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
John Dias
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth:"What kind of activism are you referring to specifically John?"I emphasize again that I am specifically asking for advocacy to achieve at least one or more of the following:a. Safe house shelters for male DV victims (not just hotel vouchers); and active outreach by such shelters to male victims (regardless of the gender of the male victim, i.e. straight males allowed)b. Challenge VAWA to permit STOP grants even when the grant beneficiary's purpose is not to benefit women "primarily."c. Challenge primary aggressor statutes that exempt one perpetrator of a mutually violent couple while arresting the other.You can do this in one or more of the following ways:1. Online advocacyI.e. making a conscious effort to speak out for the above goals in blogs, forums, comments sections of major media news Web sites.2. Gathering resourcesGather information about resources that both male and victims of partner violence can utilize, such as which DV service providers provide which services and to which sex (including those that make no sexual distinction in the provision of such services). Donate to groups that are promoting an evidence-based and non-ideological approach to measuring DV and treating DV offenders (including forming viable alternatives to the Duluth Model). Also, raise or donate money or merchandise to organizations that pursue this goal in research and academia, such as the California Alliance for Families and Children, the Family Violence Treatment and Education Association or the International Family Aggression Society.3. Support lobbying efforts in the legislature on behalf of both male and female victimsGroups that employ lobbyists and/or attorneys, and are advocating in legislatures and/or the courts to make domestic violence laws gender neutral, should be supported financially and/or with in-person citizen lobbying in the halls of the legislature. These include Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, Fathers & Families, and the National Coalition For Men (not that despite the words "men" and "fathers" in two of the aforementioned groups, such groups are not advocating for male exclusivity in policy).—————————-Of course, there are other avenues of activism to dismantle policies that privilege one sex while obligating the other, for example advocating for more balanced levels of health research funding for both sexes, promoting a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 child custody in divorce, speaking out against the legitimacy of both male and female genital mutilation, and others.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>John, you're asking for her to join you on your terms. What if feminists simply disagree with you on, for example, primary aggressor laws? They do not simply mean "arrest the man." A significant percentage of women are arrested under them as well. Primary aggressor laws may not be perfect, but it makes more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator. I would also find it difficult to work with you on these or any issues because of your support for patriarchy. (I would also have trouble working with feminists who believe in matriarchy.)

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>I literally can do one of those things and that is something I already do here at work (the information sharing…although I could do more.)Everything else I am ethically and legally constrained from doing.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>And the state of Arizona already has laws that protect men's rights when it comes to equal access to courts for protective orders.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"[Primary aggressor laws] make more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator."If two parties are mutually violent, then there are two victims. Hence it's unjust to give one a pass. What is the other one supposed to do, just lie there and take it? Aren't offenders supposed to be prosecuted? If not, then what checks are there against their violence if even the state won't arrest them, and this is statutorially enshrined in law?"John, you're asking for her to join you on your terms."My terms are the abandonment of sexual privilege in law, namely equality, and this was the term that she invoked earlier.

John Dias
9 years ago

>I assume that you're in Arizona. The state of Arizona goes so far as to prohibit couples counseling when one or both members of a couple are ordered to attend a program for DV offenders. It therefore encourages family and relationship breakup rather than preserving intact families. This yanks the rug of support (namely private family support) out from under many couples' feet and leaves them isolated and broken. Such policies must be challenged.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>You're reading me selectively here; you highlighted the word "victim" yet you ignored the qualifying statement before it. Yes, in some cases both partners are equally violent. In some cases one of the partners is violent only in the sense that they were defending themselves. Police officers can and do arrest both partners if it appears the abuse was mutual, even with "primary aggressor" laws in place.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth:"I literally can do one of those things and that is something I already do here at work (the information sharing…although I could do more.)"If there was any guide to DV services that specifically asks the service providers how they serve male victims (not just "whether" they do, but rather "how," since they could simply say that they offer "services" to male perpetrators and thus they're somehow helping males "equally"). The key term is male victims. I don't think that such service providers are even asked specifically to detail "how" they help male victims; at best it's just a matter of "whether."

John Dias
9 years ago

>David, in my state, California (which has a primary aggressor law in place, and in fact actually has a more gender-discriminatory form known as the "dominant aggressor" law), 80% of arrestees for DV are males. This despite the fact that over 30 years of research shows that women attack their male partners with equal or higher frequency as men attack their female partners. If you attack someone (not just defend or evade, but attack) — especially if you initiate the attack — then you should be challenged on that regardless of whether the victim is capable of retaliating with an even more potent attack.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"You're reading me selectively here; you highlighted the word 'victim' yet you ignored the qualifying statement before it."And here's the statement, along with my highlight:"[Primary aggressor laws] make more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator."Why call one perpetrator a "victim" if both were perpetrating? If there is indeed no sexual discrimination, then there is no need for the primary aggressor law itself! Such a law by its nature is unequal and unjust because it permits the officer to leave one perpetrator even if that perpetrator started a conflict, and even if that perpetrator caused identical injuries to those sustained by the other partner. The law simply is unjust. It flies in the face of equality.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"I would also find it difficult to work with you on these or any issues because of your support for patriarchy. (I would also have trouble working with feminists who believe in matriarchy.)"I support the right of people to voluntarily live under whatever authority relationships that they select. It is no business of the government to intervene. Also, my advocacy for people to exercise autonomy over their lives is being used by you as the justification to maintain injustice and inequality, and ironically all under the pretext that this is somehow fighting against injustice and inequality.Just state it plainly, David. You wouldn't help a male victim of any of these policies because doing so is an option that is precluded by your loyalty to feminist ideology. I mean, seriously, you would oppose advocating for male victims to have improved access to safehouses merely because my political and cultural values somehow taint the whole effort? What did you think, that I would institute patriarchy indoctrination curricula within the safe house as a matter of policy? Why can't you simply help male victims and put aside your political differences in the formation of alliances?

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>John, are you expecting a judge to sentence a victim of a criminal offense to a counseling program?Because that is what you suggest. Yes, I support expanding both public awareness of males being the victim of domestic violence, to both prevent it and help those currently in such situations leave those circumstances. But I will not, nor shall I ever countenance any requirement of a victim of a crime to do a program such as you mention.

David Futrelle
9 years ago

>John: Just state it plainly, David. You wouldn't help a male victim of any of these policies because doing so is an option that is precluded by your loyalty to feminist ideology. Well, no, I won't state that because it's not true.Let me expand what I said before: I would find it hard to work with you because: I disagree with your ultimate goals/vision of a just society (patriarchy). I disagree with you in general about Men's Rights, feminism, and who knows what else. I disagree with you that misandry is a bigger problem than misogyny. I disagree with your choice of allies. I disagree with you on your analysis of what is wrong with DV laws. And I disagree with you because you say things like what I quoted above. This is a partial list. There are lots of important issues out there to work on. As an intermittent activist, I've done work on issues that help mostly men (police brutality and torture), help mostly women (abortion rights), help both equally. (Not that police brutality doesn't affect women or abortion rights don't affect men.) In politics you can't always be picky about allies, but even aside from our various disagreements on the issues, I would find it hard to work with someone who routinely misrepresents what I believe, as you've done above.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth:"John, are you expecting a judge to sentence a victim of a criminal offense to a counseling program?"Male victims who are reframed as perpetrators have to endure exactly that scenario, especially as a result of primary aggressor laws. I hope that your understanding of the term "criminal offense" extends beyond the realm of violations of the law, and hopefully includes moral crimes such as partner violence perpetration that enjoys legal impunity.What I actually SAID earlier was that if a perpetrator is mandated by law or by a judge to attend a program for DV offenders, then he should not be penalized if he and his wife or cohabiting female partner want to mutually participate in couples counseling. Under Arizona law, this is prohibited under the pretext that a DV offender would somehow manipulate or otherwise dominate the counseling session, and so effectively the existing statute coerces or at least influences couples toward breaking up rather than strengthening and healing their relationship. That statutory hostility to intact families is what must be challenged in my opinion.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@David Futrelle:"I would find it hard to work with someone who routinely misrepresents what I believe…"Welcome to my world.

cactuar-tamer
9 years ago

>John Dias: David, in my state, California (which has a primary aggressor law in place, and in fact actually has a more gender-discriminatory form known as the "dominant aggressor" law), 80% of arrestees for DV are males. This despite the fact that over 30 years of research shows that women attack their male partners with equal or higher frequency as men attack their female partners. If you attack someone (not just defend or evade, but attack) — especially if you initiate the attack — then you should be challenged on that regardless of whether the victim is capable of retaliating with an even more potent attack. The point people are trying to make about the 'Dominant Aggressor' laws, and the point you keep glossing over, is that, for good reason, they aren't designed to take who was the first aggressor into consideration, and thus, 'who started it,' is irrelevant, only who is the 'dominant' aggressor. Which is how it should be, I think.Would taking gender out of it help? I'm female, but I can bench press more than many of my friends weigh. Suppose I were to get into an argument with one of these friends. During the course of the argument, she slaps me across the face, and I respond by punching her as hard as I can and maybe doing some serious damage, breaking her nose or something. The police show up. According to a 'Dominant' aggressor law, they would arrest me and only cite her. Is that wrong? If so, why? There's no excuse for disproportionate retribution. Against someone weaker than me I have absolutely zero justification to use my superior size and strength to deal them retributive damage far out of proportion to what I suffered. In fact, legally, there's no excuse for retribution at all. Self defense is just that, defense. It doesn't extend to include 'getting someone back' that's not legally excusable. And yes, I do believe that should go for both genders.I will agree wholeheartedly that this out not to be assumed, but ought to be ascertained by looking at the individual incident, that if personal gender biases are preventing police from judging fairly, we should work against that, and that if the woman is indeed the dominant (dominant, not first,) aggressor, then she ought to be arrested and not the man. That's fairness and common sense, but that's not what you're advocating.

Fujii System
9 years ago

>"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. "In my only post on The Spearhead thus far, I posted a comment refuting their assertion that Feminism was the cause of men's problems in Japan. Not only was that comment not downvoted, it ended up getting greatly upvoted.http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/29/feminism-in-china/#comment-61434Of course, posters here can feel free to twist and characterize my comment as "misogynist" if they want to demonstrate a huge ignorance of Japanese culture and history. But I digress.I am not an MRA, and I only read the Spearhead and sometimes Roissy out of amusement. I find some articles to be interesting and some articles to be downright hilarious on the lunatic fringe. But one thing that I do like in my perusal of the comments there is that if you disagree with a viewpoint and challenge it with rational explanation, your arguments will be addressed reasonably thoughtfully, even if you are downvoted. That is a lot better than pretty much every feminist site that I have seen.And that also makes The Spearhead a whole lot better than this site, which seems to aspire to be the Iraqi Information Minister of Feminism.

Yohan
9 years ago

>http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/29/feminism-in-china/#comment-61434@fujii systemThanks for pointing to this interesting thread on Spearhead. Living in Japan since over 35 years, I agree with your comment. Feminism is not a major problem for Japanese men and the legal situation is in no way against men like it is in some Western countries.I heard the first time about the existence of this website called Spearhead from David Futrelle. I think, it's a good interesting website, with a lot of discussion going on. If you like and agree to all of those topics and comments is another matter. For sure, what I have seen, Spearhead is not a 'crazy' website.http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/27/should-men-tame-their-rhetoric/Should Men Tame Their Rhetoric?Eoghan's comments mentioned in this thread of David are now also under discussion on spearhead.Sounds very fair to me.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@cactuar-tamer:"The point people are trying to make about the 'Dominant Aggressor' laws, and the point you keep glossing over, is that, for good reason, they aren't designed to take who was the first aggressor into consideration, and thus, 'who started it,' is irrelevant, only who is the 'dominant' aggressor. Which is how it should be, I think."The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. According to the statute, the degree of force used — and indeed the existence of an injury on ONLY the physically stronger party — are considered by law to be irrelevant. The capacity to do harm is what is relevant.For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her — in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her — a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist.

Yohan
9 years ago

>cactuar-tamer said… ….. During the course of the argument, she slaps me across the face, and I respond by punching her as hard as I can and maybe doing some serious damage, breaking her nose or something. The police show up. According to a 'Dominant' aggressor law, they would arrest me and only cite her. Is that wrong? If so, why? …..In fact, legally, there's no excuse for retribution at all. Self defense is just that, defense. It doesn't extend to include 'getting someone back' that's not legally excusable. Yes, I think that's wrong and I will tell you why.The borderline between retribution and self-defense is not that clear as you are explaining it.It is not easy to decide what is self defense and when an action to defend yourself is exceeding the limits of self-defense.This has to be investigated case by case.The risk to be injured while committing a crime because of self-defense of an attacked person is ALWAYS with the aggressor and NEVER with the victim.HOW the attacked person is defending himself/herself is up to the attacked person.If an aggressor is beating a victim up, there is no rule which says the victim is obliged only to act in a passive way, like to cover the face with his/her bare hands or to run away.You have the right to defend yourself in an active way, this means hitting back as long as this aggression continues.If the aggressor – who was beating you in the face – suffers a broken nose in return, that's the risk of the aggressor and should be considered to be legal self-defense, just my opinion.It's different however, if somebody spits into your face and you respond with a handgun firing a live bullet into the face of the aggressor in return. That's clearly exceeding the right of self-defense.If you cover your face with a mask and you enter a bank with a gun because you need urgently cash and you are fired on by security, that's another matter.

Yohan
9 years ago

>John Dias says … If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. I cannot blame the cops either. It is difficult for some ordinary people, this includes policemen, to make a legally correct decision within a few minutes after being called in for help.Western feminist DV-laws in connection of self-defense are highly complicated and full of legal loopholes – even experienced judges need often many hours to find out what is wrong and what is right.In some Western countries a woman might – legally correct – even kill her SLEEPING husband by using a gun, tries to remove his body with her body-friends, is claiming abuse and self-defense and is walking out of the court-room as a free person proceeding with inheritage as a widow.If this is not biased justice, I don't know what this is…

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>John, I think you would have to show how it is that a woman having a bruise is somehow worse then a man who has blood streaming from his temple.The officer is looking at who is the dominate aggressor and yes, that can certainly be the woman. In your little scenario "What happened?" "She hit me with this glass bottle and I hit her back to get her to stop."She gets booked. It is clear who is the primary aggressor.Oh and about the Arizona law that prohibits it? It is part of the sentence for a criminal defendant. And since there are problems with one partner using these sessions to harm the victim, why would anyone thing this is a great idea to even let them in?

cactuar-tamer
9 years ago

>@ John Dias. Ok, I'm going to answer in two parts, first to the issue of whether the law says what you say it does…After reading through a list of such laws, I think your statement,The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. ,is factually incorrect. Let's just take my home state statute as an example. South Carolina law says:——————–If a law enforcement officer receives conflicting complaints of domestic or family violence from two or more household members involving an incident of domestic or family violence, the officer shall evaluate each complaint separately to determine who was the primary aggressor. If the officer determines that one person was the primary physical aggressor, the officer must not arrest the other person accused of having committed domestic or family violence. In determining whether a person is the primary aggressor, the officer must consider:*prior complaints of domestic or family violence;*the relative severity of the injuries inflicted on each person, taking into account injuries alleged which may not be easily visible at the time of the investigation;*the likelihood of future injury to each person;*whether one of the persons acted in self-defense; and*household member accounts regarding the history of domestic violence.———————–It is not at all clear from the law that the statute is about what the dominant aggressor 'IS' instead of what has been '[DONE]' by the parties involved. Now as to the following,For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her — in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her — a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.Again, not so. Neither this law or the other state statues "mandate" that the police *ignore* injuries to the male party. Nor do they have anything do to with the 'capacity.' The closest the statute comes to that is the third bullet point, concerning the likelihood of future injury. Not only is this just one out of five points that the officer is required to take into consideration, there is nothing that would keep an objective observer from determining the man was in more danger of future injury, should that be the case. The discrimination is not written into the law.

cactuar-tamer
9 years ago

>This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!If you have a link to that study, I'd like to see it. Though, I'll accept it provisionally, because your description seems plausible enough. And if this is the case, then that is a real and serious problem. It is unfortunately the sort of problem that has nothing to do with the law and cannot be fixed by legislation, but I agree that something should be pro-actively done in the hearts-and-minds department to correct it. And perhaps correcting the erroneous percetpion/expectation of excess toughness in men will simultaneously correct the erroneous percetption/expectation of excess weakness in women, so everyone wins! I think this is a good point, but if you were making it before, it was hard to tell between all the mention about how women 'initiate' DV more frequently. If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist. Again, as the laws are written this seems to be an inaccurate description, of cause if not of consequence. I would find it plausible that this effect could be caused by individual bias in the humans executing the law, but I think it is incorrect (in the specific case of 'Dominant Aggressor' statutes, as I have read them) to say that the discrimination is written into the law.

cactuar-tamer
9 years ago

>Yohan, I completely agree it ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis. It is a pretty sticky issue. I'm willing to concede it's not quite as clear-cut or easy to determine as I made it out to be, but I also think the line is a great deal more clearly defined than you seem to think it is.I think there's a broad field before you get to your gun example that would also fall under disproportionate retribution.

Steve
9 years ago

>The Spearhead is full of crazies. Look at the recent postings like this one. Those guys believe all sorts of tin foil hat nonsense. Whether it's that women are out to get them or that the voices in their heads are the Rockefellers plotting feminism, it's all the same.

Yohan
9 years ago

>What is wrong with this thread on Spearhead?Many American men (maybe women too?) like these conspiracy theories, and there are entire forums full only with this kind of political stuff.In some forums, like our one (Niceguy-Forum) we made a sector called 'Hidden from View' with disclaimer and our members are free to post their conspiracy stuff into this section. ONLY into this section! If posted somewhere else, moderators will move such stuff quickly where it should be.Unfortunately SPEARHEAD is not a forum, but a blog.I think, they should change the software.Forums are easier to manage by creating sections. There are many users on Spearhead showing up with many different topics and plenty of comments.There are many reasonable comments on Spearhead and to call their website full of crazies is by far over the top.(btw, I do not comment on Spearhead, never signed up there and found their webpage only because of David Futrelle's threads and links complaining about upvoting…)

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

>Eoghan's comments mentioned in this thread of David are now also under discussion on spearhead.Sounds very fair to me.And Eoghan's first and downvoted into obscurity post starts off with:"Thats a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying…"I dunno, poetic justice, perhaps?

John Dias
9 years ago

>@cactuar-tamer:Regarding primary aggressor laws, you shouldn't assume that they're uniform in all states. Here's a rundown on predominant aggressor policies on a state-by-state basis. Also, on DV laws in general, here's a ranking of states with the worst civil rights abuses from domestic violence laws. Alaska is rated as the most dangerous state for men.

Lydia
9 years ago

>@ Fujii System: Well, as this was your first comment there, I can imagine they just wanted to give you a nice start. Also, you weren't criticising their movement directly, called Japanese feminism "odd" and included a quote from an unhappy manless woman. However, "Of course, posters here can feel free to twist and characterize my comment as "misogynist" if they want to demonstrate a huge ignorance of Japanese culture and history."I won't call your post misogynist, because you are not to blame for the Japanese culture, and so far, no one else here did, either. I don't know which feminist sites you've visited so far, but maybe the reason many "arguments" are shouted down on feminist sites is because they don't actually deal with the issues themselves but instead revolve around the question why FEMINism (femina = woman, that's latin, by the way (yeah, my Latin is better than my Japanese, sorry, but then again, I'm from Europe)) doesn't primarily care about men's rights. Of course, you can blame feminism for that, but that would be like blaming Anti-AIDS activists for not caring about breast cancer. Feminism IS just a lobby group, no doubt about that, but then again, what's wrong with lobby groups? Men can have their own lobby group aswell, that's why I actually see a "Men's Rights Movement" as a good thing, but I guess what most commenters here bugs about said movement is that it doesn't really take action against ACTUAL male discrimination (which is more often than never perpetrated by men themselves) but instead blames feminism for personal issues, which is exactly what you criticised. I wish, and I'm certainly not on my own with that, that one day I could identify as an MRA myself, when the movement has finally stopped its bitter and whiny women-blaming and starts working alongside with feminism. (That's another thing about this movement, that it perceives itself to be anti-feminist. It's not, a true men's rights movement would actually just be the male counterpart to feminism, not its enemy.)@ Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)

Lydia
9 years ago

>By the way, sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add something.From a definition of "MRA" from the Urban dictionary:"An MRA would never support the rights of those men who truly are at a disadvantage in our society: homosexual and black men. Instead, he leaves campaigning for LGBT rights and minorities' rights to the "evil evil cunt bull dykes" aka feminists."http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)"—LydiaYou're not really sorry. You are just a misandrist.It's no wonder why people become anti-feminist. With a shitty, combative attitude like that, you have a lot to learn. Perhaps you refuse to.

Steve
9 years ago

>@YohanCan't you see what's wrong with that thread? It's a pissing contest between misogynists. I will summarize the thread for you:Conspiracy Theorists: Women are brainless bimbos who were too stupid to listen to white male Christians so I'm a bigger misogynist than you.Non Conspiracy Theorists: You conspiracy nuts don't blame women enough. They're diabolical man hating machines. I'm a bigger misogynist than you.Both sides are extremely paranoid. They just disagree about how to channel that paranoia, so it ends up as secret conspiracies vs. demonic women.@LydiaThe MRAs may pretend to support the rights of black men and homosexuals. They do that by making up stories about how the KKK was really run by women so both white men and black men were really oppressed by women.

Yohan
9 years ago

> Steve said… @YohanCan't you see what's wrong with that thread? It's a pissing contest between misogynists.Conspiracy TheoristsNon Conspiracy TheoristsWhat has this to do with 'misogynists'?Conspiracy theories, you can find anywhere on the internet, one time it's about the Christians, next time about the Jews, it's about the Chinese or Americans, about Osama and Bush, about the black people born in USA and about Latino immigrants, about the pharma industry or about drilling for petroleum, it's about all and everything and also about women.The only and easy way if you do not like that stuff, don't read it. – But in USA conspiracy theories are well-known popular nonsense talk and many people like them.Some forums, not only MRA-forums, offer a special sector where members are allowed to post their 'conspiracy theories'. This helps to keep such stuff away from regular postings. Unfortunately Spearhead is like a blog and not a forum. Regular postings and conspiracy theories are mixed up.

Yohan
9 years ago

>Lydia says: From a definition of "MRA" from the Urban dictionary:"An MRA would never support the rights of those men who truly are at a disadvantage in our society: homosexual and black men. MRAs support of course men's rights, regardless if the man is a black man or Asian man or mixed race man…Who is claiming such a nonsense, that MRAs are only white American people?MRAs are now everywhere worldwide, any race, any language etc.—–I rarely meet homosexuals in the MR-movement. I don't think they are much interested. These people enjoy a totally different life-style. – Most problems which make a typical man's horror story do not exist for them.They use different forums for communication among themselves.They do not disturb me at all, and I do not disturb them.

belledame222
9 years ago

>Dude. I wonder if Eowhosis is going to get the full Trotsky treatment. I have an axe, but I don't support its usage for such purposes…

richard
9 years ago

>@ LydiaLydia said: "@ Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)"If you and feminut nation hate this "womnyn hating" "rape culture" "patriarchy" society so much, why don't you go back to your the insides of your daddies? That is if you can figure which one of the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night actaully is your dad. I'm sure he has some spare room in his nutsack for some useless trash.Patiently waits for David to "girlsplain" why Lydia's post is of course acceptable, but the MRA's post, is, of course, not.Random Brother

Lydia
9 years ago

>@ Yohan: Everywhere? LOL. You wish. I know you say that quite a lot here on this site, that men supposedly wake up and notice the evil evil treatment they've received since the start of the feminist movement (and before the feminist movement, and during the French Revolution, and during the Renaissance era, and during the Medieval times, and in ancient Rome, and long before that, – serously, haven't men even been feeling discriminated against by women when there was no such thing as "men" and "women" yet? There are just men that ALWAYS feel discriminated, even if they're just about to mistreat a woman for being so "seductively feminine".) but seriously, you are not part of a big movement, you are just a member of a whiny, self-pitying group that gets nothing done even though there's loads that has to be done. You keep talking about the supposed mistreatment of men when in reality you just can't accept that women nowadays don't automatically treat you like a god just because you're male. Respect has to be earned, and if people don't show you any respect, you're doing something wrong. You say a lot of guys lose interest in Western women because – oh my god! – Western women actually expect men to have an equally interesting life as they lead! You remeber that girl missy that posted here? Yeah, that's what bugs guys about evil Western women: they have an attitude, they have goals in life, they have interests, and, most important, they're highly educated, and, unfortunately, they really expect that from men too. Alpha women that demand alpha men. And this "alpha" doesn't even mean "leads a big company, has money, car, etc.". It just means "I've got something to do in my life, please be on par with me". Nothing else. If you can't even live up to that, you better get yourself a dog.By the way: I get to see a lot of guys hanging out with Western women. So we can't be that horrible.@ Wytchie: A boo boo, don't cry. I don't hate ALL men, just those who expect women to treat them like a treasure while they don't have to meet any standards themselves. The reason why I CAN'T be a "misandrist" is because I know every man is different, they have something called a "personality", just like women. Of course, if you judge people by their genitals, you don't know about that.But lets get a little into your argumentation here: Just because I hurl an insult back to a guy who keeps making notoriously sexist remarks and expects women to kiss his feet because he's a man (see above in my comment) I'm a manhater? So a guy is allowed to insult and belittle WOMEN IN GENERAL and if I do the same to HIM, just him, I'm a manhater? I really wonder how much a child has to be spoilt to become such an immature, egotistic and self-centered adult like you guys. "Oooh, the feminist criticised me! She must be a manhater!" And don't even get me started on all that whining about "false rape allegations" while showing absolutely no respect for REAL rape victims…EDIT: "That is if you can figure which one of the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night actaully is your dad." Well yeah. Kinda self-explaining. Random Brother, inside my Daddy? You didn't pay much attention during your biology lesson, did you? By the way: I love my Daddy. So can't be a man-hater.

richard
9 years ago

>Damn shame. There was a minute there when John, David and even Elizabeth were having a pretty interesting adult conversation, till some feminist attention whore showed up and spoiled it.Random Brother

Lydia
9 years ago

>Heh, you're standing up for Elizabeth, Brother? Why? Because Elizabeth didn't question your manhood like me? Good girl, Liz. Don't criticise the player.Anyway: We've got a great example of misogyny vs "misandry" here going on:Random Brother: "Feminazi, femifascist, feminut! Manhater! Attention whore!"Me: Go back to your momma, you wimp.Random Brother: "…the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night…"It's a shame, Brother. Everytime you appear here, you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back. Unfortunately David decided to ban Eoghan, I actually found his posts to be far more constructive than yours, but this isn't my blog, and therefore not my decision who gets banned.

Yohan
9 years ago

> Lydia: I get to see a lot of guys hanging out with Western women. So we can't be that horrible There are various reasons why Western men do not want to have anything to do with Western women anymore. One major reason are not Western women themselves, but Western feminist laws, which are totally biased against men, especially in case of divorce.Even female politicians of your own country (my neighbouring country btw) are highly sceptical about the feminist movement and the reversed family law 2008 in Germany for the first time in German history past WWII favors men and children over women, cutting strongly down on alimony payments. Many 'Western' women you see in Germany, are not Western women, but from Eastern Europe, including the former German Democratic Republic (DDR). Interesting to mention, that Germany has near to half a million registered prostitutes taking care of men, who obviously cannot find any relationship with a female without using their wallet, not to take about freelancers. Lydia says…seriously, you are not part of a big movement, you are just a member of a whiny, self-pitying group that gets nothing done MRAs are very active in Central Europe and it is about the time.I recommend Western men to remain single while living in Western countries, save your money you earn for yourself.About 'getting nothing done', well, I did 'something' to get away from feminism,going my own way…

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>One can keep up with an adult conversation even if someone (in your opinion) shows up making a spectacle of themselves John. After all, that is what Nick always does.

John Dias
9 years ago

>@Elizabeth:"One can keep up with an adult conversation even if someone (in your opinion) shows up making a spectacle of themselves John. After all, that is what Nick always does."Huh? Are you talking to me, Elizabeth? Or are you replying to this comment by Richard?

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Yeah, sorry about that John. Mea culpa

richard
9 years ago

>@ LydiaLydia emoted: "Heh, you're standing up for Elizabeth, Brother? Why? Because Elizabeth didn't question your manhood like me? Good girl, Liz. Don't criticise the player."1. I didn't stand up for Elizabeth. I merely noted that there was a somewhat interesting post going on with her involved, which had an adult vibe, which is not the norm here.2. As for questioning my manhood and all that, a woman declaring what a man should be is akin to some white bigot declaring what a black person should be. Neither the bigot nor the woman has any idea what the fuck they are talking about. This should be a familiar situation for you as you also don't ever seem to know what the fuck you are talking about.3. It's don't HATE the player hate the game, honey.Lydia continued: "Anyway: We've got a great example of misogyny vs "misandry" here going on:Random Brother: "Feminazi, femifascist, feminut! Manhater! Attention whore!"Me: Go back to your momma, you wimp.Random Brother: "…the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night…"1. I don't recall saying femifascist. 2. Do you really think this is evidence of anything? This is your level of intelligence?! Jesus. So what? I respond rudely to people who are rude to me. If you can't deal with it go do something elese with your life. May I suggest taking a course in cooking, or kitchen cleaning or maybe sock sewing, something to give you some value, because if you have to rely on your intelligence to get by, well yikes.Lydia said: "It's a shame, Brother. Everytime you appear here, you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back."I never cry. That's for females. I merely give back what is given to us as MRA's. How would you expect MRA's to post here? Let's see, David pulls the worst quote he can find from an alleged MRA. A bunch of femhags jump in withe the "Oh teh menz are so dum an we is so purfect." And then MRA's come and insult them. And bickering ensues. Again, so what moo cow?Lydia continues: "Unfortunately David decided to ban Eoghan, I actually found his posts to be far more constructive than yours, but this isn't my blog, and therefore not my decision who gets banned."Yes, and we see how that constructive posting helped Eoghan now don't we? And as always a feminut starts screaming for banning every time she faces opposition. You know, you're right, femifascist, a word I don't believe I've used before, (thanks!) is a good word for your kind.Random Brother

richard
9 years ago

>@ ElizabethAgain, how do you expect MRA's to post here when almost every post starts out with David's snarkiness and the feminuts piling on?Random Brother

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>You guys keep posting so you answer your own question munchkin.

richard
9 years ago

>@ ElizabethWell then I'll post however I like plum puddin'Random Brother

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"I'm a manhater?"—LydiaOf course.

wytchfinde555
9 years ago

>"And don't even get me started on all that whining about "false rape allegations" . . . LydiaStop being a jackass and maybe someone will take your ranting and raving seriously.