The MRA hissy fit over Facebook continues. Over on A Voice for (Human) Men, our old friend John “The Other” Hembling offers up his take on the whole controversy, which has roused the usually torpid MRAs to “activism,” and somehow manages to be even more overheated and incoherent than even Paul Elam before him — and at times nearly as ponderous as the legendarily ponderous Fidelbogen as well.
His argument, if it can be called that, is as follows: by demanding that Facebook remove violent images of rape and abuse posted as “jokes,” the coalition of feminists who recently got Facebook to agree to ban violently misogynistic images are therefore endorsing what Hembling has decided is the “strongest signifier of fascism” — censorship.
Now, censorship is not actually the “strongest signifier” of fascism, merely one of many ingredients in the fascist souffle — alongside such things as, you know, authoritarian rule under a powerful dictator, nationalism, racism, etc. (Also they tend to have a thing about uniforms.)
And Facebook’s removal of rape “meme” pictures and the like is not exactly akin to a one-party dictatorship taking over the media and orchestrating massive book burnings. (Heck, I’m not exactly sure what exactly is supposed to make Facebook’s “censorship” any different from A Voice for Men’s recent announcement that it was clamping down on comments that Paul Elam thinks are too “distracting.”)
But even setting all this aside, Hembling’s charges against “Laura Bates, Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman, and every their [sic] signatory to their open letter” don’t make a lot of sense. Here’s his grand summing-up of his would-be indictment:
It is a letter calling on the largest social networking site in the world to institute a program of demographically selective censorship; to institute the practice that is the strongest signifier of fascism.
Bates, Chemaly, and Friedman are not merely endorsing violence against those most impacted by it.
Um, how exactly does asking Facebook to take down pictures depicting violence make someone a proponent of violence?
Hembling doesn’t bother to explain this, and blathers on ahead to his melodramatic conclusion:
They are not merely ignorant or indifferent to the foundational nature of free speech to the establishment of all other human rights. They are not merely content to propagate false, fraudulent models of domestic violence which continue the conditions and causes of domestic violence. They are not simply adherents of an ideology of hatred and violence, wrapping itself in the increasingly transparent veneer of false and pious humanism.
Dude, you’re sounding like a stuck record here. You’ve already accused them of promoting hatred and violence — heck, you accused them of promoting violence at the start of this very paragraph!
Hembling — recently hired on to a paid position as AVFM’s Editor in Chief — desperately needs an editor himself. (Not to mention a proofreader.)
Laura Bates, Soraya Chemaly, Jaclyn Friedman are successfully promoting the signifying feature of fascism. They are fascists, and if you support their cause, that of censorship, you may be a fascist as well.
*looks at self*
No, I’m good. Pretty sure I’m not a fascist.
Hembling ends with a surreal:
Thank you for your kind attention.
Dear readers: let me just ask you to ponder the question I find myself pondering every time I read something by Mr. Hembling: Can there really anyone who reads posts like this from him and says to themself, “this makes sense!” Because his posts all seem like histrionic grandstanding to me, filled with startling leaps of illogic I think would be even too much for dedicated MRAs to make.
I can only imagine that Hembling’s MRA fans really only pay attention to the invective, and don’t bother with the (lack of ) logic, and that for them this whole post basically comes down to: feminists are fascists, feminists support violence, feminists hate men, these three ladies are bad.
They certainly aren’t checking his facts — indeed, Hembling’s piece includes numbered footnotes in the text, but he left out the actual footnotes, and links, that were supposed to run at the end of the piece, as is AVFM custom; his post has been up for several days, and no one there seeems to have even noticed the missing footnotes.
Also, Mr. Hembling, if you’re reading this, here’s a little PROTIP for you: if you want to pretend that you guys are, you know, actually against violence, you might want to think about removing that terrorist manifesto from your “activism” section — you know, the one that calls on MRAs to literally firebomb courthouses and police stations. Not really good PR for an alleged “human rights” movement, that!
David Futrelle
Once again a “men’s Rights organization” shows us that they’re more into attacking and demonizing women than defending men’s rights. Someone mentioned that there’s a blog that calls “Men’s rights activists” like these, “men’s power activists” That’s so much more accurate.
Civil Rights movement – Abolition of Jim Crow.
Feminist movement – Women’s Suffrage.
Labor movement – Eight Hour Day
Men’s Rights movement – Rape Memes On Facebook.
David Futrelle
By the way, that picture of the literal anti feminist Nazis, is perfect for this story.
@J
You Wrote,
——————————————————————————————————————-
Civil Rights movement – Abolition of Jim Crow.
Feminist movement – Women’s Suffrage.
Labor movement – Eight Hour Day
Men’s Rights movement – Rape Memes On Facebook.
——————————————————————————————————————-
I agree, they don’t even deserve to be put in the same category. In fact for the most part, given the extreme sexism of so many MRA and how they’re done so little to actually defend men’s rights, it would make more sense to put them in the same category as the people who posed those movements.
J, I think I’m in love with you.
John Rambling
So Hembling is in a “paid ” position? Where does the money come from to pay any crew member on that leaky ship, AVFM?
Does anyone know much money websites like AVFM generate?
I thought libertarians were supportive of private freedoms. Facebook, a private company, decided to not allow images of victimized people (as far as I understand, there’s no “picture of victimized men are encouraged” clause). They also won’t allow porn or bomb-making pages. Facebook was convinced by civilian groups, which I guess in a non-fascist world would have to be forced not to speak.
Well, I guess I misunderstood libertarianism. It’s all about forcing private companies to give a platform to MRAs and shutting down civilian speech. Freedom!
This whole “feminists *say* they want sensible things, but deep down in their heart they want Stalin to come back to life” argument is getting pretty Glenn Beck-ish.
Ha ha, that’s true! We need to buy a chalkboard for JohntheOther so he can scribble his conspiracy nonsense all over it.
Half of me believes Mr. Rambling knows he’s spouting nonsense, and just patching it over with this ornate gibberish.
But it’s possible that he’s actually making himself confused with all these embedded clauses and vocabulary he barely grasps. If someone asked him to explain his logic in spare, 5 to 7 word sentences, maybe he would see how irrational his story is…
I hope AVfM is paying taxes on their donations. I don’t think the IRS would give two shits about their whining, should they audit them.
Someone really needs to educate them about FREEZE PEACH and censorship. A private company can do pretty much what it wants in regards to a person’s speech.
Seriously!
From the sale of Wooly Bumblebee mugs.
Think of all the whining which they could do if they got audited. It would PROVE the gov’t is run by feminists.
I’m having fun with the comments too… How about this one, by Peter Wright.
No hyperbolic language here. Also, savour the irony of the lack of understanding of the meaning of Occam’s razor, coupled with the denial of private/individual rights.
To keep with the irony, Sasha shows how the horrible murder of a soldier in London was in fact caused by femino-islamists:
New disciple of Tom Martin?
The money comes from “donations” to Paul Elam, of course. But Elam is not a non-profit and therefore, of course, accounts for every penny to the IRS, and of course pays taxes on every dime. Naturally.
I’m curious as to where that picture of the anti-feminists in front of the swastika flag comes from? Was that from some specific event somewhere?
Of course, someone linked that Spearhead post claiming that a feminist admitted to be turned off by men feminists (new Spearhead motto: “who wants real facts when you can make them up”).
Yay! More feminist men for me!
Dude, you need an editor. Bad.
@grumpycatisagirl
I think that was a neonazi young girl band called “Prussian Blue.” If I remember well, there was a documentary made about them.
At least Prussian Blue showed that bigots can debigot themselves:
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/07/18/neo-nazi-twins-drop-racism-for-love-and-marijuana/
Oh I was wrong, the bonde looked like one of them. Nevermind.
Ok, must quit reading the deluded to do something constructive.
Before I go, one more blatant example of lack of self awareness:
A woman writes a pretty bland comment about how equality should be for men and women. She says she’s open to accepting their argument, but that they seem to be one-sided. Super tame, meaningless, mild stuff.
The response from commenters? “Ban her!”
😀
I just…how does actively campaigning to stop minimalizing domestic violence and giving support to vicitims “continue the conditions and causes of domestic violence.”?!?!
Ugh. It’s probably been said before, (and better), but I honestly think these specific men fear censorship so much because they have never been forced to silence. In either a personal, political or racial/gendered/sexual level; They’ve never had to squash the biting retaliation to an unwanted sexual advance for fear of retribution; Or the pained smile as they sit through another lecture as to why taking control of your own body is a sin; Or had to listen as they are told time and again by society that their only worth is their beauty or virtue or chastity. Any response to this brings with it a deluge of hate and abuse.
My brother is a self defined socialist who constantly says it’s ok for him to say sexist, racist and ableist slurs because of free speech. I get so panicky when talking with him about these things that I can’t coherently argue back, unless in email, and even then, he never seems to consider my views. In all other respects, he is a ok person, but in these things, oh dear.
I thought I’d delurk now. I’ve been wanting to for a while, but I’m very anxious about talking anywhere, so I might not always comment.
I come bearing chocolate cookies, standby your USB ports! Oh and brain bleach! *struggles to learn how to embed… gets scared, gives up…*
Have a misandric bubble bath bunny! https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7533900288/h9DBF7547/
and one of my go to sites for brain bleach: http://streetmogs.blogspot.co.uk/
I don’t want Stalin to come back to life, but I wouldn’t mind it if Trotsky did.