The men's rights zeitgeist
Don't buy into this pretend battle of the sexes.
By Rhiannon and Holly Published 21 May 2012 10:11
It's been one hell of a week for women. Not only did we see Bollywood star Aishwarya Rai vilified for her failure to lose her baby weight fast enough, but we also discovered that the SmoothGroove fanny protector (giving your vagina a more streamlined silhouette since 2012) was an actual product. On top of that, we have Grazia telling us to "send your butt to bootcamp", because, and we quote verbatim here, "butts are huge at the moment, both literally and trend-wise". As the inimitable Patsy Cline once yodelled (a maxim which now echoes through the karaoke bars of the north-west every Friday night): "Sometimes it's hard to be a woman." Yet, this week, we're being told that men are having a pretty tough time of it too. Maybe even a worse time, if the book The Second Sexism, by David Banatar is to be believed. Much of the coverage has suggested that men are the real victims of abuse here, you see. Unemployment affects white working class men the most, they rarely get custody of their children, and prisons are full of them (men, not children, obviously). As the feminist deity and all-round bullshit detector Suzanne Moore has pointed out, this might have something to do with men like, doing more crime.
Men's rights are, if you'll pardon us using the "media-speak" we've recently been exposed to in TV production meetings, pretty "zeitgeisty". Like your arse, men's rights are massive right now. Of course, this has been "a thing" since the Fathers4Justice superheroes first scaled a public building, reiterating in one fell swoop that irresponsible, life-endangering behaviour and silly costumes are not only newspaper-friendly, but are also not qualities many women look for in a potential birthing partner. Then we had Tom Martin suing the London School of Economics' gender studies programme for sexism, one of his complaints being that the chairs they sat on were too hard and not suitable for the comfortable positioning of his goolies. Poor Tom.
This week, alongside the incessant plugging of The Second Sexism, we have the American "National Coalition for Men" backing the Republicans' version of the Violence Against Women Act, claiming it will give the "true victims" of abuse the long sought for protection they need. These true victims? Heterosexual men, of course. Then we had Tony Parsons moaning about how having a successful partner makes men feel as though they have little willies, but that's the minor end of the spectrum when you consider the anti-woman agenda peddled by websites such as "A Voice for Men". We came across the site via RegisterHer, an online initiative which purports to be an alternative to the male-dominated sex offenders' register, in which they publicly name and shame women who have "cried rape" and label high-profile feminists as "bigots".
Their "brother site" A Voice for Men is essentially the EDL of the mens' rights movement, positing as it does such statements as "a single mother is a woman who in most cases chose to have, or to raise a child without a father. This demonstrates terrible, selfish values", and "fake boobs are a sexual advertisement. If your wife or GF wants them that means she's seeking to attract heightened male attention." It's extremist, bitter, and encourages men to "not get fucked" by taping every conversation that they have with a woman, like a troop of paranoid angry, ninja spies.
Such websites are ripe for ridicule, so it's hard to know how seriously we should be taking them. Many resemble the more radical ends of the feminist spectrum - with one crucial difference. Most feminists openly acknowledge that patriarchy is bad for men as well as women, and that concrete gender roles and unrealistic societal expectations, such as men being encouraged never to openly display emotion, are generally a bad thing. In light of that, having men splinter off to form these "cock coalitions" is rather puzzling.
Psychologist Oliver James stated that the reason for this is that men are feeling "sexually threatened". And of course, the reason so often touted for this is female emancipation - we have come too far. You only have to look at the popularity of pulling guide The Game and website The Ladder Theory- a pseudo-scientific attempt to explain the relationship dynamics between the sexes (choice quote: "Most guys know that women dig guys with money . Women who are this way (and it is almost all of you) should be honest and admit that they are basically whores") to realise that these guys truly believe that they are under siege.
This debate is very much being set up as a battle of the sexes. Rather than joining us in our anti-sexism agenda, these men are attempting to fight back against vagina-wielding harpies by reasserting their masculinity in a way that is not only misogynistic but also deeply conservative. Fighting sexism means fighting it in all its forms in the hope that we will one day achieve an equal, happy society. Booting women back into the kitchen and stripping them of their voices will not achieve that, just as feminist bashing will not endear you to those who are engaged in fighting patriarchy and all the unpleasant consequences it holds for both men and women. Yes, stereotyping men as incompetent, emotionally illiterate buffoons is unfair, not to mention deeply impolite, but rather than engaging in a victim-war, rather than saying "I have suffered, and my suffering is of more important than yours," why not accept that we all suffer, in some way or another?
It is of course, a matter of historical fact that women have been systematically sidelined and regarded as second class citizens for much of our time on the planet, but here at the Vagenda, we also recognise that it must be terribly upsetting to be repeatedly told that you can't multitask. Which is why we're going to put ridiculing the anti-abortion lobby to one side for the time being and make this all about you guys. It's what you wanted right? You are, after all, the zeitgeist.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















248 comments
A bit of fairness and balance is too much to ask for from a magazine.
Men built the world, they discovered electricity, they invented the dynamo, the car and the toilet. They built the power and sewerage networks and EVERY building in every city. They invented the bricks and the cement to make them.
The list of things men have done to make women's lives comfortable is next to infinite. Let's hear more on that side.
This article one again demonstrates that most feminists are too dishonest, disrespectful, immature and petty for this debate.
Meanwhile my daughter was beign raped by her mother and that sexism meant they only were interested in her false claims. Meanwhile it took my daughter almost succeeding in suicide over the mental, emotional and sexual abuse the numerous court ordered reports expressed concerns over before they did anything. Meanwhile I was jailed for her refusing to go near her mother again when the psychologist said it would be a bad thing due to her mother attempting to blame me for it, again. Meanwhile I was refused access to my children for years with nothing done but demanding I pay even more in child support because of it. Meanwhile I have had more time in jail than the mother who abused our children in such vile ways feminists would make it national news if it had been me and my ex was the one held responsible for it by the courts.
Yup, tell me more about how women have it so bad. Meanwhile a man peeing behind a dumpster in an ally where no one can see sits in jail as a sex offender and a women who molested a 12 year olf boy after getting him drunk is free with no registration needed and getting child support from her 12 year old oppressor.
It is disappointing that the New Statesman is publishing old tired hate lies like this feminist misandry. Shame you. You can do better.
It is disappointing that the New Statesman is publishing old tired hate lies like this feminist misandry. Shame you. You can do better.
It is disappointing that the New Statesman is publishing old tired hate lies like this feminist misandry. Shame you. You can do better.
After this man bashing tirade, I think it would only be fair to run some articles from a mra perspective in the name of equality,or is this like feminism,their voice and their voice only?
This article is a jumbled impressionistic opinion piece which is not at all informed by history. The Men's Rights Movement is not new. It has been around for at least 86 years. The orthodox college textbooks ("herstory") are censored.
“Female Anti-Misandry Legislators, Judges & Writers: 1921-1954”
“The World's First Men's Rights Organization - 1926-1930”
See these on The Unknown History of MISANDRY
It seem after 150 years +/- of women having no say, and no voting rights feminists make it look like nothing has changed!
The women fought for equality in the (women's liberation movement) and men worked to give the women what they needed to be equal in every way.The feminists today bash men to put their own gender back in the dark ages it seems!
I don't get it??????
Is it power or is it equality?
Let the children have a fair change in life, because its not men who are being destroyed!!!
by mensrights-help
And as for the man in question himself, he ignorantly uses the term 'Second Sexism' after Beauvoir's idiotic notions.
Fraud of Feminism came out way back in 1913, it doesn't use the word 'sexism' but it lays out the hypocrisy of feminism right from the start.
http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.in/2011/09/word-for-mens-rights-1856.html
Death to feminism. Smash the gynocracy.
" Suzanne Moore has pointed out, this might have something to do with men like, doing more crime."
You mean like women working less get paid less, glad to see that it's not totally a lack of intelligence on feminists' part.
Or maybe men are victims of stereotypes here, eh?
"Poor Tom."
Thomas Ball committed self-immolation on the entrance of a courthouse. Media kinda forgot about that.
"when you consider the anti-woman agenda peddled by websites such as "A Voice for Men". "
It's anti-feminist, stop conflating the two.
"and label high-profile feminists as "bigots"."
and women who express glee at men getting their penises chopped off.
" by taping every conversation that they have with a woman"
just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean...
"Such websites are ripe for ridicule,"
Not a bit more than the tripe that goes in the name of women's studies.
'a pseudo-scientific attempt to explain the relationship dynamics between the sexes "
Hey, much better than giving trucks to girls and dolls to boys.
"that patriarchy is bad for men as well as women"
haha. Feminism is worse for men as well as women. Here is how it is worse for men:
http://agentorangefiles.com/
and I am sure women can come up with a 1001 ways in which it harms them.
"Booting women back into the kitchen"
eh? Give women the comforts of kitchen and become wage-slave for wives? Are you delusional?
"It is of course, a matter of historical fact that women have been systematically sidelined and regarded as second class citizens for much of our time on the planet"
It's a historical fact that women have been useless for much of our time on this planet, and they should thank men for raising them from the lowly animals that our species is.
"It's a historical fact that women have been useless for much of our time on this planet, and they should thank men for raising them from the lowly animals that our species is."
what an odd way to p*ss on your own argument, right at the end 'n all...
Masculism = sexist and wrong
Femanism = not sexist and right
Equality. Got it.
More like masculism= good,feminism=evil
Don't believe me?
Check it out for yourself: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminist-quotes.html
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2011/10/feminist-quotes-2.html
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2011/11/radical-feminist-advocates-f...
Thank you authors for all the free publicity! You are like some poor soul caught in the quicksand..the harder you fight, the deeper you sink. Everytime folks like yourself publish something negative about MRA, we find we get a few more people checking out our websites, reading the issues, nodding thier head and joining us. Keep up the good work. Bit by bit we build our movement and inch by inch we push our issues into the mainstream of public consciousness. Your help is proving invaluable for promoting our cause.
With enemies like you, who needs friends? Welcome to the 21st century ladies.
"Psychologist Oliver James stated that the reason for this is that men are feeling "sexually threatened""
Well - a Psychologist *would* say that, wouldn't he? But for many men, the actual issue is that they would like to see their children. It's a real-external-world problem, something psychologists don't really "do" as part of their practise.
""a single mother is a woman who in most cases chose to have, or to raise a child without a father. This demonstrates terrible, selfish values" It's extremist, bitter, … like a troop of paranoid angry, ninja spies."
Can't help but notice that Rhiannon and Holly don't actually address this beyond the level of name-calling.
@ Ink
I must address your idiocy in this statement,"For instance, if you choose to whine about how unfair it is that women's groups aren't building shelters for battered men--instead of, say, getting off your own arse and doing it, the way all those women had to do for themselves--then you come off looking like a petulant little child who still wants Mummy to pick up after him. Don't do that, lads. You can do better."
What woman built any DV shelter. I can Name ONE, Erin Pizzey. Look up her interviews on how that went. Other than that the money and the sweat has been provided by MEN.
You seem bent on little more than insults instead of addressing actual issues. So I do not expect you to let any of this sink through your skull. Perhaps, you should just go worship at the fat greasy altar of manboobs. He is dying for any positive female attention, even if it comes from a woman that does not seem him as fully human and worthy of the exact same protections she takes for granted.
Sorry, Tue. That reply was intended for SHADOW. (Mon, 2012-05-21 19:04 — Shadow)
"and it is overwhelmingly women and girls who are the victims of men's violence."
You need to go take a serious look at the stats on domestic violence, sexual abuse of boys, and violence perpetrated on boys before you make such claims. You obviously don't know jack s*** about what you are talking about, and it just makes you look like another feminist drone, spewing out the same old rhetorics that have been served up for men in the past 50 years in an attempt to shame and silence them. It doesn't work anymore, cupcake. The stats and your own actions betrays you. Women are generally way ahead of men in all these areas, and maybe it is about time that you start asking yourselves who TAUGHT these boys the kind of behavior you despise so much much.
just wondering though if you agree that of the human sexes, the males are more aggressive? i thought the biological evidence overwhelmingly suggests this is generally true. i think that is cited as the underpinning for males being the default abuser, which may not be the correct conclusion.
@jankaas,
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=girl+fights&oq=girl+fights&a...
What does "masculine aggression" have to do "abuse of women"?
1) Women are the primary perpetrators of child abuse;
2) Children first learn violence from their primary nurturer;
3) Children go on to become men and women;
4) 'Round and round and round, ad infinitum.
It's called culture.
Quite apart from women's preferences for bad-boy degenerates and their selecting for the worst among men... you know... the stuff of women's rape fantasies?
Gawd feminists are an embarassment to the human race. Future generations will be laughing at us because of you people.
thanks for your rant Chuckeedee, but if it's aimed at me you are off target. here's my closing sentence from that very post again;
"i think that is cited as the underpinning for males being the default abuser, which may not be the correct conclusion."
in other words, i merely stated that feminists, and other groups, tend to jump to the flawed conclusion that being the more aggressive sex means by default that sex exhibits violent behaviour to others in the group. i think that a flawed and lazy conclusion. analysis of evidence is what counts.
talking of which, where is the evidence for your point 1)?
From Child Maltreatment 2002 (Department of Health and Human Services in the United States), women comprised 58.3% of the perpetrators of child abuse and men comprised 41.7% (Figure 5-1 of the Child Maltreatment Report and accompanying Table 5-1, Age and Sex of Perpetrators ). Most of the abuse of children (Table 5-3 of the Child Maltreatment Report 2002) was broken down as follows:
53.3% of all perpetrators neglected children;
11.0% of all perpetrators physically abused children;
6.9% of all perpetrators sexually abused children.
Women were more likely to neglect children, while men were more likely to abuse children.
32.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone, while 16.6% of child fatalities were perpetrated by the father acting alone (Figure 4-2 of the Child Maltreatment Report, Fatalities by Perpetrator Relationship ). That is, approximately twice as many mothers as fathers are responsible for the fatalities of their children.
The latest Child Maltreatment report (2010, I believe) will reflect a similar pattern. I'll post the link separately, lest we encounter problems with the resident spam filter.
[Yeah yeah, I know... women spend more time raising children yadda yadda... just like men spend more time providing for women... same argument... doesn't justify the abuse, whether perpetrated by men or women]
Other categories of female-on-child initiated brutality include infanticide, Munchausen's-syndrome-by-proxy (controversies notwithstanding). To get a more complete picture, we need to go cross-cultural on infanticide, because in third-world countries where children were expected to cared for their parents in old age, mothers were much more likely to kill their female children, as boy children were more likely to be productive (e.g, Brian Woods, The Dying Rooms). Oddly enough, if my memory serves me correctly, fathers had very little to do with infanticide, it was almost exclusively the mother's prerogative.
In the case of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation) it is almost always women who do the cutting (Kenyatta, Jomo. Facing Mt. Kenya. New York: Vintage Books, 1965).
When I say "almost always" or "much more likely", I am being conservative. From the records I've seen it would be more appropriate to use the word "exclusively", but hey, I'm sure there are exceptions - keeping an open mind here, for the sake of argument.
... and so on. We could expand the topic of female-initiated brutality to encompass sati (bride-burning), dowry (Indian mums and mum-inlaws wanting their cut), relational aggression, witnesses at the Salem witch trials, etc, etc, we'll save that for another day.
Child Maltreatment Report 2010 (pdf document), as promised:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm10/cm10.pdf
@JANKAAS
" i think that is cited as the underpinning for males being the default abuser"
Actually, there has been a campaign running since the 1970s to suppress data on female perpetrated abuse rates and frame abuse as gendered.
Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion
of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence
"http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
thanks for the link, food for thought to put it mildly. i wonder is anyone else bothered to read the content? well worth it imho
Of course males are more directly aggressive. They are compelled to dispense and absorb violence in order to fulfill our expectation of them to be capable protectors and providers. In other words, the capacity for aggression in males is one of the key factors that women use to select them for reproduction.
That works for the state as well when it comes to using male bodies to protect and expand corporate interests.
But none of that means women do not have the capacity for violence. It does not excuse a bigoted paradigm that only recognizes and addresses violence in men.
This stuff is so obvious it is embarrassing to even have to point it out.
not sure who your last sentence was aimed at?
anyway. i was always under the impression that the higher testosterone levels in males tends to make them more aggressive. same goes for other animal species where the social nuances you suggest as instrumental are surely nowhere near as sophisticated and calculated?
not saying your post doesn't have merit, is it clearly does. perhaps the uncomfortable truth is that humans are a complex and violent animal irrespective of gender.
"Of course males are more directly aggressive. They are compelled to dispense and absorb violence in order to fulfill our expectation of them to be capable protectors and providers. In other words, the capacity for aggression in males is one of the key factors that women use to select them for reproduction."
This is MRA orthodoxy - women, rather than falling in love with a man (or vise versa) instead "select" a man on the grounds of his money or capacity to dispense violence on their behalf. That's what they believe (or claim to) that women "compel" men to "dispense and absorb violence" on their behalf. Not any woman I know or have ever met. Maybe one girl at school, but that's it.
It's safe to say that MRAs aren't the most romantic group of people in the world.
It should also be noted that avoiceformen is derided by other MRAs for various reasons:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/tpton/southern_poverty_law_c...
Speaking of SPLC: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/search?q=splc
Is MRA WATCH serious? From a cursory review of the provided link, someone who calls himself phlake*** has an opinion about PE. So what? Phlake provides no account for his opinion of PE other than Paul's use of the words fembot and mangina. Phlake says that PE is an embarassment. That's pretty much it, as far as said link is concerned. Big deal. David Futrelle has an opinion about PE. So what? Judging individuals on the basis of their popularity is about as lame as an argument can get.
Anytime there's a fight (eg: young males engaging in biffo outside the pub), it's always worthwhile looking for the chick that started it. The most casual acquaintance with humanity will persuade you that women (particularly nubile ones) adore setting men to fighting one another.
Yes indeed. And feminist icon Germaine Greer wrote about this phenomenon with gleeful approval. To paraphrase Andrea Dworkin, this is gender-specific eroticization of hatred and violence, cheered on by a feminist icon.
Well the utterly idiotic arrogant hateful comments on here from charming names like "ALLWOMENARERAPISTSANDTHATSALLTHEYARE" and "FEMINISTSMAKETHINGSUP" (brave souls shouting at women and defending accused rapists anonymously) is a pretty good example of the problem with the way sexism works. Utterly thick as mud people presume a position of authority and call women hysterical for using facts then having a great big whining whinge about waa waa waa I am a man and something bad happened to me and THIS PROVES FEMINISM IS ALL SHIT AND I AM SO HARD DONE BY WAA WAA WAA GIVE ME A WOWWYPOP.
No wonder the article is so mocking in tone, it's idiots like you that it's making fun of. And I think it's pretty restrained.
That is what feminists are: "he looked at breasts in this wonderbra and now I feel sexually harassed waa waa waa". Or "he touched my ass and now I want to get paid for it waa waa waa".
My screen name is my real name. I live in Houston, Texas, and I say nothing anonymously.
"All men are rapists and that's all they are," is a quote from feminist icon Marilyn French. Someone just took her words and reversed the sex. And NOW it bothers you? Lame, Louise. Very, very lame, and bigoted.
"Feministsmakethingsup" is a good screen name because it speaks to a truth that people like you run from like cockroaches from a sudden bright light.
Consider the following true statements:
When you factor weigh for professional choices, men and women are paid equally and always have been. There is no gender wage gap. Feminists made it up.
Men are physically abused by women as often as women are abused by men. There is no male dominance in domestic violence. Feminists made it up.
The vast majority of men live lives of subservience and pressure to sacrifice themselves in order to protect and provide for women and families. They are not captains of industry or powerful politicians - rather they are fodder and sacrificial labor that fill our coal mines, drive our trucks, walk into burning buildings, work on crab boats and carry guns into the battlefield. There is no male privilege. Feminists made it up.
Very few men rape, and those that do are hated and reviled by almost all other men. We punish rapists harshly and have even passed laws that undermine due process, just so we can go after rapists, like we were carrying pitchforks and torches. There is no rape culture. Feminists made it up.
Currently the federal government is still in the middle of a forty year orgy of passing pro female legislation; laws that address and underwrite whatever feminists claim to be the issues du jour for women. We have allocate billions on their health and social issues, while expending exactly zero dollars for men as a monolithic group. There is no war on women. Feminists made it up.
This article is mocking because it is popular to appease the hatefulness of people like you. There is no whining going on here. It's just one more allegation that a feminist made up.
I'm afraid you're literally a moron. Grow up and learn the actual facts instead of reading idiotic blogs and conspiracy weirdos.
And get over yourself.
Thanks.
Here are some theories advanced by Paul Elam or associated writers on his website. Just so people know who they're dealing with.
(Please note, whilst Paul Elam doesn't write anonymously, I'd urge people challenging him to. His organization has a foul history of publishing the personal details of anyone who dares challenge MRA orthodoxy. This includes harmless bloggers with no criminal records who apologized and attempted to reason with the sadists on his website. The vast majority of writers on his website are anonymous also),
*Rapists should not be convicted
*Feminism caused 9/11
*More men than women are raped in America
*Any woman can, at any time, have any man they are alone with imprisoned on her word alone
*The month of October should be "bash a violent bitch month"
*Single mothers should be avoided by men as the child could falsely accuse the man of sexual assault to "gain some local celebrity
*The Southern Poverty Law Centre are a morally bankrupt organization (avoiceformen came to this startling conclusion having been exposed for the misogny on their website)
There is a lot more here:
http://manboobz.com/category/a-voice-for-men/
And here:
http://manboobz.com/category/paul-elam/
If you believe anything Dave Fooltrelle has to say then you are a bigger jackass than he is. You talk about others posting anonymously,well then does your driver's license say "mra watch" on it? IOW mra watch is not your real name so stop being a feminist hypocrite.
Do we take it then that MRA WATCH is your real name?
Previously, Mr/Ms Mra Watch (is Mra a male or female name? I haven't heard it before) posted a link to draw attention to his opinion that some people have negative opinions of Paul Elam. Clearly, MRA WATCH thinks that "Truth" is supposed to be a popularity contest and the legitimacy of Truth is determined by a vote.
The references that MRA WATCH provides are taken out of context. It's a very Futrellian thing to do. Elam excoriates the male of the species as often as he does the female. He realizes that what we have is a culture problem.
I am sure that if men were treated fairly, Elam would dismantle registerher.com in a heartbeat. The simple truth is that women can make false allegations of rape, anonymously, without any risk to themselves, while a man's name is dragged through the mud before he's even found guilty. This bears repeating... before he's even found guilty. Registerher.com is drawing attention to this dynamic... with one key difference... everyone named has been proven guilty... and in the case of those not guilty of any crime, they are "guilty" in the sense that they have been proven to have said what they said. There are aspects of registerher.com that might not sit well with some of us (e.g., a bit of forgiveness to those who apologize would not go astray, methinks), but ultimately if public figures want to make male-sexist comments publicly in this era where men are routinely denied their rights, then they brought it upon themselves.
We post anonymously because we have duty to survive and to earn a livelihood in the course of shining a light on unpopular truths. Feminists are mainstream, they have laws protecting them from alleged biases and harassments, and culture grants them permission to hold sexist views, so long as those views conform with the mainstream... which, by feminist definition, they do. Men do not enjoy such privileges, and anonymity is, for most of us who serve a brainwashed clientele, our duty. It is our duty because Truth is our duty, and we have a duty to survive.
Or how about these revolting examples of Anti-Male Feminists sites:-
http://radicalhub.com/
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/
http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.ca/
http://pandagon.net
http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/
http://www.ihatemen.org/
http://manboobz.com
http://agentorangefiles.com/
http://allecto.wordpress.com/
And these utterly revolting women, far far worse than any MRA I have come across. They operate(d) with little to no social sanction and are the tip of a huge iceberg. Most occupy positions of status and respect in our society.(Google them)
Valerie Solanas
Mary Daly
Eva Lundgren
Matilda Bordin
Sheila Jeffreys
Robin Morgan
Eva Johnson
Andrea Dworkin
Ireene Von Wachenfeldt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isMK21PY7wc
(turn subtitles on, CC at bottom)
http://allecto.wordpress.com/2009/03/12/where-are-all-the-younger-lesbia...
Mr. MRAwatch, I await your response.
Hello Mr. David Puerile.
"*The Southern Poverty Law Centre are a morally bankrupt organization (avoiceformen came to this startling conclusion having been exposed for the misogny on their website)"
You are aware that the SPLC has been funded directly by and has other links to the RadFemHub aren't you? And what a bunch of bathouse crazies the RadFemHub consists of, do not take my word download the AgentOrange Files yourself and see them discuss reducing men to no more than 10% of the population to do the dirty work and selectively aborting fetuses based on gender (i.e. kill male babies to bring about the desired 10% or less). Feminist teachers discussing the desire to physically assault early grade school boys.
The SPLC may once have had noble goals but, given the company they keep that cannot be said today.
"*Single mothers should be avoided by men as the child could falsely accuse the man of sexual assault to "gain some local celebrity"
Abso-fricken-lutely. Not just the risk of false accusations but, most jurisdictions have in loco parentis laws which can make attempting a relationship with a single parent very hazardous financially(several jurisdictions actually allow a single mother to collect child support for the same child from multiple men at the same time). Or, that a man may desire to have children of his own lineage is less likely to realize his desire if a woman has children already (10 child families are exceedingly uncommon these days). This is not something to belittle a man for. The reality is that for a serious relationship single parents are at the bottom of the dating pool. Since you are all about female-empowerment maybe you should suggest to women(because currently they enjoy 100% of all available reproductive rights and choices) that they should be more selective in who they choose to co-parent with. You cannot lay this at any mans feet when, as a man I have only parental responsibilities and no parental rights..... even to children that are not mine.
As for MRA's that use pseudonyms, despite breaking no laws, inciting no hate and being diametrically opposed to any use of violence, MRA's have been routinely threatened with violence, employment blacklisting(look up Erin Pizzey and her tribulations dealing with feminists, a wonderful caring woman in fear for her life for speaking the truth).
Need I go on?
O/T: Hey, manblob have you been banned anywhere lately?
Look at the feminist running a false accusation and libel campaign.
References for where Paul Elam "advanced these theories", please. Merely repeating manbooz will not do.
The statements concerning how easily a man can be fitted ump for a rape or sexual assault that he did not commit are true. And what's your problem with "More men than women are raped in America"? Surely you cannot be unaware of the charming way the US penal system works?
All of the theories lifted are advanced on his website. I provided two citations - follow both and you will find all related links and a lot more.
Here's another bit of MRA thinking from avoiceformen:
"Let’s be clear—this show is not and never will be about the hateful bashing of women, and to be clearer, we’re going to often speak harshly of men … [But] our current gender zeitgeist is one that has promoted and enabled such a degree of female narcissism and entitlement that it has now produced two generations of women that are for the most part, shallow, self-serving wastes of human existence—parasites—semi-human black holes that suck resources and goodwill out of men and squander them on the mindless pursuit of vanity. Is this all women? No, of course not"
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/meet-the-mens-rights-movement/
I should say that there are other MRA sites that are m0re extreme - avoiceformen clamps down on overt threats or endorsement of violence and racism/hompphobica is not tolerated - only misogny like that listed above.
It's not enough, MRAs, to list instances of "feminists" writing/saying similar things about men - unless you believe that two wrongs do make a right? Mainstream feminism is distinct from the lunatic fringe feminism that you quote. Like I said,avoiceformen is, more or less, MRA mainstream - and look at it.
I would hold off the "victory party" for now.
Now you're going to cite the good mangina project. You are just determined to make this fun for me. Okay,let's go:
1. Is this the same good mangina project that deletes opposing points of view?
2. Is this the same good mangina project that refreshes the site every 5 seconds thereby trying to gain more hits to possibly gain more revenue?
3. Is this the same good mangina project that was founded by the ms. organization?
Answers:
1. Yes,
2. Yes and they are looking at possible fraud too which is a criminal offense.
3. Yes.
Now you're going to cite the good mangina project. You are just determined to make this fun for me. Okay,let's go:
1. Is this the same good mangina project that deletes opposing points of view?
2. Is this the same good mangina project that refreshes the site every 5 seconds thereby trying to gain more hits to possibly gain more revenue?
3. Is this the same good mangina project that was founded by the ms. organization?
Answers:
1. Yes,
2. Yes and they are looking at possible fraud too which is a criminal offense.
3. Yes.
"It's not enough, MRAs, to list instances of "feminists" writing/saying similar things about men- unless you believe that two wrongs do make a right? "
Yet you seem it fit to mention questionably "misogynist" MRA writing alone. You even model your name on that activity. Until you are to prepared to openly criticise all I question your motivation.
Two wrongs do not make a right, but for you two wrongs seem to be let's talk about something else. Anti-male feminist writing is far more common and far more vociferous by an order of magnitude. MRA's exist because of this very phenomena.
I've no truck with him or his organisation, but I'm willing to bet the items on your list have been taken out of context. I bet 'bash a violent bitch month' was a response to a similar piece on female violence and was being used to illustrate it's ridiculousness rather than a demand for actual violence...lets find out...
Close, it appears to be a response to this lovely piece.
http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-...
Nobody comes out of this looking good. Including you and your inability to play a straight hand.