On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a "provocation," and beating a woman's face in is "justice."

A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.

On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react ... as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”

At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:

What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it. 

Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” -- though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”

The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:

I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.

 Piercedhead offered this take:

Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed… 

If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.

That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes. 

Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:

something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?

DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:

a brave man and a hero. 

There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …

It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.

Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) -- yes, that's how he writes his name -- took it a step further, saying that: 

the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.

Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan's comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)

What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:

Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter? 

What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman. 

Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!

--

If you liked this post, would you kindly use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

I'm going off the rails on an [ableist slur redacted] train. Also: Cat poll!

Well, discussions about my second Scott Adams piece over on Feministe (which was basically identical to my post here) have now been completely derailed by a number of commenters who’ve decided I’m “ableist” because I used the word … “idiot.”  That word, they have decided, is offensive to the “cognitively impaired.” If you want to wade into the mess, here’s the comment that, while polite in itself, started the long slide down this particular rabbit hole. You can see my responses in blue further down in the comments.

I consider this kind of language policing to the EXTREME! to be bad for feminism (and frankly insulting to people with disabilities), and I’m glad a number of others have stood up against it in the comments there.  I don’t think that the language police are in the majority at Feministe, much less in feminism at large. But these debates are so frustrating that many feminists who disagree with the language police end up biting their tongues and/or just walking away. At some point I may post more about this fraught topic here.

In the meantime, I’m am conducting a little poll about cats. Please click the appropriate button in the graphic above. Clicking it won’t actually do anything, but I’m pretty sure what the results are going to be anyway. Go kitties!

-- 

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it. 

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Was his name Stuntman Mike?

... and a misogynistic sociopath!

From a Jezebel post titled "Horrible Online Dating Stories to Keep You Single," here's an example of why it's not a good idea to date men who think all women are whores: 

After we ... settled in to watch the first movie, he paused it, turned to me, and started ranting about how women are whores and how hard it is to be a rich guy. I was really uncomfortable and told him so, and he apologized and resumed the movie. Five minutes later, same thing happened again. I firmly told him that I'd like to go home, so he said he'd drive me. When I get into the car, he peels away so fast that I can't get my seatbelt on.

He hits a cement pillar on his way out and the hood of his car starts to smoke, but he doesn't stop, and he's going so fast that I am slammed into the door, him, the windshield, etc. like a bean in a tin can. He starts saying crazy stuff like, "Oh, I'll get you home, but I don't know what condition you'll be in when you get there." ...

Someone suddenly pulls out in front of him and he slams the car to a stop; I hit the windshield, and in an incredible feat of awesomeness, grab the handle of the car and open it, propelling myself out of the car as he hits the gas pedal. I hit the ground and started running as fast as I could... .

I wonder if the movie they were watching was Death Proof?

Happy Thanksgiving!

Straight talk on homophobia ... on the Men's Rights subreddit??

Oh Reddit. Sometimes you make me so sad. Case in point: the 5,415 upvotes Redditors gave to this old dog of a story, a blatantly misogynist, and blatantly made-up, revenge-vasectomy tale from the "Best of Craigslist." Mitigating factors: the fact that some commenters correctly labeled the story a hateful fake; the 4,582 downvotes the story got (resulting in "only" 833 net upvotes).

But sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised. Even as I was contemplating the idiotic reaction to this idiotic vasectomy story, I ran across another headline: "Does homophobia affect straight males too?" Good question. Weirdly, the post was from the Men's Rights subreddit. Hoping for the best but fearing the worst, I took a look. Lo and behold, the post had actually inspired a real, honest discussion of the issues.

The OP set the stage with a few specific questions:

Have you ever hesitated to become close to another male for fear that it might be misinterpreted by someone else? Was there ever a time you resisted getting close to another male emotionally because you were afraid it might be seen as sexual? Does the fear of being called gay or a faggot ever change the way you behave in front of other males?

Among the answers there were of course a few jokes, including one that was actually sort of funny:

dontputsaltinyoureye 9 points

it has had a tremendous effect on my life. i am unable to wear my avril lavigne [shirt] in public due to the fear. WHY CAN I NOT WEAR MY AVRIL LAVIGNE SHIRT?!

And there was the requisite reference to Glee:

AGenericGoon 44 points

I am heterosexual, and watch/enjoy glee.

I will take this secret to the grave.

But there were also a number of bracingly honest comments, comments that would not be out of place on a feminist or LGBT message board. Some commenters talked about being gay-bashed -- even though they aren't gay. Others talked about how hetero-normative gender roles force men to keep quiet about their feelings:

TheBananaKing 27 points

Absolutely. all -normative behaviours box people in.

Straight guy here. ... there's an awful lot of restriction and anxiety in inter-male behaviour. You can't ever be sad or hurt - only angry. You can't extend comfort or affection towards another guy, except via humorous taunting / rivalry / aggression (eg play-fighting), unless you're very, very drunk. You have to do this kind of... reverse double-entendre the entire time, translating everything into John Wayne before you speak or act it, and back again to understand others. It's a pain in the ass.

Others offered more personal takes on what it's like to be a straight guy who's frequently taken to be gay:

ecartes 9 points

I talk with a lisp and dress really well. I'm also heterosexual.

Almost everyone I initially meet believes, nay, KNOWS, that I'm, ACTUALLY homosexual. It's weird, living with the thought that everyone I meet thinks I'm gay. Although I will never know fully the oppression that some gay people face, I feel like I've felt a lot of it just from being perceived as gay. ...

And perhaps the most unexpected of all:

soylentcoleslaw 33 points

If I acted on my normal impulses, I'd be extremely effeminate. I love cute things and cute clothes, I have subconscious feminine mannerisms, and I'd love a strong partner who makes me feel safe and who would take charge. I've never had a gay fantasy in my life. The thought of being with another man just doesn't do it for me, but given what I want and who I naturally am, I'm said on numerous occasions how much easier my love life would be if it did. As it is, if I want to attract someone new, I have to tamp all that down and put on my reasonably masculine face, and maybe if I'm lucky, I can reveal some of that side of myself gradually. But I can't be totally myself. Never. ... So I go on pretending to be manly sometimes and hopefully don't screw up.

Oh, sure, there were some answers that were bluntly homophobic -- redwood9 states plainly that "I just hate fags ... I hate all cocksuckers and those who bend over and take it in the ass" -- but they made up a tiny minority of the comments, and were generally downvoted.

So what's going on here? Has the Men's Rights Subreddit suddenly become a beacon of open-mindedness? Not exactly. Most of those commenting in the topic don't appear to be Men's Rights regulars, but Redditors who were drawn to the topic when it appeared on Reddit's main page. Here's what someone who is a MR regular had to say:

aetheralloy 0 points

"Bro's" and "bromance" is the term often used to shame men ... Women (feminists) in particular love to use it. ...

The really interesting question here isn't if it affects males, but why women are both extremely homophobic towards gay males while also willing to use them as emotional buddies.

Yeah, damn those feminist women and their hatred of gay men!

So, no group hug just yet. But it's good to see an outburst of good sense in a discussion forum that's often pretty backwards.

It's just a pity that the moderator of Men's Rights remains convinced "that there is an international, feminist, antimale conspiracy," as he puts it in the sidebar, and that the subreddit's slogan remains "Earning scorn from feminists since March 19, 2008."

Because, you know what? If you're a guy feeling boxed in by normative gender roles, some of the best people in the world to talk to about it are, you know, feminists.

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.

"Fag bashing," woman-hating, and Men's Rights myopia

One of the many failings of the Men's Rights Movement -- and "failing" really isn't a strong enough word for it -- is the way in which it ignores or denies real problems faced by boys and men that don't fit into its grand conspiracy theory in which all the ills faced by men are caused by evil women or by men corrupted and seduced, personally and/or politically, by said evil women.

One of these problems, and it's a big one, is the "fag bashing" that's rampant among boys of high school and college age. The atmosphere of abuse has a tragic effect on gay teenagers, as the recent rash of suicides illustrates all too poignantly. And it also has an enormous effect on boys who aren't gay but who have their masculinity challenged constantly by other boys.

While the MRM is obsessed with the notion of the smug, castrating (Western) woman, the entitled "princess" who looks down on decent, ordinary "beta" males and Nice Guys in favor of jerky, aggressive alpha males, it pays virtually no attention to the daily nightmares inflicted on boys by other boys (and men by other men) by "fag bashing."

Again, take the recent gay teen suicides. While they have inspired magazine cover stories and ongoing discussion on feminist blogs, the only MRA blog of any prominence that even mentioned any of the suicides, to the best of my knowledge, was the False Rape Society, which essentially used the suicide of Tyler Clementi as an excuse to bash feminism, as I pointed out in a recent post, and (as cat pointed out in a comment here) to turn the story of "brutality against a gay kid" into one "about how hard it is to be hetero."

While MRAs hate it if anyone calls them "fags" or otherwise criticizes their masculinity, they routinely deride any men they don't like as a "manginas," and various other terms to suggest they are not "real men." A few MRAs, like the folks at the blog No Ma'am, bash gays and lesbians quite openly; they've also, you may recall, labeled me a "poof" (among other things)

One of the smartest takes I've seen on the phenomenon of anti-gay bullying comes from male feminist blogger Hugo Schwyzer. In a recent post on "homosociality and homophobia," he puts the recent suicides in a broader context. Drawing on the research of sociologist  C.J. Pascoe, Schwyzer describes the ways in which "fag discourse" permeates American high school:

The discourse manifests itself in the almost incorrigible way in which young men label each other “fags” while seeking to avoid having that label applied to them. According to this discourse, fear of being called out publicly as a “fag” is the primary driving force behind what Pascoe cleverly calls the display of “compulsive heterosexuality.” ... Pascoe notes that among young men desperate to establish their masculine bona fides with their peers, what we see in American high schools amounts to compulsive, almost frantic efforts by young men to prove their manhood.

Anyone who has worked with adolescent boys knows how much anxiety many of them feel about their own masculinity. It’s not news to say that our sons, like their fathers before them, often have to endure or participate in physical or at least verbal violence that we tragically and falsely believe is necessary to transition into manhood. ... The real stigma in being labeled a “fag” doesn’t lie in the association with homosexuality, but with being seen as feminine.

There's no easy solution for a problem that is so pervasive, but Schwyzer argues that "perhaps the best way to “inoculate against cruelty”is ... to encourage strong non-sexual relationships between boys and girls at every age." Going back to a review he wrote of Michael Kimmel's book Guyland, a study of teen boys and young men, Schwyzer notes that

boys who have close female friends are much less likely to exhibit the worst and most destructive tendencies of the Guy Code. After all, the “guy code” is wrapped up in the notion that approval from other men ... is the most precious commodity a young man can pursue. Even heterosexual conquest is, ultimately, a means of gaining approval from the guys. Young men who have friends of both sexes are less likely to be held hostage to solely masculine approval; they can receive non-sexual validation from their female friends — and that validation is less likely to be connected to the brutal “sturdy oak” ethos of the Guy Code.

And they are less likely to participate in the relentless onslaught of cruelty towards their gay and lesbian peers.

These are lessons that the Men's Rights Movement -- or whatever rises up to supplant it -- will have to learn if it wants to be a movement that really benefits boys and men, straight and gay alike, instead of indulging regressive, self-defeating and often dangerous fantasies of manhood that demonize "fags" and women alike.

MRA Blog Uses Gay Teen Suicide as an Excuse to Attack Feminists

By now you have probably heard about the suicide of Tyler Clementi, a freshman at Rutgers who threw himself off the George Washington bridge after his roommate broadcast live video of him having sex with another man on the Internet. It's a terribly sad story in itself, and because, as L.M. Fenton points out on Salon's Broadsheet blog, the suicide rate among LGBT youths is such an "an enormous, devastating problem." In the past month four other gay teens have also killed themselves, two of them only 13 years old.

None of these other deaths caught the attention of Pierce Harlan, a prominent Men's Rights blogger. But today on his False Rape Society blog, Harlan decided to write about Clementi -- apparently because the case gave him the perfect excuse to rail against ... feminists.

Why? Because the male roommate who broadcast the streaming video, and his female accomplice, weren't, er, white. And one of them isn't a man. "Gay tormentors who drove young man to suicide don't fit the stereotype, do they?" the headline asks.

It's a perplexing headline for a perplexing article. Neither of the accused are gay; I will charitably assume Harlan called them "Gay tormenters" because their actions caused harm to a gay man, not because Harlan has somehow convinced himself that they are themselves gay. Or has he? After briefly lamenting the tragedy, Harlan gets to his real agenda: 

[T[he alleged perpetrators don't exactly fit the stereotype of white heterosexual males seeking to perpetuate their supposed supremacy by attacking the oppressed, now do they?

In the three remaining paragraphs Harlan manages to work in three more references to "white heterosexual males," and one to "white male jocks," sexual orientation unspecified. Huh? Neither of the accused are "white heterosexual males," per se, but they're both heterosexual, and Dharun Ravi, the one who allegedly set up the camera, put the video feed on the internet, and told other people to come and watch, is definitely male. But no matter. Harlan moves on to his main point:

Trust me. If the perpetrators here had been two white heterosexual male jocks, the feminist blogosphere would be having a conniption. 

Because feminists only discuss crimes when the perps are white men? Have you ever heard of OJ? And, actually, the case is being discussed widely by feminists online, on, among other places, explicitly feminist blogs like Feministing and Shakesville, on Salon's Broadsheet blog and the New York Times' Motherlode blog, and in Reddit's TwoXChromosomes subreddit, which is where I first heard about it. It's also being discussed on numerous feminist-friendly LGBT blogs. Given that the victim in this case was male, wouldn't it make sense that the case get some attention from MRAs? I haven't seen it discussed on any Men's Rights blogs other than Harlan's. Apparently MRAs don't care much about gay men, unless their deaths can be used to score a cheap political point.