Update! The Men's Rights Advocate Shows His True Colors

 Dude is nuts.

Yesterday I posted a discussion about the differences between criminal prosecutions, civil cases, and university investigations into sexual assault allegations. It sprang from a common theme I see among the MRAs (men's rights activists): the claim that university investigations are de facto unfair because they don't allow the same constitutional protections set forth in the sixth amendment, like right to legal counsel and right to confront one's accuser. I pointed out that the sixth amendment only applies to criminal cases, and that college investigations (obviously) don't fall under that umbrella. I emphasized that the primary reason for beefed-up protections in the former kind of case is that the stakes are so much higher. Criminal convictions might result in jail/prison time; university investigations might result in expulsion at the worst (and only a fraction of a fraction of a fraction actually do, and one can file a civil suit if this happens wrongly or without adequate/due process).

I noted that MRAs tend to fall into two categories: some are reasonable enough, and some are downright unhinged. I pointed out that the one I had been speaking with leaned toward the reasonable camp.

Looks like I counted my chickens before they hatched. Before long this guy degenerated into unabashed neurosis, ignoring everything I pointed out in favor of hurling contempt and invective my way, completely refusing to either read or acknowledge the points that I was making (and that I was agreeing that the investigations should provide more due process), accusing me of being "anti-man," and basically getting very angry that I didn't 100% agree with him. Below is an annotated selection of what he recently sent:

"Then [you] went on a long tirade justifying the lower standards, you can’t have it both ways, most of your energy is spent on justifying treating men differently because they are men." [You can read what I wrote in my last post: College Sexual Assault Investigations are Not Criminal Investigations. I will let you judge whether that constitutes a "tirade," but it looks to me like I was merely pointing out the difference between criminal and civil law proceedings.]

"That is a lie, clearly you love to paint yourself a victim, I simply stated the truth that you do espouse a massive double standard for men just because they are men, and how people should take issue with such a drastic stand." [I never said anything even remotely of the sort and have no earthly idea where he's even getting this. He seems to be saying that because university assault allegations are generally directed against men - who knew, men commit rape more often! - and that these are not criminal investigations subject to the kinds of constitutional protections mentioned above, that I am advocating a "double standard for men just because they are men." This is obviously logically flawed an openly preposterous.]

"You made excuses for applying a different standard of 'conviction' that is only applied to men." [Again, I pointed out the difference between criminal and civil proceedings. This guy sure takes things personally...] 

"You need to grow up, all you do is play the victim constantly as if you are the only person in the world being given a hard time for your beliefs. Why change the settings if you are not trying to limit something? Clearly you said you do it to try and block certain kinds of replies and now you claim you did not try to block anything?" [I didn't block replies; I made replies visible only to myself to avoid the inevitable avalanche of verbal abuse and doxxing from the unhinged MRAs that happens whenever I speak about these issues. What's particularly amusing is that this guy is claiming that I "blocked replies" as he's replying to me, repeatedly.]

"Clearly I have, and you simply can’t accept the fact others face name calling a lot more than you ever will. I have been called names several times a day, you called me an asshole, you don;t see me hitting the report user tab do you?" [Here is is equivocating being called names online with death threats, rape threats, doxxing and stalking. Basically, he's saying "I've experienced the same thing as you, I've had a liberal call me a loser before!" He's a real gem.]

"Wow, trying to lie about my point does not change it. My point was I am abused a lot more than you and you do not see me crying about it the way you do constantly, and as it turns out you are the one doing all the name calling and being abusive, calling me an asshole and a twit is against the rules of this site, I could easily report you but I am not because I accept your treatment as normal for people who frequent this sort of site so what logic does it make for me to cry about you behaving exactly the way I expect people like you to behave?" [I'm just going to leave this bit of comedy alone - the guy clearly has not a shred of self-awareness and doesn't see the irony in this comment - although I will point out that I didn't actually call him an asshole. In response to his claim that I was "playing the victim" by adjusting the settings so that only I could see replies, I said he was "verging into asshole territory," but that I was going to apply a principle of charity and assume that wasn't his intent. Boy how wrong I was. All of this  tirade is deriving from his great offense at my changing the settings on my account so that only I could see replies, and explaining that I did it because I didn't want to be doxxed or harassed as happens so frequently. This really, really, really bothered him.]

"You condoned [eliminating due process] it and made excuses for it. You could have just as easily have said that you agree it is wrong to treat men this way. Short and simple, but you did not do that. Instead you went on a thousand word rant about why it is justifiable to treat men differently than women just because they are men." [Translation: "you could have just agreed with everything I said." And once again, all of this is based on either his inability or unwillingness to acknowledge that I was merely pointing out the difference between civil and criminal proceedings... at no point did I "condone eliminating due process" or anything remotely close to that. Quite the opposite.]

So there you have it, ladies and gents. The devolution of a men's rights advocate into a grunting lunatic. And I guarantee if I stick around to try to further explain or address his points or clarify what I've said, it will only get worse and worse and worse.

I need to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Law Office of Kendra Jowers, PA
Kendra Jowers on Medium
Kendra Jowers on Twitter
Kendra Jowers on Linkedin
Law Office of Kendra Jowers on Foursquare
YELP!
About Me - Kendra Jowers
Youtube
Google+

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Problematic Trolley Problem

Image
There is a thought experiment that is raised in virtually every Intro to Moral Philosophy course or other realm in which individual ethics are explored: the trolley problem. It has seen a resurgence in popular culture as it relates to artificial intelligence, particularly in the context of self-driving cars. You've likely heard it before, and the gist of it is often summarized as, "Would you kill one person to save several others?" (You can see how this would be raised in the self-driving car context. These vehicles are going to have to make "decisions" as to whether to kill the occupant(s) in order to save others on the street or in other nearby cars - and one can easily see why taking that decision out of the hands of the driver and putting it into the computer of an automaton makes many people queasy.) Here's the classical version of it: Question One : You are a railroad track operator and see that the the train is barreling down on a group ...
Read more

Transferring the Farm Before You Buy the Farm - Estate Tax & Family Businesses

Image
How Uncertainty in Proposed Changes to §2704 Affects Tax Liability and Minority Interest Transfers for Family-Controlled Business Owners Valuation discounts are a way for owners of family-controlled business to reduce the tax burden of their estates by transferring minority interests in the business to family members. These minority interests carry certain restrictions, such as non-liquidation provisions and a characteristic of non-marketability, the negative value of which can be used to offset the value of the estate for the purpose of calculating estate taxes. Critically, however, many of these restrictions on the marketability of minority interests are essentially solely  for the purpose of reducing tax liability; after transfer, the restrictions either lapse or they can be lifted by the transferor and/or family member, such that the restrictions don’t actually affect the ultimate value of the transferred interest. Such are called “applicable restrictions”...
Read more

Surprise! Vivitrol Might Just Not Work on Opioid Addiction

Image
( Let me preface all of this by noting that I am not saying that Vivitrol has never worked or could not possibly work for anyone. If you’ve found relief from addiction by way of Vivitrol, more power to you; nothing here is intended to rain on your sober parade. These are simply some observations about how the efficacy of the medication on any wide scale has simply not been demonstrated, and how each new bit of information that comes out seems to indicate that it’s simply not a good treatment for opioid and/or heroin addiction. Let me also point out that I would prefer kratom to be available as a first-line treatment for opioid abuse and dependence, but that’s another article entirely. ) Vivitrol is a once-a-month, extended-release shot of naltrexone, an opioid receptor antagonist that has been approved by the FDA since 2006 to treat alcohol dependence. As you probably know, opioid receptor antagonists block activity, while agonists activate receptors (buprenor...
Read more