Less than 24 hours after an apparent white supremacist murdered nine black churchgoers in cold blood during a prayer meeting in a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, one prominent MRA is trying to put the blame on feminism, because of a remark the killer reportedly made about rape.
One of the survivors of the church killings reported that, before he began shooting, the killer told those in the prayer group that “you rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.”
Dylann Storm Roof, the accused killer, wore his racism on his sleeve, almost literally: a former classmate tells the press that Roof “made a lot of racist jokes”; his license plate featured the Confederate flag; his Facebook profile picture shows him in a jacket with patches representing the flags of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa.
But Dean Esmay, the second-in-command at A Voice for Men, probably the most influential Men’s Rights site, thinks that Roof’s killing spree may be the result of too much feminism. Earlier today, he posted a link to an article on the shooting to the Men’s Rights subreddit with this headline:
To their credit, the Men’s Rights subreddit regulars voted his comment down; one told him “[n]ot everything is about us, man. This is distasteful.”
Two hours later, apparently undaunted by the criticism and oblivious to irony, Esmay returned to the Men’s Rights subreddit to make another accusation:
No one has declared the shooter to be an MRA. The little we know about Roof right now suggests that he was a garden-variety old-school racist. The paranoid notion of black men raping “our” white women is one of the oldest racist tropes out there; as Jessica Valenti noted on Twitter, Roof’s language is “the language of white supremacist patriarchy.”
The alleged threat to “our women” was used for generations as an excuse to lynch black men and terrorize the black community as a whole. In the case of Roof’s shootings, it’s an even more transparent ruse. As Rebecca Carroll notes in The Guardian, it’s hard to argue that these killings had anything to do with real fears or even paranoid fantasies about the rape of white women when most of the victims were not black men — the symbolic “rapists” in the equation — but black women:
There is something inconsistent with the Charleston shooter’s alleged evocation of the historical myth of black man as beast and rapist of white women, and the fact that he killed mostly black women. Did he only shoot black women because there were no more black men to kill? Because black women birth, care for and love black men? Or because he didn’t see black women as women at all …
The idea that white women’s bodies represent that which is inviolable while black women’s are disposable hasn’t changed enough since it was first articulated by white men; but again, aimed at black men on Wednesday night, it was predominately black women who suffered by their invocation.
We will find out more about Root’s twisted beliefs in days to come. But it is clear already that they had nothing whatsoever to do with feminism.
H/T — r/againstmensrights
EDIT: I’m making this a NO TROLL, no-derailing-with-idiotic-MRA-or-incel-talking-points thread.
Ugh. I’ll have to remember this OP the next time I’m tempted to give Dean Esmay even the tiniest shred of sympathy.
@EJ – Ah, I was looking at it in terms of the exact expression of their assholeishness, but I guess that you have a point in that the bottom line is generally the same: “MY WAY IS THE ONLY RIGHT WAY! AAAHHH! ARGLEGARBLE!”
Conversely, I meant that not-assholes all tend to come down on the side of, “Wow, that’s interesting. I’m even up for a discussion in which we can constructively realize our points of commonality while recognizing, perhaps even valuing, our differences.”
But, again, you have a point in that it’s usually people who are secure enough themselves that they don’t feel that a change of mind or a challenge to their ideas = a negation of their being / an assault on them. Such people also tend to also be secure enough to explore, discover, and express themselves while allowing space for others to do the same.
theseventhguest – That’s a good question and a good point.
In the US, anyway, those in authority generally don’t take threats seriously* unless and until something’s actually happened, then it’s all, “Why didn’t anyone try to do something???”
* That is, if it’s a threat of self-harm, a personal threat (person-to-person – family members, stalkers, SOs, etc), or if you’re a white guy…or, honestly, a woman unless the threat involves her children.
Woe betide you, though, if you’re a brown dude threatening a bunch of white people or “people in general”, especially if you’re not Christian.
“He said what? And around whom? Yes, yes – we’ll forward this along to the FBI.”
@rugbyyogi
Where is this report? I’ve read several articles and none have mentioned the friends reporting this.
We know factually that his roommate, at least, was at a minimum tolerant of racism. Pictures of him sporting a Confederate flag exist. The Confederate flag is a symbol of a racist regime in the United States. It is used by racists and people who think racism is OK. It also just doesn’t make any common sense that he would remain roommates with a racist who, according to his report, made racist comments all the time if he was, himself, intolerant of racism.
Another friend reports that Roof has a “deadpan sense of humor” in the context of racism. Again: tolerance of racism is demonstrated by this description of racist jokes.
We do, in fact, know that his friends are at least somewhat racist. This has been demonstrated by their words and actions.
@sunnysombrera
Two reasons. The first is just religious privilege, and the negative reaction to any erosion thereof. Religion is privileged in the United States, and Christianity is privileged above other religions. Any hint that this privilege is eroding causes the same reaction as what we see when misogynists notice male privilege eroding, or many whites when they see white privilege eroding. It’s a hysterical over-reaction, but entirely predictable.
However, there is a second factor at work. There is a certain brand of fundamentalist Christianity that predicts that Christians (or, at least, Real True Christians) will be subjected to severe persecution during the Last Days. The precise form this persecution is supposed to take varies by group, but it almost always includes the inability of (Real True) Christians to buy and sell, on account of their faith precluding them from accepting the Mark of the Beast. It also typically includes harassment and murder of those who do not accept the Mark. Christianity will effectively be outlawed.
You’d think that these groups would look for this coming persecution with great joy, because it means Christ is coming really soon, and indeed many of them do. The American right-wingers, however, are typically not members of these fundamentalist groups, but are merely adjacent and have absorbed the highlights of the eschatology by osmosis as it were, without the accompanying expectation of Christ’s return. They therefore freak at any sign of the erosion of Christian privilege, because they think this will lead inevitably to the total outlawing of their religion. For them, it’s either Christianity on top of the heap, or else Christianity at the bottom, and they aren’t going to tolerate it being at the bottom.
How do I know this? I used to be one of those fundamentalists and I saw it happening from the inside.
The NRA, meanwhile, favors straight-up victim blaming.
Whoa whoa whoa, I’d been reading, nodding along like usual when EJ (the other one) said this:
What has Twisty done that could potentially invalidate feminism? I always enjoyed her blog, though I haven’t gone there in yonks.
@EJ
There are also many ways to screw up blockquotes, but only one way to get them right.
@brooked
Yet according to the dude I debated, they should magically have found a way to do just that to accommodate his delicate secular sensibilities. Logic!
And of course, the historical role of black churches makes this latest mass murder all the more despicable, a clearly targeted act of political terrorism. Obviously there are people in denial of the racial terrorism aspect, like this internet idiot and also the Fox News television idiots.
@EJ
Oh, thank the Spaghetti Monster you’re not a Sam Harris fanboy. Maybe I was mistaken in my estimate of anti-theism/New Atheism, because I thought it was predominantly people like Harris and Dawkins. Folk like PZ Myers I can get behind, of course, but his activism seems predominantly about science (and not being a horrible dick to women) and more anti-fundamentalism and anti-pseudoscience than anti-religion in general.
Sorry, I did something stupid and would a like a chance to prove I’m not a troll. Been lurking for months here and have a great deal of respect for David and the regular posters here. I’d like to become part of this online community.
Looking back at my comment, I realize how badly I presented my point and I am sorry I offended so many people here.
I made the mistake of posting when I was too tired to think properly. I was physically exhausted from a week of travel and little sleep. I didn’t realize how badly I’d written that post. until today when I re-read it.
My sincere apologies,
Dwight
OH MY GOD FUCK THE NRA.
Yeah, cause black people in South Carolina have absolutely nothing to worry about if they carry a gun. No chance whatsoever they’ll get shot by the police at the first sight of it.
I admit to curiosity as to how you could possibly rephrase that idea in such a way that it isn’t ableist and massively wrong.
I love how the right tells us to lighten up and stop being the PC police and stop caring about what others think when someone makes a racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. comment. But a retail worker says “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas” and all of a sudden it’s WAR ON CHRISTMAS!!! CHRISTIANS DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION ANYMORE BECAUSE LIBRULS ARE DESTROYING FAITH AND FAMILY!!!
Apparently for some, practicing Christianity = forcing a low wage worker to say “merry Christmas” to for two months out of the year you even if the worker is not Christian herself or the worker and/or employer wishes not to alienate customers who aren’t Christian.
This is why antitheism is a perfectly valid position. In Christianity and Islam particularly, proselytizing is baked right into the religion. Not every Christian and Muslim feel it’s their duty to convert people and there are many individuals who are perfectly happy to live and let live. I have no beef with these individuals. But as a system, religion will always try to spread and grow. Inevitably, that’s going to lead to a large enough group of people who see part of practicing religion as proselytizing and making sure their religion is dominant by any means necessary that it has a negative impact on society. Whether it’s terrorism, teaching creationism in public school or appropriating an act of racism as an attack of faith in order to whip up furor amongst Christians.
Policy of Madness/berdache: I’d like to suggest, politely and with the understanding that I have no actual authority here, that the matter should rest with the apology, so long as berdache does not repeat the incident. Ongoing discussion of how it could have been phrased would continue an unnecessary derail.
********
There’s one aspect of the incident that does get to me, as an atheist (and antitheist)–not about the shooting itself, but about the coverage. There have been numerous comments, from Obama on down, that this shooting was ‘uniquely horrific’ because it took place in ‘a church, where people had come together to pray’.
I get why it gets said, but it still irks me. This would have been just as tragic and horrific if it had taken place at a bowling alley. Hell, it would’ve been just as tragic if it had happened at a strip club or a crack house–but I can guarantee the news coverage would be different.
The only significance of the location is that it was (like many black churches in the South) a historical focal point of the civil rights movement, and this because it was such an obviously white supremacist act of terrorism. The fact that the churches played such a role is an accident of history, not a function of religion itself (many of the segregationists were also rallying in their all-white churches; however, they also had other places they could meet, without fear of getting attacked by the cops, so the role was less significant to the other side).
Ugh. Of course. It was only a matter of time. That same board member also thinks we would have less violence in our society if only we were allowed to beat children again. Because that makes complete sense.
Some gun fellators are so clearly just itching for an excuse to commit violence while still being considered a good, law abiding citizen. See also: George Zimmerman.
*reads own word salad composed while cooling down from moving a heavy job box in the heat*
Or: Assholes contiuously rail and flail and inpose, not-assholes tend to be much more live and let live*.
* Though many will most definitely defend their & other’s right to their own opinions/actions/being.
Not being an asshole =/= pushover.
I’ve noticed that too. I doubt the people who say this intend to imply that people who go to church deserve being murdered less than those who don’t, but that’s definitely the implication there. Lindsay Graham is doing it on MSNBC right now and fuck him. He’s spent his political career as a social conservative – that is someone who is actively trying to keep marginalized groups marginal – and as an advocate for violence in several forms (death penalty, unrestricted access to guns, and of course war, war, war). Now he’s pretending to be so shocked and horrified that a white supremacist would go to a black church and shoot people after sitting in Bible study for an hour. Fuck that fucking hypocrite.
I am so over calls for unity when there’s mass murder. I’m tired of the people in power who allow a culture of violence and hate to thrive spouting phony platitudes and not getting called out for it. Fuck them.
On the other hand, I’m glad that besides the NRA board member Nequam just posted about, there hasn’t been much in the way of victim blaming as there always is when white people kill black people. If the shooting had happened at a picnic, block or house party you’d hear all sorts of people trying to blame it on the victims being rowdy or something. You’d about how they were “no angels.” I guess the fact that they were in church puts them in the “one of the good ones” category. *barfs*
@freemage
The “I just didn’t express myself properly” nonpology rubs me the wrong way. It’s a variation on the “you didn’t understand me correctly” nonpology with less blamey phrasing. We see it all the time from politicians who say something straightforward and terrible, when they realize they were too honest and try to backpedal. If berdache doesn’t want to go there again, that’s their decision, but I don’t feel obligated to let it go with that, any more than I felt obligated to let it go when Mitt Romney used it to try to escape his 47% remarks.
@Buttercup Q. Skullpants:
I assumed we were all referencing it?
@PussyPowerTrantrum:
Oh good Katie no, I loathe Harris and everything he says. I might end up fighting shoulder to shoulder with him and his followers on some issues – politics makes for strange bedfellows – but the man himself is badly in need of being told to sit down.
That’s what I meant when I said you can divide atheism between the New Atheists and the NOMA folks, but not between the assholes and non-assholes. I’m very firmly on the New Atheist camp, which is the same one that Harris is in, but I try not to be an asshole about it. There are no easily separated “good” or “bad” groups of atheists.
Greta Christina is also of that persuasion, and you should read her blog because everyone should.
@PolicyOfMadness:
Ack. Forgot the comment on the last one.
@PolicyOfMadness:
I find the church uniquely horrible, because a church is a place of sanctuary. It’s no more intrinsically sacred than any other place, but the fact that in our culture a church is understood to be a place where violence is forbidden, makes it worse.
*I find violence in a church uniquely horrible, because a church is a place of sanctuary.
Let me cut my losses and end this here. I’ll probably make another mistake I need to comment on, but never mind.
@the other EJ
I don’t think you were actually replying to me. LOL I didn’t make the comment you attempted to blockquote. That was freemage.
*fucking sigh*
Thanks for the correction.
@PoM
So… what form does that antitheism take? If Christianity or Islam (or both?) is set to take over the world through unchecked proselytizing, should proselytizing be illegal? Or would it be enough to challenge harmful religious beliefs and push back on unconstitutional encroachments on public life? I mean, if Christianity and Islam are so inimical to liberal society, it seems that simply debating them in the marketplace of ideas is a pretty weak remedy, almost a dereliction of the duty to defend democracy. It feels like we should be doing much more. Like banning minarets or burqas or something.
@PussyPowerTantrum:
The most common atheist (antitheist) position on that is that we should work to undermine the teaching of religion to children by their parents. If someone wants to convert freely as an adult, that’s their choice, but if we take away the “default option” of following the religion then we strike at the mechanism which transmits the embedded cultural assumptions.
More importantly than that, we cause religion to shift to be far more accepting of diversity (which Abrahamic religions are terrible at.) If everyone you know is Christian, you’ll see no harm in legislating to harm non-Christians. If your children are a different faith from you, then it brings multiculturalism home.