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.
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.
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…
@sarahlizhousespouse
That could be Code Maroon.
“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?
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.
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”
“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.
their, not there.
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.”
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.
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.
I have, of course, been told before that is *my* responsibility (or “role as a woman”) to bear children. Not by feminists.
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?
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.
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.
“Excuse me BUT men do NOT have TITS!! Women have tits; men have CHESTS!”
Is this guy for real?
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.
“Remember when the feminists burned their bras in the street?” No.
Cassandra! No one warned me there are cockrub warriors rubbing cocks on the page!
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…
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…
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 Onattempted murder. The cops aren’t always right.@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.
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.
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.