Monday, November 8, 2010

Douchebag Asst. Attorney General who harassed gay student gets the boot

Shirvell in action.
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.

65 comments:

  1. Question: What does this have to do with MRAs?

    Answer: Fuck all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "This blog offers a critique of the Men's Rights Movement and anti-Feminism generally; I also write more generally about men's issues."

    Let's do some more Q&A:

    Does this article have anything to do with the Men's Rights Movement? No.

    Does this article have anything to do with anti-Feminism? No.

    Does this article have anything to do with men's issues? Not really, unless you think gay men are subjected to substantially more cases like this than lesbians.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see you are exercising your first amendment right to smear the mm with the unrelated actions of insane American lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  4. This blog is the National Enquirer of gender politics blogging. There is some irony here as the lawyer and David Frutelle use the same underhanded tactics to "out" and suppress.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This disbarred Lawyer is actually connected to the feminist movement


    Barry Goldstein, JD., who is listed on the NOMAS website as their co chair on child custody. He is also an expert witness on domestic violence and has written a book on the subject, Scared to Leave, Afraid to Stay: Paths from Family Violence to Safety. The book chronicles the experiences of ten females, alleged to be victims of domestic violence, including, get this, how the courts abused these women for seeking help.

    But even aside from the idea that courts discriminate against battered women, there’s a credibility problem here. Goldstein had his law license suspended by a New York appellate court for deceit, fraud and misrepresentation. The laundry list of charges against him stemmed from two cases. One was misappropriation of funds involving his representation of a not-for-profit tenants housing resource center. The other was from his involvement in the Gina Shockome divorce case, which was a feminist cause célèbre in New York just a few years back.

    In an internet article he wrote about the case, he accused the presiding judge of denying his client due process and of causing her to suffer PTSD, among a slew of other accusations he leveled at the court. None of it turned out to be true, or at least provable, and that was added to the charges against him.

    Perhaps the most comical of Goldstein’s antics was to claim to the court during the Shockome case that he had a seen a video tape that showed a court appointed supervisor had slept for 15-20 minutes during a visit. When the court demanded that Goldstein produce the tape he claimed to have lost it. During one court appearance, he claimed the video tape was in his car, and later, at another appearance, he denied ever having had the tape in his car or anywhere else.

    Well, apparently, to Goldstein’s misfortune, his dog didn’t eat the tape, which was about the only excuse he didn’t offer. Officials eventually acquired it, and after viewing the video, the court stated, “Anyone looking at that video will see that there is nothing on that video that suggests that [the supervisor] was asleep for 20 minutes.”

    It seems that Goldstein was caught lying like a, well, like a crooked lawyer. And misappropriating money like one, too.

    Among some of the other complaints was that Goldstein repeatedly defied a court directive to refrain from calling the father in the case, who was eventually awarded custody, “the abuser” as there was no proof to support such a statement.

    Imagine that.

    Additionally, in the last 60 days, the Supreme Court of neighboring Pennsylvania disbarred attorney Barry Goldstein.

    Despite all of this being a matter of public record, NOMAS retains the now legally defunct Goldstein as an elected member of its national council.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Eoghan, you're completely missing the point. Gay rights is a men's rights issue. Gay men face persecution largely because they do not comply with a mold of masculinity. Freedom to express or not express masculinity however you choose is an important aspect of men's rights, just as freedom to express or not express femininity is an important aspect of feminism.

    That the assistant attorney general was dismissed is a victory for men's rights.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sandy is of course completely right. You guys have completely missed the point.

    I am not suggesting that Shirvell is part of the MRM. I am adding a note to the post to clarify this.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sandy,

    Straight men, when they stand up to feminists, are frequently accused of being gay in an effort to shame them. Would you agree that those feminists who do that are anti-gay?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cold, women, when they stand up to MRAs, are frequently accused of being lesbians.

    People of either gender who do so are homophobic, and also probably weak thinkers.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cold, in fact feminists themselves are frequently accused of being lesbians. I seldom hear people accuse men's rights activists of being gay. More often they are accused of being bitter straight men.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Likewise, straight men, when they stand up to MRAs, are frequently accused of being gay. Would you agree that those MRAs who do that are anti-gay?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ooops, my question was directed at Cold, not Sandy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anyone who uses "you must be gay" as an insult is being anti-gay, but those MRAs who do it don't pretend to be supporters of gay rights. I can't say the same about feminists who do it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, you're saying that mensright supporters are better because they openly admit to being antigay? Men's rights supporters who are antigay are no better than anyone else who is homophobic. In fact, I think it is worse to be openly homophobic. It suggests the person does not even think there is anything wrong with homophobia.

    Also, again, I really haven't heard these claims that men's rights activists are gay. I've heard lots of derisive remarks about them being bitter straight men who cannot win over the affections of women and therefore turn on them.

    On the other hand, "feminists are lesbians" is a common charge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Better only in the sense of not being hypocrites. I have more respect for people who are open about their beliefs than those who say "it's ok to be gay" in one breath and use "you're gay" as an insult in the next.

    Only some MRAs are antigay; in my experience most MRAs just don't really care either way. That's fine, since gays already have their own organizations to advocate for them and don't need the MRM duplicating their efforts. IF those organizations did not exist, then I would be more inclined to say that equal rights for gay men should be an MRA issue, but as it stands that issue is already being addressed and simply constitutes a diversion.

    Many feminists openly say they are lesbians or bisexual, so the assertion that "[some] feminists are lesbians" has merit. Frankly I don't care whether the advocates of female supremacy are heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. They are all my enemies because of their ideology, not their sexual orientation.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cold, I've never heard a feminist, male or female, call a guy who disagreed with feminism "gay." Examples?

    But of course virtually every guy who stands up to MRAs is called a "mangina," or gay, etc etc. There are plenty of examples of that in the comments on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @David - A quick Google search reveals several examples (cue Wacky Sax):
    "Oh my. Are these guys all repressed gay guys? For them to have such fucked up attitudes about women is surely a sign of some big underlying…issues. ;)"
    - http://liberal-debutante.com/sexism/anti-feminists-on-facebook.html
    "you probably are gay, and i am absolutely sure that you have never had a date ny our life, unless you gae them some roofers." - http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13170
    "You will never feel love (unless you'll finally get your filthy women-hating ass out of the closet and screw a dude!)."
    - http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13610
    "oh come on ... your gay"
    - http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=10367
    "What % of misogynists are gay?
    If they hate women that much, wouldnt homosexuality be the logical route to take?"
    - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090802192943AApYkQZ
    "Are Misogynists Also Homosexual?"
    - http://children.hfaqs.com/are-misogynists-also-homosexual/

    That wasn't so hard, was it? Good thing you have me around to help you out with these little things.

    ReplyDelete
  18. IR beat me to it, but here's a couple more:

    "If they don’t like the way it’s done they can fuck-off and go kill themselves or just whine on a bunch of closet-gay “MRA” forums like they already do."
    http://ladyraine.wordpress.com/2010/05/07/real-self-defense-weapons-for-the-ladies/

    "Professor Slapass B. Tweenguyz, Dept. of Homosocial Bonding"
    http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/04/09/impromptu-meeting-of-the-male-studies-department/

    ReplyDelete
  19. I wonder where David is. I know he's around, because I can hear the wind whistling between his ears.
    Cold, your comment on my blog about silence having a voice of its own was right on the spot. These examples of feminist behavior should be a flashing neon warning for everyone out there, though (feminists included): If you're with feminists, you are automatically reduced from a human to a meat shield should their theories and opinions ever be questioned. Gay, straight, white, black, male, female - they'll throw you under the bus if it suits their agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  20. All right. You found some quotes. They're pretty obnoxious.

    Of course, many of them are directed not at MRAs, per se, but at someone who is a proud misogynist.

    And those comments, while hateful, aren't any worse than the other comments in the threads they're in:

    Like, say "Its worthless cunts like these that makes me wanna beat some bitch to a bloody pulp. Another skank thats all talk and no action."

    That's a response to this:

    http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13170

    Or: "change that blood soaked tampon and walk your big ass out. BTW as for you saying yor not a man hater,well who gives a flyin rats ass. Women like you are still a big pile of doggy diarrhea in my book."

    That's a response to this:

    http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=13610

    If you spew hate, you'll get hate in return. It works both ways.

    And a few of those comments do actually raise a real issue: if misogynists hate women so much, why do so many of them want to have relationships with women? I don't think it's gaybashing to ask that of people who really do seem to hate women. Saying "ha you're a fag" is gaybashing; asking why admitted woman-haters want to be with women, that's an actual question worth asking.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Of course, many of them are directed not at MRAs, per se, but at someone who is a proud misogynist."
    How is Dick Masterson a "proud misogynist," if that's what you're implying? When did "men are better than women" become warped into "I hate women?" Please, detail your thought process, this is kind of fascinating.
    "And a few of those comments do actually raise a real issue: if misogynists hate women so much, why do so many of them want to have relationships with women? I don't think it's gaybashing to ask that of people who really do seem to hate women. Saying "ha you're a fag" is gaybashing; asking why admitted woman-haters want to be with women, that's an actual question worth asking."
    I thought people didn't "choose" to be straight or gay. Yet you are now commanding people who you think hate women to do a 180 on their sexuality and fuck other men. How is that in any way different from some religious nut commanding gays to 'go straight?' Once again, I'm really curious as to how you come to these seemingly contradictory conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "If you spew hate, you'll get hate in return. It works both ways."

    So are you conceding that it's understandable for men subjected to extreme misandry to sometimes turn into misogynists as a result?

    "And a few of those comments do actually raise a real issue: if misogynists hate women so much, why do so many of them want to have relationships with women?"

    Very few MRAs are actually misogynists, so it's a moot point. Furthermore, there are at least four possible sexual orientations: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, and asexual. A man who hates women and wants nothing to do with them isn't necessarily gay; he could be asexual.

    ReplyDelete
  23. IR. "Dick Masterson" is misogynist; he writes hateful things about women all the time. Like this:

    http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/top-ten/

    http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/women-in-technology/

    And I'm not "commanding" anyone to do anything. People don't choose their sexuality. I'm simply asking why men who hate women want to be with them. (Obviously, many in the MRM are choosing not to, hence the whole MGTOW thing.)

    Cold: I'm saying if you spew hateful shit on a blog called "why men are better than women," you're going to get hateful emails from women. (And if you spew hateful shit on a blog called "why women are better than men," you're going to get hateful emails from men.) Does that make the hateful emails OK? No. They're still hateful.

    Misogyists are still hateful, even if they think they were somehow pushed into this position by evil misandrists. (Flip misogynist and misandrist in that sentence and it's still true.)

    And, yeah, obviously a man who wants nothing to do with women could be asexual. I just asked a question. I didn't give an answer. I don't have an answer.

    I do think that misogyny is pretty pervasive in the MRM. But I suspect you've probably figured that out already.

    ReplyDelete
  24. You think a lot of things that don't hold up to scrutiny, so this is no surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  25. David, what happens when your readership figure out that you are deliberately deceiving them with your cherry picking and misrepresentation?

    You know full well that Masterson is not part of the mens movement and is a supposed to satire.

    Besides, most feminist sites and most feminists work off the ideological presumption that women are morally superiour and correct.

    Feminism pumps out a endless amount of supremacist memes that are not satirical like Dick Masterson...

    women are better multitaskings
    women are morally superiour
    women are spiritually superiour
    and on and on it goes..

    There is a big difference between satire and a top down supremacist movement that publishes from schools and multiple main stream media out lets supremacist and hateful propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Sandy Im not missing the point...


    The point was to attach some idiot american right wing Christian homophobe to the mens movement for a gullible readership.

    I note that the readership here, dont support the behaviour of that lawyer, but when it comes to take back the night rallys, where are exactly the same sort of thing there will be support.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @IR who says these people are feminists? I suspect that most of those commenting on some brutally hateful misogynist site generally are not. Also, Yahoo Answers isn't really a reputable source for anything. But, yes, using an accusation of queerness as an insult is queerphobic. However, you have yet to give a shred of evidence that these people you site are either feminists or self proclaimed allies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. DarkSideCat

    Hateful and supremacist commentary is so common in feminism you dont notice it.

    "Take back the night" rallies, just like that lawyer's actions and progressive era black rapist propaganda, its on every campus yet its not recognized as hatred.

    Suppression and exclusion of abuse victims on the basis of the sex of their abuser, protection of abusers on the basis of their sex what is that if not hate?

    ReplyDelete
  29. No, Eogham, you are completely missing the point. No one is saying the assistant attorney is in any way a men's right activist. The point is that his dismissal is a victory for men's rights.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Eoghan

    ""Take back the night" rallies, just like that lawyer's actions and progressive era black rapist propaganda, its on every campus yet its not recognized as hatred."

    What the fuck are you on? Seriously?! The take back the night for this November will be to honour the women slain by Mark Lepine:

    "Lépine then separated the nine women from the approximately fifty men and ordered the men to leave.[9] Speaking in French, he asked the remaining women whether they knew why they were there, and when one student replied "no," he answered: "I am fighting feminism". One of the students, Nathalie Provost, said, "Look, we are just women studying engineering, not necessarily feminists ready to march on the streets to shout we are against men, just students intent on leading a normal life." Lépine responded that "You're women, you're going to be engineers. You're all a bunch of feminists. I hate feminists." He then opened fire on the students from left to right, killing six, and wounding three others, including Provost.[1][3] Before leaving the room, he wrote the word shit twice on a student project.[9]"

    And guess what, Lepine was white! And a fucking anti-feminist like you, who hated women for no fucking reason other than they were women! Why did he single out the 9 women and dismiss the 50 men?! Why after claiming not to be feminists did he kill them?! And he probably had serious psychiatric disorders like George Sodini and Henry Makov. And guess what, people like you in the MRA encourage and condone this hatred. Say all you want about equal rights, but anyone taking a cursory look at ANY MRA site will find that misogyny, that hatred.

    The women he killed:
    Geneviève Bergeron (born 1968), civil engineering student
    Hélène Colgan (born 1966), mechanical engineering student.
    Nathalie Croteau (born 1966), mechanical engineering student.
    Barbara Daigneault (born 1967) mechanical engineering student.
    Anne-Marie Edward (born 1968), chemical engineering student.
    Maud Haviernick (born 1960), materials engineering student.
    Maryse Laganière (born 1964), budget clerk in the École Polytechnique's finance department.
    Maryse Leclair (born 1966), materials engineering student.
    Anne-Marie Lemay (born 1967), mechanical engineering student.
    Sonia Pelletier (born 1961), mechanical engineering student.
    Michèle Richard (born 1968), materials engineering student.
    Annie St-Arneault (born 1966), mechanical engineering student.
    Annie Turcotte (born 1969), materials engineering student.
    Barbara Klucznik-Widajewicz (born 1958), nursing student.

    They were human beings. They had names. They died for no reason but hate. Misogyny. That's why we do this rally. So DO NOT claim some BS racist sentiment as the real reason.

    Or shorter: Fuck you, Eoghan! You have no idea what you're talking about so shut the fuck up!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Tec

    Lepine was a loan nut, running take back the night because of him is like running anti black rapist rallys because of one black man that was a serial rapist of white women.

    Every campus runs take back the night rallies that have nothing to do with lepine and everything to do with hate propaganda, same thing as progressive era black rapist propaganda in a different era with a different target group, same thing as a bunch of lunatics with "god hats fags banners".

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fact is you think your hate is ok, that its good hate. Just like the "god hates fags" muppets and the lynch mobs of old you think its providing a service for the greater good when in reality you are just following another man made ideology that takes advantage of human weakness, fear and prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "They were human beings. They had names. They died for no reason but hate. Misogyny. That's why we do this rally."

    @Tec

    You know, men are more likely to be a victim of every violent crime, with the exception of rape. Before you go off on a tangent about how rape is worse than murder and yam-yam-yam, let me remind you that being penetrated by a bullet or knife by another man or woman is an act of violation in and of itself. It doesn't matter if it's by a stranger in the middle of the night or by an enemy combatant in a war - men bear a greater burden of this trauma, and should not be trivialized.

    A man has more to fear walking in the dark than a woman does. The statistics prove this:
    "A total of 215,273 homicides were studied, 77% of which involved male victims and 23% female victims. Although the overall risk of homicide for women was substantially lower than that of men (rate ratio [RR] = 0.27), their risk of being killed by a spouse or intimate acquaintance was higher (RR = 1.23). In contrast to men, the killing of a woman by a stranger was rare (RR = 0.18)."
    - http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/1992/07000/Men,_Women,_and_Murder__Gender_Specific.1.aspx

    Who's being rounded up and slaughtered like cattle again? Why do you need these rallies, which are - let's be serious now - about spreading the illusion that men hate women more than they hate each other.

    "Men are victims of all forms of violent crime other than rape and sexual assault at higher rates than are women. Murder is no exception. Men account for three-quarters of all murder victims."
    - http://social.jrank.org/pages/1254/Violent-Crime-Victims-Violent-Crimes-Most-Are-Men.html

    Oh, and I can do you one better than 10-20 women murdered in an isolated incident by a lone psycho. Or about 30 thousand better.
    http://www.accessgenealogy.com/military/vietnam.php

    I'm really curious as to what you have to say, unless you feel like "bowing out" of the discussion with some half-baked excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  34. IR: Yes, men are far more likely to be murdered than women. The latest figures are this:

    The overall rate of female homicides fell 43% from 4.18 to
    2.38 homicides per 100,000 female U.S. residents between 1993
    and 2007.

    *Between 1993 and 2007 the overall rate of male homicides
    fell 40% from 14.94 to 8.94 homicides per 100,000 male U.S.
    residents.

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fvv.txt

    When it comes to other forms of violent crime, men are more likely to be the victims -- but only slightly. As your second source notes, but you don't mention, the rates of victimization of men and women for nonfatal violent crimes have been converging. They have converged even more since that report was written and these days women are almost as likely as men to be victims of nonfatal violent crimes.

    As the BJS puts it: "In 2009, men were slightly more likely than women to be victims of violent crime. Women were more likely than men to be victimized by someone they knew. Seventy percent of all violent crimes against women were committed by a known offender (an intimate, family member or friend/acquaintance), compared to 45 percent of violence against men. Twenty-six percent of the non-fatal violence against women was committed by an intimate (current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend), compared to 5 percent of the violence against men."

    from here: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/cv09pr.cfm

    See here, table 5, for the actual numbers:

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

    And of course it goes without saying that the VAST majority of those who commit violent crimes (fatal or nonfatal) are male.

    I will be doing a "further reading" about violence against men in the near future.

    As for war, you're not going to find a lot of pro-war feminists. You're also not going to find many who don't support women serving in the military.

    ReplyDelete
  35. David, the sex of the assailant shouldnt prejudice the status of the victim or grant them special rights over other victims, and most men that are charged with violent crimes come from single more homes and single mother home as the most dangerous place for young boys and child abuse causes dysfunctional adults.

    See in reality the whole thing is in a cycle, thats why the feminist view can never explain or treat violence, the feminist view only serves to further feminism and generate funds, it cannot fix it, if anything by presenting violence as political and gendered, it stands in the way of progress.


    Ir, it doesn't look like women are victimized by sexual crimes anymore than men are, and factoring in the nature of prison rapes, teeth knocked out, gang rapes and so on... it would seem that men suffer the more violent end of rape.

    Take back the night is todays equivalent of politically constructed, progressive era black rapist hysteria.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @Eoghan

    Mark Lepine was white! Not black, white. Not hispanic, white. White. White. White.

    What part of that speaks to you of "black rapist" hysteria?!?!

    Stop making it about RACE when it ISN'T. Moron.

    @IR

    The one big fucking difference is, when a person gets shot, they're not blamed for it...categorically, unlike rape.

    And violent crime is perpetrated by men for the most part. In other words, what the fuck's your point? That men are victimizing men and women in huge numbers? Yeah, I already knew that, thanks Sherlock.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Also, IR, at what point did I trivialize violence against men by talking about Mark Lepine and his victims? Please, point out exactly where I said that. Because, as far as I can tell, that's just a pathetic tactic to trivialize Mark Lepine's crime. The violence was directed at women, for being women. Stop trivializing that.

    If you had bothered to read it, you'd actually know that Mark didn't rape those women, he just killed them while they were attending class at an engineering university. "Take Back the Night"s in Canada are often organized around the Dec 6, ending with a candlelight vigil on the date. You know, it's like a whole "Let's stop misogyny and violence against women" thing...

    ReplyDelete
  38. Tec

    Black rapist hysteria, progressives took the actions of a minority and used them to create hysteria and hatred against a whole group.

    Its the very same tactic that feminism uses targeting all men instead of just black men.

    Same political construct, different era.

    There were many that thought it was real and couldnt is for what it was back in the progressive era, just like you cant.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Edit
    "There were many that thought it was real and couldnt SEE is for what it was back in the progressive era, just like you cant"

    If you cant understand that stereotyping a group with an extreme minority within the group is wrong, its nobodies fault but your own, lashing out at other posters isn't going to fix anything.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Some jews were involved in the crash that caused the great depression, that didnt justify rallies against all jews in germany.

    Some gay men have pedophile tendencies, that doesnt mean that all gay men are pedophiles.

    Some black men did rape white women, that doesn't justify KKK rallies against black men.

    And so on, like feminism these movements rely on taking an extreme example and convince the gullible that its the norm for that group.
    Feminism makes millions out of creating this illusion and prejudice.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Tec
    Men are killed for being men all of the time. Women are killed for being women occasionally. Men get by just fine without candlelight vigils and "take back the night rallies," all while bearing the greater brunt of the violence.
    Most crimes we prosecute are committed by men, but they're also against other men. Men hate each other a lot more than they hate women, but you have been silent as a church mouse about violence against men. You've fixated on the smallest aspect of violence, and only because it affects you. And it's men who need to change - men exclusively, not the government which marginalizes and emasculates them, not the single mothers who rob their children of a father out of spite, not the law enforcement which arrests male victims of domestic assault. No, of course not, masculinity is evil, men hate women, only men need to change. Those men who get killed and slaughtered - forget 'em. They're just a bunch of men.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Okay, I can't be the only one who finds it hilariously ironic that the MRAs are bitching about lack of discussion about violence against men in order to derail David's post about just that. This post is about the stalking and harassment of a male victim. For people who claim to care so much about lack of discussion about violence or crimes with male victims, they sure don't like to talke about violence or crimes with male victims.

    In other irony news, Eoghan's comments minimizing rape and violence with female perpertrators "factoring in the nature of prison rapes, teeth knocked out, gang rapes and so on... it would seem that men suffer the more violent end of rape."

    ReplyDelete
  43. @Eoghan
    "Black rapist hysteria, progressives took the actions of a minority and used them to create hysteria and hatred against a whole group.

    Its the very same tactic that feminism uses targeting all men instead of just black men."

    Again, making all men rapists is the flip side of victim-blaming: if women can instigate rape through what they wear, being there, etc. then it simultaneously sets men up as being insatiable without impulse control and thus incapable of controlling themselves. Both are untrue and wrong. They're both steeped in rape culture and overall, patriarchy.

    It's not about race, much as you'd like to phrase it as so. I have no idea where you're getting that Take Back the Nights are targeted at blacks; it makes no sense: it's targeted at rapists and violent criminals. Are you saying that all black men are inherently the targets? Because that's what it sounds a lot like which is pretty fucked up racist shit about racial stereotyping.

    And guess what? Women of colour are raped. They are often raped. Gee, it's almost as if the 2-for-1 combo of being a woman and a non-white makes 'em a 2x easily victimized group, and thus easily dismissed by white, privileged men. Hell, in Canada, First Nations women are the most common victims of human sex trafficking not to mention the rampant CSA of boys and girls experienced at residential schools. Attributing "Take Back the Nights" as racist sentiments to target black men trivializes the abuse and victimization of all women, but especially so women of colour. And it fucking pisses me off royally.

    I had originally guessed, based on your writing, you might be black and by your name, Scottish. I suggest you try googling "third wave feminism" because feminism isn't just white privileged women as you would like to paint it.

    Again, try thinking on your own before parroting what you heard on False Rape Society and your other MRA blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @IR
    "but you have been silent as a church mouse about violence against men. You've fixated on the smallest aspect of violence, and only because it affects you. And it's men who need to change - men exclusively"

    Um no. For one, I'm certainly not a quiet church mouse.

    Secondly, men on men violence isn't usually a hate crime e.g. one man kills a man for money vs. man killing a man for being black. They're kinda apples and oranges eh?

    Would you accuse me of trivializing murder if I focused on the race aspect of the latter? Um, hopefully not.

    No, it is you who are trivializing. We live in a society that treats women like scum. Treats children like scum. Treats elderly like scum. Treats LGBTQ persons like scum. Treats disabled like scum. And that's all part of kyriarchy. Focusing on the huge spectrum that encompasses rape jokes to murderous hate crime isn't trivializing, it's the opposite: it's highlighting.

    But assuming I'm not also concerned about other issues because they don't affect me is ludicrous and completely unsubtantiated. I don't have to be gay to care about homophobia. I don't have to be disabled to care about the disabled and the barriers they face. It's categorically misrepresentative of me and rather self-entitled of yourself to assume you know what I care about and don't care about.

    Also, I've already pointed out the big flaw in the concept "men should change" at Eoghan: it's part of rape culture. They're both wrong.

    And if you're instead refering to expecting men to yield some male privilege, well, guilty as charged.

    @Cat - QFT

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Tec
    More men are killed than women. How is killing men morally better than killing women? I know you assume that every woman who is struck down becomes a hate crime and yam-yam-yam, but how does that hold a candle to the fact that 3 men are murdered for every 1 woman, yet all of your chatter has been about women?
    "Men need to give up their privilege, men need to do this and that and serve women better. Oh, men are more likely to be murdered? Well, it's okay to kill men because it's not out of hate somehow."

    ReplyDelete
  46. "We live in a society that treats women like scum."

    Oh, so THAT'S why women only kill themselves 25% as often as men. I guess being "treat[ed] like scum" does an amazing job of enhancing one's will to live.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "And if you're instead refering to expecting men to yield some male privilege, well, guilty as charged."

    Exactly what privileges do men have left to yield? The privilege of having to worry about whether any woman with whom they are alone will falsely accuse them of rape? The privilege of being insulted if they refuse to pay for more than their half of a date? The privilege of being passed over for a job or promotion because employers want to meet quotas? The privilege of having no legal recourse for unwanted paternity, even when it is the result of rape? The privilege of dying earlier? Inquiring minds want to know.

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    ReplyDelete
  48. We dont live in a rape culture, thats just radical feminist nonsense. Men are as prone to sexual violence as men and women make up significant portion of the sexual predators outside the prison system.

    "Women treated like scum" !!!!

    So women, who are paid more, receive most of the resources in education, most of the degrees, spend x5 more of the family budget on themselves than their partners, have most of the management jobs, control 60% of the wealth and 80% of the spending, monopolize the victim resources despite being the safest group in society, wear better clothes and shoes than men, and have lives so much easier than men that they live 8 years longer, are treated like scum. It makes me wonder what it would take for you to believe that women are being treated well.

    You are delusional and irrational Tec.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "I had originally guessed, based on your writing, you might be black"

    I think it's pretty clear who is the racist here.

    ReplyDelete
  50. DarkSideCat

    Equal rights for victims doesn't minimize rape of women, making rape of women a political and money raising platform and the be all and end all of violent crime minimizes the experiences of other victims, they become othered. As well as that, telling impressionable young women lies about the nature of rape (that its political and gendered) and that that live in a "rape culture" is detrimental to their mental health and perception of reality.

    Just to add more to by response to Tec's ridiculous assertion that "we live is a society that treats women like scum".

    Women receive legal privileged and shorter prison term for equal crimes, men do pretty much all the dangerous, dirty and lower order jobs and ever measurable class of extreme hardship is dominated by men, homelessness for example.

    Tec, you like many young feminist behave like a child that thinks "life is sooo unfair" when every little thing doesn't go their own way. If you think women are treated like scum in this society, and women are more equal in most measurable well being classes, how would you describe the treatment of a boys and men?

    ReplyDelete
  51. As for missing the point about the post.

    This student was well protected, the law moved against this idiot and a clear message was sent.

    It begs the question, where is the law when feminists are running similar and much more common campaigns, where is the law when the work or McKinnon and Dworkin is being promoted to young impressionable minds?

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Cold - oh yes, pointing out Eoghan claims to be a member of marginalized group and his constant meme that feminism = racism against blacks is racist. Moron. I was pointing out he's sounding like a racist and telling him to get off his BS straight that feminism/=white women.

    @IR - yes, hate crimes are different than other crimes. Go learn something.

    Oh men are so underprivileged. (sarcasm) What you've described are either (1) complete BS or (2) products of patriarchy. Which guess what? Feminism is against. Oh, and yes, it's such a female privilege not being able to go out after dark because I might get raped and if I was it would be my fault for going outside. And if I got raped in my house, it would be my fault because I let him in. Or I didn't have enough locks on my doors or bars on my windows. Shall I go on? I could write a fucking book on the subject of male privilege and sexism, but others have already. But oh I'm sooo privileged, clearly.

    @Eoghan - you have no idea what you're talking about. As I said before, you rely on easily debunked What Feminists Believe (TM) memes to defend your points. The problem is you don't know what feminists believe at all, and it's rather futile to continue arguing with someone who doesn't know the subject they're supposedly opposed to.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Tec

    You dont debunk anything, its all personal attacks and sarcasm, thats not debunking thats female teen relational violence.

    And you are quite aware that I never said that feminism was racism against blacks, I said that feminism runs the same rape hysteria political tactics as progressives did in the last century, its the exact same tactic, complete with rallies just targeting all men rather than black men specifically.

    Can you list the ways in which women are treated like scum for us please?

    And this

    "h, and yes, it's such a female privilege not being able to go out after dark because I might get raped and if I was it would be my fault for going outside. And if I got raped in my house, it would be my fault because I let him in. Or I didn't have enough locks on my doors or bars on my windows. Shall I go on? I could write a fucking book on the subject of male privilege and sexism, but others have already. But oh I'm sooo privileged, clearly".

    Is a package of hyperbole, paranoia, conspiracy theory and lies, thats not how reality is.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Tec,

    What you said is what you said, but at least your ex post facto excuse is somewhat plausible, unlike David's completely unbelievable "That one line wasn't my POV even though the rest of the post was all my POV and you're just too dumb to notice the unmarked POV shift* excuse.

    * Paraphrasing, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  55. "What you've described are either (1) complete BS or (2) products of patriarchy. Which guess what? Feminism is against."

    Well let's see, the false accusation point is most certainly not BS because there are mountains of examples to prove it is true, so therefore, if you're not full of shit, then it has to be "(2) products of patriarchy. Which guess what? Feminism is against." Problem is, I don't see feminists doing ANYTHING do fix the problem of false rape accusations, in fact I see them doing the opposite.

    "and yes, it's such a female privilege not being able to go out after dark because I might get raped and if I was it would be my fault for going outside. And if I got raped in my house, it would be my fault because I let him in. Or I didn't have enough locks on my doors or bars on my windows."

    THAT is bullshit unless you can provide examples of courts making such rulings.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "where is the law when the work or McKinnon and Dworkin is being promoted to young impressionable minds?"

    Yes, especially when Dworkin spoke out about and confronted other feminists who were endorsing and promoting such things as biological determinism to justify female superiority over males:
    Biological Superiority: The World's Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea

    ReplyDelete
  57. And where is the law when feminists are advancing biological determinism to justify supremacy over males? That meme, along with Dworkin and McKinnons hate took root in mainstream feminist thought although the main feminist supremacist argument is based in the illusion of moral superiority.

    ReplyDelete
  58. They weren't "advancing" biological determinism, it was apparent to Dworkin that some feminists, when making comments in a women's forum, were venting thoughts that smacked of biological determinism, and that is a concept to which she is clearly opposed.

    "although the main feminist supremacist argument is based in the illusion of moral superiority"

    That illusion having first been propagated by men...very influential men...to justify their superiority over not only all women but some other men and to institute it in law and tradition. Where was the law when men were advancing biological determinism to justify, amongst other things, supremacy over females? Does that make it right when women do the same to justify their superiority? No, of course it doesn't, and Dworkin chastised feminists who vented in such a manner, pointing out that their "wrongs" were no better than men's "wrongs". I guess that qualifies as hate speech.

    I see it still at some MRA forums, more often than not in Father's Rights forums or topics...the Father as rightful head of and authority over the family (which includes the wife who has no rightful authority in the family). Of course that pretty much denies the existence of same-sex couples, unless they decide upon the "gender role" that each of them takes. So much for egalitarian or humanistic.

    "The law" isn't present at all online or offline forums, meeting, events, etc. when anyone is advancing anything.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Pam

    Id argue that the moral superiority of women has likely always been propagated by women. Ive heard feminists theorizing that idea where men would put their coats in mud so that a "lady" could walk on them and also the idea that men would move the crude, solid oak furniture and doors for women was a clever plot to deny agency to women, it was much more likely that privileged women instigated these things, for their own benefit, IMO. I view AA and the lack of women in dirty jobs as the modern equivalents of of opening the solid oak door in crude hinges and placing a coat down in the mud.

    Even if it was men that instigated the female moral superiority myth, feminism is the main propagator, defender and exploiter of it today.

    As for father at the rightful head of the table, that must be some Christian type commentary, most mens rights people wouldn't bother with nonsense like that, it would be hypocritical because most object to the media maneuvering women into the role of main decision maker/consumer and men cast as hen pecked work horses.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @Cold

    Oh yes, False Rape Society is a really unbias source. (sarcasm)

    That false rape allegations are common has been debunked several times, by several people.

    "Is a package of hyperbole, paranoia, conspiracy theory and lies, thats not how reality is. "

    Hi Pot, meet kettle.

    "And you are quite aware that I never said that feminism was racism against blacks, I said that feminism runs the same rape hysteria political tactics as progressives did in the last century"

    Actually you did, twice:

    "Take back the night is todays equivalent of politically constructed, progressive era black rapist hysteria."

    "Black rapist hysteria, progressives took the actions of a minority and used them to create hysteria and hatred against a whole group. "

    And you've made comments previously about feminism being about white women.

    I don't understand how rape hysteria = racism is not inherently racist itself because:
    (1) it denies women of colour are raped
    (2) it assumes that whites can't be rapists

    Also, it's very ironic to term it "hysteria" given how Freud linked hysteria to actual childhood sexual abuse and rape:
    "1. Freud's procedure here, as elsewhere, is empirical. In this instance his conclusions are drawn from 18 case studies, all of which, he claims, bear out without exception his general thesis. Of these 18 cases, 6 are male, 12 are female.

    2. Freud searches in these 18 cases for a single cause that all of them have in common: this would be their uniform basis and would hence point to the general aetiology of hysteria. What is this shared element? A traumatic experience in childhood that is uniformly of a SEXUAL nature.
    ...
    B. Freud's Basic Conclusions

    1. A sexual event experienced during infancy or childhood is the sole origin of hysterical symptoms. Thus, the aetiology of hysteria is situational, not physiological or genetic.

    a. Freud goes so far as to generalize childhood sexual abuse as the origin of all neuropathologies; it is, as he says, the "caput Nil" (the source of the Nile) for all the psychopathologies of adulthood.

    b. These sexual experiences can include innocent things like stimulation of the genitals during wiping, diapering, hygiene, etc., or can be actual instances of coitus-like acts of seduction during childhood.

    2. Freud delineates 3 groups of hysterics based on the source of this sexual stimulation:

    a. Assaults by adults: mostly practiced on women by men (fathers, uncles, brothers, etc.) where there is no consent. That is, rape or other forced sexual activities.

    b. Love relationships between an adult and a child; these are usually of a longer duration and are the manifestation of deeper emotional and affective bonds. Here genuine feelings of "love" are at work.

    c. Relationships between 2 children, usually brother and sister, whereby this situation presumes that one of the children has already been initiated into sexual activities by an adult (presumes "seduction" of one of the children previously)."
    http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/Hysteria.Notes.html

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Oh yes, False Rape Society is a really unbias source. (sarcasm)"

    Each case links to other, independent sources for documentation, but thanks for proving that you never even bothered reading.

    ReplyDelete
  62. By the way, the grammatically correct, i.e. non-moron way to type that sentence is " Oh yes, False Rape Society is a really unbiased source. ". "Unbias" isn't even a word, and if it was then it would be a noun, not an adjective. Do consider taking remedial English classes, you moron.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Incidentally, if you see what look like typographical errors in the above comment, that is because Blogger ate my pseudo-HTML tags. It's not due to any idiocy.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "Oh, and yes, it's such a female privilege not being able to go out after dark because I might get raped and if I was it would be my fault for going outside. And if I got raped in my house, it would be my fault because I let him in. Or I didn't have enough locks on my doors or bars on my windows. Shall I go on?"
    Where does anyone claim that?
    One more thing: I'm more likely to be assaulted in the dark and three times more likely to be murdered - because I'm a man. Yet you've only been blabbering about how "women are treated so badly." I don't care about your bitter paranoia about rapists clawing at your door. I'm the one more likely to be murdered here, and you don't even care. Now if a woman gets killed - EEEK! It was a hate crime! But the three men being slaughtered for every one woman, forget 'em. Saving men's lives isn't really our thing.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis