On a fairly regular basis, Man Boobz is visited by commenters of an MRAish disposition. There are many varieties. Some start off by trying to post rape threats and other such unpleasantness, and their comments never see the light of day. Some leave a few irritated comments and head off, never to be seen again. Some manage to stick around long enough to become Man Boobz institutions.
One interesting variety: the ones who come here, they claim, to discuss the issues with us in good faith. In most cases it becomes quickly evident that they are not interested in real discussion at all, as they ignore what most of the commenters here say to them to instead argue with the straw feminists who live in their heads.
Soon many of these alleged good-faith arguers drop the pretense entirely and lash out with nasty personal attacks. At this point they go on moderation, or find themselves banned entirely.
The latest such meltdown was a fairly quick one. For those who don’t regularly read the comments, here’s a brief history of John Anderson’s brief career (so far) as an unofficial goodwill ambassador to Man Boobz from planet Good Men Project.
An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project, Mr. Anderson arrived at Man Boobz Prime on July 2nd, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, eager to learn from and about the feminist commenters here, and to convince some of us to join him and the other commenters at the GMP in healthy and fruitful dialogue.
In one of his first comments here, he explained the reason for his coming here:
I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.
In a further comment he explained that he was trying to do his part to save the Men’s Rights movement from the angry ideologues:
I was on a voice for men a while back. They had nothing but contempt for the GMPers. I’m certain that I’ll cross paths with them. It is my heartfelt intent to reclaim my movement from people who would disgrace it.
Five minutes later, alas, we learned that he had determined we were all a bunch of misandrists after all.
I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.
Oh, wait, not all of us. But we are a bunch of meanies:
I don’t think all the commentators hate men or are necessarily closed minded to other view points. I actually stepped away from a safe space to engage people who don’t see things the way I do. The feeling that I get is that there is great hostility to anyone who may consider men to be victims under any circumstance….
I’ve quoted DOJ and CDC statistics and included page numbers or links on an article that says that we shouldn’t be angry over truthful statistics. I’ve been told that the statistics have been spun. Maybe I should have refrained from that SHOCKED bit. I probably should have considered the feelings of the people on this site. I’d consider apologizing, but too many people here seem mean.
As far as I can tell, he determined that I was a misandrist because I downplayed the fact that more men are murdered than women by writing the following sentence in the OP:
While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”
I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women. You can go read the whole discussion yourself and see if you can figure it out.
The meltdown followed not long afterwards. In one comment, Mr. Anderson suggested, as far as I can figure it, that [TW: RAPE APOLOGETICS] women regularly decide whether or not to charge a man with rape after they determine how good their rapist is in bed:
When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.
But he still hoped to lure some of us over to the Good Man Project for more scintillating discussion about how feminists are evil and mean and how dudes like him think women think about rape. Oh, and that movie about the stripper dudes.
Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.
Then, for some reason, he decided to bring up his cock:
Kyrie says,
“Fuck. You.”
No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. 🙂
At this point, I put Mr. Anderson on permanent moderation.
Or tried to anyway. Due to a little glitch, it didn’t take, so Mr. Anderson was able to post freely for a while. Among other things, he tried to explain away that previous comment with this:
David says,
“And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”
You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic.
Not so much.
Then he whined about being moderated:
Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.
The only record set was for how quickly Mr. Anderson devolved from an earnest man of alleged good faith to a cock-talking troll.
JESUS FUCK, MRAs. It’s like the Venn diagram of whiny assholes who hate women on the internet and people who think “comment” = “post” and “post” = “article” is one circle. I guess once you’ve decided to be all stupid, it’s easier to be all in.
Here is a primer on some of the writings you will find on blogs.
This is David’s blog, Man Boobz. David writes posts on his blog. He is the only person who writes posts on his blog.
Sometimes, people who read his blog write comments, which also appear on the blog,below a post, in the “Comments” section. What you’re reading right now is a comment.
David is also a journalist. Sometimes he writes news stories for edited publications. You may call these pieces articles. Those things you read on The Spearhead and AVFM are blog posts — no matter how much you like them.
Hope that helps, MRAs!
Also (this one really bothers me), a person who comments on a blog is a commenter, not a commentator.
Ithiliana: Has there ever in the history of teh internets been a case of somebody saying “I’m just posting once to disagree with you all and I don’t care what you say which is why I’m posting and I won’t be coming back to see what you say because I know you all disagree with me which I don’t care about, going now, bye!” and sticking to it?
