In yet another discussion of Arthur Goldwag’s latest post on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Hatewatch blog (looking at MRAs bad-mouthing the men who lost their lives protecting their girlfriends in the Aurora shootings), longtime Men’s Rights Redditor Liverotto offers this intriguing take on what he sees as Goldwag’s motivations for criticizing the Men’s Rights movement:
Yeah, a dude actually wrote that, and a couple of people actually upvoted it.
I’m trying to understand the logic: Goldwag is growing older and more homosexual (do men usually become gay as they age?). But gay men age badly, which makes them mad at their “suitors.” So therefore Goldwag has come to hate the (mostly straight) men of the Men’s Rights movement?
Another highlight of the discussion: The r/mensrights regular who thinks I’m Paul Elam. No, really.
To expand on my last comment, my guess is that in any social movement there is a bell curve of beliefs.
You seem to seek out outliers and isolated views from the long tail curve and then parade them as if they were the mean.
How is that any better from MRAs doing the same with feminist bloggers or feminist commenters?
Or anti-abortion proponents doing the same with comments from pro-choice blogs?
I believe you are a journalist right? How does this sort of cherry picking comport with journalistic ethics?
Bored guy, no, SuicideBanana literally believes I am Paul Elam, in the flesh. I’ve spoken to him at length about it. His theory is that Elam has been using “David Futrelle” as a pen name for twenty years.
“Men are taller than women.”
“Wait, wait, wait, Maria Sharapova is a man?”
Okay, well you have the experience with that. I just stumble across reddit mensrights in my surfing, so I will take your experience over mine.
Also, journalists are allowed to point out when people say horrible or horribly funny things.
I don’t misrepresent anyone. Can you point to a specific example where you think I do?
I also never claim that one person’s odd views represent those of everyone in the “movement.”
That said, I *do* point out when someone’s views are widely supported by others in the movement. If you actually read through the archives, you will find that most of what I write about (when it comes to the MRA at least) comes from popular and highly trafficked MR websites; most of the comments I quote have gotten numerous upvotes. That doesn’t mean that every MRA supports those beliefs, but it suggests that a lot of them do.
The one today didn’t get a ton of upvotes, but I consider it sort of amazing it got any at all given how strange it was.
If you think Liverotto is embarrassing the MRM every time he opens his mouth, you should probably talk to him about it, not me.
I don’t want to be cheese, I’d keep trying to eat myself.
You wouldn’t even question it.
Have to correct myself through each reading: “He is getting older, is homosexual, and (like women) people like these tend to age like milk instead of wine…”
Having never tried acid, however, I wouldn’t be averse to getting more as I age.
Not really, scrapemind. You see, I willingly admit that I’m every bit as looks-focused as MRAs think all men are, so actually I don’t make a good data point to support your/their theory at all.
There’s one: Jack Donovan.
Bored Schtick, this is actually a common accusation of David. He’s just cherry-picking extremist comments and ignoring the valid, less extreme rest of the movement. So the question for you is… where are the moderate MRAs?
“You seem to seek out outliers and isolated views from the long tail curve and then parade them as if they were the mean.”
The problem with the MRM is that the kind of people David quotes seem to be the mean. This is not the case with most social movements, which is why the SPLC singled out the MRM for attention.
Hi Scrapemind. “Liverotto didn’t say being a feminist turns men gay.” True enough. However he does write that Goldwag is getting older and homosexual – so what is causing this increasing gayness? That’s it’s being a feminist is an interpretation that makes what he does write make (some) sense. Also note my use of the word “can” not “does”.
He writes, “[H]e is … homosexual.”
Katz, I was sure that clip was going to be from The Simpson’s Tree House of Horrors, except that it’s really hard to put Simpson’s clips up on the internet.
“Also, journalists are allowed to point out when people say horrible or horribly funny things.”
Two things:
One, not related to feminist/mensrights, is, just as a citizen who grew up in the 60s and 70s, my notion of journalism is from Watergate, Lou Grant, and NPR, and I am honestly confused with how “advocacy journalism” sits within the space of “journalism”. And I am not even saying you are an advocacy journalist.
I read Mother Jones, I read the Nation, and I often find journalists that (similar to my impression of you) are advocates for a cause, which I had thought wasn’t really in the space of accepted journalism (at one time?) (And of course the same is clearly true for Fox/FreeRepublic/NationalReview and lots of conservative sites that I never read.)
I’d honestly like to find some essay addressed to the public, explaining how advocacy journlism fits within journalism compared to non-advocacy journalism, and what I should be expecting and demanding of each.
Two, certainly journalists are allowed to point out when people say horrible or horribly funny things, but when that becomes their oeuvre, it gets old and akin to beating a dead horse. Especially if this, as seen by others, is by cherry picking.
And while you haven’t misrepresented Liverrotto here, I’d say your constant behavior and cherry picking as a whole is a misrepresentation of the many aspects of mens rights.
That said, I’ll give you another analogy. When you go to Yelp, or Amazon, or Newegg and look at restaurant reviews, what sort of interest, what sort of credibility, what sort of intent do you project onto either the one star or five star reviews?
Anyway, thank you for your time and responses, time to make dinner.
Here’s the main problem. When you say something like “Bob is getting x and y,” you normally say that Bob is increasing in both x and y because of the structure. If, however, you say “Bob is y and getting x,” then its clear that y is not increasing.
It’s especially confusing if you say “Bob is getting x and y and *some comment about aging*” because the context reinforces the idea that y is a thing that is increasing.
Now, if you said “Bob is getting x and is y” then that means something else. Now y is a thing that is not increasing again.
Basically, everything about that sentence structure reinforces the notion that Liverotto meant that Goldwag was getting more homosexual over time. And that’s just silly. 😛
…You realize David has probably spent more time on MRA sites than you, right? Arthur is already used to supremacist movements.
If I were to guess, “MRAs let that shit go until they realize other people are pointing out the ridiculousness.
Guess? As in, rectal data? Then I’ll treat it with the same seriousness you did
Show me the moderate MRA worthy of respect, and I’ll consider this question in the manner you meant it
why?
i mean, im told that once upon a time the nation was a real magazine, but why would you read that clubhouse for spoiled vichy democrat children in this day and age?
*sigh* Again with the “You’re just cherrypicking” the leading figureheads of the movement… It’s as constant and monotonous as the “you’re just not reading it in context” when atheists point out problematic things in the bible. In both cases we’re never actually given the thing we’ve been told we’re ignoring.
I think women of the younger generation are pretty obviously visual. Look at Lautner and his teenybopper Pikmin. And the Jonas brothers. And the Biebs. Older women, collectively, maybe not as much. The culture maybe didn’t encourage it back then, now it does. It’s as simple as that.
I never cease to be amused at humans. “How dare you list the biases that went into the creation and production of this work? I expect you to pretend that this was written from a place of complete objectivity, sot hat I can pretend I’m objective in listening to it.”
Yet, here you are.
You’re welcome to substantiate your claim.
also bored dude, how is a dude who just discovered the mrm already ‘bored’ with david. that seems just a tad… suspicious.
@Rutee:
In fact, David’s been at this so long his blog might as well be a survey of the men’s rights movement. You can no longer just say “you’re cherry-picking.” With the sheer volume of crap David’s reported on, you have to start finding the positive section of the movement.
There are definitely gay MRAs.