>
 |
| 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.
>Also, Tit for Tat, how do you address my concerns about the protection and peace of mind for female clients; the possibility that women-only shelters might not even be adequately equipped to serve abused men; the idea that men concerned about male victims should start their own programs instead of complaining that women aren't doing it for them; and the possibility for infiltration and exposure of the shelter?
>T4T: I see where you're coming from about shelters, since I am also dubious that gender segregation is ever really necessary.However, people have made several points about why women's shelters might not allow men:-Women abused by men might not want to go to a shelter where men might be present-At a coed shelter, the abuser (male or female) could pose as an abuse victim to get in; this would be a much more rare problem at single-gender shelters-Male-only shelters could be able to serve men better in the same waysWhy do you not consider these to be important factors?
>Sometimes I feel like I'm not angry or upset enough to participate in these conversations.Oh, definitely. What's funny is that most feminists bristle at being called emotional. Kinda like when that pastor called Islam a 'violent religion', and in response various muslim groups rioted, set fire to things and made death threats. Because, you know, they were upset at being called violent.
>Ion, women don't like to be called "emotional" because it is a code for "What you said is not important, because: feelings." This is an implication I've never understood quite frankly. If someone is upset and/or passionate about an issue, then why is what they are saying dismissed as unimportant or wrong because they betrayed emotion while saying it?(This of course doesn't apply to arguments based solely on emotion, i.e. "I don't like it because it doesn't make me feel good." You need to state *why* you don't like it, and back that up with compelling reasons to make a change.)
>You missed the point — which was that abused women in our society are expected to leave their homes and seek shelter in a communal dormitory, because a woman's house is really her husband's, and she is there at his pleasure.I thought she was supposed to leave the house because she was in danger. Besides, doesn't the man usually get kicked out of the house and ordered to stay away (even when it is, in fact, his house) in DV cases?
>I was waiting for the insults to start, and sure enough you didnt disappoint. I am not saying that I think a man should be allowed to go to a women's shelter. I am pointing out the FACT that it is sexism to deny a man or woman entrance based solely on their sex.Sexismdiscrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex
>Why do you not consider these to be important factors?(Cboye)I do. I fully understand why it wouldnt be a good idea. That still doesnt hide the FACT that it is sexist.
>On the comment from nick about shelters for battered men, well it seems Canada has agreed to federally donate $5k a year to this worthy cause. Thats right $5k. So it seems men are worth about one millionth as much as women in DV. Sweet huhDon't blame me, I voted for Layton.
>For the life of me I cannot understand the issue mra's have with woman's shelters. I have never seen feminists complain about there being more beds for homeless men then there are women.
>Tit for TatThe men's shelter in Edmonton, it closed down because no one used it.You live in Canada, I live in Canada. I happen to know without a doubt that if you call the abuse hotline, wind up in the hospital etc (just like a woman), the government will pay for consoling and a hotel room. It's funny that mra's demand male shelters but are against government social spending. What you really want is woman's shelters to be closed. The reason behind that has been stated many times on mra sites, mra's believe that women lie about being abused. In their gut they feel that men should have the right to treat their women as they see fit.
>@Lady Victoria von Syrus…You say…"the idea that men concerned about male victims should start their own programs instead of complaining that women aren't doing it for them;"Well heres your answer, 1)Men helped women start those shelters you speak of, oh yes they did. 2)The State uses the taxes of men and women to pay for them, but you want MEN to pay for their own shelters with private funds. Just imagine if men were "given" the same agencies and the money spent by the State that is spent on women. You know like 10 federally funded womens health agencies, Affirmative Action, Title IX, X, ect, ect, ect. Why the tax rate would have to triple. So what you must want, becuase you certainly don't want to give all your money to the State, that would be kinda Marxist. You want men to pay with taxes for women but privately for themselves.Some one up there said men take those dangerous jobs by "choice." So lets look at the "qouta system". Lets look at say, a lineman. Well those jobs are dirty and dangerous, it's hard work at all hours. Say a particular company has ten thousand men working there and Big Daddy Guv say you must employ at least 25% women. Since they have all the linemen they need and the women won't do those icky, dirty jobs anyway. So they make up busy work jobs in human resources and other office jobs since Big Daddy will shut them down if they don't meet the "quota." You know, the jobs that are the "fast track" to higher pay. Since the company still needs to turn a profit they do two things, they garnish the wages of the men and transfer the rest the cost to the customer. Marxisim, working to make your life better.Hey, I saw a report the other day/night. Not really sure if it was day or night with my cushy privileged work lifestyle. Anyway, the report says the word "man" or anything pertaining to the word "man" in a good way will be stricken from the history books. In the "new" history books our "founding fathers" will be called "the founders." Manhood is a no-no, the word woman will be thrown about in all its glory. Much like the Mass media where if men die in a mine they're "miners" but if they do something "evil" then they're men. I wonder what our "founders" would say about this?
>KaveHello fellow Canuck. I dont think you realize that I am not an MRA nor am I a Feminist, for that matter. I am an equal rights kinda person. Because I disagree with some of the posters on here does not make me anti female or pro male. I know people like to make it that simple, it helps them sleep at night.
>"Why the tax rate would have to triple."And you worked 17 hours yesterday but still had time to post here. NWOslave you need some help with your basic math skills before you try tackling economics.
>Ion-no.Kave-I wonder why it was not being used, was there any kind of awareness campaign aimed at women and girls to learn that hitting males is just as wrong as a male hitting a female?
>Sigh
>I do. I fully understand why it wouldnt be a good idea. That still doesnt hide the FACT that it is sexist.See, that's why people here think you're an idiot, because that's an idiotic thing to say. Even *if* shelters for women are hopelessly sexist and discriminatory…. so fucking what??No, I'm really serious… so fucking what? Why is it so damn important for you to gain this one talking point? If they are sexist, they are sexist in the interest of SAVING LIVES.
>T4T sounds like an MRA caricature of a feminist, in that MRAs seem to think that feminists believe that men and women are EXACTLY THE SAME IN ALL RESPECTS and noting any actual differences between them cannot be anything but sexist. Look, T4T, the sexist thing here is that women are victims of domestic abuse more frequently than men are. Setting up shelters in response to that situation, setting up more women's shelters because more women need shelters? That's not sexist, anymore than having doctors who specialize in OB/GYN is sexist. This is why people think you are dumb. Personally I think you are just pretending to be dumb, because you think that repeatedly asking to have a relatively simple concept explained to you over and over again is going to prove some sort of obscure point. Which you of course prefer to dance coyly around rather than coming right out and stating what your point is. Frankly, that's much more offensive than mere stupidity. Although I could be wrong–you might actually be that dense.
>Ion's a fucking moron, part zillion: I thought she was supposed to leave the house because she was in danger. Besides, doesn't the man usually get kicked out of the house and ordered to stay away (even when it is, in fact, his house) in DV cases? Yeah, because women don't work these days, you dumb sack of shit. And how stupid do you have to be to get that a shelter is where one goes WHEN THE MAN IS IN POSSESSION OF THE GODDAMNED HOUSE. Christ, he's so stupid it's painful.
>I wanted to add here that there is an alternative system for placing abuse victims-which is a voucher system wherein the victim is given resources and placed in a hotel rather than in a communal shelter. Many areas that do not have shelters for men do have voucher programs primarily utilized by men and trans women. Sometimes they are used by cis lesbian and bi women with a female abuser, but fighting for vouchers for these women can be a damned hard battle. There are huge issues of queer erasure with the single sex shelter model (a female abuser of a girlfriend may be let in, but a trans woman victim may be excluded). A better model is to shelter the first person who leaves and not allow the other in the shelter-but instead provide vouchers to the second person. That solution prevents the abuser from following the victim but also nips in the bud issues of exclusion or mutual abuse cases. I am also curious as to what aspect of men's health is being underfunded by the government as compared to women's health. Let me remind you that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is not run by the NIH, folks. The NIH just gave a $2.2 million dollar grant to just one goup researching ways to improve detection of prostate cancers and removal of cancerous tissues without full prostate removal (http://www.riversideresearch.org/index.php?q=news/nih_awards_22_million_prostate_cancer_researc) The Foundation for Urological Research also reports research in regards to biopsy and other laboratory testing methods for prostate cancers funded by the NIH and NCI (http://www.foundationforurologicalresearch.com/grants.html). So, a quick google search will tell you that the US government is right now funding prostate cancer research, and that Komen is a private non-profit group. If you want to set up a comparable group to Komen and run similar campaigns for prostate cancer-go for it. I really fail to see how feminism is stopping you or the government discriminating against you in regards to that one.
>Nicko, I'm not saying that men's shelters should be privately funded while women's shelters are paid by taxpayers. I think that men's shelters should be funded *as needed* in the same way that women's shelters are. If a city builds a women's shelter because there is a need for it, then the city shouldn't automatically have to build a men's shelter just 'cause. They should build a men's shelter because there is a need for it. If a city has 8 shelters for women and 1 shelter for men, but everyone has a shelter to go to when they need it, then what's the problem? Should there be 7 empty and unused shelters for men? At this point, I'm not going to continue this discussion further unless you can demonstrate to me that groups have petitioned the government for funding for male shelters and been denied, when a need for that shelter was made demonstrably clear (clear in that 'abused men need somewhere to go or else they might die', not clear in that 'well, if women have one, men should have one, too!')
>@Kave:There’s actually another men's shelter in Edmonton, from what I remember- the group who runs it (some sort of Christian group, oddly enough) also runs women's shelters. Sometimes scary-conservative Alberta surprises me.
>To follow up with what DSC said:Outside of the ONE type of cancer for men/women (prostate/breast), where is the evidence that women's health is being funded way more then men's health? The evidence points in the opposite direction-males were generally the focus of all medical research with the exception of some reproductive research. The now obvious idea that men and women having different chemical and physical make ups was not considered which is why treatments that were tested on men failed on women.
>Lady vic and SallyI think you guys like me. ;)Im going to do a post on my site to try and explain myself better. If I invite you guys would you be willing to critique me over there?
>Not really, T4T. I hang out here because I like what David does and I like some of the people here. I don't really have time to critique someone who has proven to be as obtuse as you, and argues in bad faith as much as you do. Plus, I'm going camping with ~60 nerds this weekend. I think that's a much better use of my time.
>I don't really have time to critique someone who has proven to be as obtuse as you, and argues in bad faith as much as you do.(Lady vic)Interestingly enough that doesnt seem to stop you on here. Oh well.