Why I Think TBOGG Is a DBAG: A Few Words in Defense of “Restraining-Order-Americans” (and PETA)

Posted on July 7, 2015


I’ve developed a keen loathing for pandering, puddle duck critics of men’s rights activists who can inspire half a million “likes” with a spatchcocked propaganda piece that features a misspelling in its first sentence and refers to John Donne as “a wanker.”

A quasi-intelligible graffito like Tom Boggioni’s “You too can talk like an embittered divorced white man with anger issues. Learn how now!” confirms what another literary giant once wrote: If you want to persuade, don’t invest your faith in the right argument, but in the right word, because the power of noise will always trump the power of sense.

Tom (a.k.a. TBOGG) could probably have just typed “wanker” over and over and earned the same number of plaudits from his audience of clapping seals.

His commentary, constituted of a few scurrilous lines of his own intermingled with some scurrilous quotations from others, is apparently meant to be a conclusive refutation of men’s complaints of institutionalized discrimination and abuse.

North Carolinian Neil Shelton has been denied contact with his children for over three years. He has also been jailed based on a hoax apparently concocted by his (now ex-)wife’s divorce lawyer, who is also a (female) member of the state House of Representatives.

This rhetorical sparring between chauvinists on either “side” (of what exactly, I’m not sure) is nothing more than a flaming oil slick on a sea of torment. State-sponsored abuses of men (and women) are widespread, and most victims are not hip to the pop-culture pidgin of Tom’s crowd and their opposite numbers. They’re missing their lives, their kids, and their peace of mind. The homeless guy who used to be a businessman and father couldn’t give a rip about cutesy coinages.

If polemics like Tom’s can be said to have an argument, it’s this: Manifestations of masculine anger and contempt must be unjust, because if men had a just reason to be angry and contemptuous, they wouldn’t be angry and contemptuous.

You can call the argument absurd, or you can call it stupid. Absurd or stupid, however, are the only alternatives. (A corollary of the argument seems to be that if mistreated men coolly and reasonably stated their objections, they should have every expectation that injustice would be righted—promptly and with ardent protestations of apology. It’s also absurd…or stupid. Take your pick.)

The beef against PETA—another of Tom’s targets—like the beef against “restraining-order-Americans,” seems to run like this: If you want to register your moral outrage, you should be polite about it. Like, we can totally see how it might suck to be deprived of liberty, stuck in a cage, and made the plaything of some creatures with clipboards instead of souls, but if you want us to take an urgent interest, you should make the problem easier for us to ignore.

Copyright © 2015 RestrainingOrderAbuse.com