There is a phrase gaining in popularity among those who oppose human rights of male citizens. This phrase is used to characterize a small collection of individuals calling themselves activists, and whose activism consists almost entirely of writing and making videos, and activists whose message rejects the use of violence.

The phrase being used to attack men’s rights activists is “men’s rights extremists.” This terminology has the usual intent of vilifying and marginalizing writers in the MRM. However, the migration from standard anti-male insults to the claim of extremism also serves is to make potential violence against them seem acceptable. Similarly, referring to a collection of bloggers and videographers whose message includes a rejection of violence – and then calling these activists violent, is also a rhetorical tactic which appears designed to encourage and to normalize violence done against them.

Obviously, opponents of the men’s rights movement have never been shy of heaping scorn, abuse, and unfounded accusation on the movement as a whole; as well as directing campaigns of false accusation against individuals. But the now common characterization of MRAs as violent extremists surpasses hypocrisy, and seems obvious as an attempt to foster violence. It is a disgrace, and reflects the complete moral bankruptcy of those who employ this tactic.

Some individuals, skilled in rhetorical manipulation, have taken this deceptive and indirect promotion of violence to a new level. An example of this was shown when a hate organization produced a video depicting male-targeted murder, eroticized licking of the victim’s bullet wounds, and showed the closing message “Do your part.” This unambiguous promotion of male targeted murder was discussed within the men’s rights community, and AVfM identified the individuals who produced this call for murder. We felt it was a matter of ethical responsibility to identify members of a hate organization who promote killing.

A morally bankrupt and stunningly unethical blogger wrote about this, but managed to portray the producers of a video advocating murder as victims, and portrayed those who outed them as violent. The mind boggles. I was one of the writers calling for the identification of the makers of the video and then publishing the identities of these murder advocates – and now, thanks to the rhetorical contortions of a depraved and futile feminist; I find myself a potential target of violence.

Following the political protest by self immolation of Thomas James Ball, A Voice for Men published Mr. Ball’s final words to the world. This was 15 page account of his abuse by the New Hampshire family court, his decade long struggle, and his clearly articulated intention to draw attention to systematic corruption in the courts through the ultimate sacrifice of his own life in a self-ignited gasoline fire.

Mr. Ball also detailed his desire to burn down the courthouse buildings, though he thankfully did not act on it. In the republication of his writing on AVfM, Ball’s paragraphs providing instructions for incendiary devices were omitted because both Paul Elam and I (along with everybody else contributing at AVFM) strictly oppose the use of violence.

Somehow, our omission of instructions on building a fire bomb was translated by an opponent of male human rights into our purported support of such catastrophic violence. This distorted characterization surpasses my ability to explain in its depravity and deceit. The characterization of bloggers who openly oppose violence as though that opposition is support of violence is purposeful. It is plainly intended to facilitate the use of force against us.

I will not be modifying my position, nor toning down my rhetoric, nor apologizing on behalf of the purposeful distortions of bad actors. In fact, individuals fielding rhetoric intended to foster a social climate conducive to violence will enjoy increasing exposure in my writing.

The indirect, by proxy, or once-removed approach to using violence shown by cultivating a public image of human rights activists as “terrorists” demonstrates a mode of indirect application of force. Through the shaping of perception, more direct actors are motivated to use force, believing themselves justified in the application of violence.

Men’s and women’s motivations and means of acting in the world are different. Men are traditionally imagined as the violent actors of the human race. This, however, is an incomplete understanding which ignores the reality that due to women’s average lesser physical strength and stature, women often act indirectly, by motivating others or using proxies to apply force or violence. The simplistic view of men as the source of all physical aggression ignores how much male behavior is on behalf of, or is manipulated by women.

This is not an attempt to re-attribute all male misbehavior to women, but to point out the widely ignored but obvious fact that women’s misbehavior and violence is largely indirect; pursued through others.

Outside of legal considerations, violence on behalf of women or children is the basis for the cultural construct of heroism. Within MRM writing, men willing to absorb or provide violence based on chivalry are called white knights, and this term is not a compliment. A police officer who batons, pepper sprays, tasers or arrests a man accused of attacking his wife on no evidence except her accusation is a white knight. The police may later untangle a false accusation and release the accused man, but he has still been bludgeoned, pepper-sprayed, tased or caged by proxy on behalf of the accusing female.

Some opponents of men’s rights writing have begun to use the word “terrorist” to characterize bloggers in the MRM. Apparently, the by-proxy application of police tasers, batons or pepper-spray is unsatisfactory, and military force is the desired tool to silence bloggers arguing for human rights.

Shortly after her announcement as a regular contributor at AVfM, the blogger and videographer, our fellow MRA GirlWritesWhat received an email warning her of the dangerous character of other writers on this site.

Apparently, Paul Elam, founder and publisher of AVfM is a terrorist based on his preference for inflicting pain on the agents of hate. His exact quote from the December 2011 seasonal fundraiser was:

[box]

“Over the past two years, with your help, AVfM has set the standard for online activism. We are forging new ground and gaining momentum. And we are adding significant traction to an idea that some green MRA’s and of course, feminists, would love to disabuse you of.

Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.

We have seen some evidence that it is working; a twitching toe here, a moving finger there. Just enough to let us know we need to turn up the voltage and hit it some more. Once we get the patients eyes and ears working, then we can talk and reason with people.”

[/box]

Of those three paragraphs, the second, taken out of its context of the blogging and online blogtalk radio show which comprises AVfM’s activism might sound very scary indeed. Of course, the concerned citizen omitted that context to deceptively portray Paul as a violent maniac, indeed, calling him a terrorist.

In the email sent to GirlWritesWhat, the concerned citizen issued this whopper of a lie:

“To recap, Elam is raising money while drumming up support for a public act of violence to make the MRM message heard. Public acts of violence with political motivations are called acts of terrorism.”

In reality, Paul Elam, along with myself and every other contributor on AVfM oppose violence. This is regularly evident in the unapologetic booting and banning of any commenter or contributor who suggests or endorses violence. This is flatly false claim by yet another morally bankrupt individual attempting to portray bloggers as violent criminals, indeed, as terrorists.

I too, was flattered to be explicitly named as a potential murderer by the same lying degenerate. You may be asking yourself, “Why are these claims of violent criminality applied to bloggers who regularly take pains to disavow and discourage any use of violence?”

The answer is obvious. If such a narrative is fabricated and popularized, then those with guns, funding and the legally approved state sanction to use them will eventually silence us. Naming human rights activists as terrorists is a device; the fabrication of a public narrative to drive a cultural consent for violence.

And I still refuse to use violence in return. The fact that rather than factual argument, opinions backed by peer reviewed stats or even attempts at logical debate, our opposition now cultivates violence, is a measure of the total fraud, failure and bankruptcy of those opposing the human rights of men.