Categories
"proxy violence" a voice for men a woman is always to blame crackpottery evil women homophobia imaginary backwards land misogyny MRA oppressed men racism that's completely wrong victim blaming whaaaaa?

Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men finds a woman to blame for Trayvon Martin’s death

Rachel Jeantel, Men's Rights scapegoat
Rachel Jeantel, Men’s Rights scapegoat

Well, it took them a little while, but the folks at Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men have finally figured out an angle on the Trayvon Martin case. According to regular AVFM contributor August Løvenskiolds, the whole thing can be blamed on a woman — specifically, Rachel Jeantel, the friend of Trayvon Martin who was on the phone with him just before he was killed.

According to Løvenskiolds, who seems to know more about what happened that night than it is in fact possible for him to know,

During a post-trial interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, Rachel Jeantel, the reluctant phone witness who was talking to Martin just before Martin assaulted Zimmerman, finally revealed that she had warned Martin that Zimmerman might be gay, or even, a gay rapist preparing to approach Martin.

This isn’t news; Jeantel said in her testimony that she told Martin she was afraid the man following him might be a rapist. But Løvenskiolds moves quickly from “sworn testim0ny” to “making shit up.”

Martin freaked out over the idea that Zimmerman might have sexual designs on him or his family, and this seems to have precipitated the attack on Zimmerman – which, of course, would make the attack a violation of Zimmerman’s human rights as a (purportedly) gay man, and make Jeantel the proxy instigator of the attack.

Yes, that’s right, the whole thing was “violence by proxy” instigated by an evil homophobic woman.

Would you like some armchair psychoanalysis to go with your unfounded speculation?

So, Trayvon Martin was killed in the act of gay-bashing (in Jeantel’s and his own minds, anyway). The fury of Martin’s sudden turnabout attack is now explicable (he had been avoiding being followed up to the point of the introduction of the gay rapist idea) and it indicates the degree of Martin’s revulsion that he went from flight to fight mode in so short a time.

And this of course makes it all All About The Menz Rights.

The men’s human rights issues related to a woman (Jeantel) being held blameless for using gay/rape threats to precipitate man-on-man violence ought to be obvious.

It’s always a woman’s fault, isn’t it?

Elsewhere in the post, Løvenskiolds seriously suggests that when a police dispatcher told Zimmerman that “we don’t need you” to follow Martin, that was Super Seekret Man Code for “we actually DO need you to follow him.” No, really.

Such negative suggestions are as clear to savvy men as this: “Honey, you don’t need to buy me roses for Valentine’s Day” – meaning, of course, “if you know what is good for you, I’d better get flowers AND chocolate AND jewelry AND a nice dinner AND…”

The fact that the dispatcher further expected Zimmerman to meet with officers – drafting Zimmerman into the militia, as it were – made it clear to Zimmerman that his continued pursuit of Martin was expected by the police as well.

The societal expectation of militia service by all able-bodied adult males is certainly a men’s human rights issue and an indication of inequality between the genders that needs to be redressed.

MRAs may not be good at much, but they’ve got mental gymnastics down to a science.

EDIT: I added a graf after the first quote from Løvenskiolds clarifying that Jeantel says she did in fact tell Martin that she thought Zimmerman might be a rapist.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

264 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lady Mondegreen
8 years ago

I never thought of this article as blaming something on a woman

They’re not the sharpest needles on the pine, are they?

By the way, I googled this. A few conservative sites (The Blaze for one) have tried to make something out of it (Martin attacked Zimmerman because homophobia! Liberals aren’t talking about it because they’re hypocrites!) but nobody is rising to the bait.

…it’s like trying to explain to a toad that Apocalypse Now isn’t about Wagner and the smell of napalm.

😀 I am so stealing this.

Nezumi
Nezumi
8 years ago

I’m not sure a toad could understand Apocalypse Now well enough to even get the impression that it’s about Wagner and the smell of napalm.

kittehserf
8 years ago

A toad would probably understand Apocalypse Now or pretty much anything better than MRAs do. They’re like cane toads with extra poison, less wit and less charm.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Jesus Christ, what kind of weapons-grade evil is this shit? They have never met an issue they can’t try to co-opt and twist to suit their nasty fucking worldview. This makes me want to barf.

LOL at the AVfMer who thought Martin was trying to make purple drink. What a maroon.

Pear_tree
Pear_tree
8 years ago

I’m just going to point out, the probable reason he bought the skittles and soda was to go home and make purple drank, not to give it to some kid.
I am amused/annoyed by the fact that the only two options were
1) Give the items away to some kid
2) Make an illegal(?) drug
The possibility that Martin might eat the candy and drink the drink doesn’t even seem to cross this guys mind.

The MRA seem desperate for someone to blame but can’t seem to blame Zimmerman. The poor police dispatcher, anything she said would have been interpreted as “follow him” by some of these guys. As for blaming Jeantel, she is probably (unjustly) blaming herself already, poor woman.

Why can’t these guys understand being followed is scary? Zimmerman did the one thing that can almost always be considered a threat, he changed his actions based on the presence of an innocuous stranger that was not paying attention to him (and didn’t need help). I don’t know why it makes me angry when people act like Martin’s fear was wrong or prejudice rather than justified. It feels like these people are saying, “I will follow someone if I want to, and there is nothing you can do about it. You can’t fight back, you can’t run away and you can’t go the law”.

OccupyMedic
OccupyMedic
8 years ago

Yeah, because AVFM has been a stalwart supporter of gay rights and same sex marriage…. OH wait…

sredni_vashtar
sredni_vashtar
8 years ago

this is so hateful – the woman has just lost her friend, i hope she never reads lovenskiolds’ article.

i spend time on the AVFM site somtimes (yes, i know i’m a masochist) and i read this article before the manboobz feature on it. when i read it, the ‘speculation on martin’s sexuality’ that has since been removed by the editor was still in there. in it, lovenskiolds stated that because jeantel is ‘unattractive and overweight’ (his words) she could have no value as a friend or companion to a heterosexual man – no heterosexual man would hang out with her (because what would be the point?), so martin must have been gay. because martin was gay, he must have ‘projected’ his own gayness onto zimmerman in some Freudian way and attacked him in a self-loathing, homophobic fit. i swear i’m not making this up or misrepresenting lovenskiolds’ (now deleted) argument in any way.

also, can i just say how there’s nothing homophobic about thinking a stranger following you for no reason in the dark might be a sexual assaulter? it’s a LEGITIMATE ‘men’s rights’ issue that men, as well as women, can be and are the victims of sexual assault. i believe that lovenskiolds doesn’t care about the rights of men, or indeed of anyone. i believe he simply hates women.

Pear_tree
Pear_tree
8 years ago

Auggziliary, I think it comes from the fact that the women who say they don’t want roses but then are given them react well. I probably would, not because I wanted roses but because it would be insanely rude to say “I said I didn’t want roses, why the hell did you buy me roses?” I wouldn’t really want roses, they are lovely but killing a living thing for decoration seems so pointless.

Michael Søndberg Olsen

Sorry for the rant: storytelling is big interest of mine. It’s why I like and defend Anita Sarkeesian when dealing with detractors because – next to TvTropes – she’s actually bothering to observe such things (in videogames nonetheless) with some kind of intellectual approach.

That’s not a rant, it’s my thoughts expressed better than I could do. Seriously, I’ve been gaming since I was introduced to the world in late October ’79, but a huge part of modern gaming culture, the whole spoiled-brat shit of it, needs to stop thinking it’s male fantasy camp. A lot of games really are just Big Guy got Big Gun, BADOWBADOW!!! I actually love computer games, having grown up with them, literally. And Sarkeesian is pretty god damn great at pointing out their failings. But somehow that is threatening to the poor sensiblities of the mass market that is always catered to most.

Michael Søndberg Olsen

😀 I am so stealing this.

Steal away, m’lady.

Gennn
8 years ago

The number of women who say “I don’t want flowers” and then gets angry because they don’t get flowers (outside of sitcoms) is amazingly small. What tends to happen is something like this:

Person A: I know Valentines’ Day is coming up but money is tight right now.
Person B: You don’t have to get me a gift.
Person A assumes that statement means that they can ignore Valentine’s Day all together. They don’t even call or send an e-card or anything.
Person B: I can’t believe you ignored me on Valentine’s Day.
Person A takes this to mean that the previous statement about not getting a gift was a lie when, in reality, they just wanted a card or a home cooked meal or SOMETHING to make them know that they are cherished.

In addition to this, there’s really not much one can do IRL if one’s SO then goes ahead and buys the flowers AND the Chocolates AND the jewels *anyway*. Even if you know you can’t afford it or whatever.

I mean, what do you do? You smile graciously and act like you’re happy that they’re spoiling you, or you act like a total MRA stereotype with the “why the hell did you still buy this, we can’t afford this, blah blah”. Which one is more likely?

Which then just confirms that yes, indeed. Women don’t say what they want. It’s a vicious cycle. *sigh*

On their “theories” of Trayvon Martin, I can’t even

sarahlizhousespouse
8 years ago

@sredni_vashtar

“‘in it, lovenskiolds stated that because jeantel is ‘unattractive and overweight’ (his words) she could have no value as a friend or companion to a heterosexual man – no heterosexual man would hang out with her (because what would be the point?)”

There are so many things wrong with that statement.

Let’s say for the sake of argument that a man is violating social standards by pursuing a friendship with a non-traditionally attractive woman, as it is expected that a man cannot or should not pursue friendship without ulterior motive (sex).

If a man DOES pursue such a friendship we can reach at least two different conclusions:
1) He is defying expectation by not adhering to norms of attractiveness and he DOES wish to have sex with his friend.
2) He is defying expectation by not adhering to norms of attractiveness and he DOES NOT wish to have sex with this friend.

There are at least three explanations for #2, if not more. (Note: I am not very well versed in sexuality so please chime in, folks)
1) He could be uninterested in the opposite sex and identifies as homosexual.
2) He could be uninterested in the opposite sex and identifies as asexual.
3) He could be interested in the opposite sex without the intention of sleeping with his friend. Therefore because he does not see friendship with non-traditionally attractive women as “pointless”. Again, defying the societal expectation.

If AVfM is interested in attacking societal norms which put men at a disadvantage, perhaps they could attack this kind of expectation which essential tells men “you’re wrong to be attracted to women societal deems unattractive” and “you can only pursue a relationship with a woman if that relationship is motivated by the desire to have sex.” That’s restrictive, dontcha think, AVfM?

You have to affirm a restrictive societal expectation in order to come to the conclusion which I quoted at the top. You also have to ignore other possibilities. How credulous.

Michael Søndberg Olsen

Is it okay if I don’t so much chime in, but just stare in awe?

anadiomene122
anadiomene122
8 years ago

Zimmerman is a pedophile. Even if Jeantel did warn Trayvon that he was being stalked by a known sexual predator, that’s just being a good friend…

I can’t think about this today.

Alice
Alice
8 years ago

What evidence is there to support that Zimmerman is a pedophile? I have never heard this allegation before.

Ally S
8 years ago

OT, but I’ve just stumbled across one of the dumbest images I’ve ever seen: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4280/1370898274928.jpg

Michael Søndberg Olsen

Uhh, Zimmerman may be a shithead of idiocy, but where the hell does this pedohile thing come from?
Ally s… just rename it xtrememaleinsecurtiy.jpg
Well, xtremrightwingracistmaleinsecurity.jpg, because Cthulhu’s Intern upthread was pretty much exactly right.

Ally S
8 years ago

@Michael

I’d rename it to imanmraandiwanttosoundedgyandcool.jpg

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Yeah idfk about pedophile given the age difference, but he molested a minor, fearing he might do it again, or worse, is reasonable.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

That should just be idk, not idfk, blame my apparently fat fingers.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

So wait, telling them they’re using a sterotype, or are th common denomitor in their recurring complaints, are shaming tactics? And any suggestion they might want to look into therapy is too? Cuz um, MRAs? If you hate everything, that just plain isn’t healthy, not in a “you’re mentally stable” way but in a “no, really, that can’t be good for your blood pressure” kind of way.

SittieKitty
8 years ago

Ally S, lol at that. Strawman much?

sarahlizhousespouse
8 years ago

There’s no code in there for using bad evidence. There should be. MRAs fold up like an accordion when faced with facts that don’t agree with their worldview.

katz
8 years ago

Ally S: Oh yes, the color codes! I love those. We used to constantly say “code vermilion!” or “code puce!” whenever someone complained about how we argue.

Amnesia
Amnesia
8 years ago

I find it telling how many people think it’s relevant to bring up Martin’s less-than-angelic qualities, like him getting in trouble at school or trying drugs, but don’t give a second thought to Zimmerman’s domestic violence history. Just ignore the racism behind the clear plastic curtain…

Amnesia
Amnesia
8 years ago

@sarahlizhousespouse
That could be Code Maroon.

grumpycatisagirl
8 years ago

“is ‘unattractive and overweight’ (his words) she could have no value as a friend or companion to a heterosexual man – no heterosexual man would hang out with her (because what would be the point?), ”

Really? That is jaw-droppingly awful. It’s telling that the editor’s note says this was removed because it “was not intended to reflect on the sexuality of all black males.”

Apparently there was no problem at all with the blatant misogyny. And misandry, for that matter. Men can’t see any worth in female human beings who they aren’t attracted to unless they are gay?

Ally S
8 years ago

I’d support Martin even if he had trace amounts of cocaine in his body (because I don’t think personal drug use is immoral). But the fact that people are bringing up the fact that his autopsy revealed trace amounts of THC, of all drugs, in his body is fucking absurd.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Ally — I fucking know! Like, he could’ve had a joint last weekend for all that test shows!

Amnesia — the brick wall I keep running into with that line of conversation is that Martin attacked Zimmerman so it’s relevant. And the evidence against that theory is “STFU THE JURY SAID SO”

grumpycatisagirl
8 years ago

“Men are shirking there God-given responsibility to marry and bear children” is an argument I hear feminists make all the time. Except not once, ever.

grumpycatisagirl
8 years ago

their, not there.

Ally S
8 years ago

I also think it’s hilarious how he thinks that feminists try to shame men by telling them to “man up” even though I have seen maybe one or two self-identified feminists tell a man to “man up.”

becausescience
becausescience
8 years ago

Yeah Martin would have had no way of knowing that Zimmerman had been accused of molesting a child, but Martin himself was a teenage boy, and in the context of a teenage boy being followed around by an older man in a vehicle, I could see where the idea that Zimmerman could’ve been a sexual predator looking for a victim could seem like a real possibility.

becausescience
becausescience
8 years ago

Argenti, like about 90% of the people who are pro Zimmerman I talk to will just end the argument with “we’ll the jury said so, its over, ok?”

And isn’t this largely the same crowd that loves to scream about “FREE SPEECH!” whenever people call them out for being assholes? And aren’t people just exercising their own right to free speech in criticizing the verdict?

It’s almost as though these valiant defenders of free speech think it should only be for them.

grumpycatisagirl
8 years ago

I have, of course, been told before that is *my* responsibility (or “role as a woman”) to bear children. Not by feminists.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Yeah “the jury said” is not a “get out of thinking” pass. And then there’s the ones who say that int his case, but insist that OJ’s guilty. Hm, I wonder what could possibly be different between the two cases?

becausescience
becausescience
8 years ago

“Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children”

I see this as being far less a “things that feminists believe” thing than a “things that traditionalists who think that the mid 20th Century vision of the nuclear family is a societal ideal that must always be maintained believe” thing.

Of course, to mra’s, if any woman says something, even if it’s something feminists don’t agree with, it’s because of feminism.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
8 years ago

Are you saying that there are bad ideas about gender that feminists aren’t responsible for? ARE YOU? That’s misandry.

BTW I’m still obsessing over the Cock-Rub Warriors thing and look what I found. In most of their stuff the misogyny is buried under at least half a layer of bullshit, but this particular guy apparently just can’t help himself.

http://man2manalliance.org/crw/warriorspeak/shirtless.html

Cool story, bro.

Ally S
8 years ago

“Excuse me BUT men do NOT have TITS!! Women have tits; men have CHESTS!”

Is this guy for real?

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Ally — probably. And this is somehow related to “no shit, no shoes, no service” (they really need to add pants, just saying)

Definitely cool story bro.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“Remember when the feminists burned their bras in the street?” No.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Cassandra! No one warned me there are cockrub warriors rubbing cocks on the page!

saintnick86
8 years ago

That’s not a rant, it’s my thoughts expressed better than I could do. Seriously, I’ve been gaming since I was introduced to the world in late October ’79, but a huge part of modern gaming culture, the whole spoiled-brat shit of it, needs to stop thinking it’s male fantasy camp. A lot of games really are just Big Guy got Big Gun, BADOWBADOW!!! I actually love computer games, having grown up with them, literally. And Sarkeesian is pretty god damn great at pointing out their failings. But somehow that is threatening to the poor sensiblities of the mass market that is always catered to most.

As a nerd/geek, the idea of making things like comics or videogames more accessible and bring a more varied audience – most especially women – was a good thing. As was people taking these things more seriously than if they were just toys, and actually Art like film or prose. All this whining about “fake geek girls” and how women are “invading male space” is both bewildering and aggravating. It’s like when, in one episode of Futurama, Leela enters a virtual chatroom with various nerdy types talking about wanting to pick up chicks – only to then cower when Leela introduces herself and is apparently more than willing to get a date.

When it comes to Sarkeesian, a lot of the complaints seem to come from the “she’s saying these things at me” mentality and thus bringing up the dynamic of Damsels in Distress makes them think she’s talking about them in some super-duper secret code. Yeah. sorry if the connection there seems utterly nonexistent to me. I’m pretty certain that, when she talks of Damsels being “objectified”, she isn’t referring to actual cases of people who needed rescue. I got into an argument with someone who thought that and whose arguments were always utterly obtuse (“well, fiction reflects reality and thus reflects real attitudes” – which would mean every writer who does murder-mysteries love homicides, even though it’s actually because they are fun and/or interesting to plot and also people like reading such things).

Again, I can’t help but think it’s because people are becoming increasingly incapable – or just too intellectually lazy – of understanding another perspective. It’s why people get enraged by bad reviews of their favorite film instead of just saying “eh, I get your point, but I disagree”. Because critics, like Sarkeesian, are just analyzing the work they saw from their perspective. They are not passing judgment on anyone who liked it. Yet people will translate “this movie was bad” to “you have shitty taste in films”. Once again, they’re taking this shit way too personally…

MollyRen (@MollyRen)
8 years ago

Again, I can’t help but think it’s because people are becoming increasingly incapable – or just too intellectually lazy – of understanding another perspective. It’s why people get enraged by bad reviews of their favorite film instead of just saying “eh, I get your point, but I disagree.”

I dunno how willing I am to say people are “becoming”. Like, I didn’t just come out of the womb knowing how to critique things, you know? I took an interest in it when I had a class that really got into the nuts and bolts of it, but I feel like it’s really an obscure skill.

People take things “personally” in fiction because, well, they’re made to appeal to our emotions. That doesn’t mean that people aren’t douchnozzles about it, but man, I wish I could believe that this utopia of critique really existed on a large scale…

Falconer
8 years ago

Hell no, leave that to cops so we don’t end up with those “bad” kids murdered.

There’s a Chicago former cop who just got 40 years on the charge of We Shot You 28 Times And You Didn’t Die, We Erased Evidence And The First Jury Mostly Acquitted You But Got Hung Up On attempted murder. The cops aren’t always right.

Falconer
8 years ago

@CassandraSays: Oh god, the crimes they do to the ST:TNG font!

Also:

FIGHTING IS GOOD

FIGHTING IS MAN

It’s like someone is misremembering Zardoz.

Nova
Nova
8 years ago

I actualy got into a few fights in school, even as teeny, skinny and non threatening as I was/am. Why should this have any bearing on my actions when someone starts tailing me when I’m walking down the street?

Also, something I’ve been thinking about is… why didn’t the Stand Your Ground laws apply to Trayvon Martin, the way they did for George Zimmerman? I’m sure that Trayvon felt threatened by Zimmermans behavior and feared bodily harm. Yet, for some reason, Trayvon standing his ground by confronting Zimmerman wasn’t ok, while Zimmerman was totally justified in murdering someone.

I guess those laws are only for white people.

Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Nova — because apparently the only question was whether the defendant (in this case Zimmerman) was justified, not whether what he was responding to was justified. Which is really not legal elsewhere — you don’t get to start a fight and then shoot when the other person throws a punch. That whole proportional response thing.

So yes, except I’d say they aren’t for black people, given Zimmerman is (part?) Hispanic.