As the news broke this morning that the Germanwings plane crash may have been a deliberate murder/suicide caused by the flight’s co-pilot, readers of the leading Men’s Rights website A Voice for Men were greeted by a post from site founder Paul Elam titled “A little blood in the mix never hurt a revolution.”
The headline on Elam’s post, a muddled mess that’s mostly a response to recent infighting amongst MRAs, recalls a disturbing post of his from several years ago titled “How to Build a Man Bomb.” (Archived here.)
Ostensibly a warning about the cost of ignoring male rage, it read a lot more like a threat.
[W]e are building a man bomb. And when this one detonates it could make the American race riots [of the 1960s] look like a Thanksgiving Day parade.
The misandric Zeitgeist, the system of feminist governance that most are sill loathe to acknowledge is about to head toward its inevitable and ugly conclusion, and the results of that will inflict another deep wound on the psyche of the western world.
The post continues on for some time in this melodramatic vein:
The ranking members of the matriarchy, like social terrorists, are partnering with and guiding government toward the inevitable explosion, and when it goes off they will be the first to point the finger at men, even at MRA’s, for the fallout.
It won’t help them, though. Because whatever tragic end this comes to, it will not be at the hands of MRA’s, but in spite of our efforts to prevent it.
All this would be a little more believable as a “warning” if Elam and other MRAs didn’t devote most of their energy to cultivating exactly this kind of male anger — and in some cases lionizing those who have acted out this rage.
The problem goes well beyond the few — on the fringe of even the already extreme Men’s Rights movement — who glorify misogyny-driven mass murderers like Marc Lepine or Elliot Rodger. Or those “Red Pillers” who declare that if they were going to kill themselves they would take some woman with them.
No, the problem comes when those in the mainstream of the Men’s Rights movement celebrate men like Tom Ball, a troubled father who set himself on fire on the steps of a New Hampshire courthouse in an attempt, as he explained in a lengthy manifesto, to inspire other men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses” to protest what he saw as a misandrist court system.
He followed this call to arms with instructions on how to prepare effective Molotov cocktails, and a lengthy plea to men to “finish the job” he had started:
There will be some casualties in this war. Some killed, some wounded, some captured. Some of them will be theirs. Some of the casualties will be ours.
Now, nobody wants to get killed. But let us look at your life. You are broke after paying child support. … Face it boys, we are no longer fathers. We are just piggy banks.
So you are not losing anything by picking up the Molotov cocktail. …
I only managed to get the main door of the Cheshire County Courthouse in Keene, NH. I would appreciate it if some of you boys would finish the job for me.
In other words, Ball was a would-be suicide/murderer who hoped others would do the murdering for him.
Ball’s manifesto was posted on AVFM’s “Activism” section for several years, taken down only after the Boston Marathon, and he was widely hailed by others in and around the Men’s Rights movement.
Helen Smith — an AVFM ally, the author of Men on Strike, and the wife of “Instapundit” Glenn Reynolds — wrote that Ball’s
statement is not the ramblings of a madman, it is the mission of a warrior in some sense. He was fighting for his rights and for yours, if you are male. He was trying to bring some urgency to the male plight in this country … .
She somehow neglected to mention that he was trying to do this by urging men to firebomb courthouses and police stations.
It’s striking how often MRA manifestos shade into vague threats of violence. One recent case, of many: Jeremiah True, the MRA-adjacent Reed College student banned from the discussion section of one of his courses after unnerving everyone in the class with his rants on rape, warned in one recent online manifesto that “[i]f you exclude me from the campus, I will rain hell down upon you all.”
True’s melodramatic insinuations of apocalyptic retribution might be amusing if declarations like these didn’t so often precede actual violence.
Unfortunately, when they aren’t making vague threats like these, MRAs are often found offering ingenious excuses for actual murderers. In an online discussion of the case of Chris Benoit, a pro wrestler who killed his wife and his son before hanging himself, AVFM’s Alison Tieman (a.k.a. Typhonblue) suggested that men who kill their families were men “backed into a courner [sic].” In the case of Benoit, she wondered
what horrific thing this woman did to this man to make him snap like this? I know, I know… “blaming the victim”. But I’ve seen too many “victims” grinning and pulling strings in the back ground to really feel sorry for them any more.
Her solution to male murder/suicide?
It’s obvious from this that men need to step away from women and start developing a male society outside of the auspices of women. That way they can support eachother when they get kicked out of female-society.
Murder/suicide isn’t the result of “misandry,” of evil wives “grinning and pulling strings in the back ground,” of men being “kicked out of female society.”
All too often, it’s the result of aggrieved male entitlement, of old-school “macho” attitudes that teach men that any sort of failure (from sexual to financial) is shameful and that anger is the only acceptable emotion to show the world.
Unfortunately, the Men’s Rights movement does nothing to challenge any of these toxic notions, all of them legacies of patriarchal thinking. All too often, MRAs celebrate them, helping to make the world a more difficult place for men, and a more dangerous place for women and children.
Male rage is not part of the solution. It is part of the problem.
—
My previous post on the Germanwings Flight 9525, and one “manospherean’s” appalling response to it, can be found here.
The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider donating with the button below. (The PayPal page will say you are donating to Man Boobz.) Thanks!
Ninja’d by kirby :).
Anyway, Paulie, gumdrop, you do know that if you have to explain a joke, the joke has failed, correct? You do understand that, right?
I love that folks assume I’m a soc-sci major, when I’m actually a math/marine bio grad.
It’s warm fuzzies.
Also, in exciting news (for everyone but our adorbable troll who’s having slight issues counting posts):
I might have just got a provisional offer to Temp for the seasonal BLS ambulance, contingent on me graduating from the Firefighter 1 academy.
So, when my job at the University goes on hiatus because all the students run away screaming in May, I might actually have a job to tide myself over until all the kiddos flock back!
Still filling out other seasonal job applications like mad though.
*adorable. Typos. They’re fun!
What, exactly, is so horribly man-hating about Marcotte or Valenti or feministing.com? Can you point us to the articles where they’re cackling about killing all men, or forced universal male circumsion, or that men shouldn’t have any rights under the law? Can you point those out to us, please?
“Says the totally-not-part-of-the-mrm egalitarian. What makes you say women owe men equal rights rather than the other way around?”
Please stop putting words in my mouth. Men owe women respect and equality, and women owe men the same. Full stop.
Is society equal? Of course it’s not. There will always be rich and poor, haves and have nots, those who hold power and those who don’t, for a long time to come. However to say that men in north america still hold ‘power’ over women as a whole, is laughable. We have women heads of state, women CEO’s — everywhere, with their numbers growing every day.
Women have more economic spending power than men in north america, and outperform men by almost all academic measures in post-secondary education.
The latest post on Slate by Amanda Marcotte: Wet Nursing is Back, Sorta
The latest post on The Guardian by Jessica Valenti: Inconsistencies in Jackie’s story do not mean that she wasn’t raped at UVA
The latest post on feministing: Instagram bans photos for showing menstruation
Which is the one that shows feminism has gone too far?
Well the one still clinging to the UVA rape hoax as ‘believable’ is a good place to start. How much evidence of complete fabrication do we need on that one before someone, somewhere in a feminist circle starts to ask themselves ‘hey wait a second, maybe she did make it up’
But no Jessica, somewhere, sometime there MUST be a man who raped jackie, it’s the ONLY explanation (for why her story changed a half dozen times and why she is refusing to cooperate with police)
How are feminists persecuting men?
Not that I expect an actual answer out of Paul. We all know he has a tendency to make claims and then be aghast when asked to back them up.
How are feminists persecuting men?
By accusing them of crimes that didn’t (by their own admission) ever happen, and trying to ruin their careers over it?
https://teamharpy.wordpress.com/
I mean, since you asked for an example and all.
How are feminists persecuting men?
By trying to ‘redefine masculinity’ for them, when frankly, it’s none of their business to tell men how to think (thanks)
http://feministing.com/2015/03/19/remembering-why-redefining-masculinity-is-important/
“do you actually believe that due process should not be extended to men accused of assault”
I have not seen any feminists argue against due process.
“male circumcision should not be abolished”
Kindly talk to the mostly male doctors who recommend routine circumcision. (Circumcision IS sometimes necessary.)
“the courts and police are not heavily weighted to favor the woman in cases of DV, parental obligation”
The courts tend to favor women in custody cases because women still do the majority of child care. [I am a former stay-at-home-dad who was primary caregiver to my children, but I know a lot of men who more or less leave things to Mommy — until she asks for a divorce.] In most cases today men who are not obviously abusive or otherwise unfit get joint custody. As to DV, when women cause anything remotely close to the amount of damage male violent abusers cause, it will be time for more equality of criminal sanctions. And, please, please, don’t quote me that atrociously stupid study that says if a woman shoves a man and he puts her in intensive care, she’s worse because she’s the instigator.
“And, please, please, don’t quote me that atrociously stupid study that says if a woman shoves a man and he puts her in intensive care, she’s worse because she’s the instigator.”
While injuring your partner is reprehensible, in most legal circles he(she) who escalates an argument to a physical confrontation bears the brunt of the blame.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/02/18/3299871/terrible-abortion-bills/
There are national debates and all-male panels about women’s reproductive health, and the recent rend has been a huge surge in anti-abortion legislation.
Sure, women can vote now, and they can own property. The big classic problems have been more-or-less solved; doesn’t mean there isn’t still a shit-load of issues left to face. And in every issue, it’s women who have to petition (mostly) men to get those issues addressed.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2014/03/07/85457/fact-sheet-the-womens-leadership-gap/
“Growing” does not mean “grown.” There is still a huge gap, and the reason it is slowly closing is because of the work of feminism. Saying that that growth means feminism is done is jumping the gun.
“By trying to ‘redefine masculinity’ for them, when frankly, it’s none of their business to tell men how to think (thanks)”
Funny, men have been trying to tell women how to think since forever.
If you want to define your masculinity in ways that are harmful to women, fine, but please go your own way and stay away from women.
And are those numbers anywhere NEAR 50 percent? Because if they are not, then you are full of it. (PS They are nowhere near 50 percent.)
Congress is nowhere near 50 percent. The SCOTUS is nowhere near 50 percent. State legislatures are nowhere near 50 percent. Even something as simple as “protagonists in movies and TV” is nowhere near 50 percent.
So you think we’re done here? Because it should be obvious that we are not.
How did I know feminists expecting rape allegations to be taken seriously would be the thing that Paul feels persecuted by. Never mind the fact that the list of schools under investigation by the justice department for not properly investigating rape is long. Never mind that 3% of rapes end in conviction. Never mind that several police departments in the US are under investigation for not properly investigating rape. Never mind the huge backlog of untested rape kits.
Rolling Stone did some bad journalism on a rape case. I guess that proves women are liars and feminism is bad!
Yep, because talking about how society tends to encourage men to act in ways that can be detrimental to their own mental health and well-being (in addition to making things more dangerous for women) and attempting to invite men to discuss and think critically about culture is … persecution.
You have an odd definition of persecution.
Are we working out of the same dictionary?
So, proof that feminists are persecuting men is a couple of blog posts. Someone doesn’t know what persecution is.
Read the article. I couldn’t excerpt a bit because every paragraph was important to the point, summarized here:
Failure to get a guilty plea doesn’t mean Jackie was lying. In our current culture, there are plenty of cases where it is demonstrably true that a woman was raped, but she tells an inconsistent story because she wants to be believed.
Valenti is not arguing that Jackie was definitely raped. She’s arguing that Jackie, with her brand of inconsistent story (not obviously fabricating major details or obviously making everything up), was no different than other actual rape victims who change their story in an effort to be believed. She’s not arguing that the accused in Jackie’s case should definitely be arrested, she’s explaining that the public shouldn’t assume Jackie is lying.
Obviously you think it was all a hoax and Jackie was a lying liar who lied, but don’t misrepresent Valenti’s position in order to make your point.
*other
actualknown rape victims whoThat’s more what I was trying to say.
Also, how many times does it need to be said? There is no bias against fathers in custody cases. When they seek full custody, they tend to get it. It’s just more common for fathers to choose not to request custody.
It’s also not feminism that has caused women to be thought of as the only gender who can and should be an involved parent. For someone who claims not to be an MRA, Paul sure adheres to all their positions. Like their tendency to get angry at feminists for problems patriarchy caused.
So, Paul, being so middle of the road, I’m sure you’ve argued something with Paul Elam or his ilk as heavily as you’re arguing with us today. Yes?
…also, I’ve never heard of #teamharpy before now.
I must be out of sync with the hive-mind, or something. When did #teamharpy start being all of feminism, again?
Anyone? Anyone? …Bueller?
We can add “persecution” to the long list of words that Paul apparently does not understand.
Paul, from the opening lines of your feministing.com article:
The author then goes on to make the case that while this kind of toxic construction of masculinity hurts cis men and boys, it also hurta everyone else who isn’t a cis man, and that this is sometimes lost in discussions of toxic masculinity. What exactly about this artocle do you find to be “persecuting?” The idea that masculinity shouldn’t be wrapped up with violence and dominance, or the idea that men who do not fit into a narrow definition of “masculine” shouldn’t be shamed for being “not a real man?” Why exactly is so repugnant to you there?