Categories
antifeminism antifeminst women domestic violence FemRAs men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA patriarchy reactionary bullshit reddit

GirlWritesWhat on “The Necessity of Domestic Violence”: “I don’t really find too much [that’s] seriously ethically questionable.”

Yesterday, we took a look at Ferdinand Bardamu’s manosphere manifesto “The Necessity of Domestic Violence,” a thoroughly despicable piece of writing that concludes:

Women should be terrorized by their men; it’s the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.

I decided to take a look at Bardamu’s post yesterday after running across a discussion of it in Reddit’s new FeMRA subreddit, a forum ostensibly devoted to what “women can do to advance men’s rights as women.” It’s a strange little subreddit, started by a man and dominated by some of Reddit’s most unsavory MaleMRAs, some of them banned in the regular Men’s Rights subreddit.

Recently one of the most unsavory of the bunch, calling himself JeremiahGuy this time, posted a link to Bardamu’s domestic violence manifesto, which he hosts on his website. Jeremiah naturally used the discussion as an excuse to post more apologias for domestic “discipline” along the lines of the quote from him I featured yesterday.

But I was a little surprised to see GirlWritesWhat, the blabby FeMRA video blogger who’s captured the hearts of Reddit’s Men’s Rights crowd, step into the conversation with something of a defense of Bardamu’s noxious views. After reading Bardamu’s manifesto – the one advocating that men “terrorize” their women to make them behave – GWW blithely concluded:

I don’t really find too much in the article that strikes me as seriously ethically questionable.

Have I taken that remark out of context? Yes. In context, it’s worse. Here’s the entire quote from her, and a further clarification of her position.

She wasn’t the only one in the discussion to get upvotes for suggesting that men slapping women around from time to time isn’t really such a big deal. MaunaLoona (a MaleMRA) wrote:

Lots of MRAs like to pretend that they care about male victims of domestic violence. But the Men’s Rights movement hasn’t done shit for them. And here, I think, is why: too many MRAs are less interested in helping male victims of domestic violence than they are in providing excuses and justifications for male abusers.

744 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Viscaria
Viscaria
8 years ago

@vaiyt: The fact that blacks may have it worse than men

Thank you for revealing that the group “men” in your mind doesn’t include any black people.

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

You support these insane ideas …

Well, it’s only right that Necro-troll should go for as many bigotries as possible.

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

I do have evidence that men get longer prison sentences than women who commit similar crimes. I consider this perhaps the most serious gender issue that men face today in America

And your solution to “most serious gender issue” is longer prison sentences for women, I see.

Octo
Octo
8 years ago

“And your solution to “most serious gender issue” is longer prison sentences for women, I see.”

Or shorter sentences for men. Come on, juridical fairness is in fact something that should be aspired to.

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

@Octo I wasn’t posting against judicial fairness, I was noting that Hibernia86’s solution appeared to be “punish women more” rather than “ease up on men”.

trans_commie
8 years ago

I love it when necroers walk into an old comment thread and completely misunderstand the comment they’re responding to. It’s so clear that kitteh wasn’t advocating murder that I have a hard time believing that Hibernia isn’t deliberately misreading what she’s saying.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Yes there is a lot of bad behavior in the MRA community, but the attitude that seems to be common in the threads on this site that any talk of male gender issues is wrong seems sexist to me. The genders should be treated equally which means that we should look out for the concerns of both genders. Just because women have more issues facing them doesn’t mean they are the only ones.

You are a simple-minded jerkoff.

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

Poor Hibernia86 – so convinced he’d performed a major gotcha and proved a commenter here sexist that his response to being called a necro-troll is:

@Katz can you explain what it means then so I can tell if you are guilty of it?

Ni/snigger

titianblue
titianblue
8 years ago

Ok, where the fuck did that “Ni” come from? I did not write that! Sorry to everyone, that looks like I was using the n-word as an insult. I wasn’t and I never would.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
8 years ago

Anti-intersectionality-bot does not understand these complicated ideas. Anti-intersectionality-bot also does not understand the concept that treating people who aren’t equals in the eyes of society “equally” isn’t actually particularly “fair”. Anti-intersectionality-bot thinks that you can make social inequality vanish by pretending it doesn’t exist, like a toddler playing hide and seek who thinks that if they cover their own eyes nobody can see them.

cloudiah
8 years ago

As usual, I see our little necromancer doesn’t bother to understand the issues or discussion, throws around a bunch of half-facts and even more statements that assume facts not in evidence, and then accuses us all of hating men.

We need better quality trolls!

weirwoodtreehugger
8 years ago

If there’s a gender gap in sentencing it’s because patriarchy treats women as the weaker, fairer sex. I don’t know why necrotroll thinks this is some sort of gotcha to be used against feminism. Critical thinking fail.

sparky
sparky
8 years ago

Necrotroll still hasn’t proven zir first assertion, that women claim to be abused as a defense for murder, and that this defense works.

Bina
8 years ago

I notice it’s now been several hours since the necrotroll pooped here. Meanwhile, here’s a little light reading on the battered woman defence, and how easily it doesn’t work:

In R v Ahluwalia (1992) 4 AER 889 a battered wife killed her violent and abusive husband. She claimed provocation and the judge directed the jury to consider whether, if she did lose her self-control, a reasonable person having the characteristics of a well-educated married Asian woman living in England would have lost her self-control given her husband’s provocation. On appeal, it was argued that he should have directed the jury to consider a reasonable person suffering from ‘battered woman syndrome’. Having considered fresh medical evidence, the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial on the basis that the new evidence showed an arguable case of diminished responsibility in English law.[3]

Similarly, in R v Thornton (No 2) (1996) 2 AER 1023 the battered wife adduced fresh evidence that she had a personality disorder and the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial considering that, if the evidence had been available at the original trial, the jury might have reached a different decision. The victim does not have to be in a position to carry out the threats immediately.[4]

In R v Charlton (2003) EWCA Crim 415, following threats of sexual and violent abuse against herself and her daughter, the defendant killed her obsessive, jealous, controlling partner while he was restrained by handcuffs, blindfolded and gagged as part of their regular sexual activity. The term of five years’ imprisonment was reduced to three and a half years because of the terrifying threats made by a man determined to dominate and control the defendant’s life. The threats created a genuine fear for the safety of herself and more significantly, her daughter, and this caused the defendant to lose control and make the ferocious attack.[5]

In HM’s AG for Jersey v Holley (2005) 3 AER 371 the Privy Council regarded Smith as wrongly decided, interpreting the Act as setting a purely objective standard. Thus, although the accused’s characteristics were to be taken into account when assessing the gravity of the provocation, the standard of self-control to be expected was invariable except for the accused’s age and sex. The defendant and the deceased both suffered from chronic alcoholism and had a violent and abusive relationship. The evidence was that the deceased was drunk and taunted him by telling him that she had had sex with another man. The defendant then struck the deceased with an axe which was an accident of availability. Psychiatric evidence was that his consumption of alcohol was involuntary and that he suffered from a number of other psychiatric conditions which, independently of the effects of the alcohol, might have caused the loss of self-control and induced him to kill. Lord Nicholls said:

Whether the provocative acts or words and the defendant’s response met the ‘ordinary person’ standard prescribed by the statute is the question the jury must consider, not the altogether looser question of whether, having regard to all the circumstances, the jury consider the loss of self-control was sufficient excusable. The statute does not leave each jury free to set whatever standard they consider appropriate in the circumstances by which to judge whether the defendant’s conduct is ‘excusable’.[6]

And that’s just under British law.

I defy our troll to prove that the patterns of prior spousal abuse in these cases are the equivalent of a woman merely slapping a man, or beaning him with a frying-pan.

Robin
Robin
8 years ago

I am blown away by the extreme sexism here against men. Are you all really advocating that its ok for a woman to hit a man no matter what? Wow, no wonder the MRA and Humanism movements are growing so fast and more and more people are starting to hate Feminism. All I can say is keep your damn hands to yourself no matter who you are! If a woman wants to be treated as a self-empowered individual then she needs to act like one. Running around hitting men is childish, aggressive and should be punished by the law. A man should try to get away from a violent woman but if he cannot then self-defense should be used and not punished by law just because he is a man. This system is so sexist against men that I just cant believe that feminists dont see it!

sparky
sparky
8 years ago

Damn necrotrolls.

Are you all really advocating that its ok for a woman to hit a man no matter what?

No. No on here has advocated that, at all. Please cite where you think someone is saying that it’s a-ok for a woman to hit a man. Because no one here has said that.

hellkell
hellkell
8 years ago

Robin: if you bothered to read instead of being in such a hurry to leave your brain vomit on our carpet, you might have picked up that, no, no one here thinks hitting men (or anyone) is OK.

contrapangloss
contrapangloss
8 years ago

… The dead threads! They LIVE!

::facepalms::

Funny thing, I actually totally agree that women should not hit men, and that if a man can’t get away from a violent woman, he should be allowed to use self defense. However, self defense by definition has to be the minimum amount of force necessary to escape, so beating someone half to death is kind of out of the question.

Wait, no. That isn’t funny. That’s kind of part of being a feminist.

Try again? Wait, don’t. To this thread, I humbly request of necrotrolls,

Let it be; let it be! Let it be; let it be. Whisper words of wisdom, let it be!

Inquisitive Lady
Inquisitive Lady
6 years ago

Wow, I’m really disappointed in Karen.
Just goes to show that both Feminists and MRAs have their fair share of crazy assholes.
It’s the same with any group, really.
There’s always going to be that loud crazy minority no matter what side you join.
As for the idea of abuse making things better, it certainly does not.
I was both emotionally and physically abused by my own father.
For anyone who’s well educated in child development, it’s well known that children who grow up being abused, tend to develop abnormal stress responses.
I ended up with anxiety disorder, OCD, and was even agoraphobic for 7 years.
As for my mother, she was abused by my dad as well.
So when we finally left him, she had to go through intense counselling, me included.
Last point I have to make is, I don’t like how these pro-abuse idiots think that we’re automatically weak.
I always stood up to my father and defended myself. I refused to let him get me down.
However, you never really realise how much abuse affects you in a subconscious level.
It’s not something you can control when you’ve been suffered years of abuse.

1 28 29 30
%d bloggers like this: