>
 |
| Like this guy, only fighting feminism. |
One of the running complaints from Men’s Rights Activists who frequent this blog is that I pick on “nobodies” or “fringe elements” in the Men’s Rights movement, with some suggesting erroneously that all I do is pick on individual commenters on MRA blogs who might, for all we know, be evil feminists out to make MRAs looks bad (as if MRAs really need any help in that department).
It’s a silly criticism, given that most of my posts so far have dealt not with anonymous commenters, but with MRA bloggers and others with a history in the MRM, including some fairly prominent names. And the posts I make based on comments on MRA sites? They show what is considered acceptable discourse in the MRM, demonstrating the casual misogyny of all too many MRAs, which all too often goes unchallenged by other MRAs.
But let’s, for a second, pretend all the critiques are true. I ask you, all the MRAs who read this blog: if I’m unfairly picking on nobodies, who are the somebodies I should be focusing on? If I’m focusing on “fringe elements,” websites or forums that don’t really represent the MRM, where are the websites and forums I should be looking at?
This isn’t a rhetorical question. It’s a challenge: I’m inviting you to post the names of blogs, websites, online manifestos, etc. that in your opinion represent the best that the MRM has to offer. Heck, even individual blog posts are fair game here. Books too. Post them in the comments below, with links if possible, and with a short statement explaining why you like that blog, forum, book, whatever.
Note: I feel compelled to add one further point, because I know what will happen if I don’t. I’m not asking this question because I don’t actually know of any MRA “somebodies.” I’m asking because, again, I want to know who you guys think are important. I have several dozen blogs and websites in my “enemies list”; I’ve examined all of them. I’m familiar with Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Sommers, Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, Erin Pizzey, and so on and so on. I’ve read The Misandry Bubble and the “Don’t Marry” post. I’m just asking: If I’m focusing on sites and people that misrepresent the MRM, what sites/people do you think represent you best?
>Yohan, I have no disagreements with most of that. Better working conditions for men and women? Of course. The same retirement age for men and women? Sure. (It's the same in the US.) Welfare and legal aid for both sexes? Sure. Obligatory military service? I'm against it for both sexes. If these were the primary issues pushed by the MRM, I would have no problem with it. (Or at least very few.) Here in the US, most of what the MRM pushes for (and against) is very different than this.
>Then David, what is your perception of what the MRM is working for? What are, in YOUR opinion, the primary issues that it's pushing?
>This blog would be more aptly named "Whats wrong with the comments sections of 1% of less of the on online mens movement community".I had a conversation with a site owner about extreme commentary before, he didn't want it but didn't know what to do about it, most of these these guys have nowhere else to go and they are victims of the system that the mens movement is working to change. As with women in the early days, a woman that had been abused by a man found no support in society, its worse for men these days, as an abused man also faces the system and feminist legislation being used as a proxy weapon. The site owner I mention for example, was arrested for domestic violence even though his wife was the one that was abusing both him and his children. Denise Hines has a study that shows that false allegations or the threat of them are a common enough tactic used by abusive women, and family lawyers are well aware that the false allegations are used often enough in divorce tactics.I post occasionally at Spearhead, I got into an argument there some months ago, I was saying that it was only a matter of time before feminists began using the minority of extreme commentary to suppress abuse victims rights, fathers rights, boys that are being let down by the education system and all the other legitimate concerns of the mens movement, as you are trying to do here doing here David. Now, I think the more that feminists publicly use fallacy and polemic research to try to suppress the legitimate issues and victims of feminism, the more it shows its true anti-egalitarian colours, the more it does that the more of us there will be and the more severe the backlash.
>@David Futrelle:"Yet you [John Dias] still refuse to tell me [David Futrelle] the name of one person in the MRM you think isn't an idiot."I already told you why. It's because once I name someone, you'll devote your effort into trying to portray that person as an idiot or an extremist. The reason why I think you would do this is not because it's necessarily true (now or in the past) but rather because it is your goal to stall the implementation of the MRM's agenda. We have been making lots of progress in the state legislatures lately, and 3 years ago won a big court case in the appellate courts. I don't want you to get in the way of those victories, or any further victories in the courts or state legislatures, on the pretext that the blogosphere somehow negates the need for our agenda to move forward. Men are experiencing genuine injustices and they need help; action needs to be taken. And outside of the political realm, the culture of emasculation and misandry must also be confronted and you're not currently helping to do that (nor would you be helping if I supplied you with a target to attack and ridicule).
>@Eoghan,"Now, I think the more that feminists publicly use fallacy and polemic research to try to suppress the legitimate issues and victims of feminism, the more it shows its true anti-egalitarian colours,…"The above leads me to assume that you believe that the MRM is pro-egalitarian and/or that you are pro-egalitarian, but you don't assert that, so my assumption might be erroneous.
>"This blog would be more aptly named "Whats wrong with the comments sections of 1% of less of the on online mens movement community"."It's not 1%. That vile stuff is omnipresent on MR sites. It's everywhere. If the attitudes I find in the comments were only held by 1% of MRAs, the comments I posted from The Spearhead, for example, suggesting that women shouldn't have the vote would have been massively downvoted on that site; instead, they had dozens of upvotes. That "chair dragging" comment I recently quoted? All the responses to it on that message board agreed with the OP; no one there challenged it. Show me a MRA site where such misogynist nonsense is regularly challenged by other commenters. Antimisandry.com is probably the best in that regard, but in this case "best" doesn't actually mean very good; there's lots of misogyny there too.
>"Then David, what is your perception of what the MRM is working for? What are, in YOUR opinion, the primary issues that it's pushing? "The primary "issue" that the MRM (or at least MRAs online) is pushing is the notion that men are more oppressed than women, and that it's all the fault of feminism. For a significant number of MRAs, the "issue" is that women are, you know, lying whores, etc. Sometimes MRAs do actually focus on legitimate issues — violence against men, unfair gender stereotypes, etc — but their analysis of these issues is generally clouded by ideology, or sometimes simply hatred, and their "activism" on these issues becomes counterproductive. As I learned in my debate with Elam, it is almost impossible to have a reasoned discussion with many/most MRAs on these subjects. Again, if you know of MRAs online who ARE having reasoned discussions on all this, who aren't hateful, etc etc, please point them out.So far the only MR-related site I can think of where real debate is even possible is Feminist Critics.
>So, in essence, your position and your opinion is that the only "legitimate" issues that the MRM is working for are:1) Violence against menand2) Unfair gender stereotypesThe notion that men are oppressed is, to you, a sarcasm laden one that deserves only a dismissive wink and nod.You lump all the MRA's together (isn't that something you earlier claimed you 'never' did/said?) and state that they ALL consider ALL women (the all is implied because you did not intentionally separate the fringe from the mainstream,something you also failed to do in your superhero thread) are lying whores.You have also taken the position that every single MRA you personally come in contact with is impossible to have a discussion with on any gender subject.To recap:1)Even though you are NOT a men's rights advocate, you have unequivocally stated that there are only two LEGITIMATE mens inssues; those being violence against men and unfair gender stereotypes2) Anything else the MRM claims is a worthwhile issue is to be dismissed because YOU do not recognize it as legitimate3) All MRA concerns *really* just boil down to the fact that they ALL blame feminism and ALL women are lying whores4)No one will agree with you, so they are therefore, stupid and wrong.And to finish, you want me to do your work for you and bring you links to places you might consider granting your approval to like a trained puppy…..thanks but no. By your own admission, nothing anyone brings you that has a different perspective than your own is going to be looked at seriously. Until and unless you are able to be open to 'real' discussion about the concerns of men, with someone unconcerned about pushing their agenda, and you can *honestly* leave your own at the door, these conversations will go no where. All I hear from you David, is "Here's my opinion, its correct just read it..don't agree? Well you're unreasonable and hate women anyway, and I'm still right but I can't be arsed to further the discussion with more sources, you bring me some of YOUR sources…not so we can discuss them, but so I can dismiss them out of hand and tell you they're misogynist. There is, however, no such animal as misandry."I would ask you, David, what are the legitimate concerns of feminism? Not the concerns of the first or second waves, but right now, in 2010, what are the legitimate concerns? Bring the argument to us instead of passively and overtly demanding we bring it to you.Also, please elaborate, or hell, even just initially present the reasons why the following MRA issues are not, in your opinion legitimate:1) Custody agreements/Fathers rights2) Sexual assault against men3) Healthcare legislation as it pertains exclusively to men4) Education 5) Birth control/reproductive rights6) AA and the workplace7) Equal access to social servicesThanks 🙂
>"The notion that men are oppressed is, to you, a sarcasm laden one that deserves only a dismissive wink and nod."Nope, he was referring to "the notion that men are *more* oppressed than women, and that it's all the fault of feminism" [my emphasis]. Very different point.
>@NatashaAt what point would systematically limited services and reppealing legislation that helps victims be good for victims? If for instance, MRAs are worried about rape on men, do they not call for tougher sentences for rapists? In contrast, didn't Paul Elam say, even if he had copious amounts of evidence that proved the man a rapist, he would still vote not guilty? Does that not seem wrong to you MRAs? At all?
>**why do they not call for tougher sentences for rapists?
>@David Futrelle:"The primary 'issue' that . . . MRAs online [are] pushing is the notion that men are more oppressed than women"That depends on the issue. In many ways men really do have it worse, but most people don't really take the time to think about it. Here's a thorough breakdown:Some say "It's a man's world." How good do men have it?@David Futrelle:"As I learned in my debate with Elam, it is almost impossible to have a reasoned discussion with many/most MRAs on these subjects."The MRA discussion forum Stand Your Ground has a thread permanently affixed to the top of its topic listings literally begging for a feminist to show up and debate them (it's entitled "Feminist Wanted"). That forum is also moderated, meaning that blanket descriptions of an entire sex are prohibited by the admin. I'm not saying that all the commenters there necessarily represent the MRM's agenda; after all they're all individuals with their own opinions. But the moderator does seem to value some level of civility there.
>@Manhood Acadamey, the first amendment is binding on the federal government and, via the fourteenth amendment, the states, not private publications. NBC can publish only what it likes without violating the first amendment, so can any private blog or newspaper. No forum has a first amendment obligation to be used as a sounding board for anyone. The first amendment means that the government has no right to criminalize speech or publications (with certain exceptions regarding things like violence), not that any media forum has an obligation to any individual to let them use it to speak their views. Want a blog that never bans your comments? Make your own blog. Every other blog is free to ban you. You can criticize them for it (because of free speech), but they have in no way violated the first amendment, because they are not the government interfering with your publications.@Yohan, on the same issue, not every blog or site is intended to be a debate forum. Many sites explicitly detail what is allowed in comments. This is perfectly fine, though they are hypocrits if they do such moderation and then claim to be a forum open to the forbidden views. A site which explicitly bills itself as for feminist and their allies (or, alternatively, on that bills itself as the opposite) has every right to limit its site's comments to those people. Feminist sites that heavily moderate are explicit about their heavy moderation and what is allowed. Not all sites need to be an open forum. If you do not like who or what a site excludes, you are free to comment about that on your own or other sites.
>@DarkSideCat obviously you're too stupid to even grasp the nature of the argument which is why you require the thumb-sucking blanket of censorship in the first place.
(I know I’m coming a bit too late, but…)
What about Glenn Sacks (http://www.glennsacks.com/) and the Fathers & Families (http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/) websites? In fact, he once heavily criticized these people on the men’s rights movement (http://www.glennsacks.com/confronting_women_bashing.htm). And he had to end the comments section of the websites because, many times, they ended up bing filled with hatred.
In fact, he and his organization are mainstream, unlike many of the people you talk about in this website. (FYI, he is probably the only MRA/FRA who has the distinction of being called a “m**gina” on some of those websites…)
And Warren Farrell too. (By the way, what the hell is hedoing lumped with those websites on the “Boob Roll”?)