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!
cloudiah: I hate lip gloss, so I’m no help there. I absolutely hate the way it feels.
I’d like to believe that post was from Price’s wife, but um. Yeah. The tall, broad shouldered thing sounded like a dude trying to write how he thinks a woman would describe a man.
Ms. Bill’s Wife, if you have to come here to try and make him look better, you might want to take a closer look at what you’ve married.
The Rosebud salve Cassandra recommended is very nice. If it’s a balm you want, the Fresh Sugar line is expensive but worth it.
@kittehserf – I know right? Every time I see an MRA talk about it, it sounds like they want boys to be able to run around the room punching other kids in face, while getting more attention than girls from teachers. Poor babies, school is so hard.
Also, I second Tulgey Logger on asking Bill’s Wife “what the hell.” Like Tulgey said, I’m really not interested in attacking you or anything, I just cannot understand how you’re cool being with someone who has said/written the things he’s said/written. The fact that you agree with his more reasonable points isn’t remarkable; I’m sure most people here would too. Surprise surprise, we’re not a bunch of man-haters. How that makes up for all his other “points” is beyond me. It seriously makes as much sense to me as a black person dating a white person who thinks blacks are inferior, but is still nice to the black partner, so it’s okay.
Again, I really am not interested in ruining your relationship, and I believe you when you say you’re a feminist. I’m just really, really, really confused.
By the way, clearly you agree with him on some MRM talking points, does he agree with any feminist views you have?
My grandmother was a math whiz, probably genius, but my great-grandfather didn’t “believe” in educating women.
scarettpipstrelle,
You and I must be the same generation. And I concur that, having come of age on the cusp of the second wave of feminism, I take the threat of the “new misogynists” quite seriously. Those of us who can remember, say, pre- Roe vs. Wade — we don’t take our rights for granted.
Speaking of otters – here is a beautiful otter in a pink tutu.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/102868974/otter-in-tutu-original-art-print-85×11
(I haven’t read the thread yet so you probably aren’t talking about otters. But whenever JohntheOtter is mentioned I am much more aware of other, better otters, so when I saw this I had to share.)
Tulgey, I believe in the strength of the rationality and freedoms of the Western society with regards to women’s status. Maybe things could change in distant future, but not anytime soon. If you ask me what I believe honestly, then, no, I don’t believe anybody can deny women and girls education in the West. First I’ll say that I believe in universal free higher education in small countries and don’t know if it would work in America, but this is what I believe – higher education should generally be cheap. Yes, the article is annoying, just like the voting articles, but frankly, which father will be so awful or dumb to deny his own daughter an education? Which father can legally do that? Aren’t there lots of women with college loans out there? Any girl can go ahead and take out a loan herself, without her father! Nobody’s going to ask for his permission. Frankly, I think it’s morally wrong to make your country’s children to go in debt just to get an education, but that’s how it goes here. I asked Bill whether he thinks his daughter should go to college and he believes the first priority will be to give his kids trades – both the girl and the boy. He also thinks that not all men should go to university, he believes only 20% of all people, both men and women, need higher academic education, most should be trained in trades. The sewing and baking reference he made almost made me laugh, because, even though intended as sexist, is so far from reality that I won’t even waste my energy to get angry over it.
Denying of education to women seems a very distant, hypothetical possibility. I don’t see it happening, same as I don’t see anyone trying to slacken domestic violence laws in America or denying women certain jobs. This is America.
For feminists, the most important thing right now is to keep the economic system stable and healthy – and healthy in the real sense of the word, as healthy fundamentals, without money printing. If the economy stays functional enough, nothing bad will happen for women. And even if the economy tanks, there will be plenty of white knights in America who will rush to assist women – trust me, there is more of them here than in Europe.
I saw this clearly in the last presidential election – both candidates competed in how women friendly they are.
That’s right, Strega – I can remember when nobody, nobody believed a rape victim. They would twist their minds in pretzels coming up with a theory of how it was really her fault and how she had secretly been a “dirty girl” all along. I can recall being warned as I got older, to stay close to home so I wouldn’t get “hurt” – and this was said in an extremely ominous tone, like it meant something way more than skinning my knees (which I did constantly).
Scarlett, as a European, I’ve always been puzzled why the US has always been so sexist. I was in shock when I learned that even as late as the 1970s women couldn’t hold certain jobs at the State department. This is when women in other countries already had flown into space. No fault divorce was only established here in the 70s, Europe had it in 1920s. It’s puzzling. So you do have a point.
However, as annoying the MRAs may sound, what percentage of the male population do they constitute? 1%, 5%…? Not enough to change the big picture. If things got dangerously close to that, millions of women and their friends would stand up. But above all – most men are not interested any more in having housewives, they want that and for the wife to work on top of it. Corporations scream for young women’s labor. To take women back to the old roles would mean a total overhaul of the current economy, including the high living standard and the comforts and services that everyone, including the men, enjoy. Not gonna happen any time soon.
In the meanwhile, the MRAs do have legitimate claims – such as custody, men’s health and longevity, boys’ education, and a few others maybe.
Ding ding ding! Just what I thought.
You claim to live in the US but seriously think there aren’t men out there whose daughters aren’t being homeschooled in such a fashion they won’t be able to get into college? Really? You claim to be a feminist but actually doubt the existence and harm of the sort of misogyny YOUR HUSBAND espouses?
Does his racism bother you at all?
I saw this clearly in the last presidential election – both candidates competed in how women friendly they are.
Riiight, because “folders full of women” is so women-friendly. Because Mormonism is so women-friendly. Because the party of denying abortion, denying contraception, “legitimate rape” and so on (none of which Mr Romney seems to have gone out of his way to say were unacceptable) is so women-friendly.
For someone claiming a high IQ, you’re doing a great job of looking like a fool – a wilfully-blinkered fool.
Blockquote fail: “I saw this clearly in the last presidential election – both candidates competed in how women friendly they are.” is Bill’s Wife talking.
hellkell, no, it is me who wrote it, I’m very visual and those things are very important to me.
balley, in real life he thinks women should work outside of home.
Yeah, they always couch this in terms that sound somewhat reasonable, until you turn over the rock and really look…then it’s nothing but slugs.
Bill’s Wife – All you’re saying is that you don’t believe the terrible things said will ever actually happen so it’s okay. This is weird to me. I don’t think there will ever be a race war that will result in a whites-only homeland, but I wouldn’t date a neo-nazi.
And this…
… makes me think that maybe you don’t realize how many people, self-identified MRA or not, are sexist. It’s not some funny little quirk, it’s an actual problem that has affected people’s lives.
I don’t think it is actually true that young students can take out federal loans if their parents refuse to fill out their part of the FAFSA: http://www.finaid.org/otheraid/parentsrefuse.phtml
They can get married or wait to turn 24, both of which make them “independent” students in the eyes of the federal government, which otherwise considers the burden of responsibility to pay for the college education of young people to fall on the family.
But yeah, if some sea change convinced guys like Price that educating his daughter is useless, then she faces a pretty serious disadvantage for education.
I can understand why Bill’s wife ignores his MRM stuff. It IS pretty much impotent ’cause they don’t even really themselves know what they want.
They want women to work! But not act like they work! Ha.
and seriously, what is people’s deal with money printing?? A growing population at home and foreign investors want to hold growing amounts of dollar-denominated assets; if the fed gov refuses to create them, don’t you get deflation?
For the same pay as men?
And what’s this “in real life” nonsense? You trying to tell us now he spends so much time on the Spearhead for the lulz? That he’s just a troll?
If that’s the case … why hasn’t it occurred to your high-IQ, totally not really misogynist despite all the shit he says husband how much harm he’s doing?
He says women are just wasting their time after 25. He says women shouldn’t get higher education. You really think that’s harmless? You really think that’s a joke, or just stupidity, or what? Or are you the special snowflake, like all those feMRAs who desperately try to fit in, to kowtow to the misogynists, stroking their egos until they find that they’ll be turned on just like any other woman the minute they dare disagree with the men?
Wait, what? How is this a feminist thing to say?
and hey, fwiw, my parents declined to get involved in getting me into college because, and I quote, “you’ll just get married and have babies anyway.”
So they sent me off to get married in the army. lol
I did manage to graduate college but not til I was 31. I’m not really complaining on my own account, but good grief, American society is hardly uniformly feminist.
Yes, funny how someone who’s all amaze at how sexist the US is then goes on to talk about white knights. I don’t think there’s much danger of No True Scotsmanning with this one. Really Bill’s Wife or not, this ain’t no feminist.
I never understood why “tall and broad shouldered” is what men think women like. Why is it never “nice eyes and a cute butt?” I like eyes and butts better than shoulders…
Bill’s Wife – Is… that it? That’s a good thing and all, but not very impressive.
“He’s a misogynist, but he’s not very effective at it” is not the most ringing endorsement of one’s life partner.
cloudiah: PREACH.
Yeah, I hate “tall and broad shouldered”. I do not like men who’re markedly taller than me, and the broad/squarish shoulders … eugh.
Speaking of shoulders, anyone heard of someone having a – well, an erogenous zone, on the curve of the shoulder?
I was going to say the exact same, katz.