>
 |
| Women in groups: Always trouble. |
One of the strangest places in the burly world of Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers is The Spearhead’s Shieldmaidens forum. And no, I am not making that name up. It’s a forum, essentially, for women interested in being a sort of Women’s Auxiliary to a bunch of guys who are all about hating women.
Given that such a role – trying to help dudes who don’t much like you or your whole gender — is a bit of a tricky one, the forum moderator Hestia has written a long introductory post explaining just what new gals should and shouldn’t do to support their menfolk. It’s kind of a masterpiece of doublespeak. Let’s look at some of its highlights.
Hestia starts out by warning the ladies that these rough men sometimes talk in a rough manner:
As this is a male environment, us girls can expect styles of communication that we might not use ourselves or readily relate to. For the purpose of this post, I will call all of this “locker room talk”. … Topics and expressions women may find crude are likely to occur and generalizations about women (or white, western, whatever) used to adequately get a point across. These differences, while bothersome to some women, are not wrong in and of themselves and are not reason to shame men into expressing themselves differently. As women in the locker room, we are the ones who need to look the other [way] and make accommodations; not the men for whom this website is for.
In other words: the guys here may call you sluts and whores and worse, but really, that’s your fault for being here in the first place, so don’t complain.
Welcome aboard!
Hestia continues:
We must also respect this place as one of the few politically incorrect sanctuaries that men have in today’s misandrist world. … We should not be bullying men into saying, “yes, indeed not all women are like that!” to appease our own egos. … This is sacred male friendly ground and should be treated as such. … We are but guests on this website and must know our place and respect certain boundaries for the sake of the men here and for the work towards gender peace.
Hard to be more abject than this. So how have the menfolk responded?
It appears that not too many men actually read the Shieldmaidens forum, but among those who do, the reaction has been a little less than enthusiastic. Our friend GlobalMan, one of the more excitable Spearhead regulars, basically tells her (and all women) to fuck off entirely:
I have voiced my opinion many times women should be banned all together from here. They are contributing nothing and they are taking up a lot of time and energy of the stupid young men who do not realise that women are just attention whores who won’t actually do anything at the end of the day. ….You women pretty much fuck up everything you stick your nose into. And you never, ever tire of fucking things up for men under the delusion you have ‘something to contribute’. You don’t. Get over it. You pop out babies. That is your one and only ‘claim to fame’ and it used to be enough for a man to love a woman for her whole life and to provide for her and the kids. Now it is not. So you women need to ‘act like men’ and suck it up.Indeed. If women had any class at all you would leave of your own accord and let the men sort out what you refused to. The only posts from women here should be ‘Men, please tell us what to do’.
A fellow calling himself Diogenes offers his two cents:
That Hestia has to write this thread proves that indeed women who come to this board do exactly that which she complains against. They have such a cozy and male-coddled life that they are shocked when some men rightly express their scorn and foul language towards their attitudes and manipulative behaviour. Women BREED misogyny because all they do is constantly manipulate and get the attention and protection of men by trying to look sexy all the time. Every time a man turns his head towards a pretty lady, she knows she is being looked after and will be rescued by a man if ever her poor little ass does something stupid. They are CHILDREN at heart. One female college student mentioned to me how according to her “every girl” has gone on dates just to get free dinners. How much more proof do we need that women are NO GOOD WHORES?
I guess that’s some of the “locker room talk” Hestia was warning the ladies about.
Granted, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen the inside of a locker room, but I don’t remember much of the talk in the locker rooms I’ve been in revolving around the no-good whorishness of all women. I think that might be because most men are not in fact hateful assholes who think all women are NO GOOD WHORES.That’s just a theory though.
—
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.
>Nick,I'm in a city called Winnipeg this week and it seems like every forth billboard shows a roofer with the message "Tie One On". Why would the government spend all this money on a campaign to reduce the number of foolish men being injured and killed because they do not take basic preventive measures?One of the things I've found with online mra's is they almost 100% of the time have jobs that allow them to post on forums all day. Not a very high-risk employment. It's like hauling out the number of homeless men card, you don't give a dam about them you just want to use them to complain.One of the things that is pretty much universal in today's safety conscious modern western workplace is when people get hurt it is through risk-taking or just plain stupid behavior. Any guy who actually works at a job with any risk will tell you that in a heartbeat.
>Ion – it's certainly possible. In fact, under-reporting of domestic violence by men is a thing that happens. However, it would have to be a 90% non-reporting rate in order for the abuse rates to be equal between men and women. Here's a little challenge for you, since you present yourself as slightly more rational than the average MRA commenter. Go out, do a little research, and see if you can find a number that's a likely candidate for the rate of under-reporting by men experiencing domestic abuse. See if it's in the 90% range or not. Think you can do that? If not, be resigned to the fact that your half-assed speculation about under-reporting has no credibility, and mostly sounds like you being in denial about the nature of this society.
>And here's a pithy quote for Nicko, who's afraid of being laughed at–"First they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." –Mohandas Gandhi, aka the MahatmaAdult up. If your cause is worth fighting for, then mockery should be no deterrent. If Gandhi could handle it, AND go on to win independence for his country in a peaceful transfer of power, so can you.
>@AvicennaIf a submarine can't accommodate the needs of people, it's a problem with the submarine, not the people. The focus needs to be on making submarines fit human needs, not the other way around. By doing that, we allow more people to participate in such programs, and open the door to more advancements in the field.
>Yeah, I'm not seeing the issue with submarines. I do use hormonal birth control to suppress my period. No deleterious side effects yet. And if I do have my period, I use a cup that weighs 0.5 ounces. This is not an insurmountable obstacle by any means.
>Also, Ion, there is research in the field, about the specific question of under-reporting of domestic violence by men. So here's a little challenge for you: go out, do a little research, and come back with a number that you think is the most likely candidate for under-reporting by men who experience domestic violence. See if it's in the 90% range. You do understand why it's of interest to see whether it's in the 90% range, right?
>You might as well say that people can't serve on nuclear subs because they have to take shits, and that produces more waste. If the engineers for the submarine can figure out a way to handle daily shits by everyone on the sub, they can figure out a way to handle what is, when compared to a bowel movement, a negligible amount of extra waste. The actual volume of blood expelled is not very much at all. And it can easily be controlled by the Diva Cup. All she'd need is a little extra water to rinse it out. And birth control works just fine to suppress menstruation. If a woman wants to serve on a nuclear sub, and takes birth control to stop menstruation, then that should be her choice.
>Ion, I agree that battered men do not get as much sympathy as battered women, and that's wrong. Part of the reason is that men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. I am 5'2" and 125 lb. while my husband is 6'2" and 275 lb. I would never be able to overpower him in a million years. That makes other people skeptical when men are genuine victims of husband beating. I would recommend that a man being attacked by a woman to leave the house, call the police, and ask for a restraining order, since fighting back would likely end up with both partners being arrested. If women were equally strong as men physically, then the domestic violence arrests might be more like 50/50. That's just my guess, though. What are the statistics for gay and lesbian couples? That would give good insight into gender differences in partner violence. Those relationships would be more telling since the couples are more likely to be equals in physical strength. Now if a woman attacked a man with a weapon, that is a different crime called assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder, not battering. I agree with other posters, though, that if MRA's are concerned about the plight of battered men, then they should focus their energy into starting battered men's shelters rather than arguing with feminists. They don't need to argue with most of us since we already agree that partner violence is wrong, regardless of the genders of the perpetrators or victims.
>Well, it'd be kind of hard to find statistics if nothing gets reported in the first place. Still, I am going to do some reading on the subject but I won't post anything here because there would be no point. Even if I came up with studies and articles, people here would just be like "oh, that article isn't valid because blah blah, that one doesn't count because blah blah, that study is flawed, that author is wrong, etc etc"…
>Kendra: the above post was directed at sallystrange, not you.Part of the reason is that men tend to be bigger and stronger than women. I am 5'2" and 125 lb. while my husband is 6'2" and 275 lb. I would never be able to overpower him in a million years.Right, that's actually part of it. One article I've read states that "Many times a physically stronger male will tolerate the abuse rather than escalate the incident or cause more serious physical harm in response. Other male victims are reluctant to defend themselves against a female assailant because they are too shocked or embarrassed to admit they have been overpowered by a woman. Unfortunately, the abuser doesn't have to be bigger or stronger than the victim to inflict physical and psychological harm.A domestic violence call is also treated by police as a criminal case, and many men are reluctant to get the police involved or press formal charges against the assailant.BTW, I agree that if MRAs cared about this they should try to organize men's shelters and raise awareness of the issue in the eyes of society and the law.
