[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.)
Roberta, you’re not exactly breaking new ground here. Step it up.
Hey, Mags.
I’m sorry that shit happened to you. I’ve been where you were, and it sucked. I stand by what everyone else said; it wasn’t your fault.
Also, augh, Roberta, can you PLEASE go away? You lost all my liking after you said my rape was consensual. (Yes, I said yes. While crying and curled up in a fetal position. You want to call that consensual, fine, but seriously, most people with a functioning set of ethics realize they should not fuck someone when they’re crying and had the yes dragged out of them. Most people with a functioning set of ethics will STOP when after this happens and the “sex” begins, the person they’re fucking just lies completely prone and lifelessly, crying silently with a blank expression.)
I almost wish there was an alternative men’s rights movement.
“Almost”? Why?
Either men face gender-based injustice that requires them to have their own movement, or they don’t. If they do, then you should absolutely be supportive of a MRM which isn’t about Hatin’ Them Bitches. If you don’t, then why would you care if there is an MRM?
I don’t understand the “almost”, unless you like things the way they are.
@LBT
I never said your rape was consensual. If you said yes while crying in the fetal position then he must have subjected you to duress. Which is rape, morally and legally. I never said or implied that any “yes”, procured through any means, makes sex consensual. Holding a gun to someone’s head (literally or metaphorically) and demanding they say yes is very obviously rape.
If you can’t reasonably say no, then it’s rape. So long as you could have reasonably said no, but said yes instead, then it isn’t rape.
If your partner is very obviously distressed (to the point where they’re crying) while your having sex when them then of course you should stop and ask what’s wrong. Only a rapist would not.
@Roberta:
If I had to guess, (and this is really just guessing), the 1-2% number for false accusations probably comes from cases where the victim later said that the charges were made up. Any higher numbers probably come from cases that are deemed “unfounded,” as in not enough evidence to prove (but also not disproven).
This seems to be the reality of the situation. Some women truly do make false accusations (very few). Some are hassled by police and by courts who go into the case not believing them about a traumatic event, and decide that its not worth the harassment and so claim that they just made it up. Others do stick through the process, but the courts don’t find the evidence in their favor. A good portion probably never bring it up through fear of horror stories from other victims. And another portion actually do carry through the whole case to a conviction.
So, when focusing on small accusations in rhetoric, we usually speak about just that first case (the one where the accusation is indeed false). The statistics for “false rape accusations” usually come from the first three (including failing to obtain a conviction). Focusing on the small number of false accusations makes the entire system more hostile to potential victims. That’s why feminists don’t generally focus on them; it fucks everything up for their main focus, the actual rape victims.
tl;dr: Focusing on false rape accusations contributes to a hostile system against victims that enhances the problem of rape.
I don’t know why I put that “almost” there. I absolutely DO wish there was an alternative MRM.
I still it’s possible to salvage what exists. Or at least channel that energy in more productive directions.
unfortunately i am not in the frame of mind to engage your provocation.
That’s our mags. When the questions get too tough, pretend to leave the thread or run for the fainting couch, then talk about how dreamy guys are for a while.
I’m sorry that you were abused, and no, it was NOT your fault that you were molested or assaulted, unless you implanted a mind-control device in the person who assaulted you and forced them to do those things.
But being a survivor, or adoring men-as-concept, doesn’t give you a hall pass. If you stay dumb stuff, people will point out that you are saying dumb stuff. If you say “well I really believe X” but your actions indicate that you believe Y, then somebody may actually notice that fact, and say so.
@kirby
No. If an accusation was classified as false simply because there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Then 60-70% of rape allegations would be classified as “unfounded.” That very clearly isn’t the case.
Unfounded doesn’t mean false allegation, btw. False allegations are not typically classed as unfounded. Unfounded means that someone reported something to the police that didn’t meet the legal definition of rape.
“I had 3 beers and he talked me into to sleeping with him.” Allegations of that sort. I have a cousin who is an assistant DA in a college town and he hears allegations of this kind all the time. That would be classed as unfounded.
MRAs feel compelled to speak about false allegations because many feminists either deny their existence or insist that they are so rare their not even worth thinking about. Using this line as a justification for arguing that it should be easier to find someone guilty of rape.
MRAs argue against eliminating the presumption of innocence for accused rapists and use the fact that false allegations exist as a justification for that position.
I sure hope your courtroom skills are better than this. “Your Honor, my client did not brutally murder his ex-wife by shooting her twice in the head and burying her in the woods … well, maybe he did. But still! Not guilty!”
Seriously, though, if you come here and claim you want to get along with people, and the second thing out of your mouth in every thread is snarls and anger, don’t start whining that people here don’t roll over and get all sweetness and light.
This hinges bigtime on what you consider “reasonable.” And quickly drifts into the scary, victim-blamey grounds of “well, I didn’t know he was going to hurt me, and maybe he wouldn’t have, maybe I could have said no…” which ought to be a moot point because anyone going through this logic clearly did not want to have sex, regardless of whether they could have “reasonably refused it or not.
I’d rather say–if you didn’t want to have sex, but someone had sex with you anyway, then it’s rape. I realize this raises the theoretical problem of people running around saying “YES I WANT SEX” while secretly not wanting it, but for some reason I can’t see that being too prevalent.
Roberta is the most boring troll I’ve ever seen.
I got into feminism because Wonder Woman. Seriously. I was making her costume for a convention and started reading her comics, which lead to me researching her cultural impact, which led to feminism. And they say comic books don’t teach us anything.
@Roberta, you are creating strawfeminists. But I think you knew that. Who are these “many” feminists who claim that false rape accusations do not exist?
I notice, as well, that you are carefully unaware of “many” MRAs who argue that most accusations of rape are false and malicious.
I’m interested in where your friend the ADA practices. “Unfounded” isn’t actually a legal definition; perhaps it’s the definition his or her office uses to classify different reports of crimes. Particularly as something that might not meet the legal definition of “rape” might meet the legal definition of other degrees of sexual assault. It’s also pretty common for prosecutors to determine that the report, itself, describes a crime, but that they do not have enough evidence to get a conviction.
RE: Roberta
“If you want to be in a relationship with a person, and have sex with them because they have made it clear that that is the requirement for being in a relationship with that person, can you really claim to have been compelled against your will?”
You asked. I answered. THAT was how the sex was “required.” YOU’RE the one who asked me to prove I’d been compelled. So there ya go. I was compelled. YOU’RE the one who put the burden of proof on me. Would you like to me to go into more detail, just to be sure? I mean, you seem really concerned for the guy, I just want to reassure you that he WAS, in fact, a rapist. I mean, I’d hate to be a false rape accuser or something contributing to the downfall of my fellow men…
@ Roberta:
Well, usually I would say “there’s always masculism,” but I’m not sure you’d fit in so well.
You know women can be rapists too, right? Of men or other women? The patriarchal notion that women are sweet, passive creatures without the strength or will to harm anyone, especially a man, is a myth that feminism is working to dispell. The same is true of the patriarchal notion that men cannot be victims, because real men always want to have sex and real men could not be overcome or manipulated by a girl.
I’ll add that even if feminism was the “grr women good man delicious breakfast” movement you seem to think it is, working to get the public to acknowledge that women can be rapists would be important in order to help female victims of female rapists.
@holly
Sure, and we can debate what and what is not a situation in which someone could reasonably say no. Voluntarily having sex when that you didn’t really want to have still isn’t rape, though.
That would be an absurd standard, at least legally. Whether or not someone “wanted” to have sex is a subjective question of someone’s internal feelings that’s lacking in any falsifiability (ability to be proven either true or false). You can’t hold someone criminally responsible for subjective, internal, and contradictory feelings of another person. Perfect knowledge of which he has no access to.
What does “wanted” even really mean? It’s not concretely defined. How can someone know whether or not their partner really wants to have sex.
See what a mess it would be?
Lastly, whether or not someone agreed to do something is a matter of objective fact and is reasonably falsifiable in court. It’s an empirical question. Someone either agreed to have sex or they didn’t. It was either rape or it wasn’t. If the question hinged on the subjective internal feelings of the victim it would create a whole mess of due process issues. Including allowing the defendant to argue it wasn’t rape because deep down the victim really wanted it. Even though she appeared to not consent on the surface.
Consent is a voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. How much you really wanted to do it way deep down inside is completely immaterial. So long as your agreement was voluntary, then you consented.
After three beers Roberta, I’d be too drunk to legally consent. Does this mean I should never go to a bar again? Or does this mean that maybe the person trying to get me into bed should get my phone number and ask for sex when I’m SOBER?
@LBT You said yes because he told you he would leave you if you didn’t?
Sorry, but that’s his right. He can leave you for any reason and you can leave him for any reason. That alone is not enough to unlawfully compel. He’s still a complete fucking scumbag, but he’s not legally a rapist.
I don’t know why people act like whether someone wanted to have sex is this grand unknowable mystery, that we must have some objective standard because “want” is just too fuzzy, too fuzzy… then have no problem understanding that a gift is when you want to give someone your money and theft is when you don’t. A guest is when you want someone in your home and trespassing is when you don’t.
There’s a lot of laws based on the fuzzy subjective emotions of the victim, when you get down to it, but rape is the only one where people play dumb and pretend they can’t possibly know someone doesn’t want to fuck them, they’re not mind-readers.
Actually I linked to Shakesville, which is a pretty Big Deal in the feminist blogsphere, so if these “many” feminists that you talk about were saying false rape accusations don’t happen, I’d assume that at least some of the many would congregate there. And they don’t.
Also, you pointed to one man who had his life ruined by a false accusation and I know one man who didn’t. I’d call that about even.
…
Actually you know what? I’m bored. I don’t feel like retreading the whole “but some rape accusations are false and we should therefor focus on them!” argument when every time it comes up someone with better Google-fu than me at the moment (though I could spend some time chasing cites from here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#cite_note-3 and come up with some good stuff. Also: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/01/22/faq-but-dont-all-these-dna-exonerations-mean-that-women-lie-about-being-raped/) dumps a bunch of links that say YES FALE RAPE ACCUSATIONS HAPPEN and YES FEMINISTS PAY ATTENTION TO THEM (like say, at Shakesville) but they don’t happen at a rate any higher than any other “major” (Index? Is that the term) crime so why in the sweet yellow hell does every conversation about rapes end up focused on how some rapes are false, and a man’s life might be RUINED I TELL YOU RUINED so let’s talk about that because it’s more relevant to my interests.
I’ve got rocks to study, not trolls to educate. (I’d have a better time educating the rocks, tbh).
You’re a complete fucking scumbag, telling people that you get to decide whether they were raped or not, and I think you’re not really as dense about the whole “how human beings work” thing as you pretend to be.
Yes, leaving someone for any reason is a right. Saying “I’ll leave you unless” in a way calculated to cause extreme emotional duress… no, actually not a right. Saying “I’ll leave you unless” and then having sex when someone’s crying–do you think this is what goddamn consensual sex looks like?
Roberta: From Boycott American Women. . [I]f you were allowed to beat your wife we wouldn’t be dealing with this crap.”
Seems pretty clearcut to me that being allowed to beat women is something they see as a good thing.
Or Paul Elam (often cited when someone is challenged to show a, “moderate” member of the MRM.
“There are women, and plenty of them, for which [sic] a solid ass kicking would be the least they deserve… The real question here is not whether these women deserve the business end of a right hook, they obviously do, and some of them deserve one hard enough to leave them in an unconscious, innocuous pile on the ground if it serves to protect the innocent from imminent harm. The real question is whether men deserve to be able to physically defend themselves from assault … from a woman.”
Men need to be able to “defend yourself”, and by implication in ways which aren’t legal forms of defense now. That’s an appeal to the idea of beating women for being “threatening” to the social order; which is the implicit content in the, “protect others from imminent harm”.
Combine that with his desire to “out” feminists, and threats to publish the specific details of where they live and work, couple to any discoverable routines, and his comment that had Thomas Ball not killed himself he would have been a “good soldier” and his “understanding” of the motives of Anders Brievik… to claim he’s not advocating violence is either delusional, or distortional.
I also frequently see feminists arguing that false accusations of rape and abuse do not exist, and thus we should do away with all due process and presumption of innocence business. At least for rape, anyway. Probably want to keep that stuff for crimes that women can potentially be accused of.
Bullshit. Citation needed. Facts, or it didn’t happen.
Congratulations, you can link to one study from one locality. Who knows what kind of methodology that study employed, either? Do you want me to link you to dozens of studies finding much higher rates of false reporting?
Yes. Actually rigorous studies, not magazine and newspaper opinion articles (because those are far from neutral, and can most certainly be impeached. No one is vetting the writers for agenda, and no guarantee about the accuracy of their claims can be made. Opinion pieces are chosen because they are interesting, not for any other reason)
In a lot of reading on the issue, the highest rate I’ve seen supported is about 8 percent. Given the pathetic rate of prosecution, and the low rate of conviction for rape; and the lack of lasting stigma to being charged (not the same as convicted), it’s not that large an issue.
If we accept the most prevalent numbers, rape is falsely accused about the same as any other crime.
So, what makes rape special? Why do you want to make it easier to get away with rape, by making this aspect of it the bigger deal than the actual rapes?
@pillow
Nowhere in the world is 3 beers enough to make someone incapable of legal consent (unless you are incredibly tiny and a tremendous lightweight). A popular misconception is that any amount of drinking means that someone can’t consent legally.
It varies somewhat by jurisdiction, but standard is almost always incapacitation by alcohol, not just impairment by alcohol. Incapacitation means that you are so drunk that you are unable to properly understand the who, what, where, why, and when of what’s happening. Nearly, or actually, passed out.
Having a few drinks and somewhat impaired judgement is never legally rape. So long as you are awake, alert, and consciously aware of what’s happening, then you can consent.
It’s not often that a troll reveal to be a complete monster can still be so goddamn boring.
Revealed to be, that is.