Given the enmity towards women in general, and feminists in particular, that’s omnipresent in the manosphere, it seems logical to assume that most of the dudes lingering around MRA, PUA and MGTOW sites online would take a certain secret pleasure in seeing women suffer.
As regular readers of this blog know all too well, oftentimes the desire to see women suffer is not so secret: some MRAs and others of their ilk literally laugh at women getting cancer, declare that rapists should be given medals, openly fantasize about “beat[ing] the living shit” out of women, and tell feminists who complain about this sort of shit that they’re “so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” (Those last two examples come from Paul Elam, one of the MRM’s most influential bloggers.) Still others send rape and death threats to outspoken women online.
But good news, folks! It turns out that not all manosphere misogynists want women to suffer. Why? Because suffering is an ineffective way to put women in their place. That, at least, is the argument of a fellow calling himself Höllenhund. In a comment on Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart blog, he offered this argument:
Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place.
So, basically, in his mind, women are dumber than dogs and thus harder to train. Even worse, the suffering women can sit down in the street and cry, and countless “white knights,” hoping to win their approval (and get in their pants) will rush to their aid:
Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.
So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition. …
And some of the ladies even seem to sort of like it:
Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.
Poor Höllenhund doesn’t have much hope that women will ever see how totally terrible they really are
[T]he notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly.
If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP [Sexual Marketplace], they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males …
Er, you’re lecturing us about empathy?
Sorry, on with the rest of the sentence:
plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless.
And lecturing us about morality too?
I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.
I’d rather see that than live in a world in which women were so self-hating that they actually believed they were guilty of whatever unnamed sins Höllenhund attributes to them.
NOTE: I found Höllenhund’s comment because the blogger at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology cited it as a prime example of the sort of brave “truth telling” that will get you banned “on feminist sites that supposedly support men.” And yes, it apparently did get poor Höllenhund banned from Hooking Up Smart. I’m not quite sure how Susan Walsh, a traditionalist devoted to slut shaming in a thousand different flavors, counts as feminist, but that’s not the point. The point is: I’m regularly accused of “cherry picking” comments from MRAs. In this case, Mr. PMAFT picked the comment for me.
@Hippodameia:
Actually, having other people paraphrase what you say is extraordinarily helpful, because it makes it absolutely clear what they think you’re saying. In real life, there’s a method of talking where one person “mirrors” the other person every sentence or so. It’s designed to try to make sure the two are on the same page, and give the second person a chance to speak freely. ^_^
I would not be averse to seeing more of this on the internet, except that it is very inefficient on a post-by-post forum.
No, I get that – XD – I was referring to Roscoe’s habit of “paraphrasing” earlier in the thread where he got to make everyone say exactly what he wanted them to say. I expect he’ll do the same here, if he manages to come up with an answer at all.
@Hippodameia:
😛 I figured. It was relevant for me though because its something I’ve gone through in therapy sessions recently, so I thought I’d share.
@kirbywarp: “So Roscoe, where in this post do you see anything related to recognizing ‘that abusive women don’t suffer the consequences of their harmful acts — i.e. are not held accountable — to the same degree as men are when they commit similar acts?'”
Because David’s post leads off with a litany of examples about how some people in the manosphere seem to wish violence upon others. Violence is the thrust of David’s article, and he then linked — by way of association — the article about sexual dynamics between men and women to the other citations of people making allusions to violence.
Why do people within an intimate relationship commit violence against their partner? Certainly there are several reasons, but a primary reason in my view is to inflict pain as some form of retaliation for a real or imagined offense. DV is thus related, hence DV shelters are germane, and hence access to those shelters is germane.
I don’t consider this to be much of a stretch, because David led off with citations of violent-sounding rhetoric. Intimate partner violence is part and parcel of the original post.
Having a little experience with DV – as a volunteer on a rape/abuse crisis line in a very rural state, we did serve both men and women (and presumably, had we had anyone who did not ID as a man or woman, they would have been assisted to the best of our ability). I fielded calls from primarily women, but a few men did call in the two years I did it. I remember calling to inform a male client that his protection order (against a woman, I presume, from the name) had been served and he was free to call us with any questions.
Roscoe, if you have experience in this arena, you know how hard money is to come by. You have to rely on other people to make donations (in the correct way) to fund what you’re doing. There are never enough people, there’s never enough money, and there are never enough resources for everyone to get the help they deserve. It’s not that DV organizations are out there cackling at people’s misfortune and how these evil men get what they deserve. Every person at that organization lamented how male victims ended up in hotels alone. It was fucking tragic. But we couldn’t put them in the women’s shelter – not without losing the shelter, compromising our other (female adults/children and male children) clients’ safety and healing, and still having enough room for everybody. They did get protection, which was the primary goal. They lacked support, which was a secondary, but still very important goal.
Gender-segregated DV shelters have their downsides, most certainly (the biggest ones being LGBTQ people and those with older children of a sex different from themselves). I don’t know the solution to it. As someone who has never quite fit into the gender binary, I don’t know if I’d feel safe going to a gendered shelter. But having seen how the system works, I am also pretty convinced that it’s not because the people who care about DV don’t care about me. Rather, there’s just not enough resources to cater to my needs. I don’t know what a good solution is with the resources the system has now. I think you have to separate out what a DV shelter is expected to give, and in what order of priority. I think the first goal has to be a physically safe place, above all else. That means an undisclosed location, constant staffing with trusted people, and the best attempts to keep abusers out. Unfortunately, that last piece is very hard.
No one comes to a shelter and says, “Why, excuse me, I’d like to gain access to this shelter so that I may continue abusing my spouse and children. Actually, I have the maimed body of our pet to show them, so that they know what I am capable of. May I come in?” It’d be nice if they did, because then it’d be super simple. Instead, they say that they have medical information that they need to get to their children, that the sheltered person is the real abuser, that they are a real friend and want to know if the person is safe, they have an important item that the sheltered person needs (like medication or identification), etc. So I don’t know what the solution is – no, men shouldn’t be turned away without help. But I don’t think that housing all DV victims together would be helpful, either. Because of the heavily-gendered aspect of the majority of DV, I think that system would be very, very hard to police and protect your clients.
But how do we do that without marginalizing LGBTQ people? They exist, and they experience DV, too. How do we keep them safe? I don’t know. It’s incredibly difficult, and some victims’ lives are literally on the line with this. Do we segregate based on sexuality/gender identity? That sounds horrifying, and it’s not the right answer – but how can we keep a woman partnered with a woman safe in a woman-only shelter, when her abuser lies and manipulates the system to enter in in the name of safety? I know the organization I volunteered for was really concerned about that. Unfortunately, it meant that largely straight, cis women were allowed in the shelter itself, and anyone else was provided a hotel room. You make do with what you can and try your best to be sympathetic and caring to any client.
@Roscoe:
“What I’ve been saying all along is that the post which David criticized recognizes that abusive women don’t suffer the consequences of their harmful acts — i.e. are not held accountable — to the same degree as men are when they commit similar acts.”
“Because David’s post leads off with a litany of examples about how some people in the manosphere seem to wish violence upon others. Violence is the thrust of David’s article, and he then linked — by way of association — the article about sexual dynamics between men and women to the other citations of people making allusions to violence.”
Right. Can you see the disconnect between these two statements of yours? Cause someone is not arguing in good faith here… And it aint me or David.
“Some people in the manosphere seem to wish violence upon others.”
Statements like this are why you have no credibility. Or, to put it a little more bluntly, you can’t piss on my back and make me think it’s rainwater.
@Roscoe:
Also, in all the links David posted at the beginning, not one of them really talk about DV or anything related. So if you mean one of those articles, please post the specific passage that you think talks about women not being held to the same standards in DV cases.
Maybe Roscoe is talking about the Hooking Up Smart post that Höllenhund was commenting on? In which case, still no mention of violence, let alone DV… That was about “sexual dynamics between men and women,” in the sense of defining what “sexy” means (as per the title)… I don’t even know anymore.
In order to get from the OP to what Roscoe is talking about you pretty much have to have already decided that MRAs are right about women, ie believe the things asserted in the post and that this is how women in general and feminists in particular are. It’s right there under the surface, as much as Roscoe is now trying to cover his ass and hide it.
Roscoe should just admit that he found this site in a random google search for something unrelated and then decided to talk about what he wanted to talk about anyway.
@katz:
But that would be admitting he hasn’t been consistent!
“What I’ve been saying all along is that the post which David criticized recognizes that abusive women don’t suffer the consequences of their harmful acts”
“David’s post leads off with a litany of examples about how some people in the manosphere seem to wish violence upon others. ”
Does this look like a person who has the ability to admit mistakes?
Roscoe’s gotten Brandonesque in his retreat from “when will the evil females be held accountable for their ways?” to “all I said was DV shelters should serve everyone!”
In other news, my lights are going on and off for no reason, but I’m sure I’m imagining things.
whoops, had to go do and do some work there hence the delay in replying.
@Roscoe, i can’t speak for the US but IME, the DV shelters i have worked in/referred people to have a specific women only remit, and only women escaping domestic abuse. So, of the top of my head i can’t think of DV specific shelters that accommodate both men and women. Having worked in hostels which accept homeless men(who may or may not have been abused) and women (who may or may not have been abused) i’m quite wary of how a DV shelter like that would work out.
@kirbywarp:
Are you out of your mind? The posted comment that David linked to, from which he quoted, specifically mentions violence by proxy (“let’s you and him fight”), presumably because the one instigating the violence seeks to humiliate or to hurt a former romantic partner. That’s IPV as I see it. That same comment also refers to this instigator of violence by proxy, opining that she probably won’t take responsibility for her own actions. And that’s just that posted comment. David also linked to a Paul Elam post about men who disproportionately retaliate against violent women. Again, IPV is relevant. Then of course there are the cited links that criticize the author’s lack of empathy for rape victims. Having an indifference to the pain experienced by others is a trait shared by abusers.
Keep it up. I am firmly convinced that I am squarely on topic. My question for you is, what did YOU think that David’s post was about?
@Roscoe:
“Are you out of your mind?”
I could ask the question right back. The quote in context was:
“Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’.”
As in, women cry and whine and make men (white knights) defend them, rather than take responsibility, and furthermore…
Wait, hold up.
IPV? Since when have you ever mentioned violence by “proxy?” This is goal-post shifting, dude!
And since when does Paul Elam mention DV? The second link is about “creep shaming,” and the first is about Elam positing men committing violence towards some film makers, not towards abusers.
“Keep it up. I am firmly convinced that I am squarely on topic.”
Yeah, I get that. Luckily you can be as convinced as you like and still be wrong.
I am firmly convinced that the moon really is made of blue cheese. That means I’m correct, right?
@Roscoe:
“My question for you is, what did YOU think that David’s post was about?”
Oh, I dunno… About how this one person named Höllenhund came to the startling conclusion that making women suffer is wrong, but came to the startlingly dense and evil conclusion that it is wrong because it isn’t effective?
*psst*
i think roscoe took so long to respond because it took him that long to spin both his position and the subject material in his favor…
He had to feed his rationalization hamster extra pellets. This is hard work, you know.
P.S. I now know that IPV means Intimate Partner Violence.
Focusing on the Enlightenment era here, also known as the Age of Reason. Reason being defined as
reason |ˈrēzən|
noun
1 a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event
The word Salon comes from that period in time, where women, who could not participate in politics, would host huge gatherings to discuss recent ideas developing during the Enlightenment. Science, philopsophy, religion, politics, etc were all debated amongst these circles of educated, well off women who had the time and motivation to be intellectuals.
man
Aphra Behn (introduces idea of a natural person), Margaret Cavendish (scientist), Emilie du Chatelet (mathematician), Marie Geoffrin (influential in the Republic of Letters) are some philosophes.
>_> I like my people dead, so I can’t really say what’s going on today.
Oi… Because violence is vaguely referred to in the post that David quoted, therefore talking about how there are no men’s shelters in existence is appropriate. I see the links Roscoe lays before me and I still can’t follow.
@Roscoe:
You do realize that “on topic” does not mean “anything that can be reasonably or possibly related,” right? If David had a mind-bleach post about kittens, that isn’t an excuse to talk about abandoned dogs.
@ersatzmoons:
“I like my people dead, so I can’t really say what’s going on today.”
Strangely, and with very different implications, you could say the same thing about a fair number of MRAs…
“Fight” does not inherently mean violence. Specifically, “let’s you and him fight” refers to a particular pattern of behavior that is not about violence at all.