Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Comments policy: Cool it

Folks, some of you need to cool it with the gratuitously nasty personal attacks in your comments. I've been cutting some people slack because they are new to the comments here, and because I like to practice relatively hands-off moderation, but I will start deleting comments if this continues, and repeated violators will be banned entirely. Regardless of which side of the debate you're on. If you haven't already, read the comments policy.

Also not ok: Justifying violence against men or women. For example, this recent comment from witman suggesting it might be "patriotic" to shoot feminist elected officials. (I've screencapped it because I will be deleting it, but for now you can go see it for yourself to confirm I'm not making it up.)

120 comments:

  1. whitman is a dope rapper. But... the flow he lays down be falling outside the guidelines here I guess. Word to your mother, whitman, and I mean that- seriously who is your mother? Ha ha just kidding, kind of. I do wonder about MRAs moms though, all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Most MRAs have mommy issues. It's one of the reason they are MRAs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mommy issues, like when your mother is an overemotional abusive hag?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Does it then stand to reason feminist have daddy issues? No? Then that was a childish cheap shot.

    If this post is for real, which I doubt, this is one of those fringe that no one I know would condone in the MRM. While I agree the second amendment is indeed there to allow us protection against tyranny, I do not agree this is what the forefathers had in mind.

    ReplyDelete
  5. BTW, until this post I have not seen anyone advocating violence. Hmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  6. BQ: witman has made dozens of comments here, many of them obnoxious but none as bad as this one. If he's a troll, which I seriously doubt, he's an *extremely* patient and dedicated one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I really don't think we should get into the mommy issues or daddy issues thing,it's all lame. However, I do always wonder about what kinds of women the mothers are. My dad raised me to be feminist. NOT my mom, she's scared to death of independence. And rightfully so, I was raised in a single parent home, and things were pretty tough on all of us. She had married and moved away from my dad, so he was not around to help out. Previously he had been a very very very very very active father. I was his life.

    ReplyDelete
  8. biscuit queen, here is the link:
    http://www.manboobz.com/2011/01/congresswoman-shot-six-others-killed.html
    his comment is four up from the bottom. If you use control f and then type in his username you will be able to find it quite easily

    ReplyDelete
  9. avpd0nmmng said...
    Most MRAs have mommy issues. It's one of the reason they are MRAs


    There are many reasons why men and some women too decide to become MRAs.

    Unfortunately children cannot choose their parents. They cannot choose the circumstances of their birth.

    To make male children responsible for the psycho behavior of their mother as you do is truly feminist BS-drivel.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The problem of this blog is about its biased moderation.

    1.
    Moderate comments by MRAs with links and personal explication why we think in this way =

    either ignored, or belittled, hardly any reasonable reply.

    2.
    Comments along the borderline from MRAs =
    See how bad all these MRAs really are, we must delete those comments. We feel soooo insulted.

    3.
    For feminists any personal insult towards MRAs is OK.

    booboonation said...
    whitman is a dope rapper. .....Word to your mother, whitman, and I mean that- seriously who is your mother? ... I do wonder about MRAs moms though, all the time.


    This above is a typical feminist comment towards a father (witman) who was cheated by his ex-wife and who had to fight successfully in court for custody, because his ex-wife abandoned not only him, but also HER (their) children...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yohan, what I say is that if a guy had a bad mother, instead of starting a crusade against women and feminists, he should blame his mother and keep his distance from her. I've known a guy that was posting in MRAs forums that was 40 years old and never had girlfriend and was still living with his mother. And he was constantly blaming feminists for all his problems. I'm sure there are many MRAs like him.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I said it before...this group would be sad to me if they were not so dangerous.

    I don't know why but I am still shocked that there are people -defending- this shit. Like 'oh my god really?

    Come on guys. Seriously. I don't want your cock, I don't want your sperm I am not out to subjugate you and you are not an oppressed minority. Fucking stop.

    ReplyDelete
  13. avpd0nmmng said...
    Yohan, what I say is that if a guy had a bad mother, instead of starting a crusade against women and feminists, he should blame his mother and keep his distance from her


    The same could be said exactly in the opposite way, if you had a violent father, then keep a distance from him and don't call all MRAs and other men to be wife-beaters and rapists...

    What do you think?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I love how in a thread where David tells people to cool it with personal insults, the first posts are insults by booboonation and avpd(whatever) to MRA's mothers and David says nothing. More of that famed feminist fairness, I see.

    Just to clarify David, this means that I can insult feminst's mothers, correct?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thomas Jefferson said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    There's nothing different between that and what witman is saying. IMHO, it is in keeping with a healthy desire to maintain ones freedoms (which feminist redefine as privilige) from government overreach.

    So I guess you'll have to delete this Thomas Jefferson quote from your blog also David.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  16. Although I appreciate the comments policy, I'm also kind of glad that you posted the comment in question, if only because it serves as evidence for those who believe that the people who take this kind of rhetoric seriously are just imaginary bogey-men invented as part of some sort of stupid political game.

    It's not a game, and they're not imaginary. They're real. And they're not bogey-men, either. They're real people, human beings just like you and me, who have somehow come to believe that there's really some kind of feminist conspiracy out there, and that the tree of liberty needs to be watered with the "conspirators'" blood.

    It's frightening, but even more than that, it's sad. I don't know what to do about it. At this point, the gulfs in perception just seem far too wide to bridge.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Why are you people lying about my mother comment? I even clarified it. Mommy/Daddy issues is a dumb topic to me, I find it childish. So Richard, stop lying about other people's posts because you can get banned doing that from what I hear. I will be waiting for your apology and yes, you should give one and stop reaching and trying to villianize the feminists here.

    On to your quote. That has nothing to do with whitman saying "this woman", and talking specifically about a current event. If Thomas Jefferson said, "Yeah, that dude was a tyrant." It would not apply to us, here. It's a matter of history.

    Richard you really should try to stop the personal attacks while playing victim that others are attacking you. Anyone that keeps this up with me, fine, what I will do to keep peace, clarity for others, and the permission to keep posting is I will ignore the attacks. Letting you know now, if I feel baited, I might not respond.

    ReplyDelete
  18. richard: I really only ever delete comments that are pointed personal attacks, not jokey comments or sweeping generalizations or cheap shots not directed at anyone in particular. If I deleted every comment featuring dumb generalizations or cheap shots about feminism, for example, I'd probably have to delete half the MRA comments on the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  19. David Futrelle said...
    ..... If I deleted every comment featuring dumb generalizations or cheap shots about feminism, for example, I'd probably have to delete half the MRA comments on the blog.


    You forgot to mention that in this case you also have to delete at least 80 percent of all feminist comments on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Well Yohan (and Witman)

    What is the situation here? By definition, a woman who has abandoned her children would not bother to fight about custody of them. I don't know witman and don't know his circumstances and can only judge him on his comments on this forum. Which have mostly been pretty rotten towards women as a gender and then escalated to violence at women. Not a huge suprise that his wife did the bolt then (again I don't know your circs but you are not doing yourself any favours with your posts) And in fact you are doing your ex a favour by being so extreme in your comments. She can now go back to court and say Witman advocates violence against women as a patriotic duty if they might be feminists. And even the coppers will back her. Pull your head out witman - if you do actually care for your kids then temper your anger as you are spilling out good reasons to have your kids taken from your care as you have chosen to manifest your anger in a public forum with violence as your ultimate solution. No court will back you on that as they are supposed to be putting the kids well being first and no court will back death threats against women as a sharing caring parent.

    Look Witman you are not blameless here. You chose to marry the woman you are now cranky with. Did someone put a gun to your head? It didn't work out but given you posts on this forum any police officer etc would tell your ex to get the f*ck out of your home cos you seem to be a ticking time bomb. As I said I don;t know you at all and can only judge you on your posts on this forum. Shit I would advise your ex to run for the hills based on your posts only I would have advised her how to take the kids as well.

    You are not demonstrating any sort of higher ground here mate - you are simply demonstrating why she left you. This might not be the reason but as long as you keep posting the crap you are posting in the last few days then you are unlikely to find much sympathy from even non feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "They're real people, human beings just like you and me, who have somehow come to believe that there's really some kind of feminist conspiracy out there"

    Can't imagine why.

    ReplyDelete
  22. haloinshreds said...
    I don't know witman and don't know his circumstances and can only judge him on his comments on this forum.


    I do not know witman either, and I can only judge him on the scornful and provocative comments he received on this blog for posting about his problems with his ex-wife.

    It is interesting to see that out of more than 5000 comments only those of MRAs but never those of feminists are ubject to moderation.

    Also Eoghan was a rather moderate poster at the beginning, but he was strongly belittled and as he was responsive to scornful personal provocation he was finally 'banned'.

    We will see who is the next target of us MRAs on this unique and strange all-out MRA-hating blog.

    ReplyDelete
  23. evilwhitemaleempire:

    No. I can't, really. And that's what I meant about the gulf in perception. You look at the world, and you see a feminist conspiracy. I look at the world, and I see no such thing. And, like I said, I don't know how that gulf can be bridged. Perhaps it can't be. I don't know.

    ReplyDelete
  24. booboonation: "I do always wonder about what kinds of women the mothers are. My dad raised me to be feminist. NOT my mom, she's scared to death of independence. And rightfully so, I was raised in a single parent home, and things were pretty tough on all of us. She had married and moved away from my dad, so he was not around to help out. Previously he had been a very very very very very active father. I was his life."

    Okay, it could be very simple. MRAs might have had mothers like your mother (who cut off her kids from their father). Or they might be people like your dad (who lost his children because of their mother).

    -Jut

    ReplyDelete
  25. I believe that there are people both men and women in the MRA that simply have their heads in the stand regarding how disturbed some of their members really are:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2445

    I don't know who this mkre fellow is, but Alpha has been around for years. Someone from SYG said they don't know of any violent MRA's, well this is one of their own board members.

    Not only are their comments disturbing to say the least, but the lack of anyone saying anything about it is even more disturbing (Kave is considered to be a troll there).

    I am really happy this board was put into place.

    ReplyDelete
  26. haloinshreds said...
    Well Yohan (and Witman)
    I don't know witman and don't know his circumstances and can only judge him on his comments on this forum.

    Maybe 1 comment in spam filter or not sent...???

    -----

    I myself do not know witman either, but I can only judge him on the scornful comments he received on this blog from feminists when he was telling his side of the story regarding ex-wife and children.

    The problem with this blog, if MRAs make reasonable postings they are either ignored or belittled, if they respond in the same way they are provocated by feminists, they are the bad violent guys.

    Eoghan was not that unreasonable at the beginning, but lost his patience, and same with witman now.

    Your posting is also in this direction, you say you judge him only from his postings... but surely not from all postings, you pick out some few which fits you. - I think you learnt this from David.

    Same happen to me just a few threads ago, I said, politicians, celebrities and rich businessmen should be aware that threats against their person and vandalism against their offices might be serious and they should do something about crime prevention. What's wrong with saying this?

    What's wrong about a discussion how to PREVENT crimes? What has crime prevention to do with the female or male gender?

    Now brainwashed feminists on this blog are telling me something about a poor female victim, and compare the attack against her with being defendless and pregnant or being raped. - And of course these stupid women are telling me what a big misogynist I am...

    This is really a strange blog, I cannot remember I have ever seen something like that.

    Whatever I say, the US-feminist is putting words in my mouth and claims something which is not true and what I never said.

    I escaped feminism after suffering from it for more than 2 decades. No problems now for me personally. Unfortunately other men are not as lucky as I am.

    ReplyDelete
  27. avpd0nmmng said...

    "Yohan, what I say is that if a guy had a bad mother, instead of starting a crusade against women and feminists, he should blame his mother and keep his distance from her. I've known a guy that was posting in MRAs forums that was 40 years old and never had girlfriend and was still living with his mother. And he was constantly blaming feminists for all his problems. I'm sure there are many MRAs like him."

    You really are a hoot. Many MRAs are like him? Do you realize the cross-section of men that are on MRA, MGTOW, or even PUA forums? You are being naive, foolish, in denial, or just plain trying to paint them as losers (because I'm sure you think the above man is one, apparently).

    What if I had said the same thing about feminists having father issues and hating men because of their upbringing?

    So it's not okay for some man to believe he was oppressed and held back because his fundamental development pretty much sucked but when feminists find oppression and claim they are held down there's a legit reason?

    Okay . ..

    ReplyDelete
  28. I believe that radical feminists and MRA (there are few moderate mra's) do have more in common then they would like to believe.

    Both groups have the landmarks of broken individals, from being hurt by the opposite sex. Whether it be parents, spouses, S.O's, teasing in school, or random acts of violence.

    However you would be hard pressed to find many individals who have not been hurt by someone at sometime. The difference is emotionally mature people do not label all members of the person who hurt them sub group as BAD.

    The majority of feminists I see posting do not label all men as bad except for perhaps a very few. This however seems to be the norm for MRA's.

    "Feminists" in a MRA context seems to include everyone who does not hate their mothers, have their wives, hate western women, etc.

    Mangina, white knight, the list goes on. They hate conservative women because conservative women want men to take care of them, they hate working women because women shouldn't be in the work force. They hate that women are not eligible for the draft but do not want women fighting with them in wars.

    No one but those that mirror their own hatred can stand up to this litmus test.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "What if I had said the same thing about feminists having father issues and hating men because of their upbringing?"

    I would say that for those feminists that hate men this is more often then not the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "I would say that for those feminists that hate men this is more often then not the truth."---D

    And it's often a projection upon men and the world as well from that background and history.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @ booboonation

    If you didn't want to talk about mothers why'd you bring it up in the first place? Secondly, I didn't lie about anyone's post.

    As for waiting for me to apologize, how often does anyone apologize on the interent? (Not that you deserve an apology).

    Lastly you say: ". . .If Thomas Jefferson said, "Yeah, that dude was a tyrant." It would not apply to us, here. It's a matter of history."

    The key phrase young lady is from time to time, ask someone to explain it to you.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Elkins

    Don't you find it rather odd that the evil partriarchy conspiracy is accepted but anything else is somehow considered ridiculous?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  33. To wytchfinde555:

    Rooshv, an acolyte of Roissy, said it himself "“Men’s Rights” Has Become A Euphemism For “Sexual Loser”" (http://www.rooshv.com/mens-rights-has-become-a-euphemism-for-sexual-loser).

    And given the fascination of MRAs blog for "game" or foreign brides or going to some third world country to find a wife, it's obvious these guys have no success with women.

    ReplyDelete
  34. So D,

    How do you explain all the female MRAs?

    ReplyDelete
  35. > how often does anyone apologize on the interent?

    The "interent": a lowest common denominator we can all aspire to.

    ReplyDelete
  36. That seems like an odd question, Deeze. I have a long answer for this, but let me start just by pointing something out.

    Women have NEVER historically been for women's rights because it has always been an idea that threatened status quo and their stability just as much as men's stability. There are tons of people exploited, just outright exploited in labor that believe they can't do anything about it, and any talk of change threatens their job and livelihood.

    Women are ...ok...here comes a generalization, and guess what? This one I am completely comfortable making. Women are scared of not being liked or accepted or viewed as attractive and that effects almost every woman. Women are notorious for posturing themselves AGAINST feminism with loud and bold declarations. There was a video on you tube for awhile of this guy reading singles ads in the UK and it was a comedy video, but so funny how all the ads mentioned, "not a feminist", "I'm no feminist.", etc.

    Women have never ever, on the whole fought for changes for women. They argued with Steinem as much as anyone did. I remember one Phil Donahue episode in the 80s about feminism, there was a woman caller with grown children, and she called and said, "I don't WANT to have to work outside the home. I disagree!" The caller feeling pressure that feminism meant no women should ever stay home. Phil just asked her, "DO you want the world you were faced with for your daughter?" Pause. "NO"... and that scene played out over and over the last thirty or more years when it comes to this topic.

    Also, politically, if a woman is right wing, fuggeddaboudit. Of course, not always is this the case, but introduce me to the feminist tea bagger, that's a conversation I want to have. Since MRA is an ANTI FEMINIST MOVEMENT and very little else, I would expect swarms of women in your ranks. The only question left is, why aren't there more women? Seriously? Where ARE THEY?

    I look around and I see women lining up to get into abusive dynamics that exploit them and prop up an oppressive system, so I personally was shocked at the lack of women MRAs. Also I would say that when the movement is not an anti feminist farce, and you do try to get some activism going that means basic progress for all (father's rights), of course any woman will back that (if it's for real). I end here only because my comment is long, not because there ain't more to say about wimminz that lurve them some patriarchy.

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

    ReplyDelete
  38. "All the female MRAs"

    I've seen only a handful. And they actually face a lot of hostility from many MRAs, who don't trust them as allies because they're, you know, women; see The Spearhead message boards for evidence of this.

    ReplyDelete
  39. richard, now you're saying to me "why did you bring it up?" about mothers, I explained why I brought it up. You are trying to pin your own failure on me. I think (again for the second or third time), that claiming someone has mommy or daddy issues is a lame ad hom. "Issues" is a separate subject from plain biography. I talked of my own as well.

    So the quote was meant to suggest that throughout history force would be needed. I understand that. If someone quotes him with the intent to incite people to violence, then the quote is wrong for the commenting guidelines here, it depends on context.

    So if you say, "well in regards to these female politicians backed by NOW, let's not forget what this old famous dead dude said about sometimes having to kill people."

    Of if you say, "Hey look what Thomas Jefferson said." Those are two completely different things.

    Sometimes it gets confusing explaining things to people that should never ever have to be explained.

    And I guess when one makes honest mistakes that no apology should be asked for. I usually don't do that. But I will ask that you please take responsibility when you read things IN THE CASE that you are attacking their comments, which is what you did with me. You held up my comment as a no no and you were wrong. You attacked me and were factually wrong due to your own comprehension failure. So IF you are going to point fingers, just make sure you have it right. An apology would be appropriate when you fail in that regard since it was an attack.

    ReplyDelete
  40. To Dr. Deezee :

    Very few women post on MRAs blogs/forums and they don't stay long and many are harassed on their own blog. One of them last year had to put her blog private because a guy was sending her emails saying he wanted to rape her.

    And I think that some women that post there are guys.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Dr.Deezee: "I know some women who love patriarchy."

    I know some people who are morons. And some who are hypocrites. And some who think the Earth is flat, and some who think the Moon is made of green cheese. Okay, okay, I don't actually know people who think the Moon is made of green cheese.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Taking a page right out of my primer on public discourse I see. Why refute an argument when you can just dismiss it with ad hominems and stupid analogies?

    ReplyDelete
  43. @richard:

    The only people I've ever met who believe in anything that could accurately be described as "the evil patriarchy conspiracy" have been teenagers with just enough experience of the world to become radicalized and angry, but not yet enough experience of the world to have any sense of nuance. Or much in the way of sense at all, for that matter. They're the same teenagers you'll hear saying idiotic things like "I'm not wearing a seat belt! That's SO bourgeois!" They grow out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Dr. Dreeze, I just wrote a pretty long post on that. Look at the last line of the post. And David, sometimes the distrust thing goes on with the feminists, too. I know some feminists that really really don't appreciate a man around because of women's nature (not referring to a nature versus nurture debate here, just saying for whatever reason), or habit to defer to men and look to men, or not want to offend men. I've seen it myself, people really do act differently when a male is around and attribute leadership skills to them automatically based on no evidence.

    If I was in a movement like MRA, I might be suspicious of women members, too. Especially since MRA is largely a woman hating group. And like I said, if you only like your dog for its tail, you could be described as hating your dog, depending on what manifests from that love of tail. What I mean is, these men are really really conditional with their love and toleration of women, that's why we call it hate. Now of course the words "conditional" don't tell the story, we are all that way. The important things is to compare the conditionals and realize that the conditions this group wants to place on women are dehumanizing which is why more violence is bourne of this group than a radical feminist group.

    I'm sick of being coerced with this "man hating" garbage, and when we argue about that we never get to stage two, we always get stuck in stage one. Stage one is, "well first of all, that's not even true", because most of the time- it's not. I'm interested in stage two now, getting people to realize that it does not matter if some women hate men. It does not sum up or amount to anything. If you make the claim that it does, show me the money. I want to see evidence. Because the truth is, it's just another boundary invasion of women by people that think women are owned and have no personal agency. Men that attack the feminist movement just don't want women to have a group identity that they define themselves, or clear boundaries. It's fine that men have otherized us since Eden and look at women as such a separate species they cannot even maintain a friendship with a woman. So it's fine for them to define the species that we are, and include no boundaries in that definition. But we are not permitted to recognize our own identity and issues as otherized persons and form a group that will help us make sense and improve our conditions, especially when we declare we are people in our own right with a wide range of abilities, our own agency and choices, and have strong boundaries.

    Who in the HELL shows up to MRA sites screaching, "How come you don't talk about women's issues?" That would be insanity there, just like it is here.

    ReplyDelete
  45. avpd0nmmng said...
    .....
    MRAs blog for "game" or foreign brides or going to some third world country to find a wife, it's obvious these guys have no success with women.


    Such drivel can only be written by an US-citizen, who was never beyond the borders of his/her own state.

    MRAs do not have success with women?

    MRAs are not interested into games like US-hook-up-culture and one-night stands with certain women in certain countries.

    But we find success - a long-term relationship - just somewhere else, with other people in other countries.

    We do not listen to hateful feminists, we go our own way. It's not your business to tell us how we should arrange our life.

    About myself, I am living since over 3 decades in Asia, with foreign wife.

    You are grossly misinformed about this world, if you really think all foreign countries are 3rd world countries, all foreign women are poor and doormats and only American women are 'rich and independent'.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I know some women who love patriarchy.
    Just clicked on that link and had a quick read of the "Patriarchy: Its Benefits For Women" article. Here the Female Misogynist (the blog owner), in defending patriarchy, is unwittingly also lending support for things like VAWA:

    "This ownership [of women and children by the patriarch] gives the man a motivation to protect his wife and daughters (and sons) from threats, chiefly other men. THERE IS NO OTHER HOPE OF SAFETY FOR WOMEN. WOMEN CAN ONLY BE SAFE FROM MEN IF OTHER MEN DEFEND THEM. Men are larger, stronger and more aggressive, and if the social system gives them no motivation to defend women, as matriarchy does not, they will leave women at their fellows' mercy."

    So, the chief threat to women (and children) is ... wait for it ... MEN!!

    Ah, but she hooked you on that "ownership of women and children", didn't she. I don't see any commenters there taking issue with the statement that it's MEN who are the chief threat, and then subsequently pointing out that it's actually WOMEN who are more dangerous to men, other women and to children.

    ReplyDelete
  47. David Futrelle said...
    "All the female MRAs"
    I've seen only a handful...


    I have seen only a few male feminists.

    And most of them suffer of very serious issues, confused, psycho ...

    ReplyDelete
  48. booboonation said...
    ....
    If I was in a movement like MRA, I might be suspicious of women members, too. Especially since MRA is largely a woman hating group.
    .....
    And like I said, if you only like your dog for its tail, you could be described as hating your dog...
    .....
    I'm sick of being coerced with this "man hating" garbage...


    MRAs do not hate 'women' in general, but reject feminism. Truly 2 different things.

    There are MRAs, who are married and have children. Not so few of them.

    There are also women, who reject feminism. Why MUST every woman accept your life-style?

    Your statement is 'man-hating' and untrue.

    You want to FORCE other people to accept your feminist guidelines. Somehow feminism can be compared with a religious sect.

    ReplyDelete
  49. There are also women, who reject feminism
    Of course there are, and I don't think anyone would deny that. However, it does tend to be women who reject feminism that expect it to be the man who pays for everything (i.e., view men as walking ATM machines), defend them even to the death, oppose having females serve in the military (voluntarily or not), etc. These seem to be huge bones of contention with MRAs, yet the disparaging comments are levelled against feminists, not those who reject feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I would love to answer you Yohan, but your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. I went into detail how I define woman hating as restricting and otherizing. I QUALIFIED what I meant when I said largely women hating group.

    "There are also women, who reject feminism. Why MUST every woman accept your life-style?"

    I also went into great detail about this. How you could ask me this after reading my last two posts is beyond me.

    You have made a claim that I personally want to force other people to accept feminist guidelines. Please back this claim up with any evidence or at least a line of reasoning. If you want to change the claim from me personally and apply the statement to the feminist movement, fine, but please back your claim up with any evidence you can muster. Thanks.

    Yesterday you forced your dog to eat cheese and you expect that of all dogs.

    See how that works? I can just say wacky unsubstantiated shit about you with no evidence all day long. Yohan please disprove what I just said, do you have any EVIDENCE that you did not force your dog to eat cheese yesterday and expect all dogs to eat cheese? You're clearly a dog hater until you prove my statement false. Thanks.

    You have NEVER EVER ONCE Yohan spoken out for the rights of pets OR immigrants in your comments. Also after thorough research of MRA sites on my own I have come to the conclusion that this group hates animals, they NEVER discuss animal rights, or animal cruelty. It also appears that they are anti-Immigration unless they are women, prostitutes, or spouses that border on slaves with no choices. It appears they are pro-slavery.

    I would ask that MRAs on this board please do not skim my comment for one-liners, if you fail to understand my NONSENSE second paragraph, it's on you. I am not going to spend the next three posts correcting your lazy reading and one-liner regurgitating habits. Answer the POINTS I attempted to make, argue them, or don't answer. That is a fair, just and logical directive.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I would love to answer you Yohan, but your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. I went into detail how I define woman hating as restricting and otherizing. I QUALIFIED what I meant when I said largely women hating group.

    "There are also women, who reject feminism. Why MUST every woman accept your life-style?"

    I also went into great detail about this. How you could ask me this after reading my last two posts is beyond me.

    You have made a claim that I personally want to force other people to accept feminist guidelines. Please back this claim up with any evidence or at least a line of reasoning. If you want to change the claim from me personally and apply the statement to the feminist movement, fine, but please back your claim up with any evidence you can muster. Thanks.

    Yesterday you forced your dog to eat cheese and you expect that of all dogs.

    See how that works? I can just say wacky unsubstantiated shit about you with no evidence all day long. Yohan please disprove what I just said, do you have any EVIDENCE that you did not force your dog to eat cheese yesterday and expect all dogs to eat cheese? You're clearly a dog hater until you prove my statement false. Thanks.

    You have NEVER EVER ONCE Yohan spoken out for the rights of pets OR immigrants in your comments. Also after thorough research of MRA sites on my own I have come to the conclusion that this group hates animals, they NEVER discuss animal rights, or animal cruelty. It also appears that they are anti-Immigration unless they are women, prostitutes, or spouses that border on slaves with no choices. It appears they are pro-slavery.

    I would ask that MRAs on this board please do not skim my comment for one-liners, if you fail to understand my NONSENSE second paragraph, it's on you. I am not going to spend the next three posts correcting your lazy reading and one-liner regurgitating habits. Answer the POINTS I attempted to make, argue them, or don't answer. That is a fair, just and logical directive.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I would love to answer you Yohan, but your post has absolutely nothing to do with mine. I went into detail how I define woman hating as restricting and otherizing. I QUALIFIED what I meant when I said largely women hating group.

    "There are also women, who reject feminism. Why MUST every woman accept your life-style?"

    I also went into great detail about this. How you could ask me this after reading my last two posts is beyond me.

    You have made a claim that I personally want to force other people to accept feminist guidelines. Please back this claim up with any evidence or at least a line of reasoning. If you want to change the claim from me personally and apply the statement to the feminist movement, fine, but please back your claim up with any evidence you can muster. Thanks.

    Yesterday you forced your dog to eat cheese and you expect that of all dogs.

    See how that works? I can just say wacky unsubstantiated shit about you with no evidence all day long. Yohan please disprove what I just said, do you have any EVIDENCE that you did not force your dog to eat cheese yesterday and expect all dogs to eat cheese? You're clearly a dog hater until you prove my statement false. Thanks.

    You have NEVER EVER ONCE Yohan spoken out for the rights of pets OR immigrants in your comments. Also after thorough research of MRA sites on my own I have come to the conclusion that this group hates animals, they NEVER discuss animal rights, or animal cruelty. It also appears that they are anti-Immigration unless they are women, prostitutes, or spouses that border on slaves with no choices. It appears they are pro-slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I would ask that MRAs on this board please do not skim my comment for one-liners, if you fail to understand my NONSENSE second paragraph, it's on you. I am not going to spend the next three posts correcting your lazy reading and one-liner regurgitating habits. Answer the POINTS I attempted to make, argue them, or don't answer. That is a fair, just and logical directive.

    ReplyDelete
  54. And by "second paragraph" I mean when I start accusing Yohan of forcing his dog to eat cheese and ending up with the claim that MRAs are pro-slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Just as I was pointing out the other day; in this blog, it seems acceptable for a feminist to call a man a dickhead. But it's against rules in here to use the C word against women.

    ReplyDelete
  56. That's because "dickhead" is a minor insult that no one takes very seriously. The "c-word" by contrast is a hateful term similar to racial and homophobic slurs I won't allow here either.

    You can call me a "psycho" if you want. Yohan just did.

    ReplyDelete
  57. David, David, David, oh dear

    That's because "dickhead" is a minor insult that no one takes very seriously.

    You are admitting to female privilege, right?

    I thought feminists were against ALL forms of privilege as they claim to be all in for gender equality and fairness, right?

    Using the word "dickhead" is just as hateful in reality as it's degrading the male genitalia in contrast of degrading the female genitalia when the C word is used.

    So in other words, David, you accept this female privilege of it being acceptable to degrade male genitalia.

    ReplyDelete
  58. It's amazing how often an MRA will invoke the concept of privilege when they are PREVENTED from engaging in abuse. "I can't call you a vile name, therefore you are privileged."

    And MRAs would fall completely apart without their false equivalencies. So now d**kh**d is exactly the same as c**t. Let's all pretend that's true.

    Although this particular battle is not easily won, once you start censoring words. I think there is a strong argument that can be made about the false equivalency of the N word versus honkey or cracker, but on this point, the case is harder to make.

    The question is, is one more abusive than the other? IDk.

    ReplyDelete
  59. "And MRAs would fall completely apart without their false equivalencies. So now d**kh**d is exactly the same as c**t. Let's all pretend that's true."

    It is the same you moron as both words degrade genitalia. It's ridiculously stupid to say that degrading the female genitalia is more sexist than degrading the male genitalia. But I wouldn't be surprised if feminists really believe this.

    Anything to guise female privilege

    ReplyDelete
  60. booboonation said... Also after thorough research of MRA sites on my own I have come to the conclusion that this group hates animals ....

    It also appears that they are anti-Immigration unless they are women, prostitutes ...


    You did a poor research.

    And no idea what you mean with all that talk about dogs, the moon and green cheese. Are you OK?

    Animal rights - that's maybe what feminists apply in their mindset when talking about men they consider like cattle.

    Or do you want MRAs to become vegetarians?

    I don't know from where you got the idea, that MRAs do not like animals. It's the first time I hear that in my life.

    About immigration, I am an immigrant myself.

    MRAs often talk about leaving the feminist countries like USA or UK and to relocate somewhere else.

    About forcing feminism on men, this is already done by various strange laws in Western countries, like selling sex is fine (woman = always a victim) but buying sex is a criminal offense in Sweden. In USA you have VAWA-IMBRA...

    ReplyDelete
  61. "MRAs are not interested into games like US-hook-up-culture and one-night stands with certain women in certain countries."

    Why books by Roosh are advertised on the Spearhead ?
    Why Roissy is admired by most MRAs ?

    "You are grossly misinformed about this world, if you really think all foreign countries are 3rd world countries, all foreign women are poor and doormats and only American women are 'rich and independent'."

    I never said that, what I meant is that MRAs go to third world countries because they hope women there are submissive and desperate because they have no success with women in developed countries. And I doubt that even in a third world country, they can find a submissive and desperate woman.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "It also appears that they are anti-Immigration unless they are women, prostitutes"

    Here's something funny about these guys, they are "conservatives" which means usually they are anti-immigration. Because of that they show up on conservative blogs and forums and start harassing female posters. I've known two or three women that discovered the Men's Right Movement because these guys showed up in their favorite blogs and forums and ruined it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. David Futrelle said...
    You can call me a "psycho" if you want. Yohan just did.


    I did not call you a 'psycho' personally.

    Read back what I said, before putting words into my mouth.

    Yohan: I have seen only a few male feminists.
    And most of them suffer of very serious issues, confused, psycho ...


    The question is if you truly qualify as a 'male feminist', and I think, you do not.

    This blog is NOT a feminist blog, but solely operating as an MRA-hater blog. I have seen many feminist blogs, but your blog does not fit into this category.

    ReplyDelete
  64. avpd0nmmng said...
    Why books by Roosh are advertised on the Spearhead ?
    Why Roissy is admired by most MRAs ?


    I heard about 'http://www.rooshv.com/' the first time on this blog by David.

    The forum I am using (Niceguy) is free of ads. It is financed solely out of donations by our members.

    Other MRA-forums accept ads against payment.
    There are also feminist websites accepting ads against payment.

    I would not call Roosh's website to be an MRA-site. It's more about travelling alone as a man and find girls everywhere, something like that.

    He makes a business out of it.
    Just my impression, after a short check, it's my first visit there.

    Maybe he is 'admired' by American MRAs because he is able to carry on HIS independent life in foreign countries. Not really my life-style.

    Most Americans have no passport and have no idea about life overseas. Maybe they like to read his stories.

    ReplyDelete
  65. nick STOP failing to analyze my comments. The reason I'm telling you to STOP is because you attack me personally, you don't simply fail in argument. At the end of my comment, I basically say that it's tough case to make that those insults are different.

    Yohan, you are absolutely embarrassing yourself with your analysis of my questions. I am telling you that it's a fallacy to go around making claims that have nothing to do with the topic and asking people to disprove any silly off-topic claim you pull out of your butt.

    YES, this is an anti-MRA blog, as MRAs are antifeminist.

    As far as a law about the sex industry that was borne out of necessity. Women need to be able to report their rapes and abuses to the police. That law was borne out of necessity. It has nothing to do with ideology. Gee, how about men quit fucking killing prostitutes you sick fuck? And there are many places that try legalization, because they figure hey, two consenting adults, world's oldest profession, etc. So what happens? People enslave others by the tens of thousands, now we're picking up the pieces from that.

    You can pretend that is some "equality" issue or something. But that just proves you have an agenda and could care less about the horrendous human rights violations that accompany prostitution. It's ironic that the Swedish model is a counter-intuitive approach borne from the reality that men are absolute murderous monsters to these women instead of grateful.

    Any good man is outraged when they read about what really goes on, they don't sit around trying to justify it or claim everyone is lying to them. Tens of thousands of trafficked people. That's what happens around a legal industry.

    ReplyDelete
  66. booboonation said...
    Yohan, YES, this is an anti-MRA blog, as MRAs are antifeminist.


    Yes, correct.

    MRAs do not hate women, but they are anti-feminist.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I have already defined why I believe MRA views and limited expectations of women are hatred. No counter arguments were offered. :D

    ReplyDelete
  68. Oh, Yohan, somehow I sort of knew that you would take boohoo's obvious joke about animals, which she carefully explained in a later comment was a joke, completely seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Well, David, as I said a while ago, animals have rights, but men have not. Animals have a right for shelter and food, but men have not.

    I never heard about a false rape allegation against a bull calf or against a cock pheasant.

    booboonation said... Gee, how about men quit fucking killing prostitutes you sick fuck?

    Typical feminist shaming language rhetoric...

    To answer this question is very easy. Girls, change your life-style! Quit to be a prostitute, don't socialize with thugs and apply for an ordinary job as anybody else.


    David: ...which she carefully explained in a later comment was a joke, completely seriously

    Yeah, I know. Feminism is a joke for itself. Seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  70. To yohan:

    So you're the owner of the nice-guy forum ? (http://www.the-niceguy.com/). I discovered the Nice-Guy forum in 2009 because I wanted to know where Fschmidt was posting - Fschmidt was a regular poster there. And from what I've read at that time, it's clear that most poster there were bitter guys that couldn't get laid - and they didn't hate only feminism, they hated women and any guy that had success with women. I remember reading at least one posting of a guy admitting he was virgin. Many of the most controversial postings disappeared from the nice-guy forum in the beginning of 2010.

    ReplyDelete
  71. No, I am NOT the owner/administrator/founder of the Nice-Guy Forum, I am only holding moderator-rights since many years.

    We do not accept hate/kill all women-messages. There are members, who are married. also some female members.

    You mention a certain member, but I cannot find any comment from him in our forum, which I consider as not acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @avpd0nmmng

    Stop projecting you own issues onto the whole MRA movement.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Check this posting ...

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45033

    He's supposed to have 1010 postings ...

    ReplyDelete
  74. avp, I cut and pasted in that url accidentally leaving off the final "3" and got a comment saying this:

    "I like the old days, of just grabbing the bitch by the hair and demanding she becomes 'your wife'. Much easier!"

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4503

    ReplyDelete
  75. What is your problem?

    This thread is in the section called:

    Opposing Views
    Disagree with our philosophy? Post here & tell us why. Enter at own Risk.


    Of course not everybody - especially in this section - (there are 3, for trolls, for conspiracy, for opposing views) agrees with everything. This is an MRA-Forum, and not a feminist blog following the party-line.

    You have an account, and why do you not post your comment if you disagree as other members did, and if you think, it's too offensive, why do you not report it to the administration?

    Report button is on the left side, this thread you mention is from Oct/2009.

    About this member and his 1000 or so comments, the Niceguy-Forum has totally about 530.000 comments.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You should also mention, David, that this thread is dated 2004 (that's even before I joined as a member, and not as moderator), that 2 members of this thread were banned, and this thread was the reply to a pseudo-feminist forum about 'why men should lie to women'.

    So I understand you support men, who are liars?

    You agree to this old article from 2004?
    Well, in this case you are a man, we MRAs call a mangina, too afraid of a woman to tell her the truth..

    MRAs do not agree to such mangina behavior, better say, what's going on.

    MRAs do not think, men as liars are a good solution, but obviously it works and recommended by feminist minded dating advisors.

    What about you?

    Some sentences from that article:

    lying is smart

    So should you always be honest with her? The answer is no -- not if you know what's good for you. The truth is, you can't afford to always tell the truth if you want to keep your relationship healthy. Sometimes you just have to hedge your bets a little with a little creative sugarcoating.

    Women say they want men to be honest, but if you are, the only thing you'll be going home with is an armful of DVDs from the back room of the video store. The truth is, women force men to lie.
    .....
    The trick is figuring out what she wants to hear...

    You can lie. Bingo! Take her hands, look deep into her eyes with all the supreme male confidence you can muster and tell her she's the most desirable, beautiful woman you've ever seen. Don't even respond directly to her questions. Sure, it's a scam, and she knows it's a scam, but you're coming from a position of strength, not weakness. Remember, she wants you to lie. She expects you to lie.


    Wonderful advice, but not my way to go as an MRA.

    ReplyDelete
  77. David and the others. I think you may mistake real genuine MRA's with younger people or older who like to make dark humour with insulting posts, in the hopes that someone will get a reaction over it or just to simply gain attention.

    There are shock jocks everywhere on the net. Depending what the forum is about, people will go in and start obnoxious humour.

    ReplyDelete
  78. I love how the comment mentions not "treating people like crap." You know... PEOPLE, as in women too.

    Also, I'm pretty sure shooting someone is treating her or him like crap.

    ReplyDelete
  79. I just thought it was sort of ironic that going to a completely random page there (by cutting and pasting the wrong url) brought up someone making a beat-up-women joke, right after you said such "hate women" comments didn't exist.

    ReplyDelete
  80. It's interesting to see how you ignore the other replies in 2004...same thread...

    More crap about how men should "adjust" themselves to get women to like them. Amazing!

    I don't have a woman in my life, either. Sure, I get lonely sometimes, but I'm at peace. And, my life is my own

    If that is (rem.by Yohan: to be a liar) what is required for any guy to get a date, I am quite happy being single

    -----

    Interesting that you do not question the article itself - to be successful for dates with girls, men are required to be a liar.... interesting indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  81. My last comment was for Yohan, of course.

    Also, it's complete bullshit that NiceGuy band messages advocating violence against women.

    One quick search on the site (for the phrase "slap that bitch") led me to a bunch of examples:

    This comment, from an administrator there:


    Women are superior @ emotioinally manipulating men, and to counter balance that man was given superior strength to respond by a backhand to the side of the head. Of course that power was removed by feminism, along with every other power the western man once had.

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9422&view=findpost&p=123189

    And this one from a guest later in the thread, happy that he found some guys that like the idea of slapping women -- sorry, "bitches" -- around:

    "Wow thanks for the replies, and I totally agree that as a man I should have been able to slap that bitch right across the mouth."

    I think there's probably a 50% chance than anything Yohan says in comments here will be completely untrue.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Yohan, I say that sick fucks are murdering prostitutes and to you that's SHAMING? I am now officially scared of you. Not a decent or even semi-well adjusted person would worry about "shaming" a sick fuck that killed a prostitute.

    ReplyDelete
  83. oops David, I scrolled up and it looks like the blog posted one of my novel comments three times. Please delete, it's embarrassing. (And that joke about Yohan pulling stuff out of his butt that we all need to disprove, I actually explained that right in the same comment as well as the next two, sigh...)

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yohan, I say that sick fucks are murdering prostitutes ...

    booboonation said... Gee, how about men quit fucking killing prostitutes you sick fuck?

    No, you said to me: you sick fuck

    ReplyDelete
  85. ... And this one from a guest later in the thread ...

    Sorry, David, but you are wrong again,

    We do NOT have GUESTS.

    Guests do not have the right to post comments.

    You picked out again a thread of 2005, before upgrading to the present software.

    GUESTS are people, whose account was cancelled, either the person required that before leaving us, or we did it to force that person to leave.

    Recently banned former members will show up as BANNED.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Yohan, ok, I'll take your word on the guest things, but the first comment I quoted was from an ADMIN.

    Do you want me to dig up another hundred examples?

    ReplyDelete
  87. David: I think there's probably a 50% chance than anything Yohan says in comments here will be completely untrue.


    So far what I see, 100 percent of what David is posting even in his own blog is wrong.

    As a typical mangina, he supports even articles, where men are encouraged to lie in case they are afraid of women.

    And this thread you mentioned is about aggressive women...and about a MOCK FIGHT, made up..

    Whats a "DINK?" Much props to your wife for slapoing that ho. She sounds like a good woman.

    Take one man and one women and put them center stage, have them start a mock fight.

    We are conditioned to organize to protect females but not to protect ourselves from females.

    Please take some reading lessons, English is your mother tongue I guess... and most comments of the NiceGuy Forum are in English.

    Next please...

    ReplyDelete
  88. David: the first comment I quoted was from an ADMIN.

    You quoted only 1 half of the sentence, the other half is missing...

    He said:

    Of course that power was removed by feminism, along with every other power the western man once had. Fortunately, I don't need to go that far to put my women in their place .

    ReplyDelete
  89. "brought up someone making a beat-up-women joke, right after you said such "hate women" comments didn't exist."

    I highly doubt it that a woman would be deemed as a misandrist if she made a joke about kicking a guy in the gonads. It would get taken lightly.

    ReplyDelete
  90. @ nicko81m

    Violence from women against men remains a frequent topic all the time in MRA-related websites.

    I do not think, that men who are posting their stories on their blogs or in MRA-forums are all liars dreaming in their sick fantasy world.

    I wonder if David is already retired. It seems, he has plenty of time to search in old archives from 2004 or 2005 in our Niceguy-Forum among over 500.000 comments from banned former members if they contain something 'misogynistic' - Has he nothing else to do? No job, no family, no hobbies otherwise?

    The administration of the Niceguy-Forum has guidelines about what we consider as acceptable comments and what not - and surely David, the MRA-hater is one of the last persons on earth we would ask for advice how we manage our websites.

    Men need a place, where they can talk about their personal problems, and David's MRA-hater blog surely is not the right place for them.

    ReplyDelete
  91. avpd0nmmng said...
    "MRAs are not interested into games like US-hook-up-culture and one-night stands with certain women in certain countries."

    Why books by Roosh are advertised on the Spearhead ?
    Why Roissy is admired by most MRAs ?

    "You are grossly misinformed about this world, if you really think all foreign countries are 3rd world countries, all foreign women are poor and doormats and only American women are 'rich and independent'."

    I never said that, what I meant is that MRAs go to third world countries because they hope women there are submissive and desperate because they have no success with women in developed countries. And I doubt that even in a third world country, they can find a submissive and desperate woman.

    Nice try in painting women as "desperate" in other countries when there are many desperate women over in the US---but they don't want to appear bitter or desperate and project it on men.

    Plus, what do have against someone who wants a consential relationship with a submission woman---or a woman that likes being that way?

    I'm certain you think most MRA aren't "successes" with American women but when the dating pool is suspect you can always think they are not suitable or desirable. Ever wonder if there are undesirable women out there as well in the US? Or do you think that American women are the be all, end all of the mating game?

    ReplyDelete
  92. avpd0nmmng said...

    "I discovered the Nice-Guy forum in 2009 because I wanted to know where Fschmidt was posting - Fschmidt was a regular poster there. And from what I've read at that time, it's clear that most poster there were bitter guys that couldn't get laid"

    False. There are married, divorced, and single guys there. I bet you revel in the fact you think they "couldn't get laid" although there is a cross-section of men there. There are more issues dealt there other than getting sex---perhaps you are hung up this thing with men, eh?

    You really have something about this, or you are just employing poor psychology.

    " - and they didn't hate only feminism, they hated women and any guy that had success with women."

    Nice Guy himself got married and men applauded his success. Apparently, you don't spend time there very much.

    "I remember reading at least one posting of a
    guy admitting he was virgin."

    So, what's your problem? Would you have a problem with a woman thinking her virginity was okay? Probably not.

    "Many of the most controversial postings disappeared from the nice-guy forum in the beginning of 2010."

    Whatever you deem as controversial, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  93. booboonation said...
    "Yohan, I say that sick fucks are murdering prostitutes and to you that's SHAMING? I am now officially scared of you. Not a decent or even semi-well adjusted person would worry about "shaming" a sick fuck that killed a prostitute."

    Goes to show feminism thrives on guilt and fear. Afraid of Yohan? He's so level headed and down to earth that your rant would be a sad joke if you weren't so serious.

    (laughs uproariously)

    ReplyDelete
  94. Yohan. Great. He can "put her in her place" without literally hitting her. What a wonderful fellow.

    Also, how about these:

    "I'd slap the fucking shit...no I'd punch a bitch dead in the mouth for suggesting that I suck a dildo. I'd part that hos hair."

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45492&view=findpost&p=506763

    "Ain't that the truth. Can't stand those types of people -- talk loud just to hide the fact that they are entirely insecure about themselves. Bitch needs a good punch-out. "

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40009&view=findpost&p=452916

    And this hilarious joke:

    Chick: "Hey baby, I just changed the tire, checked the coolant, and gave the car a tune-up."
    Guy: "Bitch, what I tell you about knowing more about cars than me?" *slap*

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49946&view=findpost&p=553888

    "Cheer up mate, once our economy collaspses, you can freely bitch slap them without fear of the law, and they will be BEGGING you to take care of them. Your future is bright "

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49646&view=findpost&p=551675

    Also, just so you know, I'm not searching through thousands of old posts. The NiceGuy site has a search function. Type in words related to violence against women, and to-da! You find posts in which guys advocate or joke or fantasize about violence towards women.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Futrelle, you had to know you'd open up a category 5 shit storm, when you decided to subject MRA's to your canned defamatory snakiness. Agitprop tends to elicit that reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dr. Deezee: "Taking a page right out of my primer on public discourse I see. Why refute an argument when you can just dismiss it with ad hominems and stupid analogies?"

    Dr. Deezee, I don't care about your primer. Using the word "discourse" in a sentence doesn't make you an authority on logic or rhetoric.

    For starters, you didn't make an argument. You made a factual statement with an implied conclusion so ridiculous on its face, it doesn't merit formal refutation. As for what this "woman" wrote -- once again, it's not an argument, but a rant; and as with your suggestion, its premise is so ridiculous, that no formal refutation is necessary. Moreover, you operate under a logical fallacy that mocking a statement proves its substance. Obviously, this defies the basic principles of logic. Nor is an assertion proven by the opponent's refusal to engage it, since the grounds for such a refusal aren't limited to actual inability. Therefore, it proves none of the contents of that rant for me to say that I will not engage any "argument" the premise of which is that women are subhuman waste by virtue of their gender, who do or say nothing of value, and should have the legal status of property.

    Yohan: "You want to FORCE other people to accept your feminist guidelines."

    Although I don't agree with everything that booboonation says, or how she says it, I don't see in what way she is forcing you to believe anything. Do you have a gun to your head? Do you have a knife to your throat? Have your assets been seized and your bank accounts frozen? Can you honestly, in good faith say that you are in a reasonable fear, supported by experience, of being exiled to a gulag because you don't agree with booboonation? Or do you mean to say that you consider merely disputing your statements to be oppressive and unfair towards you?

    This proves, once again, that MRA's operate on the basic assumption that men are the default gender, and women exist solely to accommodate "people", i.e. men. Thus, any right or privilege exercised by women, though identical to that of men, is seen as an erosion of men's rights. Women's suffrage is constantly decried as a disenfranchisement of men, even though men's and women's voting rights are exactly identical. A husband and wife both keep their original last names, and this is seen as an act of subjugation of the husband, even though he gets the exact same thing as the wife. A woman expresses an opinion, and this is characterized as coercion against men who disagree with her. The inevitable conclusion is that women aren't to speak at all, except in endorsement. Has it ever occurred to you, Yohan, that by expressing your opinions here you are "forcing" them on people? What are you saying, exactly? That a woman may only speak to parrot what you say, or else stay silent? Whereas men are entitled to say whatever they want? Some "marketplace of ideas" you envision there, pal. And how ironic that you deny being privileged.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Booboonation, a radical feminist is now scared of Yohan, MRA...

    Nothing to worry about, for sure David will protect you...

    Well, true, the Men's Rights Movement is successfully fighting against feminism.

    -----

    @David

    About your link (from 2008)
    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40009
    related to comments about
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=edc_1230094877
    Crazy Chick Picks a Fight With Off-Duty Marines at 7-Eleven

    If you really call THIS to be violence AGAINST women, then you are crazy...

    -----


    Yes, you are searching and nitpicking through 1000s of old posts.

    Otherwise you would mention some others, from various sectors from 2011, related to violence, like this one...

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50037
    (why men kill themselves)

    or what about this one...

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50135
    (tragedy: children from single parent families - 70 per cent more likely to become a drug addict)

    or this one

    http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50134
    (Nurse -female- punched dying patient -male- who walked with a Zimmer frame)

    This is about what we do as MRAs. We do our best to inform people about topics, where feminists remain silent...

    ReplyDelete
  98. Amused:
    1 -
    Women's suffrage is constantly decried as a disenfranchisement of men, even though men's and women's voting rights are exactly identical.

    2 -
    A husband and wife both keep their original last names, and this is seen as an act of subjugation of the husband, even though he gets the exact same thing as the wife.


    All what I can say, as a male immigrant from Europe to Asia myself after 35 years, I do not have any voting rights, and it does not disturb me at all.

    After marriage, that's the law in many Asian countries, the foreigner keeps his/her name, and the national of that country keeps her/his name, and it does not disturb me at all.

    What you mention here is more about personal feelings and Western history/law, not everywhere in the world it is like that. It has nothing to do with the gender as you see in my case. Other circumstances also have to be considered.

    And about marriage, maybe a feminist can explain me for what marriage is good for in case you are a man? Any benefit for a man if he marries? Which benefit?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Yohan: you completely missed my point, which was about the perception that if women occupy any part of any public space, they are seen as encroaching on men's space. The fact that you don't care about not having the right to vote is neither here nor there. It remains that you claim that if a woman merely voices an opinion that's contrary to yours, she's "forcing" you -- implying that women shouldn't speak, except to agree.

    "And about marriage, maybe a feminist can explain me for what marriage is good for in case you are a man? Any benefit for a man if he marries? Which benefit?"

    I am not an advocate for marriage. Marriage is a personal matter, and I am not in the habit of "selling" marriage OR singlehood, to anyone. Every lifestyle has its own set of complications and costs. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs in a particular set of circumstances depends on a lot of variables and individual perceptions. If the only possible "benefit" you see for a man in marriage is having an unpaid servant, then yes, we feminists have done all we can to deprive you of that "benefit". If you don't believe marriage has anything for you, unless you can own another human being like an appliance -- then by all means, don't get married. That will make some woman very, very lucky.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Amused -

    Your understanding of logic is twisted probably beyond repair, but, as I said, thanks for continuing to operate based on my primer. I should get that shit published and disseminate it in colleges.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Oh, "doctor", I can tell you have such sweet dreams -- Saudi-style repression, colleges buying your "primer", you being an authority on argumentation ... A part of me is tempted to suggest you should lay off the old malmsey, but then, who am I to rain on your parade?

    ReplyDelete
  102. Amused -

    Between the two of us, you certainly aren't going to be the authority on argumentation any time soon. Or reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "If the only possible "benefit" you see for a man in marriage is having an unpaid servant, then yes, we feminists have done all we can to deprive you of that "benefit"." --Amused

    And why should a man be a servant to you?

    That, and top it off with giving feminist-minded women the "right" to exploit men after marriage with inane amounts of ailmony or enable false charges in children custody and visitation battles.

    Your cause is an anti-men one and female supremacist. Admit it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Why should she admit it? What in her comments or in the feminist creed requires a man to become a servant to a woman?

    ReplyDelete
  105. Bringing this thread back to its original topic:

    I had a brief exchange with Witman wherein he revealed that in his perception, the language feminists/women use to describe men is so intensely dehumanizing that he related it to a genocide against men.

    He is basically creating a fantasy world where the intentions of women/feminists towards men are so dire and malevolent that violence against them is not only justified, it might even be necessary. I mean, if I thought a genocide against a group I belonged to was a real possibility, I'd view violence as a justifiable response.

    So his comments at the top of the page didn't particularly surprise me. Apparently he truly believes that a genocide against men is, at the very least, a remote possibility. If you accept that premise, his comments make some sense.

    Wytchfinde's insistence that he can read Amused's mind is in a similar vein. She's an anti-man female supremacist regardless of what she says. He believes it, so it must be true. Believing that a large number of women truly hate men and actively conspire to destroy them and hurt them can justify acting in hurtful and destructive ways towards women.

    As a feminist, I don't believe men are out to hurt women. There's no vast conspiracy. There's just a lot of cultural baggage and institutional inertia left over from the days when women were not legally considered full persons. Being considered less than a citizen, less than a person, benefits nobody. I'm grateful I live in a time when my personhood is taken for granted. It's just too bad that this basic right comes along with cultural changes that are so disconcerting for so many people. But then the culture was and is entirely fucked up in so many ways--the change, painful though it is, is worth it in my book.

    ReplyDelete
  106. As for Dr. Deezee--you assert that Amused lacks logic and reading comprehension. But saying it doesn't make it so. Show exactly where her logic doesn't add up, and what precisely she failed to comprehend. It just makes you look like a person with an inflated sense of his own intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  107. SallyStrange -

    Oh, no kidding? You mean when I say shit it doesn't make it so? Kind of like what Amused is doing when s/he says "that argument is beneath me and not worth refuting?"

    Fancy that! Amazing!

    ReplyDelete
  108. "Believing that a large number of women truly hate men and actively conspire to destroy them and hurt them can justify acting in hurtful and destructive ways towards women." Sally Stranger

    Thanks for acting as if you know what I think. Your implication would be an insult if I cared.

    I suppose in your world men are out to get you. Too bad you feel that way. And then you state:

    "As a feminist, I don't believe men are out to hurt women."

    Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

    "Wytchfinde's insistence that he can read Amused's mind is in a similar vein."

    And you know what believe and think? You're a hypocrite as well.

    "I mean, if I thought a genocide against a group I belonged to was a real possibility, I'd view violence as a justifiable response."

    So, you're admitting you be violent toward men. You're a bigot, too.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Dr. Deezee: You fail to distinguish between a statement of individual attitude and a statement of purported fact -- and you claim your "primer" will be studied in colleges? Oh yeah, I bet once they read your "primer", Plato and Hegel will go right the fuck out of print. Everyone will just study YOU -- especially after you pepper your "primer" with a few more fifty-cent words. *eye roll*

    wytchfinde555: I will not admit something that's patently false. The fact that you had to twist my words into a pretzel in order to arrive at your ridiculous accusation speaks for itself.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Amused -

    You fail to detect sarcasm and you routinely say in fifty words what could be said in five. Get learned.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Deezee, you routinely say in five words what could be said in zero, so I think she's still ahead of you in the substance arena.

    ReplyDelete
  112. David talking about substance is like getting your legal advice from Saul Goodman.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "The fact that you had to twist my words into a pretzel in order to arrive at your ridiculous accusation speaks for itself."--Amused

    It's not ridiculous if it's the truth. I don't have to take anything out of context---what you write is proof enough.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Uh, no, wytch, I think by any objective standard you twisted her words.

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Uh, no, wytch, I think by any objective standard you twisted her words."---David

    By calling her a female supremacist? By your standards or by objective standards?

    I'll show you that she'll trip up. Give it time.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @David Futrelle:

    "Uh, no, wytch,..."

    I shall now bang my head against the wall.

    ReplyDelete
  117. If any comment deserved an "uh," it was that one.

    ReplyDelete
  118. "Because the truth is, it's just another boundary invasion of women by people that think women are owned and have no personal agency. Men that attack the feminist movement just don't want women to have a group identity that they define themselves, or clear boundaries. It's fine that men have otherized us since Eden and look at women as such a separate species they cannot even maintain a friendship with a woman."

    ???Are you serious? DO you really think men are so devious, malevolant, and oppressive that they see women as separate, lesser thing with no souls or minds? What planet do you live on??

    If you look at the evidence of gender standing in the western world in the last 100 years, you will see a marked advancement of women in every single part of life, and a marked decline of men. The evidence, the statistics on everything from life expectancy to education and job rates to suicide and death rates prove that women are not oppressed. The fact that many men work very long hours in often dangerous jobs they are not passionate about to provide for their wives and children show that this is idea of yours is not the case. You are so out of touch with reality I cannot believe you ever leave the house!

    MRA's want women to be equal to men. That means if women have the right to vote, they must also register for the draft. That means men have as equal of reproduction choices as biology allows (paper abortion option, more birth control options, laws which make it illegal to withhold paternaty knowledge, assumed access to kids for fathers unless proven unfit in criminal court.) That means that parents have equal treatment in divorce cases rather than blindly siding with mothers. That means in rape cases innocent until proven guilty stands as in every other crime. It means punishment for false allegations. It means taxpayer dollars are spent equitably on both male and female issues (such as cancer and dv)That means that when a woman breaks the law she is treated the same as a man. It means seeking gender parity for fields such as nursing and teaching, which are female dominated and hold a strong "glass ceiling" for men based on unmerited fear and suspicion of all men.

    Most MRAs want true equality. That means equal rights AND equal responsibilities. Feminists are all on the rights for women, but not so much on the responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis