About these ads

>The Spearhead: You don’t have to be crazy to post here, but it helps. Scratch that: You DO have to be crazy.

>

Don’t ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead

These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I’m sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there’s one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.

Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that “a site called mamboobz.com” won’t quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men’s rights movement look bad.

Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren’t all MRAs and I don’t identify them as such. That’s not the point. The point is this:

The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to “a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry.” Another added, “I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt.”

After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:

You sir are a traiter to your gender. ..  You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.
Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?
Expect the same from me. Count on it.

Again, SingleDad isn’t talking about me. He’s talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.

Naturally, all of Eoghan’s posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad’s threat, have gotten multiple upvotes. 

I’m not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal “debate.” Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:

Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.

Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
- being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
- is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.

It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around?

Poester99, I’m not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.

Here’s what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.

Here’s what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.

I’m having a really hard time seeing how I’m the bigger asshole in this scenario.

Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some “interested third party with deep pockets” wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won’t interfere with what I write in any way, I’d like to suggest that  they contact me, like, right now.

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

.

About these ads

Posted on January 26, 2011, in drama, manginas, MRA, the spearhead, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 115 Comments.

  1. >John Dias says … If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. I cannot blame the cops either. It is difficult for some ordinary people, this includes policemen, to make a legally correct decision within a few minutes after being called in for help.Western feminist DV-laws in connection of self-defense are highly complicated and full of legal loopholes – even experienced judges need often many hours to find out what is wrong and what is right.In some Western countries a woman might – legally correct – even kill her SLEEPING husband by using a gun, tries to remove his body with her body-friends, is claiming abuse and self-defense and is walking out of the court-room as a free person proceeding with inheritage as a widow.If this is not biased justice, I don't know what this is…

  2. >John, I think you would have to show how it is that a woman having a bruise is somehow worse then a man who has blood streaming from his temple.The officer is looking at who is the dominate aggressor and yes, that can certainly be the woman. In your little scenario "What happened?" "She hit me with this glass bottle and I hit her back to get her to stop."She gets booked. It is clear who is the primary aggressor.Oh and about the Arizona law that prohibits it? It is part of the sentence for a criminal defendant. And since there are problems with one partner using these sessions to harm the victim, why would anyone thing this is a great idea to even let them in?

  3. >@ John Dias. Ok, I'm going to answer in two parts, first to the issue of whether the law says what you say it does…After reading through a list of such laws, I think your statement,The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. ,is factually incorrect. Let's just take my home state statute as an example. South Carolina law says:——————–If a law enforcement officer receives conflicting complaints of domestic or family violence from two or more household members involving an incident of domestic or family violence, the officer shall evaluate each complaint separately to determine who was the primary aggressor. If the officer determines that one person was the primary physical aggressor, the officer must not arrest the other person accused of having committed domestic or family violence. In determining whether a person is the primary aggressor, the officer must consider:*prior complaints of domestic or family violence;*the relative severity of the injuries inflicted on each person, taking into account injuries alleged which may not be easily visible at the time of the investigation;*the likelihood of future injury to each person;*whether one of the persons acted in self-defense; and*household member accounts regarding the history of domestic violence.———————–It is not at all clear from the law that the statute is about what the dominant aggressor 'IS' instead of what has been '[DONE]' by the parties involved. Now as to the following,For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her — in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her — a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.Again, not so. Neither this law or the other state statues "mandate" that the police *ignore* injuries to the male party. Nor do they have anything do to with the 'capacity.' The closest the statute comes to that is the third bullet point, concerning the likelihood of future injury. Not only is this just one out of five points that the officer is required to take into consideration, there is nothing that would keep an objective observer from determining the man was in more danger of future injury, should that be the case. The discrimination is not written into the law.

  4. >This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!If you have a link to that study, I'd like to see it. Though, I'll accept it provisionally, because your description seems plausible enough. And if this is the case, then that is a real and serious problem. It is unfortunately the sort of problem that has nothing to do with the law and cannot be fixed by legislation, but I agree that something should be pro-actively done in the hearts-and-minds department to correct it. And perhaps correcting the erroneous percetpion/expectation of excess toughness in men will simultaneously correct the erroneous percetption/expectation of excess weakness in women, so everyone wins! I think this is a good point, but if you were making it before, it was hard to tell between all the mention about how women 'initiate' DV more frequently. If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist. Again, as the laws are written this seems to be an inaccurate description, of cause if not of consequence. I would find it plausible that this effect could be caused by individual bias in the humans executing the law, but I think it is incorrect (in the specific case of 'Dominant Aggressor' statutes, as I have read them) to say that the discrimination is written into the law.

  5. >Yohan, I completely agree it ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is a pretty sticky issue. I'm willing to concede it's not quite as clear-cut or easy to determine as I made it out to be, but I also think the line is a great deal more clearly defined than you seem to think it is.I think there's a broad field before you get to your gun example that would also fall under disproportionate retribution.

  6. >The Spearhead is full of crazies. Look at the recent postings like this one. Those guys believe all sorts of tin foil hat nonsense. Whether it's that women are out to get them or that the voices in their heads are the Rockefellers plotting feminism, it's all the same.

  7. >What is wrong with this thread on Spearhead?Many American men (maybe women too?) like these conspiracy theories, and there are entire forums full only with this kind of political stuff.In some forums, like our one (Niceguy-Forum) we made a sector called 'Hidden from View' with disclaimer and our members are free to post their conspiracy stuff into this section. ONLY into this section! If posted somewhere else, moderators will move such stuff quickly where it should be.Unfortunately SPEARHEAD is not a forum, but a blog.I think, they should change the software.Forums are easier to manage by creating sections. There are many users on Spearhead showing up with many different topics and plenty of comments.There are many reasonable comments on Spearhead and to call their website full of crazies is by far over the top.(btw, I do not comment on Spearhead, never signed up there and found their webpage only because of David Futrelle's threads and links complaining about upvoting…)

  8. >Eoghan's comments mentioned in this thread of David are now also under discussion on spearhead.Sounds very fair to me.And Eoghan's first and downvoted into obscurity post starts off with:"Thats a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying…"I dunno, poetic justice, perhaps?

  9. >@cactuar-tamer:Regarding primary aggressor laws, you shouldn't assume that they're uniform in all states. Here's a rundown on predominant aggressor policies on a state-by-state basis. Also, on DV laws in general, here's a ranking of states with the worst civil rights abuses from domestic violence laws. Alaska is rated as the most dangerous state for men.

  10. >@ Fujii System: Well, as this was your first comment there, I can imagine they just wanted to give you a nice start. Also, you weren't criticising their movement directly, called Japanese feminism "odd" and included a quote from an unhappy manless woman. However, "Of course, posters here can feel free to twist and characterize my comment as "misogynist" if they want to demonstrate a huge ignorance of Japanese culture and history."I won't call your post misogynist, because you are not to blame for the Japanese culture, and so far, no one else here did, either. I don't know which feminist sites you've visited so far, but maybe the reason many "arguments" are shouted down on feminist sites is because they don't actually deal with the issues themselves but instead revolve around the question why FEMINism (femina = woman, that's latin, by the way (yeah, my Latin is better than my Japanese, sorry, but then again, I'm from Europe)) doesn't primarily care about men's rights. Of course, you can blame feminism for that, but that would be like blaming Anti-AIDS activists for not caring about breast cancer. Feminism IS just a lobby group, no doubt about that, but then again, what's wrong with lobby groups? Men can have their own lobby group aswell, that's why I actually see a "Men's Rights Movement" as a good thing, but I guess what most commenters here bugs about said movement is that it doesn't really take action against ACTUAL male discrimination (which is more often than never perpetrated by men themselves) but instead blames feminism for personal issues, which is exactly what you criticised. I wish, and I'm certainly not on my own with that, that one day I could identify as an MRA myself, when the movement has finally stopped its bitter and whiny women-blaming and starts working alongside with feminism. (That's another thing about this movement, that it perceives itself to be anti-feminist. It's not, a true men's rights movement would actually just be the male counterpart to feminism, not its enemy.)@ Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)

  11. >By the way, sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add something.From a definition of "MRA" from the Urban dictionary:"An MRA would never support the rights of those men who truly are at a disadvantage in our society: homosexual and black men. Instead, he leaves campaigning for LGBT rights and minorities' rights to the "evil evil cunt bull dykes" aka feminists."http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

  12. >"Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)"—LydiaYou're not really sorry. You are just a misandrist.It's no wonder why people become anti-feminist. With a shitty, combative attitude like that, you have a lot to learn. Perhaps you refuse to.

  13. >@YohanCan't you see what's wrong with that thread? It's a pissing contest between misogynists. I will summarize the thread for you:Conspiracy Theorists: Women are brainless bimbos who were too stupid to listen to white male Christians so I'm a bigger misogynist than you.Non Conspiracy Theorists: You conspiracy nuts don't blame women enough. They're diabolical man hating machines. I'm a bigger misogynist than you.Both sides are extremely paranoid. They just disagree about how to channel that paranoia, so it ends up as secret conspiracies vs. demonic women.@LydiaThe MRAs may pretend to support the rights of black men and homosexuals. They do that by making up stories about how the KKK was really run by women so both white men and black men were really oppressed by women.

  14. > Steve said… @YohanCan't you see what's wrong with that thread? It's a pissing contest between misogynists.Conspiracy TheoristsNon Conspiracy TheoristsWhat has this to do with 'misogynists'?Conspiracy theories, you can find anywhere on the internet, one time it's about the Christians, next time about the Jews, it's about the Chinese or Americans, about Osama and Bush, about the black people born in USA and about Latino immigrants, about the pharma industry or about drilling for petroleum, it's about all and everything and also about women.The only and easy way if you do not like that stuff, don't read it. – But in USA conspiracy theories are well-known popular nonsense talk and many people like them.Some forums, not only MRA-forums, offer a special sector where members are allowed to post their 'conspiracy theories'. This helps to keep such stuff away from regular postings. Unfortunately Spearhead is like a blog and not a forum. Regular postings and conspiracy theories are mixed up.

  15. >Lydia says: From a definition of "MRA" from the Urban dictionary:"An MRA would never support the rights of those men who truly are at a disadvantage in our society: homosexual and black men. MRAs support of course men's rights, regardless if the man is a black man or Asian man or mixed race man…Who is claiming such a nonsense, that MRAs are only white American people?MRAs are now everywhere worldwide, any race, any language etc.—–I rarely meet homosexuals in the MR-movement. I don't think they are much interested. These people enjoy a totally different life-style. – Most problems which make a typical man's horror story do not exist for them.They use different forums for communication among themselves.They do not disturb me at all, and I do not disturb them.

  16. >Dude. I wonder if Eowhosis is going to get the full Trotsky treatment. I have an axe, but I don't support its usage for such purposes…

  17. >@ LydiaLydia said: "@ Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)"If you and feminut nation hate this "womnyn hating" "rape culture" "patriarchy" society so much, why don't you go back to your the insides of your daddies? That is if you can figure which one of the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night actaully is your dad. I'm sure he has some spare room in his nutsack for some useless trash.Patiently waits for David to "girlsplain" why Lydia's post is of course acceptable, but the MRA's post, is, of course, not.Random Brother

  18. >@ Yohan: Everywhere? LOL. You wish. I know you say that quite a lot here on this site, that men supposedly wake up and notice the evil evil treatment they've received since the start of the feminist movement (and before the feminist movement, and during the French Revolution, and during the Renaissance era, and during the Medieval times, and in ancient Rome, and long before that, – serously, haven't men even been feeling discriminated against by women when there was no such thing as "men" and "women" yet? There are just men that ALWAYS feel discriminated, even if they're just about to mistreat a woman for being so "seductively feminine".) but seriously, you are not part of a big movement, you are just a member of a whiny, self-pitying group that gets nothing done even though there's loads that has to be done. You keep talking about the supposed mistreatment of men when in reality you just can't accept that women nowadays don't automatically treat you like a god just because you're male. Respect has to be earned, and if people don't show you any respect, you're doing something wrong. You say a lot of guys lose interest in Western women because – oh my god! – Western women actually expect men to have an equally interesting life as they lead! You remeber that girl missy that posted here? Yeah, that's what bugs guys about evil Western women: they have an attitude, they have goals in life, they have interests, and, most important, they're highly educated, and, unfortunately, they really expect that from men too. Alpha women that demand alpha men. And this "alpha" doesn't even mean "leads a big company, has money, car, etc.". It just means "I've got something to do in my life, please be on par with me". Nothing else. If you can't even live up to that, you better get yourself a dog.By the way: I get to see a lot of guys hanging out with Western women. So we can't be that horrible.@ Wytchie: A boo boo, don't cry. I don't hate ALL men, just those who expect women to treat them like a treasure while they don't have to meet any standards themselves. The reason why I CAN'T be a "misandrist" is because I know every man is different, they have something called a "personality", just like women. Of course, if you judge people by their genitals, you don't know about that.But lets get a little into your argumentation here: Just because I hurl an insult back to a guy who keeps making notoriously sexist remarks and expects women to kiss his feet because he's a man (see above in my comment) I'm a manhater? So a guy is allowed to insult and belittle WOMEN IN GENERAL and if I do the same to HIM, just him, I'm a manhater? I really wonder how much a child has to be spoilt to become such an immature, egotistic and self-centered adult like you guys. "Oooh, the feminist criticised me! She must be a manhater!" And don't even get me started on all that whining about "false rape allegations" while showing absolutely no respect for REAL rape victims…EDIT: "That is if you can figure which one of the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night actaully is your dad." Well yeah. Kinda self-explaining. Random Brother, inside my Daddy? You didn't pay much attention during your biology lesson, did you? By the way: I love my Daddy. So can't be a man-hater.

  19. >Damn shame. There was a minute there when John, David and even Elizabeth were having a pretty interesting adult conversation, till some feminist attention whore showed up and spoiled it.Random Brother

  20. >Heh, you're standing up for Elizabeth, Brother? Why? Because Elizabeth didn't question your manhood like me? Good girl, Liz. Don't criticise the player.Anyway: We've got a great example of misogyny vs "misandry" here going on:Random Brother: "Feminazi, femifascist, feminut! Manhater! Attention whore!"Me: Go back to your momma, you wimp.Random Brother: "…the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night…"It's a shame, Brother. Everytime you appear here, you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back. Unfortunately David decided to ban Eoghan, I actually found his posts to be far more constructive than yours, but this isn't my blog, and therefore not my decision who gets banned.

  21. > Lydia: I get to see a lot of guys hanging out with Western women. So we can't be that horrible There are various reasons why Western men do not want to have anything to do with Western women anymore. One major reason are not Western women themselves, but Western feminist laws, which are totally biased against men, especially in case of divorce.Even female politicians of your own country (my neighbouring country btw) are highly sceptical about the feminist movement and the reversed family law 2008 in Germany for the first time in German history past WWII favors men and children over women, cutting strongly down on alimony payments. Many 'Western' women you see in Germany, are not Western women, but from Eastern Europe, including the former German Democratic Republic (DDR). Interesting to mention, that Germany has near to half a million registered prostitutes taking care of men, who obviously cannot find any relationship with a female without using their wallet, not to take about freelancers. Lydia says…seriously, you are not part of a big movement, you are just a member of a whiny, self-pitying group that gets nothing done MRAs are very active in Central Europe and it is about the time.I recommend Western men to remain single while living in Western countries, save your money you earn for yourself.About 'getting nothing done', well, I did 'something' to get away from feminism,going my own way…

  22. >One can keep up with an adult conversation even if someone (in your opinion) shows up making a spectacle of themselves John. After all, that is what Nick always does.

  23. >@Elizabeth:"One can keep up with an adult conversation even if someone (in your opinion) shows up making a spectacle of themselves John. After all, that is what Nick always does."Huh? Are you talking to me, Elizabeth? Or are you replying to this comment by Richard?

  24. >Yeah, sorry about that John. Mea culpa

  25. >@ LydiaLydia emoted: "Heh, you're standing up for Elizabeth, Brother? Why? Because Elizabeth didn't question your manhood like me? Good girl, Liz. Don't criticise the player."1. I didn't stand up for Elizabeth. I merely noted that there was a somewhat interesting post going on with her involved, which had an adult vibe, which is not the norm here.2. As for questioning my manhood and all that, a woman declaring what a man should be is akin to some white bigot declaring what a black person should be. Neither the bigot nor the woman has any idea what the fuck they are talking about. This should be a familiar situation for you as you also don't ever seem to know what the fuck you are talking about.3. It's don't HATE the player hate the game, honey.Lydia continued: "Anyway: We've got a great example of misogyny vs "misandry" here going on:Random Brother: "Feminazi, femifascist, feminut! Manhater! Attention whore!"Me: Go back to your momma, you wimp.Random Brother: "…the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night…"1. I don't recall saying femifascist. 2. Do you really think this is evidence of anything? This is your level of intelligence?! Jesus. So what? I respond rudely to people who are rude to me. If you can't deal with it go do something elese with your life. May I suggest taking a course in cooking, or kitchen cleaning or maybe sock sewing, something to give you some value, because if you have to rely on your intelligence to get by, well yikes.Lydia said: "It's a shame, Brother. Everytime you appear here, you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back."I never cry. That's for females. I merely give back what is given to us as MRA's. How would you expect MRA's to post here? Let's see, David pulls the worst quote he can find from an alleged MRA. A bunch of femhags jump in withe the "Oh teh menz are so dum an we is so purfect." And then MRA's come and insult them. And bickering ensues. Again, so what moo cow?Lydia continues: "Unfortunately David decided to ban Eoghan, I actually found his posts to be far more constructive than yours, but this isn't my blog, and therefore not my decision who gets banned."Yes, and we see how that constructive posting helped Eoghan now don't we? And as always a feminut starts screaming for banning every time she faces opposition. You know, you're right, femifascist, a word I don't believe I've used before, (thanks!) is a good word for your kind.Random Brother

  26. >@ ElizabethAgain, how do you expect MRA's to post here when almost every post starts out with David's snarkiness and the feminuts piling on?Random Brother

  27. >You guys keep posting so you answer your own question munchkin.

  28. >@ ElizabethWell then I'll post however I like plum puddin'Random Brother

  29. >"I'm a manhater?"—LydiaOf course.

  30. >"And don't even get me started on all that whining about "false rape allegations" . . . LydiaStop being a jackass and maybe someone will take your ranting and raving seriously.

  31. >"The MRAs may pretend to support the rights of black men and homosexuals. They do that by making up stories about how the KKK was really run by women so both white men and black men were really oppressed by women."—SteveYou haven't done your homework, obviously. http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/carney.htmlA section from the article:"Yet Blee argues that in order to fully understand the women’s Klan and its significance, attention must be paid to all the ways in which it appealed to its members, not merely the appeal to racist sentiment. For, as she points out, racism and intolerance were widespread throughout the country in the 1920s, especially in Indiana. Yet to view racism as the sole cause of Klan membership is to ignore the other motivations at work within Klan members. It is Blee’s contention that wome n joined the WKKK not merely because of bigoted tendencies, but also because the Klan provided a women’s rights-based agenda, the recognition of civic activism, and the chance to be heard collectively as women. At a time when suffrage, temperance, morali ty, and patriotism were causing political tensions to run high, the WKKK gave women a political voice with which to articulate their gender ideology, as well as a means of legitimizing their civic and social organizations. To further add to the strength of this appeal, Blee notes that much of this activism was carried out within the comfortable confines of normal, everyday community life. The chapter entitled "A Poison Squad of Whispering Women", discusses, in depth, the strength of the WKKK’s subtle tactics. Blee points out that while Klanswomen did not participate in the more visible forms of intimidation employed by the KKK (such as nightriding and lynching), their less blatant menacing was just as powerful. The fact that WKKK members co uld enjoy various degrees of public visibility therefore enabled both politically active women, and women content to remain in traditional arenas, to find a niche within the organization."

  32. >I never cry. That's for females. …and for most of the leadership of the Republican party, like GWB, John Boehner – both notorious bawlers – and of course all those other Real Men on the right when they get outed as gay and/or adulterers. What a bunch of manginas, amirite?

  33. >"I never cry. That's for females."Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women. Anyone who literally NEVER cries should probably see a counselor or therapist, because crying is a natural human response to pain and distress. And who among us never encounters pain or distress? Everyone cries from time to time. Pretending you're too strong and tough to cry is just that, a pretense, and maintaining that pretense is damaging to anyone's mental health, male or female.

  34. >"Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women."—SallyStrangeAnd yet, when men do so, they get called out by the feminist Lydias of the world. Hypocrisy—-again.

  35. >In my experience, wythch, feminist women have no problem with men crying. Whining, on the other hand, is another matter.

  36. >wytch, yes, there were women in the Klan. There were also men in the Klan as well, in case you had forgotten. They were the ones who ran the Klan (the Women's Klan was an auxiliary); they were the ones doing the lynching. Yes, the women of the Klan were as hateful as the men, and contributed in their way to the oppression of black men and women (and Catholics, and immigrants, and Jews), but they weren't the ones running the show, or the ones responsible for the worst acts of hatred. Blee's book (which I've actually read, unlike you) is very sharp, an interesting examination of the ways in which certain aspects of progressive ideologies (women's rights) can be appropriated by right wing women. Just as certain aspects of feminist ideology have been appropriated by antifeminist women since the 1970s.

  37. >"Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women."—SallyStrange"And yet, when men do so, they get called out by the feminist Lydias of the world. Hypocrisy—-again." –WytcheWhen men do WHAT? Classic example of illiteracy.

  38. >Oh, I see, when men cry–as in when Lydia said, "you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back."Being that this is the internet, I'm pretty sure that was metaphorical crying she was referring to, Wytche. "Crying" meaning "whining and complaining." I'll refer to Capt. Bathrobe's comments.

  39. >Er, wytch, Blee DOES NOT assert that women ran the Klan, ever. Her claim is that towards the end of the Second Klan (You can look up Klan movements for more on this, each Klan movement is somewhat distinct from the others) there was a subset of women in support roles who were/had been suffuragettes and had less traditional view of gender than the other Klan movements or the nazi and other white nationalist groups that followed it. There is evidence to support the claim that this is true, in large part from the intense opposition to it by many male members who stated that the growing involvement of women violated the Klan's policy of 'moral conservatism' which mandated male dominance in home and civil life (Blee notes herself that the phenomena she cites was not a part of the third Klan and did not carry over to other white nationalist groups after the collapse of the second Klan in the late 20s). To the WKKK or women were the primary controlling force behind even the second Klan is absurd and it is a claim that Blee does not make. One of Blee's central thesis revolves around the dynamics of women participating in anti-feminist right wing racist organizations, which is where she places the Klan. The forward of her book outlines the long anti-feminist history of the Klan, so stop pretending like a subgroup amoung a less powerful auxilory for a decade or so trumps this history. Also, for the five millionth time, "Women of a color exist!" Saying that white women are almost as or even as racist as white men and therefore racist organizations oppressed men ignores that half of people of color are women.

  40. >@ Iris Vander PluymYep, crying is definitely a sign of manginahood.Random Brother

  41. >@ Sally StrangeSally said: "Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women. Anyone who literally NEVER cries should probably see a counselor or therapist, because crying is a natural human response to pain and distress. And who among us never encounters pain or distress? Everyone cries from time to time. Pretending you're too strong and tough to cry is just that, a pretense, and maintaining that pretense is damaging to anyone's mental health, male or female."I know many feminists will not believe it but men and women are vastly different and I don't believe that crying has the same "benefit" for men than for women.Random Brother

  42. >"To the WKKK or women were the primary controlling force behind even the second Klan is absurd . . ."—SallyStrangerAnd you make a claim of my illiteracy?

  43. >"One of Blee's central thesis revolves around the dynamics of women participating in anti-feminist right wing racist organizations, which is where she places the Klan."Your lack of reading comprehension is also evident here as well. Klan women wanted more rights and more of a voice, while still clinging to their bigoted views:"It is Blee’s contention that women joined the WKKK not merely because of bigoted tendencies, but also because the Klan provided a women’s rights-based agenda, the recognition of civic activism, and the chance to be heard collectively as women. At a time when suffrage, temperance, morality, and patriotism were causing political tensions to run high, the WKKK gave women a political voice with which to articulate their gender ideology, as well as a means of legitimizing their civic and social organizations."David, I think Sally is the one who hasn't read the book. Either that, or she doesn't comprehend the obvious.

  44. >"Oh, I see, when men cry–as in when Lydia said, "you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back.""—SallyStrangerThat's not what I meant. Strawman.

  45. >"Also, for the five millionth time, "Women of a color exist!" Saying that white women are almost as or even as racist as white men and therefore racist organizations oppressed men ignores that half of people of color are women."—DarkSideCatI never ignored them. It's you making that mistake. As well as others in your description.

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 8,664 other followers

%d bloggers like this: