Today I’d like to present to you a really ranty old post from Masculist Man on his unimaginatively named Men’s Rights Blog.
But let’s do this a little differently this time. Let’s make it a little contest.
I want you to take a deep breath, loosen up your tongue, and see how much of his rant you can read, out loud, in one breath. (Just don’t kill yourself in the process, please.)
Why the militancy
That question has been asked by many MRA’s and the answer should be obvious: what has moderation accomplished for us? What has “niceness” done for us? Besides getting us deeper into this mess. Why be nice to an enemy that not only wants to take everything from you but would like to see you DEAD on top of it. Not only that but if you are a father with sons the average feminist would like to see your young sons dead too …
Oh, crap, that’s as far as I got. Deep, deep breath. Here’s the rest. It took me five breaths to get through it. See if you can beat me.
just because they are male. These Neville Chamberlains would have you believe they can accomplish peace in our time by making deals with these devils and just like any deal with the devil they get burned. Not only them but the rest of us as well. Then the moderates have the nerve to tell us to shut up or we’ll play into the feminist hands. The one thing that I think of is that if we stay silent we definitely will play into the feminists hands,the same if we play “nice”. If we play nice,just as we have for the last 160 years (if you include feminism as a whole) or for 40 years (if you are focusing on 2nd wave feminism) then we will continue to get fucked. Why the militancy? Because it is hard to be nice when you are getting assfucked in court (family to criminal to civil) and it’s really hard to be nice when society blames YOU for what happens in a “he said/she said” situation even though SHE IS THE ONE AT FAULT and it’s really hard to be nice and pleasant when you try to illustrate what is happening to you and/or other men in society when everybody wants to play the ostrich and would rather not know,that is until another “he said/she said” situation arises again and then it’s boom,they back off to the races to repeat the same mistakes as last time and when they do they are applauded by the lemmings that make up society lest they are labelled “politically incorrect”. It seems they would rather kill their own families to avoid being labelled “politically incorrect”. A big problem with moderates is that they are usually staffed by older manginas or young men from single mother homes that don’t want to upset women and that there defeats the purpose of being an MRA because if you don’t upset women then you will stay silent concerning mens’ issues and the women win by your silence. TO ERODE WOMEN’S POWER OVER MEN ONE MUST SPEAK UP AND DESTROY THE FEMINSIT MONSTER THAT WANTS TO DESTROY YOU AND YOUR BROTHERS.
Instead of asking why the militancy one should ask is the militancy legitimate? and the answer is “yes”.
Post your results below!
…I kind of want him to say — “and a woman who is actually capable of defending herself should be killed” — that to the face of such a woman, just because then he’d actually suffer for his idiocy. Pretty sure that makes me a terrible person (I’m chaotic good-ish remember?)
NWO is like, neutral evil or something…
Wow, those FMS people sound really, really terrible.
Yeah, I’ve got nothing else to add.
katz — just for clarity, the FMS Foundation is full of terrible people. FMS = False Memory Syndrome and there are plenty of researchers researching aspects of that that are not terrible people, like the people behind “FYI, the false memory research readily admits that traumatic memories may be different and that traumatizing a kid to test that is highly unethical…”
Their research suggests that non-traumatic memories can be fairly easily implanted into a young enough child, but they also suspect the mechanism is different in traumatic memories. Another set of such researchers found non-traumatic memories fade faster than traumatic memories (that was standard fare PTSD research iirc).
The Foundation is basically an abusers lobby though. Just needed to clarify that psych in general agrees and even the psychs who answer “does MPD/DID exist?” with “I’ve never seen it” think the same. I’m sure you could find psychs who agree with the foundation, but they’re vastly outnumbered by people who think the foundation does more harm than good. (And I’m defending my degree again huh? Sorry guys!)
Point was that some of the people who believe FMS is a thing are focused on helping people with iatrogenic MPD/DID — they’d be a terrible fit for a natural multiple, but they aren’t an abusers lobby (more like pissed at their peers for having hurt their clients)
…You’re going to have a hard time selling me on that.
katz — Point was that the FMS Foundation people are not psychs or researchers. Plenty of the psychs and researchers who believe FMS is a real thing that explains MPD/DID 100% of the time are asshats, but they aren’t usually lobbying for accused abusers, but against their own ranks. They’re still idiots, but no bigger idiots than a fair percentage of psychs in general. Most of the people I mean here do research more in “how not to fuck up interviewing children” than MPD/DID directly.
Shorter versions — the FMS crowd is a bunch of idiots; the FMS Foundation is an abusers lobby. I am noting degrees of evil here, but mostly because the Foundation exists to literally go to court and say abuse was made up, while the researchers sit in their ivory tower and go “I’m not endorsing that” (they are, just not directly).
FTR, I’m on team “do any of you have a damned clue wtf you’re talking about?” because no, they really don’t, and can easily derail down a screaming hole about some tiny fraction of a point (eg “can eye color change?” “that’s genetic!!” who the fuck cares people?)
An analogy — I’m basically pointing out the difference between Germans in WWII and Nazis — the FMS researchers run the range of “well you might be helping but probably aren’t” while the FMS Foundation is an abusers lobby. Yeah I just Godwin’ed, but it feels apt here, since some of the researchers are doing decent work, eg the ones research how police questioning of small children can lead to shittastic testimony if leading questions are used — this has little to nothing to do with MPD/DID, but is highly relevant to the core question about whether memories can be false.
That they think research makes them inherently above the political questions does piss me off, but they’re mostly not supporting abusers the way the Foundation is, and a handful are actually helping people (eg the above question, and research into treatment for iatrogenic MPD/DID). It’d be really nice if we could cleanly separate the psych and law questions, but public ire won’t allow that (nearly everyone seems to have a HULKSMASH opinion over the McMartin preschool case, but that’s got next to nothing to do with natural multiples, nonetheless it prevents research from getting anywhere).
Some of the FMS research though could be used in defense of an abuse case, not in defense of the abuser, eg the “no, memories have X qualities, and these abuse memories share those qualities, thus the person is testifying truthfully” (because oh boy do defense lawyers love claiming anyone mentally ill cannot testify).
And now I’m babbling again, FAIL! But yeah, the FMS Foundation is an abusers lobby, FMS researchers are no worse then ev-psych researchers.
Dude, seriously, you are picking a shit sandwich at that point. They both sound like assholes.
And don’t Godwin. That is a crappy analogy.
Standard fare assholes versus literally supporting abusers in court, and I’m only trying to make the distinction because not everyone researching whether memories can be falsified is pro-FMS-is-a-thing. Some are focused on police questioning of children, and the methods to ensure those children’s testimony will hold up in court.
Admittedly that’s trying to pick pennies from poop, yeah. I’m highly annoyed by the entire debate because it basically is impossible to have a reasonable discussion, but at least my babbling explanations haven’t gotten either “you’re supporting abusers!” or “you’re supporting liars!”. The FMS Foundation is straight up supporting abusers, they basically see multiples as either delusional, or con artists, and anyone who disagrees supports FALSE RAPE ACCUSATIONS!!! (yes I’m serious)
I’m kind of not surprised MRAs want to back the FMS Foundation (that’s what got this derail started) because of that though. FMS researchers are just boring old wrong most of the time, versus the Foundation literally supporting abusers. That seems a horri-bad distinction worth making.
Re my Godwin — ok pick another analogy with one group (the FMS Foundation) being really truly terrible, and the people generally associated with them being a range of clueless, supporting them, and against them. The Godwin may fail, but not all false memory research is pro-abuser, some of it is re: police questioning for example.
And I realize I’m picking apart a shit sandwich, but it’s the shit sandwich I got my degree in, and the FMS Foundation is like the MRM when it comes to statistics, while the FMS researchers, misguided as they are, do at least strive for intellectual honestly. That puts them at least a couple of pegs above the Foundation itself.
I’m trying to shove the Foundation into the fringe, not trying to embrace the researchers, they’re about as right as ev-psych is >.<
Yeah that’s a better analogy, if they’re all the MRM, the Foundation is the big name assholes, the researchers as those moderates we keep looking for — they’re still wrong, but they’re not directly and obviously dangerously wrong (and some of them aren’t that wrong, and aren’t remotely dangerously wrong).
Problem is that basically anything involving memory gets lumped together with them, which means, in psych anyways, there’s a lot of actually neutral science being co-opted by what’s fundamentally an abusers lobby. And for that they can go fuck off (well, that and the abuser lobby part).
Overall, false memory researchers are about comparable with ev-psych though, it is mostly shit, but not 100% (ev-psych has some not BS about language, they have some not BS about questioning methods).
katz — I think we may be having a problem of definition. Because it’s my field I’m including the “FMS is not a thing” researchers in the general definition, and trying to separate them from the FMS Foundation because the latter is an abuser lobby, while the former is directly against them. Rereading I think you’re only including the “FMS is a thing” people?
(Clear definitions, one of these days I’ll learn to use them!)
@pecunium
“So grow up. Act like an adult. You can’t get laid… that’s because you aren’t what women want. There are lots of jerks out there who have women who don’t leave them. You can’t even manage that.”
I can’t get laid? Actually I can, but that’s neither here nor there. Your comment however is telling about how women view themselves superior. And you as well. If a woman allows me or any man access to her most holy pussy I have become worthy to be accepted into a civilized society. If I, or any man is not deemed worthy of her pussy he is shunned by society. A womans pussy is therefore the standard by which a man is deemed worthy to even interact within any given society. That’s quite the pedestal you and women place women upon.
Excellent set of lies you continue to spew about me but quite expected. Book o larnin I presume? Anyway, I’ve never tortured any man for information, nor have I witnessed or overseen such actions. Can you say the same? My guess is you’d draw the line at treating women in any such manner. I’ve never murdered the unborn, nor do I promote the murder of unborn children. Can you say the same? In fact, the only thing I’ve ever really done wrong was burglary to stave off starvation. So I feel pretty damned good about myself.
NWO you have the order wrong there.
“If a woman allows me or any man access to her most holy pussy I have become worthy to be accepted into a civilized society. If I, or any man is not deemed worthy of her pussy he is shunned by society. ”
No, you have to be acceptable to civilized society to get pussy access, because *gasp* women are people too! The rest is just nonsense stemming from that simple misunderstanding.
Likewise, women have to be acceptable to civilized society to get cock access. Just in case that concept eluded you. Basically, if you want sexytimes with someone, you have to act like a civilized human, gender(s) of partner(s) is moot here.
As for tortue — go protest gitmo you care so damned much, don’t see you doing anything about our gov’n allowing it (and thus requiring it via compliance with orders). And conflating wtf we’re doing at gitmo with abortion?! So when’s it become murder in your mind? Birth control ok or not? Morning after pill? Ru-486? Vacuum abortion at 8 weeks? D&C at 16? I’d assume somewhere before D&X, but where?
It’s not legally murder until/unless the fetus breathes btw, that’s a required thing for being alive to be murdered.
Also, most of us here aren’t going to consider stealing so you don’t starve wrong, while we will consider the hatred you insist on spewing to be quite wrong — perhaps in the eyes of the law that’s the worst you’ve done, but in the eyes of the manaboobz commenters? Try shutting up first.
(Oh and ftr, I’d like to see Bush and the rest of the high ranking staff charged with war crimes, I’m pissed at Obama that gitmo remains open, but taunting individual service members with that? I’m slightly more mature than that, you should perhaps try directing your anger at people who can actually change things, it works better.)
NWO: I can’t get laid? Actually I can, but that’s neither here nor there. Your comment however is telling about how women view themselves superior. And you as well. If a woman allows me or any man access to her most holy pussy I have become worthy to be accepted into a civilized society.
Nope…. clear failure of comprehension. Lots of abusive fucks manage to have women who think they are worth being involve with, abuse and all.
You seem to be able not even manage that.
It’s not that having a partner makes one a member of civilised society, it’s that you can’t even manage to find a woman who share your worldview. Not even one one, in a country of 300 million people.
Excellent set of lies you continue to spew about me but quite expected. Book o larnin I presume? Anyway, I’ve never tortured any man for information, nor have I witnessed or overseen such actions. Can you say the same? My guess is you’d draw the line at treating women in any such manner.
Yes, I can. I can also say that I think leaving a room to get a pipe to beat a woman’s skull in is a crime, both legal and moral; and I know (because you’ve said so) that you think it not a legal crime, and a moral good.
So good luck trying to shame me. You haven’t got the moral high ground needed to look me in the eye, much less to look down on me.
“No, you have to be acceptable to civilized society to get pussy access, because *gasp* women are people too! The rest is just nonsense stemming from that simple misunderstanding.
Likewise, women have to be acceptable to civilized society to get cock access. Just in case that concept eluded you. Basically, if you want sexytimes with someone, you have to act like a civilized human, gender(s) of partner(s) is moot here.”
Sorry, that is just dishonesty, plain and simple. the consequences in today’s society are different for men and women, no matter how much ladies and feminist men try to level the playing field. A man that can’t get laid is considered a loser; a woman, on the other hand, is happy being alone. THAT is the difference. THAT is how it’s viewed by society.
Whenever feminists try to shrug off MRA claims, it’s always by neutralising the field and pretending that differents don’t exist unless it benefits them. Sorry but men have grown tired of this evasive tactic.
Telling men that they can’t get laid is the ultimate shaming tactic.
Kuis — way to completely miss that this is bullshit — “A man that can’t get laid is considered a loser; a woman, on the other hand, is happy being alone.” — when in reality a woman who gets laid is called a slut.
“You can’t get laid” might be the worst thing you can call a man, but if that’s the case, you have it fucking easy.
(And here I was checking to see if IR had necro’ed anything…)
dude, that’s exactly the sort of stereotype about acceptable maleness that feminism is concerned with busting. it is one of the things we mean when we say ‘patriarchy hurts everyone’. nobody’s worth should not be measured by how they do or do not get off.
you guys just pretend it’s not true because it doesnt fit your narrative of feminism as an undifferentiated evil.
im a dude, and the mrm doesnt speak for me or for most men for that matter. if you want people to take you seriously and not right you off as arrogant blusterers, you need to stop claiming otherwise.
Well, Kuis, if you’re so awesome, why do you care about people who can’t get laid?
I thought calling a man creepy was the ultimate shaming tactic.
Right back at you fooltrelle: http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2013/03/right-back-at-fooltrelle.html
Dude, why are you necroing a thread that died nearly a year ago? You guys are so amazingly pathetic.
@cloudiah,
Click on the link,I explained it. I realize this is a feminist board so if you need an adult to help you go get one.
Cloudian, to be fair, I wrote about something he wrote a while ago.
He does seem to have misspelled my name though. It’s FAUXtrelle, not FOOLtrelle.
“Right back” is a year later? I’m imagining him peppering his conversation with witty retorts to discussions no one else remembers.