Of course, you’ll find women (and, gasp!, even feminists) in leadership in most of the institutions actually working to make life safer for men. It’s feminists who fought a long and recently successful battle to ensure that male victims are included in the FBI’s definition of rape. Some feminists are working to integrate the military so that the burden of war doesn’t just fall on men, and some are working against the militarism that not only enables rape in the armed forces, but underpins the narrow, confining cultural ideas about masculinity that make so many men feel trapped.”

—Jaclyn Friedman (via writingronin)

Strap in, class. I’m going off on this.

1. “In leadership”? Why do they need the corner office to help men? How many good women in Sodom do we need, so to speak? You do realize that MRAs generally blame societal mores which they say men and women perpetuate, and accuse feminism in general of largely ignoring or actively perpetuating those mores, right?

2. Oh, you mean the definition with no legal standing whatsoever? The one that still describes rape as penetration, meaning it leaves out the vast majority of female rapists? The one that had men as a distant second priority of an initiative mainly intended to benefit women? Great job, feminists, maybe you’ll get around to “fixing” the problem in time for my grandkids. The sad thing is, this isn’t the first time I’ve seen a feminist “forget” to mention that that campaign was mainly about helping women.

Tell you what, the UK says rape, legally, is something you need a penis to do, even if the victim is a child. Where are the feminist efforts for that in the 9+ years that law has been in effect? Seems a bit sluggish, especially compared to the way the movement is all lickety-split when women are allegedly being screwed over.

3. And by “integrate the military”, does that include making women meet the same physical standards as men, or making Selective Service mandatory for them too? Or, better yet, how about ending it altogether? Because the last time feminists did anything about that was before I was born.

3b. Over half of the rape victims in the military are men. The documentary “Invisible War” interviewed several of these victims, and cut them down to a token acknowledgement that men are raped too. They certainly didn’t end up on the poster, as I recall.

4. Doesn’t feminism say that men can’t speak for women’s experiences? So why does it regularly say what men’s lives are like, including the utterly incorrect claim that M>F rape and abuse are socially and institutionally condoned? Why do even male feminists like Jackson Katz say the job of male feminists is to sit down, shut up about their problems, and support women? Why are “Toxic Masculinity” narratives notably poor at convincing men, but excellent at convincing women? Why does feminism overwhelmingly describe rape and abuse/IPV as “gendered (M>F) violence” and “violence against women”? Do you think that such rhetoric might, just might discourage male victims from coming forward, especially when it’s on bus stops and billboards and the walls of the shelters?

And why did the quote stop just before the talked about the Violence Against Women Act? Is it because the implication that an act named after women was also about helping men was a bridge too far even for you pack of jokers, especially since the immediately previous sentence said men feel trapped in their gender roles?

The oddest thing about these types of statements is that they’re a reverse “NAFALT”. Feminists will complain at the drop of a hat about people judging feminism by its prominent negative examples, but will take credit for all the positive things other feminists have done.

The best part is that the very first sentence of the quote erases male feminists, which doesn’t exactly support your claim that you’re totes not biased, Jaclyn. And I don’t think either article ever acknowledges that feminists have ever done a single thing wrong.

Also, you’re quoting an article that seriously cites Manboobz as a reputable source. The site that openly says its about mockery at the top of the page. David Futrelle actually tried to debate Paul Elam once, and he still ended up quote-mining him. By which I mean he literally cut off at the part of the post just before Elam said “I am being sarcastic.”*

You did notice that the writer made no effort to mention that feminists have actively broken the law trying to silence even non-MRA discussions of men’s rights? How about the fact that the 20/20 piece (which our girl curiously did not link, perhaps because the comments are filled with people pointing out its dishonesty) was found to actively lie about what was considered acceptable on AVFM? Or the fact that the 20/20 article gendered all MRAs as men, incorrectly?** Despite having a perfectly good Do Not Link link at the top of the post, Jaclyn neglects to link to any of AVFM’s criticisms of the article, so her readers can see for herself. Like this one, which is from a woman. Or these collected comments from an openly gay dude.

As for the SPLC, it was supported by the now-defunct RadFem Hub at the time it published that article, and has precisely no standing to speak from on high about hate groups or suchlike, especially since it actually defended and downplayed radfems, using a quote from notorious TERF Cathy Brennan in the process. It also uses Manboobz as a source, I note. Strangely enough, those who do so like to pretend that the site is mainly or exclusively about critique - notice how Jackie put the “mockery” bit second and in parentheses - when it’s manifestly dripping with misandry, dishonesty, and a decidedly puerile tone. It’s also the single biggest feminist “name” addressing MRAs, and many feminists consider it an authoritative source despite it being about mockery. Noticing a pattern here?

The sign in the image? It’s most likely referring to feminist-sponsored DV laws that assume basically say to assume that a man is the aggressor, even if the women is hits him in “pre-emptive self-defense”. They’re called “Predominant/Primary Aggressor” polcies, and they’re in place in something like 20 states.

Her rear guard - or, in other words, CYA - attempt to reestablish the gendered “Us vs Them” threat narrative is nakedly transparent to anyone with any knowledge of the matter, such as the fact that AVFM had a typically caustic article about Jackie herself (by a woman) in early September***. But it’s perfect for fooling bigots who don’t want to hear anything challenging their ideology, who don’t even want it to exist.

In other words, your average tumblrfem.

I mean, you did notice that despite Friedman’s claims, AVFM’s motto is not actually FTSU, right? You spent thirty seconds verifying it? You wouldn’t even have to give the site traffic; you could just go to the Google page. An article that starts off so openly lying is not one I trust. Or maybe our Jackie’s just that incompetent.

/not even an MRA

//mic drop

* Manboobz has talked about female MRAs on several occasions, and knows there are several prominent ones, such as Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughn, who is the most popular on Youtube and claims to be the most popular MRA, period. Yet it regularly refers to MRAs as exclusively men. If pressed, they can claim they’re just being sardonic, and thus, are not bound to accuracy. Which makes them a curious source for a “reputable” news source.

Heck, Manboobz can’t decide if MRAs are a bunch of whiny men who never get anything done, or angry, dangerous men who pose a Serious Threat to women. Like much of what feminists say, it changes based on the needs of the moment.

**Note how this article carefully uses gender neutral language while still implying that feminists are women and MRAs are men. Actually, I’m pretty sure “misogyny” requires it.