One of the benefits of running a cult – or so I have heard – is the ability to define reality for your cult followers. The principals at the cultish A Voice for Men do this all the time – pretending, for example, that former AVFM Number Two John Hembling had once faced off against a mob of 20-30 angry feminists brandishing boxcutters when his own video of the event showed him conversing with a handful of peaceful activists. And who can forget their attempts to cast their embarrassingly poorly attended rally on Toronto as a “huge success?”
However successful they are at redefining reality for their cult followers, cult leaders encounter problems when they try to do the same thing for those outside of their sphere of influence.
Take AVFM maximum leader Paul Elam’s continual attempts to recast some of the vilest things he’s written as “satire,” an explanation that only seems to fly amongst MRAs with a large capacity for the willing suspension of disbelief.
Well, now AVFM’s comically inept PR maven Janet “JudgyBitch” Bloomfield has taken on the project of trying to retroactively redefine Elam’s most despicable writings as satire.
In a post on Thought Catalog, Bloomfield argues, as best she can, that Elam’s notorious “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” post was not arguing, as it plainly seemed to be, that the best way to stop women from abusing their male partners was to let said male partners beat the shit out of them.
In the piece, you may recall, Elam said this:
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
Now, am I serious about this?
No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.
But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.
There’s no reason whatsoever to believe that any of this is “satirical” or sarcastic or anything other than what it seems on the surface to be: a suggestion that the proper response to violence from women is violence against women – or that this would be the proper response, if this sort of “self-defense” from men didn’t result in jail time or anger management classes.
Indeed, the argument of this piece is entirely in keeping with a short story Elam published around this same time, titled “Anger Management,” that has as its hero a man unfairly punished for breaking his wife’s nose in a fit of righteous rage after she left him for his business partner.
But Bloomfield shamelessly if unconvincingly tries to argue that
What Paul Elam did in his article was engage in satire – he flipped the genders to highlight just how awful it is to hurt another person, and dramatically highlighted our double standards when it comes to who got hurt.
Yep, she’s honestly claiming that’s what he meant when he said beating the shit out of a “violent bitch” is “not wrong” just not “worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.”
The argument went over well with the small army of misfit misogynists populating the comments section to Bloomfield’s post on Thought Catalog. And perhaps she will see this as a victory.
But if you read the following comments critically, you’ll notice that the commenters — including her fans — aren’t buying the satire argument at all.
Notice the upvotes. This was a popular argument in the comments.
This comment was a response to one of the only feminists who ventured into the fray:
One commenter recalled a famous passage in Shakespeare:
The passage in question in A Merchant of Venice is Shylock’s famous “if you prick us, do we not bleed” speech. You may recall that Shylock used this argument as a justification for revenge, declaring that
[t]he villany you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
This is Elam’s argument as well.
In other words, none of these commenters — and those who upvoted them — believe that Elam’s post was satirical. None of them see Elam’s argument as being anything other than what it was: a Shylockean paean to righteous “revenge” upon abusive women.
They know he was serious. And they agree with him.
EDITED TO ADD: Bloomfield has responded to this post with a detailed and lucid critique. By which I mean she tweeted this:
https://twitter.com/JudgyBitch1/status/480512762393944064
mariangela:
Can it be that you aren’t aware of basic feminist theory, that women’s class status is dependent on the husband’s, and that if the marriage ends, the woman is plunged into a nonstatus?
This seems like a gross oversimplification of feminist theory, and sort of fails to understand that male and male-associated privilege is a factor, not a sole overriding iron law.
I have seen it as a truthso many times among my friends and in my own marriage. Women are a class within a class, and our status depends on our husband’s class. White middle class women lose their middle class status almost instantly upon divorce…the same is true for Black women, a loss of status without a male status-giver….women’s “privilege” is a temporary, capricious, arbitrary thing, out of her control, no matter her accomplishments.
This is a pretty horrible thing if you move in social circles where a woman’s worth is *entirely* dependent upon the goodwill of a man. Get yourself some friends who value women as people, not as attachments to men.
I will look up some authorities who you may recognize and bring them to you another time, but this is very basic.
Umm. You clearly missed at least one entire Wave of feminism, and don’t understand that axes of privilege interact, so bringing Feminism 101 in here is pretty funny. Forgive the impertinence, but you’re not from 4chan by any chance are you?
Sorry, I wasn’t really asking a question as much as I was making a puzzled “erh” sound in response to what I read as a little unclear and somewhat obtuse statement.
Allow me to clarify my response.
It seemed odd to mark out “class privileged”, but then contrast it with “a man who builds and builds throughout his life”. You either meant “his status builds / accumulates”, but that’s a little obtuse, or meant in a more specific sense that a man builds and builds “stuff” and that stuff then helps bolster his life against whims of fate, as opposed to a woman, who, when divorced, apparently ceases to exist as an entity.
I found that odd.
I also found it odd that a woman is apparently doomed if she can’t depend on a man, what with my endless personal experience of that just not… being the case. Furthermore, the idea that “Men won’t suffer because they build stuff and have resources” is sort of… meaningless, because, well, yes. That would be the very definition of “Being able to make ends meet”. But given that women are not, as far as I’m aware, intrinsically incapable of also doing all of that, I’m just somewhat confused as to what is being communicated here.
so, for instance,
Hi. I wasn’t aware that women’s class status being solely dependent on their husband. I wasn’t aware that the end of marriage plunged women into non-status. I wasn’t aware that someone’s status was entirely out of their control and unrelated to their accomplishments.
What if a woman builds and builds throughout her life? There’s thousand and thousands of cases where bad things happen anyhow, but given the fact we don’t really, actually live in a world where just… mugging someone is somehow okay because they’re female, I find it strange to write that.
I mean, sure, if a woman does nothing at all in any way except exist as “Wife of Mr. X”, then, yeah, upon a divorce a lot of really bad stuff will happen in short order and she will cease to exist as an entity… but I’ve never met any woman who fit the platonic ideal of “Wife” to such an extent that she literally only existed as an appendage of a husband.
Finally, it seems a little harsh to insinuate that just because JB there has a husband who pays the bills she literally has nothing else of value at all and is a human doll only attached to that husband.
But maybe my understanding of basic feminist theory is lacking. That’s true in many cases.
JB
“I sincerely hope so. I want humanism, which is what the equality feminists wanted, too. Gender feminists are so warped by their hatred of men they constitute a hate movement, IMO, bleating on about patriarchy and male privilege, neither of which exist.”
Male privilege does exist and everyone else has privileges too. We shouldn’t ignore them or say that they don’t exist.
“You know what does exist? Class privilege. Rich men AND women have power over all of us.”
But what about the women and men who are not rich. So who earns more money?
“What privilege does a homeless veteran contemplating suicide have over me, an affluent white woman who has a husband to pay all her bills?”
True power and privilege is being married to someone who has power and privilege? What does Suicide have to do with anything?
“I have more privilege and power than 95% of all men.”
Wait what?! You have more privilege and power than men then are you extremely rich? Where are you getting these statistics?!
“And we are winning the PR battle. Why was it so easy for 4Chan to create the #endfathersday tag? Because in the public’s mind, the hateful, awful things they wrote were completely believable as feminist statements.
That’s how you do new PR.
And I think I’m pretty good at it.”
So 4chan is framing feminists? That’s your plan too?
I don’t get any of this!? Can you explain all of this to me?
Not gonna lie, I’ve never been ENTIRELY clear on what exactly class MEANS. Like, obviously I know income is involved, like rich vs. poor, and also there’s educational opportunity and certain behaviors and professions expected, like the richest plumber in the world is still considered lower-class than a destitute associate professor. But I’ve never really been clear on the rules or how it worked. Can anyone link me a good 101?
Simple question: what about women who’ve never been partnered with a man? Whatever class status I have is my own (if only I could claim royal status and $$$$$ to go with it!).
@ strivingally,
you are correct that I have zero interest in 3d wave feminism. I have no interest in boundarylessness, “subversion”, or denying material conditions. I went through 2d wave feminism, including marxism, and that is where my insights are. I hope no one misunderstands that I might think it is natural or ok for women to lose their “class” status. I certainly understand that the impact on women of color is even more terrible than for white women. Nevertheless, women as a class still have a contingent social status which is undone in a moment when the man they are attached to changes his affiliation. That is my point, that for a woman there is no striving through accomplishments for status, it is removable for reasons she has no control over. These days some women do not marry and manage to maintain a status they have earned all their lives. I salute them, and the 2d wave feminists who helped make this possible. For the gentleman asking about the impact of diability on his class status,I would say that he retains his dominant social position as a male but suffers a relative loss of status that can be very painful, and that I can relate to his pain.
@LBT
I think the best answer I can think of is: “Erh, I don’t know, uhm, do you mean the statistic ideal of a middle-class or an upper-class or do you mean the social theories of generalized classes of people or do you mean, like, the White Knight class in an RPG or do you possibly mean class in the Older sense, where it referred to a specific level of sophistication and breeding or do you possibly mean in relation to economics?”
Sorry. I just don’t know. It’s a very broad topic.
Some of this is culture-dependent too, and women’s status is tied a lot more closely to their husband’s in societies in which women don’t have access to jobs that pay a living wage. Even in those societies, though, a woman who’s truly class privileged who gets divorced doesn’t lose her class status, and in many cases her family will simply step back in and take over her financial support (or, depending on just how misogynistic the culture is, she may already have inherited money of her own).
@ kittehserf, congratulations on your nonaffiliation in the face of thousands of years of extraordinary pressure on women to select a master. I beleieve in classical feminist theory you are at an extreme social disadvantage and probably a severe economic disadvantage, but you have the prospect of self-sufficiency and freedom. I can only admire that.
RE: pallygirl
he proposed the notion that when a society contributed towards the upkeep of an individual (e.g. disability, superannuation), the higher the contribution the more responsibility is put on that individual to basically demonstrate they are one of the deserving needy.
Yeah, I’ve definitely noticed THAT.
RE: mariangela
he retains his dominant social position as a male but suffers a relative loss of status that can be very painful, and that I can relate to his pain.
Um. Thank you? *is not entirely sure how to respond*
RE: Fibinachi
Sorry. I just don’t know. It’s a very broad topic.
Goddammit, I worried it was something like that.
@ cassandra kitty, I agree a few very privileged women have male members of their original family step in to control them by offering support. They may become the poor relations or the spinster aunt and so on. I do not think they retain their original status. I don’t know how they will inherit money of a male relative or husband is still alive, but in rare cases I guess you’re right.
But this is all rare. I am talking about what happens when women like Judgybitch lose their status if they disaffiliate with the men who control them. I am asking Judgybitch to consider what will happen when she disagrees about something with Mr. Elam. And how will she and her children fare if she, who relies on her husband for support, loses that? Feminism encourages self-sufficiency and integrity in women. The old system of patriarchy that Judgybitch is enmeshed in does not.
There’s something extra funny about someone who claims to have been a Marxist whose theory fails to account for the existence of the class that owns all the capital.
@ cassandrakitty, I am not a marxist, just informed by marxist theory. The class that owns all the capital is the male class. I think I am taking that into account.
Women who grew up with class privilege don’t lose the educational advantage that gives when they get divorced, nor do they lose all of their preferential access to spaces that working class people have great difficulty operating in. Part of being a decent human being, and an activist, is owning up to the privileges that you have, even in situations where it’s easier not to and it messes up your nice neat theory.
Here, let me google this for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersectionality
Um… mariangela… you know coverture hasn’t been the law for quite some time now, right? Women are absolutely allowed to inherit money. It happens all the time.
Oh wow, JudgyBitch graced us with her presence. At least she buzzed off right quick. Frankly even though I think JudgyBitch (and anyone else who affiliates themselves with any branches of the MRM knowing what kind of beliefs they hold) is a terrible person, I still feel bad for her and any other women who are part of the MRM. Aside from the fact that it shows they have allowed themselves to be taken in by the ideals of the patriarchy and they do so knowingly, they also will be thrown under the bus the moment they make a wrong move the MRM. Despite the MRM saying men are disposable, the truth is the women in their group are the disposable ones. They’re allowed around because they are trophies and proof that women support their shitty, privileged theories too.
Oh, if JB ever steps out of line and starts questioning the doctrine I’m sure AVfM will throw her to the wolves faster than Mike Buchanan will remind you he has a blog (hey guys, did you know Mike Buchanan has a blog?).
@mariangela, what’s your take on the PUA community? They also seem to have a lot to say about a woman’s worth respective to a man’s.
RE: mariangela
The class that owns all the capital is the male class.
That’s… extremely incomplete and oversimplified, I think.
Mariangela, I think there might be a bit of a simplification with some of what you’re saying. That, growing up, was kind of my big problem with second wave theory, even though the second wave did some really, really awesome work.
I’ve found inter-sectionalism to be really important, and class theory to be pretty enlightening.
I’m a woman, but I am more privileged by class (despite my current unemployment — except for the really fun volunteer job with housing benefits) than some of my male age mates are by dint of their gender.
Class, race, and other avenues of privilege held constant, yeah, my male peers have me beat. Not by much, but they have me beat. They get taken more seriously, get paid better, face less obnoxiousness in the “but that’s a man’s job” or “But men are better suited to STEM” departments.
However, I get taken way more seriously by people than some of my male college friends, who aren’t in my intersection of the privilege Venn diagram.
That’s not cool. I should not get more ‘trust me’ cred than them, just by virtue of birth.
Ignoring those axes, to me, is not helpful.
That’s just me, and I could be wrong. I just feel like the model you are going off of is a little too simplistic for real world application, and I’d like to add more equations. Getting too many in, yes, would screw up our ability to adequately manage the model, and make deriving any conclusions problematical.
It’s a fine balance in analysis…
But, I really think we can factor in more than “Once married, a woman’s status is entirely dependent on her husbands”.
It’s not like someone’s education (if they have one) disappears with marriage, or other things like that.
Am I making any sense to anyone but myself?
I’m not even going to get into the racism inherent in both handwaving away the ways in which this can all play out differently depending on race and in apparently not even being aware that there are racial groups in which a high percentage of women never marry. A woman’s status can’t be dependent on her husband if, statistically speaking, it’s likely that she won’t ever have one.
Also I’ve come to hate the word humanist, not because being a humanist is a bad thing, but because a lot of people who claim they are a humanist do so because they are afraid to say they are a feminist because they might receive backlash. And the large contingent of “humanists” like JudgyBitch who only claim to be humanists so they can get away with being shitty people “because they really care about all people.” Except people like JudgyBitch don’t. JudgyBitch only cares about what benefits herself. They don’t care about racial minorities, they don’t care about sexual and gender minorities, they don’t care about women, and they don’t care about any group of people that they aren’t part of.
Well, that is where I leave Marxism I suppose. Certainly working class men and women are disadvantaged under capitalism. But women are in a unique situation in which their privilege is contingent. And working class women are in a far worse position that working class men, I think. Very simply, I believe that there are economic classes, and that they are male. I believe that women historically have constituted a class within each class whose work was not made part of the economy, and who have suffered special disadvantages. I do think privileged women may lose those “privileged” spaces in a moment. But I shouldn’t say all this without a lot of citation of authority, and I’m tired and this may not even be the right place to have such a big talk.
Apologies, cassandra, but for me it’s late and I must go. Thank you for your conversation.
Most of the people who currently claim to be humanists seem to have very little awareness of the fact that humanism is an actual movement with a history, commonly held theories, and so on.
I grew up around women like that and sorry, but nope, that’s not actually the case if we’re talking about the class who actually own most of the property.