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.
@ Roberta
I guessed you were female from your name, apologies if I implied otherwise.
I reckon sex is really only sex if you doing it because you want sex, if you see what I mean?
@Magpie
Where would that leave sex workers? Or mutual sexual favors? Or all those people who have sex when they aren’t really in the mood just because they want to make their partners happy? (something every person who’s ever been in a longterm relationship has done)
Consent just means that you voluntarily agreed to have sex. It doesn’t matter why you are agreeing to have sex (unless you are under duress).
Speaking of what MRAs are actually good at, I noticed that Elam’s biggest fan Alex Novy is following me on Jezebel. I guess disagreeing with him a couple of times here is enough to put me on his must-internet-stalk list?
On a different note, feeling pretty disgusted with the idea that political movements should teach children to try to hurt their parents emotionally.
I reckon there needs to be another word for sex work sex, to distinguish it from the just-for-fun kind.
Those examples are still doing because you want to do it (I hope!). Not to avoid an argument, or because you don’t want to walk home in the dark, or because he’ll chuck you out if you don’t, and so on.
@magpie
Do you really think it’s rape if someone consents to sex because they want to avoid an argument? Badgering your partner to have sex with you is certainly morally questionable, but there’s no real force in that scenario.
No one has an inalienable right to be in a relationship with their SO. So if your partner says: “have sex with me or I’m gone,” your ability to make a free choice is still intact. People have the right to set the terms of their own love life. If your partner says: “these are the terms of being in a relationship with me,” then you are free to either accept or reject those terms. There’s no force or compulsion involved.
“He’s going to do it anyway, so I may as well let him,” and, “If I say yes will you let me get some sleep?” don’t really strike me as consent.
In the asexual community this thing comes up a lot. An asexual person is partnered with a sexual person and sometimes allows sex to be done to them even though they have no interest and don’t enjoy it, just for the sake of their partner (who apparently doesn’t care how much their partner dislikes it) and their “needs.” (Very reminiscent of the old timey douche ad I read that referred to sex as “marital obligations.”) You can say that it’s consent, but I’d call it very … rape-flavored consent (if I have to use the c-word). I don’t think they would call it rape, but it sure as heck isn’t enthusiastic. “Since I don’t really have any other choice, I guess I will allow this to be done to my body” is just as voluntary as, “Now go apologize to Timmy for calling him a doo-doo-head.”
Just want to point out that I’ve been in more than one long-term relationship, and I’ve never had sex just to make my partner happy. If I’m not in the mood, sex isn’t happening. If the other person isn’t in the mood, I don’t expect them to have sex with me just because I feel like it either. I’m fairly sure that I’m not the only person who can say this.
No one has an inalienable right to be in a relationship with their SO. So if your partner says: “have sex with me or I’m gone,” your ability to make a free choice is still intact.
In a vacuum, I guess this would make sense.
In a world where women are told that their social worth depends on having a man at all costs, and where her life might be so entangled with his that it makes splitting up difficult if not impossible … not so much.
And some people know that and will use it to their advantage.
Specially when there’s kids.
@chocomintlipwax
If someone genuinely doesn’t have a choice, then they are being raped. So long as someone does have a reasonable choice, then their consent is legitimate.
If someone only consents because they fear that sex will be forced on them if they don’t, then that can be rape. If they consent to sex just to shut their SO up, then I certainly don’t think that’s rape. If their partner genuinely wont stop badgering them then they can always get up and leave the room (or tell their partner to leave).
There’s a concept in the law known as duress. Duress exists if someone doesn’t have a reasonable choice except to submit to someone else’s demands. If someone consents under duress, then it is rape. If they begrudgingly consent when they aren’t under duress, then the sex is consensual, but they should probably find a new partner.
@chocomint
So you don’t have the right to end a relationship if you aren’t sexually satisfied. I’d also take issue with your assertion that we live in a society where women are told their nothing if they don’t have a man.
Someone who would make such an ultimatum is being shitty and manipulative, but at the end of the day they still aren’t forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone is still free to make a voluntary choice.
Going back to the top of the page, what does “unintentional environmental pressures” mean?
@Magpie
Peer pressure. Cultural norms. That sort of thing.
For example: a high school girl who has sex with her boyfriend because all her friends are doing it and she thinks it’s expected of her. Even though she doesn’t really want to be having sex yet.
thanks
Roberta, the father’s rights movement and the men’s rights movement are really quite distinct, surprisingly so. FRAs tend to be more focused, more moderate, and more activist than those who identify as MRAs online. And, yes, because of that, FRAs have had some influence in the real world.
The MRAs I’ve found online by and large pay little attention to groups like fathers and families; I’ve seen some of the more extremist MRAs dismiss fathers and families and Glenn Sacks as “sellouts.”
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.
********
can’t win a game of chess against an opponent too stupid to understand the rules
Yes you can -_o
If you break the rules of a game, you forfeit…
The question is EWME, what are the rules of your game? 😀
@David: absolutely superb post, but I’d like to add a bit on this one statement: 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.
Women going to health clinics for a NUMBER of reasons (includnig pre-natal care and checkups) have been harassed because of the belief that is a clinic offers abortion among a number of other services that ALL women ALL the time are getting abortions.
You are absolutely right that the harassers believe the women they harass are getting abortions, and some are (as they have a perfect legal right to do so), but not all women are.
I’d say dude needs a therapist, but I wouldn’t want to inflict him one. He’d probably just end up stalking them anyway
*inflict him on one
How many fucking times does this have to be made clear to you? Administrative hearings at the college level ARE NOT COURTS. Also, the stats make it abundantly clear that the vast majority of people who are accused of sexual harassment and/or assault by other students are NOT DISCIPLINED IN ANY WAY for it. Bullshit meme is bullshit.
I actually really do hope to see a legitimate men’s rights group that tackles the issues men face today rationally that actually helps men rather than encourage them to stew in anger, resentment and hate.
If reading this site has taught me anything, it’s that there are genuine problems men face that aren’t being adequately addressed – things like rape, lack of domestic abuse assistance, and so on. I’d really like to see a legitimate men’s rights group take on these real live problems suffered by real live men, too. Hell, I’d probably volunteer with such a group.
Roberta, you said:
“Rape cases have the highest rate of conviction, 67%?”
Citation needed.
@Roberta- I… fail to see where you actually disagree with Magpie. You keep saying that “duress” is a reasonable precursor to rape, and that’s basically what we’re talking about.
For example, agreeing to have sex even though you are tired and have work the next day because your partner wants sex isn’t rape. Agreeing to have sex because your partner is going to keep the TV on VERY LOUD and pester you every 10 minutes while you are trying to sleep and follow you out to the den if you try to go sleep on the couch, that seems to fit your definition of duress.
What you have to remember is that so many of the tactics you dismiss as “shitty but consensual” are part of the arsenal of abusers, and come in hand with systematic isolation and undermining of self worth, and sometimes threats of violence or actual violence. You have to look at the bigger picture.