Earl Silverman was an activist. He wanted equality between men and women, and saw men getting the short end of the stick. He wasn’t a contributor to places like AVFM that is directly and indisputably hostile to feminism. He didn’t talk about general issues. Earl’s activism was focused. It was focused on domestic violence. It was focused on helping the least served victims of domestic violence, men.
The post on The Atlantic got my attention because it is so filled with the poisonous language of feminism that it fails to even look at the truth. I want to point out where some of the most toxic bits are.
The first paragraph is just loaded with loaded words. The author talks about “myths” and “the so-called men’s rights movement”. Disputing the interpretation of data is not a “Myth”. There is nothing “so-called” about the men’s rights movement. The author does get one thing correct, but I doubt he meant to. Earl was controversial. He was controversial in a way like freeing the slaves or giving women the right to vote was controversial. I doubt that is what was meant though.
The bias was on clear and open display in the first paragraph so when it ends with “We’ve attempted to sort them[the controversies] out.” We already know what is going to be presented as the absolute truths. I do appreciate that the bias was put on display like that. If the White Supremacists just stated “I hate Niggers” as clearly as this author dismissed men, we wouldn’t really need to read past the first line to disregard the work as bigotry.
His comment on the MRM was “This doesn’t go over well”. He is correct. These issues don’t go over well. The intent was clearly to disparage the movement, but he was correct. Ending slavery and Women’s suffrage didn’t go over very well either. It took waging a civil war to end slavery. That really didn’t go over well.
So what did the author present as the downside or the controversy about Earl Silverman? Well the SPLC wrote a piece about the MRM that didn’t label it as a hate group and was later retracted. Earl Silverman may have been active in the MRM, but what does this have to do with battered men and his shelter? I have a library card. The library has information on how to make bombs. Does this make me a terrorist?
Next the author present skewed and biased statistics on Rape. Earl wasn’t a rape awareness advocate. He was a domestic violence advocate. Presenting information on drunk driving or sky diving accidents would be just as out of place in talking about domestic violence. It doesn’t matter what the numbers on rape or drunk driving are when talking about domestic violence.
After that he quotes a site that is every bit as sexist and bigoted as AVFM as proof that the men’s rights movement is bad. AVFM is a bunch of gender ideologues, the writing is bias and inflammatory. You don’t quote AVFM if you want to talk to people not already convinced of the correctness of your position. You don’t quote Jezebel if your not a gender ideologue speaking to other gender ideologues. (AVFM is his example of a bias MRM blog)
The next piece of “evidence” presented are some comments on blogs. Not quotes from the blogs, but reader comments. This is just sad, but lets do that to you
Wow, it seems like you really hate men.
Is this a fair? Is this a good reflection on the views and opinions of The Atlantic?
The idiocy ends with “But nobody has to believe that feminism can kill” No one has to believe anything. You don’t have to believe in gravity or that the Earth is round. Feminism it’s self is an ideology, and has no agency. Feminism alone can not kill people. The cold callous indifference to the pain and suffering of males can kill, is killing, did kill Earl Silverman.
The last bit is what truly is the most toxic in the entire post “But nobody has to believe that…facts are not true” No useful or relevant facts where presented in the entire posts. About 1,000 words and no relevant facts, but if you disagree you are believing that facts are not true.