Mass Shooting in California

[slomo]

I think that I acknowledge the relevant and legitimate family court concerns upthread. Culturally in 2015, and with younger people waiting longer and longer to have children, most of the concerns of pick-up artists, redpillers, fedoras or whatever, whether they connect themselves with men's rights activists implicitly, explicitly, or not at all, they and their sexism are far more widespread than activists for family court equality.

As a matter of fact, in the time since these killings, I haven't seen one discussion online of any traditional (for lack of a better term) men's right activism. But this gender-based hatred, the same kinds that connect Rodgers to a specific community, has only grown unabated, using the same terms that they were before Rodgers used them in his manifesto.

I don't know what you mean by "traditional men's right activism", so it's hard to know what you mean when you haven't seen one online discussion. As I understand your use of the term, it seems like kind of a straw man. Why should the MRM take responsibility for Rodgers? That's like saying environmentalists should take responsibility for Ted Kaczynski. Just because one unbalanced individual espouses certain (potentially valid) beliefs among others doesn't mean the beliefs themselves are invalid. Even if 20% of self-described MRAs are assholes doesn't mean that some of the issues aren't real.

Honestly, if you're going to dismiss the concerns of MRM, I'd like you to rebut some of Ms. Straughan's work. From what I can tell, she is highly regarded in the MRM. Here's a link to her you-tube: https://www.youtube.com/user/girlwriteswhat

Why do I even bring this up? Because I see parallels in the way that the valid concerns of MRAs are being dismissed, and the ways that the staple discussion topics at RI are dismissed as "conspiracy theory".

[Luther Blissett]

The movement that you're talking about is not the same as the movement I'm talking about, despite the fact that they might refer to themselves as men's rights activists from time to time. I think they're glomming onto an older, legitimate movement - one to restore sensitivity and to challenge society's expectations for masculinity, etc. - in a bid to legitimize their concerns (mostly for the sex they believe they're owed, a more powerful, virile Mad Max, less representation for women in video games and the engineering industry, and co-opting other social movements).

These kids that hate women and use violent rhetoric towards women infect every space that I travel in online and some real-life activism as well, though they are usually quickly rooted out for their sexual harassment and / or assault.

Straughan doesn't echo their concerns, there's no overlap. I ask you to join me in rooting out violent misogyny instead, because like I said it's only gotten worse since Rodgers.

[slomo]

If you admit we are talking about two different groups, then why insist conflating the two? Straughan refers to herself as an MRA. Is she something else, something that needs a different label?

Using Reddit as a model for distinguishing cultural trends, I would argue that r/mensrights consistently reflects the concerns articulated by Straughan (acknowledging that there is a non-negligible fraction of users whose comments reflect temporary anger that I think can be justified, as long as the anger is just a transition to a more nuanced view - especially since feminism also has a history of angry "man-hating" expression that has served as a way-station towards greater understanding); the darker themes that you allude to are more properly assigned to r/theredpill and its associated subreddits. Even the latter subreddit, which indeed contains a fair bit of ugliness, consists of two groups: one that is more committed to misogyny, and another that is trying to move in positive directions to increase their sex appeal (as flawed as their model and/or motivation might be). The two subreddits have some overlap in user base, but the most vocal users from each group seem to reject the other group, although I think the interaction of these two subreddits (or lack thereof) is an evolving phenomenon that may or may not remain constant.

I reject the black-and-white mis-characterization of men's rights, while acknowledging the fact that the MRM does provide a forum for some men to voice anger that can look unattractive if not understood in its proper context, and does have some (but not substantial) overlap with communities that can legitimately be characterized as misogynist.

As for misogyny, one theme that comes up in these subreddits is the idea that when women are treated equally, the resulting behavior is seen as misogyny. For example, an expectation that men and women be treated equally in the court system is seen as hostile to women. This is related to a belief that the "women-are-wonderful" effect predisposes society to assume that women are, relatively speaking, incapable of evil. To me, this actually diminishes the agency of women, and it is actually in the service of equality to acknowledge that women are equally capable of evil as men, and to reflect this reality in the judicial system.

I would like to add that the central reforms proposed by 21st Century feminism seem to disproportionately benefit upper middle class white women and disproportionately disadvantage lower to lower-middle-class men, particularly men of color. The demographic that most obviously benefits is one that already has access to the assets of wealthy white men (via marriage, either current or past) and thus, in many respects, further extends the planetary-scale damage that is typically attributed to The Patriarchy. While I agree that there still exist some spheres of Western life where women are disadvantaged relative to men (non-Western cultures represent a whole different dynamic), 21st Century feminism needs to acknowledge that not all problems are gender-based, and the issues that are represented by tension between classes really cut across gender lines. While some modern-day feminists might pay lip-service to this fact, in practice they routinely dismiss any issue that predominantly affects men (particularly lower-class men). I think this is a major problem that is whitewashed in progressive circles.

[slomo]

I'll elaborate on my last paragraph. From what I see, the platform of present-day feminism in the West consists primarily of two issues: (1) equal pay for equal work; and (2) a perception that our social institutions do not take sexual assault seriously enough.

Regarding #1, there is substantial evidence that the pay gap - which is typically expressed in marginal terms (i.e. crude averages) and thus ignores structural causal factors - is explained primarily through preference. In other words, when you account for explanatory factors such as levels of responsibility, hours worked, years of experience, the gap tends to diminish to near-negligible levels. From microeconomic theory, gender as a structural causal factor for wage differences (in absence of other confounding variables) doesn't even make sense, because under competitive pressure, the differential could and would be exploited, and thus at equilibrium the gap would eventually close. The wage gap could only be maintained if the majority of employers decided that it was economically advantageous to deny women equal wage for equal work (i.e. the resulting loss in profits was perceived to be worth it). Additionally, there is evidence (albeit from ecologic studies, which are less rigorous than longitudinal studies) that the greatest wage discrepancies occur in social environments where women have the greatest economic freedom, i.e. the freedom to choose labor configurations that favor "work/life" balance. Now, if the present legistlative efforts result in employers having to document a lack of discrepancy, I suppose there is no harm other than additional bureaucracy (in an environment where the level of red tape is already overwhelming -- in my business, the annual increase in administrative burden related to social protections that are not taken seriously by the most powerful players is enough for me to consider moving on to another career). But how can this be justified when the same protections for well-documented differences among racial groups have been systematically dismantled? As an aside, I will admit that there is still some work to be done in acknowledging the contributions made by stay-at-home mothers, and that in general there is a great deal of unpaid labor that happens in the context of a marriage, much (but not all) of it done by women; but do we really want to go down the path of documenting and quantifying every single labor transaction that occurs outside the purview of the IRS?

Regarding #2, there is substantial evidence that universities have gone overboard in protecting alleged victims of sexual assault, to the degree that due process does not meaningfully exist for the accused. I remind you that we are talking about alleged perpetrators, who deserve the same rights of presumptive innocence as the accused for any other crime. There have been recent attempts to restore due process, and these have been met with opposition whose spokeswomen express an almost shocking level of disregard for the rights of accused and for Western jurisprudence. I would argue that this is an area that greatly benefits affluent, especially white, women over lower class men and men of color. The reason is that partner preference plays a big role in perceptions of consent (or lack thereof), and there is evidence that women, particularly white women, express strong preference for "tall white men" over just about every other male demographic. And while it is undoubtedly true that no man is under any circumstance owed sexual relations with any woman, the US in particular has a very nasty history of punishing and even killing men of color who have been accused of sexually assaulting a white woman under circumstances that are later proved to be murky at best. In other words, the lack of due process is easily exploited in ways that are more likely to detriment men who already have relatively less social capital. Yes, some rich white guys are assholes, and if they are guilty of sexual assault they too should be punished accordingly, provided the evidence meets appropriate standards. However, if you're going to dispense with due process in order to punish a few asshole rapists, what does that say about your commitment to justice and due process in situations that are far more dire (e.g. terrorism)?

My goal here is not to convince my fellow RI contributors that modern-day feminism is misguided or wrong. I suspect that most people (including myself) will adhere to their strongly-felt positions regardless of how much evidence is presented. I've come to the above opinions, after holding almost the opposite opinions for much of my life (as a gay man raised by a feminist mother), through careful consideration of evidence over a 5+ year period. My initial interest in studying this evidence arose from (1) a willingness to hear the stories of straight men and empathize with their inner experience; and (2) a personal recognition that my upbringing, which emphasized the rightness of women and the wrongness of men, actually set me up to interact poorly with other men, most importantly the men who I claimed to love. Whether or not you agree with the arguments I have presented above, I would ask you to consider that the issues are not black and white, that there is considerable nuance on both sides of these issues. The lack of clear-cut answers doesn't diminish the importance of recognizing the reality of some of the issues that are brought up in the MRM.

It is actually counter to justice and also counter to true gender equality to dismiss, out of hand, the concerns raised by the MRM.

[Luther Blissett]

I'm rejecting violence and threats of violence, not the legitimate concerns of traditional men's rights activists fighting against toxic masculinity, misguided family court policy, combat and war, etc. I fight against toxic masculinity myself.

While I think that most people in the traditional men's rights movement reject the more violent or misogynistic "extreme wing" of the movement (or a wholly separate movement that sometimes uses the same nomenclature), I rarely if ever see the inverse being true, but I don't think that's as important. It's only worth noting that some that use the same language as Rodgers have referred to themselves as MRAs while not really caring at all about family courts, the rights of fathers, or anything else that isn't really pertinent to their generation. While it's not completely generational, the contrast is sharp.

This culture persists outside of Reddit. Reddit is, for the most part, not a "good" place, as some front page items contain entire comment threads in which I see only pro-imperial, pro-war, pro-police, anti-poc, pro-"establishment" rhetoric. Just as a survey right now, the front page of reddit is currently 1) an innocuous video game thread I don't understand, 2) Jack Nicholson / Shining thread in which the second top-voted comment is from a guy about murdering his dates, 3) a quality scientific link about aging, and 4) a very angry indictment of the violence at the Michael Brown 1-year anniversary rally, lots of support for Darren Wilson, nothing I would call "perceptive" at all (I see other reports from the protestors that cops opened fire on them, but not one mention of that on the reddit thread). That redpill language infects real life, infects the workplace, 4chan (or more realistically, 4chan is a source), facebook, twitter, tumblr, etc. I saw it all over this recent Vanity Fair piece about Tinder. (I'm actually sympathetic to a lot of that article and don't see any overt "violence" per se, but there are a few choice quotes that illustrate the pervasiveness of the language.)

I work at a university and have tried to lead efforts to reduce rape on campus. I've watched people get canned for doing the same, and hear the message loud and clear. I'll be the first to admit that we've done a terrible job of it. Rape on campus is an epidemic and wildly unreported. Now we're trying to soften it with "bystander intervention" training which I don't think works, at least not in this city. Last year we had a prominent news story in which someone who tried to intervene against some street harassment got rolled. The only fights I've ever been in here were related to intervening in a rape, assaults, and harassment. And they were all pretty severe.

I'm not sure how intersectionality connects to it, the perception on the streets, at least of "fedoras", is that they are a straight white cis male phenomenon, and really that the crux of the matter is that rejection always carries with it the potential for violence. I'm with you on the intersectionality, but this also dismisses the fact that often the most visible leaders of counter movements against organized, violent misogynists are women of color.

Seriously, it's important. I know violent crime has been declining for years, but I don't think we're out of the woods yet re: violent misogyny and mass killings. I see countering it as an extension of anti-fascism.

[Luther Blissett]

Here is a Men's Rights Activist "Beta Rebellion" threat that could directly affect me. The threat comes from someone using a copycat pepe avatar on 4chan as the shooter in Oregon did.

Breaking: FBI advisory to Philadelphia area colleges for Monday, Oct 5th (re: announced shooting)

…The threat stated that on Monday, October 5th at 1:00 CST (2:00pm EST), armed violence will begin "against a university near Philadelphia". There are references to a Men's Rights Activists (MRA) movement known as "The Beta Rebellion"; a diary posted a few days ago went in-depth on this issue - check it out here.…

[Iamwhomiam]

What the hell?

Take the day off, if you're able to.

Let's hope they nail this guy - and his buddies.

They all need a good spanking.

[General Patton]

Pepe trolls the FBI

10/10. Vastly better than the fake ISIS campaign.

What the hell?


They all need a good spanking.

AGREED

[Luther Blissett]

Well 4chan's certainly had a mass effect either way. There's a load of security with students queuing up to get in and everyone working with their offices locked.

[smoking since 1879]

a queue, of students?
i can see the bodycount already.

[Luther Blissett]

a queue, of students?
i can see the bodycount already.

Yeah, not exactly safe. But there are police everywhere. If this was a real threat and this was their target, I have to doubt they'd move forward.

[General Patton]

a queue, of students?
i can see the bodycount already.

Yeah, not exactly safe. But there are police everywhere. If this was a real threat and this was their target, I have to doubt they'd move forward.

I like the precedent here, that some dank memes can create a lockdown for a city that experiences shootings on a weekly(?) basis. Our bombers so far have been less experienced, they don't employ tactics like detonating a small bomb then waiting for a crowd to gather to detonate a larger one. Likewise the shooters have shown that they lack experience with handling firearms in a serious capacity.