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.
Y’know, I’m legit sad the PPT never responded to my post on the other thread. I promise my questions were easier than pecunium’s! Here, I shall repost!
I even redid the html link!
Wait, what?
Beating women up? Whatev. Someone passed out with a dick and balls drawn on their chin? OH, HELL NAH!
They probably think that a woman getting raped while passed out is the same as getting a dick drawn on your face. Or the dick face thing is even worse.
It’s not like comparing having a dick drawn on your face with a Sharpie while you’re passed out drunk to rape isn’t totally diminishing, condescending and dismissive. They know exactly what you’ve been through, survivors of rape! They too have felt that violation! Via permanent marker on their chin!
@Radical Parrot
Jedi hugs if you want them. 🙁
@deniseeliza
Are you trying to ask them to be consistent? MYSANDRY!
@ProPatria
Gross. Granted, men ‘taming’ women has a fuck lot more baggage behind it, but this is still as nasty as fuck. Go step on a lego with your imaginary friends.
@CassandraSays
Same here.
I never read what Elam wrote about women drinking in bars. Well I know who not to invite over for drinks… men’s human rights activists. What a disgusting thing for Paul to say. I’ve met many men on YouTube who were treated with great cruelty and violence at the hands of women, one being Phyrrho. I think the men’s right’s movement hurt these men more because they often protect abusers by encouraging men to beat their wives, if they have been attacked rather than calling the police. After that to try and prove retaliation is ridiculous because the extent of harm inflicted by a man on a woman is usually so much greater because of size. It just does not work. I suspect Paul Elam is just a wife beater and supports other wife beaters like Daniel Perrins, and he can scream to high heavens but his wife call the cops on him, not the other way around when he came in drunk in the early morning. He wouldn’t even come pick up his mail but then told the court she was stealing his mail. Silly. And there is no help for actually brutalized men, now the only shelter is gone. None of these silly MRA’s saw fit to keep that running or give them money, instead pocketing it and now a man’s swinging. Sickening. Girlwriteswhat is bragging again about all the donations she has received, suppository for the M(h)rm and she turns over none of it to the shelter. These people are crooks of the third degree.
Ok done rant. Sorry.
I love how in one of the threads on this topic at AVFM, at least 3 of the linked examples of violence against men on Facebook go to a Femdom’s page, and show consentual activities (one is a man being ‘trampled’ w/ bare feet, for instance). This apparently is the same is the ‘tape her and rape her’ etc imagery.
Protip: it’s not the same.
@Pecunium – I’ve been learining a ton about catholic thought from your posts, very interesting stuff. I was raised catholic (verrrrry liberal version) but left it behind when I was 13 for various reasons. I’m atheist, but find religious thought/issues etc interesting and you seem very knowledgeable on the subject.
The church granted my father an annullment, after 20 years of marriage and 2 kids, so he could get remarried in the church. What’s that about? Are they just desperate to keep ppl on the roster?
I wonder if he also picks up feminist radio transmissions on his fillings? Does he have to wear a tinfoil hat to keep the feminists from reading his thoughts? This is seriously some grade-A conspiracy thinking.
As for free speech: I truly value it. The ability to criticize our government is crucial to allowing us to maintain some control over it, and the ability to speak freely to each other is key to a functioning democracy. That said, and I’m aware this may be an extreme point of view: I view all hate speech as incitement to violence, and do not believe it should be constitutionally protected. It’s not like hate speech has any redeeming value or serves any purpose for our society, and the harm of keeping various groups oppressed far outweighs, to me, the need to keep speech entirely free just on principle.
You may now call me a fascist or whatever.
Re: the kidnapping, I hadn’t read the article until someone mentioned Maine, which is where I’m from. HOLY SHIT, THAT’S MY HOMETOWN. And I think I went to high school with the perp’s brother (same last name, looks like him).
Nope, NVM, different Dube family. But still, holy shit.
@Tracy
I was also raised Catholic, am now atheist, and have also been enjoying Pecunium’s posts on Catholicism.
Annulments interest me as well. From what I know about it (which I admit is mostly from hearsay and anecdotes) the conditions for getting one are pretty vague and often up to the Church to decide. I wouldn’t be surprised if the process was often corrupted by the sexism or bigotry of the individuals in charge. I’ve been told about one family friend (a woman) who’d been married at 17 for one year with one child who did not receive an annulment and another family friend (a man) who’d been married for fourteen years with three kids who did. My mother has considered getting an annulment, but was put off by these stories.
Or perhaps I’m letting my poor experience in the Catholic Church make me assume the worst of it. *shrugs*
He’s a feminist, you know. He proudly identifies as such, and the ideas he espoused in that video are mainstream feminist positions.
Just to be clear here.
@Marie:
I think the “good woman tames a man” can be just as bad, it’s just a little more subtle. It’s very commonly used (particularly in evangelical circles) to blame the victims of domestic abuse for their husband’s actions. After all, a “good” woman can tame her man and lead him to God, so if he’s abusive then she must be failing. She needs to be a better wife to him, lead by example, etc. Except in the real world, that’s not how domestic violence works. You can be the “perfect” submissive wife and he’ll still find excuses to be abusive if that’s what he wants to do. It just puts the blame on the wife’s shoulders and makes it harder for her to leave, since divorce is the ultimate failure and a sin in itself. It’s a really poisonous dynamic that sadly plays out fairly often.
Also, LOL at the Vatican investigation of pecunium. I’m pretty sure PPT is a troll after reading that, because even I, who wasn’t raised Catholic but have an entire extended family that is Catholic, know that’s not how it works. But at least PPT is a funny troll.
@Truthiness
Which explains Hillary Clinton, Sandra Day O’Connor, Madeleine Albright, et al.
@Tedthefed
Except for the part where the law has not yet caught up with the Internet. And what if the harassment is coming from someone in another country?
@Truthy again
God, I hope so. (No shade to the Christians here. Pretty sure you all share my hope for a secular government and more pluralistic society, anyway).
LOL
Double LOL
Mainstream? But he didn’t even mention castration or how all hetero sex is rape!
Funny how Paul Elam 1) thinks some women are just “begging to be raped” by tempting men and making promises of sex and 2) thinks women who slap or in other ways physically harm men should be beaten and degraded. The men who are hit by women are apparently never “begging for it”, by, say, playing up their macho know-it-all attitude. And the men who rape women apparently never elicits any rage from Mr Elam. Nope, women are always the villains.
God, he is at once scary and pitiful.
Pro-Patria Truthiness:
Here are the aspects of the conversation on Mary’s blog that I thought were intelligent.
(1) Mary’s analysis of several recent Christian magazine articles, compared with biblical quotations.
(2) Discussion in the comments about whether God’s standards are too high, and if so, should the Church change their standards?
(3) Difference between sex inside and outside of marriage.
(4) Growing agreement between evangelical and secular feminists on a growing set of issues.
(5) Analysis of whether we are living in a post-Christian age.
Even more interesting ideas than that.
So… one thing which is actual, and perhaps even original. (SSM’s analysis: based on previous examples of her theologic thinking, we almost certainly disagree on the merits of those statements).
The rest, more vagueness. What about the difference between non-marital/marital sex was said that you found insightful, stimulating a new appreciation of the question?
How did they show this putative increase in intellectual agreement between, “evangelical” (by which I presume you mean fundamentalists; not evangelical in way of Fred Clark) and secular feminists?
Are we living in a post-Christian Age? If so what does this mean?
What ideas were more interesting? If they were more interesting, why didn’t you choose to share those with us instead?
Pro-patria trutiness: Pecunium, I will try to get to your heretical theology, but it does take time to deconstruct.
It’s not heretical. It was questions. I didn’t state a personal belief. As presented it was completely in keeping with the tradition of the Advocatus Diabolus: Those are the actual questions the church wrestles with when addressing the issue of abortion.
Until the 1870s, the position of the church was that ensoulment came at the time of quickening. Since there hasn’t been a ruling, Ex cathedra the question is still open (again, I commend you to a close, and delibertative, reading of In humanum vitae of John Paul II).
As to the “right wing woman” to tame me… I thought you were a Democrat?
I encourage you to petition His Holiness, Pope Francis to have the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith investigate me. Please be so kind as to post the correspondence here, that we may see the theological reasoning you have for your claims of my heresy.
What I have done, I have done in the traditions of the Society of Jesus (who, traditionally, provide the theological advisor to the Pope).
So tell them that my questions to you, asking you to defend your position against these points of is heresy.
I dare you, AmDg.
We are leaving for the movies. More later. PPT, let me know when they petition for the bell, book, and candle.
Yeah I really do want to see this petition to the Vatican. Extra super bonus points if it’s written in Latin.
Enjoy your heretical movie…I mean, everything not for Christ is against Christ right? Or is that only Christian fundies?
@emilygoddess “I view all hate speech as incitement to violence, and do not believe it should be constitutionally protected.”
What counts as hate speech?
(That question was only partly rhetorical. I am actually interested in your answer and haven’t got a fully formed opinion about how wrong and terrible you are yet.)
FTR, emilygoddess is a fairly regular poster, wrong, yes, terrible, no. I too am curious the answer, but I suspect that comment was a result of having not thought it through.
Like, my answer? Yeah it’d be great if hate speech could be outlawed without that turning all McCarthy but since that won’t happen, best we can do is outlawing speech which leads to violence and tack on extra penalties if it was based on religion, gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. That is, I think the current US law is as good as it’ll get without having the “but who defines hate speech” problem (like, if fundies defined it? Trans* people coming out and requesting respect as fellow humans would be considered hate speech, etc)
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
@AK
Yeah, you’re right, I just wasn’t thinking of those ::blushes:: Though partly because for some reason the tone struck me as more closer to the woman being tamed stereotype, though I have no idea why. I may just be reading too much into trolls… /rambling + tired bad combo.