Men's Rights Activists advocate for 'human rights' with rape and death threats

The latest from A Voice For Men’s “activism” files is a smear campaign against a protester they are calling “Big Red.” “Big Red” (nothing sexist about that name) is a woman who dared to speak out (USING SWEAR WORDS, OH NO) against Men’s Rights Activists’ anti-feminist agenda.

For those who are unfamiliar with this situation, earlier in April a Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) group called the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) sponsored a lecture at the University of Toronto where there were talks by Janice Fiamengo about how feminism is mean. Specifically, a “mean-spirited bias against men in the humanities.”

There were protestors at the event which CAFE says could be heard shouting during the talk. From their website: “Dialogue confronting sexism proceeds while protestors scream to shut down even.” Paul Elam and friends at A Voice for Men took it upon themselves to celebrate free speech by editing videos featuring Big Red, while Dan Perrins wrote an article entitled: “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” that you can find yourself if you are so inclined. This campaign highlighted Big Red’s protest and compared her practice of disagreement, which however loud and obnoxious is still covered under freedom of expression, by comparing what she was talking about—patriarchal theory and how it affects men—to tactics used by the Third Reich.

First of all, let’s be clear here: No, Big Red was not polite. Yes, she was abrasive and caustic and downright rude. No, neither of the authors of this article would necessarily choose to protest an event that they feel is designed to silence women by yelling shut the fuck up. Yes, we see the irony in the fact that she was screaming over (seemingly reasonable) voices, claiming that she isn’t being heard.

But you know what? As Polonius said: “Though this be madness, yet there is method in’t.”

She’s not being heard. Those men aren’t listening to her when she’s countering their points about how hard it is to be a man. Those men aren’t listening when she’s trying to explain how feminism is not, in fact, the work of Satan and actually does work to address the issues that they’re bringing up. Those men aren’t listening when she tries to read off a list explaining the actual goals of feminism, but yet they insist she read their list.

Look, Big Red might not the person that we would choose as the poster child for Canadian feminism. Maybe her behaviour isn’t ideal. But we also understand how dealing with men, men who won’t admit to the existence of the patriarchy, men who deny the idea of male privilege, men who hate women, can wear you down until you turn into the screaming feminist banshee that the MRAs thought you were all along, anyway.

Big Red has (naturally) been identified on the Men’s Rights subreddit, where those Hardy Boys of misogyny have used their super sleuthing skills to discover her real name and have pulled photographs from her twitter account and various dating profiles.

This woman, who has been re-christened “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” (so charming!) by A Voice for Men is now receiving death threats, rape threats and, of course, tons of crude sexual commentary regarding her appearance and behaviour. We wish that we could say that we’re surprised, but we’re not.

The fact is that you are fucking kidding yourself if you think that Elam’s Men’s Rights Movement is about anything other than silencing women. And even if it were true that every single individual MRA wasn’t out to destroy all feminists everywhere — the ultimate goals of the movement as a whole is to Teach Women Their Place through whatever means necessary.

Aside from how triggering and painful it is to watch yet another woman be thrown to the internet wolves, it’s also just plain exhausting and demoralizing having to hear the same old song and dance from the MRAs about the evils of feminism:

“Feminists are trying to silence men.”

“Feminists hate men.”

“Feminism has lead to the oppression of men” (seriously, every time someone says that, we want to break out Mandy Patinkin’s old Princess Bride gem: “You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”).

“Why is it called feminism if it’s for human rights?”

The truth is that, fundamentally, these arguments used against feminism by the MRAs can be applied much more accurately to their own movement.

For instance, how can A Voice for Men demand free speech while practicing silencing and bullying tactics worthy of the McCarthy himself? They mimic the practices of Neo-Nazi website Redwatch, claiming to be suffering from oppression while at the same time publishing personal information about far left and anti-fascist activists in hopes that their supporters will attack them. The constant comparison of feminists to Nazis employed by the author of “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” doesn’t hold up well to scrutiny when you publish on a site that borrows neo-Nazi tactics. Also: Ideologically, feminism is far more closely aligned with communism than fascism. Read a book.

One of the writers of this piece has had the delight of speaking with people who, enraged about her video explaining that feminism is not hatred of men, have mocked everything from her looks to her intellect. Other posts written by feminists are rife with commenters insinuating that our preoccupation with rape belies some deep urge to experience it (RAPE – IT’S WHAT WE ALL WANT, AMIRITE LADIES?). And this sentiment isn’t happening in the periphery of A Voice for Men– not at all. In fact, it’s included in much of the featured content on their site.

Paul Elam, founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, wrote in his June 22, 2011 article, “The Unspoken Side of Rape”: “The concept of rape has a lot of utility for women. One, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible”. Interestingly, we have yet to hear one single feminist posit that MRAs write about prison rape because it makes them feel desirable or sexy. The difference, they would likely argue, is that the feminists talking about rape are heterosexual women who are talking about heterosexual rape (sidebar – how come we’re all man-hating lesbians when it’s convenient for them, and other times we’re all undersexed heteros?), whereas prison rape is heterosexual men being subjected to homosexual acts. THIS IS FUCKING BULLSHIT. Equating sexual preference with rape is a false comparison. Rape, by definition, is unwanted.

But maybe A Voice for Men’s (intentional) misunderstanding of this fact is what allows them to feel comfortable threatening women with rape — Because in their minds, it’s what we all secretly want anyway.

Unfortunately, Big Red’s case is not the first time that A Voice for Men has used silencing tactics against feminists. Emma (Claire) Kadey is listed on register-her.com along with women the MRAs have listed as pedophiles and rapists, for taking down posters of the U of T students and loudly protesting against the lecture. On June 28th, 2011 Elam gleefully declared “You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection” (pssst we call that hate speech).

Additionally A Voice for Men has offered $1000 bounties for the personal information of the creators of a (fake) video where a man is shot point-blank and then the females present gleefully dance around his dead body. Do the authors of this article think that video’s fucked up? Sure. And yet, we don’t typically demand the personal information for those  who create graphic BDSM videos, or of those who produce the sub-genre of horror known colloquially as torture porn.

A Voice for Men created register-her.com, a fake “offenders registry” of women they’d like to believe are criminals. In AVfM land, criminals are people like Jessica Valenti, Sophia Guo (a protester at MRA god, Warren Farrell’s 2012 talk at the University of Toronto), Katherine Heigl (kind of a weird addition), and Amanda Marcotte.

In short, their “criminals” are feminists.

A Voice for Men can lie all they want about their intentions to expose hatred within the feminist community. They can pretend that they have nothing against women, per se, just that they’re trying to protect themselves against the Evil Machinations of Man-Haters Everywhere. They can go ahead and make trumped up claims about how badly feminists have hurt them, how little power men have, and how very dangerous feminism is (while boasting a terrorist manifesto by Tim Ball calling for police, courts and government to be burned out). They can pretend that they’re on some kind of human rights mission.

But you know what? We don’t understand how promoting human rights equates to lobbing death threats and rape threats at women who dare to speak out against MRAs.

We have never seen a feminist threaten an MRA with any of those things. Of course, in the bottom half of the internet you never know what you will find, but we haven’t seen it. The usual cries against feminist literature “but the SCUM Manifesto—feminists are mean!” Well, Solanas has been quoted as saying “it is a literary device. There’s no society and never will be”. So it is going to be ok! There’s no group of feminists out there plotting mass gendercide. Equality… We want equality.

In all movements there happen to surface voices that we wouldn’t choose to represent the totality of the whole movement. In fact, there are many MRAs who are starting to feel that way about A Voice for Men. Even in the Men’s Rights Reddit there are dissenting voices against A Voice for Men’s tendency to demand free speech while practicing silencing tactics.

The fact is that A Voice for Men promotes rape culture and violence against women, and that’s really all there is to it.

Look. Guys. We get it. A lot of you haven’t had easy lives. You’ve had shitty things happen to you. You need a scapegoat, and feminism is an easy one. You feel that women get a free pass in life, and that men are treated badly as a result. But you know what? The most common complaints that I hear from MRAs are things that came about as the result of the patriarchy.

Historically, patriarchy operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterised by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess (unless there are exceptional circumstances resulting from intersections with other social hierarchies conferring high status that gives rare women political authority such as the royal lineage in the British family, or the divine claim to authority of Joan of Arc).

A few examples:

Society has always been better to women.

If by better you mean “for centuries society did not consider them to be people, and thought that they were incapable of doing any work outside the home” then sure. In pre-industrial France a man would take a wife when he couldn’t afford a servant.

Biologically every woman counts in reproduction, where males are more disposable.

Look, we don’t like being walking incubators any more than you like feeling as if you’re nothing more than some kind of sperminator. We don’t want to be treated as if we’re special just because we have the ability to get pregnant! This is actually the opposite of what feminists want.

Courts always rule against men in cases regarding child custody

You know why? Because the patriarchy teaches us that only women can be nurturing, loving caregivers. This is not what feminists want! We want to break down traditional gender roles!

Women are rescued first in any emergency or disaster, lifeboats!

First of all, that’s not true, and second of all: Patriarchy. Patriarchy is what teaches us that women aren’t competent enough to save themselves and therefore have to be given some kind of special priority.

Men work longer hours at more dangerous jobs, men have to fight wars, men are more likely to die violent deaths.

Guess why? Oh right, patriarchy, that’s why! Because traditionally we have been taught that women are not strong or brave enough to work at dangerous jobs or fight on the front lines. These are more gender stereotypes that feminists want to get rid of.

And we don’t want men to die violent deaths, I promise. Pinky swear. We need you to fill our sad, empty wombs with babies. Haha! Just kidding! A little feminist humour for you there. No but seriously, we for reals don’t want you to die.

At the end of the day, the fact is that we should all be on the same team. And feminists want this! I promise! But for that to happen, you (and by you, I mean dudes) need to accept a few things: 1) The patriarchy is real, 2) Male privilege actually is a thing, and 3) That women are still struggling for legal and social equality. We need you to be willing to listen to us, to give us the benefit of the doubt, and actually believe us when we tell you that something is sexist or misogynistic.

We want to work with you. But first you have to stop hating us, calling us criminals, and threatening us with death and rape. You need to take a good, hard look at what the Men’s Rights Movement is really trying to achieve, and decide if those are actually goals that you support. And you have to just plain give us a chance.

 

Danielle Paradis is a writer and blogger scribbling furiously across the feminist internet on Fem 2.0, Flurt Magazine, Persephone Magazine, and Paradigm Shift NYC. She’s completing a Masters in Learning & Technology at Royal Roads University. Danielle currently lives in Edmonton, Alberta while dreaming of any place warmer. Learn more at Danielleparadis.com

Anne Theriault lives in Toronto with her husband and young son. She spends her days teaching yoga, reading in cafés, and trying to figure out how to negotiate in toddler-ese. She regularly blogs about books, nostalgia and feminism at bellejarblog.wordpress.com

 

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

  • lizor

    “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth”. Right, because when you mock up a sexualized picture of a person’s orifice, that disempowers and humiliates them. Because sex is by nature dirty and the person whose orifice is penetrated is, by definition, degraded.

    Got the ideology loud and clear, boys. What a great vision of sexual freedom!

  • Damian

    Excellent. This clearly identifies the existing issues with MRAs without stooping as low as them. It presents a beautifully articulated fresh starting point that I can only hope will be taken rather than just drowned in torrents of abuse, deliberate misunderstanding and hate.

  • WarOfTheNerd

    The title mentions that MRAs advocate for human rights with rape and death threats, yet no actual examples are provided of MRAs advocating with rape and death threats.

    You’ve succeeded in levelling up my critical thinking skills! Thanks!

    • Meghan Murphy

      Headline writers are the worst! But seriously, wtf are you talking about??

      “This woman, who has been re-christened “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” (so charming!) by A Voice for Men is now receiving death threats, rape threats and, of course, tons of crude sexual commentary regarding her appearance and behaviour. We wish that we could say that we’re surprised, but we’re not.”

      • Natalie

        AVFM demanded that its supporters film everything, they then proceeded to promote the footage on their main page for days, the original You Tube video by 18 upper which received over 300,000 views was part of that featured piece. They are responsible for what they promote which is hatred of feminists. Sorry, the onus is on them to prove otherwise. The original is below.

        http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/toronto-protest-up-to-date-coverage/

        And in their own words:from an AVFM article “She is also the focus of ongoing inquiry, whose identity will be discovered and put on public display. Her conduct will follow her wherever she goes for the foreseeable future.

        She is not the only individual earning such inquiry and publication.

        Like the early mission of the SPLC in opposition to racism, AVfM’s mandate includes identifying and exposing agents of hate, violence and bigotry, and all who threaten the peaceful and legally protected exchange of ideas.

        We are not interested in the peace of mind, or in protecting the public image of offending individuals and organizations.” This was regarding an earlier protest at U of T in November. So War of the Nerd, What the hell are you talking about?

  • http://fauxwhore.com magdelyn

    Patriarchy is not “a thing”. In fact, feminists have not universally embraced the silly construct:

    “This is not to say that the concept of “patriarchy” was universally embraced by feminists. The concept of patriarchy has been heavily criticized by some feminists, who have accused it of ‘…being both politically counter-productive and based on sloppy, over ambitious and dangerously misleading theoretical assumptions.’ (68) Critics have argued that the concept of patriarchy is flawed, more of a description than an explanation; denies individual agency by seeing women as victims; does not take reflect the fluid nature of gender relations and is inadequate for use as a universal theory of gender relations.'” (69)

    —————
    (68) Bryson, Valerie, “Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction, 2nd Ed.” Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY, 2003, 167.

    (69) Kirton, Gell and Anne Marie Greene, “The Dynamics of Managing Diversity: A Critical Approach,” Butterworth and Heinemann, Woburn, MA, (2000): 68.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Well now. That’s just a straight up lie. The whole point of feminism is to end patriarchy. More hilarity from the MRA faction!

      • CN

        Clearly Meghan makes a better point. Sourced quotes and deconstruction stand no chance against “thats just a straight up lie”

        • Meghan Murphy

          How about this: If you think there are feminists out there who don’t believe in patriarchy, you’re an idiot? Better?

          • Meghan Murphy

            Actually, imma amend that comment: If ANYONE doesn’t believe that patriarchy is a real thing that exists, they are an idiot.

          • Stephanie

            So articulate. How could anyone win an argument against this?

          • Meghan Murphy

            Mehhh. No point in wasting precious time and words on a non-argument.

      • http://fauxwhore.com magdelyn

        Men’s rights are A W E S O M E rights!!!

    • http://lolliguncula.wordpress.com ibleedpurple

      This quote does not prove that patriarchy does not exist.

    • Danielle Paradis

      Criticizing that patriarchy is not effective isn’t the same thing as saying it does not exist. Where patriarchy fails is to recognize all the simultaneous systems of opression.

      Societies can be, and quite frequently are, patriarchal, oligarchal and plutocratic all at the same time, complicated by current and/or legacy features of sectarianism, imperialism and colonialism, so the gender hierarchy is only one source of social disparity. Patriarchy is limited in scope because the definition is: “a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it” there is another terminology kyriarchy that is used to bridge the gap left but the traditional feminist patriarchal theory, but it is not yet in common usage.

      And I wasn’t writing a term paper here.

    • http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/ Francois Tremblay

      Obviously the Patriarchy does not exist. Neither does the State, organized religion, monogamy, etc etc. Everything can be reduced to individual actions. Thank you for enlightening me, Ayn Rand wannabe!

  • http://www.manyfesto.net manyfesto

    Making feminism about “equality” and not about female liberation has resulted in this kind of nonsense. Revolting.

  • joy

    The ties between neo-Nazism/white supremacy and the men’s rights movement became even more explicit when the MRM doxxed a former Georgetown student named Adrienne Pattek under the (demonstratably false) pretense that she’d written a blog called “The Feminist Conservative” (which is probably in and of itself a hoax blog, possibly even written by an MRA).

    David Futrelle at “Manboobz.com” learned that the notorious Aryan neo-Nazi site Stormfront had broken the supposed news and actually doxxed Pattek first. Paul Elam jumped on the bandwagon after Georgetown had already received harassment from white supremacists. So it’s not inconceivable that the MRM gets some of its news from neo-Nazis. There’s certainly more evidence supporting that possibility than there is proving Pattek and Georgetown committed any kind of offense.

