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.
I’m not sure, but couldn’t there be a distinction between “rape as a bad thing” and “rape as a legally prosecutable thing”? It seems like @Roberta is saying “those examples, do you want them to be illegal?” and I don’t think you have to say “yes” to say that they’re rape.
Dude what the hell. This is why asexuals don’t feel very welcomed in sex pozzie space, I’m pretty sure they don’t appreciate you calling them having sex “rape flavored consent”. Please do not talk about things you don’t know about, its embarrassing and frankly offensive.
Just because some asexuals don’t fit your model of “enthusiastic consent” does not mean they cannot consent at all. And your thing about their partner is a way misrepresentation of how many of their relationships are. Also believe it or not some asexuals enjoy sex.
@ M Dubz
Captain Awkward is the best! (http://captainawkward.com/)
The boundaries stuff has been so great for me, even though I have nothing particularly “wrong” with my relationship.
@ Jawnita
I hope your friend starts feeling better without turning into a giant ass. The problem with game (one of them) is that it assumes that if you do it “right” people are obligated to respond favorably, when in reality those people have their own individual thoughts and feelings. You can do everything right and still fail because other people have personal autonomy. So, I hope that something that gets across to your friend is that *trying* counts as a success. Asking someone out, or chatting with a co-worker is an example of one’s personal success in being social, not the response received.
@jumbofish
wat.
What? No 🙁 this is terrible. I’ve never done this, and I sure as hell hope I never unwittingly pressured any partner I’ve had into doing this. This isn’t actually a common thing among LTRs, is it, guys? 🙁
The only sex I’m interested in is “let’s have sex because sex is fun and we both want to have it right now” sex.
(something every person who’s ever been in a longterm relationship has done)
Yeah, no. A lot of people? Maybe. Everyone? No.
M Dubz-
Yes! Charlie Nox was the one I was trying to think of. The other two look really good, too.
Starskita-
Very good point about what “counts.” I’ll pass it along.
Thanks, everyone!
Roberta
“No one has an inalienable right to be in a relationship with their SO.”
True enough. How does it follow that someone has an inalienable right to sex within a relationship? That’s what you are implying in that paragraph, at least in my reading of it. And yes nagging does fit on the continuum of emotional or mental abuse and is used by abusive partners to get what they want (by bullying their partners). Why would someone nag for sex unless the other person wasn’t consenting? And for many feminists, that’s where the line is drawn, not on why the consent wasn’t being given.
I’ve always found it sadly ironic that the MRA’s definition of “making things better for men” seems to be “making things worse for women.”
So far, all I can hear is what they want to TAKE AWAY from women, rather than what they want to HELP MEN WITH.
As in:
-Take away child support so men only do not have to pay it (which is not for women but custodial children, and can be given from women to men as well so it’s not a sexist construct).
-Take away access to birth control and/or abortion (unless the man decides that he wants his woman to have her insides scooped out, then it’s ok).
-Treating women like “sluts, whores, etc” as though their only worth to men is through punishing their orifices (I am disturbed to some extent that there are actual modern day people who think that my genital configuration actually makes me less human).
-torturing/stalking/etc women (and maybe some of the men who aren’t big and strong and might actually be able to kick his ass) who actually think that equal rights is something we should strive for (and not gender-preferred rights because that just assumes that my gender needs “special help” because it is inferior and I find that absolutely nauseating).
You know what? There is a name for these things- “what the vast majority of men used to think only a few generations ago. These dipshits aren’t unique or “new” or even close to “edgy”. They’re the same old oppression shuffle that’s been threatening to kill women or silence them since women first said, “Hrm, being legally and socially treated like a slave totally sucks and we really only have nowhere to go but UP towards equality, so let’s try and change this, ok?”
What makes me think how lucky we are that SO MANY MEN do NOT still think this way- that so many men are respectful of all gender diversity, that so many men are allies and actually mean what they say when they say that they think that both women and men should be judged on their individual capabilities, not their gender alone. That so many men, even men who are afraid to call themselves “feminists” are breaking from stilted, toxic gender roles (don’t show emotion except for violent anger, men must always be “tough”, etc) while still retaining an essential masculinity that is both powerful and deeply attractive.
