Another day, another threat – sorry, prediction – of impending violence towards women from someone on The Spearhead. This time from a fellow called James, in his twenties:
The OLDER MEN simply do not understand what it is like to be a young man today.
I will say one thing though- a very big percent of young men of my generation do not believe in this feminism or white knight bullshit, and they have very little tolerance towards it.
Older men will allow themselves to get ass raped in divorce courts, but the younger men of my generation have no such tolerance.
So if the younger women think they are going to treat the younger men with the same level of hatred that the older women do to the older men, they have a big surprise waiting for them.
1. Either the men will just entirely boycott the younger women
or
2. They will actively fight for their rights, even with force, if it requires it
What I mean by that is, the younger generation of men are much more violent than the older generation. So in plain English, if women think they are going to treat the younger generation of men like shit, then we are going to see a huge increase in violence against women.
In short, the men of my generation are not as willing to tolerate the abuse from man hating women as the older men are. Young women would be very wise to take note of this.
Unfair quote-mining on my part? Not exactly. James got 72 upvotes for this bit of wisdom on The Spearhead, and only 8 downvotes.
Meanwhile, our old friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog highlighted James’ comment in a post of his own, quoting the whole thing, and adding his own spin:
The younger you go on average you will find less tolerance for anything pro-female. This is not surprising. Even looking at my own life, I have been dealing with feminism since I was in elementary school especially if we define feminism correctly as feminine-ism. I remember (female) teachers being pro-female and anti-male going back to first grade. As bad as I had it, it is worse for men younger than me. They’re not going to listen to lies about how women are oppressed because all they have seen with their own eyes are the opposite. …
By 2020 the balance between men who are currently old vs. men who are currently young will have shifted. There will be less old men who remember life pre-feminism. There will be more young men who have spent their entire lives under the feminist jack boot. There will be more men who are completely fed up with women. Around 2020 there will be a lot more men willing to take radical direct action against feminism.
“Radical direct action against feminism?” What does this mean? Generalized violence against women, as James seems to suggest? Firebombing police stations and courthouses, as MRA “martyr” Tom Ball urged in his manifesto? Like most of those in the Men’s Rights movement who like to talk ominously about what they hope will be a massive anti-feminist backlash, the PMAFT blogger is vague about what exactly this might entail. But it’s not hard to connect the dots here.
Protip: MRAs, if you don’t want people to see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement — you need to stop posting, stop upvoting, stop even tolerating this kind of hateful shit.
@Sorka,
Well, it WAS a stupid argument 🙂 Very illogical, very surprising that anyone even used it. But it seems to be a trend, so I had to make a note for everyone who encounters it.
I certainly won’t answer all her BS, but here is my favorite part: “Again, I will agree with you that some MRAs openly admitted they turned misogynist (turned, not born).”
Has someone forgot to tell me that some babies are born racists, sexists, classicists, homophobic, etc? Is that considered a birth defect now, does that you can known this kind of thing while being pregnant? Because that would be great, knowing in advance that your fetus will become a terrible person. Then you can either abort it or make the necessary to ‘cure’ them.
NEWS FLASH, Emma, nobody is born a bigot, no baby get out of the womb with a pointy white hat or a membership card for the Nazi party. Doesn’t mean I have to be sorry for them or that they’re not responsible for what they say and do.
Women like Emma are called “shield maidens”. Shielding their asshole men from legal consequences or so much as a passing thought that women are human beings or that violence is not acceptable unless its in self defence to a real and immediate danger likely to cause ones own death.
We could just stick with ” pathetic excuse of a being given the make a human kit”
@Kyrie,
Another commenter I was talking to was saying those angry guys who got divorce raped were “sexist jerks all along” and were only using the “sob story” (nice way to describe someone’s tragedy) to do what they already could have done freely anyway (hate women) In seemed to imply they were sexist right from the start, but I could have misunderstood it. In any case, it seems the least important part to adress, and I already said what I had to say about how someone might turn misogynist and whether is happens a lot,a nd how it relates to the behavior of all people, including those on this site.
Emma, stop saying divorce is rape when you’re trying to play cute little “well what if he didn’t think he was a rapist, shouldn’t the accused get to decide whether they feel like a rapist or not?” games with actual rape.
Having to pay your ex some of the money that they helped you earn and/or some of the money that will help your children survive is not a forced sexual act.
@Pillowinhell: Women like Emma are called “shield maidens”
Ew. Eowyn does NOT approve.
I also like the term “sellout” because it’s all about getting the men’s approval by trashing women.
Well, if her blog’s anything to go by, Emma thinks “male feminists” are as repulsive as feminsts think female MRAs are:
“it’s like feeling sorry for a group that hates you and trying to join their club. You’d be as repulsive as a male feminist, apologetic for the rest of his gender, whom female feminists won’t even fuck.” (http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/dont-be-team-man-be-team-truth-and-justice/)
The mind boggles.
Psst, Emma: Pro-tip: Feminists don’t hate men.
@Emma: Another commenter I was talking to was saying those angry guys who got divorce raped were “sexist jerks all along” and were only using the “sob story” (nice way to describe someone’s tragedy) to do what they already could have done freely anyway (hate women)
You were overreading, I think. All along didn’t mean from birth, probably, but throughout the marriage (and anybody who uses the term “divorce raped” is just….I don’t even know). That is, children are not complete blank slates when born, but there is a great deal of evidence that they learn specific cultural ideologies over time (and since children born in different cultures learn different ideologies that sorta implies cultural not inherent mechanisms). People can resist cultural ideologies–nobody is complete “programmed” by culture any more than genes, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t affected by it.
And that little fact is why we have women who are sexists and misogynists and ready to throw women’s rights and autonomy under the bus in order to achieve something for themselves.
Like you.
Also, “divorce rape”? Talk about double speak.
This might help:
http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/memo-to-the-mens-rights-movement/
Oh Emma, you’re not being very bright, are you… Between becoming all of sudden a misogynist because you divorced or because a woman – or women – was mean to you and being born that way, there is a whole thing called life.
I wasn’t born with feminist ideals, nor did I became a feminist all of a sudden. I was “made” a feminist, or “turned” into one if you prefer by what I read, by what I heard, by discussing with people, by learning things. I’m still responsible for being one.
I was also “turned” into a Christian, and I chose not to be one anymore.
WTF kind of bullshit terrorist threat is this? We don’t coddle unreasonably violent people, and we don’t revolve our decisions around them! And the standard for consent is based on a person’s mental facilities at the time. If after one drink someone is visibly and incoherently intoxicated, then having sex with them is rape. Most people can handle one drink, and therefore aren’t raped after one drink (or atleast raped based on a “too drunk to consent standard”). Individuals handle alcohol differently, and circumstances affect tolerance too, which is why the standard is contingent on the person being too drunk to consent, rather than the person drinking a certain amount. It’s pretty easy to tell when someone knowingly consents to have sex with you, and for the rare instances when someone genuinely couldn’t tell, well that’s why we have the trial.
Shadow – I also don’t see why someone would only lash out after being falsely accused. If the claim is “someone might go on a rampage after being accused of rape,” that’s a threat rapists can make too–does that mean we shouldn’t prosecute them?
…Yeah, of course, that’s the only logical conclusion of all these arguments.
@Holly
I reckon that IS the current argument, as it stands. She’s unilaterally declared that anyone who claims rape after one drink is making a false accusation. Apparently we need to use a “reasonable” number of drinks as a standard, and anyone whose tolerance doesn’t meet that standard is SOL and either shouldn’t have been drinking, or owed someone sex, my mind does not handle such bullshit arguments well enough to figure out which it is.
How are humans supposed to communicate with each other ever? HOW? It’s not like we have these complex systems of communication called “words” and “language” or anything.
Also, if you are too unable to read basic behavior to understand when a partner is drunk when they have been drinking, you can just err on the side of caution and not try to have sex at them.
Food for thought, ya’ll.
Shadow – To be honest, I’m a little uncertain about the “one drink” thing because I sleep with my boyfriend after one beer and I’m quite lucid. (We won’t have sex if either of us is wobbly-drunk.) I wouldn’t sleep with a new partner after drinking, but I don’t think it’s necessarily rape to do so.
However, I think the “one drink” thing is a red herring anyway. It’s brought up as a strawman in cases where someone was extremely drunk (“what, it’s not okay to sleep with someone who’s had a drink?”) and in cases where someone was drinking but was also raped forcibly or by intimidation (“she just regrets it because she had a drink”).
It’s like how MRAs say “just looking at a woman counts as sexual harassment.” Well, of course they don’t actually believe that. But they want to shift everyone’s mindframe so the next time they hear someone was sexually harassed, they’ll think “she’s probably just angry because a guy looked at her.”
Despite the surface appearance that MRAs are playing a “well, there’s gotta be some way I can force a woman to have sex without breaking the law, geez, cut a fella some slack here” game, I don’t think they actually want rape to be defined more narrowly. I think they want the definition broad so that they can claim “since the definition is so broad, it never really happens at all.”
Hm. Then again, I think that having sex after one drink, like having sex without receiving explicit consent, should be a “you takes your chances” sort of thing. No harm no foul if your partner doesn’t feel they were raped, but if they do, then they’re right. So I’d like to live in a world where you can do those things if you want, but you better be damn sure of yourself and your partner, because if they press charges those charges will stick.
So I wouldn’t exactly ban these things–I’d make them dangerous and scary for men (or whoever initiates the sex). I want a situation where men don’t want to have sex with drunk women because they’re afraid to, and they’re the ones saying “whoa now, I don’t know you that well, let’s hold off on this until you’ve sobered up a bit.” I want men to feel that it’s in their interest, that it’s self-protection, to ask for explicit consent.
…Ideally I would hope this could happen via human decency or whatnot, but hell, fear works too.
@Holly
RE: your first post, that’s what I was saying though. You have sex after one drink because you are perfectly lucid and able to consent. The standard for consent is based on lucidity, rather than on how much you’ve had to drink. If a person gets rip-roaring drunk after one drink then they’re drunk, and unable to consent. To take a different example, I have a pretty good tolerance for liquor. On a regular day, I’m still lucid enough to consent after 8 drinks, on a good day even more than that. On New Year’s OTOH, I got so hammered on an equivalent of 6-8 drinks that I threw up and passed out. Part of that was because I was on an empty stomach, and part of that was bewildering, but regardless, I was in no shape to consent that night despite drinking what I usually drink.
RE: your second post. I don’t know why, but that seems excessive to me. Reading it over, however, I can’t see anything unfair about it, so I have to examine my reaction to that.
I have enough female friends in their 20s/early 30s who agonize about whether their rape was”rape” (I shouldn’t have gotten that drunk/did I lead him on etc) to sign on to the Holly P standard without reservation.
If it’s a balance between women blaming themselves for their own rapes, and men maybe having to worry more about consent than about how quickly they can get their tips wet… it doesn’t take a philosophy degree and a conference with three Talmudic scholars, is what I’m saying.
Shadow – Oh, okay, I get you now.
I think that it would be excessive to say “if a woman says you raped her, that’s the final word and you’re guilty” in all situations. But I’m quite happy applying it in specific situations where people should be damn sure of their partner and her consent in the first place.
Afraid women might randomly false-rape-accuse you? No problem, you’re protected (probably overprotected) by the law–as long as you make sure your partners are sober and consenting. If you don’t, you take your chances, buddy.
I know I’m late on this but I have to add how much I loved your drawing, Kladle. Bravo! Now the next time an MRA comes here talking about how tough he is, I will show him my cartoon showing how I totally for real stared down a T-rex and he gave me gold. It sure beats someone who stared down five
ordinary dogsvicious wolf dogs.Were you able to get the T-rex to give you rides?
@Holly
I think it’s just the idea of charges sticking without a defense that rubs me wrong. But I reckon that’s part my own beliefs, and part my privilege.
also @kladle
I meant to tell you your artwork was awesome, but got sidetracked by that piece of WTFery from Emma. And that caption was just a beautiful cherry on top.
Shadow – Oh, you can make a defense. You can make a defense of “I thought she’d explicitly consented” or “I didn’t know she’d had drinks.” (Or, if applicable, of “I don’t even know this person.”)
You just can’t make a defense of “well, how was I to know she didn’t want it?”
God, if there were such a law, one would think it would be easy to find information on it, either on the internetz or in law journals, but nope! I got nothing. Emma, would you be so kind as to point me to a copy of this accidental-rape law? I may want to write my capstone on it, seeing that there’s currently such a dearth of information on this unique law. Thanx.
And: Why did you start talking about rape? That was weird.
Okay, so you’ve gone to a lot of trouble to create this weird smokescreen, Emma. You could have just stayed on the SPLC website to see what kinds of groups they focus on. They’re talking about hate groups and antigovernment militia movements. It’s pretty simple.
When people say shit like this, they really need to clarify. What the fuck are you talking about? In context (the context being: I’ve read A Voice for Men, etc.), it sounds a lot like, “MRAs will not tolerate having to pay child support for too long — it’s cruel to subject them to it and stupid to expect no extreme violent reaction. Timid tolerance of being expected to financially support your children is not ‘being responsible’.”
Maybe I’m misreading, though. If so, perhaps you can clarify, Emma?
Actually, Ima say, a person who says very racist things fucking may not be “a racist,” but they deserve to be called out on having said something that was racist.
The difference between this and the people who comment/post on The Spearhead is the difference between one rant and months/years of rants and threats and stereotypes and stories about how they actually hate women in their actual everyday life. But if it feels better to you, all MRAs may not be misogynists, but the ones I see posting online certainly say a shitload of misogynistic, threatening stuff, and they need to be held accountable for that.
(1) I’ve never said or thought that I agreed with MRAs before I found out that they were evil misogynists, because when I was introduced to the MRM (not by this blog), it was immediately obvious that they were logic-poor, facts-deprived assholes who hate women. I will admit that I do have sympathy and concern for some of the things that should be issues for them, and I even do more on an activist level to help men on these issues (prison rape, for example) than any MRA I’ve heard about, but I despise the MRM not only for its blatant misogyny but also for its focus on misogyny over everything else. (2) Show me the nice MRA. Show him to me, if he exists. I haven’t found him (or her), and I’ve looked quite a bit. (Note that my definition of “nice” encompasses more than “Will act nice only if he is treated in exactly the right way.”)
This is such a bizarre way of describing a romantic relationship I don’t even.