#IdiotOlympics: How Jamie Utt responded to James Landrith

I wrote earlier about my exchange with Jamie Utt on his blog. It appears he took to Twitter to complain about it. However, he was vague in his complaint, tweeting:

This prompted James Landrith to question what Utt was talking about. Below is the exchange:

jutweet01

jutweet02

jutweet03

Note how Utt dismisses that I am an advocate for male survivors, but quickly takes offense when asked by Landrith if he is a male survivor. Utt’s reaction is completely disproportionate to the question.

Utt suggests that Landrith should read his work to see his position on male survivors. Very well. Let us do that. Here is a post Utt published last year about rape statistics. Schala mentioned in the comments that the recent CDC study contradicts the “only men are rapists” framing Utt used in his piece. Utt’s response was to initially give lip service to male survivors. He then dismissed the CDC report as it applies to male victims, incorrectly claiming that the results were based on a one-month snapshot, and then stated:

You missed my point. The question was whether men would say yes that they had experienced sexual violence if it were called something else.

This is not just something that men experience. Women regularly do not call their experience sexual violence or rape because of the shame that is placed upon any person who experiences this trauma.

When Schala challenged Utt on this, Utt dismissed her a men’s rights activist and wrote:

The vast majority of programs are training their advocates and professionals to serve male survivors. Now we need to transform patriarchal masculinity that tells men that they cannot seek help.

Never mind that people who actually research, work with, and serve male survivors find the opposite is true: feminist-run programs typically do no train their volunteers to assist male survivors and do no offer services for male survivors. Those are just three links out of the dozens of articles, studies, and accounts linked to on this blog alone.

This is how Jamie Utt views male survivors. This is what he stated unprompted. Schala did not trick Utt into dismissing male survivors. Utt dismissed them all on his own. Yet he takes offense when someone asks him whether he is a male survivor, despite the purpose being to say that neither Utt or anyone else should use male survivors to score political points.

Landrith was not asking if Utt was actually a male survivor. He was asking what right does Utt have to use male survivors to attack someone else.

Utt claims that he is “tremendously concerned with triggering trauma,” yet had no problem attacking me despite that I mentioned I was a male survivor on his blog (a comment Utt deleted). He also had no problem attacking Landrith.

This is why feminists should not be involved in advocacy for male survivors. They are completely incapable of removing their ideology from the situation, and only make the discussion about them.

Utt, like many feminists, is simply trying to score points. It should never be about scoring points. It should always be about helping people. However, you cannot help people by silencing them, dismissing them, or attacking them when they say something you do not like.

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “#IdiotOlympics: How Jamie Utt responded to James Landrith

  1. Pingback: #IdiotOlympics: How Jamie Utt responded to James Landrith | Manosphere.com

  2. What I find… enlightening, as you say, is how people like Jamie Utt hurt people without any sense of responsibility for that, and instead they’re very defensive much like the perpetrators of rape, child sexual abuse, etc. Have you ever talked to sex offenders? They really, really see themselves as victims and so persecuted, taking no responsibility for the effects of their actions on others. I stay away from such people!

    Many traditions see the beautiful results of that quality we call compassion. And the ugly results when there is none. Yet, there is little to say about it to such people, because it’s not about words. Do these exchanges ever convince anybody and result in harmony and goodwill? Or do they create bitterness, ill-will and polarization, pitting one against another? It’s a quality of the heart they lack and have no interest in. Compassion and it’s beautiful results takes practice. That’s also… enlightening. It seems we each get to choose what we create. I just let the Jamie’s of the world have their creation for their own education.

  3. What I find… enlightening, as you say, is how people like Jamie Utt hurt people without any sense of responsibility for that, and instead they’re very defensive much like the perpetrators of rape, child sexual abuse, etc.

    I understand the comparison, however, I think it would be better to stay away from it. I think the reason people like Utt react as they do is because their ideology forms their identity, so any challenge to their politics is viewed as a personal attack.

    Have you ever talked to sex offenders?

    I went once to an offender/victim group session. Some of them acted like victims. Some were quite sympathetic. I found that when they felt attacked by someone sharing their story that the offenders became defensive.

    Do these exchanges ever convince anybody and result in harmony and goodwill? Or do they create bitterness, ill-will and polarization, pitting one against another?

    I stopped believing that speaking reasonably with ideologues would sway their opinions long ago. I think it is important to engage in these exchanges as it shows there are different perspectives and to show what actually motivates people. If you immediate response to being challenged is to become snarky, passive aggressive, and dismissive, I think it says a great deal about you and the nature of your activism.

  4. Don’t waste your time with Utt. He means well but the last time I had a twitter exchange with him it just showed me how he can be:

    He likened the idea of mens rights to white rights and that MRAs are basically the gender equivalent of white supremacists.

    I responded by saying that that comparison really doesn’t fit because the inequalities of the male/female dynamic are nowhere near as one sided as those of black/white.

    He them accuses ME of Oppression Olympics and ends the conversation with some sort of cliched catchphrase.

    So according to him (and the feminists that agree with him, all white of course) saying that men are like whites in terms of rights if fine but pointing out that the dynamics of black/white are not the same as male/female is not right.

  5. Danny, that is ironically a perfect example of both “Oppression Olympics” and “white privilege.” I am curious, did you tell him to check his “white privilege?”

  6. This comment from Luke in response to Schala says it all:

    “I can respect that you want to offer services to all victims equally. It is a great goal and a noble idea, but if that is going to become a reality we would need more funding. Until that happens I agree with Jamie that it is most productive to focus on the groups most affected, namely women.”

    Forget helping men, forget helping women, forget helping people across the board. It’s all about the fight for resources. This is the real face people like him put on: They’re not in it for the survivors. They’re only in it for the money and political posturing.

    You are more genuine then all the Lukes out there put together, Toysoldier. You, Danny, Tamen, Gwallan, Typhoneblue, Warren Farrell, et all. You fight for male survivors, you want true equal supports that these idealogues take away, screaming “MINE! MINE! MINE!”

  7. I do love how the “it’s more productive to focus on the groups most affected” line.

    Yeah, suddenly it’s TOTALLY fine for these progresssive types to shit on a minority affected by a particular issue – when that minority is men.

    Well, how tiny a minority of human beings are trans individuals? And yet plenty of feminists are fine with taking their issues on board.

    (this is not to imply that trans issues are invalid – simply that feminists may want to think harder about using this “but we’re affected more” argument. Actually, the last eight words of the preceding sentence are somewhat redundant.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s