>Debate Drama: Dalrock is a Lying Liar

>

Debating Men’s Rights Activists can be a lot like arguing with a kid who puts his hands over his ears and shouts “la la la I can’t hear you!”

During my abortive debate with Paul Elam on Domestic Violence, I had a hard time getting him to respond to my arguments; instead, he devoted much of his energy to arguing against experts I never cited and arguments I never made.(EDIT: See all my debate posts and some commentary here.)

Now the blogger “Dalrock” has decided to weigh in on the debate — despite the fact that by his own admission he didn’t actually read the whole thing. Not surprisingly, he completely misrepresents my argument:

His argument was that since he could point to more studies showing the orthodox feminist view, his perspective must be right.

Either he didn’t read more than a paragraph or two of what I wrote, or he’s incapable of understanding logic, or, well, he’s a lying liar.

At the moment I’m leaning towards the first explanation; I’m being generous here.

But it’s hard to see the next bit as anything but, well, that lying liar thing.

Mentioning my post responding to Elam’s disgraceful “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” post, which was not even part of the debate proper, Dalrock ignores Elam’s obnoxious provocation and brings up a similarly obnoxious, similarly disgraceful Jezebel post from several years back, in which several Jezebel staffers and a host of commenters there gleefully admitted to beating up boyfriends. (Elam and I both mentioned it in our posts; it was Elam’s excuse for writing his post in the first place.)

According to Dalrock, my response to the Jezebel post went roughly as follows:

The feminist looked like he might come to just in time to avoid the count.  He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends.  Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.  And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

Even aside from the dopey boxing metaphor, this is simply fiction. Let’s break it down.

He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends. 

I didn’t say that.

Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.

I didn’t say that.

And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

I didn’t say that. He’s simply making shit up. Or, as some might put it, lying.

If you want to know what I did say, you can see it here.

When I pointed all this out in Dalrock’s comments, he responded with:

You mean you weren’t really unconscious in a boxing ring knocked out by a commenter, and came to just before the final count?

Yeah, the fact that you made a dumb boxing joke means it’s totally ok to lie about what I said.

To my regular readers: Sorry about all the drama here. To paraphrase Bob Dole, I’m just trying to get these guys to “stop lying about my record.”

Also: Elam himself poked his head up in the comments to Dalrock’s post to offer a response of sorts to my final debate post; needless to say, it’s pretty feeble. You can read it here, and if you skip down a few posts you should be able to read my response to it; I will also be appending it to my original post.

About these ads

Posted on November 2, 2010, in debate, drama, hypocrisy, lying liars, paul elam, Uncategorized, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 42 Comments.

  1. >So,I don't see my post. Are we falling into only posting things feminists and their flunkies agree with David? Because, honestly that's where most of you "brave" feminists tend to end up.Random Brother

  2. >@DavidI actually don't think Dalrock is delibrately lying. I think, as with most MRAs, he's basically ignoring facts that don't fit with his world view and making sweeping assumptions based on bad or incorrect data and accepting as facts, rather than actually looking at the issues with both eyes open. Most people have cognitive distortions, but the extent and consistency of the anti-feminists distortions are bordering on psychosis. Henry Makov is a prime example.At any rate, he's doing a great diservice to MRAs by presenting such lies as facts.

  3. >tec said: "At any rate, he's doing a great diservice to MRAs by presenting such lies as facts."Yeah, because you man haters care so much about how MRA's are viewed.HI LARIOUS.Also, David, tec's post is especially hilarious given my first post that you apparently made sleep with the fishes. Any reasons why? Random Brother

  4. >RB, I have a very simple comment policy: Don't say things so vile and hateful that if you said them to Gandhi, he'd punch you in the head. No gratuitously nasty personal attacks. No really hateful slurs.Your post was caught by the spam filter, but I'm not going to unfilter it, as it went over the line in at least one of the areas I've specified above. Arguably all three.

  5. >The whole argument is foolish anyway and the feminist position is clearly the wrong position.Mens rights person – there should be equality in victims services and leglislation.Feminists – no there shouldnt.Mens rights – all the creadible research says that perpertrations and victimisation is not gendered so the patriarchal abuse consporacy theory is debunked.Feminists – the advocacy research trumps the real research.Feminists – Mens rights people deny that women are injured and killed more often than DV.Mens rights person- no we have always acknowlednged that women are infured and killed by dv at twice the rate that men are, it still doesnt justify a polmic system.And so on.Modern feminists are anti equality, abuse is a human problem that need a human solution. but modern feminists hold the monopoly and refuse to accept abuse as a human problem because to them (baring real/liberal feminists), patriarchal abuse conspiracy theory trumps reason.

  6. >@bishopYes, oh you're quite correct. I don't care about MRAs. I do care about men's rights in general which is why I hate the MRAs since their only interest is hating women and limiting services to them. It bothers me he misrepresents what David said as well.But the point is still true, he does a great diservice to MRAs with his lies. Notice however, you're more interested in me than with the actual issues…. @Eoghan – Your spelling is atrocious. Patriarchy doesn't mean automatically men on women; it's the concept that institutions and social structures such as abuse happen in situations of unequal power e.g. master/slave, boss/worker, parent/child, etc. That's why it's called patriarchy and not andrarchy (because of historical precedence). It's also why most modern feminists use the concept kyriarchy to include other privileges such as class and race.

  7. >What if we applied the argument to other services and reversed the genders?Lets say its about women being discriminated against in accident and emergency, the woman is in the mra positon, the doctor is in the feminist position.Woman – there should be equality a&e.Doctor – no there shoundnt.Woman – women break their legs too.Doctor – not they dont, not really, my book says so.Woman- but your book is fictional and look, my leg is broken!Doctor – you stupid women pretend that women break their legs as often as men.Woman – no we dont, and thats no reason to refuse women services.Doctor, HA! I win!These arguments with feminists about equality in services run a bit like a monty python sketch.

  8. >What happened with Elams "bash a violent bitch month" satire on Jezebele article underscores the, double standards, sexism and lunacy of the feminist argument. Elams anti domestic violence satire that was designed to highlight hypocrisy and sexism was deemed more incorrect and offensive than the Jezebel celebration of domestic violence as correct behavior demonstrates the warped, sexist morality of the politically correct in which the correctness or meaning of an action changes completely depending on the sex and/or political outlook of the actor.

  9. >@EoghanOkay, I wasn't planning on taking you to town on this on because your depiction of women and feminists is about as "natural as a white man's dialogue in a Spike Lee movie." Let's look instead at a real MRA vs. Feminist debate:Feminist – Several independent studies over several decades illustrate that women are more likely to be abused in DV and sexually assaulted. Primary services should then be commensurate with needs. Laws should be implemented to protect these women as well.MRA – Bah! That's BS. Those studies can't be trusted because they were done by women or manginas! Only studies that (conveniently illustrate my world view that) women are liars are correct! Women make up claims! Men get raped too! Men are abused too! Besides, 100% of all rapes are false! 100% of all DV cases are false! You're just making stuff up to push your feminazi agenda!Shall I go on?The fucked up part is, I'm not exaggerating the MRA at all. That pretty much is could have been word for word. How scary is that?And FYI, I found the Jezebel crap just as offensive. If I saw a feminist site (contemporaneously) post crap like that, I'd flame 'em. I think it's also rather specious to point out a single website/blog post when so many MRAs say horrible things like that all the time, on a daily basis. I don't see you pointing out how incorrect or offensive it is…so you obvy don't find it offensive unless it's women on men violence. Rather hypocritical eh?

  10. >David, a commentator posted the follow quotes in that blog about the bias in that study that you are using. "According to Dr. Murray Straus (1998), Tjaden’s study may have had skewed results, vastly under estimating the true level of female perpetration, because its questions primed the respondents to consider an act of DV to only be genuine if law enforcement would have treated it as a criminal". “[Tjaden and Thoennes] report that women, over the course of their lives were 2.9 times more likely to report being physically assaulted than men. However, it should be noted that overall reported estimate of annual intimate partner violence for women of 1.4% is significantly lower than 11-12% estimates from earlier national surveys. Straus (1998) [page 6, bottom paragraph] characterizes the data from this study as being flawed and inaccurate. He cites the wording of items as possibly creating “demand characteristics” that led subjects to view the survey as a study of crime and thus restrict their responses to exclude behavior considered harmless, especially minor assaults by women. Thus, he states this unintended demand characteristics probably account for the low prevalence rate and 3 to 1 ratio of male to female physical assaults. “It seems the study you were citing was not about rates of perpertration, but something else entirely. I saw your response to that poster on the blog and he seems to responded and destroyed your arguement, are you going to respond to that? Tec.You are a pathological liar."MRA – Bah! That's BS. Those studies can't be trusted because they were done by women or manginas! Only studies that (conveniently illustrate my world view that) women are liars are correct! Women make up claims! Men get raped too! Men are abused too! Besides, 100% of all rapes are false! 100% of all DV cases are false! You're just making stuff up to push your feminazi agenda!""The fucked up part is, I'm not exaggerating the MRA at all. That pretty much is could have been word for word. How scary is that?"If you are not lying you will be able to find actual quotes that are almost word for word to the effect of "100% of rapes are false etc"… and only a feminist could find fault with advocating to get hidden abuse and rape out of the closet and tar it as something thats incorrect.

  11. >I read the entire debate, even chased some links and data. Sorry, as for the debate itself, I can't find a clear winner. My anecdotal impression is that men who take up arms in the name of feminism (you can argue around the edges if thats what you do or not) are grown up versions of the boys who, while climbing into the back seat with the girl on a high school date say "I'm not like those other guys"Simplistic metaphor, it MAY have gotten you lucky once more then you'd have been lacking that tact, but still less then the true ogres were getting it (sadly) anyway…..and today it garners much female positive attention….and….makes you FEEL good.Men are generally aiming to please women, yours is just a long way round to get about it.

  12. >TEC: I'm not exaggerating the MRA at all… so many MRAs say horrible things like that all the time, on a daily basis…I think you do. MRAs say horrible things about women? Well, the truth hurts. Like it or not.Women are not always helpless victims, and you find any kind of female criminals you can imagine. Nobody except radical feminists like TEC will deny, that malicious women do exist.About rape, I would like to hear your definition of 'rape'. Some references below for you to study, maybe you will then understand what nonsense you are talking all the time…http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1287534/Innocent-Warren-Blackwell-served-3-years-false-rape-claim-fantasist.htmlA man jailed when a woman falsely cried rape told of his fury yesterday after learning that police knew the woman was 'unreliable'. Warren Blackwell, 40, spent three years in jail as a convicted sex attacker until his 'victim' was unmasked as a fantasist who had accused other blameless men. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.htmlHarriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday. The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks.

  13. >@EoghanI already pointed out in several posts why patriarchy is real which you have failed to disprove in anyway. Why don't you prove you are a pathelogical liar? Prove that the Romans were not patriarchs, and I will happily find said quotations. Otherwise, maybe liars like you shouldn't accuse others of being liars – throwing stones and living in a glass house and all…

  14. >YohanHere is a good source on misleading the public on rape convictions."How the panic over rape was orchestrated"http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestratedand an interesting correlation from new zealand. "By contrast, the Met Police figures for reported rape show a curve which is surely unsustainable. The experience of New Zealand, which at one point ceased paying compensation to rape victims, is instructive. After a corresponding fall in claims the re-introduction of compensation for rape was followed by a recovery in the number of reported rapes".http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/how-panic-over-rape-was-orchestrated

  15. >@Yohanhttp://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/10/18/col-williams-court-1018.html

  16. >Tec claims she cares about men, riiiigggghhht. Tec cares about men in the feminist way, meaning that whatever feminists want will be good for men anyway. If feminists want your house, then when they force you out, these wonderful little female angels are just helping you get some sunshine and fresh air! They did it for the men! Thanks feminists! During this mancession what does tec and her girlfriends do? They push for laws to ensure that the stimulus goes to women, not to the men who have lost their jobs. But I suppose lunaTEC will claim that they just wanted to give men some time off to enjoy life. How many lies will you post on this site feminist? You are just another man hater gleefully awash in relentless assaults upon men, using partiarichal fantasies to justify your avarice and evil. Random Brother

  17. >@Random BrotherHow am I greedy? Oh right, I have a clitoris, and of course women as you believe must be a lying, evil, greedy, etc. Why don't you try something original and unique vs. relying on generic and tired-ass labels? Too difficult for you to think for yourself eh?Oh and women never lost jobs or were affected by the recession in any way…(scarcasm)Do you even read what you write, or do you just bang on the keyboard with your head? And I might add, I'm allowed to post what I think same as you. They're not "lies" simply because they don't coincide with your personal fucked up misinformed world view.Why wouldn't I care about men? Assuming I'm a man hater just because I'm a woman is like assuming if one is non-Jewish, one is automatically an anti-semite. It doesn't make sense.Unlike MRAs, I don't limit my definition of men as comprising only of disgusting hetero rape apologists like you. You are just another woman hater gleefully awash in relentless assaults upon women, using femdom fantasies to justify your avarice and evil.

  18. >@ LunaTECYou're greedy becausue you and fem hate nation legislate to take away what men earn and put it in your purse (all the while claiming equality). Do you understand why I call you "people" greedy now?As for orginality, the truth is timeless dear, novelty for novelty's sake is a vice, one especially affecting the less logical sex (that means you).Furthermore men lost more jobs in the recession, have less services to help them when they do lose jobs, and recieve less societal sympathy when they are unemployed and or are homeless, can you understand that? Is that beyond your intellectual capacity or are you being deceptive? You are supposed to help the person MOST in need. Not the person who is most likely to have a period.Men were MORE injured by the recession so they should have been helped more, got it? You're comparing a hang nail to a limb's amputation and claiming that helping the woman's hang nail is somehow just as important, JESUS! What you post is lies, because it's wrong and you know it or you should know! The only out for you is if you are simply too dense to understand. I can't believe even you are that dense, but I could be wrong. One last thing, if you truly like men you don't support laws that destroy them. How hard is that to get?Ah, I see your anti straight male hatred. Only gay men deserve rights according to you. So you're likely just as I thought a man hating lesbian. Rage filled at the thought of normal sex. Wow, a lesbian "feminist" who hates MRA'S, will wonders never cease. Random Brother

  19. >@RBWow, it's almost like, I got under your skin eh?Where or where to begin? Actually everything I've posted has been factual or my own opinion. So basically what any opinion that's not yours is a lie? That's not at all close-minded. (sarcasm)Yup. Did it ever occur to you that men got hit in the recession because *gasp* it's still common for women to be the primary caregivers? In fact, it's almost as if the group with more jobs, lost more jobs. That's just weird. Better attribute it to feminazi conspiracy! Just out of curiousity RB are you Henry Makov?And RB you have posted some pretty fucked up stuff about rape so really, I wouldn't go on about hang nails vs. limb amputations given you systematically dismiss rape as a crime. Go read about Russell Williams and his sick twisted acts and then maybe we'll compare notes.No, I'm actually not a lesbian. Let's see you've called me liar, greedy, lesbian, crazy. What else you going do? Call me fat? A slut?Threaten to rape me? Oh I'm so scared! Your insults won't work on me especially such pathetic, paltry attempts you've offered so far. So save it:http://kateharding.net/2007/05/16/let-me-save-you-the-trouble-i-know-im-a-fat-cunt-and-ive-already-been-raped/ Nice shaming tactics though. I love how only you guys get to use them though and then whine when anyone says boo against you. Hypocrite. But of course it's much easier than actually refute anything I've ever said. Why? Because you know I'm right and therefore have nothing else to say. Oh and an "men's right's activist" who hates gay men! Will wonders never cease?

  20. >@Henry Makov aka Random Brother Meh. My original post got lost…here's the highlights:Okay so here's a rundown so far of the typical slanders used against feminists/women that you've employed against me!1. Crazy 2. Lesbian3. Liar4. Man hater5. Greedy6. DumbHmmm, it's almost like you're using shaming tactics… but wait, don't MRAs disapprove? Oh, right it's only "wrong" if it's used against MRAs. Just like rape and DV is only wrong if it's against men, doesn't exist if it's on women right?Oh but I'm so-so scared! What's next? Calling me a slut? Or ugly? Or fat? Or threatening to rape me? Please. It's been done. I can't be intimidated especially by your pathetic paltry attempts. In other words, suck it:http://kateharding.net/2007/05/16/let-me-save-you-the-trouble-i-know-im-a-fat-cunt-and-ive-already-been-raped/#commentsHere's a thought: actually post something that isn't just a ripe off other people's insults. Or is that too much of a challenge for you?And ooh a "men's" rights activist who's a homophobe! Will wonders never cease…

  21. >BishopsinisterA persons sexuality has nothing to do with anything here.

  22. >TEC: 1. Crazy 2. Lesbian3. Liar4. Man hater5. Greedy6. DumbHmmm, it's almost like you're using shaming tactics It's not shaming language, but sure, the truth hurts.There is indeed a certain group of women existing, whose character perfectly fit your description #1 to #6.

  23. >TEC: "men's right's activist" who hates gay men That's a feminist lie.MRAs do not hate gay men. Why should they?Can you explain any reason why they should?It seems, it's the same from gay men to straight men. Gay men do not hate straight men. Why should they?I never had any experience that gay men are against MRAs or MRAs are against gay men.MRAs and gay men frequently do not share the same experiences and do have totally different concerns regarding their private life-style.At least that's the situation outside of USA.They do not disturb me, and I do not disturb them.

  24. >There is a minority element of mra that are homophobic but, heterophobia seems more common and widely accepted in feminism than homophobia is the mra.http://www.equityfeminism.com/articles/2000/the-war-on-heterosexuality-a-review-of-daphnes-heterophobia/Paul Elam has written about welcoming gay man into the mr.

  25. >@LunaTEC1. You don't get under my skin. You're just evil. I don't know whether it's deliberate evil, but you are evil none the less. About the mancession you state "Did it ever occur to you that men got hit in the recession because *gasp* it's still common for women to be the primary caregivers? In fact, it's almost as if the group with more jobs, lost more jobs. That's just weird. Better attribute it to feminazi conspiracy!"Dear God. Let me try to simplify it for you. A hurricane occurs and many people lose homes, however Group A loses far more homes than Group B. Group B then goes to the government and says, don't give money to Group A for homes give it to Group B. The government does so and when Group A complains, you say well Group A started out with more homes in the first place so fuck them. So Group B is lounging in their second home while the men of Group A live on the street. Do you really think that is fair? Are you that reptilian? And you actually wonder why more and more men hate feminists? You also lie here and state: "And RB you have posted some pretty fucked up stuff about rape so really, I wouldn't go on about hang nails vs. limb amputations given you systematically dismiss rape as a crime. Go read about Russell Williams and his sick twisted acts and then maybe we'll compare notes."What did I say about rape that is fucked up? Show it to me.As for the insults I've called you, aren't you the one with the baby penises crack? Pot meet kettle. Or is it that whole I can insult people cause I'm a woman but anyone who insults me is a bitter misogynist? Furthermore, put your mind at ease I have no desire to threaten you with rape especially since most feminists are rather, let me put this delicately, mannish, well the female ones at least.As for hating gay men, I have far less a problem with gay men (David Futrelle not included) than I do with feminist man haters like yourself. TEC states that I, Random Brother called her: "1. Crazy 2. Lesbian3. Liar4. Man hater5. Greedy6. DumbHmmm, it's almost like you're using shaming tactics… but wait, don't MRAs disapprove? Oh, right it's only "wrong" if it's used against MRAs. Just like rape and DV is only wrong if it's against men, doesn't exist if it's on women right?"1 It's not a shaming tactic if it's true IMHO, and secondly nice non sequitir with the rape canard. I would be shocked if you could go through a whole post with out using "RAPE!!!!!!!(TM – Manhater inc.)" to try and prop up your arguments. TEC said "Oh but I'm so-so scared! What's next? Calling me a slut? Or ugly? Or fat? Or threatening to rape me? Please. It's been done. I can't be intimidated especially by your pathetic paltry attempts."There you go with the rape thing again. RAPE, RAPE, RAPE! RAPERAPERAPERAPE!!!!!! I said rape, so pay no attention to the weakness of my argument! RAPEY, RAPE, RAPINGHAM, with a coke and a side order of. . . . . . . . . . . . . .RAPE!!!!!!! Jesus, get some new material honey.TEC said: "Here's a thought: actually post something that isn't just a ripe off other people's insults. Or is that too much of a challenge for you?"You forgot to mention rape. Why don't you form a cogent argument around, well anything you've screeched out on this board. That would be nice. Then maybe we could have a rational debate.Random Brother

  26. >"It's not shaming language, but sure, the truth hurts.""It's not a shaming tactic if it's true IMHO"ROTFLMAO!! So, if a feminist says something negative about MRAs, whether he/she can prove it or not, it's shaming language; but if an MRA says something negative about a feminist, whether he/she can prove it or not, it's "The Truth".Thank you, MRAs, for defining reality for us and then claiming that it's the female mind that is eternally solipsistic.

  27. >@PamWay to miss the point dear. I know it means nothing to you feminuts but the truth should matter.Random Brother

  28. >Pamshaming language refers to female shaming language thats an attempt to manipulate men, its not simple name calling.egmen that question feminism have small penissman are afraid of independent womenmen are afraid of commitmentyou are not a real manetc

  29. >"you are not a real man"Oh, you mean like people who call feminist men "manginas?"

  30. >David,What you, Pam and LunaTEC fail to understand is that context matters.If a man says I think that feminist laws hurt men and a woman responds, you just can't get laid! That is shaming language. It's an attempt to kill the conversation with no logical counter to the argument. Also, how are you David going to complain about being mocked by being called a mangina when the whole point of your blog is to mock MRA's?

  31. >@Bishop, EoghanPam and David have already pointed out how it's shaming tactics. My point was that they were completely unoriginal and factually untrue and incredibly hypocritical of MRAs who apparently never use such shaming tactics. (last part, total sarcasm) In fact, the only reason why he said it was simply because he thought it would work but his efforts were incredibly obvious and pathetic, which is why I pointed them out.Fortunately, not being a 12 year old, I don't care if you use shaming tactics on me. :-P Not gonna make me go away. FYI, another shaming tactic: calling me ugly or "mannish". So, as I count it, you've made 7 specific slurs against me: that means I guess I can make 7 against you, bishop:You're a pathetic excuse for a man (1). You will never have a girlfriend/wife (or a boyfriend/husband)(2) and it's likely you're in jail for being a rapist(3) or a batterer(4) or a child molestor(5) or all three. Your definition of "normal sex" probably constitutes your hand/fleshlight (6), whacking off at gay porn and MRA sites(7). I'd also like to point out that my comment about MRAs having tiny penises was made after what (I at least perceived) as a sexual slur against me which I regretted after posting, so apologies.

  32. >Yeah David, calling men manginas is shaming language. When mens movement people are talking about feminist shaming language, its a standard set of derailers that a large number of them will predictably use in lue of a rational argument, usually ego attacks and sexual slurs. As we saw here the other day, MM people are not above it either. Im not keen on the term mangina as part of MM rhetoric but I think that white knight is useful, women playing the victim and men automatically rushing in to help is an old scam that needs to be exposed, feminism makes good use of this old, sexist standard, I think mangina is a term for a man that falls for it hook, line and sinker.

  33. >@Random Brother,Way to twist the point. You're not claiming something to be the truth in that particular instance because the truth matters, but as a means to defend and veil your hypocrisy.I don't fail to understand that context matters, and I don't believe that David and Tec fail to understand this, either. What you know darn well but are unwilling to admit is that when a man responds in like manner to what a woman says in support of feminism or not in complete agreement with what the man says, it's also an attempt to kill the conversation with no logical counter to the argument.@Eoghan,Shaming language, no matter who is using it, is an attempt to manipulate.– women who are pro-feminism are anti-male, man-haters, etc.– women who are pro-feminism are lesbians…man-hating lesbians (assuming that this will produce the requisite amount of shame intended based on a belief that women who are homophobic have the same intensity of homophobia as men who are homophobic)– women who are pro-feminism are ugly…more probably fat and ugly– women are innately stupid and irrational (moreso if they are pro-feminism)– women are greedy gold-diggers– you are not a real woman– etc.The terms "white knight" and "mangina" are tossed at any man who questions or is not in complete agreement with everything an MRA says. Like any shaming language, it's meant to whip them back into line.

  34. >RB and tec, can we dial down the slurs and personal attacks here? tec, I know you were doing it to make a point, but in the end I think it's counterproductive to take that route.

  35. >Here's what I'll do. Since Mr. Futrelle requested it, I will answer THIS post with nary an insult, though I doubt the feminists on this board will do the same. Firstly about shaming language. This whole "you guys use shaming language to!" in my opinion is just spin. MEN are the ones who when they start discussing men's rights issues are called gay. MEN are the ones who are told that if they are pro men's right's it's because they can't get laid. So when men use harsh language in response to their enemies, feminist play the rubber glue game. It seems to me that you want a situation where feminists can insult and degrade men, but men must bite their tongue in response or you call them hypocrite. You want me to follow rules that you will not follow. No. Just no. Further the vast majority of time when MRA'S insult feminists after or prior to the insult there is an argument a point, usually, IMHO, true. On the other hand rarely if ever do feminists do the same. For them the insult IS the point. Secondly on the lesbian "slur." Do feminist organizations not ally themselves with lesbian groups? Are there not many notable lesbian members? And have not these lesbians called for the death of men and or claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape? If so and these organizations pass laws that harm men. Disenfranchise men. Pass laws that make traditional male female relations more difficult, then what am I to think about the people in those organizations? That they are man friendly lesbians? Come on! Furthermore when men lose their jobs and these feminists ensure that they are left out in the cold, (which is part of my previous post that you ignored) are men supposed to think these lesbians in the group like men? If that's like give me hate any day.If I passed a law that took away tons of jobs from women, would you say that was an act of kindness on my part? Of course not. And this is not even getting into all the slurs about men being inferior and all sex being rape. Whenever men critiize this feminists use one of the most vacuous arguments ever and claim there are approximately 8 trillion types of feminism, so you can never dislike feminism because the thing you're mad at is the "other" feminism. So calling a member of a group that has many lesbians, spouts anti male, pro lesbian relations and opposes anything the helps straight men seems to me not in the least a stretch. Random BrotherNow insult free!

  36. >@ PamNo. What I want in these debates is to win the argument AND let the feminist know how much she disgusts me for even thinking something that is so fundamentally flawed. I want her to see the crack in her logic and how awful she is for not seeing it in the first place.Random Brother

  37. >"Secondly on the lesbian "slur." Do feminist organizations not ally themselves with lesbian groups? Are there not many notable lesbian members? And have not these lesbians called for the death of men and or claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape? If so and these organizations pass laws that harm men. Disenfranchise men. Pass laws that make traditional male female relations more difficult, then what am I to think about the people in those organizations? That they are man friendly lesbians? Come on! "Okay, let's break this down claim by claim. "Do feminist organizations not ally themselves with lesbian groups?" Some do, some don't. Some feminist groups have historically been explicitly anti-lesbian, referring to lesbians as the 'lavender menance' in one notable case."Are there not many notable lesbian members?" A few, but there are also notable hetero members."And have not these lesbians called for the death of men and or claimed that all heterosexual sex is rape?" No, the vast majority of feminist lesbians have not said this. You are confusing a position called 'radical lesbian feminist seperatism' with feminists who are lesbian in general. The vast majority of feminist lesbians are not now, nor have never been, rad fem seperatists."If so and these organizations pass laws that harm men. " Last time I checked, rad fem seperatist orgs were not their own nation states. In fact, most seperatists are strongly anti-government, as many governments are generally disproportionately male or were established by males. Seperatists like to set up their own exclusive societies when possible, not to try to work with a male influenced government (I am not a rad fem, or a rad fem seperatist, but this is how they generally think and work)."Disenfranchise men." Please point out to me one nation where men may legally not vote and women may. Just one. I would really like to see that."Pass laws that make traditional male female relations more difficult" See the point above about seperatists and governments. Also 'traditional male female relations' are oppressive and sexist, not positive, so if I actually thought seperatists had been good at this, it would be a plus, not a minus. It should also be said that the vast majority of those who object to traditional patriarchy are not seperatists, and may or may not be lesbians, but do include many heterosexuals."what am I to think about the people in those organizations" What organizations? Feminist organizations in general? Because the majority of these are not rad fem seperatists. "they are man friendly lesbians" There are plenty of man friendly feminist lesbians. Feminist lesbian and radical feminist seperatist are not equivalent, and the latter is an incredibly small fringe minority.

  38. >@ DarksidecatYou responded to my quote about feminists being allied with lesbian groups with DSC: Some do, some don't. Some feminist groups have historically been explicitly anti-lesbian, referring to lesbians as the 'lavender menance' in one notable case.RB: Okay, fine. So it should be simple to show me say 5 feminst organizations that are anti lesbian, today, right? Please do so. If not then, currently, in the time period that I live in what I state is true. DSC: No, the vast majority of feminist lesbians have not said this. You are confusing a position called 'radical lesbian feminist seperatism' with feminists who are lesbian in general. The vast majority of feminist lesbians are not now, nor have never been, rad fem seperatists.RB: But the tacitly support it. The vast majority of Germans didn't give speeches supporting the killing of jews, but they had no problem with their leadership doing so. DSC: Last time I checked, rad fem seperatist orgs were not their own nation states. In fact, most seperatists are strongly anti-government, as many governments are generally disproportionately male or were established by males. Seperatists like to set up their own exclusive societies when possible, not to try to work with a male influenced government (I am not a rad fem, or a rad fem seperatist, but this is how they generally think and work).RB: You do not have to be a seperate nation state to get laws you want passed, you just have to be able to subvert the political system enough. By claiming that all men are violent predators your leaders have done so, IMHO.DSC: "Disenfranchise men." Please point out to me one nation where men may legally not vote and women may. Just one. I would really like to see that.RB: From this site. http://www.yourdictionary.com/disenfranchise See definition #2. dis·en·fran·chise (dis′in fran′c̸hīz′)transitive verb disenfranchised -·chised′, disenfranchising -·chis′·ing1.to deprive of the rights of citizenship, esp. of the right to vote2.to deprive of a privilege, right, or powerDSC: Also 'traditional male female relations' are oppressive and sexist, not positive, so if I actually thought seperatists had been good at this, it would be a plus, not a minus. It should also be said that the vast majority of those who object to traditional patriarchy are not seperatists, and may or may not be lesbians, but do include many heterosexuals.RB: I'm not even going to get into this with you because we'll never in a trillion years agree over what constitutes a traditional relationships and whether or not they were/are oppresive. DSC: "they are man friendly lesbians" There are plenty of man friendly feminist lesbians. Feminist lesbian and radical feminist seperatist are not equivalent, and the latter is an incredibly small fringe minority. RB: I don't believe this at all. Also, I am specifically talking about straight men, not gay ones, who IMHO, are treated like some kind of mascot for feminists. Random Brother

  39. >@ DarksidecatYou responded to my quote about feminists being allied with lesbian groups with DSC: Some do, some don't. Some feminist groups have historically been explicitly anti-lesbian, referring to lesbians as the 'lavender menance' in one notable case.RB: Okay, fine. So it should be simple to show me say 5 feminst organizations that are anti lesbian, today, right? Please do so. If not then currently, in the time period that I live in what I state is true. DSC: No, the vast majority of feminist lesbians have not said this. You are confusing a position called 'radical lesbian feminist seperatism' with feminists who are lesbian in general. The vast majority of feminist lesbians are not now, nor have never been, rad fem seperatists.RB: But the tacitly support it. The vast majority of Germans didn't give speeches supporting the killing of jews, but they had no problem with their leadership doing so. DSC: Last time I checked, rad fem seperatist orgs were not their own nation states. In fact, most seperatists are strongly anti-government, as many governments are generally disproportionately male or were established by males. Seperatists like to set up their own exclusive societies when possible, not to try to work with a male influenced government (I am not a rad fem, or a rad fem seperatist, but this is how they generally think and work).RB: You do not have to be a seperate nation state to get laws you want passed, you just have to be able to subvert the political system enough. By claiming that all men are violent predators your leaders have done so, IMHO.DSC: "Disenfranchise men." Please point out to me one nation where men may legally not vote and women may. Just one. I would really like to see that.RB: From this site. http://www.yourdictionary.com/disenfranchise See definition #2. dis·en·fran·chise (dis′in fran′c̸hīz′)transitive verb disenfranchised -·chised′, disenfranchising -·chis′·ing1.to deprive of the rights of citizenship, esp. of the right to vote2.to deprive of a privilege, right, or powerDSC: Also 'traditional male female relations' are oppressive and sexist, not positive, so if I actually thought seperatists had been good at this, it would be a plus, not a minus. It should also be said that the vast majority of those who object to traditional patriarchy are not seperatists, and may or may not be lesbians, but do include many heterosexuals.RB: I'm not even going to get into this with you because we'll never in a trillion years agree over what constitutes a traditional relationships and whether or not they were/are oppresive. DSC: "they are man friendly lesbians" There are plenty of man friendly feminist lesbians. Feminist lesbian and radical feminist seperatist are not equivalent, and the latter is an incredibly small fringe minority. RB: I don't believe this at all. Also, I am specifically talking about straight men, not gay ones, who IMHO, are treated like some kind of mascot for feminists. Random Brother

  40. >rb, your comments keep getting caught by the spam filter; they should all be posted now.

  41. >RB, where on earth do you get your information on lesbians? The Big Book of Shit About Lesbians That Isn't Actually True? Have you ever met an actual lesbian?Here's how my last interaction with a lesbian went:Sweet old lesbian lady at table next to me in cafe, with her sweet old lesbian partner: Hey, is that a root beer float?Me: Yeah, they're really good here.Lesbian lady: I didn't know they had them. Maybe I'll order one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,023 other followers

%d bloggers like this: