[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.)
Sorry LBT that was me that got your story messed up. I realized it much later.
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.
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.
@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..
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.
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.”
No you would not. The way I am reading what you are writing is that you would not criticize him for squat.
This is why.
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?
Okay, fine, I’ll break down some of the things in TS’s post.
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.
I started it by replying to her inflammatory remarks. This is one of those Self-Refuting Sentences.
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.)
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.
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.)
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
Holly, be careful using the word “we.” Tamen has trouble with it.
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:
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.
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.
@Tamen
Bostonian then followed up with:
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
And Toysoldier returns with yet another dishonest account of the goings-on in the comments here:
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/03/14/this-is-what-it-looks-like-v5/
And while we’re at it, here’s girlwriteswhat’s video responding to the whole SPLC thing. I didn’t watch it, but if you poke through the comments you can find her lying about me.
I’m beginning to wonder if MRAs are simple incapable of being honest.
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.