These MRA’s really show me that there’s a fundamental shift going on here- the vast majority of society thinks that women are part of the human race and that as such we should be legally and socially respected on par with men (and vice versa), while the minority makes blogs that the rest of us laugh at because most civilized people think it’s backwards and archaic just like the flat world society and the KKK.
Yeah, it’s more like 13% in the US.
I think there’s a really big and important difference between “If we can’t negotiate a way for both of us to be sexually satisfied in this relationship, maybe it’s best if we end it” and “have sex with me right now or I’ll dump you.”
It’s one thing to need sex to be a part of your relationship; it’s another to use that for cheap ultimatums. The first can certainly be a distressing situation but it is legitimate. The second is just emotionally blackmailing someone into sex.
It should also be noted thaqt in several cultures and religions that once two people are married, its not only their right to be in that relationship, its a duty.
I’m sure lots of people do tyhings “to shut their partners up” in LTRs, not me. Anything thats given grudgingly is a sure fire way of building up resentment and anger which kills longterm happiness in my opinion. There may be times when I’m not horny but decide to offer sex, it won’t be because my partner is nagging. I’ll do it as a small gift and to maintain the happiness we both share in the relationship. Not because someone feels entitled to make that demand.
Although even the nicey-nice version can still be dickish if you’re raising a child together, your partner is ill, or your partner is financially dependent on you.
These are tricky situations and if you’re not okay with an open relationship (another thing that’s good to negotiate, bad to demand), you might have to put other priorities above sexual satisfaction temporarily.
@blitzgal :
According to RAINN :
60% of rape are not reported. If a rape is reported, there’s 50.8% chance of arrest. If an arrest is made there’s 80% chance of prosecution. If there’s a prosecution, there’s a 58% chance of a conviction. If there’s a conviction, there’s 69% chance of jail time for the rapist.
If you take into account unreported rapes, most rapists walk free.
http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates
Oh man, are you a poe? The average rate of conviction of felony trials is over 90%. Rape is exceptionally low by the standards of the rest of the criminal justice system (Check out, for instance, this survey of state courts; 93% Felony convictions, Figure 3; http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/psc07st.pdf)
Is that so? Because even survey courses cover the amazingly high rate of conviction in felony trials. And it’s not like being old is an excuse, they were 73% 40 years ago and they’ve only been increasing…
I’ve brought up Elam’s disturbing above quote several times, both in speaking to John the Other and GWW on Youtube, and I’m always told, “Oh, the violent talk is metaphorical! He’s talking about the pain of having your lies exposed!”. Frankly, that doesn’t make it any better. I’m well aware that the violent rhetoric and empty threats are just that–empty–but it’s still incredibly disturbing, and absolutely pathetic for what is purportedly a legitimate social movement.
I don’t see “I’m not really turned on myself, but I want to make you happy” as rapey, necessarily. Sometimes the pleasure one gets out of sex is not one’s owm but vicarious, through one’s partner, and that’s okay too. But otoh I totally understand the position of “I want my partner to be turned on every time we have sex,” since that is basically my position as well. And expecting that your partner will have sex with you when not turned on is INCREDIBLY shitty.
I tend to find “enthusiastic consent” a problematic term, in general. I think the key element that makes up consent is whether you want sex (whether you want it out of desire, to cure a headache, to have a child, because your partner’s happiness makes you happy, because it’s your job, etc.). Being harassed into sex means one doesn’t want sex, which means it’s nonconsensual.
Also, yes, asexuals can consent to sex. For fuck’s sake.
I also don’t see a higher conviction rate as creating “a legal environment which would enable and facilitate false accusations of rape.” Isn’t it possible that so many cases are dismissed as being unprovable (especially on “only” a woman’s word) that the cases that do make it all the way to court are the ones most like to be successfully prosecuted?
And I don’t believe the bullshit that men are convicted easily on only the victim’s testimony. Have you all heard of the case in Pitt Meadow’s, BC? The charges against the suspects in a gang rape case were let go, while the person who *video taped* it has been convicted of distributing obscene materials/child pornography. Video tape, plenty of witnesses (who are refusing to come forward, cowards), multiple suspects, and the prosecution doesn’t think they can make the case against the people who gang raped a 16 year with dozens of witnesses.
Tell me again how men are convicted on just the word of a woman?
http://www.canada.com/news/Pitt+Meadows+teen+pleads+rape+witnesses+come+forward/6193471/story.html
“The average rate of conviction of felony trials is over 90%.”
Wow, thanks Rutee. Speaking of taking people at their word…I’ll have to remember to fact check Roberta from now on.
Roberta, you’re an attorney? What’s your specialty? Do lots of false accusation cases?
“But threats, harassment, hate speech, and emotional blackmail aren’t the tactics of a legitimate civil rights movement.”
Nevermind the fact that all the “legitimate” civil rights movements of the past had elements that engaged in these tactics.
Or are you not aware that feminists in 1960′s Britain frequently engaged in acts of vandalism and death threats?”
Yes, who could forget Martin Luther King’s “I will fuck their shit up speech”
Most schizoids are asexual and yet they can have sex. Some have girlfriends or boyfriends.
@crumbelievable
so did GWW block you?
I love how she does not even research her quotes when she does a video on feminism, but heinous stuff from leaders of MRA can be “metaphorical”. She is awful.
I’m thinking her angle is that she is religious and conservative, so just latches on. She’s very very aggressive, to be specific, passive aggressive. She’s smiling in a corner when IPV happens, saying “oh well, you drove him to it, we can’t let the feminists win.”
She does the “hmmm I was wondering… ” bit on my videos when MRAs are proven wrong. Goal post shifter and disingenuous. She linked me a bunch of sources for DV to “prove” that it’s equal, and when I showed on screen one of the sources she blocked me, and started spreading around something another MRA said about me personally which is not true, nor is it verifiable in any way. This post was actually triggering for me, and I can’t comment on it directly. Too true, too true, too close to home. And I’m not even a rad fem.
However… I don’t like when liberal wishy washy fems talk shit about rad fems. Now I’m veering off subject, tho.
Speaking as someone on the ace spectrum who has survived sexual abuse due to it (it was “corrective” in nature)–
Sometimes I choose to bang my husband on an ace day. It is NOT rapey. I get to define what rape is, and I choose to do it because I enjoy his pleasure on a nonsexual level. It’s just like cuddling, only… er. Stickier. At any point, I can freely say no, and I won’t be badgered, gaslighted (gaslit?), guilt-tripped, or manipulated.
I WILL say that there is a strong societal pressure on ace folks to have sex they don’t want and don’t enjoy, because it is a “required” part of a relationship. It’s how I ended up in an abusive position–I was essentially being raped to desensitize me to sex because he thought this would help me overcome my prudery and “fix” me. So yeah, I’ve actually been that ace guy lying there, wishing to god he’d come already so he would start talking to me like a human being again and I’d be free for another few days or so.
And in relation to what Roberta was saying, no, I didn’t leave. Not because “I am nobody without a partner,” but because at the time, I wanted one, but it was put to me in no uncertain terms that if I wanted that, I HAD to put out. If I was unable to like it, then I had to either learn to deal with it or just never ever date. It was a pretty shitty choice all around.
I don’t know if I’m blocked from posting because I don’t feel like commenting on her stufff anyway. What’s funny though is that she pretty much confirmed what I’d thought about her: that she thinks herself to be so much better than other women, so all the shit talk that MRAs say about women doesn’t bother her. I mentioned something Elam had said to me about women not being self-sufficient and GWW’s response basically amounted to, “I agree that women aren’t self-sufficient, except for me, because I didn’t take any money from my ex husband. Elam likes me because of that. All the other women who do though–screw them.”
“Or are you not aware that feminists in 1960′s Britain frequently engaged in acts of vandalism and death threats?”
This really irks me. I am not, standing on the ground that those feminists won for their daughters (I have a career, a mortgage, contraception and abortion rights, and all my finances under my own name), going to criticize how they got there and what they saw as necessary. It also smacks of “they’re just not ladylike” and “it would be convenient if feminists just sat down and shut up.” My mother lived through 1960’s Britain, with endless damaging effects, so piss off.