[TW for the comments to this post; discussions of rape and abuse.]
The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization devoted to tracking and exposing hate groups, has just published a detailed report on the misogyny and violent rhetoric so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement — as well as the actual violence inspired by this sort of hatred of women. It’s a piece you all should read, even though few of the details will be new to long-time readers of this blog.
Arthur Goldwag, an expert on conspiracy-mongers and the far right, argues (I think correctly) that the Men’s Rights movement is largely a backlash against the many successes of feminism over the last several decades:
It’s not much of a surprise that significant numbers of men in Western societies feel threatened by dramatic changes in their roles and that of the family in recent decades. Similar backlashes, after all, came in response to the civil rights movement, the gay rights movement, and other major societal revolutions. What is something of a shock is the verbal and physical violence of that reaction.
[Thomas] Ball’s suicide brought attention to an underworld of misogynists, woman-haters whose fury goes well beyond criticism of the family court system, domestic violence laws, and false rape accusations.
The Men’s Rights Movement, as it exists today, is not a civil rights movement; it is a regressive, hateful reaction against a civil rights movement — that is, feminism.
Those who truly care about the rights of men, and who are not motivated by a hatred of women or feminism, need to repudiate the hate and the violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights Movement as it exists today. Only then can there be a Men’s Rights Movement worthy of the name.
EDITED TO ADD: The SPLC has also put up a guide to some of the more hateful sites in the manosphere. Longtime readers will be familiar with most of them.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN: And a piece debunking some Men’s Rights Myths.
EDITED TO ADD AGAIN, AGAIN: The discussion of the SPLC report on the Men’s Rights Subreddit is surprisingly reasonable, so far. (I mean, compared to what I expected. Meanwhile, over in this thread, the Men’s Rightsers are behaving as they usually do.)
Pecunium–
“You are working to make women who are raped at other then the fear of life, or limb, marginalised, mocked, shamed, criminal.”
Dude, too narrow. Roberta ain’t just working to do that for WOMEN reporting rape. She’s doing it for EVERYBODY. I mean, I really doubt that me being a guy will make her suddenly pull (another) face-heel turn.
At least she’s, uh, consistent? Or do I have to give up my man card because I cried or something?
Also, how do you fight to prevent rape by focussing on the tiny percentage offalse accusations instead of the 90 plus percent of actual rapes?
Oh wait…you don’t.
So tell me Roberta…why so eager to make rape disappear, or emotional abuse disappear, or to pretend consent requires special psychic powers? If you were someone I was talking to in real life, I’d be looking to make my consent loud and clear by disappearing post haste.
Roberta: But… threats to abandon someone… not coercive. Nope. And if someone says yes, we must presumptively assume it is completely dispositive.
And yes, you are doing, in this very comment, everything I said you were doing. If it’s not force, or a threat of force, which is used to extract the magic word; so that you can call it “consensual”, you don’t accept it.
But you are on a huge hobby horse that false rape is a huge problem. In one way you are correct, using your, facile; and fatuous, definition of consent, there are a lot of real rapes which would, technically, not be rape (as with LBT… care to actually answer him?).
And you are doing your utmost (which is thankfully fairly pathetic, if this is any example of your advocacy), to make sure that rape is easier for rapists to perpetrate.
The same way you are ignoring the violence which runs so wide and deep in the movement.
Except in the case of every other felony.
If someone badgers and browbeats you into giving them money, the law doesn’t say “it was a gift, because technically you could have chosen not to!”
If someone sneaks into your house and says “I didn’t know I wasn’t supposed to be here, nobody told me not to,” the law doesn’t say “they were your guest, because you never told them no!”
If someone tells you “I’ll break up with you and no one will ever love you again unless you sign this contract,” the law doesn’t say “that’s a totally valid contract, because he has the right to break up with you!”
Rape is actually the only case where lawyers (or more often pretend Internet lawyers) pretend to be completely incapable of comprehending nuance.
Oh Roberta! I’m so disappointed! Nothing to say on legal intoixication? Not going to tell me I’m not drunk enough. Come on roberta, be a better troll!
Roberta
I’m not using the legal definition. Because, shock of all shocks, that’s not the only definition. (Since you know, depending on the area, as a man, I CAN’T be legally raped unless someone shoves a penis up my ass. Which I think even you in your pedantry can see is too narrow.)
http://www.wellingtonrapecrisis.org.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=4
@pecunium
Who says threatening to end a relationship isn’t coercive? I certainly didn’t. I said it wasn’t unlawfully coercive. Because it’s not.
If it were, then every woman who threatened or implicitly threatened divorce if their husband didn’t take them out more would be guilty of kidnapping and unlawful detention.
“I didn’t want to see Wicked, officer. She coerced me into it!”
Now you’re the one being deliberately obtuse, Holly.
If your friend nags you to lend them money and you eventually do in order to shut them up, it’s not theft. Go to the police and try if you don’t believe me.
Your breaking and entering analogy also fails because no one ever gave them permission to enter. I’m speaking of cases where consent is explicitly given.
Your contract analogy is also false. Go ahead and try to invalidate a contract by claiming you boyfriend threatened to break up with you if you didn’t. Argue duress in that case, the judge will probably slap you.
* didn’t sign it.
that is
So you’ve never been in a courtroom like, ever, then?
Seen a lot of contracts voided by threatened breakups there, lauralot?
Where do you practice, space?
Roberta, the law, and even more so morality, is not this goddamn game of “Simon Says,” and consent to sex is not proven by “BUT SIMON DIDN’T SAY!” These are real people with real lives and emotions. Shit is sometimes more complex than “if you possibly could have escaped and you didn’t, then you consented.”
I don’t know what the fuck else I can tell you.
Except this:
“In contract law an unconscionable contract is one that is unjust or extremely one-sided in favor of the person who has the superior bargaining power. An unconscionable contract is one that no person who is mentally competent would enter into and that no fair and honest person would accept.”
You’ll notice that there is not IRONCLAD SIMON SAYS definition of “unjust,” “one-sided” or “fair and honest.” That’s because people making shitty contracts would (and already do) fuck around on the exact boundaries of those things if they were precisely defined, and people would still get screwed. So we have to make subjective judgements and rely on our “that doesn’t seem okay” instincts. This is not a fatal flaw in the system. This is the only reason the system works at all.
I’ll tell you where I don’t practice: anywhere the judges slap people.
I mean, I know you were being stupid on purpose, but you’re really not helping your credibility here.
Roberta–
Can you at least see what happened to me as ABUSIVE? No law or legalese involved at all. No standards expect common human decency.
Also, can I say thank you to all manboobzers here? Because suddenly, I actually, truly get why the hell you guys do what you do. I’ve never seen so many people actually stick up for me before–normally it’s a “don’t feed the troll” thing so it’s just ignored to avoid conflict.
I’ve had a very, very shitty week. (Roberta, actually, was the LEAST shitty part of it!) But y’all’re making me feel shit tons better. I actually feel like a decent human being now!
As opposed to fluffy pretty emotional abuse: “I know you’re “crying and curled up in a fetal position” but I can’t have sex right now I will abandon you”.
Lawyer troll is the new dictionary troll: rape only is as real as the chance you have to get a condemnation for the rapist.
@holly
I don’t disagree with your morality. I’m speaking of what is, and what reasonably could be, the law.
The standard isn’t possibly escaped. If that were the case then if you could have conceivably fought off your knife wielding attacker then it wouldn’t be legally rape.
The standard is reasonably escaped. If you could have have reasonably said no given the circumstances. Not possibly said no.
What you referenced applies to the content of a contract. Not the means of pressuring someone to sign it. The standard for duress in contract law is (you guess it): whether or not you could have reasonably refused to sign it. Threatening to end a voluntary arrangement (like a business partnership or a relationship) is not enough to create legal duress.
Comments exploded quickly here, so I went back and read. I have something to bring up from an earlier comment of Roberta’s.
She said “because feminism does nothing to address men’s issues”
Stop.
The next part is legit if true she said fem groups have opposed legislation that helps men. Allegedly. (Knowing the MRM tout this, I would definitely need NOW’s perspective, because they are filthy liars, but I digress.)
Let’s go back. So Roberta, statements like these are why posters don’t trust you as being sincere. Does it make any sense to say, “Because the men’s rights movement does nothing to address women’s issues?”
Does that make sense to you? Are you concerned that the men’s rights movement does nothing to address women’s issues? Of course you’re not. Now, how much of a brain does one need to figure that sentence out? “Because feminism does nothing to address men’s issues.”…. Come on now. how smart or sincere does one have to be to know that statement is complete bollocks. First of all, it’s wrong (gender roles and patriarchy hurt everyone). But let’s say it’s not wrong, and feminism does only women’s issues. OK. Do men’s rights groups help women? Does anyone ask them this? Why should they? It’s just stupid beyond belief.
And as far as the legislation goes. Gee, there could be NO issues with any legislation hurting women if MRM got all their wishes magically granted, would there?
Why aren’t men’s right’s activists talking about the war on women right now and birth control and abortions?
Just for shits and giggles:
Calif. Penal Code &sec;261 (a)Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person’s will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.[emphasis added] [the same applies to married persons, under the section on Spousal Rape. I have chosen not to duplicate the basic text]
(D)(7)(b)As used in this section, “duress” means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.[emphasis added]
So… LBT was raped, per Calif. law. One can’t use the threat of abandonment to get that weaseling consent you keep trying to use to paper over the crime of rape.
Just to clarify the issue of “consent”.
&sec; 261.6 In prosecutions under Section 261, 262, 286, 288a, or 289, in which consent is at issue, “consent” shall be defined to mean positive cooperation in act or attitude pursuant to an exercise of free will.
LBT’s description of the event is such that a reasonable person could conclude the statutory definition of consent was not obtained.
It was rape.
&sec;263 The essential guilt of rape consists in the outrage to the person and feelings of the victim of the rape. Any sexual penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the crime.
That one made me laugh so hard I practically needed to change my underpants.
@LBT
Absolutely it was abusive. What happened to you is terrible and I hope the man responsible is flattened by a mac truck. I’m sorry if I came across as insensitive. That’s a terrible thing to have gone through, and I hope you’re doing ok.
Better than in her head like you, Roberta. My cat is a better lawyer than you.
Damn… I screwed up the § marks.
@hellkell: I think the best part is that I am not, nor have ever claimed to be, a lawyer, and I still have a better grasp on the system.
@peniculum
No it isn’t. What LBT described is not duress under California law. Those statues refer to employers and the like. As well as guardians in control of the lives of minors. “Have sex with me or you’re fired.” “Have sex with me or I’ll put you in the box again.” Those situations are unlawful blackmail and duress.
They don’t apply to two adults in a relationship. Not if the only thing threatened is ending said relationship.