Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women men's rights women's auxilary misandry MRA oppressed men reddit violence

TyphonBlue Monday: “All ‘Ending Violence Against Women’ initiatives assume that the appropriate targets for violence are men.”

The title of this blog can sometimes be a tad misleading. Because sometimes the biggest boobz out there are not men at all. A case in point: TyphonBlue, a proud member of the Men’s Rights Movement Women’s Auxiliary who sometimes makes boobish pronouncements like this:

Challenged by a non-MRA somewhat perplexed by her “logic” here, TB elaborates:

Nah. Still doesn’t make any sense. Or, as Peggy Olsen might put it:

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

134 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pillowinhell
8 years ago

Well, a geat deal of violence is directed at men when you look at violence overall. I looked at reported DV cases as tracked by Stats Canada, and it equals out almost. What isn’t accounted for is that women experience more hospitalizations and serious injuries as well as more reports of beatings by the same partner. I’ve spoken to her before and I’d agree that awareness of DV could be made more gender neutral, but I would still think that it needs to be said that women suffer greater physical harm and or increased risk of death at the hands of their partner.

Lady Zombie
Lady Zombie
8 years ago

Oh for fuck’s sake. This isn’t a zero sum game! Hell, it isn’t even Newton’s Third Law in action.

Stopping violence against women does not mean increasing violence against men. Is violence some kind of physical force like momentum that must go somewhere?

Dani Alexis
Dani Alexis
8 years ago

Because the amount of violence in the universe is fixed, and it must be perpetrated on other human beings. What, did you think violence was some kind of thing humans could choose not to do to other humans? Or – gasp! – not do at all? Pish!

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go fulfill my weekly quota of punching other humans in the face.

Lady Zombie
Lady Zombie
8 years ago

The Butterfuck Effect: for every puppy that is not kicked, a star will go Supernova.

Or something.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

pillowinhell. I’m with you on that. For last year, in Minnesota alone 23 female dead bodies, one man in intimate partner violence. Also… should be noted that in many cases of the murdered females, there were others murdered, children, family members and police officers. Also those studies that show “equal” violence don’t account for self defense usually, and equate throwing a box of tissues to a punch in the face. The stats are too blind for determinations. When campaigns are drawn up, they focus on the body count. When funds are allocated, and shelters built, it’s the toe tags that are making the difference, and the dynamics of no where to go. Also if you have a murderous partner, some victims of IPV would not dream of running to family and turning their lives upside down. The MN report alone shows how dangerous that can be. The shelter in our area was secret and even the police could not know where it was, some of their partners needed the services, so it’s a good thing.

blitzgal
8 years ago

It is true that most violence is committed against men. It’s also primarily committed BY men, against men. So the point of discussing issues of violence committed by men still stands.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

In other news, all anti-child-abuse campaigns are encouraging elder abuse, and cat shelter workers want dogs to die.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
8 years ago

This is MRA logic 101. Anything that benefits one group of people does so at the expense of other people. For example, if a person does a walk-a-thon to raise money for a charity to help people with multiple sclerosis, it harms a charity for people with cystic fibrosis. The only fair thing is for nobody to do anything nice or helpful for anyone else.

/sarcasm

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

Refuses to compute! What exactly is her point? That anyone who supports VAW initiatives don’t care about men? Or that men are gonna fuck people up no matter what, so women need to handle their share of getting their ass kicked?

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

Waaay off-topic but can we please have this, please please please? At the very least it will eliminate one of the haters’ arguments for excluding women from being firefighters, thus forcing them to find something more ridiculous to justify their hate with, and more easily showing it for what it is.

cloudiah
8 years ago

Or that men are gonna fuck people up no matter what, so women need to handle their share of getting their ass kicked?

I suspect that this is actually their position, but TyphonBlue comes the closest to admitting it. Otherwise, wouldn’t anything that reduces the amount of violence in the world be a good thing?

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

TyphonBlue seems to me to argue that efforts to end violence against women aren’t valid because they don’t try to end violence against men.

It’s like, if you say you’re against violence against women, you are assumed to be for violence against men unless you specifically say otherwise.

Therefore, unless TyphonBlue has stated that she is against violence against women, I am going to assume that she’s for it, because she has only said she’s against violence against men.

LOGIC. IT WORKS.

cloudiah
8 years ago

Falconer, that is super cool.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

There are already laws for violence against men.

They’re called laws.

The reason stuff like VAWA was brought up was because the laws were either being applied differently between the sexes, or that women were suffering more often than men. MRAs like to pretend that everything is an even playing field, and that any law that specifically applies to a certain sub-population is necessarily biased. It’s childish.

Say there was a preschool classroom, where kids got cookies for snack time. Let’s say that, for whatever reason, boys had been getting three cookies while girls had only gotten one cookie (insert “boys need more nourishment for muscles” argument and the like here). If there was a law stating that girls need to recieve extra cookies, that isn’t favoring girls, that’s evening the playing field.

In this metaphor, laws being applied correctly are cookies or something… I wanna make cookies now. I also want this to be the standard metaphor from now on for explaining feminism. ^_^

Sharculese
Sharculese
8 years ago

TyphonBlue Monday

*applause*

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

The thing about the real world is that it isn’t immediately obvious how many cookies each person has. Cookies are different sizes too, so there’s variation in how much cookies people get, and you need to look at the average amount of cookie to estimate how equal the sexes are.

Then people like NWO come riding in and say “Hey, I only have one cookie, and the girls have two now! Boys aren’t advantaged because I don’t have more cookies, so take cookies away from the girls. Those sluts will do anything for cookies.”

Crumbelievable
Crumbelievable
8 years ago

Typhonblue is one of Elam’s minions. Anyone who actually cared about social issues would have the wisdom to stay as far away from a sick fuck like him as possible.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Arguably VAWA should really be called the Domestic Violence Act, because domestic violence is an arena in which “assault is already illegal” doesn’t necessarily cut it.

When someone gets beaten up by a mugger or in a bar fight, existing assault laws cover their situation pretty well. When someone’s assailant is someone they live with, may be financially dependent on, and have a lot of emotional entanglement with, it’s different.

Someone who’s been mugged won’t need a shelter to stay in and someone hurt in a bar fight (probably) won’t need to worry that the person who beat them up will start stalking them. But someone who’s been attacked by their intimate partner has to worry about these things.

These are the sort of problems that VAWA’s really about, not just making violence against women extra illegal or whatever.

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

@cloudiah: Isn’t it way cool, though?

I thought people here might like it seeing as a few weeks ago there was “women are too weak to be firefighters!”

Now I’m sorry I used my derail because I just found out Geraldo said something dumb.

In other news, dog bites man, bird sings song, salmon swim upriver.

cloudiah
8 years ago

@Falconer And Herman Cain just released the most WTF video I have ever seen. Must not derail. Must. Not. Derail. [Sits on hands.]

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

Or that men are gonna fuck people up no matter what, so women need to handle their share of getting their ass kicked?

I think you hit the nail on the head on how their “logic” works. Its that they don’t actually think anything can be done about it, nor do they try, so they want women to suffer too. I remember David once posted a screencap to r/mensrights post…the OP was complaining about men dying on the job and why don’t feminists do something about it, and someone left a thoughtful reply about workplace safety standards, the OP replies and basically says “that’s not what I asked, I want to know why bitches aren’t made to die with men”

Its not about helping men, it’s about making women suffer “equally.” Because the point of equality is not to improve people’s lives, it’s to make them worse *eyeroll*

There have been groups that bring the attention of male violence in a non-domestic context. Usually by those “concerned mother” people. They argue that videogames, movies and other entertainment encourages young boys to be violent and try to ban them or at least make them harder to obtain. I don’t agree with that but at least they are actually DOING something. What are MRAs doing to combat violence against men? what campaigns and awareness are they setting up? How convenient that they always forget to mention that most male victims of violence are being victimized by other males too. Because feminism/women are not to blame that’s why. And they’re only interested when we’re the ones to blame.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Holly:

Good point, one that isn’t brought up nearly as much as it should… (“It’s called violence against WOMEN!!! Misandry1!!”)

I still like the cookie metaphor though though.

Kavette
Kavette
8 years ago

I’ve seen Typhonblue before

Just an insecure woman looking for male approval. She doesn’t get it in her real life so she turns to the internet. Serious Daddy issues.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

I don’t know anything about TB’s real life or her father. You do? Fascinating. Where’d you learn that?

ostara321
ostara321
8 years ago

“Those sluts will do anything for cookies.”

For some reason, this makes me laugh so hard. I’m envisioning Cookie Monster as an MRA demanding to know why some women have chocolate chip cookies and he’s stuck with pecan sandies.

princessbonbon
8 years ago

Because the point of equality is not to improve people’s lives, it’s to make them worse *

It reminds me of the arguments to cut public sector worker pay and benefits when compared to private sector employees during this depression mild recession that we have been going through for twelve years since 1/20/09.

Just because someone is doing better than you it is not a reason to cut that other person down, it is a reason to raise you up. If you are being hit by your girlfriend, go seek the same help that is out there for you-do not take the help away from the woman trying to hide from her partner who put her in the hospital last time. Because that helps no one and harms the woman a lot more than it harms you. Oh wait, I forgot, that is the point with these twitterpated peeps.

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

Can we not just attack the person making the problematic statements, rather than spewing shit on everyone who happens to be in their lives?

Shadow
Shadow
8 years ago

@cloudiah

You can never tell with these dickheads. A lot of the time they seem to just shut down when they hear the word woman, because anything a woman wants can’t be important, and is probably misandrist anyway. I would bet 50% of them think that less women being beat = more men being beat, and the other 50% thinks that all VAW initiatives are misandrist because men are victims of violence too and WHY AREN’T YOU DROPPING EVERYTHING TO HELP THEM?!!!

Besides, men are the REAL victims.All women have to do is stop following their gina tingles to those alpha thugs, and treat the nice beta men like Gods, and everything would be golden for them./SARCASM

@kirby

These cookies you speak of, are they metaphorical, or do I need to sign up somewhere?

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

I would bet 50% of them think that less women being beat = more men being beat, and the other 50% thinks that all VAW initiatives are misandrist because men are victims of violence too and WHY AREN’T YOU DROPPING EVERYTHING TO HELP THEM?!!!
There’s also a huge proportion that thinks VAW initiatives open men up to the dreaded FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!1!

And a statistically significant proportion (hi DKM, hi guy from yesterday’s post) that think VAW initiatives remove men’s ability to keep women in their place.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Crap. Retry.

I would bet 50% of them think that less women being beat = more men being beat, and the other 50% thinks that all VAW initiatives are misandrist because men are victims of violence too and WHY AREN’T YOU DROPPING EVERYTHING TO HELP THEM?!!!

There’s also a huge proportion that thinks VAW initiatives open men up to the dreaded FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!1!

And a statistically significant proportion (hi DKM, hi guy from yesterday’s post) that think VAW initiatives remove men’s ability to keep women in their place.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
8 years ago

@Shadow:

Sadly, they are metaphorical at the moment… Though later tonight I might turn metaphor into reality. 😉

indifferentsky
8 years ago

falconer, I honestly think we should run with that. I have now told a couple of MRAs that the movement is not for equality because it does not focus on women’s issues. Let’s roll.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

A comment on GWW recent video about domestic violence. Somehow she can mention coverture and still twist it around to make men look like the oppressed ones

What are your views about the historic right for men to use ‘mild physical chastisement’ on their wives? I think it has some merit, provided it is not confused with domestic violence. For instance, beating a woman on her buttocks with a cane or a whip in order to correct her conduct is a very different matter than hitting or kicking her out of anger.

The whole video reeks of justification to beat…oh sorry…”correct” a wives behavior because her actions were the responsibility of the husbands. You know, since she isn’t her own person anymore by law.

Moewicus
Moewicus
8 years ago

I don’t think TyphonBlue’s argument is that a certain amount of violence should be directed at women because fair’s fair or something; rather, it’s a hypothetical situation designed to “demonstrate” that the proponents of such initiatives only care about women because they do not have a principled anti-violence stance.

You know, just like how a campaign to end lynching of blacks by the KKK assumes that it’s perfectly appropriate to lynch whites because if all the lynchings were magically directed against whites then the campaigns would be a success. Because no group can have a problem particular to that group, amirite?

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

it is literally like saying a slave owner is the victim because he has to “take care” of his slaves

Lady Zombie
Lady Zombie
8 years ago

@Holly I agree that it should be called the Domestic Violence Act, or maybe even Intimate Partner Violence Act. Mostly to prevent the bullshit we’re hearing now, i.e. what about teh menz.

Intimate partner violence occurs in same sex couples and affects trans people too.

Which brings me to a snarky question I’d love to ask some of these MRAs. How does the MRM propose to help a man who is being abused by his intimate male partner? Right there is a man who is suffering from abuse in an intimate relationship. Or will he not matter because he’s not being abused by a woman?

Rhetorical question of course. I pretty much can guess the answer.

Moewicus
Moewicus
8 years ago

in b4 trolls decide i am comparing all men to the KKK

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Okay… can wives use “mild physical chastisement” on their husbands. I mean, we all make mistakes. Shouldn’t we all be subject to correction?

(Please note that the above is an attempt to highlight hypocrisy via absurdity, and that I am in fact in favor of the “nobody gets to hit anybody [unless they ask very nicely]” alternative relationship plan.)

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

There’s also a huge proportion that thinks VAW initiatives open men up to the dreaded FALSE ACCUSATIONS!!!1!

I don’t even see how this is possible since people can still make false allegations.

But hey, even if there was no VAWA, DV was still frowned upon. According to this MRA site anyway, shows lots of poster from back in the day when men who beat their wives were publicly whipped http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.ca/2011/10/societys-acceptance-of-domestic.html

Isn’t it better that we have laws now to deal with DV?

MollyRen (@MollyRen)
8 years ago

…beating a woman on her buttocks with a cane or a whip in order to correct her conduct is a very different matter than hitting or kicking her out of anger.

I’d like to see this lady get hit with a cane or a whip and then decide which is the “lesser of the two evils”. I don’t even like to get them used on me during BDSM scenes, and I’m a masochist!

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

Just because someone is doing better than you it is not a reason to cut that other person down, it is a reason to raise you up. If you are being hit by your girlfriend, go seek the same help that is out there for you-do not take the help away from the woman trying to hide from her partner who put her in the hospital last time. Because that helps no one and harms the woman a lot more than it harms you. Oh wait, I forgot, that is the point with these twitterpated peeps.

Trigger Warning Trigger Warning Trigger Warning

There were two farmers who were neighbors in Tennessee, and one of them was black and one of them was white. They had about the same amount of land and they grew the same kinds of crops, but the white farmer went to a larger church and voted for people who looked like him and he could walk down the street in the small town nearby without fear. One day, the black farmer purchased a mule to help with the plowing, because he didn’t have one and could afford it. The white farmer, who also had no mule but could not afford one, grew envious and fed the mule poisoned grain, and the mule died. The black farmer was distraught but could do nothing. The white farmer’s son saw no reason to kill the mule and he went to his father and asked him, “Why did you poison our neighbor’s mule?” The white farmer responded, “You gotta be better than a n——, son.”

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@Holly

I think his point, and that entire video’s point was that because of coverture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture in the past women were essentially regarded as children with no personal responsibility, and their husband basically were responsible for their actions it was ok for a bit of “corrective punishment”

I don’t get how someone can even argue this…how can they not see how completely wrong it is for one human being to own another? how can they make men the victims in this? what right to husbands have to practically legally own another human being because she is married to them?

it boggles the fucking mind.

darksidecat
8 years ago

For instance, beating a woman on her buttocks with a cane or a whip in order to correct her conduct is a very different matter than hitting or kicking her out of anger.

That’s really apologistic of violence.

Also, it’s worth noting that the former is typically far more worrisome and dangerous. Because people who are acting spontaneously out of anger, a category under which most abusers do not fall, are much easier to rehabilitate as a matter of public safety and policy. Therapy, drug and alcohol rehab, etc. actually can be helpful there. A man who thinks a woman is his property and purposefully beats her to control her (i.e. most abusers) is a much nastier piece of work, and more difficult to escape from.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

I’d like to see this lady get hit with a cane or a whip and then decide which is the “lesser of the two evils”. I don’t even like to get them used on me during BDSM scenes, and I’m a masochist!

Haha, yeah, I’d much rather get punched. (As long as it’s not in the face or super hard? But getting caned in the face or super hard would be aaauuuugh, so.)

This is splitting pervy hairs, though. The obvious answer is that this is all such bullshit and the whole idea of a husband “punishing” his wife when she’s “been bad” is fucking horrible for many many obvious reasons.

Noadi
Noadi
8 years ago

Let me just put it out there that I love canes and singletail whips, they are two of my favorite types of BDSM play. The idea of them being used as “correction” of wives by their husbands absolutely sickens me because I know how painful they are (I nearly passed out in my first whip scene), if I wasn’t a masochist who consented it would be absolutely traumatizing. It also shows the person writing that knows nothing about either type of implement, I’ve seen both draw blood and judicial caning in the places it’s still (horrifyingly) legal has killed people.

Dee
Dee
8 years ago

@Quackers:
What are MRAs doing to combat violence against men? what campaigns and awareness are they setting up?

Y’know, combining this with what Kendra says above this actually is quite consistent – in MRA logic helping any one cause is actively hurting all other causes, and therefore the best thing anyone can do is… nothing.

Holly Pervocracy
8 years ago

Quackers – Yeah, but why isn’t the wife ever the husband’s owner/parent?

I know the answer to this one, of course (rhymes with “zisogyny”), I’d just like to see one of these assholes try to justify it.

I project a lot of “men and women are different, you know” and some irrelevant statistics about women’s jobs or crime rates.

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@DSC

well women were the actual property back then, in a sick way I can understand why the abuser would justify it. It certainly is still wrong though. Children are the responsibility of their parents for example, doesn’t mean they can beat them or that children don’t have rights. I think what gets me the most is that now in the present there are abusers that actually think this. Or that people can debate this and still twist it around and make it sound like the slave owne…sorry…”husband” was the oppressed one.

Falconer
Falconer
8 years ago

Okay… can wives use “mild physical chastisement” on their husbands. I mean, we all make mistakes. Shouldn’t we all be subject to correction?

Sure, but instead of a cane or a whip she has to belabor him about the head and shoulders with a rolling pin and/or throw dishes.

… Wait, you mean Bringing Up Father isn’t a documentary?

Quackers
Quackers
8 years ago

@Holly

Exactly. they never question it. It just is, and they work around it. Questioning it is what feminazis do! The question never becomes “what right does a husband have absorb the rights of another human being simply because she’s a she?” instead it becomes “what can I get away with since I own the bitch and she might get me in trouble with her bad behavior?”

1 2 3