    (The greatest irony is that Stormfront eventually relented, with some members openly commenting that the “feminist conservative” blog was probably a hoax and Pattek clearly didn’t write it either way. The MRM has yet to back off, unless you count Paul Elam’s fauxpology stating that he still believes Georgetown and Pattek are involved in some massive feminist conspiracy since he can’t prove that they *aren’t*. As Futrelle wrote: when Stormfront is behaving more rationally than you are, your movement might have some big problems.)

    • Slim

      Actually check your facts AVFM printed a retraaction claiming they were wrong about that article being genuine.

      • joy

        Nice try, but that’s what I meant by “Elam’s fauxpology.” He didn’t retract his statement or tell anyone to back off — he basically said he still thought Pattek and GU were guilty of *something*, just *maybe* not what he had specifically attacked them for (although he couldn’t prove to his own satisfaction that they weren’t guilty of that too).

        That is neither a retraction or an apology. That is a botched attempt at PR and saving face.

  • zkhr

    Is there a way of reporting register-her.com? I’ve been looking for ages, and I just can’t find anything.

  • Stephanie

    I am a woman and a men’s rights activist. As much as I believe women are at certain disadvantages, I also understand the reality of men’s disadvantages. To say that patriarchy affords men the right to die for their country, to die before women and children, to take on the harder jobs and the greater risks does NOT, for me, prove that no male disadvantage exists. No matter what reason you give (patriarchy or something else), doing the harder work and losing your life first is NOT an advantage any way you look at it. Historically, slaves do the harder work. Bodyguards put their lives after those they protect. I’ve never heard anyone argue that slaves and bodyguards have all the power. In fact, they are voiceless, just like my husband, who is forced to pay for 90% of his children’s expenses while his ex-wife need not get a job, need not use his child support on their children, and makes all of the parental decisions. That means she COULD work but doesn’t. He has to work but gives the majority of his money to her (not the children). Nobody can argue that money given to a woman who does not have to spend it on her children is actually child support. It’s alimony in disguise. Research the history of child support, of how it began, of who designed it, who it benefits. It subsidizes welfare. That’s what it does. And it does it in a vastly unfair way. It strips men of their rights to be fathers, to determine how they will support their children. But oh! When I was a young girl and had a child but decided I was too young to support it, I was allowed to give that child up for adoption and was applauded for my selflessness, my courage, my great love for my child. If a young man were to be allowed to make the same decision (he’s not, by the way, not without the mother’s consent or without a step-father to take his place), he would be seen as a, what was the term again—oh, yes,—“deadbeat dad” and would be ostracized for his “crime” against his child and the child’s mother. Grossly unfair expectations. And you’ll say, I imagine, that it’s all patriarchy. But patriarchy gives the power and the control to men. Here, we see the man has neither. In fact, when one is forced to work without being able to profit from that labor or determine how his income will be spent, he is, by most cultural standards, little more than an indentured servant. Your article is filled with anger for men’s rights activists, as you clump us all together under one women-hating umbrella. I am no woman-hater. I am a woman. We cannot actively seek the truth when we are blind to beliefs other than our own. Be human-rights activists, ladies. We’re all in this together.

    • Meghan Murphy

      YEAH LADIES.

      • Melissa

        Does it make me a bad person that I read that in Archer’s voice? :)

      • string of pearls

        I once was sent to cover stories on “father’s rights” groups. They were all women! Second wives deprived of weekly French manicures or something, because the first wife unjustly got money to feed, clothe and educate the kids, grandmothers who had never said a bad word about the woman raising their grandchildren, but said it in four letter words.

        They got not an iota of ink from me. I wish we could do the same with Elam (Male). Just fucking ignore him.

    • Danielle Paradis

      Ok where to start…I am sorry for your husband if a system takes advantage of him. That’s anecdotal though. My father never had to pay a dime in child support he got to run off and be a happy free man because my mother was deathly afraid of him (and I don’t hate him for it. We could counter all day with individual stories. No one is saying that men do not suffer ever.

      And I most certainly did not clump all MRAs together (not that most feminists won’t) my focus was on AVfM and their vitriol. No fucking way am I getting on that train.

      • http://fauxwhore.com magdelyn

        I do have to agree that AVfM is over the top, and out of line with its obvious distain for engaging rationally and productively about gender issues. I also agree that register-her is a shame, since it lists people not having been convicted for a crime. I think the “bigot” catagory sucks – and I’ve made my position made known to them.

    • Me

      I don’t understand how you jump from the expendability of men in patriarchy to this supposed injustice in having to pay for child support? The expendability /for war/ is a thing in my opinion, there’s a book about it called Unmaking War, Remaking Men by Kathleen Barry. But even having to pay child support unjustly doesn’t in any way come near to constructing men as expendable.

      Related: how would subsidizing welfare be necessarily a bad thing instead of a properly masculine one, in what universe?

      And how are slaves only men?

      I suspect you’ve lied just about everything and totally made your comment up.

      • Stephanie

        Hi, “me.” Isn’t it interesting that two out three replies to my comment are laced with accusations of lying and words like “fucking”–the rhetoric, I dare say, of the angry and thus potentially somewhat blinded by that anger. I never said slaves were all men. Read again. You missed the logical progression there. Also, the tie between men’s expendability and their role as essentially indentured servants seems clear to me. That we force men to fund a woman’s parental endeavors without men having any say in the parenting of their child is unjust. At least from where I stand it is. Injustice is subordination.

        While I feel terribly that your mother, Danielle, was afraid of your father, this does not take away from the presence of an unjust law–one present in every state. That which we allow to be law speaks of our pervasive cultural ethos. And this one asserts, sadly, that we neither think women are capable of earning money enough to parent their children without their ex-husbands or think men deserving of a parental role in their children’s lives. If as a woman I am allowed to CHOOSE if I will support my child’s life, why isn’t my husband? Why aren’t young fathers? Why must they be the ones to subsidize welfare? Why not examine our economy, the reason for the huge population of single mothers who would need welfare without child support? But child support is its own monster–one you’d need to examine from an economic standpoint to really understand. The key is this. I don’t think anyone should be afraid to say “Hey. I have a story, and I think it represents an injustice in the world resulting in the suffering of one particular gender—in this case, men.” I hear the stories of women. We have heard, throughout history, the stories of many people who have been the victims of injustice purely based on creed, sexuality, race, and of course gender. Why not hear the story of men and those who support and love men? Why leave them out? Why deny them even the right to have a story, to speak out against the injustice served them? Why meet them with such anger and hostility? How silly to accuse me of lying. Of course I’m not lying. I’m not here to argue or antagonize. I’m here to offer another side of this important conversation. I don’t think feminists are inherently wrong. I don’t think women aren’t served their own brand of injustice. I’m just here to tell you that they aren’t the only ones. And we all deserve to be heard.

        • Danielle Paradis

          Swearing hardly means I am blinded by a murderous hateful rage Stephanie. Nor is any part of what I wrote about silencing men who have been victims of anything. My comment as not laced with an accusation that you were lying, it was a counter that while anecdotes are moving and often convincing never are they fact. The median average of child support in Canada is $300. (http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2009001/article/10784/tbl/tbl04-eng.htm) and about 50% of house holds receive payment in full every month.

          That’s not the conversation going on in this article it was about that.

          I agree completely that women, should be able to earn enough money to raise children on their own. As it is though it’s pretty tough for parents who are together to have one person not working.

          • Stephanie

            Danielle, it was the “me” person who accused me of lying. Thanks for the feedback.

        • Me

          “That we force men to fund a woman’s parental endeavors without men having any say in the parenting of their child is unjust.”

          This just isn’t true in my experience. Gladly, I know divorced couples who cooperate in parenting their child. In the cases where there is little basis for cooperation and indeed is an attempt to limit the men’s in these cases bad influence on parenting, the men nonetheless continue to have an unwanted and manipulative effect on the parenting of their child and the lives of their exes even after the divorce. The money may or may not be forthcoming, often isn’t. And in some cases the men expect their ex-wives as well as their children to continue to housekeep for them and nurture their emotional dependence/needs after separation. In my experience it’s more common that men expect some form of servitude to continue after divorce than the other way around. If women were paid for their time and efforts doing that work (like men tend to be paid for their employment), in several cases I know of I’m sure the result would come out as the women and children net paying the men after divorce.

          I was not so much “accusing” you of lying as I was trying to point out that what you wrote seemed so purposefully fabricated to make /women/ look bad that I was doubtful why would you do it? As I said, the leap from slavery/expendability to the example of unjust child support payments seems crafty because the two are on different levels entirely. I did not miss the progression, I disagreed that you made a convincing argument for tying the two together. You could have left the expendability out and made a less accusatory argument about child support, and spoken about the case(s) you know of instead of trying to generalize into how men in general are abused by the system or how it equals indentured servitude for men.

          Since you write you’re a men’s rights activist, I wanted to note that as a man I don’t appreciate that you try to make your arguments for men by vilifying women. In your comments I have not found anything that would stand on its own without the vilification and would draw my empathies to the men you’ve written about. Put another way, I find it sad and unhelpful that you claim to make an argument for men such as myself, yet you don’t seem to have anything good to say about us that would make me feel encouraged and proud of myself as a man, and that would give me the sense that there is something positive I could do as a man because we really are all in this together. That to me feels like betrayal, and I have to say I have not felt betrayed that way by feminists, ever.

        • V….

          Ok, Stephanie, Anecdotal or not, (sorry Danielle) I need to say this:

          When I was a teenager I told my then boyfriend that I had no money to buy pills and so we should take other precautions. He then proceeded to ejaculate inside my vagina anyway, telling me not to worry about it. When I turned up pregnant he told me it was my problem and he wasn’t having anything to do with ‘it’. He then signed papers giving up his parental rights while the child was still in utero. So yes, men can do that.

          Since I was a young, pregnant, and uneducated female, I found it exceedlingly hard to find a job. this is the inequality feminists talk about, stephanie. My ex had no such stigma attached to him, he was able to find work right away, while I, being visibly pregnant, despite having a much more extensive resume, could not.

          I agonized over the decision, but finally councluded that I could not properly care for the child and so I put him up for adoption. I’d like to refer you to your previous, glibly stated comments:

          “And it does it in a vastly unfair way. It strips men of their rights to be fathers, to determine how they will support their children. But oh! When I was a young girl and had a child but decided I was too young to support it, I was allowed to give that child up for adoption and was applauded for my selflessness, my courage, my great love for my child. If a young man were to be allowed to make the same decision (he’s not, by the way, not without the mother’s consent or without a step-father to take his place), he would be seen as a, what was the term again—oh, yes,—”deadbeat dad””

          No one applauded me for my selflessness or courage. In actual fact, when the only counselling I could find to help me deal with the pain came from the social worker at the women’s health (read – abortion) clinic, I was verbally attacked by right-wing religious protesters when I came out of there in tears one day who threw the charming epithets of “slut” and “whore” and “baby murderer” at me.

          To this day, thirteen years later, I still mourn that loss. The only one that ‘got off’ (pun intended) scot free was my ex. so before you go saying things like, Oh, golly gee, I’ve had a baby I’m too young to care for, maybe you should think about the possibility that age isn’t the only criteria for not being able to care for a child. maybe it’s the entrenched female socioeconomic, WELL DOCUMENTED financial inequality that leads women to make these terribly painful choices.

          You’re a fool, stephanie. whoever your man is, he’s convinced you to put his feelings, opinions, and needs ahead of your own. To everyone else, we’re all arguing with her conditioning. The rote response is a tough nut to crack.

    • http://feminismfortherestofus.wordpress.com/ Maya

      Stephanie: who has been in power for 6,000+ years? Men have. Who owns/control every institution that matters in society (the government, the military, the legal system, the media, academia, etc) and is able to mold society in their image and to their advantage? Men, as a group – especially white men.

      If there are parts of the system that are less-than-stellar for men, it’s because they’ve set it up that way themselves. It’s not the fault of women or feminists.

    • http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/ Francois Tremblay

      Your husband has to pay child support, therefore the Patriarchy does not exist. Got it.

  • http://feminismfortherestofus.wordpress.com/ Maya

    “And this one asserts, sadly, that we neither think women are capable of earning money enough to parent their children…”

    Women do not earn as much as men. That is a fact, and it has nothing to do with what “we” or anyone thinks. Women with a higher level of education (e.g. an extra degree) make less money (on average) than men with less education, and when you adjust for all other factors, there is consistently a 10% or higher wage gap remaining. Women are heavily discriminated against in the work place; we’re like temporary visitors in an economy, and a culture, and a society that men have made for themselves and which has never really seen as full persons.

    As a feminist, I’m not happy with the fact that so many women are economically dependent on men, or with the fact that men are discouraged from expressing emotions, or with any other part of the status quo (which MRA’s love to twist ridiculously out of context to fit their feminists-are-oppressing-us conspiracy theory). I don’t think that the status quo really benefits anyone, and I’d love to see women become *genuinely* liberated, economically or otherwise, so that we can move beyond things like child support.

    But to do that, we have to end discrimination against women in the workplace (and in every other part of society). And to do that, we have to face the current reality as it is, and not resort to delusion conspiracy theories about male oppression just because some human-beings-with-penises occasionally experience some inconveniences in life.

    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: MRA’s are living proof that the male sense of entitlement knows no bounds.

    • Stephanie

      Maya:
      I was really following you until you said “MRA’s love to twist ridiculously….” etc. I’m and MRA. I don’t feel I am twisting anything ridiculously. I feel I am mindful, observant, and careful in my thinking. After all, my husband’s decades-long “inconvenience” is what you say women “suffer” from. It’s all rhetoric, isn’t it? My husband loses his “larger salary” to his former spouse. Thus, she is the breadwinner. Who is the real winner—the person who earns more money or the person who actually gets the bigger chunk of the money? Please understand, too, that I am not suggesting women have it made. Women should have more of a role in government, and certainly our history of civil rights in this country is rife with struggle and turmoil. Historically, men have had power, yes. But to say men have made their beds and should lie in it seems at least somewhat insensitive. My husband and many men like him play no part in the creation of these laws. Unfortunately, those people who uphold the belief that women must be cared for by the government or their husbands are the people who have made this law possible. And those people cannot be identified, generally, by their gender. No matter what reason these laws exist, they are unjust and they do perpetuate injustice on both the men’s side and the women’s side. Therefore, they need attention.

      When Obama speaks, using the rhetoric of race, he ironically conjures up the very notion of division, of one race separate from the other by saying “black” and “white” and “black” and “white” repeatedly. Only when we can stop using the rhetoric that divides us can we begin to see the issues that are uniquely American or global….or whatever. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t suggest we ignore what one race has endured that which the other has not. However, when we understand that the oppression of women began by drawing unjust distinctions between the genders, denying one gender freedom and civil rights while empowering the other gender, we can also understand that by fixing that injustice by creating new injustices, rooted in the same belief that we are two teams, against one another, one worse off than the other, one more deserving than the other, we are actually only perpetuating the very problem we so detest. That is, when we subordinate men to fix the injustice served to women, we are headed in the wrong direction. As much as women are capable of taking care of themselves and doing the dirty work and the hard work and the intellectual work, so are men worthy of deciding how they want to parent their children and how they want to spend the money they earn. We must fight the battle of civil rights from both ends. This is my belief.

      Now, I don’t suggest all feminists set out to victimize men. However, I think when we are unwilling to see the injustice large populations of men endure regularly, we are being inhuman. We are ignoring one gender’s set of problems in favor of the other gender’s set of problems. We are saying that because women suffer, men can’t say they do.

      The truth is that men are subordinated every day right under our noses. Their freedoms are stripped from them in ways we don’t pay attention to because we aren’t looking. We decided a long time ago that women are oppressed and men are powerful, and too many people are unwilling to see past that notion into the reality. Men, because they are men, suffer. Can you imagine, as women, what it would feel like to be told you had no power to make decisions for your own children? You can’t guide them with your beliefs? You can’t have them in your home for more than two weeks? You can’t decide against a medical procedure you think may be detrimental? And what about being told you have the all the power because you make more money (as the courts take the money away from you before you ever see it)? **P.S. Are there real statistics, anywhere, that prove men’s salaries are still that much higher than women’s? Just wondering. Honestly. I’ve looked but haven’t found much yet.

