About these ads

The brief history of the brief career of the (unofficial) goodwill ambassador from planet Good Men Project

On a fairly regular basis, Man Boobz is visited by commenters of an MRAish disposition. There are many varieties. Some start off by trying to post rape threats and other such unpleasantness, and their comments never see the light of day. Some leave a few irritated comments and head off, never to be seen again. Some manage to stick around long enough to become Man Boobz institutions.

One interesting variety: the ones who come here, they claim, to discuss the issues with us in good faith. In most cases it becomes quickly evident that they are not interested in real discussion at all, as they ignore what most of the commenters here say to them to instead argue with the straw feminists who live in their heads.

Soon many of these alleged good-faith arguers drop the pretense entirely and lash out with nasty personal attacks. At this point they go on moderation, or find themselves banned entirely.

The latest such meltdown was a fairly quick one. For those who don’t regularly read the comments, here’s a brief history of John Anderson’s brief career (so far) as an unofficial goodwill ambassador to Man Boobz from planet Good Men Project.

An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project, Mr. Anderson arrived at Man Boobz Prime on July 2nd, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, eager to learn from and about the feminist commenters here, and to convince some of us to join him and the other commenters at the GMP in healthy and fruitful dialogue.

In one of his first comments here, he explained the reason for his coming here:

I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.

In a further comment he explained that he was trying to do his part to save the Men’s Rights movement from the angry ideologues:

I was on a voice for men a while back. They had nothing but contempt for the GMPers. I’m certain that I’ll cross paths with them. It is my heartfelt intent to reclaim my movement from people who would disgrace it.

Five minutes later, alas, we learned that he had determined we were all a bunch of misandrists after all.

I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.

Oh, wait, not all of us. But we are a bunch of meanies:

I don’t think all the commentators hate men or are necessarily closed minded to other view points. I actually stepped away from a safe space to engage people who don’t see things the way I do. The feeling that I get is that there is great hostility to anyone who may consider men to be victims under any circumstance….

I’ve quoted DOJ and CDC statistics and included page numbers or links on an article that says that we shouldn’t be angry over truthful statistics. I’ve been told that the statistics have been spun. Maybe I should have refrained from that SHOCKED bit. I probably should have considered the feelings of the people on this site. I’d consider apologizing, but too many people here seem mean.

As far as I can tell, he determined that I was a misandrist because I downplayed the fact that more men are murdered than women by writing the following sentence in the OP:

While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”

I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women. You can go read the whole discussion yourself and see if you can figure it out.

The meltdown followed not long afterwards. In one comment, Mr. Anderson suggested, as far as I can figure it, that [TW: RAPE APOLOGETICS] women regularly decide whether or not to charge a man with rape after they determine how good their rapist is in bed:

When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.

But he still hoped to lure some of us over to the Good Man Project for more scintillating discussion about how feminists are evil and mean and how dudes like him think women think  about rape. Oh, and that movie about the stripper dudes.

Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.

Then, for some reason, he decided to bring up his cock:

Kyrie says,

“Fuck. You.”

No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. :)

At this point, I put Mr. Anderson on permanent moderation.

Or  tried to anyway. Due to a little glitch, it didn’t take, so Mr. Anderson was able to post freely for a while. Among other things, he tried to explain away that previous comment with this:

David says,

“And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”

You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic.

Not so much.

Then he whined about being moderated:

Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.

The only record set was for how quickly Mr. Anderson devolved from an earnest man of alleged good faith to a cock-talking troll.

About these ads

Posted on July 7, 2012, in antifeminism, douchebaggery, irony alert, misogyny, MRA, penises. Bookmark the permalink. 182 Comments.

  1. @Argenti: I read Kyrie’s stat as 99% because, well, that’s what I expected!

    Mumbles about wordpress not allowing previews….

  2. Argenti Aertheri

    99% works too, I was thinking 90%+ myself, but couldn’t figure out how Kyrie could’ve dropped a second digit and a plus sign. At least 90%, if not more like 99%?

  3. Cassandra, Katz: Have you looked at I.F. Stone’s Weekly? Because he was his own editor, ad it was a big deal, it was articles. It was massively influential in the world of political journalism, and was widely read and respected.

    And some things which have editors, aren’t any better than most blog posts (gossip columns, People Magazine), but get called articles.

    So the line isn’t that bright.

  4. Ruby: He thinks women claim rape based on how good the sex was??? Unbelievable!

    Why? You think rape can be funny based on who the victim is. The difference between the two is that his is ridiculous, because it’s a fact based claim, and wrong and yours is vicious and foul, and nasty, because it mocks people being hurt.

    Yours supports and encourages rape, and rape culture. So he’s an idiot on the subject, and you’re evil.

    Of the two, I’d rather have a thousand of him, than one of you. I’d rather believe what he does, for all it’s delusional nature, than think as you do.

  5. Lol, I forgot what I meant, it was either 90% or 99%. Let’s say 94.5%. (9% would be both impressively precise and low)

  6. DSC:

    This is…yeah, about the level of discourse I expect from the majority of GMP peoples/

    Oh, good, I’m glad I’m not the only person who noticed GMP is full of anti-feminists.

    (And by extension that moving NSWATM there for more legitimacy is like moving to New York to get away from your rude neighbors.)

    Steele:

    Without context, readers won’t be aware that the nasty atmosphere in your comments section

    I know, right? How are MBZ readers supposed to know what the MBZ comments section is really like?

    Kyrie:

    “Well, it sure looks bad when you put it like this, Futrelle.”

    At least we agree on that. Now, show in what way it doesn’t look bad.

    If David had mentioned the nasty-wastys in the comment section, Anderson would have seemed the soul of reasonability. But there’s no way, reading thepost, to see what the comments directly below the post are like.

    Skylar:

    It really seems like you read what I wrote and then went, “ignorant group mentality, I’ll show this guy what Ignorant group mentality is. Quick comment of sentence structure, fuck this guy for not using paragraphs[...]“

    If a bunch of people tell you the same thing, there are several possible reasons besides “hive mind”.

    VoIP:

    Sorry, Ozy. I think you dropped the ball on this one.

    Even before the move NSWATM had a reputation as being anti-feminist. I think it’s due to something like Gresham’s Law for blogs that zie — I’ll be charitable — didn’t take into account and then got overwhelmed by.

    pecunium:

    Compare a good blog to I.F. Stone’s Weekly which, starting in 1953, was a lot like a blog… except that it was on paper.

    The Carolina Israelite, published by the creator of something much like Poe’s Law, is similar.

  7. @DSC & Hershele:

    Definitely seeing a lot of anti-feminism at the GOOD MEN project (not having read a huge amount, but given what I saw in just a couple of posts, and the examples of the GMPers who come here, I suspect it’s fairly widespread). I doubt that there’s much attempt to get feminist perspectives over there despite what one of the recent trolls (steele? john anderson?) said, given all the criticisms of Joanna’s post about feminism and GMP in the comments. The idea that (straight white cis?) men NEED a safe space free of teh evil feminists in the U.S. in 2012 is….mind-bogglingly croggling to this grumpy old feminist.

    I ended up reading the post David linked to over there (the one about how poor fragile zek got threats of rape from MBZers that of course he could not link to–let alone give the actual name he was using to post to David): http://goodmenproject.com/men-and-feminism/mens-stories-in-context-why-feminism-belongs-at-the-gmp/

    And apparently it’s part of a roundtable which is all mostly about how feminism has nothing to do with men.

    http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/men-and-feminism-the-good-men-project-roundtable/

  8. Even before the move NSWATM had a reputation as being anti-feminist. I think it’s due to something like Gresham’s Law for blogs that zie — I’ll be charitable — didn’t take into account and then got overwhelmed by.

    When you say anti feminist, do you mean the posts, the comments or both?

  9. Pecunium: I think a post specifically needs to be on a blog. For instance, if you had an old-school Geocities-type site and you constantly put up new pages of content, those would still be pages, not posts, no matter how bloggish the content. Articles in some random 80’s zine entirely created by one person and distributed to a couple dozen of his friends are still articles, because that’s just the word for pieces in a print publication. I don’t think the term necessarily implies that articles are higher-quality than posts.

    But, yes, the line isn’t very bright and I’m not claiming my opinion is exceptionally correct, it’s just what I think. The only opinion that’s (I think) actually wrong is to differentiate between post/article on blogs based on the fanciness of the blog, or the erudition of the author, or whether or not you think the author is making a Really Good Point.

  10. Unimaginative

    Until this blog, I had no idea that people considered “article” and “post” to be different things. I can see that people (who seem to have a background in journalism) think there’s a difference, but it’s not a difference that, erm, makes a difference to me.

  11. The general atmosphere. The posts were not and are not anti-feminist (though I think some people have an understandable almost Pavlovian* reaction to overtly pro-male blogging) but the general atmosphere has come off that way.

    *i.e., meringue-like

  12. John Anderson

    I warranted a whole article. Dude I’m touched figuratively speaking. Most have touched a nerve. I guess the saying is right the truth hurts especially about the misandry that I found objectionable.

    “An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project,”

    Dude, I identify as MRA. I’ve said that many times. Anti-feminists are not the same. Want to slander me some more I guess. There are people on GMP who identify as anti-feminists. Many seem (in my opinion) to have been former feminists based on what I know of their stories. I was an almost feminist. I looked at the ideology and rejected it. I resent the implication that I was ever a feminist.

    “I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women.”

    Never said you downplayed that. I said you downplayed the fact that nearly as many men are killed by intimates as women. You’ve avoided answering. You’ve avoided explaining why you used the minimizing term ONLY. I’ve allowed opportunity for clarification or retraction. I can only assume that you feel that this is not just an appropriate word choice, but one that best communicates your intended meaning.

    “While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”

    My last post tried to explain how and why MRAs will see misandry on feminists posts. My assessment should have been MRAs see misandry in these posts because it is there. That would have been simpler.

    BTW, your cat is cuter. Why’d you pick a black one? I’d tell you why I think, but then you’ll cry I slandered you and use it as an excuse not to post this.

  13. ‘You have to admit that was a classic’- Anyone else hear that so many times after some asshole says something absolutely hateful or demeaning about you as a woman? Like demeaning stuff is funny in and of itself? And somehow they don’t realize this sentiment is a pretty clear indicator of some nasty misogyny.

  14. Cliff, on a different thread:

    Also, hating catcalling men is not “hating men as a group.” Not unless you think catcalling is innate to manhood.

    This is related to why I think pro-male blogs so often become anti-feminist: in addition to the feminist meringue, there are a number of highly vocal people who do think (e.g.) catcalling is innate to manhood. So even if you start out trying, like Ozy and Noah seem to have been, to create and discuss a masculinity that is explicitly not misogynist and free from patriarchy, you quickly get a bunch of MRAs who want freedom for misogyny unless you’re willing to take a stand against it.

  15. @John Anderson: Wow, you make up some weird meanings for words.

    Anti-feminist means, well, against feminisms.

    It doesn’t mean ex-feminist.

    There probably are ex-feminists who are anti-feminist, but not all anti-feminists are therefore ex-feminists.

  16. John Anderson

    Though I comment frequently on GMP, I am not officially affiliated with the site. I’m not even a volunteer moderator. If you have beef with me, you have it with me. I shouldn’t expect feminists to be honest, but that doesn’t mean that I should allow their dishonesty to stand. To suggest that I’m an ambassador for that site is dishonest.

    I feel I needed to have this corrected.

  17. Well, that’s why I called you an UNOFFICIAL goodwill ambassador in the post. Not sure what’s “dishonest” about that.

    Now I put “unofficial” in the title too. Ta da!

  18. John Anderson (My Jo): I warranted a whole article. Dude I’m touched figuratively speaking. Most have touched a nerve. I guess the saying is right the truth hurts especially about the misandry that I found objectionable.

    Again with the English. The purpose of this blog isn’t, “to counter the truth”. It’s to make fun of misogynists*.

    As to “the truth”. Ok, if you have so much of it, come on back to the post you started in, and refute the evidence presented to you, because you’ve dropped the ball on lots of it.

    Dude, I identify as MRA. I’ve said that many times. Anti-feminists are not the same.

    This is true. The second group is larger than the first. Not least because (in my experience) all of the former are inside the latter (but not vice versa, see Venn Diagrams).

    Never said you downplayed that

    Not quite true. What you argued for was the comparison being neither fair, nor valid. You said he overplayed the relative percentages because in a discussion of IPV, he didn’t talk about non-IPV.

    *Though I do have to say, there was a moment when my sides hurt from laughing at this idea that your truthiness was scaring Dave so much he had to mock you in self-defense. It’s so cute when MRAs are that aggrandising.

  19. John Anderson

    Maybe I shouldn’t have put this on my things to do because once something is there, it starts to feel like work and then you don’t want to do it, but this is too ironic to not do. Sorry Fembot, I almost have to release this into the manosphere. Maybe I’ll create a blog on blogger or just a web page, but this is special.

    We know what I said to Kyrie. I don’t know if David will let me quote myself so I won’t. Here is some of the back and forth after that.

    Snowy | July 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm

    “Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this: ”

    To which I respond.

    John Anderson | July 4, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Snowy says,

    “Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:”

    It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    Basically, I said that I’m treating people the way they treated me. In response to this, pecunium says.

    pecunium | July 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm

    It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?

    So a man not wanting to have sex with a woman is sexually assaulting her. We know that women don’t need to tell the truth for it to be rape (that is for a man to be convicted of rape). The Innocence Project proved a man doesn’t need to have sex with a woman to rape her. Now feminists are saying that if a man doesn’t want to have sex with a woman and declines it, it is the same as sexually assaulting her. Is that because men are always supposed to want sex? Watch out guys, if you don’t agree to be women’s sexual slaves, you should be imprisoned.

    I haven’t even gotten to comparing Ruby’s treatment to mine or the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.

  20. @John Anderson
    Of course you can quote yourself, you just chose not to because it would make you look bad and you know it. Here’s the thing that you originally said:

    When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report.

    It’s a disgusting piece of victim blaming, to which Kyrie responded with:

    Fuck. You.

    The obvious meaning of which is that you should go fuck yourself. You disingenuously replied with:

    No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. :)

    When Snowy was asked you why you would say something like that, you replied:

    It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    So, it was not until after you spat out your rape-apologist crap that you were cursed at by Kyrie, and after that, you replied with insulting sexual innuendo.

    Only then did Pecunium reply to your “courtesy begets courtesy” crap with:

    Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?

    It was not because you “refused to have sex with a woman”, it’s because you posted a piece of rape-apologist victim-blaming, and used the resulting anger from Kyrie to make insulting sexual comments. So fuck off with your martyr act, all of these thing are written down where people can see them, you asshole.

  21. CassandraSays

    “I haven’t even gotten to comparing Ruby’s treatment to mine or the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.”

    It’s amusing how much this one overestimates himself.

  22. Why don’t you? No seriously, start your own blog that no one will ever read. If it will stop you from wasting people’s time here it can’t be a bad thing.

  23. I haven’t even gotten to comparing Ruby’s treatment to mine or the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.

    Feminist’s what?

  24. I haven’t even gotten to…the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.

    OK, bring it.

  25. Anderson, are you claiming to be responsible for her dislike of Ruby? 0_o Unless you made her wrote that rape is sometimes funny, I don’t see how.

    But go on, pit us against each other! Make Ozy hate Cliff, David hate Ami, Argenti hate Pecunium! I want to see duels, fight, blood! Show us, share the fun.

  26. John Troll: First, your idea that you cannot quote yourself but can quote others because DAVID: ahahahahahahah.

    Second, you really ought to supply links (*points up to what David does as best practice) because a quote without a link is fairly meaningless on the internet.

    And, big surprise asshat, you can quote and link to your posts as well.

    Third: FEMINISTS plural, FEMINIST’S singular possessive, FEMINISTS’ plural possessive.

    Speedlines gave you a handy tip: feminist’s what? (meaning what do feminists possess).

    What did apostrophes ever do to you to so abuse them?

    Fourth: PLease, with antimanboobz giving up in despair over his sockpuppeting being found, the internet clearly needs another blog by a troll who got his toes stepped on at Manboobz!

    PLEASE POST ALL ABOUT YOUR HORRIBLE TREATMENT.

    Then we can come laff.

  27. @Kyrie, even if he succeeds in unleashing this hate plague, I’m not sure how he’ll make us actually fight rather than be adults about it.

  28. PLEASE POST ALL ABOUT YOUR HORRIBLE TREATMENT.

    Yes, and please don’t forget to include all those threats of castration or death (that didn’t actually happen) that we lobbed at you.

  29. Bring it, asshole. If you think Ruby’s a feminist, I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell you.

    I’d really like it if you could tell me why you jags can never punctuate properly.

  30. John, you said horrible things about rape victims (if you can’t quote, I can do it for you, it’s really not that hard), I said “Fuck you”. (meaning go fuck yourself, idiot). Which I maintain, was deserved given wgat you wrote. To that you answered a sexually graphic comment directed to me.
    Obviously, MY behavior on this blog is the problem, here.

    Hershele: Well, you’re obvioulsy right but… Urgh. youre a poopyhead i hate you and all of you filthy feminists i wish i never discovered manboobz!!!eleven!!

    Oh my god, he’s doing it! Get out of my head, John Anderson!

  31. Jo: It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    So you are complaining that you managed to reap what you had sown (see the parent thread on the tone and tenor of your comments; also be so kind as to answer my question about the use of the word fuck, and the number of teenagers who seem to be propositioning their parents for sex).

    The Innocence Project proved a man doesn’t need to have sex with a woman to rape her.

    More problems with English. The Innocence project continues to prove that the court system in the US convicts people falsely.

    Watch out guys, if you don’t agree to be women’s sexual slaves, you should be imprisoned.

    The problems in that sentence… you don’t believe what you are writing; you can’t. If you did you’d never have dared (no matter how professional you think sexual attacks on others may be) to have typed what you wrote. If you believed it you’d be terrified that you’d end up in prison for it.

    So you are a liar, as well as a poor user of English.

    I haven’t even gotten to…the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.

    They way they have taken to vicious intrafeminist fighting here, in response to your jibes and barbs? Do you really think you’ll have feminists beating down the doors to come to your blog to savage each other for your entertainment?

    Do you think your writing can pull that off?

    Guys, the Farce is strong with this one.

  32. This thread would be a good review for my fifteen-year-old son. I’d have him read it through, and then ask him, ‘can you imagine any situation in which John Anderson would be a pleasant person to be with? How about Steele/Skylar, the Doublemint Twins? Can you think of any ways to avoid being perceived as like them?’

    Seriously, how hard does someone have to work at it to become THAT screwed up? We’re almost in Jack Donavan territory here.

  33. And we see, from his lack of presence elsewhere. why Dave said it was a brief career.

  34. John Anderson

    David Futrelle | July 9, 2012 at 12:13 am

    “Well, that’s why I called you an UNOFFICIAL goodwill ambassador in the post. Not sure what’s “dishonest” about that.

    Now I put “unofficial” in the title too. Ta da!”

    And yet ONLY is still in the original post. More evidence that the use of the MINIMIZING term to describe the MURDER OF MEN BY WOMEN was INTENTIONAL.

  35. John Anderson

    cloudiah | July 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    “John, why don’t MRAs run a positive educational campaign for divorcing fathers, telling them that if they petition for custody they have a decent chance of getting at least shared custody, and often primary custody? Is it because the actual reality on the ground takes away one of the MRM’s most cherished grievances? Because honestly, that is what it looks like.”

    What do you think the father’s rights movement is a part of? It’s considered part of the MRM, which specifically focuses on fathers rights. In Michigan the father’s rights movement fought for a change in the law that would allow men who fathered children with another man’s wife to establish paternity. Why was this fought by the feminist lobby in Michigan? They fought criminalization of visitation interference. It appears that feminists want to perpetuate the illusion that men simply don’t want their children.

  36. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri | July 3, 2012 at 6:17 pm

    I said

    The only agreement I have with the mainstream MRM concerning not paying child support is that if the mother has the ability to unilateral adoption (adoption without the expressed consent of the biological father as determined by DNA test), the father should have the same option to place his child up for unilateral adoption. I don’t see where the mainstream MRM finds the legal precedent for a “legal abortion”. I see precedent for a unilateral adoption, but if mothers are prevented from pursuing it or must pay child support to the adoptive parents in a unilateral adoption, I would not support a father’s right to one either.
    You said

    “I realize that wasn’t directed at me, but google “safe haven laws”.

    Thanks, that gives me something else to consider. I am kind of curious though. Since safe haven laws are a form of unilaterally giving up one’s rights to a child, it actually supports my position that there is precedent in allowing men the right to unilateral adoption, waiving their rights and responsibilities to a child. Where do you stand on this?

  37. John Anderson

    Pam | July 3, 2012 at 4:53 pm”

    but if raising kids is so thankless, why would women want to do it?

    “Ya got me on that one. I am a woman who is childfree by choice, so I don’t really have an answer as to why women want to do it. In addition, since each woman is different, they each probably have different reasons for why they want to do it. I do know some women who did not want to have and raise children, but did so anyway because they couldn’t handle the stigma that I sometimes endured (selfish bitch, etc.) In a slightly different vein, I have known women who did not fight for primary custody of their children when their cohabitating relationship broke down, and that is social-stigma-worthy too …”

    “must be some kind of MONSTER if she didn’t fight for custody!”

    You have a good point. I wonder how many women fight for custody because they think that they’re supposed to. I’ve never been a fan of forcing parents to raise children that they don’t want to raise whether it is rooted in law or in societal norms. I’m more open to compelling parents to support their children financially as long as the system is fair. Men should have the same opportunities as women to terminate their legal rights and responsibilities or women should have to pay child support if they unilaterally terminate their rights to a child. They shouldn’t be allowed to terminate their responsibility unless the father also terminates his rights.

  38. John Anderson

    Kyrie | July 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    “Are there currently States in the USAs where the father would, by default, need to proof that the mother is an unfit parent to get a part, even beneath 50% (like, having one in two week-ends) of the custody?”

    Michigan until about a month ago wouldn’t allow a biological father to even establish paternity for a child that he fathered with someone else’s wife. He had a ZERO percent chance of getting even visitatopn.

    Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III | July 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm

    “If there are men who want custody but don’t seek custody because they don’t think they’re going to get it, then the MRM could actually help men in this position, simply by not endlessly repeating the meme that men never get custody!
    \Actually help!

    And guess what? Doing so would take even less effort that the “activism” they’re doing now. All they have to do is whine less about this one subject! If the problem is the meme, stop pushing the goddam meme!”

    The “meme” is rooted in the law and its application. How do you change the laws without pointing out the injustices. You guys probably don’t realize that one of the battleground issues between the father’s right movement and the feminist lobby is the battle over “the best interests of the child” and “favoring joint custody”.

    The MRM favors favoring joint custody. The burden is on the parent opposing joint custody to prove that the other parent is unfit. The parent opposing joint custody is usually the mother. Sometimes she has very good reason like the father is abusive. The fight is actually over whether she has to prove it.

    “The best interests of the child” standard allows judges to apply a personal belief that children are always better off with the mother when parents are (nearly) equally situated.

  39. John Anderson

    I think I’m driving David crazy and it’s not my intention. Sorry David. I would like an article about me to hit 200 comments at least, if I may. I’m not going to bother you the rest of the day, but do want to clarify one thing.

    Feminism is a lens that is no longer valid for viewing the world. Father’s rights are gaining steam throughout the country. Look at the change in the law in Michigan. Academia is feeling increased pressure to address issues facing men and boys. Look at the SFU men’s center. The bodily autonomy of men and boys is being increasingly recognized. Look at the circumcision ban in a part of Germany and the attempt to ban it in San Francisco (I don’t know if it was successful. If anyone is familiar with what happened, I’d appreciate an update).

    Just like misogynists failed to recognize that men have mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters; feminists fail to realize that women have fathers, husbands, sons and brothers. The anti-circ movement was initially pushed by women. Feminism is becoming increasingly irrelevant and distancing itself from the concerns of women will speed its demise.
    You can choose to stand on the wrong side of history. It’s your right, but why would you want to?

  40. I’ve never based my actions or beliefs on what’s popular John. I suspect that’s the case for many folks here. I really don’t care about historys popularity contests. For that matter, feminism isn’t and has never been that popular. Only a quarter of women will have anything to do with it.

  41. CassandraSays

    “Just like misogynists failed to recognize that men have mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters; feminists fail to realize that women have fathers, husbands, sons and brothers.”

    This is both the most absurd and the most offensive sentence you’ve written so far. Feminism and misogyny are not similar things. One is a political movement, the other is a prejudice against a demographic group. Take a look at how you framed that, because it’s very revealing.

    Also, because I’ve seen most of the feminists here around for a while, I can tell you that most of us already know that women have fathers, husbands, and brothers, because most of us have fathers, husbands, and brothers. In fact, some of the people you see commenting here are fathers, husbands, or brothers.

  42. My Jo: “The best interests of the child” standard allows judges to apply a personal belief that children are always better off with the mother when parents are (nearly) equally situated.

    And yet… when men ask for custody they get it half the time. Since men aren’t the primary provider, as a rule, that implies the judges might be applying some sort of standard (other than your fictive, “personal belief”).

    It also implies that fathers aren’t all that disadvantaged, as a class, but happen to choose, more often than not, that they don’t want custody.

    feminists fail to realize that women have fathers, husbands, sons and brothers.

    What? My partner (who is a feminist) is unaware that she has husbands? I don’t think so. She’s pretty happy to have them.

    My sisters don’t seem to have forgotten me (though it’s possible the youngest doesn’t identify as a feminist, she’s only 14). I think the problem is the misogynists don’t realise feminists do actually know they have husbands/brothers/sons/lovers, and presume to assume they hate men, as opposed to want equality.

    . Feminism is becoming increasingly irrelevant and distancing itself from the concerns of women will speed its demise.

    Again with the confusing English. If distancing itself from the concerns of women will hasten the demise of feminism (which seems a bit tautologic) why should feminists rush out to support the MRM?

    I don’t think feminism is the gender related movement on the wrong side of history. I also don’t think you have much of a clue about what feminism is actually about, nor that it’s losing ground.

    Irrespective of that, I’m not looking to see what “history” has to say. I’m just working to make today better.

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 8,992 other followers

%d bloggers like this: