Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism conspiracy theory grandiosity imaginary oppression male studies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam the c-word whores

Australian “Male Studies” initiative under fire because of its connections to raving misogynists; raving misogynists blame feminists

Antifeminist attorney, A Voice for Men contributor and and would-be Male Studies lecturer Roy Den Hollander bustin' a move on the Colbert Report.
Antifeminist attorney,  A Voice for Men contributor, and would-be Male Studies lecturer Roy Den Hollander bustin’ a move on the Colbert Report.

NOTE: See the end of the piece for an important clarification from the University.

So it seems the new “Male Studies” initiative at the University of South Australia is running into a few problems. Well, one big problem: members of the general public have discovered that some of the people involved with the initiative are raving misogynists, or have chosen to associate themselves with raving misogynists.

Yesterday, a story by journalist Tory Shepherd noted that two of the lecturers have written for a notoriously misogynistic website by the name of A Voice for Men. (You may have heard of it.) One of them, the crankish American attorney Roy Den Hollander, even suggested in a post on that site that men’s rights activists may have to take up arms against the evil Feminists who run the world.

The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely.  But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms.

Huh. That doesn’t sound like a very academic analysis of the situtation to me.

Den Hollander also likes to refer to “women’s studies” as “witches’ studies.” And if you don’t believe her, here’s the AVFM post in which he does just that; it’s in the first sentence.

Apparently pointing out some of these basic facts about Den Hollander, and about another of the lecturers, Miles Groth, who has also written for AVFM, is causing some trouble for Dr. Misan and his little Male Studies initiative — at least according to a post on AVFM by the always furious Paul Elam, who informs us somberly that

[s]ources close to the story report that [Shepherd’s article] is likely a terminal setback for the new initiative.

Elam fights back against Shepherd’s alleged “lies” in a paragraph that is itself nothing but lies:

The article by Shepherd is saturated with the typical lies, e.g.: that the SPLC named AVFM as a hate group, which they did not, and that this website regularly calls women “bitches and whores,” which it does not. She also implied a connection between AVFM and those championing the initiative which does not exist.

Actually, Shepherd said that the SPLC described AVFM as a “hate site,” not a “hate group.” This is in fact true, as the SPLC included AVFM in a list of “woman-hating sites,” which would make it a hate site, as the hatred of women is in fact a kind of hate.

And AVFM does in fact refer to women regularly as whores and bitches and other slurs. Indeed, in one notorious post about Rebecca Watson, Elam managed to use the word “whore” more than 30 times; as for the word “bitch,” well, check out this compilation of AVFM posts featuring that word in the title. As you’ll see from that post, Elam also likes referring to women as “cunts,” and once referred to the feminist blogosphere as the “cunt-o-sphere.”

Do your own searches for “whore” or “bitch” on AVFM to find more recent examples.

Shepherd doesn’t, in fact, imply any “connection” between AVFM and “those championing the initiative” beyond the undeniable fact that two of the lecturers have written for AVFM, and that AVFM has heralded the Male Studies initiative. Interestingly, it’s Elam, with his talk about  “[s]ources close to the story,” who implies an even closer connection than Shepherd does.

The rest of Elam’s post is a remarkable mixture of self-contradicting lies and self-delusion. First, he declares “Male Studies” to be a pure-as-the-driven snow example of non-ideological scholarship.

In writing this article Shepherd actually served as a mouthpiece for academic feminists invested in blocking the attempt to study human males in a non-ideological, scholarly fashion.

How exactly is someone who describes himself explicitly as antifeminist, who describes women’s studies as “witches studies,” and who’s written for AVFM on several occasions an example of someone who is trying “to study human males in a non-ideological, scholarly fashion?”

Elam then launches into one of his typical chest-beating fuck-their-shit-up ideological rants:

The Men’s Human Rights Movement is not going to go away. Indeed, even as we regret the temporary setback of an important and valuable initiative, we do welcome another opportunity to shine a light on the ideologically twisted agenda of people who would undermine an academic program with the ambition to enhance our understanding of an egregiously underserved population.

Yes, that’s right. The world’s men have been “egregiously underserved.”

This type of bullying and public deception is precisely what has catapulted the Men’s Human Rights Movement into rapid growth and increasing popularity in such a short period of time.

The only bullying and deception I’m seeing here is coming from your side, dude. Women aren’t talking about taking up arms against men. You’re the one who’s lying about what Shepherd said.

From assaultive, criminal demonstrators in Toronto blocking doors to a lecture on male suicide, to this – an obviously orchestrated attack on honorable academicians — the reality of what feminism has become, and the depths to which it has lowered, is again in full public view.

Uh, Roy Den Hollander isn’t an “honorable academician.” And, frankly, neither is anyone who chooses to associate themselves with your site. I’m not sure how Shepherd’s one article counts as an “obviously orchestrated attack,” but all she did was point out what Hollander said, and point out the sort of misogynistic shit you publish on your shitty website.

In other words, Mr. Elam, you guys have dug your own hole here — with you, personally, bringing one of the bigger shovels.

Just think: A Voice for Men may be in large part responsible for the collapse of this Male Studies initiative, because you and the others writing on your site can’t hide your raging misogyny, and can’t resist the temptation to call women “bitches” and “whores.”

This is the lesson of all the publicity you guys have gotten in the last year: when members of the general public learn what you guys actually believe, they are repulsed by it. The more attention you get, the more people oppose you.

After some more ranting that he might as well have cut and pasted from any of  a dozen previous posts of his, Elam ends with one of his trademark vague threats:

We will force their hand, again and again. And each time they demonstrate their moral bankruptcy; their limitless capacity for tyranny, the more they will generate the contempt and indignation they deserve. And the more people will realize that the only way forward is straight through them.

You’re just digging that hole deeper.

EDITED TO ADD: The Universityof Southern Australia has clarified a few things about the Male Studies initiatives. According to a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, the school only approved one of the four proposed courses, and officially rejected (back in 2012) the one that would have included Den Hollander and Groth as lecturers. Here’s what the newspaper says:

The university has approved one of four proposed graduate courses, a certificate in male health and health promotion, which will begin online next month.

But an original proposal by one of the university’s academics outlined three further certificates, including a course called ”males and sexism”, which named lecturers who have been published on radical men’s rights websites. …

The university emphasised it did not endorse views of the suggested lecturers. It said the courses, which were criticised in the media on Monday, were rejected in 2012.

So that’s reassuring to hear.

I removed a portion of my post referring to Gary Misan, in charge of the course, because in light of this information it’s not clear if he was referring to all four courses, including those involving Den Hollander and Groth, or just to the male health course.

Oddly, though, Dr. Misan seems to think that the University has signed up for more than one course. On his official University of South Australia web site he describes himself as “program co-ordinator for a new suite of courses in Male Studies at UniSA, the first of which will be offered in 2014.”

292 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Won’t get you as drunk as vodka, but that might be a good thing if this conversation keeps being as odd as it has been so far.

BigMomma
BigMomma
10 years ago

I have fizz, gin, wine and ginger liqueur. I have a mango tree in my backyard and I’m willing to improvise.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Also, random distraction from the same old frustrating conversation! So, there’s this local restaurant/lounge where they make one of those mixed boozy drinks that comes in pitchers and has 15 different types of booze plus fruit juice. Conversation with friend, her friend, and I about this.

Friend of friend – OMG there’s vodka and rum and Remy and vermouth and whiskey and everything! This stuff would get you so bombed compared to ordering a normal cocktail.

Friend – You realize that 80 proof booze A mixed with 80 proof booze B is still 8o proof, not 160 proof, yes?

Friend of friend – But it has everything! Vodka AND whiskey!

Me – It’s not going to get you any drunker than a regular cocktail would, it’s just going to make you puke more later.

BigMomma
BigMomma
10 years ago

TBH I steer clear of cocktails because I have a fear of puking. Although I will have a margarita when the fancy takes me

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

I find that vodka or sake is always fine on my stomach, and rum or tequila usually are, it’s anything resembling sangria that doesn’t agree with me. Plus mixing different types of booze in the same evening often doesn’t end well for a lot of people.

opheliamonarch
10 years ago

Hey folks, would Gin be any use Argenti? If not I have Quality Street, although you’ll have to fight me for the orange creams. 🙂

@Kitteh. ANNIVERSARY! I will compile many furry funnies in your honour and email them forthwith.

So, I’m remembering the last time I was commenting regularly was when CassandraSays said she was worried regulars would be put off by the constant ableism.

Well, I was. I just got tired of it and thought I’d have a break.

I’ve been tentatively reading some threads the last couple of days and thinking about starting to comment again. Then I read this thread, wow. Or as NeuroticBeagle once said:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Not an exact quote.)

Where are you NeuroticBeagle? My poorly brain needs blain breach.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Sigh. This is exactly what I was hoping wouldn’t happen.

(BTW, if you want the orange creams can I have the strawberry ones?)

opheliamonarch
10 years ago

Strawberry ones = dark chocolate, so munch away. 🙂

BigMomma
BigMomma
10 years ago

I’ve always been terrified of puking so avoided mixing very early on. I’ve thrown up 3 times in the last 20 years and once was gastro. So I have little experience in the whole mixing drinks thing. I got obsessed as a teenager that mixing my drinks would make me sick

emma
emma
10 years ago

“But do explain how they can have “diagnosable neuropsychological deficiencies” and pathological views, but not have any mental illness.”

Alright. Since you asked.

Personality disorders are not the same as mental illness, although in the pop culture the distinction is almost never made clear. Psychopathy, as the (personality) disorder likely overrepresented among MRAs, is NOT mental illness. (So it’s not really correct to call psychopaths “crazy;” evil would be more appropriate, as their lack of conscience makes them so.)

The chief difference is usually good adjustment to the world in psychopaths (unlike in folks suffering from mental illness) and lack of conscience in psychopaths (again, unlike in folks suffering from mental illness). This makes psychopaths efficient, well-adjusted, and often highly skilled in assorted life domains, including those that involve controlling, manipulating and otherwise abusing unsuspecting others. Again, UNLIKE mentally ill folks, who are typically harmless, despite the stigma and fear attached to their differentness.

(BTW, it is not quite true that psychopathy is “a lay correlate for antisocial personality disorder,” as psychopathy, a tried and true diagnostic entity unduly dispensed with in earlier editions of DSM for largely political reasons, encompasses both antisocial PD with its criminality as well as the garden-variety, non-criminal conscience-free folk who are all around us.)

To make this long and apparently unpleasant story short(er): MRAs in general are not mentally ill nor “crazy” (in the mentally ill meaning of the word); but they are clearly unhealthy individuals, whose hateful views and behaviors do indeed represent serious pathology (= lack of conscience).

That’ll be my last comment in this obviously touchy exchange. Please forgive the unintended stepping on justifiably, I’m sure, sensitive toes — I do understand and share your objections to labeling MRAs as mentally ill or “crazy,” since indeed they are not; as well as the desire to hold them accountable for their actions, which indeed they are. I hope my limited explanation has clarified things a bit.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Wow, that was condescending.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

BTW, for opheliamonarch, Argenti, and anyone else breaking out in hives because of the ableism, here is an adorable kitten sleeping on a table.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

Same kitten, but younger.

Buttercup Q. Skullpants
Buttercup Q. Skullpants
10 years ago

To me this is disturbing. This is his line of attack, that an idea lacks legitimacy if it disagrees with feminism, and should be perceived as marginal, and rejected as such. In a university setting there should be the freedom to explore a range of ideas. Some of them can be non-feminist, some even anti-feminist. Whether marginal or not, the discussion and even the curriculum should not be blocked, rejected or otherwise discouraged on that basis alone. There are all sorts of college courses that are marginal in their political emphasis. Some of them are mercilessly ridiculed for it, and yet students have the option of taking them if they like. What is so bad about letting people discuss gender from a non-feminist (or anti-feminist) perspective? Why should non-feminism even be an epithet?

Because when you’re studying a social issue, it’s not helpful or academically rigorous to have an entire course of study devoted to Pretending The Problem Doesn’t Exist. “Anti-feminism” isn’t a legitimate academic discipline, any more than anti-semitism or broccoli-hating or any other reactionary stance. How can you accurately study and characterize something you’re opposed to?

The problem with giving every opinion equal weight is that it makes it harder to distinguish between useful ideas and crap ideas. It promotes insular, conspiracy-driven thinking. The truth always looks less compelling when paired with its opposite. Presented with a choice, people pick whatever idea confirms their pre-existing notions and discard the alternative, even if the alternative is demonstrably true.

It drives me up the wall when the news media gives equal air time to global warming skeptics, or schools mandate the teaching of intelligent design, in the name of promoting academic freedom of thought. All they’re doing is muddying the waters. We should be teaching kids critical thinking skills, not throwing a bunch of confusing BS at them and letting them sort it out on their own.

opheliamonarch
10 years ago

I’m wondering what the people who got annoyed when called out on ableist language six weeks/a month ago think now. The ones who doubled down and told regulars they were overreacting and being overly sensitive/harsh.

If they aren’t feeling offended, are they not at least bored of the same conversation being had again and again?

Seriously, if not because of the offence, could we at least stop using ableist language because it’s dull? And why all the diagnosing of complete strangers? I remember when Man Boobz used to be about mocking misogyny.

Nowadays it seems like all people can do is internet diagnose or use the word ‘crazy’ instead of the million other, funner words we could use.

If people don’t care about offending others, at least see it as a way to exercise that lazy vocabulary/brain.

Bit tired, hoping this makes sense, gonna go stare at Cassandrakitty’s (?) kitty and eat chocolate.

Lovely, lovely, not ableist, kitty…

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

I’m trying to imagine what an academically rigorous anti-feminist course would look like.

“In spite of what feminists have claimed, women are not actually people and they do not deserve to be treated as full citizens – discuss”

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

And yes, if anyone has a list of links to previous conversations about why we don’t diagnose people over the internet and the various associated issues maybe we can stick that in cloudiah’s welcome packet, and link anyone who starts going down that path to those threads with a “read this before you go any further” suggestion.

opheliamonarch
10 years ago

That is a great idea.

More kitty brain bleach. This video reminds me of when we were hand feeding our two abandoned kittens.

Solomon is now so big we had to get a special carrier as the normal one can’t take his weight. His sister Scarlet is still screaming every time she sees anything that might be milk. They’re two now and if you’d seen them when we found them you would not believe they’d survive.

Hand feeding made them weird and wonderful. 🙂

http://youtu.be/aOrpUgJPBws

Yup, really need to get some sleep, my comments are sounding stranger.

opheliamonarch
10 years ago

Scarlett! Can’t spell my own cats name now, really need some sleep.

Brooked
Brooked
10 years ago

@Argenti
I concur that a Manhattan can cure many ills.

@Roscoe
Are you arguing that Men’s, Women’s and Gender Studies is feminist propoganda that needs to be counteracted by anti-feminist propaganda fueled Male (and Female?) Studies? Sorry but whole academic fields don’t spring up so extremists cranks can do battle in a simplistic culture war that only exists in their heads.

The are plenty of non-feminist and “anti-feminist” academics found throughout all disciplines and in well funded conservative think tanks, including Christina Hoff Sommer’s Independent Women Forum. Conservative and Libertarian academics aren’t oppressed and silenced, and are often well funded to boot.

tinyorc
10 years ago

@Roscoe P. Coltrane:

To me this is disturbing. This is his line of attack, that an idea lacks legitimacy if it disagrees with feminism, and should be perceived as marginal, and rejected as such. In a university setting there should be the freedom to explore a range of ideas. Some of them can be non-feminist, some even anti-feminist.

Sure, but he’s not saying that any idea that disagrees with feminism is not legitimate. He’s saying that a whole suite of courses specifically designed to disparage and attack feminism under the thin veil of “male studies” is not legitimate, or academically sound. Flood points out that the whole thing is driven by a “backlash” against feminism, which is positioned squarely as the enemy. I can’t think of any legitimate school of critical or cultural theory that exists specifically to tear down another. Sure, new theories develop out of critiquing and challenging old ones, but the point is that they are building on old ideas and pushing the discourse forward, not championing regressive ideas and dragging the discourse backwards.

Also, the political stance that would be enshrined in a male studies course (as designed by anyone affiliation to AVF) is not a marginal one. It is the mainstream. It is the norm. The traditionalist views of gender pushed by these guys – men and women are fundamentally different and must conform to their assigned gender roles – have been around since forever. The idea that women are oppressing men by speaking openly about gender inequality has been around since the suffrage movement. These aren’t new ideas that have sprung up in opposition to the dominant discourse of feminism – they ARE the dominant discourse which feminism seeks to subvert.

Viscaria
Viscaria
10 years ago

Honestly, when neurotypical people come in here to blame any and all bad behaviour on neuroatypical people, what I really read is “I could never do that, I’m ‘normal.'” Doubling down dissolves into an endless string of “NOT IT NOT IT NOT IT.” How about instead of scapegoating marginalized people who are already blamed for practically everything in order to save your ego, you could just, I dunno, be aware of your own capacity for bigotry and try to guard against it?

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
10 years ago

I have to admit that “they’re pathological but I’m not saying they’re mentally ill” wins some sort of prize for not making sense, especially in combination with the idea that we should revert back to earlier editions of the DSM.

titianblue
titianblue
10 years ago

How about instead of scapegoating marginalized people who are already blamed for practically everything in order to save your ego, you could just, I dunno, be aware of your own capacity for bigotry and try to guard against it?

Hands Viscaria all the internetz, tied up in purple ribbons.

Merus
Merus
10 years ago

Reading the Adelaide article with an Australian eye, two things jump out: firstly, the lead is that the proposed lecturers wrote for a ‘hate site’; it’s brought up early because, in part, hate speech is illegal in Australia. (Australia’s right to free speech is from judicial interpretation, not a bill of rights.) The implication is that if they bring that material and present it in Australia, both them and the university could be legally liable. (Yes, I am aware this sounds like tyranny to Americans.) Secondly, the choice to bring up firearms when introducing Hollander is telling: we’re freaked out about America’s obsession with firearms and seeing tyranny everywhere, and the cultural fantasy of overthrowing (imaginary) tyranny with armed revolution. That quote’s where the Australian audience is supposed to decide, if they haven’t already, that this guy’s delusional.

1 5 6 7 8 9 12