General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSouthern Poverty Law Center on MRA lies about women
THE CLAIM In another effort to show that men are discriminated against, many mens rights activists assert that women attack men just as much as men attack women, if not more. The website MensActivism.org is one of many that criticizes what it characterizes as the myth that women are less violent than men.
THE REALITY Mens rights groups often cite the work of Deborah Capaldi, a researcher with the Oregon Learning Center, to back their claim. Capaldi did find that women sometimes initiate partner violence, although women involved in mutually aggressive partner relationships were more likely to suffer severe injuries than the men. But Capaldi studied only a very particular subset of the population at-risk youth rather than women in general, invalidating any claim that her findings applied generally. In fact, the 2000 Department of Justice study found that violence against both women and men is predominantly male violence. Nine in 10 women (91.9%) who were physically assaulted since the age of 18 were attacked by a male, while about one in seven male assault victims (14.2%) were victimized by females. Similarly, all female rape victims in the study were attacked by a male, while about a third of male victims (35.8%) were raped by a female.
THE CLAIM Close to half or even more of the sexual assaults reported by women never occurred. Versions of this claim are a mainstay of sites like Register-Her.com, which specializes in vilifying women who allegedly lie about being raped. Such claims are also sometimes made by men involved in court custody battles.
THE REALITY This claim, which has gained some credence in recent years, is largely based on a 1994 article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Eugene Kanin that found that 41% of rape allegations in his study were false. But Kanins methodology has been widely criticized, and his results do not accord with most other findings. Kanin researched only one unnamed Midwestern town, and he did not spell out the criteria police used to decide an allegation was false. The town also polygraphed or threatened to polygraph all alleged victims, a now-discredited practice that is known to cause many women to drop their complaint even when it is true. In fact, most studies that suggest high rates of false accusations make a key mistake equating reports described by police as unfounded with those that are false. The truth is that unfounded reports very often include those for which no corroborating evidence could be found or where the victim was deemed an unreliable witness (often because of drug or alcohol use or because of prior sexual contact with the attacker). They also include those cases where women recant their accusations, often because of a fear of reprisal, a distrust of the legal system or embarrassment because drugs or alcohol were involved. The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 Making a Difference study, found a 6.8% rate.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women
We've seen a lot of these arguments around. It's important to know that they are generated by right-wing hate groups dedicated to attacking the civil rights of half of the population. It's important to call these arguments out for exactly what they are: Extremist right-wing hate.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Exactly right!
Hate to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I am wondering: Why the change of heart on gender matters? Did something prompt you to think differently? If so, it would be helpful to know what that was.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Started getting smart on gender issues, and found it's much more enjoyable than the alternative.
👍
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Did you read anything that prompted you to rethink things?
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)Seems from views versus recs and posts people seem to lack the courage to support you
pintobean
(18,101 posts)How much courage does clicking rec or commenting require? I think it's more likely to be a 'meh, ssdd' attitude.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)Chellee
(2,095 posts)I don't know what gsfdu is.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Yeah, carefully crafted OPs with links from a credible source isn't SSDD, it's GSFDU.
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Though highlighting bigotry and oppression is a common task for DUers, doing so for rape and misogyny seems to frighten some people away.
BainsBain's OP is an important contribution to the debunking of the falsehoods that fly round these subjects but when I added my comment there were over 350 views ... but only one other commentator and only 6 or 7 recs.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)I'm glad people are reading it, regardless. The SLPC doesn't excellent work.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)... with nothing to be added.
I sometimes will read a very good post and simply rec it ... just because I had nothing to say other than "I agree"
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I didn't realise that there was a view that if you don't hit the rec button on something, yr a bit of a coward. Me, I'm a bit slap-dash with reccing things. I'll go through stages where I do it and then forget the button's there for ages...
I don't think this is about supporting any DUer. What it should be about is some really good information that BB started this OP with from the SPLC that will hopefully inform people about those MRA groups out there...
intaglio
(8,170 posts)Early on it is typical typical to will see recs as about 3% - 5% of views for important topics; this is low because people forget to hit the "rec" button (me too). At the time I posted the number of recs less than 2%. Similarly, posts early in a thread's life seem to run at about 2% to 4% of views; at the time of my posting it was less than 1% of views.
As time goes on this sort of general rule does not hold as views start to be driven by repeat appearances near the top of the "Latest Threads" list
My proposition was that the this post, wrongly, was viewed as part of the "Gender Wars"; although to be frank that excuse for trashing a thread is silly.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)For two reasons. It's important, plus BB has a husker du connection I'm in awe of :hi :
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)I'll take it.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)And a progressive one, at that!
Of all the nerve!
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)rather than progressive sources. Hopefully they'll let this one get by.
Heidi
(58,237 posts)The only credible source for information on women's rights
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)If you're a man, and are not a Men's Rights Activist, congratulations on being able to walk upright and having a functioning penis!
Read more: http://www.cracked.com/funny-8503-mens-rights/#ixzz2zCXhjBXl
I think I remember the very beginnings of the MRAs in the 70s. There was this one guy who used to wear a skirt and go on Donahue to whine about how oppressed he was by women. Back then, virtually no one bought into that crap. Sadly, it's more pervasive today. Like all fringe groups, the internet lets them spread their batshittery and hatred.
Small Accumulates
(149 posts)Excellent resource. Thank you for finding it.
LumosMaxima
(585 posts)bullwinkle428
(20,629 posts)Jameis Winston sexual assault case.
The Magistrate
(95,244 posts)It is hard to comprehend that there is even argument about such basic elements of human experience....
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)How else would they know about MRAs?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4830396
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4830723
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4832133
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4832137
...oh and K&R for your OP.
redqueen
(115,103 posts)The sudden appearance of so many 'Whoever heard of MRAs?! / First time I've heard of them. / Just ignore them.' kind of comments in these threads is ... odd.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Please don't ever leave DU.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)accusation meme. Only 1 in 5 of the false reports actually include a false accusation against an individual.
Each case still needs to be treated individually and all accused are innocent until proven guilty, but the MRA claim that there are widespread false accusations of rape against men are ridiculous and unsupported by the stats.
You have about as much chance of winning Powerball as you do of being falsely accused of rape.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)seduction strategy (as was generally accepted up till the 20th century) and not rape at all.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Do you have a source for that info? It could be very helpful to have that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Thanks.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)that almost get there. Still looking...
Page 9 here---> http://ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf although it doesnt give the stats, it says "many real false reports do not involve a
named suspect, because the intention is not
to get someone in trouble with the police.
Rather, many real false reports involve only
a vaguely described stranger, so the victim
can receive the caring attention of law
enforcement officials and social service
providers without the fear that someone will
be arrested."
Odds of being accused of rape are 2.7 million to 1 - http://www.buzzfeed.com/charlesclymer/5-things-more-likely-to-happen-to-you-than-being-f-fmeu
http://charlesclymer.blogspot.com/2014/01/men-are-32x-more-likely-to-be-killed-by.html
Egnever
(21,506 posts)"odds of being accused of rape 2.7 million to 1"
Brings up all kinds of questions.
For one if that is the case then how can there possibly be this huge rape culture we keep being told about here. It would seem to indicate instead that the vast majority of men do not rape but a very limited number of men rape a lot?
I need to think about that one a lot more.
Googling odds of being raped, suggests that as a woman you have somewhere between a 25-30% chance of being raped in your lifetime.
How do these two stats possibly come together?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)from this
Doesn't say falsely there, just accused.
Would like to see where that number actually came from.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)but the point is that few rapists are punished. RAiNN estimates that about 3 percent of rapes (not rapists) result in jail time.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)That must be falsely accused, don't you think? The article doesn't say that, but it seems low for overall rape reports.
wryter2000
(46,037 posts)I didn't know the SPLC was studying MRAs. Yay for them. Glad I renewed my membership (which I would have done, anyway.)
Gothmog
(145,129 posts)I heard Morris Dees speak ten or fifteen years ago and he was amazing.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)....
You do know that there is a forum out there called RadFem Hub that actively advocates infanticide, gender-selective abortion and killing/mutilating men and boys, right? one letter asked us. Read the SCUM Manifesto, another said, and research the reception it has received over the years, and the regard with which many feminists still hold Valerie Solanas.
Solanas was the undeniably disturbed woman who shot Andy Warhol in 1968. Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, her manifesto began, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.
SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men, and it is true that Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles. (We dont really cut up men, the tagline of the Feminazis blog cheekily declares. Well, unless they deserve it.)
The existence of hatred on one side of a color, political or gender line hardly justifies its presence on the other. And radical feminists do say hurtful things about men. [T]reatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions, Tiptree wrote in a post on RadFem Hub called Radical Feminism Enters the 21st Century. [M]y best bet is that whats wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification. Im serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy. Few possessors of Y chromosomes could read her words without feeling queasy. But to characterize her essay as a well-developed plan, as Elam and his colleagues do, is not only ridiculous, it is willfully obtuse.
...
Women are not feminism. To equate the two is beyond ignorant, a thoughtful MRA blogger wrote. deologically speaking, I have some issues with feminist theory, but honestly, I think its a distraction from working on the real issues that face men. issues like: Homelessness Mens Health Education Suicides Homicides Deaths on the Job Family Court Inequalities Child Custody Criminal Justice System Incarceration Rates Prison Rape and Violence Domestic Violence Unemployment Drug and Alcohol Abuse Military Deaths and Service Vilification in the Media Legal Inequalities. This is what the MRM is all about; this is about social justice and equal protection under the law.
I dare say that if social justice and equal protection under the law were all that the MRM were about, then the SPLC would have had no reason to write about it. If the article inspires more self-criticism in this vein, then perhaps it did the Mens Rights Movement a service.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)and misrepresent them as coming from SPLC. In fact, except for the first paragraph, much of what you have posted is from MRA letters of protest to the SPLC because of their coverage of MRA groups. Interesting that you feel compelled to defend a far right-wing extremist group that is the equivalent of White Supremacists.
And you all found one feminist back in 1983 who shot Andy Warhol. That is what you point to in order to demonstrate the extremes of feminism. Quite sad, but it justifies MRA hatred for women, and that is what counts. Oh, and a woman who doesn't date men. The oppression that Lesbians impose on men by not offering themselves for sex is supposedly the equivalent of men who seek to strip women of basic rights and advocate for and inflict rape and other forms of violence on women. But a man read a blog somewhere that hurt his feelings, so the women deserve rape threats. Lord knows that a man's feelings are more important than a woman's life, certainly to MRAs and their ilk.
Indeed, women are not feminism, no more than African Americans are Civil Rights. Feminists work for equal rights. MRAs work to ensure women remain a subordinate group, just like the Aryan Nation works to oppress and defile Jews and people of color. To oppose feminism is to oppose equality for women, which is exactly what MRA hate groups do. Their entire ideology is based on contempt for women, including opposition to rape prosecution and insisting women who report rape are liars.
When a group works to oppress a subaltern group and advance the supremacy of a dominant group, whether whites or men, they are founded on and committed to bigotry. They are indeed hate groups, but I think ultimately the ones they hate the most are themselves. Like White Supremacists, they feel they have been dealt a bad hand in life and blame a subaltern group for their misfortunate and failures.
You should recognize the arguments that SPLC labels as hate-based lies, particularly the arguments about women being as violent in domestic relationships as men and the frequency of false rape accusations. Is the study about partner violence mentioned above the one you so often site ?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)I didn't misrepresent shit.
And it may be possible to dismiss hate speech "as satire" prior to the point that the bullet leaves the gun, but not decades later.
Inconvenient facts are still facts. The reciprocal nature of IPV is one of the most repeatable observations in the business. In fact, the reason it's been studied so extensively is because no one believes the results of the previous study.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)...and didn't really find much validity to their claims.
From your article:
--snip--
But to characterize {Tiptree's} essay as a well-developed plan, as Elam and his colleagues do, is not only ridiculous, it is willfully obtuse.
And finally, this segment that you quoted bears repeating:
--snip--
"Ideologically speaking, I have some issues with feminist theory, but honestly, I think its a distraction from working on the real issues that face men. This is what the MRM is all about; this is about social justice and equal protection under the law.
I dare say that if social justice and equal protection under the law were all that the MRM were about, then the SPLC would have had no reason to write about it. If the article inspires more self-criticism in this vein, then perhaps it did the Mens Rights Movement a service.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Thousands of people signed a petition asking the SPLC to designate certain TERF organizations as hate groups and the SPLC refused, despite all manner of hateful spewage coming from them and numerous other groups like the AMA and APA reporting anti-trans discrimination as a serious problem.
http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2013/05/14/my-exchange-with-the-southern-poverty-law-center-2/
http://www.transadvocate.com/southern-poverty-law-center-monitor-gender-identity-watch-as-a-hate-group_n_10904.htm
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Especially that first link.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I don't like RadFems myself. Especially of the "all whites are racist" types, i.e. Flavia Dzodan or Tracy, who runs Gradient Lair(both appear to have some pretty deep-seated issues with anti-Caucasian prejudice), or the Diana Boston types(Extreme RadFem on YouTube who viciously attacked a sex-positive feminist on YouTube, even including the usage of ethnic slurs. *Very nasty* lady, Diana Boston is.).
It's not just MRAs(most of whom are their own brand of nasty and usually worse!), who dislike RadFems for fuck's sakes.
Most other feminists, myself included, are very much opposed to ANY sort of bigotry, no matter if it's anti-male, transphobic, anti-gay, anti-Caucasian, anti-Latino(a), etc.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Is this a pat on the back to Major Nikon? For what, exactly?
His reply isn't particularly germane to my post. SPLC's failure to list a TERF organization as a hate group doesn't really have any bearing on the article's conclusion that MRAs really have no interest in social justice and equal protection under the law, contrary to their claims.
Cute baby, though.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The Major gets a pat on the back for finding it.
Explaining my views tends to look like backpedaling... even if I'm backpedaling from a strawman of the critics own creation.
In your case, I'm going to take the risk and do it anyway.
There's an ugly strain of misogyny that runs in the men's rights movement that finds support within the fundie right wing, and it often comes from deep seated psychological issues. When they happen on a fact that supports their position, they naturally latch onto it.
In turn, many mainstream feminists, correctly recognizing that these guys are nuttier than squirrel shit, discount the accuracy of the facts that less hateful advocates have exposed. Thus, data from the FBI, CDC, NIH, BLS and Census Bureau are all "MRA talking points". Much like the weather or time of day might be, I suppose.
On the other hand, there's an ugly strain of misandry that runs in the radical feminist movement that finds tactical support within the fundie right wing that idolizes people like Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas. They only seem to trip up when that hate can't be turned off when the target of it becomes a woman.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)but the tendency to conflate "legitimate" data with the specious groups who use that data goes both ways.
I think it's more likely that the data from the FBI, CDC, NIH, etc. are often oversimplified, and the larger societal issues responsible for those data are overlooked. For example, many of the issues negatively impacting men are a result of a patriarchal society exerting negative pressure on men, as well as women. When someone claims there is no patriarchy, that sure looks like an MRA talking point.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)The point of patriarchy was chivalry; it's the job of men and boys to protect the women and girls. In a society in which men are more likely to be victims of violence and more likely to suffer from inadequate medical care, the VAWA and Office of Women's health aren't repudiations of patriarchy, they are expressions of it.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)While protecting women and girls may be a side effect, the main point was authority over women and girls.
And the VAWA and Office of Women's Health are only expressions of patriarchy in that they exist to try to mitigate some of the inequity present throughout history.
That men are more likely to be victims of violence and are more likely to suffer from inadequate medical care are manifestations of a patriarchal society - a society in which men are expected to eschew weakness.
For instance:
For Macho Men, Doctor Visits Are Less Likely: Not showing pain, weakness can stop them from getting health care...
Men Likely to Put Off the Doctor
Men and Health: The Root of Male Health Issues
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I, too, wonder why the SPLC has neglected to weigh in on TERF organizations.
The explanation seems rather thin
It looks like they did ask for more information, at least.
http://www.secularwoman.org/SPLC_response
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)In their follow up message they seem to be backing off their original message which gave the impression that they were designating a few MRAs as hate groups. I think they realized in order to be consistent they had a gander/goose situation and they just didn't want to go there, possibly due to fear of offending some of their donors.
Regardless of what the SPLC does with the anti-feminist groups, I think it's a bit sad that they have virtually nothing at all to say about anti-trans hate. I can't think of too many other minority groups which are as vunerable to discrimination and violence with so few advocating for them.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)In the section at first link below, the SPLC encourages transgender students who experience discrimination to contact them. Hopefully, they will improve in this area.
Students: Know Your Rights
http://www.splcenter.org/what-we-do/lgbt-rights/students-know-your-rights
SPLC demands Texas school board allow transgender teen to appear in yearbook wearing tuxedo
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-demands-texas-school-board-allow-transgender-teen-to-appear-in-yearbook
Violence Engulfs Transgender Population in D.C.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2003/winter/disposable-people
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Here?
I think we experience the TERF influence daily.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I can't say I've seen that here at all.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Can you link to a specific post or two in there that demonstrate TERF influence?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)But seriously, what I see there (and believe me, I'd be happier if I hadn't read through it) is a whole bunch of people taking sides and blabbering about a bunch of posts on a site that isn't DU, posted by a bunch of people who aren't DUers any longer...from 2 years ago.
What I don't see is anyone voicing support for transphobia/TERF positions.
If my memory serves, people have been banned from DU for posting transphobic posts. I presume that will continue, so I think your concerns about TERF influence are ill conceived.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)cyberswede
(26,117 posts)So, I don't see how that could be an influence on DU.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)It's just most are reallyquiet about being overt after some of them were shown the door.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Or at least part of it.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Quelle surprise.
It was clear when I spoke to you last time that you had no idea what the experience of domestic violence was like and were entirely uninterested in hearing my perspective on it, as usual.
If you weren't trying to misrepresent, why did you excerpt out the part that identified the quote as coming from Mr.MRAsma, Paul Elam?
And Redqueen's comment is exactly the same as the fact that virtually any woman who speaks her mind on the internet is threatened with rape. You have no perspective, and it's clear you simply do not give a damn.
Nice to see you finally admit your affinity for MRAs. It's not like it's exactly a surprise.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)That link was to the meta study that summarized the findings of the other 62.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)intaglio
(8,170 posts)Which is based on precisely limited and self identifying sources that the SLPC report exposes as being misleading.
Because of the general culture and fear women tend not to identify partner violence as the source of injuries either to health professionals or to the police. Additionally the police tend to shy away from identifying partner violence against women, theoretically because of the difficulty of proving it and the theory that the woman might change her story. OTOH men tend to be regarded as more reliable reporters of violence and less likely to withdraw charges.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)b) Non Sequitur. The 64 studies evaluated by the meta study I linked upthread all were based on anonymous interviews of people in relationships. They had nothing to do with Police reporting rates.
Their conclusion?
intaglio
(8,170 posts)you know the one the OP identifies.
OTOH Google is your friend. Surveys unrelated to the police always find a higher rate of domestic violence than that reported
Also you might want to actually read some other parts of DU (if it doesn't make you too uncomfortable) Report: Many girls view sexual assault as normal behavior
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Rather people either search academic databases, see the article referenced in an academic publication, or, perhaps, happen upon some other site where the research is pulled out of context in order to highlight how badly men are oppressed by the awful women of the world.
The Google explanation doesn't fly.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)It would surprise me however.
The top three links are to the NIH. Each of those studies cite others.
I didn't get them at CC... but you're in a position to know that already.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)You suggest a department of men's health. That's what the NIH is.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)and the rest of your arguments: it can hardly be coincidence that they so closely mirror those found on sites of a certain ideological persuasion. And no, I don't mean the CC. I mean groups with far greater influence. Note that you yourself have repeated the two arguments listed in the OP.
Response to BainsBane (Reply #95)
Post removed
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)Why?
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)If you just wanted that, you did not have to stick on the Elam quotes. Not saying that you were purposefully hoping to gild his arguments with the aura of the SPLC, but what you did could easily be interpreted as just that.
You may want to clarify things next time if you wish to speak up on matters and be listened to.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)Not the first time you've cherry-picked words or statistics to fit your view without regard to the actual meaning of said words and numbers in context.
That's the inconvenient fact here.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Exactly as was done by the OP.
The fact that they felt the need to say...
... reflects some serious backpedaling on their part. It's the core paragraph.
Ohio Joe
(21,752 posts)It must really suck to live in complete fear of women gaining equality.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)and pretend that they don't know what they said the following week.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)defend MRA. i am ok with that. i will call out their ugly, misogyny and mean.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Follow the links and you find events in this order:
* SPLC's Intelligence Report published an article about the men's rights movement. (This was in Spring 2012, btw.)
* There followed what SPLC called a "tremendous response among mens rights activists (MRAs) and their sympathizers."
* SPLC staff put up a blog post about this response. The SPLC blog post quoted some of the responses, including public statements and also including letters sent to SPLC. One of the quoted letters to SPLC referenced Valerie Solanas. In reply, SPLC's blog post first gave additional information about Solanas, who is not exactly a household name these days, and then refuted the argument.
* In this thread, lumberjack_jeff included a long (possibly overlong under DU rules) verbatim quotation from the SPLC blog post, including the passage about Solanas.
The point is that neither SPLC nor lumberjack_jeff brought up Solanas. Instead, SPLC made at least some effort to address specific criticisms that were made, by quoting them verbatim (generally a better practice than paraphrasing) and then replying. That's how Solanas got into this discussion.
One revelation for me in all this is that, according to SPLC, "Solanas continues to be much-read and quoted in some feminist circles." I'd thought she was almost universally regarded as a kook.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)You can tell the weakness of an idea by the amount of lies and half truths it needs to prop itself up.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)were about, then the SPLC would have had no reason to write about it."
Wow, look at that! I actually semi-agree with an MRA on something.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)It was the concluding paragraph, after the quote from the "thoughtful MRA blogger."
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Jasana
(490 posts)even if it is too early in the morning to add my own arguments. MRA's are nothing but women hate groups. Don't believe me then try this blog on for size:
Link: http://manboobz.com
Warning: He also follows Reddit and MGTOW posts. Can be very uncomfortable.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I don't take anything the right says seriously.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)Thanks for posting this and linking to it again. It goes nicely with some of the whining I have been hearing from the MRA crowd.
BainsBane
(53,031 posts)I'm annoyed that any of it is permitted on DU.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)if we talked this way about minorities and/or people in poverty we would be shouted down and/or kicked off DU. Rightly so though.
BlancheSplanchnik
(20,219 posts)Thank you BB, thank you SPLC.
Finally, the concept that misogyny is dangerous is filtering out past the confines of Women's Studies. Been a long fucking wait.
and, I guess I must have the DU "Talk to the Dick" contingent on ignore too.......