MANFO og Hate Speech 1: De fucking feminister er de onde, ikke os!

Alternativ titel: MANFO Tjekker Ikke Sine Kilder, Del 100.

Lennart Kiil har endelig opdaget Men's Rights Activism. Det var vel bare et spørgsmål om tid.

Omend gemt bag et nogenlunde uskyldigt navn, så er bevægelsen med forkortelsen MRA (nogle gange MRM for Men's Rights Movement) hjemsted for ufatteligt meget kvindehad. Det har ført til at det amerikanske Southern Poverty Law Center har klassificeret flere MRA-sites som "hate speech". Et af disse sites tilhører vores gamle ven Roosh, den voldtægtsglade pick up artist. Har man nerver til det kan man også besøge nogle af de andre sider (især Reddit: Men's Right, The Spearhead og A Voice For Men er populære hos kvindehaderne), men Mandfjolset advarer jer: Det er stærke sager.

Det ved Lennart Kiil ikke noget om, for han har ikke undersøgt omtalte blogs. Han skriver:

Jeg kender ikke de omtalte blogs, men ved, at der er mennesker i Danmark, der forsøger at få MANFO lagt under kategorien “Hate Speech”. Det er en meget uheldig tendens, der underminerer ytringsfrihed.

Girl Writes What kommer også ind på, hvor den egentlige hadetale kommer fra. Det er nogle interessante eksempler, hun kommer med.

At han ikke ved noget om sagen stopper ham naturligvis ikke fra at dele en video der omtaler den. Videoen tilhører girlwriteswhat, en af de få kvindelige kvindehadere i MRA-bevægelsen, og den kommer her.

Hvis du ikke orkede at se videoen, så er her et kort referat: Girlwriteswhat nævner at SPLC har kategoriseret flere MRA-sites og en enkelt pick up artist-blog som "hate speech". Herefter citerer hun fra dette brev:

He has raised millions upon millions of dollars with various schemes, never mentioning that he does not need the money because he has $175 million and two “poverty palace” buildings in Montgomery. He has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people–some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation. He has spent most of what they have sent him to raise still more millions, pay high salaries, and promote himself.

 Herefter citerer hun Mark Krikorian, som tydeligvis er helt neutral:

Now, piggybacking on the two minutes’ hate against Limbaugh [Rush Limbaugh er en amerikansk radiovært som kaldte en collegestuderende ved navn Sandra Fluke for bl.a. "slut" og "prostitute" fordi hun mente at p-piller burde dækkes af ens sundhedsforsikring], they’ve found a new arena of hate groups, comparable to neo-Nazis and the skinheads: the “manosphere” of misogynist web sites, including, among others, “Roosh Vörek . . . a Maryland-raised PUA (“pick up artist”) whose specialty is sex with foreign women.” As if that weren’t funny enough, one of their sources of information is — I am not making this up — something called manboobz.com [der på trods af det fjollede navn er et troværdigt site der holder et vågent øje med kvindehadet i MRA-kredse.].

The good news is that all that “poverty” law has enabled the SPLC to amass assets of more than $200 million, ensuring that we will be able to mock it for years to come. 

Krikorian får godt nok Roosh V til at lyde som en uskyldig fætter. Vi ved heldigvis bedre, ikke?

Girlwriteswhat nævner flere, der skriver om Roosh V. Sjovt nok nævner ingen af dem hans voldtægtstendenser. Som hun pointerer er det tegn på at SPLCs hate speech-liste ikke bliver taget særlig seriøst.

Girlwriteswhat peger derefter SPLC i retning af en rigtig hate speech-side, nemlig radicalhub.com. Hun citerer fra en artikel:

[...]As Sheila Jeffreys has put it, and I think we all agree, it has to start with this: there is something wrong with men. It is a pathology with both physical and psychological features. I personally think it is as old as our evolution as hominids. I think it’s a biological adaptation which is now rotten, dangerous, and vestigial. I think we have to force the scientific establishment to take a clear look at this colossal sick old mammoth taking up all the space in the living room[.]

[...]We see that compassion, empathy, a willingness to work with men, is seized upon and perverted by the System as it has always been, a weakness when dealing with the amoral. We don’t make the mistake of wasting our energies trying to persuade men to do anything. We are not naïve or idealistic, and we work to avoid falling into denial. There is no romanticization possible of the System. As painful as it is, we choose to act without illusions, especially the illusion that the System can be fundamentally changed from within.

[...]Joanna Russ presented us with an early vision of a woman-only society. James Tiptree, Jr. wrote a story in which the women characters flee earth entirely. Some say an earth with only 10% men will be a safe earth free of oppression. We need more of these visions.

My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification.

I’m serious about this. If we can do it with corn, men ought to be easy. 

 Hun fortsætter med kommentarer. Her er et par eksempler:

[W]e cannot take anything off the table. and that includes biology, and biological explanations for mens sickening behavior. and if this turns out to be the case, then to consider a biological solution. we must consider this [...] that men are biologically, genetically mentally ill, and the only solution to this is a biological solution, and the last thing they want is for us to solve this problem? the problem of them?

this is absolutely a taboo subject, but it has got to be discussed, and it is being discussed.

 Og:

[...]It’s *men* that are redundant due to their high fertility. They should be fighting each other, fighting for the right to pass on their genes: survival of the fittest *man* is how it really should be.

Der snakkes bl.a. om kønsbestemt abort, drab af mænd og ændring af mænds gener, og det gør girlwriteswhat vred:

This is what a fucking hate group looks like!

Hun mener ikke at SPLC er etiske nok til at kunne dømme radicalhub.com som hate speech, når de dømmer andre sider for latterlige ting som at mene at en mand må slå igen, hvis en kvinde slår ham, eller at man ikke har lyst til at ringe til en kvinde efter et one night stand.

They get on your list. This, and everything attached to it, all of the feminist theory that is attached to it, all of that, none of that has any basis in hate.

Og så kan hun ikke snakke mere om det fordi det er så åndssvagt. Hun stopper videoen.

Det kan godt være at Lennart Kiil ikke har styr på amerikanske MRA-blogs. Det har vi heldigvis her på Mandfjols. Manboobz.com inspirerede Mandfjols's fødsel, og længe inden bloggen her kom til fulgte jeg med i hvad der foregik i amerikanske misogynist-kredse.

Inden vi kommer for godt i gang, så lad os lige tjekke radicalhub.com. Hvad girlwriteswhat nævner er nemlig blot uddrag af en lang tekst, der i bund og grund handler om radikalfeministers gode egenskaber. Én tekst ud af mange—et gæsteindlæg, oven i købet! Har MANFO ikke besvaret kritik med "det var et gæsteindlæg" før?

Det er ingen hemmelighed at radikalfeminister er, well, radikale, og de ville bestemt have svært ved at klare sig her i Danmark, hvor vi er ganske feministforskrækkede. Der er langt mere fokus på patriarkatsteori, og de fokuserer næsten eksklusivt på kvinders rettigheder. De tager sågar gerne afstand fra andre typer feminister, der er lidt for "bløde i det".

Mange af de kommentarer girlwriteswhat nævner kan jeg ikke finde. De er simpelthen blevet slettet, sandsynligvis på grund af deres ekstreme indhold. Det er dem, der handler om massedrab og aflivning af mænd. Om de er blevet slettet netop på grund af girlwriteswhat's video eller uafhængigt af den skal jeg ikke kunne sige—men helt så hadefuld som girlwriteswhat vil gøre den er radicalhub.com nok ikke. Men jeg vil gerne være large—med lidt god vilje kunne man nok godt kalde det for hate speech.

Godt. Videre til girlwriteswhat! Hun ser jo ganske sympatisk ud som hun sidder der, men lad os lige se lidt på hvad hun selv synes. Hendes andre videoer er slemme nok for sig selv, men her er et andet godt eksempel:

Ferdinand Bardamu postede (originalt på sitet In Mala Fide, som skægt nok er på SPLCs hate speech-liste) en artikel ved navn "The Necessity of Domestic Violence". Det er næsten umuligt at læse den uden at få det skidt, så hvis du ikke kan overskue det kan den sådan set opsummeres i sætningerne:

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

Og at alt for mange kvinder er:

conniving, manipulative cunts who wear their men down for the gina tingles, then trick bystanders into squirting tears to their sob stories.

Man skal lede længe efter en mere kvindefjendsk artikel. Jeg anbefaler at man læser det hele hvis man kan.

I en diskussion om artiklen på siden Reddit kommenterer girlwriteswhat:I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I'd listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he'd eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they'd be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other.

A man I know who has experience with men in abusive relationships would get his clients to answer a questionare. Things like, "after the violence, did you have sex?" "If so, how would you rate the sex?" 100% of men in reciprocally abusive relationships said "yes" to the first, and "scorching" to the second. 

He also posited that the much-quoted cycle of violence--the build-up, the explosion, the honeymoon period--correlates with foreplay, orgasm and post-coital bliss. 

Erin Pizzey called it "consensual violence", and said in the main, that was the type she'd see at her shelter. It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because our "never EVER hit a woman" mentality has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they're demanding. 

The DV in Sleeping with the Enemy is the most rare form out there, half as common as "matriarchal terrorism", and injuries are typically less severe. It's seriously foolish to treat all cases like the most rare type, and refuse to address women's instigation and participation in violence. 

I don't really find too much in the article that strikes me as seriously ethically questionable. DV isn't pretty. Neither is the article.

Den tager vi lige igen:

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

En anden kommentator opsummerer hendes kommentar ganske godt:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a good summary of what you're saying is "Violence isn't right but a slap here and there is better than the guy taking all of her nagging and exploding in such a way that he beats her within an inch of her life".

Hvortil hun svarer:

That's pretty much it.

I also think it would be good for women to take boxing or karate or some other form of training, not only because it helps you be more confident in your ability to defend yourself against muggings and stuff like that, but that would demonstrate to women that getting hit isn't going to break them into little pieces. Women aren't made out of spun glass, and allowing them to believe they are does them no favors.

Hun er da en god gammeldags charmetrold. Hun synes da også at mænd bør have ret til medbestemmelse når det gælder abort, til hvilket Mandfjols kun kan sige fuck dig.

Det var girlwriteswhat, mine damer og herrer. Og hende synes MANFO er fornuftig.

I næste del skal vi kigge på hvad de såkaldt "feministkritiske blogs" egentlig skriver.