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!
No, rape victims themselves reported on the specific ways that the concept of rape culture has been helpful to them. Self reporting on an objective claim (did this help you yes or no) is indeed proof.
Also, you are totally a do-do face.
And a chicken. Bwwaaaaaaaaaaaakkkkk! Bwak! Bwak! Bwak! Bwak! Bwak! Bwak!
Kitteh — I only got the 20 count because I stole their hiding spot, so no, I’m not seeing more today. And I decided I’m converting the terrarium back to a breeding tank, pecunium’s plants will be getting some sort of ikea based ledge.
Hostility — so, if multiple people saying it helped them isn’t proof, wtf proof do you want?
Argenti, yes I remember that discussion. And I also remember tgat the only things presented were anecdotal conjecture. Simply not convincing.
Cloudiah, I’ve got the snacks, I broke into my Halloween candy early. It’s all chocolate though (that will be rectified probably Saturday)
…They keep having to create higher-range irony meters so that they can keep exploding.
More things he doesn’t understand — asking if it helped anyone, and getting told that it has…well
that’ sustained(what?!) that’s just not convincing.::dies::
It’s dangerous enough when he wears his leather jacket over his knitwear; if he did all leather I would be just GONE.
The problem is that 20 people on the internet saying something is not proof. Of anything.
The evidence is
– presented by anonymous users
– possibly contaminated by personal animosity
– unchecked for personal bias
– unrepresentative.
This is simply not good enough for anyone with any respect for the scientific method.
You classy bastard, you. You’re like Alex from A Clockwork Orange.
lmao. Ever proof we’ve given you said didn’t count. You never said *why* they didn’t count, which is kind of important to dismissing evidence. You can’t just dismiss it because you feel like it.
Well you can, because you’re a rape apologist.
I just told you *again* why your ‘proof’ had to be dismissed. Emotive kneejerking and buzz-wording aside, have look.
@katz
(in your comic, I’m assuming) I’d find it fine, but idk everyone else’s opinions on it.
@ahostileworld
okay, this really seems like some weird classism? But I’m not very good with classism, so correct me if I’m wrong :/
@sittiekitty
What the fuck! 🙁 ugh.
@ahostileworld
Um, what strange alternate universe do you live in?
Are we reading the same thread?
You spelled doo-doo wrong. Ps: you have been given mountains of evidence, you just find ways to ignore it and dismiss it all.
@argenti aertheri
I did see. Congrats on your fishies :3
@kittehs
Can’t wait to see how a hostileworld dismisses this one.
And I got to go eat. Maybe one day I’ll actually catch up to the thread, too 😛
See? What rape victims say about themselves and their experiences is to be dismissed by Mr Sciencey Brain Dude With The Runny Nose Who’s Also Never Heard Of Tissues because he hasn’t heard from all rape victims ever. Not that he’d believe them if he had.
Have we ticked off the “you’re just emotional!” square on the bingo card yet?
He’s wrong. The MRM has actually accomplished a lot depending on how you view accomplishment and exactly how you define an MRA. One thing I know for certain, except in very isolated instances and I’m not even certain that’s the case, is that feminists / feminism hasn’t advanced / advocated equality for men.
Look at the fathers rights movement. Many states now criminalize visitation interference. Fathers in Michigan can know establish paternity for children they fathered with another man’s wife. The legislation was championed by a very wide coalition of groups and only opposed by the Michigan chapter of NOW. Some adoption loopholes were closed in other states protecting paternal rights. Shared parenting legislation was introduced in Florida, but wasn’t signed by the governor. This shows that not only has the fathers right advocates achieved legislative success, but to get shared parenting to the governor of Florida’s desk show that they have started to affect a cultural shift.
The only shelter for abused men in Canada was founded by Earl Silverman. Unfortunately, the government of Canada refused to fund shelters for men and he was forced to close it. Earl Silverman was to my knowledge a self identified MRA. A men’s center / men’s group has been funded for SFU, and established at Ryerson (it could be privately funded rather than with student fees I’m not sure). In France, a father held protests on top of a crane until he got a meeting with the minister in charge of the family court system and of course Julia Gillard, who tried to institute anti-male policies in Australia no longer has a viable political career.
PREA was established, VAWA was made more gender neutral, Female sexual victimization of boys is becoming more recognized. Organizations like 1 in 6 are starting to highlight this. Government agencies like the CDC are starting to document sexual crimes against men.
Granted, I’ve seen a shift among some feminists to now start seeing father’s rights as a societal good. I’m not sure if this is an awakening or an attempt to get on the right side of history in an attempt to rewrite it as feminists had opposed criminalizing visitation interference, the above mentioned establishing of paternity, and shared parenting. I suspect it’s a little of both.
The MRM is extremely vocal and people need to get their information / inspiration from somewhere. The MRM has been highlighting female perpetrators, injustices to men in family court, as well as other inequities. It wasn’t feminists who led the charge and in fact have on many occasions tried to fight the change.
Why do the trolls always assume that the burden of proof is on everyone else? “I sit here on my golden throne of being a white male douchebag, you must all convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are accurate!”
Anyway. Pierre was awesome! Also there’s a new SharkPuppy comic:
http://fireandshellamari.tumblr.com/post/64696363021/a-very-merry-hallow-and-a-happy-new-ween
BINGO!
Kitteh, that is a glorious outfit!
As Argenti pointed out, we seem to have gotten away from the previous topic regarding the existence of rape and are now back to the earlier topic of the utility of such.
And where’s your evidence, ahostileworld? I’m simply not convinced about your assertions, seeing as:
Come on people! One single proof!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/One_single_proof
I know, right? I mean, seriously, linking to a resource created and maintained by skeptics? Daaaamn, that’s, like, the least skeptical thing possible!
I do like how MRAs hate it though, because it’s critical of them. Yeah, it’s critical of all irrational groups. It’s critical of lesbian separatists and TERFs too. You don’t get immunity just because you practice cargo cult skepticism.
“Existence of rape culture” that should read.
drst – they put the burden of proof on everyone else so they’ll never, never have to change, because it’s never, never enough. Exact same thinking that a non-verbal “no” is never enough; nor is a verbal “no” when it’s not accompanied by physical resistance; nor is physical resistance enough unless it leaves the
rapistpoor confused dude seriously injured. Then, of course, the b*tch can be charged with ABH.Sorry, I must have missed it. Please, link to each proof that we’ve presented, so that I know which one you’re dismissing and why, and let me know why each piece of evidence is being dismissed.
No, seriously, because I missed it. I didn’t see it at all. I didn’t see you dismiss each piece of evidence, and there were many, I think Argenti linked several studies, and others did too. I just saw you say “Nope, that doesn’t count” without giving any reason…
I was also finding that unduly distracting. (Or should I say, un-doo-doo-ly.)
Do not lie. I did not question the existence of rape. I laughed at the stupidity of the word ‘rape culture’.
I am not making any assertions that need to be tested. The claim is: the term ‘rape culture’ helps rape victims.
A. Evidence needed.
B. Questioning that: no evidence needed.
C. Rejecting it because no compelling evidence has been presented? Necessary if no evidence for A has been presented.