I don’t know how I missed it, but a couple of weeks back Vice posted a short video about that EARTH-SHATTERINGLY HISTORIC Men’s Rights rally in Toronto that captured the attention of the world a tiny fraction of a percentage of people in the world (including the people at it and readers of this blog) a little over a month ago.
Alas, WordPress won’t let me embed the video here, but you all need to go look at it. Not only does it capture pretty well what a dinky event it was, but it also contains a bunch of mini-interviews with some A Voice for Men folks that are rather revealing.
The most revealing one of the bunch starts about 2:40 into the video, when AVFM’s Suzanne McCarley explains that
Men, as a class, have never ever oppressed women, as a class. Men have always protected and provided for women. And protected them from oppression from others.
From others? What kind of others? Like, space aliens?
Women have never objected to this, and in fact have always been grateful because it’s how they survived. It is only in the last few hundred years when women of privileged class who don’t even know what they’re being protected from feel disadvantaged because they’re not comfortable with the level of protection they have.
Wow. A few hundred years? Sometimes people accuse MRAs of wanting to take us back to the 1950s. McCarley apparently wants to take us back to the 1750s.
They don’t even understand what they’re being protected from.
Wolves? Sharks? Dishpan hands? Space aliens?
They have no concept how dangerous the world is for them but gosh they’re just not happy because, you know, the males in the family tell them what to do and make all the decisions for them and control all the money. That’s not oppression. That’s protection.
Wow. So I guess slaves and prisoners are the most protected classes of all.
It’s what kept our species alive and what built … [she gestures at the park and the buildings around it] this beautiful city.
Wait. I thought Jefferson Starship built this city. On rock ‘n’ roll.
Anyway, there’s also some footage of a speech about the evil oppression of white men given by an unknown speaker at the rally. He also complains that men working for the government are men who’ve had “their things cut off and are toeing the politically correct line.” (Hopefully after the bleeding has stopped.)
There’s an interview with Paul Elam, who for some reason looks like he’s wearing mascara (which I’m pretty sure he isn’t). He delivers this puzzling pronouncement:
Looking at men in government and saying they have all the power is like looking at women in grocery stores and saying they have all the food.
Not only is this way more revealing about gender inequality than Elam may realize, but it’s also a tad ironic, because Elam not that long ago used (unreliable) data about how women “control” most consumer spending — that is, they do most of the shopping — in order to argue (twice!) that women were the ones primarily responsible for destroying the environment.
There are assorted other bits of misinformation and ignorance and just plain old bigotry from the MRAs.
There’s also some commentary from the counterprotesters that made me wince. No, MRAs aren’t all Marc Lepines waiting to happen. They’re shitty enough people as it is; you don’t have to compare them all to a misogynist mass murderer to make your point. And in fact, you undercut yourself with that kind of rhetoric. Focus on what they actually say and do. It’s bad enough.
And the “racist, sexist, anti-gay” chant? Drop that. MRAs are, for the most part, driven by misogyny — not by other bigotries. Yes, some are racist, including one of the speakers featured on this very video, but that’s not the driving force for most of them. Some are homophobic, but that’s not the driving force for most of them. Some are transphobic — including Elam himself — but that’s not a central issue for most of them.
It’s worth pointing out these other bigotries, but to make these issues the centerpiece of your counterprotest is to miss the point — it would be a bit like attacking the Ku Klux Klan as “sexist and racist.” I’m sure plenty of KKKers are sexist as hell, but with the Klan racism really is the main thing; with MRAs, misogyny is.
And in this case it gave AVFM’s Karen Straughan the opportunity to appear (at least for a moment) like a reasonable person by pointing out that she in fact is not straight.
Anyway, watch the video. It’s amazing.
::registers complete bafflement::
How the heck are you seen as dangerous??? Is this singlets doing the OMG SYBILL stuff about multis? And online?
::nodding furiously in agreement at everything katz just said::
It’s not only “not safe about other aspects of your life” in the sense of people being hurtful, intentionally or not; it’s that you end up feeling compelled to hide or outright lie about them. That itself undermines any feeling of safety, because it’s the walking-on-eggshells thing, and feeling dishonest – lying by omission at least. It was a huge relief to be able to say what my situation was here, I know that. It’s most of why I’ve given up my brief time on Pharyngula. There’s also the element, thinking about it, of not really trusting a group, when you’re afraid to mention something, and that pretty well kills the idea of it being a safe space in any but the narrowest of ways.
RE: Kittehs
How the heck are you seen as dangerous??? Is this singlets doing the OMG SYBILL stuff about multis? And online?
*sighs, rubs temples* “Are you dangerous?” is probably the most common question we’ve ever been asked on coming out. There is a LOT of pop culture baggage about axe-murderin’ multis… and that we also have Billy Milligan (who is multi) and Kenneth Bianchi (who faked it) associated with us doesn’t help matters. A lot of my behavior and social skills were learned with the express intent of trying to allay singlets’ fears that we would go on a homicide spree. (Never mind that multiples are far more likely to be the VICTIMS of abuse.)
In this case, however, I was invited to a chat room. The person expressly told me everything would be fine, we could be open, but it turned out the head of the chat room had had an unpleasant experience with a multi once. This was generalized to all multis; they felt unsafe having us there, and so we got kicked out without so much as a by your leave.
And that was when I learned not to trust dumbasses when they tell me everything will be fine.
I like the response in your zine — are you dangerous? And whatever the reply was that implied keep asking and you would be, because who wouldn’t?
Guys…we need a name. I’ve had two offers to help cover hosting, and while reading the fine print is giving me a headache, neither gets absurdly expensive. But in order to get this online, we need a domain name, and everything else I can change once we’re up, but not that.
Seeing how people have expressed a preference that we not go manboobz spinoff, Manboobz: The Magazining is probably not a good idea. Magazining.com is amazingly not a registered domain, so we could do that?
*themagazining.com
Magazining.com belongs to one of those ass companies that buys up domains so you have to pay them if you want the domain. And fuck them with legos.
fuckthemwithlegos.com 😉
themagazining.com sounds fine to me!
Actually so many of our running jokes could be domain names …
ferretsincatsuitsinadavidsuit.com
penguinsinspanx.com
hardchairsaremisandry.com
(I’m leaving out the sweary ones cos I suspect they’d be rejected!)
Isn’t that kind of vague, though? ‘The Magazining’ could just as easily be a mag about bad horror movie sequels.
…says the guy who doesn’t actually have any better suggestions. <.< What would be sorta the core theme that we'd be doing with this magazine? What do we want to portray with the name? Humor, feminism, intersectionality? What's the main focus? Why are we making this in the first place?
Sorry to ask about the “are you dangerous” wharblegarble again, LBT – incredulity hit “post” before “you already know this crap multis get” said “no need”. 🙁
themagazining.com might actually end up being an excellent thing. Yes, it’s vague, but that allows clarification in the sub..bit… where did that word go? TBA.themagazining.com – the bold bit.
sub?
super?
sod it… my language spleen has borken
subdomain
Defrosting Peaches? As a name for it… I’m not just making random noises at the internet.
“I’m not just making random noises at the internet.”
Which would be kinda cool for a name …
Reading some of the earlier comments now. I’m disagreeing with this idea that the MHRAs at the rally are unimpressive or not respectable.
Dean was shaking- looked like nerves to me- but his delivery was pretty good. Elam projected a strong air of confidence. Good presentation, all told. And the protesters were idiots.
Oh yeah, spouting misogyny is soooo respectable. Run along now, child.
There was no misogyny in that video. Nothing less than the MHRM taking its first tentative steps into the real world.
Misogyny is all they’re about. Are you incredibly stupid or just a lying dipshit? You’re talking Paul “fucking their shit up gives me an erection” Elam and Nick Wossname with his “how can I get an erection if she’s not screaming NO?”
You might like to ask Mr Elam how much help he’s given to men with the tens (or hundred, I’ve read) thousands of dollars he gets a year from his scam site.
If this “misogyny” charge is in reference to Paul’s satire- he does that to get people to pay attention. It’s a necessary New Media tactic. And now AVfM will be featured on 20/20. Who won, again?
Oh, you’re trying the satire defence? If Pauly’s such a satire wizz, want to explain how he totally fucked up on the Syrup Trap article?
He’s done not one thing to help anyone except his own bank account. He doesn’t even get satire, which is about punching up, not punching down – and whatever your lot say, men as a class are the power group, and women are not.
Also, do you really think saying a man should smash a woman’s face on the wall and then make her clean the blood is in any way funny, or clever, or satirical? Do you really think Elam was joking when he said that?
You might want to check the definition of winning, too. Being pointed and laughed at, or being shown up for what a horrible failure of a human being you are, is not winning.
Troll, troll, troll, nothin’ but a troll.
Ahem. Satire.
Take it away, Mandy Patinkin:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DG2y8Sx4B2Sk
Pack it up, everyone. Paul Elam is going to be on 20/20. He’s won. Feminism is over.
Argenti: I would love to wield a banhammer, but like Cassandra, I have a low stupid tolerance and I don’t know if I could be as patient as needed. More than happy to talk beauty though!
I’m late to the discussion, but I’m glad the secret room is gone. It usually felt like trying to tiptoe around a minefield in the dark.
Viscaria: I’m glad you came back.
RE: Kevin
If this “misogyny” charge is in reference to Paul’s satire- he does that to get people to pay attention.
You realize that screaming “POOPIE” doesn’t actually work as a long-term business strategy, right? It’s also not satire.
But please. You seem invested in this. Kindly explain to me how it is satire. Be thorough, I’ll read it.
Paul Elam is going to be on 20/20.
Sometime. Eventually. Maybe.