I’ve been getting requests for interviews lately, and haven’t been quite sure what to make of it. A representative of a national TV show recently contacted me, and although I’m skeptical, I agreed to at least talk to her on the phone if she wants. When I did an interview with a blogger a couple weeks ago, he told me that “MRA” has been coming up a lot lately in media, and he had just now become aware of its existence. I didn’t really believe him at first, because I hadn’t personally observed any major change in reporting, but that may simply be because I don’t have my finger on the pulse of pop news, and never have to be honest.
However, there have been a few stories making the rounds. According to recent RooshV tweets, there’s been a sudden increase in awareness of MRA. I trust Roosh, because he has an eye for this stuff. Also, some MRAs have apparently been making some waves in Canada. Something about rape posters, I gather. Even the police in Canada have been coming out to defend the rape posters, which is kind of silly. I mean, doesn’t the top cop in Edmonton have something better to do than defend the lies promulgated by feminist rape posters? Maybe not… I think Canadians ought to question where their very heavy taxes are being spent in this instance.
But to get back on subject, it does seem that there truly is a growing national interest in “MRA” or men’s issues. Maybe the work I and others have put in is starting to pay off. The activism some are engaging in might be catching people’s attention.
However, one thing that concerns me is that so many people continue to be afraid of openly speaking their mind about men’s rights/issues. For example, in the rape poster debate in Edmonton, an MRA who goes by “Razz” and has been putting up parodies of rape posters is reluctant to use his real name, and the local news used this to portray him as some kind of criminal by having the police chief denounce his efforts. It’s a classic media technique: use an authority figure to give the impression that dissenting from political orthodoxy is somehow against the law. Unfortunately, it works quite well on the impressionable, which includes the majority of the audience.
Razz’s posters are a perfectly fair critique of the sexist campaign that suggests that men must be taught not to rape. The implication is that men are all potential rapists, and yet the feminists who started the campaign, and the police who are inappropriately getting involved in the politics of it, bristle at the suggestion that women could be prone to lying.
Is it worse to paint all women as potential liars than to slur all men as potential rapists? That’s exactly the message I take away from Razz’s posters: they highlight the malicious, one-sided nature of the campaign. If men are fair game for public shaming because a few men are criminals, then women are fair game if a few women are liars.
Although I understand that Razz might put his job at risk if he revealed his identity, he’s doing so anyway. If he’s discovered, after all, then the effect will be the same. And because he won’t own up to his campaign, people will be under the impression that he knows he’s doing something wrong. It would be better, I think, to face the chief of police and ask whether men are any more likely to rape women than women are to lie to authorities. Ask the chief whether he thinks “rapist” every time he sees some man walking the streets of Edmonton, and if so, whether he really belongs on the job as police chief. Male taxpayers are paying the bulk of his salary, after all, and they shouldn’t have to support the kind of public servant who has such a low opinion of them — especially when he has the power to arrest them. It’s a clear case of the dog biting the hand that feeds him.
As for men who defend the feminist campaign, I’d ask whether they need to be frequently and publicly reminded not to rape. If not, then why do they assume other men need such prompting? Why not remind them not to steal, rob or murder, too? Is rape really such a unique crime that ordinary men cannot prevent themselves from raping without constant surveillance and reminders from authorities? If rape comes as naturally to men as, say, eating a hamburger, then that brings up the question of whether it’s a serious crime at all. The law is supposed to reflect human nature, and it doesn’t work when we criminalize normative behavior. So, therefore, if rape is normative, it shouldn’t be a crime.
On the other hand, if rape is not normative behavior, then we don’t need to hector ordinary men about it. To do so is offensive, obnoxious, and inappropriate.
Maybe people in general are getting tired of the casual demonization of half the population. I hope that’s why MRA is on the radar screen, and that’s what we should stress when we have the opportunity to make our voices heard.
