Categories
drama manginas MRA the spearhead Uncategorized

>The Spearhead: You don’t have to be crazy to post here, but it helps. Scratch that: You DO have to be crazy.

>

Don’t ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead

These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I’m sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there’s one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.

Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that “a site called mamboobz.com” won’t quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men’s rights movement look bad.

Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren’t all MRAs and I don’t identify them as such. That’s not the point. The point is this:

The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to “a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry.” Another added, “I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt.”

After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:

You sir are a traiter to your gender. ..  You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.
Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?
Expect the same from me. Count on it.

Again, SingleDad isn’t talking about me. He’s talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he’s a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.

Naturally, all of Eoghan’s posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad’s threat, have gotten multiple upvotes. 

I’m not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal “debate.” Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:

Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.

Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
– being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
– is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.

It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around?

Poester99, I’m not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.

Here’s what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.

Here’s what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.

I’m having a really hard time seeing how I’m the bigger asshole in this scenario.

Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some “interested third party with deep pockets” wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won’t interfere with what I write in any way, I’d like to suggest that  they contact me, like, right now.

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>They really are a caricature of everything they accuse feminists of being–and more. It's truly remarkable, and rather frightening.

Sandy
9 years ago

>This is amazing. Maybe Eoghan will wake up and realize there is a problem in his movement.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>And they claim that feminists can't tolerate any dissension from the party line….

Christine WE
9 years ago

>You're not the asshole at all in this scenario.

triplanetary
9 years ago

>People who are more interested in identity as an us-vs-them issue aren't generally interested in the substance of that identity. Look at right-wing Christians, for example, who find it very important to be Christian but don't consider it terribly important to *act* Christian. These guys are the same way, but their identity is invested in their maleness.By the way, David, I've been enjoying this blog for a while, ever since I got linked to it from Pandagon, and I remember when you got nothing but comments from insane MRA trolls. I'm glad to see you finally have a sane following of commenters.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>I would donate a dollar to help keep this blog going cuz it makes me laugh. 🙂 Maybe even TWO dollars!

Sandy
9 years ago

>hahaha, there's a comment now claiming that Eoghan is David:Eoghan "David" Futrelle January 26, 2011 at 14:24 I dunno, is it just me, or does it seem very odd that all of the sudden, this @ssbag appears on this comment thread, giving a downvote to every comment that isn’t their own, and then basically being a mangina troll while also managing to plug their own website inadvertently, thereby divulging their identity. David, you’re a moron. You’re obviously a byproduct of a successful brainwashing campaign foisted upon three generations of children thanks to “women’s lib” and it’s vehicle of dissemination, the public education system in this once great but not decrepit and morally decaying nation of spinless, emasculated males and their butch female counterparts. Ohhh boy, I bet you’re going to claim that I’m wrong in assuming that Eoghan and David are the same @sshole spewing jibberish here in order to promote his $hitty website with the oh-so-witty name “manboobz”… HAH! Are you serious? It’s so obvious that you’re a typical lefty; a self-hating male feminist that probably has a penis that’s AT LEAST 3 1/2 inches HARD! Women actually HATE boys like you.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@triplanetary:"[David,] I'm glad to see you finally have a sane following of commenters."How typical. If your opinion disagrees with that of a feminist ideologue, she will chalk it up to your being afflicted with mental illness. Thou shalt not disagree!

johnnykaje
9 years ago

>I assume all these death camps for men are stationed in Feminist Saudi Arabia? That must be the same place where Bill O'Reilly's gang of pink pistol-packing lesbians hail from.

johnnykaje
9 years ago

>"Women actually HATE boys like you."BRB, loling forever.T-SHIRT IDEAThis caption underneath a cartoon with a pouty misogynist on one side, and a mixed gaggle of normal men and women on the other, smiling and laughing and having fun with each other.

Sandy
9 years ago

>The back could say "Everyone is David Furtelle."

Chuckeedee
9 years ago

>I am not an MRA, but The Spearhead routinely posts articles that are compelling, well-written pieces and are drawing well-deservered attention. By saying that everyone that posts these articles is crazy, well, you have just lost ALL credibility. It just ain't true.Also, The Spearhead does not enforce a strict moderation policy. Their policy allows a loose, dynamic, organic interaction to take place. I might not agree with this policy, but it does have its merits within the context of brainstorming and deriving new truths. Your singling out the arbitrary outliers in these organic threads is disingenuous, most importantly because it ignores top quality contributions that you will never find in any other forum. Think of the bell-curve distribution and the error of selecting observations from only one end.Your assertion that everyone that participates on TS is crazy is just plain wrong.

Sandy
9 years ago

>Chuckeedee, No one is seriously saying that everyone is crazy. The headline is a joke.The point is that a lot of the comments are crazy, the crazy comments get upvoted, and when someone suggests that maybe comments should be less crazy, the person receives a boatload of crazy for his efforts.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Chuck, the headline is a reference to the stupid posters some people hang in their cubicles that say "you don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." "Your singling out the arbitrary outliers in these organic threads"They're not outliers. That's one of the unexpected benefits of the spearhead comment rating system: it allows you to see whose comments are widely liked or widely hated. Misogynist comments on the Spearhead are routinely upvoted, sometimes with dozens of upvotes. Comments challenging misogyny or defending women in even a mind way get downvoted and basically "disappeared." SingleDAd's first comment quoted above got more than two dozen upvotes; even his THREAT got many more upvotes than downvotes. These aren't the outliers on the Spearhead; they're from the fat middle of the bell curve.

Bee
Bee
9 years ago

>Oh my god. I just looked at The Spearhead for the first time, and I think I'm willing to say that anyone who reads that site (not for yuks) is crazy. Before I do, though … Chuckeedee, can you link to maybe two or three of those compelling, well-written pieces you were talking about? Like, that don't have as their primary point: Women are stupid, fat bitchez who won't date me? (Because, I should point out, an article that takes that as its particular point of view is by its nature not compelling or well-written.)From what I could tell, The Spearhead articles are exactly as hilarious and wrong-headed as the comments, if not exactly as easy to make fun of. Shorter The Spearhead article: "Back in the day, Laura Ingalls Wilder and her husband had this relationship that I don't know that much about, but they stuck it out I guess and GOD why are all American women such bitchez?"So it's pretty funny that Eoghan thinks the comments are the only problem. The whole comments section is pretty hilarious, though:"Domestic violence can decrease if children are taught anger management skills, yoga and meditation in school from a very young age."Funny how the system doesn’t really want to get at the root of the problem and implement preventative measures, but rather let the issue of anger fester until they can create laws around the problem. I guess that makes more money."Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 81"Eighty-one downvotes for learning how to manage your rage? Like, seriously?I mean … seriously?

richard
9 years ago

>Another nothing thread thrown together by Furtrelle so a bunch of man haters can go "Oh, my gawd look at teh menz! ROFL! This is like so stupid lol and we is so strrrrong, proud and independants, grrrl power." While their lackeys lick their high heels and bask in the glow of absolute submission. Men saying angry things on the interent = evil, crazy, misogyists who must be mocked and or stopped.Women doing evil things and passing biased laws in the real world = Strong women standing up for themselves.Random Brother

richard
9 years ago

>@ BeeThe post you quoted is from a person who is viewed on that site as a troll. If you new more about that poster and the site you'd be in a better position to judge. Pretty much all of that guys stuff is down voted.Random Brother

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>… suggesting children be taught anger management techniques is considered trolling on The Spearhead?Good to know.

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>@Random BrotherOn the troll issue – That would be the point. anyone with anything actually constructive to say is labelled a troll. They are actually accusing Eoghan of being David with plenty of upvotes and downvoting Eoghan and all he seems to be saying is maybe they need to be a bit careful on some of the harsher comments. He isn't disagreeing with most of the basic premises there, just the way its being expressed by some people, some of the time.It kind of looks like they will push Eoghan out of that sphere (for being a mangina nazi WTF??). That makes them look more like a little bunch of thugs than supportive of mens rights issues which they claim to be. On a bright note, the more they do that the faster obscurity looms.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Haloinshreds: over on another thread there is a discussion about how it is so unfair! that women! dare demand equal rights! and have agencies of the government help them! if we tried we would be mocked! (which ignores the often vicious backlash women got for demanding those rights…)The point I keep making is "um hello-y'all can organize too." However, that is not what they want to hear. So since they refuse to do anything but complain, why should they move beyond obscurity?

John Dias
9 years ago

>In the same thread on the Spearhead, I made a plea for a more cautious rhetorical approach right here, and as of this writing my comment got 7 up votes and zero down votes.What does this tell you? It tells you that people on the Spearhead, and throughout the men's movement, are super-sensitive to any suggestion that they silence themselves in order to avoid offending those who mock them, shame them, culturally marginalize them and attempt to use the laws of the State to disempower them. But when I come along in that same thread, and make an argument that it is in their interest to foster a civil atmosphere — their interest — that resonates with them and nobody takes it in a hostile way, because with my comment the goal is not to appease one's opponents but rather to shore up the perceived value of one's own discussion community.Non-feminists don't react very kindly to any calls to temper their own voices in order to appease feminists. To them that is offensive.

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>Yes Elizabeth I saw that thread. Its really strange because there is absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of men genuinely hurting over divorces, access issues etc but if they go looking for help from MRA/MGTOW movements, the 'help' they get seem seems to consist largely of a bunch of people out whining each other rather than tangible assistance.ie. 'the systems against you, you are screwed so suck it up and hate women bitches who created this' rather than 'that sucks but you can get legal assistance here for free (and it DOES exist) and health assistance here etc etc There may be MRAs that provide that kind of assistance but they sure don't rate well on search enginesI personally don't get the concept of ongoing hatred. Its like inviting the people you can't stand to live under your skin every minute of everyday and volunteering to devote a bunch of your energy that you could be using for fun things to the people you can't stand. Sort of like asking a bunch of scabies in to take residence in your body.

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>John Dias:How typical. If your opinion disagrees with that of a feminist ideologue, she will chalk it up to your being afflicted with mental illness. Thou shalt not disagree! How now? Do you mean to say that someone's sanity has been questioned? Egads! Such an act is unprecedented in the history of internet! Pardon me whilst I clutch my pearls and faint…

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Someone get the smelling salts. Halo-it is strange because there could really be an effective change for those kinds of problems if men did try. They have a reason to complain but seem to assume that no one cares or that the very concept of standing up for one's own self with other people is anathema. Found the smelling salts! Hold still Bathrobe.

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>John Dias said'In the same thread on the Spearhead, I made a plea for a more cautious rhetorical approach right here, and as of this writing my comment got 7 up votes and zero down votes.'Ok I'll fess up. One of those was mine

richard
9 years ago

>@ haloinshredsIt depends upon what you consider constructive. Most of the "constructive" comments seem more like concern trolling. I don't think toning down rhetoric will make any difference in how MRA's are treated. We will all be slandered as women haters regardless of whether we say "please" or "fuck you" it doesn't matter. Also, it doesn't seem to me that feminists tone down their rhetoric when addressing us so why shoud we do what our enemies will not?Random Brother

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>@Random BrotherYou are not seriously considering Eoghan to be a mangina nazi or a 'concern troll' are you? If you look at some of the things that he posted even on this site – that would be a huge stretch. And if you are – is he a mangina nazi or a concern troll and how do you define those terms? Eoghan (from what I saw of his posts) appeared to be someone who was genuinely hurting and expressing that in an extremely angry fashion – angry to the point that David banned him. mangina? concern troll? Can not see it sorry. If you can I would be interested as to how you (or the Speahead) came to that conclusion.

richard
9 years ago

>@ haloinshredsNo, I don't believe Eoghan is a mangina nazi, nor a concern troll. I think the guys at Spearhead jumped the gun on that one with him. However, what he would like, kinder dialogue, is unlikely to happen. The Spearhead, moreso than other sites is kind of a rough place and if you do go against the grain you have to have thick skin and near flawless logic. I don't see anything wrong with that as far as the site goes. In fact most ideas that go against the grain are reflexively shot down as men have heard them all before and are not sympathetic to feminist and feminist leaning arguments. Just as David and his ilk are not sympathetic to MRA's arguments, going as for as placing Warren Farrell on the boobs list. (A bit of a digression here, but if Warren Farrell is on the boob list, as I've said before, there is no hope for compromise with feminsts. Warren Farrell is as feminist an MRA as you can come across, if that makes any sense.) To say that tempering the language is constructive will often piss men off because it is viewed as another way to silence and control men. Another minor digression: MRA'S don't need to mold themselves into some non offensive, smiling, dancing, never ever considering violence, versions of the feminists manginas to grovel for their rights. People should know that men are angry about their treatment in society and men should speak plainly about it.Random Brother

John Dias
9 years ago

>Elizabeth wrote:"The point I keep making is 'um hello-y'all can organize too.' However, that is not what they want to hear. So since they refuse to do anything but complain, why should they move beyond obscurity?"What we have here is the "us-vs-them" mentality. Don't now presume to represent a belief system that promotes a belief in equality, not with that perspective.Yes, many men are too unconcerned with the vulnerability of their fellow men. That is changing, however, with the rise of the men's rights movement. It takes a so-called "man-splainer" to express the need before the great masses address the need.

Kave
9 years ago

>Near flawless logic?Try a cult like belief system random brother.

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>@Random Brother Well at least we both agree that Eoghan is not likely to be a mangina nazi or a concerned troll:) The paradox is (as I see it personally) that Eoghan is a man's voice too and yet he is being silenced by the Spearhead who will brook no silencing of men (unless they are mangina nazis or concerned trolls plus some categories I am unaware of) I obviously cannot speak for Eoghan (and David to be fair I think you should give him a temporary reprieve from the ban to respond to any of the comments here given you did a blog featuring him as the subject matter)The problem being that Eoghan (from his posts here I have read) would seem to be the kind of man you are looking for at the Spearhead but is now likely to just not bother. He expressed an opinion, was accused of being David, a mangina,a nazi, a concerned troll but he seems to be (again I don't know him and can only judge from his comments) a hurting very angry man that could benefit from a supportive mens rights movement. One that cared about hurting, very angry men. Instead he has been crucified for expressing a slightly more moderate view. I can't speak for why Warren Farrell is on David's roll (you would have to ask him) however he has made some highly controversial comments about incest (as in normalising family sex) (and the positves of incest) which may explain that. Ask David. (there is an interview WF gave penthouse that youcould take as a starting point if you are unfamiliar – also he hasn't identified as a feminst for a very long time – his last involvement with NOW was 1974ish) Back to the subject at hand, if Eoghan is being crucified by elements at the Spearhead, then who do you actually expect to join up? There was someone who posted over there who mentioned it was hard getting the 18-35 (25?) demographic on board, given Eoghan's treatment is this a suprise RB?

John Dias
9 years ago

>@haloinshreds:"[Warren Farrell] has made some highly controversial comments about incest (as in normalizing family sex) (and the positives of incest) which may explain that."The only thing I am aware of that comes close to what you have described is a newspaper interview in which Farrell used the phrase "gentle caressing" by a parent to a child and the newspaper made a misprint and wrote "genital caressing." Do you have any real evidence for more than this?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>John, what you've just said is an example of spin — not your spin, but the spin of whoever told you that story. This was not the case of one carelessly transcribed phrase. Farrell was working on a book on incest in the 1970s, and gave a detailed interview to Penthouse in which he used the phrase "genital caressing" and made a number of other highly disturbing remarks about the "positive" side of incest. Here is a link to a transcript of the interview; if you doubt the transcript because of the source, note that there are links to high-resolution jpgs of the original Penthouse article as well.http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htmFarrell has attempted to deny that he said these things, but if Penthouse was grossly misquoting him on such a controversial subject, he could have sued them for libel. He never did.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Also: Here's the full quote with the "genitally caressing" line. "First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally 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. My book should at least begin the exploration."Even if you replace "genitally" with "gently," it's still a creepy quote, especially in the context of an interview about incest.

richard
9 years ago

>@ DavidSo Farrell denies it and you believe he's lying because?Random Brother

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>richard, I believe the only part of the quotes he has directly denied is the word "genitally." (And as I noted above, even if he is telling the truth about this, and the correct word is "gently," the quote is still creepy, as are the rest of the quotes in the Penthouse article.) Here's an email he sent around attacking the Liz Library for posting the Penthouse interview. You would think if he had been grossly misrepresented by Penthouse, a major national publication, he would have taken it up with them at the time. http://www.florida-family-lawyers.com/trishwilson/farrell2.html

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>Random Brother & John DiasI only brought the Warren Farrell thing up cos RB did however he (WF) is also on record supporting the idea a little girl (ie one not even old enough to menstruate) should not be told to tell the truth/testify as she is direct competition with her mother as the 'other woman' (and alternate sexual partner). He saw it as more traumatic to do this than admit to child sexual abuse. I find that profoundly creepy and factually incorrect. As a 10 year old how do you stop that shit from happening if you can't speak up? (and no I didn't suffer that but as a mother find it just the biggest load of shit I have read in a very long time)Random Brother – Also could you advise if there is a place for Eoghan @ the Spearhead or anywhere? Where do the eoghan's of the world go and who will help them?

John Dias
9 years ago

>Well, either Farrell was smeared even worse than I thought, or that was a creepy interview. I have to say that all the books that I've read from him, and when I've seen him speak in person, nothing he said remotely approaches what Penthouse magazine was attributing to him here. Seems to me like someone is trying to discount his socially legitimate views with a cheap shot. But I'm glad I got a little more information now that I didn't have before, at least about what he's accused of saying.

richard
9 years ago

>@ DavidHe claims he didn't say it Penthouse claims he did and Trish Wilson, who was not there during the incident claims Mr. Farrell did based on the fact she owns the Penthouse issue. How is that conclusive proof of anything?Perhaps the ethical standards of Penthouse are higher than I thought but this seems like bullshit. As for why he didn't sue, without an audio transcript how could he prove anything? It's again his word vs. their word. Lastly, I found it darkly ironic that the proof for a feminist about an MRA's alleged pro incest stance is Penthouse magazine.Random Brother

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>Seems to me like someone is trying to discount his socially legitimate views with a cheap shotReally? They went back in time and got Penthouse to make up all that stuff about him? Again, if Penthouse did indeed smear him and made up the quotes, he could have sued them for libel and won. But if you're saying that someone is now "smearing" him by simply reporting the creepy stuff he said at one time, how exactly does that count as smearing? How does quoting someone's views count as a cheap shot? No one is saying he still holds these views. But I honestly can't trust the judgement of someone who convinced himself that incest could "magnifies the beauty of the relationship" in a family. Again, the only portion of that interview I've seen Farrell deny is that one word, "genitally." In that email I quoted, he tried to make it sound like that one quote was all he said. His unwillingness to deal with this issue frankly seriously undermines his credibility, I think. John, can you honestly say this interview doesn't make you question Farrell's judgement even a little bit?

haloinshreds
9 years ago

>Random Brother'Lastly, I found it darkly ironic that the proof for a feminist about an MRA's alleged pro incest stance is Penthouse magazine.'Actually I found it pretty ironic that someone you personally alleged was a feminist would be doing an interview for Penthouse magazine.But back to the issue at hand. What about Eoghan? It rather bizzarely seems that me as a feminist cares more about him than any of the the anti feminist critics on this site. I mean he is out there as a human being having been banned from Manboobz and the Spearhead is touting him as a mangina nazi concerned troll. (Actually that is an acheivement in itself) No-one seems to give a flying fuck but most of all no-one from the manosphere give a toss. And this is supposed to be the supportive mens rights movements? Is Eoghan not a man? Isn't he pretty enough for you guys?

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>richard, most journalists I know tape record their interviews. I certainly do. My guess is that he didn't sue them because, well, when it came out he did in fact hold those views. And my guess is that he didn't sue later because 1) he sort of hoped every one would forget about the interview and 2) he knew they had him on tape saying all that. What would be the motivation for the author of the Penthouse article to make up quotes? Farrell has acknowledged that he was indeed working on a book on incest for many years. He agreed to an interview with Penthouse to publicize the book he was (at the time) hoping to publish soon afterwards. If the interview had misrepresented his planned book, wouldn't he have spoken up at the time? He was a prominent author; he would have had no trouble at all making his case against Penthouse in the media.

richard
9 years ago

>@ haloinshredsIf Mr. Farrell said that I agree with him being on the boob list, but I tend to be very skeptical dealing with all things feminist.As for where someone like Eoghan would go, honestly there aren't a lot of places for people such as he, or I for that matter who are pro MRA, but have issues with the movement, if of course he has issues. Right now the MRM isn't big enough nor strong enough to start splintering, so there are some things that I tolerate though I don't care for.Random Brother

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>halo, FWIW, Farrell was a feminist, at least in the early 70s, and he was briefly on the board of the NYC chapter of NOW, something he loves to mention, usually wording it in such a way that it sounds like he was on the board of the national NOW organization instead of just one local chapter. I don't know if he still considered himself a feminist in 1977 when he gave the interview.

richard
9 years ago

>@ DavidWell, when I hear the tape, I'll certainly agree with your point of view. Until then it's just he said she said. As for motivation, I have no idea, maybe the interviewer was some deluded white knight. Again without hearing the audio tape we won't know. Random Brother

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>John-that is not the case. The fact is that if there are issues that men care about that they want legal redress on (and I can think of two), then they need to get organized to get it fixed.NOT just complain endlessly about it or expect women to just suddenly drop what they have been trying to do and work on the problems that men have.We will work with you (if you ask politely) but we are not going to do your work.

Yohan
9 years ago

>David: The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. His mild and in fact quite sensible suggestions have not gone over well with you too, because you banned him from your blog.You know David, if somebody is posting something really critical on a feminist blog, like to calm down and to consider more the men, the user would be banned and the postings immediately deleted.However forums into men's rights are differently operating from feminist blogs. They all are trying, less or more friendly, to argue with Eoghan.He tried somehow to find some understandings for men when posting on your blog, and now he tries to find some understandings for women, while posting on Spearhead.Well, I wish him good luck… somehow time-waste…

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"John, can you honestly say this interview doesn't make you question Farrell's judgement even a little bit?"Yes, sure it makes me question his judgment (from that point in time). But you did say this:"No one is saying he still holds these views."So if it's true that he said such things — but later changed his mind — then none of it is an indictment of what he stands for in his subsequent career. Like I said, everything that I've read from him and heard from him in person is perfectly acceptable to me.Can't Warren Farrell's main body of work be what defines him? If not, then to me that's the cheap shot — an easy way to dismiss a man's entire legitimate body of work in one stroke, without the need to make a real argument against it. It's as if someone is saying that the true, "sinister" motive behind Farrell's body of work stems from the nature of his creepy comments from way back in yesteryear. I say allow the man some redemption if he wants to define what he stands for; it's been decades now and I'm proud of what I've read from him.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth:"We will work with you (if you ask politely) but we are not going to do your work."Elizabeth, would you please join me in an effort to expand access by male victims to safe houses by domestic violence service providers? Also, in light of the fact that federal law in the Violence Against Women Act prohibits the use of STOP grants to programs that would benefit male and female victims equally, and instead must benefit female victims primarily, would you then please join me in an effort to challenge such sections of that law? Would you please join me in an effort to prosecute and hold accountable all perpetrators of domestic violence *as perpetrators* and not victims — whether female or male — by overturning primary aggressor laws that exempt female perpetrators from arrest?

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>What kind of activism are you referring to specifically John?Legal and ethical restraints bind most of my action but I am definitely willing to work on expanding access and information regarding the issue of domestic violence and male victims thereof.

1 2 3