>
 |
| Me, apparently. |
Apparently hungering for some attention, the blog No Ma’am has decided to launch a carefully reasoned, albeit un-spellchecked, attack on me:
David is another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole. A true SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) in every dimension.
Reality is not so, Mr. Futrelle, it is not so.
You are anethema to female vaginal lubrication.
Hope you feel proud! You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets! Who needs such a thing when the West produces poofs like you?
Oh, there’s more. Rob, the guy behind the blog, is apparently upset that I haven’t written about him yet:
Pleeeease debate me on… something!?! Please Dave, you are picking on commenters in the MRM only… wtf? Are you Chicken? Why don’t you set your sights higher up and pick on me for a while?
Honestly, Rob, I haven’t really found anything on your site that’s coherent enough to argue against. But I’ll keep looking.
You can read the whole thing here.
>Ok, Nick, who would you consider an icon of the movement? What would you consider a central text of MRM literature/philosophy? The web sites I've written about include some of the most influential MR web sites out there. If the people writing for these sites are "nobodies," then point me to a site that you consider more legitimate. And Paul, about the debate: I honestly can't find much of substance in anything you've written that might be worth actually debating. What would you consider a particularly substantive piece of yours? Heck, list several. That might be a start. And Wanderer: That was indeed me. If I could pop out a piece like that every day for the blog, I happily would. But pieces like that take time and effort. And frankly, I have yet to find any piece of MRA writing that deserves that level of attention. Say what you will about Dworkin — I was not a fan — she was a brilliant polemicist. The MRM movement hasn't produced anyone of that stature. Not even close. But, again, I'm open for suggestions. Maybe I'll make a post about this.
>"I honestly can't find much of substance in anything you've written that might be worth actually debating."Yeah, that seems to be a recurring problem with you. I have certainly had the same experience with your offerings. Perhaps the debate will illustrate why on both counts.Here's the point, David. You promised in your blog to refute tenets of the MRM, not of mine personally, so my suggestion is that we stick with that.As you seem rather unfamiliar with what those tenets are, which is ironic given your level of hostile and derisive criticism, I'll lay four of them out. You can take your pick of any, but don't feel limited. I am open to other debates as long as they would be generally accepted as core issues by most MRA's.As one member of the MRM, I assert the following for your consideration.1. The domestic violence industry is sexist toward men, corrupt, and promotes disinformation that whitewashes over significant numbers of male victims and female perpetrators. 2. There is a strong anti-male bias in family courts, that are also corrupt, resulting in the violation of many of men's fundamental civil rights, including due process, innocence till proven guilt, etc.3. There is no gender wage gap. It is a complete feminist myth. Women are paid the same as men for the same work, sometimes more.4. Feminism (as actually manifest in the body politic) is not about equality, but female privilege, and many of feminisms most notable icons are, or were, blatant misandrists.As I said, I don't mean to limit to just these choices. Pick another if you like. I also suggest that a very good debate topic would be to explore why you seem to think that no movement at all is necessary for men to begin with.So far in your blog, you have been all hat and no cattle on that one, and I think it would provide a great opportunity for you to intellectually justify your anti MRA position. IOW, why should men NOT come together to address1. AMB (Anti male bias) in laws like selective service and compulsory combat?2. AMB in criminal courts?3. AMB in family courts?4. AMB bias in the media?5. AMB in academe?6. AMB in healthcare?7. AMB in public policy?I could go on an on, but there should be enough here for you to pick something and go with it. But what you can't do, and have any credibility at all is continue to pretend there is nothing of substance to debate here. It's really getting old. You predicated your entire dog and pony show on the things you would debunk, and all you have done since then, when confronted on your lack of substance, is use a line about "nothing to debate" that rings with all the truthfulness of "the dog ate my homework."Telling Wanderer that you have not found any piece of MRA writing that deserves that level of attention had become nothing more than a transparent and redundant cop out. Farrell had a few best sellers. Try refuting any of that. Or Christina Hoff Sommers, or Katherine Young or Paul Nathanson. They are all saying essentially the same things- things you are dismissing without knowledge or investigation. Surely you can lower yourself for the sake of one minor debate to point out just why one of these erudite and scholarly experts doesn't pass muster with you, who has not even read any of the studies they cite?Pick a topic, David. It is time to shit or get off the pot.If you can.
>As I said, I don't mean to limit to just these choices. Pick another if you like. I also suggest that a very good debate topic would be to explore why you seem to think that no movement at all is necessary for men to begin with.So far in your blog, you have been all hat and no cattle on that one, and I think it would provide a great opportunity for you to intellectually justify your anti MRA position. IOW, why should men NOT come together to address1. AMB (Anti male bias) in laws like selective service and compulsory combat?2. AMB in criminal courts?3. AMB in family courts?4. AMB bias in the media?5. AMB in academe?6. AMB in healthcare?7. AMB in public policy?I could go on an on, but there should be enough here for you to pick something and go with it. But what you can't do, and have any credibility at all is continue to pretend there is nothing of substance to debate here. It's really getting old. You predicated your entire dog and pony show on the things you would debunk, and all you have done since then, when confronted on your lack of substance, is use a line about "nothing to debate" that rings with all the truthfulness of "the dog ate my homework."Telling wanderer that you have not found any piece of MRA writing that deserves that level of attention had become nothing more than a transparent and redundant cop out. Farrell had a few best sellers. Try refuting any of that. Or Christina Hoff Sommers, or Katherine Young or Paul Nathanson. They are all saying essentially the same things- things you are dismissing without knowledge or investigation. Surely you can lower yourself for the sake of one minor debate to point out just why one of these erudite and scholarly experts doesn't pass muster with you, who has not even read any of the studies they cite.So pick a topic, David. It is time to shit or get off the pot.If you can.
>Oops. please pardon the duplicate posts.
>Paul: A couple of your posts got caught in the spam filter, they're up now. I didn't see one of your long posts before replying earlier, so I will reply below. But first: You want to debate? Let's do it. Domestic Violence. We can do it on your blog, or here. (It probably doesn't make sense to repost the whole thing on both blogs because that will split up the discussion.) One person posts, the other has some set time period to respond, then first person again, second person again. We can set limits on word count if you want. I don't care who goes first. We can start it sometime next week, if that works for you. Agreed? If you want it to work differently, propose something different.As for some of your other points:I reiterate: find ONE actual example of misandry on this blog. ONE. Saying "your whole blog' is a copout and you know it. Just ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. One misandric statement. Criticizing the Men's Rights movement is not misandry. Even some hard core feminists acknowledge that there are some serious areas of unaddressed concern in the lives of men and boys.And what makes you think I don't think that? Unfortunately, the MRM as it stands does a terrible, terrible job of addressing these concerns. I think it makes things worse for men. You think I'm some sort of radical feminist robot or something? You (and most of the more hostile MRA commenters here) are simply projecting that onto me, just like you project misandry onto me. Read that piece by me that Wanderer linked to. It is amazing to me that you can make such a blanket statement about the MRM, covering every complaint in the movement as unworthy of attention without so much as examination, or even by our own admission, an understanding of the research. (remember, you have not even read the stuff) You don't really know what modern research points to (another way to say you have no idea what you are talking about), but you are sure that MRA's are all wrong, even worthy of your ridicule. Dude, you're just making shit up here. I've written about gender issues for years, and have been paying pretty close attention to the MRM in particular for several years. I understand the issues. That's why I started this fucking blog. I've read Warren Farrell. I've read Christina Hoff Sommers. I've read about false accusations, etc etc etc. The fact that I have not yet written lengthy tomes on all the issues at hand on a blog that's not yet 4 weeks old simply means I haven't gotten to it yet. Writing serious pieces on complicated topics takes time. And, the way I do things, it also takes ADDITIONAL research. Doing ADDITIONAL research does not mean you have done no research to begin with. That's the way most serious writers and researchers do things. They keep researching. They keep learning. They don't read a few things, and then spend the rest of their career repeating the same shit over and over. (Well, as you know, some do. I have a lot less respect for those.) When I asked you and Nick who you think the big names in the MRM are, it's because, well, I was curious who you would say, and curious if just perhaps there was some brilliant new writer out there that I was somehow unaware of. There wasn't. You said more or less the people I thought you would say. If those are the luminaries in your movement, yikes. As luminaries go, they're pretty dim bulbs. But anyway: the debate. Is it on?
>"Dude, you're just making shit up here. I've written about gender issues for years, and have been paying pretty close attention to the MRM in particular for several years. I understand the issues. That's why I started this fucking blog. I've read Warren Farrell. I've read Christina Hoff Sommers. I've read about false accusations, etc etc etc.""I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go "ha! I'm right!" Actual honest research takes more time than simply rehashing half-digested propaganda."Now, you have been given the choices, rather you have been given more or less any choice you want, of topics to debate on, and yet you continue to stall and do the duck and fade with childish taunts.Pick something David. Just pick any old common MRM talking point and let's get on with it. Your hesitance to do so becomes more glaring with every post you make.
>Huh? Are you on drugs? Reread my comment, dude. The whole comment. I PICKED ONE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Let's debate it, according to the scheme I laid out in the comment, or another one. As for the other stuff, I wasn't being fucking literal. I didn't mean I hadn't read any studies, just that when I sit down to write about something I like to have actually read all the significant studies about it, instead of just grabbing some stats from some random page, as is the standard practice in web debates.
>OK, domestic violence it is. It will be helpful if you can just contain this exchange to the details of the agreement. Your diluting everything with extraneous personal insults gets boring, and I end up skipping over some of it looking for the meat.So we now have an option. All we need do now is to further define the context of the debate. I see a couple of options here. One, you can make an opening statement about the MRM stance on domestic violence, also advocating your ideas on how the problem should be perceived, defined and addressed. OR, I have a piece I wrote on the subject some time ago. It is also in a video I made that has over 40k views and generally good reviews from many in the MRM.I can bump it back up to the #1 spot on my blog, and you can respond to it. I will paste your responses into the OP in their entirety. No word limit. 48 hours to respond for each of us.Each time there is a response, I will change the time stamp on the article so that it will go back to the #1 spot.Continued..
>If you choose the first option, I will post it on my blog at the #1 spot as well, with the same follow up.By keeping our debate exchange inside the OP it will keep it from being diluted by comments. I also suggest that we both agree that neither will participate in the comment section, confining our remarks to the OP.I will come back here and follow up on your request for citing your misandric words, and respond to a lot of other points you have made here after you have made your first post to the debate.Here are the URL's to my article, and the video for your consideration.http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/04/03/domestic-violence-women-are-half-the-problem/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIELet me know what you want to do. Next week is fine for a start.
>Oh and by the way, don't let the date on the piece fool you. I wrote it over two years ago. The date on the piece only reflects when I converted my site from Joomla to wordpress. At that point, all the work I had done was assigned the conversion date, not the date they were actually written. Just like the other examples of my writing that you thought were more recent than they were.
>One other thing. With respect to any people who may wish to support your POV in the debate, I am suspending the rules for post transfer to the feminist/mangina page. All comments, short of threats or advocacy for violence, will remain in the thread permanently.
>All this sounds fine, esp. the thing about comments. I'll read your piece and watch the video and decide what I want to do with regard to who goes first. I would prefer we start the thing later in the week next week, say Thursday or Friday.So it's on.
>Oh, and this probably goes without saying, but since we're doing this on your blog I would like to be able to link back to my blog in my posts there. Also, to clarify: The format is: Opener, response, OP response to that, final comment by the second poster.
>I read your piece; you go first. Let me know when you're planning to put it up.
>"I suppose I ought to start my own blog if I really want to complain about what I read. Who knows, maybe one of these days I will."I, for one, would visit your blog if you choose to and have time to start one. The few comments of yours that I have read on this blog appear to have some thought put behind them, not just knee-jerk reactionary, childish name-calling, spews of idiocy like some of the other comments. I have visited, commented and subsequently vacated other blogs, not because I was "pwned!!" like some want to believe, but because the seemingly endless childish rants and mud-slinging, while a bit amusing at first, get to be tiresome rather quickly.
>"Unlike so many MRMs (and so many feminists, to be honest), I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go 'ha! I'm right!'"No, you're just going to mine the comments sections on MRA sites for quotes from extremists, feminist impersonators, or possibly yourself as an impersonator and then use them in conjunction with the fallacy of composition to try and smear the entire MRM, as per your modus operandi."Actual honest research takes more time than simply rehashing half-digested propaganda."Which is probably why you haven't bothered doing any yet.
>Coldfire: Aside from the fact that most of my posts deal with stuff said by actual identifiable bloggers or other people with a history in the MRM, and that some of the comments I've highlighted (on the spearhead, for example) had literally dozens of upvotes from other MRAs, your comments about "feminist impersonators, or possibly yourself as an impersonator" are so incredibly stupid I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you're a plant. Maybe you're ME!!!Also: Oh, I'm doing the research. The writing-up of it will come.
>Will do. Send your responses to my email. It is listed on the home page. I will post them as soon as I get them. The debate announcement and first piece will go up Wednesday of next week in the evening. That will give you fully 48 hours to respond.You can include links in your postings to wherever you wish, and I will provide one in the intro to the debate.
>We're set then.
>I can't wait to see this. David attempts to be a big hero superman for feminists/women, but this attempt always seems to fail by looking at this blog. His whole blog is one big major fail. So it's obvious he is going to miserably fail with this debate. The poor little boy hasn't got a leg to stand on.
>Hey Gavid, what's your thoughts on this video?How To Lie Like Feministhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-xKGC32ew&feature=related
>What's incredibly stupid is thinking you can prove anything about a movement from mining comments sections for quotes. Have you ever noticed how rarely this is done? Democrats and Republicans rip apart each other's articles all the time, but how often do they go digging into the comments sections for stuff to use to make the other side look bad? Almost every time I see this pathetic tactic employed it's being used by a feminist against MRAs, as if you KNOW that you don't have another leg on which to stand.There's a good reason why people don't do this if they have other options available to them, like quoting the other side's articles. That reason is that comments are DETACHED from the IDENTITY of the person making them, UNLESS the commenter CHOOSES to disclose his/her personal details when registering, and that makes comments an UNRELIABLE SOURCE. As you already acknowledged, I actually COULD be you as far as anyone other than the two of us are concerned; we are the only ones who know for sure that I am not your sockpuppet.As I said before, the comments you quote could be "from extremists, feminist impersonators, or possibly yourself as an impersonator". That's a list of THREE possibilities, and as long as ONE of them is correct my claim holds true. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you need to re-acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "or".I did leave out a fourth possibility, however, which is comments from perfectly reasonable MRAs which only feminists like you think are extreme. Obviously these comments get up-voted on The Spearhead since they ARE reasonable, but I don't see any comments along the lines of "George Sodini is my hero" getting up-voted. As I explained before, the whose point of implementing that comment rating system was to deal with the problem of rubbish being posted by extremists and by trolls, including the agent provocateurs at whose existence you like to scoff, assuming that you aren't one yourself.
>David: Criticizing the Men's Rights movement is not misandry. Yohan: Criticizing feminism is not misogynistic.Do you agree, David?