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.
Also, how would you filter out trans people for “safety” (and in doing so, de-gender them, because if we’re not allowing trans women into women’s shelters we’re saying that they’re not REALLY women or that they might be cis-male abusers pretending to sneak in)? For example, if I tried to access a women’s shelter, they’d probably let me in. I pass… should we frisk me to find out my bits? What if their abusers pass too? Not every abusive cis man looks like some stereotype of a big tough burly guy. -_-
Plus, it’s even worse to have a non-trans inclusive shelter because if people find out I’m trans, I’M the one who’s going to be open for abuse and assault and etc from people staying there and from staff, rather than if you have a trans inclusive policy, because then people know this isn’t tolerated. >:|
Also, you can handle abuses in shelters the way transphobia is handled in trans inclusive policies: the person committing the abuse or assault is kicked out.
The bottomline though, is this fuels the idea that trans people AREN’T people, we aren’t NORMAL, we should be segregated and kept away. For whatever, reason, safety of the cis population, fear of cis abusers, whatever.. it still adds to that environment in our society and that narrative.
@Dee, me too. I don’t work in this area, and don’t know that I have anything to contribute, but I feel like I’m learning something from it anyway. Thanks.
Thank you BigMomma 🙂 I was hoping you would add to this discussion b/c you’re the more experienced one, I’m still a newb 🙂
The more I think about this, the more I guess that the thing that has to give is the idea that shelters will never be found by abusers and that their security comes from being absolutely hidden. Maybe that’s something that just can’t be achieved without excluding innocent people.
Wow. It’s called “moving the goalposts” when I keep having to clarify that DV shelters should serve everyone, and that means everyone. If that’s moving the goalposts, then consider me a goalpost mover, because I just can’t fathom why anyone would want the proverbial goalposts to be set in such a way that any population of genuine victims is left behind. Move those posts, people! Until every DV victim has a refuge to escape a violent environment. Move ’em.
The discussion also caused me to look at a lot of shelter web sites, and one of the things I found troubling was that almost none of them acknowledged the existence of trans people. It is certainly possible that a trans person who contacted them would be assisted and treated with respect, but their invisibility on those sites really made what darksidecat et al resonate with me. And then Ami really nailed it:
nobody said anything like that. youre being accused of moving the goalposts because you keep changing your definition of ‘nobody left behind’ every time somebody gives you a counter-example
Oh Roscoe.
[one whole entire page earlier]
You so funny, Roscoe.
I think it’s really unwise to beat your slaves, as well as barbaric. Slaves, like pets, respond to loving kindness rather than beatings and sadism.
There. I just tried to fit everything wrong with DKM’s views into two sentences. I hope it doesn’t explode like a neutron star: the pressure is that intense.
Yeah, I’m learning a lot from this conversation, plus Ami and bigmomma bring up excellent points.
On a brighter note, I’m glad to hear that some shelters are becoming more inclusive (according to Ami), but we’ve got a long way to go. I’ll be joining the forums about this subject, too.
Sadly, I think Meller would be perfectly okay with those sentences, given that he’s racist as well as sexist. He’s an all-round horrible person.
@ Holly, Ami (thanks for the welcome!) hello again. once again, over the years, we have always worked with the idea that shelters probably will be found and abusers will try to get information/get in. So, you have safety procedures and risk assessments. One time, a resident told her partner where she was and he would wait for her outside…with an axe. We moved her to another hostel fairly quickly! and in the meantime, we snuck all the residents out the back door (obviously having called the police).
as for voucher systems, i’ve worked in systems where local councils paid for a stated number of nights at Bed and Breakfast accommodation (a great British tradition) and here in Oz where they’ll pay for motel accommodation. It’s horrible. the discrimination is worse as there are no staff to mediate and ensure safety. motel owners and B&B owners really generally aren’t trained or interested in dealing with that kind of stuff. Also there are so many hassles with caring for children, the expense of having to feed family with no cooking facilities in general being available. the short term nature of it, the constant to-ing and fro-ing to look for better accommodation whilst having to prove your need to the council….i could go on but i won’t.
Meller is a triple threat – racist, sexist, homophobic. He’s the complete package, with bonus dolls.
@cloudiah exactly. That’s also what the purpose of of my work is, first, to help agencies create trans and GQ inclusive policies, and secondly so people know that agencies are being inclusive (plus I encourage agencies to specifically put in their literature and website they are) and that there’s an effort out there to help them become more so 🙂
I know for me, after I was raped, I refused to call any rape crisis lines because I was too afraid I would face transphobia, or people de-gendering me, or etc 🙁
@Moewicus
My brain, it bleeds! 🙂
Wow. It’s called “moving the goalposts” when I keep having to clarify that DV shelters should serve everyone, and that means everyone.
If all you want is gender-neutral shelters, which you know exist, why were you bitching and moaning that men-only shelters don’t exist?
The OP and DKM are kinda funny, in a way. Rape, DV, and so on against women isn’t wrong because… you know… they’re wrong, it’s just that they won’t get MRAs what they want.
Funny how you can sound pro-rape even as you advocate against it…
@Holly:
If you remember, it was you who suggested that there should be men’s-only DV shelters as an alternative to my preference, which is that existing shelters should serve all DV victims and exclude no one. I pointed out that such a position is not grounded in reality anyway, since the reality is that there are no men’s-only DV shelters, only homeless shelters and a relatively few gender-neutral shelters.
Then I was attacked, as if I preferred for there to be male-exclusive shelters. Yet all along, I have stated repeatedly that men have no other alternative except to utilize the existing shelter infrastructure, and yet they are turned away routinely.
Your desire for a network of men’s-only DV shelters is idealistic, but unrealistic due to the enormous cost of duplicating the entire existing DV shelter infrastructure to serve males exclusively and separately, as you advocate. Not only isn’t there the money, but there also isn’t the consensus. I would not prefer such a scenario myself, precisely because it is exclusive.
The lack of an alternative men’s only DV shelter network for males simply means that the existing infrastructure needs to be more open! Bottom line, that’s my argument and it’s been consistent throughout this discussion.
@Ami I am really glad that you and others are doing this really important work! And so sorry that this is a world where you and others might be afraid to get help because of transphobia. 🙁
Sometimes this world sucks. But then there’s Ami!!! 🙂
Whatever, Roscoe. I’m not going to re-argue this in the alternate reality in which you have reconstructed the argument.
Except for that point where you were demanding men’s only shelters that excluded everybody XD
But we’ll pretend that doesn’t exist xD
@ ami, i am so sorry to hear about your experience. sending you a hug and a big listening ear.
and yes, we do need to make our trans-inclusive stance publicly known. My hostel admitted transwomen but our admissions policy and anti-discrimination policies were pretty woolly. By making public statements like that, we bring the discussion into the mainstream and enable workers to challenge discrimination effectively, as well as letting the community know we acknowledge and support their rights.
@Roscoe, having worked in DV shelters and general needs homelessness shelters, i fully support that we have women only DV shelters. I think you are being provocative in suggesting that men should be able to utilise the existing DV shelter network. for a start, it’s overloaded just trying to accommodate women. Women are turned away every day because the shelter is full. this is from my experience, having in 3 countries over 15years doing this work.
Many of the women i worked with over the years had been through a succession of abusive relationships with men and simply feared to be in a closed environment with any man. I have no issue with the idea of providing a safe space for them free of that fear.
Bottom line? there simply isn’t enough crisis accommodation out there for anyone. let’s acknowledge that first and realise we need more. then we start to plan how to get more. Then we plan on how it all looks, how we house all the diverse groups. I believe it can be done and we can do it together.
“Good to see somebody finally agrees with the obvious, even if it means that some, perhaps even most, claims of abuse or DV deserve to be taken with considerably more skepticism and reserve than has been the case.
Women, like pets, respond to love, attention, and patience much better than they do to harshness, beatings, or sadism. If she is in a long-term relationship, I should think that this is even more true.”
DKM always brings the creepy and horrifying to any party.
But Meller would TOTES understand if someone were provoked into committing DV. According to him, mere words on a blog not his are enough for a punch in the face.
Oh holy shit DKM.
See, “rape” is in quotes because rape is a myth and literally never happens.
This is pretty much the definition of evil, right here. I was going to say “sociopathy” but that’s not fair. This is just evil. Basing your decision on whether or not to abuse another human being on how it affects you and whether it gets you what you want–that is literally evil.