MRA's (Mens Rights Activists) are extremely critical of feminism.

[boston bean]

Actually, I feel pretty confident in stating they really can't stand feminists or feminism.

Yet, I'm not so sure why they feel that way. I was reading an article posted on DU from Jezebel (a feminist site). The article explains how feminists are on the side of men in many ways where the patriarchy affects them in unfair ways. The below issues are something feminism has been addressing for a very long time, and critiquing in theory socially constructed gender roles. The listing below is usually tossed about MRA's and by those who are critical of feminists and feminism. I think many just don't understand what the patriarchy is or what it is that feminists are speaking about. Hopefully, this article will help to answer questions, and maybe bring forth a greater understanding of feminism and feminist issues.

Part Four: A List of "Men's Rights" Issues That Feminism Is Already Working On

Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not like commercials in which bumbling dads mess up the laundry and competent wives have to bustle in and fix it. The assumption that women are naturally better housekeepers is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments. Alimony is set up to combat the fact that women have been historically expected to prioritize domestic duties over professional goals, thus minimizing their earning potential if their "traditional" marriages end. The assumption that wives should make babies instead of money is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to get raped in prison. Permissiveness and jokes about prison rape are part of rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want anyone to be falsely accused of rape. False rape accusations discredit rape victims, which reinforces rape culture, which is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be lonely and we do not hate "nice guys." The idea that certain people are inherently more valuable than other people because of superficial physical attributes is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to have to pay for dinner. We want the opportunity to achieve financial success on par with men in any field we choose (and are qualified for), and the fact that we currently don't is part of patriarchy. The idea that men should coddle and provide for women, and/or purchase their affections in romantic contexts, is condescending and damaging and part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be maimed or killed in industrial accidents, or toil in coal mines while we do cushy secretarial work and various yarn-themed activities. The fact that women have long been shut out of dangerous industrial jobs (by men, by the way) is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to commit suicide. Any pressures and expectations that lower the quality of life of any gender are part of patriarchy. The fact that depression is characterized as an effeminate weakness, making men less likely to seek treatment, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be viewed with suspicion when you take your child to the park (men frequently insist that this is a serious issue, so I will take them at their word). The assumption that men are insatiable sexual animals, combined with the idea that it's unnatural for men to care for children, is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want you to be drafted and then die in a war while we stay home and iron stuff. The idea that women are too weak to fight or too delicate to function in a military setting is part of patriarchy.

Feminists do not want women to escape prosecution on legitimate domestic violence charges, nor do we want men to be ridiculed for being raped or abused. The idea that women are naturally gentle and compliant and that victimhood is inherently feminine is part of patriarchy.

Feminists hate patriarchy. We do not hate you.

If you really care about those issues as passionately as you say you do, you should be thanking feminists, because feminism is a social movement actively dedicated to dismantling every single one of them. The fact that you blame feminists—your allies—for problems against which they have been struggling for decades suggests that supporting men isn't nearly as important to you as resenting women. We care about your problems a lot. Could you try caring about ours?

http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy

In contrast to that, if you visit a well known Mens Rights Activist (MRA) website, you will see their contempt for feminism. For example their mission statement:

Mission Statement

It is the mission of A Voice for Men to:

Promote the dissemination of information that will expose misandry and gender-centrism on all levels in our culture;

Oppose any form of gender-centrism. We propose to foster the equal valuing of men and women socially, regardless of sexual orientation and identity, as well as their equal treatment under the law;

Recognize the institution of marriage and the family unit as the foundation of civilized society. However, we support the trend away from that institution until the current legal zeitgeist making it unsafe for men and children is corrected. We support an end to “no fault” divorce and support default shared custody in the event of divorce. We seek to promote awareness of information designed to protect men and fathers who are already married;

Promote a rejection of sex based chivalry in any form or fashion.

Promote the legal and nonviolent antagonism of all agents of misandry and gender-centrism, from members of academe, to holders of public office, to law enforcement and other state functionaries, to popular bloggers and to corporate agents who promote misandry and gender-centism for profit;

Support peaceful acts of civil disobedience when necessary;

Educate men, women, girls and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance and to promote an end to that governance;

Debunk sex based lies and distortions wherever they occur;

Offer a more reasoned, cogent and intellectually honest view of sexual politics;

Address the variety of problems faced by men and boys under feminist governance and attempt to ameliorate those problems;

Push for an end to rape hysteria, DV hysteria and false allegations;

Promote a culture that values equal treatment under the law for all human beings;

Facilitate a new social contract between men and women, leading to mutual respect, accountability and expectation.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/policies/mission-statement/

Not sure why they hate on feminism so much or deny that the patriarchy exists..., but there you have it from a feminist point of view and a mens rights activist point of view.

Some of the bullets of the MRA mission statement are extremely concerning to feminists like purporting there is "rape hysteria, DV hysteria" and others bullets...... Something to think about I suppose. MRA's deny the patriarchy exists. They blame feminism for their issues, they do not see feminists as a partner. They seek to tear it down. They blame a social justice movement that strives for equality. It doesn't make much sense to me... but there you have it. Food for thought I guess.

[Scootaloo]

1. Well, it's simple, Boston Bean...

Not sure why they hate on feminism so much or deny that the patriarchy exists...

Because they support and enjoy patriarchy and understand that feminism challenges it. It's the same reason people deny any other privileged status and hate people who bring it up. It's a method of defense, basically.

Of course one cannot "read their minds," but honestly? Telepathy isn't needed, their position is pretty evident within their own writings.

[boston bean]

2. I hope I that I stated what I wanted to say clearly.

I see MRA talking points all over DU, by men and women. I didn't realize that feminism was outside the ideals of the democratic party. I thought feminism was embraced. Silly me, I guess...

[Scootaloo]

182. Sometimes one does wonder...

Whether the party - or even the base's - support for "issues" isn't for display purposes only - an empty (but shiny) box on a shelf.

It's like oh yeah, we're all for Equality-with-a-capital-E, but actual equity is beyond our scope.

[truebluegreen]

336. I have thought for some time that ALL social issues,

on both sides of the aisle, simply serve as a distraction while TPTB lift our wallets.

Seems to me the two parties agree on all other issues.

[jollyreaper2112]

3. Alternatively

It's easy to dismiss well-meaning criticism of some extreme aspects of feminism as MRA attacks on all feminism.

There are assholes on all sides and any lightning rod issue will see them out in force like flies to shit. Donggate is a perfect example. The woman was out of line in that case, has a history of unproductive trolling, and lives to make trouble. Great, first fail goes to feminism. Then the MRA's come out saying she needs to be raped to death. Second fail goes to MRA.

The funny thing is that the extremists on both sides are mirrors of each other, trying to impose their standards forcibly while ignoring any sort of sensible debate that might establish a common ground.

It's like Jews and Palestinians. Yes, the Jews are being total bastards with the settlements and oppression. Then again, who set off that suicide bomb in the bus? Oh, right, the Palestinians.

So, what to do? The side with the upper hand is the one that needs to step back. When they won't be negotiated with, what next? Problem is, violence will just make them double-down.

That's pretty much where we are at on this.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. I agree

You write,
"Then the MRA's come out saying she needs to be raped to death. Second fail goes to MRA."

I have seen nothing that supports the idea that MRA orgs. advocated that Richards needed to be raped to death. I was always under the assumption that the death threats to Richards were from anonymous idiots on the 'Net.

Cheers!

[jollyreaper2112]

10. Dunno

I doubt any MRA org would openly support it any more than openly racist organizations would support assassinating Obama. But I would wager those sorts of threats aren't just coming from trolls who don't really care about the issue.

[CTyankee]

6. false equivalency abounds!

Women have historically been subjected to everything from outright prejudice and denial of the basic rights that men had, and they still are in many countries in the world. I'd say we all have our hands full to getting all women on equal footing with men right here and now.

Your Jews/Palestinians "comparison" makes no sense whatsoever...

[jollyreaper2112]

41. It's apt

We are talking about a conflict between sides that are not equal and have both sinned. And people will argue that the sins of the weaker party can in no justify or expiate the sins of the stronger.

[CTyankee]

69. not sure of what you mean about feminist "sins" against men...

[kestrel91316]

277. We're uppity - that's our sin. We're supposed to be meek and submissive little wifeys.

Have babies, keep the house clean, do whatever the man of the house demands - you know.

[CTyankee]

287. funny that I haven't heard from any of the guys on this...I sure wish they'd tell me

exactly what those sins are...

[Occulus]

354. Like hell you are

Some of the best, most knowledgeable, and most 'assertive' people I have ever known were or are women. My grandmother (father's side), for one. OOooo, but she was a tough old lady. Raised five children on a farm, saw her house burn to the ground, built a new one, and then watched most of her sons die one by one of one thing or another. I wish I'd been old enough to really appreciate the history that woman knew and some of the life lessons she had learned before she died, because she went though a lot, and... well, I'd like to know.

What a wonderful old battle axe- Betty White, with stern determination. I miss her...

[AgainsttheCrown]

380. You don't know what your sin is?

It's the original one!







And for clarification: Yes that was

[boston bean]

8. I've got to debunk your first sentence.

MRA's do not believe the patriarchy exists. Period, they just don't. They blame "feminist governance" for their issues, whatever that means? Does something like that even exist?

Both of these links (feminist site, MRA site) are moderate websites. Well, as much as an MRA feminist hating website could be. It is one of the largest communities on the internet for MRA activism.

The point here is, that democrats are suppose to be on the side of feminists. We support them. I don't get all the feminist bashing I see on DU. Do you? I'm seriously asking this question. I'm not trying to be confrotational, and appreciate your thoughtful wording. But something is seriously going wrong when we see mainstream feminism being attacked by a group of Mens Rights Activists and that is getting traction all over the internet, even on progressive/liberal websites.

I really don't think I'm wrong when I state that MRA's can't stand feminism. They just don't criticize the extreme poles, they criticize mainstream feminism. They think all feminism is some radical scary thing way out there on the fringes. And it is gaining traction. Feminism and feminists make for good targets I guess.

[lumberjack_jeff]

288. One of the most productive discussions we've had on DU in years was "benevolent sexism"

If feminists were as unified in their views of the world as you assert, you woudn't see posts like this in your thread. And would you agree that DU is a comparatively enlightened bunch? Surely, if any group of people would be for equality, we'd be it, right?

Those who appear to identify most strongly as feminists here were very much down with the idea of benevolent sexism and the harm that it causes to women. When they went into short-circuit mode (does not compute!) is when anyone observed that benevolent sexism toward women is indistinguishable from hostile sexism against men.

I don't think you are wrong that MRA's see feminism as adversarial. Feminism is advocacy for women. In the absence of a better banner under which to organize, MRA is advocacy for men.

The point here is, that democrats are suppose to be on the side of feminists.

I am a democrat, and I am not a feminist. Further, I reject both your authority to tell me that I should, and your self-appointed spokesmanship of what feminists believe, when it is so abundantly obvious that you are speaking for only yourself.

[Squinch]

302. You seem to be getting stuck on the fact that all feminists don't agree on all feminist

issues. You seem to think that people are saying that they do agree on everything, which isn't happening. You also seem to think that disagreement among feminists invalidates the tenets of the movement.

Gun rights people have a number of areas of very strong disagreement in their ranks. Does that make gun rights an invalid position?

[lumberjack_jeff]

317. I think I read the same OP you did.

It claims to be an authoritative list on "the things feminists are working on" and the ways in which those universally held goals mesh with the goals of MRA's.

... And then a feminist in this very thread objects; "Eliminate alimony? Hells no!", and another poster has, as her signature, a link to Twisty Faster, author of "Men hate you" and other equally asinine and self-important screeds.

The list in the OP is admirable. But it isn't the definitive list of "things feminists are working on".

Equality will only come from a negotiation between peers.

[Squinch]

319. Neither is any list from the NRA a definitive list of "what gun advocates are working on."

I still don't see any evidence for your position that disagreement within a movement invalidates the statements of members of the movement.

And to support your thesis, you are using non-referenced works by the authors of the blurbs in people's signatures? You are working very hard to find things you can call "assinine and self-important screeds" and become outraged about. Thomas Jefferson did some pretty questionable things in his life. Does that mean we shouldn't reference the Declaration of Independence?

[lumberjack_jeff]

321. Your first sentence is exactly right.

I still don't see any evidence for your position that disagreement within a movement invalidates the statements of members of the movement.

That's exactly it. I can't get behind the statements of members of the movement.

That last link is a doozy.

Here's one of the comments;

"give the boys away to male caretakers in a separate male community WAY far away upon reaching a certain age (i would suggest somewhere between 3 and 10)".

I had the same idea eons ago, except that I thought about giving the boys away to male caretakers on their first birthdays. I also thought of an extremely controversial idea to try and prevent adult males from being larger and stronger than adult females, based on something I read about the nutrition of the first year of a child’s life being determinative of whether or not that child would reach maximum size and strength. Based on that, I thought of reducing the total caloric intake of the male child (and increasing that of the female) during year one, to much outrage, so I panned the idea. My idea was that we could reduce or eliminate the physical discrepancy between adult males and females and at the same time reduce the level of women’s attachment to their male offspring by a) their realization of the necessity of the caloric reduction and b) the early relinquishment of the boys, at age 1.

This person calls herself a feminist, and other people who call themselves feminists a) leave the comment on her blog and b) don't call her out. At most, they wring their hands about how this sensible idea might be misinterpreted and "spun" as violence against men.

So... the list in the OP is incomplete at best or a head-fake at worst. Some feminists are working on creating equity by starving male babies.

[Squinch]

342. I see you often in discussions about gun control. I haven't seen you call out Wayne LaPierre.

Have you posted anything to protest that Georgia town that has taken away the choice of its residents by legislating that they must own guns. Are you just wringing your hands about that? Are you responsible for those acts?

Some gun rights people are working on creating gun rights by threatening the President and threatening to undermine the rule of law in our country.

Does that mean that everything you say about gun rights is just a head-fake?

So again. What's your point?

[lumberjack_jeff]

343. I rarely (almost never) wade into discussions about gun control.

I am generally supportive of gun control, if not the rhetoric of gun control advocates. The resulting polarization is in large part responsible for the knee-jerk reactions.

If DU were universally in favor of the Georgia town's law, I would certainly say something... but that isn't the case. When everyone pretty much agrees with me about an issue, there's little reason to chime in.

If, however, someone were to go to the men's group and suggest starving baby girls, I'd show the offender the door and ensure (s)he never came back. I guess that's the difference between the men's group and self-described feminist sites like factcheckme/femonade, the most offensive stuff is hidden behind a login screen. You have to be in the club to read the vitriol and cheer the hate.

Strawmen should be of more durable construction than this.

[Squinch]

344. So you went searching hard for outrageousness. And you found it.

Congratulations. Again, I'll repeat my original statement: you are working very, very hard to find something to outrage you. If you don't want to see the most offensive stuff hidden behind a login screen on another site that is unrelated to DU then there is an easy way to go about that.

And yes. I agree. Your use of that strawman of an article that was not linked on anyone's post was lame.

We are going in circles, and you are determined to be outraged at unrelated stuff that appears on the internet, and determined to say it reflects on DUers.

I'll let you get busy with that and wish you a good day.

[opiate69]

345. Seeing as how it was posted, and cheered, right here at DU, the "search" was quite short.

[seabeyond]

347. are you talking about starving boys? cheered? cause i really have an issue

with dishonesty. a couple people make a comment on that thread. not many. i didnt see the videos or read the comments. but, from my understanding, a comment was made way down in the comments about starving boys. are you suggesting ANYONE on du is "cheering" about starving our boys?

i want this clear. really really fuckin clear. cause all the dishonesty in so many of these threads are atrocious. but, if we are suggesting ANYONE "cheered" starving our baby boys, i want to know.

if NO ONE cheered starving our baby boys then this is beyond disgusting.

[opiate69]

348. I`m talking about the link to the nutcase`s site.

[seabeyond]

356. and it is shamefully irresponsible to feel gossip that women on du would advocate starving boys.

every man that is now in this subthread and the man that started this petty gossip to get a dig at a group is disgusting to spread a rumor that anyone on du advocates, or CHEERS little boys starving. you and others may think it is such a cleverly cute game, like another that joined the little obnoxious group. but as a mom of two boys, who stand strongly behind all of who they are, i am disgusted watching adults giggling like the have a fuckin gotcha moment.

i get there are a couple men, or one i know, that scours all parts of a blog, if our group links to an article so he can then cry outrage. he has done it enough. i never thought i had to follow every link, read ever comment, follow links to link, google every name on a link and learn their life history, before i could print a damn article.

but for you men to now promote ANYONE on du would cheer boys starving, as i watch you all line up...

fuck that shit.

[opiate69]

357. I dd no such thing.. however,

I believe the point being made was, when you guys are scouring the internet for sources which back up your cause, you might want to take a little bit of a closer look and find out just exactly what kind of people you're looking to for inspiration. Particularly when some of you toss around the "MRA" canard like a nerf football.

[seabeyond]

361. i am not gonna play the chicken shit, dishonest, petty little fuckin game. you and others can

accuse us of "cheering" (do you even kinda get how totally disgusting as a mom with two boys, how totally disgusting a person has to be to accuse anyone of this) starving little boys and make a fuckin ugly fool of yourself and i will call it out for the fuckin lie it is.

[opiate69]

363. Again.. where did I specifically accuse you or anybody of cheering starving little boys?

You guys (hey, you don't seem to have a problem identifying as part of a group in your post, right?) seem to be fucking Ninjas at parsing, and implying things without flat-out saying them, so this should be right up your alley.

For the record, I accused certain members of your group of cheering a website/blogger which cheered the idea of starving little boys. You want to talk about sources such as "MRA sites", etc, then maybe you geniuses ought to have a closer look at the kind of sick fucks you're using as sources.

[seabeyond]

366. playing fuckin games... about starving children. screeeam.

i think of all of you men, so much more highly (with the exception of one) that i am beyond appalled that any of you men would promote this. at some point integrity MUST win.

[Bonobo]

368. It is not as disgusting as BostonBean accusing a father of incest. nt

[seabeyond]

369. instead of actually thinking about what is being said here, you continue the game.

done.

[seabeyond]

362. btw opiate. i understand that was in COMMENT section. is that correct? comments? right? now i

have to read ALL comments in every article that i ever post again?

are you really suggesting this?

[opiate69]

373. Other people in your group saw, and praised, the comments...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125517594

[seabeyond]

374. again... dishonest presentation. 1 poster said the comments funny or something. NOT specifically

about that comment about starving baby boys. i have no more idea if she saw the comment than you. i perused the comment section when the thread was locked for a ways down, and never saw the comment. decided a waste of time and stopped looking for it.

i am so damn tired of the fuckin lying presented as some truth.

[opiate69]

375. Uh-yup... As I expected..

Much easier to parse each individual word I say, trying to put together a "dishonesty" deflection than to take a real, hard look at the kind of sick fucking nutcases you choose to ideologically identify with.

[seabeyond]

376. praise? saying i do not know what comment she talked about. saying i do not know if she read

the comment you refer to. you mean being fuckin HONEST.... is praise.

whatever. done again. it seems the only way you and others argue is dishonestly.

[opiate69]

378. They were in the fucking comments of the article which was posted ffs.

It's not like Durham had to go far to find them. And, I realize you specifically get a lot of shit thrown at you, but if you go back, you will see that I never even intimated that you were aware of those comments, let alone praising them.

[seabeyond]

379. i will say it once more. i went into the blog AFTER bb locked it to see where the comment was.

i perused a handful of comments and saw nothing. and stopped. i do not read comments. i do not like it. and took a lot to do that.

i do not know what ONE poster, yes durham, read. as far as i am concerned she read to the point i did. or she was referring to other comments. i do not know. you do not know. it is DISHONEST to act like you know she read that comment and was praising that specific comment. she could have even read it, said garbage and went to the other comments. she could have been talking about ALL the comments but that. we DO NOT KNOW.

i am NOT going to accuse someone of cheering starving baby boys, especially when i have NO evidence any poster was CHEERING starving baby boys.

this is not hard to follow the line.

if you are curious, ask durham if she read the comment. ask her if she thought it was funny. do not spread unsubstantiated gossip. especially with something so horribly offensive. not a hard one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

346. As opiate69 points out, one need not go far to find that particular outrageousness.

Kudos to Boston Bean for locking it, if not her short attention span and newfound surprise that there are some men that are hostile to women, too.

The author of the femonade piece is as entitled to define what feminism is as the author of the OP.

[arely staircase]

353. was that the one that advocated starving little boys?

an all time low.

[Squinch]

372. Ever hear of Jonathan Swift?

I'm guessing not.

[Marr]

377. Your contention is that it was... satire?

Sure.

Making excuses for a comment like that is pretty sickening.

[redqueen]

9. The one woman who said Adria "has a history of unproductive trolling"

was being shamefully dishonest.

http://www.technologywoman.com/2013/03/24/digging-beneath-the-surface-that-amanda-blum-article-on-adria-richards-is-not-what-it-seems/

[jollyreaper2112]

14. Aw

Now are you going to explain away the tweets as well? That she wasn't making the same sort of jokes she was offended by?

[betterdemsonly]

350. Twitter is not a work site for her

and twitter has no rules against the behavior like the conference did.

[jollyreaper2112]

355. Nice try

If she's a developer evangelist then anywhere she posts online as herself is a workplace. She's not just her employer's brand but her own as well.

[Squinch]

53. I see your point in saying that there are bad actors on both sides, but I have to disagree

on where the line is drawn.

Do you see the difference between a woman who trolls and "makes trouble", and a movement - joined by many - calling for her to be raped to death? There is NO equivalence here.

I also disagree with you about what to do next. In history, the side with the upper hand tends to do anything BUT step back. That is true of any issue. Waiting for that is not the way to move forward.

The only times that women's rights have advanced in history have been when women continue to "make trouble" and redouble their efforts to do so even after they have been told things like, "you aren't doing your side any good" or "you are overreacting to something that's just not that important" or "I was going to agree with you till you did THAT." I have done a little reading about the suffragist movement. I find it interesting that the very same comments were made to the suffragists. A hundred years ago.

And as for Donglegate: you characterize her actions as trolling and unproductive. However, they have made a lot of people get a little more educated about the sexism that is rampant in the tech industry. This incident has appropriately embarassed a sexist industry and made it a little more conscious of its actions. Those are not bad results.

[CrispyQ]

63. "The side with the upper hand is the one that needs to step back."

We live in a patriarchy. Which side do you think has the upper hand?

[mbperrin]

83. "The woman" was not out of line. She neither induced the stupid and off-topic

comments made by the idiots, nor did she force them to say them loudly enough for others to hear. The pic of them is not Shopped - they were there, and they did what she said they did, and they need to own it. Or shut up, which I'd prefer.

I wouldn't accept this kind of crap in my high school classroom, and yes, misogyny abounds amongst 16-18 year olds.

Were these guys being paid to attend and not learn anything, to make juvenile comments, or are they supposed to be actual adults and listen, learn, and contribute? I'd have fired them both, and I spent 10 years in management in private industry before I began teaching, so I can speak with assurance about that.

The idea that off-topic assholes who were loudly invading the space of others who might want to actually take something from the session should be tolerated, much less venerated, is repugnant. Unless you think that while watching "The Sessions" in a workshop about sexuality for those with physical challenges, and attended by some with physical challenges that it would be okay for me to make jokes about "fucking crips", and especially loudly enough for others to hear, then what happened to one of the "men" should have happened to both.

And her being fired is just another example of patriarchy. Slave owners whipped female slaves for complaining about being raped. This just continues that fine old tradition.

[seabeyond]

124. very insightful. i am impressed. i was hearing the "to do" about this but didnt get informed cause

the same people were running around throwing accusations and taking over threads, i knew was a waste of time. the animosity toward the woman on du was amazing. after days, i was finally drawn in to see what it was about. and totally blew my mind once i saw what was really happening. compared to the comments i was receiving from a couple men about the issue.

i mean. are you daft.... i was thinking

but it was private conversation. she was eavesdropping.

ah, in a public space and loud enough from a distance she heard. right.

with these kinds of arguments being put forth, why even bother.

comparing putting the mens picture out to men taking unknown sexualized picture of girls and putting them up on sites for ridicule, scorn, and comments. comparable? really? suppose to waste time with this garbage.

[Phillip McCleod]

129. they made a joke not directed at her

which was juvenile.

it was similarly juvenile for adria to post it to her tens of thousands of twitter followers.

neither the beardos or adria were at fault for what transpired next.. and we need to stop blaming them and defending them for their respective juvenile acts. what happened next is they both got fired by their corporate overlords in management.

and if you would have fired the python beardos and not adria, you are part of the *actual problem* in this issue.

(edited 'equally' -> 'similarly')

[mbperrin]

144. The joke was directed at anyone who heard it. People too stupid to know that sound waves

travel don't need to be in my employ, either.

I DO blame them! Instead of tending to business, they were hee-hawing it up with sexist bullshit, not caring who could hear. THEY chose to say what they said and at the volume said.

Why would I fire her? She accurately reported exactly what happened - there's no controversy there.

Part of the "take one for the team" mentality. No, thanks.

What do YOU perceive to be the "actual problem", as you put it?

[Phillip McCleod]

145. corporate tools who fire people for juvenile offenses is *my* problem.

people too *idiotic* to get that from my first post should feel free to act outraged, now.

[seabeyond]

147. hostile work environments are in about all employment agreements. break the law and co policy, you

get fired. not a tough one. you seem to be against company implementing policy that does not allow hostile work environment.

[Phillip McCleod]

148. yeh and nobody is more hostile than a self-important corporate tool. \n

[seabeyond]

149. good to know, you are on record opposing the laws that do not allow sexism in a work place.

democratic? underground. you get that, right?

[kestrel91316]

278. You are in the wrong on this one. Just admit it.

[mbperrin]

150. I'm not outraged. I'm a teacher.

My advice: act like an adult and quit getting fired. If that makes me a tool, well, tools are useful, whereas juveniles are just that, still in process, not very useful.

You're the one outraged, apparently. Why, I don't know. I hold my high school sophomores to a higher standard than this. Ask any of them who had to write a short 3,000 word research paper on women vilified in the workplace.

So go hang out with your buddies, and remember, when measuring, it's from the TOP of the penis.

[redqueen]

152. Oh Shit!

[chervilant]

157. YIKES!!!

(Self-importance doesn't play well online, does it?)

[In_The_Wind]

186. "remember, when measuring, it's from the TOP of the penis."

[Whisp]

274. I sure like your style, mbperrin.

wa-chaaaaaaaa!

they don't even know what happened

[kestrel91316]

279. WIN.

[LanternWaste]

233. Then I was an idiot for firing the employee who used the word "faggot" repeatedly?

Then I was an idiot for firing the employee who used the word "faggot" repeatedly? Or (and I find this more likely), your subjective and sliding-scale definition of "juvenile offenses" is re-defined each time you use it.

Unless of course, you have a consistent and static definition you would present to us for our edification, yes?

[chervilant]

156. Should "we"

genuflect upon reading your dissertation about what "we" need to do?

I get the impression that you are unclear about patriarchy, and you most assuredly do not know what sexist experiences that young woman endured, or what was going through her mind when she posted online. Some of us go into react mode when the proverbial sexist or misogynistic straw hits the camel's back. I would not have fired her. I would have to say then, I hope that "we" can agree to disagree.

[BainsBane]

392. that is not what she did

She sent it via Twitter to the conference organizers. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125518656

Employment lawyers have made clear her actions were appropriate within the law and her firing retaliatory. The refusal of some on this site to recognize EEOC laws requiring employers to maintain a discriminatory workplace. Members here then went on to applaud the fact she was fired in retaliation, another violation of EEOC law. http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and-retaliatory-termination-of-adria-richards.shtml

Sadly, far too many here see equality in the workplace as unreasonable. I learned more than I wanted to in those threads.

[Bjorn Against]

5. That was very well said

I think that there are a lot of men who really don't understand what feminism is. There is also a small but vocal group of feminists who don't do their cause any favors by constantly being antagonistic towards men and unfortunately I think a lot of people think this tiny group represents all feminists.

The OP spells out what feminism really is in a way that men should be able to understand, feminism is not something that men should be afraid of.

[redqueen]

7. "constantly being antagonistic towards men"

Really?

[Bjorn Against]

11. A small number of them are antagonistic towards men

Note that I am not talking about the vast majority of feminists, I am talking about a very small group of them. I don't think it does anyone any good to deny that not everyone who tries to be a spokesperson for a cause is a good spokesperson.

[redqueen]

15. I thought you meant on DU.

Still, this 'logic' is like blaming far right wackos on greenpeace or code pink.

One does not logically follow from the other.

[Bjorn Against]

20. I never said it was logical, but a lot of people are not logical

As my posts should have made clear I agree with feminist principles, I certainly don't associate the entire group with the extremists. Unfortunately there are some people who do associate the entire group with the extremists however, it is not logical or fair but it does happen. It does happen on DU as well, I am not going to call out individual people in this thread but I have seen some very antagonistic things said by a small handful on this site. I have also seen the Men's group be antagonistic right back and it is ugly, I have no time for anyone who is trying to provoke gender wars whether they are men or women but I have plenty of time for the majority of feminists who promote equality.

[redqueen]

22. Antagonistic toward sexism and misogyny is not antagonstic towards men.

I'm not a liberal feminist. Equality is not my goal, ending the patriarchy is.

[boston bean]

23. most feminists believe

that the patriarchy is a real thing.

Therefore it is not fringe. It is mainstream feminist thought.

To be hating on feminists who believe this, is not progressive nor liberbal, imho.

[Bjorn Against]

29. I believe the patriarchy is a real thing

I was not referring to people who believe in patriarchy as extremists, I was referring to a small group that is antagonistic towards men in general.

[redqueen]

31. Do you think that "small group" that is antagonistic toward "men in general" is on DU?

Because many men on DU would beg to differ with you about that.

[Bjorn Against]

39. I think there are a tiny handful of them, yes

I am not going to name any names, but they are a small enough group that I could count them on my fingers. There are of course hundreds of feminists on this site so the group I am referring is a very tiny minority.

[redqueen]

42. I'm glad we have some men here who see things as they are. nt

[Katashi_itto]

45. Agree!

[lumberjack_jeff]

292. I agree and I think it's worth adding that that tiny handful isn't exclusively women. n/t

[boston bean]

33. MRA's do not believe the patriarchy exists.

So, MRA's are challenging a very mainstream feminist view. A view I thought most progressives held.

Why is there any tolerance for it here. Let's start there.

[Bjorn Against]

44. The MRA groups are often very antagonistic

There are some members of MRA groups that I view pretty much the same way I view white supremecists, they are working to prop up an oppressive system and they should be condemned for what they are doing. There are others in MRA groups who primarily work on issues such as child custody and I have no problem with that at all, but those who are in MRA groups to prop up patriarchy should not be tolerated.

[boston bean]

48. Well, this brings us back to the OP

Where I think the author of the article at Jezebel, outlined extremely well, how some of these issues are issues that feminists care about and work to overcome.

However, there are men and women here on DU (MRA Activism, includes both). Who do not believe the patriarchy exists. And use right wing talking points about "radical feminists" to smear all feminists, like Rush Limbaugh does. Maybe that's just never been pointed as plainly as this, but if you keep a careful watch and go read some groups, you will find it to be the case.

[Bjorn Against]

56. I know you are correct on that point

I have been very careful to make clear that I am talking about a very small minority for that reason, because I know the right-wing likes to point to that minority and pretend they are the majority.

[Warren DeMontague]

238. Okay, so you want everyone who "doesn't believe The Patriarchy exists" banned? Which "Patriarchy"?

would that be "The Patriarchy" as promoted by the bloggers at radfem hub- who label themselves "radical feminists" and whose material has been promoted repeatedly ON DU--

would that be their definition of "The Patriarchy" that we are all supposed to "believe exists"? "The Patriarchy" which is creating an "army of transsexual gynergy vampires" to "infiltrate sacred womynspace"?

Because I can assure you, that is definitely NOT a "mainstream" viewpoint.

So why don't you settle your definitions before you start demanding people agree to them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

293. The MRA group linked in the OP supports the equal rights amendment. n/t

[Bjorn Against]

24. I never said it was

I think people should be antagonistic towards sexism, I would think that all feminists are antagonistic towards sexism. I have seen some very broad brush statements against all men and conversely I have seen some men make broad brush statements against all women, neither is acceptable.

[boston bean]

26. So, it's not really the cause,

it's the way someone stated the issue.

I think about it a bit differently. When a feminist makes a statement, there are some who take it so personally that they derail any otherwise thoughtful feminist discussion. Stating you are saying all men are this, and all men are that. Well, let's start with we aren't talking about any man individually. We are discussing a system, where men happen to hold the power, which oppresses women.

[Bjorn Against]

35. I certainly think we need to talk about the system that oppresses women

Talking about the system is not being antagonistic towards men, all of us were born into the system but we did not create it. There is a difference between those who actively try to prop up an oppressive system and those who were merely born into it. I think we need to have discussions about systems of oppression and how to change them, what we do not need is gender wars.

[boston bean]

36. Of course. Let me be the first to tell you that

when feminists are discussing the patriarchy, and the men who hold the power within that and how it effects us and them, that we aren't talking about you or men individually.

To make feminists say, each and every time, I don't mean you, is just another way to control women and how we speak about issues. We get enough of that from the patriarchy, ok. We don't want to play in that sand box. Understand?

[redqueen]

43. [phone]

[Bjorn Against]

54. I am not suggesting that you have to say "I don't mean you" every single time

As I have made very clear, I am talking about a very small minority here. I do not think you are in that minority, the way I have seen you communicate about these issues is very reasonable. I am not suggesting that you have to step over eggshells and be careful not to offend any men with anything you say, all I am saying is don't purposefully try to ignite gender wars. I don't think you are doing that so don't think I am talking about you or the majority of your allies because I am only talking about a tiny minority.

[boston bean]

61. Well, we don't tolerate racists on DU. They don't get ignored.

Yet, we should tolerate a small segment of persons on DU who are extremely hostile to mainstream feminism and womens issues. Because they are a small segment?

I apologize, but I don't have to tolerate it. I wouldn't tolerate any racism, any bigotry. This is suppose to be a democratic discussion board. I shouldn't even have to "educate" people on this. Although Skinner has made it quite clear that is our role as feminists. Then when we do, we have to take the abuse, and get beaten up by a small segment on DU that is hostile to feminism, after we give our votes to democrats over and over again... Feminists are responsible for all of this? All the problems?

Something aint right here.

Denying a critical foundation of feminism is anti-democratic, imho. I don't understand why feminism and feminists are treated differently on DU or that people have different expectations for feminists. The vitriol expressed by some on this board toward feminists and personal attacks upon others who declare they are feminists, is a real thing.

I suggest we don't use the both are guilty... in this case. MRA's and persons who don't believe the patriarchy exists have fired the first shot. A shot that should make every single DUer cringe and should be called out. That is not what I see happening. What I see is a false equivalency being made. That both are just participating in stupid gender wars. Not so. Just not so.

[Bjorn Against]

70. I think you are responding to the wrong person because I never said you should tolerate it

I don't think there is any eqivelency between the way men have been treated historically and the way women have been treated either, women have gotten the shorter end of the stick and I don't think any reasonable person could deny it.

I think you might be misinterpreting what I am trying to say because I suspect we are mostly in agreement. What I am trying to say is that people often try to associate feminism with the fringe elements while ignoring the mainstream feminism practiced by the vast majority of feminists. The vast majority of feminists are not trying to incite a gender war, but many people think feminism is all about gender wars because the right-wing has tried to latch on to this small group and pretend they represent the majority of feminists when in fact they do not.

[boston bean]

72. My apologies, I did misunderstand.

I hope to see a lot more discussion like this, and more voices standing up against this.

[redqueen]

78. Do you think feminists on DU post OPs or comments simply to "start gender wars"? nt

[Bjorn Against]

80. The vast majority of them don't, but there are a tiny handful that I believe do that

Every group has their bad apples. I have great admiration for the vast majority of the feminist movement, but that does not mean I think every last member of the group is doing the right thing. I would say the same of any movement, including all of the movements that I have been a part of. I have worked with many activists throughout the years and most of them have been great people, but there are always a small handful that only want to antagonize and you just wish they would go away because they are not helping the cause. All movements have this problem and I am not trying to single out feminists.

[kestrel91316]

280. The only bad apples I see here are the few misogynist trolls who try to

create and maintain a hostile environment toward women here on DU. It's not helpful to deny the magnitude of problems they create for us.

[haikugal]

107. Who is this small group?

Your words...I want to know what you're refering to.

I think you might be misinterpreting what I am trying to say because I suspect we are mostly in agreement. What I am trying to say is that people often try to associate feminism with the fringe elements while ignoring the mainstream feminism practiced by the vast majority of feminists.

What are these few extremists saying? I have no idea what you're talking about.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. WOW ...

I'm not a liberal feminist. Equality is not my goal, ending the patriarchy is.

Once some folks here understand the difference ... they're NOT gonna be happy!

[redqueen]

47. Hey you!

Haven't seen you around in a while. Hope you're doing well.

[1StrongBlackMan]

57. Hey you, back ...

I'm good ... been lurking, just haven't had a lot of time to post ... working like a rented mule at a job I love.

[seabeyond]

125. and i STILL want to get back to you from a couple weeks ago. i gotta figure,

if BB is not part of the small group on du, and redq does not appear to be a part of that small group, is that small group of one i am being called out YET again, lol.

sigh...

cause i cannot really think of anyone else on du he could be referring to.

[Little Star]

51. Bingo.

[Hayabusa]

193. Wow indeed.

On the opposite end of it, that is. That's a little too extreme for me, especially since I don't believe a patriarchy exists to the same extent that you all do.

[kestrel91316]

281. Of course. Like so many men who benefit from the patriarchy every day of their lives,

yet are clueless about it.............

sigh

[Hayabusa]

297. I don't benefit from anything.

Except being born somewhat healthy.

[kestrel91316]

301. ORLY??

[Hayabusa]

310. Yup, my misfortunes in life are plenty funny.

[1StrongBlackMan]

308. And a fish ...

doesn't recognize the benefit of the water that sustains it.

But that's okay. You'll grow to understand the concept ... or you won't.

[Hayabusa]

311. Oh, I understand the concept plenty enough

Enough to know that I don't believe that it's as widespread as some claim it is.

[1StrongBlackMan]

312. Okay ...

and racism doesn't exist as widespread as some claim it is (because I am not Black and therefore unaffected, expect when I choose to be) ... and nativism doesn't exist as widespread as some claim it is (because I am not Hispanic/"foreign and therefore unaffected, expect when I choose to be) ... and sexism doesn't exist as widespread as some claim it is (because I am not a woman and therefore unaffected, expect when I choose to be) ...

[Hayabusa]

313. So, because I'm not female

that means that I can't offer an opinion on a very divisive topic even here? That somewhat sounds like what you're saying, but I'm likely interpreting it wrong.

Thing is, I see real evidence of racism and nationalism. Being a Native American biracial man, I've experienced a bit of the former when I was very young.

As for the Patriarchy thing, it may very well be true. I could very well be missing the entire forest due to the trees around me. I'm just saying that in my life, I haven't encountered anything that could be construed as a Patriarchy as described here.

[1StrongBlackMan]

349. Take a moment and re-read what I wrote ...

Then, take a moment to re-read what you wrote ...

I think you have made my point. You SEE the isms that negatively impact you, e.g., racism and nationalism; but like the fish, cannot see the water that benefits you, i.e., patriarchy, while denying that that patriarchy is drowning others.

[Zorra]

73. I don't understand. How can we become equal unless the patriarchy is ended first?

It's simply not possible by definition.

Definition of EQUAL
1
a (1) : of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2) : identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent
b : like in quality, nature, or status

Ending the patriarchy is necessary for gaining genuine equality.

Why create unnecessary exclusionary distinctions that mark the word/concept of liberal as a negative qualifier?

[redqueen]

77. It's not a negative qualifier, just a different theory of feminism.

Liberal feminism is known as the branch which focuses on changing laws, policies, etc. as a means of achieving equality.

Radical feminism is the branch which focuses on root cause of those unfair laws and policies (as well as the pandemic of sexual violence against women, the distortion of female sexuality, the systemic objectification/dehumanization of women, etc.) which is the patriarchy.

[Zorra]

85. I see. Thanks.

Awesome. I'm bi-feministual.

Perfect.

[haikugal]

111. LOL....love it! +++++

[seabeyond]

126. as most all of us are. you are right. we have had to look up definitions as accusation are hurled

to define who we are.

once we did, we found it was not such an insult to be a radfem.

[Comrade Grumpy]

113. I think you made a distinction that reveals an important fault line.

"I'm not a liberal feminist. Equality is not my goal, ending the patriarchy is."

I think "liberal feminism," i.e. the struggle for equality, is (or at least should be) non-controversial within the Democratic Party and on Democratic Underground. Who here doesn't support equal pay for equal work, breaking glass ceilings, reproductive rights, etc?

But "radical feminism," i.e. ending the patriarchy, runs into resistance. It is a broader, deeper critique that not everybody wants to buy into. I think to many, it feels like an attack on men. It also, at least around here, seems to come off as a grim world view where every man is a potential rapist and every woman a potential victim, where every image of a breast is a sign of patriarchal oppression. There's more to life than that.

You see the split between liberals and radicals on all sorts of issues here, not just feminism. (In the liberal view, Obama is a more or less progressive president; in the radical view, he's just a tool of his capitalist masters, perpetuating the system.)

One last thought: I have trouble attributing agency to abstract nouns. I had that problem as a student of Marxism, when people would say "capitalism did this or that." I have the same problem saying "patriarchy did this or that." I mean, I understand the notion of cultural constructs and all that, but I still look for human agency.

[MuseRider]

123. :-)

So glad to see this.

[polly7]

28. For some, the whole issue IS a gender war.

I don't understand it, because demonizing one group in order to elevate your own never seems productive, imo. The whole basis of extremist thinking on both sides relies on having someone to feel better than and beat up on .......... when in reality, any human rights movement should mean recognizing strengths and striving to overcome real obstacles, by working to change laws, helping victims of those hurt by inequality and bigotry of any kind, supporting the efforts of others - especially those putting themselves in danger, and valuing the work and sacrifice of those who came before that enable us to have come so far. I have no patience for any type of extremism anymore ......... it's just a game of bait and hate.

[BuddhaGirl]

140. This!! ^^^^^^^^^

[Squinch]

168. Any movement that changed society, throughout history, was considered

extremist before it was accepted. And it was hated, and thought to be destructive. Some examples are: abolitionism, suffragism, labor activism, civil rights activism, disability rights activism, Occupy Wall Street.

The aims of these extremisms, and of what you might consider to be extremist feminism, was not to bait and hate, rather it was to simply not give ground in the face of objections.

Sometimes the two might seem to be the same, but they are not.

[haikugal]

81. A question,

For those like me who are not as up to date. Who are these feminist radicals/extremists that you're talking about. If you could provide a link or names I'd be able to do some research. As it is I have nothing to use to understand your point.

[Bjorn Against]

84. I already said I will not name names in this thread, but it is a very small number of them

As someone who has been involved in activism for a number of years I can tell you that no matter what cause you are working for there will be a few people who get involved for no other reason than to antagonize. Those people are in the minority but they do exist and it does no movement any good to deny their existence.

[haikugal]

95. My question

was for Redqueen but you seem to be talking about people on DU that you consider 'extreme'...true or not, given that it's subjective, is their presence the topic? You may as well name names and why you find them 'extreme'...otherwise what's the point and how can they respond? I haven't read everything in this thread yet so I apologize if I'm covering already covered territory.

On edit...my apologies...my question was for you. So you're talking about people on DU. I'll read further, my question may be answered below. Thx.

[Bjorn Against]

97. You must have responded to the wrong person then because you replied to me not Red Queen

If I were to name names I would be in violation of the site rules and I would prefer not have a post hidden. I think it is quite clear that no matter what the issue there are at least a few people at DU who do not do their side any favors in the way they discuss it.

[haikugal]

109. OK...

aside from the confusion I was addressing you and the point you're making about 'extreme views'. I'm still trying to understand what you're talking about beyond a very general way. Can you give examples? I'm sincerely mystified.

[LanternWaste]

234. Links would not violate rules, and would allow some credibility

Links would not violate rules, and would allow some credibility to a premise with no support.

[Warren DeMontague]

242. you mean the premise like "There are MRAs on DU" in "certain groups", wink wink?

Because that premise is complete bullshit, yet it's all over this thread like a bad case of the mumps.

[boston bean]

27. and why shouldn't it be alerted on?

Seems you even agree, it should be.

[chervilant]

74. Thus far,

you've been adrift in the safe harbor of my patience, but now a storm is brewing.

I won't alert on your post because I've never had a DU jury vote to hide a sexist or misogynistic post. But, I will tell you that you're now on my IL for good reason.

Pejorative labels will NOT deter feminists, as we work for the benefit of both genders and all sexual orientations. However, I don't have to tolerate relentless snarks about "extremists" in HoF.

(That you cannot understand IS a part of the wound inflicted on MANY OF US by patriarchy.)

[sigmasix]

12. wtf is "feminist governance"?

Where is this feminist governance threat? Is there even a local government in the US with predominantly feminist leaders and officers?
This so-called men's rights group is just another part of the right wing culture war. The mission statement is over the top with scary antifeminist allusions and hints at destructive social aims on the part of feminist critique.
Anyone manipulated this easily is probably never going to give up the narrative that absolves them of responsibilities and rational ideation.

[Squinch]

62. It's their imaginary friend. Or imaginary disapproving mother. Can't look too deep into this

because what you find will scare the crap out of you.

[sigmasix]

119. mommy issues

Mommy issues in a grown-up are ugly, especially when those grown-ups embrace the dysfunctional emotional baggage they have as a result of those Mommy issues. I know some men that have serious problems with women as figures of authority. Are they all dealing with mommy issues, or do you think some of them are just enthusiastic misogynists? When I think of some of these so-called men's rights groups I can't help but be reminded of the way little boys will sometimes do disgusting things to gross-out the girls on the playground. My suspicions are that more men would be supporters of the feminist movement and it's critiques if they are given the facts in a way that they can claim they changed thier mind about feminism all by themselves. Many males have been raised to believe that admitting to being wrong is a weakness- and they will not respond well to gainsaying or proof of stupidity on thier part. There are ways of leading people to an intellectual challenge of thier preconceptions, while also making them believe the challenge comes from thier own thoughts and morals, as opposed to being enforced from the outside. Maybe examining the state of affairs that exist in the relationship between types of educational approaches and the attitudes reinforced could lead to a more nuanced attempt at desemination of the concepts and realities that make-up so much of modern feminist critique.
Some men and women will never aknowledge the truths we learn through feminist critique- not because of a lack of understanding- rather, in defense of the status and entitled position as a male. These are the individuals we should see as the true enemies of liberty.

[Squinch]

166. That is very interesting! And I am being totally serious and not

at all facetious in this: it's like the age old problem of getting men to ask for directions.

I think you are definitely right that more men would be supporters of the feminist movement if they were able to claim they changed their minds about it all by themselves. But this is an interesting problem in itself.

Women have forever been manipulating men into thinking they came on their own to the conclusions the women wanted them to reach. This was how women exerted power from a powerless state. You frequently see posters telling insistent feminists, "your tone is too forceful, you aren't doing your cause any good that way." (I actually once read a poster advising another poster, "you'd catch more flies with honey if you just used a softer tone." I though my grandmother had come back to life!)

But if women did use this tried and proven manipulation, they would be subserving themselves to the ego of the man they are trying to manipulate.

You are right that there would probably be more enthusiasm from men for the movement, but the cost to the women's integrity, and to the attempt to treat men with respect rather than manipulation while moving toward equality, would be too high.

I never quite connected the reluctance of many men to embrace the obvious with this "refusal to ask directions" tendency before you pointed it out, but it is very clear now that you have.

[MattBaggins]

200. I don't need to ask for directions damn it

[Squinch]

201. .

coffee spew.

[seabeyond]

203. cause you meant to take that two hour detour, right? that pretty park was a must see. nt

[sigmasix]

222. I agree that using this approach seems to be part of the problem

There is the problem of the use of this approach partaking of the assumptions and divisions created between the genders that have been responsible for the construction of the inequities indemic to the patriarchal power arrangement within our society. I'm a pragmatist though so I'm interested in finding an approach that works, and sorting the problems out later- after acheiving the aim of helping people to understand the truths made possible through feminist critique. I wonder how effective other ways of communicating basic truths to Americans can be. I'm an eternal optimist; good people will eventually acknowledge the horrible, anti-human truths about the present patriarchal power arrangement. Maybe they'll even open thier eyes within enough time for us to fix our society and planet. Maybe my optimism is mis-placed- but I prefer to maintain my faith in humanity's better side. Mankind's potential for evil seems to be less of an either/or kind of arrangement, and more of a sliding scale of degrees. If we can interrupt a young man's slide into misogyny through surrepticiously educating him to see himself as a trail blazer for women's rights through his own intellect and "decisions", as opposed to capitulation to a foreign narrative, we will at least be gaining momentum for the race to change our society for the better.

[Squinch]

305. I hear what you are saying, but at a young age, I made a conscious

choice that I would never again use a man's ego problems against him through manipulation. The method you describe of "surreptitiously educating him to see himself as a trail blazer for women's rights through his own intellect and decisions" would, I think, fall under this description after the man had passed the age of, say, his very early twenties.

I was once someone who used this kind of manipulation with men quite expertly. I never had to fight, and I was able to easily get what I wanted in all kinds of relationships. But even as I was doing it, I was aware of the fact that it was horrifyingly disrespectful to the man I was manipulating.

It also had a lot of negative effects: any relationship where it is present is necessarily shallow and dishonest, it never gives the man the opportunity to rise to your higher expectations (which they often do when manipulation is not present), it allows the man to believe he has never been challenged, it mires the woman in a mindset of powerlessness because she is using the tools of powerlessness.

I can see the expediency of what you suggest, but I think that would be a very shifty, sandy, contradictory foundation on which to build respect and equality between men and women.

[seabeyond]

306. very, very well said. agreed. nt

[sigmasix]

318. i see what you're saying and I agree

I suppose the approach does smack of the same sort of thing- leaving him "unchallenged" in the way you describe would probably lead to an adult that believes in his own perfection. It's so frustrating because we seem so close; hence the vehemance of the voices of objectification and dominance. They know there is a tipping-point fast approaching and it makes them even more determined to do as much damage to our culture as they can, while they still retain strong support among certain groups of Ds and Rs. The situation western culture and thought finds itself in over feminist critique is somewhat analgous to Galileo's problems with the church; truth always trumps dogma, that is it's strength. feminist critique and the movement attendant to it has the strength of truth. The narratives and theory are difficult- if not intellectually impossible- to disregard in any attempt at an honest description of our history and culture. Ignoring the truth seldom results in positive outcomes; and the truths about the functions of the patriarchal power arrangement that are available within the feminist school of thought lead not to further power disparities, rather the realization and formation of a more egalitarian arrangement of responsiblities and authority. Shit- I'm a 46 yr old man and I've been bitching about this since I came of age. I speak to my male friends about the patriarchy and lots of them will admit that there is a patriarchal power arrangement at work in our culture that is unfair and misogynistic- but they often complain about women using this fact as a weapon to take men's rights away- some believe in the feminazis of limbaugh's fevered imagination- some just point to anecdotal stories of unfairness directed at men (child custody unfairness, alimony payments and just plain dishonest lovers). The first group is beyond the reach of education; they have no regard for reason or common sense. The second group is the one that is open to educational approaches that would change thier thinking about feminism and help them to understand that feminist critique offers lots of really good explanations for gender unfairness and disparities. Unfair divorce and gaurdianship laws stem from the patriarchy's artificial and unfair gender role categorizing and assignment of power.
OK- It's 2 am and I will go on all night about this crap if left to my own devices. I believe one can safely say that to disagree with feminist critique is almost like disagreeing with evolution or gravity- just because someone is too intellectually limited to understand a specific theoretical approach, doesn't make it wrong or non-factual. And even worse when someone chooses to remain ignorant of those truths out of spite or mis-directed animus.

[Squinch]

320. You keep saying things that turn on light bulbs for me.

I have been seeing this as a slow slog through history, with the inevitable advance and push-back. But I think you are right about the approaching tipping point, and that being the reason for the current strength of the push back. Oddly enough, that makes me very hopeful.

I have always thought what you describe: that this is a historical movement that will always go in the direction of progress, and that we will eventually get there. Your observations convince me that we are closer than I have given us credit for.

Thanks for brightening my day.

:hi

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. DU Rec

excellent post bb. Proud to K&R

[ismnotwasm]

16. I think they snowballed from legitimate complaints of he legal system

In certain custody cases, then ran out of 'issues', so went for the throat of feminism. I like that there are men groups are aware of the need for mentoring young men, teaching them about sexism and misogyny, rape, homophobia and healthy masculinity; encouraging them to finish college, teaching them about co-partnering in child raising, staying intelligently staying aware of social issues. These groups exists, and while seem superficially at times at cross purposes of feminism, really aren't.

The rapid dog MRA's aren't any better than the PUA's (an acronym festival here)

[redqueen]

17. MRAs hate men like Jackson Katz.

They have no interest in the work you describe in your first paragraph and actively fight against it.

[Little Star]

21. Sad to say, the men on DU who openly show support for us get that same treatment. n/t

[Helen Reddy]

19. WTF? LIB!

SMH

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. They can have their fun in their little group, as can the feminists...

I believe in equal rights for everyone and divisive groups like that are a disservice to everyone.

[polly7]

32. I haven't seen any MRA extremists here.

I know the allegation is made a lot when a male poster happens to disagree with something many of us women do also ....... it's thrown around a lot. But seriously, I really don't see woman-haters here who haven't been tossed. In fact, this is probably the first site I've posted on where I as a survivor of rape and DV, I feel completely safe to post and be heard.

Or maybe you weren't referring to here ....... in which case - D'OH! and my apologies.

[Major Nikon]

87. Here's the really fun part

The example provided comes from one of the handful of MRA websites the SPLC listed as a hate groups.

In other words, the OP is trying to suggest men hating feminists don't exist, feminists really have the interests of men at heart, and that the worst possible example she could find of "MRA" is representative of the entire movement.

[redqueen]

90. What do you think of reddit's men's rights subforum?

Is it representative?

Lots of misogynistic posts there.

Recently they spearheaded (heh) the fund to defend the poor assholes who were so deeply injured by Adria Richards. Teamed up with a well known misogynist PUA to do it, too.

Even hosted a Q&A with Warren Farrell recently, in which he deftly sidestepped questions about some of his most sickening statements.

[Major Nikon]

94. I've never seen it

What do you think of including in each one of your posts a link to a site which posts the worst sort of misandry imaginable?

Not much, evidently.

Just sayin'

[redqueen]

96. Oh please, not that witch hunt again.

But now I'm curious, do you have anything to say about this?

...

The "no means no" meme is bullshit. The fact is that no sometimes means yes. Objective feminists know this and teach that people need to understand when no really does mean no. As it turns out, Farrell is directing that same message to men. Had you actually bothered to read the book you'd surely like to burn, you would have found the following in it's proper context:

Date Fraud and Date Lying

If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.

Do women still do this? Two feminists found the answer is yes. Nearly 40 percent of college women acknowledged they had said “no” to sex even “when they meant yes.” In my own work wit hover 150,000 women and men- about half of whom are single-the answer is also yes. Almost all single women acknowledge they have agreed to go back to a guy’s place “just to talk” but were nevertheless responsive to his first kiss. And almost all acknowledge they’ve recently said something like, “That’s far enough for now,” even as her lips are still kissing and her tongue is still touching his.

We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting. Somehow, women’s romance novels are not titled He Stopped When I Said “No.” They are, though, titled Sweet Savage Love, in which the woman rejects the hand of her gentler lover who saves her from the rapist and marries the man who repeatedly and savagely rapes her. It is this “marry the rapist” theme that not only turned Sweet Savage Love into a best-seller but also into one of the most enduring of women’s romance novels. And it is Rhett Butler, carrying the kicking and screaming Scarlett O’Hara to bed, who is a hero to females-not to males- in Gone with the Wind (the best-selling romance novel of all time- to women). It is important that woman’s “noes” be respected and that her “yeses” be respected. And it is also important when nonverbal “yeses” (tongues still touching) conflict with those verbal “noes” that the man not be put in jail for choosing the “yes” over the “no.” He might just be trying to become her fantasy. The danger is in the fine line between fantasy and nightmare.

The differences in each sex’s experiences are so enormous emotionally that I can create understanding only by conducting role-reversal dates: having the woman ask the men out and discover which of the men’s “noes” mean “no” forever, which mean “no” for the rest of the date, which for a few minutes, and which just mean slow down….and having the men feel what it’s like to have their “noes” ignored.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=905760

So great to see such championing of rape culture on DU. I wonder if it was even alerted.

Anything to say about that?

I have a link to one thing in my signature, and you try to twist that around to point back to something else on the site.

Let's deal with things that you, yourself, have posted here, repeatedly, if you want to go that route.

[Major Nikon]

102. Yes, someone did post it there. That's kind of the whole point.

Did you think I was claiming the site somehow grabbed and automatically posted a random link which just so happened to contain the worst sort of misandry imaginable? It was posted by the same person who takes full responsibility for the site, which you seem to think is worth linking to in each and every

The views expressed are those of award-nominated spinster aunt Twisty Faster.

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/about-the-blog/

With each and every one of your posts you link to a site that contains blatant and violent misandry of the worst sort. If your best defense of this is linking to a Men's group post which was locked, and my referencing an empirical study written by two academic feminists, then I suggest you have no defense at all.

[redqueen]

103. I didn't click it, assumed you were talking about something more recent. Re-read, I've edited. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

110. If you don't want to discuss it, take it out of your signature. n/t

[Major Nikon]

115. Here's more of the fun part

The poster was attempting to associate me with a site that I've never seen or heard about, but won't even take responsibility for linking to a misandrist with each and every one of her posts.

[LittleBlue]

98. WTF is that?

(Society for Cutting Up Men)...

It is now technically feasible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females.

Man, only on DU.

[redqueen]

100. It's something no one takes literally... well, except

SCUM Manifested | A Voice for Men

Dec 21, 2011 – Further evidence that the SCUM Manifesto was to be taken seriously is found in the reaction of feminist leaders and organizations to Solanas ...
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/scum-manifested/

[Major Nikon]

106. So you actually think it was posted as a joke?

Even if it was (and it wasn't), the people who cared to comment on it didn't think so, and even if it were a joke, I'm not sure how that rectifies the act in your mind. If anything it makes it worse.

[Major Nikon]

101. You should ask the person who links to that site with each and every one of their posts

I don't have a good answer.

[kestrel91316]

282. That was supposedly written way back in 1968.

I'm not convinced it was written by a feminist woman. Just sayin'.

[lumberjack_jeff]

285. "Supposedly"????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Solanas

Some brush-up on feminist history might be in order.

[Major Nikon]

286. It was written by a self-described feminist

So her feminist credentials seem as solid as any I've seen here on DU, not to mention that it's reproduced on numerous feminist sites, including the one referenced. The fact that it was written over 45 years ago and is still being reproduced by feminists simply is a testament to how revered it is in certain circles.

Just sayin'

[chervilant]

164. Your post

reads a little angry and defensive. I didn't get that the OP is trying to suggest that "men hating feminists" don't exist, nor is it 'clear' that the MRA stuff s/he used is "the worst possible example." I get that s/he is presenting a macro - level comparison.

Is there an MRA group about which you're aware that is working toward ending patriarchy and establishing gender equality? Why not share that info?

[Squinch]

64. "The feminists" are a divisive group?

[Occulus]

325. No. Just the ones who claim to discuss feminist "history" while doing nothing of the sort.

There are feminists and then there are "feminists", and the latter are on DU only to divide it against itself along gender lines.

Things like the self-contradictory "benevolent sexism" are a case in point. Sexism is, by definition, not benevolent. All discussions stemming from that OP were begun by the "feminists" I am here condemning as false, and were begun and posted under knowingly false pretense. Their goal in using it was, and is, the same as the framing provided by the Republicans' "Clear Skies Initiative", "No child Left Behind", and (perhaps especially) "Compassionate Conservatism".

See the pattern? Framing, used against us all, to confuse and divide. Framing, used to knowingly lie to us. It should be as familiar to us as an old blanket from early childhood.

They are trolls, full stop. We all know who they are. It isn't even all of them; I'm speaking of perhaps four or five people total, people who (intentionally) elicit far more division than any legitimate, thoughtful, productive discussion of actual inequality would ever cause. Don't let them confuse you. They are not in any way interested in feminism, equality, or women's rights. They are interested in driving actual feminists off DU, and in controlling discussions to that end. They have had some success in that regard, and they know it.

I fully expect one of them to alert this post. Fuck them; even if it's hidden, this post will remain, and I know I'm not the only one on DU who opens every single hidden post they see.

I'll leave unsaid what I think of the OP. That would deserve a hide.

[seabeyond]

326. you ought to pay attention to all the men that perfectly understood the issue and though those

that did not were purposely being obtuse. to suggest it along gender line is incorrect. just to start with.

[Squinch]

327. I hear this all the time. First, if you are going to call out a group,

why be coy about it and use quoted codes? Why not say what you are saying?

Second, whether you agree or not, there is such a thing as benevolent sexism. Just like there is such a thing as over-mothering, and killing with kindness.

They are not trolls. They are people who have had experiences which have led them to fight hard against something that is, in its definition, obvious to all of us, but which is, in its expression, often easy to miss. When they point it out in an area that has previously not been considered, there is ALWAYS a hue and cry. But for myself, when I sit back and think of what they have said, I realize that they generally have a very valid point.

What they say is often threatening to our equilibrium. That is not a bad thing.

And don't advise me not to let it confuse me. I'm good. No one is lying to me, no one is trying to confuse me. If it confuses YOU, I suggest you think harder.

These people are not working in a vacuum. I have seen at least twice as many "I'm all for feminism but you need to shut up because I disagree with you" types as I have seen History of Feminism writers (oh, look. No lightning when you invoke their name!) While the feminists arguments are sometimes difficult and strong, the people fighting them are usually personal and nasty. You are no exception.

To use a favorite phrase, you are hurting your cause with the personal, vindictive tone of your post.

I guess that makes me a "feminist."

[Occulus]

328. First, I did not call out a group. I pointed specifically to individuals within the group.

No, I will not name names. The fact you know exactly who, specifically, I'm talking about (not Not NOT the whole group) only serves to confirm I'm completely correct. They are toxic people. Their opinions are divisive and bear no value. They are mean-spirited ("your whole fucking culture alienates me!&quot , caustic personalities ("all men are potential rapists&quot , and those traits have nothing to do with feminism or equality or gender issues and everything to do with WHO THEY ARE. They are no better than their opposition, and I wish a pox upon both houses.

Even though it had very little to do with the subject, some idiot member of the gang (and it is a gang) I'm referring to created a huge hoopla over holding open doors. The sense I took from reading that particular pile of scat was one of profound disappointment, and only served to confirm that they are not here to engage in reasoned discussion. Turning simple acts of politeness into Subjugation By The Patriarchy does nothing but divide. That was the entire purpose of that little exercise, and in that sense was a spectacular success by any measure.

I am 100% for the equality of both genders, in all possible situations. Yet still, even after multiple statements to that effect, they told me- insisted, vehemently- that I'm a "potential rapist", even though I'm gay. You cannot claim that accusation is not nasty, not personal, and not deeply sexist by every possible definition.

I've never been told that before, by anyone. I won't fucking tolerate it. They are beneath contempt for that and for that alone. Their general agreement with the "truth" of that despicable accusation proves they are chasing the shadow they themselves cast.

So, fuck them. Right in the ear. They have proven themselves, repeatedly, and absolutely not to their favor.

[seabeyond]

329. here is the obvious. someone asked what benevolent sexism is. i gave exampleS and definition. YOU

and others then proceeded to make that huge ole stink you are referring to..... about opening doors.

that would be the difference between honesty, and not.

[Squinch]

331. Except that the whole "door" controversy was manufactured by people trying to discredit

those arguing for feminism.

But, hey, rage on.

[Occulus]

334. Then we agree, because that is the whole of my point.

Thank you for affirming my assertions. It's good to know I'm not the only one who noticed their behavior.

[Squinch]

381. That's pretty childish, don't you think? You forgot to put "nyah!" at the end of it.

So much for an adult discussion.

[Occulus]

384. No, not really.

It is, after all, the literal truth.

You agree. Discussion over.

Your lack of substantive rebuttal is noted, by the way.

[redqueen]

333. "your whole fucking culture alienates me!"

How the everloving fuck is that mean-spirited?

FFS, you're actually serious with this ... wow.

So, fuck them. Right in the ear.

Classy!

[Scout]

337. "So, fuck them. Right in the ear."

now this is something that a potential rapist is perfectly capable of saying, would probably say, might enjoy saying, and would see nothing wrong with saying ... don't you agree?

"that I'm a "potential rapist", even though I'm gay"
hmmm, gay people are incapable of rape? i did not know that.

[Occulus]

351. Thank you for that.

"Fuck (him) (them) (her), right in the ear" is not a new phrase. It doesn't have anything at all to do with actual sexual activity. You just illustrated more perfectly than any reference to the past I could have made, with a textbook example, the exact behavior I was talking about: intentional divisiveness.

As I said, that is not a new phrase, and does not now have and never has had, not one time ever, anything at all to do with any kind of sexual activity whatsoever. You either think we all are fucking idiots, or you yourself are batshit insane, for trying to make such an absolutely absurd connection. Take your pick, but what you're implying with that lob of mud is such a goddamned motherfucking laughable notion that I actually feel sorry for you, that you blurted such a pile of fresh feces in public the way you did.

But thank you. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for providing such a clear and cogent example, in almost real time, of the exact behavior I was talking about.

"hmmm, gay people are incapable of rape? i did not know that."

No, of course not. We don't rape.

We brainwash. Everyone knows that.

(When a man tells you he won't rape you not only because he believes in gender equality in American society, culture, employment, and interpersonal relationships, and that he has no interest in raping you either as a sexual conquest by force or an expression of power, or for any other reason, but also because he exclusively- 100%- prefers now and has preferred men throughout his lifetime, that man might- just maybe- find it pretty damned insulting to his intelligence, morals, and ethics to be considered a "potential rapist", and he just might shut you the fuck down in a public forum the way I JUST DID.)

[redqueen]

330. Go into the feminist groups you in your manly wisdom deem worthy and ask about benevolent sexism.

Tell them your opinion and then call the ones who educate you "trolls".

I dare you



What an obnoxious, ignorant post. Be proud.

[seabeyond]

332. double dog dare.... nt

[cali]

30. The Men's Rights Movement: Southern Poverty Law Center take

and much, much more on this ugly movement. And, yes, it's largely ugly and frightening.

<snip>

The men’s rights movement, also referred to as the fathers’ rights movement, is made up of a number of disparate, often overlapping, types of groups and individuals. Some most certainly do have legitimate grievances, having endured prison, impoverishment or heartrending separations from genuinely loved children.

Jocelyn Crowley, a Rutgers political scientist and the author of Defiant Dads: Fathers’ Rights Activists in America, says that most men who join real (as opposed to virtual) men’s rights groups aren’t seeking to attack the family court system so much as they are simply struggling to navigate it. What they talk most about when they meet face to face, she says, are strategies to deal with their ex-partners and have better relationships with their children.

But Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and the author of Equality With a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash, argues that cases in which fathers are badly treated by courts and other officials are not remotely the norm. The small percentage of divorces that end up in litigation are disproportionately those where abuse and other issues make joint custody a dubious proposition. Even when a woman can satisfactorily document her ex-husband’s abuse, Dragiewicz says, she is no more likely to receive full custody of her children than if she couldn’t.

The men’s movement also includes mail-order-bride shoppers, unregenerate batterers, and wannabe pickup artists who are eager to learn the secrets of “game”—the psychological tricks that supposedly make it easy to seduce women. George Sodini, who confided his seething rage at women to his blog before shooting 12 women, three of them fatally, was one of the latter. Before his 2009 murder spree at a Pittsburgh-area gym, he was a student — though clearly not a very apt one — of R. Don Steele, the author of How to Date Young Women: For Men Over 35. “I dress good, am clean-shaven, bathe, touch of cologne — yet 30 million women rejected me over an 18 or 25-year period,” Sodini wrote with the kind of pathos presumably typical of Steele’s readers.

<snip>

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites
http://www.salon.com/2011/03/29/scott_adams_mens_rights_movement/

And take a look at one of the leading MRM outlets:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

[opiate69]

389. Oh, but why leave out the "money shot"????

You know.. the one where the SPLC says, in their own words, that they never claimed all MRAs were hate groups, and that *gasp* some of the concerns brought up by them may actually be valid????
In their own words:

It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/

Oh, I know.. for the same reason Repukes keep yammering on about the "liberal media", despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.. gotta keep forwarding the narrative, eh?

[knitter4democracy]

34. Yeah! We want everyone to enjoy yarn-themed activities.

MRAs tend to be guys who've been seriously damaged by life. If you look at their posts like that, they make more sense.

[Little Star]

60. Maybe & that could make them a danger. n/t

[Squinch]

303. You mean they don't already enjoy yarn-themed activities? Our culture IS in trouble!

(we should request a knitting smilie.)

[knitter4democracy]

304. Ooh, good idea!

We definitely need a knitting smilie or three.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Okay ...

I read the 1st segment and thought ... Hmmm.

Read the Mens Rights Activist Mission Statement and got to:

It is the mission of A Voice for Men to:

Promote the dissemination of information that will expose misandry and gender-centrism on all levels in our culture;

Oppose any form of gender-centrism. ...

And stopped reading because they (the MRA) just don't get it ... HOW THE HELL DO YOU HAVE A GENDER-BASED GROUP/ORGANIZATION THAT IS OPPOSED TO GENDER-CENTRISM?

That's so much like "Racists Against Racism."

[In_The_Wind]

187. Excellent point!

... HOW THE HELL DO YOU HAVE A GENDER-BASED GROUP/ORGANIZATION THAT IS OPPOSED TO GENDER-CENTRISM?

That's so much like "Racists Against Racism."

[YoungDemCA]

38. If MRA types were serious, they would be allied with feminists in working against the patriarchy...

But the evidence does show, that they are not serious about that.

K&R

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. Using the source provided by the OP

It sounds like that is exactly what they are doing.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/entering-a-new-era/
^--- (note to the jury, this source is exactly the site used by the OP as representative of what MRA's believe)

The Equal Rights Amendment, written in 1923, is a proposal to make freedom from discrimination based on sex a matter of Constitutional Law in the United States. Its wording is as clear as it is brief.

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex;
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article;
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
After discussion with the editorial staff of this website, we have agreed that this proposed amendment, precisely as it is worded above, is in the interest of all citizens. It is our considered opinion that resistance to this amendment primarily stems from the desire to maintain the status quo of the disposability of men and boys. And indeed we find that the activism that prevented its previous success stemmed from political conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly, who successfully campaigned to keep men in deadly servitude to their culture for the benefit and enjoyment of women.

The ERA has arguably more support among men's groups than feminist groups - the National Organization for Women themselves no longer support the ERA.

If you support the ERA, you stand with "a voice for men" and against the National Organization for Women. That really should tell us something.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

40. My brother is one of these MRA guys. "Feminist governance"?

"feminist governance" - doesn't EXIST. Just to pick out one of these frankly rather delusional statements.

When MEN have a panel of WOMEN in Congress telling men when/if/how they can have contraceptives or sex or what they can and cannot do with their penises or other body parts, wherein NO men are even allowed to speak on the matter because they aren't "qualified" (and if one tries is subsequently called the male equivalent of a SLUT by one of the nation's most popular radio hosts) THEN we can worry about "feminist governmance".

Oh wait. there IS NO male equivalent of the term "slut", is there?

I rest my case. And this is just ONE of their bullet points.

I love my brother. But he hates me. And he's extremely delusional about us "feminists" and any supposed power we have over any men. Hell fire, we have to COMPETE with clumps of inviable cells to even be considered PERSONS - to even be considered HUMAN.

Seriously. Pfft.

EDIT: How many female Presidents has the U.S. had? And how many times has the United States government been DOMINATED by a majority of women? Never you say. Well...what alleged "feminist governance" are these hallucinators talking about? SERIOUSLY?!

Jesus Christmas.

[Little Star]

65. Yep.

[haikugal]

114. Well said...Thank You!

Applause!!!

[Zorra]

49. +1 ~ Everything in the "Part Four: List of Men's Rights Issues" excerpt

speaks for me.

[Zeteticus]

50. The problem is, and always will be that of identification.

If you identify yourself as a female or male, rather than a person, the line is drawn and becomes competitive.

Israeli, Palestinian
Black, White
Muslim, Christian

Serious problems won't be solved until the lines are removed. There are far too few people that are willing or trusting enough to remove the lines.

[Little Star]

55. Personally, I think the actual issue is more about who holds the most power not..

That some of us are Israeli/Palestinian, Black/White, Muslim/Christian. Just removing those lines does not address the root of the problem, which is power over another group, imho.

[Zeteticus]

67. I agree in regard to the power structure...

As I get older I believe that cooperation builds and competition destroys. The power structure is all about competition. I don't believe we can achieve equality by assigning 'names' because names cause us to assign values, regardless of intention. I have met very few people that are willing to detach themselves from their assignments.

Personally, I'm tired of old white guys running the show. I should note I'm an old white guy.

[Sheldon Cooper]

52. When you reduce it to its most basic component, MRAs have mommy issues. All of them.

They never separated from their mothers during that crucial stage in child development, and they resent it mightily. As adults, they cannot BEAR the thought of a lowly woman having more power over them, in any facet of their life, whatsoever. So they lash out like angry little boys, and scream 'misandry' at everything, even though misandry as a source of societal power doesn't even exist. If they could hold their breath and throw themselves to the floor in a monster tantrum, they probably would.

I like that the SLPC has declared them a hate group, they bear watching but are not worth the bother when it comes to talking to them. There's no effective way of dealing with them, because they will never accept that they are wrong.

[polly7]

66. And when it comes to some of the radical feminists whose methods of

'educating' and 'correction' anyone who doesn't agree with some of their, frankly ...... hateful rhetoric and ideology - it brings out my mommy issues. The authoritarian, beating down, berating kind of thing - saying one thing, doing another, etc. etc. All of it is harmful, on both sides!

[Sheldon Cooper]

75. lol

[polly7]

76. Thanks, glad you get humour out of the same thing you're skewering

others for. I guess it's hard to understand that abusive, bullying, demeaning, dismissive treatment doesn't only come from one side. I'm always amazed that some are so wrapped up in themselves they really can't see it.

[Phlem]

184. Your awesome polly7

I was abused most of my earlier life.



"I guess it's hard to understand that abusive, bullying, demeaning, dismissive treatment doesn't only come from one side."

How true.



Not only have I gotten a face full of this from the usual suspects on DU but always for the same reason it's all about them 24/7

Are there any other groups in need of presence and support from abuse?

Oh hell no, not like most of the people in this thread.

Abused children, fuck em
Abused migrant workers, they can get fucked
Domestic abuse INCLUDING CHILDREN, not even on the fuckin radar

I used to care about the feminist plight, but after receiving the bashing from the feminists here on DU.....

I'm pretty sure you surmise my point.

Way to win the war!



-p

[seabeyond]

190. ah, so another, i really use to support women but now, meh. no way. really?

that says a whole lot about you. really does not say much about anyone else, though.

so what?

gonna vote against equal pay?
become anti abortion?
cheer rape?

now that we lost your support, just want does that mean?

[Phlem]

226. Ha!

You can't fucking stop tearing down people can you?

And I'm supposed to submit to this because you know everything?

Your black and white approach is a joke and the stuff you say drives a wedge between you and the people your trying to appeal too.

"now that we lost your support, just want does that mean?"

That means you and your fucking wrecking crew are jokes.

This shit.

"gonna vote against equal pay?
become anti abortion?
cheer rape? "

Is that how you attract supporters? And do you honestly believe any of that? If you do then there are other problems we need to be talking about.



-p

[seabeyond]

228. you say... we lost your support. i ask what that means. you do not answer. all the rest is filler.

[Phlem]

231. What's this?

gonna vote against equal pay?
become anti abortion?
cheer rape?

non filler?

Go away, your a waste of my time.

-p

[seabeyond]

239. you say no support toward women. i ask what that means. no support for equal pay?

no support for pro choice?
no support for women not being raped?

where do we loose your support. clarify. you threw it out there. so tell us, where is the lack of support.

that wouldnt be filler. filler would be that crap attacking me personally and avoiding what i actually posted. and it seems, avoiding what you actually posted.

so, tell us, where of we lose your support?

[Phlem]

243. you don't seem to understand do you.

I don't owe you anything, especially an answer to your ignorant question because if you can't figure it out on your own then there's no helping you. I've lived with similar personality like yourself and there is no answer that would ever satisfy your delusions.

Can we read?

GO AWAY YOU ABUSIVE PERSON.

-p

[seabeyond]

245. lol. so, you wont tell me how our loss of support from you will effect us, or what that means. hmm

gotcha.

[Phlem]

246. Gotcha?

Wow are you reaching.

-p

[seabeyond]

248. not really. i have been consistent. hey, just do not vote against wife and daughters interests

cause you are pissed at me. k?

so many voters vote against interest because of personal gripes.

no no. that is not good.



#BUH%20BYE%20KITTEN%20GIF

[Phlem]

250. Whatever

your opinion means nothing to me.

buh by.

[polly7]

204. I get where you're coming from ...

I still support the plight to overcome bigotry and inequality for every human on the planet, it's the ugly, hypocritical tactics used by some that make 'their' message of constant victimhood (and by association .... try to make the rest of us 'victims' too) and hatred towards anyone not towing 'their' line meaningless to me. I've seen and lived through too much in real life to take them seriously anymore, when their whole idea of 'fighting the battle' appears to be pounding on a keyboard telling others how clueless and hateful they are. Proud humanist here (and I know this isn't actually the correct context for the word), no interest in those that obviously feel half the human race is the cause of all their problems. Go out and make things better. Petition for change, help those who've been hurt by bigotry, 'educating' progressives on a message board who 99.9% disagree with every sort of bigotry and completely 'know' of what's happening to women and girls around the world all the while berating them as being clueless rubes isn't really fighting any battle that I can think of. jmho.

[Phlem]

230. This approach is how you attract bees.

Unfortunately the usual approach on DU is to tear down individuals. Polly7, I have a wife and daughter who have my full support and to be honest I have no beef with feminist and of course I care about the feminist plight, for my wife and my daughter.

I'm just saying that I'm not buying the abuse that come from feminist here on DU especially those that applaud Misandry. For some reason they can't see past the feminist plight and understand there are other people in the world that might have it worse. It's feminism 24/7 with no commercials or other shows in between and that, to me seems, absurd.

I'm on your side polly7, that's one thing you can count on.
I'm always on the side of decent people who need help, of all races, sexes, religion. To me, everyone who hurts needs help, no just a select few.

Take Care polly7

Hope to talk to you soon.

-p

[seabeyond]

241. you calling names using scorn and ridicule is not abuse. me challenging you on putting out you dont

support feminists no mo is abuse?



i am sorry. laughing at the absurdity? is that abuse?

[Phlem]

244. Why do you have to ask?

You seem to know all the answers anyway?




keep it up mouth. Your proving my case.


-p

[seabeyond]

247. but i do not have the answers. obviously. hence my repeated questions to you. YOU seem to not

be able to answer

leaves one in a quandary.

though, you do resort to insults in every. single. post.

yes.

it makes everything very clear.

[Phlem]

249. And again

your proving my point.

Keep it up please. I'm going to cook lunch now and will need some entertainment while eat.

Full of your self much?

but i do not have the answers.

Really

Then why is everyone wrong when they disagree with you?

yep, that personality.

that's all the time I'm wasting on the likes of you.

Misandry much?

-p

[Sheldon Cooper]

253. Misandry?

lol

[Phlem]

258. Yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125518391

do you want to get into it to Sheldon?

-p

[Sheldon Cooper]

255. "keep it up mouth"?

How lovely.

[Phlem]

257. No

but trying to tell someone who has PTSD from long term child abuse that he doesn't know what abuse is, is pretty absurd.



-p

[seabeyond]

261. wtf? i am suppose to know your history? you snark, snide, ridicule, insult and that makes ME

abusive?

i thought we were done.

and i am sorry that you were abused as a child. it does not mean you get free reign to snark, snide, ridicule, insult without being called on it.

[Phlem]

262. lol

I didn't know you got to decide that.


It does not mean you get free reign to snark, snide, ridicule, insult without being called on it.

Yes, finally. What you said.



Now we've come around full circle.

[seabeyond]

263. you mean, i do not even get to decide if i can callout you snark, snide, ridicule, insult

you are a hoot. really.

take care

[Dash87]

197. Ok, I'll bite - where is this supposed hateful rhetoric and ideology happening?

I have yet to see any of those things done by feminists.

[Squinch]

214. Hey Dash -

Is that your signature there?

[Phlem]

260. LOL

how long have you been on this board?

FFS.

-p

[Major Nikon]

117. So you think Herb Goldberg has "mommy issues"?

[Phlem]

259. lol

-p

[Evoman]

58. The worst part is most of them aren't even activists.

They don't DO anything but complain. They complain, for example, that women have more shelters for battered women and none for men.

WELL THEN MOTHERFUCKERS, BUILD A SHELTER FOR MEN. Seriously....stop the fucking bitching, and do something useful....you may actually be worth something then. But most of these guys are nothing but confused, damaged assholes. They are looking for reasons that their lives are shit, that women don't like them, that they don't have everything they want and need. And they blame women. And that blame turns to hatred when they start getting together.

[Major Nikon]

120. Men do have shelters

They are called jails and prisons.

[Evoman]

142. Ah no, that's the place men who commit crimes go, not men who get beat up.

I know you're trying to be clever, but if just doesn't work.

[Major Nikon]

143. Exactly

The shelters you mentioned receive most of their funding from federal and state sources, which means the people you are railing on are building shelters and financing them through their tax dollars, yet you don't seem to think they have a right to even complain about inequality. The vast majority of these shelters don't even admit men, even if they are the adult children of women who are in the shelter.

Meanwhile the "shelters" that are built for men house around 1/2 million for drug charges, quite often in conditions that are described by Amnesty International as cruel and inhumane.

[Evoman]

146. So what are you going to do about it?

Why waste time criticizing feminists and women? Why aren't mens groups spending less time complaining about inequality and more time spend lobbying for men's shelters to be built? In the city I live in, I know some of the women who were responsible for setting up and getting funding for one of the shelters. It took a lot of work and dedication. It took a group of social workers and women time and money to organize and get it done. I'm not sure if you know all the work involved, but it's not just a matter of getting the government to just pay for a shelter.

How many male social workers, or mens groups, care enough to do that sort of work? A lot of the men don't give a shit enough about other men to do that foot work. That's not feminisms fault. That's not women's fault.

[Major Nikon]

151. If money is being taken from the government, then people have a right to complain

It's that simple really.

[redqueen]

153. MRAs won't do that work. They'd rather cry about why feminists aren't doing it *for* them.

And complain about how unfair VAWA is. And how there's no wage gap. And how false rape claims are a significant problem. And how date rape is just what women call sex when they make poor decisions.

[seabeyond]

155. we have been called out continually, to go fight mans battle. if we are not equally fighting mans

injustice, you know, being called a dick, we are not real feminists.

go fight your own damn battle. i am busy here, thank you. lol

oh wait. major is one. then when i call him out on it he says. .... nah, really, dont care if dick is used. BUT STILL, you need to fight my battle for me.

ya

[Major Nikon]

160. I've never even claimed it was my battle

So if you have no compunction about using strawman rhetoric to make your points (and evidently you don't) then feel free to continue to make up your own counter arguments and run with them, but I've made my opinion on that subject quite clear, numerous times.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11145080

[seabeyond]

161. i know you do not claim it to be your battle. you claim it to be our battle ... for men. you do

not care about it. but, you use it to dismiss sexism even though you are not bothered and will not alert on it. but, you expect us to alert on it.

correct?

and i told you no. fight your own battle.

and then you told me, .... you really do not care.

right?

[Major Nikon]

162. Not correct

I never expected you to alert on it and never encouraged you to do so.

So that appears to be where you fucked up.

Just sayin'

[seabeyond]

163. that is right. cant dig for the post. in meta. people will just have to go off memory. nt

[Major Nikon]

171. You won't find anything that contradicts the other post

If you remember it ever being my battle, you remembered wrongly. I deal with big time sexism shit at work. The kind where people's income and livelihood are affected. There is just no way in hell I'm every going to take up cleaning up the naughty words on a left leaning site as a cause. The only thing I ever offered was that if that is your mission, the best way to deal with sexism is to deal with all sexism. Anything else just creates double standards which never work.

[seabeyond]

173. i clearly said, and will repeat. yes. i know. it was never your battle. it was derailing to

dismiss our battle.

[Major Nikon]

175. Not the battle. The tactic.

Furthermore, I stated an opinion, which is pretty much what everyone else here does more or less equally. "Derailing" make the assumption there were rails to begin with and I'm not sure I'd concede that much.

Just sayin'

[polly7]

177. What battle?

What epic battle are you facing here on DU day after day? Can you be specific?

[Major Nikon]

158. I'm not so sure that behavior enjoys gender exclusion

Seems to be no shortage of people who rail on MRAs for no more benefit than the sound of their keyboards tapping. This entire thread is a great example.

Just sayin'

[Helen Reddy]

127. I support your comment. n/t

[bemildred]

59. A combination of fools and Astroturf.

Best pay as little attention as possible to it, in my view.

[CrispyQ]

68. "feminist governance"

What the fuck is that? I look at government & see a clear majority of men at fed, state & local levels. I look at corporate management & I see a clear majority of men making the decisions. In the media, it is mostly men relaying the message. So what exactly is feminist governance?

Loved the first grey block - loved it! So many of the things they claim is misandry are really a direct result of the patriarchy.

[Whisp]

88. I think that 'governance' is really another word for

vagina!

The poor sots are helpless when it comes to the Great Vagina and it's mysterious powers!

These are the guys that fight like hell to get out of their mother's vaginas at birth, then fight like hell for most of the rest of their lives to get back in again.

[Squinch]

170. Which means MRA groups should really be called VCU groups for

"vaginas confuse us."

[Jim Lane]

135. Pointing to genders of decision-makers doesn't resolve the question.

The MRA manifesto doesn't say we have "feminine governance" -- the charge you refute.

I don't know what they mean by "feminist governance". One plausible interpretation would be that it's instances in which the government has changed the law in ways that accord with feminist principles. An early example would be women suffrage. More recent is the legal protection of EEO (equal employment opportunity). Bear in mind that, before 1963, there was no federal prohibition on an employer stating, "We won't hire a woman for this position, regardless of her qualifications." Making that illegal was an example of feminist governance.

As the OP points out, there are certainly some men who benefit from feminist governance in this sense, such as those who want to enter a field like nursing that's stereotypically associated with women. (I would guess that, decades ago, there were employers that refused to hire men as nurses, though I don't know for sure.)

That raises the question whether the MRA's would (openly) oppose EEO legislation. It's undeniable that there are some men who are worse off because of this aspect of feminist governance -- namely, those men who would have been hired if sexist employers thought they could get away with discriminating against better-qualified women.

If one of you who's spent more time checking out these MRA sites happens to know, I'd be curious whether the MRA's expressly oppose some of the pro-equality governance measures of the last several decades -- EEO laws, Title IX, treating widows and widowers the same for purposes of Social Security benefits, opening state-run facilities like Virginia Military Institute to women, etc.

[ananda]

71. Men have no say on feminism.

It's up to women to speak on feminism.

It's up to men to listen and do the right thing.

[sibelian]

92. There is no subject on which any demographic has "no say" on anything. nt.

[ElboRuum]

104. Another "shut up and do as you are told" lover of equal rights?

Where do I sign up?

[CrispyQ]

138. I believe the only man who has a say on abortion is the woman's doctor.

Otherwise, if you can't get pregnant, shut up.

[Squinch]

169. I agree with this. And the only say the doctor has is what time the appointment should be.

[CrispyQ]

195. In an ideal world, in the case of a complicated pregnancy,

the doctor would advise the woman based solely on her & the baby's health, not the doctor's personal ideology. I am horrified that some states are trying to pass laws that allow a doctor to lie to a woman regarding her & the baby's health, if they think the woman is considering abortion! Doctors of conscience must speak out against these bills! Nothing says broodmare like, "You're going to have this baby even if it kills you."

[Squinch]

196. Yes. At least that legislation brings the prevailing opinion of the Kansas and Arizona legislators

into the stark light of day: women are procreation appliances. Break one, get another.

Women who vote for them are performing an immoral act against themselves and other women. People may yell at me for saying that, but it is simply the truth.

They are knowingly and premeditatively supporting the murder of women.

And there are those who will argue that "there are other issues in an election." To them, I'll say, "Spare me." These guys have said it's OK for women to be killed in the effort to spread the seed of the righteous men. There are no other issues in THOSE elections.

[CrispyQ]

198. I was a one issue voter for years, & that issue was reproductive choice.

Then shrub came along & everything changed with the new ultra security state. There are many issues. Then last summer, the repubs couldn't go a week without one of them making some abysmal comment about women. I think the dem party is right of center, & I am not happy with most dems, including the Prez, but there was no way I was going to vote Green in this last election & risk that Romney & that arrogant little shit would get in office.

I've gone full circle. I'm a one issue voter.

And I can't believe we still have to fight this shit!

[Squinch]

199. But fight it we must, and fight it we will! History tends toward

liberalization, so eventually we'll win. Hopefully you and I will live to see the day.

[Major Nikon]

121. So would it also be equally true that women have no say on men's rights issues?

Or would it be better to say that gender issues quite often affect both sexes, and that the subject is not beyond the scope of reason regardless of who initiates it.

[spooky3]

79. Excellent post--k&r

[Major Nikon]

82. For further reading...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

[Dash87]

86. It's not just feminists. It's all women.

The "A Voice for Men" people are absolute nut jobs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

108. All women don't believe the same things.

Your statement is Demonstrably untrue.

[Major Nikon]

112. Not even all feminists do

The idea that separatist feminists really have men's best interests in mind is comical at best.

[Dash87]

154. I meant that AVoiceforMen and similar sites hate all women, not just feminists.

AVoiceforMen and sites like it are full of anti-social troglodytes that feel that they're both superior to everyone else and that the world (that supposedly persecutes them mercilessly yet they really have all of this privilege) owes them anything that they want.

[lumberjack_jeff]

174. And yet at least two of their more popular bloggers are women.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/womens-voice/

[Dash87]

180. That hardly matters, as you can find any type of person anywhere to support dumb ideas.

The fact that a couple women somewhere support AVoiceForMen doesn't make the site any less idiotic, or legitimize their ideas in any way.

[Squinch]

215. Phyllis Schaffly did spawn, after all.

[lumberjack_jeff]

294. Here is what she had to say about the Equal Rights Amendment

“Since the women are the ones who bear the babies and there’s nothing we can do about that, our laws and customs then make it the financial obligation of the husband to provide the support. It is his obligation and his sole obligation. And this is exactly and precisely what we will lose if the Equal Rights Amendment is passed.”

Oddly, this puts her in agreement with the National Organization for Women and in opposition to A Voice for Men.

[Squinch]

300. National Organization for Women thought men should be the sole breadwinners? That IS news.

[lumberjack_jeff]

219. It matters when the post I'm responding to says "all women". n/t

[Dash87]

237. You've found an exception is all: Anyone that buys into their wacky ideology is fine to them.

And yes, I did use a (mostly true) generalization. MRA's hate women as a group. There's bound to be some exceptions, but the statement is pretty spot on.

[LittleBlue]

89. I really can't stand this whole thing

The only compelling argument I've heard from MRAs is the court presumption of child custody; I knew someone who was placed in an abusive home as a result.

But as for the rest of it, never seen it. Women have never discriminated against me in the workplace or otherwise. I feel somewhat privileged to be a white man who doesn't have to deal with political battles over my reproductive system, or other people telling me I need the latest beauty products to keep up with the other boys. Outside of DU, I've never heard the term "microaggression" or any of the other weird terminology. Are they really complaining that we have to pay for dinner? Big fucking deal.


As for feminists, I've only seen objectionable statements from radfems, who are such a tiny minority that they could never influence my life. O'Reilly and Limbaugh uses them for tools to poison people against important equality issues, that's my real beef with them. The vast majority of feminists are concerned with pay equality, reproductive rights, and basically everything else I enthusiastically support.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. So many layers of presumption.

Last edited Sun Mar 31, 2013, 01:08 PM - Edit history (1)

With all due respect, you are only able to tell us what YOU are for and what YOU are against. It is presumptuous to tell us what feminists believe (since you have only one datapoint) and doubly presumptuous to tell us what MRA's believe (since you have zero datapoints).

If you are against injustice in family court, wonderful.
If you are against people dying in the workplace, terrific.
If you are for intervening in domestic violence situations before it escalates into injury to the woman, that's awesome.

In my experience, the feminists on DU are evenly split on the most fundamental issue; Is feminism about equality or about advocacy? Unfortunately, the individuals asked tend to change their minds depending upon the framing of the question. I've reached the conclusion that it's advocacy, and that "equality" is marketing.

Evidence? The Equal Rights Amendment is very clear, explicit and succinct. The National Organization for Women no longer supports that language because equality isn't really the point.

Essentially, no one can even speak for the feminists on DU. You of all people should know that even the small subset of women who identify as feminists *here* don't think the same thing.

[Squinch]

176. Is the civil rights movement about advocacy or equality?

It is about both. Why do feminists have to choose one?

I am a feminist. I don't see the need to define for all members whether feminism is about advocacy or equality. I don't think it diminishes the movement at all if all members don't agree on that point.

And in what rights movement do all the members agree on all the fundamental issues? There are no such movements. That doesn't mean that all the members of all the movements need to shut up because they don't speak for all the other members.

And aren't you presuming when you unilaterally decide that feminism has to be about advocacy? Why do you get to presume but chide others for presuming?

[davidn3600]

99. A lot of men think women have it made in this country

Of course most of it is the "grass is always greener..." effect. But a lot of men think women are more favored. They think every law that's passed is designed to favor women at the expense of men. They point out the Violence Against Women Act. They don't like the name because they think it makes it appear as if all men are abusers and all victims are women. That's what MRAs mean by the term "feminist governance."

I have a cousin that thinks of this somewhat... he has always maintained that, "American women are the worst in the world." He thinks they are all spoiled, entitled, and only care about money. He ended up marrying a woman from Europe.

[undeterred]

105. American women may be doing better than women around the world.

But the reality is that the laws themselves do very little to change the reality of discrimination in the workplace, the inequality of pay, and the difficulty of prosecuting sexual assault. Almost all women have a story or two of sexual harassment in the workplace, some of them very serious, and I only know of one woman who got justice for what happened to her. And it took years.

Men who think all women are gold diggers tend to only be attracted to women who are gold diggers and vice versa. So if that's what you look for, that's what you get. Works on all kinds of levels.

[Squinch]

178. A lot of men think that the earth is 4000 years old and Jesus rode a dinosaur around town.

Tell your cousin that American woman have had a feminist governance meeting. We decided that he's spoiled and entitled and he only cares about money. We've decided that we are pleased he married that woman from Europe, because none of us wanted to marry him.

[seabeyond]

179. i LUV. yes, please. tell him and let us know what he says, lol. nt

[alarimer]

116. Because they are really insecure little boys.

Who are threatened by women's equality.

[ljm2002]

118. I have one bone to pick...

...with the first item you listed:

"Feminists do not want you to lose custody of your children. The assumption that women are naturally better caregivers is part of patriarchy."

Actually patriarchy used to dictate that in a divorce, children went to the father because the assumption was that children (like wives) were the property of the father and also that only the father could provide for them.

So while the current assumption that the mother is the preferred caretaker is indeed problematic, it is not a symptom of the patriarchy IMO.

[seabeyond]

122. hey... i was thinking this was a good idea to put this in GD. and here it is. ya.

i have done OP and had many many posts over the years supporting men. and those i fight the hardest are men. in supporting men. mind boggling.

[Starry Messenger]

128. k&r

I've already had a post hidden today for calling something what it is, so I'll just k&r this.

[seabeyond]

131. YOU....

no way.

huh. sigh. i do not see you as one to ever get a post hidden.

sorry. but then, it all gets really easy.

[Starry Messenger]

134. Well, I did call someone a troll.

MIRT got him.

I'll play it safe for now though. I'm sure I get alerted on on a regular basis. Some peeps have PM'd me with juries they've been on for my posts.

[seabeyond]

139. i hear ya. that might getcha or not. and ya

a hell of a lot more alerts than hides, that is for sure. the fun thing about getting the pms is the comments. i like the creative, imaginative once. always disappointed with just voting leave/hide

[bettyellen]

165. ha ha, I said I thought someone wasn't an idiot and got a hide

bullshit juries. they should zap that troll that called a DUer cancer.

[Rex]

130. Interesting list.

nt.

[cynatnite]

132. Self-deleted because I refuse to say this was sarcasm again. n/t

Last edited Mon Apr 1, 2013, 02:00 PM - Edit history (2)

[Dash87]

167. Of course not, and anyone that says otherwise is full of 100% grade-A cow manure.

[cynatnite]

192. Forgot the sarcasm thingy. n/t

[Dash87]

202. I can't think of one area where men have lost rights over time.

[cynatnite]

206. I was being sarcastic when I said it. n/t

[Squinch]

205. They don't have fewer rights but

they have more competition for opportunity. They used to only have to compete with other men. Now they have women to compete with too. That can be very threatening.

Obviously, that is not saying I want to curtail my rights so the guys don't feel threatened. But it does mean that the backlash and the anger from some who feel threatened will grow larger as the rights between men and women continue to equalize. So we should understand that and be aware it's coming. I think all this trashing of reproductive rights is a manifestation of this.

[cynatnite]

207. I was being sarcastic when I said it. n/t

[Squinch]

209. DAMN! That's three times today I didn't get sarcasm. I usually get it!

Sorry. Some wiring in my brain is sparking bad this morning.

Have a good one.

[lumberjack_jeff]

221. Non native-american women can't be tried by tribal courts

Non native-american men can. If they are found innocent by that tribal court, they can be tried again by the "white" courts.

Women have a right to be free from double jeopardy. Men do too... mostly.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42488.pdf

[cynatnite]

236. nevermind. n/t

[CreekDog]

133. MRA is a hate movement, little different than white rights movements

it's not about civil rights, as Feminism is.

take most Feminist groups and leaders and find out if they support civil rights laws that benefit *all* groups and one quickly finds they do, and they also tend to support the most victimized members of society.

take most MRA groups and leaders and find out if they support civil rights laws or actions which help *any* group other than their own...and you will quickly find that they don't.

because MRA is not a civil rights movement. it's a hate movement, not unlike Nazism which sought benefits only for some advantaged groups and not others.

[Jim Lane]

136. What do MRA's say about specific laws that exemplify feminist principles?

I raised this in #135 but then I decided that I wanted more people to see it in case someone knows the answer.

As I elaborated there, I'm wondering what the MRA's say about specific laws like Title IX. Is that an example of what they mean by "feminist governance" that's something to be opposed?

[Gravitycollapse]

137. Most men's rights advocates are antifeminist pigs.

Who can't stand the idea that they have been pushed out of a movement they unsuccessfully tried to hijack.

[smirkymonkey]

141. K&R

Thank You!

[felix_numinous]

159. We need to pass a new ERA

that explicitly describes equal rights of all humans no matter what sexuality, race, income or belief--I think Americans need a new Equal Rights Movement for the 21st century, and settle this once and for all.

What the fuck is so hard to understand about equal rights? I am so tired of people who have distorted and dragged out what should have been taken care of 40 years ago.

[davidn3600]

183. Some feminists hated ERA too

That amendment would end some privileges that women have... like not having to register for the draft (that was a much bigger issue back when this was being debated. We had just got out of Vietnam.) It would make it illegal for organizations to give grants and scholarships only to women or minorities unless they included white males. Some say the text of the amendment would also end affirmative action. There is also concern it could lead to court rulings that would effect alimony, divorces, and child support. There was no evidence of this, but this is what worried people.

Between these feminists that didnt like it, and then the right wing (who want the patriarchy to continue) it is almost impossible to overcome this block to get this amendment passed.

[In_The_Wind]

188. +1

[Squinch]

208. What's with this Fox news-ish "some say" stuff? That's the second time you've

done the "some say" nonsense in this thread.

Some feminists in the 70's also wanted to ban bras. So what?

Is this something your cousin's European wife told you?

[davidn3600]

251. It's well-known common knowledge

Read the history on ERA.

[Squinch]

256. Like the way it's well known common knowledge

that "some men say that women have it made in this country", as you posted up-thread?

Again I say: yes, you could find those who say these things. You could find those who say that Obama was born in Kenya, and you could find those who say that they were raised on Alpha Centauri. So what?

[davidn3600]

264. I was referring to MRAs in that post

[Squinch]

270. Not an answer to the question. See what "some say" and get back to us.

[davidn3600]

273. im not going to argue over semantics

When I said "some men" i was referring to MRAs...which was what the OP was talking about.

When I said "some feminists" I clearly said I was referring to those that opposed the ERA.

You are trying to make a argument here where it doesn't exist.

[lumberjack_jeff]

217. This.

Here's the text of the National Organization for Women's proposed replacement for the ERA, the "Constitutional Equality Amendment"

Section 1. Women and men shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place and entity subject to its jurisdiction; through this article, the subordination of women to men is abolished;
(Redundant language is redundant.)
Section 2. All persons shall have equal rights and privileges without discrimination on account of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, national origin, color or indigence;
(Sounds good, but this could have been accomplished by adding two words to the ERA.)
Section 3. This article prohibits pregnancy discrimination and guarantees the absolute right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions including the termination of pregnancy;
(I find it a little intriguing that the absolute right of a woman to make her own reproductive decisions, apparently doesn't contemplate that she's making someone else's reproductive decisions too)
Section 4. This article prohibits discrimination based upon characteristics unique to or stereotypes about any class protected under this article. This article also prohibits discrimination through the use of any facially neutral criteria which have a disparate impact based on membership in a class protected under this article.
(The NOW website helpfully explains that this isn't as complicated as it seems. An employer hiring people to lift 75 lb objects can't make "ability to lift 75 lb objects" as a hiring criteria if this results in mostly men getting the job.)
Section 5. This article does not preclude any law, program or activity that would remedy the effects of discrimination and that is closely related to achieving such remedial purposes;
(So all laws which constitute inequality under the law are grandfathered in, provided they were written to benefit women.)

[davidn3600]

252. We are all equal but some are more equal than others, is the amendment NOW seems to want

Things like Section 5 of that proposal is the reason this amendment will never pass.

Simple as that. And it's a valid point. How can you pass an equal rights amendment when it gives exceptions to equality? It destroys the whole purpose.

[niyad]

172. k and r

[blackspade]

181. I'd never heard of MRAs until a day ago.

It's hard to imagine more than a handful of assholes in any one of these 'organizations'.
Men are not under threat from feminism. to insist that they are is ridiculous.

I don't think there is an MRA agenda or that it has anywhere near the power and reach of the Feminist Movement.
MRAs are a 'solution' to a problem that doesn't exist.
Feminism is not going away and is in fact supported by a huge number of men.
It will continue to grow for the benefit of everyone.

[In_The_Wind]

185. Indeed!

Mission Statement


It is the mission of A Voice for Men to:

[mntleo2]

189. Maybe some of these commenters haven't taken a women's study course

...so perhaps they should listen to some of the MRA criticisms. I am a woman and one of the first in my community to have become a feminist and then rejected it. I now call myself a "humanist" because I as a woman have seen the damage that feminism has done to men and boys.

If all the things these feminists say they support are true that would be a miracle.

In the early 1990s I worked with a young man who became famous for a case he brought against the University of Washington. I was in full support of him, because he fought the requirements he take Women's Studies as part of getting his degree. All was fine with him until the professor presented a test where the "right" answer was "yes" to, "All men are rapists..." Because the professor insisted this student's answer was "wrong", he refused to take any more of the course and thus was prevented from getting his degree in the discipline he wanted to complete.

It is much like communism, where the ideals are great but the truth on the ground sucks for men and feminism. I watched a female co-worker grab a man's crotch and tried to pinch his penis in front of a group of laughing other workers ~ including a female supervisor. It was beyond humiliating for that man. When I told him I would support his filing a complaint about it he knew and I knew nothing would be done about it. Because if he had been a woman, well they would have been on it like a duck on a junebug. But as a man, well he would be a "crybaby" and "could not take a joke" and would have been pariahed by the women he worked with from then on.

Besides raising three sons, I have worked in both traditional and non-traditional work and I can tell you the way men and women communicate is quite different. They will often have "fly bys" because of these differences. I have seen it where two men are nose to nose and ready to punch it out in a work situation and then at the end of the day they throw their arms around each other and say, "Let's go have a beer ..." If women ever get into a situation like that you can be assured it is WAR from then on between the two of them, even after they have a "boo-hoo" session to work it out. No there will not be raised voices or physical contact, BUT you can count on there being a lot of underground undermining of each other from then on and it can take YEARS or the leaving of one of them before it is over. Now take a man who deals with frustrations with his male coworkers this way where it is understood that is the way they sometimes work things out and then put that man's behavior with a woman. Or take a woman who cannot be angry that way and uses her anger in a more passive way, and put her with a man who thinks she is being straight with him when she is not. The man will call the woman "dishonest" and the woman will view the man as "too aggressive". Neither can win.

They wonder why boys are falling behind in school. I know why. Whenever a classroom has a group of gregarious kids, you can bet your sweet bippy that the boys will get the blame, never the girls who may be doing the same thing. Both in city programs and within the schools there are lots of programs for girls and few for boys especially when they reach puberty and begin to fall behind. Middle and high schools have sports for boys, but not all boys are into sports, for them there are not things like mentoring, teaching social interactions, or having "girl bonding" meetings, where are those things for boys? The few that are out there for boys like Big Brother have YEARS of waiting lists for boys who are forced to wait while they continue to grow up without any male influences in their lives. Boys are just supposed to just "know" what boundaries mean, etc.

And tell a man who has been falsely accused of molesting his child because the woman now hates him and wants to use that child to hurt him as to what the courts will do. HE becomes instantly guilty with few questions as to who did what to whom. A woman can beat the crap out of a man and never have to face a thing. Where is the programs for men when they endure these abuses? Even elderly men are left to the curb with abusive women who not only physically hurt them deny their medications they can then legally take every cent they have. If feminists want true equality they have a funny way of showing it when it comes to the law.

Notice that the latest act to be passed was the "Violence Against Women Act it says nothing about men and boys who endure the same kinds of torture. There are few studies on the impact of child sex abuse that have been done with boys against the millions of papers for girls. We know a vast majority of men in prison were child sex abuse victims, but what we do not know as general knowledge is another finding that is rather disturbing: Now it is coming out that of the men in prison who have been sexually abused as children, 43.3% of these men were violated by women, almost half of them. Nobody does a thing, especially for adolescent boys. These "feminists" won't even study this phenomena while then blaming men for all the violence that occurs. They have created all kinds of "girl power" stuff but *never* anything for boys. If they are so concerned about the patriarchy, this is a good thing because it does damage many but, why are they not doing anything much to change the matriarchy that can and does damage boys?

While I WISH that these feminist ideals were true, to be honest I have seen little of it in practice for men.

Cat in Seattle

[seabeyond]

191. what a post of stereotype accusations and dismissals.

prove that professor was demanding all men are rapists... or the actual theory that all men are potential rapists, meaning a woman does not know if a man will rape or not.

first example pretty much shows the position you sit without any kind of balance.

if any professor was demanding kids say ALL men are rapist, i would be right by his side. never heard. ever. so not gonna buy it. i do know it is what mra say immediately. those mean ole feminist say we are ALL rapists. crap. total crap. but used to dismiss feminism. and used to dismiss the actual thought behind all men are potential rapists. meaning rapist is not written on a mand forehead.

next one? grabbed his penis. in the work place. hell ya he was embarrassed. and her ass should have been fired, and his right to bring assualt chargers are there. what the fuck does that have to do with feminism? cause i have yet to see that grabbing a mans penis is the work place is part of the feminist manifesto.

raising two boys now. call bullshit on most all of what you talked about. my boys are successful in school. get along well in society. and are able to be their authentic self defining their masculinity without society encumbering it onto them.

when post looks like it comes from voice of men

[Helen Reddy]

194. ^^^^^^^^ ^5 n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

210. Do you have a link for the 43.3%

Thanks for this, btw.

[seabeyond]

211. to be clear... you know, really clear. it was the feminist on du that demanded prison rape jokes

as unacceptable.

and you are welcome.

it was almost exclusively men that told and tell the prison rape jokes. and it is almost exclusively women that call out the prison rape jokes.

again

you are welcome.

[lumberjack_jeff]

212. Yes. Credit where credit is due. Many people who identify as feminist have been in front of that.

If you ask those same people why 6x as many blacks are in prison as whites? The answer is racism and privilege.

But if you ask why men are 10x as likely to be in prison as women? The answer is because men are inherently bad.

The rape of men in prison would be less common if we weren't so eager to throw them in it.

[seabeyond]

213. if you were to ask a feminist why men are 10x more likely to be in prison, it certainly would NOT be

because men are inherently bad.

this lets me know how much you do not listen. or your choice to ignore what is being said.

that is the wrong answer.

do not give it to me. i have never said that. i have often, consistently said absolutely the opposite of what your are trying to feed us.

pure bullshit.

i am the one that fight that bullshit, macho, manhood, biology, evo crap that this is just inherently who a man is.

and i fight with men much more often than i ever do with women.

[Helen Reddy]

216. ^5! n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

218. I have asked many feminists, and I often get that answer.

Not from you, but you can only speak for yourself, not for everyone who calls him or herself a feminist.

[seabeyond]

220. and i have listened to many feminist and not heard one feminist say .... men are inherently bad.

i have heard men and women alike spout the evo bullshit that state it is the testosterone that make boys/men do it.

i have listened to men hold on tight to the theory that the violence is inherently who they are.

and being around men and boys all around that get no more angry than i, or even less, are no more physical than i, i call bullshit. not to mention the studies.

but hey jeff, get men away from that myth along with all the other myths that serve them well in privilege and entitlement, and i will be right along side of you.

the real issue, and what is really happening is there is a part of this myth that serves you all well. but the flip side of the coin is what you want to dispose of.

you do not get to pick and choose.

it is.

or

it isnt.

[lumberjack_jeff]

223. I don't think I am the one picking and choosing.

I support the ERA.

What will the practical effect of passage of the ERA be? The list of privileges which would end is long.

Men aren't inherently violent, but their violence is more harshly punished.

http://www.studymode.com/essays/Gender-Equality-Women-Serving-Less-Time-621679.html

[seabeyond]

225. you dodged the point and took the argument elsewhere. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

227. Your first point was that you hear "the evo bullshit" from men too.

The fact that there's agreement between most men and most women that men go to jail because they're inherently bad violent doesn't change my argument.

Second, most men who are in jail are there for nonviolent crimes.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xv6hNQdIt0U/UCWBVN5BG8I/AAAAAAAABYw/z2FscK_3V08/s1600/types+of+offenses.png

Men are punished more harshly for the same crime.

[seabeyond]

265. the point is you want to recognize men are not inherently violent, yet will promote

that men are inherent ... on the flip side of the coin because it serves you well.

what i am saying. you need consistency. if you want to break the myth that men are not inherently violent. then you have to let go of the other myths. you are not willing to do that. you will never be successful because your message is not consistent, or honest.... not meaning personally honest. i believe you are. and hold integrity dear. i mean the argument is not honest.

[lumberjack_jeff]

283. It isn't an all-or-nothing deal.

It is possible to believe that men and women in general (or boys and girls) have differences without being required to accept the idea that men are inherently violent.

I can say that boys learn better in an active, engaging classroom (for instance), without undermining my belief that they aren't inherently violent.

"i have listened to men hold on tight to the theory that the violence is inherently who they are."

... but not me. This is the source of your confusion.

[seabeyond]

290. this is getting good. down to the nitty gritty. but, alas, i have had too much wine. you know,

a glass and half and i am dancing on tables. one of those ... well, whatever.

tomorrow

[mntleo2]

391. I will also PM you with the link

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Lisak_%281994%29_Male_Survivor_Interviews.pdf

You will read there the information was done on men in prison, SINCE THAT IS WHERE BOYS (PARTICULARLY ADOLESCENT BOYS) END UP AFTER BEING IGNORED IF A WOMAN RAPES THEM.
You know the saddest thing about the lack of research on the sexual abuse of boys? Besides the link I give above, the *only* research I have seen is dovetailed onto the myriad of research done on GIRLS, these "feminists" could give a rat's rear end about the impact of female rape with boys. After all, since that idiot tenured professor makes tye "right" answer that boys will all grow up to be RAPISTS then why bother, right? Yeah right, they "care" uh-huh ...what a bunch of hypocrites!

Cat

[JI7]

275. i would like to read up on this case also

did a search but couldn't find anything on it so far.

[Squinch]

307. I didn't find anything either.

[Gravitycollapse]

284. "I as a woman have seen the damage that feminism has done to men and boys."

[Luminous Animal]

295. Have you a link for that story? Over the years, I've seen you tell it here and on DKos but I've

never been able to find this incident that you claim made headlines around the world.

[seabeyond]

296. hit and run? nt

[Luminous Animal]

298. There is nothing about this case anywhere on the net. The only Women's Studies story that I

found at Washington State happened in 1988. The young man trolled the class and had to be kicked out it by campus police.

[seabeyond]

299. hmmm. well, as you see from my reply. just not buying it. any of it. none of it makes sense

in hte real world scheme of things. and ya. i actually participate in the real world.

[redqueen]

322. Years?

Jesus.

[geek tragedy]

341. "I as a woman have seen the damage that feminism has done to men and boys. "

Is that a direct Phyllis Schlafly quote, or are you just paraphrasing?

And whining about the 'matriarchy?' And VAWA?

Talk about enablers . . .

[Arkana]

359. Bullshit.

Your whole post boils down to "I have anecdotal evidence, ergo everything I say is true." 100% weapons-grade balonium. MRAs are pathetic little turds who give real men a bad name.

[Squinch]

382. You said "weapons-grade balonium!"

[KittyWampus]

229. Feminists do not want you to have to make alimony payments? WTF?!

WHAT THE F*CK?!

Many, MANY women spent years of their lives keeping the household going while their husbands went to school or worked on their careers and in the face of a divorce have NO work history to fall back on. Yeah, they can enter the work force, but they'll be at the bottom of the pile.

Feminism is about women having the choice to hold down the fort at home if that's what they and their partner decide. It also means being compensated for that time keeping the household going in the event of a divorce.

How the hell is a woman (or man, for that matter) who had been keeping the home going able to earn a decent salary after being out the work force for any length of time?

And if there are kids they are then taking responsibility for…

Everything else I agree with, just not the alimony. It needs to be qualified and read like" automatically recieve alimony"

[Squinch]

309. The way I read that, they are actually with you on this.

The way I read it, they are saying that if women had more equal access to jobs (which requires good childcare options and equal opportunity among other things) then men wouldn't necessarily be the ones who have to pay alimony, or would not necessarily have to pay alimony if the wife were as financially solvent as the husband after child support considerations were calculated.

I don't think they are saying that in a very financially unequal relationship in which the wife had been home and the husband had been breadwinner that the husband shouldn't have to pay alimony. Clearly he should in this case. (In my perfect world, women's work at home should have a financial value attached to it, which would be pretty honkin' huge, but I don't know how we get that to work.)

[Warren DeMontague]

232. Satan Worshippers are extremely critical of Christianity. Fred Phelps considers himself a Christian.

Therefore, everyone who criticizes Fred Phelps must be a Christianity-attacking Satan Worshipper.




....See what I did there?

[lumberjack_jeff]

235. Yup

[Apophis]

266. This.

[Taverner]

240. Then they are not about men's rights

They are about patriarchy and control

Men do need a movement, but this ain't it

They should go back to the Robert Bly books...

[TimberValley]

254. Of course men's rights activists don't like feminism

any more than feminists like the men's rights movement.

[Union Scribe]

267. Food for thought well worth dining on.

Forced inequality denies everyone better lives. Thank you for the uniting post!

[Manifestor_of_Light]

268. Mostly, they hate paying child support.

In Texas, BOTH parents are considered to be equally competent and eligible for custody. We also don't have alimony in Texas. We have separate maintenance, which is a temporary aid for the wife to get on her feet.

I've seen rich men, doctors and lawyers, go into bankruptcy to avoid paying child support.

First stop: Federal Bankruptcy Court so as to keep wife from getting any assets.

Second stop: Hire pit bull lawyer for nasty divorce in State Family Court.

I'm a mother and I've had to pay child support to the father in Texas. He was the one with the steady job and I wasn't, although I have far more education than he does and was unable to find a job for years (Juris Doctor in Law).

[seabeyond]

269. i found texas to be very equitable. not so much louisanna. that is why i have a tough time with

this issue. i know there is a bias and havent seen it in texas. but elsewhere. but, i do not know if louisanna was because she had stuff on the judge.

i do know that men with money wins out over women.

i am all for this issue to be totally equal.

we all have to admit though, that not only do the courts assume mom should have kids, and society, and maybe the mom, but a lot of men assume the mom should have the kids too. societal conditioning.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

271. Texas law comes from Spanish law.

Which is why Western states have community property. Women can own property in their own names in Texas, since 1836, the first year of the Republic of Texas. The wife is presumed to be equally capable of working and supporting the family, and has presumed ownership of one-half the assets of a marriage, with certain exceptions.

I learned this in Marital Property class in law school. The Spanish law is much more equal.

The English law says that when two people get married they become a legal fiction of one person, and that person is the husband, says Blackstone, the English law authority who wrote Commentaries on the Law of England. That is common law, which rules New England, and why you hear of men being drained with heavy alimony payments in New York for example.

Louisiana follows the Code Napoleon, which is not equal for women.

[Deep13]

276. There are some legitimate gender-specific complaints that men can raise...

...but I am very skeptical of claims of reverse discrimination or of an all-powerful feminist conspiracy to replace patriarchy with some kind of feminine dictatorship.

[WinkyDink]

289. WTH cares what the so-called "MRA's" like or don't like?

[seabeyond]

291. because they are gaining momentum. and hurting women. they are growing, louder, stronger. where

do you think the aktins and others came from

[Zoeisright]

314. It's really quite simple.

MRAs are losers.

[Odin2005]

315. MRAs are a hate group.

[Notafraidtoo]

316. Excellent post n/t

[Matariki]

323. What the hell is "rape hysteria"???

They could have stopped with this: "We propose to foster the equal valuing of men and women socially, regardless of sexual orientation and identity, as well as their equal treatment under the law"

[The Link]

324. "Mens rights" is kind of like "white pride"

A mask for something else.

[Blue_Tires]

335. They didn't always use to be this way...

Years ago MRA was fighting for legit gripes like child custody issues, exorbitant child support rulings, moms who pocketed child support while the kids suffered, etc. etc...But now their rhetoric is much, much closer to Stormfront because they let the crazies and extremists slowly creep in and dominate the discussion, and now they are the ones with the loudest voices, TV interviews and most-followed blogs...

[redqueen]

339. They're also making inroads in the atheist community.

e.g. The Amazing Atheist

[Blue_Tires]

340. The atheists would do well in my opinion to distance themselves

We've all seen the danger when people don't have proper control on a political movement and it gets co-opted by the nutty elements (Occupy Wall Street, libertarian party, etc...)

[Jamastiene]

338. That's food for thought.

I know how this thread is going to turn out though. So, I brought some other snacks too.

[arely staircase]

352. what is ironic is that outside of posts criticising them at du

I have never heard of nor hear of the so-called Men's Rights Movement.

How many of these people are there, a dozen?

[Arkana]

358. MRAs are the gooniest motherfuckers on the face of the earth.

They are a bunch of sad, pathetic little men who either a) got turned down by the girl of their dreams or b) never got the courage to ask her out and are now taking it out on their personal boogeyman, feminism.

These are the men who think women "owe" them sex after they buy dinner.

These are the men who believe that "negs" actually work when trying to pick up women--probably why they hate women so much in the first place: the objects of their desire think they're just fucking creepy and weird.

These are the men who believe Ladder Theory is a real thing.

These are the men who opine for pages on the Internet about how all women are just shallow, materialistic bitches--and then in the same breath they have the sheer, poisonous GALL to wonder why no women will have sex with them.

And perhaps worst of all, these are the men who think fedoras and neckbeards are in vogue. They represent some of the worst of humanity and I am ashamed to breathe the same oxygen as them.

[Dash87]

364. Lol so true

[Macoy51]

360. I Seemed to have Missed it

I seemed to have missed all the press conferences where NOW protested against alimony or the male only draft, or any other issue that hurts men.

If Feminist want MRA to reguard them as allies, then maybe they should act like allies.


Macoy

[Dash87]

365. Those issues are out of feminist scope,

so they would not protest them.

Also, MRA, or whatever you want to call them, are not worth having as allies to anybody. Part of the reason for this is their insistence that feminists care about Men's issues first and foremost, which doesn't make any sense.

[Macoy51]

370. Out of Scope is Fine

I understand that different groups to have different agendas. What I object to is the notion that Feminism is an ally of the MRA. Nope, different groups, different agendas.


Macoy

[Squinch]

383. Who is saying that Feminists are allied to the MRA?

[KamaAina]

371. MRA's are nearly as tough to swallow as MRE's.

[Dash87]

387. The Reddit MRA forum is a joke.

Actually, most of Reddit sucks.

[opiate69]

393. Just to be clear, I wasn't dismissing it.. I was just trying to warn you about some of our more..

radical feminists we have here. Welcome!

[opiate69]

388. I was about to tell you, every word you typed was about to be dismissed because of "REDDIT!!!!"

Heh.. looks like someone beat me to it... predictable.

[BainsBane]

394. Women rape and commit as much domestic violence as men?

And you're surprised that people object to those kind of blatant lies?