Wednesday, January 26, 2011

The Spearhead: You don't have to be crazy to post here, but it helps. Scratch that: You DO have to be crazy.

Don't ever say this to the guys at The Spearhead
These days I mostly ignore the people who attack me and this blog online, because I'm sick of internet drama and have no interest in stirring that particular sort of shit. But there's one discussion going on at the moment that I think is worth mentioning, because it provides as interesting snapshot of the manosphere at the current moment.

Over on The Spearhead, a certain MRA who used to comment here at great length is suggesting that Spearheaders tone down their rhetoric so that "a site called mamboobz.com" won't quote them and, by exposing their crazy talk to the light of day, possibly make the men's rights movement look bad.

Never mind that the regulars at The Spearhead aren't all MRAs and I don't identify them as such. That's not the point. The point is this:

The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals. Indeed, one of the regulars, SingleDad,compared him to "a Jewish person in Germany telling all the others who are complaining about their fears as they are loaded on the trains headed for the concentration camp to quiet down or the Nazi’s might get angry." Another added, "I won’t make you wet your panties by calling you a mangina, especially since you seem to be either a doofus or a cunt."

After a bit more back and forth, SingleDad came back with what can only be called a direct threat:

You sir are a traiter to your gender. ..  You would hold our hands as they lead us into the gas chamber.

Your a collaborator. You know what men do to collaborators, right?

Expect the same from me. Count on it.

Again, SingleDad isn't talking about me. He's talking about Eoghan. Eoghan! As anyone who has been reading the comments on this blog for any length of time is well aware, Eoghan is about as far from a feminist as you can get; indeed, he's a dyed-in-the-wool MRA ideologue, and I actually banned him here some time ago because of his consistently disruptive behavior. But because he challenges not what they say but the way they say it, the guys at The Spearhead evidently see him as some sort of fem-symp if not the equivalant of a Nazi collaborator.

Naturally, all of Eoghan's posts have been heavily downvoted by the regulars, and the attacks on him, including SingleDad's threat, have gotten multiple upvotes. 

I'm not going to post a bunch more comments from this surreal "debate." Obviously you all can head over and read the whole thing if you like. But I thought this one, from Poester00 and actually directed at me, was kind of telling:

Mr Manboobz is a low down slime, using comments posted here by third parties and NOT articles to attack this site.

Since I don’t think he is stupid and he’s extremely persistent at what he’s doing, it’s highly probable that he is either:
- being paid to continue by some interested third party with deep pockets, or
- is a victim of systematic child abuse by his mother or other female relative(s), so has been “Joe Bidened”
OR BOTH.

It may be just a “job” to him but his words are supporting the hurting of real people. People will remember his words and what goes around comes around.

What goes around comes around?

Poester99, I'm not quite sure you understand the concept of karma.

Here's what I did: I quoted some repugnant shit some dudes said on a web site, and made some sarcastic remarks about these comments.

Here's what you did: you falsely accused my mother of child abuse.

I'm having a really hard time seeing how I'm the bigger asshole in this scenario.

Also: the paid shill thing? Not true. But if some "interested third party with deep pockets" wants to empty these pockets into my bank account, and won't interfere with what I write in any way, I'd like to suggest that  they contact me, like, right now.


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

.

125 comments:

  1. They really are a caricature of everything they accuse feminists of being--and more. It's truly remarkable, and rather frightening.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is amazing. Maybe Eoghan will wake up and realize there is a problem in his movement.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And they claim that feminists can't tolerate any dissension from the party line....

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're not the asshole at all in this scenario.

    ReplyDelete
  5. People who are more interested in identity as an us-vs-them issue aren't generally interested in the substance of that identity. Look at right-wing Christians, for example, who find it very important to be Christian but don't consider it terribly important to *act* Christian. These guys are the same way, but their identity is invested in their maleness.

    By the way, David, I've been enjoying this blog for a while, ever since I got linked to it from Pandagon, and I remember when you got nothing but comments from insane MRA trolls. I'm glad to see you finally have a sane following of commenters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would donate a dollar to help keep this blog going cuz it makes me laugh. :) Maybe even TWO dollars!

    ReplyDelete
  7. hahaha, there's a comment now claiming that Eoghan is David:

    Eoghan "David" Futrelle January 26, 2011 at 14:24

    I dunno, is it just me, or does it seem very odd that all of the sudden, this @ssbag appears on this comment thread, giving a downvote to every comment that isn’t their own, and then basically being a mangina troll while also managing to plug their own website inadvertently, thereby divulging their identity.

    David, you’re a moron. You’re obviously a byproduct of a successful brainwashing campaign foisted upon three generations of children thanks to “women’s lib” and it’s vehicle of dissemination, the public education system in this once great but not decrepit and morally decaying nation of spinless, emasculated males and their butch female counterparts.

    Ohhh boy, I bet you’re going to claim that I’m wrong in assuming that Eoghan and David are the same @sshole spewing jibberish here in order to promote his $hitty website with the oh-so-witty name “manboobz”… HAH! Are you serious? It’s so obvious that you’re a typical lefty; a self-hating male feminist that probably has a penis that’s AT LEAST 3 1/2 inches HARD!

    Women actually HATE boys like you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @triplanetary:

    "[David,] I'm glad to see you finally have a sane following of commenters."

    How typical. If your opinion disagrees with that of a feminist ideologue, she will chalk it up to your being afflicted with mental illness. Thou shalt not disagree!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I assume all these death camps for men are stationed in Feminist Saudi Arabia?

    That must be the same place where Bill O'Reilly's gang of pink pistol-packing lesbians hail from.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Women actually HATE boys like you."

    BRB, loling forever.

    T-SHIRT IDEA

    This caption underneath a cartoon with a pouty misogynist on one side, and a mixed gaggle of normal men and women on the other, smiling and laughing and having fun with each other.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The back could say "Everyone is David Furtelle."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I am not an MRA, but The Spearhead routinely posts articles that are compelling, well-written pieces and are drawing well-deservered attention. By saying that everyone that posts these articles is crazy, well, you have just lost ALL credibility. It just ain't true.

    Also, The Spearhead does not enforce a strict moderation policy. Their policy allows a loose, dynamic, organic interaction to take place. I might not agree with this policy, but it does have its merits within the context of brainstorming and deriving new truths. Your singling out the arbitrary outliers in these organic threads is disingenuous, most importantly because it ignores top quality contributions that you will never find in any other forum. Think of the bell-curve distribution and the error of selecting observations from only one end.

    Your assertion that everyone that participates on TS is crazy is just plain wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Chuckeedee, No one is seriously saying that everyone is crazy. The headline is a joke.

    The point is that a lot of the comments are crazy, the crazy comments get upvoted, and when someone suggests that maybe comments should be less crazy, the person receives a boatload of crazy for his efforts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Chuck, the headline is a reference to the stupid posters some people hang in their cubicles that say "you don't have to be crazy to work here, but it helps."

    "Your singling out the arbitrary outliers in these organic threads"

    They're not outliers. That's one of the unexpected benefits of the spearhead comment rating system: it allows you to see whose comments are widely liked or widely hated.

    Misogynist comments on the Spearhead are routinely upvoted, sometimes with dozens of upvotes. Comments challenging misogyny or defending women in even a mind way get downvoted and basically "disappeared." SingleDAd's first comment quoted above got more than two dozen upvotes; even his THREAT got many more upvotes than downvotes.

    These aren't the outliers on the Spearhead; they're from the fat middle of the bell curve.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh my god. I just looked at The Spearhead for the first time, and I think I'm willing to say that anyone who reads that site (not for yuks) is crazy. Before I do, though ... Chuckeedee, can you link to maybe two or three of those compelling, well-written pieces you were talking about? Like, that don't have as their primary point: Women are stupid, fat bitchez who won't date me? (Because, I should point out, an article that takes that as its particular point of view is by its nature not compelling or well-written.)

    From what I could tell, The Spearhead articles are exactly as hilarious and wrong-headed as the comments, if not exactly as easy to make fun of. Shorter The Spearhead article: "Back in the day, Laura Ingalls Wilder and her husband had this relationship that I don't know that much about, but they stuck it out I guess and GOD why are all American women such bitchez?"

    So it's pretty funny that Eoghan thinks the comments are the only problem.

    The whole comments section is pretty hilarious, though:

    "Domestic violence can decrease if children are taught anger management skills, yoga and meditation in school from a very young age.

    "Funny how the system doesn’t really want to get at the root of the problem and implement preventative measures, but rather let the issue of anger fester until they can create laws around the problem. I guess that makes more money.

    "Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 81"

    Eighty-one downvotes for learning how to manage your rage? Like, seriously?

    I mean ... seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Another nothing thread thrown together by Furtrelle so a bunch of man haters can go "Oh, my gawd look at teh menz! ROFL! This is like so stupid lol and we is so strrrrong, proud and independants, grrrl power." While their lackeys lick their high heels and bask in the glow of absolute submission.

    Men saying angry things on the interent = evil, crazy, misogyists who must be mocked and or stopped.

    Women doing evil things and passing biased laws in the real world = Strong women standing up for themselves.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Bee

    The post you quoted is from a person who is viewed on that site as a troll. If you new more about that poster and the site you'd be in a better position to judge. Pretty much all of that guys stuff is down voted.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  18. ... suggesting children be taught anger management techniques is considered trolling on The Spearhead?

    Good to know.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Random Brother

    On the troll issue - That would be the point. anyone with anything actually constructive to say is labelled a troll. They are actually accusing Eoghan of being David with plenty of upvotes and downvoting Eoghan and all he seems to be saying is maybe they need to be a bit careful on some of the harsher comments. He isn't disagreeing with most of the basic premises there, just the way its being expressed by some people, some of the time.

    It kind of looks like they will push Eoghan out of that sphere (for being a mangina nazi WTF??). That makes them look more like a little bunch of thugs than supportive of mens rights issues which they claim to be.

    On a bright note, the more they do that the faster obscurity looms.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Haloinshreds: over on another thread there is a discussion about how it is so unfair! that women! dare demand equal rights! and have agencies of the government help them! if we tried we would be mocked! (which ignores the often vicious backlash women got for demanding those rights...)

    The point I keep making is "um hello-y'all can organize too." However, that is not what they want to hear. So since they refuse to do anything but complain, why should they move beyond obscurity?

    ReplyDelete
  21. In the same thread on the Spearhead, I made a plea for a more cautious rhetorical approach right here, and as of this writing my comment got 7 up votes and zero down votes.

    What does this tell you? It tells you that people on the Spearhead, and throughout the men's movement, are super-sensitive to any suggestion that they silence themselves in order to avoid offending those who mock them, shame them, culturally marginalize them and attempt to use the laws of the State to disempower them. But when I come along in that same thread, and make an argument that it is in their interest to foster a civil atmosphere -- their interest -- that resonates with them and nobody takes it in a hostile way, because with my comment the goal is not to appease one's opponents but rather to shore up the perceived value of one's own discussion community.

    Non-feminists don't react very kindly to any calls to temper their own voices in order to appease feminists. To them that is offensive.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes Elizabeth I saw that thread. Its really strange because there is absolutely no doubt that there are a lot of men genuinely hurting over divorces, access issues etc but if they go looking for help from MRA/MGTOW movements, the 'help' they get seem seems to consist largely of a bunch of people out whining each other rather than tangible assistance.ie. 'the systems against you, you are screwed so suck it up and hate women bitches who created this' rather than 'that sucks but you can get legal assistance here for free (and it DOES exist) and health assistance here etc etc There may be MRAs that provide that kind of assistance but they sure don't rate well on search engines

    I personally don't get the concept of ongoing hatred. Its like inviting the people you can't stand to live under your skin every minute of everyday and volunteering to devote a bunch of your energy that you could be using for fun things to the people you can't stand. Sort of like asking a bunch of scabies in to take residence in your body.

    ReplyDelete
  23. John Dias:

    How typical. If your opinion disagrees with that of a feminist ideologue, she will chalk it up to your being afflicted with mental illness. Thou shalt not disagree!

    How now? Do you mean to say that someone's sanity has been questioned? Egads! Such an act is unprecedented in the history of internet! Pardon me whilst I clutch my pearls and faint...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Someone get the smelling salts.

    Halo-it is strange because there could really be an effective change for those kinds of problems if men did try. They have a reason to complain but seem to assume that no one cares or that the very concept of standing up for one's own self with other people is anathema.

    Found the smelling salts! Hold still Bathrobe.

    ReplyDelete
  25. John Dias said

    'In the same thread on the Spearhead, I made a plea for a more cautious rhetorical approach right here, and as of this writing my comment got 7 up votes and zero down votes.'

    Ok I'll fess up. One of those was mine

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ haloinshreds

    It depends upon what you consider constructive. Most of the "constructive" comments seem more like concern trolling. I don't think toning down rhetoric will make any difference in how MRA's are treated. We will all be slandered as women haters regardless of whether we say "please" or "fuck you" it doesn't matter. Also, it doesn't seem to me that feminists tone down their rhetoric when addressing us so why shoud we do what our enemies will not?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Random Brother

    You are not seriously considering Eoghan to be a mangina nazi or a 'concern troll' are you? If you look at some of the things that he posted even on this site - that would be a huge stretch. And if you are - is he a mangina nazi or a concern troll and how do you define those terms? Eoghan (from what I saw of his posts) appeared to be someone who was genuinely hurting and expressing that in an extremely angry fashion - angry to the point that David banned him. mangina? concern troll? Can not see it sorry. If you can I would be interested as to how you (or the Speahead) came to that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. @ haloinshreds

    No, I don't believe Eoghan is a mangina nazi, nor a concern troll. I think the guys at Spearhead jumped the gun on that one with him. However, what he would like, kinder dialogue, is unlikely to happen. The Spearhead, moreso than other sites is kind of a rough place and if you do go against the grain you have to have thick skin and near flawless logic. I don't see anything wrong with that as far as the site goes. In fact most ideas that go against the grain are reflexively shot down as men have heard them all before and are not sympathetic to feminist and feminist leaning arguments. Just as David and his ilk are not sympathetic to MRA's arguments, going as for as placing Warren Farrell on the boobs list. (A bit of a digression here, but if Warren Farrell is on the boob list, as I've said before, there is no hope for compromise with feminsts. Warren Farrell is as feminist an MRA as you can come across, if that makes any sense.) To say that tempering the language is constructive will often piss men off because it is viewed as another way to silence and control men.

    Another minor digression: MRA'S don't need to mold themselves into some non offensive, smiling, dancing, never ever considering violence, versions of the feminists manginas to grovel for their rights. People should know that men are angry about their treatment in society and men should speak plainly about it.


    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  29. Elizabeth wrote:

    "The point I keep making is 'um hello-y'all can organize too.' However, that is not what they want to hear. So since they refuse to do anything but complain, why should they move beyond obscurity?"

    What we have here is the "us-vs-them" mentality. Don't now presume to represent a belief system that promotes a belief in equality, not with that perspective.

    Yes, many men are too unconcerned with the vulnerability of their fellow men. That is changing, however, with the rise of the men's rights movement. It takes a so-called "man-splainer" to express the need before the great masses address the need.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Near flawless logic?

    Try a cult like belief system random brother.

    ReplyDelete
  31. @Random Brother

    Well at least we both agree that Eoghan is not likely to be a mangina nazi or a concerned troll:)

    The paradox is (as I see it personally) that Eoghan is a man's voice too and yet he is being silenced by the Spearhead who will brook no silencing of men (unless they are mangina nazis or concerned trolls plus some categories I am unaware of)

    I obviously cannot speak for Eoghan (and David to be fair I think you should give him a temporary reprieve from the ban to respond to any of the comments here given you did a blog featuring him as the subject matter)

    The problem being that Eoghan (from his posts here I have read) would seem to be the kind of man you are looking for at the Spearhead but is now likely to just not bother. He expressed an opinion, was accused of being David, a mangina,a nazi, a concerned troll but he seems to be (again I don't know him and can only judge from his comments) a hurting very angry man that could benefit from a supportive mens rights movement. One that cared about hurting, very angry men. Instead he has been crucified for expressing a slightly more moderate view.

    I can't speak for why Warren Farrell is on David's roll (you would have to ask him) however he has made some highly controversial comments about incest (as in normalising family sex) (and the positves of incest) which may explain that. Ask David. (there is an interview WF gave penthouse that youcould take as a starting point if you are unfamiliar - also he hasn't identified as a feminst for a very long time - his last involvement with NOW was 1974ish)

    Back to the subject at hand, if Eoghan is being crucified by elements at the Spearhead, then who do you actually expect to join up? There was someone who posted over there who mentioned it was hard getting the 18-35 (25?) demographic on board, given Eoghan's treatment is this a suprise RB?

    ReplyDelete
  32. @haloinshreds:

    "[Warren Farrell] has made some highly controversial comments about incest (as in normalizing family sex) (and the positives of incest) which may explain that."

    The only thing I am aware of that comes close to what you have described is a newspaper interview in which Farrell used the phrase "gentle caressing" by a parent to a child and the newspaper made a misprint and wrote "genital caressing." Do you have any real evidence for more than this?

    ReplyDelete
  33. John, what you've just said is an example of spin -- not your spin, but the spin of whoever told you that story. This was not the case of one carelessly transcribed phrase.

    Farrell was working on a book on incest in the 1970s, and gave a detailed interview to Penthouse in which he used the phrase "genital caressing" and made a number of other highly disturbing remarks about the "positive" side of incest.

    Here is a link to a transcript of the interview; if you doubt the transcript because of the source, note that there are links to high-resolution jpgs of the original Penthouse article as well.

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

    Farrell has attempted to deny that he said these things, but if Penthouse was grossly misquoting him on such a controversial subject, he could have sued them for libel. He never did.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Also: Here's the full quote with the "genitally caressing" line.

    "First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."

    Even if you replace "genitally" with "gently," it's still a creepy quote, especially in the context of an interview about incest.

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

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ David

    So Farrell denies it and you believe he's lying because?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  37. richard, I believe the only part of the quotes he has directly denied is the word "genitally." (And as I noted above, even if he is telling the truth about this, and the correct word is "gently," the quote is still creepy, as are the rest of the quotes in the Penthouse article.)

    Here's an email he sent around attacking the Liz Library for posting the Penthouse interview. You would think if he had been grossly misrepresented by Penthouse, a major national publication, he would have taken it up with them at the time.

    http://www.florida-family-lawyers.com/trishwilson/farrell2.html

    ReplyDelete
  38. Random Brother & John Dias

    I only brought the Warren Farrell thing up cos RB did however he (WF) is also on record supporting the idea a little girl (ie one not even old enough to menstruate) should not be told to tell the truth/testify as she is direct competition with her mother as the 'other woman' (and alternate sexual partner). He saw it as more traumatic to do this than admit to child sexual abuse. I find that profoundly creepy and factually incorrect. As a 10 year old how do you stop that shit from happening if you can't speak up? (and no I didn't suffer that but as a mother find it just the biggest load of shit I have read in a very long time)

    Random Brother - Also could you advise if there is a place for Eoghan @ the Spearhead or anywhere? Where do the eoghan's of the world go and who will help them?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Well, either Farrell was smeared even worse than I thought, or that was a creepy interview. I have to say that all the books that I've read from him, and when I've seen him speak in person, nothing he said remotely approaches what Penthouse magazine was attributing to him here. Seems to me like someone is trying to discount his socially legitimate views with a cheap shot. But I'm glad I got a little more information now that I didn't have before, at least about what he's accused of saying.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @ David

    He claims he didn't say it Penthouse claims he did and Trish Wilson, who was not there during the incident claims Mr. Farrell did based on the fact she owns the Penthouse issue. How is that conclusive proof of anything?

    Perhaps the ethical standards of Penthouse are higher than I thought but this seems like bullshit.

    As for why he didn't sue, without an audio transcript how could he prove anything? It's again his word vs. their word.

    Lastly, I found it darkly ironic that the proof for a feminist about an MRA's alleged pro incest stance is Penthouse magazine.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  41. Seems to me like someone is trying to discount his socially legitimate views with a cheap shot

    Really? They went back in time and got Penthouse to make up all that stuff about him?

    Again, if Penthouse did indeed smear him and made up the quotes, he could have sued them for libel and won.

    But if you're saying that someone is now "smearing" him by simply reporting the creepy stuff he said at one time, how exactly does that count as smearing? How does quoting someone's views count as a cheap shot? No one is saying he still holds these views. But I honestly can't trust the judgement of someone who convinced himself that incest could "magnifies the beauty of the relationship" in a family.

    Again, the only portion of that interview I've seen Farrell deny is that one word, "genitally." In that email I quoted, he tried to make it sound like that one quote was all he said. His unwillingness to deal with this issue frankly seriously undermines his credibility, I think.

    John, can you honestly say this interview doesn't make you question Farrell's judgement even a little bit?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Random Brother

    'Lastly, I found it darkly ironic that the proof for a feminist about an MRA's alleged pro incest stance is Penthouse magazine.'

    Actually I found it pretty ironic that someone you personally alleged was a feminist would be doing an interview for Penthouse magazine.

    But back to the issue at hand. What about Eoghan? It rather bizzarely seems that me as a feminist cares more about him than any of the the anti feminist critics on this site. I mean he is out there as a human being having been banned from Manboobz and the Spearhead is touting him as a mangina nazi concerned troll. (Actually that is an acheivement in itself) No-one seems to give a flying fuck but most of all no-one from the manosphere give a toss. And this is supposed to be the supportive mens rights movements? Is Eoghan not a man? Isn't he pretty enough for you guys?

    ReplyDelete
  43. richard, most journalists I know tape record their interviews. I certainly do. My guess is that he didn't sue them because, well, when it came out he did in fact hold those views. And my guess is that he didn't sue later because 1) he sort of hoped every one would forget about the interview and 2) he knew they had him on tape saying all that.

    What would be the motivation for the author of the Penthouse article to make up quotes? Farrell has acknowledged that he was indeed working on a book on incest for many years. He agreed to an interview with Penthouse to publicize the book he was (at the time) hoping to publish soon afterwards. If the interview had misrepresented his planned book, wouldn't he have spoken up at the time? He was a prominent author; he would have had no trouble at all making his case against Penthouse in the media.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @ haloinshreds

    If Mr. Farrell said that I agree with him being on the boob list, but I tend to be very skeptical dealing with all things feminist.

    As for where someone like Eoghan would go, honestly there aren't a lot of places for people such as he, or I for that matter who are pro MRA, but have issues with the movement, if of course he has issues.

    Right now the MRM isn't big enough nor strong enough to start splintering, so there are some things that I tolerate though I don't care for.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  45. halo, FWIW, Farrell was a feminist, at least in the early 70s, and he was briefly on the board of the NYC chapter of NOW, something he loves to mention, usually wording it in such a way that it sounds like he was on the board of the national NOW organization instead of just one local chapter. I don't know if he still considered himself a feminist in 1977 when he gave the interview.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @ David

    Well, when I hear the tape, I'll certainly agree with your point of view. Until then it's just he said she said.

    As for motivation, I have no idea, maybe the interviewer was some deluded white knight. Again without hearing the audio tape we won't know.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  47. John-that is not the case. The fact is that if there are issues that men care about that they want legal redress on (and I can think of two), then they need to get organized to get it fixed.

    NOT just complain endlessly about it or expect women to just suddenly drop what they have been trying to do and work on the problems that men have.

    We will work with you (if you ask politely) but we are not going to do your work.

    ReplyDelete
  48. David: The person making the suggestion is Eoghan. And his mild and in fact quite sensible suggestion has not gone over well with the locals.

    His mild and in fact quite sensible suggestions have not gone over well with you too, because you banned him from your blog.

    You know David, if somebody is posting something really critical on a feminist blog, like to calm down and to consider more the men, the user would be banned and the postings immediately deleted.

    However forums into men's rights are differently operating from feminist blogs.

    They all are trying, less or more friendly, to argue with Eoghan.

    He tried somehow to find some understandings for men when posting on your blog, and now he tries to find some understandings for women, while posting on Spearhead.

    Well, I wish him good luck... somehow time-waste...

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

    ReplyDelete
  50. @David Futrelle:

    "John, can you honestly say this interview doesn't make you question Farrell's judgement even a little bit?"

    Yes, sure it makes me question his judgment (from that point in time). But you did say this:

    "No one is saying he still holds these views."

    So if it's true that he said such things -- but later changed his mind -- then none of it is an indictment of what he stands for in his subsequent career. Like I said, everything that I've read from him and heard from him in person is perfectly acceptable to me.

    Can't Warren Farrell's main body of work be what defines him? If not, then to me that's the cheap shot -- an easy way to dismiss a man's entire legitimate body of work in one stroke, without the need to make a real argument against it. It's as if someone is saying that the true, "sinister" motive behind Farrell's body of work stems from the nature of his creepy comments from way back in yesteryear. I say allow the man some redemption if he wants to define what he stands for; it's been decades now and I'm proud of what I've read from him.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Elizabeth:

    "We will work with you (if you ask politely) but we are not going to do your work."

    Elizabeth, would you please join me in an effort to expand access by male victims to safe houses by domestic violence service providers? Also, in light of the fact that federal law in the Violence Against Women Act prohibits the use of STOP grants to programs that would benefit male and female victims equally, and instead must benefit female victims primarily, would you then please join me in an effort to challenge such sections of that law? Would you please join me in an effort to prosecute and hold accountable all perpetrators of domestic violence *as perpetrators* and not victims -- whether female or male -- by overturning primary aggressor laws that exempt female perpetrators from arrest?

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

    ReplyDelete
  53. What kind of activism are you referring to specifically John?

    Legal and ethical restraints bind most of my action but I am definitely willing to work on expanding access and information regarding the issue of domestic violence and male victims thereof.

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

    ReplyDelete
  55. @Elizabeth:

    "What kind of activism are you referring to specifically John?"

    I emphasize again that I am specifically asking for advocacy to achieve at least one or more of the following:

    a. Safe house shelters for male DV victims (not just hotel vouchers); and active outreach by such shelters to male victims (regardless of the gender of the male victim, i.e. straight males allowed)
    b. Challenge VAWA to permit STOP grants even when the grant beneficiary's purpose is not to benefit women "primarily."
    c. Challenge primary aggressor statutes that exempt one perpetrator of a mutually violent couple while arresting the other.

    You can do this in one or more of the following ways:

    1. Online advocacy
    I.e. making a conscious effort to speak out for the above goals in blogs, forums, comments sections of major media news Web sites.

    2. Gathering resources
    Gather information about resources that both male and victims of partner violence can utilize, such as which DV service providers provide which services and to which sex (including those that make no sexual distinction in the provision of such services). Donate to groups that are promoting an evidence-based and non-ideological approach to measuring DV and treating DV offenders (including forming viable alternatives to the Duluth Model). Also, raise or donate money or merchandise to organizations that pursue this goal in research and academia, such as the California Alliance for Families and Children, the Family Violence Treatment and Education Association or the International Family Aggression Society.

    3. Support lobbying efforts in the legislature on behalf of both male and female victims
    Groups that employ lobbyists and/or attorneys, and are advocating in legislatures and/or the courts to make domestic violence laws gender neutral, should be supported financially and/or with in-person citizen lobbying in the halls of the legislature. These include Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, Fathers & Families, and the National Coalition For Men (not that despite the words "men" and "fathers" in two of the aforementioned groups, such groups are not advocating for male exclusivity in policy).

    ----------------------------

    Of course, there are other avenues of activism to dismantle policies that privilege one sex while obligating the other, for example advocating for more balanced levels of health research funding for both sexes, promoting a rebuttable presumption of 50/50 child custody in divorce, speaking out against the legitimacy of both male and female genital mutilation, and others.

    ReplyDelete
  56. John, you're asking for her to join you on your terms. What if feminists simply disagree with you on, for example, primary aggressor laws? They do not simply mean "arrest the man." A significant percentage of women are arrested under them as well. Primary aggressor laws may not be perfect, but it makes more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator.

    I would also find it difficult to work with you on these or any issues because of your support for patriarchy. (I would also have trouble working with feminists who believe in matriarchy.)

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

    ReplyDelete
  58. I literally can do one of those things and that is something I already do here at work (the information sharing...although I could do more.)

    Everything else I am ethically and legally constrained from doing.

    ReplyDelete
  59. And the state of Arizona already has laws that protect men's rights when it comes to equal access to courts for protective orders.

    ReplyDelete
  60. @David Futrelle:

    "[Primary aggressor laws] make more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator."

    If two parties are mutually violent, then there are two victims. Hence it's unjust to give one a pass. What is the other one supposed to do, just lie there and take it? Aren't offenders supposed to be prosecuted? If not, then what checks are there against their violence if even the state won't arrest them, and this is statutorially enshrined in law?

    "John, you're asking for her to join you on your terms."

    My terms are the abandonment of sexual privilege in law, namely equality, and this was the term that she invoked earlier.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I assume that you're in Arizona. The state of Arizona goes so far as to prohibit couples counseling when one or both members of a couple are ordered to attend a program for DV offenders. It therefore encourages family and relationship breakup rather than preserving intact families. This yanks the rug of support (namely private family support) out from under many couples' feet and leaves them isolated and broken. Such policies must be challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You're reading me selectively here; you highlighted the word "victim" yet you ignored the qualifying statement before it.

    Yes, in some cases both partners are equally violent. In some cases one of the partners is violent only in the sense that they were defending themselves.

    Police officers can and do arrest both partners if it appears the abuse was mutual, even with "primary aggressor" laws in place.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @Elizabeth:

    "I literally can do one of those things and that is something I already do here at work (the information sharing...although I could do more.)"

    If there was any guide to DV services that specifically asks the service providers how they serve male victims (not just "whether" they do, but rather "how," since they could simply say that they offer "services" to male perpetrators and thus they're somehow helping males "equally"). The key term is male victims. I don't think that such service providers are even asked specifically to detail "how" they help male victims; at best it's just a matter of "whether."

    ReplyDelete
  64. David, in my state, California (which has a primary aggressor law in place, and in fact actually has a more gender-discriminatory form known as the "dominant aggressor" law), 80% of arrestees for DV are males. This despite the fact that over 30 years of research shows that women attack their male partners with equal or higher frequency as men attack their female partners. If you attack someone (not just defend or evade, but attack) -- especially if you initiate the attack -- then you should be challenged on that regardless of whether the victim is capable of retaliating with an even more potent attack.

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

    ReplyDelete
  66. @David Futrelle:

    "You're reading me selectively here; you highlighted the word 'victim' yet you ignored the qualifying statement before it."

    And here's the statement, along with my highlight:

    "[Primary aggressor laws] make more sense to me than simply arresting both people, which in many cases means arresting the victim as well as the perpetrator."

    Why call one perpetrator a "victim" if both were perpetrating? If there is indeed no sexual discrimination, then there is no need for the primary aggressor law itself! Such a law by its nature is unequal and unjust because it permits the officer to leave one perpetrator even if that perpetrator started a conflict, and even if that perpetrator caused identical injuries to those sustained by the other partner. The law simply is unjust. It flies in the face of equality.

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

    ReplyDelete
  68. @David Futrelle:

    "I would also find it difficult to work with you on these or any issues because of your support for patriarchy. (I would also have trouble working with feminists who believe in matriarchy.)"

    I support the right of people to voluntarily live under whatever authority relationships that they select. It is no business of the government to intervene. Also, my advocacy for people to exercise autonomy over their lives is being used by you as the justification to maintain injustice and inequality, and ironically all under the pretext that this is somehow fighting against injustice and inequality.

    Just state it plainly, David. You wouldn't help a male victim of any of these policies because doing so is an option that is precluded by your loyalty to feminist ideology. I mean, seriously, you would oppose advocating for male victims to have improved access to safehouses merely because my political and cultural values somehow taint the whole effort? What did you think, that I would institute patriarchy indoctrination curricula within the safe house as a matter of policy? Why can't you simply help male victims and put aside your political differences in the formation of alliances?

    ReplyDelete
  69. John, are you expecting a judge to sentence a victim of a criminal offense to a counseling program?

    Because that is what you suggest. Yes, I support expanding both public awareness of males being the victim of domestic violence, to both prevent it and help those currently in such situations leave those circumstances.

    But I will not, nor shall I ever countenance any requirement of a victim of a crime to do a program such as you mention.

    ReplyDelete
  70. John: Just state it plainly, David. You wouldn't help a male victim of any of these policies because doing so is an option that is precluded by your loyalty to feminist ideology.

    Well, no, I won't state that because it's not true.

    Let me expand what I said before:

    I would find it hard to work with you because: I disagree with your ultimate goals/vision of a just society (patriarchy). I disagree with you in general about Men's Rights, feminism, and who knows what else. I disagree with you that misandry is a bigger problem than misogyny. I disagree with your choice of allies. I disagree with you on your analysis of what is wrong with DV laws. And I disagree with you because you say things like what I quoted above.

    This is a partial list.

    There are lots of important issues out there to work on. As an intermittent activist, I've done work on issues that help mostly men (police brutality and torture), help mostly women (abortion rights), help both equally. (Not that police brutality doesn't affect women or abortion rights don't affect men.)

    In politics you can't always be picky about allies, but even aside from our various disagreements on the issues, I would find it hard to work with someone who routinely misrepresents what I believe, as you've done above.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @Elizabeth:

    "John, are you expecting a judge to sentence a victim of a criminal offense to a counseling program?"

    Male victims who are reframed as perpetrators have to endure exactly that scenario, especially as a result of primary aggressor laws. I hope that your understanding of the term "criminal offense" extends beyond the realm of violations of the law, and hopefully includes moral crimes such as partner violence perpetration that enjoys legal impunity.

    What I actually SAID earlier was that if a perpetrator is mandated by law or by a judge to attend a program for DV offenders, then he should not be penalized if he and his wife or cohabiting female partner want to mutually participate in couples counseling. Under Arizona law, this is prohibited under the pretext that a DV offender would somehow manipulate or otherwise dominate the counseling session, and so effectively the existing statute coerces or at least influences couples toward breaking up rather than strengthening and healing their relationship. That statutory hostility to intact families is what must be challenged in my opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @David Futrelle:

    "I would find it hard to work with someone who routinely misrepresents what I believe..."

    Welcome to my world.

    ReplyDelete
  73. John Dias: David, in my state, California (which has a primary aggressor law in place, and in fact actually has a more gender-discriminatory form known as the "dominant aggressor" law), 80% of arrestees for DV are males. This despite the fact that over 30 years of research shows that women attack their male partners with equal or higher frequency as men attack their female partners. If you attack someone (not just defend or evade, but attack) -- especially if you initiate the attack -- then you should be challenged on that regardless of whether the victim is capable of retaliating with an even more potent attack.

    The point people are trying to make about the 'Dominant Aggressor' laws, and the point you keep glossing over, is that, for good reason, they aren't designed to take who was the first aggressor into consideration, and thus, 'who started it,' is irrelevant, only who is the 'dominant' aggressor. Which is how it should be, I think.

    Would taking gender out of it help? I'm female, but I can bench press more than many of my friends weigh. Suppose I were to get into an argument with one of these friends. During the course of the argument, she slaps me across the face, and I respond by punching her as hard as I can and maybe doing some serious damage, breaking her nose or something. The police show up. According to a 'Dominant' aggressor law, they would arrest me and only cite her.

    Is that wrong? If so, why?
    There's no excuse for disproportionate retribution. Against someone weaker than me I have absolutely zero justification to use my superior size and strength to deal them retributive damage far out of proportion to what I suffered.

    In fact, legally, there's no excuse for retribution at all. Self defense is just that, defense. It doesn't extend to include 'getting someone back' that's not legally excusable. And yes, I do believe that should go for both genders.

    I will agree wholeheartedly that this out not to be assumed, but ought to be ascertained by looking at the individual incident, that if personal gender biases are preventing police from judging fairly, we should work against that, and that if the woman is indeed the dominant (dominant, not first,) aggressor, then she ought to be arrested and not the man. That's fairness and common sense, but that's not what you're advocating.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "Misogynist comments on the Spearhead are routinely upvoted, sometimes with dozens of upvotes. Comments challenging misogyny or defending women in even a mind way get downvoted and basically "disappeared." SingleDAd's first comment quoted above got more than two dozen upvotes; even his THREAT got many more upvotes than downvotes.
    These aren't the outliers on the Spearhead; they're from the fat middle of the bell curve. "

    In my only post on The Spearhead thus far, I posted a comment refuting their assertion that Feminism was the cause of men's problems in Japan. Not only was that comment not downvoted, it ended up getting greatly upvoted.

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/29/feminism-in-china/#comment-61434

    Of course, posters here can feel free to twist and characterize my comment as "misogynist" if they want to demonstrate a huge ignorance of Japanese culture and history. But I digress.

    I am not an MRA, and I only read the Spearhead and sometimes Roissy out of amusement. I find some articles to be interesting and some articles to be downright hilarious on the lunatic fringe. But one thing that I do like in my perusal of the comments there is that if you disagree with a viewpoint and challenge it with rational explanation, your arguments will be addressed reasonably thoughtfully, even if you are downvoted. That is a lot better than pretty much every feminist site that I have seen.

    And that also makes The Spearhead a whole lot better than this site, which seems to aspire to be the Iraqi Information Minister of Feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  75. http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/12/29/feminism-in-china/#comment-61434
    @fujii system

    Thanks for pointing to this interesting thread on Spearhead. Living in Japan since over 35 years, I agree with your comment. Feminism is not a major problem for Japanese men and the legal situation is in no way against men like it is in some Western countries.

    I heard the first time about the existence of this website called Spearhead from David Futrelle.

    I think, it's a good interesting website, with a lot of discussion going on. If you like and agree to all of those topics and comments is another matter. For sure, what I have seen, Spearhead is not a 'crazy' website.


    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/01/27/should-men-tame-their-rhetoric/

    Should Men Tame Their Rhetoric?

    Eoghan's comments mentioned in this thread of David are now also under discussion on spearhead.
    Sounds very fair to me.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
  78. @cactuar-tamer:

    "The point people are trying to make about the 'Dominant Aggressor' laws, and the point you keep glossing over, is that, for good reason, they aren't designed to take who was the first aggressor into consideration, and thus, 'who started it,' is irrelevant, only who is the 'dominant' aggressor. Which is how it should be, I think."

    The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. According to the statute, the degree of force used -- and indeed the existence of an injury on ONLY the physically stronger party -- are considered by law to be irrelevant. The capacity to do harm is what is relevant.

    For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her -- in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her -- a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.

    This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!

    If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist.

    ReplyDelete
  79. cactuar-tamer said...

    ..... During the course of the argument, she slaps me across the face, and I respond by punching her as hard as I can and maybe doing some serious damage, breaking her nose or something. The police show up. According to a 'Dominant' aggressor law, they would arrest me and only cite her.

    Is that wrong? If so, why?

    .....

    In fact, legally, there's no excuse for retribution at all. Self defense is just that, defense. It doesn't extend to include 'getting someone back' that's not legally excusable.


    Yes, I think that's wrong and I will tell you why.

    The borderline between retribution and self-defense is not that clear as you are explaining it.

    It is not easy to decide what is self defense and when an action to defend yourself is exceeding the limits of self-defense.

    This has to be investigated case by case.


    The risk to be injured while committing a crime because of self-defense of an attacked person is ALWAYS with the aggressor and NEVER with the victim.

    HOW the attacked person is defending himself/herself is up to the attacked person.

    If an aggressor is beating a victim up, there is no rule which says the victim is obliged only to act in a passive way, like to cover the face with his/her bare hands or to run away.

    You have the right to defend yourself in an active way, this means hitting back as long as this aggression continues.

    If the aggressor - who was beating you in the face - suffers a broken nose in return, that's the risk of the aggressor and should be considered to be legal self-defense, just my opinion.

    It's different however, if somebody spits into your face and you respond with a handgun firing a live bullet into the face of the aggressor in return. That's clearly exceeding the right of self-defense.

    If you cover your face with a mask and you enter a bank with a gun because you need urgently cash and you are fired on by security, that's another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  80. John Dias says ... If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man.

    I cannot blame the cops either. It is difficult for some ordinary people, this includes policemen, to make a legally correct decision within a few minutes after being called in for help.

    Western feminist DV-laws in connection of self-defense are highly complicated and full of legal loopholes - even experienced judges need often many hours to find out what is wrong and what is right.

    In some Western countries a woman might - legally correct - even kill her SLEEPING husband by using a gun, tries to remove his body with her body-friends, is claiming abuse and self-defense and is walking out of the court-room as a free person proceeding with inheritage as a widow.

    If this is not biased justice, I don't know what this is...

    ReplyDelete
  81. John, I think you would have to show how it is that a woman having a bruise is somehow worse then a man who has blood streaming from his temple.

    The officer is looking at who is the dominate aggressor and yes, that can certainly be the woman.

    In your little scenario "What happened?" "She hit me with this glass bottle and I hit her back to get her to stop."

    She gets booked. It is clear who is the primary aggressor.

    Oh and about the Arizona law that prohibits it? It is part of the sentence for a criminal defendant. And since there are problems with one partner using these sessions to harm the victim, why would anyone thing this is a great idea to even let them in?

    ReplyDelete
  82. @ John Dias. Ok, I'm going to answer in two parts, first to the issue of whether the law says what you say it does...

    After reading through a list of such laws, I think your statement,
    The point that YOU seem to be missing is that primary aggressor laws are not about what the physically stronger party DID, but rather what he IS. ,
    is factually incorrect. Let's just take my home state statute as an example. South Carolina law says:

    --------------------

    If a law enforcement officer receives conflicting complaints of domestic or family violence from two or more household members involving an incident of domestic or family violence, the officer shall evaluate each complaint separately to determine who was the primary aggressor. If the officer determines that one person was the primary physical aggressor, the officer must not arrest the other person accused of having committed domestic or family violence. In determining whether a person is the primary aggressor, the officer must consider:

    *prior complaints of domestic or family violence;
    *the relative severity of the injuries inflicted on each person, taking into account injuries alleged which may not be easily visible at the time of the investigation;
    *the likelihood of future injury to each person;
    *whether one of the persons acted in self-defense; and
    *household member accounts regarding the history of domestic violence.

    -----------------------

    It is not at all clear from the law that the statute is about what the dominant aggressor 'IS' instead of what has been '[DONE]' by the parties involved.

    Now as to the following,
    For example, if a woman hits a man harder than he hits her -- in fact if she injures him whereas he doesn't injure her -- a dominant aggressor statute mandates that police *ignore* this fact and arrest him. They arrest the person who has the CAPACITY to aggress with excessive force, not necessarily the person who DID. That's what is unjust about them.

    Again, not so. Neither this law or the other state statues "mandate" that the police *ignore* injuries to the male party. Nor do they have anything do to with the 'capacity.'

    The closest the statute comes to that is the third bullet point, concerning the likelihood of future injury. Not only is this just one out of five points that the officer is required to take into consideration, there is nothing that would keep an objective observer from determining the man was in more danger of future injury, should that be the case. The discrimination is not written into the law.

    ReplyDelete
  83. This is all rooted in misandry. I once read a study that described a survey that was given to a sample of people, asking their opinion about which victim between a man and a woman suffered the most. When asked about men and women who suffered identical injuries, a significant number of the respondents said that the woman suffered the most. Identical injuries, and she supposedly got hurt worse!

    If you have a link to that study, I'd like to see it. Though, I'll accept it provisionally, because your description seems plausible enough. And if this is the case, then that is a real and serious problem.

    It is unfortunately the sort of problem that has nothing to do with the law and cannot be fixed by legislation, but I agree that something should be pro-actively done in the hearts-and-minds department to correct it. And perhaps correcting the erroneous percetpion/expectation of excess toughness in men will simultaneously correct the erroneous percetption/expectation of excess weakness in women, so everyone wins!

    I think this is a good point, but if you were making it before, it was hard to tell between all the mention about how women 'initiate' DV more frequently.

    If cops show up on a domestic call and a woman has a bruise on her face whereas a man has blood streaming from his temple, they arrest the man. Primary aggressor laws have nothing to do with excessive force, and everything to do with the man's greater *potential* to use excessive force. They're unjust and sexist.

    Again, as the laws are written this seems to be an inaccurate description, of cause if not of consequence. I would find it plausible that this effect could be caused by individual bias in the humans executing the law, but I think it is incorrect (in the specific case of 'Dominant Aggressor' statutes, as I have read them) to say that the discrimination is written into the law.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Yohan, I completely agree it ought to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

    It is a pretty sticky issue. I'm willing to concede it's not quite as clear-cut or easy to determine as I made it out to be, but I also think the line is a great deal more clearly defined than you seem to think it is.

    I think there's a broad field before you get to your gun example that would also fall under disproportionate retribution.

    ReplyDelete
  85. The Spearhead is full of crazies. Look at the recent postings like this one. Those guys believe all sorts of tin foil hat nonsense. Whether it's that women are out to get them or that the voices in their heads are the Rockefellers plotting feminism, it's all the same.

    ReplyDelete
  86. What is wrong with this thread on Spearhead?

    Many American men (maybe women too?) like these conspiracy theories, and there are entire forums full only with this kind of political stuff.

    In some forums, like our one (Niceguy-Forum) we made a sector called 'Hidden from View' with disclaimer and our members are free to post their conspiracy stuff into this section. ONLY into this section! If posted somewhere else, moderators will move such stuff quickly where it should be.

    Unfortunately SPEARHEAD is not a forum, but a blog.

    I think, they should change the software.

    Forums are easier to manage by creating sections.

    There are many users on Spearhead showing up with many different topics and plenty of comments.

    There are many reasonable comments on Spearhead and to call their website full of crazies is by far over the top.

    (btw, I do not comment on Spearhead, never signed up there and found their webpage only because of David Futrelle's threads and links complaining about upvoting...)

    ReplyDelete
  87. Eoghan's comments mentioned in this thread of David are now also under discussion on spearhead.
    Sounds very fair to me.


    And Eoghan's first and downvoted into obscurity post starts off with:
    "Thats a complete misrepresentation of what I was saying..."

    I dunno, poetic justice, perhaps?

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

    ReplyDelete
  89. @cactuar-tamer:

    Regarding primary aggressor laws, you shouldn't assume that they're uniform in all states. Here's a rundown on predominant aggressor policies on a state-by-state basis.

    Also, on DV laws in general, here's a ranking of states with the worst civil rights abuses from domestic violence laws. Alaska is rated as the most dangerous state for men.

    ReplyDelete
  90. @ Fujii System: Well, as this was your first comment there, I can imagine they just wanted to give you a nice start. Also, you weren't criticising their movement directly, called Japanese feminism "odd" and included a quote from an unhappy manless woman.

    However,

    "Of course, posters here can feel free to twist and characterize my comment as "misogynist" if they want to demonstrate a huge ignorance of Japanese culture and history."

    I won't call your post misogynist, because you are not to blame for the Japanese culture, and so far, no one else here did, either.

    I don't know which feminist sites you've visited so far, but maybe the reason many "arguments" are shouted down on feminist sites is because they don't actually deal with the issues themselves but instead revolve around the question why FEMINism (femina = woman, that's latin, by the way (yeah, my Latin is better than my Japanese, sorry, but then again, I'm from Europe)) doesn't primarily care about men's rights. Of course, you can blame feminism for that, but that would be like blaming Anti-AIDS activists for not caring about breast cancer.

    Feminism IS just a lobby group, no doubt about that, but then again, what's wrong with lobby groups? Men can have their own lobby group aswell, that's why I actually see a "Men's Rights Movement" as a good thing, but I guess what most commenters here bugs about said movement is that it doesn't really take action against ACTUAL male discrimination (which is more often than never perpetrated by men themselves) but instead blames feminism for personal issues, which is exactly what you criticised.

    I wish, and I'm certainly not on my own with that, that one day I could identify as an MRA myself, when the movement has finally stopped its bitter and whiny women-blaming and starts working alongside with feminism.

    (That's another thing about this movement, that it perceives itself to be anti-feminist. It's not, a true men's rights movement would actually just be the male counterpart to feminism, not its enemy.)


    @ Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)

    ReplyDelete
  91. By the way, sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add something.

    From a definition of "MRA" from the Urban dictionary:

    "An MRA would never support the rights of those men who truly are at a disadvantage in our society: homosexual and black men. Instead, he leaves campaigning for LGBT rights and minorities' rights to the "evil evil cunt bull dykes" aka feminists."

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mra

    ReplyDelete
  92. "Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)"---Lydia

    You're not really sorry. You are just a misandrist.

    It's no wonder why people become anti-feminist. With a shitty, combative attitude like that, you have a lot to learn. Perhaps you refuse to.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @Yohan

    Can't you see what's wrong with that thread? It's a pissing contest between misogynists. I will summarize the thread for you:

    Conspiracy Theorists: Women are brainless bimbos who were too stupid to listen to white male Christians so I'm a bigger misogynist than you.
    Non Conspiracy Theorists: You conspiracy nuts don't blame women enough. They're diabolical man hating machines. I'm a bigger misogynist than you.

    Both sides are extremely paranoid. They just disagree about how to channel that paranoia, so it ends up as secret conspiracies vs. demonic women.

    @Lydia

    The MRAs may pretend to support the rights of black men and homosexuals. They do that by making up stories about how the KKK was really run by women so both white men and black men were really oppressed by women.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Steve said...
    @Yohan
    Can't you see what's wrong with that thread? It's a pissing contest between misogynists.
    Conspiracy Theorists
    Non Conspiracy Theorists



    What has this to do with 'misogynists'?

    Conspiracy theories, you can find anywhere on the internet, one time it's about the Christians, next time about the Jews, it's about the Chinese or Americans, about Osama and Bush, about the black people born in USA and about Latino immigrants, about the pharma industry or about drilling for petroleum, it's about all and everything and also about women.

    The only and easy way if you do not like that stuff, don't read it. - But in USA conspiracy theories are well-known popular nonsense talk and many people like them.

    Some forums, not only MRA-forums, offer a special sector where members are allowed to post their 'conspiracy theories'.

    This helps to keep such stuff away from regular postings.

    Unfortunately Spearhead is like a blog and not a forum. Regular postings and conspiracy theories are mixed up.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Lydia says: From a definition of "MRA" from the Urban dictionary:
    "An MRA would never support the rights of those men who truly are at a disadvantage in our society: homosexual and black men.


    MRAs support of course men's rights, regardless if the man is a black man or Asian man or mixed race man...

    Who is claiming such a nonsense, that MRAs are only white American people?

    MRAs are now everywhere worldwide, any race, any language etc.

    -----

    I rarely meet homosexuals in the MR-movement.
    I don't think they are much interested.

    These people enjoy a totally different life-style. - Most problems which make a typical man's horror story do not exist for them.
    They use different forums for communication among themselves.

    They do not disturb me at all, and I do not disturb them.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Dude. I wonder if Eowhosis is going to get the full Trotsky treatment. I have an axe, but I don't support its usage for such purposes...

    ReplyDelete
  97. @ Lydia

    Lydia said: "@ Random Brother: If you're sick of the manhaters, then why don't you go back to your Mommy? I'm sure she's somewhere got an empty womb for you. (Sorry David, couldn't resist, but I certainly don't have to put up with being called a Nazi, as I am from exactly that country and I really don't want to be compared to a mass murderer.)"

    If you and feminut nation hate this "womnyn hating" "rape culture" "patriarchy" society so much, why don't you go back to your the insides of your daddies? That is if you can figure which one of the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night actaully is your dad. I'm sure he has some spare room in his nutsack for some useless trash.

    Patiently waits for David to "girlsplain" why Lydia's post is of course acceptable, but the MRA's post, is, of course, not.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  98. @ Yohan: Everywhere? LOL. You wish. I know you say that quite a lot here on this site, that men supposedly wake up and notice the evil evil treatment they've received since the start of the feminist movement (and before the feminist movement, and during the French Revolution, and during the Renaissance era, and during the Medieval times, and in ancient Rome, and long before that, - serously, haven't men even been feeling discriminated against by women when there was no such thing as "men" and "women" yet? There are just men that ALWAYS feel discriminated, even if they're just about to mistreat a woman for being so "seductively feminine".) but seriously, you are not part of a big movement, you are just a member of a whiny, self-pitying group that gets nothing done even though there's loads that has to be done.

    You keep talking about the supposed mistreatment of men when in reality you just can't accept that women nowadays don't automatically treat you like a god just because you're male. Respect has to be earned, and if people don't show you any respect, you're doing something wrong.

    You say a lot of guys lose interest in Western women because - oh my god! - Western women actually expect men to have an equally interesting life as they lead! You remeber that girl missy that posted here? Yeah, that's what bugs guys about evil Western women: they have an attitude, they have goals in life, they have interests, and, most important, they're highly educated, and, unfortunately, they really expect that from men too. Alpha women that demand alpha men.

    And this "alpha" doesn't even mean "leads a big company, has money, car, etc.". It just means "I've got something to do in my life, please be on par with me". Nothing else. If you can't even live up to that, you better get yourself a dog.

    By the way: I get to see a lot of guys hanging out with Western women. So we can't be that horrible.


    @ Wytchie: A boo boo, don't cry. I don't hate ALL men, just those who expect women to treat them like a treasure while they don't have to meet any standards themselves. The reason why I CAN'T be a "misandrist" is because I know every man is different, they have something called a "personality", just like women. Of course, if you judge people by their genitals, you don't know about that.

    But lets get a little into your argumentation here: Just because I hurl an insult back to a guy who keeps making notoriously sexist remarks and expects women to kiss his feet because he's a man (see above in my comment) I'm a manhater? So a guy is allowed to insult and belittle WOMEN IN GENERAL and if I do the same to HIM, just him, I'm a manhater?

    I really wonder how much a child has to be spoilt to become such an immature, egotistic and self-centered adult like you guys. "Oooh, the feminist criticised me! She must be a manhater!"

    And don't even get me started on all that whining about "false rape allegations" while showing absolutely no respect for REAL rape victims...



    EDIT: "That is if you can figure which one of the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night actaully is your dad." Well yeah. Kinda self-explaining. Random Brother, inside my Daddy? You didn't pay much attention during your biology lesson, did you? By the way: I love my Daddy. So can't be a man-hater.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Damn shame. There was a minute there when John, David and even Elizabeth were having a pretty interesting adult conversation, till some feminist attention whore showed up and spoiled it.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  100. Heh, you're standing up for Elizabeth, Brother? Why? Because Elizabeth didn't question your manhood like me? Good girl, Liz. Don't criticise the player.


    Anyway: We've got a great example of misogyny vs "misandry" here going on:

    Random Brother: "Feminazi, femifascist, feminut! Manhater! Attention whore!"
    Me: Go back to your momma, you wimp.
    Random Brother: "...the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night..."

    It's a shame, Brother. Everytime you appear here, you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back. Unfortunately David decided to ban Eoghan, I actually found his posts to be far more constructive than yours, but this isn't my blog, and therefore not my decision who gets banned.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Lydia: I get to see a lot of guys hanging out with Western women. So we can't be that horrible

    There are various reasons why Western men do not want to have anything to do with Western women anymore.

    One major reason are not Western women themselves, but Western feminist laws, which are totally biased against men, especially in case of divorce.

    Even female politicians of your own country (my neighbouring country btw) are highly sceptical about the feminist movement and the reversed family law 2008 in Germany for the first time in German history past WWII favors men and children over women, cutting strongly down on alimony payments.

    Many 'Western' women you see in Germany, are not Western women, but from Eastern Europe, including the former German Democratic Republic (DDR).

    Interesting to mention, that Germany has near to half a million registered prostitutes taking care of men, who obviously cannot find any relationship with a female without using their wallet, not to take about freelancers.

    Lydia says...seriously, you are not part of a big movement, you are just a member of a whiny, self-pitying group that gets nothing done

    MRAs are very active in Central Europe and it is about the time.

    I recommend Western men to remain single while living in Western countries, save your money you earn for yourself.

    About 'getting nothing done', well, I did 'something' to get away from feminism,
    going my own way...

    ReplyDelete
  102. One can keep up with an adult conversation even if someone (in your opinion) shows up making a spectacle of themselves John. After all, that is what Nick always does.

    ReplyDelete
  103. @Elizabeth:

    "One can keep up with an adult conversation even if someone (in your opinion) shows up making a spectacle of themselves John. After all, that is what Nick always does."

    Huh? Are you talking to me, Elizabeth? Or are you replying to this comment by Richard?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Yeah, sorry about that John. Mea culpa

    ReplyDelete
  105. @ Lydia

    Lydia emoted: "Heh, you're standing up for Elizabeth, Brother? Why? Because Elizabeth didn't question your manhood like me? Good girl, Liz. Don't criticise the player."

    1. I didn't stand up for Elizabeth. I merely noted that there was a somewhat interesting post going on with her involved, which had an adult vibe, which is not the norm here.
    2. As for questioning my manhood and all that, a woman declaring what a man should be is akin to some white bigot declaring what a black person should be. Neither the bigot nor the woman has any idea what the fuck they are talking about. This should be a familiar situation for you as you also don't ever seem to know what the fuck you are talking about.
    3. It's don't HATE the player hate the game, honey.

    Lydia continued: "Anyway: We've got a great example of misogyny vs "misandry" here going on:

    Random Brother: "Feminazi, femifascist, feminut! Manhater! Attention whore!"
    Me: Go back to your momma, you wimp.
    Random Brother: "...the 97 drunken sailors who had your mom that night..."

    1. I don't recall saying femifascist. 2. Do you really think this is evidence of anything? This is your level of intelligence?! Jesus.
    So what? I respond rudely to people who are rude to me. If you can't deal with it go do something elese with your life. May I suggest taking a course in cooking, or kitchen cleaning or maybe sock sewing, something to give you some value, because if you have to rely on your intelligence to get by, well yikes.

    Lydia said: "It's a shame, Brother. Everytime you appear here, you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back."

    I never cry. That's for females. I merely give back what is given to us as MRA's. How would you expect MRA's to post here? Let's see, David pulls the worst quote he can find from an alleged MRA. A bunch of femhags jump in withe the "Oh teh menz are so dum an we is so purfect." And then MRA's come and insult them. And bickering ensues. Again, so what moo cow?

    Lydia continues: "Unfortunately David decided to ban Eoghan, I actually found his posts to be far more constructive than yours, but this isn't my blog, and therefore not my decision who gets banned."

    Yes, and we see how that constructive posting helped Eoghan now don't we? And as always a feminut starts screaming for banning every time she faces opposition. You know, you're right, femifascist, a word I don't believe I've used before, (thanks!) is a good word for your kind.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  106. @ Elizabeth

    Again, how do you expect MRA's to post here when almost every post starts out with David's snarkiness and the feminuts piling on?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  107. You guys keep posting so you answer your own question munchkin.

    ReplyDelete
  108. @ Elizabeth

    Well then I'll post however I like plum puddin'

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  109. "I'm a manhater?"---Lydia

    Of course.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "And don't even get me started on all that whining about "false rape allegations" . . . Lydia

    Stop being a jackass and maybe someone will take your ranting and raving seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "The MRAs may pretend to support the rights of black men and homosexuals. They do that by making up stories about how the KKK was really run by women so both white men and black men were really oppressed by women."---Steve

    You haven't done your homework, obviously.

    http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1998/carney.html

    A section from the article:

    "Yet Blee argues that in order to fully understand the women’s Klan and its significance, attention must be paid to all the ways in which it appealed to its members, not merely the appeal to racist sentiment. For, as she points out, racism and intolerance were widespread throughout the country in the 1920s, especially in Indiana. Yet to view racism as the sole cause of Klan membership is to ignore the other motivations at work within Klan members. It is Blee’s contention that wome n joined the WKKK not merely because of bigoted tendencies, but also because the Klan provided a women’s rights-based agenda, the recognition of civic activism, and the chance to be heard collectively as women. At a time when suffrage, temperance, morali ty, and patriotism were causing political tensions to run high, the WKKK gave women a political voice with which to articulate their gender ideology, as well as a means of legitimizing their civic and social organizations. To further add to the strength of this appeal, Blee notes that much of this activism was carried out within the comfortable confines of normal, everyday community life. The chapter entitled "A Poison Squad of Whispering Women", discusses, in depth, the strength of the WKKK’s subtle tactics. Blee points out that while Klanswomen did not participate in the more visible forms of intimidation employed by the KKK (such as nightriding and lynching), their less blatant menacing was just as powerful. The fact that WKKK members co uld enjoy various degrees of public visibility therefore enabled both politically active women, and women content to remain in traditional arenas, to find a niche within the organization."

    ReplyDelete
  112. I never cry. That's for females.

    ...and for most of the leadership of the Republican party, like GWB, John Boehner - both notorious bawlers - and of course all those other Real Men on the right when they get outed as gay and/or adulterers. What a bunch of manginas, amirite?

    ReplyDelete
  113. "I never cry. That's for females."

    Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women. Anyone who literally NEVER cries should probably see a counselor or therapist, because crying is a natural human response to pain and distress. And who among us never encounters pain or distress? Everyone cries from time to time.

    Pretending you're too strong and tough to cry is just that, a pretense, and maintaining that pretense is damaging to anyone's mental health, male or female.

    ReplyDelete
  114. "Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women."---SallyStrange

    And yet, when men do so, they get called out by the feminist Lydias of the world. Hypocrisy----again.

    ReplyDelete
  115. In my experience, wythch, feminist women have no problem with men crying. Whining, on the other hand, is another matter.

    ReplyDelete
  116. wytch, yes, there were women in the Klan. There were also men in the Klan as well, in case you had forgotten. They were the ones who ran the Klan (the Women's Klan was an auxiliary); they were the ones doing the lynching.

    Yes, the women of the Klan were as hateful as the men, and contributed in their way to the oppression of black men and women (and Catholics, and immigrants, and Jews), but they weren't the ones running the show, or the ones responsible for the worst acts of hatred.

    Blee's book (which I've actually read, unlike you) is very sharp, an interesting examination of the ways in which certain aspects of progressive ideologies (women's rights) can be appropriated by right wing women. Just as certain aspects of feminist ideology have been appropriated by antifeminist women since the 1970s.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women."---SallyStrange

    "And yet, when men do so, they get called out by the feminist Lydias of the world. Hypocrisy----again." --Wytche

    When men do WHAT? Classic example of illiteracy.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Oh, I see, when men cry--as in when Lydia said, "you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back."

    Being that this is the internet, I'm pretty sure that was metaphorical crying she was referring to, Wytche. "Crying" meaning "whining and complaining."

    I'll refer to Capt. Bathrobe's comments.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Er, wytch, Blee DOES NOT assert that women ran the Klan, ever. Her claim is that towards the end of the Second Klan (You can look up Klan movements for more on this, each Klan movement is somewhat distinct from the others) there was a subset of women in support roles who were/had been suffuragettes and had less traditional view of gender than the other Klan movements or the nazi and other white nationalist groups that followed it. There is evidence to support the claim that this is true, in large part from the intense opposition to it by many male members who stated that the growing involvement of women violated the Klan's policy of 'moral conservatism' which mandated male dominance in home and civil life (Blee notes herself that the phenomena she cites was not a part of the third Klan and did not carry over to other white nationalist groups after the collapse of the second Klan in the late 20s). To the WKKK or women were the primary controlling force behind even the second Klan is absurd and it is a claim that Blee does not make. One of Blee's central thesis revolves around the dynamics of women participating in anti-feminist right wing racist organizations, which is where she places the Klan. The forward of her book outlines the long anti-feminist history of the Klan, so stop pretending like a subgroup amoung a less powerful auxilory for a decade or so trumps this history.

    Also, for the five millionth time, "Women of a color exist!" Saying that white women are almost as or even as racist as white men and therefore racist organizations oppressed men ignores that half of people of color are women.

    ReplyDelete
  120. @ Iris Vander Pluym

    Yep, crying is definitely a sign of manginahood.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  121. @ Sally Strange

    Sally said: "Classic example of how patriarchal sexist standards of behavior hurt men as well as women. Anyone who literally NEVER cries should probably see a counselor or therapist, because crying is a natural human response to pain and distress. And who among us never encounters pain or distress? Everyone cries from time to time.

    Pretending you're too strong and tough to cry is just that, a pretense, and maintaining that pretense is damaging to anyone's mental health, male or female."

    I know many feminists will not believe it but men and women are vastly different and I don't believe that crying has the same "benefit" for men than for women.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  122. "To the WKKK or women were the primary controlling force behind even the second Klan is absurd . . ."---SallyStranger

    And you make a claim of my illiteracy?

    ReplyDelete
  123. "One of Blee's central thesis revolves around the dynamics of women participating in anti-feminist right wing racist organizations, which is where she places the Klan."

    Your lack of reading comprehension is also evident here as well. Klan women wanted more rights and more of a voice, while still clinging to their bigoted views:

    "It is Blee’s contention that women joined the WKKK not merely because of bigoted tendencies, but also because the Klan provided a women’s rights-based agenda, the recognition of civic activism, and the chance to be heard collectively as women. At a time when suffrage, temperance, morality, and patriotism were causing political tensions to run high, the WKKK gave women a political voice with which to articulate their gender ideology, as well as a means of legitimizing their civic and social organizations."

    David, I think Sally is the one who hasn't read the book. Either that, or she doesn't comprehend the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  124. "Oh, I see, when men cry--as in when Lydia said, "you leave a trail of insults and derogatory remarks, and then you cry when someone slaps back.""---SallyStranger

    That's not what I meant. Strawman.

    ReplyDelete
  125. "Also, for the five millionth time, "Women of a color exist!" Saying that white women are almost as or even as racist as white men and therefore racist organizations oppressed men ignores that half of people of color are women."---DarkSideCat

    I never ignored them. It's you making that mistake. As well as others in your description.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis