Here’s JohnTheOther on A Voice for Men, complaining that Australian journalist Tory Shepard has unfairly accused “men’s rights extremists” associated with AVFM of using the term “lying bitches.”
“[L]ying bitches” might have [been] pulled from from a reader’s comment on one of more than 1200 articles on AVfM. But that phrase forms no part of this human rights movement’s standard rhetoric, which if Shepherd were a journalist, she would know.
Huh. Yeah, it’s probably just some sort of incredible fluke. Just one reader’s comment on one of more than 1200 articles!
Oops, I guess it was used more than once.
But it’s not like this sort of language is encouraged by JtO or his boss Paul Elam.
To be fair, they don’t always refer to women as bitches. Sometimes they refer to women by the much more genteel “cunt.”
Like the time Elam described the CEO of the Good Men Project as “a disingenuous cunt that makes her living off trying to turn men into lap dogs.” And the time he referred to comedic actress Katherine Heigl as a “misandric cunt.” Oh, and that time he referred to a commenter on his site as “Ms. Cuntforbrains, or if you are male, Mr. Cuntforbrains.” And the time he referred to the feminist blogosphere as the “cunt-o-sphere.” Very witty!
I know, it’s unfair to cherry-pick comments from the guy who actually started and runs A Voice for Men. Clearly he isn’t representative of the site at all.
(Note: Yes, I did say yesterday that I wasn’t going to read that JtO post on general principle. And yes, I did read a little bit more of it. But I have not read the whole thing, and I never will!)
They have women on register her who were acquitted of their crimes, which in the case of their “killer” category were battered women who were acquitted of killing their abusers in self defense. The MRM has a huge double standard in that they think that anything a man does is self defense, even if it’s something like “defense against a woman being mouthy”, while a woman never has a right to self defense. So far all their concern about false allegations, the MRA’s don’t mind falsely accusing women of murder.
The prevailing opinion amongst manboobz a few weeks ago was women fought long and hard to insult men, and weren’t about to give up that right. Something about power this or oppression that within the patriarchy nonsense. Standard victimology stuff. Not really sure who it was that ran the original comment, darksidecat comes to mind.
Always the excuses abound. Little miss, crys-and-gets-160K gets a few insults directed soley at her and it’s proof of women universally suffering systemic misogyny. Yet the gang constantly does the same but that’s different, and definitely not proof of universal systemic anything. The days of womens carte blanche insults are long gone, ya get what ya give. This ain’t a site that promotes love, it’s pure hatred. As the saying goes, what goes around comes around.
not to mention falsely accusing all feminists of advocating murder of men just because of a few idiots on radfemhub
That Register Her banner has a bloody knife on it. Nope, no violent imagery here, no ma’am.
Is it bad that I think “Princess Miserable” would be kind of a cool stage name or character or something?
CassandraSays – And JtO’s post has another, different bloody knife image!
Other images on AVfM’s front page (just the front page, no digging through archives here):
-A boxer standing over a knocked-out opponent
-A person (I think male but I’m not sure) lying on the ground bleeding very messily from the mouth and smeared with blood
-A severed hand with blood and bones sticking out the end
There’s also images of riot cops and of male wrists wrapped in chains.
Actually, the dominant visual theme on AVfM is men as victims of female and/or state violence, and I find that almost scarier. Not that those things don’t happen but… it doesn’t feel like images of protest, it feels like they’re trying very hard to get themselves worked up.
Feels like they’re trying very hard to find things to “self-defend” against.
“A severed hand with blood and bones sticking out the end”
Is this a blog post about war or war crimes? Or possibly horror movies? Because otherwise I really see no need for that.
@CassandraSays
That Register Her banner has a bloody knife on it. Nope, no violent imagery here, no ma’am.
You can find out about any man any woman, in her unbiased opinion has decided to write about. You can trust every woman’s word to be gospel pure. Women don’t lie, are never vindictive, vengeful or spiteful. Check all the adds that are run as well. Men sure are devils and women are always angelic victims.
http://www.womansavers.com/
Cliff: 1. Ha ha, they think saying “killer” instead of “murderer” covers their asses. This is why real news sources use the word “alleged.”
Alleged/accused/suspected are buffers, but not an absolute protection. As a former journalist I have some experience with libel; as it applies to the press.
If someone has been arrested/charged, the use of alleged is protection againt a charge of libel… if the description is factual.
“John Doe was arrested yesterday in connection with the robbery of three banks in midtown last week. Six robbers were captured on videotape. The district attorney’s office said he will be charged with three counts of armed robbery at his arraignment tomorrow.
The alleged bank robber….”
If you left the word, “alleged out” you have said he is a bank robber.
But that’s only good if the circumstances make it plain that he is, from the point of view of “the system” actually suspected of being guilty.
If, however one wrote, >i>”John Doe is being sought in connection with the robbery of three banks in midtown last week. Six robbers were captured on videotape. The district attorney’s office said Doe was a “person of interest based on the videotapes.
The alleged bank robber….”
Not gonna save your ass, because no one in the justice system has so much as implied they were being considered the perpetrator. It may be they were the only person on the tape who was in a position to get a clear look at any of the robbers’ faces. You, as a reporter, don’t know.
Step outside the realms of those who are involved in a criminal case: where the official acts of immunised persons can be used as a buffer, and things get a lot stickier. Unless they are persons of some note, in the subject area being discussed, you, even if you are a member of the press (and the net is still not completely sorted out as to what counts as “journalism” and what is just somebody muttering in public), you don’t have much cover.
So “register her” is sailing pretty close to the wind, and is probably vulnerable to someone who has the money to mount a case. They are in a world of hurt if they can be haled into a British Court, where the laws on libel are much different, and the punishments a lot more severe.
That can, of course, backfire (as David Irving found out), because the peril is bi-directional, and the plaintiff is at risk for the cost of the defense; should they lose.
thebionicmommy: They have women on register her who were acquitted of their crimes, which in the case of their “killer” category were battered women who were acquitted of killing their abusers in self defense. The MRM has a huge double standard in that they think that anything a man does is self defense, even if it’s something like “defense against a woman being mouthy”, while a woman never has a right to self defense. So far all their concern about false allegations, the MRA’s don’t mind falsely accusing women of murder.
From a legal standpoint (re libel), if the women mounted an affirmative defense (i.e. they said, “yes, I did it, but I had a legally justifiable reason”) then it’s perfectly legal to say they are killers. To say they are murderers is a libel. I’m pretty sure it’s libel per se in that the women are being defamed).
When I was a young girl, I was utterly distressed that misogynist assholes like this wouldn’t like me because I felt that because they were so loud, they must therefore be RIGHT and all men, to some extent, must be like the loudest ones, just like the loudest politicians always seem “right” when you’re a kid and the loudest adult authority figures seem like they MUST know what they’re talking about. Of course, as I grew up, I finally realized that this was patently false (as an adult, I now realize that these types of people groom young girls to believe this misogynist shit to make them easier to prey on- if you believe that “all men are assholes” you are far more likely to accept abusive asshole behavior).
Case in point:
As an adult woman, I would much prefer these men to completely ignore me (and, thankfully, there are many, many decent and good-hearted men out in the world, they just aren’t as loud and obnoxious as these scumbags). I would far prefer being unable to ever have PIV sex ever again if indeed my only option was that sort of horrible misogynist man who thinks women are “bitches”. Unfortunately, these guys seem to think that they are entitled to vaginas on demand, so regardless of how much we “repulse” them, they still want to USE us like the OBJECTS we are to them.
I think that the thing that pisses them off the most is that no one CARES about them. People just want them to go fuck off somewhere and leave them alone. So they stamp their feet and act like spoiled children because they hate us so much but GODDAMNIT THEY WANT US TO LISTEN TO THEM AND DO WHAT THEY SAY ALL THE TIME BECAUSE PENIS.
If my feminism makes me repulsive to angry misogynists then I’d count that as a feature, not a bug.
Today in NWO rants — another round of “man bad, woman good” — like that view of his is news to anyone here.
Hey NWO? Care to try connecting that view to what Cassandra had said? That is, wtf does what you said have to do with registerher’s banner (and its violent imagery)?
You may’ve missed that the page you link to is lacking a bloody knife as the banner, perhaps? Or, for that matter, any violent imagery?
Try harder, sites rating people are just tacky, not violent (no argument from me that that’s eye-bleedingly bad web design, but it isn’t violent).
Epically shorter version — would you like to make a point that’s actually on topic?
@Argenti Aertheri
“Try harder, sites rating people are just tacky, not violent (no argument from me that that’s eye-bleedingly bad web design, but it isn’t violent).”
Or is it slander?
I can’t even read that site Slavey linked to because the site design is such a mess. However, I note that the front page at least lacks any images of weaponry.
(The web design does give me a headache, though, so I suppose one could consider it an assault upon people’s defenseless eyeballs.)
@Argenti Aertheri
“You may’ve missed that the page you link to is lacking a bloody knife as the banner, perhaps? Or, for that matter, any violent imagery?”
Isn’t feministe a little girl with a big gun?
Isn’t feministing a silhouette of a naked woman giving men the finger? Hate watch is a picture of a hatefully watching eye. Most feminist sites are the communist fist, or the sigul of woman with the communist fist inside. Feminism is violence and hate. The state does the dirty work for women
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
Here’s the actual rate of men in the western world who are allowed equal child custody. The state enforces this on womens behalf.
http://www.nij.gov/journals/261/who-perpetrates.htm
Here’s whose actually more violent. Even girls themselves admit they’re more violent. Yet once again DV laws punish men as being the primary agressor. If girls are that violent when they’re young, they’ll be even more prone to violence after they learn to use the state to enforce their will.
Okay, that makes sense. Yes, the women said they did it, but they were acquitted because it was self defense. So while they are killers, they are not murderers. The register her site does call them killers instead of murderers, but by listing them alongside women guilty of first degree murder it makes it look like they’re all the same. I’m thinking that you’re right it’s probably libel what they are doing at register her.
Dude, womansavers is a dating site, or at least peripherally related to dating sites.
Register Her is a site where you whiny-ass titty babies in the MRM can pillory women that you claim got away with something, or who didn’t and you want to crow over it.
Does womansavers post cheaters and beaters and assorted other assholes on a public list? (I can’t navigate that site, it’s a wonder it’s been in business since 2002.) It might do.
Register Her definitely posts women’s names, faces, and contact information on a public list. That’s the whole point. It probably has a function where a man can put in a woman’s name and see if she’s on the list, but the whole point is that the list is public.
Gotta go get supper. An evil spirit waits for us to lay it to rest, one attack roll at a time!
Oh I’d missed this NWO —
Apparently saying fuck is insulting men? No argument that saying fuck you to a man is insulting that man, but how is saying fuck you to a woman insulting all men? How is saying “I am fucking loving this weather” insulting men? (It’s been raining here, on and off, for 3 days, I am actually fucking loving it, I hate that 90+ shit)
As for the Tropes v Woman bit, we are not derailing another thread with that, or at least I’m not.
Not at NWO — that site he links to seems to have a list of rated men, but it doesn’t appear to have a general list, one has to search to review the list. Running the search on a town/city does work, and a random clicking that way is getting me a bunch of “dude’s married!” type listings. So I guess yes, it has a public list, but “he cheats!” doesn’t seem nearly as bad as “she’s a killer!” (and I see nothing that suggests one should do anything more to the cheaters than stay away, which, considering if someone’s cheated before, they might again…seems more like advice than threats). Wow is that design terrible though.
@Argenti Aertheri
“So I guess yes, it has a public list, but “he cheats!”
A bit tyrannical isn’t it? Would you judge anything while only hearing one side exclusively? Like the site says, it has millions of viewers and contributors worldwide. The prevailing theme is a womans word is not only gospel, it is the only word. The format is that women are angels and they tell who and why men are devils. Tell me it’s not a hate site. I dare ya.
NWO, you really shouldn’t criticize other people’s icon symbolism when yours is of white hands in slave chains.
I mean for Chrissakes.
Nice try NWO, but you’re now playing Spot That Fallacy!! — you made the claim it’s a hate site, prove it, I don’t have to disprove it. And in the case of “(s)he cheated on me” no, there’s not much point to getting the other side, who wouldn’t deny that claim? Point was that “you shouldn’t date this person” really isn’t a terrible hardship to put upon the person, particularly not compared to “this person is a killer”
As for Spot That Fallacy!!
(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false
Onus probandi – from Latin “onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat” the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the “argumentum ad ignorantiam” fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion
That very nearly literally translates to — the burden of proof rests on him who says (it), not him who denies (it) — I can’t recall right off if ei is gendered or not (Latin doesn’t often use pronouns, and defaults to male ones).