The bad publicity bonanza for Men’s Rights activists continues — and it couldn’t happen to a worse group of people.
Yesterday, the Daily Beast published a long-awaited piece on the Men’s Rights movement, and it’s a doozy. If you’re a regular reader of this site, trust me, you’ll want to read the whole thing, like now. The piece, by R. Tod Kelly, is long — some 6000 words — but worth it.
It’s mostly on the money, but with a few notable flaws.
Here’s what it gets right:
1) It captures the pervasive misogyny of the Men’s Rights movement in general, and of A Voice for Men in particular.
2) In an extended section, it profiles AVFM’s John Hembling, and tears apart some of his most blatant lies — including the now legendary box-cutter incident, in which Hembling claims to have stared down a mob of 20-30 feminists brandishing boxcutters.
As Kelly notes:
Vancouver police records show that there was indeed an altercation in September of 2012 between Hembling and others seeking to tear down men’s rights posters. However, according to the police, Hembling was arguing with two or three people, not being accosted by a “mob” of any size. When questioned by the authorities, neither Hembling nor witnesses mentioned seeing any weapons. …
Curiously enough, Hembling actually videotaped the events and had his AV4M Radio partner Karen Straughan post it online. The discussion with the police has been conveniently edited out, but the rest of the video clearly matches police records and not Hembling’s story. There are only a few young men taking down Hembling’s posters, and the video shows them choosing to ignore him except when he engages them in conversation. One of the men is seen using a box cutter to take down the flyers, but at no time does he use it as a weapon, raise his voice, or threaten Hembling in any way.
Kelly found some troubling, er, discrepancies in another story told by Hembling. Kelly writes:
According to Hembling, sometime around 1995 he was on his way home at 2:00 am after working a night shift when he came upon [a sexual] assault in progress. He says he used his steel-toed boots as weapons to chase off the perpetrator. When the victim was too distraught to speak with him, Hembling says he contacted the police, waited until they arrived, and then quietly left without speaking to them. He says they later tracked him down at his home, where he gave a statement.
It’s hard to know whether this event actually occurred or not. There is no record—at least, not in the Vancouver police files—of Hembling being a material witness to a rape, and police blotters from that time period do not show a crime that matches Hembling’s description. However, this does not necessarily mean the event did not occur. Vancouver police did not fully computerize their data until 2002, and it is possible the police never reported the incident. Hembling claims the incident took place at a specific hospital, where he says he worked as a contractor for 18 months. The address he gives, however, is for a different hospital in a completely different part of the city. This raises the curious question of whether Hembling forget the name of the hospital he contracted with for 18 months, or whether he forget what part of the city he worked in for that same period of time. The real truth of the matter is anyone’s guess, because Hembling wouldn’t comment to The Beast on that or any other matter.
In other words: Cool story, bro.
3) Another thing the story gets right: it makes clear just how little the Men’s Rights movement does to actually help men — and how in many ways it can actually be terribly damaging to men who need real help. As Kelly writes,
the movement’s radicals might … do … immediate damage to those who most desperately need the MRM to succeed.
“When we talk about recovery from trauma and abuse, there were two things that helped me,” says Chris Anderson, executive director of the male-victim advocacy group Male Survivor and a sexual abuse survivor himself. “The first was realizing that I’m not alone; the second was hearing that recovery was possible.” Anderson is quick to dissociate himself from the men’s rights movement: “In [the MRM] people get that first message, that they’re not alone. I don’t know that they ever get the second message. And when they don’t get that second message, it turns into an endless feedback loop and eventually they say, ‘Oh my God, all of society is f**ked.’”
Indeed, Kelly writes:
It is telling to note that of the professional male-victim advocacy organizations I spoke with, every single one specifically asked that I not allow readers to think they were in any way related to the MRM.
But there are also some things that I think the article gets wrong.
1) I think it gives Men’s Rights activists way too much credit for their supposed good intentions. While there are some MRAs who do seem to be motivated at least in part by a sincere desire to help men, most of the MRAs I’ve encountered in the 3 years of doing this blog have clearly been motivated primarily by anger and hatred of feminists — and women in general. They don’t really seem to give a shit about doing anything to actually improve the lives of men — and the paucity of their accomplishments reflects this. In its relatively brief lifespan, AVFM has raised many hundreds of thousands of dollars. Has it set up any shelters or hotlines or helplines for men? Not a one.
2) It wildly exaggerates the importance of Hembling to the MRM — especially ironic given that Hembling has been more or less AWOL in recent months, producing only a few short videos and one article for AVFM.
3) It paints a picture of The Spearhead’s WF Price as a Men’s Rights “moderate.” Really? While it’s true that Price is not an AVFM-style hothead given to rants about “fucking your shit up,” his views are anything but moderate. This is a guy who thinks higher education is wasted on women, who blames the epidemic of rape in the armed forces on women, who celebrated one Mothers Day with a vicious transphobic rant, who once used the tragic death of a woman who’d just graduated from college to argue that “after 25, women are just wasting time.” He published posts on why women’s suffrage is a bad idea. Plus, have you met his commenters?
I was, however, kind of amazed to learn that Price is married … and to a feminist. No, really.
4) The article, while solidly researched, contains some small errors and simplifications that will no doubt give MRAs and others the excuse they need to dismiss the whole thing. Kelly refers to Reddit subreddits as Reddit “threads!” He refers to Matt Forney as an MRA! Oh no!
Still, whatever its flaws, this is an important piece, and one that tells a lot of truth about the Men’s Rights movement. Again — go read it!
I will second the Idris Elba nomination.
Pff, you don’t have a right to own a house!
IDRIS ELBA
Wait what are we talking about? I just kind of have this automatic delighted squealing reaction whenever he comes up.
Bombing Dresden and the other cities did little for the allied war effort. The AA crews who were supposedly kept from the front lines by the threat of bombing were the equivalent of the British home guard – those too old or infirm to be of any use on the front. Bombing air fields, and oil depots on the other hand? That did something. (Something helpful. (Try driving a tank with no fuel.))
Ah, sorry; didn’t intend to open old wounds. 😀 I think Russell Brand is curiously adorable when bathed and sober, but can see why others would not. Maybe that’s why Pitt comes up; there is nothing there to object to.
And I, for one, am really looking forward to The Monuments Men.
I’m afraid to dip my toe into the debate happening here because I can’t keep track of what ahostileworld is even trying to say. FNF is a men’s right group because sometimes you have to burn down your enemies’ houses? Defacing art is fine because slut walks happen? Wut?
Another “Wut” comment on Tod Kelly’s blog post:
It’s not an old wound, it’s an old discussion of hot people. I personally try to reopen this discussion whenever given the slightest opportunity.
Sorry… Mean to add the above commenter’s explanatory follow-up too:
I dunno… I never found him all that attractive myself, but he was the only name that came to mind at the time. I hearby replace the Pitt with Benedict “sexypants” Cumberbatch. Speaking as a straightish maleish… phwoar. No, that’s an objective fact, he’s gorgeous. No arguments.
@wf price
….or you could try to sleep with people who you actually like? I know I sure the hell don’t plan to date a raging sexist. Sometimes being alone is better than being together but miserable. (eh, yay that you and your wife aren’t, i guess. But not everyone else wants to fuck misogynists.)
@neuroticbeagle
If man=enemy of woman, I just got off scotch free for being a lesbian 🙂
@avicenna
Ugh 🙁 I’ve seen them doing the first one, but not the second. (I believe you, just sad at their more-ickiness. They should really put a cap on it somewhere…)
@viscaria
Seconded. (or whatever-ed by this point. Probably a lot of commenters who feel this way :p)
@ahostileworld
I literally have no idea what to make of this sentence….
…what possible justification could have for burning someone’s house down? God.
Dude. This is not a war between feminists/mras. There is no war going on here. Get over it.
re: brad pitt
Man, I just feel like I need to step in and defend brad pitt (yeah I know you all aren’t being mean, but I am weird this way ;)) and say that when I was younger/ more attracted to men, I did find him really pretty. So, um, like 15 year old me fit the stereotype of ‘all women like brad pitt’.
and gonna post this before wordpress eats my comment. But not caught up yet.
Me too! John Goodman FTW!
@Keith, I’m so sorry. I really hope my blathering didn’t upset you too much.
And for everybody else here who has been talking about the horribles, I’m really sorry.
Should have said that last night, bit selfish, sorry.
And thanks again everybody for all the lovely brain bleach and kind words, it really did help.
oh, what about Mia Farrow’s son Ronan? Every time I see a pic of him I have to gawp for a minute or two.
or Daniel Dae Kim?
or young Prince William?
Eh, I got way over Benedict Cumberbatch after like five minutes.
Can we just go classic and all agree on Cary Grant? Or, if we want someone more modern, Taye Diggs? If he’s good enough to give Stella her groove back, then he’s good for us all.
Jason Momoa or Tom Hiddleston for me, thanks.
@ophelia
I don’t think you were being selfish :/
I’ll see pretty much any movie with John Goodman in it.
As for the hot men discussion – I’m like 90% attracted to women, but I’ll admit to finding Brad Pitt pretty cute. And Joseph Gordon-Levitt. I like my men pretty.
This new troll, he’s fucking British isn’t he?
Seriously all this ‘mate’ stuff, going on about the monarchy, and what is it with the WW2 stuff? Why God Why? Isn’t it enough that we already have Godfrey Bloom and ‘hard chairs’ Tom?
*mutters to self* the British ones are ALWAYS experts on WW2!
I blame those Christmas magazines that used to come out every year, 50 pence for the first issue £9.95 for every following one.
“Over 856 weeks you too can become an obsessive WW2 facts knower.
With each issue you can build a 1:12 scale replica of Stalingrad and bore all your friends (ha!) by acting out this historic battle. It’ll be just like it was you who fought and died for your country!”
Yes, yes mister hostile cliches, it was the turning point in the war, and if you’d been alive then you would totally have kicked Hitlers arse!
Can anybody say EDL? I’m sure hostility man does all the time.
Also : Down with the monarchy! There, feel less hostile to us now @ahostileworld?
Thanks Marie. 🙂
I like how many people become decorated generals after the battle – ‘yeah, they should not have bombed Dresden, they should have bombed oil fields (Germany has oil fields?) and oil depots (Germany is Esso?)’.
If those British men hadn’t risked their lives, many people here wouldn’t be able to spout their entitled bullshit.
Now, back to how this relates to breaking shit as a form of protest.
It was said that the Indian Independence movement under Gandhi did not damage property – UUUUUUUUURK – wrong.
It was said the civil liberties movement under Martin Luther King was non-violent – UUUUUUUUUUURK – wrong again. MLK himself may not have resorted to violence, but the civil liberties movement as whole did not forego the tactic of causing material damage.
No civil rights movement has ever accomplished anything by asking nicely. If you want to make yourself heard, you have to create noise, loud noise, and you will quite possibly have to break shit to get people’s attention.
JFF did not burn any houses. *One of them* destroyed a tacky piece of monarchist crap.
I’m sorry, but the world isn’t Disneyland. Enrolling the Nazis in a Social Justice Awareness course plus Communication Studies in an effort to turn them into nice people was not an option. The only way of resolving it was breaking a lot of their shit.
By the same token, asking nicely to stop genital mutilation (without, of course, affronting religious crazies and their childish believes in badly written fairy tales) is no longer an option. Asking nicely to be treated fairly in family courts is no longer an option. Asking nicely to stop pumping lively boys full of harmful drugs to turn them into compliant, sleep-walking zombies for their school day and asking nicely to stop justifying this by inventing more and more varieties of ‘attention deficit disorders’, and similar horseshit, is no longer an option.
There are people who simply don’t have the luxury of a society and government that is willing to listen and act on their behalf. That some people have become too fat and too entitled to realise that there are people besides them who have legitimate concerns, is not our fault.
So what shit are you advocating people start breaking, ahostileworld?
So murdering people you disagree with must be okay then, too, right? I mean, this isn’t Disneyland.
@ahostileworld
You might want to look up the definition of ‘entitled’ in the dictionary.
Also, why are the only two options for ahostileworld ‘asking nicely’ or ‘heck of a lot of violence.’?There’s no in between.