I can say that it has happened at least four times. More than that I can’t say, because I have only done it four times. When I do it, I never go back, lest I be tempted to fail the landing.
I have (more than four times) said I was done with a thread, in which case I also stop reading it; but I don’t usually, in such cases, go so far as to purge the cookies and the cache.
More often though, I just stop reading, no notice given. It’s better for all that way; esp. in fora where one knows people.
Steele: Well, it sure looks bad when you put it like this, Futrelle. Without context, readers won’t be aware that the nasty atmosphere in your comments section, as well as the personal attacks specifically directed toward Mr. Anderson, could have reasonably led him to believe that such a tone was fair game.
Yeah, because the direct links to John Anderson’s comments makes it so hard to get the context.
Sharculese, nice to see you already attempting to goad me as you all did Anderson
I see… Jo wasn’t able to restrain himself. His fingers typed that out, all in an uncontrollable rush. He was challenged on his misuse of stats, his misunderstanding of sampling methodology and needled about his disingenuous interpretations of English, and that led to his “sudden outburst” of insult; which he looked at on the screen, hit, “post comment on” and then defended; not once, but at least thrice.
That’s one hell of a trick. If being needled does that… he’s a pretty weak-willed sort of fellow.
Bee:David is also a journalist. Sometimes he writes news stories for edited publications. You may call these pieces articles. Those things you read on The Spearhead and AVFM are blog posts — no matter how much you like them.
This is something I disagree with. I’d say that any group blog runs into the grey area of being a sort of magazine. The break point is, perhaps, the existence of a moderating force. Any place that has regular, “guest posts” is one in which I’d accept the existence of “articles”.
One in which (as Orcinus used to) there is an depth focus, is engaged in expert commentary and provides analysis and commentary might also count. Compare a good blog to I.F. Stone’s Weekly which, starting in 1953, was a lot like a blog… except that it was on paper.
Manboobz is in the grey area. Some of the things David writes are articles. Some are opinion pieces, some are just his thoughts.
I don’t know that I’d say my blog ever rises to quite the same level, but I do know that I’ve written things, for that blog, which I’d not have been ashamed to turn in to my editors when I was still newspapering.
Yeah I’m wary on the “is blog post or article?” line too — but a comment is a comment is not a post. (Though we may be being a bit pedantic with the meaning of “posted” as one does post comments…)
Would an op-ed on an online newspaper be an article or a post? I kind of want to quote the hatter and say articles are much more muchier.
As far as goading John — into replying to “fuck you” with “asshole”, maybe, if he had, but he didn’t, he stuck to his sex/rape joke/threat being hilarious. That’s not something that was merely the result of being momentarily angry.
Meh, I’d say anything on a blog is a post, not an article, even if it’s the LA Times blog or a news anchor’s blog or whatever. I think an “article” should also go through some kind of editorial or publication process not by the author. So David’s posts are posts, IMO; if he were submitting them to a journal or something where an editor chose what to post and what to reject, then I’d be much more comfortable calling them articles.
If a piece doesn’t go through any sort of editorial process, just an individual writing it and posting it to the internet, then it’s a post, not an article. Many newspapers have blogs that meet that criteria, but even the fanciest group blog is still just a blog if each blogger just posts their own stuff without any sort of editorial process happening. Some online-only publications run pretty much the same way that a newspaper’s blog does, and in that case I’d call the pieces published there articles. (My opinion, of course, but it does seem to be fairly standard in the business.) I can see why people would interpret some of David’s posts as actual articles, because he has journalistic training and it shows sometimes in the way he structures his pieces, but they’re still blog posts, not articles.
Steele, are you a representative of the Good Men Project or do you just troll it frequently? Because if the first, the more you talk the less I respect its endeavors.
I suppose if I gave a damn about your opinion, this might carry some weight. Unfortunately, I don’t. But as for the Good Men Project, I find it to be a mixed bag. They really do try to occupy a middle ground, giving credence to both feminist and MRA interests. It’s a very awkward combination, though I do give Matlack points for trying.
An MRA panel? Suuuure. MRAs can’t organize a one car parade, much less a panel. Sharculese is right, never happened.
He thinks women claim rape based on how good the sex was??? Unbelievable!
I’m fairly sure more people believe that some rape is just “morning after regrets” than believe that prison rape is funny — not “an unfortunate fact” or “they deserve it” but “I find it hilarious”.
In other words, pot, meet kettle, you’re both rape apologists.
Why do you keep talking about rape, Ruby? That’s the one thing you already know 9% of people here (counting trolls) disagree with you and think you’re a terrible person for being a rape apologist. What do you hope with comment like that?
