Monday, January 11, 2010

An Alienated Man

I received the following comment to my post Warnings to not alienate men from a man calling himself Gogonostop and decided to highlight it because it reveals much about the arguments made repeatedly by MRAs:

Sorry, domestic violence is not gendered. A look into daily life shows this reality - women are at least, if not more, violent toward the opposite sex. Out of me three long-term relationships I have been struck several times by two of them - never have I struck them. And they have laughed it off.

Abyss, you can engage men much more easily if you stop with the "patriarchy is the sole/primary cause of all domestic violence" mantra...it's very off-putting, and many people can see right through it. Traditional male roles are provide/protect - not "batter" - and most men are not batterers.

But if you continue with the rhetoric of "rape culture" and "violence against women culture," men will - at best - shrug it off, and at worst bristle up, take offense, and argue back - as anyone would at a misguided attempt to denigrate their entire sex.

More pragmatically - in terms of your own interests - look at it this way: by telling people that their sexuality (masculinity) is constructed around evil (which is simply not true), you basically do a good job as a recruiter for the Men's Movement.
I responded to this comment with 3 comments (combined below with hyperlinks added):

The scientific research doesn't agree with your limited example. Many women have never struck a man except in self-defense and could give examples of men's ongoing domestic violence (not just being struck several times) which are far more severe, rape for example, than your evidence of women's domestic violence.

You would not accept their more extreme experiences being harmed as proof of anything more general about men's violence yet your personal experience is supposed to be proof about women's violence as a whole and about men's lack of violence as a whole.

The intimate partner murder rates are provably gendered with men much more likely to be the murderer than the murdered yet you wipe those murders away with your flip response.

I've never said or written the quote you assign to me. I've never said that most men are batterers. I've never denigrated an entire sex. Those are your projections. This means you arrived alienated and don't let the reality of what I write interfere with what you claim I write.

As for the traditional male role being provide/protect and not batter, risk factors disagree that this is a protective factor for sexual or domestic violence.

You disprove that you fit within the provide/protect category when you let my rhetoric (much of which I've never said but hey why let a few facts interfere) prevent you from protecting women from domestic and sexual violence.

You make it clear you have no interest in my interests. That's honest, but my interests are to stop sexual and domestic violence.

I've never told anyone that their sexuality is constructed around evil. This is a falsehood you are promoting as if it were fact to recruit others to be MRAs.

Also your limited description of your relationships with women is vague enough that it doesn't prove that you've never been abusive to women. Abuse can show itself in many actions other than striking a woman.

You also don't give the context of those strikes to prove that they were not done in self-defense.

This matters because you presented your experiences as evidence of the gendered nature of abuse.

Gogonostop, I've been thinking about your accusation that I'm, "telling people that their sexuality (masculinity) is constructed around evil (which is simply not true), you basically do a good job as a recruiter for the Men's Movement."

The only way for men to interpret what I actually write on this blog in this way is if their formed sexuality incorporates a disregard for girls and women and their basic human rights so that these men's view of male sexuality embraces some level of sexual violence.

When I speak out against sexual violence which many people deny or minimize I am therefore speaking out against their formed (or deformed) definition of male sexuality.

Their mistake is in claiming that this subset of formed male sexuality comes from biology.

As an addendum to my comments it's interesting that Gogonostop cites provide/protect as a value when so many MRAs actively oppose protections for women and children from violent men.

Labels:

Bookmark and Share
posted by Marcella Chester @ 9:09 AM   10 comments links to this post

10 Comments:

At January 11, 2010 11:44 AM, OpenID earwicga said...

Word!

 
At January 11, 2010 12:46 PM, Blogger JENNIFER DREW said...

A common ploy among MRAs is to always deflect attention away from criticism of the social construction of masculinity and instead claim feminists are either 'man-haters' or claime all men are rapists/batters etc.

This particular male commentator is no different.

In fact he too uses the common threat that if women dare to challenge men about their misogyny and behaviour towards women and girls this in itself is seen as 'alienating' to men and hence men as a group will supposedly be justified in continuing to show contempt for women as a group.

But whenever women challenge the endless male-centred directives concerning how women are always supposedly responsible for preventing male violence committed against them or when we challenge the endless misogynistic stereotypes directed at us - what are told? Why we are being hysterical etc. The dominant group (men) always believe they alone have the right to define what is and is not appropriate behviour/attitudes for other subordinate groups (namely women).

This why when women are consistently claimed to be 'selfish; exploitative of men etc' such statements are viewed as correct and not 'sweeping statements concerning all women.'

Not forgetting that once upon a time racism was blamed on groups deemed non-white by dominant white groups. MRA's are no different in making sweeping claims and always ignoring the reality.

Abyss, you can engage men much more easily if you stop with the "patriarchy is the sole/primary cause of all domestic violence" mantra...it's very off-putting, and many people can see right through it. Traditional male roles are provide/protect - not "batter" - and most men are not batterers.

But if you continue with the rhetoric of "rape culture" and "violence against women culture," men will - at best - shrug it off, and at worst bristle up, take offense, and argue back - as anyone would at a misguided attempt to denigrate their entire sex.

 
At January 14, 2010 5:31 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Gogonostop, I didn't approve your patronizing responses since it's clear that you are promoting your own obvious bias while insisting you and what you are promoting aren't biased.

 
At January 14, 2010 8:10 PM, Anonymous Gogonostop said...

As you wish. I would have liked for you to disprove my biases - it would have given me a chance to learn of my potential mistakes. Perhaps you could have given me credit for giving you credit for believing you are right, and wanting to do the right thing, and not being inherently evil, as many other MRA's would do - which truly is biased.

Again, there is nothing so indicative of an indefensible thesis than intolerance of dissent. Remember the last words of the McElroy (iFeminist) article I linked: "Feminism is not dying from a backlash, but from an orthodoxy that cannot tolerate real discussion, and never could." Only a free and liberal discussion of ideas can save Feminism...and somewhere, you know this. If it cannot bend, it will break. It is only a matter of time.

I, like many other MRA's that have experienced this illiberal nature of Feminism, will not devote more time to listening and reasoning with Feminism, or asking them to treat others as they expect to be treated, attempting to find common ground, understanding our mutual belief in doing the right thing, etc - which you call patronizing.

You may post this response or not; it is not my concern. But if you have read this far, that is enough for me...and you.

Take care,

- Gogo

 
At January 14, 2010 9:26 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Gogonostop, again you respond with patronization and want praise for not assuming I'm inherently evil like you believe most of those who share your beliefs would do. In your positioning I am merely delusional and yet according to you that doesn't make you biased or unreasonable.

This response makes you and those you identify with sound as reasonable as KKK sympathizers sound to people of color who are working to elimate racism.

 
At January 14, 2010 10:34 PM, Blogger Gogonostop said...

Race and role reversal...try this one. You also mentioned earlier: "it's interesting that Gogonostop cites provide/protect as a value when so many MRAs actively oppose protections for women and children from violent men."

Saying that women need special protections that violate the civil rights of men is like saying whites need special protections that violate the civil rights of blacks. And by Feminist measures we could justify it; we could produce "studies that show" disproportionately more criminality in black neighborhoods; we would not violate their liberties because they ARE black, but because of their "socially constructed blackness."

Does that sound racist? Supremacist? It should.

It should sound just as prejudiced and unjust if you replaced the races with the genders. And if it does not, I and increasing numbers of men maintain that there is something fundamentally morally wrong with Feminism.

Would you call blacks who objected to such violations as seeking to protect their criminality - like you do with MRA's?

Blacks and women were not oppressed because they were treated as individuals first, but because of identity/class politics: by discriminatory and unconstitutional legislation based on collective attribution of negative qualities, and what was deemed to be politically correct at the time.

Now: how do you justify this double standard upon which you and Feminism base your agency, and by which you repeatedly call ME biased?

 
At January 14, 2010 11:36 PM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Gogonostop,

Now we're getting beneath your reasonable man veneer and getting to the real heart of the discussion.

All sorts of people need special protections (designed to deal with the actual harm others are doing). With the length and complexity of the criminal and civil statutes it is only feminist measures which you view as "special."

Your blanket rejection of feminist measures means you viewed it as right for it to be legal for a man to rape his wife since removing the spousal rape exception was a key feminist measure. That old codified violation of women's human right not to be raped by anyone was acceptable to MRAs because it wasn't a feminist measure.

Special protections written into criminal statutes for rapists and domestic abusers were okay.

Just because you and other MRAs declare that something violates your civil rights doesn't mean that it actually does violate your constitutional rights or discriminates against men. But that is a handy shield when what you oppose has the potential to save women's lives and prevent trauma that many MRAs deny whenever they believe they can get away with it.

 
At January 15, 2010 12:00 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Gogonostop, sorry it's too late to backtrack when the injustice and the selective, gendered concern for human rights in your position is highlighted.

 
At January 15, 2010 12:15 AM, Blogger Gogonostop said...

It's a pity I have absolutely no idea what you are referring, as I referenced quite a few policies/laws/statutes in my post, none of which advocate a gendered concern for men.

Strawmanning again? Prevaricating again? Hiding again? Psychologically projecting? Perhaps all of the above?

If not, name where I advocated special rights for men. The only entity advocating "gender-sensitive" laws (privilege) is Feminism - as clearly demonstrated by the ones I presented in my post, which you have yet to approve :D

Tell me: do you automatically sidestep all arguments which reveal a doubt in your position - or just mine? I do not suspect I am so special :D

You haven't yet refuted anything directly yet, especially my question about double standards. I'm still waiting.

It appears that you are running.

 
At January 15, 2010 9:18 AM, Blogger Marcella Chester said...

Gogonostop, your confusion isn't credible. You made absolute accusations about all the work feminists have done and positioned everything I write as being wrong (to the point that those who share your beliefs would view me as inherently evil) then you provided selective links to allegedly prove your sweeping accusations.

My not letting the familiar MRA propaganda be approved is in no way running. If you want to spread MRA propaganda you won't get what you want here. I've refuted lots of MRA propaganda and I don't need to repeat that every time some MRA comes strutting in arrogantly making demands and throwing a tantrum when his demands aren't obeyed.

Your interest in who is protected by the policies/laws/statutes is gendered by your own admission. And you made it just as clear who can be left unprotected without a protest from you or from those you agree with. So please spare me denials of what you previously made clear.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home