Is there something about Men’s Rights Activists that renders them utterly incapable of admitting a mistake? The other day, I performed a bit of rudimentary factchecking on a collection of allegedly “misandrist” quotes assembled by Jonathan Taylor of A Voice for Male Students.
Among other things. I pointed out that the drastically truncated version of a Marilyn French quote he posted completely misrepresented the actual meaning of what she had said, making it appear that she was charging the majority of men with killing, or beating, or raping women and/or molesting their own daughters:
“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women…he can sexually molest his daughters…THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE.”
– Dr. Marilyn French, The War Against Women, p. 182, her emphasis.
In fact, she had said something rather different, as I pointed out by quoting the original passage straight from her book:
It wasn’t clear to me if Taylor had been aware that he had drastically misrepresented French, as it appeared that he had simply cut and pasted the quote from another site without actually checking French’s book to see if it was accurate. So it appeared to be sloppiness on his part rather than deliberate deception.
Taylor has now responded to my post with a long and bizarre rant titled “Futrelle & Co. all in a tizzy as AVFMS exposes misandry in academia. AVFMS dissects their “counterarguments.”
He starts off by freely admitting that he misquoted French, but claiming that it doesn’t count as misrepresentation because it didn’t really change the meaning of the quote at all.
That’s right. Instead of acknowledging the misrepresentation, he’s doubling down — even though his explanation is in direct conflict with the evidence that I posted and that he reposts on his own site. He simply redefines reality until the misrepresentation mysteriously vanishes. Here’s his, er, argument:
I copied/pasted the quote from Antimisandry, although I had to find the source page for the book independently. I’ll admit: on this one I didn’t get the full quote and simply took Antimisandry’s reproduction of it. I am happy to amend it (which I have done in the original post).
David Futrelle, editor of the blog Manboobz, thinks this is a gamechanger, that it renders the meaning “completely different.” Not so fast.
He then pastes in my screenshot of the original quote, and my comments pointing out that the longer quote has a completely different meaning than the shorter one.
Then he tries to wave away his mistake with this ingenious bit of sleight-of-hand:
Actually Futrelle, according to Feminist ideology everything Marilyn French listed was a form of violence. Need I remind you what all constitutes “violence” according to Feminist ideology nowadays?
Pay no attention to my giant mistake behind the curtain! Look at THIS instead!
“THIS” being, in this case, a random feminist paper titled Intersecting Inequalities: A Review of Feminist Theories and Debates on Violence against Women and Poverty in Latin America, which suggests at once point that “[e]conomic violence against women occurs when they are denied access to or control over resources, or the right to work and earn income.”
Now, none of this has any relevance whatsoever to the question of whether or not Taylor has misquoted French — which he has — or indeed to what French’s statement actually means. There’s no evidence that French was in any way influenced by the paper Taylor quotes — which would have been a tad difficult, given that it was published 18 years after she wrote The War Against Women.
Apparently Taylor thinks that feminism is some sort of Borglike hive-mind that transcends time and space.
And he apparently thinks that when a famous feminist says that the vast majority of men have probably at least “treat[ed] women disrespectfully” in some way it is the same as if she had accused the vast majority of men of being murderers, rapists, woman-beaters and/or child abusers.
Taylor then takes issue with her references to men “beating down” and “subjugating” women, and indignantly insists that while
I know this may sound like heresy to Feminist and pro-Feminist ears, but the vast majority of men do not abuse women, let alone to an extent that they “subjugate” them.
Taylor has completely misunderstood the basic argument of French’s passage, which is that the majority of men do not have to physically abuse women in order to gain a certain advantage from the fact that other men do. You may disagree with that, but, again, she is not saying that the vast majority of men abuse women; quite the opposite.
Taylor then asserts that the really important thing is that what she’s saying still counts as “misandry.”
So apparently if someone is an evil misandrist, in Taylor’s eyes, you can misquote them all you want, and it doesn’t really matter, because … MISANDRY
Taylor continues on with his fulminations for some time after this, focusing mainly on “rebutting” comments from Man Boobz commenters. He posts an appalling photo of a crowd of white men posing proudly in front of several black men they have lynched, with the caption: “The powerlessness of women: point a finger and kill someone.”
I honestly don’t have the energy or the patience to deal with any more of his sophistry today. I’m not even going to read the whole thing. You can have a go at it if you want, dear readers. Let me know if there’s anything else in it that I need to address.
My plan today, after the nastiness in the post yesterday, was to post a bunch of pictures of my kitties. So, dammit, that’s what I’m going to do. Give me a few minutes, and I’ll put them up in another post.
RE: CassandraSays
Yeah, what boggles me is that these guys seem offended that people would even THINK such things. I’m sort of like, “Dudes, not everybody thinks you’re awesome. COPE.”
Like, I’d bet good money that a LOT of people think I’m batshit and are just too polite or unwilling to feel my wrath to say so. I am okay with this. My response is resignation, not, “THE VERY THOUGHT THAT YOU THINK THESE THINGS IS OPPRESSIVE.”
Well if they don’t like those undies then they’re really not going to like the Android app I’m testing for rape prevention. Simplified, it’s a phone app that will automatically record video, pics and audio and send it to a server so that there will be evidence. There is also a loud recording that tells the rapist they are being recorded and cannot destroy the evidence.
I need to test it to see how it will work irl. Let you know how it goes.
Chie – That’s where I heard about the AR undies/chasity belts (on PZ Meyer’s blog), but when I was on my PC I didn’t see the comments section.
I’ll have to check. Wish someone screencapped some of the comments.
Most of what he’s going on about is just him sticking his head up his ass, but the use of “violence” is actually a thing. The term “Violence Against Women” (VAW) is commonly used in international women’s rights studies, most notably by the World Health Organization and United Nations. The reason for this, generally, is that things like low education, lack of personal resources, and inability to participate in the general workforce are associated with higher incidence of domestic violence.
The thing is, these reports specifically define what they mean by violence in these contexts. Typically the reports are very clear that they aren’t talking about a single incident where, for example, a woman was turned down for a job. VAW in this context is about systematic conditions that keep the majority of women from being equal to the majority of men.
Of course, this guy probably vaguely heard something about unemployment being violence and whined about it online without trying to find what it actually meant.
@ LBT
I’d be less boggled by the “some women don’t trust some men not to rape them? outrageous!” if the very same guys didn’t write about how certain women are “freaking begging” to be raped. Which is it, guys? Can’t be both.
Since my nym shows up in the article (I’m a dumbass ferret sock, and also David in disguise, clearly), I’ll just copy what I already wrote in the other thread.
—-
How quaint. Once again, that article does link to sources here, and does present snippets of those sources, but still twists the words just slightly and marches right past most others without comment.
I’m not a genius debater or even particularly intelligent, but even I grasp that Liz Kelly quote about a “Continuum of pressure” means something entirely different than it is presented as, and I found the original quote to point that out… to which the response is taking what I wrote about that amended, original quote and pretending it applies to the version of the quote on his list.
But that’s a lie. The actual quote from the actual book doesn’t end at “Sex”, it ends a few words later at “There is no clear distinction, therefore, between consensual sex and rape, but a continuum of pressure, threat, coercion and force. The concept of a continuum validates the sense of abuse women feel when they do not freely consent to sex and takes account of the fact that women may not define their experience at the time or over time as rape“.
Plus, the lead in also kind of shifts the entire thing rather bloody radically towards a reasonable, nuanced approach to rape.
Mendecious. Specious. Spurious! This is actually outright lying in a source collection with ample evidence thereof. Weaksauce.
Plus, my original comment included a line that indicates that false accusations are terribad (which they are) and that rape is terribad (which it is) so claiming that that no one said so is also a lie.
And the best part? I wrote that, in a 174 word comment reply to this amended, rebutal article…. which the site owner deleted without answering.
Smooth. Master debater there.
—-
That’s the French quote wrong and the Liz Kelly quote wrong, and when pointed out, answered with “Nuh-huh!”. Or in my case, with “Dumbass”.
Sad. It’s the same for the other 14ish quotes, alas.
They don’t accept any awareness campaigns that focuses on crime prevention if it suggests men are culpable, because that’s gross oppression. These guys are still raging over the Edmonton DBTG rape prevention campaign’s seven posters for Pete’s sake. Posters attempting to educate young men in hopes of preventing rapes from happening don’t tend to create boiling outrage. That is, unless you believe rape awareness campaigns directed at men are beyond the pale and victim shaming is underutilized, especially when it comes to law enforcement and untrustworthy, irresponsible women (aka women).
I know I’m not saying anything new, but my mind has yet to be unboggled.
Oh hey, I just realized I’ve read this “Intersecting Violences” paper before! I wonder if this dude went to VA Tech?
@ Brooked
Don’t worry, we can all be boggled together.
@ CassandraSays — of course it can be both! And women shouldn’t work away from the home and shouldn’t be financially dependent on men! And women should give sex to whichever man asks for it, but not sleep with multiple partners! And men should always get full custody, but never be expected to pay for the upbringing of their children!
Trust me on this. I did a first aid course once, and so I know everything because of STEM training.
Oh, but they can. Because women must always be wrong, always available, always unavailable to anyone except the man speaking, and always in the position to be blamed, whatever men do to us.
This is my week to be ninjaed! 😀
CassandraSays – No, no, no, see, MEN are always better at logic than WOMAN, right? And because most men are manginas and White Knights, the only men who have avoided the feminizing emasculating feminazis are MRAs and Red Pillers. Ergo, MRAs are the epitome of LOGIC. Hence, if something doesn’t seem right/contradictionary (e.g. “women think all men are rapists, waahhh!”/”women should have known better than to get raped by that man and should have taken precautions, harumph!”), it’s ’cause our ladybrains are frying from their superior LOGICS. And if you’re a male feminist or a mangina or something like that, you’re only doing it because you’re a beta who can’t get poon.
It’s been proven too! Men have superior brains over those womens, and MRAs are superior to everyone else. It’s right here in this lovely graph. *links to shittystatisticsthatijustpullledoutofmyasstwominutesago.jpeg*
LOGIC.
*nodnod*
“Logic” is just a word for “stuff that makes me feel better about myself”, right? If you say no you’re being a misandrist.
“He posts an appalling photo of a crowd of white men posing proudly in front of several black men they have lynched, with the caption: “The powerlessness of women: point a finger and kill someone.””
And let me guess… he thinks society is racist against WHITE people.
Did black women have this same “power”?
Does the fact that people hate and wish to murder molesters and rapers of children also mean that children have power in society????
Ow, the stupid is hurting my brain.
Uh…
>.>
<.<
It……… depends.
That’s logical!
LBT said:
Yes, this, so much.
I read this yesterday when someone linked to it. I couldn’t analyze or engage with it then because so…much…rage.
Lynching is not a cudgel to beat feminists with. It was the brutal murder of POC because of the color of their skin. Because the privileged white class felt threatened.
Grrr. Just grrr.
Oh, but kudos to Fibinachi! Ze really got under Taylor’s skin.
Ooh, you’re a Hokie, too, ignotussomnium? (Ostensibly) trans-continental alma mater high-five 🙂
RE: CassandraSays
Which is it, guys? Can’t be both.
It’s whatever is most convenient for them and requires them to do absolutely nothing.
RE: sparky
Yeah, just… UGH. Did you know, there used to be a black reporter who could pass for white, and he used it to infiltrate shit like that? Now there was a man with serious brass.
LBT: Are you speaking perhaps of Walter Francis White? His name came up a lot when I was googling this mess:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Francis_White
Then there was Ida B. Wells. She collected statistics about lynchings and blew apart the whole myth about “black men want to rape white women.” A lot of he speeches and pamphlets are available online. She took white suffragettes and women’s rights advocates (I guess you’d call them First Wave feminists?) to task for not speaking out against lynchings and racism.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_B._Wells
RE: sparky
YES! Yes, that’s him! Thank god you found him, I couldn’t for the life of me remember his name! And ah yes, Ida B. Wells. May mercy lay upon her soul for the good works she did.
(I totally learned about White from a comic book. <.< )
Why tell the truth when a lie is more “sexy”? I, in fact quite like it that these fools think all feminists are a huge organised, 100% agreeing collective.( Even tho in real life real feminists spend hours arguing with each other. After all that’s how we all learn and refine our positions. Eg. I like a lot of greers writing but she is appalling on trans issues and indigenous issues.)
The idea that we are all in lockstep is sooo funny but makes us sound very powerful. I’m just waiting for the misandrist uniform. I vote for a unitard in lilac and green!
Given the gradual infiltration of PUA stuff into the MRM I feel like a stylized cheerleader uniform might be appropriate, in honor of the idea that the worst kind of misandry is when a woman who you think is attractive won’t have sex with you.
MY feminist uniform is plaid and leather! 😀 YEEHAW!