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.
Rutee, still waiting for that address.
Oh, hey, Cassandra, you can fork over your email address too. Just the first part, I don’t need anything after the @.
@CaptainBathrobe: “it’s really irrelevant whether an anti-DV organization caters exclusively to women, exclusively to men, or to both. What really matters is the level of access to services as a function of need in a given geographic area.”
How do you gauge the need? Not accusing you of this, but I’ve seen circular arguments made before by people who support gender exclusivity in DV services, such that “the need is extremely low, because so few of [underserved group] request services from us. So it’s OK that we turn [underserved group] away, because they aren’t knocking down our door anyway.”
If someone makes it a policy to deny DV services to a class of people, then it’s an easy leap of illogic to then claim that said class has no need (because they’re turning people away).
@IdeologueReview:
David. Did. Not. Release. Any. E-Mail. At. All.
The email was not publicly available on the DA page.
The username was peririck, as you said, and that was on the DA page. If you could derive the e-mail address from this, tough shit. David did not release anything that wasn’t already public knowledge.
Also, the name is “Rick Peri.” seriously… -_-
Now quit belly-aching and finally admit, after all these months, that it was your site and your project. Alternatively, deny that it was your site and explain how you happened to use the same e-mail. Alternatively, claim the site as yours but deny that you drafted the project or something… I dunno, anything but this bizarre claim that you publicly linking to a site, and having somebody point to that site, is a privacy breach.
I mean, I know that you have to make as big a fuss as possible, IR, in order to distract everyone from the current issue… But could you do it in a way that is even remotely defensible? This isn’t shooting fish in a barrel, this is having fish in an empty barrel waiting for them to suffocate.
… Hey IR, aren’t you gonna ask me for my e-mail address too? 🙁 I feel left out…
You’re asking for my work email? Really? That’s interesting. You’re either being disingenuous and claiming equivalence between a work and a play email, or you’re once again trying to tip toe around your previous project and are now tacitly admitting that it was you.
At any rate, given how little information was given, and the fact that none of us knows your email but David, good luck with talking about how your privacy was breached.
@Rutee:
Just a guess, but I think its the second one.
@Roscoe:
How do you gauge the need?
By conducting a formal needs assessment. I don’t know specifically how this is done, but county departments of mental health do it all the time. Now, it is possible, even likely, that these needs assessments have not been done in most places due to lack of awareness and/or funding; I haven’t looked into the matter, so I can’t comment. In any event, that’s a legitimate issue. It’s also possible that assessing such a need would be challenging due to the reluctance of male victims to self-identify. Still, there must be a way to do it. I would think that providing numbers that show the level of utilization in a given area before and after the opening of facilities for men would be sufficient to demonstrate that unmet need probably exists in other localities; at least, it would make a strong argument for a needs assessment.
Targeting segregated facilities just seems like misfiring, however, especially since there are compelling arguments in favor of sex-segregation of DV facilities. A much more compelling argument would be to cite whatever studies exist on the need vs. availability as a case for more funding and/or awareness.
There are a lot of thoughtful people, here and elsewhere, who would at least listen to such an argument. But attacking women-only domestic violence facilities is a non-starter for many, and probably just serves to identify you, rightly or wrongly, as an MRA or fellow traveler.
Kirby, before David released the address, nobody could connect the email address with what I posted as “FactFinder.” Now, they could. Had I used my work email and a feminist looking to “out a misogynist” found it, she could have harassed my employers or coworkers. After all, anything is fair game if it’s part of your “social justice arsenal.”
@Rutee – and if I posted my “work email?”
Also, you want the reason I synched my email to the site? I’ll give you a hint: David released it.
Adding on to CBs last point – just in general, if you come into a space where nobody knows you, and it’s a space that attracts lots of trolls, and you immediately come across as combatative and as assuming ill will on the part of a movement that most other commenters are involved with, the response you’re going to get is unlikely to be positive. Maybe something to bear in mind for the next time you want to talk about this in a feminist space.
@IdeologueReview:
“Kirby, before David released the address, nobody could connect the email address with what I posted as “FactFinder.””
How many times do I have to say this before you listen. Nobody released your email address. Nobody. All anyone had access to was your username on DA, which everyone on DA knows about. That DA account could be accessed by anyone who clicked on your username when you posted here. If that is the same as your e-mail address, like I said before; tough shit.
And you call yourself an IT guy… -_-
In fact, nobody knew that the username was the first half of your email until you said it was. Do you understand that? YOU RELEASED YOUR OWN DAMN EMAIL!
*huff huff huff*
( -.- ) *meditation face*
Alrighty then. 🙂
@Captain Bathrobe: “Targeting segregated facilities just seems like misfiring, however, especially since there are compelling arguments in favor of sex-segregation of DV facilities. A much more compelling argument would be to cite whatever studies exist on the need vs. availability as a case for more funding and/or awareness.”
The most compelling argument of all is the needs assessment conducted by a DV victim seeking services. Imagine that only one person in a group designated as “not needful” arrived at the office of a DV service provider, kids in tow, desperate to find some place quiet and safe to be for the next two weeks. The intake worker politely tells them that even though on this particular night there are beds available, accessed via separate attached rooms with private bathrooms, and more than enough financial resources to help them, they would have to seek services elsewhere because some study conducted at the county level determined that there was simply no need.
Can you imagine the bitterness, the utter loneliness, the helplessness that such an interaction would produce in the victim’s mind? Not to mention the potential lawsuit that it could lead to, depleting valuable resources form the jurisdiction that made such a determination.
If one victim needs help, then that victim must be served. Somehow.
This would make you a colossal idiot if any of it were, you know, true. The only reason your email was mentioned in the first place was that you claimed not to be peirick. You wouldn’t be the first troll to just link to some unrelated site to try to offend.
But nobody’s convinced, I’m betting. Maybe if you’d immediately divested yourself in unambiguous language, but combining that lack with that “GIMME YOUR WORK EMAIL RUTEE” means that it’s unlikely anybody believes you now.
*sigh*
Rewriting history does nothing if history is preserved perfectly in a place everyone can see…
And IdeologueReview is FactFinder, and also peririck on DA, and he drew up a draft for an obscene little game that never got made. And that’s about all the facts there are to find.
On to the next derail. *determined face*
ok, here i go again.
where children are concerned, accommodation is prioritised irrespective of the gender of their carer. i have never, repeat NEVER seen anyone turned away from accessing accommodation with children in a time of crisis. Maybe it has happened somewhere….but in nigh on 20years of work, i haven’t seen it. Child Protection legislation would mandate against it. the accommodation may not be great, it may not be long term, but it will be offered and should be offered, if the intake worker has a clue, with information about support services and long term accommodation options and strategies
i’m not denying that male-specific services are lacking. but i suspect the reasons for this lie in kyriarchy rather than feminism.
also, throughout my career, i have carried out thorough assessments of everyone that comes to see me. i then log all the information onto a database which is reviewed quarterly by our funders. i also submit detailed needs assessments to the local government housing agency. i sit on Crisis Housing steering groups and submit information on housing need to the government via these groups.
that is how we assess need. that is how we establish what needs to be done. By asking the people who use our service what they want, what they have experienced and then devising strategies. and i do this every working day.
IR/FF is legitimately hard to keep track of. Was he actually denying that he was FF for a bit there? Because he was answering to FF earlier.
And just admit that Preggo Punchout is your project, dude. We all know it is. You’re not keeping a secret here, you’re just making yourself look like more of a douche.
@Roscoe
Yes, domestic violence victims should be served. How often are male DV survivors not served vs. how often female DV survivors are not served? Are women always supported and men never supported? Please show your work with citations. Thanks.
@bigmomma, Thank you for bringing a dose of reality.
@cloudiah:
“Yes, domestic violence victims should be served. How often are male DV survivors not served vs. how often female DV survivors are not served? Are women always supported and men never supported? Please show your work with citations. Thanks.”
The simple fact is that no comprehensive assessment, free and available to the public, has ever been conducted which seeks the answer to that question. That is why a services assessment should be conducted, not a “needs assessment.”
Oh my fucking christ, you’re an incompetent, disingenuous asshole. Go to hell.
@Roscoe
And why should we trust you to make either a services or needs assessment? You are not neutral. Make the case, or make a case for someone else to conduct the assessment. At this point, understand that I have no trust in you. Prove me wrong or provide an alternative.
Thanks.
ok….so we’ll assess service provision based on……? that would be need, wouldn’t it? (in the real world)
or in other words, i can see there is no service provision for unicorns escaping domestic violence. quick, build a shelter.
once again and i’ll keep saying it, i am in favour of domestic abuse service provision to all who need it.
i put that really badly, i’ll explain if needed