Reading through some comments on Men’s Rights hub A Voice for Men the other day, I ran across a fairly bloodthirsty contribution from an MRA with the charming nickname Brutal Antipathy, suggesting that the Occupy Wall Street protesters needed a bit of what he called “the ol’ Tienanmen Square treatment.”
Mr. Antipathy’s rhetorical outburst struck me as fairly typical of the tough-guy rhetoric that the site’s regulars love to indulge in — though usually the targets of the rhetoric are feminists, not Occupy Wall Street activists.
So I was a bit surprised to see site founder Paul Elam respond with this:
It seems a little odd for Elam to claim to be shocked — shocked! — to find such rhetoric on his site. Elam, after all, seems to positively revel in making his own vaguely threatening pronouncements towards his ideological enemies.
In a recent fundraising appeal, for example, Elam let out all the stops:
We now have a team of individuals that goes beyond what we advertise on our pages, and we are gearing up to add a new doomsday prophesy to 2012. Let’s put it this way: The fembots better hope the Mayan’s were right about next year, because they would rather deal with that than the things we are cooking up. …
Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
Elam is purposefully vague about just what he means by “inflicting pain,” but it is hard not to read this comment as a threat of something dire.
Others on the site are similarly fond of this sort of vague, threatening language. MRA blogger Fidelbogen, recently brought on board as a contributor to AVfM, let loose in a recent comment on those who think MRAs should tone down their rhetoric towards feminists and other enemies:
Apparently, Elam believes that the deliberate vagueness of these kinds of threats makes them shining examples of Gandhian non-violence — or at least that it gives the site the requisite “plausible deniability” if — when? — someone actually moves beyond the threats to actual violence.
It’s ok, evidently, to talk about “inflicting pain” on your enemies, so long as you don’t specify just how. It’s ok to boast about frightening your enemies, to muse about “stalking” individual feminists, to post their personal information online, and so on and so on.
Heck, apparently it’s not even a problem if someone, using the personal information provided on the site, actually tracks down individuals targeted by Elam and pals and quite literally kills them. As AVfM managing editor John the Other put it in a recent post (which I wrote about here):
And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate.
Nonetheless, JtO, like Elam, insists that “I do not and will not lend myself to the support of violence, or indeed, of murder.”
But all this dancing around the issue of violence is rather a moot point, given the one rather striking exception that Elam has allowed to his “no explicit advocacy of violence” rule.
And that is the terrorist manifesto he’s been hosting on his site since last summer.
I’m referring, of course, to the lengthy manifesto written by Tom Ball, a man who burned himself to death on the steps of a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire last summer in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court.
Ball has been hailed as a hero in numerous articles on AVfM, and he is mentioned in an “invocation” in the new theme song for AVfM Radio.
The manifesto is posted on AVfM — in its “activism” category.
What sort of “activism” did Ball advocate? Hint: It involves Molotov cocktails, and government buildings.
In his words (emphasis mine):
So boys, we need to start burning down police stations and courthouses. … [T]he dirty deeds are being carried out by our local police, prosecutors and judges. These are the people we pay good money to protect us and our families. And what do we get for our tax money? Collaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War. All because they go along to get along. They are an embarrassment, the whole lot of them. And they need to be held accountable. So burn them out. …
There is no evidence that the police, courts, or government is planning to do anything different in the immediate future. And they will not do anything different until we make it so uncomfortable that they must change. Bureaucracy at its worst. So burn them out. This is too important to be using that touchy- feeling coaching that is so popular with business these days. You need to flatten them, like Wile E. Coyote. They need to be taught never to replace the rule of law. BURN-THEM-OUT!
Most of the police stations built in New England over the last 20 years are stone or brick. Fortunately, the roofs are still wood. The advantage of fire on the roof is that it is above the sprinklers. But even the sprinklers going off work to our advantage. There is no way they can work in a building with six inches of water. And I am certain we will disrupt their momentum once they start working out of a FEMA
At this point the AVfM editors cut Ball off in mid-sentence, and insert this “Editor’s note”:
Editor’s note:
Several paragraphs in this copy of Mr Ball’s original letter have been omitted. The omitted paragraphs contained detailed instructions on the manufacture and use of simple incendiary devices.
If you are really interested in seeing the omitted sections, you can find the complete manifesto elsewhere in the Mansophere.
Ball was quite serious about all this, and hoped that his self-immolation would inspire other “activists” to “manufacture and use” his favored sort of “simple incendiary devices,” as the AVfM editors gingerly put it. Ball himself was a bit more blunt:
I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me. They harmed my children. The place is evil. So take it out. …
And bring a can of spray paint to these fires. Paint the word COLLABORATORS ( two L’s with an S on the end) on the building before you burn it.
Ball frankly acknowledged that if others followed his suggestions, people would die:
There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.
How does Ball’s explicit advocacy of terrorist acts directed at government buildings, acts that if carried out would almost inevitably mean the deaths of people within those buildings, square with Elam’s purported no-advocacy-of-violence policy for his website?
You’ll have to ask him. I have no fucking clue.
Shadow – There are criminal laws against filing a false police report, and a falsely accused person can sue for damages in civil court. But MRAs feel these laws aren’t punitive enough and aren’t enforced enough, because far too many women who get their cases dismissed due to lack of evidence don’t go to jail.
Oh Shadow, oops, I forgot to mention that the feminist men would be spared. It’s good you bow to your oppressors, we’ll save you from the worst!!
In many–maybe most–cases, the parents were not 50% responsible for the kids before the divorce. Also in most cases, the parents do not have equal financial means to care for the kids. The parents may also not want 50/50 custody.
I agree 50/50 is a good starting point but it just doesn’t cover everyone’s cases.
What legal discrimination are you referring to? The general awarding of custody to mothers during divorces? Is that it?
Or were men fired for having babies (instead of promoted.) They were not legally paid less because “everyone knows men have families to support.” Men were not penalized for sexually harassing or making a condition of employment to sleep with the boss. In fact, generally men were always the boss. Men were not shunted into what was deemed appropriate for them: teaching, librarian, nurse. Men were able to go to college and not be considered just there to get their “Mrs. Degree” when they were even allowed to attend.
Oh are you talking about how men were supposed to work outside the home at an office or be a door to door salesman or something and women were supposed to stay home doing uncompensated work like cooking, cleaning, bearing and raising the average of four to six babies? You mean those obligations?
The ones that killed the fathers with stress and made women who were not suited to the homemaker life miserable. Those obligations? Those are still around but much much less then they used to be. And that is a good thing.
That is crap and you know it. Women still have to clean the house, cook, pay bills, raise children but now they also have to work outside the home. Most of the time they do the majority of all housework and childcare. Men are still considered heroes for just showing up to pick up little Tommy or Bernice from school.
So what are these “no obligations” you refer to?
@Zarat
In our current reality this is not the way it works. Mothers are still the primary caregivers. It is slowly changing, but we haven’t completely shed the roles of man work, woman stay home. Why if the child spends most of it’s time being physically cared for by the mother just get thrust into a 50/50 situation because there is a divorce? Think about the stress this puts on the kid, having to go back and forth all the time between mom and dad’s. Think also about how such a sudden change will affect the child.
You also forget that 90% of divorces are settled out of court. So that implies that the parents decided on a custody agreement that suits them and their child’s needs best. Why should they be forced to abide by your 50/50 physical custody if they already decided what works best for them?
Ultimately parents need to realize that this isn’t a fight for power. Its cruel to use the kid as a pawn. The child’s needs need to come first, then the parents.
That didn’t occur to me, either, but, then again, I was under the impression (perhaps mistakenly so) that Quackers was meaning that the 50/50 parenting should be occurring prior to the parents no longer cohabitating and referring to each other as “the ex”.
So, Zarat, will the little boys allowed to spend time on the women-only side of the Mississippi and the little girls on the men-only?
Zarat-if a parent, prior to the divorce, was a 75/25% parent, why should the custody be automatically 50/50?
“So what are these “no obligations” you refer to?”
Yeah I’m curious about that myself. I cook, clean, work, grocery shop, pay rent and bills all by myself. What obligations do I not have?
@Pam
Yeah that is what I meant. I think he misunderstood me.
To clarify, 50/50 custody only makes sense and is fair if it was 50/50 caregiving during the marriage. Meaning the parent more likely to stay home, take the kid to school, take them to the doctor, cook for them, clean up after them, watch them, etcd. Mothers are still the ones who do this the most.
And this is barring all the other possible problems that could come up mentioned previously such as child abuse, finances, work hours, whether the parents want it etc.
“Instead, mother and father will each be responsible for the children 50% of the time.”
Does that mean that if I get married (but don’t divorce), my husband will do 50% of the child care? At the moment a large proportion of the men I meet really want children but don’t particularly fancy giving up their jobs to perform the child care, they just assume I’d do that part. The 50/50 child care scenario sounds wonderful especially since I don’t really want children so my main reason for having them would be for my partner. (My main reason for not wanting children is not wanting to give up my life for them rather than a dislike of children)
I’d be very surprised to find MRA’s actually want to do half the child care when they are married, in fact I’m kind of surprised they want half of it after the divorce, who are they going to give the child to?
“Zarat-if a parent, prior to the divorce, was a 75/25% parent, why should the custody be automatically 50/50?”
What are you talking about? Perhaps you think that the primary wage earner is not doing anything to care for the child? How bigoted are you people?
Not that it matters. Divorce means that each parent must make new arrangements.
If the “primary wage earner” loves his/her career too much to care for his/her children 50% of the time, he/she can reach a voluntary agreement with his/her ex:
“Listen, Jerry. I just made partner at the law firm. I know we don’t get along any more, but I really want to continue to put my career first. If I agree to pay you $200,000 per year, will you agree to care for our children during my custodial period? If you agree, we can talk to the judge and he/she will make that modification.”
PRESUMPTIVE 50/50 physical does not prevent:
(1) voluntary modification of the 50/50 schedule if agreed by both parents.
(2) involuntary modification if one or both parents are demonstrated to be unfit.
Only a feminist can see 50/50 and scream “not fair!”
“Only a feminist can see 50/50 and scream “not fair!””
I think you misinterpreted the question. If one parent only puts in 25% of the childcare whenever, surely custody would be more in favor of the parent more fit or willing to give more time to the child.
If Paul Elam try that, he’s really like Ray Gordon.
When a person hears 50/50 custody they are not thinking Parent A does all of the diaper changing, food preparing, minding, playing, doctor’s appointments, school projects, etc and Parent B pays for part of it. They are thinking that the parents split the childcare down the middle (more or less).
If that is not what you mean then you need to explain you are referring to not just the childcare itself but the costs associated with the child.
It is funny in a depressing way to see the online equivalent of the KKK, The MRM pose as a civil rights movement.
So what is fair is PRESUMPTIVE 75/25 physical while the cohabitating relationship is intact (and the 75 physical is still commonly expected of the “primary wage earner” if it’s the Mother, otherwise she’s a selfish bitch) and PRESUMPTIVE 50/50 physical following separation/divorce. And we’re the ones who are bigoted?
Uh, Antz, that’s what happens most of the time. The majority of custody agreements are decided between the parents.
As it happens, most custody agreements end up with the woman having sole physical custody. I wonder why.
If the answer is THE PATRIARCHY, congratulations, you get a cookie.
@Holly
Yeah, that’s what I thought. I’m not sure how well the laws are enforced, like I said, my own experience (which was through this happening to a friend) was not encouraging* but I definitely have no interest in increasing the penalties, just better enforcement than what he experienced.
*A corollary to the story is that my friend was dark-skinneded and you never know when that’s gonna fuck you with the law
@Viscaria
I don’t identify as feminist but I am feminist leaning so will give sanctuary plizz?
Without endorsing any of the rest of Zarat’s batshittery. I think the shift towards a more equitable custody arrangement needs to happen because, even if a parent is doing 75% of the child rearing in a marriage, that parent is going to find it much more difficult to maintain the same amount when they have to rely solely on their own income (plus whatever child support and alimony they get). On the part of the parent who was doing the lesser share of child rearing, this is obviously beneficial because post-divorce they obviously don’t have the ability to see their children every day so more equitable custody will help maintain their relationship with their child(ren).
p.s.
i know child support and alimony are pittances compared to the costs, but, with the economy in the shithole that it is, I’m not sure that your average non-custodial parent can afford to pay more. Naturally a more subsidized society would help.
No, giving money is not childcare. If your entire role as a parent could be replaced by a financial stipend, you’re not doing active parenting and you certainly aren’t doing a full half of childcare. The person actually raising a child typically does know them and love them better. It’s absurd to suggest that children don’t generally have special bonds with their caretakers. The people who spend time with you and who raise you are the ones you often have the strongest bonds with. While I can appreciate that my mother was working and not at home, she wasn’t my primary caretaker, and when my sister, who was, moved out it was a major and incredibly stressful event and I was a fairly self reliant teenager by that point. When I was twelve, it was my sister who woke me up in the morning for school, my sister who I talked to in evenings, my sister who made us supper (she helped the younger two with homework as well). If you had taken us and suddenly told us one day that we should start being forced to rely on our mother instead for half of the stuff, it would have caused utter chaos. If you think that it would be in the best interest of the children to be suddenly uprooted like that, you are a fool.
it actually isn’t. libel is civil matter, not a crime.
i’m not sure how you would no this since you apparently aren’t sure what libel is, but just to give you a heads up, it is really hard to libel someone by quoting them. seriously, think about this for a second.
Anthony: Since others brought up the topic of false accusations, I have to add this.
I was falsely accused and I have to say the way that the MRM handles their advocacy for false accusations is deplorable and does those of us actual victims a disservice.
Elam’s suggestion that we should use jury nullification in rape cases until more action is taken on false accusations would just let rapists go free and that is a horrific suggestion. The use of discredited studies putting false accusations at 40% just makes the movement look silly. The idea that some in the MRM hold that if a rape case does not wind up with a conviction that it was a false accusation just shows an ignorance of how the judicial system works. And the weight that MRA put on false accusations in equating the injustice of false accusations to the injustice of rape just makes it harder for the movement to be taken seriously.
And because of the way that the MRM treats the issue of false accusations, people like myself are immediately treated like shit when we bring up the topic because it is then assumed that I am just like anyone else who brings it up from the MRM and it is assumed that I am going to be just as as bad as they are about putting undue weight, making women out to be just whores who were asking for it, and doing other things that I as a person would never do.
as long as we are giving ourselves titles, i am the Official Liaison With Women Athletes and Feminist Folksingers! Cuz i REALLY like the Michigan Wolverine women’s teams, also i really like the Indigo Girls and Ani DiFranco!!!
Zarat, can you tell me how acquitting an accused rapist–whom you are positive is guilty-would the MRM?