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
RE: contrapangloss
I’m getting you. I mean, I fell off the sane ladder and had to cut off my family, but even disabled and poor, I retain my education and my wealthy background. And the vessel’s white skin is probably why I’m taken more as a “deserving poor” than a manipulative faker.
Also, trans stuff. Unlike many other trans people, I don’t believe I was BORN male. We were born a girl, and our gender/s changed over time, which puts a really bizarre twist on how male privilege affects our system. (It seems an elaborate roulette based on who’s fronting, how they’re behaving, how we’re dressing, when we last got a haircut, the region we’re in, whether we’re in a queer or trans space, and the age of the person we’re talking to. And then you have a whole DIFFERENT roulette if we’re communicating online or by phone. It’s exhausting.)
RE: mariangela
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.
In my country at least, I think black folks would have quite a bone to pick with you over that.
Compared to the UK I do think class in the US is a little bit more contingent on current economic status. Since the Reagan administration upward class mobility has become rare, but the myth that you can be upwardly mobile still endures. “Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” is praised while those who lose their fortunes are jokes. We do have a class system here but pretend we don’t if that makes any sense?
Again, I’m a bit drunk and am probably making zero sense!
I do think that if someone has the trappings of the middle or upper class they have a better chance of bouncing back from hardship. I’ve never had much money. My dad’s side of the family is very working class. Yet my mom’s side is more middle class and we have aristocrats in our background. People on my mom’s side of the family are more educated, more well read and speak with more proper grammar. I’ve been more heavily influenced by the culture of my mom’s family and although my finances go up and down, I will never be perceived as low class by strangers.
tl;dr class in the US is determined by a mix of short term economic status and long term familial culture. At least that’s how it seems from my experiences.
Which still doesn’t mean that men of their own class don’t have far more privilege than they do – intersectionality, it’s a thing!
@ contrapangloss, yes of course, I agree, I am speaking pretty simplistically. These days it is possible not to marry. These days a woman can be so educated her economic value is not denied. But speaking for the mass of people, I think women remain a contingent class within each male economic class in spite of progress for a few.
Again, thanks for your response, but I have to say good night.
Heheheh. It’s funny because it’s true.
Sorry, there’s not a lot of consensus on what specifically class means, because it depends on a lot on what context you’re talking about it in (for a lark, just say, rpg versus sociology?). It depends on anthropological, sociological, economical, statistical or the general theory you’re working with, because “class” just sort of means “grouping of X”
But let me give it a crack anyhow, because I’m nothing if not arrogantly willing to stick my ignorant carcass down the holes of knowledge I encounter and broadly go on about my own opinions:
Intersecting interactions of your combined life circumstances add up to your situation in relation to the relative fortunes of other people, tied in to a larger social backdrop. You’re clearly in a precarious situation (And recalling your words about it at other times, let me just re-iterate, I hope all works out for you!), yet also so lucky that you can get some help.
So you’re guarantied to remain dirt poor, and legally disabled. And that sucks. If your family happened to have a million billion, it’d suck less, because you could invest in mitigating factors.
My personal understanding of class in social theory situations is that it boils down to the sum amount of personal and social ability a given group has to mitigate, ameliorate and easily skip past massive problems that would hinder others with less embedded ability to just go “Eh, we’ll take the fast-lane, because X”.
I think perhaps I am being overly touchy in the wake of the whole #EndMothersDay debacle, but was I the only one who thought mariangela sounded more like a caricature of feminist beliefs than someone who truly believes in the equality of women?
@ WWTH
Yeah, class in the US is an odd thing. A lot of people seem to really, truly believe that there’s unlimited social mobility, but they’re wrong. There’s also an actual upper class that continues to hold a huge chunk of the wealth via inheritance, and that’s as immediately identifiable in its differently-mannered, polo-playing and showjumping ways* as it is in any other country.
*Insert cliched upper class activity associated with your particular culture here, but note that there always are some.
Eh, she could be real and just exceptionally resistant to new ideas, but I have to admit that I’ve been sitting here going “oh, come on, the Second Wave wasn’t nearly that simplistic” for a while.
RE: Fibinachi
My personal understanding of class in social theory situations is that it boils down to the sum amount of personal and social ability a given group has to mitigate, ameliorate and easily skip past massive problems that would hinder others with less embedded ability to just go “Eh, we’ll take the fast-lane, because X”.
That’s actually pretty helpful. Thanks!
If your family happened to have a million billion, it’d suck less, because you could invest in mitigating factors.
The hilarious thing is… my family actually MIGHT. The thing is, they’re the sort that while both us and our younger brother were homeless, (yes, both at the same time) they were planning a safari in Botswana. So needless to say, just because they have money doesn’t mean we do. (Also, I wouldn’t take their money if it was stuffed in hubby’s G-string. Poverty and homelessness are preferable.)
Ooh, ooh, income inequality in the USA! This seems a relevant time to drop this in!
,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 is a trans man, and has really no dominant social position.
::small snort:: I’ve never been under immediate pressure – ie. family – to find an earthly partner. Not once. Sure, I grew up with the vague assumption in mind that I would marry, but that fizzled out in my teens: all the boys I encountered at school were repellent, and when I spent one year at RMIT my romantic future was set – and it wasn’t with any earthly person.
I have been economically disadvantaged by our education system requiring more money than my mother or I could pay to get me into uni; it wouldn’t have made any difference if my idiot father had been around, because he’s hopeless with money. I’ve never been poor, not truly poor, nor would I have been better off if I’d married, because it would have been swapping types of two-income household, that’s all. I’m fifty years old (birthday Saturday, good grief) and much as I’d love $$$$ and security, I’m neither as badly off as women in other societies, or the genuinely poor in my own, nor has the idea I need to marry because it’s expected/it will help me financially ever crossed my mind.
Whoa this thread’s moving fast!
::settles down to play catchup::
My family has always been significantly more likely to nitpick my choice of partner than to insist that I must have one.
Stupid question, but is Bloomfield her real name? I would think her actions could have serious repercussions should she try to pursue a mainstream job if her identity was known, but that’s just me.
@JudgyB
You realize that Jezebel has nothing to do with you or Elam and therefore has nothing to do with what we are discussing, right?
Hey, that’s the most sense you’ve ever made on the internet. Congratulations on you first experience with self-awareness.
*your first experience
Don’t drink and post kids.
As far as marriage being an axis of privilege for women, that’s true. Ever heard of “married mom” being used as an insult? It’s different for men as “single father” is also not used disparagingly, nor are single fathers used as scapegoats for all of societies ills. life long single men are bachelors, not spinsters. It does not matter how much money the woman has independently. The money is a separate axis of privilege. Now, that privilege is tied to that woman’s presumed obedience to the patriarchy and it’s contingent on a man’s good graces, so it isn’t much of a privilege. Still, it is one no matter the class.
Think of how guarded the eligibility for marriage is and how children born outside of it have been treated historically. A woman spurning marriage did and still does lose some privilege.
Thankfully, that’s changing.
No, I thought the same. Using the phrase “male masters” more than once set off MRA mole posing as a straw feminist alarm bells. It could be over vigilance, but the combination of the increased traffic in the wake of Elliot Rodger plus the upcoming MRM conference has sent more trolls this way so new people who say suspicious shit get increased side eye from me the past few weeks.
“Am I making any sense to anyone but myself?”
Yes. Say, f’ex, my plumber brother marries a woman with a PhD (hey, much as I bug the brat, he has turned out to be a gentleman, it could happen)…oh, fuck, even my damned disclaimer proves my point — her education would make it less likely for her to marry a guy of lower standing in the first place. But if she did, divorce wouldn’t somehow make her lose her status and not affect his.
As for the connection between money and class in the US…there’s a Victorian bed in front of me, a Very Old radio (like, the stand up kind) to my right, and two Victorian couches downstairs. Don’t get me started on the books, they could probably pay off my college debts and then some. How much money does he actually have on hand? Well, he’s looking at a full time job in Manhattan to get his business to break even already, damnit!
But NOBODY is gonna mistake a guy in a three piece suit, with pocket watch, for lower class. Even if taxes last year registered as a net loss.
Trolls: whichever asshat tried hacking his site with my nym, good luck with that. You may’ve noticed from your repeated blockings on the Borg that I do not tolerate idiots. Seriously, you’re less annoying than mosquitoes.
(Oh, pecunium, if he gets said job, and seeing how he has two offers and the first one needs to sort its benefits package, he will, he’s thinking of getting a place prolly near you…and paying for me to spend weekends there. Guess we might be making that tennis match an ongoing thing eh?)
Um what?
There are these things called wills, for a start.
My elder siblings will get nothing from my mother, and one of them’s a dude. Her ex (my dumbass parent) is still alive too, and he’ll get fuckall as well.
strivingally, I had no idea! ::is shocked::
contrapangloss, yep.
Whoops, I should amend my comment about LBT to read “apart from race”.
Or possibly just stop talking …
I’ve never posted a kid in my life!
They don’t fit in the mail box, for starters.
*sluuuuurp*
That is good advice.
*sluuuurp*
She’s not wrong that marriage has an impact on women’s status, she’s just wrong about it being the only thing that matters, and about women having no status at all independent of their husbands as a general rule. Maybe she’s a time traveler? Probably more likely to be a troll, I guess, but you do occasionally encounter people who’ve grasped part of a theory and not quite understood the connecting parts.
Holy shit everybody, I think JudgeyB is on to something! This “class privilege” sounds intriguing, I’ve never heard about before. For instance, I wish Occupy Wall Street brought this stuff up when they were in the public eye and brought the criticism of income inequality into the mainstream. Thank goodness MRAs like JugdeyB are here to say random things in order to deflect criticism of themselves because they can’t come up with an actual defense of their own bullshit.
My sister in law is a member of the African American middle class (third generation, I believe). She’s a college educated professional, single mother by choice (adoption), never married and owns her own home. I’ve joked to her that she and I have lived our lives in the pointy end of the bell curve. She is not, strictly speaking, dependent on a man for her class identity.
Now, I grew up believing that my family was middle class. Based on economics, that would be ludicrous; based on culture, entirely plausible. Intersectionality! If I’d happened to have been straight, my entire life would have been very different, and I’d have had much less motivation to unlearn certain regressive beliefs. I hate to think that I’d have wound up as one of those red-caped loons in Tradition Family Property, but it’s more likely than not.