>
 |
| Don’t ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead |
These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I’m sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there’s one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.
Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that “a site called mamboobz.com” won’t quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men’s rights movement look bad.
Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren’t all MRAs and I don’t identify them as such. That’s not the point. The point is this:
The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to “a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry.” Another added, “I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt.”
After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:
You sir are a traiter to your gender. .. You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?Expect the same from me. Count on it.
Again, SingleDad isn’t talking about me. He’s talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.
Naturally, all of Eoghan’s posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad’s threat, have gotten multiple upvotes.
I’m not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal “debate.” Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:
Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.
Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
– being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
– is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.
What goes around comes around?
Poester99, I’m not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.
Here’s what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.
Here’s what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.
I’m having a really hard time seeing how I’m the bigger asshole in this scenario.
Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some “interested third party with deep pockets” wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won’t interfere with what I write in any way, I’d like to suggest that they contact me, like, right now.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
.
>@Elizabeth:"What kind of activism are you referring to specifically John?"I emphasize again that I am specifically asking for advocacy to achieve at least one or more of the following:a. Safe house shelters for male DV victims (not just hotel vouchers); and active outreach by such shelters to male victims (regardless of the gender of the male victim, i.e. straight males allowed)b. Challenge VAWA to permit STOP grants even when the grant beneficiary's purpose is not to benefit women "primarily."c. Challenge primary aggressor statutes that exempt one perpetrator of a mutually violent couple while arresting the other.You can do this in one or more of the following ways:1. Online advocacyI.e. making a conscious effort to speak out for the above goals in blogs, forums, comments sections of major media news Web sites.2. Gathering resourcesGather information about resources that both male and victims of partner violence can utilize, such as which DV service providers provide which services and to which sex (including those that make no sexual distinction in the provision of such services). Donate to groups that are promoting an evidence-based and non-ideological approach to measuring DV and treating DV offenders (including forming viable alternatives to the Duluth Model). Also, raise or donate money or merchandise to organizations that pursue this goal in research and academia, such as the California Alliance for Families and Children, the Family Violence Treatment and Education Association or the International Family Aggression Society.3. Support lobbying efforts in the legislature on behalf of both male and female victimsGroups that employ lobbyists and/or attorneys, and are advocating in legislatures and/or the courts to make domestic violence laws gender neutral, should be supported financially and/or with in-person citizen lobbying in the halls of the legislature. These include Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, Fathers & Families, and the National Coalition For Men (not that despite the words "men" and "fathers" in two of the aforementioned groups, such groups are not advocating for male exclusivity in policy).—————————-Of course, there are other avenues of activism to dismantle policies that privilege one sex while obligating the other, for example advocating for more balanced levels of health research funding for both sexes, promoting a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 child custody in divorce, speaking out against the legitimacy of both male and female genital mutilation, and others.
>John, you're asking for her to join you on your terms. What if feminists simply disagree with you on, for example, primary aggressor laws? They do not simply mean "arrest the man." A significant percentage of women are arrested under them as well. Primary aggressor laws may not be perfect, but it makes more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator. I would also find it difficult to work with you on these or any issues because of your support for patriarchy. (I would also have trouble working with feminists who believe in matriarchy.)
>I literally can do one of those things and that is something I already do here at work (the information sharing…although I could do more.)Everything else I am ethically and legally constrained from doing.
>And the state of Arizona already has laws that protect men's rights when it comes to equal access to courts for protective orders.
>@David Futrelle:"[Primary aggressor laws] make more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator."If two parties are mutually violent, then there are two victims. Hence it's unjust to give one a pass. What is the other one supposed to do, just lie there and take it? Aren't offenders supposed to be prosecuted? If not, then what checks are there against their violence if even the state won't arrest them, and this is statutorially enshrined in law?"John, you're asking for her to join you on your terms."My terms are the abandonment of sexual privilege in law, namely equality, and this was the term that she invoked earlier.
>I assume that you're in Arizona. The state of Arizona goes so far as to prohibit couples counseling when one or both members of a couple are ordered to attend a program for DV offenders. It therefore encourages family and relationship breakup rather than preserving intact families. This yanks the rug of support (namely private family support) out from under many couples' feet and leaves them isolated and broken. Such policies must be challenged.
>You're reading me selectively here; you highlighted the word "victim" yet you ignored the qualifying statement before it. Yes, in some cases both partners are equally violent. In some cases one of the partners is violent only in the sense that they were defending themselves. Police officers can and do arrest both partners if it appears the abuse was mutual, even with "primary aggressor" laws in place.
>@Elizabeth:"I literally can do one of those things and that is something I already do here at work (the information sharing…although I could do more.)"If there was any guide to DV services that specifically asks the service providers how they serve male victims (not just "whether" they do, but rather "how," since they could simply say that they offer "services" to male perpetrators and thus they're somehow helping males "equally"). The key term is male victims. I don't think that such service providers are even asked specifically to detail "how" they help male victims; at best it's just a matter of "whether."
>David, in my state, California (which has a primary aggressor law in place, and in fact actually has a more gender-discriminatory form known as the "dominant aggressor" law), 80% of arrestees for DV are males. This despite the fact that over 30 years of research shows that women attack their male partners with equal or higher frequency as men attack their female partners. If you attack someone (not just defend or evade, but attack) — especially if you initiate the attack — then you should be challenged on that regardless of whether the victim is capable of retaliating with an even more potent attack.
>@David Futrelle:"You're reading me selectively here; you highlighted the word 'victim' yet you ignored the qualifying statement before it."And here's the statement, along with my highlight:"[Primary aggressor laws] make more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator."Why call one perpetrator a "victim" if both were perpetrating? If there is indeed no sexual discrimination, then there is no need for the primary aggressor law itself! Such a law by its nature is unequal and unjust because it permits the officer to leave one perpetrator even if that perpetrator started a conflict, and even if that perpetrator caused identical injuries to those sustained by the other partner. The law simply is unjust. It flies in the face of equality.
>@David Futrelle:"I would also find it difficult to work with you on these or any issues because of your support for patriarchy. (I would also have trouble working with feminists who believe in matriarchy.)"I support the right of people to voluntarily live under whatever authority relationships that they select. It is no business of the government to intervene. Also, my advocacy for people to exercise autonomy over their lives is being used by you as the justification to maintain injustice and inequality, and ironically all under the pretext that this is somehow fighting against injustice and inequality.Just state it plainly, David. You wouldn't help a male victim of any of these policies because doing so is an option that is precluded by your loyalty to feminist ideology. I mean, seriously, you would oppose advocating for male victims to have improved access to safehouses merely because my political and cultural values somehow taint the whole effort? What did you think, that I would institute patriarchy indoctrination curricula within the safe house as a matter of policy? Why can't you simply help male victims and put aside your political differences in the formation of alliances?
>John, are you expecting a judge to sentence a victim of a criminal offense to a counseling program?Because that is what you suggest. Yes, I support expanding both public awareness of males being the victim of domestic violence, to both prevent it and help those currently in such situations leave those circumstances. But I will not, nor shall I ever countenance any requirement of a victim of a crime to do a program such as you mention.
>John: Just state it plainly, David. You wouldn't help a male victim of any of these policies because doing so is an option that is precluded by your loyalty to feminist ideology. Well, no, I won't state that because it's not true.Let me expand what I said before: I would find it hard to work with you because: I disagree with your ultimate goals/vision of a just society (patriarchy). I disagree with you in general about Men's Rights, feminism, and who knows what else. I disagree with you that misandry is a bigger problem than misogyny. I disagree with your choice of allies. I disagree with you on your analysis of what is wrong with DV laws. And I disagree with you because you say things like what I quoted above. This is a partial list. There are lots of important issues out there to work on. As an intermittent activist, I've done work on issues that help mostly men (police brutality and torture), help mostly women (abortion rights), help both equally. (Not that police brutality doesn't affect women or abortion rights don't affect men.) In politics you can't always be picky about allies, but even aside from our various disagreements on the issues, I would find it hard to work with someone who routinely misrepresents what I believe, as you've done above.
>@Elizabeth:"John, are you expecting a judge to sentence a victim of a criminal offense to a counseling program?"Male victims who are reframed as perpetrators have to endure exactly that scenario, especially as a result of primary aggressor laws. I hope that your understanding of the term "criminal offense" extends beyond the realm of violations of the law, and hopefully includes moral crimes such as partner violence perpetration that enjoys legal impunity.What I actually SAID earlier was that if a perpetrator is mandated by law or by a judge to attend a program for DV offenders, then he should not be penalized if he and his wife or cohabiting female partner want to mutually participate in couples counseling. Under Arizona law, this is prohibited under the pretext that a DV offender would somehow manipulate or otherwise dominate the counseling session, and so effectively the existing statute coerces or at least influences couples toward breaking up rather than strengthening and healing their relationship. That statutory hostility to intact families is what must be challenged in my opinion.
>@David Futrelle:"I would find it hard to work with someone who routinely misrepresents what I believe…"Welcome to my world.
>John Dias: David, in my state, California (which has a primary aggressor law in place, and in fact actually has a more gender-discriminatory form known as the "dominant aggressor" law), 80% of arrestees for DV are males. This despite the fact that over 30 years of research shows that women attack their male partners with equal or higher frequency as men attack their female partners. If you attack someone (not just defend or evade, but attack) — especially if you initiate the attack — then you should be challenged on that regardless of whether the victim is capable of retaliating with an even more potent attack. The point people are trying to make about the 'Dominant Aggressor' laws, and the point you keep glossing over, is that, for good reason, they aren't designed to take who was the first aggressor into consideration, and thus, 'who started it,' is irrelevant, only who is the 'dominant' aggressor. Which is how it should be, I think.Would taking gender out of it help? I'm female, but I can bench press more than many of my friends weigh. Suppose I were to get into an argument with one of these friends. During the course of the argument, she slaps me across the face, and I respond by punching her as hard as I can and maybe doing some serious damage, breaking her nose or something. The police show up. According to a 'Dominant' aggressor law, they would arrest me and only cite her. Is that wrong? If so, why? There's no excuse for disproportionate retribution. Against someone weaker than me I have absolutely zero justification to use my superior size and strength to deal them retributive damage far out of proportion to what I suffered. In fact, legally, there's no excuse for retribution at all. Self defense is just that, defense. It doesn't extend to include 'getting someone back' that's not legally excusable. And yes, I do believe that should go for both genders.I will agree wholeheartedly that this out not to be assumed, but ought to be ascertained by looking at the individual incident, that if personal gender biases are preventing police from judging fairly, we should work against that, and that if the woman is indeed the dominant (dominant, not first,) aggressor, then she ought to be arrested and not the man. That's fairness and common sense, but that's not what you're advocating.
>"Misogynist comments on the Spearhead are routinely upvoted, sometimes with dozens of upvotes. Comments challenging misogyny or defending women in even a mind way get downvoted and basically "disappeared." SingleDAd's first comment quoted above got more than two dozen upvotes; even his THREAT got many more upvotes than downvotes.These aren't the outliers on the Spearhead; they're from the fat middle of the bell curve. "In my only post on The Spearhead thus far, I posted a comment refuting their assertion that Feminism was the cause of men's problems in Japan. Not only was that comment not downvoted, it ended up getting greatly upvoted.http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/29/feminism-in-china/#comment-61434Of course, posters here can feel free to twist and characterize my comment as "misogynist" if they want to demonstrate a huge ignorance of Japanese culture and history. But I digress.I am not an MRA, and I only read the Spearhead and sometimes Roissy out of amusement. I find some articles to be interesting and some articles to be downright hilarious on the lunatic fringe. But one thing that I do like in my perusal of the comments there is that if you disagree with a viewpoint and challenge it with rational explanation, your arguments will be addressed reasonably thoughtfully, even if you are downvoted. That is a lot better than pretty much every feminist site that I have seen.And that also makes The Spearhead a whole lot better than this site, which seems to aspire to be the Iraqi Information Minister of Feminism.
>http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/29/feminism-in-china/#comment-61434@fujii systemThanks for pointing to this interesting thread on Spearhead. Living in Japan since over 35 years, I agree with your comment. Feminism is not a major problem for Japanese men and the legal situation is in no way against men like it is in some Western countries.I heard the first time about the existence of this website called Spearhead from David Futrelle. I think, it's a good interesting website, with a lot of discussion going on. If you like and agree to all of those topics and comments is another matter. For sure, what I have seen, Spearhead is not a 'crazy' website.http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/27/should-men-tame-their-rhetoric/Should Men Tame Their Rhetoric?Eoghan's comments mentioned in this thread of David are now also under discussion on spearhead.Sounds very fair to me.
>@cactuar-tamer:"The point people are trying to make about the 'Dominant Aggressor' laws, and the point you keep glossing over, is that, for good reason, they aren't designed to take who was the first aggressor into consideration, and thus, 'who started it,' is irrelevant, only who is the 'dominant' aggressor. Which is how it should be, I think."The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. According to the statute, the degree of force used — and indeed the existence of an injury on ONLY the physically stronger party — are considered by law to be irrelevant. The capacity to do harm is what is relevant.For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her — in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her — a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist.
>cactuar-tamer said… ….. During the course of the argument, she slaps me across the face, and I respond by punching her as hard as I can and maybe doing some serious damage, breaking her nose or something. The police show up. According to a 'Dominant' aggressor law, they would arrest me and only cite her. Is that wrong? If so, why? …..In fact, legally, there's no excuse for retribution at all. Self defense is just that, defense. It doesn't extend to include 'getting someone back' that's not legally excusable. Yes, I think that's wrong and I will tell you why.The borderline between retribution and self-defense is not that clear as you are explaining it.It is not easy to decide what is self defense and when an action to defend yourself is exceeding the limits of self-defense.This has to be investigated case by case.The risk to be injured while committing a crime because of self-defense of an attacked person is ALWAYS with the aggressor and NEVER with the victim.HOW the attacked person is defending himself/herself is up to the attacked person.If an aggressor is beating a victim up, there is no rule which says the victim is obliged only to act in a passive way, like to cover the face with his/her bare hands or to run away.You have the right to defend yourself in an active way, this means hitting back as long as this aggression continues.If the aggressor – who was beating you in the face – suffers a broken nose in return, that's the risk of the aggressor and should be considered to be legal self-defense, just my opinion.It's different however, if somebody spits into your face and you respond with a handgun firing a live bullet into the face of the aggressor in return. That's clearly exceeding the right of self-defense.If you cover your face with a mask and you enter a bank with a gun because you need urgently cash and you are fired on by security, that's another matter.
>John Dias says … If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. I cannot blame the cops either. It is difficult for some ordinary people, this includes policemen, to make a legally correct decision within a few minutes after being called in for help.Western feminist DV-laws in connection of self-defense are highly complicated and full of legal loopholes – even experienced judges need often many hours to find out what is wrong and what is right.In some Western countries a woman might – legally correct – even kill her SLEEPING husband by using a gun, tries to remove his body with her body-friends, is claiming abuse and self-defense and is walking out of the court-room as a free person proceeding with inheritage as a widow.If this is not biased justice, I don't know what this is…
>John, I think you would have to show how it is that a woman having a bruise is somehow worse then a man who has blood streaming from his temple.The officer is looking at who is the dominate aggressor and yes, that can certainly be the woman. In your little scenario "What happened?" "She hit me with this glass bottle and I hit her back to get her to stop."She gets booked. It is clear who is the primary aggressor.Oh and about the Arizona law that prohibits it? It is part of the sentence for a criminal defendant. And since there are problems with one partner using these sessions to harm the victim, why would anyone thing this is a great idea to even let them in?
>@ John Dias. Ok, I'm going to answer in two parts, first to the issue of whether the law says what you say it does…After reading through a list of such laws, I think your statement,The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. ,is factually incorrect. Let's just take my home state statute as an example. South Carolina law says:——————–If a law enforcement officer receives conflicting complaints of domestic or family violence from two or more household members involving an incident of domestic or family violence, the officer shall evaluate each complaint separately to determine who was the primary aggressor. If the officer determines that one person was the primary physical aggressor, the officer must not arrest the other person accused of having committed domestic or family violence. In determining whether a person is the primary aggressor, the officer must consider:*prior complaints of domestic or family violence;*the relative severity of the injuries inflicted on each person, taking into account injuries alleged which may not be easily visible at the time of the investigation;*the likelihood of future injury to each person;*whether one of the persons acted in self-defense; and*household member accounts regarding the history of domestic violence.———————–It is not at all clear from the law that the statute is about what the dominant aggressor 'IS' instead of what has been '[DONE]' by the parties involved. Now as to the following,For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her — in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her — a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.Again, not so. Neither this law or the other state statues "mandate" that the police *ignore* injuries to the male party. Nor do they have anything do to with the 'capacity.' The closest the statute comes to that is the third bullet point, concerning the likelihood of future injury. Not only is this just one out of five points that the officer is required to take into consideration, there is nothing that would keep an objective observer from determining the man was in more danger of future injury, should that be the case. The discrimination is not written into the law.
>This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!If you have a link to that study, I'd like to see it. Though, I'll accept it provisionally, because your description seems plausible enough. And if this is the case, then that is a real and serious problem. It is unfortunately the sort of problem that has nothing to do with the law and cannot be fixed by legislation, but I agree that something should be pro-actively done in the hearts-and-minds department to correct it. And perhaps correcting the erroneous percetpion/expectation of excess toughness in men will simultaneously correct the erroneous percetption/expectation of excess weakness in women, so everyone wins! I think this is a good point, but if you were making it before, it was hard to tell between all the mention about how women 'initiate' DV more frequently. If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist. Again, as the laws are written this seems to be an inaccurate description, of cause if not of consequence. I would find it plausible that this effect could be caused by individual bias in the humans executing the law, but I think it is incorrect (in the specific case of 'Dominant Aggressor' statutes, as I have read them) to say that the discrimination is written into the law.
>Yohan, I completely agree it ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is a pretty sticky issue. I'm willing to concede it's not quite as clear-cut or easy to determine as I made it out to be, but I also think the line is a great deal more clearly defined than you seem to think it is.I think there's a broad field before you get to your gun example that would also fall under disproportionate retribution.