>
Anyone who’s seen Taxi Driver will remember Travis Bickle’s late night soliloquy on the “whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, [and] junkies” he saw every night driving his cab. “Someday,” he told himself, “a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets.”
Of course — SPOILER ALERT! — what he really meant by “a real rain” coming was that he, Travis Bickle, would lose his shit and start shooting people.
Bickle wasn’t the only one to mix his predictions with a heaping helping of threat. Those who predict the end of the world at the hand of gods or men or some vague terrible cataclysm are all too often rooting (secretly or openly) for the civilization-destroyers they are ostensibly warning against. We saw this the other day amongst those MGTOWers who are now talking giddily about how complete economic collapse will serve to put foolish women and their “mangina” pals in their proper place.
And we see it again and again in the Men’s Rights movement, when MRAs sternly warn their detractors that if people don’t start listening to them, and pronto, the men of the world will rise up and, well, kick the shit out of everyone who opposes them. This is a warning only in the sense that a mafioso telling someone that, if he doesn’t pay what he owes, his legs just might possibly get broken, is a warning; by all reasonable definitions, it is a threat. As opposed to the leg-breaking, the threats of these MRAS aren’t very specific threats, but they’re threats of violence nonetheless.
I ran across one recent example of this sort of “warning” in the comments to Paul Elam’s piece on misandry — or at least what he labels misandry — in the Good Men Project’s package on the Men’s Rights movement. (My own contribution to the debate is here.) Here’s “Factory,” responding to another commenter who pointed out that some of his wording in an earlier comment had been awfully violent:
Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?
In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.
And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.
Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.
We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.
And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.
And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.
Just like people like you are doing right now.
Notice the not-so-subtle, and rather thoroughly bungled, rhetorical sleight of hand here. Factory paints the violence as something he won’t indulge in (but won’t stop) — forgetting that in the very first sentence he admitted that he was himself violent. He refers to MRAs as little more than a “weather vane” for male emotion — but somehow later in the paragraph they are leading things. He claims that he will “feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done,” but this is only after stating in no uncertain terms that he thinks “society … flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.”
So, yeah, this is as much a “warning” as the hypothetical mafioso’s reference to broken legs.
Naturally, Elam himself stepped up to second Factory’s emotion, declaring that “[m]en, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent.”
On his own site, Elam has been much more frankly threatening. Recently, telling off one commenter who had the temerity to actually question the gospel according to Elam, he finished off a long rant about male anger with this:
I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.
Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go.
This kind of logic might best be called the Appeal to an Ass-kicking. The structure of this argument could be broken down as follows:
1) Source A says that p is true
2) If you don’t agree that p is true, Source A (or perhaps some other dudes) will do you bodily harm.
3) Therefore, you’d better fucking agree that p is true.
This is probably the oldest and crudest form of logic there is, and one that is popular amongst many animals as well. (My cat is a master of it, at least when p = “you will give me treats now.”)
Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project:
You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.
I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.
MRAs sure are misandrist.
I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.
Me too.
—
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.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins.Also, gotta dig how the Middle East is about Men's Rights. Keep thinking that, guys.
>Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men ProjectI enjoyed Elam's response to the above… here is a portion of that brief response:"And Annie, you might want to consult at least one history book. Men, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent."First, he has to address her by a name other than the name that she has chosen (wow, what a needling he's giving her!).Then he comes up with a very good reason why we really should question why the majority of positions of authority are given to men … if they don't get their own way, they will resort to violence.And what, when women are disenfranchised and pushed to the edge we should just roll over and take it as the "natural order of things"? Oh, that's right, women have NEVER been disenfranchised, marginalized and pushed to the edge, we just got caught in the grips of some kind of mass hysteria that made us believe that we haven't always been hyperprivileged.
>Oh my fucking science, you are really grasping at straws now. While your general description of argumentum ad bacculum is correct, "p" is supposed to be some kind of assertion like "the sun is bigger than the moon".This is argumentum ad bacculum:1) Biff says that the sun is bigger than the moon.2) If you don't agree that the sun is bigger than the moon, Biff will kick your ass.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking agree that the sun is bigger than the moon.This, however, is NOT argumentum ad bacculum:1) MRAs want you to stop treating men as second-class citizens.2) If you don't stop, a bunch of MRAs will make you stop through the use of violent force.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop treating men as second-class citizens.Notice that the "p" is not an assertion at all; it's a demand. Really, I shouldn't even have to explain this to someone who graduated from college. You should go back to your alma mater and demand a refund. Unless, of course, you already knew this and were being deliberately dishonest, which wouldn't surprise me at all.
>Note the pervasive sense of victimization, the scapegoating of a particular (historically oppressed) group, and the belief in the regenerative powers of violence. Sorry for the Godwin, but they would resemble brownshirts if they, you know, actually did anything. Inb4 some clever person types "Oh yeah? Well, that's what feminists do!"
>Inb4 X has no bearing on the truth of X.
>Oh, that's right, women have NEVER been disenfranchised, marginalized and pushed to the edge, we just got caught in the grips of some kind of mass hysteria that made us believe that we haven't always been hyperprivileged. Pam, I think that's a fair summation, non-ironically, of what they believe.
>Evidence has a bearing on the truth of X, and evidence is what I've never seen satisfactorily presented to back up outrageous claims like "men are treated like second class citizens."
>BTW, since most people here are Americans, what makes the brownshirts different from the Continental Army and the supporting militias? Is it their methods or is it the ends they sought(independence from the UK vs. punishing Jews for imagined malfeasance)?
>Inb4 is not evidence. It can be accompanied by evidence, but you provided none and appeal to ignorance does not qualify as evidence.
