Another day, another apologia for male violence from the Men’s Rights crowd. This time the apologist is W. F. Price at The Spearhead, who uses several recent news stories involving violent men as an excuse to attack feminism.
Repeated provocations against men, systematic discrimination against men, and state-sanctioned debt slavery are starting to have the inevitable effect. In a triumph for the feminist movement, men are lashing out violently against women, fulfilling the feminist fantasy of a gender war.
In the old days, everything was (presumably) peachy keen between the sexes. Then along came the feminists, and all hell broke loose. Those “take back the night” marches feminists love so much? They’re just red flags to the bulls – that is, our society’s ample stock of “mentally unstable and out-of-luck men.” You don’t want to make these guys mad!
[W]omen were encouraged to be militant against all males, which can only have unfortunate results, given the hands-down male superiority in combat. …
In other words, the fact that there are violent men out there is why women shouldn’t complain about violent men. Presumably the only marches women should be organizing would be “No, Go Ahead, You Keep the Night” marches. Don’t want to offend those rapists –that’ll just make them even rapier than usual!
According to Price, though, feminists actually like violence against women — because it keeps them in business.
For feminism to exist as a valid movement, there must be violent conflict, so many of the efforts of feminists have sought to provoke just that. … You see, for a feminist to justify her job there must be some degree of brutality against women. … So, if you are a feminist, the hapless women murdered or assaulted by the damaged men feminists have created are necessary sacrifices for advancing the feminist agenda.
So not only do the feminists provoke these “damaged men” – they created them in the first place, by being so feministy.
Wouldn’t this whole provoke-the-men strategy make life more dangerous for feminist women as well? No, because feminists are all rich ladies, and everyone knows that rich ladies are never beaten or raped or murdered:
[W]e all know that feminism has never been about the typical woman who lives a humble life, but rather the ambitious elite who want to have access to the big boys and big money on Capitol Hill and Wall Street. … Disadvantaged women are truly the cannon fodder of feminists.
So what “proof” does Price offer for his claim that men are “lashing out” at women because of feminism? He cites three news stories: one dealing with a woman-hating trucker who’s accused of killing several prostitutes; another involving a man who went on a shooting rampage at a church, killing his wife and wounding two others; and finally, the case of James Ray Palmer, the Arkansas man who shot up the offices of the judge who’d handled his divorce and custody case more than a decade earlier. (I wrote about his case here.)
How do these cases relate to feminism? You’ll have to ask Price, because none of the news stories suggest any connection, and Price doesn’t explain why he thinks there is one. True, the trucker is said to be a misogynist, but misogyny is far more ancient than feminism. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the church shooter was angry at any women other than his wife.
In the case of Palmer, there may be an indirect connection, if it turns out that he was influenced by the angry, violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights movement. As I pointed out in my post on Palmer, many in the MRM have made a martyr out of Thomas Ball, who committed suicide on the steps of a courthouse, leaving behind an manifesto that urged men to literally burn down police stations — and courthouses. It is certainly conceivable that Palmer’s courthouse rampage was inspired by this sort of rhetoric.
But to blame feminism for any of this is ass-backwards. Feminism is a response to misogyny, not its cause. To blame feminism for violence against women is a bit like blaming Jews for provoking the Holocaust. (Forgive me, Godwin; it was the clearest analogy.)
Price ends his piece by urging women to, in effect, shut up and fix him a sandwich:
Women’s best bet for security is not in denouncing and fighting men, as feminists would have it, but in cooperating with them and taking on their proper role.
Then he ends with a weird coda suggesting that feminists should be locked up for having the temerity to speak up in the first place:
The United States will once again be a righteous society only when feminists are jailed for interfering with families, and their academic apologists are removed by security from their jobs in taxpayer-funded educational institutions. This would be the most humane course of action to take. Far more humane, in fact, than provoking men and women to physically attack one another, as feminists would have it today so that they can unleash state agents on confused and demoralized families.
I didn’t have the stomach to read all of the comments responding to Price’s argument, such as it is. But here are some highlights – lowlights, really – of the highly upvoted comments I did read.
The ironically named Anti Idiocy seconds Price’s basic argument:
Anger against feminism has been building for years. As the men’s rights movement has gained momentum, feminists and their lackeys have doubled down and become more virulent in their anti-male hatred and propaganda. Women today are becoming more and more nasty on an interpersonal basis, and they are doing so more frequently. A breakpoint will come. It will probably take a catalyst; another severe economic downturn might do it. But it will come. Feminists and their pet femboys will push things until it does.
Wait. If the Men’s Rights movement is, in effect, provoking feminists to get more feministy, then wouldn’t (by Price’s logic) the allegedly increased violence be the fault of the MRAs?
Rod worries that in the case of a real gender war, men might actually lose – all because of those darned “white knights” and their reluctance to beat up the ladies:
I’m afraid that if it ever came down to a real physical war between the sexes, men would unfortunately lose. There are too many men who can’t stand the sight of men harming women, and would immediately step in to save them. Perhaps nature instilled in us a visceral reaction to women’s suffering, making us want to step in and help, and at one time in the history of our species, that reaction was no doubt a salutary thing. Now it just works against us.
Antiphon, meanwhile, blames it all on the Jews. Or, more specifically, the Jewesses, who apparently control the feminist movement in the same way that their husbands control the banks.
Needless to say, this being The Spearhead, Antiphon’s comment has three times as many upvotes as downvotes. Apparently, the only thing worse than a feminist is a Jewish feminist.
I guess my Nazi analogy earlier in this post wasn’t so out of place after all.
I am embarrassed to share my gender with paniorpa.
Unless he’s making fun of my gender identity, which I suppose is possible, though very rude.
@Pecunium: The security guard was just an example. I was talking about societal pressures that are put on men to protect women by removing them from harm or men putting themselves in harms way for no other reason than she is a woman.
I think this mentality is dying and I think it is a good thing.
@HellKell: Of course I look out for myself first. Who else will?
Brandon, a wise man one said, ‘If I am not for myself, who will be for me?’ But Hillel added: ‘If I am only for myself, who am I? And if not now, when?’
Brandon, you’re hopeless. You’d be more respected if you said what you meant and meant what you said. Your response to Pecunium was what you always do with the weaseling out of what you’ve previously said.
As far as you being for yourself, it’s not a surprise because Everything Is About Brandon.
@HellKell: I get enough respect from family, friends and co-workers that I am not really hurt by a few practically anonymous commenters here not respecting me. I certainly wont lose any sleep over it.
Also, what was I weaseling out of when with Pecunium? I was using the security guard as a practical example of the broader “men are pressured to protect women” idea. Pecunium, decided to not read the subtext of that and focus solely on the security guard example and give me a job summary of what is required of security guards.
Well it’s not much different than blaming men when they complain about the lack of support for male domestic violence victims instead of blaming the female perpetrators who cause the problem to begin with. We usually get told, “do something about it”…as if the random average guy can heh.
Talking about blaming the victims.
Oh, now you’re into context and subtext. OK.
@HellKell: Do you have a point? Or are you just going to make snide remarks?
However, I do see less and less men “playing the hero” and risking themselves to save “random woman XYZ” from harm.
Like how? o:
@Ami: It is my own personal observations. Men seem to protect family and friends but turn a blind eye to general strangers.
I have seen news broadcasts that talked about a woman being raped and the men just “observed” it. Didn’t call the cops, didn’t intervene, etc… They treated it with complete indifference.
In the past, men used to get recognized and praised for “playing the hero”. Now it is safer to not get involved since you could be sued or hurt yourself.
Even in relationships, men are often seen as the protectors. When there is anything remotely dangerous (wild animals, potential fights, hostile situations), men are pressured to jump in and “handle” the situation. We would be seen as wimpy, cowardly or cruel if we just let a woman fend for herself.
Also a lot of the “old chivalry code” has “men as protectors” as a major theme. Since chivalry is pretty much dead (at least on its last leg), those rules are disappearing.
Brandon: I think the point hellkell was making was in the context and subtext.
But if you’d like to let us know when you are being literal (as you were in the marriage thread, where the context and subtext were off limits; same in the sub-thread you introduced about what equals child abuse), and when we can assume you are using contextual examples, perhaps we’d be better able to make sure the “arguments go Brandon’s way” rules are properly adhered to.
I am also amused that you call people here, “semi-anonymous” when folks like Ozy, me, Molly, Holly, Kollege, Hershele, Comrade Slivova, Rutee, PKFAE, all have blogs.
Shaenon is moderately well known in the broader world.
I’m paid to travel across the country and speak (as well as being a published author), and my name is linked to my handle, which is linked to this blog.
You, on the other hand, are just a name on a screen.
But the broader picture, re you, is that we are the reputations we build. We all have persistence of presence, it’s why folks like Eoghan, and Ion, and MRAL, can’t manage to stay concealed for very long when they try to hide behind a new nom de net.
And the reputation you have built is of someone who is self-centered, and who refuses to admit the context of his arguments, and the end results of the policies he advocates. Who brings in off-screen people to make his case, and then gets all huffy when someone says, “dude, this is what you said.”
Looking at how people are responding, you’ve used up all your slack; which actually takes some doing, MRAL has managed (against all odds) to keep some. Whether you actually care, is known only to you; we have but what do say, and how you act on which to judge it.
Citation needed.
Sounds like misogyny to me. (Actually it sounds like sociopathy to me)
Assumes facts not in evidence.
All 50 states have Good Samaritan laws preventing law suits for helping. Good grief man, haven’t you even taken a First Aid course?
Once again you’ve demonstrated you’re the poster child for confirmation bias.
Brandon, people not helping people (a supercase of men not helping women) is explained by the well-established psychological mechanism, the bystander effect. Essentially, everyone assumes someone else will do something. The effects of chivalry are an unrequired explanation.
@Pecunium:
Wow, you all have blogs. So doesn’t my 10 year old cousin. Hell, there are like 40+ million blogs on the internet. That’s like saying I am popular because I have a cell phone.
I am also not saying that I am something I am not. I am just one guy who doesn’t have a blog. I am not claiming I am famous or well known.
Also, most of those people you mentioned are using pseudonyms on this site, not their actual names. So I think “semi anonymous” is actually quite fitting.
My reputation? The reputation I worry about is what my friends, family and co-workers think. How can any reputation be attributed to me when you don’t even know my last name. Hell, as far as you are concerned, Brandon might not be my actual name (it is…but you have no way of confirming it).
Also, anyone can use a proxy to spoof their information. The only way to really catch them is in how they write. Spoof MAC addresses, IP addresses, referrer spam, etc…
If you like, I can prefix my paragraphs with LITERAL and SUBTEXT so you don’t have to read into what I am saying.
Slack? Like that means anything.
The problem as I see it is you and other commenters jump to the worst possible conclusions.
I want parents to be able to afford their kids = I am attacking the poor.
I think marriage is bad for men = thinks women are lying gold digging whores.
Unless I come flat out and 100% agree with your position (like MRA’s are stupid), my ideas are taken to the most negative extreme possible. Then I have to spend time trying to defend my point from that negative extreme which is basically impossible. There is no gray area…it is all black and white.
will one counterexample do? I am sure I/we can find more.
http://www.krqe.com/dpp/news/crime/neighbor-chases-kidnapper,-saves-girl
@cynickal: Do you know someone that was taken to court because they broke a rib trying to save someones life? Well I do. The case was thrown out pretty quickly but a lot of money was wasted on a preliminary defense.
Wait wait, if we feminists can time travel now, can we go get Ernest Hemmingway and put him in the Evil Baby Orphanage?
Haha! @M Dubz Yay nerdfighters! I live the vlogbrothers. DFTBA. <3
I have been reading this blog for about a week now. Going through all the old and new ones. It gave me a lot of hope after the utter slump and sadness I felt at finding out what the men's rights movement was all about under the veneer of helping men. I was Googling to see if anyone was countering some of this horrible ideas and lies they spout as pure truth. Like womens oppression throughout history being a myth… Anyway this site is what came up. If you know of another blogs or sites fighting to show the real side of the men's rights movement please link me. I think I may join the forums here.
I have read so many of tour comments I feel like I know you guys. Just wanted to say that and thanks for being a rational voice outthere. Because these MRA dudes … Wow.
@Holly Pervocracy
“It’s historically as well as logically backward.”
How is it logically backward to say someone was driven to violence? I mean even a small child knows if you kick a dog you’ll get bit, or if you smack a wasp nest you’ll get stung. How about schrodinger’s rapist as a theoretical puzzle taught in school? What if we taught schrodinger’s filthy, lying whore as a theoretical puzzle instead, or schrodinger’s false rape accuser? Do you think women would feel angry about something like that being taught in school? I say it’s high time for a little equality and schrodinger’s lying, filthy whore is taught in schools as well, don’t you?
————————–
@Pecunium
“That means all those men have to convince other men to go after their wives, their sisters, their girlfriends, their mothers, their daughters.”
I guess it’s a lot easier on the old concience to have the State perform the violence and turn a blind eye. It’s sooo much easier to wash the blood off your hands that way.
————————–
@ozymandias42
” Shush, yes, I know I’m genderqueer, but I do, in fact, have a female body and I do, in fact, contribute. Kind of.”
There’s only two genders, male and female, and you’re born to one or the other, there’s no choice in the matter. You have a female body because you were born that way, you can identify yourself as a blue cheese western omlette and it really changes nothing. The only contribution you’ve ever made is parroting feminist indoctrination.
—————————
@Eneya
“Overall…I want to know who exactly is the reason for women hating and abuse BEFORE feminism, let’s say in 14th century? Or in Saudi Arabia today, or India… or any of the other countries that are far cry from doing anything about internalised misogyny??”
Women have never been hated or abused, unless you consider being treated with kid gloves as abuse. Men have always suffered far worse than women have suffered throughout history. Women used to appreciate the suffering men did for them, as oppossed to modern day where they increase mens suffering with laws.
—————————-
@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
“the weirdest part of this for me is the fact that sounds similar to some of the things I have heard said by Republicans about Democrats.”
Reps and Dems are flip sides of the same coin, neither one gives a rats ass about any of you. When a politician promises you something how will they keep that promise? They steal your money and make a law to steal your freedom. Whoopee! Anyone who is willing to trade security for freedom deserves neither. Try learning from history, sans feminist history.
————————–
@Kollege Messerschmitt
“are you aware that women are more likely to report rape in more feminist countries? Since they won’t get stoned for having been raped, and are also less likely to be victim-blamed?”
Tell that to Assange over in Swedish feminist heaven. Feminist justice.
————————-
@ozymandias42
“I am embarrassed to share my gender with paniorpa.”
“He” denotes male gender, so no worries, your gender is innocent of any wrong doing.
————————–
@Pecunium
“I am also amused that you call people here, “semi-anonymous” when folks like Ozy, me, Molly, Holly, Kollege, Hershele, Comrade Slivova, Rutee, PKFAE, all have blogs.”
And everyone of these blogs are justly ridiculed for the vile feminist propaganda they support. The only ones who comment positively are the co-bloggers. It’s the same irrelevant people.
—————————
@Holly Pervocracy
“Misogyny. We mock it.
No, your motto is. Misandry, we endorse it, we embrace it, we make it law.
“There’s only two genders, male and female, and you’re born to one or the other, there’s no choice in the matter. You have a female body because you were born that way, you can identify yourself as a blue cheese western omlette and it really changes nothing. The only contribution you’ve ever made is parroting feminist indoctrination.”
That is incorrect. There is your biological sex. Biological sex is not your gender. Gender is influenced by sex and sex category, but gender is not biological.
http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/
Basics you fake engineer.
Shaenon is moderately well known in the broader world.
Thanks, but I am only Internet Famous.
And from NWO:
Tell that to Assange over in Swedish feminist heaven. Feminist justice.
You mean the Sweden where Assange is currently out on bail? Man, that feminist justice is vicious. It’s like Gitmo over there.
P.S. It’s spelled “fluoride.” Really.
Molly Ivins said it best: “It’s like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you’re wrong.”
Also, you know zero about pretty much anything outside of working 25 hour days and not eating for 200 days…so yeah…back to the delightful Molly Ivins:
There’s never been a law yet that didn’t have a ridiculous consequence in some unusual situation; there’s probably never been a government program that didn’t accidentally benefit someone it wasn’t intended to. Most people who work in government understand that what you do about it is fix the problem — you don’t just attack the whole government.
Now you get to tell us what the motto of this blog is? Despite the fact that it’s right there at the top? talk about rejecting common reality and substituting your own…
The only ones who comment positively are the co-bloggers. It’s the same irrelevant people.
Oh? o_O