly defined what is rape: active, persistent refusal, which is ignored… any word of assent she deems to be consent… and anything short of violence, or the actual threat of violence is a legitmate, “negotiating tactic.”
Rape, per Roberta, is almost impossible, on the ground, but she can make this lofty sounding claim that, “lack of consent is rape,” and still call LBT’s rape consensual sex, because she has very narrowly, as with Steersman and c*** defined the word as she means it.
They really ought to hang out with Humpty-Dumpty, because that’s the way they use words. It makes it almost impossible for reasonable people to discuss things with them.
Her way of using “consent” is pretty good for rapists though. If they don’t use threats of violence, or a weapon, or actually strike/choke/etc. their victims, she forgives them, and then accuses the person they raped of falsely accusing them.
That she will spend hours trying to make as wide, and broad, and inclusive, a definition as possible; even if it means most rapists get to keep raping people.
Really Roberta? So despite the fact that I am actually incapacited at three beers, I’m not because you say so? Despite the fact that at one beer I legally can’t drive because my blood alcohol is too high? So if I’m raped the trial can be all about how much I had to drink and that OBVIOUSLY no normal person would be so impaired..based on what?
Your an out and out rape apologist and you thoroughly disgust me. Also, I’m five foot two and 115 pounds. Quite a normal height and weight for women.