Have you heard about the big debate in Vancouver? In the wake of the recent hubbub over Men’s Rights posters in that fair city, one woman thought it might be a good idea for there to be a public debate over some of the issues raised by the posters.
I’ll let A Voice for Men’s JohnTheOther explain it, in his adorably poncy way:
Has feminism gone too far? …
That is the question asked in September of 2012, by a woman of integrity and courage. She posited this question as the premise of a public debate. It was to be discussed by three individuals from the contention that yes, feminism has gone too far, and three individuals arguing that no, feminism has not gone too far.
But, alas, this debate was not to be.
Unfortunately, following the announcement of this scheduled debate on the social networking site Facebook, that woman was rewarded for her attempt at public discussion by a torrent of abuse and threats. Some individuals apparently did not want a debate. Not only did they not want to participate, they wanted nobody else to either. Under the weight of abuse and threats, that woman whose integrity and courage moved her to propose a public discussion – cancelled the event.
What JohnTheOther doesn’t mention is that the “torrent of abuse and threats” apparently came not from feminists, as one might assume from the way he’s phrased it, but from Men’s Rightsers, who were evidently so excited by the prospect of having a debate with actual feminists that, in their enthusiasm, they couldn’t help but harass the organizer once it became clear the event wasn’t going to be organized in the same exact way that they might have organized it, if as MRAs they ever organized anything.
As the original organizer of the cancelled event explained to Jezebel:
I took the event down because of threats I had received from MRA members when I told them I was thinking of cancelling the event/changing the question. Having my Facebook account linked to here has reduced my safety from these men, who didn’t have my personal information as I was speaking with them over email. I have now had to cancel my FB profile which impacts my job seriously. Luckily I am in England right now so am safe.
Later, someone claiming to be her posted a comment on A Voice for Men saying the threats had come from “people claiming both sides of the debate.” The AVFMers downvoted her.
But fear not, debate fans! The debate is ON again! With the help of A Voice for Men, the blog A Father’s Story, and the East Vancouver Debating Society, a heretofore unknown organization which apparently has been conjured up just for this occasion, a “Has Feminism Gone Too Far” debate will take place later this month. At a car dealership, for some reason.
The debate format has apparently been designed to be as confusing as possible:
The debate format will be three speakers presenting arguments affirming the debate proposition and three speakers presenting arguments against the proposition. Each speaker will have 5 minutes to present an opening argument, alternating between for- and against postions. Following opening arguments, each speaker will have 5 minutes to address presented arguments. A third round of discussion will allow 3 minutes to address counter arguments, and final statements will be formatted within 3 minutes per speaker, for a total of four rounds of discussion for all speakers.
Following the scheduled debate, speakers will address questions and commentary from audience and observers for 55 minutes.
After which there will be an additional 15 minutes of calisthenics.
And then everyone will buy a car.
So far they don’t seem to have found any feminist debaters eager and willing to spend a nice Sunday afternoon in a car dealership getting yelled at by angry dudes.
Instead, they have devoted their energy to defining what exactly feminism means, because how can you have a debate about feminism if Men’s Rightsers don’t define the term first?
Someone called Sasha offered this definition:
If “the National Organization For Women, the largest American self-identified “feminist” organization, defines feminism as “The radical notion that women are human beings,” then I’d say MRAs have the radical notion that women are grown-ups.
I believe that feminism is simply a selfish, solipsistic creed, which exploits a natural tendency in some men and women towards narcissism.
The result has been a massive epidemic of narcissism across society, across the world (1) particularly amongst college students (2) and researchers agree this will have profound consequences for society.
One study showed that use of the phrase ‘I deserve’ in publications had increased 2000% between 1975 and 2005.
The reason that feminism doesn’t deliver happiness (3) to women is because happiness is dependent on ‘doing for others’.
The reason it doesn’t deliver it to men is because, being a selfish creed, it doesn’t recognise the sacrifices men make (from time with their families all the way to their lives) to support their families, communities and even countries, and in fact punishes and disincentivises such sacrifice.
All of this has gotten us at Man Boobz so excited that we – in conjunction with the Chicago Debatalogical Cooperative – have decided to have a debate of our own. And it’s happening right this very minute. Right here on your computer! The format is a couple of YouTube videos I found.
Here a representative of the Men’s Rights movement will argue the pro position: “Feminism has gone too far.”
And here is the rebuttal from the feminist side.
Who’s the winner? We all are!
Dude: people can refer to blogs without blogs being journalistic.
And if you’re so upset at the SPLC calling out the MRM’s misogyny, why don’t you bug Elam about removing Thomas Ball’s manifesto from the “activism” tab on the front page of his site?
Sources cited: the fucking AVfM website.
Ahh, that’s better. Love Pinot Noir. OK, what’s this now?
From Ullere:
“You began by saying feminists equal women which is an interesting start. In your previous comment you implied it was implausable that feminists threatened that womens life.”
Err, what does “feminist equal women” mean? I didn’t write that. Do you mean, feminists are usually women? Or feminism makes women equal? But yes, I implied death threats from feminists in this particular case are doubtful. Did you have a question?
Then:
“When you read the letter she sent jezebel it is heavily implied she didn’t give her permission to have her details posted up there. ‘ Ironically if I had just been
selfish and deleted it like nothing had happened and not apologised I
wouldn’t be name as a misogynist on one of my favorite Feminist
Websites.’ You think they ask permission to call people misogynists?
You’re quoting the person who was posing as her on A Voice For Men?
@ugh
‘YEARS LYNCHINGS OF BLACKS
1890–1899 1,111
1900–1909 791
1910–1919 569
1920–1929 281
1930–1939 119
1940–1949 31
1950–1959 6
1960–1969 3’
‘The statistics reveal at least three
noteworthy facts. The first is the obvious decrease in lynchings over time. The second is
the absence of a correlation between lynchings and Klan membership: there were actually
more lynchings of blacks between 1900 and 1909, when the Klan was dormant, than
during the 1920s, when the Klan had millions of members—which suggests that the Ku
Klux Klan carried out far fewer lynchings than is generally thought.’
I cannot find any data on civil rights movement killings, but I would suspect that in the 1960-1969 decade they commited more than 3.
However I’m not looking to educated about how exagerated the viiolence of the kkk is. I will respond with it is obviously true that there are more radfems. Any check on radfem sites, seeing how rad fems have open public groups, conferences and are openly transphobic without censor or arrest shows that there are more radfems than the mras who cannot keep posters up for a day in Vancouver.
‘When I say “hate movement” I mean my own observation that every mainstream MRA writer has advocated for more rape and domestic abuse in society. -warren farrell.
‘The MRAs don’t do anything that could charitably be called “activism,” obviously. However, they do spend a lot of time talking about how rape should be legal.’ – citation needed, or is it obviously true that mras have stated they want rape to be legal?
‘Breivik wanted to murder public officials because he was upset, among other things, that women had rights. Many mainstream MRA writers have expressed the same desire, or supported as a martyr Thomas Ball, who had the same desire.’
Thats guilt by a shared strawman desire then. Also not rocket science. Mras are not upset by women having rights. Thomas ball also ate breakfast, as do some feminists, thus feminism is violent. Nonsense.
Citation needed for the mainstream MRA writers who have expressed the desire to murder public officials, cause I haven’t seen them, and again I’m sure Manboobz would have been all over that tidbit.
::waves:: G’day Sir Bodsworth!
Someboringtwit: how often do you have to be told that this is a private blog, not journalism? What David does for a living is irrelevant to this, which is a hobby. D’you know what hobbies are, or are you too boring to have any?
BoredStick, Are you back to insisting David do things the way you want? You know how long it took me to create my own blog? 10 minutes. Do it. It’s a blast.
Also, Sticky, literally every other sentient being in the world (slight exaggeration) knows that a blog whose purpose is mockery is not the New York Times. Why does that concept elude you? Should David also post a disclaimer that he is not a trained physician, and any medical advice he gives — such as “Please get your head out of your ass right away” — should be taken with caution? You are seriously the thickest troll who has visited us in quite some time, and given that Steele is your competition for that award, you should, well, not be proud of that.
Your hand-waving would be more convincing if Thomas Ball’s manifesto weren’t accessible from the front page of AVfM, under the heading “activism.”
I sort of agree about the MRM not being a hate movement. It’s more like a ‘hate stasis’, or maybe a ‘hate equilibrium’.
@Shiraz no I’m,quoting the letter, on Jezebel, that David linked to. It’s still there if you want to read it and then get back to me.
As for the feminists equal women bit, you said ‘Ullere, claiming I said no woman has ever threatend another woman’s life in the history of the world is a strawman arguement. ‘ in response to me saying that feminists threaten women.
@Tulgey Logger Then I will contrast it to feminist sites that link to the SCUM manifesto or Radfemhub shall I?
And… Ullere thinks we’re being unfair to the kkk because they really didn’t lynch too many black people. WTF. Even if the general racist white population lynched more people than the kkk itself did, the kkk is still a violent hate group.
AVfM links to Thomas Ball’s manifesto, in which he incites people to murder public officials, on their Activism page.
Tulgey, you ninja.
@Cloudiah, no I wasn’t saying you were being unfair to the KKK, just that the KKK;s violence is exaggerated. Linking to a manifesto is not the expression of the desire to murder public officials. Avfm also clearly says that no icitement of violence is permitted on their page.
Um, I was referring to this situation — you know the one this thread is about.
I can’t claim that no feminist has ever threatened anyone before. We are not the Borg and there is no collective hook-up to gleam such knowledge from. I can tell you think you’re on the verge of making a point, but…
Yeah, I need another sip of Pinot.
Okay, if your bar for “not a hate group” is “not an active murderer.” However if you want to set a higher bar, the KKK’s unapologetic celebration of hundreds of murders still makes them a hate group, just as the MRA desire for rape to be legal still makes them a hate group.
You can suspect whatever the hell you want, doesn’t make it true.
Warren Farrell doesn’t call himself an MRA, with good reason.
Lol wut? Who would arrest them, and why?
Somebody call the Waaahmbulance! Posters linking to a site promoting rape got torn down! Surely this is oppression such as was never faced by any actual movements!
Thomas Ball wrote a manifesto calling for the murder of public officials. Most MRA sites spread that manifesto. It’s not a “strawman” when they’re actually spreading terrorist materials to that effect. “Strawman” does not mean “belief we embrace, endorse, and spread.”
You’d be right! Let me type that into the search box for you:
http://manboobz.com/2012/09/07/reddit-ugly-mras-and-others-argue-that-a-man-allegedly-wronged-in-divorce-court-should-turn-to-murder/
http://manboobz.com/?s=eivind+berge
Also, everyone who has every reposted and endorsed Ball’s manifesto.
Also, racism, poor blockquotes, Pell?
Wow. You trying to get her to go easy on the KKK. Nice.
*cringe/wince*
Ullere isn’t Pell. Ullere is an old troll.
Also, still no citation on there being more radfems than MRAs.
MR subreddit has 40 000 members. There’s my citation. Show me a stat on radfems that’s higher.
I suppose racism and a fundamental ignorance of HTML just kind of goes with their movement.
Oh man, though not explicitly an MRA, Warren Farrell’s wiki page is an odyssey of hilarity.
He coined the term “success object” and “disposable sex.”
He’s a university professor who once co-chaired a conference with, of all people, Deepak Chopra.
He submitted a proposal to President Obama that the government should offer cash incentives to fathers who actually stay in their kids’ lives.
I hope he included the clause that if Obama failed to respond his proposal would immediately go into effect.
And he stated, in (I believe it was) The Myth of Male Power, “Unemployment to a man is the psychological equivalent of rape to a woman”
Yeah. Okay.
Late to the party, but Some Guy and Dullere in the same thread? Holy shit, the stupidity is making little cartoon stink lines coming off the monitor.
Uh, Some Guy Who Needs to Start His Own Blog:
This is not chocolate and peanut butter–two great tastes that taste great together–this mocking misogyny, you epic dolt. Why do feminists and MRAs have to be brought together? To you it’s probably so’s the feminists can do the heavy lifting, because heaven forfend you MRA shitasses lift a damn finger helping yourselves.
At AVfM, they advocate for anyone serving as a jurist on a rape trial to vote not guilty, even when the evidence proves guilt. That has the effect of legalizing rape by making it impossible to convict any rape case.
They also advocate putting the victim on trial, by arguing that any case that doesn’t end in conviction would legally prove the victim made a false allegation. While few rapes are prosecuted as it is, changing to a trial by combat would make it unlikely for any rapes at all to ever be prosecuted.
On Jury Nullification and Rape
Hi, Sir Bodsworth! I’m OK, work is super busy but slowing down somewhat, thank the lard. How are you?