It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:
Men’s Rights Activists advocate for ‘human rights’ with rape and death threats
Readers may recall a post from a few weeks ago about a red headed woman shouting profanities at men at a men’s rights event in Toronto. It seems that someone people found out who the woman is and left some nasty comments on her twitter feed, blog, and email. I do not condone anyone doxxing people or leaving threats. I doubt that all the nasty comments against the red head were threats, as feminists have claimed in the past week. However, it is irony that someone so willing to harass and threaten men at a public event would suddenly take issue with a few people doing this to her online.
Of course, that leads to feminists backing this this bully. There have been numerous posts written about her, but one that specifically caught my attention was this one by Danielle Paradis and Anne Theriault. In it they write:
First of all, let’s be clear here: No, Big Red was not polite. Yes, she was abrasive and caustic and downright rude. No, neither of the authors of this article would necessarily choose to protest an event that they feel is designed to silence women by yelling shut the fuck up. Yes, we see the irony in the fact that she was screaming over (seemingly reasonable) voices, claiming that she isn’t being heard.
But you know what? As Polonius said: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.”
She’s not being heard. Those men aren’t listening to her when she’s countering their points about how hard it is to be a man. Those men aren’t listening when she’s trying to explain how feminism is not, in fact, the work of Satan and actually does work to address the issues that they’re bringing up. Those men aren’t listening when she tries to read off a list explaining the actual goals of feminism, but yet they insist she read their list.
The red head was being heard. If you watch the video, the men there were responding to what she shouted at them. It is simply that those men did not agree with her position, and like many feminists, including the two who wrote the article, the red head jumped to the conclusion that disagreeing with her arguments was a sexist attack on her and all women.
And let us look at her argument: she did not list any examples of feminists supporting men. She did not give one actual instance of a feminist group doing something to help men. No, she read a list of nonsense written for another website. That list did not include a single actual example of feminists doing anything to support men, just the declaration that “this is what feminists are against.” Anyone can say they are against something; it takes a little more effort to actually prove it.
Beyond that, a feminist cannot argue that feminists do not try to silence men while she is shouting “shut the fuck up!” at the men she is speaking to. This was what the event sounded like as the two speakers tried to hold their forum. As far as I can tell, none of the men’s rights activists at the Toronto event were rude, threatening, or hostile. They took the vicious remarks from the feminists on campus without much complaint. And keep in mind, the two Toronto events were not about bashing feminism. The first was about the boy crisis in education and the second about misandry.
Obviously, no feminist will ever see anything wrong with the red head’s approach. Even the authors of the article tacitly support her, and that is the problem. When feminists act in blatantly bigoted ways, other feminists excuse that behavior, just as feminists typically excuse women’s general bad behavior. You are not helping your argument by supporting an obvious bigot.
There was no reason for that level of antagonism at a college event. The whole purpose of that display was to silence and threaten men, which makes it ironic that any of the women on the Toronto would be fearful.
The authors later state:
But you know what? We don’t understand how promoting human rights equates to lobbing death threats and rape threats at women who dare to speak out against MRAs.
We have never seen a feminist threaten an MRA with any of those things. Of course, in the bottom half of the internet you never know what you will find, but we haven’t seen it.
I am quite certain Paul Elam has gotten his fair share of nasty comments from feminists, just as I know Warren Farrell has gotten such threats. He actually wrote about that in “The Myth of Male Power”. This idea that feminists are harmless and never do anything wrong simply does not fly. And as is typical of feminists in situations like this, the authors quickly claim that they have never seen any feminist harass or threaten men. Just like feminists never no any feminists who hate men, any feminists who are bigots, or any women who beat, rape, or kill men and boys.
Of course feminists and women leave threats. The difference is that when men get those comments, they do not plaster them all over the internet to try to bash half the human population over the actions of a few. They also are less inclined to use sockpuppets to bolster their claim about threats.
The bigger problem is that feminists cannot see past their ideology. A feminist will never see sexual violence against a man or boy as wrong, let alone as anywhere near as important as sexual violence against females, because their ideology states that “Patriarchy” makes only men rape only women in order for men to oppress women. Their ideology prevents them from seeing things from a different perspective, which is how one ends up with impressively asinine and stupid statements like, “The most common complaints that I hear from MRAs are things that came about as the result of the patriarchy.”
No one is expecting feminists to suddenly think killing, beating, or raping men and boys is bad or that males actually have bad things done to them. No one is expecting feminists to actually care about men’s lives at all beyond how they can use it for a political argument, as was poorly attempted in the article. All anyone asks feminists to do is listen to the counter argument. Yet they are wrapped in a delusion of perpetual victimology so magnificently structured that even when shown a clear example of a feminist literally trying (and failing) to silence men, they still think the woman is the victim.