MALE DISPOSABILITY – SPC Ivan Lopez – pay me now or pay me later

Late in the day yesterday I started getting texts from my brother. My nephew was locked down in his barracks at Ft. Hood. By now we all know the rest of the story, of how a soldier named Specialist Ivan Lopez, who had been exhibiting problematic behavior, certainly symptomatic, probably that community especially should have picked up on….went off.

No one in his chain of command picked up on this enough to do anything in time – and by the way, the way the Army works is quite different from civilian employers and this is one example; intervening and dealing with this kind of thing is very much a leader responsibility. It was his leaders’ job all up the line to make sure this problem got identified and resolved, and unfortunately his leaders’ failure to do that is not anomalous.

We can either identify these guys, and take the trouble and shoulder the expense to help these people when it would make a difference, or we can bumble on and then get blindsided when the bill comes due, like we have this time. Pay me now or pay me later. Just remember, if you pay later, you may not like how the interest has piled up.

The inital speculation was that there was some kind of jihadi connection, because there had been warnings and indicators leading up to it. But it is probably going to turn out that this was unconnected, that it was something much more mundane and familiar, soemthing we have seen over and over. In fact this incident follows the “suicide by cop” pattern we are seeing in these shootings.

And here we should mention the professionalism and strength that cop showed in stopping SPC Lopez. He shot himself in the head right in front of her when she confronted him. To quote the post commander:

“It was clearly heroic what she did in that moment in time,” said Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, the post’s commander. “She did her job, and she did exactly what we’d expect of a United States Army military police.”

This is the kind of thing that makes me get impatient with most of the discussion around women in the military, so much of it from people whose understanding of war and what is involved in building and maintaining a military effort seems to come only from television or gaming. This soldier did the job assigned to her and her womanhood got in the way not at all. In war and in garrison that is all that matters. Now she can deal with the nightmares and hyper-vigilance she is likely to experience, like everyone else.

SPC Lopez seemed mellow and friendly to everyone, it looked like everything was fine. But it wasn’t. The issue now is why he was able to hide all this so well, and more than that, why he hid it at all. Why did he think he had to? I think we all know the answer to that, and it is the Army’s challenge to undo all the conditioning and enculturation that fed this.

We go along deploying people multiple times, on basically pointless, vague, high-sounding missions, a small, disposable segment of our society; and then when they crack the answer seems to be to reach for some way to blame them or “military culture” instead of the impossible situations the people we elect put them into and then wash their hands of.

The feminist crusade against fatherhood

Feminists will tell you that “Patriarchy” is the reason fathers are discriminated against in criminal court, via the presumption that women are better caregivers. That assertion is on a list that is being circulated and repeated by grassroots feminists in “debate,” without ever questioning its validity. A little research into the history of changes in custody standards debunks the claim.

The legal presumption that women are naturally better caregivers, used as a determining factor in the decision of child custody, is rooted in 19th century feminist activism. At that time, divorce was much more rare, and subject to strict rules. There was no no-fault divorce, and the reasons accepted for requesting one were limited to circumstances like adultery and neglect. If there were children from a marriage, they were considered to be in their father’s custody, not the custody of the couple. Whether the couple separated or divorced, they remained in their father’s custody.

This was the situation faced by Caroline Norton after separating from her husband, George Norton. The end of her marriage to her husband was not brought on by circumstances that were approved reasons for divorce. Because of this, when Norton separated from her husband, he had complete control of her ability to see their children. Norton looked for legal means to counter her husband’s alienation of her from her children, and found none. With no legal recourse, she began fighting to change the law.

When Caroline Norton wrote the bill which would become The Custody of Infants Act of 1839, followed by her “plain” letter to the Lord Chancellor regarding the bill, she probably had no idea that her writing would end up as the inspiration for a court doctrine which would cause for fathers in multiple nations to suffer exactly the indignities she was trying to eliminate in her own life and the lives of other women, but that is what occurred. The Custody of Infants Act was the start of what is now referred to as the Tender Years Doctrine, the basis upon which it became traditional to place custody of children in divorcing families with the mother. The argument that mothers are better caregivers is put forth in Mrs. Norton’s “plain” letter, in which she stated that fathers have to hire nursemaids to replace their wives’ involvement in the lives of children during their “tender years,” and therefore it is natural that the child should be placed in the custody of the mother. Over the years, this doctrine, originally intended to prevent divorce from keeping women from their children, has been pushed and twisted into an every-case imperative, making maternal custody the default in divorce cases.

Objections to the bill included the prediction that with the ability to gain custody of their children, women would be more likely to divorce their husbands, and dire warnings of maternal kidnapping to keep children from their fathers.

The result of her effort was the passage of the Custody of Enfants act of 1839, the basis for the Tender Years doctrine, which was used for much of the 20th century as the standard on which custody decisions were based. The tender years doctrine has since been abandoned for the nicer-sounding “best interests of the child” standard, but the determination of the child’s best interests includes presuming true the beliefs laid out in the tender years doctrine, namely, that young children are best off with their mothers.

In 1910, the Uniform Desertion and Non-Support Act was proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and passed with modifications by 24 states. It was intended to address abandonment of the family by the husband and father, who at that time was generally their sole means of support. The unmodified version stated:

This was due to the far lower earning capacity of women at that time, as women considered less productive employees and were paid lower wages. The child support system, in other words, is a factor of traditional gender stereotypes.

In the United States, custody is awarded to mothers over 80% of the time. This also results in mothers receiving child support awards much more often. Even when fathers receive support, they receive less.

Child support law has evolved over time since then, with broader and often senseless application, greater strictness, and greater government involvement in enforcement. One of the issues which men’s rights activists have with existing child support law is that changes in it have not kept up with changes in women’s circumstances. The conditions which child support law was written to address are no longer a factor; women can work, and earn a living the same as a man. Not having a man in the house doesn’t automatically need to translate into poverty.

Feminists argue the implication of custody and child support statistics are debatable, claiming that fathers who file for custody get it most of the time. That claim is their basis for the assumption that fathers don’t get custody of their children because they don’t want it.

However, for a father to file for and be granted custody, he must first amass the funds for a lawyer and court costs. If his income is moderate (or low) and is already being reduced by a child support payment, he has little or no ability to fund any legal action.

Further, when feminists claim that fathers get “custody” of their children whenever they ask for it, they’re including joint custody agreements. These are nothing more than maternal custody/paternal visitation rewritten to recognize the father as a legitimate parent and afford him the ability to make decisions regarding the child’s medical care and school attendance. The living arrangement of the child is the same as when a mother has full legal custody, so the difference is mainly on paper.

This situation means that women do not have to be financially stable to be awarded custody of their children, while fathers have to have enough money to pursue legal action before the court will even consider awarding them custody.

The result has been an increase in single mother households living under the poverty level, eligible for and collecting government assistance. According to the latest data from the U.S. census bureau, custodial mothers are more likely than custodial fathers to:

  •     Not have jobs and not have enough non-employment income to be above the poverty level without being employed
  •     Earn low income even if employed
  •     Have custody of four or more children
  •     Combine joblessness with multiple child custody
  •     Become custodial parents as teens.

Single fathers report more income from employment (wages and salaries or self-employment) and savings and investment (interest, dividend, rental, and other property income), while single mothers report much more income from assistance sources (for example, unemployment, workers’ compensation, public assistance, alimony, and child support). This difference is in part due to the requirement that fathers prove themselves fit parents in order to obtain custody, while mothers do not face such expectations unless custody is contested in court. Social attitudes also play a role in this; a mother living in poverty is considered a victim of abandonment and financial neglect by the estranged father of her children. A father living in poverty is considered a deadbeat who won’t man up and take care of his family. Even though both parents have the same capacity to obtain employment and earn a living, only one is held responsible for doing so.

Cutting fathers out of their children’s’ lives can have significant negative impact on the child.

Research by Sara McLanahan at Princeton University suggests that boys are significantly more likely to end up in jail or prison by the time they turn 30 if they are raised by a single mother. Bruce Ellis of the University of Arizona found that about one-third of girls whose fathers left the home before they turned 6 ended up pregnant as teenagers, compared with just 5 percent of girls whose fathers were there throughout their childhood. A study by Mary Corcoran and Roger Gordon of the University of Michigan shows that receipt of welfare income has negative effects on the long-term employment and earnings capacity of young boys. That study also found that both boys and girls were twice as likely to become unwed teen parents if raised in a fatherless home.

Fathers’ rights groups have sought to remedy the courts’ senseless handling of child custody by introducing and advocating for legislation to change the standard custody arrangement following an uncontested divorce. These laws, introduced in the United States, Australia, and Canada, would ensure equal time with each parent. This would also change how child support is handled, as equal time between the parents would mean that neither should be faced with a greater share of the child’s living expenses. This would limit reasons for assigning a child support obligation to factors like differences in income or other personal resources.

Feminist groups have opposed the introduction of laws related to equally shared parenting using writing that uses a dishonest representation of the law as an every-case imperative, and demonization of fathers as deadbeats and abusers to argue against the proposed standard.

Feminist groups state that if shared parenting were ordered, fathers would not provide their share of the daily care for the children. The National Organization For Women and the  American Bar Association also question the motives of those promoting shared parenting, noting that it would result in substantial decreases in or termination of child support payments.

Feminist arguments include claims that equally shared parenting laws would force judges to place children in abusive homes, and that men only want custody of their children to get out of paying child support. However, proposed laws would not make the equal time standard a set-in-stone requirement, but merely the default in uncontested cases. If a parent does not want that arrangement, he or she can contest it in court. If both parents agree that they want a different arrangement, they can sign a contract to that effect, as well.

While feminists accuse fathers of being deadbeats who have abandoned their children, available information shows that to be untrue.

  • 40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father’s visitation on at least one occasion, to punish their ex-spouse
  • Between 250/0 – 33% of mothers denied visits
  • 90% of the violence and kidnapping we have seen are in sole custody situations in which the sole custodial parent fears losing his or her custody status, or the parentectomized parent kidnaps the child away from the sole custody parent who possessively blocks the visiting parent from access.

    - Frequency of Visitation by Divorced Fathers: Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers – Sanford H. Braver, Ph.D., Sharlene A. WoIchik, Ph.D., Irwin M. Sandler, Ph.D., Bruce S. Fogas, Ph.D., Daria Zvetina, M.Ed.

  • Unilateral abuse of parental custodial power is more common in court ordered sole custody situations.- Child Custody and Parental Cooperation – Frank Williams, M.D., Dir. Psychiatry
  • Overall, approximately 50% of mothers “see no value in the father’s continued contact with his children- Surviving the Breakup – Joan Berlin Kelly and Judith S. Wallerstein
  • The former spouse [mother] was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children

    - Increasing Our Understanding of Fathers Who Have Infrequent Contact With Their Children – James R. Dudley, Professor, University North Carolina

  • 70% of fathers felt they had too little time with their children.
  • Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce.
  • Few men can afford to legally contest every infringement of the visitation agreement.

    -Visitation and the Noncustodial Father – Mary Ann P. Koch, Carol R. Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, Winter 1984)

That’s not fathers abandoning their children, but mothers refusing to allow their children time with their fathers. This puts fathers in the position of having to take legal action, or tolerate being evicted from their children’s lives by custodial mothers.

While feminists accuse fathers of being abusive, data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services shows that the majority of child abusers are women.

The above list of links does show a decline in percentage, but some of that can be accounted for by an overall decline in child abuse in the U.S. over the past 5 years.

Study: Child abuse on decline in U.S. (CBS)

Child Abuse Rate In The U.S. Drops For 5th Straight Year (Huffington Post)

Statistics showing that women are more than half of abuse perpetrators in the U.S. directly contradict NOW’s inference that routinely assigning custody to mothers following divorce would prevent children from being placed in abusive homes. One could even come to the conclusion that routinely assigning custody to mothers puts children at greater risk, yet nobody is proposing that mothers be cut out of their children’s lives to eliminate that risk.

Baseless accusations and conditions which aren’t gender specific are not legitimate reasons to oppose instituting equally shared parenting as the applied custody arrangement in uncontested divorces. As a society, we’ve seen the negative effects of cutting either parent out of the child’s life. Wouldn’t it be most beneficial to the child to ensure that he or she receive the benefit of both parents whenever possible?

If the best interest of the child really is the standard feminists embrace, the most sensible way they can show that is by ceasing to oppose equally shared parenting initiatives. That opposition is not rooted in concern over abuse, but self-serving bigotry against men.

GENDER STEREOTYPES – Bronies, gender policing and an effective counter-tactic

Bronies challenge the gender norms for men on several levels and they come in for a lot of shaming, as Typhonblue points out.

When her piece on bronies was posted to the MensRights sub-reddit, it generated a very telling discussion. The nature of that discussion proved Typhonblue’s point.

Here is one way to counter that form of creep-shaming – turn around and accuse the shamers of being the perverts they want to accuse others of. In this case the shamer was attributing all kinds of perversion to bronies that no one else had even mentioned. Where did all that come from? It obviously sounded a lot like projection to at least one other commenter.

[-] fefsyfusky -34 points-33 points-32 points 23 hours ago

Uh. Because bronies are creepy paedophiles. No self respecting adult, male or otherwise, should have dolls and shit from a toddler aged girls show.

 

[–]dummbatzen 13 points14 points15 points 22 hours ago

Not knowing anything about My Little Pony, I still object to your statement; some children books like Winnie Pooh are really good (and kick most adult books butts) and similarly for some children’s movies.

 

[–]fefsyfusky -22 points-21 points-20 points 22 hours ago

Well, books aren’t toy pony plush toys with fuckholes cut in them. Slight difference.

 

[–]blueoak9 9 points10 points11 points 20 hours ago

You have some really creepy fantasies. CPS should be tracking you.

 

From another branch on that comment trail:

 

[–]Vegemeister 18 points19 points20 points 22 hours ago

Er, I’m not quite sure you know what pedophilia is. Pedophiles have sexual interest in little kids, not regular interest shared by little kids.

 

[–]fefsyfusky -26 points-25 points-24 points 22 hours ago

I do know what it is, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a brony who doesn’t want to diddle a child.

 

[–]blueoak9 17 points18 points19 points 20 hours ago*

Keep your filthy fantasies to yourself and stop trying to accuse other people of them.

 

[–]fefsyfusky -20 points-19 points-18 points 20 hours ago

Right.

 

[+]blueoak9 7 points8 points9 points 17 hours ago (0 children)
Good. So we agree.

 

Creep-shaming men is an old tactic and her we see fefsyfusky wielding it in the expectation that it will be devastating. He/she folded and disappeared two comments after someone turned it around on him/her.

THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE – “Feminists Run the Schools – Teach Anti-Male Hate”

Brian Simpson has an excellent post up at Rense.com on the gender situation in the Canadian schools where he has taught. The post is quite complete – he catalogs a whole range of misandry and gender discrimination he has experienced or witnessed in that time.

Local Superiority is Superior Enough – I remember back in the days when I had to do my song and dance briefing whatever commander, one of the questions the Air Force would always get was “Will we have air superiority?” It was so predictable that it became almost a laugh line. And sometimes the answer would be “We’ll have local superiority” and the answer would be “I can live with that as long as you are locally superior over our location.” It was like a set of dance moves.

It doesn’t matter how much you enemy has you outgunned if he can’t aim those weapons at you or if you manage to get your one little, pitiful pistol aimed at the side of his head. That’s how local superiority becomes superior enough.

So if we are presented with the argument that sexism requires actual power along with gender bigotry, fine I can go with that – as long as we identify who actually has what power when and where. And reductionist, simplistic grand global models of gendered power relationships are not going to cut it.

Women control the entire public education system in the United States and I imagine the situation is about the same in the rest of the Anglosphere. Women don’t control the financial industry, and don’t control the foreign policy establishment or the legislative process except indirectly, but none of that matters when you are a six-year-old boy going to school. To that six-ear-old boy, the only power that matters is who is in charge of the building where he spends most of his waking hours.

Brian Simpson catalogs his own experiences as a male teacher. They include hiring discrimination, gendered blaming of violence on men, gendered concern only for female victims of violence presented as Truth in professional settings, bigoted rape awareness indoctrination directed at boys, open expressions of viciously anti-male sentiment tolerated and even encouraged, dismissal of male issues with lies and derision.

And what can a boy in these schools expect to experience:

He will experience being told he is less mature than the girls, and yet to be punished more severely when he misbehaves, and he will be punished more often. If a girl mistreats him, he can expect that to go unpunished. He may even find himself being punished for it.

He can expect to find girls’ behavior called more mature and his behavior labeled as immature.

He can expect to find learning activities structured to emphasize repetitive tasks, compliance with administrative rules valued over mastery of subject matter, and to be evaluated more on how comfortable the teacher is with him than on his academic performance.

He can expect to find competitive activities of the kind that motivate him to learn to be de-emphasized and even stigmatized.

He can expect to hear masculinity itslef stigmatized – to hear expressions such as “testosterone poisoning” and references to “the fragile male ego” and to hear men blamed for all violence and oppression and to hear women identified as the only victims.

 

Of course primary education is full of teachers, mostly female, who respect and care for all their students, boys included. But the culture of education is against the kind of equality they want in their classrooms. This is the hand that is rocking the cradle in public education. If “children are the future”, that is power indeed.

SEXUAL TRANSACTIONALISM – Success objects, separating the men from the boys and transactionalism in sexual relationships

Miguel Bloomfontosis discusses this in a post from last year, where he identifies a double standard when it comes to transactionalism in sexual relationships. And judging from the responses he got, he hit a nerve with this.

In his post Miguel links to a post where a woman describes a dating experience that ends in a decision to stop dating “boys” and to concentrate from now on on “men” – boys with all the paraphernalia of economic success. It’s such a bald display of success object thinking, of instrumentalization of men.

This standard of economic success being the measure of manhood, manhood being something that is achieved, is right out of the traditional gender system handbook. Every man who grew up before 1980 is going to recognize it and every dog whistle associated with it immediately. And a structural feature of it is the trope that “getting the girl’ is another achievement, and it’s the greatest feat of manhood of all (I am convinced that a big part of the contempt in homophobic dismissal of gay men is that we opt out of this fool’s struggle. We don’t even attempt much less succeed at getting the girl. This is why I bristle so much at the facile attempt to portray homophobia as an expression of misogyny. Putting men on a sexual treadmill is misogynist?)

Feminists have railed against this this traditionalist portrayal of sexual relations with the woman as a reward for success correctly as objectifying of women and as toxic for everyone.* Yet when it comes up in this form of man as success object, what kind of pushback do we see from feminists? Jill Filipovic and her coterie of admirers celebrated it – just look at the comment thread. Look at the comment thread carefully – there was a lot of pushback, so those celebrating this really have no excuse for being confused on this point. (Then it trails off into a swamp of privilege narrative about who gets to poke fun at whom…..)

An iconic example of the pay-to-play structure of dating is Big Bopper’s Chantilly Lace from 1958. This isn’t about payment for services rendered or anything so crude and whorish as that, no, this is about the rule that he can date her as long as he is capable and/or willing to pay for everything. And this is only about the rule, not his relationship with this actual woman. She’s actually willing to go on a date when he’s broke but even so the language of transactionalism is he knows to frame the conversation:

Chantilly Lace

Hello baby, yeah, this is the Big Bopper speakin
hahahahahaha
Oh you sweet thing
Do I what
Will I what
Oh baby you know what I like

Chorus

Chantilly lace and a pretty face
And a pony tail hanging down
A wiggle in the walk and giggle in the talk
Makes the world go round
There ain’t nothing in the world like a big eyed girl
That makes me act so funny, make me spend my money
Make me feel real loose like a long necked goose
Like a girl, oh baby that’s what I like

What’s that baby
But, but, but
oh honey
But, oh baby you know what I like

Chorus

What’s that honey
Pick you up at 8 and don’t be late
But baby I ain’t got no money honey
hahahahaha
Oh alright baby you know what I like

Here’s another song from the same era:

“Because I’m a blonde, I don’t have to think.
I talk like a baby, and I never pay for drinks.
Don’t have to worry ’bout getting a man
If I keep this blonde and I keep these tan,
‘Cause I’m a blonde, yeah, yeah, yeah.
‘Cause I’m a blonde, yeah, yeah, yeah.
I see people workin, it just makes me giggle
‘Cause I don’t have to work; I just have to jiggle.
I’m a blonde, B-L-O-N-D.
I’m a blonde; don’t you wish you were me?”

And it goes on like that for several more verses making fun of the way she gets a free ride. Cute song, I saw it in a drag show and the queen had to be over 50 and looked like Fred Flintstone.

There seems to be broad agreement in the culture that a lot of sexual interaction is transactional, enough that it is a particular sneering point for male feminists to try to shame men who point it out. This cultural agreement is broad enough that “whore” or “prostitute” is one of the most damning insults you can hurl at a woman, the stereotype it exploits is apparently that widely held. I wonder to what extent this shapes the discussion around sex work, how much it conditions the drive to demonize men in response to it.

I think there is a thin and not always visible line between the sane and reasonable interest in selecting a co-parent, sexual partner, who is economically viable on the one hand and looking to hook some kind of free ride or at least some free booze and food based on time spent in the presence of your awesomeness and sexual attractiveness on the other. It seems to me dating is the border area where this line lies.

This is the beginning of a series of posts on sexual transactionalism in which I hope to explore various angles of it – prostitution in general, contract prostitution in the form of unequal marriage, even the PUA movement, if it turns out there’s a connection, even inverse.

 

*EDIT: dungone contributed this comment in reference to feminist condemnations of sexual transactionalism, which he points out have been rather, um, narrowly focused:

dungone on said:

I’ve also noticed that when feminists decry “transactionalism,” it’s not actually about getting rid of “transactionalism,” but about reinforcing a hypergamous state to an even greater degree. It boils down to lowering the price women have to pay, raising the price that men have to pay, and sealing the deal by making it taboo for non-feminists to bring up and criticize in any meaningful way. The ultimate result of transactionalism, hypergamy, and prejudice is effectively a female cabal that sets out for itself to control both male and female gender roles for the sole benefit of high status women.

IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS, FEMINISTS – This is how deep the rot goes – #killallmen

A blogger calling herself stavvers at Another Angry Woman has an interesting post up. It is a real ball of sociopathic self-justification and gendercide fantasy. She starts out:

“Well, well, well. It seems the latest thing feminism is fighting about is the phrase “kill all men”.

Because apparently there is some debate to be had on whether or not this is problematic formulation. And this article just goes on and keeps getting worse, staring out with the usual bogus disclaimers, “This is all just a completely harmless hypothetical that reveals nothing about our entrenched bigotry…” before launching into denialism and self-justification.

“So, before I launch into this defence, let me point out that nobody is actually planning to kill all men. Not even some men. It’s just a phrase, an expression of rage, a rejection of a system which is riddled with violence.”

Well then it’s a completely ignorant expression of rage, since men are overwhelmingly the victims of deadly violence, usually at the hands of men – this is usually the only time these killings are punished and recorded as crimes –and often at the behest of women. If it’s intended as a rejection of violence, one has to wonder why it is directed at the primary victims of that violence.

One has to wonder at this blind spot and what might be causing it. One does not have to wonder for long; it will become very clear.

“Kill all men” is a shorthand war cry, much the same as “ACAB” or “tremble hetero swine” or “die cis scum”. It represents a structural critique, presented in a provocative fashion.

The difference being, and the reason this is dishonest, is that women are hardly the relatively powerless minority that gay or trans people are, so there is no real equivalence between these battle cries. Women are the majority of voters, have complete control over child rearing and enculturation in society and control the majority of disposable income.

Exhibit A: Manipulation (Appeal to pity)

“Patriarchy harms men, it’s true, but it oppresses the fuck out of women, and there are few, if any men who are not complicit in this oppression. Most men are not rapists or abusers, but many are complicit in perpetuating this violence by spreading rape apologist myths, by failing to stand against violence against women and girls, and by simply not nailing their colours to the mast and acting as allies.”

Let’s look at this a piece at a time:

Patriarchy hurts men too. Such a deep insight. Patriarchy oppresses women with food and shelter and protection and modern medical care, but it KILLS men to make that all happen.

Now we get the Pure Vessel thing: “if any men who are not complicit in this oppression.” Apparently no women are complicit in any of this, not even women who kill or rape other women, or who send men off to die in war.

Rape apology? Oh we know about rape apology. How’s this for some rape apology – “B-b-b-but it’s not real rape because patriarchy and rape is a crime of gendered oppression, and besides it’s not systemic, just him individually and it’s always really, really rare and anyway it’s not as bad when it happens to a boy as it is when it happens to a girl and he’s the real rapist here anyway, he forced her to do all this – the fact that he was an infant doesn’t mean he doesn’t have male privilege. Oh, and he got lucky so he should be grateful.” You can every one of those points in feminsts spaces when male rape victims are mentioned (with some shining exceptions).

And the appeal to White Knights – “by failing to stand against violence against women and girls,” – apparently stavvers is unaware of the degree and scope of violence that men will visit on other men in the defense of women and girls. There are plenty of examples of this from recent news articles in her own country, but we have our share of this mentality here too– this is how these people have acted in the past when a man offended the sacred person of a white woman – or even was simply accused.

And finally, “and by simply not nailing their colours to the mast and acting as allies.” Apparently for stavvers the alliance is all one way, women owe men nothing in return in loyalty as allies, men exist for and their value depends protecting women and nailing their colors to women’s flagpole. This the form of objectification Martha Nussbaum calls “Instrumentality”.

She goes deeper into this:

Exhibit B: Denialism (Lying)

“And this is because misogynists completely fail to understand how power works. They miss the fact that in this society, violence against women and girls is rife,…”

Well for one thing, all misogynists grow up under the control, nurture and guidance of mothers, so they almost certainly know exactly power, absolute power over food and shelter and punishment, the power of life and death, works.

And for another, the scale of violence in stavvers’ society is probably the same as in mine – several times greater than against men and boys. That probably is not apparent to stavvers because those deaths are invisible to her, probably because they are of no importance to her. They simply don’t count. This the form of objectification Martha Nussbaum calls “Violability”. This lack of empathy is sociopathic.

Exhibit C: Gaslighting

“I suppose it is hardly surprising that utterances of killing all men draw such ire, even from feminists. Under patriarchy, violence is the domain of men.”

So apparently India is not patriarchal at all, and not just India. Apparently neither is China.

“Even from feminists”? The mind vomits. Is this how a feminist refers to feminists who happen to have some human decency?

“There is no serious threat of the women rising up and actually killing all men, all the while the hum of background noise of another women raped, murdered or beaten by a man. That this culture of violence is gendered, and the system is set up in favour of keeping things that way.”

Then she really doubles down on the sociopathy:

“Part of the power of SCUM is the effect it has on men. At my reading group, the men present were allies, and I remember vividly one saying “I don’t think she went far enough at the end, letting some of the men live and act as the Men’s Auxilliary”. All of the other men nodded along. They got that this idea is just fantasy, just a satire.

On the other hand, it’s pretty difficult to mention SCUM (or indeed just cry “kill all men”) without the misogynists crawling in, crying misandry.”

So she sees value in a gendercide fantasy because its sociopathic bigotry offends men, and then she passive-aggressively ties it up with a swipe about “crying misandry”. There’s probably a clinical name for this kind of behavior.

“So no, we’re not actually advocating killing all men, but what we need is for men to understand why we might. A secondary function of this powerful little phrase is to seek out allies. Some men simply cannot fathom that we might be this furious.”

Oh the irony, this coming from someone who cannot fathom why men might be furious, and who thinks she can dismiss it with her ….

“And of course, all men are not deserving of death. In fact, most of them aren’t. I can think of a fair few I do wish painful, violent death on, although this remains but a fantasy. Patriarchy would destroy me were I to ever touch a hair on their head. Patriarchy already tries to punish me for merely expressing these thoughts, because they are unbecoming of a woman.

And of course, all men are not deserving of death. In fact, most of them aren’t.”

Oh how very generously lenient of her.

Patriarchy would destroy her…? This is denialism taken to the point of delusion. Patriarchy protects women like her and finds all kinds of excuses to dismiss her violence. The Battered Woman syndrome scam comes to mind, but more systemically the female sentencing discount is well-documented for almost any crime of violence a woman can commit, if it even gets labeled a crime of violence at all.

And when any of us finds any of this troubling, ha ha, it’s all a joke, are we really so stupid as to take any of this seriously? Are we really so crass as call it what it is and try to rip the gaslighting veil away? Besides, where do we get off privileging our own preceptions, so tainted by male privilege, over her reassurances? This is the form of objectification Martha Nussbaum calls “Denial of subjectivity”.

The Sociopathic Subtext

This is the sociopathic subtext to this attempt to explain all this away – that this is no big deal, that men are supposed to be men and just shrug this off. And “men being men” means men being tough and just sucking it up – an appeal to machismo. And men are just so big and strong, so all powerful, that a woman could never, ever harm a man, and he’s just a pussy if he has the temerity to complain. I thought feminism called machismo “toxic masculinity”, I thought feminism opposed all that.

The sociopathic subtext to just trying to pass this off as some kind of harmless joke and not the reflection of deeply entrenched attitudes with real-word consequences is that men just don’t matter enough for any of this to matter. It’s perfectly alright to treat men as violable and as instruments of women’s welfare and to dismiss men’s own perceptions of thier situation, because hey, they’re just men. Objectification is the center of sociopathy and the lack of empathy we see in stavvers’ post.

 Solidarity with sociopathy

So this is the quality of the thinking and the depth of the pathology at work in this article. I have seen a lot of pushback in feminist spaces on this article, but tellingly not one person goes the distance and just says “She’s not a feminist”. Simple as that.That’s all it would take to prove that feminists really don’t tolerate this kind of bigotry in their movement. They just have to denounce it as anti-feminist. That’s all. Then again maybe that silence is consent.

And they wonder why we distrust them and their motives and their explanations.

Ann Coulter says 2% Rape Statistic is Bogus

by anonymous reader

According to the FBI, a higher percentage of rape claims are false than any other criminal complaint, 8 percent compared to 2 percent for other crimes.[1]

 

A study of all rape allegations in a Midwestern city over nine years found 41 percent were false and a study of more than a thousand rape allegations on air force bases over the course of four years concluded that 46 percent were false. In 27 percent of the cases, the accuser recanted.[2]

 

The quotes are from Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama by Ann Coulter, published in 2012. Sources given for this info are at the bottom.

According to Coulter, “feminists” repeat a statistic from the book Against Our Will from 1975, which sourced an unprovable remark by a state court judge from a transcript. It says in the notes: “All claims of a 2 percent rate of false rape allegations can be traced back to Brownmiller’s book.”

If we take Ann Coulter at face value, false rape charges are 8%, could be higher, and anything that says 2% repeats something unprovable.

A Slate piece from 2009 suggests the Midwestern city study is unreliable because it was based on a sample of 109 reports and included iffy language. It calls a review from the Cambridge Law Journal, “the best we’ve found” and places “false rape charges” at a rate of 8% to 10%.

Earlier this year, there was an infographic from The Enliven Project. The graphic uses a 2% false accusation rate. (It also factored in a 10% reporting rate, meaning 90% of rapes are unreported, which is why it looks the way it does.)

That 2% was sourced to a 2009 PDF from NDAA.org, which says “estimates for the percentage of false reports begin to converge around 2-8%.” It also says “very few” of the estimates from the Cambridge Law Journal study “could be considered credible.” It gives another study from the Making A Difference Project, which puts the rate at 7%. About false rape reporting, the PDF concludes:

“To date, the MAD study is the only research conducted in the U.S. to evaluate the percentage of false reports made to law enforcement. The remaining evidence is therefore based on research conducted outside the U.S., but it all converges within the same range of 2-8%.”

The PDF talks about a case where a study in Britain gave an initial result of 8%, but was then revised to 2.5%. A study of rapes in Victoria, Australia showed a 2.1% rate of false reporting. Presumably these support the 2% lower bound. (Against Our Will isn’t cited in the PDF.)

A Slate XX piece in January criticized The Enliven Project graphic as overestimating the number of false accusations. Referencing the same NDAA data, it points out the difference between a false report and a false accusation: “victims who fabricate a sexual assault report may not want anyone to actually be arrested for the fictional crime. Therefore, they may say that they were sexually assaulted by a stranger or an acquaintance who is only vaguely described and not identified by name.”
The entry on Wikipedia for “false accusation of rape” questions the 1996 FBI data cited by Ann Coulter.

The NDAA PDF concedes, “Of course, in reality, no one knows—and in fact no one can possibly know—exactly how many sexual assault reports are false.”

- – - – -

Sources from the Notes Section of Mugged:

[1]Crime Index Offenses reported, Section II, Department of Justice Uniform Crime Reporting, 1996 at 22. (It says in the book, “Data on “unfounded’ rape complaints after 1996 does not seem to be available.”)

[2]Eugene J. Kanin, “False Rape Allegations,” Archives of Sexual Behavior, February 1994. Available at http://falserapearchives.blogspot.com/2009/06/archives-of-sexual-behavior-feb-1994.html (link works)

Charles P. McDowell, “False Allegations,” Forensic Science Digest 11, no. 4, December, 1985 (a publication of the U.S. Air Force of Special Investigation); Bruce Gross, “False Rape Allegations: An Assault on Justice,” Annals of the American Psychotherapy Association, December 22, 2008.

 

 

MALE DISPOSABILITY – How an abuser portrays herself as the abused and how her enabler goes down in flames –the Ballad of Jodi Arias and Alyce La Violette

Daisy Deadhead asked a few weeks ago if anyone here was paying any attention to the Jodi Arias trial. She considered this particular murder trial, with the now customary accusations of spousal abuse by the murder victim, to be a huge men’s rights issue. She was right.

Background – Jodi Arias shot her husband, Travis, and stabbed him 29 times. She can’t keep her story straight enough for anyone to figure out where she did it or quite how it all happened. Nevertheless there is an even chance she’ll be acquitted – because Patriarchy or something and the Duluth Model. Murder victim or not, he’s the only man in the situation, so he must be the abuser, right? That seems to be the way La Violette’s, expert witness for the defense, sees it.

But this is the real news. The star defense witness, a domestic violence expert named Alyce La Violette has stirred up a hurricane with her biased testimony portraying Jodi as a DV victim. Look at the reaction in the comments about her book at Amazon. DV victims and DV professionals are lining up – over 500 comments so far – to say how she disgusts them as DV victims, how she shames them as DV professionals, what a fraud she is. It is really quite the firestorm. And in comment after comment her man-hatred is excoriated. That’s a new development too.

And when someone ventures a positive comment it immediately attracts five and ten comments calling them frauds, maybe even Alyce herself, or else duped idiots. One such comment has 55 comments in response – that’s five pages of comments.

In fact the reaction has become so violent that saner voices, Janice Harper for instance, have had to speak up – not to defend Alyce La Violettee so much as to insist on some kind of civilized moderation.

This is news indeed. What’s news is that the enablers of these abusers are paying the price, for a change. There will always be Jodi Ariases and Ted Bundys – sociopaths who feel free to treat others as objects and simply do not see how the most basic rules apply to them. That’s not the issue. The issue is how society deals with that. In the case of a Ted Bundy no one saw it for years, but when they finally did, the hammer came down. No one testified at his trial trying to excuse his behavior on the grounds of some kind of mistreatment he allegedly suffered. Yet when it‘s a woman – this time it’s Jodi Arias, but it happened with Mary Winkler, with Andrea Yates and with many others – there is a heroic attempt to portray the perpetrator as a victim, and a willing audience, because that narrative fits their narratives.

And the enablers like La Violette are crucial to this. And always even in those rare instances where the woman does get held accountable, the enablers skitter out scott free to wreak havoc another day.

Well, maybe not for much longer.

BRANDING – Feminist elitism and why it’s not a fatal deficiency, and how feminists can regain credibility as caring about the rest of us

Ally Fogg is having a good conversation on why so many young women and people in general have generally “feminist” beliefs and attitudes – gender equality, self-determination in matters of gender – or beliefs and attitudes that feminists say are feminist, or that they claim as feminist, are uncomfortable with calling themselves feminist.

In the course of the conversation Quiet Riot Girl remarked that feminism has been elitist from the beginning, which by itself imposes enough shortcomings, but then goes on to compound the problem by claiming to be all broad-based and democratic and open to diversity of opinion and then to go on and claim to be the broad solution to gender issues.

There’s really no question or discussion to be had about the elitism of early feminism. Just look at the way the suffragettes are dressed in all those photographs. It is impossible to any manual labor at all dressed that way, and this was in an age when anyone who couldn’t afford servants – the 99% – took all day to the laundry for a week, first firing the stove to heat the water, then facing the back-breaking labor of hand washing, wringing and hanging…. And then there was the work of cooking – more firing the stove, plucking the bird if you could afford one……

I answered that it’s the whole vanguard party model. And it doesn’t have to be a bad thing. If the elites don’t do this work, who else has the time or resources to do it?

Have you ever heard this story about Zhou Enlai? You remember Zhou Enlai, the one people shed actual tears for?

Once Khruschev was visiting Beijing. At the reception he got loud and boastful – “This is the difference between our country and yours: I was born poor and now I am running the country, while you were born rich and you are still running the country”. And indeed, Zhou Enlai was from a very privileged background.

Zhou Enlai considered for a moment. “That’s very true, but there is this difference: We are both traitors to our classes.”

So elitism doesn’t have to doom a movement, but those elites have to transcend their elitism and their focus on their own issues. (See also Womanism and critiques of white feminism). It’s hard, because selfishness is how their class managed to climb over everyone else and become elites.

Elitism doesn’t have to doom a movement – all the elites have to do is turn on their class, in this case privileged Western white women, to convince us they care about us. They have to help the MRM in the process of disassembling thier female privilege, in other words, building real gender equality. Since they routinely claim that equality between the genders is where their hearts are already, what “real feminism” is, it should be no big deal.

Quiet Riot Girl doubted it would happen because it would require feminists to actually give a shit about men. Nevva hoppen, as they say.

I answered that I agreed, it won’t happen, and here it is another failure to transcend. It is a failure to transcend their traditional enculturation. Male disposability is a pillar of traditional, “patriarchal society”. You simply cannot get the model to work without it.

The answer is for feminists to go deeper into their feminist rejection of traditionalism, even the traditionalism that has crept into feminism. So good-bye to the demonization of male sexuality, which is so Victorian – so good-bye to “rape culture” and “testosterone poisoning” and the penis as weapon imagery; good-bye to male hyperagency – good-bye “patriarchy” and “male privilege” and “male dominance” and female victimhood.

In other words the answer for feminists is to perfect and complete their feminism.

It will be a hard purge and I for one can hardly wait for the show trials.

GENERAL – This is why we need rape shield laws, or something to deal with this

Two teenaged female relatives of the convicted Steubenville rapists have been brought up on charges for going up on Twitter and threatening the life of the rape victim. One blamed the victim for ruining her cousin’s life.

You can ask a number of questions about the mentality this comes out of. Is this a culture of resistance to the authority of the courts because that authority has so often and so reliably been illegitimate and oppressive? Is this just a family culture of plain old human amoral familism? Is this just teenagers with a pack mentality?

Those are questions for later. Right now the issue is protecting victims who report rapes. A rape shield law cannot reasonably conceal the name of the accuser and victim after the trial begins – some very dark places lie down that road and we have been in all of them over the centuries – but in this case this ugly persecution almost certainly started earlier.

And it’s not just member so the families of the accused who are jumping in on this:

“In addition to the threatening tweets, other Twitter users posted messages harshly criticizing the rape victim’s character, according to screen shots captured by a website dedicated to fighting online bullying.”

I’m not sure a rape shield law would have prevented this; maybe just a rally public treatment of the thugs making the threat will send enough of a message.

Read the whole article.

 

Here’s another take on this, from Amanda Marcotte. I didn’t initially buy her reversion to rape culture in this case, but on second look I can see what’s she’s saying. She says that people just don’t want to acknowledge they someone they know is a rapist. I  think there’s more to it and it is worse – I thnk these girls don’t just wnat to deny these guys did it, I think they want to downgrade it – yeah, well maybe they did do it, but it doesn’t really matter, look who they did it too. That explains a little better the vile treatment of the victim, explains a litle more fully why they are piling on. People just protect their own and sometimes this is what it looks like. I think that works with all serious crime, and so calling it “rape culture” is not really accurate.

But I really agree with this her analysis when it is applied to the way male rape victims are treated, espceially by other men. There we see a real rape culture – denialism, anomalization, minimization.