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’m banning Jason and themaskandrose for obvious reasons. (Dudes: if it’s not obvious to you, email me. It’s not about the posters.You are deeply shitty human beings.)
I should have banned both of them earlier. I apologize.
Good move, David.
If anyone’s still around, here’s a video from the True Facts man on tarsiers.
http://youtu.be/6Jz0JcQYtqo
Did someone call for brain bleach?
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d3/b2/0a/d3b20aeed8b5f62e10203e864c70e5ee.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/35/8c/57/358c57c204a2fec21fa50b917a0728aa.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c0/52/0b/c0520b9cfd647d83f6d539b115955c5e.jpg
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/53/c3/08/53c308d03420ae018163ddfb32b6a703.jpg
OMG the Basement Cat pic! ::dies of lols::
That little kitty in the furry hat looks like Baby Poutine! :O
@Argenti
Hmm, that might be something to look into. I know my sister was looking for corsets when her back was hurting, but she never really had much luck.
@CassandraSays
Nope. He stays the saaaaame
@Katz
I love the new voice for pierre comic.
CITATION… DESPERATELY… NEEDED …. ASSHOLE
@melody
IIRC, it was a blue demon lady with skulls over her nipples.
@melody
that guy was way over the line; don’t worry about being rude. and jedi-hugs, if you need them.
@themaskandrose
okay, I’m going to go read the new article and figure out how much our troll is exagerating because I don’t think the correction will change the basic part of the article.
Okay, it’s WORSE with the correction. Earlier, I didn’t catch the ‘false rape accusations’ dilemma the mras were trying to equate it to.
Paul “fuck their shit up” elam does not need any help looking like a terrorist
THANK GOD!
I am sorry that I am highlighting this comment again, but…
Projection level: Drive-In Theater
Because this perfectly sums up the MRM. There isn’t a feminist conspiracy. Women aren’t evil monsters. Women are people not a monolith. To argue otherwise proves how far you’re willing to go to justify horrible privileged behavior.
They have to actively convince themselves that the reason that they can’t get laid/their wife left/they’re stuck in their job is because it’s everyone else’s fault. And they have to willfully ignore the mountains of evidence that they receive on a daily basis to maintain the thought that Women=Evil and that they’re just a poor, put-upon schlub against the world, fighting for Truth, instead of going through the TPS reports that the boss asked them to finish by noon today. They have to seek out people who share their views to justify and validate their horrible view of the world, and ignore the people around them who act like reasonable human beings. Sometimes, they even have to make shit up about those human beings, shit that isn’t even true, just to maintain the level of fantasy in their minds. The MRM is about convincing men that women are evil despite the reality that they would encounter on a daily basis that would prove otherwise.
Consent isn’t that hard to understand. Women work as hard as men do. Nobody’s a special snowflake, no one is ever right 100% of the time, and women aren’t spermburgling shrill harpies if they’re irritated at your sexism.
—-
If I say:
“The only reason you’re posting here, like that, is because you’re sure you have nothing to fear from any of us, themaskandrose.
Obviously, the only reason you write the way you do, with the tone you employ, is because you are not terrified of David Futrelle. ”
we can both agree it’s disingenuous of me, and kind of rude. And what we can also agree is that the implication of that is no more, and no less, than your tone would be different if you were afraid. That’s what that sentence *means*.
And that since you are not afraid, and your tone is rude, I would like you to be afraid, because it would make you change your expression.
—-
Pretending otherwise is dull. Really dull.
I finally caught up!
1) I offer internet hugs for all the people offended by the trolls.
2) … checking out those “designs” on Devart made me feel better about my “art” skills. (I also finally joined the Manboobzers group. Yey!) Ummm… my lame attempt to design a “superhero” outfit: http://mali-chan.deviantart.com/art/The-Fox-343963210 ^^;
Yay!
Thank you, David.
So… I actually want to thank Jason, and themaskandrose, you have helped my understanding of the world grow a little.
It has been my opinion for some time that many of the issues surrounding feminism and men’s rights come down to communication; that feminists are failing to communicate clearly enough, and that the constant freakouts and hissyfits from MRAs is due to misunderstanding rather than wilful ignorance. I know now that this is wrong.
It is possible to misunderstand Schrödinger’s Rapist, so long as you only skim through it and concentrate more on the “rapist” part than the “Schrödinger” part. It’s possible to misunderstand the “Don’t Be That Guy” posters, so long as you make no attempt to understand the message or motivations involved. But to take people telling you that a single example of a sucky guy doesn’t make all guys sucky and read it as “all guys are sucky”? That takes wilful ignorance in defence of an ideology. What you know about feminism, you know because you know because you know. You know it because your dogma says that feminism is anti-male, and because the evidence is irrelevant to you. Feel free to continue to act the befuddled male, but you are transparent. You don’t understand because you don’t want to, not because you can’t. It’s a shame I only have cheap taunts for Christian fundies…. I’d say that Carl Sagan thinks you’re a loser, but you’re clearly not a skeptic… enjoy your dogma and projection, I guess.
Assuming that those numbers are correct, which I’m willing to do for the sake of argument, if something happens each year, that means it accumulates. 1 in 2000 per year makes 10 in 2000 per decade, 100 in 2000 per century. Turning to per year numbers doesn’t make the lifetime numbers any less serious.
That constant “theft isn’t black!” equivocation you pull? There isn’t a culture that argues that theft is ok if people can see the object being stolen, nor that it’s not really stealing if you only take an object that doesn’t belong to you without the permission of its owner and never take it back. People do argue that it’s ok – because you’re asking for it – if you dress the wrong way. People do argue that it’s not really rape if all you do is have sex with someone who doesn’t want you to have sex with them, especially if you’ve been showing “one sided altruism” toward them this whole time. Come back when the two things are actually equivalent.
Oh, and stop including me in your hate group. You are not fighting for my rights, you’re fighting against women’s rights. Feel free to lie to yourselves, but don’t lie to us. You’re not fighting to make things better for us, but to make it worse for them. Fuck that. And fuck you.
And it’s really frustrating to shout at people who’re already banned, but I wasn’t going to leave it ratting around my brain. I can’t concentrate while I’m annoyed, and I want to get this bloody awkward SSTO craft working today!
You and I have very different definitions of lame. That’s a really cool outfit!
Thank you. I’m kind of insecure when it comes to my “art”. 🙂
Malitia, I think that looks very nice.
I love the fox! Well done!
Wow. The big barrel of hugs and kittens is full again; please take whatever you need. There’s also a separate barrel of fish for Argenti.
Love the new Pierre. And that DA troll, boy do I feel better about my drawing ability now. (I liked your drawings, Malitia!)
Is the Canadian definition of “vandalism” and “private property” the complete opposite of the USian definition? I know it’s kind of a small point, but they keep claiming people are destroying their property. As a little punk rocker, I engaged in my fair share of guerrilla postering. Some of it was by actual artists, like Robbie Conal and Richard Pettibone. Even as a little punk teenager, I understood that posters are ephemeral BY THEIR VERY NATURE. Sure, we hoped they would stay up a long time, but when they were removed or covered with other posters, we didn’t BOO HOO POLICE SHOULD PUNISH THOSE VANDALS. We just put up more posters.
Meanwhile father’s rights activists have proudly defaced works of art in a museum…
Since Mr Rosy Mask is gone, maybe someone else can tell me what the crime is? Any Canadian lawyers lurking? Maybe Masky can answer on his own blog, which … wow, have you guys looked, it’s pretty much exactly what you’d imagine. Give me a second, and I’ll drop some choice quotes here so you don’t have to give him any traffic. XD
I know Jason’s been banned, and also that I’m like a thousand comments behind, but I just finished reading this great and, apparently, very relevant article about how restrictions on access to women’s health is disproportionately affecting poor women and women of color. Which means, Jason, that poor women and women of color are dealing with this specifically gender-based oppression that poor men and men of color are not. Which makes the statement I quoted demonstrably false, and you an idiot. Well, more of an idiot.
I skimmed The Mask and Rose’s blog to spare you. The tag line: “Inside the mind of a lover and a seeker.” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry I just pissed myself.
What
pearlsturds ofwisdombanality has he published there?“And we all know about the dick-pic epidemic, which I admit, I happily indulge in.”
Great! Then he indulges in the time-honored scientific method of
constructing a methodologically sound surveyasking a few women he knows if they like dick pics. The answer he gets is a resounding NO.But he can refute that answer, with plethysmographs he read about in a book. Which proves that when a woman says “No, I don’t want a dick pic” what she really means is “Yes.”
So… your typical rapist’s thought process, actually. But it’s okay, because the plethysmographs totally support him in email.
“Remember, you are the man. Your nature is to dominate. She is the woman. Her nature is to submit to the right kind of dominant male. Guys, there is a reason that women everywhere and all their female relatives diddled themselves furiously to 50 Shades of Grey.”
Fairly typical fuckwittery, and since we’ve shredded the actual content here before I’m just going to focus on this phrase: “women everywhere and all their female relatives.”
Dude. That is seriously awkward phrasing. You’ve made my red pencil very angry.
“I wish [The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics] were printed and taught in every school across the world, but alas, I am not Sole and Sovereign King yet.”
Judging by how few people are interested in your blog, I think you are unlikely to ever achieve that high office.
Then he copypastas the entire Catalogue, with a few notes of his own, and ends with:
“And thus ends what is, admittedly, probably the most poignant entry I will ever make.”
Made me LOL.
The pattern for each post is TO WRITE A LOT OF WORDS WHICH AREN’T WORTH READING. Does that sound familiar?
And now I see there’s a new post up about one of my favorites!
Thank you all. 🙂 I mostly do editing work on other people’s art* but the Fox is all mine**. I know I have a slightly odd drawing style mostly when it comes to faces (long slanted eyes, anime proportions etc.).
* Digital editing, coloring, fantranslations to Hungarian. My most frequent “victim” is AsheRhyder. (My main fandom is the Building-verse.)
** I only had to follow some instructions, as it was a contest entry, that basically fixed her name, power set (badass normal maybe with some gadgets) and that the costume needs to be unisex.
“Guys, there is a reason that women everywhere and all their female relatives diddled themselves furiously to 50 Shades of Grey.”
Argumentum ad 50 Shades of Grey? I wanted to hurl that book against the wall*. But then again I’m probably not even a relevant number on their scale (too fat and nerdy).
Also here is a different reason:
There are women not well versed in the existence of erotic fiction and rule 34 fanfiction, so they settle for subpar material. And also the power of hype, as after it got a big name release it was advertised for death.
* http://mali-chan.deviantart.com/journal/Fifty-Shades-of-Fanfic-336708819 The relevant part is the first Update.
““Remember, you are the man. Your nature is to dominate. She is the woman. Her nature is to submit to the right kind of dominant male…”
Submissive men and dominant women = not a thing. Someone to inform the dominatrices of the world, or should I since I, uh, wouldn’t mind their punishment?
Wow, I couldn’t imagine a more ridiculous waste of time and money for schools already struggling with austerity cuts. “Shaming tactics”, give me a break. Guess what, MRA’s, if you’re feeling shame, it’s your conscience telling you to stop bashing women.
Besides, assuming 1 in 2000 over 60 years (the oldest manboobzer I recall was near that), still gives you 9390000 when the population of the US is 313 million (And assuming the population is static, which it isn’t, and that rates haven’t been going steadily DOWN, which they have)
That’s 1 out of 313, and since there’s about 2000 pariticpants in the manboobz survery Argenthi whipped up (AWESOME JOB, AGAIN), that leaves you with 6-7 people just in this conversation, statistically.
So, uh, mask and the rose?
Go have a pleasant life
You know what I really like about anti-male shaming tactics? Apparently pointing out that his entire argument is composed of fallacies is a shaming tactic. Considering that we’re the feeeeeeeelings-driven side, its funny that they’re the ones making the crappy arguments.
Regarding our ages // the survey, of the 1,640 people who responded, 22 were over 60, one of whom was over 80. And for the vast majority of us in the younger age brackets, we’re looking at life spans of close to 80. So call it 8 decades for 1,640 people. Since he said women, and we can assume he meant cis women, assuming the ages aren’t affected by gender, then that works out to 77,680 years of life between us all. Seeing how 1 in 2,000 is 5% you get 49~ cis women.
So even by idiot’s math, 4% of the cis women here have been or will be raped. By the usual 20% US stat (and we are largely in the US), and using the same qualifiers, that works out to 195 cis women who’ve been raped, and at least read manboobz (if you want to know how many are regulars I’ll have to get that mac, which, conveniently, I brought with me).
And that’s cis women, where I can think of at least a half dozen non-cis women here who’ve said they were raped (or forced to engaged in sex acts but not used the r word)…I don’t think they’re all still here though. (And by non-cis women I mean everyone else, not just trans* women…about half of the people I’m thinking of are cis men, you know, the people the MRM supposedly advocates for?)
In any case, at least 200 people who have been, or will be, raped may’ve seen that shit. Even using his own fucked up “stat” and that the vast majority of us are under 30, which is when 80% of rapes occur…
80% of 5% (1 in 2,000) gives us 4%. So by his idiocy 4% of us have been raped already — limiting it to cis women, that’s 39~ people.
Fibinachi — your math went awry when you bothered to go behind the manboobz population and use years instead of just converting it to percents (think about how it’d work if you did that with the 1 in 5 // 20% stat — no matter how long we live, or how old we are currently, it’s 20% have or will be raped [3%, I think, for men…both stats for cis people])
And thanks! The results are here — http://infogr.am/Manboobz-Demographics — if you ever need them 🙂
——
Oh and applying the age stuff to the 1 in 5 stat? About 155 of the cis women who read the blog have already been raped. That’s nearly 10% of the people who replied to the survey (the rest of the 20% are either “or will be raped” or not cis women)