>Folks, some of you need to cool it with the gratuitously nasty personal attacks in your comments. I’ve been cutting some people slack because they are new to the comments here, and because I like to practice relatively hands-off moderation, but I will start deleting comments if this continues, and repeated violators will be banned entirely. Regardless of which side of the debate you’re on. If you haven’t already, read the comments policy.
Also not ok: Justifying violence against men or women. For example, this recent comment from witman suggesting it might be “patriotic” to shoot feminist elected officials. (I’ve screencapped it because I will be deleting it, but for now you can go see it for yourself to confirm I’m not making it up.)
>haloinshreds said… Well Yohan (and Witman) I don't know witman and don't know his circumstances and can only judge him on his comments on this forum. Maybe 1 comment in spam filter or not sent…???—–I myself do not know witman either, but I can only judge him on the scornful comments he received on this blog from feminists when he was telling his side of the story regarding ex-wife and children.The problem with this blog, if MRAs make reasonable postings they are either ignored or belittled, if they respond in the same way they are provocated by feminists, they are the bad violent guys.Eoghan was not that unreasonable at the beginning, but lost his patience, and same with witman now. Your posting is also in this direction, you say you judge him only from his postings… but surely not from all postings, you pick out some few which fits you. – I think you learnt this from David.Same happen to me just a few threads ago, I said, politicians, celebrities and rich businessmen should be aware that threats against their person and vandalism against their offices might be serious and they should do something about crime prevention. What's wrong with saying this?What's wrong about a discussion how to PREVENT crimes? What has crime prevention to do with the female or male gender?Now brainwashed feminists on this blog are telling me something about a poor female victim, and compare the attack against her with being defendless and pregnant or being raped. – And of course these stupid women are telling me what a big misogynist I am… This is really a strange blog, I cannot remember I have ever seen something like that.Whatever I say, the US-feminist is putting words in my mouth and claims something which is not true and what I never said.I escaped feminism after suffering from it for more than 2 decades. No problems now for me personally. Unfortunately other men are not as lucky as I am.
>avpd0nmmng said… "Yohan, what I say is that if a guy had a bad mother, instead of starting a crusade against women and feminists, he should blame his mother and keep his distance from her. I've known a guy that was posting in MRAs forums that was 40 years old and never had girlfriend and was still living with his mother. And he was constantly blaming feminists for all his problems. I'm sure there are many MRAs like him."You really are a hoot. Many MRAs are like him? Do you realize the cross-section of men that are on MRA, MGTOW, or even PUA forums? You are being naive, foolish, in denial, or just plain trying to paint them as losers (because I'm sure you think the above man is one, apparently). What if I had said the same thing about feminists having father issues and hating men because of their upbringing? So it's not okay for some man to believe he was oppressed and held back because his fundamental development pretty much sucked but when feminists find oppression and claim they are held down there's a legit reason?Okay . ..
>I believe that radical feminists and MRA (there are few moderate mra's) do have more in common then they would like to believe. Both groups have the landmarks of broken individals, from being hurt by the opposite sex. Whether it be parents, spouses, S.O's, teasing in school, or random acts of violence. However you would be hard pressed to find many individals who have not been hurt by someone at sometime. The difference is emotionally mature people do not label all members of the person who hurt them sub group as BAD.The majority of feminists I see posting do not label all men as bad except for perhaps a very few. This however seems to be the norm for MRA's."Feminists" in a MRA context seems to include everyone who does not hate their mothers, have their wives, hate western women, etc.Mangina, white knight, the list goes on. They hate conservative women because conservative women want men to take care of them, they hate working women because women shouldn't be in the work force. They hate that women are not eligible for the draft but do not want women fighting with them in wars.No one but those that mirror their own hatred can stand up to this litmus test.
>"What if I had said the same thing about feminists having father issues and hating men because of their upbringing?"I would say that for those feminists that hate men this is more often then not the truth.
>"I would say that for those feminists that hate men this is more often then not the truth."—DAnd it's often a projection upon men and the world as well from that background and history.
>As it is for MRA's wytch
>@ booboonationIf you didn't want to talk about mothers why'd you bring it up in the first place? Secondly, I didn't lie about anyone's post. As for waiting for me to apologize, how often does anyone apologize on the interent? (Not that you deserve an apology). Lastly you say: ". . .If Thomas Jefferson said, "Yeah, that dude was a tyrant." It would not apply to us, here. It's a matter of history."The key phrase young lady is from time to time, ask someone to explain it to you. Random Brother
>@ ElkinsDon't you find it rather odd that the evil partriarchy conspiracy is accepted but anything else is somehow considered ridiculous? Random Brother
>To wytchfinde555:Rooshv, an acolyte of Roissy, said it himself "“Men’s Rights” Has Become A Euphemism For “Sexual Loser”" (http://www.rooshv.com/mens-rights-has-become-a-euphemism-for-sexual-loser). And given the fascination of MRAs blog for "game" or foreign brides or going to some third world country to find a wife, it's obvious these guys have no success with women.
>So D,How do you explain all the female MRAs?
>> how often does anyone apologize on the interent?The "interent": a lowest common denominator we can all aspire to.
>That seems like an odd question, Deeze. I have a long answer for this, but let me start just by pointing something out. Women have NEVER historically been for women's rights because it has always been an idea that threatened status quo and their stability just as much as men's stability. There are tons of people exploited, just outright exploited in labor that believe they can't do anything about it, and any talk of change threatens their job and livelihood. Women are …ok…here comes a generalization, and guess what? This one I am completely comfortable making. Women are scared of not being liked or accepted or viewed as attractive and that effects almost every woman. Women are notorious for posturing themselves AGAINST feminism with loud and bold declarations. There was a video on you tube for awhile of this guy reading singles ads in the UK and it was a comedy video, but so funny how all the ads mentioned, "not a feminist", "I'm no feminist.", etc. Women have never ever, on the whole fought for changes for women. They argued with Steinem as much as anyone did. I remember one Phil Donahue episode in the 80s about feminism, there was a woman caller with grown children, and she called and said, "I don't WANT to have to work outside the home. I disagree!" The caller feeling pressure that feminism meant no women should ever stay home. Phil just asked her, "DO you want the world you were faced with for your daughter?" Pause. "NO"… and that scene played out over and over the last thirty or more years when it comes to this topic. Also, politically, if a woman is right wing, fuggeddaboudit. Of course, not always is this the case, but introduce me to the feminist tea bagger, that's a conversation I want to have. Since MRA is an ANTI FEMINIST MOVEMENT and very little else, I would expect swarms of women in your ranks. The only question left is, why aren't there more women? Seriously? Where ARE THEY? I look around and I see women lining up to get into abusive dynamics that exploit them and prop up an oppressive system, so I personally was shocked at the lack of women MRAs. Also I would say that when the movement is not an anti feminist farce, and you do try to get some activism going that means basic progress for all (father's rights), of course any woman will back that (if it's for real). I end here only because my comment is long, not because there ain't more to say about wimminz that lurve them some patriarchy.
>"All the female MRAs"I've seen only a handful. And they actually face a lot of hostility from many MRAs, who don't trust them as allies because they're, you know, women; see The Spearhead message boards for evidence of this.
>richard, now you're saying to me "why did you bring it up?" about mothers, I explained why I brought it up. You are trying to pin your own failure on me. I think (again for the second or third time), that claiming someone has mommy or daddy issues is a lame ad hom. "Issues" is a separate subject from plain biography. I talked of my own as well. So the quote was meant to suggest that throughout history force would be needed. I understand that. If someone quotes him with the intent to incite people to violence, then the quote is wrong for the commenting guidelines here, it depends on context. So if you say, "well in regards to these female politicians backed by NOW, let's not forget what this old famous dead dude said about sometimes having to kill people."Of if you say, "Hey look what Thomas Jefferson said." Those are two completely different things. Sometimes it gets confusing explaining things to people that should never ever have to be explained. And I guess when one makes honest mistakes that no apology should be asked for. I usually don't do that. But I will ask that you please take responsibility when you read things IN THE CASE that you are attacking their comments, which is what you did with me. You held up my comment as a no no and you were wrong. You attacked me and were factually wrong due to your own comprehension failure. So IF you are going to point fingers, just make sure you have it right. An apology would be appropriate when you fail in that regard since it was an attack.
>To Dr. Deezee :Very few women post on MRAs blogs/forums and they don't stay long and many are harassed on their own blog. One of them last year had to put her blog private because a guy was sending her emails saying he wanted to rape her. And I think that some women that post there are guys.
>I know some women who love patriarchy.
>Dr.Deezee: "I know some women who love patriarchy."I know some people who are morons. And some who are hypocrites. And some who think the Earth is flat, and some who think the Moon is made of green cheese. Okay, okay, I don't actually know people who think the Moon is made of green cheese.
>Taking a page right out of my primer on public discourse I see. Why refute an argument when you can just dismiss it with ad hominems and stupid analogies?
>@richard:The only people I've ever met who believe in anything that could accurately be described as "the evil patriarchy conspiracy" have been teenagers with just enough experience of the world to become radicalized and angry, but not yet enough experience of the world to have any sense of nuance. Or much in the way of sense at all, for that matter. They're the same teenagers you'll hear saying idiotic things like "I'm not wearing a seat belt! That's SO bourgeois!" They grow out of it.
>Dr. Dreeze, I just wrote a pretty long post on that. Look at the last line of the post. And David, sometimes the distrust thing goes on with the feminists, too. I know some feminists that really really don't appreciate a man around because of women's nature (not referring to a nature versus nurture debate here, just saying for whatever reason), or habit to defer to men and look to men, or not want to offend men. I've seen it myself, people really do act differently when a male is around and attribute leadership skills to them automatically based on no evidence. If I was in a movement like MRA, I might be suspicious of women members, too. Especially since MRA is largely a woman hating group. And like I said, if you only like your dog for its tail, you could be described as hating your dog, depending on what manifests from that love of tail. What I mean is, these men are really really conditional with their love and toleration of women, that's why we call it hate. Now of course the words "conditional" don't tell the story, we are all that way. The important things is to compare the conditionals and realize that the conditions this group wants to place on women are dehumanizing which is why more violence is bourne of this group than a radical feminist group. I'm sick of being coerced with this "man hating" garbage, and when we argue about that we never get to stage two, we always get stuck in stage one. Stage one is, "well first of all, that's not even true", because most of the time- it's not. I'm interested in stage two now, getting people to realize that it does not matter if some women hate men. It does not sum up or amount to anything. If you make the claim that it does, show me the money. I want to see evidence. Because the truth is, it's just another boundary invasion of women by people that think women are owned and have no personal agency. Men that attack the feminist movement just don't want women to have a group identity that they define themselves, or clear boundaries. It's fine that men have otherized us since Eden and look at women as such a separate species they cannot even maintain a friendship with a woman. So it's fine for them to define the species that we are, and include no boundaries in that definition. But we are not permitted to recognize our own identity and issues as otherized persons and form a group that will help us make sense and improve our conditions, especially when we declare we are people in our own right with a wide range of abilities, our own agency and choices, and have strong boundaries. Who in the HELL shows up to MRA sites screaching, "How come you don't talk about women's issues?" That would be insanity there, just like it is here.
>avpd0nmmng said… …..MRAs blog for "game" or foreign brides or going to some third world country to find a wife, it's obvious these guys have no success with women. Such drivel can only be written by an US-citizen, who was never beyond the borders of his/her own state.MRAs do not have success with women? MRAs are not interested into games like US-hook-up-culture and one-night stands with certain women in certain countries.But we find success – a long-term relationship – just somewhere else, with other people in other countries.We do not listen to hateful feminists, we go our own way. It's not your business to tell us how we should arrange our life.About myself, I am living since over 3 decades in Asia, with foreign wife.You are grossly misinformed about this world, if you really think all foreign countries are 3rd world countries, all foreign women are poor and doormats and only American women are 'rich and independent'.
>I know some women who love patriarchy.Just clicked on that link and had a quick read of the "Patriarchy: Its Benefits For Women" article. Here the Female Misogynist (the blog owner), in defending patriarchy, is unwittingly also lending support for things like VAWA:"This ownership [of women and children by the patriarch] gives the man a motivation to protect his wife and daughters (and sons) from threats, chiefly other men. THERE IS NO OTHER HOPE OF SAFETY FOR WOMEN. WOMEN CAN ONLY BE SAFE FROM MEN IF OTHER MEN DEFEND THEM. Men are larger, stronger and more aggressive, and if the social system gives them no motivation to defend women, as matriarchy does not, they will leave women at their fellows' mercy."So, the chief threat to women (and children) is … wait for it … MEN!!Ah, but she hooked you on that "ownership of women and children", didn't she. I don't see any commenters there taking issue with the statement that it's MEN who are the chief threat, and then subsequently pointing out that it's actually WOMEN who are more dangerous to men, other women and to children.
>David Futrelle said… "All the female MRAs"I've seen only a handful… I have seen only a few male feminists.And most of them suffer of very serious issues, confused, psycho …
>booboonation said… ….If I was in a movement like MRA, I might be suspicious of women members, too. Especially since MRA is largely a woman hating group. …..And like I said, if you only like your dog for its tail, you could be described as hating your dog… …..I'm sick of being coerced with this "man hating" garbage… MRAs do not hate 'women' in general, but reject feminism. Truly 2 different things.There are MRAs, who are married and have children. Not so few of them.There are also women, who reject feminism. Why MUST every woman accept your life-style?Your statement is 'man-hating' and untrue. You want to FORCE other people to accept your feminist guidelines. Somehow feminism can be compared with a religious sect.
>There are also women, who reject feminismOf course there are, and I don't think anyone would deny that. However, it does tend to be women who reject feminism that expect it to be the man who pays for everything (i.e., view men as walking ATM machines), defend them even to the death, oppose having females serve in the military (voluntarily or not), etc. These seem to be huge bones of contention with MRAs, yet the disparaging comments are levelled against feminists, not those who reject feminism.