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.
Jeezus, LBT. That is some shit right there *hugs if you want them*
In light of what pillowinhell and ozy and LBT have said, I realize that my knee-jerk reaction to the idea of having sex to please a partner wasn’t fair. I was conflating choosing to do something for your partner’s pleasure with feeling pressured to have sex when you don’t want to, and those aren’t the same at all. Lots of people have lots of different kinds of relationships and sex and I shouldn’t go calling something “terrible” just because it’s not the kind of relationship or sex I want to have. Sorry, everybody.
@crumbeilevable- The attitude among so many conservatives of personal exceptionalism and group depravity really really irks me (see, I’m one of the good women, not like those feminist bitches. Also, women seeking abortions are dirty dirty sluts, but my baby has gross fetal abnormalities!) It’s like, if people are out to get your rights, they don’t care if you’re a “good” one or a “bad” one. They basically just want to oppress you, and you are acting in your own worst interest in the long run to ally yourself with oppressors.
@Roberta:
[blockquote]I’ve actually seen some positives changes within the men’s rights movement in the last few years. There’s been a gradual shift away from “feminism, Grrrr!” and a gradual movement towards a more issues centered discussion. At least on the men’s rights subreddit, there has. I don’t know about MGTOW forums.[/blockquote]
You seem reasonable enough and are certainly more openly communicative than any other MRA that has ever posted here, so I’m glad for that. Unfortunately, people like you seem to occupy a severe minority in the MRM. Let’s take that subreddit for example. It’s true that there seem to be a group of MRAs who speak out against the misogyny that frequently pops up within the MRM and who are legitimately concerned with men’s issues. But did you know that one of the moderators for that subreddit, AnnaChrist…or something…is a fan of r/beatingwomen who wrote that one false rape accuser deserved to have her throat slashed? The fact that this creep has not been swiftly booted from the subreddit tells me that his brand of violent rhetoric and misogyny has quite a bit of appeal to MRAs.
I thought that’s how you quoted people…ah well, I’ll stick with the quotation marks.
@crumbelievable: it is, but with instead of [ ]
oh no, the carroty things disappeared! It’s this one “<"
@Crumbelievable :
Here’s how you quote people
<blockquote> Quotation … <blockquote/>
Let me see,,.
And? I work with attorneys every day. They’re just like any other group of people. You have your really stellar folks who know their shit, and then you have…..the rest of them. The ones who can’t fill out a simple form properly because they can’t be bothered to read the instructions, or the ones who have their secretaries do it all for them. Let’s just say I’ve dealt with enough attorneys to know that they don’t automatically deserve any extra deference on my part just by being attorneys.
RE: M Dubz
It’s okay. It was a long time ago and I’m in a much better place now; I’ve got an awesome partner now who is totally consentastic. But yeah, discussions of ace sexuality and pressure for sex is a bit of a hot button with me.
RE: Viscaria
It’s okay, I think I get where you’re coming from. It can be a very, VERY fine line between, “I do this because I want to,” and “I do this because I feel I should,” especially when manipulators and abusers are concerned. I’ve experienced both, but my husband is DEFINITELY the first camp, as far as my feelings go.
After reading this thread, I’m realizing that I really have no idea what asexual means, even though I’ve read resources on it. Having “an ace day” and “some asexuals enjoy sex” were things which I thought couldn’t happen with my current understanding of what ace meant, and I’d like to hear more about these points. *goes to find more resources*
And I mean no disrespect to attorneys in general by my comment. Most of the ones I deal with are lovely people. My main point is that they’re just people, like everyone else.
@Crumbelievable
What a liar she is. Does she know what’s going on in the lives of every single woman on the planet? My friend from highschool isn’t getting one penny from the father of her son who disappeared a little after he found out she was pregnant. She told me the same of another mother who lives in her building. Another friend of mine told me she refused child support but the court enforced anyway.
I fail to see how a father contributing a couple hundred a month to his kids makes a woman not self sufficient. He’d be paying and contributing a lot more if they were together. I have my own issues with child support, I don’t think it should be forced by law, I do think a man should have a choice whether he wants to be a father or not, especially in cases where women trick men into being fathers (which is not as fucking common as MRAs like to think) but I fail to see how a woman is not self-sufficient if she works, takes care of her kids and the father pays support each month. I think even if child support wasn’t enforced by law, most men would still pay it because they love their kids regardless if they have custody or not.
I actually brought this question up on Facebook. I asked if fathers should be able to opt out of paying it. Women chimed in with a variety of opinions, but not one man. I thought that was interesting.
@LBT, I think I was confusing “wanting sex for reasons other than horniness” and “having sex that you don’t want.” I’m still very much against people feeling pressured to have sex they don’t want, but I have no business poking my nose into why people are having the sex they do want.
I’m going to shut up about this now, before I say some other hurtful thing.
Quoted for fervent truth.
If that’s true (which I somewhat doubt) I weep for the profession, and declare that whatever law school graduated you should be writhing in shame. That was one of the most error filled, poorly understanding of civics pieces of bullshit I have seen in awhile.
Also, as another factchecking note (shit, you could do a line by line with that thing), I wanted to make a note that there is no such case as New York vs. Javonovich. There is a People v Jovanovic (263 A.D.2d 182) which ruled that in the case at issue the Rape Shield Law had not been properly applied. In other words, that the statute was misinterpreted by the trial judge. Here’s what the court says about the Rape Shield Law, and, as I have pointed out umpteenth fucking times, it’s about relevance of evidence (citing the court in Jovanovic, because, why not, fuckwad cited it as an example):
Here’s what the court said about the application of the horrible draconian rape shield law (sarcasm alert there) in other cases:
Also, Jovanovic’s word alone suggests this was a false allegation. The prosecution in fact scheduled a retrial and only dropped the case because the victim did not want to be put through another trial. Jovanovic’s civil case against the city was dismissed, meaning that he could not even state a case to a preponderance of the evidence standard.
tl;dr Fuck off ignorant lying trolls.
RE: Molly Ren
Well, I’m on the ace spectrum. (I’m a demisexual; you can google it, but in my case, it boils down to: I’m a black vulture boy. I mate for life. There is absolutely nothing morally upright or prudish about this, just how my interests are wired at this time.) So I most certainly CAN enjoy sex the way normal sexuals can… but apparently under different, much narrower circumstances. To me, sex on its own is boring. It’s sex WITH MY HUSBAND that’s freaking awesome; he’s the defining characteristic, and should he and I ever part ways, I am completely unbothered by the idea of never getting laid again. It’s like only enjoying macaroni and cheese if you eat it with one specific person.
Which is why I’m always completely lost when people talk about the unstoppability of male lust; I DON’T FEEL IT. NWO babbles on about being tempted and crap, and I seriously have no comprehension of that feeling. Sexual frustration is just… not something I really experience.
RE: Viscaria
It’s okay. I’m not offended. (That’s saved for the people who tell me I’m acting out a religiously-backwards purity ideal.) I guess for horny people, it makes sense that they equate wanting sex with being horny. But if you think about it, there are a lot of fun things about sex. Depending how you do it, there’s the physical contact aspect, the intimacy aspect, the sensation aspect, the kink aspect… one could enjoy any of those things on a nonsexual level and still have a good time.
On another note (I promise no essay this time), I’m getting really fed up with your ablist shit, NMMNG.
Um, no. Your link does not suggest this either, in any way shape or form, but on top of that, you are dismissing people’s self defintions and speaking about their own sexualities. People with schizoid conditions have a variety of sexualities, some of them are probably asexual, but you don’t get to fucking tell them what they want from their sexualities.
I’d just like to say that Roberta isn’t doing much for the sleazy-lawyer stereotype.
@darksidecat
The case is technically known as people vs javanovic, outside of newyork it is informally known as ‘new york vs javanovic,’ something you would know if you were half as well informed as you claim to be.
You should do some more research on the case. There was ample evidence of innocence far outside of Javanovic’s word. Including the word of the accuser’s mother, who stated that her daughter was lying and had a history of making similar lies. Nevermind the email records.
Interesting that you persist in calling a probable false accuser a “victim” however. Not even “alleged victim.” Good to see that you approach these cases with an open mind. My opinion of rape shield laws is hardly unique to me, BTW. They’re very controversial within the legal profession.
If the evidence of innocence was so ample, why did they need the stuff excluded by the rape shield law?
And we’re not in a court of law, genius. I’m sure you’d love it if we had to call a victim’s story into question every time we referred to her/him until there was an actual conviction, but that’s not how it works around here.
@Rutee
……………wow. I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling. Holy god.
I don’t even need to respond. I’ll just tell you to check your sources again.
I don’t even need to respond.
Roberta has discovered a novel strategy for defending her claims. Do you use that one in court, too?
Come on, say something funny! It’s March Madness!
So, Roberta, what is the conviction rate in other criminal cases, if Rutee is incorrect? How do they compare to the conviction rate of rape cases?
Rutee just did a mistressful job of fact-checking. Go for it, tell us how she’s wrong.