>I have a story about domestic abuse that may be of interest.I had a boyfriend once who was jealous. I have never been jealous (look at porn! look at other women! or men! just be honest with me!) so at first I didn't really understand it. He started by asking me where I was and who (what men?) I was with. Then he would look thru my phone to see who had messaged/called me. And then ask me about any male names. After an argument, he once came to me place drunk and wouldn't leave till I let him in. He once punched a bathroom door and broke it, during an argument. Would he have eventually hit me? I don't know, I left because of work after about a year and a half. But in retrospect, it is amazing to me how much I let him control and proscribe my social activities. It started out small and later became huge.My current boyfriend had an ex like this: jealousy, phone-checking, controlling. She would become completely, unreasonably angry, and he would remove himself from the situation. She would then follow him down the street in her car, demanding he come back. He, to this day, has this avoidance tactic when I'm upset with him. Once she stabbed him (with her keys) and the police had to be called. HE STAYED WITH HER for several months after that. Because he was in love. I remembering how I felt about my ex, I can relate.My Point: Current BF can (and will) punch walls in anger. His apartment used to have several holes from his days with his ex. But he never, ever, laid a hand on her. Because no matter how much damage she could have inflicted on him, he could have done much, much worse to her, even in self-defense.What would I recommend? Mandatory anger management/conflict resolution classes for every teenager. It wouldn't solve the problem, but I think it would help a lot.
>Yep CB, he learned nothing. He did not even read my posts.All that effort…not wasted because someone else might have read it and learned something. 🙂
>Well, it'd be kind of hard to find statistics if nothing gets reported in the first place. Yes, it's "kind of hard." "Kind of hard" =/= impossible. They do it for rape statistics. It would be interesting to see what crossover there is in the methodologies that are used for both.
>Shorter Nick: I can't be bothered to actually learn about the things I whine about…that would take precious time away from whining.
>Why the fuck can't Peter Nolan go away? I had no idea who he was until he popped up on my blog long enough to tell the man who'd sexually assaulted me and was trolling my blog to seek recourse under "common law." Which was terrifying, and also stupid, since our law is based on English common law anyway and I haven't the faintest idea to what else he'd refer to. He does consider himself a Sovereign, as has already been mentioned. Also terrifying. I wish he would stop harassing survivors, and I also wish he'd disappear off the face of the Internet. We've got enough creepy, thanks.
>Sometimes I feel like I'm not angry or upset enough to participate in these conversations.
>"You are 10 times as likely to be abused as a woman than as a man."CRAP!"In male abuse, the majority of the attacks are in self defence. AKA the woman loses it and fights back. There are few genuine cases of male abuse."OMG the anti-male bigotry is rife. No wonder why you don't see men protesting to help male DV victims because it's a battle that will never be won when there are too many narrow minded people like Avicenna. Why get your self publicly ridiculed when there is a 99.9 percent chance that you will never win the battle anyway. The oppression against men is so damn obvious but of course feminists will deny it to the end.All in all, with every male problem, I find it completely misandristic when feminists and others tell men they should publicly humiliate themselves to get a right that should simply be given without this nonsense.As the old saying goes; "what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander"So for DV and men's health for example, if women (the goose) are getting benefits that men are not, it's such simple bloody logic to give the same to men (the ganders) as men are equal human beings to women.As I was saying yesterday, if this is a male privileged society after all, such help for men would already be in place without anyone having to make heavy demands for it. So much for that "male privilege" theory hehFor starters, I don't believe women are discriminated against when it comes to the wage gap thing. Anyway, let's say that women do get paid less for doing the same job, same hours, with same experience, same qualification, same everything etc etc etc.Would it be sexist if employers were holding a pay check that is the correct pay for women while telling women that they have to publicly jump up and down, shout, and protest for it if they want it or else they get the lower unfair pay while men already get their fair pay? Is this the fault of women or is it the fault of sexism? Yes or no? This would be extremely sexist, right? So of course it's the fault of sexism. So why isn't it sexist when women already have certain things they need but when men don't have these things, they are told to publicly jump up and down, shout, and protest for it?This is the whole point, any feminist who tells men that they have to do all of this to get something that women already have are raven sexist bigots.What's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander. If women already have something, there shouldn't be any nonsense or such obstacles for men to get the same.Stop calling this a male privileged society because its miles and miles and miles away from being anything close to that.The real truth is that we live in a anti-male sexist society and the funny part is that feminists (who are supposed to be against sexism)help keep the anti-male sexism prevailing as they endlessly tell us that we have to go through all this nonsense to get what women already have.When accusing MRAs of sexism, take a good look in the mirror.
>Um Nick-how do you think the funding came about for the women's shelters?
