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.
That’s either stupid or a lie. Period. Because they exist. Period.
Here, look at this enormous list of resources for abused men, including many shelters! Exclamation point.
http://www.safe4all.org/resource-list/index?category=1
Roscoe
That is a straight up lie.
http://www.hud.gov/local/ny/homeless/menshelters.cfm
New York
Charlotte
http://www.mensshelterofcharlotte.org/
Does Roscoe think that feminists are a. totally unfamiliar with social service providers and b. unable to use Google?
“There are no men’s shelters. Period.”
Really?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=abused+men%27s+shelters
Saying “period” following a declarative statement doesn’t magically make said statement true.
CassandraSays – Roscoe seems to think we’re incapable of scrolling up to compare his “paraphrases” with reality, so I’d say he doesn’t have too high an opinion of our intelligence, no.
Darksidecat has a point. Sex segregation is problematic and ineffective for handling DV.
How can one tackle the problem, though? What I mean is, are there particular organizations/shelters that acknowledge the problem and provide better solutions for abused people?
Seems like something that needs a grassroots initiative…
I know I cannot use Google. I iz are dumb. Cuz I am a woman. or a feminist or whatever the reason is this week with the MRAers.
http://www.safe4all.org/resource-list/view/25826
Minnesota! Where I currently am.
No paraphrase needed Roscoe, you are both ignorant and a liar.
Jenn93 – Unfortunately, a lot of the results on Google are MRA or MRA-ish sites claiming there are no men’s shelters and abused men don’t stand a chance. You have to weed through those to find the actual men’s shelters.
Yeah, big help MRAs are doing men there.
On the website that Holly posted there are programs that are for trans* people.
Red_locker – The only solution that occurs to me is just to give everyone a motel voucher and make sure that you send people to a variety of separate motels or other places that can house people separately.
Unfortunately, due to cost/logistics that system would probably have to coexist with gender-segregated communal housing for people who are binary and heterosexual, so… it’s definitely a crappy and incomplete solution, it’s just the best I can think of.
“Yeah, big help MRAs are doing men there.”
They aren’t exactly the brightest, are they?
I agree with DSC too. I don’t see how ignoring and excluding a group of people who suffer the highest rate of domestic violence is a very good plan.
@ Holly
Well that sucks. Imagine that you were an abused man looking for a shelter, and the first thing you found was a bunch of MRA sites telling you that there aren’t any and BTW the people who run shelters hate you because you’re a man. That’s not exactly going to make the man in question feel supported and like it’s worth continuing to look for a shelter. What if he just gives up when in fact he might have been able to find help if he hadn’t had to weed through all the MRA bullshit to get to it?
Find one shelter that is only for men, excludes women, and exists to serve male victims of intimate partner violence. Not a co-ed shelter, as I distinguished earlier, but a shelter solely for abused men which turns away non-men.
Find it. “Google that” for me. Search around the web in your smugness.
I challenge you. Make me a liar. Not one such shelter exists. NOT ONE.
Make me a liar. Now.
So basically you are ignoring very vulnerable people because it for “the greater good”? Sorry that doesn’t really sound like such a great plan to me.
Wait, how did a post about the best way to control women generate a thread about how it’s enormously important for men to be allowed unquestioned access to women trying to escape abuse?
…Oh.
This one is actually a pretty effective troll, isn’t he? Going back to ignoring him now.
“I challenge you. Make me a liar. Not one such shelter exists. NOT ONE.”
Plenty of people have already given you links, you little idiot. If you can’t be bothered to read through them, then fuck you. I’m not pampering your little tantrum.
@Shaenon:
The post was about how women get away with more harm than men do, and the author stated that it is useless to challenge such women because they will likely find a way to successfully shift blame for their own actions to someone else. The discussion on this comment thread is totally germane to the article that David criticized.
I don’t have to make you a liar. You did that yourself!
Men’s shelters are generally run by domestic violence services that serve men and women, so very few exclude all women from the agency. But there are plenty that have separate emergency housing facilities for men.
Anyway, here’s one agency that has a shelter and only serves men:
http://gmdvp.org/
Sorry if this is mistaken, but I was under the impression that the majority of people tend to ID within the current gender binary. If this is the case, wouldn’t we be better served by maintaining the current system, and having a few non-gendered shelters to help serve those who don’t fall within the binary, or for those who are victims of DV within same-sex relationships and may not feel comfortable in a gendered shelter?
Jenn93, I looked at each and every one of them. None of them, including Safe4All, link to men’s shelters. There was not a single men’s shelter. There were co-ed shelters, and there were homeless shelters, but not a shelter solely for men who are victims of domestic violence which is not co-ed. Not one exists. It’s a valid observation. I was confronted with smugness, and I hurled it back.
No, Roscoe, the post was about different breeds of rabbits that are commonly kept as pets.
…Seriously, are you too dumb to scroll up and read, or do you think we are?