Arthur Goldwag, the author of the SPLC’s recent report on hatred in the Men’s Rights movement, has now responded to some of the hysteria his article provoked amongst MRAs. As Goldwag notes, contrary to what most MRAs seemed to conclude from the report,
the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we didcall out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.
Thomas James Ball, for example, who was hailed as a martyr on so many men’s rights forums, called for arson attacks on courthouses and police stations. The Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik wrote extensively about the evils of feminism. We included as much as we did about Register-Her.com because it is so intimidating to its targets, not all of whom are criminals. When Elam accused Vliet Tiptree, a pseudonymous contributor to RadFem Hub, of “calling for extermination of half the human race; the male half, that is,” he offered a cash reward for her real identity. The names and locations of several candidates were publically aired.
Goldwag also takes a look at some of the radical feminists that have become boogeywomen for so many MRAs, and deals with other MRA complaints.
If you’re a regular reader of Man Boobz you’ll want to read the whole thing.
The Men’s Rights subreddit has already linked to Goldwag’s article, which has provoked not only the predictable SPLC-bashing but also some criticism of A Voice for Men and Paul Elam.
Obviously Elam and other MRAs will respond to Goldwag’s latest as well. Post links in the comments below as you find them, and I’ll add them to this post.
EDITED TO ADD: And, right on schedule, AVfM responds to Goldwag’s response. It’s a John the Other post, so be prepared to read a lot of words saying not very much.
On his own blog, Goldwag responds to Mr. The Other.
Goldwag’s piece also got some criticism from the STFUfauxminists Tumblr blog for quoting a RadFem known for her transphobia.
I’ll add more links as I find them.
ETA 2: MORE LINKS
Wow, I draw all the pokemon haters out of the misogynistic woodwork, don’t I? Silly little things.
Sweet. I hope there’s something about me on it!
Course they all know so much about pokemon but aren’t fans themselves!
yeah righttt
I just looked at that meme thing
This was a bit offensive to me
http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35qbq0/
I don’t like it when people try to accuse someone of not getting laid as if it’s an insult. If someone said it to me I would just be like “You’re right i’m not. what’s your point?” Although that wouldn’t work if you were actually having sex lol.
@Argenti Aertheri: I just have to point out that “radical feminist” does not mean “irrational man-haters”. Yes, there are individual radical feminists that are irrational and vile, but radical feminism as a whole is just a political theory, and many radical feminists are very thoughtful and intelligent, and deeply care about men.
The “radical” in “radical feminist” doesn’t mean “extreme” but “root”…it’s the theory that the root of oppression (including racism, homophobia, ableism, etc.) is the patriarchy. Patriarchal societies oppress men, as well. To create social change would mean drastically changing the base patriarchal norms we live with, which would challenge all aspects of society, culture, and government. While liberal feminists seek to change laws and make society more inclusive of women, radical feminists believe that you have to change the system itself for any real progress to be made, (I’m being incredibly reductive and simplistic; there’s a lot more to radfem theory than this.)
You can disagree with radical feminism, think it’s wrong and misguided, but I’m tired of seeing an enitre philosophy dismissed and demonized. Certainly there’s a lot to criticise (many radical feminists are incredibly transphobic, for one thing, and there has been a tendency to ignore or minimize the concerns and stories of non-white, middle class women), but radical feminism =/= crazy misandrists.
I’m sorry if this sounds like I’m jumping on you. I’m not; I’m just pointing out a common misrepresentation that annoys me.
>http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/
Making a blog about a blog is pretty pathetic already
But then having only two posts and one is claiming that rape is considered to be worse than property crime or child abuse takes the cake. The former general ends in longer prison terms than rape and the latter makes people end up on a watchlist and limits their personal freedom for the rest of their lifes. That seems unjust to me, even though I do understand the sentiment behind it.
I have to say, I’m disappointed by the SPLC’s write-up and subsequent response.
There was so much rampant misogyny and violence talk from r/mensrights goons to write about. They could have mentioned that at least two of the subreddit’s moderators (AnnChrist and Factory) have made incredibly violent threats before. They could have mentioned that AnnChrist posts on the beatingwomen subreddit.
Instead they made some lame comment about how some Redditor believes in conspiracy theories.
Also, while the SPLC didn’t call the MRM a hate movement, these sites were included in an article about online misogyny (That is the hate of women). To read the SPLC say “We didn’t call you guys hateful” feels like they caved into MRM pressure.
“Virulently misandrist”? If you can cite a single example of a “virulently misandrist” post made by one of the regulars here, I’ll have to book emergency surgery for a seriously dislocated jaw.
“Intolerant”? Hardly – just look at the kid-glove treatment that MRAL received many, many times, until he made it clear beyond any possible doubt that he really was that hateful and immature. More recently, look at the sympathetic responses Anthony Zarat received when he suggested that he’d experienced some pretty serious abuse earlier in life. Indeed, many regulars here – Pecunium springs immediately to mind, though he’s far from alone – are patient to a level well past that which many people would consider the call of duty.
“Vile bigots”? Well, we do have a handful of those, and they post plenty of bullshit, but it is most definitely impeded by things such as “civility”, “basic decency” and “common humanity”. In fact, it’s precisely those three things that are most frequently used as effective counters.
In fact, I’m rather impressed by the way that sentence packs in so many demonstrable lies, and is uttered with what seems to be an entirely straight face.
“Hasan-bin-layeed” is especially ironic given how MRAs love to go on about how “Feminists” (never have I seen a source) accuse them of not being able to get laid, etcetera. That particular memelet* keenly illustrates the tortured relationship of MRAs to the approval of women. Or maybe a PUA just did it. Who knows; these people can’t come up with a coherent ideology outside of anger towards women.
@Crumbelievable
Yeah, I found the follow-up especially to be superficial and unsatisfying. The author quotes the freaking “omega virgin” “black pill” guy as if it were the viewpoint of a clear-eyed moderate, whereas really he has two criteria for judging someone/thing to be “rational”: anti-feminism and lack of conspiracy theorizing. I mean, I give him credit for attacking MRM conspiracy theories, but that’s the only creditable thing about him I can find.
PS I hate men.**
* a word I made up for these individual images that convey the larger meme. The smallest unit of a meme, I suppose.
** Not really, but I figured since I haven’t seen any actual misandry in my six or seven months of reading Manboobz, I might as well throw Antimanboobz a bone.
Also, did Anne Archist of r/beatingwomen change his handle to AnnChrist?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
too lazy to check.
I’m probably messing up the spelling of his username.
Wait, what? You used to think that false rape accusations and divorce court unfairness were bad, but now you’ve learned the truth and think that both of these things are just swell?
Or do you mean that both of those things don’t real? I’d take issue with either. There is ample evidence of anti-father bias in disputed custody cases, but we can debate that. What’s not up for debate is the fact that false rape accusations are real and bad. How can anyone honestly claim otherwise?
What’s your beef with the FRS, exactly. As far as I can see: all they do is link to news stories about false rape accusations and advocate for due process and the presumption of innocence in rape cases.
Maybe there is some hateful pontificating in some of the blog entries, but I didn’t see any on the front page. Maybe Pierce Harlan is an irrational and paranoid misogynist, but I don’t see anything inherently wrong with advocating for the rights of the accused. Rights that are very often trampled upon in our legal system (especially if you’re poor and black).
Pierce might think that all or most rape accusations are false, which is clearly wrong. No one knows for sure but the best studies put it at around 6%. Still, 6% isn’t nothing, and protecting the innocent from injustice doesn’t exactly seem like a hateful agenda to me. So long as that 6% aren’t used an excuse to prevent the other 94% from receiving justice.
I still can’t parse “Futrellesfrumundacheez”.
inb4 some MRA claims David wrote those sites to make MRA’s look bad
Aw man I’m gone for a couple of posts and it gets all exciting. Good for the SPLC.
and HA at all the bitter blogs about David. That is too funny. I tried to read that one about Rutee a couple of days ago. It was nothing. It basically was like “THIS PERSON! BAH!”
I didn’t get anything out of it except that he thinks Rutee makes the case for men not dealing with any bad stuff. I don’t think these MRAs really know how to read the comments posted here because they imagine things way too simple and project their crap on what they don’t know they’re not understanding.
Yeah. Something like that.
I love how anti-manboobz’s first post goes right to “David Futrelle is a horrible person”. I mean, no explanation of who David Futrelle is, no explanation of what Manboobz is, just “this guy you probably don’t know sucks”. Not very good blog skills.
John the Other has a piece up now at AVfM titled “The Continuing Education of Arthur Goldwag”. His post has scholarly sources cited at the end, like dumpyourwifenow.com and other AVfM posts. The thesis for his post, if I read it correctly, is “We’re not hateful. You’re hateful, SPLC!” I do admit, though, that I had trouble paying attention as I read it because it was so boring. Can’t they find someone who can write without being so wordy and melodramatic?
Oops, I forgot to include the link. Here we go. The Continuing Education of Arthur Goldwag . One quote I actually found interesting was
@EEB: The thing is that either:
a) Due to being in anarchist circles, my contact with comrades who were radfems happened to be with a self-selected group that isn’t the same as the vocal online ones
b) The radfems that are trans-exclusionary or otherwise problematic are over represented online
OR
c) The radfem movement has changed A LOT in a decade
because while I would have agreed with you back when I had more contact with flesh-and-blood radfem activists in the early 2000s, right now it seems the vast majority I hear about are TERFs, pushers of essentialist feminism or other attitudes (like erasure of race and class issues) that are anathema to the anarcha/radfems I knew and loved.
@Blackbloc, EEB: Yeah, that’s the thing. I am a radical feminist, but I can’t identify as a radfem not because they ‘hate men’ or some such, but because they generally hate *trans women*. And this is verifiable, common, and obvious. Believe you me, that label has much worse things to say about it then something imaginary like ‘hates men’.
TERFs = trans exclusionary rad fems? The rad fems I know off line are a good bunch, but I agree with your assessment of what I see online these days. Very problematic.
AVfM: they don’t hate ALL women. Just the 99.9% that don’t endorse and actively support all the writings of AVfM (and their attendant white knights and manginas, of course).
I dunno why I hadn’t thought of this earlier, but the term “mangina” seems to be a variation of the No True Scotsman argument
MRA: We represent the interests of men
Me: I’m a man and I can’t stand MRAs.
MRA: That’s because you’re not a man! You’re a mangina!
antimanboobz strikes again!
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/breaking-rutee-makes-an-ass-of-herself-again/
Maybe he should change the name of his blog to antirutee since two thirds of his posts are about her. Which is slightly less impressive when you remember that he only has three posts, but still.
Oh, I forgot about the interests of women besides my girlfriend for a second, including myself… XD
Trans women also are really, really shitty at class and race. Like, I’ve heard them say that these are ‘male-created’ social divisions, which is technically mostly true, but meaningless, because women perpetuate them as well. Including any idiot who writes them off as ‘male-created’ and therefore meaningless to women. There’s totes not any poor or non-white women, yo!
Will look at stupid people in a bit XD