You know, men are the victims of a very large amount of violence today. Men were the only ones ever conscripted, men have always been the victims of most violent crimes, the practice known as “skimmington” was historically the act of collecting a mob and violating and humiliating male victims of domestic violence. Even as part of other oppressed groups, how many lynchings were of black women? A quick search reveals a source about lynching of women, which reveals there were 89 between 1889 and 1922. It also mentions in passing nearly three and a half thousand people were lunched over all.
So your position that there is a reasonable expectation that threats against women will be acted on while those made against men won’t be is nonsense.
There have also been threats made by feminists against their opponents. Eriz Pizzey was forced out of Britain by death threats, Suzanne Steinmetz was sent death threats, obviously Valerie Solanas’s Society for Cutting Up Men was also characterised by death threats, bomb threats have been made against the Miss World competition, bomb threats have been made against recent Canadian MRM events, and the upcoming MRM convention in America, and even as long ago as the suffragette movement, the suffragettes ran a terrorist campaign which included burning down the house of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Yes. You know what’s interesting about that list ? How you know their actual names. You know why you know their names ? Because they stand out from the crowd. They’re exceptional. Also they’re spectacularly fanatical (which is what… yes).
Do you know the names of the guys who send a thousand rape threats or wishes in the comments of e.g. every single YouTube video by a female activist ? They don’t even have to be *feminist *activists. Just being a woman and having a strong opinion on something is enough to let the Neanderthal dogs out.
You’re pathetic.
Also
Cute. I like how you take a textbook example of historical misogyny and the oppression of women and turn it into “poor poor men”.
No, chuckles, it wasn’t about humiliating male victims of domestic violence, you made that up. Skimmington (and the related charivari) was about social shunning of men who let their woman “wear the pants” of the household, or didn’t care that she slept around, and his woman along with him. It was, at heart, a practice meant to encourage the man to put down his uppity woman and for the **both **of them to adhere to the social standard - strict patriarchy, rigid gender roles, subservient wife, vanilla sexual mores (notably forcing young people to marry if they’re found out having the sex), and so on.
To frame that as oppression of men is either ignorant, or craven.
I know their names because they are prominent, it was a list of remarkable people’s experiences, not the likes of the vlogger “SparkyFister”, or JohnTheOther, or the one who runs the Community of the Wrongly Accused, or any of the various nobodies who have also received death threats.
Also, Suzanne Steinmetz is a sociological researcher, her death threats came because her research contradicted feminist orthodoxy on the prevalence of domestic violence. Erin Pizzey was the founder of Britain’s first shelter for battered women. “Spectacularly fanatical” is not an accurate description.
Or being a man, like the aforementioned SparkyFister and company. Perhaps you’ve never perused a comments section.
“This blog and our predecessor blog have taken a lot of abuse over the years. I’ve gotten messages from angry readers saying they hoped I’d be brutally raped. We’ve been called rape apologists, misogynists, and pretty much every other vile name in the book. They try to reduce us to caricature and demonize us by branding us as extremists of one kind or another. They do it to diminish us, and it keeps them from responding to the substance of our positions.”
You see, it’s not just women who get the rape threats, rather, it’s only women that you care about getting rape threats.
Possibly, but you are wrong.
It applied to husbands of women who were verbally abusive and who cheated on their husbands (both classed as “emotional abuse” and domestic violence by the Home Office, incidentally) as well as those who were physically violent, yes. In fact the very name “skimmington” comes from a kitchen implement commonly used by wives to assault their husbands. But even you don’t deny the basic fact: a woman acted against her husband, he was merely the recipient of her mistreatment, and the result was him being brutalised and humiliated by the community. She hurts him, they hurt him for being such a pussy. Rather similar to current police procedure, in practice.
And this is what you call misogyny. Then you wonder why egalitarians don’t call themselves feminists.
Your hatred and apologetics for violence appall and sicken me. You are a knave and a bigot and a fool.
Oh yes, jolly well done you, I did indeed post a single link to an article not written by Paul Elam on that site, which clearly makes everything Paul Elam has ever written germane to the discussion. You know, Paul Elam who intentionally says inflammatory things to garner attention. But you want me to look at his articles, fine.
