Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Paul Elam's hypocrisy and douchebaggery bring the Not-So-Great Debate to a crashing close

Paul Elam's massive hypocrisy, combined with a bit of douchebaggery, has brought the Not-So-Great Debate to an early end. (Though not before I got in one final post since the last time I mentioned the debate here.) (See here for all my posts in the debate.)

Long story short: He threatened to ban someone who posted a comment supportive of me. I reminded him he'd promised not to do that. He refused to retract the warning. I said, I'm out. Then he changed his mind and retracted the warning. I told him I was back in, if he didn''t pull any more shit. He pulled more shit. I'm out. 

Long story long: When I agreed to debate him on his blog, it was on the condition that the discussion in his comment section would be free and open, and that people supportive of my point of view would not face any special restrictions -- normally, Paul confines opposing opinions to a special page for, as he puts it "feminists and manginas." (I know. He's a grown man, and this is how he handles people who disagree with him.) But he promised, in writing:
With respect to any people who may wish to support your POV in the debate, I am suspending the rules for post transfer to the feminist/mangina page. All comments, short of threats or advocacy for violence, will remain in the thread permanently.
Paul evidently has some trouble remembering his promises. Earlier tonight, Chris -- one of a tiny number of non-MRAs who've actually waded into the snake-pit that is his comments section to post dissenting opinions -- posted this comment:
Excellent points from David. Still, Elam will spin this in the way he believes will best move his own agenda to demonize women and restore the patriarchy (among other nonsense) forward. Most people know the truth though. A group of male supremacists is the last place most people will look to for the truth about women or domestic violence. Especially since their propaganda is so easily refuted as David has proved. And the crap spewed about women as a whole is just plain nonsense. It’s easy to see why the majority of men shun the MRM, and why NOMAS doesn’t want to be connected to it.
As anyone who has been on the Internet for more than about half an hour will tell you, this is not what you'd call an outrageous flame. It's pretty restrained, actually. It was not a threat. It did not advocate violence. But for Paul it was evidently too much to handle, so he promptly responded with this:
You get a warning now Chris. And one only. I agreed with David, offered actually, that dissenters would be welcome to this debate rather than the area I have set up for them at the FAM page.
I do want David to have the opportunity for supporters in the comment area to refute posts made by regular readers of this site.
But this is not a place where you are allowed to come in and make personal insults about me or others. Make your points about the debate. Argue the facts presented all you want.
But making generic, personal insults to MRA’s, simply for being MRA’s, is not allowed here. You have the rest of western culture for that, including the Feminist/Mangina page here.
Can it or see yourself out.
Yes, that's right, the guy who normally consigns those he disagrees with to a "Feminist/Mangina" page is complaining about insults.

This isn't the first bit of bullshit Paul has pulled during the debate. Originally, we had agreed to post two posts apiece; he changed this to five. (I went along with this, but he didn't discuss this with me before announcing it to the world.) Then he decided that he could post two responses in a row over the course of 48 hours without giving me a chance to respond. (Huh?) I challenged him on this, and he relented, but his continual changing of the terms of the debate bugged the hell out of me.

And then of course there was his post calling Domestic Violence Awareness Month nothing more than a "month long national circle jerk" and suggesting, as a "joke," that October should instead be declared "Bash a Violent Bitch Month." He helpfully illustrated the post with pictures of women with black eyes, with the caption to one of the pics reading "Maybe she DID have it coming." I'm still not quite sure why I agreed to debate anything with this guy.

Then came his "warning." Now, such a warning might make sense if Paul normally enforced a regime of general politeness in his comments section. But of course he doesn't. For proof of this, let's see some other comments that appeared in the very same thread. Remember, this is the sort of speech that he considers acceptable.
This Futrelle guy is like a pile of dogshit. Dogshit sits all by itself, fetid and foul. Dogshit’s greatest wish is to become a mess on your shoe because then you have to deal with dogshit. “Finally, somebody is paying attention to dogshit!” Even if it’s only for the amount of time it takes to scrape dogshit off your shoe.
I hope that when this exchange is over, we will not pay Futrelle any more attention. We should do what anyone else does when they see a pile of dogshit. Step around it and not give it another thought.
On Elam's blog you can vote comments up or down. That one got 8 thumbs up and 3 thumbs down from the peanut gallery. Then there was this, from a familar name, evilwhitemaleempire:
At the end of the day manboobs is just another mangina who wants to get laid at the expense of the rights and dignity of all men including himself.
That one got 17 thumbs up. Then there was this one. (I've edited out some of the more rambling bits.) You'll notice that it also contains a number of generalizations about women, not to mention boys raised by single moms:
This manboobs really hates men. I wonder if he sat at his mothers knee taking in all her version of events. I think all the worst men I have ever met, have all had one thing in common, no father. ...  Like illegitimate boys, the female roll-model-men – are always first to defend a woman’s honor against men with violence or treacherous deceit. I consider men without male roll models as illegitimate. Woman-made-men. They hate themselves as males but hate the rest of men even more. Woman love these arseholes, because they do their bidding. Feminist doctrine and female narcissistic malice are the base for manboobs attitude’s towards men.... I still have nightmares about what I went through as a boy, at the hands of a feminist bitch, who continues to be rewarded and admired to this day by woman and cowering manginas.
Then there were a number of posts that accused me of being a woman, or a group of women. Which is just, uh, weird. Of course, this is only an insult if you think that women are bad, but somehow I get the impression that Paul might possibly just have a couple of readers who do think this.

On top of this pile of crap we can place what Paul has said of me and of feminists in general in his latest contribution to the debate:
The important thing in my mind at this point is to identify and explain what is really happening with these activists, people like Futrelle, who can look at all this information and dismiss it in favor of maintaining a false set of beliefs.
We need to ask why, when male victims of DV are a well documented fact of life, would these people seek to deny they exist and even take whatever action necessary to ensure that help is unavailable to them or to their chidren.
The answer to that, at least in my opinion, is groupthink.  Futrelle and the others have had their capacity for critical thought, their human compassion and indeed their personal integrity compromised because rather than exercise common scrutiny when examining information, they have become a part of a collective of non thinkers with tunnel vision; a simple cell in a groupthink brain. It is a seriously debilitating condition with significant individual and far reaching social implications.
It is the same phenomena that allowed masses of people to justify slavery in their minds, countless wars, the collective festering and mindless hatred in 1936 Berlin, and many other forms of social malady.
Yep. Pointing out that women suffer more from Domestic Violence than men makes me a person without integrity or compassion, a "non-thinker with tunnel vision," the sort of person who in an earlier age would have argued for slavery, and yes, a Nazi.

Really, Paul? Really?

Anyway, so earlier tonight Chris alerted me to Paul's "warning," and I posted a comment that said, in part:
Paul, you get a warning from me. When I agreed to this debate is was under the condition that the discussion here would be fair and open. If you are giving Chris a warning for making generalizations about MRAs that you don't like, then I suggest you give warnings to each and every person here who has made similar generalizations about feminists. That would include you as well.
You should also give warnings to the fellow who referred to me as a "pile of dogshit," those who suggest I "hate men" and the like. Oh, and the one who suggested that I and other feminists are like Nazis. Oh, that was you again.
Either retract your warning to Chris, or give yourself and all of these other people public warnings as well, or I am out of this debate.
What followed was a weird little drama that I can only describe as "Paul Elam-esque." First he posted a comment full of Elam-esque posturing and bluster:
You were out of this debate before it started. So I really don’t blame you. If I were you I would be tempted to find something, anything to hide behind so I didn’t have to bear the continued public humiliation.
But you are a little late. You have already served the only real purpose you ever had here to begin with, which was to openly present the bigotry, intellectual cowardice, ignorance and moral bankruptcy that characterizes modern gender ideologues- yourself included.
Your giving me an ultimatum that I have to allow unprovoked ad hominem from your supporters, or you will leave, is just one more example--- a kind of bonus.
Just the same, you are free to change your mind. I am going to put up my response to your latest tomorrow, and this time I get to pull out all the stops because that porous, completely obtuse offering of drivel demands to be completely destroyed with dispassionate reason and truth. ... .
I responded with a comment saying I was out, and reminded him that he had actually promised to allow pretty much anything from commenters supportive of me short of violence and threats. I ended it by saying: "This doesn't make you look good, trust me."

Apparently me offering him proof -- in black and white, in his own words -- that he was being a massive hypocrite convinced him to change his mind. Or maybe he just felt bad that I wouldn't be around to respond to the masterpiece he is apparently now crafting.

So he relented, and retracted his "warning" to Chris. I said I would continue the debate, just so long as he didn't pull any more shit like the shit he has been pulling.

Unable to restrain himself, he responded again in typical Elam fashion:
[J]just for the record, I changed my position to honor my word, not because you hold one bit of sway or force. You are not running anything here. So I am sure you can imagine a good place to store your warning for me not to “pull any more shit.”
Now, this is settled. Get out of my comment area.
Fuck it. I have been extraordinarily patient with this guy, but I have my limits. And he's just gone beyond them. I'm not going to debate with someone who talks to me like that. I'm out.

If I respond to his next post, it will be here. And I may not even bother.

166 comments:

  1. You certainly were eager to scurry out of that debate - you blew an opportunity to spread your feminist scriptures to MRAs just because some trivial little nuance hurt your feelings. In fact, it was just a personal attack on Elam himself and contributed nothing to the conversation - it was superfluous, but you cling to the tiny shred of support you could find from one confused ideologue.
    It just causes us to speculate, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My (rather calm and factual) answer to Futrelle's 3rd contribution:
    http://deansdale.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/the-big-debate-%E2%80%93-p4-fer-cryin-out-loud/

    ReplyDelete
  3. I honestly don't know why you gave yourself all this frustration in the first place.

    I'm all for engaging with people who have different opinions that one's own, but they have to open and respectful of other views too, otherwise it's just a waste of time.

    Anyways, I don't comment here much... or at all, maybe... but I wanted to let you know that I enjoy reading your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "I'm all for engaging with people who have different opinions that one's own, but they have to open and respectful of other views too"
    Doesn't this go both ways? It's always the other guy who *has to be* open-minded, right? Because it's only natural that you're always right so you don't need to listen to anyone.
    Typical pseudo-enlightened leftist stance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David, why didn't you put on your big girl panties and fight through? Maybe if you had any of that masculinity thing that you and your "girlfriends" are so eager to mock, you could have held your own.

    Don't worry, I'm sure you can find so other females and cry in their bosom. I can hear the screeching now: "The nasty MRA was hurting my feelings! He probably can't get laid!"

    The bottom line is. . .without an army of supporters to back you up, when the going got tough, you ran away and cried. You really are a feminist David.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  6. Even WITH an army of supporters to back him up and sling personal insults instead of sticking to the facts presented in the debate (for which Paul didn't seem to take issue), it was Paul who started crying, wanting to silence a dissenting opinion.
    Changing the rules as he goes and silencing dissenting opinions...is that the way Paul seeks to win an argument or debate?

    ReplyDelete
  7. So... when you don't get to win, you throw a hissy fit, pick up your toys and go home?

    Seems to me like this whole exercise was simply an attempt to draw attention to yourself.

    Enjoy the 15 minutes while it lasts.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Losing big? Easy solution. Run away! This is cowardice in the worst way. You got stomped and now bring in a little relational violence to camouflage your retreat. Weak. Your arguments have been outed as half-baked and injurious. The question remains whether you will adjust your thinking or simply close your eyes to the truth and full speed ahead. I know what my guess is for you. You simply lack the courage to see your own misandry and hate. Blessings to you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This is obviously a misandrist feminist site and 'David' is obviously a group of feminist women.

    The foul language, the personal abuse, the lack of rational reasoned arguments, and the out of control emotions, make it obvious.

    And of course there is the disgusting sexual smear of a male icon - John Wayne.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is strictly from an objective point of view concerning your debate with Paul Elam, but you seriously got your ass kicked and balls served on a plate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Just wanted to stop in and say good-bye.

    I am really laughing my ass off here. I found this blog through an article you penned called "Paul Elam's Evasive Pseudo Eloquence" and poked around here to discover a guy whose only talent seems to be personally insulting those he disagrees with, mainly MRA's.

    Everything written here is done with the intent to insult and ridicule.

    So I wanted to see if there was anything there under all that snark. And there was.

    INCREDIBLE hypocrisy!

    But nothing else. After getting your inept ass slaughtered in a debate, come running back here to sulk and stew and complain about what? Being insulted?

    ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

    Your whole blogging life is based on insulting others and their ideology, and now you are all flustered and belly aching because you got some back?

    Yo, check it, dude, you're like PERSONALITY DISORDERED!!

    That image on this rant ain't nothing but a mirror, fuck-knuckle.

    So have a good life, and next time someone asks you to debate, do yourself a favor eat shit instead. It will be less humiliating.

    ReplyDelete
  12. anon said: "This is obviously a misandrist feminist site and 'David' is obviously a group of feminist women."

    I doubt it. Much more likely that Futrelle is simply one of millions of American males who follow their biological imperitive blindly and protect women without considering the plight of their fellow males. What we see here is knee jerk chivalry. Simple and sad as that.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "The answer to that, at least in my opinion, is groupthink. Futrelle and the others have had their capacity for critical thought, their human compassion and indeed their personal integrity compromised because rather than exercise common scrutiny when examining information, they have become a part of a collective of non thinkers with tunnel vision; a simple cell in a groupthink brain. It is a seriously debilitating condition with significant individual and far reaching social implications."

    Ironically, Paul is accusing David of the exact collective non-thinking that plagues the people at his site. I am incredibly surprised how obtuse and hypocritical Paul Elam is. Oh, wait, maybe not.

    But David, seriously, I agree with you. The comments about you were awful and Paul, being a big baby, goes "waa, waa, waa" over what Chris said? Seriously? Pot-kettle.

    I also tried to inject some I don't know, reason i.e. if men are victims then how do we break the silence and get them help? and was told to "shut up". Huh?

    I also love (sarcasm) how comments that were rated low such as mine were hidden. How bad is it that you're so desperate to hid any posts that debunk or refute your BS, Paul?

    Also, to the commenters from Paul's site, such as Douchebag Review: "In fact, it was just a personal attack on Elam himself and contributed nothing to the conversation "
    Yet calling David a dogshit, a mangina, and several other slurs were contributions? Yeah, your bias is showing, Douchebag.

    Seriously, why doesn't Paul tackle real issues against men? Such as childhood sexual abuse? Oh wait, cos that's something that affects several men and he'd then have actual victims to deal with and he's just trying to push his anti-women agenda. So transparent and sad.

    The truth is real male victims of DV, CSA, rape, etc. would be denounced as manginas or otherwise demasculated by Paul and his supporters. Where are there voices eh?

    ReplyDelete
  14. This is such a pathetic excuse for running away from a debate with your tail between your legs. I agree that Elam should keep his word and that if he is going to allow insults from one side then he should also allow them from the other, but guess what? He DID keep his word when you pressed him to do so. You got what you wanted, so what the hell is your excuse for running away? YOU might think you came out of this with some dignity intact, but the rest of us can see that Elam fucking pwn3d you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I seem to be banned from posting here !

    ReplyDelete
  16. No cowardice in refusing to deal with an arrogant asshole such as Paul Elam. It's good sense.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Coldfire

    That's right, David kicks Paul's ass, Paul whines and pulls BS, yet David is somehow running away for not putting up with said BS.

    Good for you, David. Trying to engage in someone so clearly below normal intelligence with rigid beliefs (despite unfailing evidence to the contrary) isn't a good idea. Namely, because no matter how much evidence you show them to the contrary, they just attack the evidence, mostly to distract from the fact they have no evidence themselves. (See also, common troll tactics).

    That's why I never argue with creationists about evolution. It's like, "We know based on decay of Carbon-14 this bone is over 200 million years old" and the creationist says, "Nope - your science is wrong and evil. Despite the fact I have absolutely no evidence to show I am correct, I am correct because I believe I am correct and therefore I must be correct." Sort of a redundant loop eh?

    ReplyDelete
  18. OK

    Tec, there are quite a few problems with your post there, two stood out for me.

    You asked "if men are victims then how do we break the silence and get them help? and was told to "shut up". Huh? "

    What do you think these debate was about if not challenging the suppression of and denial of help for male victims by feminism?

    "The truth is real male victims of DV, CSA, rape, etc. would be denounced as manginas or otherwise demasculated by Paul and his supporters. Where are there voices eh?"

    What do you think you witnessed in that debate aside from the debunking of feminist advocacy research, if not advocacy for male victims of abuse?

    ReplyDelete
  19. He didn't refuse to deal with him. He agreed to a debate and then ran away from it. THAT'S cowardice. For some reason I am reminded from that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    Bravely ran away, bravely ran away away...

    ReplyDelete
  20. I ask this question to all the male feminists I meet.

    How does it feel to be ashamed for being born with a penis?

    That up until your "feminist enlightenment" you were complicit in a culture that commits acts of violence on women and uses rape to control them?

    That your father and grandfathers and entire extended family were part of an evil patriarchy that subjugated women?

    That any boys you have will have to be trained early to control their inborn urge to rape women because it's "part of male nature"?

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Eoghan

    Go read my posts on Paul's site. Then make a comment. I was told to shut up because it wasn't about men's rights at all.

    The reason I suspect why Elam is so quick to dismiss real victims (and why he cannot produce a single one) is that feminism provides the framework for helping victims of CSA, DV, and rape. All the work done to help victims has been the result of feminism and the good men and women who fought for increasing rights of victims.

    Don't believe me? Go ask a man who's been a victim of sexual abuse and see what he thinks. I have met several (as well as those who've been DV victims) and they don't hate women. In fact, for them, women are the only human beings whom they can open up to without being labelled a mangina but douchbags like Paul Elam.

    @Coldfire
    No, he didn't run away. Paul Elam wanted to fix the debate so that only his supporters would get air. That's cheating. Walking away from that is not just right but needs to be done.

    Even if Paul "relents" as you said, he's already shown his true colours - e.g. a duplicitious ingenuous human being. (Now did I spell that right?) Should David just stick around and wait for Paul's next scheme? No, that would be passive and allow Paul to bulldoze over his rights in the debate and not only that, teach Paul it's okay to do so when it's so clearly not.

    ReplyDelete
  22. For all those who keep saying that David is being a coward, please read through the original post about Paul and his BS pulled for this debate. Then maybe you can make an informed comment instead of just trolling, "feminism bad! Mangina good!" Oh wait, are you against manginas? I can never tell with the whole demasculating any man with a different opinion to force conformity thing you're all doing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No. He refuses to deal with him. Period. Now he knows just how much of a nutcase Paul Elam is. Why continue to deal with a nutcase?

    ReplyDelete
  24. tec...for the MRA's it's feminism bad, mangina bad, white knights bad...male supremacy good. They are women haters and spend their time whining because patriarchy has fallen and they are no longer have the power they want.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'll tell you how much of this "instigating" by women goes. She's dealing with an abuser, who are notorious for verbal and emotional abuser, a woman gets frustrated and pushed until she shoves or slaps him in an effort to make it stop. He takes her down by the throat and squeezes until she can't breath, or maybe bangs her head repeatedly against a wall or floor, or maybe just delivers a few good punches (because she 'disrespected' or 'challenged' his so-called authority). The police come, the abuser gets arrested because he crossed a line well beyond self-defense in relation to her small part, and then he whines that she started it and that the cops always arrest the man. Wah, wah, wah. Women in these situations, which are far too frequent, they aren't half the problem. Their biggest problem is they're dealing with an abuser.

    I cannot believe the lies that the MRM perpetuates. I just read Hugh's post over there where he is insisting that cops are trained to always arrest the man.

    He states:

    "I was told today at the course that the police officers are instructed to automatically take away the man in the event that a domestic situation is reported. Even if she assaults you first."

    "it’s all bullchit to begin if the reports are based on reports coming from police who are instructed to just BOOK THE MAN….. NO MATTER WHAT."

    As a person who has sat through hundreds of hours of criminal justice trainings on a local, state, and national level over a number of years, I know that there is no such agenda on the part of the justice system. They look at each case individually and approximately 20% of arrests made are of women. Hugh, I don't believe your story. I think you're making it up to create hysteria among your "victim-oriented" male supremacist buddies.

    And Paul has won nothing and his rhetoric changes nothing. The system will continue to work to hold abuser's accountable, whether male or female, regardless of Paul's agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  26. hahahahahha YOU GOT BITCHSLAPPED LIKE A SILLY FAGGOT. YOU COULDN'T DEBATE YOUR WAY OUT OF WET PAPER BAG HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Paul Elam is a mangina with no spine to stand up to real men, and even he was able to make you look like a silly little bitch. Go cry in your panties, little girl. You just got OWNED :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. So the debate ends? Oh well. I didn't say much, but I hope what I did say wasn't too stupid, to the folks on either side of it.

    That said, Mr. Futrelle, and this is just my personal opinion, you should keep posting on the subject of domestic violence, and particularly to engage the comments and refutations posted by the MRAs. Substantial criticism, if I may be honest, would be much more useful to opponents of MRAs and people who are still on the fence (like me) than the lightweight snark, humor, and "mockery" more common on this blog so far. If you strongly address what a lot of the "haters" over there have said, you could end up accomplishing quite a lot.

    Still, though, this isn't really my business...I get the distinct feeling I've outstayed my welcome in the gender-wars sector of the blogosphere, both among feminists and MRAs. Maybe I'll pop back by every now and then, but for now, I think I'll take my leave. As I said on Mr. Elam's site, I'd just like to thank both of you for allowing me to comment on your blogs--since I'm neither a feminist nor an MRA (though I confess I'm probably closer to the latter) neither of you were obligated to keep me around. So cheers to both of you for allowing my comments, insubstantial as they may have been :) See you around.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @Anonymous October 26, 2010 11:17 AM:

    "for the MRA's it's feminism bad, mangina bad, white knights bad...male supremacy good. They are women haters and spend their time whining because patriarchy has fallen and they are no longer have the power they want."

    Notice that two of those labels are against men - hmmmm....

    Ugh, well, I am not an MRA, but I agree with most of their agendas.

    I have met way too many women whose lives are complete train-wrecks. I believe that such women are in those places because of feminism.

    In other words, I think feminism has been bad for women.

    I also think it has been bad for families.

    I am a single man (not married - but I do have a GF), and because I am not married, I have extra money in the bank - I got lots of cool stuff, I am free to travel whenever I want.

    You might say that I am "empowered".

    The huge plethora of single moms (or just single women) I have met - were anything but "empowered".

    In short, I have all the power I want. But then again, I do not consider myself an MRA. TOUCHE!

    I have noticed that the larger portion of women seem to have no power - because of "delusions of grandeur" they experienced in their youth - i.e. the "empowerment of feminism".

    If anybody wants to hear about them - I'd be happy to post an essay about it.

    I kept hearing, "I was young and stupid" way too often from women. As one MRA blog put it:
    ...It isn't until women turn 30 or 40 that they start to wake-up and realize what fools they've been...


    The DV debate:

    When women are perpetually thought of as victims - and never the perpetrators - it will ensure that they continue their violence.

    Who here disagrees?

    Should NOT violent women in relationships be addressed?

    What exactly are the number of violent women versus violent men?

    If so - why do we have VAWA - and no VAMA?

    Why not get rid of VAWA?

    Why is violence aimed at a woman more serious that violence aimed at a man?

    Isn't that like saying that violence aimed at a white is more serious that violence aimed at a black?

    It seems bigoted to me...

    Tell me I am wrong - and back it up - I will listen - and not call you names...

    And, yes, credible studies show that women START at least 50% of all domestic violence.

    Just because they get beat-up more - that only shows that in general, men are stronger than women (sorry, this is a biological FACT - testosterone builds upper body strength).

    P.S. Dave:

    I will be happy to debate this issue with you...or any other issue with you.

    I have no mangina/feminist zone. I will not do name-calling (unless it is comical).

    In fact, as you recall, I offered to debate any issue with you.

    Remember?

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Tec
    "Trying to engage in someone so clearly below normal intelligence with rigid beliefs (despite unfailing evidence to the contrary) isn't a good idea. Namely, because no matter how much evidence you show them to the contrary, they just attack the evidence, mostly to distract from the fact they have no evidence themselves."
    This is 100% pure bullsh*t. First: personal attacks, clearly misdirected since Elam is an intelligent man. Highly indecent manoeuvre. Then: "rigid beliefs" can be said about David (or you) just as well. You didn't change your stance even a bit, did you? Isn't that rigid? Then: David was also just "attacking evidence", "no matter how much evidence Elam showed him to the contrary". Then: Elam *does* have evidence. He presented it too. You just attacked it.

    What y'all saying basically is that independent researchers are biased but feminist researchers aren't. Come on... Those times have passed where everyone just nodded to your illogical arguments. People are waking up. You can't fool the masses so easily any more.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Scarecrow

    Thanks to feminism I, a woman, can have money in the bank and a great career instead of having to be financial and (thus emotionally, physically, etc.) on a man.

    And also I love how these women you speak of aren't I don't know, talking about it themselves but are doing so through misogynists like yourself. Yup, you knowz women's opinions better than they do. (Mostly in fact what is touted as a failure of feminism is really about how feminism hasn't gotten far enough. e.g. women having full-time jobs but still being expected to have 100%/majority of domestic work. But that's another conversation.)

    @Deansdale - Actually, the entire debate resulted in me investigating domestic violence statistics (see StatsCan) in Canada, and was surprised of the number of DV instances against men. So yes, I did learn something and am not rigid in my beliefs.

    The whole evolution/creationism point was that you can't argue with people who don't respect peer-reviewed scientific research.

    Now I'm all for scientific research being bias but mostly scientific research is twisted for propaganda by everyone. Look at actual statistics and information. Not the conclusions of bias scientists. More still not the conclusions of bias non-scientists with clear agendas that exclude all evidence that debunks their crap, a la Paul Elam.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dave, Paul raped you. All I can say is you had better be getting regularly laid as a direct result of all this anti male garbage you spout.

    That would make it somewhat understandable, if still not excuseable.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I think Paul Elam is coming over here repeatedly posting anonymously to say he won the debate. He thinks he won, but all he really did was repeat one tired point over and over and over and attack David to try prevent the discussion from going anywhere beyond that. He's the loser, because nobody respects him outside of the very small universe of the MRM. Everyone else thinks he's a joke. The whole MRM is a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dave puts the "Fucking retard" in fucking retard. LOL. Dave you debate like a girl--crying crocodile tears when you get put in your place. awwwwwwwwwwww

    ReplyDelete
  34. So funny to watch stupid desperate women struggle to sound intelligent. :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous @ 11:35 wrote this garbage: "I'll tell you how much of this "instigating" by women goes. She's dealing with an abuser, who are notorious for verbal and emotional abuser, a woman gets frustrated and pushed until she shoves or slaps him in an effort to make it stop."

    Lets play the reversal game:

    I'll tell you how much of this "instigating" by men goes. He's dealing with an emotional abuser, who are notorious for verbal and emotional abuser, a man gets frustrated and pushed until he shoves or slaps her in an effort to make it stop."

    So you'd condone this then, right? In the name of "equality" if an emotionally abusive (whatever the hell that means) woman frustrates a man he should have the right to push or slap the woman, right? That would be consistant with your fucked up argument, correct?

    Your doing what all feminists and other scum do, you're making excuses for team vagina and ripping men, period.

    You want women to have the right to hit men when they decide they're frustrated and men to have no rights. Well screw that and if that's what you believe to hell with you and all misandrists like you.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  36. Random Brother...just making something up and accusing a poster of believing it or wanting it, doesn't make it so. No one ever said they believe what you say they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  37. lol...random brother went on an irrational rant. Dude, no one here wants women to have the right to hit men or want men to have no rights and no one said anything even remotely close to that. Violence is wrong and men have rights. Calm yourself and think rationally. lmao!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous said:

    "Random Brother...just making something up and accusing a poster of believing it or wanting it, doesn't make it so. No one ever said they believe what you say they believe."

    Are you joking? I took her direct quote and then changed the genders to prove a point. Are you saying she said that but doesn't believe it?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  39. Just tell the cunt to shut the fuck up or she's going to be missing some teeth :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous said...
    "lol...random brother went on an irrational rant. Dude, no one here wants women to have the right to hit men or want men to have no rights and no one said anything even remotely close to that. Violence is wrong and men have rights. Calm yourself and think rationally. lmao!"

    You argue like David, all snarkiness no facts. And men have next to no rights. When men can be arrested for rape on soley a woman's say so. When men can be murdered in their sleep and their girlfriends/wives can claim abuse and get away with it, even when there is no evidence, when men have no rights to see their children post divorce, well, don't give me a stupid snarky comment about all the rights men have.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  41. My challenge for feminists:
    http://deansdale.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/my-challenge-for-feminists/

    ReplyDelete
  42. David proves himself to be nothing more than a sissy ass faggot professional victim. All day long he insults people in his blog, then he has the nerve to cry like a little bitch over some imagined insult. Hypocrisy much? What a ridiculous bitch. Go do your nails.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Oh sweeeeet, it looks like http://manhood101.com made it onto Dave's enemies list.

    Being hated by a devout mangina is pretty much the highest honor on the internet. xo

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Anonymous

    Thanks for showing your true colours - namely that you are not against DV. Not at all. You are truly for DV.

    You've basically shot yourself in the foot, eh?

    @Random Dbag

    No, the actual reverse situation would be the instance where the woman was the physical and emotional abuser, not what you've described.

    As I've said before, I've seen such a situation and yes, my Dad has in the past physically forced my Mom to stop and no, I don't think it constitutes abuse on his part but self-defense. The difference is my father was not physically abusive in the first place. This is the reverse of what the person previously was speaking about which differs significantly from what you and Paul Elamites like you are evangelizing.

    Basically, what many of you e.g. Delasane (or whatever his name is) who admits he's been in mutally destructive DV relationships, is that women are violent too so therefore we're justified in being violent towards them.

    It's similar to saying that because the man was violent towards her, a woman is justified in being abusive towards her children. Um, no. It doesn't work that way.

    Reciprocal violence is never justified.

    Also, given the additional anti-women sentiments of many of you it's very difficult to see this as anything more than posturing to add to your hate framework.

    Like I said, I'd like to see Paul talk about childhood sexual abuse (where there are conveniently not a dirge of victims) as that seems more of an issue to tackle for men.

    But given CSA deals with powerless victims (children) whereas MRA is about male priviledge, rather doubtful.

    ReplyDelete
  45. From Roland3337.

    Hey there Dave...

    You really got your ass handed to you, eh? And let me guess...you're not going to learn anything from it, right? You're not going to question any of your assumptions, and instead plug your ears, and keep on keeping on with the hate, eh?

    Jesus H. Christ...I thought I was far gone, once upon a time. I'm a Ph.D. and I used to publish my fair share of papers that carried a lot of water for what I thought was equality.

    But unlike you, I listened to some reason. I looked at the evidence. And I saw how badly I'd been used. And I switched sides.

    But you're not gonna do that, right?

    Why the fuck not? Are you really gonna keep your head stuck in the sand? WTF?

    What is keeping you from finishing the job, and cutting off those pesky man parts that you supposedly have? There are surgeons that'll do that for you. What's holding you back?

    Is it possible, that maybe way down deep inside, you know that you're on the wrong side of this argument?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Tec

    you are a true blue feminist, you just lie. Its not the mrm that deny male victims, it feminism that does that. Its feminism that protects female abusers, its feminists that barge into and disrupt meetings for battered men and victims of female pedophiles. The mrm advocates for male victims. It doesnt seek to make them disappear as David and the like do.

    ReplyDelete
  47. whew...these Paul Elam followers sure are acting like crazy people on this comments board...just a shadowing of why they're having these clearly serious problems they're complaining about in their personal lives?

    ReplyDelete
  48. @Eoghan

    Yup, those damn uppity women. Honestly, I lie? You write under the guise of men's issues to bad mouth women. You use DV male victims to peddle your hatred. And they're not even part of your voice. You, I am afraid to say, are the liar.

    Even if feminists did disrupt a battered men and victims of female pedophiles, that doesn't mean all feminists are like that. In fact, it goes against what many feminists believe e.g. being against rape and CSA of either genders. You don't know feminism.

    On the other hand, hatred goes hand in hand with violence which is why so many abusers have flocked to your camp of "it's the womenz fault! Theyz made me do it, they did!"

    Seriously, if I could I'd put up the fistpalm of Captain Picard from ST:TNG. But instead, try to just imagine it. *facepalm*

    Ultimately what you're spouting is detrimental to real male victims because you conflate women hatred with genuine men's issues, and make it the women's fault. Only this time, it's not the specific woman who is being abused, you're instead using feminism as the catch-all evil woman. Not really even new (hello, anyone who's studied Greek and Roman culture or even further knows that.)
    It's so transparent, I'm surprised you and your pals don't float away from effervescence. Or maybe that's just my fantasy? You know that guys like you don't really exist and actually don't hate women for simply existing. Ahh, we can dream...

    ReplyDelete
  49. @Tec thanks for proving that incoherent fucktards like you are a dime a dozen. Are your panties moist yet? LOL :)

    ReplyDelete
  50. These rabid delusional cunts are the perfect feminist army for David--NO BRAINS, ALL GLITTER. Oh how men shiver at the thought of retarded females desperately begging for attention. Fetch!

    ReplyDelete
  51. Oh my...those MRA's are mean. lmao

    ReplyDelete
  52. "whew...these Paul Elam followers sure are acting like crazy people on this comments board...just a shadowing of why they're having these clearly serious problems they're complaining about in their personal lives?"

    Yes and I've sort of jumped on the bandwagon. :) It's fun trolling these guys BS! (Trolling the commenters who are obvy trolling Dave's site; not David, who is, based on his site posts, rather insightful.)

    And fyi, I don't get wet from little babies and their tiny baby penises. (Penii? What's the plural of penis.)

    In other words, you can try all you want, you're not going to scare me the way you are so scared of me. Boo!

    So you can make as many comments as you want against me and I'm not going to be afraid of you, because, let's face it, you're a pathetic loser and on the internet and anyways IRL, if you ever did try to pull any shit to hurt me, I'd put you down pretty quick.

    I just like fucking with how stupid you and your beliefs are.

    ReplyDelete
  53. @Anonymous

    What's a matter? Afraid? Obvy. :) waa, waa, waa, keep crying so I know I'm getting to you. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  54. tec...they're entertaining but it gets tiresome watching them twist words around to try make others look bad then throw temper tantrums when they fail. I think some of posts are from the Grand Wizard Elam himself posting as anonymous. He's a petty man.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Part 1.

    tec said:

    "@Random Dbag

    No, the actual reverse situation would be the instance where the woman was the physical and emotional abuser, not what you've described."

    Fine then. Lest assume that the man had been struck and had his face clawed prior to the verbal abuse. Would he NOW be able to slap or shove his wife or girlfriend to make the abuse stop? Well?

    tec said: "As I've said before, I've seen such a situation and yes, my Dad has in the past physically forced my Mom to stop and no, I don't think it constitutes abuse on his part but self-defense. The difference is my father was not physically abusive in the first place. "

    Understand something. Your father was lucky.
    If right before the police shown up you mom had deliberately injured herself he'd have been hauled off to jail. Do you understand that? If your dad had run into a cop that didn't like him, was biased against him, had a bad day, or worse of all was a god damn feminist. Your dad would have been screwed.

    The problem is you do what so many women do, which is base life not on likely probability, but what happened to you personally. The vast majority of times that a police officer shows up for a domestic violence call and someone leaves in handcuffs it's the man, regardless of the evidence, regardless of what he says and regardless of what happened.

    tec continues: "The difference is my father was not physically abusive in the first place. This is the reverse of what the person previously was speaking about which differs significantly from what you and Paul Elamites like you are evangelizing."

    In other words, if men just let their women beat the hell out of them, the police will show up and believe the man and then arrest the violent woman just like what happened with my dad.

    1. Why do men have to submit to being tortured and abused by their wives/girlfriends?

    2. This is not the way it usually goes down. In this femnut day and age an accusation damn well means a conviction. Your fantasy about fair honest cops based upon your personal aberration is meaningless to the vast majority of men. But you do offer men the "option" of getting assaulted over and over again in hopes that the good cop (somewhat like the mythical good woman) will show up and save the day. Thanks a fucking lot feminist.

    Random Brother
    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  56. (Cont)

    tec said:

    tec said: "Basically, what many of you e.g. Delasane (or whatever his name is) who admits he's been in mutally destructive DV relationships, is that women are violent too so therefore we're justified in being violent towards them.

    It's similar to saying that because the man was violent towards her, a woman is justified in being abusive towards her children. Um, no. It doesn't work that way."

    You should be forced to never post again for this horrific attempt at logic. It's not even specious. If a man is violent to a women it's okay for a woman to be violent to her children? WTF? No. The woman is a grown rational adult, a child is not. If a woman is woman enough to "throw hands" she should be woman enough to get hands thrown at her. But you don't want that do you? You want to keep your assault priveldge, don't you? Sick feminist.

    tec said: "Reciprocal violence is never justified."

    Bullshit. Tell that to feminist hero Lorena Bobbit. You damn well know that if a woman is getting abused by her man and she rises up and kicks the shit out of him neither you, nor your feminist sisters are going to squeek a peep about reciprocal violence. Stop lying. You only believe that reciprocal violence is bad when men do it to women. Hypocrite.

    tec said: "Also, given the additional anti-women sentiments of many of you it's very difficult to see this as anything more than posturing to add to your hate framework."

    When men in this era start passing laws that take away your rights, then lecture me on hate, dear.

    tec said: "But given CSA deals with powerless victims (children) whereas MRA is about male priviledge, rather doubtful."

    Yeah, the priveledge to be assaulted and not fight back. Right.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  57. Just looking at the tactics here.
    1) Lose debate
    2) Revert to character assassination of winner.
    3) Troll own blog as members of the other group posting inflammatory comments in attempts to further defame winner.

    @ Tec, nobody said that all feminists try to make male victims disappear, but most do. David's failure in the debate for example was a failure to make male victims and female perps disappear, as is your support for him and character assassination of people that try to draw attention to to the fact that male victims and female perps are hidden from the sight of most and excluded from support services.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @Tec:

    "Thanks to feminism I, a woman, can have money in the bank and a great career instead of having to be financial and (thus emotionally, physically, etc.) on a man."

    Sorry Tec - this is not true - there are women doctors and dentists (respectable careers) dating back to the 1800's. Women have always been free to pursue careers.

    "And also I love how these women you speak of aren't I don't know, talking about it themselves but are doing so through misogynists like yourself."

    Of course you have not met them - I did. And the fact that I care about their quality of life makes me a misogynist? The fact that I took time to listen to what they had to say makes me a misogynist? Clearly, you have no idea what that word means...

    "Yup, you knowz women's opinions better than they do."

    I did not claim to - however, I have listened to an awful awful lot of women...


    I'd like to point out, you attribute any success of yours to feminism...

    Isn't it possible that you did that all on your own?

    As I stated - women have always had careers. There were never any laws forbidding them to hold jobs, pursue educations, or establish careers for themselves.

    Sorry, but you have been listening to propaganda.

    But - let me guess - the fact that I am pointing out the truth to a woman must therefore mean that I hate women - i.e. misogynist?

    The fact that I attribute her success to herself instead of a hate-filled movement makes me a woman-hater?

    ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "The vast majority of times that a police officer shows up for a domestic violence call and someone leaves in handcuffs it's the man, regardless of the evidence, regardless of what he says and regardless of what happened."

    Random brother...while it's true that most of the time that an officer makes an arrest it's the man...about 75-80% of the time, the rest of what you said is not true. It isn't a matter of no matter what really happened or no matter what you say the man is arrested. There isn't really an agenda by cops to destroy men. Most cops are men. Cops arrest the person they believe committed the crime based on the evidence they see and hear. They get it wrong sometimes, but I think most of the time, they get it right.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Sorry babies, I have to go do something real vs. mental masturbation. Note to Random, my Dad wasn't lucky. It was obvious to the cops after 5 seconds in the house that my Mom was the issue. Which is why I think, unless you are a cop, you can posture all you want about how the cops are out to get you. I think someone else posted how false it was in one of the posts. (This person had experience with cops).

    Also, I'd like to note that I also live in Canada where you know, people matter. So maybe yes, cops are harsh in your area but I'm sure they're also harsh on minorities (and you most likely a white male) are lucky. I can't really say - do any people matter in America?

    And what part of "my father physically restrained my Mom" makes you think my Mom was "beating the hell out of" him and he just "took it"? That's just retarded so please learn to read carefully. I said my father defended himself but isn't abusive himself. He didn't slap or punch her (which your "bros" are all for when it's DV). He restrained her to prevent himself from getting hurt. He didn't use unneccessary force. That's what the previous poster who talked about what constitutes "instigating" meant about self-defense. Very different than beating someone who "provoked" you by having not cooked dinner enough eh? Or did you think non-cooked dinners constitute emotional abuse?

    And I never said men don't get abused. How many times do I need to repeat myself. Maybe I should put it in a separate post all on it's own. Men get abused. DV is a horrible cycle of abuse. Women simply do not abuse men in the same numbers. Not because women are so good and non-violent - actually they often then verbally and physically abuse their children, who are in a lower power position.

    So please do not compare my wonderful father to a woman-hating abuser who thinks women "have it coming to them" but men are somehow victims of those abused women. As someone else recently put - your chapeau seems to be placed precariously on your derriere - asshat.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "Random brother...while it's true that most of the time that an officer makes an arrest it's the man...about 75-80% of the time, the rest of what you said is not true. It isn't a matter of no matter what really happened or no matter what you say the man is arrested. There isn't really an agenda by cops to destroy men. Most cops are men. Cops arrest the person they believe committed the crime based on the evidence they see and hear. They get it wrong sometimes, but I think most of the time, they get it right.
    October 26, 2010 3:34 PM"

    You haven't heard of "primary aggressor", its a VAWA initiative. Cops are trained to profile the larger party as the aggressor regardless of which person called it in. One body of resesarch shows that men are arrested over half of the time they call in for help.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Quick hit to Scarecrow. Anyone who's seen the Heritage One minutes on CBC knows it wasn't a picnic for those women to get those careers. It's part of the feminist/suffragist movement.

    And yes, 'twas me and my awesomeness. But if I'd been born even 100 years ago as you say it's unlikely I would have even been able to go to university.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Tec, very few people of either sex got to go to university 100 years ago. It wasn't down to sexism. Feminist history tells a revised and skewed version of reality in order to recruit, politically motivate, manipulate and stir up hate.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "You haven't heard of "primary aggressor", its a VAWA initiative. Cops are trained to profile the larger party as the aggressor regardless of which person called it in. One body of resesarch shows that men are arrested over half of the time they call in for help."

    Yes, I've heard of "primary aggressor" and it doesn't mean the "larger party" is the one arrested. It means that officers are trained to determine who is the primary threat based on thorough interviews, offensive vs. defensive wounds, physical evidence, and so on. It is an effort to discourage arresting both parties for domestic violence crimes when it is nearly always one who is the abuser. Which person called it in doesn't have much to do with who is the abusive person.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The MRM is definitely a misogynist movement. Anyone can tell that just with a glance at some of the headlines of the misogynist articles. That's just part of the reason why it never grows too big and never will.

    ReplyDelete
  66. lol! lmao! wow Tec, "tiny baby penises"! Them sure is fighting words! Yes, you're such a strong, independent womon! everyone's so intimidated and scared of you! everyone's shaking and crapping his pants! lmao! lol! gawd! don't even bother! you're such an amateur! lol! gawd!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yeah, with primary aggressor, a male can call in for help but if he has scratches or injuries on him, the cops are trained to perceive them as evidence of his being violent. Its vawa which works off patriarchal theory, ie. men are the abusers and if a man is injured, the woman was defending herself.

    Just over 50% of the time, a male victim looking for help with a violent female partner will be arrested and charged with domestic violence.

    http://www.cafcusa.org/

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous said...
    The MRM is definitely a misogynist movement. Anyone can tell that just with a glance at some of the headlines of the misogynist articles."

    Evidence?

    Yeah right, fathers and abuse victims rights, disproportionate male suicide, education gap etc. is wrong and all about misogyny. Gone are the days when debate can be silenced by unfounded accusations of irrational hatred of women and feminism is fueled on hatred of men, just look at this blog, feministing, jezebele, feminist pusedo history and research ect. saying that the mrm is based in hate is a projection of the characteristics of feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  69. True that very few people of either sex got to go to university 100 years ago, but for men who weren't able to attend university, it wasn't because the doors were closed to them BECAUSE they were men.

    Resolutions of rejection drawn up by students at Harvard regarding a woman who was simply wanting to attend lectures there in the 1800s:

    "Resolved, that no woman of true delicacy would be willing in the presence of men to listen to the discussion of subjects that necessarily come under consideration of the students of medicine."

    "Resolved, that we object to having the company of any female forced upon us, who is disposed to unsex herself, and to sacrifice her modesty by appearing with men in the lecture room."

    And it wasn't until 1944 that Harvard began to admit women to its medical school.

    Canada's first female physician had to travel outside the country in order to attend medical school, as women weren't allowed to attend medical school in Canada at that time (around 1860). She was unable to obtain a licence when she returned to Canada after completing medical school elsewhere until, 13 years after completion of medical school, U of T allowed her to attend classes that would enable her to take the exam that would grant her a licence to practice medicine in Ontario, provided she passed the qualifying exam after attending those classes (which she did).

    Nooooooooooooo, no sexism THERE!!

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Yeah, with primary aggressor, a male can call in for help but if he has scratches or injuries on him, the cops are trained to perceive them as evidence of his being violent. Its vawa which works off patriarchal theory, ie. men are the abusers and if a man is injured, the woman was defending herself."

    Cops are trained to be able to tell if the injuries are defensive or offensive in nature. If they are offensive wounds, they man may be arrested. If they are defensive wounds, she may be arrested. VAWA does not say that if a woman is injured, the man is the abuser. Approximately 20% of domestic violence arrests in the U.S. are women. There are many causes of domestic violence, patriarchy is a very common one. One only need to sit in a courtroom for a while to see the fool who tells the judge that he did it because she disrespected him, or that he deserves to have his dinner hot and ready when he gets home. You should sit in a court room sometime and see what goes on.

    It is sad when a true male victim does not get the help that they need. In reality, cops need to be well trained in determining evidence, because abusive people claim to be the abused and it's not always easy to tell what happened. They are manipulators and very good at lying. VAWA makes it clear that their funds and initiatives are to serve both men and women. Have you ever gone to the VAWA website and researched this? Men and women both deserve services.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Yes, the research has been done, I linked you to the From ideology to Inclusion site, none of this stuff is imagined or falsified. VAWA was forced to inclue men because of discrimination laws and was revised but add ons like primary aggressor keep the discrimination intact.

    As for women in college, women didnt become feasible for investment in education or training for long term positions until reliable birth control and a surplus of female friendly jobs came along and anyway, its history, I belong to an ex slave race, half of us were wiped out by genocide, real oppression as opposed to what feminists say is oppression.... but its history, there is no point in resenting the residents of the country or the country that occupied us.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @Paul --

    I will be responding to your latest debate post here. Suffice it to say you have really outdone yourself this time, and I don't mean that in a good way.

    @Deansdale and cat and anyone else who was caught in the spam filter, I have unspammed them and they should all be posted above.

    I will probably respond to whatever is worth responding to in these comments in another post, once I get around to reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Hahaha these cunts are so dumb, they're basically arguing over the color of nail polish now. LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  74. Female intelligence = oxyMORON. lol :)

    ReplyDelete
  75. A couple of thoughts:

    Tec, thanks. (Except maybe for the baby penises bit; no need to sink to their level.)

    Wanderer, please keep posting here and on Paul's site.

    Also: it's pretty clear that at least a good portion of the worst comments here are coming from the Manhood101 crowd. I will leave them up for now, but if they continue spamming my comments section with vile, hateful personal attacks I will start deleting them.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Hahahaha this angry cunt is frustrated at being exposed as a fraud! :) hahahaha

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Tec so you admit to liking "tiny baby penises"? Looks like the feminist movement is trolling the gutter for pedophiles. Fugly is as fugly does :)

    ReplyDelete
  78. This video pretty much sums up feminism in a nutshell (keyword: NUT)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ppd6LHfhkd0

    ReplyDelete
  79. @Anonymous, the point was with regards to whether my "panties are wet." I just pointed out that since many of the, as David puts it, Manhood101 commenters are big babies, they have tiny penises, and therefore I wasn't threatened by their pathetic impotent comments any more than I am threatened by them if they were here IRL.

    And so David, so the tiny penis comment wasn't meant for you, just the big babies who weren't breastfed long enough and now whine about evil womynz.

    ReplyDelete
  80. David, it doesn't look like you have anywhere to go with that, you argued that the cts is flawed and that results garnered from it are invalid, then you offered a cts based study that on close inspection confirms that women are committing half of the domestic violence, is it not better to concede some points with some grace and dignity than it is to publish some convoluted and transparent piece of damage limitation, you should ask yourself too, is working to keep abusers and victims hidden really the right position to be in?

    I think that there must be something in this for you and wonder who is paying you publish this stuff, the abuse industry is a multi billion dollar industry based on patriarchal theory after all, and the real dv research debunks patriarchal theory.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @David Oh sorry I misread that. I thought you were saying you thought the penis thing was directed at you. Duly noted, I'll be civil. :P

    ReplyDelete
  82. lol! lmao! go Tec go, you explain grrrrrl!!! let's have a big hand for Tec!!! "so the tiny penis comment wasn't meant for you" = "the tiny penis comment WAS actually meant for you David!!!" you know what the ol' excusatio non petita actually means!!! lmao! gawd!!! go on Tec, explain once more how big strong and independent you are IRL and how you'll "put down" anyone IRL!!! lmao! lol! gawd!!!

    ReplyDelete
  83. @Tec so basically you're admitting to shopping for "baby penises" to fulfill your pedophile lust. Been rejected to often grownups huh? Poor sad pedophile. Leave the baby penises alone! Sounds like you have penis envy and now you're taking it out on children.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Didn't say I resented anybody over what happened in history, was just pointing out that your "It wasn't down to sexism" was incorrect. The reasons that investment in education or training for long term positions for women wasn't considered feasible wasn't due to lack of ability or lack of "female friendly jobs", it was due to ignorance based on false notions and a desire to view some as not fully human; the same ignorance and desire that placed some people into slave races. We should not ignore or sweep history under the rug when it doesn't support a position that we want to hold.

    ReplyDelete
  85. If Domestic Violence is predominantly a tool used by males to control females, if the majority of violence perpetrated by females against their domestic partners is in self-defense, then why is there such a high rate of domestic violence among lesbian couples?
    http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml
    http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

    In fact, some studies indicate that domestic violence is more common among lesbian couples than it is among gay male couples.

    From:
    http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=&sc3=&id=109418

    "The Gay Men’s Domestic Violence Project reports one in four gay men experience domestic violence. The rate is even higher among lesbians. One in three likely will experience domestic violence during their lifetimes, the same rate as straight women."

    Hmmmm... so if we remove men from the relationship equation and replace them with women we still have the same amount of violence?

    ReplyDelete
  86. These people are going to dismiss your arguments out-of-hand anyways, just because of how you identify. I thought you did an excellent job with your posts, they were focused and well-supported. But... don't throw pearls before swine, as the saying goes.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Going back to the OP, can someone expain how:

    "This is not a place where you are allowed to come in and make personal insults about [Paul E.] *or others*." [my emphasis]

    is consistent with "allowing" the comment:

    "This Futrelle guy is like a pile of dogshit."

    I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that this is about as disingenuous as it's possible to be. Of course, this isn't a point about the underlying issue, DV, but the OP is about the "debate", which from the outside appears to consist largely of schoolyard taunts. Which are impossible for any rational person to take seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Pam, when women were forced into the factories and mines they campaigned to get out, because there were no domestic mod cons families were coming home to cold house with no prep done and food had to be done from scratch, it was horrific. Putting men and women in wage slave positions was more oppressive than not in the context of the times and anyway, as I said its history and it has no relevance today except when young women are being indoctrinated politically motivated in w/s classes and it has nothing to do with feminisms hiding and excluding abuse victims and protecting perpetrators through pseudo scientific research today.
    And no, women were not subjugated like slave races its not the same system, thats a womens studies fiction. I get the impression you are american, during the great oppression of white women there, didnt you have the power to have a black man hung if you felt he looked at you wrong and were you protected from all the heavy and dangerous and sometimes fatal work? Arent you still and now live in a system that discriminates in your favour in health, education, employment and law, and you still have the power to have a man punished by law on the strength of your word alone? Please dont insult slave races by putting the experiences of privileged white women in the same category as them.

    ReplyDelete
  89. "@Tec so basically you're admitting to shopping for "baby penises" to fulfill your pedophile lust. Been rejected to often grownups huh? Poor sad pedophile. Leave the baby penises alone! Sounds like you have penis envy and now you're taking it out on children."

    Um, obvy you have trouble reading to misinterpret so horribly to imply I'm a pedophile. CSA is not a joke, and the fact you make it one, just illustrates what a horrible, loathesome human being you truly are. Or it just shows the extent of your desperation to put me down. You pick. Don't care. Stop bothering me with it, you're boring.

    Let me state it again much more clearer than before:

    The point was that many of the male commentators can suck it - cos no amount of threat will make me afraid of you.

    Guess what? This isn't IRL, you can't effectively use male domination as a threat over the internet because you're IMPOTENT.*

    *see 'only works in real life' for more information.

    But anyways, I'll try to focus on sticking to the issues, (though it's so hard not to troll some of the MRA commenters) as per David's comment.

    I even edited my current post to be very "nice".

    @Eoghan so what about 3rd wave feminism that addresses the issues of women of colour? (In fact one of the very criticisms of 2nd wave was exactly that it focused on white women with white priviledge.)

    Also, where can I get that "punish a man by strength of word" power? Oh wait, that's right. It's still hard - in 2010 - to prove a rape by he said, she said alone.

    Damn, I guess facts just keep getting in the way of your arguments eh?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Anonymous said...
    The MRM is definitely a misogynist movement. Anyone can tell that just with a glance at some of the headlines of the misogynist articles. That's just part of the reason why it never grows too big and never will.
    October 26, 2010 4:18 PM


    The MRM is definitely NOT a misogynist movement and it is strongly growing. It is however anti-feminist.

    To tell people a person who is speaking out against feminism is hating all women is nothing but a feminist lie. Totally baseless.

    It's about the same telling people white and black are the same colors.

    There are many MRAs who are married and have daughters.

    MRAs are merely showing up with evidence, that feminism is not about equality, but about getting unreasonable privileges and advantages solely out because of the 'right gender'.

    In this discussion MRAs prove clearly, that Domestic Violence is not only from men to women, but also from wife to husband, mother to her son, adult daughter to her old father etc.

    The tearful story about poor helpless women as victims-only and aggressive men as violent criminals-only is a feminist lie.

    There is enough evidence to prove that women are violent too. Violent women do exist and this cannot be denied.

    The problem is about responsibility, men are kept responsible for their wrongdoings, while women are excused and often get away with no punishment at all or with ridiculous sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  91. @Tec I don't think anybody really cares about your sick bizarre "baby penis" fetish. If you want to share your pedophile fantasies, please find another forum. This isn't the place for it you sick twisted fuck.

    @Pam the reason women weren't allowed to vote is, as this blog demonstrates, women are too dumb to do anything sensible without the help of a man. It's generally acknowledged that women are hysterical emotional retards with the brain of a turnip. They simply cannot separate reason from emotion. That's why women make such idiotic nonsensical arguments based in denial. Nobody takes you seriously, stop kidding yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  92. @Yohan
    "The MRM is definitely NOT a misogynist movement and it is strongly growing. It is however anti-feminist. ... To tell people a person who is speaking out against feminism is hating all women is nothing but a feminist lie. Totally baseless."
    Um, what? So you're saying you're not against women, just don't think you we should be able to vote, or have careers, or be raped when we're uppity or [insert work of feminism/suffragists here]
    "There are many MRAs who are married and have daughters."
    That above all else scares me. Well played, I tip my chapeau au derriere to you.

    "MRAs are merely showing up with evidence, that feminism is not about equality, but about getting unreasonable privileges and advantages solely out because of the 'right gender'."
    No, it's about repealing white male priviledge. You see it as "unreasonable" because you're sexist. How is that not clear?

    "In this discussion MRAs prove clearly, that Domestic Violence is not only from men to women, but also from wife to husband, mother to her son, adult daughter to her old father etc. "

    I agree. I don't agree that feminism, that to me is the existing framework for enfranchising the victim's voice, is also the cause. I think 1000s of years of women being sold from father to husband and treated like chattel results in family dynamics that are, at the very least, dysfunctional.

    "The tearful story about poor helpless women as victims-only and aggressive men as violent criminals-only is a feminist lie."

    Yet, we can produce said women and you cannot produce a said helpless man. Only abusers. Hmm, where have I heard that whole, "women made me do it" schpeal before? Right, that's what abusers think! Yeah, glad we cleared that up - MRA's cover up real abusers under the guise "women do it too".
    "There is enough evidence to prove that women are violent too. Violent women do exist and this cannot be denied. "
    Agreed. Women can be very violent. How do we put an end to it? How do we help men?
    The problem is, feminism isn't the problem. You're scapegoating. MRAs frames the entire problem as being the fault of feminism and about restoring a patriarchy that (gee, convenient eh?) only works for who? White Men who are the resounding majority of the MRA.
    The only real way for you to change DV to include men is to include those said victims and speak out. Let me be more frank: Victims need to start speaking out against violence and start:
    (1) deconstructing the idea that male victims don't exist (you know actually show your face at a rally for DV and be guest speaker about violence against men instead of hiding behind the anonymity of the internet)and the concept that DV male victims are somehow demasculated (where does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, MRAs consistently demasculate men for differing view points. Can't imagine why you don't have a bunch of victims instead of abusers in your camp.)
    (2) Start getting help from the psychiatrists and social workers so that you're not invisible when said people (or colleagues) decide to do research
    (3) Change the existing society that dienfranchises said victims because of rigid beliefs of masculinity (where does this sound familar? That's right, women did it with feminism to break down feminine stereotypes)

    To many steps for you? How about just - Victim get help. And gee, help them, instead of mental masturbation on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @Yoghan

    "The problem is about responsibility, men are kept responsible for their wrongdoings, while women are excused and often get away with no punishment at all or with ridiculous sentences." Hmm sounds too much like, "women can get men arrested for rape by just saying so". Really?

    From StatsCan
    "As in previous years, while the majority (78%) of reported incidents of spousal violence resulted in charges laid by police, in 2007, incidents involving female victims (80%) were more likely to result in charges being laid than those involving male victims (66%) (Table 2.5). 9 Charges were also more likely to be laid for incidents of spousal abuse involving a current spouse (82%), compared to a former spouse (67%). (Table 2.6)."
    66% eh? Pretty good actually and not 0% as you say. Yes, women's is higher. But then, given only 10% of domestic abuse calls are by DV male victims, that's pretty fucking good. And that's with the big mean feminists saying men aren't really victims (even though we don't think women are really victims either but somehow that's not hypocritical or disengenuous).

    ReplyDelete
  94. No, it's about repealing white male priviledge. You see it as "unreasonable" because you're sexist. How is that not clear?

    Download is free, it's not sexist to ask, why a female gets a shorter sentence than a male for an identical crime despite sentences guidelines to keep punishments gender-neutral.

    http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2870.html

    Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence Because You Are a Woman? An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines

    ReplyDelete
  95. It's funny how these stupid cunts use the same retarded chick logic they apply to false rape accusations.

    On one hand these dumb cunts whine about men being anonymous on the net (as if women suddenly have balls and a spine to stand up to men by themselves LOL! Good one!)

    On the other hand, they hypocritically complain that cunts who make false rape accusations should be protected by anonymity.

    As always, feminist cunts just want to have their cake and eat it too. What can you expect from women. They are too fucking stupid to see past their own hypocrisy without the help of man to do their work for them (as always).

    ReplyDelete
  96. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 1:11 AM

    @tec
    "-mostly scientific research is twisted for propaganda by everyone. Look at actual statistics and information. Not the conclusions of bias scientists. More still not the conclusions of bias non-scientists with clear agendas that exclude all evidence that debunks their crap-"

    Well of course I don't listen to feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  97. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 2:24 AM

    "Anonymous said...
    lol...random brother went on an irrational rant. Dude, no one here wants women to have the right to hit men or want men to have no rights and no one said anything even remotely close to that. Violence is wrong and men have rights. Calm yourself and think rationally. lmao!"

    All right then how about this for reason?

    Let's assume that everything feminists claim about the so-called patriarchy is true.
    IF it is true then what's to stop the shit eventually going COMPLETELY the other way?

    Let's talk about equality.
    What's to keep equality from being a moving target? i.e. If I can say it's equal for a woman to be able to hit a man with no consequences while a man cannot do the same to a woman without a swat team being called in then tomorrow I can say it's equal for a woman to kill a man (and serve no time) while a man who kills a woman is crucified.

    Paul Elam, whatever his misgivings, is addressing the slippery slope men are facing.

    And there IS NOTHING irrational about that.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Tec said...
    "Sorry babies, I have to go do something real vs. mental masturbation. Note to Random, my Dad wasn't lucky. It was obvious to the cops after 5 seconds in the house that my Mom was the issue. Which is why I think, unless you are a cop, you can posture all you want about how the cops are out to get you. I think someone else posted how false it was in one of the posts. (This person had experience with cops)."

    I don't know about in Canada, but if your dad was in America he was lucky. And all those people who think cops have your best interest at heart are freaking naive. Tec, have you ever stopped to think that in restraining your mother what would have happened if you mom slipped and busted her lip? In America jail. If while holding you mom in order to stop her from attacking him she pulled a muscle or banged her head, in the U.S. he gets jail. That's one of the two reasons why your non violence (for males only of course) is so fraudulent. I can hear you screeching, But my dad! But my dad! But my dad! Bullshit. Either Canada's very different in DV treatment than the U.S. or that rabbits foot your dad had up his ass did him some good. That has no bearing on the vast majority of DV cases in the bad ol' U S of A.

    tec said: "Also, I'd like to note that I also live in Canada where you know, people matter. So maybe yes, cops are harsh in your area but I'm sure they're also harsh on minorities (and you most likely a white male) are lucky. I can't really say - do any people matter in America?"

    How does cops being harsh to minorities make unfair DV laws okay? And to answer your question no most people don't matter here. The only people who really matter to the powers that be are the filthy rich.

    tec said: " And what part of "my father physically restrained my Mom" makes you think my Mom was "beating the hell out of" him and he just "took it"? "

    So your father was not being assaulted? He just restrained her for the hell of it? Either she was trying to harm him or she wasn't. Another thing you hadn't thought of is what if your mom had caught your father by suprise or tried using a knife or blunt object. Of course you don't care about that sort of thing. Your a feminist "goddess", and we're merely men.

    tec said: "He didn't slap or punch her (which your "bros" are all for when it's DV). He restrained her to prevent himself from getting hurt. He didn't use unneccessary force. That's what the previous poster who talked about what constitutes "instigating" meant about self-defense. Very different than beating someone who "provoked" you by having not cooked dinner enough eh? Or did you think non-cooked dinners constitute emotional abuse?"

    Why don't you just admit that you believe that men should never be allowed to hit a woman. Why don't you just be honest that even if a man is being punched, kicked, stabbed, shot, that you in your man hating, self superior, arrogant, filthy feminists narcissism feel that men can only defend themselves if they do not harm their female attacker. I mean that's what you and your gals at man hate central believe. That's why you use your dad as some fucking hero, yet you are to dim to understand that wih one twisted wrist he would have gone from hero to batterer.

    And as far as the "livid husband assaulting poor innocent womyn" over a cold cooked meal canard, girl please. Did you get that from stereotypical feminists screenplays 101? Besides, 90% of you "modern" women can't cook worth a damn.

    Random Brother
    (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  99. (Cont)

    tec said: "And I never said men don't get abused. How many times do I need to repeat myself. Maybe I should put it in a separate post all on it's own. Men get abused. DV is a horrible cycle of abuse. Women simply do not abuse men in the same numbers. Not because women are so good and non-violent - actually they often then verbally and physically abuse their children, who are in a lower power position. "

    But to you these men who are abused have no right to defend themselves. More accurately they can defend themselves, but only if not on hair on the woman's dainty abusive head gets harmed. And that's the problem with your logic or lack thereof.

    tec said: "So please do not compare my wonderful father to a woman-hating abuser who thinks women "have it coming to them" but men are somehow victims of those abused women. As someone else recently put - your chapeau seems to be placed precariously on your derriere - asshat."

    You know what honey, evil people do have it coming to them. The world would be a whole lot better if evil people got their asses handed to them on the regular. The problem is you believe that evil men have it coming to them, but not evil women. Evil women are just confused or they need help or some other feminist inspired excuse. Bull fucking shit. An asshole is an asshole is an asshole whether they are male or female. And you certainly resemble that remark.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  100. Oh and by the way woman are for more emotionally abusive then men. Every single fear, insecurity, failure you have ever told her will be brought up and used as a weapon to humiliate you in an argument. But that's okay according to Team Vagina. That's not emotionally abusive because to Team Vagina men have no feelings anyway.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  101. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 2:55 AM

    @tec
    "Even if feminists did disrupt a battered men and victims of female pedophiles, that doesn't mean all feminists are like that."

    No most of you are a lot worse.

    "I just like fucking with how stupid you and your beliefs are."

    Me too.

    ReplyDelete
  102. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 3:12 AM

    @tec
    "'twas me and my awesomeness"

    Twas you're arrogance and affirmative action.

    ReplyDelete
  103. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 3:24 AM

    "abusive people claim to be the abused and it's not always easy to tell what happened. They are manipulators and very good at lying."

    She sure is!

    ReplyDelete
  104. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 3:37 AM

    @tec
    "so the tiny penis comment wasn't meant for you, just the big babies who weren't breastfed long enough and now whine about evil womynz"

    Well if you all had bigger titties perhaps this wouldn't have happened.

    ReplyDelete
  105. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 3:45 AM

    @Pam
    "We should not ignore or sweep history under the rug when it doesn't support a position that we want to hold."

    Hear that feminists?

    ReplyDelete
  106. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 3:55 AM

    @Eoghan
    "Please dont insult slave races by putting the experiences of privileged white women in the same category as them."

    Why not? They always have!
    They hijacked the abolishionist movement in the 1830's and then the civil rights movement of the 1960's.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @Tec

    "From StatsCan
    "As in previous years, while the majority (78%) of reported incidents of spousal violence resulted in charges laid by police, in 2007, incidents involving female victims (80%) were more likely to result in charges being laid than those involving male victims (66%) (Table 2.5). 9 Charges were also more likely to be laid for incidents of spousal abuse involving a current spouse (82%), compared to a former spouse (67%). (Table 2.6)."
    66% eh? Pretty good actually and not 0% as you say. Yes, women's is higher. But then, given only 10% of domestic abuse calls are by DV male victims, that's pretty fucking good. And that's with the big mean feminists saying men aren't really victims (even though we don't think women are really victims either but somehow that's not hypocritical or disengenuous".

    State of reports, arrests and charges are not stats of rates of abuse. You have to look else where if you want to see rates of abuse and anyway, you have primary aggressor there, over half of the time a male who is being abused will be the one to be arrested.

    Abuse is not gendered, thats a feminist fiction. Women are doing half of the domestic violence in het relationships and most on the child abuse, lesbian relationships are the often most violent, your patriarchal theory woman good, man bad propaganda is meaningless, debunked.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Tec said...

    Even if feminists did disrupt a battered men and victims of female pedophiles, that doesn't mean all feminists are like that.

    ReplyDelete
  109. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 5:05 AM

    "(3) Change the existing society that dienfranchises said victims because of rigid beliefs of masculinity (where does this sound familar? That's right, women did it with feminism to break down feminine stereotypes)"

    So basically the feminist strategy is to force men to give up their masculinity in order to get help with DV.
    Either way men are depowered.
    If they give up their masculinity (to get help with DV) they are easier for women to bully around.
    If they retain their masculinity then the 'fragile male ego' shaming can be used to silence opposition to furthering misandric DV laws and policies.

    And who say's feminists are dumb?

    ReplyDelete
  110. evilwhitemalempireOctober 27, 2010 at 5:52 AM

    Congratulations to Tec!
    First feminazi to expose her hypocracy on a single webpage!


    "I don't get wet from little babies and their tiny baby penises."

    "Oh yeah, MRAs consistently demasculate men for differing view points."

    ReplyDelete
  111. @evilwhitemalempire

    I don't understand your logic in the quotes you used "proving" tec's hypocracy. The first one was a defense of some silly accusation a MRA made against her. The second is, oh, so true. Any man who doesn't agree with the MRA's viewpoints are viciously attacked. It's obvious here in this comment section and you can also find this on any MRM website.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @yohan

    The MRM is the epitome of misogyny. According to the MRA's at the-spearhead, women are all evil predators, whores, gold diggers, love thugs and killas, are too stupid to vote intelligently, incapable of productivity in the workplace, are inferior to men, are shirking their "wifely duties" to "obey" men, take zero responsibility for their actions, hate men, are to blame for ALL men's problems (talk about not taking responsibility!). I could go on and on about the hatred and contempt they spew for women. Try to tell them all women aren't like whatever it is they're describing and they start making fun of the person and saying stuff like NAWALT and letting the person know that yes, ALL women are like that. Oh yeah, the MRM is nothing less than a women's hate group. Not a baseless feminist lie as you say. The fact that many MRA's have wives and daughters is scary. Go read the articles on the-spearhead and their wives must be "obedient" and they raise their daughters to be "obedient" wives too as they see this as women's purpose. The MRM are male supremacists who are pissed that they no longer have the privileges they used to have to push women around and make them do their bidding and their efforts now are primarily to restore the patriarchy and oppress women to the status they see fit. There's nothing admirable about the Men's Rights Movement. If it were simply about equalizing laws, etc., that would be one thing, but that's not the MRM's ultimate goal. The ultimate goal is power over women. Therefore, I have no respect for this movement and will not support it. Thankfully, most men do not share their warped belief system and know how to get along with women in healthy ways and do not have the problems MRA's have with being accused of crimes against women, etc..

    ReplyDelete
  113. Just vistied the front page of spearhead and didnt see anything like there.
    http://www.the-spearhead.com/

    On the flip side, here you get mocking of people with health problems in the title and wilful protection of abusers and suppression of victims.

    No amount of slander and misdirection can change the outcome of that debate, its in pront for all to see.

    ReplyDelete
  114. @Eoghan...you can't provide an informed answer as to what's in the articles and comments of the-spearhead by glancing at the front page. Those who actually read it, know. You don't.

    This debate changes nothing for the MRM. All Paul Elam did was insist over and over and over and over that women are half the problem and attack David to try to prevent discussion of the levels of injury, etc.. No...that doesn't fit in with his propaganda to demonize women and restore the patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  115. @Chirs we

    You said

    "This debate changes nothing for the MRM. All Paul Elam did was insist over and over and over and over that women are half the problem and attack David to try to prevent discussion of the levels of injury, etc.. No...that doesn't fit in with his propaganda to demonize women and restore the patriarchy".


    There is no difference in opinion on levels of injury so there is no point in debating it, its well known that small % of DV results in injury and that women are twice as likely to be injured or killed by domestic violence. David tried to shift the focus of the debate away from incidence of instigation onto injuries. Which he wasnt allowed to do, which was fair enough because the debate was about the fact that half of dv is instigated by women.

    The adgenda isnt to "demonize women and restore the patriarchy".

    Firstly, you are porjecting, domestic violence may be a tool to demonise men for feminism, but the mrm is calling for a holistic and non discriminatory abuse industry, one that treats men and women equally.

    Secondly,feminism is a top down ideology, in other words it is patriarchy.

    ReplyDelete
  116. I think it's pretty obvious by now that women are too stupid to do anything competently without the help of a man.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "I think it's pretty obvious by now that women are too stupid to do anything competently without the help of a man."

    And the MRM believes it can convince people it's not a women-hating, supremacist group. yeah, right. This is why it will fail.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Anonymous, its fairly obvious you are a feminist trolling this blog.

    Women are capable of being compleatly independent of men, havent you heard of all the independent self sufficiant societies that separatist feminists have set up... ?

    Well ok. there are none and its likely impossible for women to live independently of men and outside the male maintained system without them regressing back 100s on 1000s of years... at the same time, men like having women around too.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Women are too stupid to realize they are nothing more than man-hating group. This is why idiot women should never be in charge of anything. Their hypocrisy is comical at best and criminal at worst.

    ReplyDelete
  120. It's an MRA trolling the blog who is clearly not very intelligent at all.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "Anonymous said...
    "I think it's pretty obvious by now that women are too stupid to do anything competently without the help of a man."

    And the MRM believes it can convince people it's not a women-hating, supremacist group. yeah, right. This is why it will fail".


    You made the inital comment and then answered it yourself. Im well used to posting with feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Do yourself and everyone else a favor and save off on responding.

    Just go back to sniping random comments from MRA blogs and "eviscerating" them. That's your shtick. Stick to your guns. Have fun.

    ReplyDelete
  123. @Eoghan...you're wrong about that. But I won't be feeding the troll anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  124. I love the random comments from MRA blogs. They're very informative as to what's on the minds of the members of the MRM. Keep 'em coming!

    ReplyDelete
  125. That troll sounds too trollish to be anything but a feminist troll, the lunatic
    fringe of the mm has a different voice.

    ReplyDelete
  126. @Chris
    "This debate changes nothing for the MRM. All Paul Elam did was insist over and over and over and over that women are half the problem and attack David to try to prevent discussion of the levels of injury, etc.."
    The fact that women were half the PERPETRATORS in domestic violence was the discussion. David knew he could not win a rational argument, so he kept bringing up irrelevant matters and became moody and emotional when called out for it.
    "No...that doesn't fit in with his propaganda to demonize women and restore the patriarchy."
    Actually, Elam on numerous occasions has claimed establishing a patriarchy would be a bad thing because it would force men to become the caretakers of women. I'll post a link here, because you feminists apparently aren't smart enough to look at these things before you make idiots out of yourselves.
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/07/24/patriarchy-for-dummies/
    You know what, I'll paste a quote from the article here just in case all those words hurt your little head.
    "When all that power gets channeled into a box and served up on a platter for women’s benefit, you have the ultimate aphrodisiac. There’s your patriarchy in a nutshell, and all the laws, codes, social norms and gender roles that came with it. Women use the illusion of submission and being demure, coupled with sexual appeal, to get men to perform for their benefit."

    There ya go! No need to thank me, I'm just here to help a struggling feminist come to terms with reality and prevent embarrassment. Well, further embarrassment.

    ...God, feminists are stupid, irritating little wretches. Do they ever think before they open their mouths?

    ReplyDelete
  127. One of my favorite articles put out by MRM is the one bemoaning the lack of "obedient wives" in the western world. The article itself and the comments go a long way in revealing the motives of the MRM.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/08/stop-looking-for-a-wife-you-wont-find-one/

    It is no secret that the MRA's believe women are inferior and want to "put women back in their place". I've been reading some MRM blogs for a long time. I see all the talk about how women don't belong in the workplace, are shirking their 'wifely duties', should not be allowed to vote, and are inferior to men in practically all ways all throughout the MRM websites. The MRM's opinion on women and what they "should" and "should not" be, do, say, think, etc. is clear.

    In addition, I don't recall seeing anywhere an agreement that the debate would be just about incidences of domestic violence. When it was announced that it was a domestic violence debate, I expected a well-rounded debate. Obviously I was wrong about that. Whether that rule was agreed to by both debaters or just made up by Elam (which wouldn't surprise me), I don't know and it doesn't matter at this point. I sincerely look forward to seeing the remainder of the material David has researched about domestic violence because it's a complicated issue with many variables, and there is so much more to it than just incidences, particularly when the research Elam presented provides so little information about those variables. There will be so much more learned from David's well-rounded research than Elam's limited research on the topic.

    And Feminism Review...I am not insulted by you and your superior attitude. Whatever you think of women and whatever you think of me...so what?

    ReplyDelete
  128. @Chris
    I'll read the article fully (as I like to make informed, intelligent judgments I can stand behind) when I have the time. However, you've already established yourself as either a liar or just confused and simple-minded, so like I said, I'll get to it when I get to it.
    Also, David's 'research' came exclusively from feminist sources. As you've already established and I know from experience, feminists tend not to know what they're talking about and always accept feminist scripture before factual evidence.
    Paul took it one step further, however. He not only proved that the research came from bigots and ideologues with political - not scientific - motives, but showcased their flawed and deceitful methods.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Chris:

    Communication is less about what is said or written than it is about what is heard or read. The message I encode is completely irrelevant to the message you decode. I could have the most peaceful, tolerant, well-meaning message in the world, but if for whatever reason you view me as hateful or negative or what have you, you aren't going to understand what I'm trying to tell you. (See also this, which is mirrored without all the crazy symbols in place of punctuation here.)

    The above more or less summarizes the majority of comments in this thread on both sides. The feminists hate the MRAs who hate the feminists - it's all a trivial waste of time and breath.

    In any event, I bring this up because the link you mentioned (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/10/08/stop-looking-for-a-wife-you-wont-find-one/) doesn't have a thing to do with "bemoaning the lack of obedient wives." In fact the term obedient only comes up once on the entire page, in somebody's comment. Really the thing being bemoaned in the article is the destruction of families in the west (for which you need wives, husbands, and marriages - not brides, grooms, and weddings).

    ReplyDelete
  130. Oh and to be clear, I haven't really read the comments. I'm not generally a fan of sniping the comments section of a blog and trying to hold that blog author accountable for what has been said in the comments (or to try and demonstrate that the comments reflect the character of the group), unless it's an article that encourages group feedback - such as the Jezebel one on DV mentioned elsewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Chris.

    You are misrepresenting as all feminists do, David presented whats called advocacy research, that means that the outcome of the research is a fore gone conclusion. In the case of feminist advocacy research, gender symmetry is hidden in order to make it conform to patriarchal abuse theory. Paul presented research from the credible and scientific end of domestic violence research and outlined exactly where and how the feminist advocacy research falls down.

    What went on in the comments section was seized upon by David and used as a means to escape the debate after his research and attempt to shift the foucs on he debate onto the fact that women ae injured by DV more often than men, which is no reason to excude men from services anyway.

    This is like creationists v's evolutionists, feminists like creationists believe a version of reality that comes from man made ideology, and both refuse to accept scientific information that contradicts their belief system.

    As for your discription of the spearhead article, lies and mirepresentation as is usual with feminists.

    A discription of a wife from the article

    "First, what is a wife? As many of us see it, a wife is a female who partners with a man and provides intimacy and support, and who contributes to the well-being of a family. Above all else, she is devoted to the family, and will sacrifice time, effort and even desire to hold it together. In short, she is the complementary image of a husband, with whom she cooperates in furtherance of this family ideal".

    There is nothing outlandish about that, no call for obedience, and it could easily be used to describe husband, its just a discription of a healthy family as opposed to a narcissistic bridezilla high on privilage that will make life miserable.

    Feminists seem to be incapable of going into any sort of debate without lying, misrepresentating and repeating the same old dogma. All it does is confirm negative stereotypes about the movement being populated by irrational ideologues that cant think outside the confines of their ideological box.

    ReplyDelete
  132. @Eoghan, WOMEN OF COLOR EXIST! Can't you wrap your head around the fact that not all people from 'slave races' are men? You completely erase the long history of feminist and pro-woman work by women of color, as well as the unique oppressions experienced by them as women of color, including systematic rapes. My own grandmother was born on a reservation, the child of a Cherokee woman and her white rapist. She married a white man to get off the reservation and he spent the next few decades beating the shit out of her on a regular basis. She worked full time, raised four kids, and was the only one of my grandparents that was actually a decent human being, and when she went to the hospital again and again with bruises and broken bones, the responses she got from white male doctors was the she should 'learn her place', 'Indian women lie', 'stop provoking him, don't you know he has a temper?', 'if you divorce him, no other man will help you support that dark skinned kid of yours, so just struggle through it'. Every single one of those MRA bullshit lines was thrown at her, and it was thrown at her twice as hard for being a woman of color. To paraphrase Sojouner Truth "ain't she a woman"? Your failure to accept women of color as 'real women' and the bullshit notions of the pliable nonwhite woman as well as of the oversexed dark skinned woman, has long been beaten and raped into the bodies of that half of the 'slave races' you don't give a shit about, the half that isn't men.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Cat:

    Whoa whoa whoa. Slow your roll. Where do you get off calling abusive people from the past "MRAs?" Why are you trying to invoke ancestral guilt? I got tired of that shit by the time I was 15. I can only apologize so many times for the actions of white men born decades (and centuries) before me and to whom I have no direct link with. Labeling these people as MRAs or asserting they have the same agendas or values is intellectually dishonest. It'd be like if I just started calling the Nazi Party the "German Feminists" or something equally retarded.

    ReplyDelete
  134. "Pam, when women were forced into the factories and mines they campaigned to get out, because there were no domestic mod cons families were coming home to cold house with no prep done and food had to be done from scratch, it was horrific."

    Of course it was horrific, I'm not disputing that, nor am I disputing that it's history now! But at least you recognize that women DID work in the factories and the mines, as I've read many a post or comment on MRA/MRM sites that state that women NEVER had to do a hard day's work in factories and/or coal mines, that they led the good life eating bonbons while reclining on chaise lounges while their husbands slaved away in the factories and mines. And they believe their own press and eat that shit right up! MRAs/MRM certainly don't mind dredging up their take on history when it suits them.
    And certainly the women campaigned to get out or to have their hours shortened, as whose responsibility was it to take care of the house, the 10+ children (most of whom were or would be put to work in the factories and mines as well), to prepare the meagre meals that could be scraped up for the household. Men were not obliged to do ANY of that outside of their working hours, but women sure were!

    "And no, women were not subjugated like slave races its not the same system, thats a womens studies fiction."

    Did women not exist within slave races? Is that what men's history tells you? Ah, I guess maybe their stories are hardly worth noting, so we might as well render them invisible.

    "I get the impression you are american,..."

    You actually made two assumptions about me and then began smearing me due to your assumptions. Would it surprise you to know that I am neither of what you assume me to be? Not that it matters, as I'm sure you treat all women with equal disdain.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Mra's raping women on indian reservations? You cat are a liar.

    Pam, "And no, women were not subjugated like slave races its not the same system, thats a womens studies fiction."

    I should have said white american women, I was refering specifically to white american feminists that claim they were oppressed, obviously when I say race, that includes men and women.

    And I dont treat all women with eqaul distain, I take a dim view feminists because of the gender narcissism, the way they tend to lie, misrepresent history, insist that ideological avocacy research trumps scientific research and make false accusations of misogyny whenever someone questions their dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Chris: Oh yeah, the MRM is nothing less than a women's hate group. Not a baseless feminist lie as you say. The fact that many MRA's have wives and daughters is scary.

    Yes, it is scary for male and female feminists, that MRAs do have often families, have a stable job, have children, and there is a father with daughters, a mother with boys, and they are keeping their marriage running without divorce over decades.

    I don't think, this concept is wrong - might be this it what is disturbing you so much.

    MRAs are women-hating, and on the other side you admit many MRAs are married with children. Your opinion is rather strange, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Well, I am a woman and I am a feminist, though not a white American woman.

    You see gender narcissism in feminists, but do you not see it in MRAs or members of the MRM? Please.
    You mentioned earlier about belonging to an ex slave race where half of you were wiped out by genocide...I belong to a race where probably more than half of us are STILL being wiped out by gendercide. And I'll give you a hint, it's not baby boys that are being selected for extermination, oooooh no. Gender narcissism is certainly not a trait exclusive to feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  138. That's one of my favourites, too, Chris. But what's most clear to me in their opinions aired in the comments to that article is their hypocrisy in their contradictions.

    Compare these comments:

    "Try suggesting that women’s suffrage is bad or that hiring preferences should be for married men supporting a family, single men and lastly women, in that order."
    [The above said as if that was never a reality at any time in the past or that women don't support a family due to such things as being widowed, for example]

    "Women aren’t needed to do these things anymore. Housewifery in the 21st century is a lifelong holiday for women more so than it ever was in the past."

    "I personally don’t like the idea of funding a woman’s retirement...."

    "The modern housewife is an overt parasite And less of symbiont like her classical counterpart."

    Wow, if you're a woman you can either be an evil feminazi who takes jobs away from men who need them to support a family, OR you can be a parasitic housewife. But yeah, it's those nasty feminists that devalue housewives and stay-at-home-Moms and are hell-bent on destroying the family unit by brainwashing women into choosing careers or jobs over staying home to take care of the family. You sure don't see any men who devalue housewives and stay-at-home-Moms, nosireeBob!!

    And did you notice that the only time the MRA or MRM discusses violence against men, be it domestic violence ("women instigate it, too!") or rape ("men get raped, too!"), or other male-on-male violence ("men harm other men just as much if not MORE than they harm women!"), it's always within the framework of reacting to women discussing rape or domestic violence. If men really cared about all men's rights or the violence that some men perpetrate upon other men, etc., they would raise them as standalone topics, not just as juxtapositions to women's discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  139. @Pam, Chris, bravo! Awesome posts.

    MRAs are just like white supremacists raging against "reverse racism" because of their losing their white priviledge because, somehow, bringing people of colour, women, etc. into an equal position to them is "inequitable". Yet they themselves promote hate against non-whites and inequitable laws, groups, and practices.

    MRAs want to go back to when it was legally okay to beat women. Oh yeah, that's right MRAs, since before Christ, men have had that right. Go look it up, learn something about the Romans and Ancient Greeks and their rampant misogyny. Actually scratch that, you'll just plagarize Hesiod.

    But obvy domestic violence is really done by those uppity women and the result of feminism, not a problem that's over 2000 years old. Please.

    ReplyDelete
  140. @tec You wrote "All the work done to help victims has been the result of feminism" I suggest you educate yourself. Google Erin Pizzey. Paul won the debate. Fathers Rights advocates (men and women like me) are not male supremacists, DV is not only about women, men would already have shelters if it weren't for gender feminists, and I'm done with this hater's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  141. As long as we have some bonafide feminazis present let's ask them the important question that nobody (yes you MRA's included!) EVER asks.

    Why did women wait for THOUSANDS OF YEARS before finally doing something about their misery?

    Either women really are inferior to men....

    OR....

    feminists are lying about the patriarchy.

    It's one or the other.
    It CANNOT be both.

    ReplyDelete
  142. "As a person who has sat through hundreds of hours of criminal justice trainings on a local, state, and national level over a number of years, I know that there is no such agenda on the part of the justice system. They look at each case individually and approximately 20% of arrests made are of women. Hugh, I don't believe your story. I think you're making it up to create hysteria among your "victim-oriented" male supremacist buddies."

    Try Googling "primary aggressor laws". There ARE laws on the books that state that the "primary aggressor" must be arrested. Now,the "primary aggressor" is the person that police reckon could do the most damage, a la David's DV argument, hence, the MALE. That is what such thinking creates, a situation which amounts to gender discrimination in which a person is arrested based on assumptions about them, rather than facts. What MRA's are saying is that EVERYONE,males AND females, should be either presumed innocent, or presumed guilty,i.e. "Men and women should be treated EQUALLY by the law.".


    "feminism bad, mangina bad, white knights bad...male supremacy good"

    WRONG.

    We've actually repudiated male supremacy until we're blue in the face, thrown people who advocated for it out, and mocked them repeatedly. It's on the net, you could find it if you actually, you know, bothered to get informed before putting words in our mouths, but it does nothing to advance the acceptance of equality as just stating that you are against feminism gets you labeled a "male supremacist" because that's how fascists operate, silence opposing voices and poison the well.

    If a female-to-male transgendered black midget with a learning disability said "Hey, maybe feminism isn't such a good thing.", they'd find a way to make him an "oppressive, white,male, able-bodied, homophobe with a small penis, who is gay (not that there's anything wrong with being gay),who doesn't get laid, is bitter and hates women.

    I've seen them go for it under similar circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  143. "MRAs want to go back to when it was legally okay to beat women. Oh yeah, that's right MRAs, since before Christ, men have had that right. Go look it up, learn something about the Romans and Ancient Greeks and their rampant misogyny. Actually scratch that, you'll just plagarize Hesiod."

    Actually, we haven't. I assume you are referring to the "Rule of Thumb", which if you ACTUALLY research it, doesn't appear to have referred to any "right to beat women" or anything else that professional researchers can uncover it's just a phrase. Don't take my word for it, please look it up somewhere other than Jezebel.com.

    Assault against women HAS however, ALWAYS been considered unmanly and cowardly by Europeans and those of European descent, and I'm SURE you've seen a man or two get his ass kicked on television for doing it or being accused of doing it AT LEAST ONCE,and not by the woman he assaulted. In fact, as you bring up injustices against blacks, you must be well aware that the primary reason for many lynchings was a false accusation of rape by a white female against a black man or group of black men.


    "MRAs are just like white supremacists raging against "reverse racism" because of their losing their white priviledge because, somehow, bringing people of colour, women, etc. into an equal position to them is "inequitable". Yet they themselves promote hate against non-whites and inequitable laws, groups, and practices."

    Again, please learn how to spell the word "privilege". Pretty please?

    ReplyDelete
  144. "duplicitious ingenuous human being. (Now did I spell that right?)"

    No,as a matter of fact, you did not. You are illiterate,so maybe you should leave writing responses to David. Although he is an idiot and a pussy, he doesn't seem to possess the same dyslexic inability to grasp the proper use of the written word that you do.

    ReplyDelete
  145. evilwhitemalempireOctober 28, 2010 at 3:49 AM

    "We've actually repudiated male supremacy until we're blue in the face"

    And WHERE has it gotten us?

    It is against the human females hypergamous instinct to respect men who are not their superiors.
    This is why feminism will ineluctably lead to female supremacism NOT equality.
    Equality is not possible. Either we will be on top or they will be.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Tec said.
    "MRAs are just like white supremacists raging against "reverse racism" because of their losing their white priviledge because, somehow, bringing people of colour, women, etc. into an equal position to them is "inequitable". Yet they themselves promote hate against non-whites and inequitable laws, groups, and practices"

    Hilarious, then all those black, hispanic, and Indian mra's must be white spremreists too!

    Tec also said

    "MRAs want to go back to when it was legally okay to beat women. Oh yeah, that's right MRAs, since before Christ, men have had that right. Go look it up, learn something about the Romans and Ancient Greeks and their rampant misogyny".

    You are a bear faced liar, you know full well that the mrm are calling for equality in vicims services and laws and attitudes that protect female abusrs.

    As for the romans ancient greeks...

    ""The history of women's abuse began over 2,700 years ago in the year 753 BC. It was during the reign of Romulus of Rome that wife abuse was accepted and condoned under the Laws of Chastisement. … The laws permitted a man to beat his wife with a rod or switch so long as its circumference was no greater than the girth of the base of the man's right thumb. The law became commonly know as 'The Rule of Thumb.' These laws established a tradition which was perpetuated in English Common Law in most of Europe."

    Where to begin? How about with the fact that Romulus of Rome never existed. He is a figure in Roman mythology —the son of Mars, nursed by a wolf. Problem 2: The phrase "rule of thumb" did not originate with any law about wife beating, nor has anyone ever been able to locate any such law. It is now widely regarded as a myth, even among feminist professors".
    http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965

    ReplyDelete
  147. Pam, I tend t doubt the word of feminist, but lets say what you said here it true..

    "I belong to a race where probably more than half of us are STILL being wiped out by gendercide. And I'll give you a hint, it's not baby boys that are being selected for extermination".

    In countrys where people are conditioned to abort females there is wide spread poverty, a lack of female friendly jobs and over population. Sex selective abortion helps limit over population, disease and poverty. Alos, you are describing fetus as babies. That hyperbole and if you were talking to a pro lifer you wuld object to the discription of aborting a fetus as exterminating a baby. Pro choice, which is another way of saying "state promoted volenary eugenics program" people will all agree that a woman aborting a fetus to benefit her convienience, career, fiancial well being and future is a right that she should have, aborting female fetuses to limit extreme poverty, hunger and disease for the masses seems to be more morally correct than aborting them for the convienience ot carlessness of an indvidual.

    To use feminist style absolutist argument, if you are anti sex selective abortion, you are pro povery, hunger, disease and over population.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @evilboredman

    "Either women really are inferior to men....

    OR....

    feminists are lying about the patriarchy.

    It's one or the other.
    It CANNOT be both."

    wtf? This makes no sense at all. So, black people weren't really oppressed? Really? Seriously? Are you that dumb?

    One patriarchy exists. They were called the Romans, not to mention the Ancient Greeks, who were rampant misogynists.

    Two, it was only in last century or so where the middle class became a prevalent class, before it was rich or very, very poor. Kinda hard to campaign for women's rights when you're busy working in the factory all day.

    Here's a thought, go get a history book, read some of it, then come back and post something that isn't completely stupid. That is, if you can read.

    ReplyDelete
  149. @Eoghan

    "You are a bear faced liar, you know full well that the mrm are calling for equality in vicims services and laws and attitudes that protect female abusrs."

    It's bare you fucktard. And abusers has an "e" in it. But notice no one bothered to correct your spelling. Double standard or what eh?

    ReplyDelete
  150. @Eoghan

    (1) abortions are very hard to come by in 3rd world countries, so usually they end up having the baby leading to -
    (2) people killing babies - i.e. already born - just because they are female

    ReplyDelete
  151. TEC: it was only in last century or so where the middle class became a prevalent class, before it was rich or very, very poor. Kinda hard to campaign for women's rights when you're busy working in the factory all day.


    @TEC

    You must live in a dream world, as there are still plenty of poor women AND men living in the USA. About factory work, it was exported, for example to China, where nowadays millions of poor women and men are working many hours and are still very poor. And for sure, the US-feminist does not care much about them.

    Feminism is not for every woman, it's about privileges and advantages for certain groups of women only who are generally in a fairly good financial situation.

    Just to give you one example, no US-feminist cares about any poor Latina or Filipina who is working as nanny, doing the shopping, cleaning the house for a low salary for her white female employer.

    ReplyDelete
  152. TEC:Tec said...
    (1) abortions are very hard to come by in 3rd world countries


    About which 3rd world country you are talking? USA?

    (2) people killing babies - i.e. already born - just because they are female

    This has nothing to do with poverty, for example Philippines, a truly poor nation never had a history in killing babies because they are females.

    FYI, gender-based abortion is legal in Sweden, which is truly a rich country and a fortress of feminism.

    http://www.thelocal.se/19392/20090512/
    Sweden rules 'gender-based' abortion legal

    ReplyDelete
  153. @Yohan

    So because the Phillippines doesn't do it then it doesn't happen in the rest of the world for instance in India?

    Your argument doesn't make any sense since gender-based abortion isn't what I'm talking about, I'm talking about gendercide of actual newborns.

    ReplyDelete
  154. @ TEC

    Maybe this argument does not make sense for YOU as a feminist, but it makes a lot of sense for other people, who are NOT feminists. If you kill a child one month before birth or one month after birth, what is the difference? Just my question...

    What about to keep it alive and to offer it to adoption? Maybe a possible solution for India too?

    It was you who was mentioning abortion, so I replied, read back your own posting.

    You mention India - but India has the most feminist-friendly laws in all Asia as far as I know. About killings of newborn girls you have to address your Indian female co-horts, not the MRAs in Western countries.

    There is hardly any other country in Asia which is more advanced in feminism than India, a former British colony.

    The Indian woman has powerful influence in the family, this might be the mother of the son, the mother of the bride, the mother regarding her children regardless if boys or girls - men do not have much to say in Indian society. I am astonished that you do not know that.

    Other countries in Asia for sure are not that feminist-minded and do not have so many women-friendly laws. There are already MRA groups in India. Many articles report about disputes between men and women and there are many complaints by men.

    One article out of many:
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Harassed-over-dowry-men-demand-fair-play/articleshow/5241108.cms

    ReplyDelete
  155. When people kill female children in poor countries it means that they cant afford to keep feed a female child and that the ecomomy cant provide the surplus of female fiendly jobs that ours can. Its nothing to do with sexism, its economics and survival. Sex selective abortion is similar. Here is the west because its slanted towads females, parents chose to have girls over boys.

    And anyway whats happening in the 3rd world has nothing to do with feminisms opposition to equality in abuse services and hiding of abusers and victims here in west.

    What feminists do is cry victm themselves and when thy are called out on their faux vicim hood they will exploit the oppressed by pointing to them and claiming that it justifies whatever weak position they happen to be tryin to occupy at the time.

    Like you Tec, trying to exploit victims of child sex abuse in attempts to slander Paul Elam.

    ReplyDelete
  156. David, I made this offer to Paul, and I'm making it to you as well:

    If you'd be so kind as to email mail me your text copies of the complete debate, I'll make sure they're posted on the mensrights reddit. I want to be sure I'm not leaving anything out (hence the request).

    ReplyDelete
  157. David wrote to Paul:

    "You do not have my permission to post my debate contributions on your site any longer. Since you do not have legal ownership of any of my writings, I expect you to take them down immediately.

    I will put my debate contributions up on my own site. You will be free to link to them, of course, and say anything you want about them.

    I wrote you about this before, and got no response. I expect a response this time."

    Translation:

    "You embarrassed, humiliated and schooled me during the debate. I ended up looking like a fucking idiot. I'm taking my toys and leaving!

    Also dear Internet Gods, please destroy all evidence of my embarrassment!"

    Conclusion:

    ROTFLMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  158. Kloo2yoo: You absolutely do not have my permission to repost my writings unless and until Paul agrees in writing, notarized, that he will run the debate on his website under a neutral headline, and until he apologizes in writing and on his web site for his unethical behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  159. "When people kill female children in poor countries it means that they cant afford to keep feed a female child and that the ecomomy cant provide the surplus of female fiendly jobs that ours can. "

    It's friendly doofus.

    Why would they be able to afford keeping care of a boy but not a girl? And why would there not be female friendly jobs? Oh right, sexism.

    "Like you Tec, trying to exploit victims of child sex abuse in attempts to slander Paul Elam. "

    No how is pointing out that Paul Elam has done absolutely nothing for actual victims. I'm not exploiting victims, he is.

    Get that? Paul Elam is exploiting victims.

    Paul Elam has done nothing, NOTHING, 0, nil, nada, rien to help victims.

    Paul Elam is instead exploiting victims for propogating his hate speech.

    Unless you call posting shit that calls for beating women helping victims. Oh right that was a joke. Yeah DV is soooooo funny.

    Yeah, what's next rape jokes? Hilarious. *sarcasm*

    I can't wait actually for his take on Russell Williams - obvy he was wrongly accused and a victim of our feminist system. *rolleyes*

    BTW, not everyone believes that abortion is murder so please let's not get into that debate.

    This is what an abortion looks like:
    http://www.abortionaccess.info/abortionpictures.htm

    This is what a newborn girl looks like:
    http://media.merchantcircle.com/29962555/NewbornBabyGirl_medium.jpeg

    Any questions?

    Not to mention:

    "What does the Bible say about abortion?

    At the time the Bible was written, abortion was widely practiced in spite of heavy penalties. Even so, the Hebrew scriptures had no laws forbidding abortion and there is no condemnation or prohibition of abortion anywhere in the Bible. This was chiefly because the Hebrews placed a higher value on women than their neighbors did. Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testaments. There are some references to the termination of pregnancy. The most well-known, Exodus 21:22-25, says that if a pregnancy woman has a miscarriage as a result of injuries she receives during a fight between two men, the penalty for the loss of the fetus is a fine. If the woman is killed, the penalty is life for life. It is obvious from this passage that men whose fighting has caused a woman to miscarry were not regarded as murderers because they had not killed the woman. The woman had greater moral and religious worth than the fetus. "

    I guess you MRAs didn't get the memo.
    Check out:
    http://rcrc.org
    http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/

    ReplyDelete
  160. evilwhitemalempireOctober 28, 2010 at 2:07 PM

    @Tec
    "One patriarchy exists. They were called the Romans, not to mention the Ancient Greeks, who were rampant misogynists."

    SO you concede that women ARE inferior to men.
    HA! HA! HA!

    It is NOT possible for one group to dominate another for any considerable length of time (i.e. THOUSANDS OF YEARS) unless the dominated group is actually inferior.

    (Unless, of course, you want to chalk up nearly the whole of human history as a spate of astronomically BAD LUCK on the part of women.)

    ReplyDelete
  161. Dave wrote:

    "Kloo2yoo: You absolutely do not have my permission to repost my writings unless and until Paul agrees in writing, notarized, that he will run the debate on his website under a neutral headline, and until he apologizes in writing and on his web site for his unethical behavior."

    Translation: "WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!" *temper tantrum*

    Conclusion: ROTFLMAO!

    ReplyDelete
  162. Tec said...
    "Why would they be able to afford keeping care of a boy but not a girl? And why would there not be female friendly jobs? Oh right, sexism."

    Do you really not know this? I mean really?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  163. @evilghetto

    So basically you're arguing the timeframe matters? That's reaching quite a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  164. @Yohan, developed nations have the lowest rates of abortion worldwide and restrictive laws do not appear to decrease abortion incidence, but rather increase rates of unsafe abortion and of death (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html).
    "Just to give you one example, no US-feminist cares about any poor Latina or Filipina who is working as nanny, doing the shopping, cleaning the house for a low salary for her white female employer. " This is untrue (particularly because, and apparantly I have to keep saying this, women of color can be feminists and are women). But, even if it were, that would prove nothing, unless you could demonstrate that this classism and racism were unique to feminists, rather than being a widespread cultural issue common to anti-feminists and feminists alike within the US and the west. A quick look at the US political landscape will show you that anti-feminist politicians and individuals are far less likely to be supporting of laws protecting the rights of immigrants and of domestic workers. You will also find that the white nationalist movement is almost exclusively made up of anti-feminist organizations, including the KKK, which explicitly only allows male membership.

    @anonymous "Assault against women HAS however, ALWAYS been considered unmanly and cowardly by Europeans and those of European descent" This is flat out false. There is, in fact, centuries of doctrine about 'discipline' as a defense incases of spousal assault, just from British and American law alone. It was not until the mid 1800s that US courts began to throw out the 'discipline defense' is spousal assault cases (even though married women could not be plaintifs under US law or sue their spouse in most districts for much longer). Also, a quick google search on 'spousal discipline' is enough to debunk you assertions.

    On the rule of thumb, regardless of the origins of the phrase, this standard has in fact been utilized in US law, for example, see the case of State v Black 1 Win. 266 (N.C. 1864), wherein the North Carolina State Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals throwing out an assault conviction on the grounds that the lash the husband used was no broader than his thumb. Both the Court of Appeals and the NC State Supreme Court discuss the thumb standard, though the disagree about the degree of its usefulness(and, yes, I do have the exact case cite because I am reading it right out of my fucking Torts book).


    On a side note, I do not give a flying fuck what anyone else's holy book says about women or abortion. Keep your religion to yourself and stop trying to enforce it on others.

    ReplyDelete
  165. @cat
    "Keep your religion to yourself and stop trying to enforce it on others."

    Only if you'll keep YOURS to yourself.

    @tec
    "So basically you're arguing the timeframe matters?"

    I think if I were a stone age woman I would have gotten with other stone age women and started this whole feminist thing (or something similar) from the very beginning.
    And so by now you'd have long since achieved your femdo- er 'equality'.

    "That's reaching quite a bit."

    Kinda like saying that the whole of human history is one extended campaign of white male rape and domination of everyone and everything else huh?

    ReplyDelete
  166. @Eoghan

    Since MRAs tend to speak out of both sides of their mouths, there is no compelling reason to not doubt their words, either, but I have taken you at your word, also.

    Sex selective abortion is relatively recent, being dependent upon the technology to determine sex in utero, so when I say babies, I'm not being hyperbolic because I'm not necessarily referring to fetuses. Population control system was also implemented fairly recently, but girl babies were being selectively exterminated long before that. And gendercide wasn't due to poverty combined with a lack of female friendly jobs (whatever types of jobs those might be in YOUR mind, as I honestly don't know specifically what it is that YOU are defining as female friendly), it was due to poverty combined with male friendly philosophies (including religious philosophies)that were institutionalized. In other words, poverty combined with institutionalized male gender narcissism.

    Efforts are now being made to make having female babies desirable in order to curb the sex selective exterminations, but it's not due to gender narcissistic policies of feminists, it's due to the not-too-terribly surprising outcome of exterminating far more female babies than male babies (the only male babies that are/were exterminated were ones that appeared to be physically or mentally handicapped, and I don't agree with that practice, either). The institutionalized male dominance eventually came around to bite them in the ass.

    I haven't lived there for quite a long time, ever since I was a young girl. My parents and grandparents wanted a better life for me than I would have had at the time had we remained. And I have repayed them all, several times over, so deep is my gratitude for what they sacrificed for me.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis