 |
| Me, apparently. |
Apparently hungering for some attention, the blog No Ma'am has decided to launch a carefully reasoned, albeit un-spellchecked, attack on me:
David is another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole. A true SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) in every dimension.
Reality is not so, Mr. Futrelle, it is not so.
You are anethema to female vaginal lubrication.
Hope you feel proud! You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets! Who needs such a thing when the West produces poofs like you?
Oh, there's more. Rob, the guy behind the blog, is apparently upset that I haven't written about him yet:
Pleeeease debate me on... something!?! Please Dave, you are picking on commenters in the MRM only... wtf? Are you Chicken? Why don't you set your sights higher up and pick on me for a while?
Honestly, Rob, I haven't really found anything on your site that's coherent enough to argue against. But I'll keep looking.
You can read the whole thing here.
"Apparently hungering for some attention..."
ReplyDeleteProjecting much, David? Or was that meant to be ironic projection, from the point of view of some other troll blogger who is desperate for attention and doesn't care whether it comes from feminists, MRAs, or 4chan /b/tards?
David's just afraid his mistress will turn him into a jack-in-the-box.
ReplyDeleteI just found your blog today, and I didn't even know there was a Men's Rights movement- I'd seen some stirrings on Reddit, but like many things I'm uninterested in, I didn't check it out. As a lady on Reddit, I've gotta say, there's a LOT of hate speech happening- both woman and gay centric. This blog is a total breath of fresh air, and I intend on reading back. I just wanted to say thanks; your writing is thoughtful, centered, and proof focused, and I'm sure you get a lot of crap for it. Your intelligent readers appreciate it.
ReplyDelete"You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets!"
ReplyDeleteWhat a freak! Even women dont even know what the hell that is! What kind of freak even keeps up on 'panty changes?' The nation also knows thanks to Sodini and Roy Den Hollander (who had a russian mail order bride-and even she left him) that it's the MRA's that no women would want to be around. That's why they have to go to third world countries and exploit their circumstances in order to get a woman to even look at them.
Don't they have any male fucktards in the eastern hemisphere?
ReplyDeleteWell, you have to admit, the guy does have a point. But, I just assumed you were gay, anyway.
ReplyDeleteHi David, first time commenter here. I've read various feminist blogs for about five years or so, and of course have seen lots of MRA comments. The thing that really jumps out is the consistent immaturity... evidenced not only by their reliance on childish taunts, but also by their inability to understand why those taunts will never work on anyone whose emotional age is greater than eleven.
ReplyDeleteYou know, a favorite blogger of mine once suggested that the difference between the left and the right was that the right has no understanding of irony. Trying to insult you by saying you are trying to suck up to have sex with women while calling you gay...because nothing motivates a gay man like the potential of having sex with women, I guess. Wow, that totally makes sense, my whole worldview has changed (<- for those of you with no irony meter, this is called sarcasm).
ReplyDelete"The thing that really jumps out is the consistent immaturity... evidenced not only by their reliance on childish taunts,...."
ReplyDeleteThe thing that I find really jumps out is their reliance on childish taunts while accusing people who aren't in accordance with their views of being the ones that have to resort to using shaming language because they know they can't win the argument. It boggles the mind.....
"You know, a favorite blogger of mine once suggested that the difference between the left and the right was that the right has no understanding of irony"
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the people who believe that something as complex as political ideology can be represented in any meaningful way using a single axis and the people who recognize that that political ideology is actually much more complex is that the former are naive simpletons.
For the benefit of those with less than half a brain, the extra "that" in the above comment is an ironic typo from the POV of someone who doesn't bother to proofread, and is not an actual error on my part.
ReplyDeleteOMG, No Ma'am? Like Married With Children? Seriously?
ReplyDelete"Honestly, Rob, I haven't really found anything on your site that's coherent enough to argue against. But I'll keep looking."
ReplyDeleteDavid has this response saved in a hotkey file. Just change whatever name is inserted for a less formish appearance. It's a necessary device when you can't find anything coherent enough to argue against and when you have no intention of doing any such thing.
Futrelle is just a troll. He won't debate anyone in the MRM. Nor is he capable of it.
But it is fun to drop in from time to time and point out that his "promise" to debunk the stats and assertions of the MRM, as promised in his very first post, remains a complete fail.
So says the guy whose idea of a brilliant debating tactic is to call me "Davy."
ReplyDeleteAlso, Paul -- Paulie? -- just read that post I quote above. The guy can barely string a sentence together, much less a whole argument. Are you really so desperate to appear cool to younger MRAS that you're willing to align yourself with his puerile nonsense?
Oh, right. You're the guy who thinks calling me "Davy" is an argument, and won't let critics debate him on his own website except on a special little page, where a chorus of dittoheads will downvote critical comments so you won't even have to look at them. Never mind.
For those of us who aren't exactly buddy-buddy with the MRM either, though, it would probably be more helpful for us if your posts had more substance to them than simple mockery. It's been nearly a month now and substantial refutation of the "stats and assertions" of the MRM has been pretty light. As a result, this blog is good for at most a chuckle every now and then, but not much use for those of us looking for a more heavy-duty deconstruction of the MRAs.
ReplyDeleteLOL! David, there is debate aplenty in my comments. Anyone can debate there, and is welcome to as long as they are actually engaging in debate. You can verify that in my comments right now.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, that would exclude you since all you have managed to do is hurl personal invective at any critic.
I can't speak to the man you quoted above, nor would I be compelled to since you are pulling your material out of comment threads and not OP's.
You need to start attacking what is actually in MRM literature, if you want to attack the tenets of MM philosophy (rather than just flame individuals).
What you are doing here is just chicken shit, and a clear back peddle from what you claimed you would do in your first post, which was to debunk the stats and assertions of the MRM.
It was the same when you went back several months in my work (claiming it was only a week old) and grabbed a couple of examples of what you thought was bad writing. And that was the sum total of your critique- writing style.
You are clearly avoiding substance, while charging others with that very thing.
You ever want to debate, with intellectual honesty, and without the reliance on gags and diversion, just let me know.
Consider it a public challenge, right now. We can run the exchange on both our blogs, and I will agree to ground rules that give us both a fair shake.
Time to ante up, David, and follow through with your personal word on what you were going to do on this blog. If you don't feel up to debating me, I understand. But you at least ought to write a few articles measure up to your promise in order to maintain some public integrity.
You know, Paul, in my opening post I also said: "I'll round up assorted examples of misogyny, mendacity and just plain stupidity from MRA's online and off."
ReplyDeleteI have done a bang-up job of this, if I say so myself. Though, to be fair, it is rather easy.
And on the "comments" thing: if you actually bothered to read my blog before spouting off the same tired complaints, the post above, and most of my posts deal with things said on MRA/Antifeminist blogs, not in comments. But comments are fair game. Many of the blog comments I have highlighted were upvoted, sometimes by dozens of readers. Others agreed with them. They were generally not challenged. They are all "mainstream" comments in the MRM, at least online.
In other words, these are your people. Are you not embarrassed by them sometimes? By their crude, often obscene namecalling? By their blatant misogyny? By the fact that they so very rarely provide any evidence of any kind that any of their assertions are true?
The fact is that virtually every non-MRA who visits this blog can plainly see the hateful illogic behind so much of the MRM. If you can't see it, well, maybe you're living in a bubble.
When people raise actual interesting substantive points in comments here, I am happy to debate the, When people spew incoherent tirades calling me a "magina" or a "troll" or worse, well, there's nothing of substance to debate.
As for the rest, as I've told you before, I'm doing this blog on my schedule, not yours. Unlike so many MRMs (and so many feminists, to be honest), I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go "ha! I'm right!" Actual honest research takes more time than simply rehashing half-digested propaganda.
Over the next several months -- months, not weeks -- I will indeed post detailed critiques of various Men's Rights Myths, going through them one by one. They will go up when they go up. You coming back every few days and saying "you lied because you haven't yet done everything you said your blog would do" is really rather infantile.
As for the debate, yes, if we can work out the details in a way that works for us both, I will certainly agree to that. I will look over your blog posts again and think about what makes most sense to debate about.
Still a lame approach. I could easily pick up examples of misandry from the comments sections of both feminist and MRA blogs, indeed you provide some real material yourself, but I can't claim with any certainty or credibility to call feminism misandric from such isolated, cherry picked anecdotes.
ReplyDeleteThe points of view I have embraced on gender politics are a product of thirty years of interest, the first ten of which was on the other side of the fence.
All movements attract fringe elements. I just got through blocking someone from my youtube channel for posting "All women must die."
Do you want me to send a copy of that to you so you can write an article about it for your blog, painting it as representative of the MRM?
Oh, and this "Unlike so many MRMs (and so many feminists, to be honest), I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go "ha! I'm right!""
One has to wonder, if you are so unread, and really don't know enough to assert points of fact, even now, then how could you have proclaimed that you would do said debunking in the future?
You just tipped your hand.
I look forward to seeing your critiques when they show up, but am not holding my breath. People generally put their most genuine foot forward, and it is my guess that you already have done what you can do.
But you can prove me wrong. I look forward to the debate, and my first request is that we work out terms here, in public, on your blog. I think you will find I am open to anything sound.
Find a single example of misandry in anything I've written here.
ReplyDeleteHahaha, Coldfire just predictably demonstrated a failure to understand the meaning of the word irony.
ReplyDelete"For the benefit of those with less than half a brain, the extra "that" in the above comment is an ironic typo from the POV of someone who doesn't bother to proofread, and is not an actual error on my part. " It is not ironic to have a typo when writing from the POV of someone who does not bother to proofread. It would be ironic if you had no typos writing from the POV of the person who does not proofread.
http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/ironyterm.htm
Paul. Another point: generally speaking, when people write serious pieces, even about topics they know a good deal about, they reread key texts and do additional research before they actually try to write something.
ReplyDeleteApparently you yourself are in the "write whatever pops into my head" school, and it shows in your articles.
Let's look, for example, at your most recent 10 posts on The Spearhead:
Shrugging Misandry: No footnotes for any of your (generally pretty vague) assertions. You spend a long time talking about a single post on a blog, and you dig up an old quote from Marilyn French. The rest is you talking out of your ass.
Death Row and the Pussy Pass: In this one, you cite a few stats, and draw some details from news accounts. You do not give any specific sources, though in this case the stats would be fairly easy for anyone to track down, so no harm, no foul. Still, most of the post is you talking out of your ass.
When is it OK to Punch Your Wife: You offer anecdotal evidence based on a couple of news accounts. Most of the post is, once again, you talking out of your ass.
Nothing Makes a Gina Tingle Like a Killa: Instead of citing an actual comment on reddit that might illustrate your point, you simply invent a fictional one. The rest is a combination of you rehashing someone else's research and talking out your ass.
Zeta Game -- Hypergamy Crossroads: 100% you talking out of your ass.
The Problem With Gay Rights: 90% talking out of your ass. You refer to one news item but don't bother to check it -- you simply recount what you vaguely remember about it, and that you wrote a letter which wasn't published. You mention the number of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the gender breakdown. You provide no source.
Zeta Game — Hypergamy: A Chris Rock quote, followed by you talking out of your ass.
Does This Dress Make My Ass Look Fat? Three links to YouTube videos, an overlong joke, and you talking out of your ass.
Women’s Sexual Peak Rests Atop a Pile of Lies: 100% you talking out of your ass, based on a weird misunderstanding of what the term "sexual peak" actually means. You add a little note pointing people to a similar essay by someone else that apparently actually refers to actual research.
On Jury Nullification and Rape: OMG! A piece that actually refers to actual facts in the real world, with sources and links and everything. Still, a big chunk of the thing is you talking out of your ass.
So let's recap: in the last two and a half months, you've written 10 pieces for The Spearhead. 9 of the 10 consist almost entirely of you talking out of your ass. You rely on unsourced stats, some news accounts, and several YouTube videos. Instead of engaging with the specific arguments of opponents, you invent a fictional comment and mock it. One article is actually researched, with links to sources and everything; still, about 50% of it is you talking out of your ass.
Paul said
ReplyDelete"You need to start attacking what is actually in MRM literature, if you want to attack the tenets of MM philosophy (rather than just flame individuals)."
Exactly my thoughts. This is what makes Gavid's blog a ultimate fail.
He nitpicks random comments from nobodies. Anyone can easily do this with feminist blogs/forums when it comes to picking out the lunatics.
A way stronger attack than Gavid's would be to point out actual icons of a movement. Such as pointing out people like Andrea Dworkin.
Gavid needs to come up with a REAL attack instead of his usual lame pansy pettiness.
He has totally failed to ridicule the literature and philosophy behind the whole MRM.
You need to up your game, Gavid.
"Find a single example of misandry in anything I've written here."
ReplyDeleteHow about your entire blog? Jesus, are you really this obtuse? Even some hard core feminists acknowledge that there are some serious areas of unaddressed concern in the lives of men and boys.
Your entire existence is predicated on the idea that men. monolithically speaking, should just shut up and support feminism. Granted, you do a really, really inadequate job of even demonstrating why you think this way, which adds to the impression of misandry.
The very first words you wrote on this blog were:
I've been watching the Men's Rights movement, such as it is, for some time, with a mixture of amusement, horror and disgust. It's a movement that's bad for everyone -- for men, for women, for children, and probably even for my cat, though I haven't yet quite worked out how.
It is amazing to me that you can make such a blanket statement about the MRM, covering every complaint in the movement as unworthy of attention without so much as examination, or even by our own admission, an understanding of the research. (remember, you have not even read the stuff) You don't really know what modern research points to (another way to say you have no idea what you are talking about), but you are sure that MRA's are all wrong, even worthy of your ridicule.
It's contempt prior to investigation, a sure sign of chosen ignorance, the foundation of bigotry. And it is written all over almost everything you write.
It's misandry, David. And your are practicing it here in grand fashion.
Also, as to your continued cherry picking of my work, it is not helping you make a case, except in your own mind.
First, like most other writers, I use research when and where I think it is necessary. As many of the early pieces that formed the foundation for my website dealt directly with core issues of the MRM, e.g. false accusation, DV, phony wage gap, family courts, etc. you will see that all of those core pieces cite research and multiple sources.
When I set out from the beginning to make a case on these issues, I made it, and backed it up. That freed me up to do two things. One, assume my readers in the future were familiar enough with material that they did not need me to repeat research every time I say something like "The gender wage gap is feminist myth."
And two, it freed me up to write opinion pieces having already established that I understood the subjects that I was writing about. If you think all opinion pieces are supposed to be researched and sourced, please check any newspaper op ed for an example.
The fact that you look at my recent work and keep relying on statements that claim I am "talking out of my ass" simply for writing informed opinions, keep revealing your hypocrisy.
I am talking out my ass? Compared to what? The fucking entirety of everything you have ever written on the subject of gender politics?
You think that you, the guy whose most empirical effort has been to snatch comments from other blogs and try to pawn it off as representative of an entire movement, is to be taken seriously as an arbiter of who is talking out there ass?
I don't have time for much more of this. Just lay out your terms for a debate and let's get on with it.
It is already starting to look like you are stalling.
David,
ReplyDeleteAnother lame attempt to reduce this to a pissing match is a waste of time. If you have any real intent on debate, start naming your terms.
A way stronger attack than Gavid's would be to point out actual icons of a movement. Such as pointing out people like Andrea Dworkin.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting you mention that, our host has, I believe, written what (in my opinion, at least) is a fairly thoughtful critique of Andrea Dworkin specifically:
http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-16/books/bk-38664_1_andrea-dworkin
Assuming this is the same David Futrelle as the one I've been talking to (if not, I apologize for the confusion), he is capable of at least relatively thoughtful, cogent criticism. That's why I've been saying it would be nice if he provided more of it 'round here. Still, he's the proprietor of this blog, not me...I learned the hard way a little while ago not to be a gratuitous guest. I suppose I ought to start my own blog if I really want to complain about what I read. Who knows, maybe one of these days I will.
Ok, Nick, who would you consider an icon of the movement? What would you consider a central text of MRM literature/philosophy?
ReplyDeleteThe web sites I've written about include some of the most influential MR web sites out there. If the people writing for these sites are "nobodies," then point me to a site that you consider more legitimate.
And Paul, about the debate: I honestly can't find much of substance in anything you've written that might be worth actually debating. What would you consider a particularly substantive piece of yours? Heck, list several. That might be a start.
And Wanderer: That was indeed me. If I could pop out a piece like that every day for the blog, I happily would. But pieces like that take time and effort. And frankly, I have yet to find any piece of MRA writing that deserves that level of attention. Say what you will about Dworkin -- I was not a fan -- she was a brilliant polemicist. The MRM movement hasn't produced anyone of that stature. Not even close.
But, again, I'm open for suggestions.
Maybe I'll make a post about this.
"I honestly can't find much of substance in anything you've written that might be worth actually debating."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that seems to be a recurring problem with you. I have certainly had the same experience with your offerings. Perhaps the debate will illustrate why on both counts.
Here's the point, David. You promised in your blog to refute tenets of the MRM, not of mine personally, so my suggestion is that we stick with that.
As you seem rather unfamiliar with what those tenets are, which is ironic given your level of hostile and derisive criticism, I'll lay four of them out. You can take your pick of any, but don't feel limited. I am open to other debates as long as they would be generally accepted as core issues by most MRA's.
As one member of the MRM, I assert the following for your consideration.
1. The domestic violence industry is sexist toward men, corrupt, and promotes disinformation that whitewashes over significant numbers of male victims and female perpetrators.
2. There is a strong anti-male bias in family courts, that are also corrupt, resulting in the violation of many of men's fundamental civil rights, including due process, innocence till proven guilt, etc.
3. There is no gender wage gap. It is a complete feminist myth. Women are paid the same as men for the same work, sometimes more.
4. Feminism (as actually manifest in the body politic) is not about equality, but female privilege, and many of feminisms most notable icons are, or were, blatant misandrists.
As I said, I don't mean to limit to just these choices. Pick another if you like. I also suggest that a very good debate topic would be to explore why you seem to think that no movement at all is necessary for men to begin with.
So far in your blog, you have been all hat and no cattle on that one, and I think it would provide a great opportunity for you to intellectually justify your anti MRA position. IOW, why should men NOT come together to address
1. AMB (Anti male bias) in laws like selective service and compulsory combat?
2. AMB in criminal courts?
3. AMB in family courts?
4. AMB bias in the media?
5. AMB in academe?
6. AMB in healthcare?
7. AMB in public policy?
I could go on an on, but there should be enough here for you to pick something and go with it. But what you can't do, and have any credibility at all is continue to pretend there is nothing of substance to debate here.
It's really getting old. You predicated your entire dog and pony show on the things you would debunk, and all you have done since then, when confronted on your lack of substance, is use a line about "nothing to debate" that rings with all the truthfulness of "the dog ate my homework."
Telling Wanderer that you have not found any piece of MRA writing that deserves that level of attention had become nothing more than a transparent and redundant cop out. Farrell had a few best sellers. Try refuting any of that. Or Christina Hoff Sommers, or Katherine Young or Paul Nathanson.
They are all saying essentially the same things- things you are dismissing without knowledge or investigation. Surely you can lower yourself for the sake of one minor debate to point out just why one of these erudite and scholarly experts doesn't pass muster with you, who has not even read any of the studies they cite?
Pick a topic, David. It is time to shit or get off the pot.
If you can.
"I honestly can't find much of substance in anything you've written that might be worth actually debating."
ReplyDeleteYeah, that seems to be a recurring problem with you. I have certainly had the same experience with your offerings. Perhaps the debate will illustrate why on both counts.
Here's the point, David. You promised in your blog to refute tenets of the MRM, not of mine personally, so my suggestion is that we stick with that.
As you seem rather unfamiliar with what those tenets are, which is ironic given your level of snarky and derisive criticism, I'll lay four of them out. You can take your pick of any, but don't feel limited. I am open to other debates as long as they would be generally accepted as core issues by most MRA's.
As one member of the MRM, I assert the following for your consideration.
1. The domestic violence industry is sexist toward men, corrupt, and promotes disinformation that whitewashes over significant numbers of male victims and female perpetrators.
2. There is a strong anti-male bias in family courts, that are also corrupt, resulting in the violation of many of men's fundamental civil rights, including due process, innocence till proven guilt, etc.
3. There is no gender wage gap. It is a complete feminist myth. Women are paid the same as men for the same work, sometimes more.
4. Feminism (as actually manifest in the body politic) is not about equality, but female privilege, and many of feminisms most notable icons are, or were, blatant misandrists.
Continued...
As I said, I don't mean to limit to just these choices. Pick another if you like. I also suggest that a very good debate topic would be to explore why you seem to think that no movement at all is necessary for men to begin with.
ReplyDeleteSo far in your blog, you have been all hat and no cattle on that one, and I think it would provide a great opportunity for you to intellectually justify your anti MRA position. IOW, why should men NOT come together to address
1. AMB (Anti male bias) in laws like selective service and compulsory combat?
2. AMB in criminal courts?
3. AMB in family courts?
4. AMB bias in the media?
5. AMB in academe?
6. AMB in healthcare?
7. AMB in public policy?
I could go on an on, but there should be enough here for you to pick something and go with it. But what you can't do, and have any credibility at all is continue to pretend there is nothing of substance to debate here.
It's really getting old. You predicated your entire dog and pony show on the things you would debunk, and all you have done since then, when confronted on your lack of substance, is use a line about "nothing to debate" that rings with all the truthfulness of "the dog ate my homework."
Telling wanderer that you have not found any piece of MRA writing that deserves that level of attention had become nothing more than a transparent and redundant cop out. Farrell had a few best sellers. Try refuting any of that. Or Christina Hoff Sommers, or Katherine Young or Paul Nathanson.
They are all saying essentially the same things- things you are dismissing without knowledge or investigation. Surely you can lower yourself for the sake of one minor debate to point out just why one of these erudite and scholarly experts doesn't pass muster with you, who has not even read any of the studies they cite.
So pick a topic, David. It is time to shit or get off the pot.
If you can.
Oops. please pardon the duplicate posts.
ReplyDeletePaul: A couple of your posts got caught in the spam filter, they're up now. I didn't see one of your long posts before replying earlier, so I will reply below.
ReplyDeleteBut first:
You want to debate? Let's do it. Domestic Violence. We can do it on your blog, or here. (It probably doesn't make sense to repost the whole thing on both blogs because that will split up the discussion.) One person posts, the other has some set time period to respond, then first person again, second person again. We can set limits on word count if you want. I don't care who goes first. We can start it sometime next week, if that works for you.
Agreed? If you want it to work differently, propose something different.
As for some of your other points:
I reiterate: find ONE actual example of misandry on this blog. ONE. Saying "your whole blog' is a copout and you know it. Just ONE SPECIFIC EXAMPLE. One misandric statement.
Criticizing the Men's Rights movement is not misandry.
Even some hard core feminists acknowledge that there are some serious areas of unaddressed concern in the lives of men and boys.
And what makes you think I don't think that? Unfortunately, the MRM as it stands does a terrible, terrible job of addressing these concerns. I think it makes things worse for men.
You think I'm some sort of radical feminist robot or something? You (and most of the more hostile MRA commenters here) are simply projecting that onto me, just like you project misandry onto me. Read that piece by me that Wanderer linked to.
It is amazing to me that you can make such a blanket statement about the MRM, covering every complaint in the movement as unworthy of attention without so much as examination, or even by our own admission, an understanding of the research. (remember, you have not even read the stuff) You don't really know what modern research points to (another way to say you have no idea what you are talking about), but you are sure that MRA's are all wrong, even worthy of your ridicule.
Dude, you're just making shit up here. I've written about gender issues for years, and have been paying pretty close attention to the MRM in particular for several years. I understand the issues. That's why I started this fucking blog. I've read Warren Farrell. I've read Christina Hoff Sommers. I've read about false accusations, etc etc etc.
The fact that I have not yet written lengthy tomes on all the issues at hand on a blog that's not yet 4 weeks old simply means I haven't gotten to it yet. Writing serious pieces on complicated topics takes time. And, the way I do things, it also takes ADDITIONAL research. Doing ADDITIONAL research does not mean you have done no research to begin with. That's the way most serious writers and researchers do things. They keep researching. They keep learning. They don't read a few things, and then spend the rest of their career repeating the same shit over and over. (Well, as you know, some do. I have a lot less respect for those.)
When I asked you and Nick who you think the big names in the MRM are, it's because, well, I was curious who you would say, and curious if just perhaps there was some brilliant new writer out there that I was somehow unaware of. There wasn't. You said more or less the people I thought you would say. If those are the luminaries in your movement, yikes. As luminaries go, they're pretty dim bulbs.
But anyway: the debate. Is it on?
"Dude, you're just making shit up here. I've written about gender issues for years, and have been paying pretty close attention to the MRM in particular for several years. I understand the issues. That's why I started this fucking blog. I've read Warren Farrell. I've read Christina Hoff Sommers. I've read about false accusations, etc etc etc."
ReplyDelete"I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go "ha! I'm right!" Actual honest research takes more time than simply rehashing half-digested propaganda."
Now, you have been given the choices, rather you have been given more or less any choice you want, of topics to debate on, and yet you continue to stall and do the duck and fade with childish taunts.
Pick something David. Just pick any old common MRM talking point and let's get on with it. Your hesitance to do so becomes more glaring with every post you make.
Huh? Are you on drugs? Reread my comment, dude. The whole comment.
ReplyDeleteI PICKED ONE. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. Let's debate it, according to the scheme I laid out in the comment, or another one.
As for the other stuff, I wasn't being fucking literal. I didn't mean I hadn't read any studies, just that when I sit down to write about something I like to have actually read all the significant studies about it, instead of just grabbing some stats from some random page, as is the standard practice in web debates.
OK, domestic violence it is. It will be helpful if you can just contain this exchange to the details of the agreement. Your diluting everything with extraneous personal insults gets boring, and I end up skipping over some of it looking for the meat.
ReplyDeleteSo we now have an option. All we need do now is to further define the context of the debate. I see a couple of options here. One, you can make an opening statement about the MRM stance on domestic violence, also advocating your ideas on how the problem should be perceived, defined and addressed.
OR, I have a piece I wrote on the subject some time ago. It is also in a video I made that has over 40k views and generally good reviews from many in the MRM.
I can bump it back up to the #1 spot on my blog, and you can respond to it. I will paste your responses into the OP in their entirety. No word limit. 48 hours to respond for each of us.
Each time there is a response, I will change the time stamp on the article so that it will go back to the #1 spot.
Continued..
If you choose the first option, I will post it on my blog at the #1 spot as well, with the same follow up.
ReplyDeleteBy keeping our debate exchange inside the OP it will keep it from being diluted by comments. I also suggest that we both agree that neither will participate in the comment section, confining our remarks to the OP.
I will come back here and follow up on your request for citing your misandric words, and respond to a lot of other points you have made here after you have made your first post to the debate.
Here are the URL's to my article, and the video for your consideration.
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/04/03/domestic-violence-women-are-half-the-problem/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOu_BszChIE
Let me know what you want to do. Next week is fine for a start.
Oh and by the way, don't let the date on the piece fool you. I wrote it over two years ago. The date on the piece only reflects when I converted my site from Joomla to wordpress. At that point, all the work I had done was assigned the conversion date, not the date they were actually written.
ReplyDeleteJust like the other examples of my writing that you thought were more recent than they were.
One other thing. With respect to any people who may wish to support your POV in the debate, I am suspending the rules for post transfer to the feminist/mangina page. All comments, short of threats or advocacy for violence, will remain in the thread permanently.
ReplyDeleteAll this sounds fine, esp. the thing about comments. I'll read your piece and watch the video and decide what I want to do with regard to who goes first. I would prefer we start the thing later in the week next week, say Thursday or Friday.
ReplyDeleteSo it's on.
Oh, and this probably goes without saying, but since we're doing this on your blog I would like to be able to link back to my blog in my posts there.
ReplyDeleteAlso, to clarify: The format is: Opener, response, OP response to that, final comment by the second poster.
I read your piece; you go first. Let me know when you're planning to put it up.
ReplyDelete"I suppose I ought to start my own blog if I really want to complain about what I read. Who knows, maybe one of these days I will."
ReplyDeleteI, for one, would visit your blog if you choose to and have time to start one. The few comments of yours that I have read on this blog appear to have some thought put behind them, not just knee-jerk reactionary, childish name-calling, spews of idiocy like some of the other comments. I have visited, commented and subsequently vacated other blogs, not because I was "pwned!!" like some want to believe, but because the seemingly endless childish rants and mud-slinging, while a bit amusing at first, get to be tiresome rather quickly.
"Unlike so many MRMs (and so many feminists, to be honest), I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go 'ha! I'm right!'"
ReplyDeleteNo, you're just going to mine the comments sections on MRA sites for quotes from extremists, feminist impersonators, or possibly yourself as an impersonator and then use them in conjunction with the fallacy of composition to try and smear the entire MRM, as per your modus operandi.
"Actual honest research takes more time than simply rehashing half-digested propaganda."
Which is probably why you haven't bothered doing any yet.
Coldfire: Aside from the fact that most of my posts deal with stuff said by actual identifiable bloggers or other people with a history in the MRM, and that some of the comments I've highlighted (on the spearhead, for example) had literally dozens of upvotes from other MRAs, your comments about "feminist impersonators, or possibly yourself as an impersonator" are so incredibly stupid I'm beginning to wonder if maybe you're a plant.
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're ME!!!
Also: Oh, I'm doing the research. The writing-up of it will come.
Will do. Send your responses to my email. It is listed on the home page. I will post them as soon as I get them. The debate announcement and first piece will go up Wednesday of next week in the evening. That will give you fully 48 hours to respond.
ReplyDeleteYou can include links in your postings to wherever you wish, and I will provide one in the intro to the debate.
We're set then.
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to see this. David attempts to be a big hero superman for feminists/women, but this attempt always seems to fail by looking at this blog. His whole blog is one big major fail. So it's obvious he is going to miserably fail with this debate. The poor little boy hasn't got a leg to stand on.
ReplyDeleteHey Gavid, what's your thoughts on this video?
ReplyDeleteHow To Lie Like Feminist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZ-xKGC32ew&feature=related
What's incredibly stupid is thinking you can prove anything about a movement from mining comments sections for quotes. Have you ever noticed how rarely this is done? Democrats and Republicans rip apart each other's articles all the time, but how often do they go digging into the comments sections for stuff to use to make the other side look bad? Almost every time I see this pathetic tactic employed it's being used by a feminist against MRAs, as if you KNOW that you don't have another leg on which to stand.
ReplyDeleteThere's a good reason why people don't do this if they have other options available to them, like quoting the other side's articles. That reason is that comments are DETACHED from the IDENTITY of the person making them, UNLESS the commenter CHOOSES to disclose his/her personal details when registering, and that makes comments an UNRELIABLE SOURCE. As you already acknowledged, I actually COULD be you as far as anyone other than the two of us are concerned; we are the only ones who know for sure that I am not your sockpuppet.
As I said before, the comments you quote could be "from extremists, feminist impersonators, or possibly yourself as an impersonator". That's a list of THREE possibilities, and as long as ONE of them is correct my claim holds true. If that doesn't make sense to you, then you need to re-acquaint yourself with the meaning of the word "or".
I did leave out a fourth possibility, however, which is comments from perfectly reasonable MRAs which only feminists like you think are extreme. Obviously these comments get up-voted on The Spearhead since they ARE reasonable, but I don't see any comments along the lines of "George Sodini is my hero" getting up-voted. As I explained before, the whose point of implementing that comment rating system was to deal with the problem of rubbish being posted by extremists and by trolls, including the agent provocateurs at whose existence you like to scoff, assuming that you aren't one yourself.
David: Criticizing the Men's Rights movement is not misandry.
ReplyDeleteYohan: Criticizing feminism is not misogynistic.
Do you agree, David?