Saturday, November 20, 2010

"Women are ..." Part One

What a fucking douchebag.
Here are some of the things I have, er, "learned" about women from reading Men's Rights/Men Going Their Own Way blogs and message boards.

This is part one in what will be, I suspect, a very lengthy series.

Women are: The missing link

All in all I am thoroughly convinced that women have all contempt for human life and are the missing link between apes and humans. This is a gender war, a GENDER WAR! and small innocent babies that are murdered and children that get abused are caught in the crossfires, and these females are utterly fucking useless and a waste of fucking breathing space. They have shown their true colors and we don’t need them anymore.


Women are: Nuclear waste

I have come to the conclusion that it's not enough to avoid romantic relations with women. A man should take extra precautions to avoid even the most casual contact. Regard them as nuclear waste or a highly contagious disease. 

Women are: In violation of the Geneva Convention

Women have no idea what they want, they need to be told and controlled. If you are too nice or become apathetic, you are fucking doomed. Either way, if you get married, you are doomed. Women are cunts, and they are absolute masters of mental torture and abuse. If we simply hired bitches to interrogate and torture all captured terrorists, the war on terror would be over in less than a year.
Women are: Unlovable humans

Men are lovable humans, unlike women. Men are the greatest ever treasure of gold, whom women worthless could never compare to or ever hold a candle to. ... the male sex is ever superior to the weaker female one. Men in India are mistreated vis-à-vis females, to get the bitches feel dignified. This is against nature. ... Men are taken advantage of by bitches (the woman race). ... Woe betide women. I hate them too much, girls too.

NOTE: These comments do not reflect the opinions of all MRAs. But these sorts of things are posted constantly on MRA/MGTOW blogs and message boards, and are rarely challenged. Some, like the first comment here, may even receive multiple upvotes from other readers,

83 comments:

  1. Yes, I've seen comments such as these, and even worse, all over MRM boards and have noticed how many others agree with these views or upvote the comments. Some of these people scare me a lot.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reads like a mirror image of extreme feminism. These guys dont seem to realise that feminism will use them and their rhetoric to oppress the mrm and male victims of abuse.

    Christine stop telling lies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ive been thinking about these posts, reading that sort of thing coming from men might be an eyeopener for feminists that have a difficult time conceptualizing why men are sick of the last 50 years of feminism polluting society, education and legal system with similar bile.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What are you talking about Eoghan? Can you name a feminist blog that talks about men in the same hateful language, because I don't know any.

    Not saying the man-hating feminist doesn't exist, just that the vast, VAST majority of feminists do not hate men, and the ones who do probably don't have a very good understanding of what feminism is about.

    Also, men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around. These kinds of posts aren't turning the tables on feminists, they're business as usual for a certain segment of men.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Christina

    Accordong to feminist propaganda written by
    man haters men as a group "men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around", you would have to hate men on a level to believe that in the first place. Notice how that sort of hate slips completely under your radar? You believe that the vast majority of feminist don't hate men yet you believe that "men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around".

    You also claim that most feminist dont hate men while as you can see from this blog, most feminist support the oppression of male victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse by women, the removal of innocent until proven guilty in law and paint anyone that objects as pro rape, pro domestic violence and pro pedophilia. Thats hate, a mentality like that can only come from hate, you just dont recognize it is as hate, but history will tell a different story when it reflects on feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  7. These comments are as inflammatory as some of the ones I've seen by Dworkin et al when they say such things as every sexual act is rape, every man is your potential rapist etc etc..the difference is this...

    the majority of actual mra's will say that statements like these are only representative of a fringe element within the mrm....when we call attention to those statements by Dworkin etc, all we get as a response is "oh you've taken it out of context" or "you just don't understand what she meant". How hard is it to understand this:
    "MAN: ... an obsolete life form.." from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christina said...
    What are you talking about Eoghan? Can you name a feminist blog that talks about men in the same hateful language, because I don't know any.

    What about:

    http://www.ihatemen.org/

    http://www.ihatemen.org/2010/09/29/cant-we-all-just-get-along/

    Comment by a visitor:

    There’s so much hate on here, it makes me sad. I hate seeing the sexes engaged in such a futile battle. It’s depressing to know that women have such a low opinion of men and that women are so convinced that all men are exactly the same.

    I’m only 19 and I have never done anything wrong to a woman so it’s really disheartening to see all this hatred directed at my gender, it puts me off. Sexism just begets sexism, there is no need for it. Some men are good, some men are bad. Some women are good, some women are bad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Christine

    any political movement, that maps the characteristics and behaviour of an extreme and criminal element of a group onto all the members of that group and blames said group for all that is wrong, while holding their own group as the group with the pure blood or morals, is a hate movement, and every feminist and feminist blog is involved in this lie that is perpetrated against men, with few exceptions.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Natasha: Dworkin gets criticized by feminists all the time, including me. She was crazy and extreme. Her quotes are as bad in context as they are out of context.

    "the majority of actual mra's will say that statements like these are only representative of a fringe element within the mrm"

    Not true. These sorts of comments are rarely challenged by others in the MRM online. Frankly misogynistic and hateful comments regularly get dozens of upvotes from MRAs on The Spearhead. The first comment I mention in this post got upvoted.

    When I posted my "worst of the MRA" post one MRA blog responded by defending almost all of the egregious stuff I had quoted. (I added a link at the bottom of the post.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. "any political movement, that maps the characteristics and behaviour of an extreme and criminal element of a group onto all the members of that group and blames said group for all that is wrong, while holding their own group as the group with the pure blood or morals, is a hate movement, and every feminist and feminist blog is involved in this lie that is perpetrated against men, with few exceptions."

    Again, assertions without evidence. Look on this blog for blanket statements about men being evil, the source of all problems, etc. You will find none. See my "dumb things to assume about this blog" post for a fuller statement on this point.

    Look at the posts of any blog in my "friends list" for the same sort of thing. You won't find anything like it. If someone makes a comment like that on this blog or any other blog in my "friends list" you can bet it is roundly condemned by other feminists.

    There is far more of this kind of hate in the MRM than there is among feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yohan, ihatemen.org is NOT A FEMINIST BLOG. I went back through many dozens of posts on there. Not a single mention of feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @ David

    ""the majority of actual mra's will say that statements like these are only representative of a fringe element within the mrm"

    Not true. These sorts of comments are rarely challenged by others in the MRM online. Frankly misogynistic and hateful comments regularly get dozens of upvotes from MRAs on The Spearhead. The first comment I mention in this post got upvoted"

    Has it not occurred to you that the mens rights people that are not interested in extreme commentary are not in these places and therefore cant thumb this sort of commentary down? I think it that it has.

    Feminists believe in patriarchal abuse theory the protection of abusers that look like them and the marginalizing of their victims. They support civil and human rights abuse like the removal of the presumption of innocence. Hate is widespread in feminism, feminists just dont know its hate.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Eoghan
    Re: "men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around"
    That statement's not hateful, it's true. Take, for example, the long history of Eve, and women by extension, being blamed for the fall of man. Women were considered property, not allowed to own anything and weren't allowed to vote; all of this was based on the idea that a woman was less of a person than a man. If that's not dehumanizing and demeaning, I don't know what is.

    Pointing this out does not mean I hate men. It does not mean I blame modern men for the oppression of women in the past, hell, I don't even blame men in the past for the oppression of women, to do so would be ignorant.

    You have displayed a remarkable ability to misinterpret things and twist them for your own purposes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cristine

    Religion is not "men", religion is top down control that oppressed both men and women. This is something else that feminism does to manipulate and mislead, it tells its followers that "men" in general are responsible for the actions of the ruling class.

    "Women were considered property"

    not true, women had to be passed from father to another man out of necessity, no birth control no female friendly jobs, you see, independence was near impossible for women, independence became possible came later through male technology.

    "not allowed to own anything and weren't allowed to vote"

    Not true, and women got the vote only a few decades after men did.

    "all of this was based on the idea that a woman was less of a person than a man. If that's not dehumanizing and demeaning, I don't know what is"

    Person as in the legal fiction? you are incorrect, blacks legal dictionary describes both men and women as legal persons.

    You see, you believe in an artificial version of history in which all men were responsible for ruling class systems. Men as a group were never responsible for ruling class systems or oppression, a minority of ruling class families were.

    ReplyDelete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  18. In the same way that the jews next door had nothing to do with the financial crash before the great depression, men in general had nothing to do with ruling class systems, in fact men in general were oppressed harder by these systems and women were generally protected from the worst of it.
    Feminism uses the same lies about men in general that the nazis used against jews in general.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ David

    "Again, assertions without evidence. Look on this blog for blanket statements about men being evil, the source of all problems, etc."

    Prime example here David

    "Re: "men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around"
    That statement's not hateful, it's true. Take, for example, the long history of Eve, and women by extension, being blamed for the fall of man. Women were considered property, not allowed to own anything and weren't allowed to vote; all of this was based on the idea that a woman was less of a person than a man. If that's not dehumanizing and demeaning, I don't know what is"

    Christina has been told and believes that men in general were responsible for the systems that were put in place by the ruling class, this misguided belief that men in general were responsible for ruling class systems is widespread among feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Re: "men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around"

    This is a rather twisted and weird statement, as it does not consider any other circumstances.

    A white women in USA 150 years ago had a much higher status than a black man. - A poor male worker working in a mine or doing some other labour had a much lower status than the British Queen or the Austrian Empress. -

    Even here in Japanese history, the Empress Go-Sakuramachi in 1762 was a powerful woman, while Japanese male farmers were even not allowed to live their village.

    Nowadays it's about money, a rich woman has much more to say than a poor man, regardless of gender. (Paris Hilton is a good example)

    A minor even as a male, as less to say than his mother. etc. etc.

    In the past there were even powerful women who sent countless men into their death as soldiers, sailors, workers etc., even male children were used for such deadly jobs.

    To say ALL females are oppressed and ALL males are dehumanizing all females is truly bare nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @Eoghan

    So... men in the ruling class don't count as men?

    You're doing a brilliant job of ignoring the fact that throughout most of history men as a class have been privileged at the expense of women, as a class.

    @Yohan
    Intersectionality - look it up.

    "To say ALL females are oppressed and ALL males are dehumanizing all females is truly bare nonsense."
    ...which is why no one is saying that.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So Christine,

    According to you the men that where left in the factories and mines after women who with the help of men successfully fought for their right to be spared the horror were privileged at the expense of women, and a million other logical flaws with the hateful propaganda that is feminist pseudo history.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Yeah... men were the oppressed ones, because women got the cushy job. They got to stay at home, and not have the freedom to have a life outside the home, and be defined as anything other than wife and mother.

    Also, I'm ChristinA. ChristinE is a different person altogether.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "men have been demeaning and dehumanizing women long before feminism came around""

    I have to disagree with this statement as well. It's not so much that it's untrue as that it's such an incredibly overstated, generalized one. For much of history, almost no one had any power or control over their lives, not their own or anyone else, regardless of sex :( For hundreds of years many men weren't even allowed to leave their village. Didn't earn wages. Didn't own property. That's not power.

    However,
    "Not true, and women got the vote only a few decades after men did"

    is also untrue. The right to vote for men came over a hundred years before women's right to vote in many countries. And Eoghan, women worked just as much as men in most times, often more so because they were responsible for childcare as well as factory work or farm work.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Eoghan, Yohan, I really suggest you read this book, and get back to me after you're done:

    http://www.amazon.com/Creation-Patriarchy-Women-History/dp/0195051858/

    ReplyDelete
  26. @Christina:

    "[Women] got to stay at home, and not have the freedom to have a life outside the home, and be defined as anything other than wife and mother."

    Do you know of the jurisdiction and the law that prohibited women from working a paid job?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Christina

    "yeah... men were the oppressed ones, because women got the cushy job. They got to stay at home, and not have the freedom to have a life outside the home, and be defined as anything other than wife and mother."

    Oppression was class oppression, there was never a situation where oppression was divided along the lines of gender and generally, worker positions tended to be worse than being at home, its clear thats what women felt during the industrial revolution when the ruling class made its attempt at dual income families, women fought against it. Whats more women only became suitable long term workers with the advent of birth control and the surplus pf female friendly jobs, once that happened women were maneuvered into the position of worker, by the ruling class. Your version of history paint over the shared oppression of men and women.

    David that book is border line fiction and anyway, patriarchy was in inevitable situation brought about by certain factors. For example, when a woman was old enough to leave the home, she had no birth control, didn't possess the physical strength to support herself alone and there were little or no jobs for her, her not going straight to a husband would have meant a very cruel situation in which she was reliant on charity and prostitution, the means for independence came later on, with technology.

    ReplyDelete
  28. All MRA's

    Why is it that the MRM keeps insisting that there was never such a thing as women's oppression?

    This is nothing more than a brainwashing tactic. You guys spread the word about the MRM to friends who've recently been hurt by a female and/or the family court system because you know that, in order to get men in line with the sick, twisted thinking of the MRM, you have to appeal to them on an emotional level. What better way that what I just mentioned? That's also why you over-exaggerate the incidents of false DV accusations, paternity issues and the stupidity, sluttiness and inferiority of women---when you make them believe nearly ALL other men who've been married were innocent men who got screwed over by women and the court system, you are able to foster this us-against-them mentality. (And by you, I mean the MRM, because regardless of yours and others' claims to the contrary, it most certainly is a MOVEMENT).

    You come here and insist that feminists are the bad guys, that the things they say are far worse than that of MRA's. You guys also claim that the vitriolic language towards women is not prevalent in the MRM. You know, you guys remind me of the man who, upon having been caught redhanded cheating on your wife, insist that such a thing never happened. It's like you think that if you deny reality enough times, people will substitute their own judgements for your lies. And it's effective. It's a technique referred to as gaslighting. Abusive people do it to their victims. You guys to it to everyone in defense of your disgusting movement.

    And we could all take quote after quote after quote to show what you guys are really about, but to me, it's more effective to just let people know the simple truth.

    The MRM isn't about equal rights, the purpose of the MRM is to rescind the rights that women currently have, because the men in the MRM believe that the act of granting equality to women diminishes them as men. You do not just want to help victims of DV who are male, or who have been falsly accused of DV or rape. You have zero interest in these issues. Instead, this, as I stated earlier, is to create an atmosphere within the MRM of hysteria, fear and hatred towards women, so that eventually the members believe that taking the rights from women is completely justified.

    How do I know this? Well, the stated purpose of MGTOW is a starting point. Ragnar, who along with Miekyo (sp?) had a meeting in, what, October 2004? in North Carolina to discuss some issues that the MRM was having at the time. That was when they came up with MGTOW and Ragnar articulated the goals into a MGTOW Manifesto. So Ragnar is one of two who came up with the MGTOW idea.

    cont.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. .

    On the Spearhead forum, there is a conversation between Ragnar and another member regarding the role of women in the future. Ragnar clearly stated that women had no place among men, that women were inferior to men, and as such needed to get out of the way (to paraphrase).


    So at least one half of the MGTOW creators has stated his purpose clearly--that women were to be pushed out of the way, because they deserve and shall have no rights.

    I was tempted to join David's website just so that I could jump in and argue with the MRA's who frequent the comment section, but it's a waste of time. You guys are masters at coming here and derailing the conversations away from the main point, which is that you guys, pathetic though you may be, are also bad to the core. The way you put people on the defensive when they try to address some issues in the MRM is nothing short of brilliant, because over and over again they fall for it. They go from addressing the issues of the MRM to defending and explaining their thoughts about feminism.

    This is why it is a waste of time to argue or attempt any debates with MRA's. Any injecting of truth into their brainwashing little lies will be more effective directed elsewhere.

    Arguing with the enemy is completely pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Miranda

    The mens movement doest pretend that there was no such thing as womens oppression, the mens movement correctly points out that both men and women were oppressed and that the feminist version of history in which mens oppression is painted over and men as a group are depicted as the privileged oppressors and designers of ruling class systems is a lie.

    And dont be mislead by David, the comments that he cherry picks from those two sites are not representative of the mens movement.

    ReplyDelete
  33. On the contrary, Eoghan, those comments certainly ARE representative of the men's movement. And that is why some men, hurt though they may be, visit one of the forums at the advice of one of his pals, sees the hatred expressed on any given thread, and shuts it down without ever considering joining.

    And we know that this is a problem because it has been discussed among some of you in various threads. Are you all really in such denial? Because if you are, let me assure you, the overall feeling that one has when one visits the forums is one of having bathed in dirt and slime. Most people aren't going to gravitate towards that, regardless of how hurt they are. MOST PEOPLE know that the hurt caused by one women isn't the same as being hurt by ALL WOMEN.

    Once you've "gotten" them, it's a lot easier to brainwash them into the "women are evil, worthless sluts" mentality. The problem that you guys have is GETTING them. I can't believe that as smart as you guys supposedly are, someone hasn't figured that out yet.

    ReplyDelete
  34. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Miranda

    those comments are not representive of the mens movemment, if they were they wouldnt be cherry picked comments. I agree that sexual acarsity is driving a certain amount of the anger. In a free sexual market place there is an unofficial harem system, around 20% of the men have sex with 80% of the women, so a lot of guys have to come to terms with the fact that they do not have enough wealth or looks to have sexual value to women, but they dont define the mens movement. Many other guys have been shafted by unequal family law, had the system and/or their children used against them as proxy weapons, been falsely accused of domestic violence or rape, been domestic violence or child sexual abuse victims of women only to be told by the feminist controlled system that they dont exist and so on. Many others are concerned about misandry and human and civil rights violations that feminism promotes, there is concern about the lies that feminism tells about men and the advocacy research that protects female abusers and marginalizes their victims and as I pointed out above the fictitious version of history that causes many impressionable women to resent men.

    ReplyDelete
  36. there is also the education gap, the eduction system shouldn't be slanted in favour of any group.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Co-Alpha Brotherhood seems to be an extreme version of the MRM.

    **Yeah, brothers! Let's all band together, steal by force the women we want for ourselves, and share them amonst our BADASS selves! Cause we're BIG BAD MEN!!! Yeah!!!!**

    This is the drumbeat of Co-LOSER Brotherhood.

    Ragnar, co-founder of MGTOW, is all for it.

    MGTOW isn't some piddly little whiny group (well, they are, actually) of men who simply wish to go their own way. This is a fallacy that many members will continue to perpetuate in order to steer attention from the ugly underbelly of the movement.

    http://www.coalpha.org/What-is-a-co-alpha-male-td2773298.html

    ReplyDelete
  38. I was checking out the link you gave, Miranda,
    and this is all what I found, 1 short comment by Ragnar, and I see no reason why he should not say that...

    Ragnar: 'Men, not manginas and thugs - great civilization and creating families....'

    What's wrong with that?

    And Ragnar, as far as I know is not living in the USA in North Carolina, I think he is an MRA in Northern Europe.

    About Miekyo, I don't know who this person is, never had any contact with him/her. Never seen an ID similar to that name in all these MRM Forums and blogs I am using.

    http://www.coalpha.org/What-is-a-co-alpha-male-td2773298.html

    Ragnar: Hi!
    Great idea with a Co-Alpha Brotherhood!

    The Co-A's is something I agree very much upon, even think that 'real' men are Co-A's, it's certainly not Manginas or Thugs.
    Co-A's are the ones who build great civilisations and created families, so count me in.


    If MRAs are so few, and if they really exist only in piddly little whiny groups, then I wonder why feminists are so much afraid of them...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Miranda

    Now that we are seeing the last gasps of family and monogamy where do you suggest we look to understand mating patterns? Our new system is the same system that apes use, its a return to our more natural state, an unofficial harem in which a minority of men are objectified by the majority of women and the majority of men are seen as having no value to the hypergamous female, hence the new female classification of most males as the "loser that cant get a date" and the "creep".

    Anyhow, the MM is much more than what Ive seen shown here on this site, I had heard of MGTOW but still haven't been there, Ive never heard of your "co-alphas" and I occasionally stop by the Spearhead and make less than complementary posts directed at the extreme commentators, and Ive been a MR person for four years now.

    Whats more, men have been exposed to 50 years of lies and organised hate from feminism, its only natural for feminism having been so hostile towards men for so long and having intentionally rolled back civil and human rights for men for it to experience some form of blowback and problems and division between the sexes.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Yohan:

    "About Miekyo, I don't know who this person is, never had any contact with him/her. Never seen an ID similar to that name in all these MRM Forums and blogs I am using."

    He can be reached via private message on NiceGuy's forum; his username is "Meikyo" (profile here).

    ReplyDelete
  41. Eoghan,

    Here is a partial quote from Frank Schmidt (fschmidt), founder of Co-Alpha (which can be found upon further reading on the same page that you quoted):
    "There are currently 2 other men in the private forum. One is Ragnar, who I met and I think he is trustworthy."
    So he wasn't just being complimentary about the idea, he is also a member of the private forum. But hey....it's a mighty jump to conclude that he might be part of Co-Alpha because of that, right? Lol....okay.

    Regarding your pretend ignorance of some of the people behind the MRM:
    http://www.inmalafide.com/2010/01/16/the-history-of-the-mens-rights-movement-according-to-fedrz/

    The MRM is small and irrelevant currently. But you guys are obviously trying to grow, and for those of us on the outside who see with great clarity exactly what you guys are doing, we would be remiss to simply ignore it. I know how easily people can be brainwashed, and I recognize the techniques when I see them, and I can't simply NOT say something about it.

    You are lying about your involvement, and you and I both know you are. Part of the genius of being an unorganized movement as you are is that there isn't one person to hold accountable for the actions of the group. It allows each and every member to point the finger at the group and say, "I'm not responsible for the garbage that comes from the group. They are." It was done purposefully, of that I can assure you.

    I KNOW that the MRM is more than what is seen on David's site. I know more about it than I ever wanted to. Sadly, I also know some women who have gone before me, who are now pretty much hiding in fear due to the retaliation that they faced from some of the members. It remains to be seen if I'm going to be harrassed as the women keep warning me. But oh welll....what am I gonna do? Keep quiet? I don't think so....

    Regarding the silly notion of men as losers and creeps, hey, what can I say.....you guys kinda are. I mean, you refer to women as sluts, toilets, worthless.....I can just imagine what some of you guys LOOK like. And you know, it IS our perogative to turn down as many guys as we want who are looking to nail us. You do realize that, right...?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Ok Miranda

    You are claiming that what is basically from what I can see, a conversation about the way females chose mates is some sort of heresy, making false allegations of abuse, calling people ugly, creeps and losers. Outside of the teen girl snark and ad hominem, you dont seem to be making much of a point.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The two key elements of Eoghan's response:
    Projection and denial.
    How typical.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Miranda,

    Im wondering what your response will be to another woman who is an MRA?

    I've posted at The Sexist, Toy Soldier, Anti-Misandry, Spearhead, A Voice for Men, and a few other message boards and forums both feminist and non. I have NEVER, on any site, been run off or group attacked by the men there for anything I've said, or just because I have tits. Actually, I've had support from MRA's on those sites, and no, it wasn't just to get in my pants.

    I've no idea what you are talking about when you spin this faerie story about women "hiding in fear of retaliation"...on the internet? Where are they hiding? It's the effing internet! If you can't ride out a debate or have a difference of opinion on a message board without having a nervous breakdown, then maybe you need to hide at the therapists office, or in the big group hug that feminism says it is.

    How can you honestly expect someone to NOT call you on your double talk? On one hand you come here full of rage, defining and redefining what the mens movement is, what it isn't and the personalities and looks of the men (and women, btw you sexist) who frequent the associated forums are. Then in the next breath, you go off the rails about how men, specifically mra men, have no business applying any of the same judgments to women, specifically feminist women. So one act is justified while the other is.....let me guess, male oppression of women?

    What, exactly, is your point in all of your ranting and raving? Simply that men are evil and women are virginal warrior princesses? Ok...that's fine if that's what you believe, but don't pretend like the virginal warrior princesses aren't equally guilty of slinging mud, your words here leave ample evidence of that.

    ReplyDelete
  45. LOL....rage. You're cute, Natasha.

    Sadly, I've yet to see anyone actually address the points I've made. Just projection and more projection.

    Yawn...................

    ReplyDelete
  46. Miranda, you are confusing teen girl snark and fallacy with making points.

    ReplyDelete
  47. You're not making any points, you're just cluttering the thread with old shitastic pseudo arguments and wont answer anyone's questions. We get it, you hate mra's and you've come to defend all your fellow women who are in some kind of interwebz hiding...awesome, you're such a brave little soldier.

    ReplyDelete
  48. *and you're right, I AM cute ;)

    ReplyDelete
  49. Although, I will say this. If you are indeed a female, I have to question why you would take up for a group of men who's goal is to oppress women (see link above) and whose members regularly belittle them. That's really sad, and I really feel sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ...and in case you've gotten lost, this IS an anti-MRA website.

    ReplyDelete
  51. That's your interpretation of the group Miranda, if you would pull your head out of your ass and actually LISTEN to what men are saying (the sane, logical, educated men, some of which are posting to you here on this thread), rather than CHOOSING to select a freak fringe of posters, then you might understand that. YES, there are some men who identify as mras who are nutjobs of the "fuck it, suck it, and shut it" ilk, but they are largely shunned by actually posters of substance. You also have a lunatic fringe in feminism, posters and members that make a mockery of the group by the simple action of just opening their goddamn mouths...ANY group has that element. Now lets let it GO....

    Serious question segment:

    1. The MRM's goal is not to oppress women, the MRM's goal is for legal, educational and social equality. Is that not also what feminism wants as well? Is it fair the almost always the default custodial parent in divorce is the mother? Is it fair that women rarely pay spousal or child support in the event of a divorce? What are your thoughts on these topics?

    2. Why would you feel sorry for a woman who chooses to belong to a certain group? I don;t feel sorry for you that you're a feminist.

    3. Can you not admit that both sides engage in hyperbolic arguments? That we both have a less than stellar element at times that choose to be in the forefront and making the rest of us groan and that should NEVER serve as the yardstick by which the entire movement should be measured?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Miranda: this is an anti-MRA website, but MRAs are free to post here like anyone else so long as they follow the comment guidelines, like anyone else.

    Thanks very much for posting links and info about MGTOW history and the co-alpha guys. I will be writing a lot more about MGTOW in future posts.

    Eoghan:

    "David that book is border line fiction"

    And you know this how? Have you ever even looked at the book, held it in your hands, much less read it? I seriously doubt it. Lerner's book is a carefully and rigorously researched, and well-respected history of the origins of patriarchy. She deals explicitly and in a highly nuanced way with many of the issues you raise here all the time, including some you raise in the comment in which you dismiss the book as "borderline fiction."

    If you have read it, I'm curious if you remember her argument about women with power in society. What was it again?

    Natasha: If you've spent much time on the spearhead, certainly you've noticed the small but very vocal minority of MRAs who think women should have no part in the MRM. Those guys would run you off the forum if they could.

    ReplyDelete
  53. David--

    Did you even read what I posted? Twice now? You're simply restating my point for me.

    I REALIZE there are groups within groups...this is my point...the "... small but very vocal minority of MRAs who think women should have no part in the MRM. Those guys would run you off the forum if they could" are to whom I am referring. Those guys are largely shunned by the more intellectual posters and tend to congregate amongst themselves.

    I was specifically invited to antimisandry by a staff member there. He also specifically warned me off of a handful of other members and cautioned me against posting my pic...because yes, these guys are of the fuck it suck and shut club. Antimis has since stopped allowing so much of that. The thinking was similar to AVfM in that they would allow a space for men to vent...kind of like the intent of some feminist blogs...

    Most of the site staff on the more mainstream mrm blogs/sites have just lately started to clean up the crazy juice from their membership, realizing that it does NOT do the mrm any good and that it DOES get picked up by feminist blogs and used to inaccurately characterize the more serious, active posters.

    One question for you David--

    Your comment about this being an anti-mra blog rather than a pro feminist blog led me to look at your banner...."manboobz: what's wrong with men's rights".....are you actually stating that men having rights is wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Natasha, you posted your second comment while I was composing mine, and I didn't see it until after mine had been posted.

    I did see your first comment on the subject, and that's why I mentioned the spearhead. The guys I'm talking about, while in the minority, aren't fringe characters on the spearhead; they get regularly upvoted. One of them is a long-time MRA who seems to be treated with respect by most other MRAs. I'm not referring to guys like MikeeUSA; he is a fringe character and I don't quote his comments because he's largely shunned by the MRA and thus not typical.

    As for your last question, the answer is of course "no," as should be immediately clear from reading anything at all on this blog. Please look here:

    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/top-ten-dumb-things-to-assume-about-me.html

    ReplyDelete
  55. David, you said

    ""David that book is border line fiction"

    And you know this how? Have you ever even looked at the book, held it in your hands, much less read it? I seriously doubt it. Lerner's book is a carefully and rigorously researched, and well-respected history of the origins of patriarchy. She deals explicitly and in a highly nuanced way with many of the issues you raise here all the time, including some you raise in the comment in which you dismiss the book as "borderline fiction."

    David, here is a description of the book from amazon

    "From Library Journal
    Using admittedly sparse prehistorical evidence, Lerner offers a plausible multicausal theory to explain the development of the patriarchical system."

    By its description its revisionist history, political fiction which is a hall mark of feminist academia and also other political groups in a similar vein to feminism. Its not to be taken literally.

    ReplyDelete
  56. David, just because you say that your blog believes in men's rights, does not make it so. The content clearly does not reflect that.

    I can say that Im a short fat blond woman all day long and scream at people who dare argue with me, despite all the rational, physical evidence that Im a 6 ft tall 130 lb brunette. Using this is like arguing with flat earthers.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Eoghan, this is why it is pointless to argue with you.

    Natasha, could you give specific examples of me opposing the rights of men?

    ReplyDelete
  58. David, noted that MRA's are allowed to post here....but just to clarify, I was addressing this comment from Natasha: "you're just cluttering the thread with old shitastic pseudo arguments."

    Natasha, I believe that I made it clear in either my first or second comment on this thread that I am familiar with the tactics that MRA's use in order to derail any conversation or critisim away from them. The MRA's that I have dealt with are terrific at making sure that they are always on the offensive rather than the defensive. I refuse to play this game. So either address what I said, or my conversation with you is over.

    ReplyDelete
  59. David

    "Eoghan, this is why it is pointless to argue with you".

    Because I back up what I say? How is a book that uses "sparse prehistoric evidence" that just happens to back up feminist theory not political fiction? Anyone can follow the link and see the book basically being described as a piece of political fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Natasha, you said: "Most of the site staff on the more mainstream mrm blogs/sites have just lately started to clean up the crazy juice from their membership, realizing that it does NOT do the mrm any good and that it DOES get picked up by feminist blogs and used to inaccurately characterize the more serious, active posters."

    LOL, yeah....I BET they are.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Eoghan, EVERY historian who writes about prehistory is dealing with "sparse evidence." She discusses the evidence she uses in gresat detail, and draws conclusions from it cautiously and thoughtfully, carefully considering what archeologists and anthropolgists have written. And Lerner's book is not just about prehistory.

    She uses, among other primary sources: law codes, economic records, art and artifacts, correspondence between historical figures, religious literature and mythology, philosophical writing by Aristotle. Not to mention an extensive array of secondary sources by archeologists, anthropologists, religious scholars, etc etc etc.

    But no, you'll dismiss it based on one sentence in a review which you've interpreted in a perverse and ignorant way.

    ReplyDelete
  62. and her book just happens to correlate and back up modern political constructs...

    Feminism isn't known for producing genuine research David.

    "A recent enlarged edition of this book provided extensive documentation from current feminist writings of the continuation, and indeed exacerbation, of these practices. Routinely challenged by feminists who declare that "all education is political," Patai has responded with the claim that this view is simplistic. She argues that a significant difference exists between the reality that education may have political implications and the intentional use of education to indoctrinate. The latter, she argues, is no more acceptable when done by feminists than when done by fundamentalists."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

    ReplyDelete
  63. Natasha:

    Make sure they delete these posts from these, um....nonserious, inactive posters. LOL LOL LOL!!!

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=48908

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41674

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2187
    (Wow, I see that they've already cleaned this one up. But still not quite enough. They don't really HAVE to refer outright to women as cunts in order to turn normal people away. That's the beauty of the MRM.)

    http://mgtow.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=4175&page=1

    http://mgtow.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=282

    ReplyDelete
  64. So mrm sites should not permit the crazies to post offensive shit...but then if they clean it up, they're what? hiding something? Guilty of something? What exactly are you implying other than to your mind it doesnt make a difference what they do they'll always be wrong? Somehow I think the mrm will live without your endorsement.

    Four hours ago I asked these questions of you, do you wish to answer them or are you going to avoid them?
    1. The MRM's goal is not to oppress women, the MRM's goal is for legal, educational and social equality. Is that not also what feminism wants as well? Is it fair the almost always the default custodial parent in divorce is the mother? Is it fair that women rarely pay spousal or child support in the event of a divorce? What are your thoughts on these topics?

    2. Why would you feel sorry for a woman who chooses to belong to a certain group? I don;t feel sorry for you that you're a feminist.

    3. Can you not admit that both sides engage in hyperbolic arguments? That we both have a less than stellar element at times that choose to be in the forefront and making the rest of us groan and that should NEVER serve as the yardstick by which the entire movement should be measured?

    ReplyDelete
  65. John Dias said...
    @Yohan:
    "About Miekyo...
    He can be reached via private message on NiceGuy's forum; his username is "Meikyo" (profile here)


    I see, but this is a rather inactive member, never even logging into the forum since over half a year and he made only a few postings.

    Miranda said...
    Natasha:
    Make sure they delete these posts from these, um....nonserious, inactive posters. LOL LOL LOL!!!


    Thank you for signing up in the Niceguy-Forum, maybe you should introduce yourself in the Introduction-Sector.

    I was checking these 2 threads you refer.

    It is amazing how many feminist trolls are browsing our forums and are too afraid to introduce themselves. Hugo was signing up, and David and now 'Mirinda'.

    I do not see a member called Mirinda in the Niceguy-Forum however.

    You refer to 2 posting in the rant-section, with a link to another article somewhere out in the internet, and what members say is rather gender neutral, for example by Ragnar:

    We got guys who do drugs and abuse alcohol as well as the woman who park her car in a railway-crossing etc.
    We also have people who live without thinking about tomorrow.
    Could we change our culture in a direction like NOT helping those who simply are stupid.


    What is wrong with this comment?

    The other posting/thread is also in the RANT section, where angry men can talk what they REALLY think, and he says he is rather angry with other men, who have a criminal record, homeless and taken away 10 years of savings, because they were acting in a very stupid way with women.

    What's wrong with that?

    And yes, not every man has a high academic education and not every man is able to write comments like David, who is introducing himself as a professional writer. Many men are low-educated and do not have much possibility to improve their writing style.

    As feminist you should know, that men are getting much less support than women if they wish to improve their education.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I'm curious to know why it is you refer to me as a feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @ Miranda
    Because your behavior is feminist.

    'I see that they've already cleaned this one up. But still not quite enough'

    MRAs will hardly accept advice from feminists about how they have to 'clean up' their own forums or blogs....

    ReplyDelete
  68. Sorry, Yohan. I know that you are superior to me and all, and should therefore be able to call all the shots, but you don't get to say whether or not I am a feminist. Do you not know that?

    ReplyDelete
  69. Yohan, there is a thread devoted entirely to me on the Nice guy forum. When I found out my curiousity got the better of me. I felt special for a while, but then I remembered who it was that was discussing me. Then I just felt....dirty.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Sorry, Yohan. I know that you are superior to me and all, and should therefore be able to call all the shots, but you don't get to say whether or not I am a feminist.

    Yet you get to say he thinks he's superior to you.
    If I see someone screaming racist obscenities at minorities, I'm going to call that person a racist. If I see someone banging their head against a door, I'm going to call them stupid. If I see someone who thinks women can't live without preferential treatment, I'll call them a feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  71. IR, so you're basically saying that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be a duck, right?

    I'm glad you understand that.

    Now maybe you can understand why the MRM guys as a whole are looked upon as misogynist sociopaths. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck......

    Thanks for proving my point.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Natasha,

    Is this indicative of the types of women who are allowed to have a voice in the MR forums?

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=97

    And by this I mean, the types of women who wear skirts down to their ankles and won't wear clothing that bares their arms?

    If so, then thanks but no thanks. You have fun with those men. They only accept you because you know your place (which is in the kitchen). Am I wrong?

    I'll be happy to make my man a sammich any day, but only because he treats me with respect, not because he has the right of control over me by birth default.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Miranda--

    your ascribing to me certain traits and appearance based on a conversation on a message board that I didnt even participate in? You're actually saying that I agree with everything that is ever said in every mrm forum ever?

    If that's the case, then I suppose you wont be upset and will welcome, in the interest of fairness of course, every quote that's ever been published by a supporter of feminism?

    And how fascinating that you "know" why a specific group of people accept me. Or that you even "know" Im accepted by them. Your post is foolish and pathetic and completely indicative of where your head is at. You don't seem real interested in actually discussing anything with anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours; you only seem to want to put words in their mouths, tell them what they 'really' think and throw insults around in an attempt to distract people from their point.

    Its now been over 24 hours since I've asked you some pointed questions, and you have refused to answer. How about instead of the juvenile crap you just answer them?

    1. The MRM's goal is not to oppress women, the MRM's goal is for legal, educational and social equality. Is that not also what feminism wants as well? Is it fair the almost always the default custodial parent in divorce is the mother? Is it fair that women rarely pay spousal or child support in the event of a divorce? What are your thoughts on these topics?

    2. Why would you feel sorry for a woman who chooses to belong to a certain group? I don;t feel sorry for you that you're a feminist.

    3. Can you not admit that both sides engage in hyperbolic arguments? That we both have a less than stellar element at times that choose to be in the forefront and making the rest of us groan and that should NEVER serve as the yardstick by which the entire movement should be measured?


    And as far as my "place" or my appearance, or my "style" goes....if thats the image of me that makes you feel better love, go ahead and have it, it couldn't be further from the truth lol

    ReplyDelete
  74. Miranda said...
    Yohan, there is a thread devoted entirely to me on the Nice guy forum...


    I am not sure, which thread you mean, maybe this one about facebook?

    There are various threads which contain the name 'Miranda'. The forum has now over 500000 comments.

    BTW, Thanks for signing up with the Niceguy-Forum.

    Why do you not sign up using the ID of MIRANDA?

    If there is a thread devoted to you, why do you not comment there? Why are you in hiding and avoiding the introduction thread?

    Again, about what thread are you talking? About Facebook?


    MGTOW Misunderstood:
    Some hypocritical girl named Miranda Lollis slanders a MGTOW page on facebook. After a short moment she disabled all people who disagreed with her from posting on her profile post:
    Note that everything she said has been debunked on the MGTOW page.

    Nevertheless, I think people misunderstand what MGTOW stands for, which harms MGTOW in general, and the popularity of it.


    Is this this thread?
    If YES, maybe you can explain to us, what answers did you expect in return of your comments on the MGTOW facebook page?

    Janusz Rzeżnik: So, Miranda, you walk onto this page where men who are fed up with the current ...zeitgeist congregate and complain about what's posted there. You start out by saying, "God, you people are a bunch of pathetic dicks."


    Miranda Lollis
    You should also be aware that I eat woman-degrading morons who dare to defend the Psych Ward for breakfast. You would be wise to consider tucking your tail between your little legs and scurring back to the grotto from whence you came.


    Miranda Lollis Hmm....Which assumption of mine are you classifying as "Brazen"? Is it the classification of the group as the Psych Ward of Facebook? the fact that they are women-hating clones of my ex? or the fact that they are a bunch of dumbasses?

    Did you type these comments?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Yohan, you're a "global moderator" of a forum connected to "NiceGuys's Ameriskanks Suck" page, from which you got these comments, and you're complaining about namecalling?

    Do you want me to post what the guys there called her?

    Do you want me to dig out the thread there about me? Do you happen to remember what that was called? (HINT: It contained the phrase "disgusting mangina.") Or what you yourself called me in that thread?

    Please don't pretend that you can take the moral high ground here.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Please don't pretend that you can take the moral high ground here.


    I am posting here my comments using the same name as in the Niceguy-forum. No secrets about my identity.

    I said you are a coward, as you were signing up in our forum with a fake-ID.

    After signing up successfully you copied some fragments of comments from our forum-members, distorted them out of context and finally mixed them up with some anti-male (MRA = woman-hating etc.) comments into this blog.

    That's truly feminist dishonest propaganda.

    The word 'disgusting mangina' is not my creation however.

    Yes, I am one of the moderators of the Niceguy-Forum, however I am in no way related to this mentioned Facebook-Page.

    If you walk into any MRA-page as a feminist troll as 'Miranda' obviously did and are calling everybody 'a bunch of pathetic dicks', then you should not be surprised to receive a similar response in return.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Yeah, you didn't call me a "disgusting mangina," you just called me a "super-mangina."

    You want me to post more of what was said about this blog in that topic? The whole "cluebatting" squad the guys there sent over to pester me and spam this blog?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Super-mangina!
    Consider this as a compliment.

    Niceguy-Forum has nothing to hide - it is you who is lurking around using a fake-ID.

    I wonder why you are so afraid to sign up with your regular name in our forum?

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Yohan

    This conversation interests me, this is my position on the minority of extremists in the mrm.

    Historically progressivism has taken the behaviour of an extreme minority and used it to stereotypes and marginalize whole groups quite successfully. They did it to Jews, black men in american and today feminism uses the minority of violent men to stereotype and marginalize all men.

    You see it happening here, the blog is based on the same tactic, a minority of comments are used to stereotype the whole, and its second nature to some of the contributers.

    So I sometimes wonder why a small portion of the online mens movement so willingly hands over useful propaganda given that its obvious that its going to be used against the whole movements and abuse victims in the way we see here.

    Rhetorical discipline seems to me to be more beneficial to the movement rather than facilitating the publishing of rhetoric that is damaging.

    That said I do understand that there is nowhere else to go for men that have been fucked by the system and that its important for them to have support, I just wonder if there is another way given that we know how these people operate.

    ReplyDelete
  81. "So I sometimes wonder why a small portion of the online mens movement so willingly hands over useful propaganda given that its obvious that its going to be used against the whole movements and abuse victims in the way we see here."

    Anger, I think. So many men have been hurt so badly by feminism and want to vent, and not everyone is as intellectually disciplined as us. That's not sufficient to explain the REALLY bad comments though(the ones that call George Sodini a hero and Saudi Arabia a model society). I think many of those are posted by feminists themselves to smear us although I do have the displeasure of knowing a few MRAs who actually think these things...

    ReplyDelete
  82. @Eoghan @Cold

    It's a difference if you write a blog yourself and collect solely comments, or if you have to administrate/moderate a forum with many members.

    What we do with the Niceguy-Forum (and I think, most Men's Rights Forums are doing it in a similar form) is to offer some sectors to our members:

    Trolleville - for trolls, posting nonsense

    Opposing view - might be used by feminists with polite arguments etc.

    Rants - for angry men, speak out what you think, we will listen.

    Girls gone wild - Reports about malicious women, criminal women, etc. to show that women are not only 'victims'.

    Men getting shafted - Reports of men misused by the laws/rulings. Information about laws in USA and also about other countries.

    Men going their own way - about what I did, and how I did it.

    There is also some sections for travel, humour and other stuff, computers, even conspiracy theories, religion etc.

    -----

    Of course people like David are nitpicking in the RANT section only and ignore all the other stuff in the MRA-forums.

    Such people like David are unwilling or unable to ask constructive neutral questions,
    for example:

    WHY are you an MRA?
    HOW do you see your life now and your past and future?
    WHAT do you think, should really be changed in our laws? What is unfair against you? etc.

    He considers all men with problems regarding females more or less as bad people. There is no male victim in his little mindset. No sincere dialog is therefore possible as he is brainwashed and biased in his opinion.

    David's communication ability is therefore limited to sign up with a fake-ID lurking in MRAs internet-pages and posting some suggestive comments against men on his blog.

    About David I guess he is a very lonely, unhappy and narrow-minded person.

    While he is searching about any bad information regarding MRAs and adores feminists, he remains silent about his own life-style. I noticed also he has no idea about anything beyond the borders of USA.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I love how the person who posted the bit about women being the missing link knows absolutely nothing about biology.

    Women can't be the "missing link" you see... Because humans didn't evolve from apes. They have a common ancestor, but we didn't come from chimps. There are two lines of evolution, one for humans, one for apes, they are not one and the same.

    Also, it's obvious humans are of the same species as men because men and women can produce viable, fertile offspring. If women were "the missing link" we wouldn't be of the same species and won't be able to have babies that could later reproduce.

    Also, sure. I'll totally give you the "we don't need women anymore bit." Lets say that's true. Okay. Poof. No more women. Now lets see how long the huMAN population survives...

    Yeah. Biology. It's a wonderful thing.

    I just want to make one thing clear. I'm a feminist and I'm not here to hold anyone down.

    -Lexie Di

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis