We Hunted The Mammoth
The Public Shaming blog and Twitchy.com have been doing the world a service by documenting some of the worst rape apologist nonsense that sprouted up on Twitter in the wake of the Steubenville rape verdict. I thought I would add some more screenshots to the growing pile.
RawStory has a piece up highlighting The top 5 rape apologist reactions to the Steubenville rape verdict. It’s well worth reading. As the author of the piece, Emily Mullen, notes:
The Steubenville guilty verdict spawned nearly as much rape apology as the original news of the case did, highlighting the point — made by feminists like Zerlina Maxwell and Jaclyn Friedman — that America has a long way to go before it gets past blaming victims and sympathizing with rapists.
I haven’t yet run across any reactions in the Manosphere to the verdicts, but I’m sure we’ll see some in the next few days. If you run across anything especially awful, in the Manosphere or outside of it, please let me know.
Men’s Rights Redditors, currently silent about the verdicts, were up in arms the other day because Reuters was identifying the accused — now the convicted — rapists, while not identifying the victim. Or, as MRAs prefer to put it, the “alleged victim.” Now, as RawStory points out, she is getting death threats.
EDITED TO ADD: More victim blaming online, as catalogued on the Public Shaming blog: First post, second post with more.
Below, Several examples borrowed from Public Shaming. TRIGGER WARNING for rape apology.
.
.
.
.
.
.
One reason so-called Nice Guys ™ seem so creepy to so many people is that it’s easy to see the rage and the bitterness and the weird sort of self-hating entitlement that is so often lurking underneath – and sometimes not that far underneath – the “nice guy” exterior.
I’m still officially on my Man Boobz staycation, but I felt I needed to mention yet another example of a woman saying that men can stop rape … and getting rape threats in return.
Political analyst Zerlina Maxwell went on Sean Hannity’s show on Fox News earlier this week and made the terrible mistake of suggesting to a hostile audience that men aren’t really doing any favors to women by telling them to arm themselves against rapists. Instead, as Salon notes, she said this:
“I don’t think that we should be telling women anything. I think we should be telling men not to rape women and start the conversation there.” She told Hannity, “You’re talking about this as if it’s some faceless, nameless criminal, when a lot of times it’s someone you know and trust,” adding, “If you train men not to grow up to become rapists, you prevent rape.”
Indeed, increased rape awareness has contributed to a dramatic decrease in rape over the last thirty years.
But apparently a lot of men were shocked – shocked! – that a woman would suggest that their patronizing advice was less likely to prevent rape than rape prevention education aimed at the demographic group that is responsible for the overwhelmng majority of rapes. That is, men.
So, naturally, the angriest of these men decided they would show Maxwell just how wrong she was … by threatening her with rape on Twitter.
Here’s just one example:
Rape culture in action.
Maxwell’s supporters have stepped up to defend her and her remarks, and have started a hashtag — #TYZerlina — to continue the discussion. If you’re on Twitter, join in .
Here’s the Fox News segment in question featuring Maxwell:
My Man Boobz staycation continues. Here as promised is an interesting video.
I’d also like to take the opportunity, while I’m off, to as you all, dear Man Boobz readers, some questions that I’m really interested in seeing your answers to.
The first one: Are MRAs right about anything?
My answer to that is “no,” but there are some issues they bring up that a real, non-misogynistic men’s movement could focus on. These are:
1) Prison rape. A troubling new survey suggests that it’s far more common than previously thought, and that the number of people raped inside prison (overwhelmingly male) is by some estimates nearly as great as the number of people raped outside of prison (overwhelmingly female). (Trying to break down the numbers to make clean comparisons between prison rape and rape outside of prison is difficult; Stephanie Zvan digs into the numbers here.) Of course, MRAs don’t seem to want to do anything about the problem except use the issue of male rape to attack feminists. And of course if they focused on prison rape they would have to acknowledge that female prisoners are also raped, and that LGBT folks are much, much more likely to be raped than straight cis men.
2) Disparities in prison sentences between men and women. Even after controlling for assorted relevant variables, men tend to get longer prison sentences than women for the same crimes. (I don’t have a citation handy, alas.) This is not driven by feminism; female judges tend to be harsher on women than male judges. And of course there are gigantic racial disparities in sentences as well. MRAs again have done nothing about this except use it as an excuse to circle-jerk about evil women getting a “pussy pass.”
3) Domestic violence against men should be taken more seriously. Needless to say, though, most of what MRAs say about this issue is repugnant nonsense, and they have done nothing to actually help men, instead trying to get resources taken away from women.
Thoughts, on these or on any other issues MRA might be kind of, sort of “right” about?
Even after all the time I’ve spent on this blog, I can still be astounded by the appalling hatefulness of the manosphere. The latest example? This post from the influential far-right manospherian who calls himself Vox Day, in which he argues, seriously, that encouraging rape is better for society than encouraging (white) women to work.
No, really.
I haven’t been keeping up with The Spearhead of late, but a commenter here drew my attention to the sort of timeless wisdom I’ve been missing from the Spearhead gang.
In this comment, DW3 offered his thoughts on how to combat the evils of single motherhood. The solution involves putting single moms in workhouses. To be more specific, in sex-workhouses — that is, whorehouses.
I think there should be whorehouses for single mothers to work at, to pay their debts to society. Such a system would kill several birds with one stone.
There would be safe and legal access to prostitution, presumably reducing the drugs and violence associated with the way the trade is currently practiced.
It would allow single mothers to learn the value of getting up and getting to work on time, so that they might aspire to a different career.
It would assist traditional families in steering their daughters and nieces and sisters in a different direction, with a very visible and well-known consequence to ignoring the families’ advice.
It would allow single mothers to give back for all the resources they consume, and ideally it could replace child support on some sort of sliding scale of pay for the workers. Perhaps starting at $50 paid per client, less $20 per child more than 1. That way, a single mother with 3 kids could still get $10, and more than that would be inclined to try to hide off the grid the way divorced and separated fathers now have to.
I have my own opinions about whether choice single mothers cause more harm than divorcees, but for this proposal I suppose that they should be treated differently. Divorced women would surrender their children to the father and have to pay half their whorehouse earnings to support the family, however they would get the full $50 regardless of the number of kids.
Perhaps the whorehouses could charge $80 for providing their services, with a modest 20% discount for married men who proved they had a family to support.
DW3 prefaced this comment with a line in which he notes that this idea might be a bit much even for the regular denizens of The Spearhead. But no one actually took issue with his proposals. Indeed, Lyn87 (a Spearhead regular I’ve written about before) noted that he’d had similar thoughts on the matter himself.
Since men are responsible to pay for the children that women they have sex with choose to bear (that is the stark legal reality – every child that is born is born due to the SOLE choice of the mother), then it stands to reason that:
Money paid to support a child = the obligation a man incurs by having sex with the mother.
Since having sex is enough to legally entitle a woman to a man’s money if a pregnancy ensues and she elects to give birth, shouldn’t taking a man’s money legally entitle him to have sex with the mother if he has not already done so?
Fair is fair, right?
My Modest Proposal: a single-mother-by-choice who takes public assistance should be required by law (as men’s financial obligations are), to have sex with any man who can produce a 1040 showing that he paid taxes in the past 12 months (at least once for each child).
The Spearhead: As reliably awful as stomach flu.
Lady feminists! I have some terrible, terrible news for you from pickup artiste Heartiste, the would-be God Emperor of Poon. Apparently he and his pals have been having sex with you all.
Time for another peek into the Man Boobz “Trash” folder!
Regular commenters here may have come across the comments of an MRA/MGTOWer calling himself justeunperdant, who has graced the comments section here with sarcastic if often quite surreal remarks which are enhanced, I feel, by his poor command of the English language.
Fellas! Better hold on to yourselves, because I’ve got some terrible news for you.
Actually, you’d better NOT hold on to yourselves. Because this is the news, straight from that always 100% reliable news source, the Men’s Rights subreddit:
I wonder if manginal orgasms are still allowed?
