>
Here’s an enlightening little discussion going on currently on the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) forum. Under the misleadingly jaunty title “Funny Feminist antics at work” Junior MGTOW Member lovekraft describes a horrific new feminist abomination against men: chair dragging! CHAIR DRAGGING!!
Here I am at work, concentrating, when suddenly we hear the loud scraping noise of metal chair legs being dragged across the workfloor. For about a minute this goes on.
The dragger is an old Feminist who likely wouldn’t have thought how irritating this noise was and how easy it would be to just ask a man to carry it for her.
But being the feminist, this thought never crossed her mind and instead everyone had to be irritated.
spidey weighs in with this observation:
That’s what seperates men from women. We can show consideration for others and we like to do things efficiently
dontmarry, a keen student of human nature, offers some possible explanations for her behavior:
Over here where I work, office chairs can be easily carried by the weakest human being. The bigger ones have wheels beneath, so you push them over a carpeted floor.
Unless it was some kind of exceptionally heavy and unusual chair, all I can say is that she’s a cunt deliberately trying to annoy everyone else in the office. That time of the month? Her man didn’t call? Someone she desired didn’t add her on Facebook?
But it is garvan — his name perhaps a misspelled tribute to the legendary Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute? — who offers the most carefully reasoned explanation for the chair-drag:
She knew exactly how annoying it was, and did it for the attention.
When a woman’s looks no longer get attention, she’ll annoy the fuck out of everyone to get it.
Don’t believe me? … Look to the Wal-Mart whales that make a public display of their lack of child rearing skills by having their child cry as they yell and belittle their kid in front of every other customer to see. Look to every “strong” feminist woman who’s every action is to annoy the “patriarchy” by growing underarm hair, and yelling about how oppression is everywhere.
An old lonely woman with only cats as friends will scrape that chair across that floor because of her attention starved natured, and when everyone looks up with a grimace due to her actions, inside a little part of her will be validated. She feels like she almost exists in this world once more.
Let the lonely cunts suffer in their own prison. Had they went through the efforts of learning how to be a decent person when they were younger, they’d actually have friends and people who’d want to spend time with them. Instead they had to be a worthless annoying cunt.
The reality is this: No one wants to be friends with a bitter person who blames their problems on others ...
Hold that thought, dude. That last bit might be truer than you realize.
Somehow I’m thinking the women of the world aren’t missing much as a result of these particular men “going their own way.”
>Christine said… MRA leaders have plenty of organized and deliberate dehumanizing and hateful rhetoric against women. Not just against feminists, but women in general. PLENTY of itThis is a feminist lie. What a ridiculous drivel is this.Many MRAs are married and have children, MRAs are against biased laws, are against malicious women who explore legal loopholes to extort money from men, companies and public funds.Feminism is expensive and non-productive, and good to know, many Western governments do not have money anymore to sponsor this movement.See link belowhttp://www.tahirih.org/2010/09/tahirih-is-being-tested/One example about biased laws, link below, woman was cheating, left the ex-husband and their 3 children, got alimony for life and still 30 years after divorce she is even demanding more alimony…MRAs want such crazy laws to be changed. Nowadays idiot-feminists are calling us 'misogynists' for that. Strange feminist equality. Give to men as little as possible and take from them as much as you can.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-464722/30-years-divorce-ex-wins-200-000-more.htmlA millionaire was ordered to pay his adulterous wife more than £200,000 – nearly 30 years after they were divorced.Builder Dennis North's wife Jean left him and their three children for another man in 1977.
>Sandy: Feminism and Men's Rights have the same problem: fringe elements fueled by hate instead of desire to do good. Might be, but MRAs are not very supportive to this small group of men.Feminists however cheer and support such women even in politics for distributing unreliable data.Luckily there are still some honest respected women in high position who are not afraid of feminism.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.htmlHarriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday. The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks. …Lady Stern, a prison reform campaigner and human rights activist, called in her report for 'an end to the widespread use of misleading rape conviction data …..Lady Stern also said the Ministry of Justice should study numbers of false rape accusations. Because the alleged victim's anonymity is guaranteed by law, critics say false claims can be made with impunity.
>So, the hair that grows naturally under my arms is annoying the MRA's. That's just precious.
>Eoghan: David can troll the comments sections of blogs all he wants, he will find disgruntled males with no other outlet, he will find the odd idiot being homophobic, but he wont find the sort of organised, dehumanizing, political hatred that feminism is based on This is true, there are some rants by some men who were badly treated by females in the past, but there is no organized all-female-hating literature existing from MRAS – big difference if you compare that with publications from feminists like Solanas, Hirshman and many others.The idea of the ideal man is a woman with a dick. — Germaine Greer —At least we can laugh if we listen to Greer's drivel. Most MRAs, so far my impression, are interested into changing laws which are (mis)used by certain females against men due to legal loopholes – alimony for life for a healthy young female – just one example. Other MRAs have truly problems after divorce regarding their children. they should not be belittled.MRM forums also offer a good collection about female criminality, to debunk this nonsense about 'all females are victims' and 'all men are rapists'.Of course feminists are against MRM-forums and MRM-blogs, as they do not like to see men talking to each other – Feminists prefer men to be a 'Walking ATM'.Men are like tools for feminists, if they are broken or not functioning, they will be considered as trash and forgotten.Somewhat a form of slavery, if you ask me.Even animals have advocacy groups, but straight men – if they are talking about their rights – are called misogynists and should remain silent?
>Yohan –Is this your blog?http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/I'm looking at your MRA links: One site is devoted to the idea that "Ameriskanks suck," others regularly attack "Ameriskanks," another one has a post about how women are STUPID (in all caps), still another calls the US "our Cuntry," still another is full of domestic violence jokes. And then there's MenareBetterthanWomen.comMisogyny is utterly rampant in the MRM. Your own links show that.
>David, there are a few of you here that are being willfilly obtuse. There is a large difference between a group that contains the odd reactionary extremist and a group like feminism that is an organised polmic pretending to be one thing thats actually doing another.And you will never find true hate on a mens rights site.This is hate.. "" MAN: … an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man …""TESTOSTERONE POISONING: … 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from 'testosterone poisoning.'" from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985" The fact is that you are politically correct and the correctness of a message to you depends on whether it comes from a more equal or less equal group. Take your uneven treatment of the pro domestic violence jezebelle article v's pauls anti domestic violence one, or the difference between how you view abuse victims depending on whats between their legs.Ill wager you that there is more bigotry and ignorance being published by your friends list than by your enemies list.Many in the mrm are appalled by some of the rhetoric thats being generated on the fringes.
>If you look at the positions that are being held here by feministsPro education gapAnti fathers rightsAnti male abuse victims rightsAnti false rape victim advocacyAnti male rape victim advocacyAnti speech about legal inequalities that effect menPro netative male stereotypingAnti free speech about any of the aboveIf you look on the other hand at the mens rights people, what they generally want is equal treatment and oppertuinity under the law and to attack the moment that is running a polemic against them, deems them class enemies and lesser beings.
>@Yohan,Many feminists are married and have children. Does that mean that whatever they say that might be construed as hateful towards men simply could NOT be hateful towards men just because they are married and have children?Here are a couple of lovely [sarcasm] propositions from an MRA who self-professes to be married with children (female children):1) entitled "Communize the Cunt"In our economic system women exchange their sexuality for access to power because they are born with two products that men want – sexuality and beauty. Men must design a political or economics system that removes the ability of women to decide who accesses their sexuality. Men must communize the cunt.SolutionAll women must be herded into sex farms where all men will have free and equal access. We must communize the cunt. If we don't, our species is doomed.2) entitled "Removal of the female voicebox at birth"Having raised this as a solution to feminism, I am always surprised that 100% of women disagree.100% of men disagree if they are listening to me and the man is with his wife.Only 20% of men disagree if they are listening to me and the man is without his wife. Of those men who disagree, most say that they like the idea, but disagree on the silencing mechanism.Removal of the voice box, at birth. It is the one solution that will bring peace to the world.Now, if you pointed out to me similar proposals made by a feminist about males, and I pointed out to you that that feminist was married with children, would that make what she said any less hateful?
>PAM: All women must be herded into sex farms where all men will have free and equal access. We must communize the cunt. If we don't, our species is doomed.LOL, who wrote this? Please provide a link.I think this is a nice reply to the statement ofRose DiManno, a radical feminist:“Men are from another planet, sent here by spaceships to copulate with female earthlings and propagate the species—a task for which science has rendered them all but redundant. We need keep only a handful of donors on a sperm farm for that purpose, where they can subsist on pizza and beer and Playboy magazine.” (Toronto Star, January 11, 1999, p. 31)—–Other feminists are not so nice to us:“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” (Andrea Dworkin, Ice and Fire, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1987)
>David Futrelle said… Yohan –Is this your blog?http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/…I'm looking at your MRA links: One site is devoted to the idea that "Ameriskanks suck," Misogyny is utterly rampant in the MRM…Yes, this is my blog, David – thanks for visiting, sorry for you but not much activity there, unfortunately I am a very busy man, I have many other things to do everyday.About misogyny, do you know what this word really means?It means 'hate against all women', it does not mean, that any man who had bad experiences with American feminist-minded grrls and was ripped off financially and dislikes them because of that is automatically a misogynist.Feminists always try to change the meaning of some certain words significantly, but indeed many MRAs like the idea to create a family or have already a family. They do not hate all women as you suggest. Exactly the opposite.However, MRAs do not encourage a private relationship with any female in the USA and in some other countries out of various reasons.The risk is too high for a man. In USA any woman can bring any man behind bars for months and even years out of her bad mood. It should not be like that.Maybe USA could learn something from Germany, family law reform 2008. Just one thought…
>Pam Your quote doesn't appear anywhere online except on a radical feminist blog, having posted with feminists for some time now, its my guess that it was written by a feminist and attributed to an mra.I guarantee you that you will not find organised political hatred in the the mrm but you will find it throughout feminist ideology and pseudo academia. This is organised political hate "We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…" Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58 "A unconscious man and woman wont see it as hate unless men is swapped for blacks, jews, homosexuals, women or another genetic group.See for yourself Pam"We are, as a sex/race, infinitely superior to men/blacks/jews…" Elizabeth Stanton, One Woman, One Vote, Wheeler, p. 58 "
>Look to every "strong" feminist woman who's every action is to annoy the "patriarchy" by growing underarm hair…That is an incredibly bizarre thing to think. How self-centred do you have to be to conclude that someone's decision to not shave their underarms is due to their need for your precious attention?
>"In USA any woman can bring any man behind bars for months and even years out of her bad mood."This is patently false. A woman can try, but they have to make a criminal charge stand up in court, which is by no means easy.For example, in my community an activist was brought up on rape charges that seemed really fishy, and politically motivated. The DA has dragged him through multiple trials, and a jury has found him not guilty. The entire time he has been supported by the local activist community, who attended the trials, held press conferences and made supportive statements in the media–including lots of feminists and women whose views are presumably objectionable to MRMs.So here's a case where a man is falsely accused and feminists are working to defend him.http://www.ucimc.org/content/third-trial-black-activist-patrick-thompson-under-way-not-guilty-verdict-deliveredFalse rape accusations matter to people who are concerned with human rights in general.
>Joe, you should read an article called "Feminist Gulag, no prosecution necessary".Here is another good source about the feminist erosion of civil rights and the inversion of the humanitarian premise of innocent until guilty.http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume6/j6_2_4.htmGovernance feminism is responsible for the largest roll back of civil rights since the Jim Crow era, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20091013/OPINION03/710139998
>Of course, once a target group has been stereotyped as evil and dehumanized through propaganda, the gullible public start to believe that taking their civil rights is the correct thing to do and that they deserve it.
>"A newer and more militant force helped create the “carceral state.” In The Prison and the Gallows (2006), feminist scholar Marie Gottschalk points out that traditional conservatives were not the prime instigators, and blames “interest groups and social movements not usually associated with penal conservatism.” Yet she names only one: “the women’s movement.While America’s criminalization may have a number of contributing causes, it coincides precisely with the rise of organized feminism. “The women’s movement became a vanguard of conservative law-and-order politics,” Gottschalk writes. “Women’s organizations played a central role in the consolidation of this conservative victims’ rights movement that emerged in the 1970s.”Gottschalk then twists her counterintuitive finding to condemn “conservatives” for the influx, portraying feminists as passive victims without responsibility. “Feminists prosecuting the war on rape and domestic violence” were somehow “captured and co-opted by the law-and-order agenda of politicians, state officials, and conservative groups.” Yet nothing indicates that feminists offered the slightest resistance to this political abduction.Feminists, despite Gottschalk’s muted admission of guilt, did lead the charge toward wholesale incarceration. Feminist ideology has radicalized criminal justice and eroded centuries-old constitutional protections: New crimes have been created; old crimes have been redefined politically; the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial. “The new feminist jurisprudence hammers away at some of the most basic foundations of our criminal law system,” Michael Weiss and Cathy Young write in a Cato Institute paper. “Chief among them is the presumption that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.”http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/family/2705-feminist-gulag-no-prosecution-necessary
>and Joe, your example of feminist supporting the falsely accused was politically motivated… it wasn't done out of a humanitarian desire to advocate for the falsely accused in general.
>@David.Ameriskanks.Yes, Yohan is pointing at American women, not all women.That does not make him a woman hater, at worst, it makes him an American woman hater.
>@Joe,"This is patently false. A woman can try, but they have to make a criminal charge stand up in court, which is by no means easy."You are absolutely right about this. I've worked in the system for several years and while there are some things the MRM have right about how the system works, they are wrong about far more than they are right about, which is why it's difficult to take them seriously when they start spouting off about how the system works. They should spend some serious time in the courts and observe before they pretend to be experts on these subjects.
>CristineYou never back up your claims here, the mras posting here are much better sourced than the feminist posters as is usual in debates between mras and feminists. Tell me this, if the accused are so well protected there, how do you have one of the highest prison populations in the world, its up there with Iran and China.Truth is, feminist jurisprudence has eroded civil rights in that country to well below what is the norm in western countries.
>Its Jim Crow all over again…"Criminalization of social problems has led to mass incarceration of men, especially young men of color, decimating marginalized communities."Ms. Foundation for Women".African-Americans for VAWA Reform is a national organization of women and men, community leaders who have united to inform their fellow Americans of the devastating effects of the Violence Against Women Act on African-American communities.http://www.aavreform.org/
>@Eoghan, Gottschalk herself said that conservatives were responsible for MOST of this situation and that blaming it on the right explains MOST of the situation. Her argument is that many political movements in the US did not resist this form of incarceration culture to the extent they did in other countries, but rather colluded in it. Gottschalk argues that the progressives are partially responsible for this problem because of failure to resist and failure to properly incorporate these issues into their movements, not that they were the root or even primary cause. This is hugely different than the position you are trying to attribute to her. Even if you accepted her claims, your conclusions are not hers. An effective counterargument to her position is the role of the overthrow of Jim Crow, that the drug felony laws were used to reinstate the social status quo that was threatened by Brown v Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act, and the Voting Rights Act, explains why these population increased dramatically after the sixties. Before the sixties, black people did not need to be incarcerated to be denied the vote or advancement, Jim Crow accomplished that to a huge extent and the US of the mental institution as a form of prison in the north had similar effect. As Jim Crow was unique to America, as opposed to modern Europe (and even South Africa, as in South Africa, the oppressed blacks were a majority, rather than a minority, and, while colonized, were not subjected to the same lengthy slave systems), this also effectively explains the discrepancy between cultural events at this time. This is the mainstream historical and sociological interpretation of the rise of felony disenfranchisement, and, Gottschalk is not a historian or even a socialogist, she is in political science (which is known for less rigorus methodology and more speculation). " the distinction between crime and private behavior has been erased; the presumption of innocence has been eliminated; false accusations go unpunished; patently innocent people are jailed without trial" If you are talking about the US, like Gottschalk is, this is all false. The US has a long history of legislating private behavior, consider our porn and sexuality laws, for example. The burden of proof in criminal and civil trials for rape and assault (or battery, different terms are used in Torts and Criminal law) has not changed. The right to a trial by jury has not changed, it is, in fact, in the US Constituion and has not been amended. There is no good evidence that false accusations of violent crime drive the US prison industry (on the contrary, there is a lot of evidence that convictions of drug crimes drive it). Failure to get a conviction is not the same as proving a claim by a victim false. However, making a false statement to police, making a false statement in court, and filing malicious suits are all against the law and can be punished,the former two in criminal courts. A person who believes they were falsely accused of rape may sue their accuser for libel, defamantion, harassment, and many other things, as could a person falsely accused of theft. There are both criminal and civil remedies for false accusation under US law, the thing is that most people crying out 'she's lying' can't prove it to even the lowest burden of proof under US law. Again, I am only referring to US law because you specifically cite an argument about US history as your sole source.
>Eoghan,More than 307 million people live in the U.S. Our prisons have under 1.7 million people in them – a high number, but a very small percent of our overall population. You can check those numbers in the links below. Other than that, and as I've said before, I speak of my personal experiences and observations in my daily work. I work with crime victims, their families, and with the families of homicide victims – mostly victims of domestic violence crimes. There's an incredible amount of very real violence backed up with evidence that has to be dealt with in our courts. I have precious little personal time online and I'm not spending it arguing with you about whether these assault and homicide cases I see are real, are false, or anything else. I will say that there are far too many serious cases for the courts to be fooling around trying to frame innocent people. I think the biggest difference is in the view points – many people who use violence do not see it as criminal but as justified. There are several comments I've seen by MRA's who know the violence is against the law, but don't think it should be. Here's an example of an MRA comment from Binxton from the debate:"There should be NO domestic violence laws. Period.Male physical force has always been one of the social control mechanisms necessary to enforce good behavior from women. That DV laws outlaws male physical force is one of the main reasons we see our women out of control today."http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/25/a-debate-on-domestic-violence/Just because someone says they were "falsely accused", doesn't mean they were. Lots of people come before a judge claiming to be falsely accused who did exactly what they're being accused of. In many cases, it would be more honest for them to say that they don't believe that what they did should be a crime, instead of claiming to be falsely accused. Based on my personal experience, I would want to see the evidence before I took someone's word on that.http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_01.htmlhttp://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
>Christine said… More than 307 million people live in the U.S. Our prisons have under 1.7 million people in them – a high number, but a very small percent of our overall population. No, 1.7 million people in prison is NOT a very small percentage of the overall population.It's world record.http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1529685/us_prison_population_is_the_largest.html?cat=9Currently in the United States, 1 in every 31 adult persons is either in jail or prison or on parole or probation. That amounts to 7.3 million Americans and a cost that exceeds $68 billion annually. This figure does not include juveniles accountable to the U.S. correction system……The total number of U.S. citizens accountable to the American correction system is the highest in the world. It even exceeds the combined Soviet Union and China prison population during the height of their dominate Communist Regime. Are American citizens really that bad?http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/mar2009/pris-m04.shtmlA study released this week by the Pew Center on the States delivers a staggering statistic: 7.3 million Americans-or 1 in every 31 adults-are in the nation's prison system. This figure includes those in US jails and prisons, on parole, on probation, or under other forms of correctional supervision.No other country comes close to matching this number. If these individuals were grouped together, they would number more than the entire populations of Israel or Honduras, or all of the residents of Washington state.
>@Yohan,There is lots of crime in the U.S. No question about it.