>
 |
| 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.
.
>@ 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
>@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.
>@ 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
>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.
>Near flawless logic?Try a cult like belief system random brother.
>@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?
>@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?
>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.
>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.
>@ DavidSo Farrell denies it and you believe he's lying because?Random Brother
>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
>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?
>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.
>@ 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
>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?
>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?
>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.
>@ 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
>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.
>@ 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
>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.
>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…
>@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.
>@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?
>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.