[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.)
@kita:
They aren’t the same organization, but they’re both pretty solidly misogynistic and anti-woman?
About fucking time.
Haha, the Redditors think Futrelle’s behind the whole thing, to the extent that he wrote the article on the SPLC website.
@Crumbelievable:
Oooh, and apparently the title “Does Feminism cause brain damage” isn’t misogynistic because… wait for it… feminism =/= women. ^_^ I suppose that could be technically true, but come on… Do you really think there won’t be any misogyny in that broadcast?
Oh, and there’s this, posted a couple hours after the SPLC thread. I smell damage control. XD
So, yeah, posting this article on my Facebook to spread the word.
And yes, I WILL be making popcorn…WITH STEVIA! 😀
Here’s the commemorative plate.
Great plate, Katz!
Echoing several previous commenters….someone HAS to get Roissy/Chateau Heartiste on that list. He’s as bad as any of them and perhaps more dangerous because he’s actually intelligent. (I hate to give any of them, least of all him, any more publicity,though.)
@Kirby
Notice how AntiFeministMedia got downvoted and hidden too.
Whatever, that post is bullshit. They’re only extending thanks to the women in the MRM…aka the women who agree with every single thing they say and overlook their misogyny. The rest of us who don’t drink the koolaid are then enemy and to be threatened, vilified and harassed and or at best, lumped in with all the other “Ameriskanks”. Pathetic that they think anyone with half a brain will fall for such tripe.
Buttman: The $PLC is far worse than any feminist organization.
The only people I know with an issue with the SPLC are butthurt neo-confederates and other assorted nazis who don’t like the fact that they actually point it out when mainstream Republicans have friends in the far right underground, unlike deferential journalists who still cling to the idea that the Republican party isn’t rotting from the inside with protofascists.
It is as if they do not realize that all of their postings are on the internet. Guys, we can see what you post. No one will be fooled by CYA stuff now.
I’ve come to expect sexism from MRAs, but the idea that anyone hates the SPLC? What, do you hate puppies and sunshine too?
FYI, men’s rights groups aren’t actually on the SPLC’s official list of hate groups (presumably because they don’t qualify as “groups”). The SPLC just wrote about them.
This is so awesome! The Southern Poverty Law Center did a great job on their research for this article. I’m glad to know such a large, reputable organization is keeping tabs on the MRM.
The myth list is great.
I’m boggling at this line:
“All he had done, he said, was smack his 4-year-old daughter and bloody her mouth after she licked his hand as he was putting her to bed.”
If you hit a four year old in the face hard enough to draw blood, you’re a child abuser. End of story. And the MRAs are trying to make this guy into a martyr?
Or maybe these groups are not all motivated by hate. Either way, good call katz. I was about to dismiss SPLC as just another irrelevant, noxious manifestation of the feminist agenda, but given that they haven’t placed sites like The Spearhead, AVFM and SAVE on the hate list just yet, perhaps this would be premature.
If the SPLC wants to remain relevant, then they have to remain credible. Strong views backed up with verifiable, reliable evidence (as per the publications of TS, AVFM and SAVE) do not constitute hate. Maybe the SPLC, to their credit, has got at least this much right. Or maybe they realize that if push came to shove, then feminists themselves would have to be brought to account for the hate that characterizes their movement. After all, are not affirmative action and VAWA unconstitutional, state-sponsored sexism directed against men? No comparable state-sponsored hate is implemented against women. I say to the SPLC – bring it on, because it will bring the face of this grotesque, feminist beast into the bright light of day.
Hesster
that was my reaction to that line too.
all he had done? all he had done? it make me feel sick.
Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Something is right with the world. This is making my moment. Still digesting. High fives all around.
I told you, I told you this is racism. I know you know that, but…
Ok going to read links.
I’m trying to wrap my head around the mindset that would consider “well I only smacked my toddler and made her mouth bleed because she licked me” to be the thing that you say when you’re trying to present yourself in a good light and argue that you’re not abusive. And failing.
chuckee, why do you minimize the violence and the violent threats, the publishing of private information, the SUPPORT of Thomas Ball? He would be a good soldier in the war? So what would the MRM have to do in your eyes for an intelligence report by SPLC to be justified?
You have a pretty extreme bar. It doesn’t surprise me that a person that supports the MRM blogosphere and activities would not see things clearly. I mean they constantly go on as if FEMINISTS are the ones acting like this. But where are the websites like manboobz that are taking from the femosphere? You can’t find anything like this on feminist blogs. But there’s so much on the MRM blogs/reddit that David can post an entry a day or more. And it’s horrible stuff. EVERY DAY is Sharon Osbourne day, and the MRM thinks it’s ok.
I know we have at least one lawyer among the regulars. At what point do vague online threats cross the line into something that’s legally actionable?
There’s no magic line for when you’re allowed to call the FBI or other law-enforcement agencies to report that somebody is making actual threats or posting a person’s address and phone number along with suggestions that they ought to be killed, raped, or similar.
If by “legally actionable” you mean, criminal charges? Generally when there is a credible threat. Posting personal information may well fall into that category. If you mean, a civil lawsuit, well, suggesting that a person is sexually immoral is classic defamation. (Which is, I believe, why Limbaugh gave a fauxpology. Calling someone a prostitute when she isn’t? Write the check, fuckstain.)
All the SPLC did was validate that women’s organizations recognize the power of the dark side…uh, I mean the men’s rights movement. Try to ignore, as David feigns to do, the MRM, but it’s growing. I think, by the wording of the articles, that this announcement came out as a result of the debates by MRA about Obama’s healthcare legislation (with its gendered components) and the VAWA, which MRA’s have been rightfully critical of.
After all, are not affirmative action and VAWA unconstitutional, state-sponsored sexism directed against men?
No. That was easy.
As to the rest of that farrago of lies… the SPLC quoted (and debunked) the various justifications the MRM sites it listed use to rationalise the hate they have for women.
The best disinfectant is sunshine.
Dave doesn’t ignore the Manosphere. You, in fact, try to mock him for not ignoring it.
What Dave does; the reason the Manosphere has such a hate on for him, in particular, is laugh at them.
That’s what pisses them off. If he took them seriously, treated them as legitimate activists (which I notice the SPLC didn’t, quite), they’d be a lot happier, because it would lend them a credibility they lack, and lift them from a circle-jerk to a movement.
PUAs on XKCD. Perfect!
http://xkcd.com/1027/