>Did you just try to conflate the founding fathers (who were indeed rebelling against people who would not listen to them) with people who were slaughtering others for their religious beliefs?
>No, what I did was ask a question for the sake of clarification, but I can see how to your feeble mind it looked like I was trying to conflate the two.
>Why on earth would you even think of such a thing if you were not trying to get us to view one as the other?
>I believe that the brownshirts imagined themselves to be liberators of their Fatherland. This does not, however, make them any less the pawns of fascism.FWIW, I believe aims and methods both matter–and so does context. It's a complicated business comparing American Revolutionaries with Brown Shirts. For one thing, the Brown Shirts, like the MRAs of today, had access to democratic institutions–and indeed they used thuggish methods to attain power through nominally democratic means. The MRAs of today haven't been able to gain much through the democratic process, so some are advocating the use of violence in preference to democracy. Sorry, but that sets off some alarm bells for me…or it would, if I thought that many of you would act on it.As for the Continental Army and militias, I'm not inclined to defend their methods or their commitment to democracy, as both were highly questionable, in my understanding.
>Inb4 is an internet meme used to signify: I have anticipated your response, so don't imagine that it's the least bit original or clever. It proves nothing, of course, nor was it intended to prove anything. It's intent is to deflect wise guys who think they're pulling a big "gotcha!" when in fact they're being boring and predictable.
>Cold, you do know that the appeal to force doesn't make a demand much more legitimate than an assertion, right? Take this historical example, for instance:1) KKKers demand non-whites to stop voting, swimming in our swimming pools, and generally acting like they're our equals.2) If you don't stop, a bunch of sheetheads will make you stop through the use of violent force.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop acting as if you're equal to whites.As you know, this sort of thing didn't really work out too well for the cross-burners. What makes you think you MRAs will do better?
>Hmmm, I think some movement needs to re-watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone. There is some moral which can be applied here to everyone's edification . . .
>I love Travis Bickle. Very complex character. Is he a former Marine suffering from PTSD? Is the last scene a dream sequence as he lay dying? He is a nobody that wants to be somebody. And there are a lot of nobodies in this world.
>Dear Factory and other MRAs like him,We do not negotiate with terrorists.Love,FeminismP.S. Cut it out with the passive-aggressive crap, you're not fooling anyone.
>"1) MRAs want you to stop treating men as second-class citizens.2) If you don't stop, a bunch of MRAs will make you stop through the use of violent force.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop treating men as second-class citizens."Second-class citizens implies that some are first class citizens. If the men are second class, the women are first class, no? So why is it that men earn more, are less likely to be raped, etc?That's the thing, MRAs. You're imagining a problem that isn't there. Yes, some men are subject to rape and violence, and yes there have been cases of discrimination. But to pretend that men as an entire group are somehow oppressed is just ludicrous and beneath contempt.
>A threat is still a threat, no matter how justified you feel in making it. I am curious, exactly how would this violence be implemented? Would you start shooting up aerobics classes or college classes? Would you shoot doctors who primarily treat women? Would you firebomb women's clinics? Would you shoot female politicians? Would you just load up a truck full of explosives and detonate it outside government buildings? Or would it be more personal – just beating up or raping the women closest to you or her children? Or targeting women like sex workers for violence and murder? Considering that all of this has already happened, and that women and feminists aren't yet cowed (and in fact, are even more angry), I'd have to say your strategy sucks.
>@ Captain Bathrobe,That truly is my impression of what they believe to be true.
>@Pam,Yeah, it reads like hyperbole, but it's actually no exaggeration, as many here have said exactly that, almost verbatim.
>Lady Victoria von Syrus, you just broke the Golden Rule again, as well as your own advice on how to be liked and how to be a "good person", by making baseless strawman arguments against MRAs. I KNOW you wouldn't want MRAs doing the same to you. I'm not even going to address those strawmen, I'm just going to tell you that they are a big part of why we don't like you. Moving on…
>Obvious troll is obvious. Don't feed the trolls people. Their minds aren't complex enough to listen to any sort of reasoning. They're a waste of your time.
>Some of you seem to be in the dark about the fundamental basis for law and government, so I'm going to generously give you a crash course in it. Consider the following argument:1) We want you to do X.2) If you don't do X, we will do violent action Y against you.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking do X.You can make up your own mind about how "legitimate" this argument is, but if you are intellectually honest then you must regard it as being equally legitimate no matter what gets plugged in for X and Y.Now, consider the following permutation of the above:1) We want you to not steal from others.2) If you steal from others, we will throw you into a dungeon where you will languish for a set period of time. If you are a man, you may be raped and possible contract HIV and die, and this will happen while prison guards turn their backs and smirk.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking not steal from others.As far as I know every country's government makes this argument and we all take it for granted. Note that the concusion is "you'd better fucking not steal from others", not "you'd better fucking agree with us that stealing is wrong. The latter would be a logical fallacy, but the former is simply a demand backed by force. ALL governments operate like this, although the manner in which they are organized and the number of people who get a say in how the force is used varies greatly.Furthermore, all laws that you feminists like are backed by this same argument. You cannot defend the legitimacy of those laws while simultaneously condemning the MRAs for demanding changes under threat of possible violence down the road without being a complete hypocrite.Inb4 any inane arguments about how democracy makes the argument more legitimate, if you are an American then your very democratic system of government derives itself from the following argument made by the founding fathers to the UK:1) We want you to fuck off and let us institute our own system of government.2) If you don't fuck off and let us institute our own system of government, then the Continental Army and supporting militia will fucking slaughter you.3) Therefore, you'd better fucking let us institute our own system of government.If you are not an American, well, the story of how your own country's democratic system came about probably isn't that different.