      What motive would I have to twist my story or twist reality? What do I have to gain by reaching out to you with nothing more than a plea to hear that soooooo many men need help and are being ignored by the law and by those unwilling to let go of the belief that men have the power? Beliefs can, if we let them, blind us.

      To be a feminist, I don’t need men to pay my way. I don’t need them to die for me. I don’t need them to do even my heavy lifting. I don’t need for them to pay my dinner or to hold my doors open or to shut up. In fact, they can keep their money, their lives, and their civil rights. They can keep their freedom. I’ve got everything I need. Just me.

      • Meghan Murphy

        Stephanie — Men suffer UNDER PATRIARCHY. But not in the same way or to the same extent that women have for centuries. Honestly, I can’t decide whether I feel sorry for you because you’ve been so badly brainwashed by MRA rhetoric or think, wow, you must be an incredibly selfish, privileged person to be able to ignore our continued history of horrific and systemic violence against women in this society.

        I guess this really sums it up though, eh: “I’ve got everything I need. Just me.”

      • lizor

        “When Obama speaks, using the rhetoric of race, he ironically conjures up the very notion of division, of one race separate from the other by saying “black” and “white” and “black” and “white” repeatedly.”

        Now racism is Obama’s fault. You’re just hittin’em out of the ballpark Stephanie.

  • Stephanie
    • http://www.manyfesto.net Taryn Fivek

      Hi Stephanie – did you know that women own less than 1% of all property in the world? Well, thanks for stopping by!

      • Sasha

        Women do not own ‘less than 1% of all the property in the world’.

        In fact they own approximately 50-62%.

        Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/

        • sherry

          So I read the article and nowhere is the 50-62% statistic you quoted present. The overall conclusion is that the original 1% statistic cannot be corroborated and that no replacement statistic could be found. That is, the actual percentage is unknown. Your ridiculous assertion that women own half or more of the world’s property is contradicted in the article. Cohen states that women legally own more than 1% of the world’s property *due to marriage to the men who are the listed formal owners* because, in most countries, marriage confers on them legal rights to some of their husbands’ property.

      • Lucky

        She supplies actual sources, challenges you to do the same and you call her a troll…

  • http://feminismfortherestofus.wordpress.com/ Maya

    “P.S. Are there real statistics, anywhere, that prove men’s salaries are still that much higher than women’s? Just wondering. Honestly. I’ve looked but haven’t found much yet.”

    In other words, you’ve never heard of The Google.

    Thank you for confirming my suspicion that you’re a troll.

  • http://feminismfortherestofus.wordpress.com/ Maya

    Although “Stephanie” is clearly a troll, I’d like to address a few things that she said, because I suspect that other people are reading this and can gain something from seeing MRA intellectual diarrhea being debunked.

    “After all, my husband’s decades-long “inconvenience” is what you say women “suffer” from.”

    We live in a structurally patriarchal society, in which a) men as a group hold most of the power, and b) men as a group control/dominate all of the institutions that matter. Not all men are privileged to the same degree (poor men are missing out on the economic privilege that men as a group have), and men can also be systemtically devalued, exploited, targeted for other criteria (e.g. race). But men as such are not persecuted for being men in this society.

    So when a man suffers, it is either because of personal misfortune, or because of some other kind of oppression that has nothing to do with sex. A man can suffer from racism. He can suffer from poverty (although far fewer men suffer from poverty than women). He can accidentally fall down a flight of stairs and break his leg. None of that proves that we live in a post-feminist matriarchy where women/feminists have power over him, or are persecuting him.

    When a woman suffers, it can (sometimes) be due to personal misfortune, but a lot of the time it is directly tied to her being female in a society that is heavily rigged against women.

    Suffering is suffering, and if I meet a random man in real life who is suffering, I’m not going to mock him or ignore him just because he’s male. But social and political movements aren’t about random individuals and their feelings. They’re about understanding how a society is set up to shit on certain groups, and then trying to help those groups gain human dignity. Men do not need that right now, in any part of the world. Women sure as hell do.

    “It’s all rhetoric, isn’t it?”

    No, it isn’t. Being systematically targeted for rape, domestic violence, disproportionate levels of poverty, bride burnings, the filmed rape industry (pornography), female infanticide, deliberate medical malpractice, acid burnings, and a million other things has nothing to do with “rhetoric” and everything to do with a fundamental denial of human dignity. I wish MRA’s would learn the difference.

  • Candy

    I have to say, while calling her “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” is beyond demeaning (apparently that’s what women are good for), the original video of the angry Canadian feminist is just plain embarrassing. She’s just furthering the stereotype of women as irrational, overly-emotional beings incapable of rationally conveying their logic and thoughts. I cringed the whole way through it. There’s no way in Hell if I saw that in person I would be able to take her as seriously as someone being less irascible and more sensible and I certainly hate that many equate this behavior as that of feminists as a monolith.

    • NitroGirl

      I like how you gloss over the fact that she was threatened with rape and other forms of violence (that could like,literally happen to women) and went directly towards how SHE behaved.

      Is a behaved feminist more important than the death and rape threats a “misbehaved” received?

      Like,can we for once on an issue NOT start rushing towards the “Bad Girl” finger wagging method the moment a woman (gasps) displays the same emotions men are ALLOWED to display even when they are unwarranted?

      Here this woman became a victim of violent misogynists men and all we can worry about is how she allegedly made Feminism less appealing (hence making them all look bad.)

      here’s the thing though, men need this stereotype to exist regardless of how many feminist meet their rigid ,ridiculous ass demands of “good behavior”,therefore,you’re fucked. no matter how much of a Feminist Saint you are to these men,you’re still a c*nt,wh*re,banshee feminist stereotype even though you follow all the Feminist Rules of Respectability when it comes to arguing with D00Dz.

      that’s how bigots get to stay bigots–you become docile,and water down your rage and tone down your politics to appease them. they never once change their views about you or people who share your oppression. they don’t CARE that you are mean or nice,they are going to be bigots who want Feminism GONE ,not because some red,blond,black,brown haired Feminists were mean, but because they hate ANY AMOUNT OF POLITICAL ,FINANCIAL,ECONOMICAL,AND SOCIAL PROGRESS REGARDING WOMEN. they HATE women.

      so here you are,you put forth all that emotional,intellectual,moral,and political diluting for a man or group of men who think you’re a cunt anyway for wanting women to be liberated from patriarchy. you have essentially, sold the fuck out– and for what? a couple of gottdamned neckbearded misogynists who have nothing to show for their miserable lives besides backed childsupport and distorted bootleg porn DVDs? why should anyone try to appeal to the moral sense of a bunch of brazen ass losers like them?

      “GOOD FEMINIST”=NOT MEAN TO MENZ vs “BAD FEMINIST”=MEAN TO MENz bs is divisive and playing into the Abuser Lobby’s headgames. I don’t know why people choose to indulge men or the general public in their silly ass demands of “kindness” while women have big manly feet crushing their necks. Men are ,as you can see via evidence of this entire case NOT willing to reciprocate such kindness or follow any unwritten rule.

      Men Sending Rape and Death Threats to Women > Meaniehead Red-Head Feminist being Mean to MRA.

      Men’s behavior towards women’s misbehavior is fucking irrational and misogynistic, because they are using that anger and rage to “put her in her place”. No woman worth her salt should give a crap , AT THIS POINT,about women’s reputation as a whole when a fellow woman is threatened with violence.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Why does being angry and/or emotional equate to being irrational?? THAT’S the sexist stereotype. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for her anger.

      • Candy

        I only remember her screaming and I don’t have any respect for someone having an outburst rather than logically expressing themselves in a well-spoken, articulate way. must have seen an incomplete video, I don’t remember her being threatened with rape. My apologies. Frankly, I still don’t her behavior was professional and I would feel the same way about a man acting that way. It has nothing to do with sexism or how women are expected to act.

        • Me

          Are we talking about the same video, titled “mras and feminists arguing at u of t mra event”?

          In that one the red-haired person is making perfectly good and logical arguments and has prepared notes on the points she wants to make, while telling the MRAs to stfu and listen. From the video I didn’t think her behavior was in any way embarrassing or that she necessarily communicated ineffectively. Any reasonable men could’ve intervened to have their side hear her arguments, let her lower her voice if they felt that was a concern and then have a discussion.

          To me it doesn’t seem at all serious when the MRAs claim they’re in the same fight and willing to hear what feminists have to say. Their “measured” arguments insist there’s a common cause and there should be “measured” debate, yet they make their cause by attacking women and feminists. They don’t police their members for making false accusations, attacks and threats on women like they obviously should were they on the same side, they encourage that activity.

        • lizor

          Candy – so calling someone “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” or threatening to rape them is fine as long as you don’t raise your voice?

        • Vouchsafer

          I’d fucking lose my shit too if I had to sit there and listen in person to that MRA misogyny.

          I just lost my shit the other day in a public library on some loser who was sitting there at a public computer watching violent porn while a kids group of seven year olds were doing their field trip a few feet away from him.

          Who really gives a fuck at this point what ‘they’ think? Down with slut shaming. Up with perv shaming. If we don’t do something about this rape culture the world our daughters are going to grow up in is going to be a very dangerous place to be a woman, so really, I don’t give a crap if I come off looking like a banshee.. I’m about to go all mama bear up in here, and that’s a female stereotype that ‘they’ don’t wanna mess with.

          • Candy

            @ lizor: I began my first comment with “I have to say, while calling her “Little Red Frothing Fornication Mouth” is beyond demeaning (apparently that’s what women are good for)” so it’s safe to say I don’t believe it’s okay, no.

            @Vouchsafer: I would be angry there too (at the very least it’s a public library, porn of any kind shouldn’t be viewed there!), but I value keeping my emotions in check to come across as more logical. This could just be my personal preference. I would certainly feel frustrated.

            @”In that one the red-haired person is making perfectly good and logical arguments and has prepared notes on the points she wants to make, while telling the MRAs to stfu and listen.”

            Yes, she did make some good points. I will no dispute that. But did you see the way she reacted to the man with disabilities? That came across as quite rude, and I agreed with him that I could have did without the perpetual cursing that made her come across as someone who needs to use it to sound forceful rather than more intellectual-sounding rhetoric. I have no problem with “curse” words but geez, she just sounded over-the-top for my tastes.

  • http://www.freesoil.org Aletha

    Those who believe that feminism is out to subordinate men may think they are defending the rights of men, but they are really defending the privileges and power men have over women. They resent that feminism has made a dent in that, as if men have some right to those privileges and power over women. To me, the history of Warren Farrell says it all about the MRA movement. This man was once welcomed with open arms by a certain segment of the feminist movement, after he published The Liberated Man. However, feminists soon became suspicious of him, since his idea of male feminism did not have much substance, and he reacted viciously to the chilly reception he was getting. He concluded that after he had gone so far out on a limb to reach out to feminists, they had rejected him, which he thought proved feminists really were man-haters and wanted to turn the tables on men, subjugating men much as men have subjugated women for all of recorded history. That leap of illogic set the tone for the MRA movement, and it has compounded all kinds of lies about feminism into a means of blaming feminism for virtually all male suffering and psychological problems, as if feminists had the power to cause all that, ignoring how men in power gain from the suffering of everyone else, and how men in general gain from the second-class citizenship of women.

  • Stephanie

    I know you are all passionate about your beliefs, but I didn’t come here to get called names and to be personally attacked. I also never intended to offend anyone to the point that they would feel compelled to call names. I just wanted to share ideas, to involve myself in a reasonable debate in search of truth. It doesn’t feel good to be called names, even over the computer, so I’ll stop my role in this conversation with just one more thing. Nobody need earn their civil rights. You don’t have to be what I deem “good” or “worthy” to have civil rights and to be treated fairly. I don’t have to make men in general sound good. Any such attempt would be irrational. Men are as diverse as women, and my opinion of them is merely mine. Good or bad, though, men should not be subordinated any more than women are. If they aren’t being subordinated and they have all the power and really they are just a bunch of whiners with no merit to their complaints, then, what a fool I am, and you have all won and you can gloat while you call me more names. Perhaps I am blind. Perhaps I don’t get it. But maybe, just maybe, men are denied some of their civil rights BECAUSE THEY ARE MEN (not just while they happen to be men). And maybe, just maybe, that matters. I wish you all the best.

    • Meghan Murphy

      No one is calling you names or personally attacking you? Unless I missed something? In any case, saying things like “men are as diverse as women” is irrelevant. We’re talking about systemic and institutionalized inequality. WE’RE ALL INDIVIDUALS is a derail that represents a deep misunderstanding of how discrimination works. I wonder if you would make the same argument about white people? Are you “colour-blind” too? Like, because individual white people experience injustice or oppression there’s no such thing as racism or white privilege? Really. I’m curious.

  • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Jacobtk

    The red head was being heard. If you watch the video, the men there were responding to what she shouted at them. It is simply that those men did not agree with her position, and like many feminists, including the two who wrote this article, the red head jumped to the conclusion that disagreeing with her arguments was a sexist attack on her and all women.

    And let us look at her argument: she did not list any examples of feminists supporting men. She did not give one actual instance of a feminist group doing something to help men. No, she read a list of nonsense written for another website. That list did not include a single actual example of feminists doing anything to support men, just the declaration that “this is what feminists are against.” Anyone can say they are against something; it takes a little more effort to actually prove it. Likewise, a feminist cannot argue that feminists do not try to silence men while she is shouting “shut the f*** up!” at the men she is speaking to.

    Obviously, no feminist will ever see anything wrong with the red head’s approach. Even the authors of this article tacitly support her, and that is the problem. When feminists act in blatantly bigoted ways, other feminists excuse that behavior, just as feminists typically excuse women’s general bad behavior. You are not helping your argument by supporting an obvious bigot.

    As for feminists sending death threats to men’s rights activists, I am quite certain Paul Elam has gotten his fair share of nasty comments from feminists, just as I know Warren Farrell has gotten such threats. He actually wrote about that in “The Myth of Male Power”. This idea that feminists are harmless and never do anything wrong simply does not fly. The difference is that when men get those comments, they do not plaster them all over the internet to try to bash half the human population over the actions of a few. They also are less inclined to use sockpuppets to bolster their claim about threats.

    The bigger problem is that feminists cannot see past their ideology. A feminist will never see sexual violence against a man or boy as wrong, let alone as anywhere near as important as sexual violence against females, because your ideology states that “Patriarchy” makes only men rape only women in order for men to oppress women. Your ideology prevents you from seeing things from a different perspective, which is how one ends up with impressively asinine and stupid statements like, “The most common complaints that I hear from MRAs are things that came about as the result of the patriarchy.”

    No one is expecting feminists to suddenly think killing, beating, or raping men and boys is bad or that males actually have bad things done to them. No one is expecting feminists to actually care about men’s lives at all beyond how you can use it for a political argument, as was poorly attempted in this article. All anyone asks feminists to do is listen to the counter argument. Yet they are wrapped in a delusion of perpetual victimology so magnificently structured that even when shown a clear example of a feminist literally trying (and failing) to silence men, they still think the woman is the victim.

    • Meghan Murphy

      “she did not list any examples of feminists supporting men. She did not give one actual instance of a feminist group doing something to help men.” WHO CARES?? Is the goal of feminism to support men? Are you high? Why ON EARTH should feminists be focusing on helping men? That isn’t the point. Like, ever or at all.

      What a hilariously deluded comment. Please don’t come back. Thanks.

      • NitroGirl

        Men see women as caretakers of their issues, so naturally (well,it’s not natural,they are socialized to believe this thanks to patriarchy) MRAs and MRA-ish types think it is Feminism’s responsibility to help men (and many feminists are anti-child-abuse and anti-rape when it comes to anybody).

        Male Patriarchal Narcissism makes men like “Jacobtk” demand male devotion of Feminist women, to “prove” that they are for “equality”. Somehow in their minds, women placing themselves in a regressive role by taking care of men’s issues is called “progress” in their minds. Somehow, doing the same shit women have always done,taking care of men and their issues and women sacrificing their own is a call for social change.

        I don’t personally understand how heterosexual (& often White) men cannot do much with men’s issues but run to Feminists demanding they “fix it”,considering men have the most money,are taken seriously,and have the most political influence and power.

        Somehow it’s up to a marginalized group of people (women) to liberate a non marginalized group (men) from their “oppression”. The problem is only men can liberate men from patriarchy’s backlash. The male class created patriarchy and perpetuate it intentionally and unintentionally —the cause of men’s “oppression” is caused by other men. You MRA-types constantly bark up the wrong tree. Patriarchy’s backlash against men is not for women and Feminist women to fix. You made the mess,you do the labor to fix it,instead of asking/demanding/insisting women to pile on more labor (her issues AND your issues). This is a political movement,not a fucking Bounty commercial where women gladly clean up the shit men spill with a smile. Reality ,please face it.

        • Me

          Psychologically, I don’t think these men have any capacity to work towards liberation and healing. Their only solution is to try to make others pay and call that healing (and attack anyone who says it might not be). Joining as a group to blame others is where they get their power and energy. They’re parasites that way too.

        • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Jacobtk

          Nitrogirl, feminists claim to support equality for all. If one supports equality for all, then one must support all those in need, not just those you think are “worthy” of your support.

          Please note, no one at the Toronto event asked for feminist help. I do not know of any men’s rights activists asking for feminist assistance. While I am not a men’s rights activist, I share the disinterest in getting feminists involved in addressing men’s issues for the same reason I do not want the Catholic Church involved in addressing gay issues. Your positions are too hostile to be of any help. However, since feminists claim to support anyone in need, I feel inclined to hold you to your word.

          As for men cleaning up their own mess, I would like to share that the reason I am concerned about men’s issues, particularly sexual violence against males, is because I am male survivor. When you state “you made the mess, you do the labor to fix it” you imply that I caused my own abuse and it is my responsibility to fix it. While you are not the first feminist to engage in that kind of victim-blaming, I do find it ironic that whenever feminists hear about negative male experiences their typical reaction is to blame males for it.

          • Lela

            It’s not that feminists don’t, in other areas of our lives, support men. Many of us do. But that isn’t the purpose of *feminism.* The point of feminism is to focus on women’s issues, hence the name. That’s the point of feminist spaces like this blog. Why do MRA’s interpret this as a denial of men’s concerns? Feminists work to restructure a patriarchal social system which has long pushed women into second-class status and has often left women dependent on men. We work to ensure that women have access to real economic self-determination, security and independence. This should produce results that would resolve a lot of your concerns, so what quarrel do you have with feminists exactly?

          • swatbot

            I won’t claim you aren’t a survivor. That would be a cheap shot where the risk isn’t worth it if I am wrong. I know this. As a male survivor of abuse I know trauma, I know the almost hallucinatory nature of PTSD, I know the fear of walking down an open street, and the physical toll of anxiety, yet I know that society claims men are infallible and strong, while shoving sexual assault triggers in my face every day. I know therapy, palpitations and sexual alienation. I can empathize with the high percentage of women who know similar things as well. MRAs seem unwilling to call out male perpetrators, and take doing so as some kind of attack on masculinity. And people like me have difficulty, because as a man, you are infallible. People think it’s acceptable or funny to mess with your genitals without consent from fondling to grabbing your undies, and you have to take it (better than having your genitals smashed for humiliation and comedy I suppose). The number of unwanted intrusions I’ve had on my privacy that I was expected to just roll with for the bemusement of other aggresive males is pretty high, and after assault this only added to injury. When MRAs stop pushing old male gender roles down our throats (or clear such out from their ranks), and additionally stop belittling the high rate of sexual assault of our fellow women, start calling this shit out as strongly as feminists are, I’ll be delighted to take them seriously. Feminists call out rape, feminists call out the prison ‘bubba’ jokes. Feminists are also occupied dealing with their own safety (how many women I know get grabbed all the time), as well as dealing with systemic sexism all the time that MRAs refuse to acknowledge. If you want acknowledgement, you have to acknowledge the challenges women face too. The two shouldn’t be incompatible at all, if the goal is a better world with equal opportunity and less violence. I’m suspicious from my interactions with MRAs in general, because certainly avfm does not send that kind of message. MRA forums seem to attract men and occasional women who justify lousy behaviour with ‘boys will be boys’. I think most men are better than that. Either way, may you find healing wherever your path leads.

          • lizor

            Beautiful post, swatbot.

            “When MRAs stop pushing old male gender roles down our throats (or clear such out from their ranks), and additionally stop belittling the high rate of sexual assault of our fellow women, start calling this shit out as strongly as feminists are, I’ll be delighted to take them seriously. ”

            I second this.

      • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Jacobtk

        If feminism is about equality, as feminists claim, would it not make sense to support men in need? Your response can be read two ways: one, feminism is not about equality but about empowering women at men’s expense, or two, you did not realize the irony of what you wrote. As a male survivor of abuse, comments like yours show that I make the right decision by rejecting feminism as a bigoted ideology. Why should I accept, let alone follow, an ideology whose followers do not think me worth helping?

        • Meghan Murphy

          This is why the ‘equality’ concept doesn’t really work… And why I define feminism as a movement to end patriarchy and the oppression of, and subsequent violence against, women.

          Feminism isn’t about everyone being ‘equal’, it’s about creating the conditions in which people have equal opportunities at a fulfilling life and aren’t treated differently because of factors like gender, race, etc. I actually really don’t like the ‘equality’ concept and don’t use it except with regard to creating an equitable society — so with regard to creating laws and institutions that contribute to creating a foundation for social equality (i.e. not, like, all individuals are literally ‘equal’).

          Social equality is defined on Wikipedia as such: “Social equality is a social state of affairs in which all people within a specific society or isolated group have the same status in certain respects. At the very least, social equality includes equal rights under the law, such as security, voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, property rights, and equal access to social goods and services. However, it also includes concepts of economic equity, i.e. access to education, health care and other social securities. It also includes equal opportunities and obligations, and so involves the whole of society.”

        • Me

          Do you see that you act like the typical person with narcissistic personality disorder?

          Narcissists are always trying to have others (typically their partners) focus on how they’re hurting by making a show of it, yet if anyone expresses concern how they’re doing, they’ll attack and blame them for causing the hurt “by bringing it up.” And if nobody expresses concern, they’ll find /that/ reason enough to attack, because they believe they were attacked first by those who “don’t care about them.” It’s the narcissist’s script either way.

          I remind you that’s how batterers set their partners up for assault and rationalize the abuse before and after the fact, always truly believing they were the victim.

          As a narcissist, you are responsible for stopping writing and enacting the script, as well as for getting to the bottom of why you behave this way. I commented before that I don’t believe most of you are psychologically capable of healing from this and working towards liberation. Prove me wrong.

        • Me

          On second thought, you must be lying about being a survivor of sexual abuse. It’s fucking disgusting.

        • lizor

          “Why should I accept, let alone follow, an ideology whose followers do not think me worth helping?”

          Well, if you could pull your head out for a couple of seconds you may realize that part of feminism is about dismantling sexualized power structures that encourage predatory sexual attitudes and behaviours.

          Or maybe because systematized oppression is morally wrong and you have a moral centre that enables you to see and support broader benefits that are not directly aimed at serving you.

          You sound like Louis CK on Jay Leno when he explained (facetiously) that, despite the fact that racism did not disappear in the U.S. the moment slavery was abolished, black people should have some sympathy for whites, who have had it hard too. For example, they have had to contend with losing their slaves!

      • Slim

        “WHO CARES?? Is the goal of feminism to support men? Are you high? Why ON EARTH should feminists be focusing on helping men? That isn’t the point. Like, ever or at all.”

        You shouldn’t. In fact, please don’t. Ever. I’ve seen feminists “support” for men. It usually involves accusing male victims of being the purpetrators.

        All we really want is for you to GET OUT OF THE WAY! And take that redheaded moron with you.

        • Meghan Murphy

          We know that’s what you want. Gosh, your honesty is refreshing.

    • marv

      @Jacobtk

      Robert Jensen is a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Texas at Austin and board member of the Third Coast Activist Resource Center in Austin. His latest book is, Arguing for Our Lives: A User’s Guide to Constructive Dialogue. Here is an excerpt from it:

      “Politicians and pundits, on all sides, are quick to suggest that opponents are “blinded by ideology”; competing proposals that have been successfully tagged as excessively ideological are easy to dismiss as being impractical.

      But the accusation begs a question: Does ideology always undermine our ability to understand the world? As so often is the case, that depends on how we define terms. In my experience, “ideology” gets used in three ways, and contemporary political debates could be enhanced by understanding the differences.

      The first, and most common, definition is that sense of ideology-as-insult. “You are being too ideological” suggests your belief system is abstract, rigid, impractical, or fanatical. Used this way, ideology is something other folks have, which keeps them from seeing things clearly. The assumption is that there is a common-sense way of interpreting the world without resorting to a reality-distorting ideology…..

      The fact that we all know people who…. we tend to label “ideologues” – doesn’t guarantee that anyone else has a crystal-clear, non-ideological view.

      That leads us to a second definition, ideology-as-worldview. This more sociological perspective understands ideology as the set of social, political, and moral values, attitudes, outlooks, and beliefs that shape a social group’s interpretation of the world. Understanding ideology as the framework within which we make sense of the world, it’s clear that everyone has an ideology or ideologies, and there is no completely neutral inquiry into the world. Everyone starts with assumptions, and the assumptions we make matter.

      Defined this way, no one is beyond ideology. Rather than hurl the label at others as an insult, this definition encourages us to critique other people’s frameworks, and our own. By suggesting we develop our ideologies within social groups, this also prompts us to look at the larger context in which our views develop, rather than see them as the purely individual that obscures the truth of social relations, and the assumption is that ideology should be critiqued to help people better understand their real place in society and resist injustice.

      The third definition is ideology-as-power. This critical view understands ideology as the beliefs of a ruling group, which are imposed on a subordinate group in ways that make the ruling ideas appear self-evident. From this perspective, ideology is a tool of the powerful that obscures the truth of social relations, and the assumption is that ideology should be critiqued to help people better understand their real place in society and resist injustice.

      Many people identify this view of ideology with critiques of capitalism, the view that a ruling class uses its control over the ideological institutions (schools, universities, churches, mass media) to maintain this dominance and allow it to govern without the need for excessive coercion and violence. A similar argument is made by feminists analyzing male dominance, or critical race scholars and activists analyzing white supremacy. In most cases, these critics don’t suggest the dominant group’s ability to control ideas can’t be resisted, but simply that those in charge have more powerful tools.

      We all have an ideology, or ideologies… and we can at the same time realize that all ideologies do not come with the same force behind them, and that people in power often use their resources to eliminate competing frameworks.

      Rather than denying the role of ideology out of fear that it will poison political discourse, we should move ideology front and center, to encourage a substantive discussion of those underlying values, attitudes, outlooks, and beliefs.”

      • Meghan Murphy

        Marv! I was just reading about Jensen’s awesome new book! So glad you’re referencing it here! Great stuff.

      • http://toysoldier.wordpress.com Jacobtk

        Marv, I am not in disagreement with Jensen in terms of the need to substantively discuss ideology. The irony, however, is that Jensen would never apply that to feminism. He would never question feminist beliefs or question the ideology’s role in creating or perpetuating hostility against males. One would instead see exactly what happened in Toronto twice: the questioned ideologues losing their minds because someone challenged them. Even here, the response to rather polite comments from non-feminists has been hostile, threatening, and dismissive. How can one “encourage a substantive discussion of those underlying values, attitudes, outlooks, and beliefs” if one’s immediate response to such discussion is to trash the other side?

        • Lela

          Do you actually personally know any feminists? Ever had an actual conversation with one? Have you actually read and fully comprehended any feminist writing? I’m not convinced you’ve done these things, you haven’t demonstrated such.

          Jacobtk, this isn’t about “ideologues losing their minds,” it’s about vulnerable women who have legitimate fears and extreme frustration around the spreading of hatred of, and misconceptions about, women and feminists. The words and actions of MRA’s have the power to determine the way we are treated by men, in reality. This is not a game and women do not have the power you ascribe to us.

          It would benefit you to actually get to know what feminists argue. No feminist I know is “hostile” toward males. Feminists are, broadly speaking, anti-oppression, anti-violence and anti-war. We are 100% behind male-led social movements in this regard. We condemn violence and abuse against men, perpetrated by men or women, just as we condemn violence against women. I do not understand who you think you are arguing with.

        • Vouchsafer

          Jacobtk,

          I feel for you and I’m sorry for the abuse you suffered. You did not deserve that. No one does.

          Neither does a woman who may choose to dress a certain way ‘deserve’ to be raped.

          I strive towards an equitable society in which harmony between male/female can one day be achieved. I hope you can one day feel the same.

        • http://lolliguncula.wordpress.com ibleedpurple

          Male abuse of power creates hostility against men.

          • sherry

            Brilliantly put.

            This part mostly for Lela: There are a small number of feminists, mostly separatists, who do indeed hate men. I don’t think it helps our credibility to deny that they exist.

            But the hatred of the oppressor by the oppressed is in no way equivalent to the hatred of the oppressed by the oppressor. The oppressors have real power to do real harm to the oppressed. As Maya stated earlier, men have run the government, industry, religion, and military for millennia. The oppressed have the ‘power’ to make the oppressors feel bad.

          • Lela

            Hi Sherry, I am aware of separatism. I suppose I hadn’t interpreted the separatist position as necessarily hateful or hostile, but a very logical response to oppression by men. You are absolutely right, though, that one cannot ever compare hostility toward oppressors by the oppressed with the reverse. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

          • lizor

            Given the number of women who live life with the bitter lesson of rape, battering and coercive sexual abuse it is astonishing that so few actually do hate men. Men like Jacobtk ignore that fact and (if he is not one of the dudes doing the raping, etc) loath women for not serving their need to dominate.

            Guys, especially white guys, get a free ride in this culture and it is pathetic how desperately they feel they need the scales to be tipped in their favour. I guess they believe that deep down without the benefits of inequality they’d be zeros.

        • lizor

          “Even here, the response to rather polite comments from non-feminists has been hostile, threatening, and dismissive”

          Please point to an example in this thread where someone making a polite comment was threatened.

    • nina

      “A feminist will never see sexual violence against a man or boy as wrong”

      which is why feminists had street parties when the sandusky case happened? or why feminists had a celebration during the catholic church scandals?
      and of course that is why feminists have fought to introduce the notion of rape culture and patriarchy (both of those things hurt men). and worst of all those feminists have fought to redefine rape. bad on them for suggesting rape should include male victims too.

  • Archy

    “She’s not being heard. Those men aren’t listening to her when she’s countering their points about how hard it is to be a man. Those men aren’t listening when she’s trying to explain how feminism is not, in fact, the work of Satan and actually does work to address the issues that they’re bringing up. Those men aren’t listening when she tries to read off a list explaining the actual goals of feminism, but yet they insist she read their list.”

    How were they not listening, Weren’t they responding to each point? Didn’t look like she really gave them a chance at all to even reply, being screamed at and told to STFU. Maybe they need a talk-stick to have calmer discussions that actually go somewhere instead of screaming matches and the other side left wondering wtf just happened.

    “Look, Big Red might not the person that we would choose as the poster child for Canadian feminism. Maybe her behaviour isn’t ideal. But we also understand how dealing with men, men who won’t admit to the existence of the patriarchy, men who deny the idea of male privilege, men who hate women, can wear you down until you turn into the screaming feminist banshee that the MRAs thought you were all along, anyway.”
    So doesn’t that just reinforce the stereotypes about the irrational feminist, and continue the cycle of bigotry back n forth? Some MRA’s generalize about feminists and feminism, some feminists generalize about MRA’s and the MRM, back n forth, bigotry vs bigotry, and for what?

    Question though, of the rape threats, does the person threatening actually identify as MRA? How can you prove “MRA’s” are threatening violence, and not just random trolls?

    “The fact is that you are fucking kidding yourself if you think that Elam’s Men’s Rights Movement is about anything other than silencing women. And even if it were true that every single individual MRA wasn’t out to destroy all feminists everywhere — the ultimate goals of the movement as a whole is to Teach Women Their Place through whatever means necessary.”

    Seriously? You’re going to generalize the MRM, which is a disorganized group with varying goals between the members and doesn’t seem to have clear leadership, as having this one track goal to wipe out feminism? Do you get annoyed when anti-feminists start generalizing about the goals of feminism and the utter shit about wanting to make a matriarchy n what not?

    “Aside from how triggering and painful it is to watch yet another woman be thrown to the internet wolves, it’s also just plain exhausting and demoralizing having to hear the same old song and dance from the MRAs about the evils of feminism:”
    Again, you’re annoyed at the generalizations yet you’re making them to throw back at them, how does that help?

    “A Voice for Men created register-her.com, a fake “offenders registry” of women they’d like to believe are criminals. In AVfM land, criminals are people like Jessica Valenti, Sophia Guo (a protester at MRA god, Warren Farrell’s 2012 talk at the University of Toronto), Katherine Heigl (kind of a weird addition), and Amanda Marcotte.”
    Where do they call them criminals? Aren’t they listed as bigots? I dislike the site, if anything I think the bigot section should be a completely different section on a totally different site to avoid being conflated with the various child abusers, etc. And I completely disagree with doxxing and think it’s a stupid practice, if there are credible threats then forward info to the police instead of posting someones info online. Address a person’s arguments, not their body, etc.

    “Look. Guys. We get it. A lot of you haven’t had easy lives. You’ve had shitty things happen to you. You need a scapegoat, and feminism is an easy one. You feel that women get a free pass in life, and that men are treated badly as a result. But you know what? The most common complaints that I hear from MRAs are things that came about as the result of the patriarchy.”
    Is it possible that feminist inspired laws can have the unintended effect of harming? Early versions of VAWA, with teh duluth model and primary aggressor laws I’ve heard were getting male victims who called the police get arrested. There was also recently a group in indian, I think a feminist group, that worked against males included in the rape definition. Doesn’t that mean there are feminists who are harming men? I think the overwhelming majority of feminists are for equal rights and their actions do help us but hearing stuff like what happened in India makes me think there are some who are working against the interests of males, which I really don’t understand why they would try stop males being included since a victim is a victim regardless of gender.

    These major ideology differences n fighting between those that want equality for all are damn tiring, will humans ever truly just band together and quit the damn fighting? I do hope the threats get reported to the police and action taken. I do think it’s a good idea to record the protests, both sides should do this so we can get a better view of what goes on, but Doxxing absolutely should NOT happen. People need to attack the arguments made and not the person, and the threats are sickening. I do believe there are MRA’s and feminists who can work together, and even more people like myself that refuse to label themselves either because of all the fighting that goes on but it’s just sad to see so much energy spent with hate instead of action. If an issue affects a woman, fix it, if an issue affects a man, fix it. Rape? Fix it, Abuse? fix it. I hope to see the day there are calm n collected debates on both genders issues without trolling, hatred, etc. The major generalizations need to stop for one.

    • Meghan Murphy

      “Seriously? You’re going to generalize the MRM, which is a disorganized group with varying goals between the members and doesn’t seem to have clear leadership, as having this one track goal to wipe out feminism? Do you get annoyed when anti-feminists start generalizing about the goals of feminism and the utter shit about wanting to make a matriarchy n what not?”

      The MRM isn’t a legitimate political movement though. It’s a joke. Feminists working with men, as allies, is one thing — but MRAs aren’t allies. You pretend as though feminism and the MRM are somehow related in any way, and seem to think that people who are interested in social change actually care about or take the MRM seriously. But they don’t.

      “I do believe there are MRA’s and feminists who can work together” — except that that’s never going to happen because the entire foundation for the MRM is delusion.

  • Morgan

    omg, this comment thread, not sure whether to laugh hysterically (ahahaha hysterical geddit??) or to bang my head on the desk. meghan’s replies are so awesome, why we engage anymore with mra’s is crazy to me, responses like “WHO CARES?? Is the goal of feminism to support men? Are you high? Why ON EARTH should feminists be focusing on helping men?” are what we should be saying. we argue, they ignore/derail/make up “facts.” we get mad, we get tone arguments thrown at us. being polite doesn’t work, using facts and logic doesn’t work, so who the fuck cares. ace comment meghan.

    enough of this crap about patriarchy hurts men too, women just want equality, constantly having to defend that we don’t! hate! men! (what if we did – men rape/kill/dehumanize/etc. whereas we point it out – and we get called man-haters!??!), constantly having to emotionally manage them, blah blah blah – WOMEN’S LIBERATION. between meghan’s blunt shutdown and manyfesto’s brief but well-stated comment, that’s all that needs to be said.

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/bluelette Blue Alba

      Agreed. Most of the time I think its best to just not even engage with people who DO NOT care about “equality” or “human rights” because they are NOT allies to women (and women’s liberation). It’s like no matter how many times you cogently and thoroughly explain something to MRAs (with statistics and resources at hand) they come back with the same non-argument. The point, I think, is to wear us down… so why even engage in any interactions with them?

      • lizor

        Good point.

  • http://whyihatethehumans.blogspot.com Andrew

    To all the critics of the MHRM, how many of you have actually had a conversation with a self-identified MRA? How many of you just read what is written on feminist web sites and decide that it’s the truth?

    One of the core concepts of feminism seems to be that men have no right to talk about women’s issues because they don’t know what it’s like to be a woman. I completely agree. However, if feminism is, in fact, about equality, then the same concept must hold true in the opposite direction. To wit: feminists have no right to talk about men’s issues because they don’t know what it’s like to be a man.

    I see it all the time on various blogs & comments. Statements along the lines of “you don’t know what it’s like,” or “you’ve never been in our situation.” Well, quid pro quo.

    YOU don’t know what it’s like to be falsely accused of rape and spend time in jail because a girl wanted to avoid getting trouble with her dad: http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/03/25/south-hills-man-wrongfully-arrested-for-rape/

    YOU don’t know what it’s like to spend sixteen years in an abusive relationship and then be forced to financially support your abuser. I do.

    You also completely gloss over the ILLEGAL behavior of the protesters. They pulled the fire alarm in an attempt to disrupt the presentation. They also blocked the doors of a previous presentation by Warren Farrell, thus causing a fire hazard. They used physical intimidation to disrupt discourse — many of the MASKED protesters brandished weapons at those videotaping them. While not illegal per se, such behavior is cowardly thuggery at its most blatant.

    And feminism is about equality? The group putting on the presentations in question is called Canadian Association For Equality. They don’t even identify as a men’s rights group. YOU identify them as a men’s rights group. Their charter mentions either “equality” or “gender equality” in almost all of their mission statements. They never mention men OR women specifically. Their website is equalitycanada.com; check it out for yourself. Yet, these protesters and YOU have labeled them a hate group.

    And, to address the whole issue of Big Red: when her personal information was posted in the A Voice For Men forums, the moderators took it down and told everyone not to do that. They reacted correctly and responsibly. Of course, other venues had already posted said info, but that site, the hub of all this activity, did the right thing. And you fail to describe her behavior accurately: what she actually does is scream at anyone around her to “shut the fuck up” over and over and over. She was front-and-center amid those protesters, and her fire-engine red hair and lipstick made her an extremely noticeable persona. She was there to attract attention. And she got it. Yes, the death and rape threats are inexcusable; at the same time, when you poke a bear….

    I notice you don’t mention the OTHER feminist in those videos from those protests. She’s the one who stands right in front of a calm, silent man, looking in right in they eye and saying, “You’re fucking scum. Rape apologist fucking scum. You’re fucking scum. Fucking scum.” And, yes, she repeats the words “fucking scum” over and over and over, her tone of voice filled with vitriol. He tries to walk away and she follows him, continuing to harass him. The man’s response? He doesn’t interrupt her. He doesn’t even acknowledge her. He turns to one of the campus cops and asks if there’s any way they can get her to leave him alone. He also says to the camera-wielder that he just wanted to hear what the lecturers have to say. His behavior is the polar opposite of Big Red’s.

    I’m not defending those who took Big Red’s personal info and used it to threaten and harass her. Those types, to me, are no different than Big Red herself screaming “shut the fuck up” or the other, unnamed woman and her “fucking scum” mantra, or the masked thugs brandishing weapons, or the illegal tripping of a fire alarm, or the illegal blocking of doors to a lecture hall.

    If feminism and feminist “aren’t like that,” they where’s the hie and cry from people like you? Why aren’t you raising a stink about what a bad image this very public behavior gives to your cause? The masked thugs beating clubs against the ground are identified as feminists. “Shut the fuck up!!” is identified as feminism. “Fucking Scum” is identified as feminist rhetoric. Until and unless you and the other supposed “real” feminists stand up and publicly, vociferously, and adamantly decry the thuggery and stifling of discourse so evident in these videos, you are implicitly approving their behavior.

    Which, since I probably need to spell it out, means you ARE like that. That is you in those videos, committing crimes, stifling discourse, harassing innocent people, and generally behaving in the most unequal way you can.

    And quit talking about men’s rights as if you know what you’re talking about. You don’t.

    • Meghan Murphy

      “If feminism and feminist “aren’t like that,” they where’s the hie and cry from people like you? Why aren’t you raising a stink about what a bad image this very public behavior gives to your cause?”

      Because nobody gives a fuck what you think about feminism.

    • Danielle

      The “fucking scum lady” was at the Farrell protests that’s why it is not mentioned in this article. Different protest.

    • http://www.manyfesto.net Taryn Fivek

      Does MHRM stand for Men’s Human Rights Movement …

    • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/bluelette Blue Alba

      I think most of us have read the text and media that MRA sites/people have posted themselves…. so there is no confusion. They have done all the talking and explaining. They have demonstrated (with their own words) that they are NOT allies to women, but are instead in opposition to a movement built to liberate women from systemic oppression… So, yeah…

  • https://plus.google.com/u/0/106631131964442970046/about Turin

    While I am against much of your own agenda, as an MRA, myself, I’d like for you to realize something: Paul Elam is nothing but a media clown “leading” a (very small) posse of disgruntled deadbeats.

    Building up Elam in the media is the same mistake that people make, online, when they unwittingly feed trolls. He’s nothing but a webmaster who’s been hyping himself up for over a decade. Media attention is the be-all/end-all of what this dirtbag is about. He’s a lonely, sociopathic freak who cares nothing about Men’s or Boys’ Rights. He’s a wannabe MRA shock-jock who needs feminist attention to be anything.

    Elam’s only connection to us, in the Men’s Rights movement, is the fact that the bastard regularly subverts our Internet forums. That’s it. He destroys them from within, by using FUD tactics. He then takes them over, and, thereby, eliminates any competition to his dumb, little boys’ blog empire. That consists of endless sock puppet identities, which, in turn, are run by aging old deadbeats. Said deadbeats are, in fact, relics of an “old boys’ club” culture – yes. Genuine MRAs don’t support that. We’re about equal rights and responsibilities. We can’t support it. They are opposing ideologies.

    Elam’s crew does turn out the occasional legitimate point. However, the mindset is completely cynical – NOT ideological. The goal is to try to cash in on, and make some kind of a buck off of, the issues. You’ll never see them advance any issues. All that they really are is complaining deadbeats.

    They all got the same story: They discovered Men’s Issues after a shitty divorce. Or, after a wake up call from a malicious false accusation that cost them something. (Those are the kinds of legitimate issues that genuine MRAs are trying to do something about). They’re not in it for the right reasons.

    I’m just trying to help you to, perhaps, understand their M.O. a little better. These are cliched little guys, with big mouths, who get no respect anymore. The lack of respect is what they’re *really* angry about. They are no longer important in today’s world. If you would really like to sock it to them, then focus on psyche attacks. Dismiss and denigrate them. That’s their Achilles heel.

    If anything, they have stealth agendas. They want to bring back the little working class guy with the good union job – who wasn’t *such* a foil on the sitcoms. I know: It’s not realistic. But, these jackasses don’t live in a real world. They live in a world of nostalgia and sentimental politics. They’re fucking idiots.

    Our issues aren’t really their issues. They like to hide themselves under our umbrella. But, they’re just deadbeats, so they’re – pretty much – islands unto themselves. And – again – mouthy cowards. Their greatest salvo is to play “push someone’s buttons to get a reaction”. Their idea of achieving a victory is to play “the guy who cleans up”. They treat our issues cavalierly – and, with complete disdain. These gutless worms do *not* believe in Equal Rights for Men, at all. They’re just losers without a cause to represent them, as well as, liabilities to our cause.

    …I hope you, eventually, eat them the fuck alive.

    • vouchsafer

      There you have it folks, straight from the horses mouth. Feminists should sort out the “bad apple” mra and weed him out for them.

      Mind you I appreciate Turin’s candor and thought he made a reasonable attempt to have a dialog.

      I wish he would speak to what their real agenda is, then, because I genuinely don’t know.

      Are they seriously trying to argue inequality? because until you can turn on your computer and find a billion different versions of how to best dehumanize a male body (like you can with women’s) I ain’t buying it.

      Hey Turin, if you’re so pro-equality, why don’t you sort that one out for me?

      • https://plus.google.com/u/0/106631131964442970046/about Turin

        Hey, Vouchsafer, I didn’t say that I was a feminist.

        I’m a Masculinist.

        Nor, did I come on here to debate feminism. I found this article and was giving you the heads up on what a plastic banana is. Don’t think that you’re going to get me to defend your cause, for you.

        As for what AV4M’s real aims are: Nothing. Satire. Selling advertising. Try to eventually start a cable network show. They don’t have a plan, other than to try to become big by making everyone think that they have one. They’re just a bullshit group.

        (Believe it, or not, that is the primary point of disagreement between Elam and I. Back in 1999, in an email, he flat out informed me that Men were not oppressed, and, that there was no enemy for him to fight. Squarely and unequivocally. I kid you not. The hypocrite denied the entire premise of the Men’s Movement – and, therefore, the entire cause that he goes about pretending to, today. I didn’t worm this confession out of him. He was fucking *telling* me, because he wanted me to STFU and stop being an ideologue.)

        • MLM

          So… you still have this email? You can prove this? And if you can’t, why bother bringing it up here?

          Do you think feminists don’t already know the MRM generally and AVFM specifically are totally full of shit? If AVFM men ARE really doing so much harm to the image of the *true* MRM (whatever that may be) isn’t it in YOUR interests to expose them and “eat them the fuck alive” yourselves??

          “Don’t think that you’re going to get me to defend your cause, for you.” Ditto.
          If AVFM IS *misrepresenting* the MRM it’s your concern/job to take them to task for it. Not ours.

          We don’t need to understand their “M.O.” a little better. It’s pretty obvious by now that AVFM’s primary agenda is to shit on women, especially feminists. They’re not exactly subtle about it.

          • Shelley

            LOL nice try, but I think you overplayed it. I guess none of us should be surprised if AV4M has a couple or more moles in here. Turin, thanks for the insight! Your motives seem honest and so does your committment to the MRM.

            I always thought there was something cheesy and unreal about AV4M. They always seemed isolated like a few college guys setting up a prank website and linking themselves to all of the hot stories, and many of their pages had a parody look. Now I believe it really is just showmanship and I think someone has just lifted the veil on them. I’m sure many of us can appreciate that.

          • Me

            Been consuming a lot of Ayn Rand lately?

          • Kaika

            I agree. I’m not buying that Paul Pig Elam has any feminist supporters here, or probably anywhere else. Not real feminists. I’m definitely not buying that they’re being triggered by another MRA just because he is giving him the dressing down that all men should be giving pigs like those. The idea that there are scumbags making money off of hate who don’t really care what they are selling to the public because it’s all just product to them makes lots of sense. I didn’t read Turin bashing Big Red or insulting women. His passion was for men’s issues and to accuse V4M of being faux MRAs who don’t really care about men, and that makes sense too. I think this was just an honest invective against an illegitimate group, and I find it to be a welcome one.

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/106631131964442970046/about Turin

            Well, to be honest, one of the things that makes me completely ill about these guys is the way they don’t stand up to the personal bullying tactics employed by activists, like Big Red.

            I’m long since sick and tired of their little “cerebral minus any passion” demeanors. It’s a cop-out that is rooted in their ambiguous positions on these issues, and, in their attempts to hold the entire debate at arm’s length.

            That being said, I don’t fault Big Red, or those other characters, because the solution isn’t to bottle up everyone’s passion and thereby create a debating environment based on the atmosphere and niceties of libraries and polite society. If it had been me, I would have had words and an attitude to match those three self-righteous agitators giving crap to the little guy. I would’ve gotten my message out at the same time. Big Red was *fighting* for what she believed in. Our twerps weren’t. That’s how it’s supposed to be done. *She* had the right attitude. They didn’t. So, they cry “foul!”. Pussies.

