Voices of Hatred: A look at the noxious views of six of the speakers at A Voice for Men’s upcoming conference
Posted by David Futrelle
Curious about the views of the people scheduled to speak at A Voice for Men’s “Men’s Issues” conference next week? Here’s a little video guide. CONTENT WARNING: Domestic violence, rape, incest.
If you’d like to have their quotes in writing for future reference, here’s a transcript of the quotes used in the video. I’ve linked to the source of each quote (or to posts of mine that discuss the quotes in greater detail). Enjoy!
Mike Buchanan has said:
I believe girls learn at a young age that whining gets them what they want, especially from over-indulgent parents who might later wonder why their daughters became Entitlement Princesses. Inevitably these girls continue whining into adolescence and adulthood because they continue to get what they want. It’s up to men to break the cycle …
Men living in houses with cellars can put a sign on the cellar door, ‘The Whine Cellar’, and politely direct whining women towards it. In houses without a cellar, the smallest room in the house – or possibly the garden shed – could be designated ‘The Whine Box’.
Mike Buchanan is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Mike Buchanan is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Buchanan’s quote
Stefan Molyneux has said:
Women who choose the assholes will fucking end this race. They will fucking end this human race, if we don’t start holding them a-fucking-ccountable. … Women who choose assholes guarantee child abuse. Women who choose assholes guarantee criminality, sociopathy. Politicians, all the cold-hearted jerks who run the world came out of the vaginas of women who married assholes.
And I don’t know how to make the world a better place without holding women accountable for choosing assholes. Your dad was an asshole because your mother chose him. Because it works on so many women. If “asshole” wasn’t a great reproductive strategy it would have been gone long ago. Women keep that black bastard flame alive. They cup their hands around it, they protect it with their bodies. They keep the evil of the species going by continually choosing these guys.
If being an asshole didn’t get women, there would be no assholes left. If women chose nice guys over assholes we would have a glorious and peaceful world in one generation. Women determine the personality traits of the men because women choose who to have sex with, and who to have children with, and who to expose those children to. …
Your dad is who he is fundamentally because your mother was willing to fuck him and have you. Willing and eager to fuck the monster. Stop fucking monsters and we get a great world. Keep fucking monsters, we get catastrophes, we get war, we get nuclear weapons, we get national debt, we get incarcerations … Women worship at the feet of the devil and wonder why the world is evil. And then you know what they say? We’re victims!
Stefan Molyneux is a scheduled speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men.
Stefan Molyneux is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Molyneux’s quote. NOTE: The text above is a more complete version of the slightly truncated quote used in the video, which was edited for clarity, for length, and to remove some repetition.
Erin Pizzey has said:
If you’re referring to Paul’s statement that many or most women fantasize about being taken, I’m sorry but that’s the truth. That doesn’t mean they want to be raped, but it’s a fantasy I think almost all women have. And I think he went on to say that feminists like Andrea Dworkin who were and are so obsessed with rape are really projecting their own unconscious sexual frustration because men don’t give them enough attention. Andrea was a very sad lonely woman like this–I didn’t know her but I knew of her, and I knew Susan Browmiller and you can just read her stuff to see it there.
Erin Pizzey is a scheduled speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Erin Pizzey is a voice of hatred
SOURCE of Pizzey’s quote. NOTE: The text above is a complete version of the slightly truncated quote used in the video, which was edited for clarity.
Karen Straughan has written:
I used to live under a young couple with a baby. I’d listen as she followed him from room to room upstairs, stomping, slamming things, throwing things, screaming. After about an hour, he’d eventually hit her, and everything would go quiet. An hour after that, they’d be out with the baby in the stroller, looking perfectly content with each other.
A man I know who has experience with men in abusive relationships would get his clients to answer a questionnaire. Things like, “after the violence, did you have sex?” “If so, how would you rate the sex?” 100% of men in reciprocally abusive relationships said “yes” to the first, and “scorching” to the second.
He also posited that the much-quoted cycle of violence–the build-up, the explosion, the honeymoon period–correlates with foreplay, orgasm and post-coital bliss.
Erin Pizzey called it “consensual violence”, and said in the main, that was the type she’d see at her shelter. It is also the type that results in the most severe injuries in women, surprise surprise, likely because our “never EVER hit a woman” mentality has those men waiting until they completely lose control of their emotions before giving their women what they’re demanding.
Karen Straughan is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Karen Straughan is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Straughan’s quote.
Warren Farrell has said:
The worst aspect of dating from the perspective of many men is how dating can feel to a man like robbery by social custom …
Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape.
If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. …
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No”. They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. …
It is important that a woman’s “noes” be respected and her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when her nonverbal “yeses” … conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy.
Warren Farrell is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Warren Farrell is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Farrell’s quote.
Warren Farrell has said:
Incest is like a magnifying glass. In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma. …
When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. …
[M]illions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and … caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t.
Warren Farrell is a speaker at the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit organized by A Voice for Men
Warren Farrell is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Farrell’s quote. I have removed a word that appears in the original interview but that Farrell insists he did not say.
Paul Elam has said:
In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.
I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess.
Now, am I serious about this?
No. Not because it’s wrong. It’s not wrong.
But it isn’t worth the time behind bars or the abuse of anger management training that men must endure if they are uppity enough to defend themselves from female attackers.
Paul Elam is the central organizer of the “Men’s Issues” conference in Detroit, and the founder of A Voice for Men
Paul Elam is a voice of hatred
SOURCE for Elam’s quote.
For a detailed look at the homophobia of Anne Cools, another speaker at the conference, see here.
Big thanks to everyone who helped with the video!
Posted on June 20, 2014, in a voice for men, a woman is always to blame, antifeminism, antifeminist women, erin pizzey, evil women, excusing abuse, FemRAs, GirlWritesWhat, imaginary oppression, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, playing the victim, rape, rape culture, warren farrell and tagged a voice for men, antifeminism, conference, detroit, men's rights, misogyny, MRA, warren farrell. Bookmark the permalink. 869 Comments.
I read all the responses, there were many which didn’t agree that feminism causes arguments, which I was responding to. If I have missed some important points please refresh my memory.
(@Sarah)
Elizabeth, if you are going to claim ‘feminism causes arguments’ and your only two reasons are ‘I find the name misleading’ and ‘there are feminists in this comments section tearing apart the pathetic attempts at arguments of a bunch of rabid misogynists’, I must say that your point is kinda weak and you’ll have to provide more evidence. Preferably showing that you understand what feminism is and not suggesting that you are just assuming it based on the name.
(also fighting injustices sometimes ’causes arguments’ and bigger things too, which are good to have or at least better than withstanding said injustices silently)
Honestly, if “causing arguments” is the whole issue here, I don’t think most of us give a damn. Certainly I don’t.
Not that I agree that feminism causes said arguments, per se. Just that it is party to them, and with good reason.
For real, this is just a huge, tone-trolling derail about how we need to be nicer and stop causing arguments and sounding rude and thinking mean things and taking away privileges from the menz, taking away privileges is meeeeeaaaaaaannnnn.
Is the correct video showing? Is it supposed to be just Elam butchering a word?
Huh, yeah, I’m also getting the Elam video. That’s not the right video! D:
The direct link I used and shared says deleted by user.
I’m seeing it fixed again, now.
Of course it bloody causes arguments.
Being rather ancient, I’ve had the great privilege of spending my teabreaks at my men-dominated job 40 years ago arguing with people who said openly, literally, to my face, that I had no right to be there. Why? Because I was a married woman and “this” kind of job – needing accountancy and law skills, but sitting at a desk all day – should be reserved for men “with responsibilities”. (Most of them were single I might add.) What they really didn’t like was the fact that these jobs were pretty well paid by the standards of the time. I also had to defend the fact that a court had decided that, gradually, not instantly, but eventually, women doing this work would be paid the same as the men.
I’ve been dragged into these kinds of arguments over and over and over again during the ensuing 40 years. Not always about pay gaps or rights to work, often about harassment, violence, sexual freedoms/rights and the rest of it. I honestly thought we were well on the way to what we envisaged during International Women’s Year – that was 1975. The last 15-20 years I’ve become more and more disheartened.
But we’re really in much the same position as the various indigenous rights and civil rights and anti-racism and anti-slavery groups around the world. Each generation treats it as a battle. In fact, it’s really a centuries old, multi-generation guerrilla war. We win a little here, lose a little there, win more somewhere else. Do it all over again. It’s a long, long journey.
Who cares if it causes arguments. Some things are worth fighting, arguing and struggling for.
When I came out in high school, back during the Carter administration (1978, for nonUSAians), that provoked some arguments. E.g., I thought I should be allowed to bring my boyfriend to Senior Prom, and the class president disagreed. Vehemently.
To dismiss feminism because it provokes argument is missing the point, in my opinion. There’s an old apothegm in social justice circles, “power concedes nothing without a struggle”. When Ida B. Wells confronted Frances Willard over the racism of Willard’s first generation feminism, that was quite an argument – and good for Wells for bringing it up.
saintnick86,
The first paragraph about notions of masculinity: that’s true and good. There will be some MRAs who have good intentions so I think it’s unfair on those individuals to generalize too much about MRAs.
2nd: I agree there are many other groups which have far worse names, more misleading and disingenuous agendas. In which case they are no good but that’s not relevant to feminism. Just because other movements are not good doesn’t mean feminism should accept avoidable inadequacy. The name is important. It is the first thing people hear, it’s what people associate the movement with, etc. If the name doesn’t get people onside then it doesn’t fulfill it’s purpose. I think right now the term feminism is not best suited to achieve gender equality. So that is why I don’t call myself a feminst, as well as the fact that I realize it is adversarial to copmmit yourself to a label (as in will make you an automatic enemy to some people), which is pointless I think.
The last paragraph: I was bearing that in mind (that trolls and criticism etc put commenters on the defence). It may be common for people to be arguing, but it’s unhelpful and avoidable. The arguing between people is perpetuated in part by the name of the movement (labels people into their gender group > implies focus on one gender group and leaving out the others > focus on one gender is largely perpetuated > some people protest the focus, and arguments and defensiveness etc is perpetuated as people turn against eachother… see what I mean?). If the name encapsulated all genders and rooted for gender equality as a whole there would be comparably minimal backlash, and gender equality would be achieved much more quickly.
I understand everything you’ve said latterly. I have found thinking about where the other person is coming from, listening to their points of view, then I usually find conversation runs pretty well. But yeah not always. But I think if someone is being angry towards me it’s because something made them angry, so I dunno if you see it like that but that’s how I think of it, so when they are angry towards me I just think something as pissed them off earlier and try not to de-anger them :P, I don’t think they are attacking me rather just see it as a sign they are angry.
*try to de-anger them/help them feel better, and I also feel good doing that
(when I say make them feel better I mean just by listening and seeing from their perspective, :) that usually is enough I find, and when i say I also feel good doing that I mean it gives me some sort of sense of well-being/some kind of calmness/peacefulness/slight endorphin emotive response when other people release that anger or w/e because you’ve listened, kind of thing..)
Labels don’t create adversarial relationships. Power relations do.
But the truth is that women are oppressed not men. And therefore women need a movement, not men. That’s precisely why men aren’t included. They are oppressors of women.
Labels do create adversarial relationships. If I say I am an MRA for example, I will be creating enemies just for giving myself that label.
No that’s not the truth, I’ve never been discriminated against in my 20 years of life, neither my mother who is 58. My dad on the other hand has been oppressed in the past, when his previous wife took the children away from him when they divorced. People are discriminated against from all walks of life, some women, some men, some children, etc.
Elizabeth, if arguing is so terrible then why are you here arguing with everyone?
FFS. Not getting custody isn’t oppression! Are you sure you’re not an MRA, elizabeth?
And speaking of custody does anyone have the article that looked at the results of custody cases and concluded that the main reason more mothers get custody than fathers is because the fathers seldom ask? I don’t have it in my bookmarks and it shreds one of Elizabeth’s bad arguments.
Some arguments need to happen. I just cannot get behind the idea that bringing up inequities is worse than doing nothing about inequities.
Also, elizabeth, I’m not sure you’re using “oppressed” correctly there. One instance of poor behavior on the part of one person does not constitute oppression. Oppression requires, I believe, a systematic pattern of behavior, institutionalized unfairness.
Unfortunately, as one can tell from reading this blog, MRAs tend to prove the generalizations made about them. I didn’t gain my opinion from reading this blog – it came from actually talking to MRAs, not one who remained consistently sincere. They’ve largely proven themselves to be dishonest and with views I simply found myself repulsed by.
You are not the first to make this argument here and it is not like those of us who read this blog are not familiar with an instance or two with an MRA making a valid point (being rarely self-critical). But, in the big picture, those are miniscule in comparison to the actual leadership of the MRA – who seem to reflect what most of its proponents think.
I’ve said this to Libertarians as well, especially when claiming their left-wing version mattered: perhaps – among other Libertarians – that means something, but not to anyone outside the group. Expecting non-proponents to keep track of every branch of a particular socio-political philosophy is rather unreasonable and it is understandable when they base if off the most popular version of it on display. Of course, regardless of how many of my Left-Libertarian friends keep saying otherwise, people like the Koch Bros. or Ron Paul are still their most popular representatives.
I’d also like to point out that, speaking against generalizing the MRA, you have basically generalized feminism extensively. This may be because you only have a vague familiarity with it and have been influenced by the kind of exaggerated demonizations that MRAs, much like many socially conservative/reactionary men before, have used to make feminism seem illegitimate. The difference here is that this blog documents not only MRA leadership but also a good deal of random commentators at “Manosphere” sites that often share similarly misogynistic views, whereas they skew facts about feminism based on little more than personal anecdotes (which are not the best form of evidence) and pure “gut-feeling” speculation (ditto).
In person? Every MRA or MRA-sympathetic individual I’ve are as obnoxious as the ones I’ve dealt with online, but I’ve yet to meet any of the kinds of feminists they talk about as if they are legion. Excluding overly-strident university students in their early 20’s – which is generally common with any subject at universities (it’s also where I come across aforementioned MRAs and allies).
It’s more unavoidable than you think. It’s personal to a lot of people and it is difficult for them to be so detached that they may as well be talking about whether they prefer one color or ice cream flavor over another. Adding to the fact many MRAs regularly take things like rape or domestic abuse lightly, it’s hard to not be on the defensive – at least online where anonymity grants others the means to be needlessly antagonistic and avoid responsibility. That’s less of a problem in personal conversation in public.
Honestly? You are getting hung up on labels. My point is that whatever a particular group or philosophy call themselves is still not as important as the ideas which they support and promote. That’s why I said names can be misleading: there’ve been totalitarian groups who called themselves “democratic” – perhaps knowing those gullible enough will join in, even against their own interests. I think it is the same case with MRAs as their name connotes having a focus on men’s issues – yet they rarely seem to do that as much as find ways to blame it on women and take their frustrations out on them.
Woodyred
“@weirwoodtreehugger – what are you ? a sick maniac ? surely their original context was not to be snipped out of conversations to purposefully make them look like … women haters or whatever – and then compiled into a video by the biggest feminist fruit loop on youtube – and even then – read by other people. you people are absolutely insane- and yes – call me ableist – you f**king lunatics.”
Fruit loop
…
Thou shall not use my name for ableism. Or crazy, insane or lunatics.
Why do you want to be a ableist if you know people that have mental conditions? Won’t you hate it if someone used those terms to call them that? And plus just because you know some people doesn’t give you a right to use ableist terms. None of it makes sense and it’s insensitive.
Elizabeth
“If the name encapsulated all genders and rooted for gender equality as a whole there would be comparably minimal backlash, and gender equality would be achieved much more quickly.”
Ally s
“But the truth is that women are oppressed not men. And therefore women need a movement, not men. That’s precisely why men aren’t included. They are oppressors of women.”
Not to mention that abuse and rape victims are mostly women so that’s why they are being helped more. Patriarchy hurts everyone but mostly women.
Marinerachel & I would like to take bets on whether elizabeth is actually Erin because we’re getting that kind of vibe over here.
As a new commenter, may I ask who Erin is/was?
“oppressed = subject to harsh and authoritarian treatment” – taking your kids away from you seems to fit into that definition for me
… could be. I’m not getting an Erin vibe, but I won’t discount it.
If Elizabeth is Erin, than I’m kind of surprised they’ve lasted so long without melting down to gendered slurs. I mean, Erin kind of went from “I’m a woman, so take me seriously” to “BLEEPING BLEEPS!!!!” in no time flat.
hippodameia8527 I’m not arguing, I’m standing up fro what I believe in.
What do you believe in Elizabeth?
Yeah, now that you’ve pointed it out, there is a certain familiarity . . .
I am not Erin whoever that is….
I believe in all life on earth living to the highest standards possible
Oh, so it’s OK for you to argue, but not us. Gotcha.
Omnicrom, Erin was a self-admitted dude (by the end) trolling under a lady-nym in order to drop words of manly wisdom from a feminine voice.
We kinda caught the misogyny of his advice dropping, and asked the kind lady to halt her nasty misogynistic stuff and reconsider.
Erin was shocked that we could actually detect misogyny from a ‘female’, and started calling us all sorts of gendered slurs.
It was kind of hilarious, and sad at the same time.
By the way, have you gotten a welcome package yet?
So is everyone else here.
Erin was sad – and definitely pathetic enough to attempt socking.
Okay, buttting in here cuz I saw the thread was updating fast :D
@omnicron
Just the alpha
feministally who spoke SEVEN LANGUAGES and raised chickens.@
erinelizabethWow what a meaningless stock phrase spitting out says so little about what you actually think should happen.
Yes, Saintnick86, but we’re all standing up in the wrong way because we’re mean. Or something. Funny how trolls always have such delicate feelings, isn’t it?
Omnicrom
“And speaking of custody does anyone have the article that looked at the results of custody cases and concluded that the main reason more mothers get custody than fathers is because the fathers seldom ask? I don’t have it in my bookmarks and it shreds one of Elizabeth’s bad arguments.”
A specific article? I found this, will it help?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html
Elizabeth
Oppression has to affect everyone of that particular group, Gender/race/etc. Taking kids away is not being oppressed. The court wants what is best for the child/children.
The mothers are seen in society as the caretakers and plus all of fathers have to do is ask and he shall receive or at least have more time in visitation. I said this in another post on this blog it’s in the Top Posts on the right side of this page, it’s the first one. And I just provided a link in this comment.
Elizabeth,
Since men get full custody the vast majority of the time, when they actually request it, who is snatching babies from men en masse? Could you provide a citation instead of you anecdote that your father lost custody out of what you suppose to be male oppression? That’s a far fetched claim considering the history of women being forced to give up their kids (as well as earnings) if they left their husbands for any reason. It’s also feminism and it’s dismantling of rigid gender rolls that has and continues to insist that gender does not determine child rearing skills. When women are the main caregiver prior to divorce, it makes sense that a judge will assume that they continue being the main care giver. While there are certainly insidence of men being treated unfairly, that does not = institutional oppression.
BTW, your experiences do not invalidate the lived experiences of other women. I’ve never been murdered by my male partner. That does not make any of the women who have been any less dead.
What the everloving fuck does this mean? Yes we here have done something to make MRAs angry. We’re all either women or people who aren’t women but are not misogynistic enough to meet MRA standards. Is that something we’re supposed to apologize for? Am I supposed to be apologetic for not myself and my fellow women? Fuck that.
You’re pretty much arguing that if a troll comes in here and says I’m asking for it if raped while drunk or sexual harassment is a privilege because I’m oppressing men with my butt my response should be “That’s a fair and valid opinion good sir. Thank you for bringing it to my attention.”
Hell to the fuck now. Whether or not I’m a human being is not up for debate. There is no dissenting opinion on the matter I will respect. Anyone who says bigoted things not only against a group I’m in but about any marginalized group will get a verbal smackdown. No guilt on my part for that.
I don’t think you’re here in good faith. I don’t know if you’re a sock but you are an MRA troll. It’s starting to seep out. You won’t be able to hide it much longer.
@elizabeth
You don’t seem to grasp that systematic oppression and personal misfortune are two separate things. You can have endless amount of the latter and yet never be oppressed.
That’s nice dear.
Elizabeth, how the ever loving fuck is “standing up for what you believe in” any different from arguing? When these misogynist argue that I deserve to be raped, beaten and blamed for all the evil in the world, how do I stand up for myself without arguing?
You can take your faux civility and your doormat attitude and fuck straight off.
If you want to stroke the egos of men people who dispize you, go for it. Don’t tell us we need to do the same. We don’t.
Hey y’all, remember when LGBTQ folks kissed homophobe’s asses until they decided out of the kindness in their hearts to stop hating anyone not conforming to their bigoted views and started treating them like equal human beings?
Me either.
Elizabeth, that never works. People of color cannot be nice enough to racists to make them stop being horrible, wrong headed assholes. Neither can women be nice enough to misogynists to make them stop raging every time we make any progress toward equality.
If you haven’t figured that out yet and you aren’t yet another MRAsshole pretending to be a woman, I feel for ya.
Not sorry enough not to tell you to fuck off, though. You came to a thread about MRAs supporting and encouraging rape, DV and hatred of women and complained that we are not charitable enough to the bigots who encourage it. That disgusts me. You disgust me.
@contrapangloss
I wasn’t directly given the Welcome Package, but I did follow the link that was posted earlier in this very thread, during the discussion of woody the ableist asshole. I cut my teeth fighting in troll wars over on Pharyngula and elsewhere, so a lot of this is old hat. Thank you very much for the official welcome mat though.
Erin meanwhile sounds like a tremendously sad individual.
@fruitloopsie
That’s not the one I was thinking of, but it’s still good so thanks for it nonetheless.
@elizabeth
So you believe “…in all life on earth living to the highest standards possible”, unless those people have to argue and fight to live at those highest standards because they aren’t living in the highest standards possible? Or by possible you mean “Without rocking the boat, living in a sexist, unjust, and unequal society”? Because if it’s “highest standards possible without rocking the boat” then I quite think I see where you part ways with Feminists and Feminism.
@Robert
You came out in high school in 1978 AND tried to bring your boyfriend to the prom? You sir are a gay badass. Mad props.
Gay badasses don’t need no Gay-Straight Alliance Club or ACLU because they’re so badass.
I am reminded: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20
I am just not firing on all cylinders today. Insomnia is not my friend.
On the other hand, my husband has discovered that a sleepy Lea A) thinks everything is funny and B) is highly susceptible to earworms. He keeps asking me who lives in a pineapple under the sea, saying random things to the tune of Bill Cosby’s Picture Pages, or humming Walk Like an Egyptian. Which, thanks to everything being funny, cracks me up every time.
When I finally fall alseep, I’m going to have the weirdest dreams.
saintnick86 very interesting.
I am not aware that I have “basically generalized feminism extensively” – please can you quote me on that?
“It may be common for people to be arguing, but it’s unhelpful and avoidable.” (me), “It’s more unavoidable than you think.”
I have yet to meet anyone discussing feminism on either side of the discussion who is against gender equality. I think most people are fighting for the same thing but get wound up by each other because they have committed themselves to labels/sides. That’s my experience. Looking at what has happened since I’ve joined onto this comment board for example, I have tried to be good about things, but I think it’s fair to say I’ve been to some extent verbally attacked (not by everyone, but to quite a significant degree, and I’m not saying it’s anyones’ fault), despite the fact that we effectively all want the same thing, so I think you’ll agree that is an example of argumentativeness which was totally avoidable and unhelpful?
“My point is that whatever a particular group or philosophy call themselves is still not as important as the ideas which they support and promote.” – I agree totally but that’s not how people work as has been shown since I’ve entered this thread. I can’t constructively suggest the flaws and ideas for improvement as I see it without being silenced/condemned/told to leave. So people do subject themselves to labels and movements as if they belong to that group. They don’t put the ideologies above the group. Generally speaking this is common human nature, to side with the group rather than what is logically best. Which is why it is extremely important for the label of the group to support everyone by design.
I have no experience with MRA so I don’t really know much about it.
@contrapangloss okay.
Thank you for the welcome package :P
saintnick86 “so is everyone else here” – well it went from standing up for what you believe in to verbally blitzing me somewhere along the lines…
In reply to racnad at http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/06/20/voices-of-hatred-a-look-at-the-noxious-views-of-six-of-the-speakers-at-a-voice-for-mens-upcoming-conference/comment-page-3/#comment-516979
Don’t presume you know what my professional expertise and background is, you clueless fuck. I am well-qualified to attack the Psychology Today piece, which I did. If the blogger was so well qualified in “the dynamics of male/female relationships” why did they only cite two articles in apparent support, neither of which actually addressed the conclusion they came to at the end of their piece?
To argue back to me, you must show me where I am wrong in my attacks on what the blogger did, on Psychology Today.
Off you go, argue against my criticisms of the piece.
(not you, just generally speaking some of the responses to me haven’t been standing up for what they believed in)
Elizabeth, we do not want the same things at all. You want people (mostly women, from the look of things) to shut up and just be nicer to those who oppress them because OH NOEZ ARGUMENTS ARE MEEEEAAAAAN. We want people to be treated with respect and not trampled on, and for human rights to be universally recognized, and are willing to fight – nay, even argue – to achieve that goal, because it’s damn well not happening if we all just sit still in this boat so as not to rock it.
Now I’m going to nicely repeat my initial comment, which was that your position is laughably and willfully ignorant, and encourage you to take Lea’s advice and fuck straight off, because that welcome package ain’t for you.
@Marie
“I believe in all life on earth living to the highest standards possible” (me), “Wow what a meaningless stock phrase spitting out says so little about what you actually think should happen.”
I meant that I would like people/animals/all living things on earth to have the best lives possible. When I was a kid I was very happy innocent optimistic and when you are just seeing the world for the first time at a young age, or me at least, I saw all the flaws and inadequacies and just thought that the problems were easily solvable, why are people starving someone should help them it’s so simple, etc. I remember just thinking life on earth could be paradise there’s no reason why not, and that’s what I’m in favour of ultimately.
“fruitloopsie
“Taking kids away is not being oppressed.” – it was oppression to take the kids away from him, he had done nothing wrong. That;s my opinion.
But not if we have to argue to get there.
*clutches pearls*
Then maybe you should’ve read more of the blog and lurked more in the comment sections before jumping in to tell us how we should speak to MRAs. They consistently say misogynistic things. They also frequently say other kinds of bigoted things.
These aren’t people we feel any obligation to be nice to.
Elizabeth, there is a chance you are legit, and that your father was discriminated against in that one instance. However, such discrimination is not systematic.
Although only 1 in 6 children in custody were in the custody of their fathers,
according to the 2009 US census report on custodial mothers and fathers, that discrepancy is not the full story, by a longshot.
For instance, in patriarchical tradition, women do most of the child rearing. Even in homes with multiple incomes, women tend to do twice the child-care and more housework then the men, although it’s been getting better. Here’s a link with the pew data explained slightly more nicely than having to dig through the actual study.
Furthermore, most custody is decided out of the court system. When men request custody from the court, they recieve it approximately 70% of the time (which is about the same as mothers). For this one, I can’t just drop one link, because no one’s managed to do the thorough combining of all states data (since I seem to be defaulting to the US).
But, have a state
Here’s Massachusetts, ringing in at over 70%!
Other states seem to fall into the same category, however Minnesota admitted that stereotypes harm custody decisions, because men are given less consideration as caregivers.
At the same time, men were also found to be given inordinate credit for diapering or other skills… The relevant pages are s9 and s10.
If you just want to thumb through the findings of a bunch of states, this place has links for you to do your own digging.
Be warned that a lot of the states are way more worried about other issues. For instance, Alaska’s court system is trying to focus on fairness towards native groups, since there are a lot of cultural differences. For instance, a lack of a word meaning ‘Guilty’ in the legal sense in the Yupik language, the fact that it’s hard to have a branch of the courts in outlying rural villages, the fact that the adversarial system for courts makes absolutely no flipping sense to a lot of these cultural groups…
… so yeah, some of the fairness task forces deal more with “HIRE MORE INTERPRETERS, FOOLS!” and less with “Child custody is gender biased and problematical.”
@elizabeth
still fairly meaningless.
@elizabeth
#1 that’s still not what oppression means, jackass.
#2 not really taking your word for this hwole thing, seeing as how you arne’t here in good faith.
@Lea
I was purely responding to this statement when i spoke of my own experience:
“But the truth is that women are oppressed not men. And therefore women need a movement, not men. That’s precisely why men aren’t included. They are oppressors of women.”
Which I do not agree with. Not to say it hasn’t some truth to it, maybe it does.
elizabeth,
If you have decided that everyone who is angry with you is angry because of something you have done, why aren’t you admonishing misogynists to stop making us angry, instead of admonishing us to blame ourselves for their rage and kiss up to the people who hate us?
How did you come to that conclusion exactly? Why exactly does the burden of charity roll downhill?
You cannot be for reals. You may claim only have the benefit from 20 years of life, but I know teens who could think circles around you. You are denying that there is a need for feminism, telling people to just be nicer to the hateful douchnozzles who want to rape, abuse and oppress us if we want to make progress. (Apparently in 20 years you haven’t read enough to know that we’ve been making progress without kissing up to bigots. We really don’t need you to set the movement straight.) I can’t tell if you’re a real fool or a lying troll playing clueless to get attention, but you definitely are not someone who needs to be giving out advice on how to respond to MRAs, as you just admitted not knowing anything about them.
People too lazy to do their homework do not get to be taken seriously. People demanding civility of minorities do not get to be treated like allies.
You call this a verbal blitz? Then WTF do you call the the things the MRAs, you know, the people this blog post is about, have said about women?
I’m thinking we have another fake “neutral observer” in elizabeth.
@weirwoodtreehugger I wasn’t saying that at all. You have twisted my words. nvm.
Yeah, so that’s the main gist.
Elizabeth, maybe he did nothing wrong. I don’t know him, don’t know the case, I got nothing specific.
However, I think that it was likely more the result of that specific courtroom being awful (if he didn’t do anything), than an overwhelming systematic oppression and discrimination against fathers.
If he didn’t do anything, than I’m sorry that your court experience ate dead mice, because it did. If there were other things that you didn’t know about, due to age, there could have been other factors. I don’t know. I’ll default to “Your dad was a fine person, and the court messed up”, because I like to believe that people are good, and that your father was good, pending evidence.
However, I’m not buying the oppression bit. Unfair and willfully stupid judge/jury? Yes. Oppression, no.
and I know nothing about MRA honestly I couldn’t tell you a single thing about them …. ha what is the point. Read my posts please. Look at them. How I’m getting abuse for them I have no idea…
I’m being cornered I don’t know what to do..
@elizabeth
You can leave. No one is making you stay here. Seriously.
Omnicrom, you’re welcome!
Feel free to enjoy the honorary doormat and door opening ceremony! The scented candles are fun, and hard chairs are always in style.
there is nothing false about me you are reading into this way too much. I have been very honest and open. I think I will leave now. I don’t think this is helpful for anyone.
1 last thing:
“We want people to be treated with respect and not trampled on” – you must be kidding me dustedeste, all you did was trample on me from the moment I arrived and for no reason. I’m not blaming you but if that’s what you want then for some reason that’s not how you have conversed with me.
“I’m going to flounce! but one last thing…”