Saturday, January 8, 2011

Congresswoman shot, six others killed: The predictable outcome of violent rhetoric

Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona was shot in the head at a public appearance today. Six others were killed in the attack; one a judge, one a 9-year-old girl. Giffords is reportedly recovering after surgery to treat her wounds. The suspect is in custody; he's apparently a conspiracy nut.

As a number of observers have already pointed out, this kind of violence is the predictable outcome of the sort of violent rhetoric we've been hearing for years from Republicans, Tea Partiers and others on the right. And of course there have been numerous instances of right-wing activists bringing guns to public events. As the Daily Beast notes:

At a town hall at another Safeway store in Arizona in August, Giffords called the police when an angry opponent of the legislation dropped a gun on the floor during the event. After the bill passed, Giffords was one of several Democratic members to have their office windows vandalized.

Giffords was also included on Sarah Palin's "target map," released in March of last year, which featured gun crosshairs superimposed over her target's districts on a United States map. The graphic was removed from Palin’s website today. Giffords' Republican opponent, Jesse Kelly, held a campaign event in which he invited supporters to shoot a machine gun. “Get on target for victory,” an ad for the event read.

Blogger Echidne of the snakes observes:

The Republican right has been using explicitly violent language for more than a year, encouraging people with guns to insert themselves into politics, in the case of Sharon Angle, explicitly advocating the use of guns when politics doesn't produce the results they want. There is nothing ambiguous about it, this is the open advocacy for assassination. This isn't a tragedy, there is nothing mysterious or unintentional about it. This will not be the last. Sarah Palin was the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sharon Angle was a Republican candidate for the Senate, many, official Republican candidates clearly advocated the use of guns in politics during the campaign. The killing has started, the time to let them off the hook for the results of their policy just ended, people are already dying.

I think Echidne is overstating the intention of those talking about guns. But at the same time I think any politician who claims to be "surprised" that someone with a gun took their talk about guns seriously is being disingenuous at best.

But we shouldn't just talk about the Republicans and Tea Partiers. While they may be the ones who are primarily to blame for introducing violence into mainstream political discourse,  those fringe-dwelling conspiracy-mongers who talk in similar terms, and fill their readers' and listeners' head with apocalyptic nonsense, may have been the primary influence in this particular case.

This is one of the reasons that I'm troubled by the violent anti-women rhetoric I sometimes see in the mansophere. For some people, it's merely rhetoric. But the fact is that some people take this sort of rhetoric all too seriously -- as those who use this rhetoric know or should know. All those who've engaged in it have blood on their hands.

EDITED TO ADD: Below, a graphic (now taken down) from Sarah Palin's web site:


90 comments:

  1. YEP I just did a video on this and tied it into MRAs and their bullshit that women are just as violent as men. NO and liberals are not "just as violent" as these nut jobs that follow Palin and Beck and Limbaugh. Where is the massacre done by a feminist with a manifesto? I have another screen shot that says, to HELP US prescribe a solution."
    This is what was on her website that she took down.

    http://twitpic.com/3o7pgo

    So if Liberals had some website with crosshairs up on targets, and Limbaugh made a huge big deal about it, the MRA analogy would be complete. Their claims women are just as dangerous are flat out lies. I have someone after me that wrote a rap song about killing feminists, ok? The guy harasses me and my family and does that thing this blog covered about publishing people's names. Nobody will listen to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Was she a feminist or did she actually like men?

    I glanced at her record, she was pro illegal and anti gun rights it seems. Which is kind of ironic as a gun might have saved her.

    I haven't been able to find out anything about her men's rights stance or lack thereof. Anyone got any info on that?

    Rnadom Brother

    ReplyDelete
  3. richard, she was a moderate. I have no idea if she thought of herself as a feminist (though I will note that feminists generally do like men).

    She was shot down by someone who was apparently a conspiracy nut. There is no direct connection to men's rights that I know of, and I didn't suggest that there was.

    My point is that violent rhetoric has consequences. When I see violent rhetoric, on MRM sites or elsewhere, it troubles me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Did she actually like men?"

    o.0

    Yeah, this ain't a feminist thing, unless you count Sara Palin as a feminist, like she does. I suppose there's a connection there and of course I'm kidding.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I know Gabby so shut the hell up Richard. She is a bright, kind and good person who did not deserve what happened to her. Same for the other people this day. I thought I lost a friend for a long time today and people like you need to shut up.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Which is kind of ironic as a gun might have saved her."

    Yes, I'm sure a gun would have been real useful for defending against some dude sneaking up and shooting her point blank in the head. If only she'd been armed, amirite?

    Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized.

    ReplyDelete
  7. booboonation said...
    ..... into MRAs and their bullshit that women are just as violent as men.


    What a nonsense talk by a frustrated feminist.

    This killing has nothing to do with MRAs worldwide.

    For sure, almost ALL MRAs between Germany and India never heard the name 'Gifford' in their entire life. Most of them do not even know, where Arizona is located.

    It seems there are also male victims in this recent American amok shooting by this crazy guy. Why not mention them too? But for feminists only female victims count...

    This WildWest shooting in Arizona has everything to do however with the daily life-style of some violent American people, who frequently solve their problems with a gun.

    About peaceful women in Arizona, better read first:
    http://hiphopwired.com/2010/01/18/mom-tries-to-trade-child-for-gun/

    Arizona Mom Tries To Trade Child For Gun

    ReplyDelete
  8. John Taylor: Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized.


    It is not, of course, but to own your gun and be ready to use it is reducing your risk to be shot in many places in this world.

    Certain areas in some cities in USA and in several Latin American countries are known for their gun-culture.

    To be there - especially as a politician -without a gun ready to fire is not recommended.

    Arizona, bordering Mexico, is not known to be the most peaceful place in USA.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yohan, Men are dangerous and men that hate women are a danger to women. Like the right wing fringe that gets incited by their talking head rhetoric.

    Not only to men commit horrendous violence against women, but then the rest of you come along and lie about it, spin, minimize, gaslight, cover it up, and lie again about the nature and the imbalance all the while listening to more inciting rhetoric.

    If the right tries to claim that liberals are just as violent, or "half the problem" the way MRAs do, they are lying just the way you do.

    This is an excellent analogies for MRAs and other over-lapping groups. I don't care what you call me. I have appropriate anger and awareness about an issue that has not hit mainstream radar, yet. How many more Sodinis do we have to have?

    ReplyDelete
  10. *Men are dangerous

    Yes, I said that. And before someone demands I say some men. OK, but overall and comparatively speaking this is true and these issues are not theoretical to me. Some of you can arm chair this and be all nicey nicey but I know DV first hand, and I know being stalked as a feminist first hand, so I take it seriously and my speech will reflect that. These are serious issues, women's lives are worth just as much as anyone's.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Expect more violence, not less. As our economy continues to bifurcate between the educated, people of means, and those large swaths of the
    American demographic fucked over by their government (bought and paid for by corporations), lied to by the corporate media, the victims of the mancession, ex military, and all of those men who are so easily left out of the hostile educatoinal system, they don't just stand around doing nothing. The "man leaning against the wall" with no stake in society, has in the past brought down societies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Booboonation

    "Men are dangerous"

    Yes, and women make sandwiches while the adults are talking.

    WTF kind of ass-backward feminist rhetoric shit is that? Men are the only thing standing between you and 6 billion people who want to take your shit, tear you to pieces and throw you in the trash.

    That's a broad brush you're wielding there sister! You might want to cozy up to a real good man with a gun before the world economy gets worse. You might regret not having a disposable protector on your side when the SHTF!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. They also kill more babies and children! God Damned psychopaths!

    ReplyDelete
  14. booboonation said...
    booboonation said...
    Yohan, Men are dangerous and men that hate women are a danger to women. ...Not only to men commit horrendous violence against women,


    And again you ignore the male victims of this crazy shooting...

    Violence is not only from men to women, and I gave you the link about a mother selling her child for a gun...

    And this shooting has nothing to do with MRAs worldwide.

    Most MRAs outside of the USA, me included, do not even know her name.

    As US-politician, regardless your gender, you need to keep your gun ready. Plenty of crazy people around.

    To blame the MRAs, because the victim is a FEMALE politician, is plainly stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  15. witman said...
    I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men.


    Well, THIS case has NOTHING to do neither with the gender of the victim, or with women hating men, or women dangerous to men, nor with MRAs, etc. - but with being an politician.

    Life for a politician is sometimes dangerous, not only in the US, and these people and their families need indeed protection like body-guards, bullet-proof cars, security houses etc...

    What has this to do with the FEMALE gender, except in the narrow mindset of a feminist?

    And as I said before, it seems, there are also male victims in this incident, but totally ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @witman,

    "I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. They also kill more babies and children! God Damned psychopaths!"

    Not so. Here is the truth:

    Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --

    31% were killed by fathers
    29% were killed by mothers
    23% were killed by male acquaintances
    7% were killed by other relatives
    3% were killed by strangers

    Of those children killed by someone other than their parent, 81% were killed by males.

    Note: Parents includes stepparents.

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/children.cfm

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Christine WE:

    "Note: Parents includes stepparents."

    If a male step parent kills a child, that is partly the mother's fault. Don't lambaste biological fathers because of the reckless decisions of mothers to invite a male thug into the children's lives and abuse them. Most murders of children are perpetrated by mothers and their abusive boyfriends; only a small minority are perpetrated by the actual biological fathers. Put the blame for the violence where it belongs, which is with the perpetrators.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let's narrow it down a little. Since women are more liberated we see a different trend to the more violent of the sexes. Let's narrow it down a little:

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/table3_15.htm

    able 3-15 Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2008
    Child Maltreatment 2008

    Perpetrator Victims Number Percent

    PARENT
    Mother 271,595 38.3
    Mother and Other 42,437 6.0
    Father 128,262 18.1
    Father and Other 6,280 0.9
    Mother and Father 126,982 17.9

    NONPARENT
    Daycare Staff 3,392 0.5
    Foster Parent (Female Relative) 308 0.0
    Foster Parent (Male Relative) 65 0.0
    Foster Parent (Nonrelative) 1,075 0.2
    Foster Parent (Unknown Relationship) 406 0.1
    Friend or Neighbor 2,501 0.4
    Legal Guardian (Female) 835 0.1
    Legal Guardian (Male) 225 0.0
    More than One Nonparental Perpetrator 7,816 1.1
    Other Professional 825 0.1
    Partner of Parent (Female) 1,943 0.3
    Partner of Parent (Male) 15,808 2.2
    Relative (Female) 12,216 1.7
    Relative (Male) 21,272 3.0
    Staff Group Home 1,458 0.2
    Unknown or Missing 63,758 9.0
    Total 709,459 Percent 100.0

    ReplyDelete
  19. Looks like mothers are killing their kids at more than a two to one ration of fathers as of 2008! Those dangerous psychopaths and "These are serious issues, children's lives are worth just as much as anyone's."

    ReplyDelete
  20. Christine WE said...
    @witman,
    Not so. Here is the truth:
    .....
    Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 --

    31% were killed by fathers
    29% were killed by mothers


    This shows that mothers are almost as dangerous as fathers to their children...

    And I was always thinking women are not violent towards children.

    Unfortunately there is no victim-breakup into boys and girls. I guess for good reason.

    witman:
    PARENT
    Mother 271,595 38.3
    Mother and Other 42,437 6.0

    Father 128,262 18.1
    Father and Other 6,280 0.9


    Yes, yes, feminists like to calculate in percentages.

    It's about time to give more children to their fathers instead to their mothers, but this might cut off a regular financial source of income (alimony, child-support) for women.

    Too bad... how misogynistic from me even to mention this...

    ReplyDelete
  21. @witman,

    "Looks like mothers are killing their kids at more than a two to one ration of fathers as of 2008!"

    The numbers you're presenting are not murder numbers, they are maltreatment numbers.

    The murder numbers I presented earlier are the average for nearly 30 years and 2008 isn't likely to look much different than that - 62% men vs. 29% women (where the perpetrator is known).

    @John Dias,

    The information I presented was perfectly appropriate given that it was in response to a post in which male vs. female murderers was the topic.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So it looks like humans are pretty much the same. You take somebody smaller and weaker, and sure enough, somebody they love is most likely to kill them.

    Booboonation would have us believe that her rapper, thug stalker just picked her out of a crowd, started rapping about violence against her and then started stalking her. Sorry, I have to call bullshit on that one.

    http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/how-abusive-women-brainwash-you/

    ReplyDelete
  23. @yohan,

    The numbers witman presented are not murder statistics.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Booboonation comes off as a classic B cluster personality.

    ReplyDelete
  25. You are correct Christine, BRB.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Witman: children's lives are worth just as much as anyone's."


    It's not about children, it's only about innocent girls, who must be rescued from their fathers and brothers under any circumstances, because all males are pedophiles and rapists...

    Even boys 4 year old were already reported for sexual harassment of women.

    Witman, you really have no idea, how dangerous males really are.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I'm noticing a trend here ...

    MRA posts something inflammatory
    Woman refutes it with stats/facts/quotes
    MRA claims woman's stats are not accurate
    or
    MRA claims that woman is talking about things are not the topic
    or
    MRA says something about Lorena Bobbit (changes the subject to how women are just evil)

    Booboonation, I would definitely agree that men are more dangerous than women. I've never suffered DV, but I've been stalked by a guy I barely knew and had a few incidents with strange men. As an exchange student, nearly every female in my program had been flashed or stalked or followed or groped by a random stranger. Women were always the victims and the perpetrators were always men. I've never felt threatened by another woman in my life.

    It's telling that when you read stats about female on male violence, it's almost always related to a relationship. (Didn't Lorena cut off her hub's little bobbit because he was cheating on her?) Whereas men will be aggressive toward women they don't even know. Comparing these stats is apples and oranges. Just look at stats of serial killers. (Of course, now some MRA is going to say women aren't smart enough to be serial killers or their hormones make them unable to be serial killers or blah blah blah.)

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ChristineWE:

    "The information I presented was perfectly appropriate given that it was in response to a post in which male vs. female murderers was the topic."

    First of all, this post of David's was not about male vs. female murderers as you claim. It was about reckless rhetoric that ostensibly may lead a violent person to commit a violent act.

    Secondly, it seems to me that you are blaming men for actions of murderers, which is blatant misandrist bigotry. If the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of men are non-murderers and the same proportion of fathers are protective of their children -- even violently protective -- then what does their maleness have to do with the maleness of child-murdering thugs? What relation -- what connection at all -- is there?

    You're a sexist, anti-male bigot. I say it openly and plainly, because you are a bigot.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @John Dias,

    My response was clearly a direct response to a post by witman on exactly the topic he raised. You must have missed the "@witman". And the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of BOTH genders are not murderers, everyone knows that.

    ReplyDelete
  30. John, WTF Christine meant "comment," not "post." She was responding to a COMMENT by witman which said:

    "I'd say that statistically speaking women are MUCH more dangerous than men. They also kill more babies and children!

    It was witman who brought up the issue of gender and murder, not her.

    The rest of your comment is really pretty out of line. There is nothing bigoted about her correcting witman's claims.

    This whole discussion here is utterly surreal. A politician is shot. A judge and 5 others are killed. I make a post about how it this is the sad but predictable result of violent rhetoric.

    Then ... Yohan posts a link to a bizarre and irrelevant news story about an evil woman. Witman starts talking about women killing kids. You jump in and blame mothers for murders committed by other people. Then you declare Christine a bigot basically for participating in the same gender and murder discussion you've been participating in as well.

    As I said, this is utterly surreal. And I haven't even touched on the rest of Yohan's bizarre postings. Six people killed, and this is what the discussion degenerates into?

    ReplyDelete
  31. @David Futrelle:

    1. Christine used the word "post," not "comment."
    2. Christine used the word "topic," a word which is more plausibly linked to a post rather than a comment.
    3. Christine's line of reasoning in addressing witman was to try to demonstrate that men are more generally dangerous than women. The word danger implies that there's a good chance that harm and violence exist because of the source of the danger; in this case, Christine implies that men -- by being men -- are more dangerous.
    4. You sanctimony against my comment against Christine is what is out of line. I've seen you on several occasions make an issue out of the fact that various statements that you've found around the Internet -- statements which you consider to be misogyny -- were not challenged on that basis and thus you imply that the other people in the respective threads who failed to make such a challenge against the offending commenter were therefore complicit. And yet you let the misandrist comments of booboonation go unchallenged; you leave that task to the non-misandrists here while you remain silent. In the course of challenging the misandrist -- whose bigotry you failed to counter even on your own blog, where you have ban authority over comments -- the discussion inevitably shifts to that purpose. You now decry its direction, but as I just pointed out your own inaction makes you the one who is chiefly responsible.
    4. ChristineWE defends a point that was made by the misandrist, namely that men are more dangerous than women, making her complicit not just because she didn't challenge Booboonation but also because she openly agreed with the premise of Booboonation's comment. I was right to challenge ChristineWE. Not only was my interpretation of her wording reasonable, but also my gut instinct about her bigotry was right on the money. I therefore stand by the thrust of my comments about her, and I reserve even more passionate condemnation against Booboonation, whose misandry you couldn't be bothered to challenge even now as I write this. By your own standard, which requires speaking out against bigotry, you are in league with both of these two.

    And now you say that the direction of this threat is "surreal?" Because misandrist statements went unchallenged by this blog's author -- who has the stature -- and also the leverage -- to make such a challenge effectively, this inaction of yours is what has led to this "mess."

    ReplyDelete
  32. It does not surprise me David.

    This is not a gender based shooting. This was probably a political assassination attempt by a very disturbed young man. I say probably because right now we do not know and two of the people there were possible targets (Judge Roll was under US Marshall protection after he ruled a lawsuit over a shooting involving illegal immigrants to go forward and Gabby has been dealing with extreme violence/threats since the election of President Obama.)

    The rhetoric preceding this event should never have happened and we should remember to be kinder in our exchanges online and off because we never know when it is going to cause harm-however inadvertent.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @David:

    I just posted a comment that seems to have been either lost or caught in the spam filter, and my comment addressed the points that you just made at 1:04 AM. In case my comment is gone, I'll create it again below.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 1. Booboonation started off with the misandrist comments
    2. MRAs alone challenged her misandry
    3. ChristineWE defended one of the misandrist points that was made by Booboonation, namely that men are more dangerous than women.
    4. An MRA challenges ChristineWE.
    5. ChristineWE attempts to defend her misandrist assertion that men are more dangerous than women, citing murder statistics.
    6. I challenge ChristineWE on the validity of her misuse of the statistics that she cited.
    7. ChristineWE defends her misandrist interpretation of the data that she cited. She also uses the word "post" to refer to a non-post, and she also uses the very post-specific word "topic" to refer to a comment. I think that my interpretation of her words is pretty reasonable.
    8. You complain about the direction of this discussion, calling it surreal, and saying that it devolved into a tit-for-tat over which sex was more dangerous. But you yourself have on several occasions, in various comments and posts, implied that people are to some degree culpable and complicit when they hear a bigoted comment and fail to challenge it. YOUR VERY FIRST COMMENTER led off with misandry that you failed to challenge, you the one with the stature as the author of this blog, you the one with the ability to ban comments. You left the job of challenging bigoted comments to MRAs -- and now you sit back in your typical passive aggressive posture and tsk-tsk it all, placing blame for the direction of this disaster of a thread on MRAs. Amazing.

    The original blog post was about reckless rhetoric. I think, David, that at least insofar as this thread is concerned you have proven that you will stand by and tolerate it when others start rhetorical fires, then blame the rhetorical firemen for trying to fight the flames.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John, your posts are out of the spam filter now.

    Sso you and/or witman and Yohan are supposed to be the "rhetorical firefighters" here?

    I think it's ridiculous to pretend that Christine's comment was anything other than a response to witman's comment -- especially since she mentioned his name in the post and quoted his words.

    I think some of booboo's comments were poorly worded, and not particularly germane to the issue of the shooting today, but there is really no question that men, on average, are more violent/dangerous than women, on average. It's not misandrist to say that. Men as a class, commit many times as many violent crimes than women, as a class. (They're also more likely to be victims of violent crimes, rape excluded.) To say that is not the same as saying "all men are evil" or "all men are killers." In fact booboo and Christine have both made clear that they weren't saying that.

    ReplyDelete
  36. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I disagree with your premise, David. It is bigoted to look at men as a class, and to associate danger with men as a class. That is misandry and right now I challenge you on it. Moreover, you have downplayed the seriousness of the misandry of two other commenters on this board, making you an apologist for their bigotry. I call you out right now. There is no excuse. According to your own platitudes, if you want to have the moral authority to challenge bigotry from one direction, then you have to challenge it from all directions including from your own supporters. Otherwise you're knee deep in it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. David: And I haven't even touched on the rest of Yohan's bizarre postings. Six people killed, and this is what the discussion degenerates into?


    I don't know why it is bizarre to say, that this is a killing which might happen to every politician, regardless the gender. It has nothing to do with MRAs worldwide.

    The reply I got was that men only are dangerous, and so I offered a link from the same area - Arizona - to show that women are dangerous too.

    I also said, it is strange why reports are only about this female politician, and I ask why male victims who died during the same shooting are entirely ignored in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  39. John, you're out of your damn mind. Pointing out that statistically speaking men are more likely to commit violent crime than women, which is what I was talking about when I talked about men as a class, is not misandry. It is a simple statement of fact. That does not mean that you are violent because you are a man, or that I am violent because I am a man. It does not mean that the average man is a violent criminal. This entire discussion is ridiculous. If you really want to argue with misandrists, you're going to have to find them elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  40. David: ....witman and Yohan are supposed to be the "rhetorical firefighters" here?

    Well, it is just ridiculous to blame ALL MRAs somewhere between Germany and India for this shooting. Most MRAs worldwide as I said already, have no idea, who is Mrs. Giffords and don't even now where is Arizona located. -

    Responsible for this shooting is the American gun-culture.

    David. do you really seriously think, any US-politician is safe in USA, solely because she is a female?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yohan, I agree that the shooting has nothing directly to do with MRAs. The reason the congresswoman has gotten most of the attention is because she was a politician, and because she was the target of what was an attempted political assassination. It's not a gender thing. When Reagan was shot, we heard a lot more about him than we did the others wounded in that assassination attempt.

    In the section of the wikipedia bio of Reagan that deals with the assassination attempt, for example, there is no mention of the others at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_reagan#Assassination_attempt

    The media here has actually paid a good deal of attention to the male judge who was killed in the shooting today. He also got a lot of threats from extremists. But it's pretty clear he was not the target because he wasn't scheduled to be at the event; he just showed up.

    The main point of my post was that violent rhetoric has consequences. I sometimes see violent rhetoric on MRM/MGTOW website and it troubles me.

    ReplyDelete
  42. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Yohan: "David. do you really seriously think, any US-politician is safe in USA, solely because she is a female?"

    What are you talking about? The US is not the wild west. Do you think politicians here get shot at every day of the week? Assassinations and attempted assassinations are in fact rare here, and it is appalling, and a very big deal, when they occur, regardless of the gender of the victims. In this case, though, there has been a lot of violent rhetoric coming from the right wing, and a lot of people, myself included, have worried that this sort of talk would lead to political violence.

    ReplyDelete
  44. David:
    Yohan, I agree that the shooting has nothing directly to do with MRAs.
    .....
    The main point of my post was that violent rhetoric has consequences. I sometimes see violent rhetoric on MRM/MGTOW website and it troubles me.


    Sometimes? Yes, sometimes...

    I try my best since many years to correct such men, listening and talking to them.

    However, such a violent behavior by badly cheated men you rarely find anywhere else, it's mainly in USA, where disturbing remarks by feminists towards ALL men are especially hateful and insulting.

    What are you talking about? The US is not the wild west..

    Maybe for you, because you are living there and have never been anywhere else in this world.

    Should you ever visit Tokyo or Singapore you will notice the difference.

    Within USA, about security, it's not the same everywhere.

    Honolulu is not New Orleans, just one example.

    There are plenty of major US-cities which do have dangerous areas, where I would never go out alone and never without carrying a gun, even not by day.

    Arizona, Tucson, near to the Mexican border is not a safe city. If you are a politician, male or female does not matter, better bring your gun and a few body-guards with you.

