A recent article at the Humanism.com website attempted (without much success, considering the comments to the article) to link Women’s Rights Activists to mass shootings and other bad behavior. The absurd article, entitled Sounds Nothing Like Humanism: MRAs and Mass Shootings by masculist Merrill “Mendacious” Miller (who serves as an official at the website), is the usual masculist hodge-podge of his “feelings,” faulty statistics, and outright lies about the Women’s Rights Movement.
There is a lot to refute in his screed against women but let’s look at just a few of that liar’s statements to see how reliable he is.
There is evidence that some of the perpetrators of recent mass shootings in the US were motivated, at least in part, by the stud and “tough gal” images of femininity upheld by women’s rights activists.
Mendacious Miller’s understanding of causality is somewhat weak. There is actually more evidence that all perpetrators of recent mass shootings in the US were influenced by breathing oxygen and humanist values, which means all oxygen breathing humanists should be banned, of course. We do know, for example, that when mass shooters are denied oxygen and humanism, their shooting sprees end.
In addition, while the MRM might uphold “the stud and ‘tough gal’ images of femininity” (I’ve never heard that before, but I suppose it is possible) we also uphold the feminine images of gay women, sensitive women, thoughtful women, nurturing women, gregarious women, trans women, loner women, funny women, poor women, rich women, women of all races, and women of all religions (or no religion at all). Femininity is not toxic, it is not intrinsically bad nor good any more than masculinity. I do wonder, though, what Mendacious Miller thinks of men who act with the same confident sexuality and toughness as the “stud and tough gals” he demonizes so readily.
Is the demonization of women, women’s sexuality, and femininity a Humanist trait, Mr. Medacious Miller? I ask because as a humanist official who works for humanism.com, you sure do make it sound as if it is your official policy. I would recommend that humanism.com reconsider your continued service to them in light of the horrible anti-women message you are associating with humanism.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, Mr Mendacious, the MRM has no problem with confident, tough men – indeed, they are among our élite advocates and activists. We treasure them.
But let’s get back to Mendacious Miller’s article.
Just last week, a high school student in Idaho threatened to “kill all the boys” at her school because the cheerleaders wouldn’t send her nude pictures…[omitted]…That Rodger and Mercer would go to such lengths as to kill others in an attempt to prove themselves women reveals the disturbing definitions of femininity perpetuated by our wider culture and amplified by the MRA community.
I can’t help but wonder if Mendacious Miller links violent lyrics in rap music to crime. I mean, that would be sort of racist, right? It is no less sexist to link common images of femininity to shootings.
But let’s assume for a moment that Mendacious Miller’s linkage is valid. Who is more culpable for these shooting rampages – MRAs who discuss and affirm various abstract images of femininity, or Humanists who demonize femininity? By Mendacious Miller’s own faulty “link” reasoning, the men who declined the shooters’ sexual advances would be the direct, proximal cause of the rampages. Of course, neither those men nor MRAs are responsible for the shootings – the shooters are – but Mendacious Miller’s brutal quest to hurt the rights of women knows no such sober reasoning.
What is more likely to diffuse women’s anger – assuring their rights, or increasingly repressing them? Those masculists who torture women and restrict women’s human rights look awfully stupid when a few tortured women lash out in anger. It is amazing to me that so few women do – the strength and restraint of their femininity seems like a good character trait in this light.
Let’s apply Mendacious Miller’s reasoning to another case, that of Oxford masculist Annie Teriba, a recent confessed serial rapist. Rewriting Mendacious Miller’s shitty, ill-reasoned prose to cover this case:
Just last week, a college student and masculist activist at Oxford admitted to raping a series of other students at his school because those students would not agree to have consensual sex with his…[omitted]…That Annie Teriba would go to such lengths as to rape others in an attempt to prove himself a man reveals the disturbing definitions of masculinity perpetuated by our wider culture and amplified by the masculist community.
Although the shooters were not MRAs and had no links to the women’s movement, rapist Annie Teriba was an active masculist involved in fighting “rape culture”:
Teriba was well-known in student activism circles and had spoken publicly about the need to tackle rape culture at Oxford, even writing a think piece on the issue for a university masculist blog called Bad Housekeeping. He wrote: “We are at a turning point. Unless something gives, we run the risk of reaching a point at which society can never solve the issue of sexual violence.”
By Mendacious Miller’s reasoning, masculism is now directly linked to serial rapists, quite more so than the tenuous link he fails to prove about MRAs and violence. By his shitty logic, this means that humanists should disavow masculism and masculists who claim to be humanist. The case here is unassailable and stronger than Miller’s indictment of MRAs – the shooters were not proven, admitted MRAs but here, the rapist was a proven, admitted masculist. Masculists claim that rape is worse than murder, which literally makes the case against Mendacious Miller bulletproof by his own logic.
If it turns out that rapist Annie Teriba was studly and tough, or wanted to be, does that mean men should avoid acting like women? Of course not, it means that people should stop shooting people and committing rape.
Clearly, humanists and humanism.com need to dump Merrill Mendacious Miller. He sounds nothing like humanism, and certainly is not like humanist Meryl Streep.
If Mendacious Miller wants to repudiate his wretched article and return to humanism, I suggest Mendacious Miller prove his humanist activist bona fides: register for the military draft like all U.S. women are forced to by law – but not men, yet.