Categories
actual activism anti-MRA information antifeminism MGTOW misogyny MRA terrorism threats

The Southern Poverty Law Center takes on the violent misogyny so pervasive in the Men’s Rights Movement

[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.)

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

760 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pillowinhell
9 years ago

Sorry LBT that was me that got your story messed up. I realized it much later.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
9 years ago

There is a new study about to be released from the DOJ and the University of Michigan that confirms the growing body of research on how it is that abusers often have the upper hand in family courts. MRA’s have had a big part to play in that. Abusers don’t care about the children caught up in all this, and the MRA’s certainly don’t.

That’s right, and that’s why the MRM is known as the abusers’ lobby. They have a radical agenda to make it where fathers get default full custody of children after a breakup/divorce, regardless of whether or not the father is a fit parent. They keep talking about biased family courts, but don’t mention that for most parents, child custody arrangements are made amicably in mediation. If a good father wants joint custody of his children, he can probably get it. If he has a history of being abusive, though, he will have a harder time of it and it will go to family court. This is for the well being of the children, because they shouldn’t be under the care of an abusive parent.

They also ignore the fact that some fathers don’t want any custody, because they don’t want to do the work of raising their children. If they choose to let the mother do all of the work, then they need to stop complaining about paying child support. The amount they are ordered to pay isn’t close to half of the cost of raising children anyway. As long as these fathers’ rights and men’s rights groups advocate for abusive fathers to have custody, or for fathers to have the right to abandon their families with no child support obligations, they will be known as the abusers’ lobby.

MRA’s won’t judge family conflicts on a case by case basis either. They just take the man’s side no matter what. Even the so called moderates like Glenn Sacks take the side of all men, even men who are convicted batterers and rapists. The rest of the MRA’s deny that any women are victims at all. They help maintain the myths that women’s memories are unreliable, and that any woman that is a victim of IPV or rape must have done something to deserve her abuse. Most feminists acknowledge male victims and care about them, while MRA’s bash female victims. I’m glad feminists are held up to a higher standard, because feminism is a real civil rights movement while the MRM is simply a hate group.

Now of course the MRA’s don’t want to be held accountable for their own words and actions. They’re having a major pity party that a well known and respected group like the Southern Poverty Law Center can see through their lies and thinly veiled threats against anyone who dares call them out on their bs. They’re trying to shift the blame for their behavior to feminists, especially female ones. It reminds me of how abusers try to blame their victims for their actions, and how they target their abuse towards anyone they see as weaker.

The angrier they get and the more they harass the SPLC, the more they’ll show what they’re really about. They’re starting out trying to charm the SPLC into changing its stance and taking them off a watch list. They’re not getting their way, though, so they’re getting more aggressive and trying to tarnish the reputation of the SPLC. It’s similar to how an abuser will try to win hir victim back with gifts and charm, but if that doesn’t work, zie will go on to plan B, lashing out and getting revenge for being rejected. They have found a target that can’t be intimidated as easily, though. The SPLC has dealt with hate groups for decades, and if dangerous neo Nazi groups haven’t scared them away from their mission, then a few keyboard warriors that hate their ex wives aren’t going to phase them either.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Tamen: The questions are about you. You seem to care more about the fact that someone here said something, than the actual substance. I wonder why.

Because TS has done the very thing you are being pissy about here, and you are defending him.

Which makes me think you don’t really care about the content, but the target of the comments. But if you have some explanation which justifies the differential treatment you are exhibiting, I’m willing to hear you out.

If not, well the facts then speak for themselves.

makomk
makomk
9 years ago

@Kendra: “That’s right, and that’s why the MRM is known as the abusers’ lobby. They have a radical agenda to make it where fathers get default full custody of children after a breakup/divorce, regardless of whether or not the father is a fit parent.”

This is kind of interesting, because if you swap the genders that’s actually a reasonably decent description of our current system – mothers get default full custody of their children after a breakup/divorce, regardless of whether they are a fit parent, even if they’re violently abusive and have repeatedly beaten up the kid’s father in front of her on camera. (This isn’t a hypothetical issue – one of the stars of an MTV reality series called Teen Mom actually did this.) Not only that, but in many circumstances kids are effectively treated as their mom’s property to keep or give away as they see fit. Google Utah adoptions for an example of this. And yet somehow it’s the MRM that gets accused of being “the abusers’ lobby” and of treating kids like property rather than being willing to do what’s in their best interests for objecting to this..

Tamen
Tamen
9 years ago

Pecunium: “The questions are about you.”
So questions about me are to be answered while questions from me are irrelevant since they are not questions about me? Is that the gist of it?
I note that for many my intent and motivation matter more to them than my actual complaint against someone who in clear and unambiguous language publicly accused a rape victim for lying about aspects of his rape. That you don’t seem to consider my complaint against Bostonian’s comment to be of any actual substance is on you.

“TS has done the very thing you are being pissy about here”
I have earlier stated that if TS has straight out accused a rape victim of lying I would certainly criticize him as well. Based on your statement I trust you know for a fact that TS has done the very same thing and that you therefore can point me to where he has accused a rape victim of lying about aspects of their rape.

“Which makes me think you don’t really care about the content, but the target of the comments.”
You know, this reasoning goes both ways. I could say the same about many here (including you) based on how many commenters have either defended Bostonian’s comment or refrained from addressing it at all (when addressing me). Yet I don’t see you questioning their motives and intent. Is that a differential treatment you are exhibiting? I really don’t find continuing an argument in that direction to be as interesting and productive as you seem to think.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

mothers get default full custody of their children after a breakup/divorce, regardless of whether they are a fit parent, even if they’re violently abusive and have repeatedly beaten up the kid’s father in front of her on camera.

Citation needed.

This is an actual set of instructions for filling out a temporary order regarding custody and I notice that nothing says “mother gets full custody first and foremost.”

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I have earlier stated that if TS has straight out accused a rape victim of lying I would certainly criticize him as well.

No you would not. The way I am reading what you are writing is that you would not criticize him for squat.

Based on your statement I trust you know for a fact that TS has done the very same thing and that you therefore can point me to where he has accused a rape victim of lying about aspects of their rape.

This is why.

Tamen
Tamen
9 years ago

So I am just to take your words that TS has done the very same thing as I criticized Bostonian for doing in his comment? Asking for a quote or reference is unreasonable? There is an easy way for you to prove that I wouldn’t criticize him for that and that is to provide me with a pointer to where TS did the very thing (Pecunium’s words) as Bostonian did and see what happens.

By the way, what do you PosterFormerlyKnownasElizabeth think about the Bostonian’s comment which I criticized?

Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

Okay, fine, I’ll break down some of the things in TS’s post.

So I was not surprised that some of the Manboobzers got a taste of their own vile. A poster named Roberta decided to play some moronic game of “what counts as rape” them.

This is not a “taste of our own vile,” as we do not make a hobby of telling rape victims that their experiences didn’t count. Nobody has claimed that TS is making up his abuse, we’re only questioning his conclusion that his abuse was the direct result of feminism. Bostonian is questioning TS giving details that his aunt was a bigtime feminist and told TS she was abusing him for feminism’s sake, not questioning that TS was abused or saying that his experiences don’t count as real abuse.

To be fair, Roberta did not start it. Holly Pervocracy started it by slamming Roberta for suggesting that what happened to another poster was not legally rape.

I started it by replying to her inflammatory remarks. This is one of those Self-Refuting Sentences.

That little “you don’t get to tell people how to think” is rather ironic given that Holly promptly decides whether someone, in this case LBT, was raped or not.

Because he said he was. (I also happen to know LBT in person, so he’s not just some random Internet person to me, but this ought to be irrelevant anyway.)

