The Men's Rights Movement, CAFE & the University of Toronto

This article was originally published at rabble.ca and was reposted with permission from the author.

The Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) and one of its spawns in the campus based Men’s Issues Awareness Group movement have arrived at the University of Toronto with  a bang; and a seeming campaign of overt intimidation against those who oppose them.

CAFE, as I have previously written about at some length, is the front group that presents the public and ostensibly less extreme face of the Men’s Rights Movement (also known as the Men’s Rights Advocacy or MRA) in Canada. As I noted in the article they have made on-campus recruitment a major thrust of their overall strategy.

In furtherance of this aim, they have set up a number of campus clubs including one at the University of Toronto. The Men’s Issues Awareness group held a public event on campus that featured Warren Farrell on November 16, 2012.

Farell is a men’s rights apologist who touts his former “feminist” credentials to act as the intellectual spokesperson of the MRA. He is the point person they trot out to to make Charles Murray, Bell Curve style arguments that obviously distort and misuse statistics, anecdotal evidence  and historical record in defense of what are transparently specious and ahistorical notions that patriarchy is a myth not only now, but even in the past.

This event was protested by a group of University of Toronto activists and feminists who objected to Farrell’s and the MRA’s presence on campus. This resulted in the campus police and the Toronto police ultimately breaking up the protest, as protesters attempted to block access to the event. This protest, which has not lead to any actual charges, has lead to accusations of police brutality. It has also led, in part,  to a statement by the Provost of U of T stating, rather disingenuously, that “the disruption of this event by protesters was a threat to free speech”. While obviously, one might note, disrupting events and civil disobedience are also a fundamental part of free speech and of the historic fight against injustice, a fact the administrations of universities seem to regularly disregard, it should additionally be noted that this is a statement issued by a university administration whose alleged devotion to “free speech” was so great that, during the G20 protests they hired a private investigator whose reports of “people outside of the GSU building wearing “Black Bloc attire”” led to what is now known to be one of the worst unlawful episodes of mass false arrest and detention during the entire G20 weekend.

After this action by U of T students, a number of activists within the U of T community have described to me another incident on December 6th, as students gathered on campus to honour the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women and Children; a date chosen as it is the anniversary of Canada’s most notorious case of misogynist and anti-feminist hate violence, the Montreal Massacre. As this remembrance event drew to a close an MRA member aggressively demanded to be allowed to make a statement, while another was seen photographing participants.

In the days since this, matters have gotten significantly worse, in a way that deserves notice and that exposes the fraudulent claims by CAFE, and their on campus offspring,  that they are only interested in discussing “gender issues” and “fairness” and that they are not an anti-feminist or misogynist group.

An American based website, A Voice for Men, notorious for its vitriolic attacks on feminists and its extreme language and rhetoric, has begun to target individual women and activists in the U of T community with appalling and aggressive web posts singling them out for “discipline”.

These posts now have broadened to include at least four students and can all be found on their main page. They include derogatory personal comments, photographs of the women in question, and threatening language. They seem to be adding female U of T activists to this front page almost daily.

In addition they have added some of the activist’s names to the reprehensibly misogynist website, register-her.com.  This is a website supposedly devoted to “exposing” alleged female rapists and women who have allegedly  laid charges of rape which turned out to be false. The minuscule number of alleged women offenders actually listed on the site simply reconfirms that neither of these notions are a significant social issue. In fact, 97% of sex offenders are male, and a similar site devoted to listing the names of North American men who had either committed rape or had falsely stated that a woman was lying about rape would include millions of names and be inconceivably larger in scope. That the website is now primarily a vehicle for heaping scorn and humiliation on its female opponents shows just how specious the website’s claims are and what its real purpose is.

CAFE, in a ridiculously self-contradictory and disingenuous article has attempted to both distance itself from the A Voice for Men website and state that its critics are “quote mining”. This is almost a humorous accusation given that the article itself links to the A Voice for Men website, and clearly, thereby, brings these posts naming and attacking specific activists to the attention of CAFE members and followers.

Given that the A Voice for Men website is in the United States, and given the details that they know about and prominence that they are giving to the U of T feminist activists, it seems rather difficult to believe that they are not being, at the very least, fed information by U of T’s men’s rights activists. In addition, one of the posts is co-written by “Agent Mauve” and Paul Elam. Paul Elam is a well established leader within the far right American Men’s Rights extremist and hate wing. As he lives in Houston, Texas, however, it is clear that “Agent Mauve” is likely the real author. One can only point out the irony that someone so dedicated to “exposing” individuals is too much of a coward to say who they really are, as obviously they wish to avoid any legal or personal ramifications in Canada.

CAFE has good reason to worry about “quote mining”. Even a cursory examination of MRA websites, their rhetoric and their statements, rapidly exposes outright misogyny.

A Voice for Men has very recently published articles like “Marc Lepine is a feminist hero”, “Manufacturing female victims, marginalizing vulnerable men”, “Child abuse in the name of feminism” , and many, many more. You need not even get to the comments or discussion boards, or “mine” their archives, to find countless and clear examples of how misogynist this website is. When you do get to them the vitriol and violent hate speech are only amplified.

Once one delves into the discussion boards of various Men’s Rights groups, forums that they likely think are out-of-sight, the “front” comes down”, an issue that I will return to in a later article.

Anyone can look through the A Voice for Men discussion boards to see palpable anger and hatred towards women and feminists.

As just one other example, one need only see this forum regarding my article in October, on the website  Men’s Rights Online, to get an immediate idea of what the MRA is about when it thinks no one is looking (and a warning, the imagery and content of this page is extremely offensive). The irony is, they are far more abusive than this when discussing their female opponents. This is not, by any stretch, the worst of their comment boards.

As CAFE not only does not disavow these sites, but links to A Voice for Men, among others, they cannot honestly claim not to endorse them.

The U of T Provost states “We will continue to monitor and review this situation.  It is important that all members of our community can express their views in a civil and respectful manner, without fear, regardless of which position they take on this or other divides.” But this is a wrongheaded response.

As with so many liberal, seemingly “free speech” oriented statements, it gives equivalency to both sides as if this were a “debate”. By doing so, the statement, in fact, legitimizes the Men’s Rights Movement, in the same way that the American media legitimizes creationists by giving them air time.

The Men’s Rights Movement is an organized, dedicated and growing hate movement that constitutes an explicit and violently oriented backlash against women and feminism. It is not akin, in anyway to the feminist movement and is not, somehow, a legitimate counterpoint to it in an academic environment. Faculty, administrators and staff had best wake up to this reality before it is too late.

Update 12/14/12: In the hours since this article was first posted, one of the articles linked to above, has been altered by A Voice for Men and they have deleted Paul Elam as the co-author with “Agent Mauve”. A screenshot verifying that this article was originally stated as having been co-authored can be found here.

Update 12/26/12: In the days since this article was first published, Men’s Rights Online in an obvious attempt to cover up its own language and imagery, has locked out the forum I linked to above in the article. To get a small taste of the ugliness that was in this forum, and again I caution that the imagery and content is very offensive, screenshots can be found here.

Michael Laxer lives in Toronto where he runs a bookstore with his partner Natalie. Michael has a Degree in History from Glendon College of York University. He is a political activist, a two-time former candidate and former election organizer for the NDP, was a socialist candidate for Toronto City Council in 2010 and is on the executive of the newly formed Socialist Party of Ontario.
Meghan Murphy

Meghan Murphy

Meghan Murphy, founder and editor of Feminist Current, is a freelance writer and journalist. She completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog. Follow her @meghanemurphy

  • http://bonerkilling.blogspot.ca BK

    These men are EXTREMELY dangerous, the fact that they are given podium is horrifying — i am particularly disturbed by the fact that one of them wanted to speak after the Montreal memorial. Wow.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Agreed. And U of T needs to start taking this seriously.

  • Meghan Murphy
    • Jason Walling

      Now, now, the SPLC has ADMITTED that they over-stated the case and MRA are not a hate group, yet you link to an old articles purporting this to be the case. Do I need to research the rest to show the fake info you pretend is real?

      Girls were falling behind and not doing well in school and we re-acted. Admirably I would say in helping girls to do better, now the case is reversed and it is “hate speech” to suggest that we take the same steps and offer the same help to boys we did to girls.
      Your stance is morally untenable and quite frankly sickens me.
      If you represent the “new feminism” then count me out and paint me with the fake neck-beard basement dwelling MRA brush because after reading for myself instead of taking others words for it I can say these people have the moral high ground.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Where did the SPLC ‘admit’ that, Jason? Provide evidence please.

        I don’t ‘represent the new feminism’. This is just plain old feminism. Ending the oppression of women has always been the goal.

        My ‘stance’ that the MRA’s are a hate group is based on the information provided via links.

        • Jason Walling

          “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.”

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

          So, either you as a feminist must accept the “specific examples” found at radfemhub of feminists wishing to quite literally kill men and boys for being boys as representative of feminism or, admit that quote mining and then painting all groups with a broad brush as the SPLC originally attempted to do is a reprehensible for of pandering.

          Here is a novel idea. Instead of using bad info from a group that depends on your hysteria for funding try researching these places yourself. More than a few “free-thinking” feminists ended up converted after that exposure.

          • Meghan Murphy

            “More than a few “free-thinking” feminists ended up converted after that exposure.” Ew. You sound like you’re trying to get people to join a cult.

            The SPLC provides numerous, specific examples of the misogyny (i.e. hate) present in the Men’s Rights Movement as well as demonstrating the ways in which MRAs make crazy claims in order to back up their hatred:

            “Misogynists in the men’s and fathers’ rights movements have developed a set of claims about women to support their depictions of them as violent liars and manipulators of men.
            Some suggest that women attack men, even sexually, just as much as men attack women. Others claim that vast numbers of reported rapes of women, as much as half or even more, are fabrications designed to destroy men they don’t like or to gain the upper hand in contested custody cases.”

            All the article you link to here does is reinforce that. Let me explain something to you. Anger from minority groups towards groups who have oppressed and abused and exploited them for centuries is justified. This is why white pride groups are racist and psycho and the anti-racist activism done by people of colour are not. Because white people are not oppressed on a systemic level as a group. Just as men are not oppressed on a systemic level as a group. Yes, some individual men experience hardship, even oppression (particularly working class men and men of colour), but MEN, like as a group, are not and never have been subject to exploitation and oppression.

            Why must I “accept the “specific examples” found at radfemhub of feminists wishing to quite literally kill men and boys for being boys as representative of feminism”? You are using false equivalence here. Feminism is a movement that has been around for a century. MRAs are a fringe group that no one in their right mind takes seriously and that bases it’s existence on delusions. What an individual feminist says at radfemhub is not representative of the movement as a whole, no, but also, as pointed out by the SPLC IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINK TO, feminists don’t literally ‘hate’ men. That said, women feel, and have every right to feel, legitimate anger towards a group and system that has abused and exploited and fucked with them for decades JUST because they are women.

            In any case, I’m not going to let this conversation derail into you obsessing over and cherry picking quotes from radfemhub. If you do that, I’ll delete your comments, k?

          • Jason Walling

            A cult?
            No, I am simply pointing out that some “feminists” aren’t feminists at all but instead ardent supporters of human rights and equality before the law for everyone. And thus far, the MRM is beating feminism hands down in “walking the walk” instead of just “talking the talk”.

            “All the article you link to here does is reinforce that. Let me explain something to you. Anger from minority groups towards groups who have oppressed and abused and exploited them for centuries is justified”
            Sigh, women are not now nor have ever been a “minority. Also, minority or majority status should have zero bearing on whether or not anger is justifiable or not. Either a fellow human has been wronged or they have not.

            “This is why white pride groups are racist and psycho and the anti-racist activism done by people of colour are not. Because white people are not oppressed on a systemic level as a group.”
            This view is racist. The colour of any persons skin has no effect on whether or not what they say is racist, it is what they say that is or is not racist.
            Here is an example of equal racism to illustrate.
            White people are better than anyone else = Asian people are better than anyone else.
            See that? Both are equally incorrect and equally racist. If you don’t believe me pull out a dictionary.

            “Why must I “accept the “specific examples” found at radfemhub of feminists wishing to quite literally kill men and boys for being boys as representative of feminism”?”
            For the very same reason you expect others to buy your cartoonish caricature of the MRM.
            Oh, yes. And, because those nutjobs featured at the radfemhub are educators indoctrinating children while by their own admission fantasizing about killing the male children, they are political advisors, leaders in the feminist movement, feminist authors, lawyers and so on.

            “but MEN, like as a group, are not and never have been subject to exploitation and oppression.”
            You can make that claim with a straight face when YOU face a draft to front-line military service, when women falling to around the 40% of university students is cheered as a great victory(the US president and every major feminist group have done exactly this).

            ” but also, as pointed out by the SPLC IN THE ARTICLE YOU LINK TO, feminists don’t literally ‘hate’ men. ”
            Not exactly a reliable source when you consider that Athur Goldwag penned a couple articles flat out claiming MRA’s were members of a hate group only to later be forced to retract and the discovery that Radfemhub actually is one of the SPLC’s patrons. They aren’t going to bite the hand that feeds them now are they?

            I doubt you will have the integrity to post this, you’ve already stated that you fear an honest debate and attempt to paint it as “de-railing”.
            You should note that I addressed points you brought up in you OP and you subsequent comments in each of my comments so that is hardly even close to de-railing. It is offering a different view that you do not subscribe to and I have already learned that a very common feminist tactic to any dissent is to try to “gag” the source of dissent.
            Well, it will not work, the MRM grows daily while women are more and more likely to not self-identify as feminist.

          • Meghan Murphy

            You very clearly have no understanding of either feminism or systemic oppression. How on earth you have the audacity to explain to feminists what feminism is is beyond me. OH WAIT. Something about male privilege?

          • NitroGirl

            “If you don’t believe me pull out a dictionary.”

            Because a dictionary (as defined by the dominant majority) can fully explain the history of racism and its victims. Dictionaries are for definitions,not a useful source to explain how it actually works.
            You guys have got to stop getting your education of racism and sexism from a book that costs as much as a bag of peppermints.

            People who don’t know how systemic oppression works seem to be the first to chant about what it means to be “equal”,and by “equal”,they mean they need a hundred plus to ensure they have more than our 100 women had to fight hard to get. Their brand of “equality” means “abandon your cause and fight for ours”. Basically,MRA’s,the MRM seeks to push women back into the roles they’ve tried to escape. Anyone wishing to deny women’s reality is a threat to women,MRA’s included. Just look as many of them in this thread try to deny women go through anything as women—typical gas-lighting,anti-woman hogwash. Misogynist Rights Activists don’t want to debate,they want to lecture women into the ground about their lived experiences,create a reality that caters to their ridiculous het-male victim complex.

            My golly, Whitesplaining and Mansplaining…Whitemansplaining. I don’t have the patience to own a blog like this. I admire the women who do.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Well, without commenters like you I surely would have lost my mind many moons ago.

          • Hollow-point

            How does some random dude know whether particular calls for execution are justified or not?

            With the law as it is, victims and advocates waive opportunities for lesson-teaching and elimination of the threat for the same reason they do not report him: The chance for backlash upon the victom and advocates *by the courts*, let alone the boy’s club, is too high.

            We are coming into a new time and the MRAs would be wise to behave themselves.

          • Jason Walling

            Who called for any execution at all? The only calls for violence have come from the Womens studies students and the marxists/anarchists groups protesting Dr. Farrell.

          • MLM

            Sure they have, Jason. These were sent to David Futrelle by someone who was at the protest. (Trigger warning – threats of rape and violence)
            http://i46.tinypic.com/t65m54.jpg

            Other examples, which David came across himself, appeared in this article on his blog Manbooz (Trigger warning – more threats of rape and violence)

            http://manboobz.com/2012/12/08/a-voice-for-mens-attempts-to-find-and-publicize-the-personal-information-of-a-toronto-activist-could-threaten-that-young-womans-safety/#more-7011

            Paul Elam also warned
            “We have her image and know her general location. We will identify her and profile her activity and name for public view.

            We will not stop there, or just with her. And while we will not publish our complete intent, we are dogged in our efforts”.

            What is that if not a veiled threat? The only reason being identified and located in such a way would be intimidating to the student protestors is the huge potential for physical harm by somebody acting on this information and Elam knows it. It would not be a vaguely useful tactic otherwise.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Thinly veiled threat, indeed.

  • copleycat

    I really wish that more people would understand that threats are not covered by the idea of “freedom of speech” at least they aren’t supposed to be in the U.S. I would bet Canada isn’t supposed to be too different. At the very least the Southern Poverty Law Center has finally started to pay attention to these creeps. If you don’t mind me putting the link to one of their intelligence reports it’s here,

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women

    There ought to be some kind of charge that can be bought against people for posting personal info about others online for any reason and it ought to carry especially strict penalties when such posting is done with the intent to incite violence.

    The whole freedom of speech as an absolute axiom needs to be revised. For one thing right off the bat it’s understood that there are certain things you’re not allowed to talk about and that’s because first you talk about it then you do it. Those prohibitions are written right into the U.S. constitution and consequently they’re not even thought about; why is it that something written by a bunch of genocidal slave owners is totally beyond critique? And then there’s the paradox, if you do believe the reasoning of the U.S. founding fathers is beyond reproach well then how do you reconcile the fact that even they felt that freedom of speech has inherent dangers. After all they didn’t feel that everyone should have this right, they felt it would be way too big a problem if people who were stupid and / or prone to vice had this right, so of course that meant restricting it to people who were exactly like them.

    Speech has consequences. If you haven’t called for violence and people react to your speech with violence against you then that’s an inhibition of your rights. When your speech does attempt to incite violence and / or disseminate threats, it should be limited because you’re using speech to try to bring about a state where speech will be useless. You’re not trying to introduce ideas for debate in public discourse, you’re trying to induct fear as the dominant ideology and make it a civic religion that governs all behaviors and relationships. It’s a might makes right, regressive mind set.

  • Aims

    A genuine men’s rights movement would work right alongside feminism, aiming to break down the restrictive gender roles dictated by the patriarchy that limit and hurt both men and women. Serious issues such as male suicide rates and family court flaws are a result of the old system, not feminism. The MRM just want to crush feminism and bring the old system back, not constructively move into the future. They will go the way of the dinosaurs. Hopefully, a genuine male-focused human rights movement springs up in its stead and actually starts DOING something instead of just hatemongering.

    • Grackle

      I know, it’s absolutely absurd when you realize that men’s rights “activists” do literally nothing to deal with the problems their movement supposedly exists to oppose (unless you count crying “HEY YOU KNOW MEN GET RAPED TOO!” during every discussion about rape to be a form of activism) and, like you said, they’re completely happy to ignore the fact that feminists have long been speaking out against restrictive gender roles that hurt men.

      The good thing is that they are so openly hateful and off-base that I think men who are ACTUALLY interested in helping men, as opposed to hating women, will be disgusted and head off to saner pastures–hopefully to form that genuine male-focused human rights movement you mentioned.

  • Mattt

    MRAs are a hate group? Thanks so much feministcurrent you have no other reason to say that do you?

    I like how you left out the fact that many of protestors there were calling the men rapists, wife-beaters, etc.

    No no bias at all

    • Meghan Murphy

      Are you crazy? Or just illiterate? The ‘bias’ at this site is feminism. Which is not, in fact, a bias, but a movement to end the oppression of women. You have the entire internet to post your warped views. You can’t do it here. This is not your forum.

  • Hithero

    If you refuse rational and intelligent debate, then the MRA stratedgy of outing radical feminists who make hateful public comments against men will continue. Megan Murphy has already made a hateful anti male comment and it will go on record. It is unfortunate and sad that it has come down to this but MRAS will continue to strive for peaceful and intelligent debate so both men and women may acheive equality and prosper.

    • NitroGirl

      Oh no, MRA’s have made a Tattle List of bad things Feminists are saying about men. Anyone opposing a female specific liberation couldn’t possibly be “peaceful”, or wish for women to “prosper”.

      These people (MRAs) are merely hatemongers,often made of mainly heterosexual White men (nationalities may vary) seeking to *preserve* privileges (not rights) they already have over women.

      They seem to be so self-absorbed,caught up in their rivalry with mainly White feminists that they erase struggles WoC face by universalizing these “privileges” all women have (because all the women are White,in their minds) ,which is really weird because then if these brands of Wrongness actually get any kind of legitimacy ,we’re going to see a major setback for WoC. (imo) This is another mark on the tally as to why this group is super harmful,hateful,and vile.

      And to be honest, saying a genuine men’s rights movement is the equivalent of saying a genuine White Rights movement—if you want to challenge patriarchy you don’t form a group looking to reinforce it. Become a pro-feminist, become an ally,become pro-woman. These things would be called Pro-Feminism,Anti-Racism.

      There is nothing rational about a movement being the male equivalent of “Shut Up, B-tch!” as a response to women’s rights. It’s based on pure hate.

      Who are these men trying to be equal to anyway–a GOD? What rights do men not have as men in the first place?

      • Jason Walling

        Okay, I’ll bite on…
        “What rights do men not have as men in the first place?”
        Name ONE reproductive right that men have.
        Just one.
        ….. chirp, chirp….
        That’s what I thought.
        Now, instead of being regressive and removing rights from women to bring about an equality, should we not extend similar (yet obviously different) rights to men?
        My daughter has 100% control over when or if she becomes a parent, my son has none. He has only responsibility for footing the bill for another humans choice. The two can be independent without infringing on each other.

        • Meghan Murphy

          “Name ONE reproductive right that men have.”
          HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

          • Me

            So … you admit defeat? Couldn’t name one? 😉

            Suppose he really means his daughther has 100% control over becoming a parent and his son has none. Take his word for it. With that level of paranoia, can I get an urge to control, or abusive and bullying behavior as legitimate self-defence?

          • NitroGirl

            Sooo basically he’s one of those guys who feel like men shouldn’t take care of their offspring and somehow that’s a form of oppression? Have any of them thought to like…keep their pants on,wear a condom, or get a vasectomy?

            Also, if all men have to worry about is putting a helmet on your soldier or you know..abstaining (you know,like how they suggest that women should do *all the time* to prevent pregnancy),then you have it pretty good as a male.

            MRAs need to find some stronger material other than bearing the burden of taking care of a child you helped create. Starting to look like a movement full of deadbeat dads trying to opt out of being responsible adults.

          • Jason Walling

            That is a rather inhumane response.
            You don’t see me telling you to close your legs or that I should not have my taxes pay for your birth control should you choose to use it do you?
            Instead, I suggest that everyone, male and female be extended exactly the same rights and obligations to each other under the law.
            But, that might be why more and more people are concluding that feminism has become nothing but a sexist movement for female sexists. And, with the with the exception of lesbian separatists most people see the sense in doing away with a war of the sexes entirely and instead working together.

          • Meghan Murphy

            When was the last time you engaged with feminist discourse, the 80s? “War of the sexes”?? No wonder you’re so confused.

          • Jason Walling

            Looks like December 21st from the date on the above post.
            Unfortunately, feminists have not gotten any smarter since the 80’s.
            I should take that back, Christine Hoff-Summers and Wendy McElroy certainly seem brighter than the average 80’s variety.
            I might suggest looking up a video on youtube by Deam Esmay, an interview with one. Erin Pizzey. The founder of the first domestic violence shelter. I am sure you will find it enlightening.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Christina Hoff-Sommers: the woman no feminist considers to be a feminist. I’m figuring out that the delusion that founds the MRM is based, in large part, on the fact that they have invented their own definition of feminism that no actual feminist ascribes to, and then they try to push that, over and over again, onto the feminist movement to no avail. This is, I imagine, why you all are blocked from most comment sections on most feminist blogs. Because you have no grounding in reality nor do you have the ability to engage, logically, in discourse.

          • MLM

            Wendy McElroy?? She is almost as factually challenged as lot of MRAs! I’m surprised you didn’t throw Camille Paglia into that list as well. No wonder you actually believe Farrell was once a feminist.

          • Jason Walling

            You both seem to attack the person rather than the idea.
            You make the claim that Wendy McElroy is “factually challenged”.
            So, I’ll issue the challenge to , you know “prove it”. You cannot get away with “I think this is wrong”, you must show it to be factually wrong, leave your ideology at the door.
            Also, the “No true Scotsman” thing doesn’t fly either.
            Have either of you ever engaged in a debate anywhere other than an echo chamber?

          • Meghan Murphy

            Actually I think most people here have ‘attacked the idea’ of a ‘Men’s Rights Movement’, as well as your claims. I spend my life having conversations with people who aren’t feminist so I don’t know what ‘echo chamber’ you’re talking about. You don’t understand feminism. Period. The idea that, somehow, the nutter MRAs understand feminism better than feminists or get to redefine feminism based on their delusions is ludicrous. Stop wasting everyone’s time.

          • MLM

            Completely agree with Meghan. You have cited these people as examples – in your opinion – of “brighter than average” (read MRM friendly) “feminists”, which seems to reflect your own (wilfully?) poor grasp of what feminism even is.

            These “personal attacks” you refer to are rebuttals of your assertion that these people, and the stances they take, accurately reflect feminism. They do not.

            I will link to one example of Wendy McElroy’s disregard for factual accuracy if you like. It’s a blog post called “Wendy McElroy on Koss: Seven mistakes in two sentences.:

            http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2004/04/30/wendy-mcelroy-on-koss-seven-mistakes-in-two-sentences/

            There are more, but it’s Christmas and I’m busy. And Meghan is right, this is a time wasting exercise. You’re not really interested in hearing anything we have to say anyway.

            It is incredibly rich for you to talk about “debate anywhere other than an echo chamber”. I know more than enough of how online MRA “debates” are conducted than to bother trying to engage with them anywhere other than on a very well moderated site like this one. I can only imagine the slurs, obscenity and abuse poor Meghan has had to sift through to maintain the integrity of this discussion.

            (Actually I don’t entirely have to imagine. I saw at least one comment that didn’t make it through moderation in my emails which made an idiotic slur about another poster’s “diseased” female genitalia. My comment on Dec 23 at 3.38pm was actually in response to that. I’m so very sorry you’ve had to put up with that, Meghan. Have a great Christmas. You bloody deserve it!)

          • Meghan Murphy

            Ugh. Sorry, that stuff slips through sometimes. Thanks, as always, for your excellent contributions to this conversation. Happy holidays to you!

          • MLM

            No need to be sorry at all. It was just a tiny reminder for me not to take your efforts to ensure that this discussion did not degenerate for granted. And I think very highly of this blog, so thank you :-)

          • MLM

            Yours is a ridiculous response. As Nitrogirl has pointed out you DO have contraceptive options. If you really do not wish to become a father you can use them. Not to mention the fact that men are very often the ones who object to wearing condoms anyway.

            And I would have thought this was patently obvious but the laws reflect the fact that women get pregnant and are otherwise likely to be the only ones who have to deal with situation. The financial obligations to children under the law are to protect the children.

            As for the conclusions you cite about feminism, they are your conclusions. Most people who actually understand what feminism is about do not perceive it that way. There is a share of unfounded prejudice about it, but people – largely white men, let’s face it – who see feminism in the same hateful light as you do have an agenda and a bias against feminism (and women) from the start. What’s more MRAs aren’t perceived in any kind of positive light by anyone other than MRAs and would-be MRAs, and your movement certainly isn’t seen as a constructive one.

          • NitroGirl

            But your taxes would be paying for children who’s dads left them because of your tired MRA-movement (that is,if it ever made any significant gains) and it’s notion that men should be able to opt-out of fatherhood at any time for whatever reason.

            You personally may not tell women to close their legs, but if you would gain to pop the patriarchal bubble of male privilege you surround yourself with,you’d notice the misogyny hurled at women who want birth control,abortions,and even child support. “Should have kept your legs closed!”. Of course you know this ,and are simply playing as a dunce to make some point you never had in the first place. By the way, people are fighting against women’s reproductive rights. The privilege you think we have over men are IMAGINED,just as much as your male oppression.

          • Rye

            @Josh

            I think feminists value equal rights, but equal rights are meaningless when gender inequality remains. In patriarchy, women are the sex class. A woman is priced by her aesthetic value and bought by a man who then expects to have access to her for sex and often domestic and childcare services. Moreover, structured relationships such as marriage help legitimize and perpetuate this oppression.

            This state of affairs is maintained because men have privileged access to money and other forms of institutional power, and socialization gives men the social privilege to use women for sex. Although women can work, they are disadvantaged because of workplace discrimination and fewer available work hours due to domestic and childcare responsibilities. As a result of patriarchy, sex is the means for women to obtain economic security.

            Telling women they should “close their legs” because it’s unjust for the state to cover their birth control is at best ignorant and insensitive. It ignores the economic and social costs women have for “keeping their legs closed.” Moreover, men typically initiate sex, do not generally contribute to the cost of their partner’s birth control, and generally protest condom use.

            So these perceived “female privileges” have nothing to do with sexism. They are, in part, intended to ease women’s suffering.

            Two final points. One, men can control their fertility by using a condom. Condoms can also be obtained for free or at a reduced cost. Two, why hasn’t anyone told men to “keep their pants zipped?”

  • MLM

    “Farell is a men’s rights apologist who touts his former “feminist” credentials to act as the intellectual spokesperson of the MRA. He is the point person they trot out to to make Charles Murray, Bell Curve style arguments that obviously distort and misuse statistics, anecdotal evidence and historical record in defense of what are transparently specious and ahistorical notions that patriarchy is a myth not only now, but even in the past”

    This is a link to a 1977 Penthouse interview with Warren Farrell (by Philip Nobile) about the allegedly positive aspects of incest. (Huge trigger warning – it’s even worse than it sounds).

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

    • Greg Allan

      “This is a link to a 1977 Penthouse interview…”

      At which time Farrell was a feminist and informed by feminist ideology rather than any other. The ideas espoused are feminist in origin.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Farrell was NEVER a feminist. Ever. That is an outright lie and, just a warning, I will delete comments that state things that are not true, as per my comment policy.

        • Greg Allan

          Your assertion is contrary to the public record I’m afraid and therefore should be deleted under your own policy.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Ooooh you caught me! I’m deleting myself from my blog as per my comment policy. So far, none of you have been able to provide a single shred of evidence for any of your assertions. You’re not convincing anyone.

          • Jason Walling

            I think that the New York hapter of NOW might be a more informed source of information on who is or is not a feminist than you.
            And, they clearly saw Dr. Farrell as a feminist.

          • MLM

            Say who?? If it’s true that they “clearly saw” Farrell as a feminist, given the fact that what comes out of the man’s mouth couldn’t be further removed from feminism, perhaps they really weren’t all that informed. About him, at least. Besides if Farrell was such a feminist why not leave the leadership of the organisation – the National Organisation of Women – to women, and take on a more supportive role? His affiliation with this organisation proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that he was involved with the organisation. It is not, in and of itself, any proof he was a feminist. What’s more, his motives for involving himself with NOW were probably entirely self-interested. You and your pals have really tried to flog this argument to death, but it’s a baseless argument.

        • Paul

          Megan,

          Wasn’t Warren Farrell elected to the Board of the New York chapter of the National Organization of Women three times?

          Or, am I mistaken?

          Regards, Paul.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Paul,

            My name is spelled: M-E-G-H-A-N

            Does Farrell’s election to the board of the NY chapter of NOW erase his promotion of incest, his inability to understand white, male privilege, and his creepy MRA cult status?

            Regards,

            Meghan

          • Paul

            Meghan,

            Does Farrell’s “promotion of incest, his inability to understand white, male privilege, and his creepy MRA cult status” erase his election and re-election to the board of the NY chapter of NOW?

            Regards, Paul

          • Meghan Murphy

            Hmm. Crazy-making is always a successful technique!

            Who gives a fuck? You think this little fact makes him a feminist? And, what, therefore MRA’s get to define feminism? You get to define feminism? What is your point?

          • MLM

            “Does Farrell’s “promotion of incest, his inability to understand white, male privilege, and his creepy MRA cult status” erase his election and re-election to the board of the NY chapter of NOW?”

            Does the fact that British police are investigating literally hundreds of child abuse against deceased British television presenter Jimmy Saville change the fact that he was awarded an OBE while he was alive? Or that he raised million of pounds for the very hospitals and schools where he found many of his young victims? Not too many people would try and suggest that means he was genuinely an advocate for children, nowadays.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Savile_sexual_abuse_scandal

            Farrell’s association with NOW is irrelevant to the argument that he was a feminist, if that is the point you’re trying to make with this. No organisation is infallible. The views which Farrell was expressing at that time (and the views which he continues to express today) are entirely inconsistent with feminism. So the suggestion that he has ever honestly had feminist credentials is completely spurious.

          • Paul

            MLM,

            I wasn’t aware that Jimmy Saville had been found guilty at trial. Oh, silly me, you just presume he’s guilty. Perhaps you’d like to dispense with the trial and throw him in prison right now?

            “The views which Farrell was expressing at that time (and the views which he continues to express today) are entirely inconsistent with feminism.”

            Then how on earth did he manage to serve three terms as a Director of NOW-NY? Was he particularly skilled at deception? Were the other office bearers and members complete buffoons? Please enlighten me.

            Regards, Paul

          • Meghan Murphy

            OH AND P.S. DON’T FORGET TO STICK UP FOR POOR, VICTIMIZED, JIMMY SAVILLE FOLKS. INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY, BROTHER.

          • Jason Walling

            That IS the basis of all of our laws. And, for good reason.
            Of course, a “bunch of feminists” would prefer guilty till proven innocent it seems and that groups inability to shut those halfwits up is why your movement is dying the dead of a thousand cuts.
            Every bit as messed up in faulty logic as the Atheism +Plus crowd.

          • MLM

            Yes, let’s just ignore the sheer volume of accusations against Jimmy Saville (around 400 over four decades) and the regrets expressed by people who have already admitted they played a part in covering up for him. Of course, that won’t mean anything to you, if you have sufficient bias, will it? And Jimmy Saville is dead – he can’t be thrown in prison. Many of his peers are also being investigated as part of what BBC director general George Entwistle has called a “broader cultural problem” within the BBC in the past – but actually Saville can never be made accountable for any of it, not matter what is uncovered, if that makes you happy, Paul.

            WIth respect to Farrell’s term as director of the NY chapter of NOW, who knows? I’ve never had any involvement with that organisation, personally. Not then and not now. Maybe he misrepresented himself sufficiently to get a foot in the door and then gained enough power within the organisation to make it difficult for those who opposed him, so they left? Maybe the views he came to express later were not what he was putting forward to them at the time? Maybe the nature of the organisation has really changed since? I don’t know, I don’t care. I will say once again that it is irrelevant information and reiterate my point that past membership in this organisation is not, in and of itself, any kind of proof of Farrell’s “feminism”. If that’s your argument for saying he once subscribed to feminism, it’s baseless. How many member nations in the United Nations have committed atrocious human rights violations? The organisation may have a commitment to human rights, but that doesn’t mean it’s membership entirely reflects that.

          • MLM

            Interesting, too, that Farrell – being a man – saw nothing inconsistent about serving three terms as the director of the New York National Organisation Of Women. A man who was genuinely committed to feminism would arguably seek to support such an organisation, not lead it.

          • MLM

            “We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.” — Warren Farrell, in Myth of Male Power

            Yes, he sounds like hell of a feminist, doesn’t he? I’m sure he was deeply concerned about women’s rights – at no point EVER.

        • Chris

          Farrel was on the board of directors of the National Organization for Women. A FEMINIST organization.

          • MLM

            Maybe you should read other comments before you post one. This so-called rationale for Farrell’s “feminism” has already been addressed in the comments above.

      • MLM

        “The ideas espoused are feminist in origin”. Which would be why they’re appearing in an interview for Penthouse, obviously, Penthouse being such a quintessentially feminist publication and everything.

      • copleycat

        Encouraging incest is not feminist and in particular at that time 1977, it was the feminist movement that was doing the most to call out incest as a crime.

      • Anonormous

        “The ideas espoused are feminist in origin.”

        In what conceivable way is this an accurate statement?

    • copleycat

      Difficult read but thanks for the link. Given how Farrell was (is?) so enthusiastic about incest and the possibility of his book increasing its incidence, the MRA’s at UT ought to count themselves as lucky. Most people, feminist or not, don’t take kindly to pedophiles.

  • Chris

    Next we’ll see the NRA and NDL (NAZI Rights Advocacy and NAZI Defence League). Clearly cruel comments about NAZIs and fascists are insensitive and fail to recognize the positive aspects they have brought to society, as well as the suffering and oppression NAZI supporters have had to endure.

    And please, you can’t cherry-pick comments about killing Jews, torturing homosexuals and sterilizing the disabled. They don’t *all* think that way. Show some compassion and understanding for the struggle NAZIs must go through in society. If you codemn NAZIs, you just show your own bigotry.

    *puke*

  • Hithero

    A healthy frame of reference is important when examining gender dynamics. Men and women are spiritual beings first – having a human experience while on this short journey on the planet earth. When one leaves this world, their gender remains behind and gender is itself forgotten. Looking at gender dynamics from this perspective we become more objective and less bias to either male or female — and try to look at the bigger picture. That is a good and healthy starting point. When examining gender dynamics from this perspective we become more empathetic (not sympathetic) to the plight of both male and females genders. It is no longer one gender against the other. From this mindset, answers and solutions to gender delimas often come more easliy and naturally. But with a bias mindset, we no longer see reality as it is — and we force out intrepretations that fit the reality we expereince and see — often missing the bigger picture. Feminism started out on the right track by early women right advocates, but feminism has strayed far off course and no longer is about acheiving real equality that will benefit both men and women. It is extremly one sided favoring one gender over the other– and it has now turned into a movement of privillege, hate and even violence as the feminist protest at UFT clearly shows. So until we start looking at gender dynamics as a whole, there will continue to be lack of understanding and unnecessary struggle.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Is “Men and women are spiritual beings first” your example of “rational and intelligent debate”, Hithero?

      Honestly this comment doesn’t even make sense. This seems like a convenient way to pretend that systemic inequity doesn’t actually exist.

      • Chris

        Beat me to it. But if you think about things esoterically and vaguely, then all this concrete analysis is hard to understand and deal with. If you just have the right mindset, then you’ll realize all the world is good and you don’t need to actually change anything, just think about things the right way, and it’s all good and there’s no problem and… What was I saying? Pass me that joint.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Exactly, Chris.

        • Hollow-point

          Oh man. This sounds like some “Conversations with God”, woo-woo zoom-out til it looks better stuff.

          Herb is super, don’t get me wrong.

          But yeah we actually have to do something. We have to speak up in public at the guy who tells the barista to “smile, honey”, repost on social networking sights all reports of doxxed sexploiters, and make phone calls to schools whose superintendents allow the 40 year old trannies to shower in the girls’ locker room. Things like that. I think it’s the only way the resistance can snowball enough.

      • copleycat

        Sounds like the old Christian advice to “offer up your suffering”. I wonder how they manage to espouse that while valorizing Marc Lepine?

  • Hithero

    The whole point was to look at male/ female gender dynamics as a whole — and not one sided like feminists tend to do. How do you have the nerve to say that only women suffer from inequity. You get the nerve bc you see things only from one side. Do you not realize that men suffer from systemic inequity and oppression– especially today more than women. Men die at work place 98% compared to 2% of women. —

    This competition that feminists have started women against men is beyond stupid and childish. It is all about how much more noise women can make and play victim so they can have more access to gov’t resources than men can.

    Feminism is now all about having equality only when it suits them — which is privllege.

    Men are waking up now to this nasty game that feminsts play.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Oh good lord. NO ONE has EVER said that ‘only women suffer from inequality’. Yeesh. No wonder y’all need to invent your own culty groups and weird language to reinforce your delusions. It would be impossible for any of you to any kind of rational, logical conversation with anyone else out in the real world.

  • Hithero

    The real world has been built by the patriarchy that demanded a high work ethic and high productive out put by men. Hence men have built this real world you speak of. Pretty well everything you have –from your computer to all the comforts in your home — has been thought of and built by the sweat, blood and sacrifice of men. When the Titanic went down 1450 men sacrificed their lives so only 103 women would die and the rest of the women and children would survive. It is a disgrace that feminist women forget all of this. Real women are joining men rights group in bigger numbers today. Look for youself. Your masters degree in women studies seems to have only brain washed you from what is really going on in the real world. Look in the mirror and start to examine your beliefs more sincerely. In the mean time keep having the courage to debate intelligently with those who see the world different than you do.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Feminism doesn’t deny contributions men have made to this world. It addresses power imbalances and the ways in which patriarchy has disempowered and abused women. The arguments you are making are irrelevant to feminism, either because you don’t understand what feminism actually is (I recommend Google), or because you have to pretend as though feminism means something it does not in order to continue on with your imaginary ‘activism’. Men die and women die. Often for very different reasons. Sometimes for the same reasons. That doesn’t change gender inequality. The amount of people supposedly joining men’s rights group is a pittance and they are just as confused and delusional as you. So what.

      • Hithero

        Power imbalances? Well lets look at how feminism really addresses power imbalances. Feminism continues to bark about inequality for women due to a glass ceiling created by the patriarchy. Why are women not in top positions in corporations, politics, universitiy positions, among the wealthy, etc? The answer is those top positions are filled by truly talented individuals who work 80 Hours a week if not more getting to those influential positions. It takes hard work and sacrifice. Those top talented positions are filled by 2-3% of the population. Why does Feminism continue to look at acheiving equality at the top 2-3% — and neglect acheiving equality the majority 97% of the population who do the real work of making society function? If feminists were sincere about acheiving real eqaulity they would focus on the 97% and convince women to become truck drivers, electricians, construction workers, etc — but feminists are only obsessed by the top 2-3% as a measure of equality and addressing power imbalances. Hence feminism is about privillege — it is NOT about equality. The fact is men have been trying their hardest for especially the 30 -40 years in encouraging women to get off their butts and into the work force. Despite all the efforts and incentives by gov’t grants, media advertersing campaigns, and a host of other resources — women’s participation in the work force is a dismal failure. It has nothing to do about a glass ceiling — it has everything to do with women only want the highest privilleged high apying jobs with minimal effort. Biologically the majority of women would rather stay at home and raise off spring rather than work 80 hours a week in the office. That is a plain fact and the truth about the mis perceived feminist propaganda about power imbalances. Keep looking within and keep seeking the truth — it will reveal itself — as long as you are sincere. Most feminists are lazy, privilleged seeking, low character women – who reek of gold digging attitudes. It is time for female privillege to come to an end. Do you not find it odd that women in feminist countries — especially Canada — are the most privilleged women in the world — but also have the biggest victim complex than women even from the poorest countries? Keeping looking within Megan and put your prejudices aside and be objective. THat is precisly why I made that post of why men and women are spiritual beings first haiving a human expereince. Please start being more honset with yourself. If not you will eventually be outed like the other radical feminists.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Hey freakshow! Your culty, creepy “we’re going to out you” crap is, well, it’s culty and creepy. I am a feminist. Everyone who knows how to use the internet or knows me is well aware of that. Either your threat of ‘outing’ is about more than you claim (i.e. a threat to my safety/a dangerous threat) or, once again, you are simply deluded and believe that somehow, announcing publicly that feminists are, um, feminists is a way to intimidate them into silence.

          Besides all that, you seem to have no concept of what radical feminism is, based on your obsession with questions such as: “Why does Feminism continue to look at acheiving[sic] equality at the top 2-3% and neglect acheiving[sic] equality the majority 97% of the population who do the real work of making society function?”? IT DOESN’T. THAT ISN’T THE POINT. Some liberal feminists may well believe that, somehow, equality will be achieved if we can just get a few more female CEOs, but that’s bullshit.

          I repeat: feminism is about ending the oppression of women and about ending patriarchy. It is not merely about the glass ceiling (though, of course, this is AN issue). It is a lie that “the majority of women would rather stay at home and raise off spring rather than work 80 hours a week in the office” and, in any case, AGAIN, you are making an argument based on a position that doesn’t exist (who actually ‘wants’ to work 80 hours a week anyway?). Feminists don’t, in large part, advocate that anyone work 80 hours a week. I’m a fucking socialist. Do you think I give a shit about or would argue that anyone should spend their lives working for some corporation? I don’t want kids. Ever. So no, I wouldn’t prefer to ‘stay home and raise off spring[sic]’. I also have no desire to be ‘in top positions in corporations, politics, universitiy[sic] positions, among the wealthy, etc?’. WHO ARE YOU ARGUING WITH? Who?

          Feminism is about ending rape, domestic abuse, sexual harassment, objectification, violence against women, addressing the exploitation of women in prostitution, porn culture, ensuring that women have REAL choices in their lives that aren’t governed by poverty, pregnancy, the threat of violence, are able to walk around at night without fear of attack, don’t hate their bodies, ETC ETC ETC.

          Keep spouting bullshit and I’ll just ban you from commenting. Stop wasting our time.

        • NitroGirl

          “Most feminists are lazy, privilleged seeking, low character women – who reek of gold digging attitudes. It is time for female privillege to come to an end. ”

          “Keeping looking within Megan and put your prejudices aside and be objective. ”

          Projecting much?
          Yeah… anybody who didn’t think these MRAs aren’t foaming misogynists, look no further.

          Oh gawd,these guys are a class act.

          • Meghan Murphy

            I know I promised not to publish these kinds of comments, but honestly, I think it’s both entertaining and useful in terms of seeing what these guys are really about.

        • Lela

          Okay. So women’s lack of representation in the male-dominated trades is proof of our “laziness.” Yes, of course, being placed at an automatic disadvantage relative to men, in a tightly competitive man’s world, that is conceived, built and maintained by men, is totally our fault. Not breaking into the trades, where many of us simply cannot compete in a male-dominated labour market, is also our fault. Because we are naturally inferior, and have I mentioned we’re also lazy gold-diggers?

          This is straight-up misogyny.

          • Paul

            A good friend of mine used to work in a large sewerage treatment facility. In one corner stood a comfortable air conditioned office – staffed almost exclusively by women. The rest of the facility, where the actual sewerage was processed, was completely staffed by men.

            Now, ask yourself this – why aren’t there women working outside? Is it “misogyny” or “patriarchy”, or is it that the vast majority of women simply refuse to be employed in such a dirty, smelly and potentially dangerous environment?

            Regards, Paul

          • Meghan Murphy

            It’s patriarchy you idiot.

          • Me

            Quote
            “A good friend of mine used to work in a large semenage treatment facility. In one corner stood a comfortable air conditioned office – staffed almost exclusively by men. The rest of the facility, where the actual semenage was processed, was completely staffed by women.

            Now, ask yourself this – why aren’t there men working outside? Is it “misogyny” or “patriarchy”, or is it that the vast majority of men simply refuse to be employed in such a dirty, smelly and potentially dangerous environment?

            Regards, Paul”

            I don’t get your point, Paul?

            (For the record, I don’t know any prostitutes personally and I’ve never been to a brothel, so if that was offensive don’t publish it.)

          • Meghan Murphy

            Because we ALL know no women anywhere work outside or in ‘dirty’, ‘dangerous’ environments. Are you high, Paul?

          • Lela

            I’ve worked on farms. Perhaps Paul would like to question me on the finer points of dung-shovelling and goat-birthing. :)

          • Meghan Murphy

            What?!?! But women don’t work on farms, or in factories, or in homes, cleaning up other people’s messes all the while being subjected to sexual harassment and worse! Nor do they work on the streets as prostitutes. Nope. All women work in air conditioned offices making comfortable livings that afford them freedom and independence! WHEEEEEEEEEE! Oh look you guys! A unicorn!

          • Chris

            Not only do these women work in comfortable air-conditioned offices, where they can relax, drink coffee and gossip about men, all the while avoiding their wifely duties at home. No, despite all this privilege, they actually expect to get *paid* as well.

            And despite all this luxury, some of them *still* don’t give out at office parties!

          • MLM

            Oh, no!! It’s Sweetie Belle from the My Little Pony gang! Be careful, she’ll definitely try and start some shit…those lazy, power hungry, privilege denying ponies want to make the whole world pink and purple!

          • marv

            Thanks Lela. You reminded me of my mother and her women neighbours who pitch-forked chicken and pig manure regularly throughout their lives on the farm. These two types of animal excrement really make your eyes burn with tears when placed in piles because they are highly acidic. Respiratory conditions can result in humans by too much exposure. The odour is nauseous as well. It can make you feel faint.

          • marv

            Paul I am flabbergasted by your paternalistic views. Why do women do the vast majority of the shit work for small children, the disabled and the elderly: wiping bottoms, bathing, changing diapers, cleaning vomit, etc.? The sexual division of labour and power has been prescribed by men. I have been a home care giver for many years and I can say from personal experience that wives regularly provide bathing, bladder and bowel care for their disabled incontinent husbands but rarely do able bodied husbands offer the same service to their disabled incontinent wives. The men hire home care workers to do it who are generally women (disproportionately women of colour).

            At least men are paid for sewage treatment labour; wives and mothers do it for free (including washing toilet bowls and soiled clothing). Plus women are still paid much less in the labour market for work of comparable value to men’s – based on male standards of worth. You have little “regard” for women. Your unconscious conditioned opinions reflect the male established order.

          • copleycat

            And don’t forget most husbands leave their wives if the wives get chronically ill or injured. Whereas most wives will stay with and care for their husbands if cancer, chrone’s disease, etc strikes.

          • copleycat

            Day in and day out I see women working as nurses aids making a fraction of what is made by people in male dominated field s that deal with human waste and nurses aids have to have more training and patience, they can’t be 8th grade drop outs with criminal records like most garbage collectors (who make about 3X the average nurses aid’s salary) are.

          • Me

            This slideshow about migrant workers from the Philippines seemed topical (nothing graphic):

            http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inpictures/2012/12/20121217981786357.html

        • Missfit

          MRAs talk as if the fact that men are dying in wars or while doing risky work is the fault of feminism.

          Feminism wants to make it that women can choose to fight in wars and work in traditionnally male jobs. The problem is that a lot of these domains are hostile to women. Here in Quebec there was an investigation in the constrution milieu and there were women testifying to the discrimination and sexual harrassment they had to endure. If you want women to work ‘as hard as men’ (meaning in traditionnally male jobs), you would have to let them do so, free of discrimination and harrassment. You would also have to share the domestic work and caring for children. That means, you would also have to work ‘as hard as a woman’. Only then will you be able to make the claim that men work harder than women.

          But that is not what the MRM wants. They want women to stay home, serve them and be economically dependent so that even if they are badly treated, they can not leave.

          The MRM should rename itself the MSM, the Male Supremacist Movement.

          • marv

            Or (Men)dacious Rights Movement. That way they could keep their acronym to reduce inconvience.

  • Hithero

    You know what — lets back to sincere and intelligent debating — and enough of personal type of attacks — rational debating is the hard part – personal atttacks is the easy way out. I am not going to go to that level.

    I have to disagree with your definition of Feminism. Women Rights are about ending rape, domestic abuse etc Majority of men have supported women in these areas. But lets get to facts and statistics.

    Rape – A high percentage of rape cases have been proven to be false where the woman accuser was set free with no punitive actions. In the mean time the falsely accued man’s career and personal life was destroyed. Why are feminists silent and not outraged when these increasing type of incidents occur? IS that not a double standard? Why are rape punishments not equal to false rape accusations? Women are also raping men — especially female teachers who rape their underage students. There is a large web page of accused female teacher rapists — yet most of thme had minimal punishement and were often set free. Why are feminists not outraged about this? In reality is not Rape hysteria purposely created by feminists so they have more legal power over men. All a woman has to do is say she was raped by a certain man — even if it was ten years ago, and the police must arrest the man — that is some significant legal powers women have acheived over men. Most men are petrified of women nowadays and keep interations with women to a minimum. So in reality Rape Culture has been over exegerted — a lot of rape cases afe proven false — but in the mean time a man’s career is destroyed while the woman is set free. Hence Rape Culture has cuased a tremendous leagal imbalance that favour women — which means female privillege — just what teh aim of feminsim is.

    What about domestic violence? Statistics are showing that just as much women instigate domestic violence over men. Women use emotional violence – still not understood by the courts yet. Statistics are also showing that more women kill their biological children than do the biological fathers. These are not made up statistics – these are real fact — available on gov’t of Canada sites.

    The same can be reasoned when it comes to sexual harasment, violence against women ( what about violence against men?) – porn culture (how telling that to the majority of women who work in the porn indusry as opposed to the minority of men) — and women in prostitution — in which a female judge in Ontario legalized brothels — which in fact pretty well legalized prostitution.

    Hence you can see it is not about man against woman. These are society issues. But Feminism makes it about man vs woman. And woman wants privillege — hence feminism is mostly about privillege when you get to the bottom of it. Woman rights and Feminism have different objective. Men have supported women rights from the early stages — perhaps even more than women did. But Feminism is a different beast. THere are so many arguements that have proven over and over that Feminism is about privillege over men. That5 is why Feminism is having so much opposition. This opposition will only increase as more men become enlightened and aware of the real issues.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Ok so on account of breaking rule number four (please say things that are true): byeeeeeee.

    • Lela

      Egad, what did I just read? There’s a difference between “women’s rights” and “Feminism,” as in, feminists are some deranged bloc out to ruin men’s lives? “Woman wants privilege?” Then I suppose not wanting to be beaten, raped, denigrated, pornified, economically coerced into prostitution, killed, etc. is an example of wanting special privileges? This is woman-blaming at a terrible level of paranoid refinement.

      Let’s look at the statistics, indeed.

      Meghan, I’ve got to hand it to you for putting up with these factually challenged rants. It’s deeply frightening to think that men might be falling for this stuff.

      • Meghan Murphy

        It’s really out there. Hard to believe that anyone would fall for it. Though they have shown themselves to be a largely unintelligent group, in general.

        • Me

          Danger, danger! Don’t we have enough proof yet to find it EASY to believe people will fall for this?

          Do not treat them as unintelligent people. Just look at the porn industry. This is already about power and needs to be understood that way, I think. If this current strategy of theirs stops working for them, you can bet they will learn to refine how they communicate and how they work. As men they have this huge pool of bigotry to tap into and they have the sympathies of every organized power structure on their side. Apart from the ones feminists build. They’re hateful people and we don’t live in a rational society.

          • Hollow-point

            Treating unintelligent people as unintelligent is the only way to go. Otherwise, you give too much credit and then they fuck up whatever it is you pretended they could figure out for themselves. MRAs apparently do not know a self-defeating tactic even as it boomerangs back into their faces.

      • MLM

        But… we can’t look at the statistics because we haven’t been provided with any. Clearly the numbers are just so terrifying that nobody can even be told specifically what they are, and/or provided with a statistical source of any kind! “A high percentage of rape cases”; “statistics are showing” ; “statistics are also showing” … really, who’s going argue with ironclad evidence like that?? The world is being run by feminist shape shifting alien reptiloids! Trust no-one.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Haaaaaa.

        • Lela

          Hmm. I guess if you read documents like this: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11643-eng.pdf where it very clearly states on page 13 “Family violence victims primarily girls and women,” with your beer goggles on, you might see just about anything.

          (This is a link to a PDF so I’m not sure it’s going to work. Otherwise you just need to Google search “government of canada domestic violence statistics 2012.”)

    • Missfit

      Did this guy just said that rape culture, porn and prostition are female privilege?

      • Lela

        Yes, you’ve read correctly. “How telling that to the majority of women who work in the porn indusry as opposed to the minority of men”…. telling of what? Patriarchy? Institutionalized sexual violence against women?

        How arrogant of MRAs to say, repeatedly, that feminists ignore issues that affect men (hello! We don’t! So many of us are stalwart supporters of men’s social justice movements!) when they clearly have zero understanding of feminism. They’ve made up some make-believe, straw-man concept of what feminism is.

  • Meghan Murphy

    Just wanted to point out this hilarious little exchange that was linked back to me from A Voice for teh Menz: http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/some-weekend-thoughts-and-two-bullies/
    Apparently these dudes a) are incapable of deciphering who the author of this article is, b) are completely obsessed with the GENIUS of their own comments, c) can’t spell, d) aren’t hateful at all!

    “pinetree

    Guys check out this hateful comment by Megan Murphy — she also needs to be outed.

    http://feministcurrent.com/6928/the-mens-rights-movement-cafe-the-university-of-toronto/#comment-26259

    Meghan Murphy Says:
    December 14, 2012 at 3:21 pm
    To the MRA supporters trying to post comments here, I won’t post MRA propaganda. There’s no debate. The Men’s Rights Activists are a hate group:
    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply

    Dean Esmay in reply to pinetree

    “Outed” in what way? She’s got every right to spout her dishonest and bigoted shit, as does the guy whose article she’s commenting on. The aggressive ignorance that defines all bigotry drips from both of them, there is no honest attempt at discussion of the issues, as we have found for years to be true on these things (which is why we started getting rude). Even when we tried to ask for a debate what did they do? They issued threats and harassment against a self-described feminist who was willing to debate us and “mysteriously” the guy who offered to host the debate suddenly got fired. That’s how these thugs operate.

    So let them squawk. No one called for any violence and they know it. So all they can do is keep poisoning the well, which is what hatemongers do best.
    Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    Raven01 in reply to pinetree

    Any bets she refuses to publish this?
    “Now, now, the SPLC has ADMITTED that they over-stated the case and MRA are not a hate group, yet you link to an old articles purporting this to be the case. Do I need to research the rest to show the fake info you pretend is real?

    Girls were falling behind and not doing well in school and we re-acted. Admirably I would say in helping girls to do better, now the case is reversed and it is “hate speech” to suggest that we take the same steps and offer the same help to boys we did to girls.
    Your stance is morally untenable and quite frankly sickens me.
    If you represent the “new feminism” then count me out and paint me with the fake neck-beard, basement dwelling MRA brush because after reading for myself instead of taking others words for it I can say these people have the moral high ground.”
    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    cvar in reply to Raven01

    She published that and demanded a link. I bet she doesn’t publish any further responses from you. That way it looks like you couldn’t do it and fled into the internet.
    Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    gwallan in reply to pinetree

    This exchange WILL be deleted…

    MLM Says:
    December 14, 2012 at 6:53 pm

    “Farell is a men’s rights apologist who touts his former “feminist” credentials to act as the intellectual spokesperson of the MRA. He is the point person they trot out to to make Charles Murray, Bell Curve style arguments that obviously distort and misuse statistics, anecdotal evidence and historical record in defense of what are transparently specious and ahistorical notions that patriarchy is a myth not only now, but even in the past”

    This is a link to a 1977 Penthouse interview with Warren Farrell (by Philip Nobile) about the allegedly positive aspects of incest. (Huge trigger warning – it’s even worse than it sounds).

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/farrell2.htm

    1 likes

    Reply
    Greg Allan Says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    “This is a link to a 1977 Penthouse interview…”

    At which time Farrell was a feminist and informed by feminist ideology rather than any other. The ideas espoused are feminist in origin.

    0 likes

    Reply
    Meghan Murphy Says:
    December 14, 2012 at 8:35 pm

    Farrell was NEVER a feminist. Ever. That is an outright lie and, just a warning, I will delete comments that state things that are not true, as per my comment policy.

    1 likes

    Reply
    Greg Allan Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    December 14, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    Your assertion is contrary to the public record I’m afraid and therefore should be deleted under your own policy.
    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    by_the_sword in reply to pinetree

    I read the article. The lies that this woman writes about us makes me want to throw up. Everyone
    Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    by_the_sword in reply to pinetree

    I read the article. The lies that this woman writes about us makes me want to throw up. Everyone is making us out to be hate mongers.

    It makes me want to work harder to prove them wrong. To prove to everyone that we are interested in the non-violent pursuit of fair treatment for men and boys.
    Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    OneHundredPercentCotton in reply to by_the_sword

    You can’t prove anything to people like that.

    Do the right thing for the right reason, and don’t worry about what “they” think.

    The only person you have to “prove” anything to is yourself.

    Seriously. Didn’t your mother ever tell you that?
    Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    Steve_85 in reply to by_the_sword

    You’d be trying to teach a pig to sing. It can’t be done.
    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
    Log in to Reply
    greg in reply to pinetree

    Megan Murphy is Disgusting.
    Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0″

  • Rye

    From a little Wikipedia research, Warren Farrell concedes that men have institutional power. However, he defines real power as having “control over one’s life,” which he somehow thinks is something women have in greater abundance than men.

    He argues this happens for two reasons. First, only men are expected to risk their lives in war. Secondly, men have to earn money to make a living and marry. This comes at the expense of a man’s control over his life, because earning more money means working more hours or in potentially boring or hazardous jobs. Additionally, men lack control over their money because it is spent by their wives, and they risk losing their children and assets in divorce.

    Few things:

    1. By redefining power the way he does, Farrell obscures how those with institutional power control the lives of others.
    a. Having fewer responsibilities or expectations, and thus more control over your life, has no necessary connection with oppression. For example, the lives of spartiates were more micro-managed and demanding (including martial service) than the helots from Messene in Classical Sparta, but it would be absurd to say that the helots weren’t oppressed by the spartiates.
    b. As the spartiate example above illustrates, mention of men’s occupational hazards and compulsory draft registration do not undercut the validity of patriarchy.

    2. Farrell implies that women have more power than men, but fails to understand that men have considerable control over the lives of women.
    a. Women generally consult their husbands before making financial decisions, whereas men are given greater permission to make them unilaterally.
    b. Because men have privileged access to money, women are vulnerable to economic coercion.

    Now that I have outlined the basic schema of Farrell’s theory from Wikipedia and replied to some of his key assertions, I will now evaluate common MRA claims I found from “A Voice For Men.”

    3. Women frivolously divorce or become pregnant to profit from men.
    a. Aside from isolated incidents, this is false. For one, women are generally deterred from divorce for reasons that include the following:
    – Because women are expected to do the majority of housework and childcare, a woman’s available work hours are reduced at the expense of her career, while her husband can invest more time in his career or leisure.
    – A woman’s value on the marriage market drops substantially if she has children from a previous relationship.
    – Employers do not consider single mothers to be appealing employees.
    b. After divorce, men generally end up better off than women.
    – Although a divorced woman is eligible to receive government assistance, child care, alimony and half of the couple’s assets, it is not enough to live a leisurely life (unless her ex-husband is wealthy).
    – Because women are usually awarded child custody, their added responsibilities reduce their available work hours.

    4. Women have reproductive rights and men do not.
    a. This claim is intended to reveal some sort of female privilege, but it obscures the unequal costs that reproduction has on women.
    b. Giving men the right to interfere with a pregnancy violates women’s bodily autonomy.
    c. Men have reproductive rights. They can wear condoms.
    – Women would like men to wear condoms more often, but men hate them and often regard contraception as a woman’s problem.

    5. Rape Culture is a myth.
    a. Society is complicit with rape for many reasons including:
    – A woman’s dress and sexual history are often regarded as relevant information to establish her credibility and the extent she might be at fault. This illustrates that women are regarded as potentially at fault for being raped, which therefore excuses the rapist.
    – A woman who consents to some sex acts such as oral sex is often regarded as having consented to other sex acts. So if a woman consents to oral sex but not to vaginal intercourse, public opinion will often excuse the man for the rape.
    – When a woman accuses a man of rape, especially if he is a famous or respectable member of the community, societal pressure will often deter her from moving forward with the accusation. Moreover, it will often be assumed that she is lying about the rape, which rarely occurs.

    6. The prevalence of male-on-female rape is comparable with female-on-male rape.
    a. The statistical methods used to justify this claim are flawed.
    b. This claim contradicts the lived experience of nearly all men.

    7. Men are guilty of domestic violence just as often as women.
    a. [sarcasm] Yes, because women are crazy and will attack a man who is much stronger than she is without provocation. [/sarcasm]

    8. Women practice hypergamy.
    a. Doesn’t sound too controversial to me that women often try to marry the wealthiest man they can. What do you expect when men have privileged access to money?

    I apologize in advance if I have misrepresented either radical feminism or the MRM. Now when I connect the dots…

    1. Summary of the MRM from “A Voice for Men”:
    a. Women enjoy female privilege which allows them to:
    – Enslave men to finance their princess lifestyle.
    – Trick men to marry and/or impregnate them.
    – Steal men’s children.
    – Walk free from child abuse, domestic violence and fraudulent accusations of rape.
    b. Women are too lazy to work so they profit off the backs of men’s labor through marriage, divorce or pregnancy. In fact, men must be vigilant of women because they will pick up a condom in the trash or even rape to become pregnant.
    c. Women are prone to craziness and are therefore a ticking time-bomb for throwing breakable objects at men or even stabbing them with kitchen knives.

    2. Conclusion:
    a. MRA’s, at least those on “A Voice for Men,” have a backward conception of women and they seem to largely maintain their group cohesion by sharing their hatred of women.
    b. The theoretical framework laid down by Warren Farrell rests on a bizarre definition of power that suspiciously seems to redefine a ruling class as oppressed.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Righto. And because pregnancy is such a fun and carefree experience that doesn’t at all impact the ENTIRE REST OF YOUR LIFE. It makes so much sense that women would go through all that just to manipulate men (Manipulate men into what? You might ask…).

    • NitroGirl

      A Voice for Men—because shouting over women in real life was too stressful on our vocal chords.

  • marv

    Chris’s reference to the Nazis above made me think of the irrational hysteria that MRA’s share with Adolf Hitler. Here is a quote from Mein Kemp which he actually wrote well before he came to power as a commentary, in part, on how the German government had been duped by the Jewish menace. I have inserted my comparison in brackets:

    “As the leadership of our destinies has….been quite openly furnished by Jews [feminists], we….hold the conviction that [this] conscious purpose is destroying our nation [men’s dominion]. And once we examine the apparent madness of our nation’s leadership….it is revealed as….the service of the Jewish [feminist] idea and the struggle for world domination”.

    Hitherto’s own lunacy and contempt mongering are apparent in the words I gleaned from his posts (the typos are his):

    “Feminism… is extremely one sided favoring one gender over the other– and it has now turned into a movement of privillege, hate and even violence”; “It is time for female privillege to come to an end. Do you not find it odd that women in feminist countries — especially Canada — are the most privilleged women in the world — but also have the biggest victim complex than women even from the poorest countries?”; “Hence Rape Culture has caused a tremendous legal imbalance that favour women — which means female privillege — just what the aim of feminism is.”; “THere are so many arguements that have proven over and over that Feminism is about privillege over men. That5 is why Feminism is having so much opposition.”

  • Hithero

    Although MRAs will continue to use logic, fairness and compasssion when dealing with gender issues, I must say it is individuals like Megan Murphy and blogs like these that are making MRM grow at a rapid rate — so in a sense I am grateful for Megan Murphy’s blog and her works.

    • Meghan Murphy

      OH WHAT? You mean to say that feminism pisses off privileged white dudes who are desperately clinging to patriarchy and the power they believe they are biologically entitled to?? YOU’RE WELCOME HITHERO. For your expanding (ha) club membership of angry white dudes — go team bro.

    • MLM

      “MRAs will continue to use logic, fairness and compasssion when dealing with gender issues”.

      I laughed so hard I actually fell off my chair when I read that. Hitherto, your very own comments have been practically devoid of these things. Your lack of self-awareness is stunning. I am also very grateful for your blog Meghan, and for you blogging about this subject in particular given recent events and repercussions for some of the (female) student protestors at the University of Toronto.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Thanks MLM! Michael Laxer actually wrote this particular post. I was extremely grateful having followed this stuff for some time. Funny the MRAs are all up on me and not Michael, eh? Telling….

        • MLM

          Absolutely. Very telling, indeed. And typical of how they seem to operate.

  • Ivy

    I am absolutly sick and tired of the MRA lie that only men contributed to society while women just sat around and ate bon bons–therefore men have the right to treat women like property. Women were erased by much of history and were prevented from going to college because men wanted to control women’s reproduction. Men as a class have been and are oppressive to women. Also bullshit on the women are as violent as men…it’s stupid and doesn’t hold up to scruitiny. And of course rapists are going to say they are falsly accused…their rapists!

  • Hithero

    First of all there quite a few black and persons of color in MRM if you care to look — of which I am one. Second, more women have been joining MRM in increasing numbers and even becoming spokes persons for MRAs. In fact a well known woman MRA from Vancouver recently issued a challenge with a male MRA to have a public debate with any feminists. So far no one has taken them up on the offer. Perhaps Megan Murphy would consider doing this public debate — it may make her see the other side of her one sided apoproach to gender issues — and make her at least more aware of the whole picture. I doubt she would do that as most feminists prefer to remain in their cosy introverted and perhaps fantasy intrepretations of the real world. But in case Megan Murphy is interested — you may find more information on the public debate here:

    http://mensrightsedmonton.com/2012/12/11/mens-rights-edmonton-vlog-7/

    • Meghan Murphy

      Debate what? The validity of a movement that imagines men as victims? What a joke. Feminists have better things to do than debate delusional, privilege-denying men.

      That ‘debate’ they tried to organize in Vancouver got shut down real fast, eh? Turns out the general public sees MRAs as a hate group and no feminist would engage in such a ridiculous event. There’s no debate. Patriarchy exists. What’s next, you want to debate climate change? The holocaust? Come on.

  • Hithero

    The debate issue remains open by a Vancouver woman MRA. And it is not a challenge. It is lets discuss the ideas in a friendly manner and let the public decide. Anyway, I will now let your readership perhaps read your posts again and decide for themselves if Megan Murphy is being intellectually true to her ideas — or is this simply in the end all about winning the game for her as it is with many feminists I have come accross. Time is running out though — facts and statistics do not lie — and MRM is growing armed with facts and statistics to back their arguements. In the meantime, I must say I do appreciate Megan Murphy not blocking my posts — like many other feminists do –for that I have to give her credit and wish her the best.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Stop spelling my name wrong.

      • Ivy

        I just wanted to say thank you for blocking his post…I find rape apoligia via women are lying a out rape and they are just as violent as men very, very triggering. MEn are way more violent then women…I just looked at the crime states database and YES THEY COMMIT THE MOST CRIMES! Pointing that out is not misandry

    • MLM

      “facts and statistics do not lie — and MRM is growing armed with facts and statistics to back their arguements” Strange that statistics and solid facts so often seem absent, cherrypicked or hugely distorted in MRA discussions, then. Or that they seem to come from sources that no other organisations really deem to be credible so much of the time. And I’m pretty sure part of Meghan Murphy’s readership do think she’s being “intellectually true to her ideas” (whatever that actually means), otherwise why would they be her readership?

      • Ivy

        I am really angry at this false rape accusation lie. Men can be and are very preditory at times. I have been to many, many concerts and see how men act towards women. MRAs and their ohhhhhh but what about the majority of men who were falsly accused need to shut up and quit lying…YOU ARE HURTING WOMEN!

  • MLM

    Actually, I meant to say I’m pretty sure ALL of Meghan Murphy’s readership think this. (That’s what I get for trying to write two different things at same time).

  • awesomebismuth

    It is a hate group, and nobody should have to debate with them, but they are getting more members as time goes on, so soon it will get so bad you will have to argue with them and if you cant, they will look like the right ones.

    Or that just happens when something gets enough supporters.

    Anyway has anyone seen this? http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/women-were-not-oppressed-by-not-having-the-vote/

  • http://godlessfeminist.wordpress.com/ Jacqueline S. Homan

    If there is any doubt as to how dangerous MRA’s really are, this bowel movement’s poster boy and hero,George Sodini — the Pittsburgh, PA mass shooter who shot up a gym full of women two years ago — should remove all doubt. Sodini kept an online diary detailing his plans to shoot a bunch of women for up to a year in advance. To give succor to the MRA camp under the pretense of “free speech” is the same as allowing Nazis to march through a Jewish community full of Holocaust survivors under the guise of “free speech.”

  • Albert

    Current North American feminists have to be the most privileged group to have ever existed on the planet. These girls do not even understand how disgustingly privileged somebody has to be to draw such extreme conclusions on men.

    • Meghan Murphy

      That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. In what universe are feminists ‘the most privileged group’? Because we’re all so rich and powerful and safe?

    • Lela

      Unbelievable. When women’s income continues to lag behind men’s, when feminists are commonly low-income women who speak out because we are sick, physically and mentally, of being trampled by patriarchy… you’re offensive, Albert, and you have no idea what you’re talking about. Gee, it must really feel great, spreading ignorant lies about vulnerable people you can’t be bothered to understand.

    • MLM

      It’s interesting what happens when you reverse that comment – it actually starts to make more sense! …

      Current North American men have to be the most privileged group to have ever existed on the planet. These men do not even understand how disgustingly privileged somebody has to be to draw such extreme conclusions on feminists.

      See?

      • Chris

        There’s actually a grain of truth there. Western women (not feminists) are indeed extremely privileged. They are the second most privileged group in the world. The vast majority of women do not live in the West, and they do not simply lack privilege, they experience real exploitation and oppression.

        Of course, that’s not what Albert is talking about. He just means that if any given man cannot live like Don Draper, that is oppression enforced by high-flying feminists. This is precisely the same feeling expressed by white South Africans near the end of Apartheid. The idea of democracy (one person, one vote) was the height of oppression.

        There is an almost complete inability to distinguish between justice and oppression. Removing privilege is not a punishment, nor a comment on one’s character, nor the end of the world. It is simply justice. Giving rights to other people is not a favour you can grant them, and it’s not something you should expect thanks for. It’s the basic starting point of equality and decency.

        • Meghan Murphy

          And feminist doesn’t deny the existence of class and race privilege. Alas that privilege doesn’t erase the existence of patriarchy.

          • Chris

            Certainly. But it goes beyond race and class. You have to consider, what, for lack of any better word, is called Imperialism. A black lesbian woman living in Toronto or New York has more privilege than most people in the world, barring western men, of course. Indeed, the products she buys may have been produced under terrible labour conditions, and if she uses contraceptives, they may have been tested on third-world women (and men).

            At the same time, she is still constantly at risk of rape, assault or sexual harrassment, subject to discrimination, and is unlikely to receive pay commensurate with her skills and experience. Patriarchy doesn’t get a pass. It’s as bad as Apartheid or slavery and needs to be abolished.

            Of course, if you start a conversation with a “third-wave” feminist by saying you support feminism, you get off to a good start, but if you start asking about women’s rights in India or the sex-slave trade from Eastern Europe, you’re likely to either get a blank stare, or a suggestion that they should be able to dress any way they want. Probably they’ll throw in, unasked for, the idea that we should ban headscarves because it’s oppressive to women (they always seem to mention Muslims, not Christian Nuns, for some reason).

          • Meghan Murphy

            Totally. And re: Third wavers, alas they seem incapable of moving beyond slut pride (FUCK YEAH).

    • Grackle

      Telling that he used the words “men” and “girls”, isn’t it?

  • MLM

    Yes. Another MRA favourite seems to be using the words “men” and “females”.

    (Sorry. My cat stepped on the keyboard the first time I tried to post this comment! )

  • MLM

    Yep. This is a fine example of that “logic, fairness and compassion” that “MRAs will continue to use… when dealing with gender issues” according to Hitherto, isn’t it? How could anyone possibly think you’re representing a hate group with enlightened comments like this?! Because you’ve clearly made just so much effort to engage in respectful debate here, haven’t you? Pathetic.

  • Pingback: INTERVIEW ARCHIVES: Does feminism discriminate against men? An interview with James P. Sterba | Feminist Current()

  • Pingback: Movement against ‘manspreading’ on transit leads to MRA sads | Feminist Current()