“Compassion for Boys and Men.” This, the slogan of Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men, has always struck me as a teensy bit ironic, given that site founder and head angry dude Paul Elam spends much of his time berating other men, and really only seems interested in showing “compassion,” if it can be called that, for those who not only agree with everything he says but also donate money to him.
Recently Mr. Elam ran across a four-year-old video that’s been posted to the Men’s Rights subreddit numerous times in recent days. It shows a young woman assaulting a campus preacher, and knocking him off a platform, after falsely accusing him of groping her. (The woman, a student at Middle Tennessee State University, was arrested and later pled guilty to assault charges, getting a year’s probation, some community service and a fine; the preacher suffered only minor injuries.)
But the fact that a few people in the crowd cheered for the attacker apparently convinced Elam that everyone in the world except him and a few of his pals are worthless pieces of crap.
Look at the crowd cheer this violent lunatic on. It isn’t just her that is the problem. We live in a psychotic world where women can do whatever they want to men, as long as they vomit up a lie, like “get your hand off my breast.” It is a world which praises sickness, as long as the person to suffer for it is male.
Well, actually, it looked like most of the people in the crowd were a bit shocked by her assault and the preacher’s fall, and several people came forward to help him. And I’m not quite sure how Elam managed to miss the fact that the woman in question was led off by police at the end of the video.
In this culture, most every woman is Sharon Osbourne. Most every man is Hugo Schwyzer.
By describing women as a bunch of “Sharon Osbournes,” Elam is not (I don’t think) suggesting that they are savvy, articulate women who’ve been able to not only survive but flourish in male-dominated industries; no, he’s making a reference to the one time that Osbourne made a horrible castration joke on national television, and suggesting that women are a bunch of evil harpies that love to fantasize about cutting men’s dicks off.
By referring to men as “Hugo Schwyzers” — Elam’s post was written before Schwyzer’s recent Twitter meltdown — he’s not (I don’t think) suggesting that men are all a bunch of manipulative predators who glom onto feminism as a way to exploit and manipulate women, but rather suggesting that they’re a bunch of obsequious manginas who let women walk all over them.
I feel confident in attributing these interpretations to Elam’s words because he’s made these arguments many times before. It’s pretty obvious that Elam hates women. It’s only a little less obvious that he hates most men as well.
But I don’t think it’s really this video that’s got Elam angry. It looks to me like he’s still stewing over a recent op-ed by libertarian anti-feminist Cathy Young — a writer in many ways deeply sympathetic to the Men’s Rights ideology — which took a passing shot at A Voice for Men and similar sites whose “steady diet of vulgar woman-bashing … discredits any valid points they may make.”
So far Elam’s site has run at least four other posts — possibly five? I’ve lost count — responding to the single sentence mentioning AVFM in her column, including one by him and another by a “brigade” of self-described “Honey Badgers” (female MRAs), but Elam can’t resist the opportunity to point out yet again that he’s going to remain as angry as he wants to be:
I do not give a rat’s fucking ass about offending or upsetting any of them.
This world does not deserve MHRAs that are decent or measured or considerate of the mainstreams sensibilities. This world deserves a jerk on the collar and a slap across the face and the flying spittle of rage that it earns with each man and boy that it denigrates and abuses.
“The Flying Spittle of Rage” makes a much better — and more accurate — slogan for AVFM than that boring old “Compassion for Boys and Men.”
Petition signed. I included the following comment:
“Anyone who says this seriously is already misunderstanding what rape culture is. It’s not “He committed rape, so he’s a hero,” so much as “He’s a hero, therefore what he did can’t really be rape.”
Seriously, thank you for this. I’ve never been able to articulate this so well when someone’s told me that I’m wrong that rape culture is real.
I also signed the petition. Thanks.
leftwingfox — no problem, that one bears repeating.
@freemage: It’s almost as if the people railing against a concept of “political correctness” seem to think there is nothing more actively harmful to their freedom than to be considerate of other people. Hmmmm….
@M Dubz: I hear that, and it’s why I rarely follow the Youtube atheists in particular anymore. They don’t believe in a god, sure, but that doesn’t give them the right to act all high and mighty about that fact. Especially when that seems to be the only social norm that they bother to apply good skepticism to. I’m not sure why racism, sexism or homophobia don’t require the same amount of examination to these people as a belief in a god, but they seem to be perfectly okay with upholding THAT status quo.
petition signed and shared on Facebook.
@entropistanon- Thank you! I always get cagey about critiquing the atheist movement, because it’s not like I have a problem with people being atheists (which lots of religious people do, and that’s not cool). The problem I have with them is when they are not living up to their social mission, which is actually a problem I have with LOTS of groups, both religious and not.
If only human beings would just stop clinging to the notion that there are things (of any kind) that make them superior to other human beings . . .
@Ally S, @grumpycatisagirl
It was a major Eureka! moment for me when I figured that out. Sadly, a lot of people still don’t get it when I explain it to them.
I didn’t realize until I read that honeybadger brigade piece that damsel was a verb.
M Dubz
An excellent attitude, and one I seek to foster in reverse. I think I know the factors that lead to that mentality*, but it’s still so painfully wrongheaded that it’s frustrating to deal with.
You are, in some ways, pretty similar to myself prior to my adoption of atheism, in fact–I would call myself a political atheist–someone who believes in church/state separation, while still having faith.
*******
*: For the curious about how wrongheaded ideas form:
1: One of the big claims that many religionists make is that faith in a Higher Power is necessary to have a moral code. One of the key points made by the new atheist movement is that it is, in fact, possible to be “Good Without God”. And yes, in many areas, this is considered a controversial statement.
2: However, particularly among those brought up in unhealthily strict religious environments, there’s a need to internalize that position. Unfortunately, it’s very easy to go from, “[X] doesn’t mean I can’t be a good person,” to “I’m a good person because of [X].” (The reason the strict upbringing makes this jump easier is that individuals brought up in liberal, social-justice-aware religious environments–such as myself–have a much stronger personal experience that “good” and “faith” are perpendicular to one another, not correlative. Escapees from fundamentalist faiths tend to associate the often abusive social behavior with faith itself, failing to realize that they are making a categorization error.)
3: This, of course, leads to them assuming that, if being an atheist means they are good, having faith must make other people bad. Again, if their personal experience doesn’t undermine that conclusion, it becomes a lot easier to make the error.
And thus, another Asshat Atheist is born. To be clear, I am not excusing them by pointing out that upbringing plays a factor in all of this. Rather, I’m trying to account for the fact that so many of them are unable to see it.
And of course, it hardly explains all of them. Dawkins was raised in the Anglican Church, which is growing more liberal by the day, and was often pretty milquetoast even before the 70s, but he still managed to get so full of the virtue of atheism that he can’t see where he’s screwing up.
Perfect description, entropistanon. There’s a more recent thread on Pharyngula where PZ is talking about how movement atheism needs to avoid the whole heroes/leaders trap, and ponders if it’s possible. I’m inclined to say “Not while the whole movement side of it still falls into the same old, same old of White Dudes at the top of the heap, with precious little examination of their own privilege.”
That whole grenade thread was … augh. And the person in question is now throwing legal bully-boy threats around, and the wording really suggests an effort to find the victim. Frightening.
BTW are you new here, or recently delurked? I don’t recognise your nym (though with my memory that ain’t saying much). If so, have you received your Official Welcome Package yet?
freemage – yes, I bet there are plenty of Anglicans who are streets ahead of Dawkins on social justice issues, especially feminism. He really outed himself with that grotesque “Dear Muslima” letter and his increasing squeals of protest when he was taken to task over it.
Yep. There’s a worse variation of this with skeptics. Skepticism is using the tools of science and logic to examine whether our beliefs are true. Sometimes a skeptic will simply claim that their beliefs are true because they use the tools of science and logic. Any actual or correct use of science and logic to the problem at hand is completely incidental to this claim.
The happy fun time starts when they subsequently claim everyone else is emotional, irrational, or “not thinking for themselves” if they don’t agree with them.
I like skepticism and logic. I can be wrong. In fact, I often am! As such, skepticism keeps me humble about my positions. It also makes me suspicious of anyone who becomes boastful of their superior logical abilities.
Dawkins is only a biologist. He has no more authority to speak on morality or social issues than any other human being. He certainly doesn’t speak for the morality of this atheist.
Also, I would like to point out that one can be a theist and a secularist. In fact, it has been argued that certain ideas within Christianity are part of what gave rise to the idea of secularism in the west.
Keep in mind that the fundamentalist Christian movement might be explicitly anti-secular, but it is also relatively new and it’s a reaction to modernity. There are a lot of undercurrents in Christianity that allowed secularism to grow, one example being the Christian idea that powers of reason are a divine gift and that the search for truth leads to God.
Part of the problem stems from the Intelligent Design/Creationism fight awhile back. When the conservative Christians started packing school-boards and state curriculum committees, the biologists realized that it was very much their field that was under attack. They came out in force, and I’m generally glad they did–I’d say at least 50% of the victory in the Dover decision came from the loud and unanimous voices from the scientific community that Intelligent Design wasn’t actually science. But a few, Dawkins among them, became ‘rock stars’ to the secularism community as a result of the fight–and thence began the hero-worship and pedestal-placement. Then, when they were shown to have feet of clay like the rest of us, the cognitive dissonance kicked in, hard.
misery: Add to that Matthew 15, IIRC–“When you pray, pray not on the streetcorner like the Pharisees,” etc. When I was at my most fervent state of faith, I regarded prayer at high school football games to be one of the most absurd blasphemies I could imagine.
Correction: Matthew 5:5
I’ve noticed that rape joke double standard too. I don’t think it’s fair that men getting raped is seen a joke more often then female ones (though I think we all know women getting raped is still seen as pretty damn funny to a lot of people), but trying to just flip that standard around is selfish. They’re either both okay or both wrong, pick one.
As far as the atheist community goes, after Thunderf00t lost his mind over Rebecca “don’t hit on me in an elevator” Watson, things got a lot more hostile (even though everyone knows that was more about his feud with FTB). I think all the anti-feminism stuff is what’s making all these douche-bags come out, I have a hard time imagining HealthyAddict would be getting quite the level of hatred if there weren’t so many people already assuming that atheist conventions are all bubble gum and rainbows and freeze peach, with that a few evil, stuck up women are trying to silence and ruin them (with *gasp* sexual harassment policies! BITCHES!).
Now, I’m not saying that there wouldn’t be douche-bags still, but I think all the anti-feminism and anti-sexual harassment policy types on YouTube is making the attitude a lot more prevalent. I don’t think it’s what causing the problem, but it’s causing the attitudes about it. The MRM would have still found stories like this and jumped all over them, of course, but it’s extra depressing seeing how the regular YT atheists seem so prone to MRM influence. These people aren’t being skeptical, they’re being scumbags, and hiding behind the word “skeptical.”
Those are my barely coherent thoughts on YouTube.
@Kittehserf: Actually, I am rather new here. I only recently became acquainted with this place when I was looking for SOMEPLACE on the internet that didn’t encourage and reward sexist banter. I’m very grateful to have found manboobz, because I was beginning to get worn down by the constant misogyny around me.
Thank you for the welcome package! It’s the most beautiful thing I’ve ever gotten! :,D
@sarahliz: “Dawkins is only a biologist. He has no more authority to speak on morality or social issues than any other human being. He certainly doesn’t speak for the morality of this atheist.”
Exactly why I never read The God Delusion. I know why I don’t believe in God, thank you very much, and I don’t need a gigantic lecture on why I shouldn’t.
Reblogged this on iheariseeilearn.
@Baileyrenee: Very well put about Thunderf00t there, although I would add that he was going off the deep end WAY before RKW dared to give some advice to dudes who plan on asking women out at conferences. I think he started to lose it when he began trying to “desensitize” Muslims by deliberately trying to piss them off.
@entropistanon
You’re totally right about that. Everything after the creationists saga was pure fail. Unless he’s talking about science he’s talking crap.
Here’s another example of blatant misogyny on AVfM:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/its-a-woman-problem/
“Women are facing a very real and grave problem in our culture: They are obnoxious cunts.”
And the accompanying discussion on /r/mensrights:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1k7pn4/its_a_woman_problem_in_fact_all_the_things_that/