>
By now you have probably heard about the suicide of Tyler Clementi, a freshman at Rutgers who threw himself off the George Washington bridge after his roommate broadcast live video of him having sex with another man on the Internet. It’s a terribly sad story in itself, and because, as L.M. Fenton points out on Salon’s Broadsheet blog, the suicide rate among LGBT youths is such an “an enormous, devastating problem.” In the past month four other gay teens have also killed themselves, two of them only 13 years old.
None of these other deaths caught the attention of Pierce Harlan, a prominent Men’s Rights blogger. But today on his False Rape Society blog, Harlan decided to write about Clementi — apparently because the case gave him the perfect excuse to rail against … feminists.
Why? Because the male roommate who broadcast the streaming video, and his female accomplice, weren’t, er, white. And one of them isn’t a man. “Gay tormentors who drove young man to suicide don’t fit the stereotype, do they?” the headline asks.
It’s a perplexing headline for a perplexing article. Neither of the accused are gay; I will charitably assume Harlan called them “Gay tormenters” because their actions caused harm to a gay man, not because Harlan has somehow convinced himself that they are themselves gay. Or has he? After briefly lamenting the tragedy, Harlan gets to his real agenda:
In the three remaining paragraphs Harlan manages to work in three more references to “white heterosexual males,” and one to “white male jocks,” sexual orientation unspecified. Huh? Neither of the accused are “white heterosexual males,” per se, but they’re both heterosexual, and Dharun Ravi, the one who allegedly set up the camera, put the video feed on the internet, and told other people to come and watch, is definitely male. But no matter. Harlan moves on to his main point:
Because feminists only discuss crimes when the perps are white men? Have you ever heard of OJ? And, actually, the case is being discussed widely by feminists online, on, among other places, explicitly feminist blogs like Feministing and Shakesville, on Salon’s Broadsheet blog and the New York Times’ Motherlode blog, and in Reddit’s TwoXChromosomes subreddit, which is where I first heard about it. It’s also being discussed on numerous feminist-friendly LGBT blogs. Given that the victim in this case was male, wouldn’t it make sense that the case get some attention from MRAs? I haven’t seen it discussed on any Men’s Rights blogs other than Harlan’s. Apparently MRAs don’t care much about gay men, unless their deaths can be used to score a cheap political point.
>I'm sure you know a lot about scoring cheap points, since that's all you do instead of addressing serious MRA concerns, like the epidemic of false rape accusations. Keep this up and you're going to have a nice little page about you on Encyclopedia Dramatica, informing the world of, among other things, your need to have your little brother white knight for you in the comments section of your own troll blog.
>You just don't get it do you. It's not an "excuse" to attack feminists, it's an observation that feminists would be frothing at the mouth (more so than usual) if the pranksters were a couple of white male jocks. If you think that's not true, you're either not paying attention or just being disingenuous.
>Your post boils down to three points.1. Harlan's post made political points.So did the two feminist blogs you linked to. So does your own post. You appear to have a double standard here.2. Feminists are discussing it.You linked to two feminist blogs, a parenting blog which to a superficial glance at least, is not discernibly feminist, and a subreddit.How do you think this level of coverage compares with the wall-to-wall blogging that the Duke "rape" case received?3. Men's rights blogs are not covering the story.In addition to Harlan's here's another, though I should point out that Toysoldier does not self-identify as an MRA.That's as many men's rights blogs as you cited feminists.
>The feminist blogs/articles/discussions I linked to did make political points, but those points were related to gay teen suicides. Harlan simply hijacked the discussion to make a tenuous point about the supposed evils of feminism. If you think that MRAs are discussing this as much as feminists are, I suggest you go back to the blog you linked to and read the comments. All two of them. No, feminists haven't been discussing this as much as they discussed the Duke case, but then again no one is. And the Duke case was not discussed as much by feminists as the OJ case, in which the perp was black and one of the victims male.
>"Apparently MRAs don't care much about gay men, unless their deaths can be used to score a cheap political point." Not only that, but they are often blatantly homophobic. Making the brutality against a gay kid about how how hard the lives of hetero guys are is homophobic in and of itself. Hetero kids bully queer kids to death and this guy (Harlan) tries to turn it into a story about how hard it is to be hetero? Fuck him.
>"The feminist blogs/articles/discussions I linked to did make political points, but those points were related to gay teen suicides. Harlan simply hijacked the discussion to make a tenuous point about the supposed evils of feminism.""Hijack" is an emotive content-free term. Harlan's point seems very similar to yours."No, feminists haven't been discussing this as much as they discussed the Duke case, but then again no one is. And the Duke case was not discussed as much by feminists as the OJ case, in which the perp was black and one of the victims male."I seriously doubt that. I don't in any case see how one can compare the volume of coverage of events that took place over a decade ago can be meaningfully compared with that of more recent events, or what conclusions could be drawn from it, given how much the internet has grown in the intervening period.
>"Making the brutality against a gay kid about how how hard the lives of hetero guys are is homophobic in and of itself. Hetero kids bully queer kids to death and this guy (Harlan) tries to turn it into a story about how hard it is to be hetero? Fuck him."He did nothing of the sort. Harlan's point can be summed up in two sentences:Feminist typically stereotype white heterosexual males as the oppressors of everyone else. This is wrong and leads in some cases to injustice.Do you disagree with either proposition?
>Okay this is totally off topic but I want to make a rant that bothers me a lot."Feminist typically stereotype white heterosexual males as the oppressors of everyone else."This is undeniably true and ironically it's discriminatory within it's self.It's funny how a movement that's supposed to be against discrimination are blatantly offenders of discrimination themselves.Feminism looks for any excuse to throw cheap shots at men. As there are people from other ethnicities accusing white men being racist, feminists see this as a perfect opportunity for an excuse to simply attack males.There are undeniably white males out there who do discriminate blacks or other ethnicities. But to paint all or most or even a quarter of the population of white males in this category is ludicrous.The truth is that there are just as many people from other ethnicities out there who are racist/discriminatory against people who are different then their own ethnicity. This is not ingrained in a certain ethnicity. This is ingrained in some humans regardless of ethnicity.Feminists come running in with an attack saying crap like most people in high positions in America are white males blah blah blah. But what these idiots fail to realise is that the majority of the population are white, so of course there are likely going to be whites in these types of positions that a minority of the population can only get.You don't see feminists whining about most blacks or Asians being in high positions rather than white males in African and Asian countries. Why is that? The total irony is that the white male would have to be the most discriminated against in western societies 2010 as its politically incorrect to criticise any other group of people by ethnicity except the white male. The white male can be bashed any way people choose 24/7 365 days a year as it wont be offensive towards political correctness.
>@Anon:As long as you pick on white males, you are not a racist, sexist, a bigot, or prejudiced in anyway.The hypocrisy is revealed!
>Feminists don't "pick on" white males. They tell them to get over themselves. MRAs are the ones who throw around homophobic and misogynist slurs and half-joke about repealing the 19th amendment while they cry about how oppressed they are, fucking hypocrites.
>"Given that the victim in this case was male, wouldn't it make sense that the case get some attention from MRAs?"Are you saying that MRAs should have paid attention to this?Well, if that is what you meant, please frame it as a categorical imperative. Don't use weasel language!Otherwise, people might think you are a weasel.
>ah, fred, so much brilliance in so few words. @Daran, again, trying to make a case about heteros bulling queer kids to death about himself and how hard he thinks his life is as a hetero. Definitely homophobic. Both of the statements are false, but that is besides the point, because both of the statements are this hetero bitching about how hard he thinks it is to be a hetero as a response to heteros bulling a queer kid to death. His 'point' has nothing to do with the very real brutality inflicted on the victim and everything to do with wanting us to throw him a pity party, which is exactly what I was complaining about. It is like writing a post about starving people in the third world and having your main point be how you get uncomfortable after buffets when you eat too much. It is an ignorant and asshole move in general, even if his points would have been worthwhile to include in another discussion (which they aren't), within this discussion about the abuse of a queer person by heteros to the point of suicide it is not appropriate to whine about how hard he thinks it is to be a hetero.
>No, feminists haven't been discussing this as much as they discussed the Duke case, but then again no one is. And the Duke case was not discussed as much by feminists as the OJ case, in which the perp was black and one of the victims male. That's because when feminists discuss the OJ case its usually about "how men are able to get a free pass on violence against women". Not about the general sense of men committing violence or one's celebrity status being a free pass.And it doesn't help that feminists pretty much went cold silent after the charges were dropped and did their hardest to avoid calling Magnum out for what she did.
>"@Daran, again, trying to make a case about heteros bulling queer kids to death about himself and how hard he thinks his life is as a hetero. Definitely homophobic."Homophobia means "hatred or fear of homosexuals". This man's point expressed neither hatred nor fear of homosexuals. He simply made the point that the oppressors, who bullied the gay person to death were NOT white males, as feminism asserts, ergo ANYONE, including minority females is capable of oppressing another group of people.That is not homophobia, that is a statement of fact. If you are going to argue against another person's point of view, please use words as they are intended,so people with more than two brain cells to rub together can read your argument without laughing.Based on the criteria you are using when calling his article "homophobic",you could as easily call it "Chinese", or "angular", or any other descriptor or qualifier, because the word you are using to describe his article is in no way related to the contents of the aforementioned article.I could call your comment homophobic itself, or racist, or supportive of baby rapists. Hell, why not go for the brass ring and call it "terrorist"? As long as we're slinging false labels around that bear no relation to anything.