Men’s Rights, er, activists are waving their arms frantically in the air over what they see as a dire new threat to men and manhood: Facebook’s recent annoucement that it was going to try to do a better job of taking down violent images mocking victims of rape and domestic violence, and other kinds of misogynistic hate speech.
Last week, as many of you no doubt already know, a coalition of feminist groups launched a campaign targeting Facebook and its advertisers for tolerating this sort of content on Facebook — in many cases even after it was reported to Facebook moderators as clearly violating the site’s already existing policies against hate speech and graphic violence. (For many truly disgusting and possibly TRIGGERING examples, see here.)
Well, Facebook actually listened, and announced it would be making efforts to better handle “gender-based” hate speech, and would be “solicit[ing] feedback from legal experts and others, including representatives of the women’s coalition and other groups that have historically faced discrimination” — among them some of the groups involved in the protest. While Facebook’s promises remain vague, those behind the protest are hailing this, correctly I think, as a victory.
A lot of Men’s Rights activists, by contrast, seem to think Facebook’s new policy means the beginning of the end for free speech for men on the internet. And no one seems more worked up about it than A Voice for Men’s Supreme Commander Paul Elam.
In a posting he declared “probably the most important article I have ever written” — not that this is saying much — Elam attempted to rally the troops to fight against what he called “the greatest challenge the M(H)RM has faced so far.” Elam claimed that taking down images of brutalized women with captions like “women deserve equal rights — and lefts” isn’t the real goal here. No, he charged,
feminist ideologues are co-opting Facebook, and they will root out any and all opposition to their worldview.
But instead of lamenting this terrible alleged threat to the spirit of the First Amendment and Free Speech, Elam moves on — immediately, in the very next sentence — to an even more important issue:
That will include, at some point, the AVFM Facebook page and its nearly 3,500 fans (2,000 of which have come in the past two months).
How important this is? In a word, very.
Facebook accounts for roughly 10-13% of our traffic on most days, and with a rapidly growing fan base that promises to represent a continually increasing number of actual visitors to the site.
That’s right: FACEBOOK’S NEW POLICIES MAY REDUCE A VOICE FOR MEN’S TRAFFIC BY TEN TO THIRTEEN PERCENT.
And if feminists succeed in their dastardly plan to root out all non-feminist thought on Facebook — a plan which so far exists only in Elam’s paranoid imagination– then what?
Where do you imagine, if they are successful at eliminating men’s rights discussion from Facebook, they will go next? Reddit? YouTube?
How about Google?
Do you think they are above trying to have men’s rights websites de-listed from Google search returns?
If any of this actually happens, outside of Elam’s fever dreams of persecution, I pledge to literally eat my kitties. Or, at the very least, one of Werner Herzog’s shoes.
Of course, if Facebook simply does what it says it will do, and not what Elam imagines it will do, A Voice for Men’s Facebook page may find itself in a bit of trouble. Because a lot of what appears on AVFM — which continues to post an open call to firebomb courthouses and police stations on its activism page — can only be described as gender-based hate speech. (TRIGGER WARNING for what follows.)
.
.
.
It was Elam, after all, who asked, about women who are date raped after drinking with men at bars:
[A]re these women asking to get raped?…
NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it. …
[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
And Elam — like a lot of the misogynistic “humorists” on Facebook — is not above using a picture of a brutalized woman to illustrate one of his little “jokes.” Here is a screenshot from one of his posts; the text is his, as is the caption to the picture. (He has since removed the picture from the post, though the hateful text remains.)
Of course, even as AVFM tries to whip up outrage over the alleged feminist/Facebook plan to silence the menz, the regulars there are having a hard time even pretending to be bothered by the violent images of rape and brutality that the feminist protesters have pointed to on Facebook. (You’d think, at least for PR purposes, they’d want to position themselves against violent rape “jokes.”)
Indeed, in an earlier AVFM post on the Facebook fracas, someone called Victor Zen seemed to argue that glorifying or even promoting rape is fine so long as you don’t actually go and do it. See if you can make sense of this word salad:
Rape, it’s glorification? My experience has been that people who post images, videos and text that promote rape and violence are doing it because they know the value of shock. If you conflate their intention to deceive with their presentation of an untruthful reality you rob yourself of the truth. It is tempting for some to believe as they say, but in the end those that do are denied what is actually real. I doubt real rapists are publicly announcing their desire to rape. I want numbers because I am curious.
How many examples of hate speech that WAM! and affiliates moan about lead to proven incidences of rape or domestic violence?
I don’t even … what?
The Men’s Rights movement: Fighting for the right to shout rape jokes on a crowded Facebook.
Oh and Patrick Stewart is a good man. We need more balanced human rights activists like him.
Is Meghan Kelly the “math you do as a Republican to make yourself feel better” one? Because if she is, then I’m a fan.
Men’s violence against women led to the Holocaust? To slavery? To the destruction of the environment? To factory farming? To talking at the movies?
Right.
So mra’s, a bunch of whom are right-wing libertarians, are whining about a privately owned corporation deciding not to allow certain kinds of content on its own website?
And since Elam is Chief Whiner here, I’m assuming that he allows anyone to post literally any type of content they want on his own website, with no restrictions whatsoever, right? Otherwise wouldn’t that make him a freeze peach hating fascist?
Pretty much. Consistency is not their strong suit.
And they sure don’t seem to care much about the free speech of feminists in all this. After all, the activists from Women, Action, and the Media used their own free speech to call on Facebook to take down the violent, misogynist content.
I’ve been reading the comments on that thread, and their shitfit over this is increasingly hilarious. They really believe this has nothing to do with the “tape and rape” images; those were just a pretext to go after the force on earth most threatening to feminism: Paul Elam and his band of Slapstick Warriors. It shows how TOTES IMPORTANT they are. Gloria Steinem and other top-level feminists have been meeting in their “war room” and have decided the most important battlefield in the 21st century war of feminism vs. internet misogynists is Facebook.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, fellas.
Absolute lack of anonymity online is a complicated issue, but I am not sure that increased stalking and harassment is one of them, because the people doing the harassing would themselves be named and therefore easily subject to prosecution. And besides, anonymity is an enormous, ENORMOUS facilitator of sociopathic behavior online.
Where I get hung up, is in the practical issue that better-trained, more educated people might be able to find a way to be anonymous after all, which would create even more of a class system online. But I don’t know enough of the technical stuff to know if that’s really a problem.
Pro-Patria Truthiness: The Black Fedora is again correct. He did say “by all means remove them.”
Ignoring the context once again. It’s not that he thought they were bad; after all, they were just made for lulz, it’s just that women (and men) with thin skins were clutching their pearls.
What MRA doesn’t realize is that men’s violence against women is the reason why feminism was needed. If men were not so violent toward women, Christian patriarchal civilization would have been able to survive.
Nope. Patriarchies require women to be only partial citizens (at their best). As such they are a violent affront to women, and cannot, in a moral society, survive.
So I mustered up the courage to open up the link in which Elam says that women who get drunk are asking to get raped…I was so grossed out that I ended up clearing my browser history.
Make that “appalled” instead of “grossed out.”
Aw, boo hoo. Maybe these guys need to realize they should not under any circumstances treat people like trash. Rape victims don’t “ask for it”. So dang childish.
This came up on Sunshine Mary’s Christian MRA blog yesterday: http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/evangelical-women-also-known-as-covert-christo-feminists-rail-against-slut-shaming/#comment-7636
At first Sunshine was OK with the idea of Facebook taking down the images. But, her followers gave her a verbal smackdown saying that this was just a rouse for the feminists to eventually remove all anti-feminist opinions from the Internet.
So Sunshine backdown and said that while she agreed the images of abused children and murdered women should be taken down, most of the other ones weren’t that bad after all.
Here’s one of Sunshine’s comments:
ssm: I don’t want to see risque or male humor banned. The funny pictures didn’t bother me. The pictures that showed real violence in action were the bad ones – for example, the one of the man holding the woman’s head underwater in the toilet bowl. And I certainly don’t
want to see feminist foxes put in charge of the internet hen-house; we all know how that will go.]
@PPT
Care to expound on why you feel Indira Gandhi & Elizabeth I were conservatives? I mean, I’m pretty sure that Elizabeth I lived before free-market capitalism(those with more knowledge of economic theory/history fell free to correct me), so thinking of her in contemporary liberal v conservative terms is kind of strange, IMO. Gandhi, on the other hand was a socialist, or at the very least least advocated socialist policies as a means of maintaining political power.
She clarifies her stance here:http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/05/30/evangelical-women-also-known-as-covert-christo-feminists-rail-against-slut-shaming/
I understand the objections everyone is raising to the feminist/facebook/hate speech thing. Upon further reflection, I think I have had a very emotional reaction to those pictures of children being abused and women being murdered (which is natural) and thus been manipulated. I do support Facebook in censoring such images; I don’t support feminists having any say in the matter.
SSM is so pathetic. Any time a man disagrees with her she practically sends herself to the chiropractor bending over backwards to appease him.
@PpTt: As a hetero cis male, my experience has been that it was feminists who first talked to me about the damage certain types of masculinities inflict upon men. It was feminists reaching out to men as allies in the fight against gender as a shackle. Feminists talking about legal definitions of rape excluding men as potential victims. Feminists reaching out to embrace lgbtq men in their fight for civil rights. There have been missteps, there have been disagreements, there has been bigotry, but feminists as a group have long been more supportive of men as they are vs men as they pretend to be.
The MRA’s always seem to preach a life of scarcity; the increasing freedom of women is treated as a theft from a rightful owner. They prey upon those with little or those who have lost and give them a target.
There have long been balanced human rights campaigners, they just find themselves more closely aligned with feminists.
So… it’s alright to censor them, because they’re clearly brutal and inhumane images, but feminists having that opinion is wrong? Intersting… I like her dissonance.
::has little party that this is happening.:: Very little one though, seeing as how they should have been doing it earlier, but I’m in a positive mood atm. I’m having cheap pizza.
Actually, my positive mood has been derailed having read all the shit Paul Elam typed >:/ May he swim in a vat of legos and cacti needles forevermore.
@chie satonaka
O fuck that actually happened? 🙁
I’m just wondering why is it such a big deal to the MRAs. It’s not like they don’t have dozens of sites that allow for vulgar content. Facebook is pretty mainstream for shock images.
“A lot of Men’s Rights activists, by contrast, seem to think Facebook’s new policy means the beginning of the end for free speech for men on the internet.”
Why is it so many people don’t get that *private* websites have the right to set their own rules, and that people don’t have “Freedom of Speech” on those sites?
Hilarious how clamping down on hate speech on Facebook would theoretically reduce A Voice For Men’s web traffic. Not because this is actually a hate movement or anything, it’s because the feminazi gynocratic marxist dictatorship likes destroying freedom
Lou and Eric did well in the discussion on Fox. I’m a Democrat, not a Republican, so I don’t agree with any of them most of the time, especially on economics issues, which are constantly being undermined by social issues and the vast hunger of feminism for more secularity.
Very intelligent discussion on Sunshine Mary’s blog.
PPT: What are the intelligent aspects of the conversation?
Have you got anything better than, “just war doesn’t work” on abortion yet?
Can you answer any of the other questions I posed?
Are you planning to have a thorough high colonic to try and change your state from full of shit, to merely severely colicked?
Hello! Haven’t been around in a while, and I’ve just been catching up on the new trolls.
Black Fedora is very boring. Does the manosphere have some sort of cookie cutter for making guys like that?
And is it too early to call ‘MRAL’ on PPT?
And how are all the non-trolls doing?
I just can’t. So tired. It’s extremely important to bring this to everyone’s attention. Keep doing this, David. Never change.
I can’t do this right now. I feel sick and dizzy just knowing these guys exist and are out there. Paul Elam, what a sack of shit. Fuck.