The first one is about rape, he makes the comparison between women who go out partying and get raped and people whose cars are stolen because they left the keys in them. I disagree quite strongly with him, and apparently so do a large number of his readers (of whom I am not one), as he’s added an addendum at the end telling them he doesn’t care if they disagree or not.
The second one is about voting not-guilty if on the jury at a rape trial, regardless of any evidence presented. Well, given the effects of rape shield laws and biased rules of evidence, at least in my country, and the very large proportion of convicted “rapists” later exonerated, I’d say there’s a good doubt over whether an alleged rapist can get due process at the present time. I wouldn’t vote not-guilty just because myself, but I can see the argument for it. Of course you didn’t quote the bit where he gives his reasons, because it doesn’t support your argument. Whatever that is. Is it that I’m wrong because I cited something which happens to be on the same domain as an article about jury nullification?
Your third quote is about how he doesn’t like feminists, and has the gall, the temerity!, to insult them. Diddums, I hope he didn’t hurt your delicate sensibilities too awfully.
You then quote someone I’ve never heard of who wrote a post on AVfM two years ago and said some unkind things about some women. I don’t know how you chose these particular quotes, but a post from back then wherein some no-mark says that “far too many” women are “social succubi” is an odd choice.
Then you go back to bigmouth Elam and apparently take seriously what is clearly, and explicitly, written as a satire of, in Elam’s words, “White Ribbon Campaigns, Walk a Mile in Her Shoes Marches. Slutwalks, Take Back the Night Rallies and all other manner of celebrating men by painting them all as literal or potential villains”. Because holding all mothers responsible for the child-murdering ones is as absurd as holding all men responsible for rape with “teach men not to rape”, “only men can stop rape”, “don’t be that guy” and so on, ad nauseam.
So what you’ve got is a no-mark who said something insulting about women and a bunch of articles by Paul Elam, one being satire you pretended was serious, one in which he horrifically insults feminists like a brute and a cad, one in which he argues for a form of non-violent resistance to the legal system over the risk of wrongfully imprisoning innocent men and one article I agree is wrong.
Now, if you would like to disagree with something I’ve actually said, feel free to do so. If you want to disagree with some random rubbish you’ve dredged from the archives of a website from which I linked an unrelated article then you will get no further response, no matter how much you yap at me and try to bite my ankles.
This is such nonsense. The man was singled out because society expected and demanded that he dominate his wife. Women were never singled out and brutalized for being victims – that was what was expected. Domestic violence and oppression of women was not just tolerated, it was expected and even demanded.
The societal expectation that men dominate ‘their’ women is absolutely misogyny.
Nonsense. Many egalitarians call themselves feminist.
More utter nonsense. Sentiments like “only men can stop rape” are not ‘holding all men responsible for rape’ – they are making the point that the problem with (most) rape is not women’s behavior, it’s men’s behavior. Not all men, but the men who rape (obviously). And many of these men do not believe they’re doing anything wrong – especially for date rape, intimate partner rape, and familial rape, which are some of the most common scenarios.
The only women who bear responsible for rape are women who commit rape. A woman could run down the street naked, and she still bears absolutely no responsibility or guilt if she is raped – only the rapist does.
First, the 9/11 hijackers were part of a larger, more-or less organized terror group who even before 9/11 had shown themselves capable of carrying out multiple attacks with large loss of life. They were still extant after 9/11 and demanded some sort of response. This is one crazy person who is now dead.
Furthermore, the 9/11 attackers did not strike just to “get people’s attention.” they had specific policy goals. They wanted an end to the US presence in the Arabian Peninsula, and, in the long term, a re-creation of the Islamic Caliphate. The Santa Barbara douchebag didn’t have any goal beyond expressing his inchoate rage, and lashing back at a world he felt ignored him.
But the most imoprtant difference is that although political terrorists are aware of mass media and will take note of it, they are going to attack regardless of how much people talk about them. Mass shooters like the Santa Barbara loon do it solely for attention. The more attention we give the last guy the more likely it is that some other angry young man is going to try and grab that attention too. The Sandy hook asshole was obsessed with the Norway asshole and wanted to top him, if not in numbers, then in horror. These guys feed off of attention, and the more we give it to them the more we encourage them.
We had a thread a while back where I was on your side, I recall that we ended up coming to the agreement that the evidence largely suggests that “accidental rape” is generally a myth.
While this is about college rape, RAINN, for instance, finds education about consent relatively futile, except as it pertains to education about consent under drugs and alcohol. Their stance is that people are, indeed, peppered with anti-rape messages from an early age, and the remaining rapists are on the streets are unresponsive (and at worst deliberately uncaring) about anti-sexual assault messages. Their presence is largely because of lack of convictions, and lack of education about what good, non-rapist bystanders can do to help prevent rapes and what to do after someone they know has been raped.
Which is why you chose to portray this obscure practice most people have never heard about as specifically against “victims of domestic violence”, of course.
I mean, they were obviously supposed to implicitly figure out that this included mouthing off and cheating (BTW, the Home Office classifies spousal infedelity as domestic violence ? I’m going to laugh at you now), and that “domestic violence” also included emotional abuse.
Nothing dishonest about that, no sirree.
Yup, possibly (although as with much of slang, the etymology is murky at best). But that’s only one of the many, many names for this practice.
Brutalized ? Banging pots and pans, and in the more extreme cases riding them around town on a beam is “brutalizing” ? For a proud defender of men’s rights, you sound kind of like a pussy.
Besides, I’m not exactly sure how banging pots and pans in front of the couple’s house represents “**him **being brutalized”. As I said, it was a means for the village to heap indignation upon the couple for straying outside the lines of “acceptable behaviour”. Acceptable behaviour back then happening to largely be shitty for women.
Um, yeah, I’d say “we’re going to bang pots until you beat some sense into your wife” is kinda sorta a little bit not entirely unlike misogynistic, yeah. Call me crazy. Or a cab.
And I don’t call myself a feminist, btw.
A knave ? A KNAVE ? SIR. This cannot but be redressed on the field. I demand satisfaction. You shall hear from my seconds.
If people have never heard of it they are ignorant. It’s mentioned by Marvell, Pepys, Ben Jonson, Hardy, Walter Scott, even Jonathan Swift wrote a poem about its victims.
According to Womens’ Aid, it includes “shouting/mocking/accusing/name calling”, “sulking, threatening to withhold money, disconnect the telephone, take the car away, commit suicide, take the children away”, “lying to you, withholding information from you, being jealous, having other relationships, breaking promises and shared agreements”, and so on, all of which they’ve got from the Home Office.
It’s the main name in English-speaking countries, and pretty strong evidence that even then a defining characteristic of skimmington was its use against battered men.
For a feminist, you’re quite a dick. Except most feminists are. As a defender of men’s rights, I’m against gender stereotyping and am not at all surprised to find a feminist gender-policing by trying to shame a man with the label “pussy”.
Banging pots outside the house was a small part of it, it was not only extreme cases but rather standard cases that involved being forcibly abducted and tied backwards on a donkey. Sometimes it was done against the couple, sometimes even against their neighbours, but overwhelmingly it was against the male partner only.
If you would like to actually know something about the skimmington, I recommend this pdf, which is the best source about it I can find on the internet, in terms of being well referenced and comprehensive.
*"It is from the West Country (ie. Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon) of England that the name most associated with the custom arose. ‘Riding Skimmington’ or ‘Skimmington’ was the term particularly associated with the beaten husband. Although these processional devices were also known as ‘Riding the Stang’ and other terms in other parts of the country (see Davis, 1971, footnote 48), it is uncertain as to whether these other terms referred to Charivari customs that were aimed particularly at beaten husbands (Barret, 1895). Thus it is probably as ‘Riding Skimmington’ that the Charivari against the beaten husband was most known and the word ‘Skimmington’ became a name of derision for the beaten husband as well as for the processional humiliation, whilst ‘Mrs Skimmington’ denoted the husband-beating wife. The word itself derives from the skimming ladle used by women in the West Country in the process of making cheese and depicted as a useful weapon to assault their husbands. For instance, an English stone church engraving, surviving from the period around 1200 AD, shows a woman hitting a prostrate man with just such a ladle.
“An early example of a reference to one such ‘Skimmington’ procession is reported by the contemporary author Lupton as occurring in Charing Cross in London in 1562 as “1562 Shrove Monday at Charing Cross, was a man carried by four men, and before him a bagpipe playing, a shawm and a drum beating, and twenty links burning about him. The cause was, his next neighbours wife beat her husband”. Other examples of the spectacle can be found, for instance, in clerical records whereby at Waterbreach in Cambridgeshire in 1602 a vicar was reported to have been beaten by his wife and a riding occurred. An official record of a Skimmington occurs in Suffolk in 1604 and another fine example is recorded in Marsden (Wiltshire) in 1626 whereby the woman had not only badly beaten her husband and badly scratched his face, ensuring that the matter came to public attention, but she also threatened that she would “make an end of him” and his daughter by a former marriage.”*
Skimmington ridings were also used against husbands who beat their wives. In fact the article linked above goes into some detail on the policing of domestic violence against women through history. Men were certainly being shamed for being beaten, but were also liable to prosecution or skimmington if they were themselves violent. At best your position that this is an example of misogyny is victim blaming on a par with claiming women in short skirts deserve to be raped because they dress in defiance of cultural norms of modesty. More likely you’re just reinforcing regressive gender norms, or “patriarchy” as you people like to call it, so you can ignore inconvenient male victims, or “pussies” as you feminist gender-police like to call them.
It’s possible that, like a stopped clock, these sorts of brutal practices occasionally actually persecuted a ‘deserving’ offender like a wife-beater, but your links only reinforce the idea that the primary purpose of such practices were to reinforce societal norms that were, by and large, extremely repressive towards women.
None of your links suggest that the prime purpose was anything but hammering the idea home that a man is supposed to be dominant and his wife submissive.
Slavery and the Holocaust were not about oppression of men, they were about oppression of black people, or Jews (and other groups). “Men” were not a targeted group of oppression in these atrocities.
Of course, since these are the very first sources one always goes to when trying to understand power relationships between men and women in today’s society.
My friend, to mention this phenomenon here in anything more than passing is inevitably to come across as woefully complacent.
Ah, fuck it, let’s do the point-by-point anyway - I know I’m not going to achieve anything where Retardo is concerned, but it might have an impact on lurkers and expose some facets of your dishonesty that were not quite clear yet, so.
And seeing as those are all household names…
Besides, what about “they are ignorant” gives you licence to egregiously misrepresent the phenomenon to serve your myopic purposes ?
You heard it here, folks. If you ever sulk, or swear you’ll take out the trash but don’t, you’re committing Domestic Violence in blindboyard’s world.
No it’s not.
Unless the name was given ironically or metaphorically - back then the “shrew waving her skimming ladle about” was the caricature of the henpecking wife. Besides, who the fuck says etymology is a) literal and b) evidence of *anything *? The French word for work, travail, is derived from a Latin word describing a method of torture (tripalium, which depending on the source was either the poor man’s crucifixion or simple bondage under the Sun). Is that evidence that my boss routinely waterboards me ?
Still not a feminist.
I’ll skip over the self-contradiction here, I assume that’s obvious to everyone but you.
Wow, you’re right, I’m… so sorry. Given a burro ride, huh ? Facing backwards, too ?! That’s… OK, that’s downright brutal. Wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
It would be if I said anywhere that skimmington was a wholesome custom and there was nothing whatsoever wrong about it.
But of course, I never said that. OF COURSE it was fucked up, you animal. It was mob justice, which has always been an oxymoron. Worse, it was mob *moral *justice, which is another rung up the stupid ladder. But that is neither here nor there re: its motivations. And its motivations were fundamentally seeped in misogyny and enforcing patriarchal social standards. Yes, Virginia, even if its direct victims were male.
Which they of course weren’t exclusively so - what, you think a mob of rural hicks spurred into righteous outrage by the notion that “he lets his wife control/abuse/beat/cheat on him, that’s Wrong !” is going to go soft on the wife and give her a pass ? Why would you believe that for even a New York *second *?
Oh, wait, of course you don’t believe that. You just try your hardest to convince people who don’t know any better that it was the case. My bad.
How. No, seriously, how does calling out your blatant bullshit re: historical phenomenons constitutes “reinforcing regressive gender norms”, exactly ? Or ignoring male victims ?
I didn’t put forward my own thoughts on the matter. I called out your historical misdirection *because *it was blatant misdirection, not because I spit on your monomaniac crusade.
Even though I do. As **Bricker **said (in this thread or the other, I can’t be arsed to check) there does exist a modicum of male-adverse bias in some specific legal cases or circumstances. And that should be addressed.
But that’s not what you are about, at all. You’re just age-old misogyny and phallocentrism with a new coat of paint.