Men’s Rights Activists tend to be fairly blunt; when they express a noxious opinion – and oh so many of their opinions are noxious – they do it in the most obnoxious possible way. It isn’t enough for Paul Elam of A Voice for Men to blame victims of rape; he also has to call them “STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH[es]” wearing the equivalent of PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign[s] glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.”
Warren Farrell is different. He takes a softer approach. He would never call a woman a bitch or a whore or a cunt. When he speaks, he manages to sound gentle and caring. He talks about the importance of listening to others. He sometimes even manages to give the impression that he cares as much about women as he does about men.
And yet his ideas are as noxious as Elam’s. He is as much of a victim blamer as any slur-spouting MGTOWer complaining about “stuck-up cunts” on an internet message board.
It’s just that he does his victim blaming with such carefully evasive language that he’s able to hide the noxiousness of his ideas – and to avoid taking responsibility for them when he’s challenged on them.
So it wasn’t surprising that a lot of the questions directed at him during his Reddit Ask Me Anything session the other day were attempts to pin down the real meaning of some of his more troubling pronouncements over the years.
A Redditor by the name of fiskitall asked Farrell about a quote from his Myth of Male Power that I also had hoped to see him clarify:
It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.
Though worded with characteristic evasiveness, Farrell seems to be suggesting that men should not be prosecuted for raping women who explicitly tell them “no” if they think that these women are somehow giving them a “nonverbal” go-ahead. His “tongues still touching line” suggests specifically that he thinks a woman who kisses a man is essentially consenting to sex.
So how does he explain this quote? He starts off by trying to explain the bit at the end about fantasy:
the quote comes from the politics of sex chapter of The Myth of Male Power. The point that “He might just be trying to become her fantasy” comes after a discussion of how romance novels and, in my 2014 edition, books like 50 Shades of Grey–books that are the female fantasy–are rarely titled, “He Stopped When I Said ‘No.'” The point is that women’s romance novels are still fantasizing the male-female dichotomy of attract/resist versus pursue/persist, and the law is increasingly punishing that as sexual harassment or date rape.
Beneath the weirdly academic verbiage – all that crap about “the male-female dichotomy of attract/resist” and so on – Farrell is advancing an idea that is really quite insidious: the notion that the popularity of rape fantasies in romance novels and in books like 50 Shades of Grey means that women actually want men to disregard their “noes.” Not only that: he seems to suggest that it’s unfair to prosecute men who rape women because, heck, for all they knew the woman is into that sort of thing.
As I pointed out in a followup question that he ignored,
I’m not sure how the fact that women read romance novels means that they don’t really mean no when they say no. That’s fantasy, not reality. I play video games in which people shoot at me; it doesn’t mean I want people to shoot me in real life.
He continues, his language growing more confusing and evasive:
the law is about dichotomy: guilty vs. innocent. male-female sexual attraction is about nuance. the court can’t begin to address the nuances of the male-female tango. the male role is punishable by law. women have not been resocialized to share the risks of rejection by expectation, only by option. the male role is being criminalized; the female increasingly has the option of calling his role courtship when she likes it, and taking him to court when she doesn’t.
The only real “tango” going on here is in Farrell’s language, in his attempts to so muddy the issue of consent that he manages to suggest that rapists are the victims of women’s “poor socialization” and caprice. In real life, the “male role” is not criminalized; men aren’t jailed for asking women out on dates, or going for a kiss at the end of the night; they’re being jailed for overriding a woman’s “noes” and raping them, though in actuality it is rare for a rapist to see the inside of a jail cell.
And that last bit – his complaint that women have “the option of calling his role courtship when she likes it, and taking him to court when she doesn’t” – seems to be little more than a deliberately confounding way of expressing his frustration that women are allowed to say no at all.
the answer is education about each sex’s fears and feelings–and that education being from early junior high school. we need to focus on making adolescence a better preparation for real love within the framework of respect for the differences in our hormones.
