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.
Christianity provides a much more coherent explanation for our relationship with God, the building blocks of traditional civilization and morality, and life-affirming ancient traditional teachings, than any other possible formulation.
We are hoping that all will come back to the Church of Rome where they belong; however we are happy to work with other Christian heretics in the preservation of civilization.
For those who have ears, let them hear.
Hey, remember when Steele decided to pretend that he was an Objectivist? And everyone he tried to argue with turned out to know more about Rand than he did? And he never mentioned it again after that day?
Good times.
For those who have asses, let the Truth come out of.
That is so Steele.
For those who have socks, please remember to use scented fabric softener, because it’s getting a bit whiffy in here.
The persistent “misogeny” misspelling is very Mr Al. I’m pretty sure Patty Truthy is Mr 90%. The way he’s trying to both disagree with and cuddle up to the latest creepy troll on the Judgybitch thread is typical, too.
A Christian “morality”, where the Consitutional right to freedom of religion means that the “solution” to abortion is to violate the Consitution. I repeat, deal with it.
And btw, abortion, in some form, is as old as written history. It’s just a hell of a lot safer than the days of mercury and unsanitized instruments. Not that, by your own religion, has a sinless society ever existed. So inB4 how of course abortion is ancient, so is sin.
In any case, you support forced birth and apparently justify it as the results of “the all-encompassing pervasiveness of sexual sin and the culture of death.”
You’re correct that we will always have sin. Too many Christians forget that. But never has it been so glorified, celebrated and defended.
MRAL, please find a way to come back out here and prove to these people that we’re different people. I’ll have to go look back at some more of your own postings to figure out how we came out so similarly without knowing each other.
Psst, David. Cleanup on the hosiery aisle.
PPT
Maybe a prayer will bring MRAL/Steele back around. Don’t forget David can look up the IP address though, you might want to glorify God’s will through a friend’s computer first.
[note: sockpuppetry is a sin, from that whole ‘bear false witness’ problem]
Maude – I think Mr Al has a history of using different IPs. It’s how he got away with his Steele sockpuppetry for so lon, iirc.
Patty’s blather about shunning and people never being allowed to remarry is very Poe.
Funny, I knew a real fundy whose nym was Patty. She was weird and boundary-crossing creepy (she had the hide to write a poem from Mr K’s perspective) but was a decent human being in many ways, unlike any of our trolls.
Pec: “It was questions. I didn’t state a personal belief. As presented it was completely in keeping with the tradition of the Advocatus Diabolus”
What, . Isn’t just asking question and playing devil’s advocate a behaviour feminists generally frown on (calling it derailing &c)
PPT –
But your so called ‘gentle patriarchy’ still limits people to the gender binary, to heterosexual (childbearing?) relationships, and the whole idea that the man is the breadwinner and the woman stays home to raise the children.
Fuck that.
No. Seriously. FUCK THAT.
I am a cis woman. I also happen to be gay, and in a happy, stable relationship that’s now lasted nearly twice as long as the average het marriage, but even if I wasn’t, the idea that somehow my worth is tied up entirely in a man and children – no. I will provide for myself, thank you very much, and if you care at all for children, I’m one of the last people you want raising them. I resent anyone telling me how to live my life when I’m not hurting anyone.
The USA currently is no more or less ‘full of sin’ than anywhere else, at any point in history. Except, possibly the sin of selfishness at the expense of others. You know, the sort of selfishness that says “I am special, and screw everyone who doesn’t live exactly as I do.”
Also, please stop referring to “Christian values” when you’re really talking about (your view of) Catholic values. Christianity is far more varied than you seem to be willing to admit, and I know a large number of very devout Christians that are pro-choice, and pro-feminism. Some of them are even, *gasp* Catholic! They just understand that there is a separation between Church and State, and that this is a GOOD thing.
Pro-Patria Truthiness: Pecunium, I am a Democrat.
But I need a, “right wing” woman to straighten me out.
Find me a “right-winger” who is a democrat. Explain to me why this, “right winger” is going to be able to “straighten me out”, what with the whole, “submission to your husband thing”.
I was not saying that I personally think a right-wing should tame you; I was sharing someone else’s opinion.
To what end? The rhetorical flourish is stupid if you don’t think the content has merit.
Although Christianity should be privileged in the United States, we will attempt to seek consulatations with other religions as well, through a Council of Ecumenical Theological Institutionalization and State Guardianship, which will include both men and women of good character
Ah… a theocracy with lip-service to tolerance.
What about the whole, “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s” argument of some fella called Jesus. I thought he was some sort of Christian guru?
It will not replace our current constitutional democracy.
Other than removing the separation of Church and State, and freedom of religion, and overlaying a specific stripe of oppressive christianity over everything. Apart from that it will be just like the 1970s.
Right.
Any word from the Vatican yet? Oh wait, it’s Sunday, the Curia might be busy.
But Honestly, I think you are a sock. It’s not that no one believes as you do, it’s that you are pushing the levels of stupid, and you are both vague and overwrought. It’s painting the lily, at once to delicate (some women you know thought I ought to be turned over to the inquisition for my heresies… but you (from the goodness of your heart persuaded them? Right).
You also don’t speak quite the right lingo. If you were a Catholic fundy, say of the Tridentine stripe (pretty much where you are painting yourself, “democrat”, or not), you would have had stock answers to my questions; because they are the questions Catholic debate on the subject of abortion.
You lack deep plausibility.
I do not support the objectivication of foreign women.
I agree. You don’t choose to limit it to foreign women.
The statistics show that many women support abortion’s legality in only some circumstances.
OOOh… argument ad populem: Many people support legal discrimination and/or slavery.
Gonna tell us that’s a proof of moderate thinking?
No? Why not?
AH… right, it can’t be used to prop up your denial of women’s right to independence and bodily autonomy.
Got it.
No, it doesn’t.
1: There is no such thing as, “Christianity”. There are a lot of Christianities. The ratio is about 1:1 to the number of christians.
2: What “christianity” shows is the “best way” to interact with God If God is the Christian God It’s a piss poor way to interact with the Reform Jewish God, and completely unworkable with the Aztec/Hindu/Maori/Greek gods.
Logic, you fails.
I have to go to work. I’ll deal with the rest of your bullshit later.
@ProPatria
Yeah, there’s a difference between just enjoying someone’s company and fetishizing them, and I really hope you’re doing the first.
How long is ProPatria going to stick with his moderation shtick.
I’m not good at dates, so I wouldn’t be saying ‘x years ago’ because I don’t like making a fool of myself much, but:
*It used to be that women wanting to vote was ‘radical’ or whatever, and I hope you’d feel like a fucker making an argument that women should compromise on this whole vote thing. (Heck, still some people like this, but not considered ‘moderate’ anymore).
*People being pro-slavery probably used to be considered closer to moderate, and that was still fucking wrong. Moderate does not necessarily mean good. (And I hate using this example because it sounds too much like racism is over when it isn’t, but I’m hoping for things even trollboy can see are despicable.)
Much more but you’re boring and I only feel like typing out two examples.
Citation needed! And no, the bible is not a citation.
O really? What’s the bug up your butt at the moment? Evul Sluts being slutty? How dare they have sex! Abortion? Abortion is so glorified we’re going through all this shit again! Though this damn argument was over before I was born! Are you one of those people who starts crying because gay people actually want to be married?
Ninja’d by pecunium much more concisely.
I’ll have to go look back at some more of your own postings to figure out how we came out so similarly without knowing each other.
Oh, I LOL’d. Yeah, you and him and every other fucking troll that’s ever come on this board. So many radical thinkers, yet coincidentally all spouting the exact same reactionary bullshit! What are the odds?
“You’re correct that we will always have sin. Too many Christians forget that. But never has it been so glorified, celebrated and defended.”
…did you intend to call me one of your stock? Because no, just no. I’m going to be polite to the religious people around here that I respect and not lay out a point by point thesis on why your god is evil. But short version? Your god is a vengeful god, and that’s inherently a bad thing.
Second, really? Never? Cuz see, I know my history well enough, meaning I know Rome, and the dark ages, and wtf the Victorian era was like behind the curtain. And you know what? Society, as a whole, is healthier when you’d call “deviance” is open. That is, letting people be with who they want, assuming the relationship is consensual, will always be better than driving that relationship underground and punishing the people involved solely for being in that relationship — LGBT people are still disinclined to report crime because of how people respond, and holy fuck is it risky for trans* people. Because we’re not proper humans, just delusional, need to be fixed. Despite trans* people having existed in societies across the globe for eons.
Point here? You aren’t calling for a less sinful society, you’re calling for a less openly sinful society where people in “sinful” relationships can’t seek legal redress for things like rape and assault. Of course, it seems like you don’t want those redressed to exist in straight cis relationships either.
But whatever, your god would probably just consider me delusional anyways, “boy or girl, pick one (no wait, I assigned you one, deal with it)”. And gods know I’ve been told enough times that I could somehow pray my way out of being bipolar!
—–
Did I tell y’all that gender came up with my new meds-psych? “Boy or girl, pick one” is my paraphrasing of that conversation. Pecunium will attest that I was fucking livid. Don’t want to transition => “oh so not gender identity disorder then”. Trans* isn’t a mental illness, even by the DSM now, but apparently my options are yes it is, or totally okay with my anatomy, yep! (Gods, how about not keen on surgery? Like, closest I’ve had was my wisdom teeth out!)
@Argenti Aertheri
Sorry about your new med psych 🙁 Jedi hugs if you want them.
@Argenti, That sucks. Argh. Of course you were livid. More hugs, if they’re wanted.
Thanks guys.
I still find it hilarious that pecunium needs to be tamed, like he’s some wild beast that might attack with only minor provocation. Self-control, untamed animals do not exactl have it.
Idk though pecunium, you tamed or domesticated? What was the difference there?
(Note to everyone else, we were discussing such terms not terribly long ago. It terms of cats and what not, not humans!)
@Kid
Fair question. I admit maybe I haven’t worked out a solid definition yet and have been taking the “I know it when I see it” approach, but then again, I’m not a lawmaker. It seems like “speech which denigrates a person or people based on race, gender, ability, etc”. I think you would probably need to generate a list of protected classes, which I admit has its own flaws.
I’m hoping we’re just having a misunderstanding or I’m just being stupid, because I really didn’t think I was saying anything that terrible. I’m so sorry 🙁
@Argenti
I don’t disagree. I just think that the “leads to violence” issue is broader than the law currently allows for. To me, for example, there seems to be a clear line from “God is punishing the US for homosexual marriage” and other such homophobic crap to anti-gay violence, but US law disagrees. There are, however, countries and international bodies that have sought to outlaw “incitement to discrimination” or “incitement to racism”, and I can’t say I disapprove (though I’m open to being corrected).
IDK, this article on stochiastic terrorism was kind of a lightbulb moment for me in terms of what counts (or should count) as “incitement to violence”, if anyone wants to get a better sense of where I’m coming from.
[Don’t mind me, I just keep forgetting to tick the “notify me of new comments button” when I comment. I’m ticking it now.]
@Kittehserf & Marie: Thank you. Jedi hugs are always appreciated! And yeah, I’m going to be careful not to click on MRM related links in the near future. I’ve been a bit too on edge lately, and can’t really deal with a lot right now. The discussions are always fun, though.
@Argenti: That’s awful. Jedi hugs from me too if you want them.
Talacaris (note I have chosen to not shorten your name; since 1: I don’t use diminutives of this name, even with my friends, and 2: we aren’t friends, pretend to be a 1/2 decent fellow and refrain from doing the same).
What, . Isn’t just asking question and playing devil’s advocate a behaviour feminists generally frown on (calling it derailing &c)
To ask questions for which one is only looking to stir trouble is a thing moral people oppose. That’s not actual Devil’s Advocacy; that’s stirring shit (which you keep attempting, as here, and failing. If you want to be a trolls’ troll, you need to step up your game. This isn’t even Bush League stuff, it’s more T-Ball).
Asking questions (about positions one may, or may not, hold) is useful, when a person has outlined a position which is weak on those issues. Since the person calling themselves PPT, did just that; with a declarative statement the Catholic Church has an unassailable moral argument I, using Catholic Doctrines [from which springs the actual term, “Advocatus Diabolus”, which is {or was, Ratzy did away with it, for reasons which seem dubious} an official participant in the question of canonising a new saint], posed relevant questions, relating to the topic he raised.
So, my little darling boy, you failed (again) in both your attempt to make a trollish stink, and in your attempt to say I was playing dirty pool.
Vocabulary, an understanding of argument and rhetoric, and some grasp of how to pick a fight are still lacking in the toolbox you need to troll; at all, much less to the effect you desire. At this rate you will (for the third year running) not even be in consideration for TOTY.
So sad, to be failing so abjectly at one of one’s life ambitions. We can only hope you are young, and still have years to work on your goals and dreams; perhaps you may even become a decent human being.
Hope springs eternal, and all that.
PPT: You’re correct that we will always have sin. Too many Christians forget that. But never has it been so glorified, celebrated and defended.
Au contraire, mon frere. Lest we forget there was the Restoration Court of Charles II, and various other monarchies.
There were the indulgent satyries of late Rome (post Constantine). There were the dissolute days of Justinian, and the interesting heresy (of which Rasputin seems to have a been something of an adherent) that sa God is all loving, and all forgiving, that nothing pleases Him more than forgiving his errant children; so that those who sin the most (while not harming their fellow men) are those whom God loves the best, and will be most elevated in Heaven.
Argenti: Idk though pecunium, you tamed or domesticated? What was the difference there?
I am civilised. I am not, necessarily, “nice” (though am usually fairly precise and exact: see Prophecies: Agnes Nutter, Witch”)