>So for DV and men's health for example, if women (the goose) are getting benefits that men are not, it's such simple bloody logic to give the same to men (the ganders) as men are equal human beings to women.Look, it's ridiculous to decide to build a men's shelter for the sole reason that women have shelters, too. Shelters for men should be built because there is a need for them, and no other reason. Otherwise, they're nothing more than the Bridge to Nowhere – a pointless waste of resources that could have been better spent somewhere else. Currently, society as a whole does not believe there is a need for men's shelters, and so they are not built. All in all, with every male problem, I find it completely misandristic when feminists and others tell men they should publicly humiliate themselves to get a right that should simply be given without this nonsense.What, like the right to vote? Why don't you look into how many people 'publicly humiliated' themselves for the right to vote, women and minorities both. They knew what they were getting into, they knew that in a perfect world, they would just be handed the right to vote – but this isn't a perfect world, and sometimes people have to suffer humiliation, injury, violence, harassment and even death in pursuit of justice. If you're scared off because of a little humiliation, then you don't honestly believe in your cause and just want to use it to try and make fun of feminists and put down people who actually *are* trying to solve the world's problems and bring it closer to that perfect place. No one is saying that you *deserve* the obstacles that will be in your way for building a men's shelter or setting up a domestic abuse program for men. You're trying to do something good, to help other people, and no one should be ridiculed for that. All we're telling you is the lay of the land.
>ElizabethI am well aware, but when women ALREADY HAVE SOMETHING that men haven't got yet, why should men have to fight for it? If both genders didn't have a certain something, that's when it would be justifiable to tell people that they have to fight for it.This is the thing, feminists such as your self are being hypocrites.Read very carefully to what I am about to say.Women having to fight for rights that men already have is "sexism" as women should have had these rights to begin with or if they wanted these things, there shouldn’t have been a fight to get it.You agree with that don't you? What created sexism for women in the past was…1. They didn't have the rights that men already had to begin with.2. They had to fight for the rights that men already had instead of it simply being handed to them as they are equal human beings to men so they deserve it.So if it's "misogyny" if men already have rights that women don't have and women have to fight for these rights instead of these rights being handed to them because "what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander", why isn't it misandry when feminists tell us that we have to fight for rights that women already have?It's time to stop being sexist shameless hypocrites. What do you think?
>We're not saying that's the way it should be, Nick. We're just telling you that that's the way the world works. If you want justice, sometimes you have to fight for it. Social change is hard work. You have a choice: you can get to the hard and thankless work of changing the world, or you can spend all of your time complaining about it on the internet.I think I know what your choice will be. But go ahead–prove me wrong.
>Also, Nick, I think most of us here disagree with you that men are as oppressed as you make them out to be. Even if men are oppressed, women are not generally the ones doing the oppressing.
>Also, it's not like shelters are some great luxury for women that men are cut out of just out of female pique. It's not like shelters are a total extravagance doled out to unworthy women. They're not resorts or vacations. Women who are in abusive relationships go to shelters because otherwise, they will be beaten and may be killed by a vengeful ex-partner. Women go to shelters because they have nowhere else to go. Men aren't excluded from these places because women secretly hate men; they're excluded from these places because the women who use shelters have been so badly abused that they may not feel comfortable around men (and should men's shelters decide to exclude women for this reason, I won't say they're wrong). You might think it's sexist to exclude men from the shelters, but the shelters aren't put there to make men feel better – they're put there to serve and protect abused women, and in this case, their needs come first. And why do women end up in shelters? Because they were abused, likely by a man (I'll grant that lesbian abusive relationships are possible, but since lesbians only comprise a small percentage of the population, abusive lesbian relationships would be even less common). A man who thought that it was perfectly okay for him to insult, degrade, threaten and abuse a woman – and then blame her for 'making' him do it. Do you want to know why you can't find the addresses of women's shelters through Google or Yellow Pages? Because the risk is too high that this abusive man will track her down and kill her (and possibly her children) for the crime of leaving him. THAT is sexism. Being told "We agree this is a problem, but we don't have time to fix it for you?" That isn't sexism, that's just pragmatism. You only think it's sexism because the people who run women's shelters aren't immediately willing to drop what they're doing and do what you think they should be doing instead. I bet you think it's sexist when you demand your girlfriend make you dinner and she says you'll have to wait till she's done reading her book.
>For what it's worth, I agree that the relative dearth of resources for men who have been abused is an example of sexism–sexism rooted in the belief that men are naturally the more aggressive sex and that women are weak and helpless. That's a traditional belief–a patriarchal belief, if you will. This is what we are talking about when we say that patriarchy hurts everyone, men as well as women. It's also true that some women are complicit in maintaining patriarchal beliefs. Nevertheless, the fight for services for male victims of domestic violence is primarily a fight that should be fought by men. If we wish to gain the support of women, then, I think, we have our work cut out for us in convincing them that we are not acting in bad faith (i.e., helping abusing men who use claims of abuse to get access to their victims).I know that what I write will have zero impact on you, but I thank you for the opportunity to think about these issues nevertheless.
>Above comment addressed to Nick.