If the Men’s Rights movement is looking for a celebrity endorser, I think I’ve found just the guy for them: the mixed martial arts fighter, and erstwhile porn actor, War Machine, currently sitting in jail on charges of brutally beating and attempting to kill his ex-girlfriend, porn star Christy Mack.
Men’s Rights activists should be able to look past these criminal charges; after all, as they remind us all the time, women are forever falsely accusing innocent men of all sorts of terrible things.
And in so many ways War Machine is perfect for them. An MMA fighter, he’s already only one letter away from being an MRA. A misogynistic asshole with rage issues, he’ll have no trouble fitting in with the Men’s Rights crowd. And, especialy important for a movement that has a lot of trouble getting any good PR, he’s a bit more comfortable on camera than the Paul Elams and Dean Esmays of the world, with experience on television (on the reality show The Ultimate Fighter: Team Hughes vs. Team Serra), and in seven films (albeit pornographic ones).
Best of all: he’ll need no ideological education from what A Voice for Men likes to call Fuck Shit Up University. War Machine – real name Jonathan Koppenhaver – is already an outspoken proponent of many of the Men’s Rights Movement’s core beliefs.
Consider these selections from a little Men’s Rights manifesto War Machine wrote a few years ago during a previous stint behind bars, serving time for felony assault after two bloody bar fights. His rant, which a friend posted to the internet, would fit right in with the sort of stuff we’ve seen regularly posted on the Men’s Rights subreddit, or The Spearhead, or A Voice for Men. I’ve bolded some of the Men’s Rightsiest bits:
The oppression of MEN is worse than oppression of Jews in Nazi germany, worse than the slavery of Blacks in early America…
There has always been the oppressor and always the oppressed. Before, it was blatant … NOW the oppressor has learned to disguise his evil. You can see man, but you can not see MEN. How easy it is to oppress a minority that is invisible to the eye! How genius of the oppressor! And what a better target too! …
Men challenge injustice from Government, MEN fight for their Constitutional rights, that are slowly being taken away every year. …
And they don’t just oppress us by making more laws and taking away more freedom, they are far more clever than that! Ask yourself what your REAL dream was?? If you gave up on this dream, why? Because of the brainwashing of the Government, that’s why! They taught you to “play it safe.” They told us a responsible man has ONE wife, a house, good credit, good job, and kids. How are you supposed to chase your dreams while maintaining all of that!?
Men are supposed to take risks and be aggressive! What accomplishments have ever come of a man scared to risk it all!? None!? Where would the world be? Still ‘flat!’ Still ‘Earth at the center of the universe!’
If any of you have your Men’s Rights Bingo cards out, I’m guessing you might already be close to scoring a bingo. We’ve got a comparison to slavery that could have come straight from the pages of A Voice for Men, a marriage-is-death-to-male-dreams rant that could have been borrowed from any MGTOW forum, and an evo-psych-esque argument that men are the true risk-takers and the world’s real innovators.
And I don’t think War Machine would have much trouble with Paul Elam’s “Bash a Violent Bitch Month,” either.
[I]t’s Christmas day and I’m laying in my bunk wondering “Why in the hell do American men get married!?” … If your wife is being a bitch you can’t slap her, if your wife is yelling at you, God forbid you yell back … Next thing you know it will be illegal to fuck your wife! LMAO! Maybe then, MEN in this country will get the fucking hint and MOVE! This country forces you to be a bitch!
In another online posting, War Machine touched on another Men’s Rights hobbyhorse, the notion that the justice system is stacked against men:
[L]ook at the prisons, they are FULL of MEN, not women. Are men “evil” and women not? Or do the laws target and attempt to restrict NATURAL MEN’S BEHAVIOR? How many of the HEROES in American history would avoid prison if they lived today? Davey Crockett? Thomas Jefferson? David Bowie? General Grant & General Lee? Shit, George Washington. … Laws target MEN and men’s behavior. Women want to bitch and cry about their rights and equality… LMAO! MEN are the ones locked away like animals, while women run free!
Someone might have to explain to War Machine that David Bowie is not actually a famous American HERO but a famously androgynous British musician who once recorded an album called “Heroes.” (Mr. Machine may be thinking of James Bowie, a well-known 19th century American frontiersman and slave trader, and the guy the Bowie Knife is named after.)
But other than that, he seems ready to go.
There is, of course, that whole attempted murder charge to deal with.
It’s true the Men’s Rights Movement has had few problems in the past rallying behind men with histories of violence. But War Machine might be a harder sell as a Men’s Rights hero. His alleged attack on Mack left her with a cracked rib, a ruptured liver, numerous broken bones, missing teeth and her eyes swollen shut. (See here for photos of her injuries; obviously this link is NSFW and could be triggering.)
While Mr. Machine denies attacking Mack, he joked to a TV host last year that if she were to leave him “I would just kill her” and get a tattoo saying “Rest In Peace” above the tattoo of her name he has on his neck.
And several hours after allegedly trying to murder her, War Machine tweeted this lovely message about his ex:
https://twitter.com/WarMachine170/statuses/497663075831787521
War Machine does seem to be at a low point in his life. Even aside from the charges he faces, and the time he seems likely to serve, his career in porn is almost certainly over. The “Alpha Male” clothing line he helped start wants nothing to do with him. Nobody but the prison system seems to want this guy.
In other words: Men’s Rights activists, this is your chance! War Machine may not be the, er, hero you want. But he’s certainly the hero you deserve.
No! No, no, NO, NONONONONONONONONONO!!
No evil bitches. or bitchez.
FWIW, I don’t think the secret room thing is a good idea. It seemed to just cause extra drama last time, and I suspect that would happen again.
Not up to me, obviously, just my opinion.
I’ve tried to be reasonably quiet on this thread, as I haven’t wanted to upset anyone and I simply (a) haven’t known what to say and (b) don’t have as much knowledge as the topics that others were discussing and thought anything I said would just be triggering or not adding to the conversation.
@hellkell: I’ve emailed you – hope I got that right
@kitteh: can you check Ravelry, I thought I already had your email address but numerous searches have not revealed it to me in my mail client /sigh
@cassandra: I wanted to say /hugs and I would like to keep in contact if you’re interested, but I thought you were gone gone and so I didn’t post anything in this thread hoping to contact you via an intermediary offsite.
@marinerachel: I don’t want to see you go either. 🙁
If anything I have said has played any role in your decisions, I am really really sorry.
Momentary calm now, so. I have to point out that most of the people who were on the other side of this argument are not online now. Thus, the general consensus may shift once they come back online. If that happens, and “evil bitches who drove off a vulnerable kid” is where the consensus ends up, I’m out again, just because I don’t think it would do anyone any good to have a bunch of people sitting there seething and quietly resenting each other.
My concern is that we won’t end up with any consensus at all, and will end up split into factions. Wish I knew how to fix that, but I’m not sure if it’s fixable, because sometimes people just plain don’t see things the same way.
@ pallygirl
Just in case things do go in a direction where it would be a negative thing for me to be here, please do feel free to get in touch via whatever contact point is easiest.
I think most people here like everyone on both sides of this, and do not have the personal commitment to either side.
We just know we like everyone, and we do not think anyone involved intended insult.
But we do not have the personal knowledge to say anything decisive.
Nobody taking part in this discussion tonight has offended me in any way but I only stuck my neck out once during all of this.
David, thank you for the update.
I’m with Cassandra. If the other half of the crew returns brimming with resentment, I’m out. I know when I’m not wanted and as previously stated I’m not starting a revolution. It the majority of this board wants a board that’s OK with being paternalistic towards specific members knowing doing so throws others under the bus, that’s fine. This board gets to determine it’s own culture, whether I like it or not. I won’t stick around and be percieved as a big bully though who chose a helpless target. That didnt happen.
What unimaginative said. With bonus emphasis.
I apologise for not saying anything during all of this. But try as I might, I couldn’t think of anything to say that wouldn’t make things worse for me or for one, any, some, all of you.
And David? Don’t feel too bad. I’ve thought about how you and/or mods could have handled this in a way to avoid all this — and there’s only one way. Get a tardis, go back, and close down the thread long, loooong before the point where things ran right off the rails. We do expect you to run this place. We don’t expect you to have magical, mystery abilities to predict that any given thread will go so badly.
Nope, unfortunately I think we do have an underlying disagreement going on here, at least among the people who really care about this issue. Brooked explained my position well enough that I’m not going to do it in detail again, but the short version – I don’t think it’s possible to suggest that sexual minority a (who happen to be women, with all the sexual assumptions that brings with it) ought to examine what they do and don’t find attractive, in a context where everyone involved is some combination of leftist/progressive/queer, and the assumption that not being attracted to people in minority group b is probably influenced by some sort of societal bias has already been made, without that discussion being inherently coercive. There’s a quite clear sense there of what the ethically more correct set of preferences would be, and an implied critique aimed at the people who find that their attractions are not in fact reflective of that ethically more correct position. One would hope that in most cases it’s not intended to be coercive or being deliberately used to hurt people, but still, raising the subject implies that there is a correct answer, and that means things for those people who end up finding that that correct answer does not match their actual preferences. And, for extra messiness, having the request that patterns of attraction be examined and potentially reevaluated aimed specifically at women brings up all kinds of problems, especially if they’re young women who really really don’t want to lose the approval of their community. Which, as I said the last time this subject came up, is why I’m not OK with this.
Sorry, folks, but I’m not backing down on this on, if I’m staying around at all. I am queer, and this has an impact for me that goes far beyond this specific discussion (though this discussion is important on its own too). This is a boundary issue.
(And, again like Brooked says, it comes up in other contexts like kink too, and my approach to those situations is exactly the same as my approach to this one. Why people like what they like, and even more importantly why they don’t like what they don’t like, is none of anyone else’s business and as long as they’re not harming other people their motivations are not up for debate.)
So, yeah, now I’m back to being Maleficent again, and I should probably go to bed. Whether I’ve manage to make what I’m actually objecting to clear or not I’m not sure, but I’ve been pretty damn consistent on this in every conceivable sexual scenario. Coercion doesn’t have to be as obvious as “do this or I’ll hurt you”, more subtle forms of coercion are bad too, and they’re still bad even if coercion wasn’t the intent.
Thank you.
I didn’t have the words for this – and you’ve done your usual insightful summary.
This and this. I hate the idea of this community being torn, but can’t think of a damn thing that I could add that wouldn’t exacerbate existing tensions. I hope those taking a break only feel the need to do so temporarily.
@ mildlymagnificent
Since you get what I’m trying to say could you/others maybe help me out a bit on this going forward? I feel like other than brooked, who definitely got it, the position I’m taking keeps getting reduced to “coercion yes/no? well no obviously I’m/people we like aren’t rapists so why are you even bringing this up?”, and it’s really, really not that simple.
That’s why I couldn’t find my words earlier because for me it is simple.
I suspected that however I said that I’d be too blunt or direct for some – and get myself into trouble accordingly, and maybe some splash onto others. So I’ll say a version of it now.
In the end, it doesn’t matter that a woman’s refusal to consider someone as a sexual partner is based on silly ideas, irrational responses or downright nasty prejudice. Her consent is hers to give, not anyone else’s to demand. She may dislike red hair or people who remind her of a family member. People may be correct in saying that those are not serious issues, but it makes no difference. The unknowing unfortunates with these undesirable attributes still have no claim on her time, her attention or her body.
And there’s also no sexual difference if the undesirable attributes are rooted in unthinking stereotypes, or vile, conscious prejudices. People with that coloured skin, that religious affiliation, that ethnicity, those genitals, that disability, that sexual preference still have no claim on anyone, woman or man, beyond that of ordinary civility.
There’s a social and public difference in that people should be more accepting or generous, or at least less prejudiced. But intimacy is entirely and only the choices of the people in question. And if one of them doesn’t consent, that’s it. Over before it’s begun.
::applauds everything cassandrakitty said::
There’s an implicit you must accept me that goes beyond just “hey we want to participate in your community” in all this and it gets expressed by some in some appalling ways, as has already been detailed here. If even mentioning that, if even pointing out that that is misogyny and homophobia, is verboten here, then I too will be out. I am seriously not interested in putting one person’s sexual politics, aka feelings, above calling out things that harm other women.
Very well said, again, marinerachel.
::also applauds mildymagnificent::
@what mildlymagnificent said:
Generally speaking, i.e. omitting the extreme examples,* there is no way to tell whether a person’s preferences are this, or from a “non-prejudiced” basis. I’m really uncomfortable with people’s sexuality being policed – apart from the situations where consent wasn’t given, for obvious reasons. It isn’t a good thing for another to cast judgement over whether someone’s sexual preferences are – or are not – biased. FFS, being that sexual preferences are emotional, they are bloody “biased” – which then brings us to the mirky depths of what is “okay” bias and what is “not okay” bias. Who gets to decide that, other that the individual with the sexual preference?
* Please ignore the extreme examples for each sentence I’m writing.
Uhm, excuse me, you can ignore me if you want. But it just appeared to me that the two “groups” here don’t, uhm, really talk to each other. It’s rather like the tides – one moment it’s only people from the one side, then the next only people from the other side. So instead of the two groups talking with each other, we have a lot of people talking within their own group, reinforcing its position. This also leads to the problem that both sides at varying times might see an apparent thread “consensus” against themselves (even though there is in fact no consensus) – the “dogpiles” that were mentioned…
I just find this a bit… unproductive, I guess?
Kittehs and hellkell and cassandrakitty are my favourite people here. I honestly can’t see the community continuing if any of you (let alone all of you!) were to leave.
The problem is clear and it has pissed me off this entire thread people not using any names. It’s fucking blindingly obvious what the problem is. If other poster are upset by Ally leaving hopefully they’ll manage to deal with that and not try to take it out on others, but can’t they just be ignored?
I am still relatively new but even I’ve been aware of this tension for quite a while so I don’t fully understand those who are saying they don’t know whats going on.
I hope in my attempts at being respectful and learning new things I haven’t inadvertently joined the wrong faction.
Don’t leave guys
For a start I can never remember kittehs website so how will I be able to keep up with the goings on on the other side?
Exactly. Case closed. You have to stay. The end.
why didn’t this link work?
I don’t think people choose to all be online at once octo, (or if they do they never told me the bastards). I for example am in the UK where it is 12:33, Kittehs is in Australia where it is some sort of upside down time, etc. I are helpful yes?
Upside down time? Yes.
I’m in Adelaide, so it’s just gone 9pm here. Kittehs is at 9.30pm.
If it helps, I was in the “people I admire seem to be arguing and I don’t know what is going on” camp. It turned out I missed the end of the E-day concert thread which I have just reread.
For the people who have decided to go, i wanted to let you know that you have been awesome. I selfishly would like it if you didn’t leave, but know that the next group of people you make friends with will be very lucky. This is one of the two sites on the Internet I feel safe commenting on and that is mostly due to the commenters.
Also, after reading through everything, I can see cassandrakitty’s point. I don’t really know what type of feminist I am, but one of the central pillars of my feminism is enthusiastic consent. In this context, making moral judgement about whether someone is attracted to someone else makes me pretty damn uncomfortable. This aside, as long as this central pillar is not affected, I want to include trans-positive aspects in my feminism and I see no reason these things can’t be compatible.
First I would like to say Cassandrakitty, Kittehs, hellkell, marinerachel, I really wish you would reconsider leaving. None of you are evil b#@%hes AT ALL. I realize why you are leaving and I really understand. I also completely agree with you on this matter. But this forum will not be the forum that has given me so much over the last 2 years of reading this site (you have no idea how helpful you have been in me finding my voice). I feel like I should have spoken up earlier because you guys are not alone in your thoughts on this matter, and I am sorry you felt that way. I would like to second what daintydougal as well and add please, please don’t leave. 🙂