So the self-described “human rights activists” at A Voice for Men have found three more women to harass. Here’s the story, which for many of you will have a depressingly familiar ring:
Members of Men’s Rights Edmonton, a small group that is for all intents and purposes a local chapter of A Voice for Men, has been putting up pictures targeting Lise Gotell, the chair of women’s and gender studies at the University of Alberta. The pictures, which seem inspired by “Wanted” posters of yore, feature a large portrait of Gotell and the caption:
Theft isn’t black. Bank fraud isn’t Jewish. And rape isn’t male.
“Just because you’re paid to demonize men doesn’t mean rape is gendered. Don’t be that bigot.
Gotell’s crime? She was involved in what appears to have been a remarkably effective rape awareness campaign focusing on date rape and featuring the slogan “Don’t Be That Guy.”
A Voice for Men took exception to the campaign because, even thought it did deal with the male victims of rape, it didn’t devote equal time to the problem of evil, false-accusing “girls.” No, really. Men’s Rights Edmonton Activists put up “satirical” versions of the campaign’s posters with the slogan “Don’t Be that Girl.” Now, MR-E and AVFM, at least according to the “argument” advanced on their new poster, seem to be upset that the campaign didn’t devote equal time to the problem of female rapists. [Note: this paragraph has been corrected; see note at end of piece.]
Gotell spoke out against the posters, and now Men’s Rights Edmonton and AVFM are doing their best to smear her as a “bigot.” Because she doesn’t believe that women are responsible for half of all rapes.
Since this is not actually true — more on this in a later post — it’s hard to see how this makes her a bigot.
As a rule, I don’t support tearing down the posters of one’s ideological enemies. Free speech and all that. But these posters are different: they’re slanderous personal attacks designed to harass an individual. Were they posted in my neighborhood I would tear them down.
And evidently that’s what some people in Edmonton have been doing.
Indeed, one recent night, several members of Men’s Rights Edmonton claim to have caught two women doing just that. While they don’t seem to have video footage of the women tearing down the posters, the MRAs filmed themselves following the women down the street and angrily confronting them for this alleged crime.
They posted the video to YouTube, and AVFM posted it as well, under the typically overheated title “Men’s Rights Edmonton confronts fascists.” They screencapped images of both women from the video and announced their intention to uncover their personal information:
MR-E would like to know the names of these two women so that charges of destruction of property can be laid against them. Also, the world should know the identities of those who seek to silence and censor messages advocating for human rights.
Of course, this is ridiculous. Tearing down a poster that was almost certainly posted illegally in the first place isn’t “destruction of property.” No one is going to be prosecuted for this. The police have better things to do.
But of course that’s not the real intent here. The real intent here is to scare the shit out of these women and other feminists by exposing them to harassment online — like the woman labeled “Big Red” and countless other women who have been targeted by AVFM and other MRAs (sometimes completely erroneously).
AVFM’s Paul Elam gave the game away with an “editor’s note” added to the post:
[A] woman who vandalizes man’s property and then flips him off when he confronts her about it on a dark street at night only acts in this manner because she is certain she has absolutely nothing to fear. Feminists terrified of MHRAs? My ass.
Elam could not have made it any clearer: the main point of this kind of “activism” — which has become AVFM’s bread and butter — is all about intimidating women, not helping men.
AVFM, where terrifying individual women is “human rights activism.”
Here’s the appropriate response to that:
CORRECTION/CLARIFICATION: I rewrote the paragraph starting with “A Voice for Men took exception,” which confused AVRM/MR-E’s current objection to Gotell’s views with its original “argument” against the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign.
I can name at least four major feminist blogs that have shunned Hugo Schwyzer: Feministe, Man Boobz, Yes Means Yes, and Shakesville. Try harder next time, buddy!
@jason
dude. citation desperately needed.
Jason: Hugo should never have been the face of feminism, and if you think everyone supported him, well, you’re still in your constant state of wrongness.
Who is Hugo? *goes to Google the guy*
*after Googling the guy* EWWWW, he slept with his students? That’s horrible!
@Alice sanguinaria
he’s some horrible guy who used to write for some feminist websites until (I think?) it was figured out he tried to kill his girlfriend.
there’s more stuff, but i don’t have all the details.
@alice
it gets worse.
Sorry, had to step away for a moment to blow out my flaming cheese. Back to bras… My problem is that the straps are constantly slipping off my shoulders. I got these little plastic things that are supposed to thread through the straps and hold them together in back, but they don’t work.
I’m not familiar with Hugo either……
So all male feminists are in it for sex, because one male feminist was in it for sex? I’m guessing you don’t consider yourself a skeptic? Or… if you do, you should probably rethink that… or refrain from using fallacies of composition as… something.
See, this is why I could never be an MRA, aside from the fact that I have nothing against women, I’m just too dogmatic about my refusal to embrace fallacies.
Fade – Oh gods. That’s horrible.
Marie – I’m now cringing. This guy sounds like an asshole. What the fuck?
@cloudiah
wait… I can’t tell.. are you actually cooking flaming cheese? Because I probably should’ve specified that my instructions left something to be desired.
And, considering the reactions of everyone else here, and the fact that I’ve now heard of this guy an entire two times… I’m guessing he wasn’t such a shining light to begin with.
@fade
yeah, there’s butter, I believe.
Was your work designed to please a certain school of feminism but never a realistic model for men?
Well, yes. I think primarily I wrote for women. I designed my writing primarily for women. One of the things that I figured out is the best way to get attention from women was not to describe women’s own experience to them because they found that patronizing and offensive. Instead it was to appear to challenge other men, to turn other men into the kind of boyfriend material, father material, or husband material that women so desperately wanted. Most women have a lot of disappointment in men. And I very deliberately want to go to the place where that disappointment lives and present to them a counter-narrative of something possible. I mean, I really would like to change men. It is not so much a lie that I didn’t believe a word I was saying. If wishes were fishes, they would live in the sea. I really did want guys to be better.
But on some level you were telling an audience what they wanted to hear knowing that women were reading it and not men?
Exactly. I always wrote for women but wrote in a really backhanded way where it appeared I was writing for men so that it would not appear too presumptuous and instead it would make me look better. And that required presenting myself as the ideal husband, father, and reformed bad boy.
My point is that I was writing for women because I wanted validation from women. The way to get validation from women was to present an idealized picture of what is possible for men.
Even though you weren’t reaching that standard yourself, did you know any men who were? Or was this entirely a fantasy creation?
I think there were guys who tried harder than I did. But no.
You don’t know any who succeeded?
No. I think there may have been a few who’ve come close, but none who succeeded. We can call this fraudulence or hypocrisy. I wasn’t really interested in other men. I taught a course in men and masculinity, and I cited male authors, but the whole way of designing the course was to get women excited about the possibility for male change, that they would then transfer some of that hope onto me. That is what I was doing.
It’s a fairly common argument / insult / idea, though. It’s cropped up a lot here and elsewhere, ie, some “You’re just saying you’re a feminist because you want to get attention and it’s the only way you’ll get laid!” (I will again take toxic masculinity, 50 points).
Personally, I’m in it for the carrot juggling and rabbit costumes.
Can anyone explain why that’s a fallback so often, though? “You’re just trying to sleep with cute, delusional co-eds! Snerk snerk”. I want there to be some other explanation than just “Women are only good for sleeping with, that’s the only reason anyone’d talk to one!”.
Those are from an interview with Schwyzer after his meltdown. Reason number a billion and one why feminists should stay far away from men’s issues…
(Guys, is Jason having a conversation with himself? This is getting meta.)
(Also, I was joking about setting fire to cheese, but in that case will admit my failure to publicly condemn setting fire to cheese is because I am very much pro flaming cheese. I take the 5th on the other things on my list, though.)
You can’t possibly be this silly.
I was too lazy to label who was talking in that interview segment, use your great big feminist brain to figure it out.
Usually they create a sockpuppet in order to have someone to agree with them in online discussion, don’t they? This one isn’t even feigning legitimacy.
…. Okay, so, yeah, Jason, whatever you’re quoting there is obviously an interview with Hugo Scwhashsahh can’t spell his last name.
Can I get a source on that, possibly? I’d love to read it.
Secondly, doesn’t reading that make you feel physically ill? I know I can feel myself feeling actually sick, right about now. As in, wow.
Wow.
Bees, my god. No words. I mean, can’t you see how wrong that is? Because I will spell it out, only, I need a minute to make sure my brain doesn’t perform an automatic hard reset.
@marinerache, I suspect Jason IS Hugo Schwyzer’s sock puppet.
You are a delight, sir.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/12/porn-professor-hugo-schwyzer-comes-clean-about-his-twitter-meltdown-and-life-as-a-fraud.html
Actually, yeah, I did feel a bit physically ill when I read that. He was more than willing to throw the entire male gender under the bus, confuse men by holding them to an unrealistic standard rather than address their real problems, all so HE could get laid.