            As it was, I couldn’t hear either of the guys (in the http://youtu.be/nvYyGTmcP80 video). They were so focused on proving how “rationale” – they were being with their quiet, even tones – that they didn’t care about getting out any actual message. They were probably already privately giggling about showing her off on Youtube, for big yucks …Their masterplan and agenda for Men.

            (I *know* it’s not as easy to do as I make it out to be. But, they don’t even work at it. And, their little non-descript personalities win nothing for the cause. It’s deliberate, and, this has been a source of conflict between MRAs and reactionaries).

            The reason, of course, is that they don’t really believe in what they’re saying. They want the *entire* idea of rights and equality shut down. They think *that*’s the problem.

            They want breeder lifestyles. For an ideology, they want these regulated by a loosely-defined moderate’s philosophy that they call complementary roles. They don’t believe in tabula rasa. Instead, they subscribe to the junk idea of “hard-wiring”. In all things, they leave an open question, with no legalism allowed.

            Even in theory, Men are always still left unprotected, and fucked over, without any true rights …just the tender mercies of the oppressor. Their solutions are really just a lot of nothing, couched in reactionary buzzwords. It’s bourgeois consumerism. It has a few sentimental pictures thrown in to mislead Men into thinking that the stability of tradition, along with women’s proven good graces, will protect us. Yeah, right.

            Therefore, they are actually a counter-insurgency within the MRM. They adopt postures, of being non-involved, as tightly as they can. They use as many of the same words and phrases, as possible, but, at cross purposes with the goals of the MRM. Those goals are, of course: Equal rights and responsibilities between Men and Women. They’re against this.

          • Lela

            “Big Red was *fighting* for what she believed in. Our twerps weren’t. That’s how it’s supposed to be done. *She* had the right attitude. They didn’t. So, they cry “foul!”. Pussies.”

            Stop pretending that feminist protesters are in a position of sufficient power to “bully” anyone in particular.

            Stop pretending that this is some kind of battle involving two parties on an equal footing. Women are at a disadvantage. You know this. So a feminist screams some no-no words and it’s a human rights catastrophe? Please.

            If you don’t understand why using the word “pussies” will fail to ingratiate you to feminists, I cannot help you.

          • MLM

            “Those goals are, of course: Equal rights and responsibilities between Men and Women.”

            So, could you please specify which rights you believe men don’t currently have, and you are fighting for? And also which responsibilities you believe that women are currently evading?

          • https://plus.google.com/u/0/106631131964442970046/about Turin

            You’re welcome, Shelley.

            You’re probably right, too. Paula always did have his puppets in every forum.

            Feminists should realize that they don’t have to take Voice for Old Farts, seriously, as any kind of an activist group. They’re just hecklers who are making use of the corporate news format. Of course, that always mocks and belittles issues and the groups that push issues – for the very attempt. It crusades against “extremism”, at best. It takes no meaningful stances on anything. You *might* get your message out in the media.

            So-called Men’s Groups, like “Voice”, only give people the same play-it-safe, empty-substance statements which are carefully guarded to give the impression of only echoing the phrases and positions of others.

            Why? To send the subliminal message that they are only “observing”, and “commenting on”, their views and statements …in an “observe the freakshow” kind of way. Part of that message is that their own views are to be considered completely separate from all of the “screaming” “protestors” that these pot-bellies are “analyzing” as “fringe” curiousities.

            Yes, *we’re* fringe, too, in their eyes.

            Men’s Organizations, per se, are, likewise, just a bunch of screaming ninnies in the true views of “Voice”. That’s the dirty little secret of a lot of the so-called MRAs.

            So, I recommend not getting sucked into fake advocacy and being turned into media circus sideshows …unless you’re pretty bored. E-scam and his geeks *are* the sideshows

            …Freaks, to be specific.

          • MLM

            And you’ve still avoided answering the very specific question about what “rights” you are fighting for, haven’t you, Turin? I’m the “sock puppet” and yet I seem to be the only one here asking any questions about whether your agenda is actually tangibly different from the psychos at AVFM. Because here’s the thing, when it really comes down to it, I bet it isn’t, regardless of what you claim is your difference in motives is.

            So, fine. I’m Paul Elam, Big Foot, The Loch Ness Monster and Keyser Söze. I’m also occasionally a mutant spider monkey called Kevin. It makes no difference as my very simple and straight forward question to you, about what rights it is that your movement believes men currently lack and exists to defend, still stands.

          • lizor

            Turin, you are taking up so much space here and not a word about what you actually stand for. If you must write another word, please have the integrity to answer MLMs question.

          • MLM

            Wow. So I’m an “mra mole” am I? Well, there’s a surprise – especially to me. Guess what I failed to say well enough in my last comment is WHAT THE FUCK DOES TURIN’S INSIGHT HAVE TO DO WITH FEMINIST CONCERNS? As other mores sage commenters than myself have already pointed out feminism is about the liberation of WOMEN – you know WOMEN who are denied actual human rights and subjected to a pandemic of male violence all over the globe? Is it lost on you that the only reason feminists need to concern themselves with mras at all is because they pose a danger to women’s rights and safety? Should people of colour give a shit if David Duke tells them neo nazis are misrepresenting White Supremists? What difference does it really make whether it’s Paul Elam or Turin claiming the most privileged group in the world is lacking “rights”? To be honest, Shelley, your own excitement about Turin’s claim – which I’m guessing he would have acted on himself if he could substantiate it, so great, it sounds really useful – makes me wonder if we don’t have an mra mole calling “mra mole”. Anyone has read a single other comment I have made here would probably hesitate to rush to such a conclusion.

          • Maxine

            I also thought that the comment was contributory – especially to feminists and their concerns. I find this trumped up objection to be just a bit hysterical and nitpicky. Maybe this is Mr. Elam trying to get the light of exposure off of himself and throwing out a lot of ugly words and names in order to drag down the whistleblower’s name with his own. I quite enjoyed what I read about that pig in the comment. AFAIC any MRA who would openly write that about him must be more reasonable than the others. Thank you for posting it, Turin.

          • MLM

            Okay, Maxine, explain to me what value it is I’m missing for feminists in Turin’s comments? I can assure you I’m happy for anyone to call Paul Elam a pig or worse. Vouchsafer asked Turin more than once what rights his MRM – his as opposed to Elam’s – is trying to gain for men. Has he answered this question in any specific and meaningful way? Given that one of the fundamental goals of feminism is ending patriarchy and he is a self described masculinist what are the chances that his goals are in direct conflict with feminism? If you care advancing feminist goals at all perhaps you should be little surer of things like that before you decide to team up with the “good” mras. What is it that feminists are supposed to do with Turin’s information about Elam exactly? How does it help us? Really, explain it to me because I can’t see it. Does it help us stop women who protest “inappropriately” from being subjected to doxxing rape and death threats? Does it help us stop them from trying silence women’s voices? I’m afraid I do have a profound mistrust of MRAs – overtly hostile or not. If you think that makes me “hysterical” so be it. I guess what really set me off was Turin’s suggestion that feminists should deal with this on MRM’s behalf. Feminists despise Elam and AVFM but we often can’t “eat them alive” without risking a threat to our safety as a consequence. What’s the bet Turin doesn’t face that same threat? So why aren’t he and others like him the ones “eating Elam alive”?

          • NitroGirl

            “While I am against much of your own agenda,” –He’s an MRA like his fellow friends,it seems. He just fringes himself from the group by calling himself a “Masculinist”. Typical.

            “Nor, did I come on here to debate feminism. I found this article and was giving you the heads up on what a plastic banana is. Don’t think that you’re going to get me to defend your cause, for you. ” — As if women already don’t know what the likes of Elam stand for. Really I didn’t find his commentary useful because he was only saying what women were speculating all along. Why are we treating him like he’s some double-agent Feminist mole when he stated he is very much against Feminism,like,twice? Correct me if I am wrong.

          • MLM

            “Why are we treating him like he’s some double-agent Feminist mole when he stated he is very much against Feminism,like,twice?”

            Very good question. I’m wondering how much the people supporting him actually care about feminism to be honest.

          • Morgan

            “Hysterical” and “nitpicky.” Nice.

          • joy

            MLM is obviously not Paul Elam. Their writing styles are completely different. Not only that, but MLM has commented in this blog before to say feminist things, and Paul Elam couldn’t imitate a feminist if he was ever asked to in order to save his life (which he won’t be).

          • joy

            Sorry if that’s not even remotely what was being said — I honestly could not understand what the actual accusations were or against whom.

          • Meghan Murphy

            Woah. Sorry! Somehow I missed this Paul Elam/MRA mole thing! MLM is an extremely valuable member of this blog/commenting community and is not freakin Paul Elam in disguise. As joy said — Elam would have no clue how to imitate a feminist even if he wanted to, anyway.

          • joy

            Meghan, just when you think it couldn’t get any weirder — one of the MRM’s schemes from several years ago was to flood the blogosphere with fake feminist blogs penned by MRAs. The MRM mistakenly thought they could imitate feminists and feminist writing well enough to fool other feminists into accepting them as feminists, so that the MRM could stage a public debate with its own puppet fake-feminist blogs and “win.”

            However, since the actual MRAs entirely failed at writing like feminists — probably because they don’t actually understand feminism — the dummy blogs were not convincing and the idea never really took off.

            As an even more absurd footnote, many people in the Manboobz comment section feel the “Feminist Conservative” blog Elam & the neo-Nazis wrongly doxxed is such a decoy/dummy blog.

          • Meghan Murphy

            @joy – Pathetic!

          • MLM

            Thank you Joy and Meghan. I really appreciate your comments.

            Somehow questioning Turin’s motives wound up being exactly the same thing as “defending” Paul Elam/being a “MRA mole” and then, because my response to that comment was arguably a bit heated, it was insinuated that I was probably Emperor Lame himself. To be honest the most alarming aspect is how little questioning the people lining up to pat Turin on the back did about whether it’s genuinely in the interests of feminists to let him try and “good cop/bad cop” us that way. I’m pretty wary of that kind of manipulation generally, but even more so from a bloody MRA!

            I don’t even disbelieve his claims about Elam. But so what? Seriously, what has it got to do with feminists?? How exactly does it legitimise the anti-Elam MRA’s? Many of the MRA comments to this blogpost give us a fairly good idea about their definition of “equality”. Interesting, too, that Turin has thus far refused to even spell his out.

          • Me

            “Somehow questioning Turin’s motives wound up being exactly the same thing as “defending” Paul Elam”

            He set you up, you did nothing wrong. By dropping in “scandalous facts” he set up anyone who disagreed with his delivery, yet his delivery was the point of his comments. Sometimes it’s right to disagree with the messenger even if you may agree with some of the message.

            I haven’t much stomach for reading MRA blogs, but I do follow enough US alt economic etc. blogs to know that this is exactly the same stuff they build their credibility and following on. Sometimes some of the facts are good and actually spelled out well enough, but the point really is to encourage this psychosis where the lowest common denominator is ultimately a visceral hatred of women. Somehow that’s supposed to lead to “revolution” and “get us back our freedoms.” Much of their other aggression these guys have trouble venting because it’d be illegal to do it, but often they seem confident they’ll get away with venting it by hurting women. I’m pretty confident the powers that be understand how critical porn and pro-rape legislation are in directing towards women anger that could otherwise end up threatening their power.

            I literally got a sore throat and the chills after my second last comment, which was why I had to follow it up with a short one saying I thought the turd was lying. And so went the sore throat. :) It’s not stupid to take any this to heart, don’t blame yourself if that happens. When it does, you need to shit it out. Your comments have helped me process through so much of this sometimes. If you were “perfect, you wouldn’t be, okay 😀 A heart-felt Thank You to You!

            Btw. that Wolke 9 film was super! I don’t recall when I last saw sex and nudity in a movie that I didn’t find somehow troubling until that one. I didn’t like the ending though, or how they built that up through the film. I don’t like it how in these stories somebody always has to lose their spark and a fulfilled life. If they wanted to use death as a metaphor which would’ve been more appropriate, they could’ve started him on a journey on those trains he loved. I would’ve liked that, the wife and her lover seemed such a match.

            Btw. Vouchsafer, you rock too! I always tend to neglect writing these notes of appreciation, so I wanted to say you’re awesome! I wish one day I’ll hear about mother bears telling their cubs inspiring stories about those mother humans :) Thanks!

          • MLM

            Thanks so much, Me! I was actually pretty embarrassed by how much I’ve let it all get to me and how I allowed myself to get played – turning myself inside out to explain and counter entirely baseless accusations. It was really dumb. I should have just trusted the intelligence of the people I do respect to dismiss it, and let it go. Because it’s not like the others really remotely cared what I was saying anyway. A heart-felt thank you to you, too, for the reminder that it’s okay to be human and get it wrong sometimes. (And, for what it’s worth, I think your instincts about the turd lying were spot on having read his exchanges with you and others. I know from your comments here that the last thing you would ever want to do is be unsympathetic to a victim of abuse, but the problem is these guys are not above exploiting that or using emotional manipulation just to win the argument. It’s awful).

            So glad to to hear you liked Wolke 9! Although I agree with you entirely about the ending. (Nobody I know likes the ending. It’s the one thing that lets the film down). Like your idea, though. Agree the late in life lovebirds have some chemistry :-)

            Also, seconding that Vouchsafer rocks and the world needs more Mama Bears just like her :-).

          • Me

            I could be wrong too. But I think he was given a fair chance to stop his attack and genuinely ask for support.

            Even if I were wrong, his use of the abuse would’ve still been callous and wrong-headed, because it’s precisely feminists who do a lot of good work with victims of sexual abuse which he tried to erase. And it’s those abused ones who aren’t in a position to come to websites like this to claim their voice whose sensibilities and lives we should be most worried about and focus on, the ones for whom effectively no outside world and no voice of their own exists. It’s feminists who want to advocate for them and create openings for them, and that should be encouraged no matter what your history is. Anyway, I did try to call attention to something like that rudely and inarticulately, no doubt.

            He started by saying angrily how no feminists acknowledge abuse of boys & men, and I found it incredible that he would’ve met unsupportive feminists coming out with his abuse story. I guess the anger could’ve made sense had he felt he had not been supported enough. But he then brought up the abuse as part of what seemed like trivial, emotionally uninvolved arguments, and in particular he went on to comment about an even less emotionally invested topic in the same trivial manner, which I found odd. Anyway, I could be wrong and I apologize in that case. My history is that I’m starting to be fairly sure I was abused as a child, though it’s becoming more accessible in tiny increments of fierce emotion and body memory and then it’s gone only to take most of my energy lingering. I’m in my thirties now I’m finally able to do this, yay! 😉 I’m opening up, I’m finding a voice within, and to me all that these fuckers are trying to do is to shout those voices down and silence them, mine as well as others’. I get angry about that, for myself as well as for others, especially for others because that’s easier. Who the fuck is going to confide in an MRA ever? Nobody! All they can do is promote rape and more rape. I don’t really care if they’re so hurt themselves they can only respond to inner pain by trying to impose their nazi world view on others, what matters is that they do try to silence and beat down the voices we need to hear and respect and respond to if we’re going to have anything left worth living for.

          • MLM

            I’m so sorry to hear what you’re going through, Me, but am very glad that you’re finding your voice about it. And I sincerely wish you healing.

            You’re right, of course. There’s always a possibility of being wrong about him. And naturally it’s not something most people would ever want to get wrong, so it can churn your guts. (Though, in addition to what you pointed out about his comments, I found his support for Warren Farrell – given that man’s historical views about incest – fairly suspicious).

            You’re equally right, though, that citing abuse just as a tactic to be abusive about feminists is destructive and misguided. So much healing needs to happen in this world and just so much of the harm has a patriarchal root. Feminism asks the best questions and seeks the best solutions. The more I know about the them, the more I question what the MRM is even supposed to be about beyond blaming and being pissed off at women.

          • lizor

            “Your motives seem honest and so does your committment to the MRM.” Sort of like the Reverend Fred Phelps has an honest commitment to heterosexual rights?

        • vouchsafer

          Sorry if I was unclear but I was inquiring as to what mra’s actual aims are.

          • MLM

            There was nothing unclear about your question, Vouchsafer. It’s a very sensible reasonable thing to ask. But apparently it’s not something certain other commenters here need an answer to before deciding that Turin is one of the “good guys”. Whatever. What do I know? Apparently I’m a Paul Elam sockpuppet anyway.

          • Me

            These are typical male fanatics, apparently up-voted and spurred by their friends. Dod-eat-dog type of guys trying to claim some spurious moral high ground so they could enact their vision of male heaven on earth, cum in every “pussy” male or female kind of way. Be the hero that’s also the rapist that’s also the hero kind of thing, may the lesser men die by their sword, school shooter material. Strictly against rape culture of course. You’ll find them on okcgoldmine, masturbating to online porn and drooling after bushmaster gadgets. Frankly I don’t know if I prefer obvious crooks like Elam or these “honest ideologues” like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Túrin_Turambar. We need a lot more mother bears in either case and less sugary foods for these people.

          • MLM

            “Frankly I don’t know if I prefer obvious crooks like Elam or these “honest ideologues” like en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Túrin_Turambar. We need a lot more mother bears in either case and less sugary foods for these people”.

            Exactly, Me. The idea that there is some “legitimate” and reasonable MRM that feminists can hold hands and sing Kumbaya with is absolutely absurd. As Meghan has already pointed out the entire movement is founded on delusion anyway.

            Either a few too many people falling for Turin’s “inside scoop” have been hitting the pomo Koolaid way too hard or they were an MRM friendly audience to begin with.

          • Vouchsafer

            MLM,

            Many nights I’ve read your posts and thanked the goddess that someone like you is out there. Don’t let the bs get you down, you got cred in spades in my eyes.

          • MLM

            Thanks so much, Vouchsafer. That means a lot because i feel exactly the same reading your comments :-)

            I have a deep respect for the views of many of the regular commenters on this site and very much value the existence of the site itself. And there are few more potent insults than being compared to Paul Elam, so I’m not going to lie, it was a little disturbing. But you’re right, it’s stupid to take any of this to heart. So I won’t.

    • Fait Accompli

      Nice! You’ve made a lot of friends with this one, Turin!

    • Tina LaFey

      Nice! Everyone has always known that A Voice For Men is the lowest men’s group out there if it was a men’s groups at all. Now we all know that it’s really just a shock show and its creators are only out for the money!

    • Patlea

      No surprise that Elam has made enemies of the good MRAs too. I’m happy to hear that they want equal rights & responsibilities instead of shoving women into the kitchens. That’s what feminism is all about and we can sure support that if it’s true.

    • Isis

      I agree with Danielle & Anne that it’s good for us to all be on the same team. If some MRAs are taking on Paul Elam and AV4M then they sound like good guys to start with. This one sounds strong and perfectly incensed by the Elams of the movement and refreshingly open about harbored grievances. I just don’t hear the same level of candor or strength in the mealy mouthed haters who parrot stats and anecdotes back at us. I hear mechanical lines and crocodile logic with no heart behind any of it. They’re no more genuine than the cheater who tells you that he’ll always be there before he takes you to bed and doesn’t want to support his child later. Apparently some MRAs have heart with a strong sense of justice plus integrity. I don’t feel misled when I read something like this.

  • Michael Steane

    She was attempting to shut down Warren Farrell’s right to free speech, was she not?

    • Danielle Paradis

      Wrong protest get your shit together and try to stay awake. Protesting is covered under free speech.

  • zaebos

    Way to go guys, steller fucking performance. *head-desk*

  • Rye

    While some feminist individuals have a potty mouth or behave poorly, highlighting these individuals has nothing to do with the substance of feminist arguments. That said, I browsed AVfM and it didn’t take long for me to find disturbing articles by respected members of the MRA community.

    1. [A video of a woman judging a man by the amount of money he makes]
    “Ask someone who lectures you for the millionth time about how oppressed women are because they’re judged by their appearances, ask them to watch this and ask them what they think.” [1]

    2. “Let’s be explicitly clear. The advice given in almost all women’s literature about how to treat men, and how to manage relationships, is advice about how to retain an upper hand. It is taken to heart and practiced by the majority of women in their relationships. That advice is the practice of psychological abuse. The women who endorse that advice, and put it into practice – are abusers.” [2]

    3. “Now police say that Webster lied. It turns out that the parties weren’t together that day after all, and none of them were at the wave pool. Webster and the two girlfriends had been at a dance club, and then they spent the night at Webster’s new boyfriend’s place. Webster concocted the rape claim so she wouldn’t get in trouble with her father because her new boyfriend gave her “sucker bites.” [3]

    4. “Now, let’s take it a step further that just acknowledging the fact that using our brains forces us to concede that rape is, in fact, about sex and reproduction. Indeed, that’s the only thing that makes any sense at all.” [4]

    5.”I don’t mean that in the sense that they are literally asking men to rape them (though this clearly does happen outside the context of this post). What I mean is, do women who dress and act provocatively; who taunt men sexually, toying with their libidos for personal power and gain, etc., have the same type of responsibility for what happens to them as, say, someone who parks their car in a bad neighborhood with the keys in the ignition and leaves it unlocked with the motor running?” [4]

    6.”In that light, I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.” [4]

    7. “In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

    They are freaking begging for it.

    Damn near demanding it.

    And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

    In my opinion their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.” [4]

    8. “So what is required for actual discourse to occur? What is it going to take, for gender ideologues to become a useful part of the conversation?

    -Recognize and repudiate the initiation of violence in your feminist rhetoric and policies. This needs no explanation. Killing or brutalizing children, based on their sex, promoting the extermination of men, publicly fantasizing about forced castration and so on – these are fantasies which would have embarrassed Joseph Goebbels;

    -Abandon and repudiate the constructed narrative of rape culture. It’s a transparent re-framing of the second-wave feminist talking point “all men are rapists”. It’s not simply a vile nugget of distilled hatred, it’s also demonstrably false, based on uniform criminal victimization data collected by the FBI and law enforcement agencies around the western world;

    -Abandon censorship. It’s a totalitarian urge, and has no place in a movement pretending to advocate anyone’s human rights, even the subset of humanity identifiable as women;
    Repudiate and abandon the tactic of othering through identity politics. This tactic demonstrates that your movement is at present, the antithesis of a human rights movement.”[5]

    Well, I don’t know where to begin. For one, Paul Elam is clearly a misogynist, even by my standards. For example, he has explicitly stated that too often raped women do not deserve sympathy, because they are partly responsible for getting raped by acting like whores. Moreover, a common theme among these MRAs is that feminism has given women a license to act like whores. Hell, they even have a whole category of articles on it, which they call “hypergamy”. Then there’s a lot of “Women live privileged lives by enslaving men through manipulation and psychological abuse,” which might be comical if they weren’t so serious.

    Secondly, they misrepresent feminists by painting them as violent and incapable of engaging in a rational debate. But, it’s obvious that they have no intention of rational debate in the first place, because, as MRA John Hembling illustrated, he hates feminists so much that he can’t be bothered to research what feminists actually believe.

    Finally, they imply that the majority of their issues, such as military service being dominated by men, are a result of systemic oppression against men. But they conveniently ignore that men can’t as easily oppress women when women carry military weapons and are trained to use them. And, this is a pattern for nearly all their issues, their issues are compatible with feminist theory. With that in mind, concluding that most MRAs hate women and want to silence feminists makes a lot of sense.

    Sources:

    1. Esmay, Dean. (2013, April 18). “How Women Look at Men These Days.” A Voice for Men. Retrieved from:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/video/how-women-look-at-men-these-days/

    2. Hembling, John. (2013, January 27). Plausible deniability and abuse). A Voice for Men. Retrieved from:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/plausible-deniability-and-abuse/

    3. Pierce, Harlan. (2013, April 24). “It could happen to any young man…” A Voice for Men. Retrieved from:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/it-could-happen-to-any-young-man/

    4. Elam, Paul. (2010, November 14). “Challenging the Etiology of Rape.” A Voice for Men. Retrieved from:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

    5. Hembling, John. (2013, April 23). “This is not a negotiation, and I don’t want your pussy.” A Voice for Men. Retrieved from:
    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/this-is-not-a-negotiation-and-i-dont-want-your-pussy/

  • sporenda

    To Stephanie:
    apparently, you are very upset about the fact that your “husband” has to give a significant amount of his salary to pay for the upkeep of the children he fathered with his first wife.
    Shockingly, what’s upsetting to you is not just the fact that the money does not really go to the children.
    What you deem unacceptable and unfair is the very fact that your husband has to pay at all for the kids he brought into this world..
    I quote you: “we neither think that women are capable of earning money enough to parent their children without their ex_husbands”.
    According to you, divorced women who earn a salary should bear sole financial responsibility for their children and should not get any child support.
    How convenient for men.
    The question is not that women are capable of earning enough money to raise their kids alone; most are.
    Wether a woman earns enough money or not, her ex husband has to shoulder some financial responsability for raising the children resulting of the marriage.

    And I doubt that you are a woman to write such nonsense, it’s sounds like the typical, centuries old male BS: men should be free to spread their seed without having to face any of the consequences, in particular the upkeep of the resulting children, whose responsibility, financial and otherwise, should be shouldered entirely by women–if men so decide
    This is not just a masculinist point of view, it’s extremist masculinism.
    And this leads me to think that the only part that may be true in the sad story you are telling us is there is indeed somebody who has to pay his ex wife for the kids and is not happy about it–could it be YOU?.

    Other idiotic nonsense in your post:

    “I am no woman-hater. I am a woman. We cannot actively seek the truth when we are blind to beliefs other than our own. Be human-rights activists, ladies. We’re all in this together.”

    First, quite a few women are misogynists, conservative women in particular, that’s called alienation: adopting the beliefs of the class that oppress you.
    Second, no, women and men are not necessarily in this together, not anymore than bankers and workers, blacks and whites, jews and muslims etc.
    Different categories have different interests. Sometime, these interests can merge into some form of cooperation that is fruitful for both sides.
    Most of the time though, each group has to fend for itself and take care of its own.
    If these differences of interests could be ignored without one of these categories being badly shortchanged, there would be no need for workers unions, a union where bosses and workers would work side by side would do the trick.
    This has existed in the past… in various dictatorships and Nazi Germany.
    Each time women have been urged to put the cause of X or Z before their own, be it national liberation, worker’s liberation, human rights, racial emancipation etc, they have been sent to the front line by men to fight men’s battles, and then sent back to their second rate citizenship afterwards.
    This is the oldest trick in the masculinist book, and on a feminist site, you are not going to find many takers.

    • Rod Davies

      “Each time women have been urged to put the cause of X or Z before their own, be it national liberation, worker’s liberation, human rights, racial emancipation etc, they have been sent to the front line by men to fight men’s battles, and then sent back to their second rate citizenship afterwards.”

      Could you kindly provide further details of this?

    • Herperenda

      He didn’t brought children to this world, she chose to bring them by allowing him to have sex with her without a condom! Considering there’s half a dozen contraceptive methods women can choose from, it is solely her responsibility when she brought a child she can’t afford to. I am talking about women being pregnant from consensual sex. If it is her body, her choice, then it should be solely her responsibility. If you think husbands do share such responsibilities post divorce then it can only be valid when shared parenting is applicable and the child was born not just because of her decision, but his as well. Consenting to sex is not consenting to motherhood, in all fairness it should be same for fatherhood.

      • Lela

        Ok, what? Having multiple kids as a married couple was some kind of accident?

        I hate to break this to you, but as far as PiV sex goes, women shoulder the vast majority of the health risks, often without much pleasure from the act itself (contrary to porn’s version of events.) In this context, it makes perfect sense that the onus should be on men to wear condoms, it’s really the least they can do.

        • Herperenda

          You always have a choice to not to sleep with a man without the condoms, after all it is your body and it is your choice. Stop infantilizing adult women and take some responsibility for your own decisions. I’ll tell you again consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.

          • Lela

            Are you joking? Did you know that men often protest/are unenthusiastic about condom use (see: the entire porn industry?) Also, we’re talking about Stephanie’s comment, correct? She gave no indication that this man didn’t consent to parenthood, having *multiple children* with his spouse.

          • lizor

            “He didn’t brought children to this world, she chose to bring them by allowing him to have sex with her without a condom! Considering there’s half a dozen contraceptive methods women can choose from, it is solely her responsibility when she brought a child she can’t afford to… consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.”

            What are you saying Herperenda? It sounds like you’re telling us that if a woman has sex she is consenting to parenthood and if a man has sex he does not. Or you’re trying to be satyrical… ?

          • Herperenda

            When man and woman have sex, they are only consenting to sex. If she becomes pregnant as a result of the sex, it is solely her responsibility, since it is her body, she decided to have sex with a man without a condom, she chose not to take any contraceptives, she chose not to give for adoption. A man cannot force a woman to have to sex with him without a condom, he cannot force a woman to abort or to take a morning pill, he cannot decide to give the child for adoption as well, it is all against the law. Since it is her body, her choice, it is her responsibility.

          • Missfit

            You know that sex has other implications beside the male orgasm, do you? If a woman becomes pregnant as a result of sex, it is not solely her responsibility as there would inevitably be a man involved. A man can choose not to ejaculate in a woman’s body. Yes, I’m telling you. His body his choice! Just as it is for women. And if a human being comes out of the consensual sex, both are responsible. I find that pretty fair.

          • lizor

            You know, Herp has me thinking… if a dude chooses to let the sperm out of his body into an environment where it might grow into one or more human beings, then he must be solely responsible for his bodily choices and should therefore have to take full responsibility for those people he made. The woman only happened to be in the wrong place when he made his choice!

          • Herperenda

            Sex without a condom may or may not lead to pregnancy. But giving birth to a child is always a choice, since there is an option to abort, to take a morning pill etc. If the lady in concern worries about accidental pregnancy, she must not consent to have sex without a condom. Once a woman becomes pregnant only she has the choice to keep it or abort it, With many choices which only women can chose from, with more powers, comes more responsibility. If you say otherwise then next time she becomes pregnant accidentally, she shouldn’t be allowed to abort and motherhood should be enforced, since by your logic fatherhood can be enforced because he had sex.

          • Me

            “since by your logic fatherhood can be enforced because he had sex.”

            Why do you paint the men to be such obvious, irresponsible asses? Oh, wait…

          • Missfit

            ‘If the lady in concern worries about accidental pregnancy, she must not consent to have sex without a condom.’

            If the man in concern worries about accidental pregnancy, he must not consent to have sex without a condom.

            Requesting that a man takes responsibility for his offspring is not the same thing as denying women the right to abort. PIV sex can result in pregnancy, thus parenthood, because biology. Now, women have the right to choose what concerns their body and so do men. This right to choose is confined to the limits of their respective biology. It is way more easier to abstain to ejaculate in a woman’s body than to go through an abortion or a delivery, seriously. And women already (and always had)take a lot of the responsibility for being the ones to carry and deliver babies.

          • lizor

            Wow. So only women should carry the responsibility for all of the children of the world and men can just run around and fuck without responsibility for the children they make.

            Quite the vision you have there for a healthy, just society, Herp.

          • Lela

            And if I wasn’t clear, yes, BOTH PARTIES share responsibility for ensuring contraceptive efforts. You seem to think women should shoulder this responsibility alone, which makes no sense. Also, Herperenda, if you don’t think that feminists have been advocating strongly for women to be pro-active about contraception basically since the inception of feminism, you must be living in a cave.

      • http://lolliguncula.wordpress.com ibleedpurple

        Considering there’s half a dozen contraceptive methods women can choose from, it is solely her responsibility when she brought a child she can’t afford to.

        Is this one of the “equal responsibilities” MRAs talk about? If yes, perhaps you should consider that a woman cannot create a fetus on her own.

  • Dufresne

    “There’s no group of feminists out there plotting mass gendercide. Equality… We want equality.”

    This I believe for the most part. I also think that feminists who have influence on public policy and discourse have taken things a step further with the result being privilege for women at the expense of men, and calling it equality. To a degree, I believe that there has been a desire for interchangeability between men and women, and that just isn’t realistic. The factual, maeasurable differences between men and women are not a result of social engineering by patriarchal overlords, they just are.

    “The fact is that A Voice for Men promotes rape culture and violence against women, and that’s really all there is to it.”

    This is an opinion … If you took the time and spoke with anyone directly associated with AVFM, you would quickly determine that they outright reject violence in any form, and they hold the belief that rape is a uniquely horrible crime and people who commit it should be locked up. The death and rape threats, and suggestions that the redheaded protester in Toronto did not come from anyone associated with that website … book it.

    • lizor

      “I also think that feminists who have influence on public policy and discourse have taken things a step further with the result being privilege for women at the expense of men”

      Examples, please.

    • Grackle

      I don’t even–are you serious? Are you a troll or are you just blind? You can visit the A Voice for Men homepage and find multiple examples of their love of rape and violence in less than 30 seconds. A few comments up, Rye posted about ten excerpts from the site talking about how women who dress “slutty” are “begging” for rape. He calls them empty-headed and narcisstic bitches and says that “their ‘plight’ from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.”

      There’s also this:

      “I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.

      And then make them clean up the mess.”

      Yeah, you’re right–a Voice for Men definitely rejects all forms of violence and thinks rape is a “uniquely horrible crime”.

      • Grackle

        Correction: Rye doesn’t call the women empty-headed bitches–that’s from the site. Forgot to change the pronoun.

  • Dan Perrins

    The title I chose for my article had nothing to do with sexualizing red.
    It had everything to do with her gratuitous use of the fuck word and her ‘rabid dog’ like actions.
    Hence the use of the word frothing and fornication.
    Must everything be about sex with you feminists?
    Reposting this a second time and taking another screen grab,, tsk tsk censoring feminist.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Hi Dan,
      You can’t compare women to ‘rabid dogs’ here. Which is why I deleted your comment first time around. Now I’m banning you.

      CENSORSHIP!

    • Lela

      Calm down, everyone! You see, Dan here wasn’t trying to *sexualize* this woman, he was only trying to *animalize* her. Women are compared to non-human creatures all the time in pornography and such, it’s totally normal, duh!

    • Danielle

      So don’t use the word fornication if you aren’t talking about sex. The word literally means sex. We aren’t making it about sex…Fornication refers to sex between people who are not married to each other.

  • NitroGirl

    “Nitrogirl, feminists claim to support equality for all. If one supports equality for all, then one must support all those in need, not just those you think are “worthy” of your support.”

    Jacobtk, not all Feminist support “equality” for all because people have bastardized its true concept, so some Feminist (mainly of the Radical variety) believe in The Dismantling of Male Supremacy (Patriarchy) in order to create real ,concrete equality.

    Feminists again are not required to “prove” shit to men,especially MRA, Feminist “critics” who have more of a problem with women speaking “out of line” than the actual violent, misogynist result she got for not meeting males demands of female respectability (which is really a nice word for misogynist bs)

    “As for men cleaning up their own mess, I would like to share that the reason I am concerned about men’s issues, particularly sexual violence against males, is because I am male survivor. When you state “you made the mess, you do the labor to fix it” you imply that I caused my own abuse and it is my responsibility to fix it. While you are not the first feminist to engage in that kind of victim-blaming, I do find it ironic that whenever feminists hear about negative male experiences their typical reaction is to blame males for it. “

    As a female who grew up being physically and emotionally abused by someone close to me,if you want to be emotionally manipulative, it would be exhausting to have to share space and time with males in a movement that is supposed to be for women and girls. I would not trust a movement that would be more concerned with males than WoC (that of which I am) who are or have been abused.

    Let me guess,you find the NAACP to be “divisive” too.

    Here’s the thing,instead of getting mad at groups for acknowledging there’s a divide caused by oppressors,and how to rise up from their oppression—get mad at the people who created such division in the first place. But then that might require social change and personal change,none of which you or any MRA-ish types don’t want to take part in,because that would mean you have to give up your imagined victimhood, and you need that imagined victimhood as men (for the record,not talking about your abuse. i am talking about Men as A Class,not men as individuals along with their individual issues) so you can feel just in being passive or active in female oppression.

    And lets be honest,you sound like an MRA–MRAs are not born because Feminists didn’t include men enough, they are born because they don’t like to see women rise up from underneath their feet. (Funnily enough, current,mainstream Feminism DOES support men..right up to the point where they are allowed to be in Take Back The Night Marches,and Slut Walks,or any movement that used to be a gathering of all women.)

    You are the most transparent of them all. I think though, I have a lot of experience,”thanks” to my abusers,in identifying emotional manipulation. So I see straight through you. Nice try,though.

    Also,the first part of inequality is to prove who you are unequal to. So , who are men unequal to,again?

  • marv

    @ Jacobtk and all men’s rights advocates (mra)

    The debates between mra and radical feminists are poorly understood by mra and liberals in general. To reiterate comments made above, there is generally a presumption by mra within the debate (or observing it) that both sides are equal in power and status or that women have more political control than men. Accusations are thrown around that demeaning conduct, insulting etiquette, overheated rhetoric and an unwillingness to listen and compromise are the reasons for stalemate, leaving the conflict unresolved. This is a false assessment. The discourse between both groups is actually about incompatible paradigms in relation to social/political life. Each side uses its own worldview to defend its position. Since both paradigms are contradictory the disagreements in the discussions are necessarily circular. The men/liberals fail to recognize that they have drastically more social power than feminists. The rad-feminists are a small band of revolutionaries who are exiled to the margins of a society built on male power structures. They are dissenters from the mainstream while the mra can’t see that these systems are male founded. A comparison would be to overlook the power imbalances between capital and labour in organizing the economy or First Nations people and white settlers in a debate over racism and colonization. I think this is Robert Jensen’s meaning of ideological rigidity. To assume that aboriginal people are social and political equals to white people at the level of institutions would not only be beyond credibility but an outright act of hatred. The same holds true of capitalists and workers and men and women.

    Many men don’t question male hierarchical organizations that govern society or the role of mra ideology “in creating or perpetuating hostility against” females. To put the focus on a false equivalency, neutrality, manners, and civility is completely wrong headed and oppressive. That said, I am not opposed to respectful behaviour between unequals in discussions but I wouldn’t trumpet it either. Politeness is beside the point and fixation on it means it is time for a reality check. When institutional male dominance takes its boot off women’ necks (by abolishing pornography and prostitution for example using the Nordic method) maybe a courteous dialogue could ensue. But that would require a recasting in thinking and living to embrace feminist equality, like cordial discussions between races would necessitate honouring land claims of indigenous people among other things. In the meantime around and around we go.

    I have the sense that you lack the capacity (due to social conditioning) to understand systemic causation or structural injustice between social groups, especially in regards to women and men so there is no point to continue conversing. I used to be as entrenched in liberal ideology as you are. My feminist sisters removed the blinders from my eyes. As a result I have never felt so free since renouncing masculinity for humanity though I have a long road ahead to put it into full practice. That won’t happen until male systems are abolished.

  • sporenda

    “You always have a choice to not to sleep with a man without the condoms, after all it is your body and it is your choice. Stop infantilizing adult women and take some responsibility for your own decisions.”

    YOU are infantilizing men by placing the burden of contraception entirely on women’s shoulders. Wearing a condom is a decision can make for himself, he doesn’t need a mommy to remind him to put one on.
    It’s men, not women, who inisist to have unprotected sex, as any prostitute will tell you she is requested daily to accept.
    Wether the pregnancy is wanted or unwanted, it takes two to tango, and the financial maintenance of the resulting children is and should be the responsability of the two parties involved.

    • Herperenda

      Well reject the request then, and if you refuse to have sex with him without a condom, and he does it forcefully, it becomes rape, by consenting to have sex with him without a condom, you are making a choice to get impregnated(intentionally or accidentally), but you still have half a dozen contraceptives methods to prevent child birth which includes abortion, which he doesn’t have any agency since it happens inside YOUR body!So by all means if it is your body, your choice, it is your responsibility.
      By law women can never be forced into motherhood because she had sex or because she is pregnant, but men are often forced into fatherhood and pay for the decisions made by women.

      • night owl

        *facepalms*

  • http://femalebodiedperson.tumblr.com rozy

    ‘There’s no society and never will be”. So it is going to be ok! There’s no group of feminists out there plotting mass gendercide. Equality… We want equality.’ I do not agree. I do not wish to be equal to pieces of shit. You don’t have to take a jab at radfems seriously that was unnecessary. Gender is oppression. I am a feminist bc want liberation from mens perverted fuckery. Gender abolition is a worthy feminist goal. I am so disappointed thought this site was radical leaning maybe bc of the anti porn stance. Oh well.

  • http://femalebodiedperson.tumblr.com rozy

    Also do not appreciate the ‘what about the menz???’ tone of this article. Stop acting like men are victims of patriarchy they created this system because it benefits them. If it didnt there’d be none!

    Society has always been better to women.

    There has been no society for womyn at any time on the planet. It is most likely women were free not even in pre patriarchal tribes as the the institutionalization of patriarchy happened around 6000 years ago it was modeled after reproductive oppression of women long before informally in small groups.

    Biologically every woman counts in reproduction, where males are more disposable.

    Welcome to reality fuckface. It is also biological fact that womyn have no fathers, the sperm carries the lineage of female ancestors which they inherent. Say it… you have no father.

    Courts always rule against men in cases regarding child custody

    You know why? Because women are naturally more caring and bond with their offspring naturally and it is not essentialist to say that its the truth.

    Women are rescued first in any emergency or disaster, lifeboats!

    First of all you are the dumbass and the only history you know is from the movie Titanic. Second you have a crush on your own penis.

    Men work longer hours at more dangerous jobs, men have to fight wars, men are more likely to die violent deaths.

    That bc all these things are men’s jack off fantasies they turn into reality, almost all womyn have Stockholm syndrome from PIV. If men don’t like wars I think they would stop fighting them by now. Women all over the world risk their lives to give birth and in western countries doctors are butchering birthing womyn with their hateful unhelpful practices including cutting the perineum with scissors and forcing them to lay down when this is not the healthiest way for them to give birth, ideally they should be moving and allowed to be in whatever position is best for them. They will know instinctively. Men are not more likely to die more violent deaths but believe whatever you want you penis worshiper. Not to mention rape as a weapon of war. So many fecally incontinent womyn, women with torn anuses and vaginas from the brutal genetic defect that is men. Men are disgusting. They cannot be changed. They rape bc they like it. ‘Society’ is patriarchal bc it suits their needs. The end.

  • http://femalebodiedperson.tumblr.com rozy

    I guess this is a funfem site. So much appeasement I can hardly swallow. Its okay to hate men, you think black people love their masters? Worker’s in China like the western companies they work for? I think not! Better to reject men than trauma bond to them!

    • Grackle

      …what the hell are you going on about?

    • Jennifer

      Rozy,while I did not get all of your statement (maybe I will when I read it again after sleeping),I wanted to say,thank you.This is the first time I have heard of trauma bonding and it just explained so much in my life.I got chills when I read the last part and something in my brain clicked,so I googled and sure enough….your “random” comment changed my life for the better.

  • http://femalebodiedperson.tumblr.com rozy

    Is there really any need to diss Valerie Solanas here?

    • sporenda

      “Courts always rule against men in cases regarding child custody

      You know why? Because women are naturally more caring and bond with their offspring naturally and it is not essentialist to say that its the truth.”

      The main reason why the courts grant custody to women most of the time is very simple: most men dont’t want custody and don’t ask for it (less than 20% of them do).
      The only reason that most of these MRAs guys want custody of their kids is after a nasty divorce, to get back at their ex-wives.
      And usually, these divorces are difficult for a good reason: these guys are abusive, even violent.
      MRAs are essentially jilted abusers and wifebeaters who can’t stomach having been jilted.

      • Meghan Murphy

        “The only reason that most of these MRAs guys want custody of their kids is after a nasty divorce, to get back at their ex-wives.
        And usually, these divorces are difficult for a good reason: these guys are abusive, even violent.
        MRAs are essentially jilted abusers and wifebeaters who can’t stomach having been jilted.”

        It’s true. These men seem very eager, all of a sudden, to “share” in child care duties when it means they can control/continue to emotionally abuse their wives via the court system.

        • lizor

          There was an interview with a retired family court judge on CBC a few years back – I think it was on The Current – where he said that in most of the custody cases he had presided over the dude was primarily trying to punish his ex-spouse and was looking to have his new girlfriend/wife take on the work of raising his kids. He also said that the default rate on child support payments by fathers was astronomical and that any notion of fathers being persecuted by a court system that favours women is a joke.

          • IndigoLamprey

            “He also said that the default rate on child support payments by fathers was astronomical and that any notion of fathers being persecuted by a court system that favours women is a joke.”

            If you actually look at the figures, the default rate on child support payments by mothers is what’s astronomical, with mothers firmly seated in the majority of people not paying.

          • Meghan Murphy

            What utter and complete bullshit, IndigoLampre. This kind hilarity presents an accurate picture of the MRA brain, though: completely deluded, living in a fantasy world of their own making.

        • Sasha

          Actually in my experience it’s much simpler than that.

          They’re just fathers who love their children.

    • Danielle

      Not dissing, but anticipating arguments. Used her quote to explain there isn’t a group of women wanting to cut up men.

  • E-Tank

    “Editing videos”? Wow, you feminists will go to any lengths to protect her. The videos weren’t edited. I WAS THERE. THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. And you blame MRAs for doxxing her, despite the well known fact that it was some idiot from 4chan – but who cares about the truth when you can just scapegoat MRAs some more?

    This article is garbage. Screaming “patriarchy!!1” and treating all men like some kind of hive mind is an illogical argument comparable to the old christian cop-out argument of “god did it”.

    It’s sad that the writer of this article has a big fat confirmation bias and absolutely refuses to believe anything that she doesn’t want to be true.

    I expect to be banned and my comment deleted – if so, all that does is prove that feminists cannot handle dissent and will silence it whenever possible. Kind of like Big Red and her mob of protesters tried to do.

    • Danielle

      Um Perrins talks about editing in his original article. Editing can’t just MAKE UP Red screaming. No one’s saying that.

      Otherwise thanks for your feedback. xoxox

  • Oonagh

    1) Do any of you note the hypocrisy of accusing MRAs of using “silencing tactics” when discussing a protest that was specifically intended to and resorted to illegal means to try and silence MRAs? And it was the third one to do so in six months? And feminists were actively invited to the discussion, but chose to shut it down instead?

    2) Despite actually linking to the video of Big Red laughing at male suicide victims, you guys never actually say anything she did was actually wrong. Not wrong enough to garner such hate, certainly. But still pretty wrong.

    3) It sure is strange that no feminist defending BR has decided to contact the police about these threats/dox’ing, as far as I know. It’s almost as if they were only concerned with their victimization, not the actual threat itself.

  • IndigoLamprey

    For the author of this, you said:

    “The fact is that you are fucking kidding yourself if you think that Elam’s Men’s Rights Movement is about anything other than silencing women. And even if it were true that every single individual MRA wasn’t out to destroy all feminists everywhere — the ultimate goals of the movement as a whole is to Teach Women Their Place through whatever means necessary.”

    So, that means that since I’ve recently read quite a few radical feminist blogs recently where I’ve seen posts about killing men, it’s okay for me to generalize that all feminism is like that too, right?

    Also:

    “Courts always rule against men in cases regarding child custody

    You know why? Because the patriarchy teaches us that only women can be nurturing, loving caregivers. This is not what feminists want! We want to break down traditional gender roles!”

    Actually it’s called the Tender Years Doctrine and was the result of a feminist.

    As for the protester this article spoke about, do you think she and her group were being heard when they pulled a fire alarm? Or how about when someone very calmly explained he was upset that male suicide was 4 times that of women and she sang, “Cry Me a River”? I note that you didn’t make any mention of those videos in the article.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Oh give me a fucking break with this “radical feminists want to kill men” shit. Please.

    • lizor

      Yeah, it’s so hard for men what with the constant threat of violence from women at home, at work and in the public sphere.

  • lizor

    Anyone seen the Jackson Katz Tedx talk? If you need a bit of an antidote to some of the – I don’t know what to call them – sad little fantasist victims posting about how the big bad feminists are pressing on their bloated, pustulant privilege, I recommend it.

    https://www.upworthy.com/a-ted-talk-that-might-turn-every-man-who-watches-it-into-a-feminist-its-pretty-fantastic-7?c=mrp1&fb_source=message

    • MLM

      Thank you so much for sharing that, Lizor! It was wonderful. Hearing Jackson Katz talk definitely helps restore some hope :-).

  • Pingback: The Manosphere: A Breeding Ground for Fundamentalist Christian Gender Hatred, Homophobia, Racism and Anti-Semitism | The Categorical Housewife()