The most ingenious tactic of misogynistic MRAs
Julie Bindel on the Blame Women trick:
Men blaming women for ‘getting themselves raped/murdered/beaten’ is certainly nothing new. But women being blamed for male violence towards other vulnerable groups, such as trans-women of colour, is the latest pernicious tactic by misogynists. Feminists are blamed for the murder of trans-women, including those killed by intimate male partners.
Apparently, we whip up hatred and fury that leads men to decide to kill trans women. Doubtless these violent male murderers will have been sitting reading me, Janice Turner, Janice Raymond, and watching Magdalen Berns videos before deciding to take a gun, knife, fists or whatever and brutally kill a trans-woman. Not being satisfied with having total permission, indeed praise, for screaming TERF, bigot, fascist, homophobic, evil witch at us feminists, the woke blokes who get regular pats on the dick for putting bitches in our place, the dudes now put the blame on others for fatal male violence. Despite the fact that we are the ones at risk from violence by trans-extremists.
It is the most ingenious tactic of misogynistic men’s rights activists I have ever seen in 40 years of feminism. But we see you, boys, and I swear to god we will have you.
And always I wonder why nobody among the Woking Dead ever stop to think that if we feminists had such power to control and direct male behavior, wouldn’t we use that power to our benefit in other ways? Like stopping men from killing us?
I agree with pretty much everything she wrote except I was surprised to see her categorize the opposition on this point as men’s rights activists. Is there much overlap between MRAs (generally non-woke dudebros) and people like Peter Tatchell (generally part of the mega-woke)? Or is she using MRA in a different sense?
@southwest88
I keep thinking of these people as woke zombies, but The Woking Dead is utterly brilliant.
Let me see if I can give this a shot.
MRAs (as far as I can tell) seem to be more interested in tearing down women than actually building anything for men. They more interested in attacking feminism than in trying to dismantle patriarchy, which traps men in restrictive, stereotypical beviours and expectations and puts them at increased risk of violence at the hands of other men. So, for example, they will argue against women’s shelters saying WHAT ABOUT THE MENS? instead of taking this energy and effort to build shelters for men trying to escape abusive relationships. MRAs think the playing field is already tilted in women’s favour, that society is stacked against men, with women having more than their fair share of power. In there eyes there’s no such thing as “rape culture” and men are under constant threat of false accusations of rape from women. Incels believe women owe them sex, and that their withholding of it is evil.
TRAs seem more intent on colonizing women’s spaces than building spaces of their own, on trying to take over the concept of womanhood rather than trying to change the concept of manhood. They rail against TERFs and feel they are oppressed by women who have cis privilege. Gender critical women are held responsible for violence against trans identified males, even though they are actually much more likely to be assaulted and murdered by men. TIMs are much more keen on inserting themselves into women’s sports and spaces than in asserting their rights to men’s spaces and sports. The idea of the “cotton ceiling” is an coercive attack on lesbian boundaries and safety, which paints the withholding of consent as evil. TIMs depend on patriarchal gender stereotypes and have no interest in dismantling them, even though these are the likely origin and cause of anti-trans violence rather than the GC feminists they blame.
Both MRAs and TRAs believe that women have more power than they do, more power than they should, and that consequently, their own progress and advancement must, perforce, come at the expense of women. Details may differ, but there are broad similarities between them, nevertheless.
I don’t think it’s that complicated.
I for one (and I’m far from the only one) have been pointing out for ages how misogynistic much trans activism is, and how tellingly obsessive it is about non-compliant feminist women while ignoring non-compliant men. That’s it – that’s what Julie is referring to, as far as I can tell. The misogyny is obvious and intensely infuriating, yet it flies under the radar. That’s what she’s talking about, she’s dead right, and that’s why I looked for and found a flag to say it.
How Skeletor managed to miss that is beyond me. God knows I’m repetitive enough, and Skeletor reads with close attention looking for things to correct.