    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/az/tucson/crime/

    For Tucson, we found that the violent crime rate is one of the highest in the nation, across communities of all sizes (both large and small). Violent offenses tracked included forcible rape, murder and non-negligent manslaughter, armed robbery, and aggravated assault, including assault with a deadly weapon.
    .....
    Regardless of whether Tucson does well or poorly compared to all other cities and towns in the US of all sizes, compared to places with a similar population, it fares badly. Few other communities of this size have a crime rate as high as Tucson.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Yohan, the shootings did not happen because the congresswoman walked into a bad neighborhood, nor would it have been prevented if she had been carrying a gun. It was an attempted political assassination by an unbalanced, delusional man who seems to have absorbed a lot of conspiracy theory.

    You really do have some odd ideas about the US. We don't all walk around armed here.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ Elizabeth

    Elizabeth said: "I know Gabby so shut the hell up Richard. She is a bright, kind and good person who did not deserve what happened to her. Same for the other people this day. I thought I lost a friend for a long time today and people like you need to shut up."


    So, was she a feminist or not?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  47. @ John Taylor

    John Taylor said: "Yes, I'm sure a gun would have been real useful for defending against some dude sneaking up and shooting her point blank in the head. If only she'd been armed, amirite?

    Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized. "


    Well, John, seing that the results of her going through this ordeal unarmed means getting shot in the head, maybe next time she'll consider the armed route.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  48. It's not looking too good on the feminist front. Aside from being anti gun and pro illegal, she also went to an all girl school, Scripps College. They have a copy of the speech she gave there in 2009 and every other sentence is "We women" this and "we women" that. The usual feminist clap trap. She was also in favor of Obama's health care, which may have led to someone smashing her office windows.

    It doesn't seem like she was a friend of men.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  49. Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?

    ReplyDelete
  50. David Futrelle said...
    Yohan,
    .....nor would it have been prevented if she had been carrying a gun.
    .....
    You really do have some odd ideas about the US. We don't all walk around armed here.


    I am not so sure about that. Top Security is a major concern in US-foreign politics everywhere, worldwide.

    And I said your own gun AND body-guards.

    Well-trained bodyguards are usually doing a good job. The problem is more the client, who feels uncomfortable and is not always co-operative. - Bodyguard means near your own body... Not everybody's taste, but very effective. I know best because I did such a dangerous job next to Near/Middle East VIPs with body guards.

    I do not have odd ideas about the USA. There is a BIG difference where you are in the USA.

    If you are a nobody (like David) and sitting in an office tower in Chicago or if you are a politician and walking around in a shopping mall near the Mexican border, this is not the same.

    Security in USA is not only about North and South, but also about East and West.. Miami or Detroit during night is not the same as Honolulu, Hawaii.

    New Orleans during Kathrina...

    http://buckaroos.homestead.com/drunkguns.html

    http://www.happyrobot.net/photo/pat_neworleans.asp?id=1804

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Having a gun isn't an automatic protection from being victimized."---John T.

    No shit? Really?

    No matter how prepared you think you are, deadly violence can happen.

    But having something to work with is better than nothing.

    For example, I took a series of sessions with Escrima/Arnis, and did some knife defense training. Unarmed versus a knife in a real situation is a scary prospect if an assailant is going to use it against you to maim or kill. No matter how fast and aware you are, there is still a chance of being cut or stabbed (and for a quick note here, the best defense against a knife if you don't have a weapon of your own is to run if you can get away).

    . . but preparation, and having something up your own sleeve is better than nothing. Far better.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "How many more Sodinis do we have to have?" booboonation

    How many more Amy Bishops do we need to have?

    ReplyDelete
  53. David Futrelle said...
    Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?


    No, it is NOT OK to kill her. Of course not.

    And again, you forget to mention it, it is also not ok to kill or injure others next to her.

    She is not the only victim of this crazy guy running amok. She even survived somehow, while others are dead.

    -----

    It is however also NOT OK to blame MRAs for this crime only because the killer was a man.

    It is nothing wrong about to discuss, how this crime could happen. And one serious problem I see, is missing security.

    Even if you disagree with that, USA is known internationally for its gun-culture and so is Mexico and some other Latin American countries.

    Unfortunately, USA exported its gun-culture up to Philippines in the past and recently up to Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "How many more Sodinis do we have to have?" booboonation

    What about Sabine in Germany?

    Sickos are everywhere, worldwide, and not always they are American men.

    In this case the sicko in Germany was a female.
    September 2010, not such a long time ago.

    4 people shot dead, and 18 injured ....

    http://www.welt.de/vermischtes/weltgeschehen/article9762953/Der-Mann-der-durch-Kopfschuss-sterben-sollte.html

    ReplyDelete
  55. I would think that women abuse children more than men, that would be my instinct on that matter, so those stats don't surprise me, I am also not surprised that men are more responsible for when the child actually dies. That is the whole point when we discuss these matters. Why do men end up dead more after suicide attempts? They choose more lethal methods. They are just more brutal across the board.

    My comments are germane to MRAs. These threats the politicians were getting goes back to the vote on health care. When bricks went through their windows and they got death threats, Pain said don't back off, reload and put up the map with the crosshairs. On the View Hasslebeck condemned this and the panel strongly warned the talking heads to stop with the rhetoric. In the midst of this on this board, people continue with the rhetoric and nobody that I have seen has taken issue with John's statement that a mother is responsible for when another person murders, in this case he said a step father.

    Let me say this, when you see all the signs of something bad stalking you and threatening you there is no way these dynamics are not going to stand out and even this post tied in MRA rhetoric. This blog can be hilarious, but the owner knows there will be tragic days around here due to these dynamics. Men kill and attempt to kill women all the time, men with manifestos, not excluded.

    ReplyDelete
  56. David: You really do have some odd ideas about the US. We don't all walk around armed here.

    It seems not all US-citizens share your opinion.

    For sure police and ambulance services are poorly organized in Tucson.

    Some updates to this case and comments...
    Tucson, Arizona is near to the Mexican border.

    Mexico has a total gun ban, and the worst record for killed and kidnapped politicians and other high-level figures in the world. With more than 28,000 dead in Mexico from the drug war, it is clear that leaving guns only in the hands of the cartels and criminals will only make us all vulnerable.

    Eyewitness report... helped hold the gunman down while waiting for the sheriff to arrive, about 15-to-20 minutes later.

    The EMS came about 30 minutes later. Rayle said he was “stunned” by how long it took medical help to arrive.”


    Police needs 20 minutes to arrive in a supermarket in an American city next to the dangerous Mexican border to arrest the guy who was running amok.
    20 minutes!

    The ambulance needs 30 minutes to arrive.
    30 minutes!

    That's too long. By any international standard. I share the concern of these American people.

    Gun-culture in USA is reasonable, it's really better to own your gun and use it if you live in this country.

    http://gawker.com/5728501/
    http://gawker.com/5728605/arizona-shooter-explained-mind-control-on-youtube

    ReplyDelete
  57. And...the abusive and coercive language used here,not germane to the topic has been duly noted. Abusive does not mean an F word, most of the abuse dished out my philosophical opponents of feminism is passive aggressive, or fits the "gaslighting" model. Historically women pointing out bad male behavior are 'hysterical', or 'insane' and so that is the focus. I am not easily coerced or abused in that way, but it's been duly noted. I am not intimidated by being labeled a misandrist, either. That might be a tool these men can use effectively on other patrons here, not me.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @booboonation

    No idea about what you are talking, maybe you are posting in the wrong thread?

    This thread is about a female politician shot in Arizona.

    And yes, it's all the fault of these MRAs, always these misogynists...

    ReplyDelete
  59. David said: "Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?"

    I want to know who she is. I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me.

    However, most politicians are scum and I don't have much feeling for them in either way. Generally I don't give two shits about politicians. They forget the saying the government that governs least governs best.

    If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care?

    Feminsts can never get their estrogen addled brains around the fact that if you don't care about other people and shove shit laws down their throats then other people are unlikely to give a shit about you.

    Again, if she was a fair and honorable women/politician, then my heart goes out to her, but how many politicians are fair and honorable?

    I just think the rush to deify her when no one here seems to know how she voted on anything is ridiculous.

    Also, since I didn't get to this before, blaming "violence speech" or whatever you want to call it, for this man's actions, firstly suggest that people have no free will and secondly sounds vaguley like an attempt to silence your politcal enemies.

    Honestly, running this thread the way you did seems very vulgar to me. Your thinking seems to be : Injured pretty female politician - incite fear - link to MRA's - Take away their right to speak, while feminsts keep their right to speech - Good times! That doesn't seem very noble to me.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  60. booboonation said " . . .Abusive does not mean an F word, most of the abuse dished out my philosophical opponents of feminism is passive aggressive, or fits the "gaslighting" model."

    In other words you feminsts get to tell us MRA'S what words we can or cannot use in debate with you, while you get to continue and use any words, insults, snarkiness, or outright vulgarity as you see fit. More feminist fairness I see.

    booboonation said: "Historically women pointing out bad male behavior are 'hysterical', or 'insane' and so that is the focus."

    Or maybe the women were just hysterical or insane as you seem to be.

    booboonation said: "I am not easily coerced or abused in that way, but it's been duly noted. I am not intimidated by being labeled a misandrist, either. That might be a tool these men can use effectively on other patrons here, not me."

    Yeah, I shaking in my boots.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  61. One of my messages has been caught in spam, plz stand by, it should appear directly before my previous message.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Richard, so someone "not" being coerced makes you shake in your boots? Stay away from that PUA info.

    I don't know how one could extrapolate what you said from what I said. I'm saying I'm wise to being ad hom attacked with the attempt to coerce me. If that translates to you as me telling you what you can and cannot say, not sure what to say about that, it seems pretty silly to me.

    Rarely is what I say directly dealt with. Lots of subject changing, or attempts at vilification or passive aggressive psycho analyzing. (Gets the PA label because you may deny that you meant anything by it, which is laughable). And when I say, "call me a misandrist all you want", I fail to see how I'm trying to control what you say. I'm letting you know that your tactics will not keep me from pointing out MRA lies about domestic violence or murder statistics generally, or the warning signs of an anti-feminist stalker, and what that could ultimately mean to the feminist. Rhetoric inflames those men, enablers fan away.

    ReplyDelete
  63. None of you have convinced me yet how her having a gun would have prevented this fellow from sneaking through a crowd and shooting her in the head. But keep trying, I suppose.

    ReplyDelete
  64. I think Richard and a few others are missing the entire point. Using violent rhetoric in your campaigns/rallies/whatever can and will end in violence like we saw yesterday. For godssakes what was Palin and her crew thinking of — putting crosshairs on their "enemies" names on a map distributed on the internet? It's been getting worse over the years.

    It doesn't matter who the politician is and what their platform is; it's unacceptable behavior to incite such hatred. Palin and co. have some blood on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  65. @ John Taylor

    Spoken like a true liberal pansy.

    Just give up and let the criminals do what they want!

    Jesus.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  66. @ Katz

    You can in no way shape or form prove that the words MADE this man shoot this politician. Either a person has free will or they don't.
    Let me put it this way, if I threw hate speech at you would you then go and kill whoever I indicated should be killed? If the answer is no, then you should understand why what you claim is wrong.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ booboonation:

    Your whole post boils down to "I super tough girly girl and I'll never give up and I'm always right! GRRRRLLLLL POWER!!!"

    You're just another mouthy infant feminist who hasn't done a damn thing in the real world. You don't know anything.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  68. Richard: no, I can't prove it. But do you find rabble rousing acceptable? If you throw hate speech at some deranged minds often enough, you get what we saw yesterday. Campaigns were not so uncivil in the past; the rhetoric keeps getting more violent and look where we are at today. Do you like where this is leading us? Ms. Palin and her like-minded comrades deserve every bit of censure they're going to receive for this.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Richard-you are okay with people being shot regardless of their current employment?

    Even someone in the military who is paid to be shot is not a reason to celebrate their injury or death from being shot.

    Good god...go look up her record. She was a good, kind decent woman and she was trying to do her best to be accessible to her constituents after the constant violence/threats given to her. And here you come-"was she against men? Until I know I am not going to feel bad she was shot!"

    ReplyDelete
  70. http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yohan, just so you know, that info you posted on how long it took the sheriff/rescue to get to the scene is wrong. That Gawker story was based on one alleged eyewitness' claims, and that person must have been so discombobulated by what had happened that they imagined things taking much longer than they did.

    Here's a timeline:

    9:58 a.m. -- Giffords posts message on Twitter inviting constituents to event at the Safeway supermarket in Tucson.
    10:00 a.m.-- Town hall meeting begins.
    10:10 a.m. -- Gunman opens fire.
    10:11 a.m. -- First 911 call is received
    10:19 a.m. -- 6-member rescue crew arrives.
    10:22 a.m. -- Suspect in police custody.
    10:24 a.m. -- Wounded victims removed from the scene.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/09/timeline-shooting-rampage-arizona/

    I saw another news article saying that rescue arrived by 10:16; the discrepancy may be because they were held back for several minutes by dispatchers until they were sure the gunman had been taken down.

    ReplyDelete
  72. richard said...
    David said: "Richard, what fucking difference does it make if she's a feminist? Does that make shooting her ok?"

    I want to know who she is. I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her.

    Nobody deserves to become a victim of such a crime by a crazy guy.

    About your question, as far as I see in the news, she was not helpful to any men's issue.

    Her activity was much appreciated by NOW.

    ....consistently endorsed by NOW ... says this article below.

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/01/09/now-blames-shooting-extreme-conservatives-opposing-progressive-solutions

    ReplyDelete
  73. I agree with John Taylor on the gun issue, but I want to point out that even if I didn't Yohan and Whitman's victim blaming is bullshit. Peaceful unarmed victim, armed shooter, must be the victim's fault. Geesh, you MRA lot are damned quick to blame any female victim of violence. Yep, it's Giffords' fault for not carrying a gun, but also the fault of the violent gun toting American culture, which she should have participated in if she didn't want shot in the head, making it her fault. Nice logic there. I also wanted to point out that the crap about the Mexican border and Tucson is utter bullshit. US cities along the border DO NOT have higher rates of violent crime, and Tucson's violent crime rate is lower than that of many American cities, including Wichita, Tampa, Philidelphia, Minneapolis, Newark, and tons of others (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate). Border cities do not have higher rates of violent crime than non-border cities (in fact, the general trend is the opposite). Bullshit racist fearmongering about Latinos isn't cool. The state of Arizona (and the rest of the Southwest US) used to be a part of Mexico, dammit, it has always had plenty of Mexicans (see hear for a brief history lesson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican%E2%80%93American_War).

    As to Gifford's politics, regardless of what they are, political assassinations are not cool. Also, richard, you admit you know nothing of her politics but automatically assume she is "anti gun and pro illegal". You know, it is pretty damned easy to look up a seated congressperson's record. There is even a site that gives breif summaries of known positions on every major issue, here's Gifford's page http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Gabby_Giffords.htm When it comes to guns, she is against semi-automatics but for allowing people to carry concealed guns, for standardizing concealed weapons laws across states, and for teaching kids basic gun safety. That is actually rather pro-gun for a federal representative. As to immigration, she voted for stricter border control and has opposed Arizona's controversial profiling law. That's a moderate to conservative immigration policy, not a radical progressive one. She is also anti-drug, pro-Iraq war, and pro-"faith based iniatives", as well as pro-choice, pro-increased school funding, and pro-federal funding of health care. Gifford is a moderate over here in what we call reality.

    It appears that the shooter had ties to anti-semetic white supremecist groups, making the likely political motive here either his views on immigration or his dislike of the fact that she was Jewish (Gifford is the first Jewish federal congress person from her state).

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Yep, it's Giffords' fault for not carrying a gun, but also the fault of the violent gun toting American culture, which she should have participated in if she didn't want shot in the head, making it her fault. Nice logic there."---DarkSideCat

    Actually, that's your faulty logic working here, including a forgone conclusion, but hey . . .

    ReplyDelete
  75. DarkSideCat: Peaceful unarmed victim, armed shooter, must be the victim's fault.

    Stupid comment.

    This person, gender irrelevant, was a politician and received frequently threats in the past. The office was also a target of a violent attack.

    To ignore such threats and to claim 'I am peaceful and unarmed' is wrong.

    To consider how to prevent a crime against your person, your family members and your property if you are a rich businessman, politician or a well-known celebrity etc. is nowadays a very important topic almost everywhere in this world, not only in USA.

    To be against crime prevention is bare nonsense.

    About Arizona, Tucson and other cities in USA along the Mexican border, it is well-known that they all are suffering related to illegal border activities.

    Tucson is not a safe city..
    http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/az/tucson/crime/

    There is a well-known gun-culture existing in USA throughout its entire history. To claim otherwise shows that this person has no idea about the relationship between the American people and firearms.

    About protection of a politician with armed body guards, it can be said, body guards are highly effective. For sure this crazy guy would never be able to kill 6 people and to injure 12 others.

    Any well-trained armed body-guard in such a situation would cover his client with his own body and in the same moment fire a dozen of live bullets at this crazy guy.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Sorry to jump in here but I was gone away from technology all weekend and didn't hear about what happened until this morning. Yohan, it doesn't sound to me like david is blaming MRA's for what happened to her and if he is then I would have to disagree as well. What I think he's trying to say is that the violent rhetoric that the right has been spouting this year (and for long before that too if you want the honest truth) influences this kind of behavior. He's drawing a parallel to the kind of rhetoric that he often sees on MRA, MRM, and MGTOW forums. Now you say that you admonish those men for doing so and I would say that we all appreciate that, and this is why David was not saying all MRA's feel this way etc. He simply stated that he sees that kind of rhetoric on the pages and it concerns him (as it should, and as it clearly does you too since you speak out against it). Regardless of your personal views however, NO ONE, feminists included, have the right to enact violent rhetoric about their political opponents.

    ReplyDelete
  77. you know what richard I am getting sick of you. Infant feminists who do nothing my ass. Let's turn it back around on you what have you done to improve our country?
    I for one can say that I've done a lot to improve it. I worked with my state politicians to improve domestic violence legislation (which included a provision clearly outlining that men could be victims of domestic violence)
    I led the team which got my state to approve comprehensive sex ed taught in schools
    I worked on the fundraising team to get a law passed which would make it easier for custodial parents to file for child support (that includes fathers, not just mothers mind you)
    now who is the whiny one?
    If you want to be slinging insults around here you better be prepared to back up your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Rebekah, I loved richard's comment because he's announcing publicly that he claims to have psychic powers. That would embarrass me to claim to know something about someone on the internet like that. Nobody is going to take him seriously at all now after that emotional tantrum and display of failed psychic powers. Good job on the self ownage, Richard. I didn't even need to respond, but I hate to see that kind of thing upset rebekah. You don't owe anyone a list of credentials. Personal attacks are the telltale sign of someone who has no argument and has failed to argue any points. :D

    ReplyDelete
  79. "To claim otherwise shows that this person has no idea about the relationship between the American people and firearms." Hahaha, that's the most hilarious statement I have seen all day. Yohan, king of ignorant statments about the US, thinks he knows more about American culture and firearms than someone born and raised in Applachia who went to universities in two different cities with high crime rates.

    Oh, and here's the FBI's stats on violent crime by region, note that Arizona is below the national average http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2009 but, hey, who are you going to trust, a random site run by real estate agents or the FBI's crime data?

    ReplyDelete
  80. http://www.amfire.com/index.asp

    USA is very well-known worldwide for its firearms industry.

    Of course there are no violent crimes in peaceful USA, so for what is this thread about?

    ReplyDelete
  81. @ rebekah

    rebekah said: "you know what richard I am getting sick of you."

    I don't care.

    rebekah said: "Infant feminists who do nothing my ass. Let's turn it back around on you what have you done to improve our country? I for one can say that I've done a lot to improve it. I worked with my state politicians to improve domestic violence legislation (which included a provision clearly outlining that men could be victims of domestic violence)"

    If it's anything like the typical feminst inspired domestic violence legislation, I find nothing helpful about it, except helping out lawyers to screw men. I know you claim that men can also be victims of DV, but I mean come on, we know what way these bills will be slanted.

    rebekah said: "I led the team which got my state to approve comprehensive sex ed taught in schools"

    So more young kids having sex and getting diseases and abortions. You consider this good?! Jesus.

    rebekah: "I worked on the fundraising team to get a law passed which would make it easier for custodial parents to file for child support (that includes fathers, not just mothers mind you)
    now who is the whiny one?"

    In other words, you pushed for more and more laws that will primarily harm men, and you call that helping socieity. You add that it will help men also, but clearly you don't give a shit about men. When are you going to push for laws to seriously punish false rape accusers? When are you going to push for laws to abolish alimony? When you start doing that come back and lecture me on all the good you're doing for society.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  82. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @ booboonation

    I don't need psychic powers to figure out a dim little girl like you. Also you spew on about personal attacks being a telltale sign of someone having no argument, as if feminists never use personal attacks. I guess the next time a feminst uses a personal attack you'll be there to correct them right? That's what I thought. Little girl, please. Go back to playing with your Barbie doll collection instead of spewing your nonsensical rants here and on your worthless blog.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ richard First of all my state does not allow alimony payments. We are a no fault divorce state so maybe you should educate yourself
    second the domestic violence law that I helped push through puts provisions in place that provide domestic violence shelters for men. It uses gender neutral pronouns to describe situations, which means that it HELPS men who are in that situation because it allows them to seek shelter (the law also puts a provision in place to ensure that shelters are available to male victims of domestic violence), and receive justice.
    third of all comprehensive sex ed does not increase STI and abortions, it decreases it.
    you can read about that here: ari.ucsf.edu/science/reports/abstinence.pdf
    students who receive comprehensive sex ed start having sex at the same average age, but have fewer instances of pregnancy and STI's overall. This is proven by the teen pregnancy rates this year which are at a record low thanks to approval of comprehensive sex ed.
    You need to get your delusional head examined and until you do you should go crawl back under the rock in your mommies basement that you crawled out of

    ReplyDelete
  85. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  86. witman, that's over the line, for reasons that should be obvious to you. As are your repeated personal attacks. Cool it or I will start deleting your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  87. rebekah, I appreciate the substantive parts of your posts, but the personal attack at the end of your last comment is inappropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  88. I'm sorry. I was out of line.
    However I would like to point out that what richard is saying to both booboonation and I is also personal attacks and he has continued to do so to both of us for days now without you doing anything about it and I'm sick of it

    I'm also extremely insulted by the fact that he is trying to turn everything I do into bad considering that the law concerning domestic violence I worked on was in response to an MRA group who actually function under peaceful terms asking for our office to do something about it. I worked for three years on that piece of legislation and it took two years of that for any legislators to take us seriously. That piece of legislation helps the men in my state so much and to be told that it is hurting them hurts me and yes I take that personally.

    ReplyDelete
  89. rebekah, I should have made this clear, so I'll do it here:

    richard: cool it with the personal attacks or I will start deleting your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Yohan, it doesn't sound to me like david is blaming MRA's for what happened to her "

    David himself isn't... as you said, he's drawing a parallel (one just as easily draw with feminists as well...Erin Pizzey bomb threats for starters), but Booboo certainly did in her first post. When someone opposed that hateful rhetoric (you know, the thing david claims is rampent and dangerous in the MRA's, David enters and opposes the person opposing the rhetoric. This can only be identified with supporting the opinion, as one does not enter into a opposed conversation, deride one side of the arguement, and let stand the other, unless they, at least in some way, identify with the supported opinion. If he was truly opposed to Booboo's accusation, where the discussion began, he would have ether spoken against both viewpoints, or stayed out of the discussion... he didn't. He is just as guilty of allowing hateful speech on his blogs as the MRA's he condemns.

    "He's drawing a parallel to the kind of rhetoric that he often sees on MRA, MRM, and MGTOW forums."

    But it's irresponsable to believe that this goes on in MRA's and not in Feminist sphere's, when it is documented that feminists have taken some pretty hostile actions with threats (bomb, 100 castrations and otherwise) and character attacks, ruining peoples career's for simply holding opposing viewpoints. by pointing at MRA's specifically, rather then identifying violent rhetoric in any ideological discussion, places a particular and unfair focus (no different then the unfair focus domestic violence has had on men, to the effect of abused men having virtually no recourse when they and their children are abused... regardless of how frequent or not, you want to believe it is). It is nothing more then an attempt to attack and shame men, and in particular, away from the MRA. And for what reason is there to oppose for allowing people to see an opposing viewpoint? or is there, perhaps, some merit to what is being said by the MRA?

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis