So the execrable Andrea Hardie — Twitter abuser, violence-threatener, Canada-embarrasser — has been pondering a deep philosophical conundrum: “Do some women benefit from being slapped around?”
If you have even the slightest familiarity with Hardie — known on the internet as JudgyBitch and/or Janet Bloomfield — you probably won’t be shocked to discover that her answer is yes.
You might be a little surprised that she considers herself, at least hypothetically, one of these women.
“There are all kinds of reasons I don’t cheat on my husband,” she explains, “but an important one is that I assume he would beat the sh*t out of me if I ever did. And I would bloody well deserve it.”
While Hardie insists that her husband “has never hit me in any context that wasn’t erotic and consensual” or even acted in a threatening manner towards her, she tells her readers that she “very much assume[s] that he would, and further, that in certain situations, he should.”
Cheating on her husband would be one of these “certain situations.” Being “disrespectful” of him in front of other people would be another. As she explains:
There are many things I would simply never dream of doing to my husband, because I assume I would get a slap or worse, if I did. All of those things are linked to respect. To be clear: all of this comes from me. Tim has never said “Don’t ever think of doing x because I will hit you.” … I just feel that he would, and he would be perfectly justified in doing so. There are a multitude of reasons I wouldn’t be disrespectful of my husband, especially in public. The possibility of taking a well-earned beating just happens to be one of them.
But unfortunately, Hardie claims, not all women are as well-behaved as she is.
I don’t go around inviting my husband to slap me by screaming at him in public or humiliating him by flirting with other men. But lots of women do. How much of domestic violence is caused by women pushing men into hitting them because that level of domination is familiar, and in a f*cked up way, deeply erotic for the women?
Yep, she went there, conflating consensual kink with men “beating the sh*t” out of women to punish them for their “disrespect.”
“[S]ome women do benefit from being slapped around,” Hardie concludes. “Some women crave it.”
She isn’t the only MRA who has tried to erase or complicate the clear distinction between consensual BDSM and domestic abuse. Youtube bloviater Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan has suggested that many abused women “demand” their abuse, which Straughan thinks can lead to “scorching” sex. Anti-domestic-violence crusader turned domestic-violence apologist Erin Pizzey describes situations in which both partners are violent as “consensual violence.”
It’s not hard to tell the difference between violence in, say, sports and violence in real life — hitting someone in the face is perfectly acceptable, even encouraged, if you’re a professional boxer in the middle of a boxing match; it’s not acceptable to just go down the street punching random people who annoy you.
So is it really that hard for Hardie and other MRAs to tell the difference between, say, consensual spanking and “beating the sh^t” out of your partner? I don’t think it is. As you may recall, Hardie made clear early in her post that she understands this distinction quite well, telling us that her husband “has never hit me in any context that wasn’t erotic and consensual.”
The point of this phony “confusion” between consensual kink and domestic violence is to support an old victim-blaming narrative in which male violence is considered an excusable response to deliberate provocation from women who, in many cases, secretly love being beaten.
“For lots of women, submission to a violent man is a bonding experience,” Hardie writes.
[I]t’s incontrovertible that many women find violence erotic and even comforting. How many women feel this way, but have no way to articulate it, and thus end up provoking violence that can easily get out of hand?
Even more perversely, Hardie goes on to suggest that, when things do get “out of hand,” the abusive men are also somehow victims of the abuse they themselves inflict on their female partners.
Sure, Hardie says, women “may provoke more violence and anger than they intend, and thus end up getting really hurt.”
But men suffer as well, she writes, from being “provoked” into inflicting “violence [that goes] well beyond what is beneficial or wanted.”
Should men be punished when they’re “provoked” into beating their partners? I doubt it will come as much of a shock to discover that Hardie says “no.”
Oh, hitting women should still be illegal, she says. But, she insists, female “provocation” should be seen as “a mitigating factor … [e]ven to the point that provocation results in dismissed charges.”
How much “provocation” would be required to dismiss charges against a man who pummeled his wife so badly that he broke her nose and knocked out some teeth? Could this be considered a justified response to her cheating on him? To her flirting with other men in public? For her being late with dinner two nights in a row?
Hardie’s “logic” here is the same logic abusers themselves use to justify their abuse, spiced up a little with disingenuous references to kink.
Men who punch women for being “disrespectful” towards them don’t deserve that respect. Neither do the women who excuse this abuse.
The attitude displayed by Paglia and JB reminds me of Ayn Rand’s assertion that all women want to be dominated, and that “the look of being chained” was the most feminine look of all.
I’m not entirely sure how many of my friends are dominatrixes (I haven’t counted and I don’t take a survey), but I can imagine many of them roaring with laughter at that assertion.
I know some other person’s political blog is not my Livejournal, and anecdotes =/= data, but I’m going to personal-experience-vomit here, all the same.
I was that very creature of whom Ms. Hardie speaks: an unfaithful, terrible wife until my husband hit me and I left.
However, I’d like to speak to the circumstances of this, two decades and a bit of experience later. Somewhere along the line, I had picked up the idea that if you were a cisfemale in a relationship with a cismale, the only acceptable reasons to leave that relationship were: 1. If one of you died; 2. If he left you; 3. If he hit you. I was miserable, and wanted out pretty much from day one, but instead of growing a brain and making both of our lives infinitely better by declaring an end to a mutually horrible relationship, I let him bulldoze me into a teen-aged marriage in a religious community that I was poorly fitted to because he would have been sad if I broke up with him, and spent pretty much the entire time trying to make him unhappy enough to leave me. It was pretty shitty of me, I must say, and I really, really should have known better. I have no excuse except, at age fourteen*, I had the emotional maturity of uncured mulch.
This may be the ONE case in the entirety of history which even vaguely fit Ms. Hardie’s narrative. I know I have not once seen this repeated anywhere save certain ill-thought-out B movie scripts. But in this single instance, what I needed was actually MORE feminism (in some quarters known as sensibility, logic, and basic human kindness) to avoid inflicting this passive-aggressive clusterfuck upon the world, myself, and my poor benighted ex-husband— not less.
*The relationship began when I was fourteen. I married when I was eighteen.
She works off of the assumption that men are hardwired to be brutally violent.
And yet, to listen to her, *we’re* the misandrists.
@Kivutar: Badly, I think.
Ya know, this line of logic doesn’t make sense to me. I mean, besides being morally repugnant, it’s just weird. I am a grown-up adult human woman and when there are opportunities for me to do things that are immoral, I just…. don’t. No one has to hit me to keep me from doing wrong by my partner–the fact that I don’t want to hurt him is enough. Pretty much everyone has an internal sense of ethics, so why does Hardie act like she would be be out touching every boner if it weren’t for the presence of physical violence? Does she have so little faith in herself that she thinks she’s not capable of controlling her impulses unless someone’s gonna hit her? Because if that’s how she feels, maybe time to work on that self-control with a therapist?
In a weird, messed up way, I kind of understand why someone would say that other women need to be hit to be kept in line (my theory is that women throw other women under the bus in order to be excluded from the group “Women” so they can access different treatment), but I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would say that they, personally, need to be hit to be kept in line. I don’t want someone to hit me! I hear it sucks! So why would I encourage someone to do it to me!?
Oh, Hardie, I worry about you. I hate your ideas but I hope you come to a place of peace at some point. 🙁
QFT.
I’ve never met a bigger misandrist than an Manospherian.
I have a personal request.
My relationship with my dad has been deteriorating for a long time. As I’ve discovered my own true values and moved away from the hateful ideologies and belief systems of our family culture, it has become more and more difficult for us to find any common ground at all or even tolerate each other. I can’t listen to anything he says; nearly all of it makes me feel awful.
But it turns out I may be more important to him than his personal truth. He has reached out to me with sincerity and openness I didn’t even know he was capable of, and asked me if I could maybe explain feminism to him so that he can, at least, respect my views and understand how he needs to moderate himself around me, if not come to agree with them.
Now this is a privilege denying white dude, with a superior STEMlogic mind. Arguments with complexity and subtlety aren’t going to reach him. He generally finds simplistic face value econ 101 type reasoning convincing and considers it a sufficient basis for his world view, case closed, no need for further consideration. He, for example, actually believes it’s about ethics in gaming journalism, and that consent is complicated, and that sandwich jokes are harmless and the only reason a person would object to them is that they’re using it as a pretext to control others. He doesn’t believe in patriarchy and doesn’t understand how gender roles can be oppressive or harmful if people aren’t outright forced to conform to them. He doesn’t seem to even understand why all problems stemming from social pressure can’t be just shrugged off. I swear, sometimes I wonder how he manages to live among other people.
I have no idea how to even begin to explain ANYTHING to him. I’ve only discussed feminist concepts with other feminists and sympathetic people who think like I do before, I don’t know how to defend them or put them in very simple and clear terms. I don’t even want to, it makes me extremely anxious to have to defend the ideas upon which my basic fucking humanity rests to invulnerable people whose humanity has never been compromised, called to question or even remotely threatened.
But obviously I have to at least try. He’s my father, he’s sick and getting old. I’d like to be there for him if I can.
If you can recommend any resource or material that might help me make the kind of case for feminism that might convince an engineer, please do. I’m going to be looking at all kinds of feminism 101 sources, but I can only go through so many. In particular, it would be a huge help if you’re aware of anything that I can use to make a denialist understand and accept the concept of privilege.
Thank you for reading my teal deer, if you did, and thank you for thinking about it, if you did.
Snork Maiden, given that I recall she once put out a whole theory of how BDSM comes from an earlier tribal norm being reasserted but then casually mentions later in the same review that she has never done any playing herself or even any research, I doubt she did any for this either.
Dust Bunny,
I’d say if he responds to facts, give him statistics and go from there. Whether he’ll listen, I don’t know.
If he’s not internet averse, the Yes Means Yes blog’s Meet the Predators piece is a great way to help someone understand rape culture. Especially if they prefer fact to emotion based arguments.
https://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2009/11/12/meet-the-predators/
@dust bunny,
I find ‘Sexual Politics’ by Katherine Millet pretty good as source material, she presents facts and observations in a clear manner.
I’d second weirdwoodtreehugger and say stick to facts and statistics.
It’s really positive that he’s trying to meet you halfway.
So many of these red pill women describe childhoods full of serious violence that it’s hard not to draw the conclusion that Judgy Bitch et al might be identifying with abusers as a way of processing earlier trauma.
Does the woman actually believe that her husband would hit her? Or does she equate hitting and love, so she likes to think he might hit her, if the circumstances were right?
Is JB just bullshitting herself and/or her readers, by pretending that her husband is some kind of cave man, as a weird point of pride?
Or theory number three: she writes this nonsense because she likes the drama it generates.
@Kupo
Fairytales are the province of little girls.
(Sorry can’t blockquote on my mobile.)
I find that fairytales are the province of both little boys and girls. (I mean the proper fairytales not Disney.) There are plenty of stories where girls are described by their cunning and wit, not beauty and as a reward, get married to a prince. (Royalty was seen as the ultimate reward in those days.) It makes me think that the beautiful princess stories were for meant for boys and the plucky heroine stories were meant for girls.
@dust bunny https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com <- this site is mea t for non-feminists, so maybe it could help explain things with an uncomplicated language and address points non-feminist people might ask 🙂 i'm hopeful about you talking to your dad about it and i wish you luck!!
I know I’m just speculating here, but this reads to me like she’s internalized the expectations of toxic masculinity so deeply that she COULDN’T respect her husband if she didn’t believe he’s hit her if she threatened his manhood.
@bunny
I don’t know if I can help with resources, but if I may offer some advice on dealing with the stubborn/intransigent or explaining new concepts in general
There are a lot of creationists who actually accept evolution by natural selection… so long as you never call it evolution by natural selection. Maybe alter your word choice. Think of it like a kind of code switching. You talk about ‘denouement’ with your cinephile friends. Otherwise, it’s just called ‘the conclusion’
Make sure you have an answer to every question. Every question. Even if he legit just wants to understand you, he’ll likely try to trip you up. The urge to ‘win’ a discussion is not easily suppressed. Be ready to define your terms accurately and concisely
Also, perhaps explaining feminism isn’t the best immediate goal. It’s kinda like explaining quantum physics (keeping with the STEM thing). Start with how atoms and molecules function, and if that goes well, you can move onto wave functions and the various field theories. Unintentionally overloading someone often makes them shut down
Finally, if it doesn’t work, try to remember it’s not your fault. You’re attempting to change his mind, cos you care about him, but his thoughts/opinions are not your responsibility
Sorry in advance, if that’s not what you were looking for
I used to like Twelve Dancing Princesses because it was about girls tricking their father and their suitors. Sure, the hero of the story beat them. But at least the beginning was properly misandric!
I do think that story shows that women and girls wanting the freedom to live their lives as they choose, rather than be submissive housewives* was not the invention of 2nd wave feminism as so many misogynists seem to think.
* Yes, some women choose that, but it’s certainly not something biologically hardwired into all feeemales.
@dust bunny
<3 That's a hard situation! A good one as well – he wants to understand and change! But you're up against two really tough things. He sounds like a relatively intelligent person who knows enough to rationalize himself out of believing the evidence in front of his eyes. He's also your father, and so he's probably got a strong urge to prove himself as smarter/more thoughtful. Pride and status do a lot to blind people.
If he's really the rational sort, I'd talk to him about the principle of charity. Most rationalists don't really know about it, preferring its partner, parsimony (i.e. Occam's Razor). But when it comes to evaluating positions outside of your own, it's the principle of charity that's most important.
The wikipedia article one it is pretty good, if short. The concise version is: “Assume the strongest form of any argument you encounter.” You compare that strong form to your own position and see which holds more water.
I’d also suggest that the statistics are a good source, if he’s into that sort of thing. Just be sure to be ready for questions, which can be tough if you’re not good with stats. Best thing to say on that is to look at the source. The stats we look at are generally large studies from large, reputable third parties – census bureaus and the FBI database, things like that.
And, ask him to work from first principles. Assume nothing at first, then look at the stats. It’s tough to do, but he seems to really want to do it.
Good luck. And don’t be afraid to say “I don’t know” to him if he asks something! Say you’ll find out and get back to him. Just remind him that they aren’t your opinions, they’re the opinions of very deep study that relies on the same statistical methods that all of science uses. If he wants to learn, he’ll give you the time.
And ask here, too, if he asks a tough question! I’m sure the regulars here will jump in with a reply pretty quick if we can.
Good luck, @bunny! It’s great that he wants to learn. I hope it turns out great.
As always, man pain is the only real pain. The pain women experience isn’t really pain, it’s more like the yelping of an injured dog which people like Descartes likened to reflexes or the input/output mechanism of a machine. A yelping dog can’t possibly be feeling pain because the dog isn’t human, and likewise women can’t feel real pain because they also aren’t human.
@dust bunny
I would SUPER encourage you to handle all interactions through email or some other written form. The worst, worst thing in the world is trying to explain an important, complex, nuanced concept to a person you value and getting tripped up by trying to think on your feet. Only someone who is well-versed in a subject should try to explain it verbally when the stakes are high. All others should explain in writing and give themselves time to do research and think carefully about word choices.
The Wife of Bath’s tale in the Canterbury Tales addressed this in the 14th century. The Canterbury Tales are … problematic? In many ways? But the idea that women want sovereignty is “new” only in the same way that the Notre Dame Cathedral is “new.”
So, is this purely a marital privilege, or should I also be allowed to beat the crap out of her if she provokes me?
Dear manospherian douchebags: Stop appropriating kink.
@Michael
Wow, Sargon of Akkad can fuck right off. Could you link the video take-down? I’m curious to see what the responses to his BS were.
Hahahahaahah no. It’s like he can’t fathom the idea that someone can be feminist and kinky.
Motif: n. a distinctive feature or dominant idea in an artistic or literary composition.
Nice try on attempting to minimize a real-world problem by calling it a ‘motif’.
Right because the abuser being seeing as oppressive and tyranical while the victim being ‘victimized’ is clearly such a misrepresentation. But of course, how else could benjamin appeal to his fans without scary buzzwords like MALE OPPRESSION!!!!!1111!111!!
“Everyone knows” is what passes for evidence in this part of the internet. Naturally, any attempt to say, no that’s not how it works, must be accompanied by 3 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles with a sample size of >10000
Or because she has nowhere else to go. Or because she’s afraid he will do worse things if she leaves. This is also a dude who claims, on his channel:
“I’m for finding the truth of the matter using rational arguments backed up by evidence. I do my own research and I try to be thorough.”
perhaps you should try a little harder. So far, none of the these arguments have been rational and none were backed up by evidence.
Good idea, let’s get some who actually has knowledge of sex, kink and abuse. In other words, someone other than you.
Assuming all gay men are kinky is pretty ignorant.
Wat? So his argument is “gay men enjoy consentual kinky sex therefore battered women should enjoy non-consentual abuse”
Bzzzt. False equivalency alert based on the obnoxiously common idea that kink is somehow synonymous with abuse even though the whole point is that one is consentual and the other is not. Though I’m hardly surprised Benjamin doesn’t know the difference, especially after seeing what he considers to be ‘thorough research’
Yes, I’m sure a lot of sexist dudes don’t believe that women have kinky tastes. I’m pretty sure a lot of them are your subscribers.
No, really? You mean to tell me that women don’t adhere to benevolent sexist stereotypes?
Gotta love it when anti-feminists think they’re so clever when pointing out examples of sexism. Especially when they assume feminists are behind it. Then they act all high and mighty when delivering a truth bomb that was delivered a long time ago by the very people he claims to loathe.
Of course, they only seem to dare point out examples of sexism when it’s ‘benevolent’ towards women. Geez, I wonder why that is.
COTD. Or year.
Another sinking post?
ETA, apparently not.
@dust bunny:
I’ll echo what others have said, and also agree with PoM about keeping it a written discussion, unless you’re really confident in your abilities in a face-to-face discussion.
One thing that I would add is that it sounds like his interest is partly emotional, so despite his “STEMiness”, you may have an opening to share personal stories of how feminism and toxic masculinity have affected you or people you care about — where the “rubber meets the road”, so to speak.
Something like I’ve seen mentioned here recently: say, a friend going on a first date with a guy, and the guy being upset that she didn’t want him to pick her up, but instead wanted to meet him at a public place, because it showed she didn’t trust him. How our society is okay with this; how it tells a man that he should feel insulted, rather than being happy that the woman he is on a date with values her safety and has a standard that trust is earned; and the actual danger it puts women in by encouraging them to put blind trust in strangers and social approval above their own safety.
I don’t know if you have personal stories where trying to conform to social expectations of women caused clear harm that you would be comfortable sharing with him, and that you think he might understand (and it could be any number of things that your dad might normally laugh off as overly-sensitive, other than the example I gave); but it sounds like you might have somewhat of an opening there. Especially if he wants to talk in person about it, you might want to have some more personal examples at the ready — and insist that the more academic, numbers- and science-based discussions take place over e-mail.
Good luck! 🙂
@dust bunny
I’ve had a lot of experience trying to convince men of what sexism is and how it exists. This 2 panel comic helped a lot at explaining how the ‘women can STEM’ stereotype is perpetuated, and how women is perpetuated in our society:
https://xkcd.com/385/
It’s simple and I have yet to meet someone who could refute it.
What is sexism?
Men are afraid women will laugh at them. Women are afraid men will kill them.