[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.)
>>My cat is a better lawyer than you.
In the case of The People against That Red Laser Pointer Dot, honorable judge Miss Snugglebottoms presiding.
Roberta–
Well, thank GOD. I was THIS close to giving up my philosophy of optimism, yeesh.
And thanks, but I’m doing fine. It was a long time ago, and I am in a much happier place. You’re definitely giving me a good blood pressure workout, because I still find your careful measuring of whether I was properly raped or not utterly offensive, but at least you’ve shown enough humanity that I can’t hate you.
(PS: I was fifteen at the time. He was twenty-one. Does this change anything, out of curiosity?)
Roberta: . I’m sorry if I came across as insensitive.
Not for being insensitive, but for coming off that way. I say that because you have, more than once, come back to make a thoroughly insensitive point. You feel bad, but it still wasn’t rape, and LBT wasn’t coerced, and we should just what?
Accept that rape isn’t rape, because no one pulled a gun?
Screw that. It was rape. It was even legally rape, if it happened in Calif. But the legality of it doesn’t matter. I am calling your morals into account. At best you are being an embodiment of the D&D concept of, “Lawful Good”. The law doesn’t make it a crime, so it’s not, and we drive on.
But you are also advocating two corollaries. 1: The law doesn’t need to be changed, as per the definition of rape. 2: The law does need to be changed as per the definition/response to false rape.
Now, you might merely be arguing the social stigma of “false rape” needs to be increased, but you are doing that while insisting the social definition of “real rape” needs to be kept to the narrow set of rules you are laying out for consent.
So you want rape to be narrowly understood, but false rape to be widely understood.
That’s heinous. It’s foul, and despicable and inhumane. That reflects on you as a person. Hidebound, and insensitive.
@LBT
Yeah, it’s now statutory rape. It also creates an added dimension with respect to the abusive nature of the situation. Minors are given special consideration.
Jesus, I’m sorry. I’m sorry if it seemed like I was brushing off what happened to you or arguing that it was ok. It’s not ok at all, I’m was just arguing that it wasn’t illegal. I just got caught up in pedantic, definitional discussion we were having.
LBT, jedi hugs. I spent a long time trying to understand what I could have done to handle my abuse(s) situations better. Which was futile. Also futile, trying to get explanations from people who agreed with my abuser. Again, futile.
It takes a special kind of entitlement/obtuseness/lack of experience for someone to come onto boards especially designed to question a topic, then insist they know more than anyone else there, including the person who made the site.
Trying to get validation from that mindset is pretty much the exact “head meets brick wall” scenario. Talk to people who want to help, not argue your experience. Talk here, talk where you feel safe.
Lots of us here, and even more – sadly – on the planet, understand. It helps to know that.
The guy that hurt you is a jerk. The end.
@pennie
keep readin’
Oh, and for funsies with the theft analogy, in New York state, it counts as larceny by extortion if a person obtains property if they obtained it because they threatened to:
New York Penal Law § 155.05(e)(9)
Tell me again how unworkable and unthinkable it is to discuss coercion and extortion outside of threats of physical violence.
Roberta–
You are very, very lucky that I am not fifteen anymore. Imagine you had a fifteen-year-old son (or brother, or nephew, or friend, whatever does it for you). Imagine that he came to you telling you he’d been raped and you had this discussion (purely logistical, mind you) about whether it was truly rape or not.
Now do you understand WHY everyone’s responding the way they are? Now do you understand WHY I told absolutely no one for so many years?
I’m not fifteen anymore, and I’m able to hold my ground about this now. But when I was fifteen, it was people like you that made me think I was crazy, a liar, a fuck-up. It was people like you that meant I avoided romantic attachment for so many years.
My experiences are not just your arguments for definition. It was something real that happened to me. And I do not appreciate it being flattened into fuel for pedantry.
Your apology is accepted, because I actually do believe you. But I’d really like you to THINK about it, and realize that I ran into FAR more people like you than I did people like my husband, who listened to me and accepted me. That is a SYSTEMIC problem. That is an abuse of ALL people, not just women. That is something that needs to change.
Keep backpeddling Roberta! We’ve had some pretty good ones here so you’ll have to work hard on that backstroke.
Roberta: 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.
Um… no. §261 makes no limit as to who is applying the duress, nor does it limit the categories of duress, nor does it define the scope. Here, I’ll repeat some of §261(B)(b) The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in apprising the existence of duress.
Nope… nothing about employers, landlords (though in an intimate partnership one partner may be, effectively, the landlord… something the court might lump in with, “The total circumstance… and his or her relationship to the defendant”.
But if you want to find a statute which does so limit the scope of “duress” as it applies to CPC §261, or some relevant case law which does the same, I’m all ears.
Here, just in case you want some pointers, is what a rape specialising firm in Calif. says about it.
Shouse Group, Calif. Rape. They don’t seem to agree with your interpretation, and it’s their area of practice.
I’m sorry, but Roberta makes me sick. First she’s acting like she the expert on what rape is, now she saying to people who experienced it that they’re misconstruing things…ugh.
She did pull this shit in Shakesville, right? Only she pretended to be a cop at that place.
@darkcathing
absolutely none of which are applicable to nagging (unless it crosses the line to unlawful harassment) or threatening to end a relationship. You must be causing some unlawful harm to the person to pry them from their money.
It’s not just threats of violence, but it is threats of unlawful harm or blackmail. Rape law is similar if it contains a line on duress or coercion. Which my state (Illinois) does not.
@peniculum
The statute doesn’t explicitly impose those limits, but trust me, that’s how the law is interpreted in practice. California is somewhat unique in it’s rather vague and expansive definition of duress, but it’s still interpreted fairly narrowly.
Even in California no one has ever or will ever be convicted of rape because they threatened to end a relationship with their adult partner.
Are you trying to rude, or are you just that clueless about how not to shoot yourself in the foot when you’re claiming to have a discussion in good faith?
@lauralot
This is a troll comment, right? You’re telling me not be rude because it undermines my claim of good faith? YOU’RE telling me this?
I’m not claiming to have a discussion in good faith with you, because you’re clearly here to troll and I’m not going to act as though you aren’t.
You, on the other hand, are undermining yourself at every point for no apparent reason.
RE: Amphitrite
I understand completely. In my opinion, the worst part of the abuse wasn’t even the abuse itself (though that, of course, certainly sucked). It was the complete soul-sucking belief that I DESERVED it that was the real breaker.
But like I said, it was a long time ago, and I’m in a much happier place with the best partner ever. So I have the fabulously awesome luxury of saying: it doesn’t hurt me anymore. (Now there’s something I never thought I’d be able to say!)
LBT I think that’s something we’ll all be praying every victim will be able to say.
RE: pillowinhell (any chance of getting context for your name?)
Yeah, most definitely. I feel I was lucky; though it took me years to acknowledge what happened, when I did, I was equipped with a fantastic support system of friends, system members, and partner. I wish everyone who went through such shit had that; I never would’ve made the first step without them.
Roberta, stop trying to be cute with the name misspelling. It’s not a good look on you.
LBT, I’m sorry she’s been a complete ass to you, and I’m glad you’re in a much better place.
LBT, that is so awesome. Kudos for the work you put into getting to this place. And welcome to THIS place.
<3
LBT, my name stems from two things: 1) as one of those evil single mothers presumed to be a welfare queen, I was working two jobs, walking four hours a day to get my daughter toi and frim the daycare I paid for myself and go to work, plus hand scrubbing everypiece of laundry and cooking everything froim scratch on four or five hours a sleep a night. I was working months on end without days off and the end result was my being so tired I’d have accepted a pillow in hell had the devil offered one. And for eight solid hours sleep, I’d have considered it a bargain! 2) those who know me know that I can be either a real comfort or a real pain in the ass! My familys war cry for me is “be the bitch we know you can be!” That’s something that only gets pulled out when the situation calls for it, so if I’m fighting for you its all good..if not…
@LBT, So sorry about what happened and glad you feel supported here and that things are better.
I noticed that our lawyer friend referenced an article alleging bias against men in family courts earlier. On the off chance anyone read that, I thought I’d point to an article giving a different perspective:
Systemic Bias in Family Court–or just Selective Fact-Finding (Hope that html works, since I have a crappy track record.)
It’s written by a (non-anonymous) lawyer, and is worth a read on its own merits, but also because the lawyer sticks around for the comments. When the predictable MRAs show up, he responds with both clarity and compassion. It’s a good reminder that there are some lawyers out there that are genuinely good people.
a) peculinum is such a weaksauce insult that I hesitate to insult insults by grouping it in with them
b) darkcathing is just nonsensical idiocy
c) pennie …. really?
*peniculum