What can you do when you realize that you’re losing the war of ideas? You can rethink some or all of your ideas, seriously considering the unnerving possibility that you might be, well, wrong. You can reconsider how you present your ideas.
Or you can give up on ideas entirely, and attempt to pressure or harass or even terrorize others into some form of surrender. That’s what the the uber-radical Weathermen did in the 1960s and 70s, turning first to violent direct action in the aptly named “days of rage” and then to bombs when the revolution that many in the New Left had been prophesying failed to materialize. That’s what the anti-abortion movement has been doing for decades now, with some in the movement harassing women trying to get abortions while more radical antis bomb clinics and kill doctors. .
And now we’re seeing rhetoric from Men’s Rights Activists that suggests some in that movement may also be giving up on talk. Consider A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam, who declared in a fundraising letter a couple of months back that:
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 – presumably deliberately — vague about what exactly he means when he talks about “inflicting … pain,” and as far as I know he has never explicitly endorsed violence. But he has spoken openly about “stalking” individual feminists and otherwise “fucking their shit up” by, among other things, posting personal information about them on the AVfM-sponsored site Register-Her.com for all would be vigilantes to see. And in the “activism” section of his website he has reprinted a manifesto explicitly calling for the firebombing of courthouses and police stations.
Elam isn’t the only MRA who has officially given up on “debate and reason” in favor of “inflicting … pain” on feminists. The “counter-feminist” wannabe philosopher who calls himself Fidelbogen makes a similar argument in a recent post on his blog:
Feminism is your enemy, and the obligation to treat feminists as fellow human beings is officially waived. They are not fellow human beings, they are ALIENS.
Dehumanizing the enemy always a good start.
[L]et’s not hear any crap about so-called “hate speech”. You see, there is simply no way that you can resist evil, denounce tyranny, or call pernicious things by their right names, without crossing a fine line into “hate speech” or something very like it. Extremism against a bully is no vice, and since bullies have their own moral economy, you are entitled to pay them in their own coin.
It’s not hate speech if you really do hate them?
The important thing to understand about the feminists is, that they will not change their outward behavior unless social heat and pressure are inflicted upon them.
Fidelbogen, a sometime contributor to A Voice for Men, is also vague about what exactly he means by this “social heat and pressure.” He continues:
What, do you think they will stop what they are doing just because somebody intellectually convinces them they are mistaken? They will do no such thing, because they are people with an agenda who know they are “right”, and they lack the gift to see themselves as the rest of the world sees them.
IRONY ALERT. IRONY ALERT.
Over on Reddit, meanwhile, the charming JeremiahMRA – who used to post comments here as Things Are Bad – thinks the “inflict pain” policy should be extended to all women, any time they engage in “bad behavior.” Responding to a poster asking how to handle a disagreement with his mother, he explained his theory in (sometimes redundant) detail, receiving several dozen net upvotes for his post:
The ONLY way you change women’s bad behavior is by punishing them if they won’t start acting like adults. …
The only way you change a woman’s bad behavior is by making sure they know it hurts them. …
Reasoning with her will not work. The only answer is to use the power he has as her SON to threaten to hurt her emotionally. Women are emotional creatures. Nothing else will work. This is what it means to be a man: you do what you have to do so that things will be better in the end, even if you don’t like it. …
It isn’t about convincing her what’s right, it’s about showing her she will suffer if she doesn’t do what’s right. That is the only thing that will work.
The Men’s Rights Movement likes to pretend that is it a civil rights movement. But threats, harassment, hate speech, and emotional blackmail aren’t the tactics of a legitimate civil rights movement. These are the tactics of angry narcissists clinging to retrograde prejudices, who have given up on the war of ideas because on some level they know that history is against them, and that they will never win.
Also keep in mind darkside, that the consequences in the case of sexual assault are years in prison and a lifetime of sex offender registration. Not just the voiding of a contract and a possible damages payout.
Thus, the bar for duress must be kept higher.
As if Roberta wasn’t vile enough, she’s added ableism to the mix.
Go fuck yourself.
@Roberta:
I’ve gotta admit, it can be very challenging to hit a moving target.
So what have we learned here? Rape is bad. Rape is what happens when you have sex with someone without their consent. Consent under the law is absence of compulsion (very difficult to describe), and consent to people is a “yes” response while desiring to say yes.
So where did we start? With you asserting that feminists thought that asking somebody twice for sex was coercive and rape if sex happened.
There should be an award for the longest distance traveled in a single conversation.
Going for a low blow? I heard its a great way to dismiss the person you are talking to……
Fuck you and your made up words, Lauralot.
I was actually tempted to preempt this predictable bleating by adding “OMG ABLEISM!” in parentheses after that line. I now see that I should have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ableism
not real?
hurur I purposefully insulted mentally ill people hurhur see how edgy I am!
Very classy, Roberta.
So law school taught you to pretend that words you don’t like aren’t real, I see.
Again, go fuck yourself.
Roberta, the following concepts are generally frowned upon on this blog: “sexism”, “ableism”, “ageism”, “heterosexism”, “classism”, “lookism”, “cis-ism”, “phallicism”, “fatism” and a profoundly long list of silly words (ending in “ism”) that are deemed ”thoughtcrimes” or “crimethink.” The concepts don’t stop at the “isms,” but continue with concepts that promote “heteronormativity.” “cis-centrism”….ect ect ect.
@Kirby
The colloquial definition of rape is far from monolithic. That may be the “enthusiastic consent” definition of rape, but I suspect that the average person has a definition of rape that is more in line with the law. Perhaps even narrower than the law, as many people don’t consider drunken sex to be rape. While the law in some jurisdictions does consider it rape.
But yes.
Rape is bad.
Rape is sex without consent.
Rape under the law is sex procured through some form of forcible compulsion (actual force, threats, intimidation, some forms of blackmail).
Those are fine.
Yes, because that usually quells all objections to a behavior. It’s the coup de grace in any argument, really.
Is anyone else here a Jezebel regular? Because now that I think about it, I think that Roberta was claiming to be a cop rather than a lawyer when she first started trolling there.
From Roberta I have learned:
– If you can predict people criticizing you for saying offensive shit, it makes up for you saying offensive shit.
“off their meds” is only offensive to those who cultivate their indignities and use the faux outrage as a rhetorical device.
I predict that before this conversation is over Roberta will be snotty and condescending to at least one other commenter. If I call her ill-mannered in advance, having predicted this, that’s OK, right?
I’m pretty sure that’s in the Geneva Conventions.
TIL that trolling = disagreeing with some ideological zealots on certain tenets of their dogma.
Yes, magdelyn, we all know you’re so unaffected and above it all. Shut up about it already.
@R.S.
Bingo!
Except I would have to find a genuinely offensive way to call her ill-mannered, and I can’t off the top of my head. And even if I could I wouldn’t use it because hey, why stoop to that level?
Keep on stooping, Roberta.
Uh, Lauralot…mmm…no.
Nice Magedlyn.
That appraisal does seem fairly accurate. I’m wondering how many more words they’ll find ways to attach -ism to. I’ve heard that “heightism” has been making the rounds in the last year.
No, Magdelyn likes to use longer phrases rather than individual words. See for example “cultivating indignities.” It’s called cultivatingindignitism and it’s a cheap way to feel superior to people calling other people out on their behavior.
Hey, we should play troll bingo. So far we have the idea that feminists want to imprison men for rape for asking their partners for sex twice, “off your meds”, and “zealots”. Does anyone have a bingo card handy?