Nah, how about instead of that, you don’t inflict your hateful lies on me, you repulsive creep.
I’m a member of a human rights movement which at present, is unpopular, to say the least. It’s so unpopular that the opponents of this movement are rarely even challenged when they make absurd and sickening claims such as Andrea Sands’ article for the Vancouver Sun. Andrea asserted in her article that objecting to false criminal accusations equates to excusing and supporting the commission of the violent crime of rape. And nobody, from her copy editor to her publisher challenged such a sadistic accusation. As I said, the human rights movement I’m a part of is not, at present very popular. Of course, this unpopularity correlates closely with the necessity of the movement.
Necessary human rights movements are never popular ones, for obvious reasons.
Over time I’ve noticed the most common position taken against myself and other men’s human rights activist is some variation of the imperative statement “shame on you!”
“Shame on you” is essentially what Andrea Sands was saying in her claim that public rejection of false accusations amounts to the same thing as excusing and endorsing the violent crime of rape. The victims of false accusation, whose lives are destroyed, whose families are torn apart, whose careers are ended and children denied a stable upbringing, in Andrea Sands world, these victims and their advocates are endorsing the commission of rape.
Are you fucking kidding me, Sands?
She’s not kidding, obviously, but what she is doing is heaping as much pain as she possibly can on those struggling for recognition of their humanity.
Obviously, Andrea Sands, writing from her home office somewhere between Vancouver and Edmonton wasn’t able to built a substantive or rational opposition to the posters of Men’s Rights Edmonton. Indeed, if anybody had a substantive argument supporting the use of false accusations as weapons, then they would have made one. Andrea Sands, displeased as she is with the message of a poster, cannot silence the author of that message with a physical beating. So, angered or offended by the message “ lying about sexual assault = a crime” and of course “don’t be that girl,” and Sands without a counter argument or a rod to break over anyone’s back did the next best thing. She used the only weapon she could find. Shame.
Nobody, not even Andrea Sands actually thinks opposition to the use of false criminal accusation is actually support of rape. And, even though Sands makes that claim in her article, she isn’t trying to convince anybody she’s actually that stupid. Invoking of shame as a weapon of course bypasses reason or logic, and taps directly into deeper and older parts of the brain. This is why Sand’s characterization is unimportant. Her goal was never to make a convincing case, it was simply to invoke pain by pulling on our ancient social instincts. Implied rejection by the group. Death.
Again, our opponents invariably use shame to attack men’s human rights activists. At the U of T, in April of 2013 at the Nathanson and Young lecture, the crowd of angry chanting ideologues chanted “shame on you and U of T, for allowing misogyny”. What misogyny? Paul Nathanson is a gay man, and Katherine Young is a woman – these were the ones who the protesters were there to silence. Reason doesn’t matter, shame is not a weapon of rational rebuttal. It’s simply a tool to inflict pain. Indeed, also at the Nathanson and Young event, one of the more aggressive male feminists made it his business to shout into the faces of those attempting to attend the scheduled lecture “shame on you!! and shame on you!!”. This man jabbing his finger into the faces of his targets as he shouted into their faces. He couldn’t physically assault them obviously, there were too many cameras rolling and police present. But his point wasn’t to field any kind of logical argument, it was simply to trigger ancient hominid instincts, and inflict pain. To silence and shame those arguing for human rights. Is there some motivation for this besides cruelty?
At the Warren Farrell presentation, also at the University of Toronto, the Toronto police interposed themselves between protesters and attendees to prevent assault on those attempting to hear Dr Farrell by those protestors. The protestors, for this part shouted at the police “shame! Shame! Shame!”
So, those Toronto cops should feel shame for preventing violence? Really?
But whether overt or indirect, this repeated use of shame as a weapon to silence is a non-rational attack. Like all weapons used to silence, when an individual employs shame, she is admitting she has no counter argument thus, ironically, her unfounded attack is without merit or legitimacy.
She should be ashamed to use shame.
It sure does wear thin after years of the very same empty attack. But having felt that attack, experienced MRAs understand far better what the reliance on shame means for opposition to a movement seeking human recognition and rights of boys and men. It’s the sublimation of violence.
So, shame on me? The obvious question is what for? But, since that question is never answered with anything except thought-stopping cliche, empty accusations and further repetitions of “shame! Shame!”.
But an answer to “what for” isn’t really necessary anymore, it’s clear that the general point of an appeal to shame isn’t to address any legitimate problem. Well, besides the problem of men failing to comply with the desires of violent sexist bigots and thugs. And indeed, it’s also long past time for men to not simply and quietly discard shame from their own emotional repertoire, but to do so publicly.
The continued attempted use of shame against men pursuing human rights for themselves deserves nothing short of open scorn, contempt and derision. What other possible response could there be to the open sadism, indulged with the support of a corrupt industry profiting by continuation of violence against the victims it purports to protect?
Shame on me? I’m afraid not. In fact, for a growing number of not only men’s human rights activists, but men in a climate of public hate towards males, the continued ability to feel shame becomes ever more obvious as maladaptive. It’s simply a crude tool of psychological violence used to coerce compliance with the desires of sadists of the leisure caste.
Emerging from the still-rising climate of disdain for boy’s and men’s humanity is a broadening path of self realization for men. Shame has no part of it.
So, shame on me? No, I am quite shameless. And you can get lost, creep.
