Apparently some Men’s Right Activists have no trouble believing the rape accusations against Julian Assange. They just have trouble giving a shit about rape.
Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit, the regular crowd was discussing an article about Assange. One of the allegations against Assange is that he raped one of his accusers in her sleep, without wearing a condom. (EDITED TO ADD: According to her account, she had told him explicitly the night before that she would not have sex with him without a condom, and had in fact refused unprotected sex with him when he’d tried it that evening.) As the article recounts the (alleged) incident:
She says they had consensual sex but she woke up the next morning to find him having intercourse with her to which she had not consented.
When she asked him if he was wearing anything, he had allegedly said: “I am wearing you.”
This response got high-fives from some of the Men’s Rights redditors. One quoted Assange’s (alleged) remark, then added “Nailed it.” Eight upvotes for that comment, no downvotes. Another quoted the same remark, and added “LIKE A BOSS.” That got upvotes as well.
So apparently, to some MRAs at least, raping a woman in her sleep is A-OK, just so long as you’ve got a witty one-liner at the ready when she wakes up.
Actual message sent to a women identifying herself as a feminist on an actual dating site, by someone who evidently thought it would totally charm her into hopping in bed with him:
Against my better judgment upon seeing the ‘f’ word, I read your profile in full. I generally eat feminists for breakfast. My favorite meal is a third-wave feminist with a sprinkling of postmodern-pretentiousness (2% caramel version)— quite the delicacy. Anyway, we have absolutely fuck-all in common, I can’t see us ever getting along, and the sex would probably be some sort of power struggle for dominance. I honestly don’t even know why you bother with feminism.
Nothing turns the ladies on more than condescending hostility! I found this on A(n)nals of Online Dating, a treasure trove of interpersonal internet douchebaggery. (Thanks to Amanda Marcotte for alerting me to the existence of this site.)
>Two influential blogs in the “manosphere” — there may be more, I don’t know — have now posted the names and contact information of Julian Assange’s accusers; I won’t link to the posts. Clearly the purpose of doing this is to encourage harassment of these women. Disgraceful.
EDIT: Some asshole keeps posting the contact info here so I am moderating comments for now.
Don’t let it be said that Men Going Their Own Way lack Christmas spirit. On the MGTOW message boards today hanzblinx asks the rest of the fellows to “suggest a holiday gift for my gf.” Nothing fancy, just something that makes her feel special. Well, not that special. Actually, not very special at all:
OK I know the first answers will be..
apron oven mitts mop dustcloth g-string
but what exactly can I get my GF for Christmas for about $30 that would not inflate her ego too much? Is there a book? A CD? Anything?
Hmm. Given that she’s dating a dude who hangs out on the MGTOW message boards, I wouldn’t think there would be much danger of hansblinx’s alleged girlfriend having an excess of self-esteem, or really any at all, but what sort of gift do you give a gal that will help keep her ego permanently deflated? A framed picture of a female friend you think looks prettier than her? Sexy lingerie several sizes too small? A “Does My Fat Ass Make My Ass Look Fat” bumper sticker? An “I’m a Cunt” t-shirt? A “Shut Your Whore Mouth” needlepoint kit?
By now I assume you all have heard about the “I see his penis out” incident involving a flasher on a New York subway and a woman who turned out to not be a big fan of his flashing. Some in the Man Boobz demographic may have heard about it on Jezebel or Hollaback! Others in this blog’s deeply divided demo may have seen it, I’m guessing, while idly perusing the DickFlash.com forums for helpful tips.
In any case, it’s inspired a lot of discussion online, including this blog post, written by a woman who was decidedly not supportive of the dude with the dick out. This seemingly uncontroversial anti-flashing stance was not appreciated by one visitor to the TwoXChromosomes subreddit on Reddit, who contributed the sarcasm-laden doozy of a comment screencapped above. Apparently, complaining about penis-flashing is “misandry.”
An insane accusation of misandry? Someone’s been reading MRA message boards!
After we … settled in to watch the first movie, he paused it, turned to me, and started ranting about how women are whores and how hard it is to be a rich guy. I was really uncomfortable and told him so, and he apologized and resumed the movie. Five minutes later, same thing happened again. I firmly told him that I’d like to go home, so he said he’d drive me. When I get into the car, he peels away so fast that I can’t get my seatbelt on.
