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.
Just noticed this bit of casual racism in the AVFM comments, from “Falcor.”
(Purple drank is a narcotic concoction made with codeine cough syrup, popular with some rappers.)
The commenter then links to a wikipedia article that mentions that “purple drank” is often made with sprite or moutain dew and jolly ranchers. So, wrong kind of candy.
And of course Martin wasn’t actually carrying soda; he was carrying Arizona brand fruit drink. So, wrong drink.
But, hey, close enough when you’re sliming a murdered black teenager, huh?
Of course, even if he had been carrying sprite and jolly ranchers, there would have been no reason to think he was going to make “purple drank” with it.
I buy sprite and jolly ranchers all the time. Because I like sprite and jolly ranchers (not at the same time). No one’s ever accused me of buying some of the raw ingredients for “purple drank.”
But I guess when a black teenage boy buys a drink in a can and some sort of candy he must be up to no good, huh?
The whole “Trayvon was going to make purple drank” theory has been all over the right-wing/racist wing of the internet.
http://wonkette.com/523148/stupidest-man-on-internet-poses-stupidest-theory-kill-trayvon-ahead-of-time-so-he-couldnt-make-drugs-at-home
hxxp://www.stormfront.org/forum/t895643/
Thanks, Falcor, for giving us some insight into how you think, and where you get your information.
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.
😀 I am so stealing this.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
Yeah, because AVFM has been a stalwart supporter of gay rights and same sex marriage…. OH wait…
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.
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.
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.
Steal away, m’lady.
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
@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.
Is it okay if I don’t so much chime in, but just stare in awe?
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.
What evidence is there to support that Zimmerman is a pedophile? I have never heard this allegation before.
OT, but I’ve just stumbled across one of the dumbest images I’ve ever seen: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/4280/1370898274928.jpg
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.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/16/1110489/–Witness-9-says-George-Zimmerman-molested-her-for-10-years
@Michael
I’d rename it to imanmraandiwanttosoundedgyandcool.jpg
Yeah idfk about pedophile given the age difference, but he molested a minor, fearing he might do it again, or worse, is reasonable.
That should just be idk, not idfk, blame my apparently fat fingers.
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.
Ally S, lol at that. Strawman much?
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.