Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that despite all the noise they make online, the Men’s Rights movement has basically no presence in the real world. The picture above is an actual photo of a men’s rights symposium at Montana State University. Here’s how the local NBC affiliate described what went down – or, more accurately, what didn’t go down:
The MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men organized a symposium to raise awareness of problems in men’s lives.
The group geared the event towards fraternity students at the college and invited speakers to talk about things like men’s rights when it comes to sexual misconduct investigations on-campus.
No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest.
You just keep telling yourself that.
From Ideologue Review, also known as FactFinder:
Two girls in luck
by ~periRick
Voice over: Two cum-hoes
Visual: Two semi-diagonal bars zip across a black background. Both bars have a perspective, 3/4 view of the women’s eyes like a typical fighting game. The one on top has mascara and eyeliner done up in a faux-asian style. The bottom one has a teardrop tattoo and has large fake lashes with ostentatious gold eyeliner.
Voice over: One feeder
Visual: Outline of the millionaire appears behind the tinted window, visible only by the orange glow of a cigarette or small cigar. In his left hand, an average square camera is visible, about the size of a normal disposable.
Voice over: Two preggos
Visual: The millionaire and window become more distant as the view quickly pans out. The panned-out areas are darker than the rest. The two eye-bars are arranged so that they are in the respective women’s bodies as they become visible. The shading lifts to reveal two heavily pregnant women. The room is about 10 meters wide, each woman on either side, and has white or greyish tile, except for the window, and a sealed metal door. Setting has a high-tech yet retro feel to it. Could be anywhere between the 80s and modern day. Both women are shackled to the floor with one clamp.
Voice over: One breeder! *Buzzes*
Visual: A small red bulb on the top of the room flashes, lighting the entire room briefly, and the shackles pop open. The two women begin waddling towards each other, gradually gaining momentum. One pulls her fist back, eying the others’ belly, as the other prepares to knee her opponent.
Voice over: Preggo Punchout!
Visual: Blood and gore splatter effect, first “Preggo” and then “Punchout!” Everything fades to black except title, as blood and gore smear down the screen. The sound of a lullaby or other childish music can be faintly heard.
@IdealogueReview
Rutee defends mocking people who are eminently mockable. Can you explain either (a) why mockable behavior should not be mocked, or (2) why misogynists are not mockable?
Well IR, also known as FactFinder, only mocks beaten up pregnant women, cloudiah!
@Bostonian, Touché! 🙂
I think we need a troll (aka rogue’s) gallery to keep them all straight. And by “we,” I mean “I.” Ha.
Okay, back to sick kitten. 🙁
No, the pregnant women have to beat each other up, and this is awesome and hilarious because…and at that point he lost me.
Oh that’s cute. Factfinder thinks I only mock misogynists. No, I promise you, heterosexists, racists, cissexists and the like are just as hilariously stupid.
So what was Preggo Punchout?
Preggo Punchout is the video game concept posted by FactFinder, now socking as Ideologue Review.
He was originally bragging that it was going to be made soon.
Marc, you’re really not arguing in good faith, here.
Plus, for all you’re talk about “zero sum”, one can only conclude that as your view of laws that protect women AND men. That is not what they actually are.
He was originally bragging that it was going to be made soon.
Yep, I sure did.
http://manboobz.com/2011/11/15/men-who-hate-women-and-the-women-they-try-to-date-another-visit-to-the-annals-of-online-dating/comment-page-5/#comment-82936
Yes you did and used the same email address you used to sign up as a commenter on this site as well.
“Marc, you’re really not arguing in good faith, here.”
Well Red, I could make the same simnplistic, unsubstantiated generalization about you. But I prefer to stick with facts. If you can give me something of substance, I’ll respond. I have argued in total good faith. I have provided legitimate, mainstream media sources and backed up what I have said. And all you have is that? “You’re not arguing in good faih.” That’s it?
“Plus, for all you’re talk about “zero sum”, one can only conclude that as your view of laws that protect women AND men. That is not what they actually are.”
That sentence doesn’t make much sense to me. What are you saying? Just so it’s clarified, when I give facts about discrimination against men, people here have repeated responded by pointing out discrimination against women. My response is that they’re making a zero sum argument, that, somehow, if women are discriminated against, then men aren’t. Your comment above doesn’t make any sense to me in response to that, or in any other way.
Just to summarize what happened, the blog started by suggesting that nobody shows up to men’s rights events. I replied by showing mainstream news stories, etc. of lots of activism and people showing up, street marches in Mexico, activism in Egypt, England, Kenya, U.K., etc. etc. Then people responded by changing the subject to be that the men’s rights movement has no logical basis because there isn’t any serious discrimination against men. I replied, again with mainstream sources, showing all kinds of discrimination against men – fathers explicitly denied equal treatment based on gender under the law in Israel, Germany, U.K., Japan, etc. Forced labor laws excluding men from the ban on slavery. Male victims of DV and sexual assault being denied equal treatment under the law. Men being forced to retire at a later age than women. There is plenty more but those were a few examples. I also gave examples of feminist groups supporting those unequal laws (man tax, male DV victims, etc.)
In response, some kept replying by saying there is discrimination against women, as though somehow that means there is no discrimination against men. Then some people demanded I provide more evidence than I did, even though I provided lots of it and more than anyone else. None of those argument logically respond at all to my points. They’re just diverting the subject, kind of like the personal attacks here. People claiming I’m “not arguing in good faith” (oh please), that I don’t have a sense of humor (OMG, if I made a joke they would accuse me of being snyde), and silly arguments like that. Seriously. I have shown, very clearly, that this site is ignorant about the men’s rights movement and it’s issues. I gave a link to the issues page of NCFM and have challenged people to a substantive debate on any of the issues. I still make that challenge. You can contact me directly and let me know when you want to debate it. The men’s rights movement has never asked for anything more than equal rights.
If you’re against the men’s rights movement, you’re against equal rights. Period.
“Um no I told you to pace it you bombarded the comment section with links.”
No Kelly. You said I don’t have a sense of humor, told me to “calm down,” to get some water. But that’s ok. That’s how lots of feminists argue.
“I think you’ll find many of the men’s rights are actually human rights groups for the atrocities committed by…do I even need to say it? (stuff men do to other men)”
No, they are men’s rights groups, though perhaps they focus on different things, like fathers, battered men, false accusations, paternity fraud, male victims of DV or rape, men’s health issues, male genital mutilation, criminal sentencing disparities, etc. And no, it isn’t only men who commit those things. Women commite DV, paternity fraud, false accusations, etc. And feminists have long supported the discriminatory laws. It is both men and women who discriminate against men. And the gender of the discriminator is also irrelvant. In Africa, female genital mutilation is encouraged more by mothers than fathers. But that doesn’t make it acceptable does it? It’s still a women’s issue. Same when male judges discriminate against fathers, or give men higher sentences for being male. It’s still sex discrimination. Period.
“Anyway the men’s rights movement is simply an antifeminist backlash dressed up as legitimate.”
No Kelly. That’s what feminists like to say to divert attention from the issues. The men’s rights movement is about equal rights. Feminists come into play when they hypocritically support the discriminatory laws or when they lie about men or promote misandry, which is quite frequent. Feminists who actually care about equal rights have supported the men’s rights movement, like former NOW president Karen DeCrow, and former Dallas NOW chapter president Deborah Watkins, who started the Dallas chapter of NCFM. Those who hate the men’s rights movement are the ones who are hypocritical and opposed equal rights.
“I think you’ll find that many feminist laws are already gender neutral because men scream about the unfairness so in order to get them and keep them we have to make them gender neutral.”
Sometimes that’s true, sometimes it’s not. Shouldn’t they be gender neutral anyway? It’s amazing that you would criticize men for “screaming” for gender neutral laws. When women do it, it’s not “scraming” or whining. Only when men do it, right Kelly? I know, you’re a feminist.
The hypocrisy is that you don’t mention misandrists.
“you bombarded the comment section with links”
Gee Kelly, some here demand I give more links, and you criticize me for providing links. Heads you win tails I lose. lol.. Feminism at its best.
@Marc I tried engaging with you seriously (why!?!???!!!) but you didn’t engage equally. My sick kitten and I both agree that you’re not worth any more trouble. I would rather engage with my sick kitten.
Ok, my grammar was bad.
What I was stating is that you’re viewing femenism as a zero sum thing, when it is nothing like that. The laws that femenists set up address various issues, some that apply to everyone, even men. Granted there are areas that do hurt men and in that case I sympathize. Yet you seem to view victory for men as being a loss for women and femenists, who you say don’t care about men’s issues, yet some do, like Ozymandias and zir blog No, Seriously, What About The Men.
You provide wave after wave of information and links, yet you ignore not the problematic to ugly parts of your movement, but also to the positives Femenists have done, and are doing right now. If you look at civil rights as something to “win” in, you have missed the point and are doing more harm than good to the people you claim to represent (and then some).
” I tried engaging with you seriously (why!?!???!!!) but you didn’t engage equally.”
When did I not engage equally? Please give me examples. I keep getting these kinds of un-backed generalizations from people here who don’t state how I argued “in bad faith” or whatever. Well I wish your sick kitten well. At least the kitten is probably logical.
By that logic the National Coalition for Men is hypocritical for not being the National Coalition for Men and Women.
Misogyny is the focus of this blog. That doesn’t mean I like misandry. But the overwhelming majority of “misandry” talked about by MRAs is not actually misandry.
Feminists out organize MRAs, and somehow that equals misandry. Look, dude, just follow the example of the feminists that you criticize and maybe you will be successful! Are there women who argue for bad points of view? Yes. Men outnumber them. Once you take responsibility for all men arguing against feminism, I will consider taking responsibility for all women arguing against men. Waiting…
“What I was stating is that you’re viewing femenism as a zero sum thing, when it is nothing like that. The laws that femenists set up address various issues, some that apply to everyone, even men. Granted there are areas that do hurt men and in that case I sympathize. Yet you seem to view victory for men as being a loss for women and femenists, who you say don’t care about men’s issues, yet some do, like Ozymandias and zir blog No, Seriously, What About The Men.”
Totally untrue, Red. Show me where I said anything like this. I have said that men’s rights activists are fighting for equal rights, and feminists are fighting in some cases for equal rights and in other cases for unequal discriminatory laws, and that’s where they’re hypocricial. And their criticism of men’s rights is totally ignorant and hypocritical because men’s rights activists do not ask for anything other than equal rights.
“You provide wave after wave of information and links, yet you ignore not the problematic to ugly parts of your movement, but also to the positives Femenists have done, and are doing right now.”
No I have not at all, Red. The information I provided is to back what I’m saying, after all someone here demande I provide links. Why do I get criticized for backing what I said, and showing the evidence from mainstreat sources? And no, I do not “ignore” the bad in the men’s rights movement. There are some idiots, some nuts, and some misogynists in the movement, just as there are some misandrists and nuts in the feminist movement. But what sites like this do is focus only on those few nuts and refuse to talk about what the men’s rights movement is really doing, like NCFM, Fathers & Families, or the men’s and fathers’ groups in Israel, England, Kenya, Egypt, etc. That’s the real movement, not the few people who say crazy things. Why don’t you instead focus on what’s really happening? Because you just want to criticize the men’s rights movement, so you focus on a few angry people or a few incidents like this one where nobody showed up. That’s how feminists are. I’ve seen them do that for 10 years now.
“If you look at civil rights as something to “win” in, you have missed the point and are doing more harm than good to the people you claim to represent (and then some).”
I disagree. Every civil rights movement sees advancements as victories to win. The gay rights movement considers it a win when they attain equal marriage rights. Feminists consider it a win when they gain the right to vote. And men’s rights activists consider it a win when they get equal rights in custody, criminal sentencing, etc.
“By that logic the National Coalition for Men is hypocritical for not being the National Coalition for Men and Women.”
Except that NCFM isn’t denying misogyn. This site and its people pretend misandry isn’t there and that men aren’t discriminated against. That’s the hypocrisy.
Kitten is totally NOT logical, but is extremely cute and (sadly) very sick. She has an infection in her mouth that is mysterious and terrifying. Antibiotics may or may not help. (I am hopeful.) She is a sweetheart, so I hope that MRAs and feminists can unite on saving her life. She is getting lots of love, but really I’d rather keep her alive….She is a cute tabby kitten. Her sister loves her very much. Think good thoughts in her general direction, please.
@ cloudiah
Is she able to eat? Cats fade fast if they don’t eat, so you may want to consider syringe feeding her if she isn’t eating by herself.
(apologies if you’ve already considered this)
“Feminists out organize MRAs, and somehow that equals misandry.”
Uh, when did I say that? I said nothing like that. I said it’s hypocritical to pretend misandry and anti male discrimination aren’t there, and especially to support them.
“Look, dude, just follow the example of the feminists that you criticize and maybe you will be successful!”
Well, dude, I’ve already been quite successful in men’s rights. Just as a few examples, I changed the paternity laws in CA to help paternity fraud victims. I overturned the discriminatory law in California that excluded male victims from DV Services. I got rid of anti-male posters all over the child support services department. I got UCLA to change the women’s center to the center for women and men and to talk about male DV victims. But yes, there is alot of work to do, dude. I have not criticized feminisms’ *organization* skills, by the way. So I don’t know where you come up with this argument, dude. I have criticized their hypocrisy, not their organization.
“Are there women who argue for bad points of view? Yes. Men outnumber them. Once you take responsibility for all men arguing against feminism, I will consider taking responsibility for all women arguing against men. Waiting…”
I don’t agree men outnumber them, but ok, I don’t see the point of arguing that. I see lots of women hypocritically opposing men’s equal rights, just as I see men doing that (opposing men’s equal rights). I also don’t really care which gender does it more. I would need to see data on it, and I don’t see the relevance. Why should I “take responsibility” for “all men aruing against femnistm” when I myself argue against the hypocrisy of feminism? I support equal rights, and when feminism opposes equal rights, I argue against feminism.