He hits a cement pillar on his way out and the hood of his car starts to smoke, but he doesn’t stop, and he’s going so fast that I am slammed into the door, him, the windshield, etc. like a bean in a tin can. He starts saying crazy stuff like, “Oh, I’ll get you home, but I don’t know what condition you’ll be in when you get there.” …
Someone suddenly pulls out in front of him and he slams the car to a stop; I hit the windshield, and in an incredible feat of awesomeness, grab the handle of the car and open it, propelling myself out of the car as he hits the gas pedal. I hit the ground and started running as fast as I could… .
I wonder if the movie they were watching was Death Proof?
Some good, long overdue, news. Andrew Shirvell, the Michigan assistant attorney general who’s been harassing a gay University of Michigan student, has been fired. Some details, from Freep.com:
Shirvell had been criticized for his blog in which he calls Chris Armstrong, the president of the Michigan Student Assembly, a radical homosexual, a Nazi and Satan’s representative on the assembly. Philip Thomas, Shirvell’s attorney, had said his client is expressing his free-speech rights.
The firing was confirmed in a statement this afternoon from AG Mike Cox, who said Shirvell was fired for conduct unbecoming a state employee, especially that of an assistant attorney general.
“To be clear, I refuse to fire anyone for exercising their First Amendment rights, regardless of how popular or unpopular their positions might be. However, Shirvell repeatedly violated office policies, engaged in borderline stalking behavior, and inappropriately used state resources, our investigation showed.”
According to Cox, Shirvell had, among other things:
Showed up at the home of a private citizen three times, including once at 1:30 a.m. … harass[ed] Armstrong’s friends as they were socializing in Ann Arbor … [repeatedly called] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, Armstrong’s employer, in an attempt … to cause Pelosi to fire Armstrong; Attempt[ed] to “out” Armstrong’s friends as homosexual — several of whom were not gay.
Oh, and he did some of this while at work, Cox says. And apparently lied to the Attorney General during his disciplinary hearing.
CLARIFICATION: Shirvell is not part of the MRM. I am posting about this because gay-bashing is an important men’s issue. See the comment by Sandy below.
Here are links to, and brief excerpts of, some of the worst posts by Men’s Rights activists and/or antifeminists I’ve run across in doing this blog. These are not random comments by random MRAs; they are all by people who have a history in the MRM. In most cases, they are fairly prominent names, at least within the online MRA community. A few of these posts will be familiar to readers of this blog.
Lest anyone accuse me of taking quotes out of context, I urge you to read the originals. As you’ll see, none of these quotes are any more justifiable “in context” than they are here on their own.
If anyone out there has seen worse, please post a URL below. Conversely, if any of these posts have been publicly challenged by others in the MRM, I will happily post links alongside the original.
I am also taking nominations for a follow-up post, The Best of the MRM. Post URLs below.
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
Immediately after this quote, he claims he’s not “serious” about this, though apparently only because “it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.” My post on the subject is here. Here’s another piece by Elam full of fantasies of violence against women.
Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.
This post from Roy Den Hollander, a lawyer and Men’s Rights activist best known for suing clubs that have “ladies nights,” suggests that men may have to take up arms to win their, er, struggle:
The future prospect of the Men’s Movement raising enough money to exercise some influence in America is unlikely. But there is one remaining source of power in which men still have a near monopoly—firearms.
And speaking of angry men and their guns, here’s a post from Citizen Renegade, a Pick-Up Artist (PUA) site popular with MRAs: Game Can Save Lives It’s about George Sodini, the misogynist killer who gunned down women at a health club a year ago. “Chateau” suggests that all would have been well if Sodini had learned how to be a Pick-Up Artist:
If Sodini had learned game he would have been able to find another woman and gotten laid after his ex dumped him. He wouldn’t have spent the next 20 years steeped in bile and weighed down by his Sisyphian blue balls, dreaming of vengeance. Game could have saved the lives of the women Sodini killed.
Actually, Sodini had taken at least one class from Don Steele, author of “How to Date Young Women for Men Over 35.” The comments to Chateau’s article are scarier than the article itself. For selected examples and commentary, see here.
[P]roperly owning a dog is excellent training for properly owning a woman. The behavior of dogs and women is eerily similar, and their relation to man testifies to that.
Like dogs, women need to be led. They *want* to be led. In fact, though they will never admit it, women want to be owned by their men.
Other MRAs don’t seem to be much interested in adult women at all. MRA Jay Hammers, a regular contributor to The Spearhead, has taken down his blog, but its worst moments live on in Google’s cache. Perhaps the worst of the worst: Age of Consent is Misandry. Key quotes:
Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.
Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.
One of Hammers’ biggest defenders has been an antifeminist blogger by the nom-de-net of Schopenbecq, who is equally obsessed with the age of consent and what he sees as the superior attractiveness of teen girls. Here’s one of his posts on the subject, which argues:
The age of consent has always been central to feminism. In fact, it has been its primary driving force right from the beginning. The purpose of this website is not to campaign for a reduction in the age of consent from the present feminist age of 16. For one thing, there is little or no chance of that happening in this author’s lifetime. However, I have no shame whatsoever in stating my clear belief that the age of consent ought to be what it still technically is in the majority of major civilised nations – namely, 14.
In this post, he mocks any man who doesn’t think Heather Locklear’s 13-year-old daughter is hotter than Locklear herself:
Results of a poll on Schopenbecq’s site.
Here, he argues that feminism is a “Sexual Trade Union,” and seems to suggest that increasing the age of consent from 12 was bad thing :
Feminism exists as a defender of the selfish sexual and reproductive interests of aging and/or unattractive women. This is its entire raison d’etre, the reason it first came into existence with the social purity movement reformers of the 19th century, led by their harridan battle cry – ‘armed with the ballot the mothers of America will legislate morality’.
And legislate morality these pioneering feminists quickly did, even before they had won the vote. That is, they successfully lobbied for restrictions on prostitution, a rise in the age of consent from 12 to 16, or even 18, and the closing down of saloons where their husbands might mix freely with unattached young women.
Post-feminist women have been so indoctrinated by specious polemics extolling their (largely imaginary) talents, that they truly believe their ‘achievements’ are somehow self-determined. This is why the loss of their physical charms wreaks such havok on them. Having been nurtured on feminist pipe dreams, the cutting realization that their youthful ‘success’ was entirely due to sexual allure must be galling indeed. … Indeed, the staunch bitterness of middle-aged Anglo-American women can be entirely attributed to this realization:
It wasn’t your ‘talent’ and ‘intelligence’ that men admired: it was your sweet young pussy. That pussy-pass departed with your first wrinkle: live with it, bitch.
Big cities like London, New York and Sydney are jam-packed with beautiful foreign girls from Latin America, Eastern Europe and Asia. They are sexy, fun, good company and they treat men like human beings. They have not had their minds poisoned by feminist hate-speech. … I urge all Western men to boycott Western Women if they can. Don’t date them, don’t marry them, don’t have children with them. Find yourself a nice foreign girl, and find out what women should be like. If anyone asks you why, tell them it is a protest against feminist ideology. Once enough men start boycotting them, women will turn away from feminism.
Henry Makow has gotten too loopy for most Men’s Rights activists to consider him as one of their own. But he remains one of the internet’s most influential antifeminists. Here are some quotes from his classic in craziness How the Rockefellers Re-Engineered Women.
Feminism is an excellent example of how the Rockefeller mega cartel uses the awesome power of the mass media (i.e. propaganda.) to control society. … Nicholas Rockefeller told [producer Aaron Russo] that his family foundation created women’s liberation using mass media control as part of a long-term plan to enslave humanity. ….
The hidden goal of feminism is to destroy the family, which interferes with state brainwashing of the young. Side benefits include depopulation and widening the tax base. Displacing men in the role of providers also destabilizes the family.
While women and children often lack the capacity to grasp the inner workings of authority, they still have an instinctual, positive response to it. Authority brings chaotic, aimless things, people, events and circumstances into a state of good order. … Masculinity is properly expressed in the form of authority.
You know what I said above about reading the originals? Don’t bother in this case.
Single mothers, rampant divorce, abortion and falling birth rates are part of the cancer that is destroying what is left of Western Civilization. But very few people (even conservatives) fail to realize that the inception of this cancer can be found in the passage of the 19th amendment.
I wrote about the piece, and reactions to it, here.
More Worst Of links to come! The Men’s Rights movement produces fresh awfulness each and every day.
EDIT: Deansdale’s Blog has weighed in on this Worst-of list and is surprisingly positive about the whole thing. Oh, not my post — he hates my post, and me — but the original MRA-n-pals posts. Elam’s “Bash a Violent Bitch” post? “What’s the problem with this article? Nothing, really. … Elam has some insightful observations about the nature of women in our contemporary cultures.” Roissy’s post about misogynist killer George Sodini? “What’s wrong with this article? Nothing.”And RamZpaul’s How Female Suffrage Destroyed Western Civilization? “There are valid arguments supporting his claim. It’s not PC, sure, but that doesn’t mean it’s automatically wrong.”
He even sort-of defends good old Henry Makow and his bizarre conspiracy theoryies:
Actually this is not so crazy. You don’t believe it, that’s fine, but show me why this is soooo unacceptable. He states lots of things: some of them obvious, some of them researchable. But it’s not so radical.
The only people he doesn’t defend? The Manhood Academy guys. Apparently saying horrible, horrible shit about women is perfectly acceptable in Deansdale’s vision of the MRM, but saying horrible, horrible shit about women while also calling other MRAs “manginas,” as the Manhood Academy guys do, is totally BEYOND THE PALE!!!
When I agreed to debate Paul Elam on domestic violence on his web site, I clearly underestimated how childish, and unethical, he really is.
After I bowed out of the debate — see the details here — he decided to run the whole thing under a childish, gloating headline, and with an introduction labeling me a “fucking moron.” (EDIT: See here for my posts without Elam’s editorializing.)
Because of this behavior, I requested he either remove the headline and the obnoxious introduction, or remove my contributions to the debate from his web site entirely. After getting no response from him to this, I sent another email telling him to simply take down my writings from his web site.
Legally, he does not own any rights to my writings, and because of his behavior he no longer has my permission to run them. I may pursue legal action.
let it be known now that any blogger in the sphere, MRA or otherwise, has my permission to repost this debate in full on their blog or website.
Obviously he has no more right to do this than I have the right to take his car on a joy ride.
He’s also apparently pitched the idea of reposting the whole debate on The Spearhead. While he doesn’t have the right to do this, and I’ve told The Spearhead that they do not have the right to reprint my writings, I might agree to the proposition provided that I’d be guaranteed in writing by The Spearhead that it would run with a neutral headline, that my latest response to Paul’s “final” post would be included, and a few other conditions.
And I would have no problem continuing the debate with Paul on The Spearhead until we each post 5 posts, as per our original agreement, were I to work out the necessary details with The Spearhead and get an agreement in writing. Or we could finish the debate right here.
I stand by everything I wrote in the debate, and have no problem continuing it, provided it be on a venue not controlled by Paul Elam and with some basic rules to guarantee fairness set forth in writing. (Paul would have to agree in writing to run the debate under a neutral headline on his site as well.)
Oh, and one final note: Paul has also removed the links back to here from the original debate, thus breaking still another condition I insisted on in order to participate in the debate in the first place. And he’s banned me from commenting in the comments section under the debate posts.
This is all very stupid and very petty.
Let me offer a challenge to anyone in the MRM whose ethics are more developed than Paul’s: Stand up and object to his illegal and unethical behavior. Were a feminist to pull this sort of thing on an MRA, I would certainly stand up and object to it.
Imagine what an anti-feminist Stuxnet would do. It would specifically target computers belonging to NOW (the National Organization of Women) and other women’s groups, child support agencies, family/divorce courts, women’s studies departments at universities, etc. Perhaps it could target something as specific as feminist websites and blogs … An anti-feminist Stuxnet would be [easy] to create. Unless it seriously wants to attack databases, an anti-feminist Stuxnet does not require even a minimum of specialized knowledge besides being able to identify its target systems. Creating an anti-feminist Stuxnet will be within the skills of at least a significant fraction of malware programmers (if not most or all). This means that in the near future there probably will be an anti-feminist Stuxnet.