Categories
a voice for men a woman is always to blame antifeminism domestic violence empathy deficit entitled babies men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA ncfm rape rape culture splc trump

MRAs met with Education secretary Betsy DeVos, because this is the world we live in

Betsy DeVos: Have you ever REALLY looked at your hands?

The Summer 2017 WHTM pledge drive is on! Donate generously to enable our continuing coverage of dudes who consider themselves oppressed by women! Thanks! 

By David Futrelle

UPDATE: DeVos met with MRAs Thursday; here’s what she told reporters afterwards.

The Trump administration has given a lot of fringe political weirdos a certain not-quite-legitimacy. We’ve seen “alt-lite” conspiracy slinger and bobblehead salesman Mike Cernovich given White House press credentials; meanwhile, Twitterbanned right-wing pseudo-journalist Chuck Johnson seems to have become entangled in one of the developing Trump/Russia collusion scandals, working at the behest of a longtime Republican donor (now deceased) who was apparently willing to drop big bucks to help Trump by somehow uncovering Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails.

Now a notorious Men’s Rights group — the National Coalition For Men — will be meeting with Education secretary Betsy DeVos to discuss the campus rape epidemic that MRAs claim doesn’t exist. DeVos will also be talking with rape survivors and college officials, but the fact that the NCFM will be part of the discussion is appalling, even by Trump administration standards.

Despite its long pedigree (it’s been around since 1977) and almost respectable-sounding name, the NCFM has, I would estimate, roughly as much legitimacy as a civil rights group as the Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men or the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit. Which is to say none.

Indeed, the NCFM site clutters its sidebars with videos from the likes of AVFM founder Paul Elam and antifeminist gadfly Girl Writes What, while the main page touts articles accusing feminism of destroying the family, suggesting campus “safe spaces” are “havens of misandry” and asking “is feminism killing young boys,” with the last article written by a regular contributor to AVFM.

The group has also won a certain notoriety in feminist circles for posting pictures of alleged “false accusers” on its website. I also ran across this lovely picture and caption on the NCFM site last year, illustrating a press release on Senator Patrick Leahy and the Violence Against Women Act.

From the National Coalition For Men website.

As I noted at the time, “the Joker is [apparently] supposed to represent Leahy’s supposed feminist puppetmasters; regardless, it is a jarring image depicting violence against an elected official as somehow humorous.” If you can’t quote believe that a supposed civil rights group would run such a thing, well, make a quick visit to the group’s website; the picture is still up. (I’ve archived it here just in case.)

This is hardly the only time the NCFM or its officials have offered, well let’s just call them disconcerting takes on the issue of violence.

In an interview with Pacific Standard’s Ted Scheinman a couple of years ago, NCFM president Harry Crouch offered this take on Ray Rice, the (former) football player who knocked his then fiancée out cold with a punch famously caught on video.

I’m not saying he’s a good guy. But if she hadn’t aggravated him, she wouldn’t have been hit. They would say that’s blaming the victim. But I don’t buy it. And anyway football is always happy to put on pink suits to celebrate women. Why can’t they have a week, or just one day, where they celebrate men?

It’s no wonder that  Jess Davidson of the group End Rape On Campus, told the HuffPost that she considers the NCFM a “hate group.”

“They have viciously and very intentionally harassed rape survivors online by exposing their identities and posting pictures of them,” Davidson told the HuffPost. “From our perspective, they really have no place in a conversation about civil rights.”

DeVos will also be meeting with representatives of the group Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE), a group the Southern Poverty Law Center once described as devoted to “roll[ing] back services for victims of domestic abuse and penalties for their tormentors, while working to return the focus to the ‘true victims of abuse’ — the falsely accused.”

SAVE has long worked hand-in-hand with hate site AVFM to fight for men they believe have been “falsely accused.”

The meeting is scheduled to take place July 13th.

It is not known if any bears or their representatives will be attending the meeting.

H/T — Thanks to everyone who sent me links on this story

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

145 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Big D
3 years ago

@Laugher

If you’ve become disillusioned with conservatism and see the stupidity of the Alt-Right, then you should consider patriarchy. Not the feminist conspiracy theory. A genuine, civilized patriarchy. Jews aren’t the problem. Globalists aren’t the problem. Women aren’t the problem. The system is the problem. The decline/stagnation of western civilization results from our abandonment of the balanced and fair system of soft patriarchy we once enjoyed. Restoring the link between authority and responsibility is the answer.

PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Perpetually Ignored, Invisible but Noice) Sarcastic
3 years ago

Futrelle does a poor job of accurately representing MGTOW on this site.

He is not trying to represent you. He is taking the stupid shit the manosphere says verbatim and puts them up for us to mock. Because that is what this blog is about.

Tracking misogyny and mocking it.

So if you do not want to be mocked, don’t say stupid, misogynistic shit, here. Pretty simple, actually.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

A genuine, civilized patriarchy

What would that entail? What’s a specific time and culture that is a “civilized” patriarchy and what makes it better than what we have today? ETA: Not that we don’t have a patriarchy still, but there’s far more gender equity now than there has been in “western civilization” before.

balanced and fair system of soft patriarchy

Nice attempt at sounding moderate and non-misogynist. No sale. How is a system in which half the population is denied full equality fair? Patriarchy is fair and balanced like Fox News is fair and balanced.

JS
JS
3 years ago

@Big D
Congrats for missing the actual points of most of the people in this thread.

About the “genuine, civilized patriarchy”, do you have any still existing examples? Civilization does better when every sex is represented in the power structure.

A “Genuine, civilized patriarchy” is as likely as a “Totally working communist system”, which is to say, we have no real examples of either, at least not that last for very long, or never change adjectives.

The joke when I was in school was that, the more of the following were in the name of a country or organization, the less likely any of them were true.
Glorious, Democratic, Peoples’, Republic, Socialist, Workers’, Communist, Revolutionary.

At the time, and still in most cases today, anything calling itself anything like the “Democratic Republic of X” was neither.

the real cie
3 years ago

“If you’ve become disillusioned with conservatism and see the stupidity of the Alt-Right, then you should consider patriarchy.”
This is sort of like saying “if you’ve become disillusioned with religious fundamentalism and see the stupidity of the KKK, then you should consider being a second class citizen.”
Don’t you have seagulls to hunt or something?

Nanny Ogg's Bosum
3 years ago

Late to the party, but, 👍well done @Imaginary Petal! I started my Masters last year at the age of 33. Got another year to go but I’ve already found more confidence and it’s been quite an experience going back into education after 12 years.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
3 years ago

Big D

Restoring the link between authority and responsibility is the answer.

I’m interested (well, okay, not really) in who has authority in this “soft patriarchy” you’re advocating and who is subject to that authority. What happens to those who overreach their authority? How would someone subject to authority report-fight back-get redress concerning that person’s exceeding of the bounds of legitimate exercise of authority?

What exactly _is_ this link between authority and responsibility you’re so enamoured with?

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
3 years ago

“If you’ve become disillusioned with conservatism and see the stupidity of the Alt-Right, then you should consider patriarchy.”

That’s legitimately hilarious.

“If you’ve become disillusioned with being shat on for your socioeconomic class, and see the stupidity of being shat on for your socioeconomic class and your race, then you should consider being shat on for your socioeconomic class, your race and your sex*”. Hooray!

* terms used may also include other attributes not listed on the label.

Big D
3 years ago

@JS
@WWTH

Patriarchy worked for thousands of years. Unless or until our biology is significantly altered, it’s the only thing that can work in the long run. Patriarchy will return one way or another. I’d prefer if it happened peacefully and without the collapse we’re currently headed for.

Big D
3 years ago

@mildlymagnificent

I’m moving on from this thread. It’s already gone way off topic. But this video should answer all your questions: http://bit.ly/2uq79kS It’s directed at men (since what the future holds is almost entirely up to us and what we decide to do) but it’s a good introduction for both males and females to the basic vision for a healthy society.