Roberta eventually pushed Holly so much that Holly mentioned that she was a rape victim as a way of getting Roberta to stop (it did not work).

Oh, I didn’t expect her to stop. I expected her to show us all what a complete ass she was, and she did not disappoint. I mean, it would have been nice if she’d gotten ahold of herself and realized her words were an attack on real people with real experiences, but I’ve been on Manboobz too long to expect that.

Unlike the Manboob regulars, I do not relish comeuppance.

Hahahahaha, isn’t that the whole point of his post? Relishing the “comeuppance” we’re getting for something we didn’t actually do?

As well as wallowing in this weird idea that two male rape erasures make a right, that denying LBT’s rape somehow punishes us for denying TS’s rape, instead of both scenarios being horrific for male survivors. (Except we didn’t actually do the latter.)

Unfortunately, Holly and a number of regulars do not have problem toying with people they do not like or do not have to treat well, like male victims, men’s advocates, non-feminists, and men in general.

How is it “toying” with someone to respond to their inflammatory comments?

Men in general? Men like David, or LBT, or the large number of male regulars on this blog?

. Hopefully being faced with someone who mirrored their own behavior will teach the Manboobz regulars that what you do to others someone might do to you.

In other words: “I think male rape erasure is just dandy, as long as it happens to bad people I don’t like. A great cure for rape erasure is more rape erasure! But to different people!”

Unless he edited the post, TS doesn’t accuse anyone of lying about their rape, but he’s absolutely reveling in attacks on a male survivor because he believes that male survivor was on the wrong “side.”

Bostonian
9 years ago

TS, openly mocking and denying female and male rape A-ok by Tamen. Me, not sure if TS’s abuser abused him because feminism told her to, a crime against humanity, according to Tamen.

Bostonian
9 years ago

By the way, at no time did I say TS was not abused, or raped. Nor was TS ever mocked here about his rape or abuse.

He was called out here, and eventually banned, for lying about things that could be easily verified.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

I already laid out my feelings about TS above, but just to reiterate – no one here is or was saying that he wasn’t abused. What happened is that we questioned his conclusion – ie that feminism naturally leads to child abuse, specifically the abuse of male children – and he decided that that was a denial of the abuse that he experienced.

Myoo
Myoo
9 years ago

@Tamen
Look, I think what Bostonian said was out of line, because one shouldn’t deny an aspect of a rape victim’s abuse, and Toysoldier deserves respect in that regard. Sadly, regardless of his abuse, Toysoldier is still an ass, who was gloating on his site about how Roberta was here on manboobz belittling rape victims.

You are not the first person to come here and start randomly provoking the posters. We have seen this time and time again, mostly from people who don’t care about the issue, but only want to score “points” against the feminists, so you will excuse people here if they are suspicious of you. Also, the fact that you seem very reluctant to even acknowledge Toysoldier’s assholishness does not help in that regard.

I hope you are not just a troll, and that you are simply passionate about speaking up against abuse denial, but only time will tell.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
9 years ago

This is kind of interesting, because if you swap the genders that’s actually a reasonably decent description of our current system – mothers get default full custody of their children after a breakup/divorce, regardless of whether they are a fit parent, even if they’re violently abusive and have repeatedly beaten up the kid’s father in front of her on camera.

If neither parent is abusive, the parents can decide for themselves their own custody arrangements in mediation. If mediation fails, or if one or both parents is unfit, then they will have to settle things in family court. One parent can show the other parent is unfit by providing evidence the other parent is abusive, neglectful, or has a substance abuse problem. If a man was battered on MTV, then he could use that as evidence against his ex-wife in family court. I don’t get MTV, so I don’t watch the show Teen Mom.

The MRA’s whine because abusive men don’t always get full custody in court, or if they choose to abandon their families, they still have to pay child support. They don’t care if a dad is fit or not. They just take the man’s side regardless of the circumstances. This is why the MRM is called the abusers’ lobby.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

By the way, what do you PosterFormerlyKnownasElizabeth think about the Bostonian’s comment which I criticized?

Based on the details I remember, I personally looked askance at some of the specific details he provided based on his total presentation of them.

katz
9 years ago

Holly, be careful using the word “we.” Tamen has trouble with it.

Tamen
Tamen
9 years ago

katz: Sorry for assuming you are individuals and not borg and asking you to clarify whom you speak for when you speak for others. Actually, I am not sorry and I’ll continue to ask whom “we” refers to when I am in doubt to make sure I don’t accidentally attribute statements to people who in fact do not agree with them.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth: Is it correct to read this as your evaluation of TS account of his rape and as a circumspect way of saying that you don’t think there was anything wrong with Bostonian’s comment? I am asking since I really couldn’t understand what you meant if you were talking directly about Bostonian’s comment.

Holly: For what it’s worth. I wouldn’t have written that post the way TS did. You are right that it can be read as schadenfreude in pointing out what TS sees as hypocricy despite the disclaimer that it is not the intent. I do think he certainly was wrong when writing that you started it off when it seems pretty crystal clear that it was Roberta who started it off. TS point about it being ironic that you admonished Roberta for saying that a situation was not rape by telling her that she doesn’t get to decide for anyone else what is and isn’t rape is as you correctly pointed out moot when the victim has told you he has been raped.
Look, you are entitled to how you perceived TS post and I have no interest in sitting here and defending his post.

However, Bostonian used the word “lies” and said TS lies about aspects his rape, more specifically Bostoniaon continues and said TS could‘ve been raped, Bostonian doubt that his rapist identified as a feminist. I could not answer calls to criticize TS of doing the same as I criticized Bostonian without a source to where he did so. Several said he did the very same thing, but neither backed it up.

CassandraSays, Bostonian and others:
I think it is quite a leap to say that:

TS is one of the few people I am sure are lying about aspects of his abuse. It is way to convenient a narrative for an antifeminist. He could have been abused, but I doubt his abuser actually specifically identified as a feminist.

can be interpreted as Bostonian only meaning to say that he think TS is wrong about his aunt’s feminist ideas being a contributing factor in her rape and abuse of him. I didn’t find that comment to be very ambiguous at all. When you write about a rape victim and use the words “lying” in the same sentence one should take the effort to take more care with what one is writing to ensure people won’t read it differently than hat you intended.

To me it reads as questioning certain factual statements about the rapist (doubt the rapist was a feminist) made by the victim and as implying doubt on whether he was raped or not (by using the word could’ve been about the actual rape after a sentence where it’s asserted that TS lies about aspects of his rape).

If this was just a very poorly written comment by Bostonian may I suggest another strategy in replying to criticism than attacking the rape victim in question (and it should be immaterial if the attack were justified) and tack on an “Also, I did not dispute his abuse story. So, Tamen, call 1-800-BITEME.”. I had trouble seeing how “I am sure are lying about aspects of his abuse.” is not disputing his abuse _story_.

As to Toysoldier being banned here. The moderator(s) are of course free to ban any user they want. Regardless of the basis of why TS was banned I find it extremely problematic to question aspects (put forth as accusation of lies about those aspects) of a rape in a public space where the victim is not allowed to comment.

Bostonian
9 years ago

I told you Tamen would never actually condemn anything TS said. In contrast, several regular posters here called out my post.

They called me out without mocking another rape victim.

TS failed to do that.

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@Tamen

Bostonian then followed up with:

“It’s the narrative that he’s constructed around the abuse the rings false, not the actual abuse.”

This is what I was trying to convey, but I am not as eloquent as CassandraSays.

Since we know Bostonian, we give him that benefit of doubt, You obviously have no obligation to do so, but to continue saying that people aren’t calling Bostonian out for his original statement is disingenuous considering his clarification, which a lot of people here agree with. Now, if you disagree with that and wish to challenge us on that, so be it.

