As I recall... a little history on feminism's SPLC claims

This post is actually a fleshed-out version of one of my responses in a skype conversation. In writing it, I realized that this particular bit of reddit's history hasn't been written down by anyone, so I thought I'd put it here. The following is from my memory.  

When the conflict between reddit feminists and /r/mensrights started, neither /r/mensrights nor /r/feminism had many subscribers. Reddit itself wasn't all that big yet. When it was new, its format was slightly different from the way it is now. Originally, links could be posted without choosing a subreddit. They were there, but they were not the focus for the site. They were for specialized posting when the link in question might not be fitting for general posting to the front page... but if you wanted to just post to reddit.com, you could. Both /r/feminism and /r/mensrights were created during that time, when subreddits were basically a side gig.

Contrary to feminist claims about men's issues discussion, it's been functional from the beginning. When /r/mensrights was new there was discussion about things like the Innocence Project, Dr. Farrell's writing, Murray Strauss's work, Erin Pizzey's work, etc. That was true even before AVFM had the readership or visibility in the movement that it has now. It took time for the staff to build up a body of sourced writing, and during that time it was just one among many blogs with sourced writing, all of which were regularly linked and cited in posts and comments on /r/mensrights. Discussion in the subreddit made it a communication hub for different groups of MRAs, where sources of information were offered, issues discussed, theories shared and evaluated, conclusions drawn, and even some real world activism planned. And while reddit's feminist presence divided itself among a plethora of heavily moderated subreddits (which feminist sub moderators have since labeled "the fempire,) for the longest time, men's issues discussion remained open, but centered firmly in /r/mensrights, leading to the faster and larger growth of that subreddit.

Feminists became upset that information contradicting their narrative was being shared and discussed in /r/mensrights. In fact, they didn't like any of what was going on in the subreddit, and some reddit feminists took it upon themselves to put a stop to it.

They began attacking /r/mensrights in a few different ways. Concern trolling complete with shaming tactics began immediately. There were a lot of women who seemed to think visiting the sub to state their disapproval would shame these unruly guys into silence, so there were actual lecture posts.

I wish today that I'd archived them, because it's hard to go back more than a few years on reddit, and some of those posts were really comical. One chick took the Nurse Ratched approach and demanded to know what our mothers would think if they knew "what we were doing in this subreddit." What I did eventually do was spend a little time archiving into a post titled "For the record" a set of links that includes concern troll posts and comments, manipulative efforts, and posts that appear to have been brigaded (targeted by other subreddits for vote or discussion manipulation). I'm not working on that as a project any more, having sampled a pretty good sized window in time, but if you look at today's posts on /r/mensrights, I'm sure you'll probably see some of the same things I noted during the creation of that archive.

Another form of attack was to make a sockpuppet account and post something positive that would garner emphatic responses, then edit it, changing to something that made the existing comments look misogynistic. That would then be archived and the archive of the edited post presented elsewhere on reddit as evidence of rampant misogyny in the sub. The mods of /r/mensrights had to employ a bot created by another redditor to archive posts so that there would be an accurate record when those accusations were made.

There were two results of this: One, the admins did temporarily ban /r/mensrights in its early stages, and we had to argue for it to be reinstated (it obviously was,)... and two, reddit was so inundated with complaints about posts and comments being edited to make responding comments look bad (in multiple subreddits) that they took user suggestions to denote edits. Posts and comments edited after the first 60 seconds are now marked with an asterisk, so now while you do have a chance to fix formatting, nobody can use editing to gaslight their commenters.

At the same time, there was a discussion among reddit's feminists about writing to the SPLC and asking them to declare men's rights activists a hate movement (referred to as "the MRA" because they apparently didn't know the "A" stood for Activists and not something like "Association.")

The SPLC article that feminists now cite as a declaration that the MRM is a hate movement came out shortly after that spate of edit-based gas-lighting and the reddit discussion. The speech it describes as hateful and misogynistic could just about only be what was presented after editing those posts.

Now, the SPLC itself is just a mouthpiece for the American left, for whom identity politics represents a major cash cow... and though they didn't apply the requested label, I believe the article is evidence that the organization was influenced by those demands from reddit feminists.

Even when the SPLC didn't do what feminists were asking, feminists immediately began citing the article to back the claim that the organization had labeled men's rights "a" hate group. They did that so quickly that I suspect we weren't even on the SPLC's radar until feminists started complaining about us, and that feminists have been bent on that goal (using the "hate group" label to discredit our advocacy) from the first time they heard of us.

Transcript for my video, "Rant on Enthusiastic Consent"

Video Link

This isn't a response video, just a short rant about feminism and consent... particularly the "enthusiastic consent" standard, which is getting more and more coverage and has now been adopted into law in California.

This is something I've discussed in various other forums for years, and there's a response I consistently get that is terribly dishonest so I want to address it now & get it out of the way. All of feminism's various approaches to separating consensual sex from sexual violence rely on the very same traditional gender roles and stereotyping they claim to oppose. Every campaign they've had has been based on assuming that the male role in a sex encounter is seeker, and the female role is gatekeeper.

Their portrayal of social interaction is insultingly melodramatic, presenting the female role as that of a naive, helpless non-participant who never seeks sex and never has control over our environment or ourselves, making men and boys, with the inferred privilege of agency and strength, responsible for us by insinuation.
They, in turn, are presented with a false dichotomy: Fill the age-old role of women's guardians and protectors, or by default fit the villain portrayed in these campaign's propaganda; indiscriminately sex-obsessed, insensitive, pushy, and unscrupulous about where and how he gets what he wants.

When that reliance on traditional roles and stereotypes is pointed out, then and only then do feminists promoting any given campaign ever mention male consent as a factor. Often, that mention is limited to homosexual relationships, thereby still excluding female responsibility for obtaining consent, until that, too is pointed out. It takes a hard push against their own lack of self-awareness before feminists even so much as pay lip service to the human rights of men and boys in relation to sexual choice.

So before anyone responds to this video with statements about how your particular brand of feminist consent campaign includes men and boys and therefore isn't about demonizing and dehumanizing them, you'd better be willing to prove that from the beginning, you've been equally targeting females with "don't rape" messages, equally teaching women and girls not to assume their advances are wanted or accepted, equally portraying them the same way your campaign portrays men and boys... in short, assigning women and girls the same responsibility and accountability for their role in an encounter as you do men or boys.

If not, you might want to re-examine your claim that you're giving male consent equal time. If you're following the existing formula that relies on presenting hapless female helplessness and ineptitude as the norm, you can't rightfully make that argument, and it's a waste of your time to bother making it here.

With that out of the way, on to the rant itself.

I wrote about this a while back in my breaking the glasses post about the enthusiastic consent standard, titled Tit for tat: A standard advocated is a standard owed. I'm going to revisit it here so although the article is a longer statement, much of what I'm saying will be the same.

According to feminism's expressed rhetoric on the enthusiastic consent standard, spoken word is the only acceptable method by which female consent during a heterosexual encounter may be accurately confirmed.
The inference is that nothing a woman does, even to the point of aggressive sexual pursuit of a man, indicates consent to sex. It's basically a statement that no matter what action a woman takes, men must ask for permission to respond, even in kind.

Within this mentality, a man's consent is assumed, partly on the basis of the same behaviors feminists claim don't indicate a woman's consent, but mostly just because he's a man. This standard relies on treating women's sexuality as sacred and coveted, while condemning male sexuality as automatically predatory and in a way, larcenous. It's very clearly intended as nothing more than a means of enforcing the traditional male seeker, female gatekeeper sexual dynamic women use to make sex a tool for manipulating men.

I don't think men have to let it be used that way.

Instead of accepting the imposition of these traditional dynamics, if you're living in an environment where this is now the legal standard, you can use it to cast those dynamics off.

For one thing, stop juming through hoops to earn the affection of women who can't even be troubled to respond to your efforts with equal enthusiasm. Stop shouldering all of the responsibility for the experiences of both parties.

Most of all, don't accept being treated like your consent is a given.

While feminists advocate their enthusiastic consent model as a means of giving women the upper hand, logic makes it a reason for men to exercise the right of refusal when you are not comfortable or satisfied with the dynamics of an encounter.
Nobody is entitled to your attention or affection. Being male doesn't make you community property.

Don't let women treat you like it does.

If nothing else, you have the right to protect yourself from what this standard turns shy or demure women into; essentially Schrodinger's false accuser. After all, you're being told that a woman's participation in a sex act isn't valid consent unless she enthusiastically says so.

She can initiate sex with you, make all of the advances, ride you like a post horse and later accuse you of committing a felony because she didn't say the magic words.

Logically, that's reason to presume heterosexual sex a risky proposal that you're entitled approach with suspicion. You've got every right to require that your partner prove her intent with clear, unmistakable communication before you give your consent. It's reasonable for you to reserve your attention, your affection, your regard, and your trust for only someone willing to give you that reassurance.

And really, you should have been entitled to expect that all along anyway. You're no less deserving than a woman is to be treated as a wanted and interesting partner, to be offered an equal experience of demonstrated intent to please and impress.

Don't settle for some lazy scumbag who expects you to put in all of the effort while she sits back and makes you guess.

Don't tolerate getting treated like a beggar or a slave instead of a romantic interest.

Don't accept being ignored or lied to throughout a sexual encounter.

Those behaviors are abusive.

If the woman you're with cannot afford you the human dignity to treat you as, and act as, an equal partner, she hasn't earned the right to be one. No one has the right to expect you to put up with that, and you don't have to.

You never should have, but now you can also cite this standard and the danger it presents as supporting reasons why you refuse.

As for any women watching this who are offended by what I've said, I'm not the person you should be complaining to about it. Tell your feminist friends who have asserted that male courtship behavior is predatory, consent resulting from it isn't consent, and only verbal communication is communication.

They've made these demands in your name and governing bodies are listening.

Therefore, you no longer have the right to expect to be courted for your attention, subtly flirted with, or even treated like your own actions are intentional, because men have been authoritatively told that when they give you that they're abusing you.

Protesting the expectations I just laid out is asking your potential partners to risk a rape charge just to be with you.

That's a hell of a demand to make, and frankly, there is not a person on earth whose attention is worth that risk. Therefore, women, it IS your responsibility to prove yourself trustworthy... or even worthy at all, the same responsibility men have always had. You no longer have the right to sit back and expect a man to impress you, while you attempt to maintain an air of demure, modest propriety. If you're shy, if you prefer a traditional approach, if you like to be romanced... well, tough shit. Get over it. It's the 21st century now, and you're outdated.

Realize that a requirement for communication goes both ways.

If men are to be expected to obtain communication, women must be equally expected to provide it.
By asserting that men may be expected to assume that anything a you don't directly and clearly request is unwanted, feminists have given men license to assume that you don't want anything until it has been directly and clearly requested.

They haven't just placed the greater burden on men to obtain verbal consent, or be guilty of rape.
They've placed an equal burden on you to speak up and do so with enthusiasm, or go without sexual intimacy.

So it's on you now. Quit being so lazy.

Get off of your ass, stop expecting to sit back and leave all of the work in a relationship to the guy, and start proving yourself the way they've had to for centuries.

Under the circumstances, you're an abusive asshole if you don't.