[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.)
I’m still stuck on this quote:
Um… how frequently exactly? Once an hour? Every day perhaps? Maybe once a month? Then it should be easy for you to find a few examples (i.e. more than one) of feminists actually wanting to eliminate the legal system for rapists. Go ahead, we’ll wait. 😛
Or, more likely, you’re just making a false accusation here. Because I don’t “frequently” see feminists arguing that false accusations don’t exist at all (I don’t think I’ve ever seen that, actually, but I guess it’s possible I read someone somewhere who said that once and forgot about it). And, I have absolutely NEVER seen feminists argue that we should eliminate due process and the presumption of innocence, but only for the case of rape!?!?
Feminists want rapists accused IN COURT with evidence, not thrown summarily in jail with no trial and no jury. I know feminists would like the accusations taken just a bit more seriously than police deciding “slut was probably asking for it, don’t investigate”- that’s because rape should actually be investigated like the crime it is!
I became a feminist after I found out that it’s not just me, and i’ts not just nerds.
Actually, that was the very first source of statistics regarding ‘false rape accusations’. And the number was 63%. But *Go on*.
“Many feminists”, hm? I always see it as “False accusations for rape are not more common than for other crimes”.
You are the best lawyer, for real, yo.
Then they do so without regards to the facts. The SPLC article pointed out a couple of the basics, though.
Roberta: 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.
Yes, you did. You said any sex where “consent” was given wasn’t rape if the person who “consented” had the means to leave, these are your words.
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.
Your words say that what happened to LBT isn’t rape. What your words mean may be ugly, but you used them. Own them.
And the apologetics continue… what Roberta claims to have given (yes, you were raped), Roberta immediately taketh away: 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.
Roberta’s definition of rape is very narrow. Roberta definition of false accusation is very wide.
Roberta’s denial of a violent streak is also great, the big names are, “just being rhetorical”, the rank and file, are, “just the odd person, I wish we didn’t have them”.
That sort of enabling apologia is why the MRM is what it is… rape apologist and violent people; many of whom lament they are denied the right to be violent at whim.
And then she, working to cover their right to rape and abuse, wonders why people who like women don’t flock to her standard.
Mythago: Roberta has claimed to be a, “criminal trial lawyer” as well as being related to an ADA.
@holly
I don’t get to decide anything. The law does. Read my previous comment there, skippy.
We can’t make it illegal to give partner’s ultimatums about your relationship. If “have sex with me or I’m gone” is rape, then “buy me a new car or I’m gone” would be theft. “Clean out the garage or I’m gone” would be slavery. A relationship is an agreement between two people. One which either can terminate for any reason.
If “blow me or I’m leaving” is rape in your view, what about someone who honestly feels unsatisfied sexually? What if they communicate to their partner that they just aren’t sexually satisfied in the relationship? They don’t want to pressure their partner but they want to leave because their needs aren’t being met. Can they tell their partner this? Is it rape if they tell their partner and their partner agrees to have sex more often to save the relationship?
What’s the fundamental difference between these two scenarios. In a way we could delineate legally. Do you want it to be a felony to negotiate sex within a relationship? What if someone doesn’t explicitly say that they’ll leave if they don’t get more sex, but implies it through other ways? Even unintentionally?
It’s still awful what happened to her and her partner was a monstrous human being for continuing sex with her when she was in such obvious distress. But he still didn’t break any laws. Condemnation is easier than comprehension.
Shut up, Roberta. You’re boring and you’re a liar. It’s not a good combination.
@pecunium
The article I linked references several studies on the subject. Take a look at them if you don’t trust the motives of two feminist legal experts.
Need to Know and pillow, thank you for your stories. I’ll be thinking about them all day.
Roberta, you would sound more credible if you weren’t so quick to defend men regardless of situation and, like LBT, didn’t sound so much like a victim blamer.
Yeah, the abuser LBT referenced may have had the “right” to be an abusive ass, but that doesn’t change the fact that he used emotional threats to coerce sex out of the situation. That’s so textbook emotional abuse, I’m stunned there’s a question over her own “choosing” the situation.
Also, LBT, I’m so sorry. Emotional abuse wrapped around sexual is the very worst of the worst.
Holly: . 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?
No, she doesn’t say that (quite). She says that’s not what “rape” looks like. It’s a subtle piece of sophistry, which lets her claim she’s only worrying about, “false” accusations.
Of course Roberta has so narrowly defined what is rape: active, persistent refusal, which is ignored… any word of assent she deems to be consent… and anything short of violence, or the actual threat of violence is a legitmate, “negotiating tactic.”
Rape, per Roberta, is almost impossible, on the ground, but she can make this lofty sounding claim that, “lack of consent is rape,” and still call LBT’s rape consensual sex, because she has very narrowly, as with Steersman and c*** defined the word as she means it.
They really ought to hang out with Humpty-Dumpty, because that’s the way they use words. It makes it almost impossible for reasonable people to discuss things with them.
Her way of using “consent” is pretty good for rapists though. If they don’t use threats of violence, or a weapon, or actually strike/choke/etc. their victims, she forgives them, and then accuses the person they raped of falsely accusing them.
That she will spend hours trying to make as wide, and broad, and inclusive, a definition as possible; even if it means most rapists get to keep raping people.
Really Roberta? So despite the fact that I am actually incapacited at three beers, I’m not because you say so? Despite the fact that at one beer I legally can’t drive because my blood alcohol is too high? So if I’m raped the trial can be all about how much I had to drink and that OBVIOUSLY no normal person would be so impaired..based on what?
Your an out and out rape apologist and you thoroughly disgust me. Also, I’m five foot two and 115 pounds. Quite a normal height and weight for women.
Roberta – Please stop pretending to be stupid in order to excuse a real person’s actual rape. There’s a big goddamn not subtle difference between “we need to renegotiate our sex life” and “have sex with me right now or I’ll leave you forever.”
(Psst… did you catch on that LBT isn’t a “her”? OH MY GOD THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING, amiright?)
This isn’t unique to rape! Every area of the law realizes that you can violate someone’s consent even if you never say magic “I’m violating your consent now” words. If you tell a shopowner “it’d be a shame if anything happened to your business” and they pay you protection money, you don’t get to stand up in court and say “but I was just stating an opinion and they gave me a gift. Is it illegal to have opinions now?” because everyone who knows how human communication works knows damn well what you were really saying.
And no, the law does not just bite their nails and go “oh no we can’t prosecute, no magic words, it was just an opinion” to people who run protection schemes. Because pretending to be stupid actually isn’t an ironclad defense against incredibly transparent coercion.
Ah! I see how it works now. A person isn’t a rapist unless that person has been convicted in court! A person can rape somebody, but it’s not rape until a judge says it is! Any rape victim who accuses someone of being a rapist is a liar UNTIL a jury convicts his/her rapist!
(Roberta’s a pedantic troll and obviously doesn’t understand that rape is rape even when it can’t be proven in court.)
Aw, Roberta, you’re such a sweetheart. C’mon, make up your goddamn mind! Was I under raped or not? Is crying in the fetal position from emotional pressure duress or not? Is complete lack of responsiveness rapey or not? Did I just cry too easily, or was I too docile? Was his badgering and denigrating me until I cried reasonable or not? I swear, you’re like a revolving door of opinion here. Do you need more detail? Do I need to drag his exact words out of my brain from all those years ago to reassure you?
C’mon, Roberta, throw me a bone here. I mean, this guy is still walking around completely free with no restrictions or anything, and you don’t even know who he is, but I’m sure he desperately needs your defending. I mean, he might have… I don’t know. Anonymous people on the Internet DISLIKING him or something. WE CAN’T HAVE THAT.
@holly
The difference is, holly, that someone who runs a protection racket is implicitly threatening another person with illegal activity. Arson is illegal. Threatening arson (even implicitly) to get someone to agree to your terms is likewise illegal.
Breaking up with someone is not illegal. Threatening someone with a breakup in order to get them to agree to your terms is likewise not illegal.
That is a false analogy. Implicit threats of violence or confinement are enough to make sex non consensual. You don’t have to explicitly say: “have sex or I’ll break your legs,” but you have to objectively intimidating. To the point where someone reasonably fears violence if they don’t consent.
This seems like stating the obvious in extremis, but, abuse doesn’t have to leave bruises to still be criminally abusive, Roberta:
http://www.forthepeople.com/domestic_abuse.html
Using one form of abuse to set up diminished capacity in an intended victim, in order to engage in another form of abuse is still….rape. You can call it assault, if that seems more palatable to the phrasing war you are engaged in.
Yeah, troll. Deliberately obtuse troll is obtuse.
Roberta: I’ve read it, and dozens like it. They don’t support their position.
More to the point, I’ve read you. You are, at best, a victim blaming rape apologist.
If you believe what you say, you are possessed of evil beliefs. If you don’t… you are just evil. Your defense of a narrow, and abusive, definition of rape, is vile.
Your vilification of those who are raped with means other than violence, is repulsive. You are arguing to make rape easier to commit. You insist that a very narrow definition of rape be both the legal, and cultural understanding.
You are working to make women who are raped at other then the fear of life, or limb, marginalised, mocked, shamed, criminal.
Sincerity in an evil enterprise, doesn’t absolve you of the effects of your actions. So even that (if you are truly so confused as to believe the idea that anyone who isn’t physically restrained can therefore be deemed to have freely assented to sex, and so has, “consented”) that doesn’t change the facts:
You argue for a definition of consent which makes rape more widespread. You want to punish women who are raped: other than with physical coercion. You are upset that people who like women think you are full of shit.
Let me get the violin and play you a sad song.
Call me crazy, guys, but I’m getting the impression from her ignorance that Roberta isn’t actually a lawyer.
Also GODDAMMIT ROBERTA. I’m a MAN!
Also Roberta, my hypothetical rape trial can also convict me for drinking while female. Because you know rape happens when women drink right? So what was I doing acting like a normal person out having a couple beers with some friends when I should have known I was setting myself up, amiright?
And I was at a bar…seducing men I completely ingored by my mere presence.
Roberta, I’d patiently explain how emotional abuse works, but I’m pretty sure you know and are just playing dumb.
If someone has sex for a reason other than wanting sex or freely, clear-headedly deciding to have sex, that’s rape. It may not be provable legally, because our legal system is kinda fucked like that. But it’s not fucking consensual sex!
Sex isn’t Freeze Tag. It’s not some game where if you don’t get away then gotcha, you consented! Do you realize how stupid you look telling someone they chose to have sex when they’re right here telling you they did not? What does “chose” even mean to you?
@pecunium
I didn’t do any of those things. Look up your jurisdictions definition of consent. It will be something very much like: “A voluntary agreement to sexual activity that was not procured through: violence, threats of violence towards yourself or others, threats of confinement towards yourself or others, and unlawful blackmail“.
It doesn’t have to be physical coercion. Threats of physical coercion or other violence will suffice. The threats don’t have to be explicit either, but they have to be reasonably clear.
LBT gotta love the heteronormative viewpoints. And that was a really shitty thing to happen to you, I’m sorry it did. Even shittier is the fact that after all that time you’re still forced to defend yourself and your experience.
Christ! Some days I hate human beings.
I’m pretty sure most of the people who claim to “Be the Law!” on any board are full of crap.
Victim blaming is pretty expected in the arsenal, contextually, of those who are offended by The Southern Poverty Law Center article.
When in doubt, try to push the pointing finger of doom onto someone else! I know I err on the naive, but Roberta is BORING.
Anyone ever seen a demographic on how other hate groups over lap with MRA followers? Is there a big bunch of men trolling back roads, drinking, waving guns, and all saying the same stuff? Banjos? Chewing tobacco?
Now Amphitrite, my father chews tobacco and he’s not an MRA. He’s an emotionally and physically abusive monster, an alcoholic, and a homophobe, but even he thinks the MRM is insane.
…And that’s terrible.
Holly,
They can call it rape if they like, it just isn’t legally. I have no problem with your definition of consent. We can debate what situations allow someone to freely consent or not.
He didn’t *choose* to have sex, but me might have *chosen* to have sex in order to prevent his partner from leaving. If he was in a genuinely abusive situation, that makes it more complicated, but the laws on sexual assault don’t make exceptions for someone who is in the emotional thrall of another person, they can’t. It’s just too slippery of a notion.
Sorry for my legalistic pedantry, but felony law doesn’t generally leave much room for nuances of those kind. It needs to be concrete and objective.