This article gives a different take on the same subject and offers a more optimistic outlook: http://bit.ly/2ugDUAD It’s from the perspective of those who still see hope in politics and think total collapse can be avoided. I’m in the pessimism camp. But as my initial comment indicated, Mrs. DeVos and the gang might prove me wrong. I still doubt it.

DanHolme
DanHolme
3 years ago

@Big D

Well, by most standards, I’m a man, so I guess you think I would support this. Without sending me off onto lots of links which I don’t have time for, can you explain to me what you mean by ‘patriarchy worked.’ In what way did it ‘work’? Was a South American patriarchy the same as a Danish or Norwegian patriarchy, or a Chinese one? Who did it ‘work’ for? What should I look for as markers of its success?

As a counter-argument, can I recommend you read ‘Woman, Population and Global Crisis’ by Asoka Bandarage, which posits a rather different reading of ‘thousands of years’ of history to the one you seem to subscribe to.

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
3 years ago

“Patriarchy worked for thousands of years.”

For some men, yes. Usually the rich and powerful ones. Are you omitting the downsides out of ignorance, or are you hoping we won’t notice them?

sunnysombrera
sunnysombrera
3 years ago

Unless or until our biology is significantly altered, it’s the only thing that can work in the long run.

What is this supposed to mean?

Virgin Mary
Virgin Mary
3 years ago

@big d

What collapse? Why are you and your MRA mates convinced society will collapse? There are no signs of this happenning, short of environmental disasters, which are the result of unbridled capitalism and climate change denial. The moral decline myth is just a myth made up by end times preachers just to scare you. In fact, morals have generally improved, if you don’t believe me, look back at the stuff that went on in the middle ages, the Victorian age, right through to your glory days pre civil rights in the 60’s. Would you like public lynchings to come back in style? Yes, shit happens, but it isn’t because of feminism, LGBTQIA+ rights or immigration. It’s because some people are shitpipes, and always have been. Human nature, simple as.

EJ (the Scheming Liberal Race-Traitor)

I’m moving on from this thread. It’s already gone way off topic. But this video should answer all your questions:

Hi Big D,

You’re new here, aren’t you? After the first page and a half, our threads tend to go radically off topic. It’s not considered poor manners to deviate further. On the other hand, refusing to answer a direct question with a direct answer may be considered poor manners.

Like DanHolme, I’m extremely curious as to what you mean by patriarchy. Like Virgin Mary, I’m also curious as to what you mean by total collapse. The world is doing pretty well nowadays; indeed when we look at the parts of it where most people live, we’re doing better than ever.

Just linking to a video isn’t considered an acceptable answer, by the way. Some of us are on phones here, or are otherwise unable to watch video.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

@Big D

the balanced and fair system of soft patriarchy we once enjoyed.

What do you mean, “we”, white man?

Nanny Ogg's Bosom (Formerly LostInLindsey)
Nanny Ogg's Bosom (Formerly LostInLindsey)
3 years ago

I was going to respond to the ignorant troll, but I haven’t got the spoons to deal with the wilfully ignorant (and the things I wanted to say would break all sorts of comments policy rules, as well as being impolite). I prefer reading the knowledgeable writings of the regular commentariat. Going off topic is one of my favourite things about this place. You’re all so interesting and I come away from here learning something new almost every time.

dslucia
dslucia
3 years ago

@EJ:

Just linking to a video isn’t considered an acceptable answer, by the way. Some of us are on phones here, or are otherwise unable to watch video.

Unable or, as WWTH said, unwilling.

I’ve got better Youtube videos to watch than some MGTOWRAPUA talking head who’s liable to start spewing sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic bullshit two minutes in that is blindingly obvious to everyone who isn’t already deep in the manosphere.

Not that I’m surprised, though. From what I’ve seen, alt-righties are literally incapable of actually contributing to discussions. When they’re directly confronted, all they do is deflect by linking to videos as if they’re evidence, or trying to change the conversation to how horrible feminists and “SJWs” are, or just by “winning” through spamming so much vapid text that the other person just gets exasperated and gives up.

