Differing reactions to men & women getting abused

[Gori the Grey]

So, the man-consensus here by resident experts is that Elliot Rodgers wasn't an MRA. I have to wonder why this is such a sensitive issue for you all? What exactly are you defending?

Unprejudiced inquiry into root causes.

And we prefer man-census.

Does the MRA hypothesis offer an explanation for why he chose men as his first three victims?

 

[NovaKart]

The evidence is not contradictory, your single anecdote from earlier notwithstanding, and there is a lot we know for certain.

If someone did an exact census on sex trafficking and determined that there are only 10 million women illegally sold into the sex trade, rather than the currently estimated 21 million, does that really change anything? "Oh well not a big deal I guess!" ???

You must not have read the article borachio posted a link for. I read another article on the subject recently. I'm not just making an assumption from a single anecdote.

I was suspicious of a lot of these reports about human trafficking because it seemed hard to believe. The numbers were so high and it stretched credibility that this could all happen right under the noses of authorities in the USA and Europe. I think a lot of it was reported by newsmedia who didn't fact check their sources and was exaggerated by news agencies.

Why does it matter if the numbers are off? I think it causes people to make incorrect assumptions about sex workers for one thing and prostitution by making people believe most women are forced into it. I think it does matter if people misrepresent a problem as being much more common than it is.

This doesn't mean I don't think human trafficking exists or that people should ignore it of course. I would like to see people pay attention to all types of trafficking because people tend to focus just on sex trafficking when probably more people, men and women, are trafficked for labor.

Here's the article i was talking about.

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/her..._rights_crusader_builds_her_advocacy_on_lies/

 

[illram]

That article doesn't say women aren't forced into the sex trade. The article argues Mam is taking women out of the sex trade and shoeing them into the only other viable job for women in Cambodia, the perhaps-equally-awful-in-a-different-way garment industry. It mentions some women go back to the sex trade because it is slightly less awful than slaving away for hours on end making cheap t-shirts. I certainly agree that someone using a fake anti-trafficking agenda to perhaps further an only slighty less reprehensible agenda is repulsive, but that does not alter the bigger picture for me.

My conception that most if not all women would choose to not be trafficked as sex slaves if they had any viable alternative remains...

 

[Crezth]

He was not interested in reality due to personality issues. He held himself in high regard and made a 140-page warning label in a vain effort make everyone think the way he does (because in his mind, people who don't think his way can only be wrong) and failing that, try other ways to make them do things. The inconvenient people who wouldn't conform to his delusion, he sought to eradicate. His worldview collapsed inward (self-destruction) because that's where he spent practically all of his focus -- himself.

Nevermind that you or Cheezy cannot tell the difference between PUA and MRA ideas, or that Elliot wouldn't have applied either with consistency since the concept of people having the right to think differently eluded him.

PUA and MRA are branches on the same tree. I'm not going to look at Elliott's misogyny and be like "oh he hated women because they wouldn't screw him, not because they want civil rights, and that's totally different." I'm sure a lot of MRAs are embittered youths come from the PUA mindset.

Anyway, you're post-hoc ascribing motives to the guy by trying to say he was attempting to bring people around to his POV. I don't blame you because everyone calls his rambling little autobiography a manifesto, but it really, really wasn't a manifesto of any kind.

No he also had aspergers, was half-Asian. Where this guy went people thought he was weird even on these forums he went to other members pegged him as serial killer.

I have read some of it, so I know about that and the escalation of violence with throwing orange juice at random couples and attempting to push people of a ledge (which ended badly for him because he is a consistent screwup), but to him that was rejection because he was delusional.

Rubbish, where has this part come from? Just suddenly he is an Mra because reasons (of course we know the actual reason it's convenient).
There is no mention of men's rights at all in his 'manifesto'.

I mean, dude, he frequently, frequently expresses how evil and cruel and selfish women are in his manifesto. The misogyny is apparent and overwhelming.

I hook this in with MRA because his complaints are eerily similar to idiots who complain about being "friend-zoned," which is, like, the MRA movement from top to bottom.

 

[Old Hippy]

I hook this in with MRA because his complaints are eerily similar to idiots who complain about being "friend-zoned," which is, like, the MRA movement from top to bottom.

I had to google this.
what struck me is that not once did anyone seem to say that it can be good to have female friends
just saying...

 

[Crezth]

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[Old Hippy]

What the hell are you talking about?

basiclly the attitude that to be friend zoned is wrong and whole pages are dedicated to ways and reasons to just not accept being told your a friend, it was the dark side of the web...

 

[Rashiminos]

PUA and MRA are branches on the same tree. I'm not going to look at Elliott's misogyny and be like "oh he hated women because they wouldn't screw him, not because they want civil rights, and that's totally different." I'm sure a lot of MRAs are embittered youths come from the PUA mindset.

All of humanity are branches of the same tree if you want to take that tack. The mere use of the metaphor subconsciously suggests a separation between PUA and MRA. Why not another branch for Elliot and the pathologically narcissistic, and yet another for psychopaths?

I know a lot of MRAs are embittered, divorced, non-custodial fathers.

Anyway, you're post-hoc ascribing motives to the guy by trying to say he was attempting to bring people around to his POV. I don't blame you because everyone calls his rambling little autobiography a manifesto, but it really, really wasn't a manifesto of any kind.

Who were his videos and papers for? It is unreasonable for me to ascribe these motives?

I mean, dude, he frequently, frequently expresses how evil and cruel and selfish women are in his manifesto. The misogyny is apparent and overwhelming.

The narcissism being moreso.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Your posts are too big to quote and discuss in detail, Cheezy (no offense intended), so I'll just state my impressions here.

You have presented good evidence that Rodgers was an MRA, or at least, considered himself to be one and acted like one in many ways (don't know if he fulfilled the A part of MRA, but whatever).

I will say, however, that a lot of CFCers are irritated by being lumped in with the MRAs just because they find your ideas objectionable in some way, especially when you link being an MRA with being a mass murderer. You seem to be arguing that the MRA movement encourages murder of women, and that anyone who objects to your ideas about feminism and gender relations is an MRA, so it's not much of a leap to suggest that you're subtly equating disagreeing with you about feminism with supporting murder. Maybe that's not how you intend it to seem, but that's how it comes across.

I explicitly addressed this misconception about my position earlier in the page:

By the way, I never called anyone here an MRA, a crypto-MRA, a sexist, or a misogynist. At best, I would have referred to an action or belief as such, although I do believe I said something along the lines of "the ideology of patriarchy and sexism affect all of us all of the time, and we can't escape it," but that's not the same thing as calling everyone a crypto-MRA! All these labels are things people seem to have assumed themselves, I never said it. I realize this also comes about as a way of exaggerating your opponent's position in order to make them sound more extreme or unreasonable, as well, which was been plentifully practiced towards me.

*****

Unprejudiced inquiry into root causes.

And we prefer man-census.

Does the MRA hypothesis offer an explanation for why he chose men as his first three victims?

Being an MRA doesn't mean he regards men as sacred, unable to be touched by violence or something. Why would his inclusion of men exclude the possibility of him being an MRA?

Also, this:

Skipping a lot of posts admittedly, but here is my (perhaps irrelevant) observation: the root cause of the disparity in society's treatment of male victims of domestic violence vs female victims is... the construction of "maleness" as created and maintained by men.

"Take it like a man" is the knee-jerk reaction you would probably get from most men learning of another man being abused by a woman. Or "ooh you got molested by a woman, hot" or something equally stereo-typically "manly." The idea that men should shut up and take it and act like men and not complain--that complaining is for women--is a male construct. So I get confused when people blame "feminism" or worse, women in general, for this disparity.

So to me, creating a healthier awareness of male abuse starts with a healthier male gender identity and male sexuality. One that does not shame other men for being physically or sexually beaten by "the weaker sex."

I think you're absolutely right. As I was trying to explain earlier, this is a consequence of patriarchy, which defines both female and male roles and identities, so when feminism gives rise to some sticky situations for men which seem unfair, that's not feminists stepping on masculine toes, it's patriarchy buckling and folding under the pressure of its own contradictions (which I worded as "coming back to bite men in the ass"). It's not women who are responsible for creating the "expectations of men," we created it about ourselves. When they reinforce it, it's only because they are participating in that ideology.

Both MRAs and misogyny are a consequence of patriarchy, the larger issue at work here.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Maybe you are just a bit touchy feely about people saying bad stuffs about the US, Cheezy is too. We don’t care.

...I am?

You're doing more than a suggesting, you're trying to assert a fact, and in doing so, you are bordering on defamation.

Who am I defaming? The righteous PUA community? I'm sure they're real worried about being labeled as anti-feminist.

You complained earlier about me not recognizing the difference between PUA and MRAs. I think it's a distinction without a difference. They both hate women and treat them as property, if you've reached the level of PUA and have the slightest political inclinations, you'll likely become an MRA quickly, and if you're an MRA, you already view women as property, as conquests, and buy heavily into the correctness of the patriarchal structure, so joining into the very hierarchical, misogynist PUA community is about as difficult as clicking "Bookmark This Page."

If you have a specific objection to raise against this position, then you're going to have to make it explicitly clear instead of repeatedly whining about me and my terrible treatment of MRAs and PUAs.

 

[Rashiminos]

Who am I defaming? The righteous PUA community? I'm sure they're real worried about being labeled as anti-feminist.

Both, by stating that they have identical missions to Elliot, eg the promotion of criminal behavior. If you'd like to identify some specific sites so the owners of those sites can be contacted and then have discussions with their lawyers, be my guest.

You complained earlier about me not recognizing the difference between PUA and MRAs. I think it's a distinction without a difference.

I get that you think that. It's not accurate, but it is rather silly.

They both hate women and treat them as property,

Assertion
???
Proof.
You might actually have to wade into PUA/MRM sites and find things that you can paraphrase or quote.

if you've reached the level of PUA and have the slightest political inclinations, you'll likely become an MRA quickly, and if you're an MRA, you already view women as property, as conquests, and buy heavily into the correctness of the patriarchal structure, so joining into the very hierarchical, misogynist PUA community is about as difficult as clicking "Bookmark This Page."

If you have a specific objection to raise against this position, then you're going to have to make it explicitly clear instead of repeatedly whining about me and my terrible treatment of MRAs and PUAs.

PUAs don't want to oppose feminism per se. In their view (flawed assumptions about female behavior), they can take advantage of it while avoiding some of its downsides and accepting the rest.

MRAs believe feminism has overstepped the bounds of equality in some domains (alimony, child support, criminal defenses, ...) while refusing to lift more than a token finger in supporting others (because it would benefit men).

Edit: As long as you like to toss the whining insult around. Why did your RD'd thread that you initially started and directed get closed? Be honest.

 

[Old Hippy]

PUAs don't want to oppose feminism. In their view (flawed assumptions about female behavior), they can take advantage of it while avoiding some of its downsides.

MRAs believe feminism has overstepped the bounds of equality in some domains (alimony, child support, criminal defenses, ...) while refusing to lift more than a token finger in supporting others (because it would benefit men).

now i see a clear distinction
PUAs believe in feminism as it makes women available(sexually) to men for mens benefit
MRAs would like to wind back feminism, as it would make them more subordinate for mens benefit

the clue to it was in the bolded part, even explaining MRAs had to include a dig at them because they did not give it to men...

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Both, by stating that they have identical missions to Elliot, eg the promotion of criminal behavior. If you'd like to identify some specific sites so the owners of those sites can be contacted and then have discussions with their lawyers, be my guest.

I get that you think that. It's not accurate, but it is rather silly.

Aren't I so worried.

I didn't say they have identical missions, I said they have very close sources, practices, and beliefs. I also did not explicitly say that either was incited to criminal behavior. If you are going to continue to be incapable of reading what I write and responding to it earnestly, then I'm going to stop replying to your posts entirely, as I have with others whom this simple practice escapes.

The rest of this post below does not look very proimsing in that regard.

Assertion
???
Proof.
You might actually have to wade into PUA/MRM sites and find things that you can paraphrase or quote.

Fortunately, you reproduced my proof on the previous page, in that monster post which you apparently did not read.

PUAs don't want to oppose feminism per se. In their view (flawed assumptions about female behavior), they can take advantage of it while avoiding some of its downsides and accepting the rest.

MRAs believe feminism has overstepped the bounds of equality in some domains (alimony, child support, criminal defenses, ...) while refusing to lift more than a token finger in supporting others (because it would benefit men).

Now these are assertions you're going to have to back up.

Edit: As long as you like to toss the whining insult around. Why did your RD'd thread that you initially started and directed get closed?

Because it had degenerated into a slew (pages) of personal insults directed at me, instead of discussing the topic.

Be honest.

Now you're trolling.

Moderator Action: Accusing other posters of trolling constitutes trolling itself. Mod text has already been issued to keep this thread in line. Infracted.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Rashiminos]

Aren't I so worried.

I didn't say they have identical missions,

So, as you can see, Rodgers frequented MRA sites and interacted with their ideology on a day to day basis. His stated mission and motivations were identical to those stated by MRAs, and his actions were widely praised by MRAs as brave and heroic, worthy of emulation and commendation. Elliot Rodgers was an MRA, who murdered 6 people, women and men, out of misogyny, and because of patriarchy.

At this point, we shall stop pretending that either of these was not the case.

Lie more please, Cheezy. It really helps your case.

now i see a clear distinction
PUAs believe in feminism as it makes women available(sexually) to men for mens benefit
MRAs would like to wind back feminism, as it would make them more subordinate for mens benefit

the clue to it was in the bolded part, even explaining MRAs had to include a dig at them because they did not give it to men...

Not so much wind back feminism as tend to areas wilting into inequality from 'feminist neglect.'

Moderator Action: Do not accuse other posters of lying.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Old Hippy]

Not so much wind back feminism as tend to areas wilting into inequality from 'feminist neglect.'

so any definition so far is because women just don't do enough to benefit men... got it

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Lie more please, Cheezy. It really helps your case.

My mistake, and my faux pas. I should not have used the word "identical."

Nice to see you reading my posts so closely for a change, though.

 

[Rashiminos]

so any definition so far is because women just don't do enough to benefit men... got it

In part because I think clarity is needed, and in part because Cheezy asked...

An example of a MRM site:
http://www.avoiceformen.com/policies/mission-statement/

Mission Statement

Introduction

The Men’s Human Rights Movement (MHRM) is a complicated and often misunderstood social phenomenon. We address a wide variety of issues that affect men and boys — and ultimately women, as well as the culture as a whole. Additionally, there is a great deal of disinformation about this movement on the internet and in the mainstream media.

With that in mind, we suggest some or all of the following reading materials, as a simple mission statement is not sufficient to fully explain our purpose and objectives.
The short list:

How we sell this movement
A will to do harm
Human rights activism is now a blood-sport
Indoctrination in the Duluth Model for continued harm
Men’s rights are [NOT] human rights, apparently

The longer list:

This list of articles mirrors the “featured articles” section of the site found on the home page. This is a reading list providing what AVfM’s editorial board regards as a deeper introduction to the concerns of the MRM (Men’s Rights Movement).

The Voices of men
Setting the record straight
A catalog of cruelty
My road from blue pill to red
How to slap your way to slavery
What they really think of male feminists
One accusation
Where is the counter argument?
Seven bricks in the misandric wall
The ugly truth about trust
So what is a Zeta Male anyway?
Are you waging a war on men?
Why masculinity does not need to be changed
Legally obscene
On jury nullification and rape
How we kill Johnny
The plague of modern masculinity
The myth of women’s oppression

♦♦♦


Mission Statement

It is the mission of A Voice for Men to:

Promote the dissemination of information that will expose misandry and gender-centrism on all levels in our culture;

Oppose any form of gender-centrism. We propose to foster the equal valuing of men and women socially, regardless of sexual orientation and identity, as well as their equal treatment under the law;

Recognize the institution of marriage and the family unit as the foundation of civilized society. However, we support the trend away from that institution until the current legal zeitgeist making it unsafe for men and children is corrected. We support an end to “no fault” divorce and support default shared physical and legal custody in the event of divorce. We seek to promote awareness of information designed to protect men and fathers who are already married;

Promote a rejection of sex based chivalry in any form or fashion.

Promote the legal and nonviolent antagonism of all agents of misandry and gender-centrism, from members of academe, to holders of public office, to law enforcement and other state functionaries, to popular bloggers and to corporate agents who promote misandry and gender-centism for profit;

Support peaceful acts of civil disobedience when necessary;

Educate men, women, girls and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance and to promote an end to that governance;

Debunk sex based lies and distortions wherever they occur;

Offer a more reasoned, cogent and intellectually honest view of sexual politics;

Address the variety of problems faced by men and boys under feminist governance and attempt to ameliorate those problems;

Push for an end to rape hysteria, domestic violence hysteria and false allegations;

Promote a culture that values equal treatment under the law for all human beings;

Facilitate a new social contract between men and women, leading to mutual respect, accountability and expectation.

AVFM’s sole ideology is compassion for men and boys that is equal to that of women and any other identified group.

♦♦♦


Our Values

AVfM regards gender ideologues and all other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would klansmen, skinheads, neo Nazi’s or other purveyors of hate. We will educate them where they are willing to learn, but hold them accountable for their ignorance as much as their actions;

We take no side at all in partisan political struggles and, after weighing the evidence at hand, generally view all organized mainstream political options as gynocentric;

We support and endorse only non-violent reactions to feminist governance and in fact are trying to prevent future acts of violence that feminist governance has already inspired;

We oppose all state authority over or interference in the private lives of consenting adults engaged in any form of interpersonal relationship;

We take no stand on religion or lack of religion. We neither endorse nor oppose religious principles.



For more information, individuals in the United States contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com. In Canada contact John Hembling at dean@avoiceformen.com.

An example of a PUA site:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/19/the-cardinal-rule-of-relationships/

The Cardinal Rule of Relationships
By Rollo Tomassi

In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.

This is a foundation of any relationship, not just intersexual ones, but family, business, etc. relationships as well. It is a dynamic that is always in effect. For my own well being and that of my family’s, I need my employer more than he needs me, ergo I get up for work in the morning and work for him. And while I am also a vital part for the uninterrupted continuance of his company and endeavours, he simply needs me less than I need him. Now I could win the lottery tomorrow or he may decide to cut my pay or limit my benefits, or I may complete my Masters Degree and decide that I can do better than to keep myself yoked to his cart indefinitely, thereby, through some condition either initiated by myself or not, I am put into a position of needing him less than he needs me. At this point he is forced into a position of deciding how much I am worth to his ambitions and either part ways with me or negotiate a furtherance of our relationship.

The same plays true for intersexual relationships. Whether you want to base your relationship on ‘power’ or not isn’t the issue; it’s already in play from your first point of attraction. You are acceptable to her for meeting any number of criteria and she meets your own as well. If this weren’t the case you simply would not initiate a mutual relationship. This is the first comparisson we make with another individual – call it ‘sizing up’ if you like – but we make innate (and often unconscious) comparissons about everything and in the case of initial attraction we decide if the the other person is acceptable for our own intimacy. From this point it becomes a cooperative negotiation.

This principle isn’t so much about ‘power’ as it is about control. This might sound like semantics, but it makes a difference. It’s very easy to slip into binary arguments and think that what I mean by the cardinal rule of relationships is that one participant must absolutely rule over the other – a domineering dominate to a doormat submissive. Control in a healthy relationship passes back and forth as desire and need dictate for each partner. In an unhealthy realationship you have an unbalanced manipulation of this control by a partner. Although control is never in complete balance, it becomes manipulation when one partner, in essence blackmails, the other with what would otherwise be a reinforcer for the manipulated under a healthy circumstance. This happens for a plethora differenet reasons, but the condition comes about by two ways – the submissive participant becomes conditioned to allow the manipulation to occur and/or the dominate initiates the manipulation. In either case the rule still holds true – the one who needs the other the least has the most control. Nowhere is this more evident than in interpersonal relationships.

Too many people who I counsel and read my posts (here and elsewhere) assume that this Rule means that I&#8217;m advocating the maintaining a position of dominance at the expense of their partners; far from it. I do however advocate that people &#8211; young men in particular &#8211; develop a better sense of self-worth and a better understanding of their true efficacy in their relationships (assuming you decide to become involved in one). Don&#8217;t get me wrong, both sexes are guilty of manipulation; Battered women go back to their abusive boyfriends/husbands and <snip> whipped men compromise themselves and their ambitions to better serve their girlfriends insecurities. My intent in promoting this Rule is to open the eyes of young men who are already predisposed to devaluing themselves and placing women as the goal of their lives rather than seeing themselves as the PRIZE to be sought after. Compromise is always going to be a part of any relationship, but what&#8217;s key is realizing when that compromise becomes the result of manipulation, what is in effect and developing the confidence to be uncompromising in those situations. This is where a firm understanding of the cardinal rule of relationships becomes essential.

There&#8217;s nothing wrong with backing down from an argument you have with your girlfriend, but there is something wrong when you continually compromise yourself in order to &#8216;keep the peace&#8217; with the understanding that she&#8217;ll withhold intimacy as a result of you holding your ground. That is a power play, also known as a &#8216;<snip> test&#8217;. She initiates it thus becoming the controlling party. No woman&#8217;s intimacy (i.e. sex) is ever worth that compromise because in doing so you devalue your own worth to her. Once this precident is set, she will progressively have less respect for you &#8211; exactly opposite of the popular conception that she&#8217;ll appreciate your compromising for her and reward you for this. And really what are you compromising in order to achieve? Set in this condition, her intimacy. That isn&#8217;t genuine desire or real interest in you, it&#8217;s a subtle psychological test (that all too many men are unaware of) meant to determine who needs the other more. There is no more a superior confidence for a man than one with the self-understanding that he will not compromise himself for the recognized manipulations of a woman, and the fortitude to walk away knowing he can and will find a better prospect than her. This is the man who passes the <snip> test. It&#8217;s called &#8216;enlightened self-interest&#8217;, and a principle I wholely endorse.

My mistake, and my faux pas. I should not have used the word "identical."

Nice to see you reading my posts so closely for a change, though.

Spoiler :

Occasionally I read my own posts this closely.

Doesn't really cover the rest of this, though.

I said they have very close sources, practices, and beliefs. I also did not explicitly say that either was incited to criminal behavior. If you are going to continue to be incapable of reading what I write and responding to it earnestly, then I'm going to stop replying to your posts entirely, as I have with others whom this simple practice escapes.

So how close are PUA/MRM practices to Elliot's murders/suicide? Even if you didn't "explicitly" (minding that you did, if 'unintentionally') say so, you did imply so. You're allowed to ignore as much of the world as you want, just in the same way that you ignore the posts of others, and threaten to ignore the posts from me. (As you have done it to them, you might as well have done it to me already).

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. Well. I think I'll sit back and watch this one!

 

[Pegasus_77]

I was chased by my mum with a stick, which ended up thrusted into the door behind which I hid. Does it count as an abuse ?

 

[Borachio]

1. Why did your mum chase you with a stick?

2. How big was the stick?

3. Are you still in hiding?