[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.)
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.
Nah, Lawful Good ultimately prioritizes morality over the letter of the law. The most generous assessment I could give is Lawful Neutral.
RE: Hellkell
At least she ain’t misgendering me anymore. I’m trans, so that REALLY gives me aggro.
RE: Amphitrite
Thanks for the warm, warm welcome! I found it through Holly, actually; I was a follower of her blog first, and then found this place. Normally I’m of the school of ‘ignore the troll, do not feed,’ but I’m definitely enjoying the change of pace!
RE: pillowinhell
As someone who right now can’t really function without nine hours of sleep I FEEL YOUR PAIN. That schedule sounds grueling, and I hope to god you have a better one now!
Where in that statute do you find the phrase “unlawful harm”. Nowhere. Shit, this is statute reading 101. “Unlawful” is a term with a very specific meaning, “material” is a very different legal term, the NY legislature intentionally chose the latter. That’s a substantially different element.
Also, sadly, this is not the first time I’ve been called a “thing” by a bigot or asshole I was arguing with…
All this has been a fantastic demonstration of what MRM defenders can do for men, by the way.
By the way LBT, I’m really sorry you have up put up with this kind of bullshit.
Good lord, what kind of D&D have you been playing?! Lawful Good means you accomplish your objectives within legal channels and in the most moral manner possible.
Lawful Neutral would be the best fit for this, since it would only check for laws and not make a moral judgment on the action, while Lawful Evil would accomplish its objectives within the letter of the law, striving to maximize the pain it could produce.
RE: Dracula
S’okay. Believe me when I say I have dealt with far, far worse. (My personal favorite was the person who told me I was being oppressive, transphobic, and ableist for refusing to identify as a disorder. THAT little shit fit sprawled over something like five different web pages!) Roberta, at least, doesn’t see me as OPPRESSING her.
Roberta: The statute doesn’t explicitly impose those limits, but trust me, that’s how the law is interpreted in practice.
Why should I trust you? Really, why? All I know of you is that you claim to be a, “criminal trial attorney”.
How much of your practice has been in Calif? How many rapes have you been involved with (defense or prosecution?).
Why is “the definition of consent is the be all and end all of what defines rape” until the very thing you challenged me to provide (the definition of consent in statute) says something different?
Suddenly it’s not what the law says, it’s how the law is read (which is true, but at absolute odds to several day of argument from you). Why is it also the very narrow, “threatened to leave a partner” (I’d also not lay very much money on that bet… if I am paying the rent, and I say, “fuck me, or I’ll leave you,” with the implied threat of homelessness… I can see that being duress under the statute, and I can see that being successfully prosecuted. Not in Bakersfield, not in Hemet, not in Parris, but in Santa Barbara, Salinas, even Eureka it could).
Really… why should I trust you? You are a rape apologist. A goalpost shifter. A back-pedaller. A dictionary arguer.
You aren’t showing the consistency which would lead me to believe you are arguing in good faith for an honest belief, but rahter you have a policy end you are pursuing (excusing rape), and whatever it takes to convince people that non-forcible rape isn’t rape you will do, say, argue.
I’d even be willing to bet you’d engage in moderate amounts of dishonesty to do it. You have been willing to engage in attempts at snark (such as misspelling DSc’s name, while not actually engaging her point… that assent is not consent, and non-violent means are both something which can be used to obtain it, and that such non-violent obtainence is recognised as actionable at law), as well as speaking out both sides of your mouth (most notably with regards to LBT, who used your definition of rape to say you said he wasn’t raped. You then said it was rape, until there was suddenly the possibility your noble apologia might be compromised, and you’d have to admit someone who didn’t use force might be a rapist).
You’ve been strangely silent in response to our responses to your query about where one might find violence in the MRM (you condemned one person, sayig the movement would be better without such as he, but the big names… the silence from you is astounding).
You dismiss academic studies, and throw fluff at us… saying, “It’s in Slate, so it’s merits can’t be questioned”. You claim authority (direct, “I’m a criminal trial lawyer” and indirect, “I have a relative who is an ADA”, but show no actual expertise in the field.
One might think you were trying to baffle us with bullshit.
One might be right.
So, again, to repeat my question… why should I trust you?
Mags, your sexual assault was not your fault.
I considered carefully whether I, as a white man, was going to erase your experience or tell you how to interpret your experience when I tell you that it is not your fault, and I found that I had a greater moral obligation to help you stop hurting yourself than to back off and give you room to define yourself.
So: If anyone wants to talk about negative rights, let’s talk about this: We ought to be able to expect that people around us would refrain from hurting us. That someone does hurt us is a transgression and the responsibility for that transgression is on the other person, not on us.
(Sudden thought: One of the arguments for buying guns that gets thrown at men is “You have to protect your family!” How much of this argument is made up of the implication that if I don’t pack heat, it’s my fault if someone mugs my wife?)
And also: Hugs for everyone on here who’s a sexual assault survivor!
Shadow: a) peculinum is such a weaksauce insult that I hesitate to insult insults by grouping it in with them
c) pennie …. really?
Clueless, that’ s me. I didn’t even notice them.
One wonders why she’s doing that. It’s not as if I’ve mocked her name. I’ve told her what I think of her actions, and her beliefs, but I’ve not been attempting to belittle her by engaging in childish taunts.
It’s not as if I’m going to get offended and lose my ability to reason. One more aspect of less than good faith.
Wow. What a little fucker.
I’m glad that this thread makes you feel welcome, LBT, even though I missed being a part of that.
Because it lets one have that oh so satisfying feeling of superiority to the victim apparently.
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/03/09/in-mala-fide-vs-the-southern-poverty-law-center/
This site, which I happily had not heard of until now, is apparently very pleased with the publicity from the SPLC because it means they’re now being taken seriously by their enemies and will now… I dunno, be proven right or some other kind of wishful thinking.
How is it possible for people like this to believe that it’s okay to hate people just because they’re female or black or not manly enough? I’m no saint and I am still working to kick my white privilege to the curb, but these people don’t even think they have privilege. They think they’re the abused ones. It just makes my brain misfire.
RE: Falconer
Yeah, that guy was… a real piece of work, to be sure. It was kinda impressive. I did the thing of refusing to engage, and that just honked him off MORE. He kept popping up everywhere, claiming that I wasn’t letting it go and that I was being a complete drama queen and WHY WASN’T I ARGUING WITH HIM. It was truly bizarre.
RE: PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
Ah, NOTHING beats feeling superior to a fifteen-year-old boy crying in a fetal position! It’s one step to being king of the motherfuckin’ world.
RE: Pecunium
Do you happen to work in law? You seem to know a lot more about it than I do.
@Pecunium
Apparently she thought that the argument had moved from the blog to the playground. As embarassing as the tactic is, the execution just makes me want to cry for her
@LBT
Pecunium is our resident Chuck Norris. The world refers to the internet for their answers, the internet refers to Pecunium
Calif is “unique”
Ok… the American Prosecutors Research Insitute, State Rape Statutes has this little breakdown.
Colorado: Consent = cooperation in act or attitude.
Delaware: Without consent no force required.
District of Columbia: Consent – words or overt actions indicating freely given agreement
Hawaii: Compulsion language that states lack of consent, but doesn’t define consent ( which means the definition of, “consent” isn’t plain. It’s going to have a lot of, “nuance”. Even for the felony charges)
Iowa: “Against the will” language”
Louisiana: “Without person’s lawful consent” ( A bit unclear… more room for, “nuance” in the arguments before the bar
Massachusetts: Any resistance is enough (arguable that resistance can be made a persisting lack of consent, even if subsequent apparent assent seems to have taken place, again, more nuance to be argued at trial.)
Nebraska: Without consent: Victim expressed a lack
of consent through words (again… the question of what constitutes duress to make that verbal consent invalid is open to argument)
N Carolina: *Case law – against the will = without
consent State v. Thomas 329 N.C. 423
Utah: *§ 76-5-406 – No Means No Statute that applies to all categories
So…. it appears the issue of consent isn’t as clear cut, in a number of states, more than just Calif. as Roberta claims.
I know about two hundred or so judges. And I have never met one who slapped anyone in the courtroom.
I have however met a few who were violent domestically but they tend to get removed fairly quickly.
RE: Shadow
Chuck Norris kinda sucks though. I vote we use the term “Neville Longbottom” instead. Pecunium is the Neville Longbottom of Manboobz. Y/N?
RE: Pecunium
Also, seeing as how I seemed to start this whole damn argument for having the bad taste to get raped in the first place, I WAS FIFTEEN. He was twenty-one. So the whole thing she’s arguing ISN’T VALID.
LBT: I do not work in the law (though I once entertained the idea). I have worked in jobs where the law mattered, and being able to interpret it correctly; as it applied to my job, and my duties, might be the difference between my liberty, and my life (immediate, in some cases, after trial in others).
Some of my fellows, have been to prison (not for long enough) for breaking those laws.
I also taught people what those laws were, and so I had an interest in know how they worked.
I have wide, and varied, interests, and I like to read. I was a journalist, and I studied some library science. I know how to look things up, and seem to be pretty good at synthesis.
I also write tolerably well, even if I am a shitty typist, and often forget to close my parens when I am digressing.
They feel that way until they hear about the fact you were 15. *cannot be as annoyed but is still annoyed.*
RE: PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth
No, no, I’ve met people who still felt that way knowing I was fifteen. (I turned sixteen during the course of that “relationship,” which is age of consent where I was, so that totally made it okay again.)
RE: Pecunium
Fellow library science student here, before being trans pushed me out. And hey, cool, you’re on LJ too! *is also* You active?
LBT: The whole thing she is arguing (assent = consent) isn’t valid, no matter who is involved.
Roberta is arguing to make rape a very narrow crime. A crime that requires force. A crime that stigmatises women who are coerced into sex, because they weren’t raped; they were just too stupid/weak to avoid having sex they didn’t want.
She’s doing evil things.
I’ve had sex I didn’t want. I didn’t call it rape at the time. I don’t think it could happen now (I was a lot younger then, and the ideas of consent weren’t what they are now). Do I think I was raped? Probably not. Was I violated? Yes.
Is it easy to talk about? No. Because the idea that I should/could have just kept saying no until she let me go to sleep… it’s still one that people like Roberta prattle on about. I assented. I didn’t consent.
After a while, it got to be too much, and I left the relationship, but there was a lot of emotionally damaging sex before I got to that point.
And it was decades ago, and I’m in a much better place (I’ve never let that sort of shit happen again, for one). But when the Robertas of the world tell me that can never be rape (no matter if I don’t think I was raped), I know they are full of shit. Because it doesn’t take force to get false consent.
LBT…. my LJ isn’t as active as it used to be, but it’s not dead. I need to get my photography blog up again, and start writing about food some more, etc.
RE: Pecunium
The situation you describe sounds pretty similar to the one I was in, actually. I note that you use the phrase “I’ve never LET that sort of thing happen again,” and though you choose how you identify your experience, I think you’re being a bit unforgiving with yourself.
And I agree completely on the coercion bit, though I know enough male survivors to say that it applies to all genders, not just women. (Though women definitely seem to get the brunt of it. Urgh.)
I have to say that makes me pretty angry and I am sorry you had to go through that. I hope things have improved.
*sighs and goes back to scribbling her name a lot*