Yesterday, we took a look at Ferdinand Bardamu’s manosphere manifesto “The Necessity of Domestic Violence,” a thoroughly despicable piece of writing that concludes:
Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.
I decided to take a look at Bardamu’s post yesterday after running across a discussion of it in Reddit’s new FeMRA subreddit, a forum ostensibly devoted to what “women can do to advance men’s rights as women.” It’s a strange little subreddit, started by a man and dominated by some of Reddit’s most unsavory MaleMRAs, some of them banned in the regular Men’s Rights subreddit.
Recently one of the most unsavory of the bunch, calling himself JeremiahGuy this time, posted a link to Bardamu’s domestic violence manifesto, which he hosts on his website. Jeremiah naturally used the discussion as an excuse to post more apologias for domestic “discipline” along the lines of the quote from him I featured yesterday.
But I was a little surprised to see GirlWritesWhat, the blabby FeMRA video blogger who’s captured the hearts of Reddit’s Men’s Rights crowd, step into the conversation with something of a defense of Bardamu’s noxious views. After reading Bardamu’s manifesto – the one advocating that men “terrorize” their women to make them behave – GWW blithely concluded:
I don’t really find too much in the article that strikes me as seriously ethically questionable.
Have I taken that remark out of context? Yes. In context, it’s worse. Here’s the entire quote from her, and a further clarification of her position.
She wasn’t the only one in the discussion to get upvotes for suggesting that men slapping women around from time to time isn’t really such a big deal. MaunaLoona (a MaleMRA) wrote:
Lots of MRAs like to pretend that they care about male victims of domestic violence. But the Men’s Rights movement hasn’t done shit for them. And here, I think, is why: too many MRAs are less interested in helping male victims of domestic violence than they are in providing excuses and justifications for male abusers.
Good point, Pecunium. (It’d also require him to think at all, which, on the evidence so far … hmmm.)
Pillowinhell – yeah, there are very Pellish overtones coming out, aren’t there? The assumed authority is starting to show.
@Kitteh. In the situation you describe about person X and person Y, I cannot say which is the abuser. If I got to know person X and person Y I could be certain. There is no other basis on which it would be possible to know. Only a person who hadn’t been in this situation would not know this. You could easily be a victim blamer. I could not be one so easily.
Kitteh, its the “abused people are mentally ill and don’t know what their reality is” that stands out for me. Pell tried that shit on me once before.
Rigggght… We should give the benefit of the doubt to a person who just walks in the door and belts their partner. The puncher must surely have had a good reason/ terrible childhood for that to have happened.
We’ll also ignore that although you can’t be certain of who is abusing whom, you know with absolute certainty that I have neither experience or knowledge of how abuse works.
Why is it that trolls think they’ve really scored when they sneak in to post on old threads?
So… the one with the injuries is just as likely to be the abuser as the one without?
Got it. If one says the other, “asked for it”, we have to accept that. If the other says, “I didn’t do anything”, well if they didn’t then they wouldn’t have been hit, would they?
Andypell, don’t try the “can’t tell who’s the abuser” crap on me. Don’t pretend you think I’m talking about the long-delayed attack an abused person in fear of her life (and I say her because it’s the vast majority) may make. “Drunkard coming home and attacking family member” was pretty clear from my description, I’d have thought, at least to anyone not invested in the abusers’ viewpoint.
I think the trolls keep hoping that they get someone who hasn’t dealt with their shit before and will be unable to defend against it and therefore get more upset.
hippodameia: I think they expect to be able to get the last word. They try to do that because (as seen) they aren’t able to actually argue their way out of a paper bag; with a firehose.
Perhaps Andre is hoping for a paragon of skepticism award?
Shitthatwillneverhappen.txt
Or a flamethrower . . .
(In reference to Pecunium’s comment, of course – although for all I know Andre might be hoping for a flamethrower.)
@pecunium. I have a friend who suffered years of low-level and periodic high-level bullying from her husband. One day she got home after drinking with friends, went upstairs and saw her husband lying asleep in their bed. For no reason she can particularly account for, she went down to the kitchen, picked up a heavy bottomed frying pan, returned to the bedroom and brought it down on his head with all of her strength. She didn’t do this because she’d arrived at an understanding of her situation. She did it because she couldn’t stop herself.
A story which makes her guilty of assault under the law and him the abuser according to you.
What’s your point with this story? I’m sure she was pretty aware that she was being abused.
andre: What has that to do with anything?
Oh, I see, you are comparing Trevor’s account of his wife being verbally abusive to this.
And expecting what? Us to say it’s ok? To argue that The Burning Bed applies and she ought to “get a walk”?
If she had a legitimate situation where her life seemed to be in such peril that she saw no other out… a trial will sort it out (though since it’s an affirmative defense of “mental defect”, it’s not much of a walk. should she succeed).
But other than a weak attempt at “gotcha” what’s your point?
And how does it tie into your hostile, and banal, platitudes?
@pecunium. I’m not arguing anything or saying it has to do with anything or anybody. I’m just telling you about my friend.
@pillowinhell. You are right. There is an interpretation of this story according to me. On what better basis can there be an interpretation? However, I’m certain my interpretation is fallible because I’m only human. You, being a god, have an equal or even better basis for an interpretation without even knowing my friend. You are wrong: she was not aware she was being abused in the sense in which you mean it. Do you think that reading a leaflet would have given her an understanding beyond the one she already possessed, which made her bring the frying pan down on the head of her husband? If she was merely a perpetrator of criminal assault, would reading a leaflet have made her something else?
Andre is definitely giving off Pell smell.
That’s daemonic Goddess to you pal.
Um, care to explain how someone can be hurt and abused and be completely unaware that something has gone very wrong? Was she comatose through all those years until the frying pan incident? If she didn’t know she was being abused then why bother with the frying pan in the first place? Why would she feel the need to do this?
I hope that you understand that partners killing their abuser is a rather unusual circumstance? Most victims of abuse choose to flee if they can, not attempt murder.
How many sense of the word “abuse” are there, Andre? Try not to parse hairs too much.
Andre: @pecunium. I’m not arguing anything or saying it has to do with anything or anybody. I’m just telling you about my friend.
Why?
You’ve said all the folks here have is stuff they picked up from leaflets; “banal platitudes”. What was that story supposed to do?
Because it’s hard to believe you just gave it to us for the purpose of sharing. All your previous nonsense was meant to persuade us of something (what is impossible to say, it was a dog’s breakfast of incoherent mush).
So what was the purpose of that?
Oh, I see, you weren’t, “just telling [us] about [your] friend”, you were using it to ask a question; repeating the hostile, if banal, platitude that, “all we know is from leaflets”.
If she had read more on the subject of domestic abuse she might have realised there were options.
That was easy.
Trevor is in a deep personal relationship, kind of like a domestic partnership, with both the government and the advertising agencies (all of them)?
Wow, dude, that’s kind of impressive. Clearly Trevor has mad game.
Wait… Andre admits he can add nothing to the conversation: @David Futrelle. If you need to ask, it would be pointless answering you.
So, if we don’t understand him, he can’t make it any clearer. If we don’t already know what he has to say, he can’t help us.
Nihilism made simple.
Cassandra: It’s possible he just needs a dictionary. He seems to think “influence decisions” = “control”.
In that they may well have PTSD, which most people don’t have? Possibly.
Oh, wait, you mean they’re not normal in a way that makes the domestic violence that they experienced their fault…
Hi, Dr Pell!