Kyrie — you meant 90% not 9% right? I mean, I’m guessing, but it seems like “most” of us disagree with her on that. Sorry if this seems like I’m playing Spot The Typo, it matters in this context though. (Either she’s a lulz troll, or is hoping we’ll go “I know right? Isn’t he terrible!” and ignore that she’s also terrible)
@Argenti: I read Kyrie’s stat as 99% because, well, that’s what I expected!
Mumbles about wordpress not allowing previews….
99% works too, I was thinking 90%+ myself, but couldn’t figure out how Kyrie could’ve dropped a second digit and a plus sign. At least 90%, if not more like 99%?
Cassandra, Katz: Have you looked at I.F. Stone’s Weekly? Because he was his own editor, ad it was a big deal, it was articles. It was massively influential in the world of political journalism, and was widely read and respected.
And some things which have editors, aren’t any better than most blog posts (gossip columns, People Magazine), but get called articles.
So the line isn’t that bright.
Ruby: He thinks women claim rape based on how good the sex was??? Unbelievable!
Why? You think rape can be funny based on who the victim is. The difference between the two is that his is ridiculous, because it’s a fact based claim, and wrong and yours is vicious and foul, and nasty, because it mocks people being hurt.
Yours supports and encourages rape, and rape culture. So he’s an idiot on the subject, and you’re evil.
Of the two, I’d rather have a thousand of him, than one of you. I’d rather believe what he does, for all it’s delusional nature, than think as you do.
Lol, I forgot what I meant, it was either 90% or 99%. Let’s say 94.5%. (9% would be both impressively precise and low)
DSC:
Oh, good, I’m glad I’m not the only person who noticed GMP is full of anti-feminists.
(And by extension that moving NSWATM there for more legitimacy is like moving to New York to get away from your rude neighbors.)
Steele:
I know, right? How are MBZ readers supposed to know what the MBZ comments section is really like?
Kyrie:
If David had mentioned the nasty-wastys in the comment section, Anderson would have seemed the soul of reasonability. But there’s no way, reading thepost, to see what the comments directly below the post are like.
Skylar:
If a bunch of people tell you the same thing, there are several possible reasons besides “hive mind”.
VoIP:
Even before the move NSWATM had a reputation as being anti-feminist. I think it’s due to something like Gresham’s Law for blogs that zie — I’ll be charitable — didn’t take into account and then got overwhelmed by.
pecunium:
The Carolina Israelite, published by the creator of something much like Poe’s Law, is similar.
@DSC & Hershele:
Definitely seeing a lot of anti-feminism at the GOOD MEN project (not having read a huge amount, but given what I saw in just a couple of posts, and the examples of the GMPers who come here, I suspect it’s fairly widespread). I doubt that there’s much attempt to get feminist perspectives over there despite what one of the recent trolls (steele? john anderson?) said, given all the criticisms of Joanna’s post about feminism and GMP in the comments. The idea that (straight white cis?) men NEED a safe space free of teh evil feminists in the U.S. in 2012 is….mind-bogglingly croggling to this grumpy old feminist.
I ended up reading the post David linked to over there (the one about how poor fragile zek got threats of rape from MBZers that of course he could not link to–let alone give the actual name he was using to post to David): http://goodmenproject.com/men-and-feminism/mens-stories-in-context-why-feminism-belongs-at-the-gmp/
And apparently it’s part of a roundtable which is all mostly about how feminism has nothing to do with men.
http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/men-and-feminism-the-good-men-project-roundtable/
When you say anti feminist, do you mean the posts, the comments or both?
Pecunium: I think a post specifically needs to be on a blog. For instance, if you had an old-school Geocities-type site and you constantly put up new pages of content, those would still be pages, not posts, no matter how bloggish the content. Articles in some random 80’s zine entirely created by one person and distributed to a couple dozen of his friends are still articles, because that’s just the word for pieces in a print publication. I don’t think the term necessarily implies that articles are higher-quality than posts.
But, yes, the line isn’t very bright and I’m not claiming my opinion is exceptionally correct, it’s just what I think. The only opinion that’s (I think) actually wrong is to differentiate between post/article on blogs based on the fanciness of the blog, or the erudition of the author, or whether or not you think the author is making a Really Good Point.
Until this blog, I had no idea that people considered “article” and “post” to be different things. I can see that people (who seem to have a background in journalism) think there’s a difference, but it’s not a difference that, erm, makes a difference to me.