Jen
Jen
9 years ago

Yes, Kendra, that about sums it up. And the response to your post was a pretty accurate representation of what the MRA’s want the world to believe, and why they lack credibility.

Something like 90% of cases settle between the parties. Some of the MRA’s claim that only focusing on how the 10% that are contested are decided is misleading, because they say some of those 90% are dads who don’t even try because the system is so stacked against them. I think that’s possible, but I still think the vast majority of those cases (some of which end in agreed mother custody, agreed father custody, or agreed shared custody) are actually parents making a responsible decision between themselves. I’ve also known abuse victims who had to settle for shared parenting with their abusers, and unsupervised visitation with dangerous people because they happened to draw PAS – minded judges, so that knife would appear to cut both ways.

Because they focus so heavily on pushing fake science like PAS and repealing VAWA, I don’t know how they can be called anything but an abuser lobby, which occasionally also tackles other issues. After all, the repeal of VAWA and the push for PAS only benefits abusers….men who do not abuse have no need to push for those things.

And yes, I know they would say “what about the falsely accused?” For sure, like any other crime in history, there are a small percentage of people who are falsely accused and/or falsely convicted of DV. I’m 100% sure there are people right now, today, sitting in prison for rape, murder, auto theft, robbery, arson, and a host of other crimes who are in fact innocent. But does that mean we need to repeal laws against those crimes or reduce resources for police officers trying to combat those types of crimes? No!! That is crazy. So their argument makes no sense under any other light other than defending abusers who don’t want to have to relinquish control of their victims or face consequences for their actions.

LBT
LBT
9 years ago

Wow. With guys like Toysoldier looking out for men like me, what on earth could I possibly want outta feminism?

I SAID I WAS RAPED. Like, numerous times. Ergo, Holly isn’t co-opting my experience or enforcing her will upon me when she REPEATS WHAT I JUST SAID. (Even if she didn’t know me in person, which she does.)

So now, me getting vilebiled by Roberta = totally fine, because I’m some sort of schadenfreude for someone else that I didn’t even KNOW until now.

See, men’s rights activists? Here’s why I’m not part of your group. Because you guys are ASSHOLES. Seriously, how is it okay that my experience is just used for your jollies? That I am just stripped of my humanity and turned into just someone’s argument cannon fodder? THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

Pecunium
9 years ago

Tamen: So questions about me are to be answered while questions from me are irrelevant since they are not questions about me? Is that the gist of it?

Nope. The thing is, we’ve been answering your questions. You just seem to not like the answers.

That you don’t seem to consider my complaint against Bostonian’s comment to be of any actual substance is on you.

I own it. I told you why I don’t have a philosophical problem with what Bostonian did. Others explained why they disagreed with me.

You have yet to say why you have one set of rules for us, and a different set for TS.

I have earlier stated that if TS has straight out accused a rape victim of lying I would certainly criticize him as well.

People have done that. You’ve chosen to not believe them. Why?

You know, this reasoning goes both ways. I could say the same about many here (including you) based on how many commenters have either defended Bostonian’s comment or refrained from addressing it at all (when addressing me). Yet I don’t see you questioning their motives and intent. Is that a differential treatment you are exhibiting? I really don’t find continuing an argument in that direction to be as interesting and productive as you seem to think.

Bullshit. I’ve told you why I said what I said. TS has been dishonest in his representations of what was said about him. He has claimed his rape was denied. It wasn’t. What was denied was his claim that feminism is a cause of women raping children.

But when confronted with examples; from the post you are defending, of TS lying (or revelling in the rape of another) you say, “please point me to examples”.

They did. You don’t want to admit to them. Not even to the level of defending your position (as I did re Bostonian). You just repeat the, “you people are being mean to him, tell me why.”

We have. You don’t want to see it?

What makes TS special to you?

Chris
Chris
9 years ago

Just my 2 cents. Moderate these comments and get rid of the feminists. They are just trolling away stopping any meaningful discussion. Protip: Men CANNOT out-talk women. Don’t even try. We don’t have the instinct for it and we are handicapped by a need to make sense.

darksidecat
9 years ago

If I told you that the person who molested me was a republican, Tamen, is it okay and accurate for me to say that republicanism leads to child molestation based solely on that? Should you accept the claim that republicanism leads to child molestation on that evidence alone?

Because that’s the issue people are criticizing TS for. They weren’t saying he was not raped, they are criticizing his assertion that his abuser IDed as a feminist therefore feminism leads to abuse. Also, some of the things he links calling him a liar aren’t even on issues at all related to even that, they were related to his misrepresenting and lying about other commenters, something that he made quite the habit of.

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

GWW:

At least the mainstream media is prepared to call the SPLC what it is–an irrelevant, crooked bunch of money-grubbing civil rights evangelists who are prepared to take the word of someone who calls himself ManBoobz. ‘Nough said.

What, we’re a hate group!!!??? Well, hem, your name is silly! So there.

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

At least GWW has a pleasant voice to listen, but gawd is she allergic to making sense?

Notable points:

I’d like to see the golden faucets of the SPLC’s palace, they must be nice. She say that the SPLC makes tons of money, but doesn’t care apparently to expand on how she knows it, how much they ‘make’ and where that money go.
And apparently it doesn’t matter what MRM do or say as long as RadFem Hub don’t like men. Which is half of the video (which is nice, because i could just skip that)
And to finish, just a little touch of ableism.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

an irrelevant, crooked bunch of money-grubbing civil rights evangelists

Money grubbing? But…but I comment on Manboobz FOR FREE! 🙁

LBT
LBT
9 years ago

RE: Chris

Protip: Men CANNOT out-talk women. Don’t even try. We don’t have the instinct for it and we are handicapped by a need to make sense.

Have you SEEN NWOslave type, dude? Seriously, you should go have a conversation with him. Talk about fluoride and Jews or something.

ozymandias42
ozymandias42
9 years ago

I personally totally believe that TS’s abuser identified as a feminist, because guess what? Feminists can be abusive too! That doesn’t make feminism WRONG.

Bostonian
9 years ago

TS’s abuser may have identified as a feminist, but that did not make her an abuser. She would have been an abuser no matter what her personal beliefs are/were.

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

Have you SEEN NWOslave type, dude? Seriously, you should go have a conversation with him. Talk about fluoride and Jews or something.

Or DKM. Though NWO would totally beat int term of quantity. It’s probably because DKM is too busy taking care of his dolls.

LBT
LBT
9 years ago

Nah, DKM has at least some facile resemblance to logic, while NWO is like timecube guy.

Also, what is WITH the trolls assuming everyone here is a woman and that’s the cause AND effect of us being stupid?

–Rogan

Tamen
Tamen
9 years ago

DSC: Now, it would be hypocritcal of me to engage in an discussion about aspects of your molestation so I won’t. I’ll just add that I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of lying about your molester being a Reublican.

David: “And that was the issue. Whether she abused him BECAUSE of feminism. That’s what people challenged him on. And that’s what TS has been misrepresenting from the start in all his posts on this.”

Bostonian original words accused TS of lying about whether his rapist identified as a feminist to him, not whether or to what extent her feminism was a factor in her decision to rape and abuse him. Two different things.

The consensus seem to have shifted ocer time from “call 1-800-BITEME”, “Which wasn’t saying TS was lying about being abused, but of padding it with details to make it more useful when beating feminists with it.” (Telling rape victims that you think they are exaggerating a bit is something I would do my best to avoid), “if I thought Bostonian was over the line, I’d say so” to Bostonian failed to express what he meant. Which I think is an markedly improvement.

This discourse clearly has run it’s course. I’ll just re-iterate to you David that allowing a continuation of a discussion about aspects of a rape (including assertions about the thruthfulness of aspects of the victim’s account of that rape) after the victim has been banned from commenting is in my view a moderation failure. But it is of-course is your perogative to do as you see fit on your blog.

Bostonian
9 years ago

And you are still happy to let TS off the hook for doing much worse to other people, I notice. Why are you so reluctant to even question TS for mocking other rape victims, when my statement, bothered you so much you needed other commenters to condemn it. Please do note that several people disagreed with my original statement, and said so. You agree with TS’s mockery and cruelty towards both Holly and LBT.

Pecunium
9 years ago

Tamen: I’ll just add that I certainly wouldn’t accuse you of lying about your molester being a Reublican.

Way to move the goalposts. No one said TS’ molester wasn’t a feminist. We said that feminism isn’t why she raped him.

That goes hand in hand with your continuing to ignore TS choice to be gleeful that Roberta was abusive, and derisive, to a male survivor of rape.

Why then should we take your criticism as anything other than apologia for TS?

Cheryl
Cheryl
9 years ago

Hi all. First comment and occasional, appreciative lurker. There’s a regular poster here, a man, who was raped by a woman when he was a child, and I believe him. So my comment is not in response to his horrible experience AT ALL, but more directed towards the amount of denial so many others here have expressed when discussing the general subject of women who rape adult-sized men.

I wouldn’t say that it never happens, but come on. The average man is bigger, stronger, more assertive, more conditioned to male entitlement, than the average women who is smaller, weaker, and most importantly — socially conditioned into some version of a caretaker role. Hell, most women are so freaking passive that they won’t even take themselves out of harm’s way (think elevator) even when their instincts are screaming “rapist alert” if removing themselves from the situation might insult the feelings of the dood. Women are conditioned to put their own safety at risk in order to protect the feelings of men.

Rape is all about putting a victim in her place, the dehumanized sex class. Or putting a young boy or effeminate man in HIS place, the dehumanized woman class. Rarely is rape merely about sexual gratification, it’s normally associated with resentment, entitlement, and “power over”. So it makes very little sense for someone to assume that a woman could somehow “put an adult man in his place” by turning the tables through rape, even if she were strong enough or intimidating enough. Unlike most women, a man is socially conditioned to physically resist if something is disgusting enough, not lay there and think of England. Sure there’s exceptions, but come on.

So the total number of adult women who have raped adult-sized men in the entire history of the world is probably so statistically small that the actual percentage makes the word “outlier” appear enormous by comparison. The comments which implied that society needs to start considering the average woman to be as dangerous to men as the average man actually is to women, is harmful. It’s a denialistic, naive attempt to pretend that everyone is equal in regards to oppression and privilege status, and that no victim class and no abuser class exists. Men and women aren’t equal yet, and aren’t socialized to react in identical ways to abuse or the wielding of physical/social power.

I really appreciate what David is doing with this site, but sheesh, there are some major pollyanna’s over here.

pillowinhell
9 years ago

Cheryl, many men are also socially conditioned to not hit women. Many men have no aggressive tendencies whatsoever. Many men are drinking and or drunk when they are assaulted. Many men wake up to find a woman already on them. Many men are socially conditioned to not turn down attractive women even if they don’t want sex at that time. All men have nerves, which means it hurts when they are hit. All men have fears and vulnerabilities that can be exploited. All men can be roofied. Many men don’t know how to spot a potential rapist because our society doesn’t teach boys how to protect themselves.

Men can be raped. Men can be made fearful and men can be hurt. Please don’t spread the invulnerable men meme. It makes it so much harder for boys or men to get the help they need.

LBT
LBT
9 years ago

RE: Cheryl

My husband is built like a linebacker, athletic, and more than capable of winning a fight. He got sexually assaulted by a woman much, much smaller than him.

Stop making it even harder for men like him to ever admit something happened to him.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

Chris: I think you’re in the wrong place if you want to ban feminists. Check the ‘Boob Roll’ on the right side of the page, I’m sure you’ll find something to your liking.

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@Cheryl

Just on this site alone: zhinxy could probably easily overpower me (being ex-military), mags ditto, CassandraSays as a former athlete probably could, I think it’s KathleenB who does fencing and other training could also most likely overpower me and that’s just off the top of my head. I’m 6ft 170lbs and only slightly out of shape strength-wise. As people keep saying, all things equal a man could most likely overpower a woman, but any given situation the odds are different. Also, someone more knowledgeable please feel free to give official stats

cloudiah
cloudiah
9 years ago

Cheryl, I’m just going to quote from some posts on another thread:
Shadow:

But, just like with women, a man doesn’t have to be overpowered to be raped. Weapons, drugs, blackmail, rope etc. are all you really need.

“And anyone who thinks men always want to have sex or that every erection is meaningful is an idiot.”

Unfortunately society’s filled with these idiots. You see the same narratives being used to excuse male rapists. They can’t help it, you shouldn’t have aroused them etc etc

And a little further down, Holly:

“Actually, it does take some imagination for me to understand how a woman could overpower an average healthy male.”

(possible triggers)

1. She has a gun or a knife.
2. She’s his boss and tells him his job’s on the line.
3. She has big scary accomplices.
4. She’s a big scary woman and he’s not a big scary man.
5. He’s drunk and/or drugged.
6. He’s eleven years old.
7. He’s simply so caught off guard and panicked/shocked by the whole situation that even though he could overpower her in a fair fight, he’s paralyzed and doesn’t know what to do.

KathleenB
KathleenB
9 years ago

Shadow: Did fencing – I only have a third of a working leg on one side, which makes regular training hard. But I know what to do (and not to do) in a physical fight, and won’t hesitate to use my size and speed to fight really dirty. Oddly, very few people seem willing to mix it up with me once they see me – once had a guy who was totally ready to throw down because I was parking in the vicinity of his house. Until I actually got out of the car…

LBT
LBT
9 years ago

RE: Cheryl

Also add me to the list of men who’re pretty sure they could be physically overpowered by a good number of women. And that’s NOT including if drugs, terror, rope, accomplices, or any number of other things were involved. Also, I simply don’t know how to physically fight back; I completely shut down. I don’t know HOW to really hit someone.

Shadow
Shadow
9 years ago

@KathleenB

Yep, I thought I remembered right but sometimes the info from my lurking days gets all mishmashed up. And the thing is, I’m the quintessential “average guy”. I work out, I grew up learning how to throw a punch and brawling with my brothers and friends. Haven’t been in a fist fight but I’ve gotten in a couple of altercations. And I still have no doubt that you could drop me in a second because you have the training and are also probably in better shape than I am.

Also, now that Cloudiah reminded me of that thread, I want to quote Holly’s post because that summed up the issue brilliantly:

I think your mental image of “man” is kind of narrow here. They come in all sizes, including small, including disabled, including large and abled but timid, including large and abled and not usually timid but holy shit not expecting this and don’t know what to do.

Rape is very rarely a matter of a fair fight.

I mean, there’s a reason that there are more male rapists than female ones, which is what you’re talking about Cheryl, but you underestimate women.

pillowinhell
9 years ago

Also Cheryl, you are forgetting that rapists already know what they want to do and have planned for it to some degree. Which means that they are already mentally prepared to rape, while their victim has yet to figure out that they are a target and what to do about it. That takes time the victim doesn’t have.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Honestly I’m starting to wonder if Cheryl is one of those false flag feminists that people were babbling about a while back.

Ithiliana
9 years ago

@CassandraSays; my trolldar is pinging a bit now that I’ve seen all her comments today.