On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:
This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …
If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.
You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.
It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.
Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:
[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.
Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.
Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.
And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:
Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.
Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.
Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?
I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.
Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.
khankrumthebulgar gives his real name
khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).
spocksdisciple comment
khankrumthebulgar’s “burn the building” comment
Back on topic –
Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?
I think both, actually. Not only do they lack the self-awareness, but they’re so used to typing eliminationist rhetoric about Feminism, that it’s probably solidified in their brains. But I do wonder about that too, because it’s right there, in front of them. I mean, once they write it, does it turn invisible so that they can’t see that they’re actually demonstrating the point that they think they’re arguing against?
I mean, I’ve had reading comprehension fail, but still, it’s never been that bad. Doesn’t it hurt their brain?
Rutee:
Even if you end up pwning me on the CONSAD thing, and despite your unpleasantness, I will say that my opinion of you as a human being has went up quite a bit over your last two posts. I’m glad you will repudiate violence. I have never gotten a feminist or feminist sympathizing person to tell me what it would take for them to repudiate another feminist. Not once, in 13 years.
Absininthe:
The guy who sent that email was named Ryan McFadden. He was not one of the three men accused of rape. The email was sent AFTER Crystal Gail Mangum and the other stripper left the party (in other words after all the unpleasantness) and was based on a joke from American Psycho. The email was sent only to team members, probably some “dark humor” to make them feel better after a crappy night. It was leaked by someone at Duke who did so illegally and probably to prejudice the police and public against them, and is currently something Duke may end up paying for in a lawsuit.
Clarence who are these feminists and what violence have they advocated?
Wow, dude, thought you were gone. Another troll who can’t stick the flounce.
Here’s a thought–if you like NSWATM so much, go back there. You’re not winning hearts and minds here.
I advocate violence only in self defense or defense of others, but even that will be controversial to someone who doesn’t see women as fully human and therefore possessing a right to self defense.
The alleged victim retracting her statement that the sex was non-consensual, with sufficient evidence that no political or social pressures were put on her to do so.
Apparently you’re a bit easier to convince. From the Smoking Gun article you cited, I have to assume that you believe at least one of the following statements:
a) that people who are mentally ill and take pills for it cannot be raped
b) that strippers cannot be raped
c) that drug users cannot be raped
d) that contradictions in testimony are demonstrations of falsehood, and not something that is quite common in pretty much every case where something traumatic occured (as opposed to cases in which multiple witnesses are lying but were coached to all say the same thing, which have remarkably few contradictions)
It would help if you could point out which of these you hold on to.
Also, even if your so-called expertise wasn’t so much bullshit, trying to stake the truth of your argument on it is called ‘argument from authority’.
Yes. By all means, let’s keep discussing this. Instead of, you know, what this entry is actually about.
Derailing the conversation isn’t troll-y at all. Hey. How about I go to an MRM blog and demand that everyone discuss Greek mythology with me?
Well, it would if Amanda Marcotte threatened violence. Try again, boy.
Hey, Clarence, since you seemed to miss my question the first time around, I’ll ask it again.
Please point out where Breivik’s stance on women and feminism differs from the MRM stance on women and feminism.
Actually I believe Clarence is from Feminist Critics, where they discuss the horrors of het women in bars wearing make-up (‘ITS JUST LIKE LYING ABOUT ONES NAME/PROFESSION/INTENTIONS!1!’) and refusing to participate in pick-up tactics and how its female privilege.
Oh, that’s rich. And I bet they complain about women who don’t wear make-up. “They’re hags who aren’t trying and offend me by not trying to be fuckable!”
Apparently wearing make-up is no different than deceptive PUA tactics. Yeah.
Victoria:
With all the personal attacks I probably did miss your question.
In any case, there IS no one MRA stance to women and feminism. I could perhaps give you Glenn Sacks take on it, and compare and contrast with Breiviks, but would that really prove anything? You could farther compare and contrast that with Angry Harry’s or some schmoe in the comments section of The Spearhead. It’s sort of like asking if all feminists support the contention that PIV sex is rape and also an expression of misogyny. Some do, most don’t.
I have never gotten a feminist or feminist sympathizing person to tell me what it would take for them to repudiate another feminist. rly? o_O
I know tons xD
Every feminist I know repudiates violence (that’s not in self defense) and def terrorism xD
Clarence, you’re really knocking down this post David made about Amanda Marcotte and Duke Lacrosse.
*looks up*
Oh wait…
What’s the standard, here? Do feminists have to answer for all feminists, or do MRAs NOT have to answer for all MRAs? I don’t think you can have it both ways.
Except Nobinayamu said what stances she finds problematic about Marcotte :3
I’m glad you find his stances problematic tho! What stances about Angry Harry do you find problematic NWO? :3
@Holly yeah… again, I can’t tell xD
BlackBloc:
A. The other stripper claimed their was no rape. She was there.
B. The Lacrosse team as a whole and the 3 defendents specifically claimed there was no sex. This wasn’t he-said, she said about the sex being consensual. If they would have left ANY DNA in her or on her they would be liars and someone would be in jail right now. No DNA, as I say from the team was found in or on her or on her clothes. Since she never went home after the party but was so drugged that the other stripper ended up driving her to the hospital, she had no bath or any way to clean this stuff up.
C. The Attorney General of the state declared the 3 defendents “innocent”.
D. The guy who brought the charges ended up disbarred and went to jail for a short time for prosecutorial misconduct, some of which involved lying to the press and withholding DNA evidence from the defense.
Take from all that what you will, but please stop pretending you are being reasonable, and please stop accusing me of crap such as not believing strippers or drunk women.
[quote]Even if you end up pwning me on the CONSAD thing, and despite your unpleasantness, I will say that my opinion of you as a human being has went up quite a bit over your last two posts. I’m glad you will repudiate violence. I have never gotten a feminist or feminist sympathizing person to tell me what it would take for them to repudiate another feminist. Not once, in 13 years.[/quote]
Really. Because every feminist I follow and care about repudiates violence. Some moreso than other’s, but it’s feminists who most consistently take the least militaristic stances IME. I find it strange you had any difficulty in finding nonviolent feminists at all; PZ Meyers is a pretty big name (Though not as a feminist) and he specifically repudiates violence, f’rex. There’s not usually call for it, because feminists don’t generally seem to commit or call for terrorist acts.
It’s a big fucking tent, and it’s really weird that after a whole 14 years on the internet presumably spent ith a fair amount of engagement with feminists, you JUST NOW found the FIRST EVER who told you she is not a fan of violence.
So since we’re talking about Amanda …
Yeah, she’s a feminist. But she has a really hard time handling criticism and tends to get hyper-defensive about stuff in a nasty way. A few of the regulars tend to join in on that, which can be bewildering when I’m reading a 200 comment-long comments section where one person makes a pretty good observation and then gets piled upon with strawmen and irrelevant insults. Disagreeing with her even slightly on something can get you called a misogynist, much like the MRAs here like to toss that non-word “misandrist” around when someone hints that women should have rights.
She tends to assume all her experiences are universal (I’m used to that; my mom is the same way) and insinuates or outright states that people who are not like her either do not exist or are broken in some way. She says that meat-eaters are all picky or that asexuals are mentally ill, but then when asexuals or meat-eaters point this out, she backtracks and tries to make it seem like those people are just being too sensitive or reading too much into her statements. Just look at the way she dealt with it when people said her food photos were really unappetizing. It was a lot of, “Even though a bunch of you are saying the same thing, it means you’re all wrong and I’m right.” Even when a lot of people interpret something one way, she claims it’s because EVERYONE read that thing wrong and didn’t read her true intention.
I’ve been reading Pandagon pretty regularly since 2005 and still read it to this day. These are just observations I’ve made over the last several years. I don’t like to comment there because it can be kind of hostile to even the slightest disagreement, although I do slip in one here and there.
My point is … for all the criticisms I have about the site and about what Amanda says and how she deals with things and what she writes, I have never, ever, not once, in the history of my reading the site, ever ever EVER seen her suggest that violence might be okay, that we should go forcibly do anything to men, much less hurt them, that we should subjugate them, etc. etc. Never. Criticize? Yes. Insult? Sure. Ban? On occasion. But never suggest that there should be some kind of revolution where women drag men into the street and beat the shit out of them or kill them.
And that’s the difference.
Maybe that’s something MRAs, evangelicals, Repubs and the like just can’t grasp. It is possible to agree with someone about SOME things but not with everything. Really. It is.
Rutee: Most Reasonable Feminist Evar
xD
I think Casey’s brain will explode xD
I love the smoke blowing going on xD
Lol about men complaining about women wearing makeup in bars. Those poor guys must be so traumatized to find out that the supposedly hot women chatting with them don’t actually have naturally purple eyelids and glittery lips. Those liars! Damn Avon and Maybelline for enabling this grave injustice against men!
Okay, Clarence, so what *is* the general MRM stance? On anything? Because they seem to talk about women an awful lot.
Feminists generally believe that women should have the same opportunities and expectations as men do. There’s room for a lot of disagreement and differing interpretations on priorities, causes and remedies – but there you go, a simple statement of feminist belief.
Can you make the same kind of statement as that, about the MRM? Because if the MRM believes anything, it believes nothing. But that’s not true, because there are blogs, forums, websites and even books aplenty which all claim to be part of the MRM. So there must be a common thread linking them all together – what’s that common thread?
And then you have to factor in what the general MRM is saying to each other, what takes up most of their talk time. When there’s a terrorist who kills dozens of people, and whose manifesto contains ideas and statements that are indistinguishable from something Marcotte has written, you will have room to complain. But that has not yet happened, not even close.
This discussion is not about Amanda Marcotte. This discussion is about the fact that many people who identify as Men’s Rights Advocates talk about violence and violence towards women in spaces dedicated to talking about the Men’s Rights Movement. If David found W.F. Price making racist comments on, say, Stormfront, and then posted those comments as proof of racism in the MRM, he would be wrong – it would just be evidence of one racist in the MRM (note: I do not actually know if W.F. Price is a racist or has ever posted at Stormfront. I’m just using him as an example of a popular MRM writer on a popular MRM site). But when he takes violent, misogynistic comments from people in the MRM (or MGTOW or PUA or whatthefuckever), talking in an MRM space, who are not called out and denounced by their own, he’s making a good case that the MRM at least tacitly approves of violence as a solution to their problems.
But you don’t actually want to confront the violence and hatred in the MRM. You don’t want to think about the implications of Breivik’s hate speech being awfully similar to what can be found on any MRM site. You’d rather try and derail the conversation away from having to talk about that to picking on a particular feminist blogger.
Frankly, I’m done talking to you, and on the rest of this thread, until it gets back on topic – or at least away from Marcotte.
Test