Categories
a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women cuteness drama kings evil women false accusations FemRAs grandiosity johntheother kitties men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA narcissism paranoia paul elam rape rape jokes shit that never happened the poster revolution has begun

Posters getting torn down: A crime against humanity? (Includes video footage of JohnTheOther’s epic confrontation with alleged box-cutter wielding gang.)

Farting kittens: The real oppressors?

So I’ve been mostly avoiding writing about the whole Men’s Rights postering controversy in Vancouver, because it’s such a tempest in a teapot. The tl;dr: Some posters got torn down, and some of the people tearing them down yelled at the blabby MRA videoblogger and A Voice for Men second fiddle known as JohnTheOther.

MRAs: Given that virtually none of you have any experience as actual real world activists, you may not be aware of this, but POSTERS GET TORN DOWN. It’s annoying, and I don’t support it myself, but it happens all the time. Sometimes, you may actually run across people tearing down your posters, at which point there is usually some sort of awkward confrontation that may include yelling.

You know what you do when this happens? You put your posters up again. You know what you don’t do? Compare the experience to rape. Because, on the list of the grand injustices of the world, having posters torn down is pretty far down the list, somewhere around “stubbing your toe” and “kitten farts on you.”

That said, here are a few new “developments” in this ongoing epic.

1) Jezebel has posted a piece about the controversy. The most interesting thing about it is the following quote from, you guessed it, JohnTheOther, who apparently had this to say to someone from a local “community-driven news” website. The topic? False accusations of rape.

Maybe it’s a mistaken accusation, she doesn’t remember who she had sex with because she was drunk at the party or whatever. Some make accusations that have nothing to do with being raped; they’re angry, or they got stood up, they wanted to have sex with a guy but he said no. The fact that our society doesn’t have a balance for this is a major problem. I’m not suggesting every woman you meet is a loose cannon, but every woman you meet has the potential to be one, because for those few who are nutty, there’s no disincentive for them to go, oh, I was late for work. I know, I’ll just say I got raped.

Now, if the Men’s Rights movement were an actual civil rights movement trying to better the lives of men, this quote would be a public relations disaster. What real civil rights movement would want to have itself associated with someone who seems to think that women make up rape accusations willy nilly, when a date stands them up or when they need an excuse for being late to work?

Of course, the Men’s Rights “movement” isn’t an actual civil rights movement at all; it’s more like a collective tantrum. While MRAs are eager to “spread the word,” the more spreading they do, the more damage they do to themselves. No one is better at making MRAs look bad than MRAs themselves, which is why on this blog I spend so much of the time letting these (mostly) dudes make themselves look ridiculous with their own words. So, JtO, thanks?

2) And speaking of Mr. TheOther, we can now see video footage of the supposed dramatic confrontation that JohnTheOther had with what his AVFM boss Paul Elam called “a gang of 20-30 assholes on the street, some wielding box cutters.”

GirlWritesWhat, one of the Men’s Rights movement’s few non-dudes, has put up selections of video footage from Mr. TheOther in her video below.

As you’ll see – unless for some reason GWW has decided not to post the most incriminating parts of the video — there was no gang; it was a small group of people. No one was “wielding box cutters” in a threatening manner. The whole thing took place in broad daylight on a busy street.

Some posters were taken down. There were some raised voices. That’s it. That’s the sort of shit activists deal with every fucking day of their life.

Here’s the video:

Am I missing something here? This non-event is the alleged confrontation that AVFM has been hyperventilating about all this time? This is the evil anti-MRA harassment that Elam says “makes getting bestially raped by Richard Dawkins sound kinda funny.”

Leave it to Mr. Elam to add a rape-joke cherry to this bullshit sundae. Once again, MRAs are their own worst enemies.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

562 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

I was actually calling you out on “classical,” but you know what? You’ve spent an hour singing the praises of an organization that wants to prevent many men and women I know from having access to domestic violence services. I have no fucking obligation to be nice to you.

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

“Omits provisions”? Since when is denial of special treatment an attack?

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

It’s denial of any treatment. There is currently no public funding or legal framework for same sex or Amerindian domestic violence protections.

Even if it was special treatment, so what? If MRAs were not actually a hate group, wouldn’t they applaud any expansion of DV services to help more men?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

Thomas Ball is a martyr, and you are an asshole.

Thomas Ball struck his young daughter so hard she bled and refused anger management therapy. His loss of custody is literally his fault. Meanwhile you idiots happily hold up a child abuser as a martyr and promote his terrorist manifesto as activism. You’re all absolutely disgraceful.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Shorter BASTA: “Men need more domestic violence protections! But laws that extend protections and help more men are EVIL!”

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

PASTA, thought you were taking your balls and going home.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Like, I know you’re too busy argued ad infinitum that a child abuser deserved to keep having access to his children without any guarantee of not abusing, but really, how will opposing extra DV services for some men help men in any way?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

Shorter BASTA!: Why is Sharon Osbourne at all employable for making a single joke? And why shouldn’t a convicted rapist be in the public spotlight, after all he served his timez rite guize.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

@Tulgey

Nailed it.

glove
8 years ago

Basta, sweetie. Marx is on my gender studies curriculum, so is my tutor a Marxist? Mill is on there too so is she also a utilitarian? She once recimmended a Beckett play so she must be a modernist. She also set us some anti-suffrage texts so i guess she’s a misogynist too. Awkward.

I also have no idea why you think Daly or Solanis (lol) would be at the centre of gender studies curricula.

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> There is currently no public funding or legal framework
> for same sex or Amerindian domestic violence protections.

Why should there specific provisions for these groups? Aren’t these people US citizens? What would prevent them from benefitting from VAWA funding and legal framework as US citizens? As far as LGBT people are concerned, the answers are resounding “there shouldn’t be”, “yes they are”, and “nothing”, respectively. As for the minorities, these are genuine questions I am asking you right now. Sadly I happen to live in one of the most racially uniform European countries, and I humbly admit to knowing as much about US internal race/minorities politics as Hollywood teaches me.

stellascarlett
8 years ago

@Myoo, thanks, that was an awesome sum-up of what I thought it might be caused by too.

And the MRM? Well, you can’t polish a turd. No matter how many claims of activism or justice-seeking, it’s a hate group, through and through.

If they could provide proof of one thing they have done to benefit men, ALL men, from start to finish, I would find them less hilarious/offensive. As it is, though…..

Pam
Pam
8 years ago

“Reality TV star says offensive thing about women” – yeah I’ll bet that would be worldwide front page news.

As, obviously (since Pasta! is not familiar with), the victim-blamey “cop from Toronto” made worldwide front page news. But some Reality TV star who said something offensive about men sure as heck musta made worldwide front page news, since Pasta! is familiar with that story. Must be due to systemic misandry.

glove
8 years ago

Academic feminism is advocacy, pasta? I wish it were that simple.

Where did you study gender studies? Cos obv no one should be making sweeping statements unless it’s from experience…

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

What would prevent them from benefitting from VAWA funding and legal framework as US citizens?

1. Cops don’t often give a shit about domestic abuse. They give much less of a shit if it is a gay couple. The VAWA that MRAs oppose would force cops to take male-on-male DV seriously or be subject (in theory) to lawsuits.
2. Domestic abuse is virtually unprosecuted on Aboriginal land, because, again, cops don’t give a shit. The VAWA reauthorization would have increased shelter access and legal options for aboriginal men and women.
3. Many government organizations and law firms don’t care about same sex domestic abuse, becuase they don’t think they can win the case. The VAWA reauthorization would ensure that it is legally possible to prosecute these.
4. Undocumented immigrants, men and women, have virtually no legal .

Are you seriously so naive as to think that everyone in the United States is treated equally under the law and covered by the same set of services?

The better question is, why shouldn’t there be these protections? How does it help men to have fewer services for same sex couples, Aboriginals, and immigrants?

Again, how does it help men?

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> Where did you study gender studies? Cos obv no one
> should be making sweeping statements unless it’s from
> experience…

I observe the effects of gender studies on human mind whenever I interact with feminists. That’s enough data points for me.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

I humbly admit to knowing as much about US internal race/minorities politics as Hollywood teaches me.

You also seem to know about as much about lgbtq issues and domestic violence protections as your pro-child-abuser hate movement teaches you.

MertvayaRuka
8 years ago

“Funny, I would be tricked if somebody told me that the words above were penned by a Goddess-feminist or a gyn-eco-feminist.”

Just in case anybody missed the stuff you redacted right before what you quoted:

“Now I’m sure that you’re going to take that and try to twist it around like you did with the whole “you don’t get to define what a civil rights movement is, we do” bullshit but anyone who’s taken a good long look at authoritarian groups will see both the parallels and the usual attempts at projecting their worst behaviors onto others.”

That could’ve been a pit full of great big honking spikes with a neon sign over it blinking “DON’T GO HERE” in letters sixteen feet high and you still would have tap-danced right into it. Do you know why? Because authoritarians are constitutionally incapable of coming up with new ideas. Even though you had the perfect opportunity to avoid doing exactly what I was just talking about by not even responding to it, you couldn’t help yourself. All you saw was the opportunity to say “NO U” in response. And you expect us to take you seriously. Or better yet, actually be *afraid* of people like you. You’re bullies, as shown by your admiration of a man who smacked around someone smaller and weaker than himself to show his authority. And like all bullies, there’s a thin and fragile skin of bravado over a core of pure cowardice. One good hit and it cracks.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

I observe the effects of gender studies on human mind whenever I interact with feminists.

Oh, us evil feminists, always trying to extend domestic violence protections to more men and arguing that child abuse is bad. We are so crazy.

Gametime
8 years ago

BREAKING NEWS: MRA continues to be baffled that feminists don’t talk about Solanas and Osbourne all the fucking time, reveals he has never heard of any actual feminists.

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> 1. Cops don’t often give a shit about domestic abuse. They
> give much less of a shit if it is a gay couple.

This is wrong, but isn’t it covered by existing laws? And why do you think this happens? The MRM position is that the gender of the *victim* dwarfs all other factors, and provisions that forbid denying assistance to male victims would effectively address the problem.

> The VAWA that MRAs oppose would force cops to take
> male-on-male DV seriously or be subject (in theory) to lawsuits.

Wrong. The VAWA that MRAs want would force cops to take *-on-male DV seriously, *including* male-on-male.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Breaking news: MRA heartily supports taking DV protections away from millions of men, as if he was just some kind of knee-jerk conservative reactionary who supports abusers.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Wrong. The VAWA that MRAs want would force cops to take *-on-male DV seriously, *including* male-on-male.

You say that, but they don’t. The only difference between the VAWA that NCFM supported and the VAWA that the dems support is that a lot fewer men and women are covered. That’s it.

It’s almost as if your movement is less about helping men and more about helping abusers, huh?

glove
8 years ago

Basta look up ‘formal equality’ then ‘substantive equality’, OK?

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

This is wrong, but isn’t it covered by existing laws?

No. You can thank NCFM and their friends the GOP for that.

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> How does it help men to have fewer services for same sex couples,
> Aboriginals, and immigrants?

It helps everyone to not set in stone special rights for birth groups.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

The MRM position is that the gender of the *victim* dwarfs all other factors, and provisions that forbid denying assistance to male victims would effectively address the problem.

No, that’s their talking point. Their actual position, as shown by their opposition to the increased protections of VAWA, is that as few abusers as possible should experience any consequences for thier actions. If they wanted to expand services for male victims, they wouldn’t oppose expanding services for male victims.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

It helps everyone to not set in stone special rights for birth groups.

The only “rights” that VAWA would have extended would have been “The right to not be abused and to have your abuse be taken seriously by society.”

If that’s your idea of a “special right,” I don’t know what to tell you, champ.

Again, MRA is about abusers, not victims. That’s why they think it was wrong for a court to take children away from an abuser, and why they actively fight against abuse protections for men.

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> No. You can thank NCFM and their friends the GOP for that.

Citation needed.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

I mean, the real logical failure is that, if there was no discrimination in legal protections and services for lgbtq, Amerindians, and undocumented immigrants, then provisions saying these people need to be covered as well wouldn’t have any policy effect. So there would be no reason to oppose them. It never hurts to have the same thing written down in two separate places.

The only reason to oppose them is that MRAs know they’re not covered, and they know that coverage would help people leave abusers, and they support abusers too much to want that to happen.

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> Citation needed.

Citation needed to prove that NCFM specifically had a hand in that.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Citation needed.

I’ve already given you some. I know you’re not super awesome at logic, but VAWA is the only federal body of law and policy on domestic violence. So, if all of VAWA as it is written is about naturalized heterosexual men and women in nonfederal, nonAboriginal land, there are no protections. Where else would it be?

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Citation needed to prove that NCFM specifically had a hand in that.

I already gave you one, but here it is again: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/16/national-coalition-for-men-backs-gop-version-of-violence-against-women-act/

“The National Coalition for Men has endorsed the House version of the Violence Against Women Act.”

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

It helps everyone to not set in stone special rights for birth groups.

Classic line of the privileged, calling yourself a civil rights movement while trying to step on minorities.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

“There is no discrimination against minorities! That’s why making laws against disciminating against minorities should be prevented at all costs! Valuable ink could be consumed!”

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

> I mean, the real logical failure is that, if there was no discrimination
> in legal protections and services for lgbtq, Amerindians, and
> undocumented immigrants, then provisions saying these people
> need to be covered as well wouldn’t have any policy effect.

That’s simply not true. When there is no discrimination, then special legal provisions for birth groups will *cause* discrimination. Equal status quo + unequal law = drift towards inequality. Unequal status quo + unequal law = bidirectional inequality that doesn’t cancel out.

Vitamin D
Vitamin D
8 years ago

Wow, this is what a royal smackdown looks like. Incidentally, Pasta, it’s pretty poor form to barge into another group’s blog discussion and demand citation on subjects the people there are intimately familiar with. Especially after proudly admitting your ignorance on a subject. No one here is responsible for your education,and google is just a click away. It’s like a creationists tapping furiously on the shoulders of paleontologists discussing some fossil or something, demanding they stop that discussion to prove evolution happened. Again. And with every intention of dismissing the many credible sources provided. You need to look something up, do in yourself.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

When there is no discrimination, then special legal provisions for birth groups will *cause* discrimination.

Kinda like how anti-murder laws, in a society without murder, would themselves cause murder! This is some serious Minority Report shit.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

It’s a real shame that all the levy construction down in the South keeps causing those floods.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

In general though, it is pretty insane that you think a real problem with the US is that gay men have too many DV protections.

How’s the abuser lobbying working out for you?

timetravellingfool
timetravellingfool
8 years ago

And the people who originally advocated for legal provisions to counter discrimination? Before all those provisions existed that actually created the discrimination (which must exist after all, with all these provisions we have to counter it)? Why do you imagine they wanted these provisions in the first place? For a laugh? Because violent oppression and years of advocacy to get those provisions in place was fun and easy?

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

I observe the effects of gender studies on human mind whenever I interact with feminists. That’s enough data points for me.

Bullshit. You know next to nothing about feminists, as evidenced by your knowing only of Solnas and Daly, and I’m sure when you encounter feminists, it’s because you’re trolling feminist spaces. It’s not like you’re here in good faith and want to learn anything.

timetravellingfool
timetravellingfool
8 years ago

I know all I need to know about surgery from watching Grey’s Anatomy!

BASTA!
BASTA!
8 years ago

@Ugh: you just re-pasted the VAWA link, but we were talking about *existing laws* independent of VAWA that penalize such discrimination by state agencies. You told me that there are no such laws independent from VAWA, and that NCFM among others had a hand in preventing such laws from being enacted.

I find it hard to believe that there are no such laws in the US, given that for what all I know, European laws of this kind are modeled after US legislation. I am asking you to demonstrate to me that there are indeed no such laws in the US (repeat: independent from VAWA), and that NCFM is complicit in this state of affairs.

timetravellingfool
timetravellingfool
8 years ago

Well gee, if you find it hard to believe, by all means produce one. That works. As in no clear need for additional measures. Unless you expect Ugh to produce an absence of laws for you- shall he just hit the space bar a million times to symbolize the lack of laws? Stop expecting other people to do your research for you, you lazy thinker.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

I find it hard to believe that there are no such laws in the US

Find one.

given that for what all I know, European laws of this kind are modeled after US legislation

I am asking you to demonstrate to me that there are indeed no such laws in the US (repeat: independent from VAWA)

Haha, what do you want me to do, send you the entire legal code of the United States? How about you try to find one law that would prevent such discrimination.

that NCFM is complicit in this state of affairs

They opposed passing the only law that would have prevented this discrimination. If they wanted there to be legal domestic violence protections for gay men, they would have supported the only law in history to state that gay men should also recieve protections.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Also, how do feel about the NCFM defending Akin’s comments on rape and pregnancy?

Almost like they’ll just do or say anything that supports abusers, huh?

Tulgey Logger
Tulgey Logger
8 years ago

That’s simply not true. When there is no discrimination, then special legal provisions for birth groups will *cause* discrimination. Equal status quo + unequal law = drift towards inequality. Unequal status quo + unequal law = bidirectional inequality that doesn’t cancel out.

Wow, you’re so wise and mathematical.

I never knew before there was no discrimination against lgbtq, Native Americans, and undocumented immigrants, but that misandry was real and systematic.

You must be in STEM.

Ugh
Ugh
8 years ago

Haha I’m pretty sure the argument that there is no lgbtq discrimination in the United States is stupider than creationism.