That’s why I didn’t even bother addressing the content of their first post; when the username is a dick reference, they’re clearly far enough into the rabbit hole that they’re certainly not going to see any reason.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

Patriarchy worked for thousands of years.

I figured you would answer this way. They all do. You’re so predictable.

What this answer means is that you probably believe that paleolithic life looked just like a Flintstones episode and then after that, it looked just like a Leave it to Beaver episode. Until mean old 2nd wave feminism came along and caused us to deviate from those natural gender roles we all unquestioningly loved so much.

If you think that, you’re incredibly ignorant about history. Gender roles have varied across cultures and time periods. This is why I asked you for a specific time period and culture and this is why I asked you why this particular culture is better than what we have now. We can be the US, as that’s where this blog is based from. Or if you’re not USian, you can define we as your country. Take your pick. Because, guess what? Gender roles and the level of rights women have still vary across cultures.

Unless or until our biology is significantly altered, it’s the only thing that can work in the long run.

Given that gender roles have varied so much across cultures and are constantly evolving, can you explain how biology neccessitates patriarchy? You’d be better off using evolutionary biology or genetics for your argument, but if you want to use evopsych, go ahead.
We’ll all have fun mocking that.

Patriarchy will return one way or another. I’d prefer if it happened peacefully and without the collapse we’re currently headed for.

Ah yes. The good old protection racket. We can voluntarily submit ourselves to you or you’ll beat, rape and kill us into submission. Lovely.

I don’t know why you were whining about how much David misrepresents MGTOW. You sound exactly like every other misogynistic and ignorant trouserstain he writes about here.

I’m moving on from this thread. It’s already gone way off topic.

Flouncing already? Weak. I know you’re out of depth here, but you could have at least tried. I’m very disappointed in you. Since you guys often have trouble sticking to the flounce, I did answer you. If you do come back, I ask you again, what specific culture would be an example of a genuine civilized patriarchy? Why was it better than now? Describe in a paragraph or two what genuine civilized patriarchy looks like. That’s really not asking too much. Unless you know, you never thought this whole thing through and are just parroting misogynist talking points.

Viscaria the Cheese Hog
Viscaria the Cheese Hog
3 years ago

Does he think that marketing it as “soft” patriarchy is going to allow it to slip past our defenses? Are we supposed to be all, “At first I was opposed to giving up all control of my own life and body to a bunch of men, but then I learned about soft patriarchy. How could it be bad? It’s soft! Women like soft things!”

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
3 years ago

@ viscaria

Women like soft things!

I’d never really thought of patriarchy as a gendered product; but do you think women might go for patriarchy if there was a pink version that was a few quid dearer?

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
3 years ago

@Big D, I will reply to you once I am done with a work meeting. It will tragically be a bit long, but this is how it goes. It ain’t a meeting unless it’s wasting everyone’s productive time, right?

I realize you said that youre moving on, if you don’t want to continue that’s fine. I will write for the benefit of my friends and colleagues here too. I will also extend to you all of my powers of rationality and try to reconstruct your argument in its very strongest form! So do chime in if I get it wrong at that point.

I will not be watching your YouTube videos though. Video is an extremely poor medium for conveying contentious ideas for discussion. It’s a very good medium for conveying contentious ideas as if they were not contentious though! For this reason I will ask for primary text sources only. I’ll work with what is there. The Nietzche is a good start. He’s got a few good ideas pickled in that creamy horse poop prose after all.

(As a note for the future: if your best argument is from centuries ago, you are probably wrong. Or at the least you need to be more critical and read some takedowns.)

Excuse my typos, I am on my phone. Mea culpa! Will reply properly when I can.

Gussie Jives
Gussie Jives
3 years ago

@EJ I’m also curious what he means by “Western”. Because the way that Proud Boys founder and local bearded git Gavin McInnes was using it as a substitute for “white” when asked to repeat the “14 words,” I guess that means that Mexico doesn’t count as “Western” does it? How about Jamaica? Haiti? Chile? Brazil? Cuba? Honduras? Belize? Peru?

Or is it just everything north of Florida?

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
3 years ago

@Gussie

“Western” means “White” even outside of the Nazisphere – remember that Australia and most European countries are considered “Western” but are very much in the Eastern Hemisphere.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
3 years ago

@BIgD

But this video should answer all your questions:

Jumping Jehosophat!! One of those videos is by someone who, obviously voluntarily, calls himself Turd Flinging Monkey and the other is from the one and only Roosh V in person.

NO! None of my questions about the proper – and properly controlled-limited-restrained – exercise of authority were answered. Not even attempted. Let alone anything about the posited link between responsibility and authority.

-20 points for the flounce. This kind of flounce at this kind of point in a discussion is heavily penalised.

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
3 years ago

Alan.

Pink, perfumed and a few quid more? Not even then.

EJ (the Scheming Liberal Race-Traitor)

@dslucia:
So true. I’ve lost track of the number of times that people have redirected me to a Carl Benjamin video as proof of their “scientific” witterings. It’s almost as if the concept of a peer-reviewed study published in a respectable journal doesn’t exist in their world.

Sigh. White boys can’t rational.

@Viscaria:

How could it be bad? It’s soft! Women like soft things!

I just snerked hard enough that the person sitting in the train seat next to me just looked at me in alarm.

@Gussie Jives:
“Western” is one of these weird terms that changes meaning, often from one sentence to the next. Syria doesn’t count as “Western” but Steve Jobs, arguably Syria’s most successful son, does. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of a stage magician’s cloak.

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

I would buy patriarchy if it was pink and covered in glitter and kitten pics. I have a weak girly mind like that.

So, he linked to Roosh? The assertion that David is misrepresenting MGTOWs because Big D is totally reasonable and rational and so are all the MGTOW of YouTube is looking more and more and like bullshit.

Pie
Pie
3 years ago

@Alan Robertshaw

I’d never really thought of patriarchy as a gendered product; but do you think women might go for patriarchy if there was a pink version that was a few quid dearer?

The reverse is certainly true: Feminism Proving Popular With Men After Being Re-Released In Tactical Matte Black.

EJ (the Scheming Liberal Race-Traitor)

Holy balls, one of those videos was The Great Unwiped himself?

Lea
Lea
3 years ago

Big Disappointment,
No, patriarchy didn’t “work”. It doesn’t work for anyone but the tip top of the hierarchy.
You’re going to complain about David’s posts on mgtows making you look bad and then expect us to listen to a rapist who wants to legalise rape as source supporting your ideal society? Shooting yourself in the foot much?

JS,
We’ve never seen a fully functiining democratic capitalist society either. I’m not saying there’s nothing in between capitalism and communism or that you’re saying capitalism is working. I just wanted to point it out.

isidore13
isidore13
3 years ago

Describe in a paragraph or two what genuine civilized patriarchy looks like.

Seconding WWTH’s request, and adding that you please remember to describe what it would look like for women as well as men. You lads tend to forget to describe what you think it would look like for women in favor of focusing on all the ways men would benefit from patriarchy 😉

weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee

The Great Unwiped

comment image

Weird (thumper of trumpanzees) Eddie
Weird (thumper of trumpanzees) Eddie
3 years ago

@ opposablethumbs

“If you’ve become disillusioned with being shat on for your socioeconomic class, and see the stupidity of being shat on for your socioeconomic class and your race, then you should consider being shat on for your socioeconomic class, your race and your sex*”. Hooray!

well put!!

Patriarchy worked for thousands of years.

I concur… I have a job (a good one, with a good salary, benefits, health insurance, etc.), a comfortable home, My cis-het-white-male-ness entitles me to a lot of social perks and shields me from a lot of social ills, there are a decent number of attractive, younger women from whom I might chose a partner and, of course, it is MINE to chose, as the social order is heavily biased in favor of allowing me to be the chooser (even if my “choosing” takes the path of predation). Yeah, patriarchy works really well… for me….

Note, the above is really sarcasm, however, I could say the same without even a hint of irony, if I were to look at the society from a completely self-centered perspective.

Patriarchy has worked even better for those who are like me, only much wealthier. For the “rest” of the people, not so much.

I think Big Doofus has moved along, now, so I’m preaching to the choir, here….

Laugher at Bigots, Full Blown Future Heretical Frankist Whistleblower Neo-Hippie Resurgent

Also, Big D-bag, I’m not converting to MGTOW. I have no interest in dominion or conquest (and I’ll not be made to grovel before those who do), so I have no interest in patriarchy, soft or otherwise.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

Patriarchy worked for thousands of years. Unless or until our biology is significantly altered, it’s the only thing that can work in the long run. Patriarchy will return one way or another. I’d prefer if it happened peacefully and without the collapse we’re currently headed for.

Since that’s basically what the MGTOW reddit goes on about constantly, it’s unclear to me what D-bag’s beef is with quoting it.

Katz
3 years ago

The reverse is certainly true: Feminism Proving Popular With Men After Being Re-Released In Tactical Matte Black.

LMFAO.

rick
rick
3 years ago
EJ (the Scheming Liberal Race-Traitor)

@PoM:

Since that’s basically what the MGTOW reddit goes on about constantly, it’s unclear to me what D-bag’s beef is with quoting it.

I don’t think his problem is with what they say, so much as it’s with us daring to quote it. For some reason, internet assholes have this enormous collective hatred for anyone who dares to quote their own words back to them. Carl Benjamin is a superb example of this.

If I were forced to guess, I would say that it’s because it forces them to consider what they say before they say it, which is basically the same as taking away their frozen peaches.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
3 years ago

@EJ

I don’t know. Unless I’m totally misreading his original few comments, his issue seemed to be that we were engaging with the MGTOW reddit instead of with such luminaries as Roosh. I don’t know. I could be wrong. It’s not like MGTOWs make sense or anything.

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
3 years ago

The reverse is certainly true: Feminism Proving Popular With Men After Being Re-Released In Tactical Matte Black.

(OK, not exactly a reverse, but I had to do it.)

Patriarchy Proving Popular With Women After Being Re-Released In Soft Shiny Pink

A new report shows that more women than ever since the 1950s are happily wearing patriarchy, after the cultural shackle was re-released in a lady-friendly ‘soft shiny pink’ edition.

The re-branded patriarchy, which has a soft suede lining and girly pink exterior decorated with swarowski crystals, has been flying off the shelves and manufacturers say they are struggling to keep up with demand.

“I have to admit that I didn’t think patriarchy was for me,” explained woman Nelly Myers to Point & Clickbait as she filled her shopping cart with multiple pieces of patriarchy “for the girls”.

“I mean look at the name, ‘patri’-archy. Not e-‘gal’-itarianism. But I’m happy to admit that I was wrong. Patriarchy… is for women. It’s all connected like a leash. It’s about our control for the benefit of men, isn’t it? It’s so nice, now that somebody made it look girly and non-threatening.”

Owners of the soft shiny pink edition of patriarchy have been enjoying a new comfort of the illusion that they’re guaranteed a loving family, financial support, societal respect and protection from violence in exchange for flawless subservience. They also receive a small bag of bonbons.

“It’s a real warm fuzz,” commented newly-minted second-class citizen Christina Montgomery. “I’m only now coming to fully appreciate the way I can actively participate in an insidious system designed to oppress myself as well as other people based on imaginary social constructs.”

“I’m also looking so pretty, which owns.”

mildlymagnificent
mildlymagnificent
3 years ago

Oh, well done, AA!

Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
Mish of the Catlady Ascendancy
3 years ago

Yep, that was another quality Arctic Ape offering, I agree. I lost it at the last line, in particular 😀

Arctic Ape
Arctic Ape
3 years ago

Thanks.

(bows, leaves stage)