I confess I don’t quite know what he’s talking about here; as far as I can figure it, based on some of the things he’s written in the Myth of Male Power, the reference to “the differences in our hormones” is his way of suggesting that we should be more forgiving of boys when they make sexual “mistakes.” Boys will be boys!
the most dangerous thing that’s going on in some colleges is saying that a woman who says “yes” but is drunk can say in the morning that she was raped, because she was drunk and wasn’t responsible. this is like saying someone who drinks and gets in the car and has an accident is not responsible and shouldn’t get a DUI because she or he is drunk. we would never say the guy isn’t responsible for raping her because he’s drunk. these rules infantalize women and the female role, and criminalize men and the male role.
Well, no. They criminalize people who rape drunk people. A woman who is raped when she is drunk is not the equivalent of a drunk driver; she’s not the one doing the driving.
In his classic essay “Politics and the English Language,” George Orwell described how political writers turned to evasive euphemism, and degraded language generally, in an attempt to disguise the sheer terribleness of the things they were trying to express.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements.
It’s easy enough to see that this is exactly Farrell’s game. He can’t say “men shouldn’t be jailed for raping women who say no, because a lot of women have rape fantasies, and so maybe they’re into it” even though this seems to be the most straightforward translation of his basic message.
So instead he talks about how “romance novels are still fantasizing the male-female dichotomy of attract/resist versus pursue/persist”; he complains that “ the male role is being criminalized”; he talks vaguely about creating “the framework of respect for the differences in our hormones.”
But in the end, what he’s saying is worse than Elam’s rant about “conniving bitches” with neon signs over their heads. He just knows how to make the indefensible more palatable to a general audience.
I’m not very educated on kink/kink critical stuff, so I’m going to try to stay out of this for the most part, but rubyrubyruby
“I didn’t call anyone names, call anyone stupid, tell anyone to shut up, fuck off, and die over their opinion. Such a reaction tells me there’s a lot of meat on that bone, BDSM and feminism do not go together.”
The reactions you are getting aren’t because people here are opposed to critiquing kink, they’re because you’re acting like a condescending jackass, like you know more about people who do DBMS and their lives than they do.
“-male doms — the absolute worst, truly terrible people, sociopathic
-female doms — not good
-male subs — unhealthy, need to get out of those relationships for their own well being
-female subs — unhealthy, have been manipulated into enjoying their own oppression and are facing some severe physiological problems because of that, are being exploited and are in very real danger”
Wow that’s … Really simplistic.
”
“So it’s utterly impossible to enjoy making your PARTNER happy??? My partner enjoys receiving pain, and I enjoy inflicting it BECAUSE SHE ENJOYS IT.”””
SO IT’S UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANIMAL HOARDERS TO KEEP AS MANY SICKLY, STARVING DOGS AND CATS AS THEY WANT IF THEY FUCKING ENJOY IT AND THE ANIMALS ARE FUCKING HAPPY IN A SHIT-COVERED HELL HOLE!?!?!??!”
I um reeaaaally don’t follow your logic.
“@emilygoddess
I have no idea how “abliesm” fits in here. Unless you’re implying that sadism/masochism are psychological illnesses. Maybe they are. Why do people view mental illness as such an insult? I thought this crowd was more liberal and wouldn’t stigmatize mental problems or anguish.”
Nice try. You are using psychopath/sadist in the context of ‘those horrible evil kinks tears who like pain’ your context is ableist. You have a problem with bdsm and seem to think that ppl who like bdsm are psychopaths.
BTW, not that I think the “kinky people are sociopaths” twins are going to necessarily care about this, because if they were trying to do actual activism they would be approaching this in a completely different way, but here’s another thing that’s been left out of this discussion.
Being critical of the BSDM community is fine. Pointing out harmful patterns within that community is fine. Marinerachel did it earlier, and notice that she didn’t get shouted down. What’s not fine is pathologizing victims. Let’s assume for a moment that your view of people who do BSDM was correct, and that subs were motivated by prior abuse. If you think that someone has been abused in the past and is currently being revictimized, how do you interact with that person? Do you tell them that they’re “damaged”? Is that an effective way of connecting with people who you claim you want to help? Do you think that people who you approach in that way are going to feel comfortable asking you for help? Do you think they’re going to trust you, or feel safe with you? If you feel for whatever reason that it’s important to refer to doms as “sociopaths”, don’t you think it might be a good idea to make it really clear that you’re referring to them only, and not to the subs, and how well do you think that statements about kinky people/people who’re into BSDM being “sociopathic” communicate that position? Are you aware that you’re coming across as being contemptuous towards the subs as well as the doms? Because if you truly view those people as victims, then contempt is a pretty ugly emotion to be expressing towards them.
TL;DR – It’s not that BSDM is somehow above criticism. The problem is specifically with the way that you’re communicating that criticism, and the very obvious lack of empathy that you’re displaying towards the people who you’re framing as victims. If you really feel that someone is being victimized, then the way you’ve been interacting with those people here is deeply inappropriate and unlikely to result in them feeling like you’re a person who they could potentially reach out to for help if they wanted/needed it.
“The difference is that “people don’t believe because reasons” means “I am correct, it’s just that you don’t believe me”, whereas disagreement implies that either/both parties may be right (or wrong). ”
Disagreement or disbelief both imply either/ both parties could be wrong. And “people don’t believe because reasons” is not even my words – it is yours. I only discussed it because it shows your inability to make your point clearly. It does not prove my ego.
@Hellkell: I did not come here to tell people they are mentally ill. I came here for other reasons, found comments on a certain topic I have an opinion over, and opined. I already know that those already in such a lifestyle will not like what they say and may even twist my words, but I have other motives for saying it, like making outsiders sympathetic towards people who do get abused in relationships. (Why then, do I talk of BDSM in particular? Because abusive elements in BDSM – by which I do not mean all elements of it – is more often excused by “but they like it” than in other abusive relationships. And such dismissing of abuse sometimes influences people towards callousness towards other abuse victims too. For example, WTF claims that liking rape fantasies in books mean women want to be raped.)
“If you really feel that someone is being victimized, then the way you’ve been interacting with those people here is deeply inappropriate and unlikely to result in them feeling like you’re a person who they could potentially reach out to for help if they wanted/needed it.”
What way of interacting do you suggest? I get your point, but they are not likely to speak to people who really want to defend BDSM either? I heard from a BDSM blogger that the BDSM community often does not defend the victim and expose the abuser, as that would cause vanilla people to get a bad idea of BDSM. And the “but we like it” also don’t get BDSM people who are abused a good chance to get justice in court, if they reveal that they have allowed some BDSM, but were also abused.
“they are not likely to speak to people who really want to defend BDSM either? ” = “those who are victimized are not likely to speak to people who really want to defend BDSM either? “
@RubyRubyRuby
You can’t just talk over people and tell them why they feel the way they do. Just like anti-sex-worker radical feminists, you constantly treat people into kink as a monolithic group.
I myself have a lot of problems with certain parts of the kink community, such as male doms who think that pedophilia is just a harmless fetish. But I (and countless others in this thread, as they have eloquently demonstrated) can be kink-critical without being a patronizing, ableist asshole towards other people who have kinks.
The fascinating thing here is that you aren’t even being kind towards people like me, who actually do have kinks due to the effects of abuse. I don’t need to be told that one of my means of coping is like doing meth. (Do you realize how offensive that comparison is?) I know myself better than you do, Ruby.
And drop the disingenuous act, too. I never thought that seeking counseling is “elitist” (what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway?). I just said that silencing people with kinks is shitty and that treating people who have kinks due to the effects of abuse in my life.
But that’s exactly what you ended up doing, so yay for unintended consequences? You may want to re-read cassandra’s advice as an editor, if multiple people misunderstand you, the problem is yours.
You really should be going now. It’s hard to give flounce points when you keep feeding your herd of teal deer.
@girlscientist
Thank you. I need to read that book sometime.
See, this is a perfect example of why you’re getting the reactions you’re getting, Retha. First, the “no u!” stuff about communication skills? Nobody is buying it, and it makes you look childish. Secondly, if you now realize that the way you’re coming across isn’t very empathetic towards the people who you’re framing as victims, why are you not apologizing for that?
You know what’s said about opinions, don’t you?
In all seriousness, I am very much in favor of the BSDM community being critiqued, because it has all kinds of issues, but the approach these two are taking is actively counterproductive.
Cassandra: Preach. The formal scenes have never been my thing and could use some criticism, but these two are running a master class in how not to do it.
My cat is currently performing a more effective critique of whatever it is that she’s annoyed about by yowling as she settles down in front of her water bowl.
(Cat people – why does she do that? It’s so weird, whenever she’s about to drink she yowls as she sort of settles into place. I’ve tried putting the bowl at several different heights because I though that might be the issue, and changing bowls, but no luck, she still seems to find the whole drinking process offensive in some way.)
No, that was you. You literally compared sadism with sociopathy.
This blog is full of people with mental illnesses, including myself, so don’t even try this bullshit. No one is objecting to the idea of a person being mentally ill. We are objecting to your internet diagnoses and your conflation of bad behavior with mental illness. Also, don’t put ableism in quotes, it makes it sound like you don’t believe it’s a thing.
And way to ignore the substance of my comment: there are other kink-critical feminists here (again, including myself) who are telling you that your understanding of kink and its practitioners is incomplete and that you’re being kind of a jerk.
I believe the yowling is a lament that she is reduced to drinking out of anything that is not solid gold, encrusted with emeralds. After all, cat.
At the vet’s where I work, we had a cat in who, after using his litter box, scratched furiously at the towel in his cage trying to cover up. Then he looked at the box, saw no coverage, and started scratching furiously at the towel again – imperiling his water bowl in the process. Looked at box again. Tried to cover up again, and finally turned his back on the incomprehensible and offending litter box, pretending it wasn’t there.
@Cassandra, my cat does that too! I have no idea why, although ledasmom’s theory is plausible.
It’s so weird! I figured it had to be something to do with either the bowl itself or how it was placed, so I’ve experimented, but nope, any time she drinks she grumbles beforehand.
RE The towel scratching, my cat also sometimes uses her box, climbs out, and the scratches furiously at the kitchen floor next to it as if she’s trying to cover up, the problems with that being that a. it’s a solid floor and b. there’s nothing there to cover anyway.
Cassandra, maybe the yowling is a symptom that needs checking out. Unless, of course, she’s always done it, and the vet has found nothing wrong with her…in which case, quirk. Annoying, but quirky.
She’s always done it. It’s not even annoying, really, just weird.
Retha’ s score is down to -7/10. And she was doing so well! What a shame.
Biscuit yowls for absolutely no reason all the time. If I yowl back, he comes running to see what the big dumb cat wants.
Although I’m tempted to award some audacity points for outright saying that she wasn’t going to respond to anyone giving a thoughtful, measured response.
I’ve had a few yowly cats myself. One actually yowled with her mouth full, causing me to laugh uncontrollably…and her to yowl again, something that sounded remarkably like “Shuddup!”
Retha,
Saying that people who enjoy kinky sex are dangerous, damaged people who think rape is OK is like saying that kids playing cops and robbers really want to rob banks and imprison their friends. It’s stupid as fuck. You are ignorant, ablist, insulting and wrong.
So it’s not possible that rape survivors attract predatory people who are terribly shitty like that?
WT ever loving F?
No, it is not possible that the victim is the one “attracting” sexual predators to them at all. How the fuck do you “attract” a sexual predator? Are we existing wrong again? Are you going to take us through the list of things we need to do so that other people don’t rape us?
Are we wearing the wrong things, walking the wrong places and enjoying the wrong sex?
Yuck.
No thanks.