Mens Rights Thread

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but why do people even associate with a site filled with misogynists? (and arguably run by one)

You'd think the first thing to do, if you want to prevent people who are against mens rights, from using accusations of misogyny against mens rights supporters, is to disassociate from the actual misogynists and borderline misogynists.

If there are any other sites who're even pretending to be about men's rights then I've never heard of them.

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

And just to point out that the article I posted was written by a woman.

In which case, "anti-feminist" is the dismissal of choice.

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but why do people even associate with a site filled with misogynists? (and arguably run by one)

You'd think the first thing to do, if you want to prevent people who are against mens rights, from using accusations of misogyny against mens rights supporters, is to disassociate from the actual misogynists and borderline misogynists.

Some people may be different from you: they focus on the content of articles while your focus often seems to be about who an article can be linked to.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but why do people even associate with a site filled with misogynists? (and arguably run by one)

You'd think the first thing to do, if you want to prevent people who are against mens rights, from using accusations of misogyny against mens rights supporters, is to disassociate from the actual misogynists and borderline misogynists.

But surely that standard should be applied consistently? If feminism can (rightly) argue they're a broad church and that they don't think as a hive mind then surely men's rights can too? We frequently see on boards a defense made of feminism that feminists can't be expected to disavow or publically disassociate from their radical element, that the group cant be responsible for every extreme element, which is fair enough it has at least some.merits regardless of how its used lazily sometimes. however those same merits must extend to any other group with a similarly broad base.

Seriously?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If there are any other sites who're even pretending to be about men's rights then I've never heard of them.

Likewise, to my knowledge there simply aren't any other sites with the same reach and acceptance on the topic of mens rights.

It's really required reading for anyone wanting to educate themselves on the topic.

Piliger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The myths in that article themselves seem 'mythical'; seems far more likely that the reason many people get labelled misogynist, while also claiming to promote mens rights, is that - like the founder of that website, Paul Elam - a lot of them can reasonably be judged as using mens rights as a either a front or secondary-objective, for promoting misogynist or borderline misogynist views.

Not surprising, that an article on that website, will ignore the actual misogyny or borderline-misogyny, that exists as part of the more-vocal extremists in the mens rights movement (which I'd judge that website as being a part of) - and just pretend that the reason the label is applied, is because they claim to support mens rights.

Not all who identify as mens rights supporters fit this though, and certainly I would judge that the majority of people who support mens rights (whether claiming to or implicitly), do not fit that.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/ is most definitely not a misogynist web site. This is just the usual smear campaign label that feminism smacks onto any campaign looking to promote men's rights and the exposure of the blatant sexism of modern feminism. "misogynist" is getting to be the most overused and uselessly offensive word of the decade.

Regrettably we have few good quality web sites bringing the truth of the current anti male propaganda campaigning by both extremist and media feminism, and http://www.avoiceformen.com/ is one of them.

Pawwed Rig

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya but why do people even associate with a site filled with misogynists? (and arguably run by one)

People often see misogyny where anyone would even contemplate that men are not as a whole privileged. Any discussion of a man being at a disadvantage or a criticism of a feminist group can be deemed misogyny. You see it all the time where people are discussing this forum and anyone who dares post in it.
It is easier to dismiss a whole idea than address points raised, easier to attack a poster rather than a post*, easier to attack a forum or a website rather than think about if there are valid points raised. It is a common enough tactic.


*not making a dig at anyone here

B0jangles

Can I remind you all that Paul Elam, owner and main contributor to aVfM calls himself TheHappyMisogynist on youtube. That's his handle.

Dude is a proud and open misogynist.

How the hell can pointing that out be a smear campaign?

VVVV Awesome! I had a 1 euro bet on with someone that the "irony" defence would appear within 5 posts BOOYAH! VVVV

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

Can I remind you all that Paul Elam, owner and main contributor to aVfM calls himself TheHappyMisogynist on youtube. That's his handle.

Dude is a proud and open misogynist.

How the hell can pointing that out be a smear campaign?

My guess is he may be using it in an ironic sense the way lots of people post "misandry" tweets or buy misandry products.

The Ultimate Misandrist Holiday Gift Guide
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alannaokun/chestnuts-roasting-on-an-open-fire#.se3kYyk7L

masculinist

iptba wrote: »

My guess is he may be using it in an ironic sense the way lots of people post "misandry" tweets or buy misandry products.

I see him using his own name on YouTube

PaulElam

Anything else is nonsense. Calling yourself happy unicorn doesnt make you a unicorn. The smearing tactics get less and less effective the more they are used.

ancapailldorcha

Iptba, that buzzfeed page is absolutely vile. The comments do give me a measure of hope at least.

Seriously?

B0jangles wrote: »

Can I remind you all that Paul Elam, owner and main contributor to aVfM calls himself TheHappyMisogynist on youtube. That's his handle.

To quote the man from his youtube account page.

In the modern day lexicon, it appears that "misogynist" means "anyone who thinks women are intelligent, capable, responsible adults who should be expected to act that way.

Which may give some insight as to why the name was chosen.

B0jangles

masculinist wrote: »

I see him using his own name on YouTube

PaulElam

Anything else is nonsense. Calling yourself happy unicorn doesnt make you a unicorn. The smearing tactics get less and less effective the more they are used.

Search for "ThehappyMisogynist" on youtube and see where you get redirected to; it was his username before they switched to google+ -type real name usage stuff. Unicorns are imaginary animals, misogynists are human beings who hate women; I hope you can understand how that makes a difference when it comes to a human being using a label to describe themselves.

Again... how is something a smear if it was openly used and acknowledged by the person in question?

And seriously, Seriously?, he is allowed to completely redefine commonly understood word in ways that best suit his agenda? Come the hell on!

Piliger

B0jangles wrote: »

Search for "ThehappyMisogynist" on youtube and see where you get redirected to; it was his username before they switched to google+ -type real name usage stuff. Unicorns are imaginary animals, misogynists are human beings who hate women; I hope you can understand how that makes a difference when it comes to a human being using a label to describe themselves.

Again... how is something a smear if it was openly used and acknowledged by the person in question?

And seriously, Seriously?, he is allowed to completely redefine commonly understood word in ways that best suit his agenda? Come the hell on!

When it is used as a lie against people who are not in any way misogynist. And yes he is free to call himself anything he likes. As the earlier poster explained, calling one self happy unicorn doesn't make one a unicorn. Yet the extreme feminist lobby continue the smear and fail to see their own sexist bigotry.

B0jangles

Piliger wrote: »

When it is used as a lie against people who are not in any way misogynist. And yes he is free to call himself anything he likes. As the earlier poster explained, calling one self happy unicorn doesn't make one a unicorn. Yet the extreme feminist lobby continue the smear and fail to see their own sexist bigotry.

How is it a lie when he uses the term to describe himself?

If I called myself "TheHappyNiggerhater" and ran a site about race relations, I think I'd have a very hard time convincing anyone rational that I wasn't a hardcore racist.

Logic does not seem to be operating very strongly around here when it comes to Mr. Elam.

(apologies for usage of a vile word)

Seriously?

B0jangles wrote: »

Logic does not seem to be operating very strongly around here when it comes to Mr. Elam.

I'm not sure that the AVFM site really should be judged solely on the choice of a nom de plume by Mr. Elam; that smacks of misdirection to my mind. Rather the site stands or falls by the nature of its content.

So while Paul Elam may be the public face of the site, he is hardly the sole contributor at this point in time. The site having grown significantly from its beginings as a blog site for him into a major activist site with multiple well known and respected contributors.

B0jangles

Seriously? wrote: »

I'm not sure that the AVFM site really should be judged solely on the choice of a nom de plume by Mr. Elam; that smacks of misdirection to my mind. Rather the site stands or falls by the nature of its content.

So while Paul Elam may be the public face of the site, he is hardly the sole contributor at this point in time. The site having grown significantly from its beginings as a blog site for him into a major activist site with multiple well known and respected contributors.

If they want to make themselves respected as genuine supporters of men's rights, rather than anti-feminist activists then perhaps they should be at pains to distance themselves from Mr. Elam?

Unless of course you view the two things as being the same - I have noticed that is is a common phenomenon around here for posters to find a single isolated blog by an feminist extremist who says weird things about men and use it to tar all feminists as nutters, but they get all defensive and angry when I point out that the founder and owner of the largest MRA site is a self-labelled misogynist.

Piliger

B0jangles wrote: »

If they want to make themselves respected as genuine supporters of men's rights, rather than anti-feminist activists then perhaps they should be at pains to distance themselves from Mr. Elam?

Unless of course you view the two things as being the same - I have noticed that is is a common phenomenon around here for posters to find a single isolated blog by an feminist extremist who says weird things about men and use it to tar all feminists as nutters, but they get all defensive and angry when I point out that the founder and owner of the largest MRA site is a self-labelled misogynist.

Yes we do when you have no grounds for the smear campaign that you are propagating and the international misandrous media feminist campaign that you are denying.

You think that gaining the approval of feminists is 'respectable' ? Well it isn't. Gaining the respect of men, and men who understand what is happening is what is important.

KomradeBishop

Directly associating with misogynistic or borderline-misogynistic people, is a world of difference to merely 'failing to disavow' someone who is sexist - it is far worse.

To take an extreme example, that is not coloured by what 'side' people are on:
If I merely 'fail to disavow' the KKK, that's one thing, but if I directly publish in a KKK publication, associating with racists, while publishing material that - while not racist - falls into line with the overall editorial narrative of the publication (a publication founded by a borderline racist, with editorial control...), then that's a pretty huge difference to 'failing to disavow'.

Many posters who are critical of feminists for 'failing to disavow' the extremists, seem to see nothing wrong with associating with extremists when it's on their own 'side'.

KomradeBishop

Piliger wrote: »

http://www.avoiceformen.com/ is most definitely not a misogynist web site. This is just the usual smear campaign label that feminism smacks onto any campaign looking to promote men's rights and the exposure of the blatant sexism of modern feminism. "misogynist" is getting to be the most overused and uselessly offensive word of the decade.

Regrettably we have few good quality web sites bringing the truth of the current anti male propaganda campaigning by both extremist and media feminism, and http://www.avoiceformen.com/ is one of them.

Lets remember what Paul Elam, the founder of that website, has to say about certain rape victims:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The focus is on Elam personally, as founder of A Voice For Men, and his own sexist (borderline misogynistic) views, not the wider debate he was engaging in.
His article is precisely trying to portray it as less of a crime, and shift the blame onto the victim - it shouldn't even need dissecting for that to be obvious, but here we go anyway - you have parts like this:

Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.

Using scare-quotes - "victim" - to imply these women are not actually victims of rape (or not victims of 'true' rape).

But are these women asking to get raped?

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.

Mocking women who have been raped in these circumstances, and flat-out saying they are begging, demanding to get raped - which is straight-out victim blaming, and is implicitly shifting responsibility away from rapists, to the women - i.e. implicitly promoting a view saying 'well, they asked for it!', as if excusing it.

Saying:

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

Again with scare quotes, as if being raped in these circumstances is not a "plight" - pretty much trivializing rape, especially in comparing the crime of rape, to a lesser crime of losing your wallet, and saying women who have been raped in these circumstances, should draw only a trivial amount of sympathy.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

People often see misogyny where anyone would even contemplate that men are not as a whole privileged. Any discussion of a man being at a disadvantage or a criticism of a feminist group can be deemed misogyny. You see it all the time where people are discussing this forum and anyone who dares post in it.
It is easier to dismiss a whole idea than address points raised, easier to attack a poster rather than a post*, easier to attack a rorum or a website rather than think about if there are valid points raised. It is a common enough tactic.


*not making a dig at anyone here

I don't doubt that that does happen - and that's a legitimate problem - but it seems secondary to stuff like I quoted above; especially when the article that brought up this particular issue, is from the above-quoted guys website.

Websites absolutely should be attacked for their bad reputation - I mean, Elam has editorial control over AVfM, people can't treat that as a neutral source.

To remove the 'mens rights vs feminism' tint from this discussion, just consider someone publishing from a KKK publication, as I describe above - sure, it's certainly possible to bring up legitimate issues in such a publication, but people would be quite right to knock it's credibility down several notches, because of who the author is associating with.


It's different when a poster makes an argument themselves though (that's why I say in the feedback thread, people should present their own view, not just links) - you can debate with someone who presents their own argument, but with a link, it's acceptable to just point out the reputational flaws.

iptba

Here's the full article from AVfM I linked to, for anyone who didn't read it:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/the-misogyny-myth/

The “misogyny” myth
December 14, 2014 By Jasmin Newman

There is a great urban myth abounding in conversations about men that needs clarifying.

It appears that we have forgotten what it means to use language appropriately. We want to group everyone together and place a label on people so we know where they fit. I do not like labels, and I dislike the incorrect use of potentially damaging words more.

As a young woman, I tackled the world head on. I did not label people by race, religion, or gender (and still don’t). Moreover, I was determined that none of the labels other people used would ever limit my future possibilities.

I remember the time I was first called a feminist. I was horrified. I did not buy into the label, and I certainly was not going to be categorized into something that was segregating men and women. I just wanted to be a woman who had a voice.

Feminism by definition is the advocacy for women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

The point was not lost on me, that the feminist movement was needed in the world, and that it was due to its foundations that I had rights and privileges that were not afforded to my mother’s generation. However, even as a young woman, I saw great inequality in what was taking place because of that movement and it did not sit well with me.

What I did not know was that my strong connection to men and their rights and issues would later cause me to be labeled a misogynist.

There is no doubt that misogyny exists in the world. Violence, hatred, and contempt toward women purely because of their gender is abhorrent and intolerable.

We hear about it in the news, in relation to politics, differing cultures, rape, and other crimes committed against women and girls, purely because of their gender. It is simply not okay.

Misogyny by definition indicates reviling a group of people: dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.

However, there is a problem.

The use of the word is appearing in everyday conversations as a metaphor for any man (or woman) who stands up for a man’s right to equality. In that context, the label is erroneously applied—and it hurts.

I speak with men about how they show up in the world and how they want to be present in everyday life. They share with me their honest and heartfelt accounts of what matters to them, in their parenting, the respect they receive, the removal of authority, and their desire to reclaim their assertiveness. They do not like being labeled as misogynists simply for speaking up. Neither do I.

The men I have spoken to regarding this subject agree wholeheartedly that misogyny exists and they abhor the very nature of it. They also express great fear of accusations against them, purely for speaking up or defending their rights as a man.

There are two myths that I believe cause us to misapply this label.

Myth #1: Standing Up for the Rights of Men Makes You a Misogynist

No, being pro-men does not mean that you harbor dislike, contempt, or prejudice against women.

What it does mean is that you are a supporter of men’s rights, nothing more. When a man chooses to speak up and make a stand for his entitlements, which is equal to that of a woman’s (right to equal child care, to speak up against violence, or equality in employment), he is not a misogynist.

This man is expressing his desires of the world: access to his children, for instance. He is letting you know that violence and abuse against men is real, it’s happening to him, and it’s hurting him. He is telling you that he feels belittled by having to ask for what is rightfully his. He is telling you the story of his pain.

Myth #2: Disagreeing with a Feminist Statement Automatically Makes You a Misogynist

No, it means there is a countering opinion.

Our culture likes to label by extremes, so if you are a person who dares to disagree with a feminist statement, you must then be a misogynist by default.

Either you are a feminist or you are a sexist/misogynist. There is no box marked ‘other.’—Feminist songwriter Ani DiFranco

Quotes like this confirm the paradoxical view that there is only one way to equality: feminism. The argument itself is inherently flawed. True gender equality is not about being for one side or the other; it is about equality that means being for both.

Any man or woman who fits the true definition of misogyny will certainly be an anti-feminist, but that does not make any man who wants to restore balance a misogynist.

Let us not forget the elephant in the room. The opposite of misogyny is misandry—the hatred of men—which was endured by many during the early feminist movement and has followed into our modern-day thinking. We need to be mindful that we do not now turn the tables and start labeling women with misandry because that would be unfair …

Recently, Emma Watson’s address to the UN Assembly launched a campaign called HeForShe to end gender inequality once and for all. She articulated well the need to bring men back into the equation and conversations in order to restore true equality.

These men must have a voice. I implore you to not shut them down with an ill-fitting label because you fear them. Listen to their pain. Hear their voices. Have an opinion—we need more discussion, but be mindful of the labels you use.

About Jasmin Newman

Jasmin Newman is a specialist men’s coach in the field of Sex & Relationships. She helps men navigate the path of difficult relationships and resolve issues on an inner journey. A survivor of abuse and trauma she has special empathy for working with those who have also been victims. She is an advocate for equal rights and equal responsibilities.

Piliger

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again with scare quotes, as if being raped in these circumstances is not a "plight" - pretty much trivializing rape, especially in comparing the crime of rape, to a lesser crime of losing your wallet, and saying women who have been raped in these circumstances, should draw only a trivial amount of sympathy.

Nice piece of selective quoting but it's not convincing except to someone eager only to find excuses to support their own point of view.
He makes several rather exaggerated and flowery but very powerful and true points against the 'claims' of rape, something you always automatically define as true .. after all no women would EVER lie !
And lo a behold it gets the feminists upset. who would have guessed.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't doubt that that does happen - and that's a legitimate problem - but it seems secondary to stuff like I quoted above; especially when the article that brought up this particular issue, is from the above-quoted guys website.

Websites absolutely should be attacked for their bad reputation - I mean, Elam has editorial control over AVfM, people can't treat that as a neutral source.

To remove the 'mens rights vs feminism' tint from this discussion, just consider someone publishing from a KKK publication, as I describe above - sure, it's certainly possible to bring up legitimate issues in such a publication, but people would be quite right to knock it's credibility down several notches, because of who the author is associating with.

It's different when a poster makes an argument themselves though (that's why I say in the feedback thread, people should present their own view, not just links) - you can debate with someone who presents their own argument, but with a link, it's acceptable to just point out the reputational flaws.

You'd be hard pushed to find any sort of publication, print or web lacking an agenda of some sort. It's part of what makes things interesting. Someone with something to say regarding men's rights isn't going to be spoiled for choice when it comes to getting their message out. They can go it alone but they'd get near to no exposure. The likes of Warren Farrell have followers which suits them fine in that they don't need defer to anyone else's agenda.

As has been pointed out earlier, feminists aren't a homogenous group. Nor are MRAs. Most of what I read on the Guardian is quality (relative to the rest of the media at the very least) and though they do print some utter tripe from time to time, it'd be wrong of me to disregard the publication altogether for that. It'd be similarly wrong to assume that an article is top notch just because it appears in said publication.

KomradeBishop

Piliger wrote: »

Nice piece of selective quoting but it's not convincing except to someone eager only to find excuses to support their own point of view.
He makes several rather exaggerated and flowery but very powerful and true points against the 'claims' of rape, something you always automatically define as true .. after all no women would EVER lie !
And lo a behold it gets the feminists upset. who would have guessed.

You're claiming that is selective quoting, but you haven't presented anything to show/prove that - here is the full article, for anyone who wants to make up their own mind on it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/

And just to state it, in case people just skip over it: Elam thinks certain rape victims, are begging/demanding to get raped, and he thinks that these rape victims, are not really 'victims' at all, and that they deserve only a trivial amount of sympathy.

Good breakdown of it here, which I quoted above:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=93225059#post93225059

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You'd be hard pushed to find any sort of publication, print or web lacking an agenda of some sort. It's part of what makes things interesting. Someone with something to say regarding men's rights isn't going to be spoiled for choice when it comes to getting their message out. They can go it alone but they'd get near to no exposure. The likes of Warren Farrell have followers which suits them fine in that they don't need defer to anyone else's agenda.

As has been pointed out earlier, feminists aren't a homogenous group. Nor are MRAs. Most of what I read on the Guardian is quality (relative to the rest of the media at the very least) and though they do print some utter tripe from time to time, it'd be wrong of me to disregard the publication altogether for that. It'd be similarly wrong to assume that an article is top notch just because it appears in said publication.

Again the editor, the person who controls the narrative of the publication, is a borderline (if not outright) misogynist.

It's not merely 'just a few bad eggs', it's the founder and editor; not all publications are equal, and not all deserve to be taken credibility, and many deserve to have their reputation highlighted every time they come up.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again the editor, the person who controls the narrative of the publication, is a borderline (if not outright) misogynist.

It's not merely 'just a few bad eggs', it's the founder and editor; not all publications are equal, and not all deserve to be taken credibility, and many deserve to have their reputation highlighted every time they come up.

I don't read AVFM. I know little to nothing of Mr. Elam so I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. The fact that he may be or may not be a misogynist doesn't mean that all of the pieces on his website aren't worth reading.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't read AVFM. I know little to nothing of Mr. Elam so I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. The fact that he may be or may not be a misogynist doesn't mean that all of the pieces on his website aren't worth reading.

It does mean that they are all worth criticizing in the context of the sites reputation though - and in the case of the article that started the current discussion, it was especially relevant. It also means, determining what is and isn't worth reading on the site, may not be worth the bother - that's up to each reader to decide though, based on what they think of the sites reputation.

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It does mean that they are all worth criticizing in the context of the sites reputation though - and in the case of the article that started the current discussion, it was especially relevant. It also means, determining what is and isn't worth reading on the site, may not be worth the bother - that's up to each reader to decide though, based on what they think of the sites reputation.

The only issue there is that this is the only site specifically about men's rights (well, it says it is). Unfortunately, such a platform will attract misogynists the same way feminism attracts misandrists*. AVFM would likely be a first choice for many authors as most other sites wouldn't publish anything pertaining to men's rights specifically.

*Not all feminists hate men of course but I think we can agree that some do.

masculinist

Piliger wrote: »

Yes we do when you have no grounds for the smear campaign that you are propagating and the international misandrous media feminist campaign that you are denying.

You think that gaining the approval of feminists is 'respectable' ? Well it isn't. Gaining the respect of men, and men who understand what is happening is what is important.

The feminist lunatics always come out when Men want their rights. They want to control the narrative. Try to discuss mens rights and needs and they will come along to tell you how misogynist you are.

We have seen the clowns who gatecrash Male rights threads wanting all narratives to refer back to misogyny - the Australian media is a current case in point : Woman murders 8 kids and the media wheels out a feminist commentator who then launches into a tirade against men , effectively blaming all men for violence. This is absolutely disgusting. Watch the feminists defend these attacks on men. Links and further information below:

Australian woman, charged with murdering 8 children.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/mersane-warria-australian-woman-charged-with-murdering-8-children-1.2879781




https://www.facebook.com/AVoiceForMenWomenWhoSupportTheMrmOpposeFeminism/photos/a.463741860371146.1073741826.462092310536101/746414332103896/?type=1

Video: https://au.tv.yahoo.com/…/community-deals-with-cairns-stab…/

Email sent by reddit user Nogbadd:

"In the segment "Community deals with Cairns stabbing" on Sunrise the presenters interviewed Heather Nancarrow, the CEO of The National Research Organisation for Women's Safety.
Given the story was about a woman killing her children, it was an error of judgement to create a platform for a feminist to seek to make a political point about male violence against women. While I note that the presenters emphasised that they were making "general" comments, but to subvert the topic from a woman killing her children to male violence against women was a significant lapse of judgment.
If you are struggling to understand why this was an error of judgement, firstly remember your 'sensitivity' obligation, then adopt the perspective of any of the five fathers who lost their children to their mother's violence. How might the fathers have reacted to hearing a (white) woman suggesting that men are to blame for family violence, when their own children were not yet buried?
What were you thinking?
When the mother in Sydney stuffed her infant son into a drain, it may well have been possible to say that post natal depression might be to blame. But the whitewashing of the facts, and the presentation of a one sided perspective does not reflect well on your journalistic integrity. As an example, the presenters might have focused more on why women who are NOT suffering from post natal depression kill their own children. But they did not. Instead they engaged in ritualised man bashing.
When Heather Nancarrow pointed out the risk of stereotyping all muslims based upon the muslim who held people hostage in the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney, she may have made a valid point, but Mr Magoo could see that to warn against demonising all muslims based upon the actions of one muslim immediately after you have demonised all men for the actions of a tiny minority is hypocrisy.
The presenters should have asked Heather Nancarrow what specific steps can be taken to stop female perpetrated violence, why women kill their children, and how society can address the scourge of filicide."

smearing is the only thing they know how to do



The reality:

New Zealand mothers kill more children than any other group in society and men are victims of domestic violence as often as women, a police investigation has found.

The ramifications are a public health system that tends to overlook male victims of domestic violence.

One example was White Ribbon Day, which he had been critical of because it focused on female survivors of domestic violence and there was "no comparable day for male victims".

"It is those biases which have been built into our system right the way through it, largely from feminist rhetoric that implies that males are always to blame.

"The bottom line is the importance of public policy being based on evidence."

http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/227441/children-most-often-killed-mothers

statistics debunked the misleading popular perception "that women and children need to be protected from men".

.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only issue there is that this is the only site specifically about men's rights (well, it says it is). Unfortunately, such a platform will attract misogynists the same way feminism attracts misandrists*. AVFM would likely be a first choice for many authors as most other sites wouldn't publish anything pertaining to men's rights specifically.

*Not all feminists hate men of course but I think we can agree that some do.

I don't know if that's true - and if it were, there's nothing stopping people setting up another site that's not associated with Elam; costs very little to run a blog, and many blogs have a whole host of contributors (rivalling newspapers in quality, in many cases).

ancapailldorcha

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't know if that's true - and if it were, there's nothing stopping people setting up another site that's not associated with Elam; costs very little to run a blog, and many blogs have a whole host of contributors (rivalling newspapers in quality, in many cases).

I should have been clearer. When I said that AVFM was the only men's rights site, I meant it was the only one one could consider to be in any way well known. I'd say you could stop 100 people on the street and fewer that 2 would have heard of AVFM.
The thing about starting a blog is you need people to read it. It's easier than ever to achieve that but it still takes a lot of time and work.

KomradeBishop

Ah okey - yes, that's true that it does take a lot of work to build up a readership, but well, while authors choose to associate with AVfM, instead of helping alternative sites get a better readership by contributing their content there, it will probably remain a problem.

iptba

I thought I'd point out that there may be different types of AVfM readers. I don't tend to go to the site directly currently but do sometimes see articles there plugged elsewhere.

Piliger

masculinist wrote: »

The feminist lunatics always come out when Men want their rights.

A rather telling statement that rather sums up where your views appear to come from throughout the discussion it would seem to me.

Seriously?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

It does mean that they are all worth criticizing in the context of the sites reputation though - and in the case of the article that started the current discussion, it was especially relevant. It also means, determining what is and isn't worth reading on the site, may not be worth the bother - that's up to each reader to decide though, based on what they think of the sites reputation.

Its interesting that only criticism that has been offered against the site is a single article which has long been removed. Before you can establish AVFM as an misogynistic site, a pattern of publishing such material needs to be shown; it hasn't.

Right now it's akin to taking a post from afterhours from a number of years ago that the moderators there removed and stating that single post is representative of the boards.ie as a whole.

masculinist

Piliger wrote: »

A rather telling statement that rather sums up where your views appear to come from throughout the discussion it would seem to me.

What's the matter ? My clever post seems.to have shamed you away from screeching the usual
MMisogynnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyy but your post still is a nonsense. The fact you completely put men's rights on ignore shows exactly what a terrible person you are. Keep digging

KomradeBishop

Seriously? wrote: »

Its interesting that only criticism that has been offered against the site is a single article which has long been removed. Before you can establish AVFM as an misogynistic site, a pattern of publishing such material needs to be shown; it hasn't.

Right now it's akin to taking a post from afterhours from a number of years ago that the moderators there removed and stating that single post is representative of the boards.ie as a whole.

Never said it was a misogynistic site, I said the founder is (at best) borderline misogynistic, if not outright misogynistic - which that article shows.

A website publishing articles, with editors like Elam who control the content and overall tone of the website, isn't like an Internet forum, where nobody controls the overall tone of content (beyond keeping basic rules of civility etc.).

Zulu

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Never said it was a misogynistic site, I said the founder is (at best) borderline misogynistic, if not outright misogynistic - which that article shows.

A website publishing articles, with editors like Elam who control the content and overall tone of the website, isn't like an Internet forum, where nobody controls the overall tone of content (beyond keeping basic rules of civility etc.).

Let me get this straight, I'm having trouble following you.
You're not saying its a "misogynistic" site, just that the "editor" who controls all the content and the overall tone is a "misogynist".

Is that about right?

iptba

My thoughts are with fathers who have been separated from their children this Christmas:
(3 minutes 44 seconds)

iptba

(December 24 article)

10 Great British writers on men’s issues you should read keep an eye on in 2015
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/12/24/10-great-british-writers-on-mens-issues-you-should-read-keep-an-eye-on-in-2015/

I'm not familiar with all of these. Descriptions suggest there is quite a mix to suit various tastes and interests.

tritium

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The only issue there is that this is the only site specifically about men's rights (well, it says it is). Unfortunately, such a platform will attract misogynists the same way feminism attracts misandrists*. AVFM would likely be a first choice for many authors as most other sites wouldn't publish anything pertaining to men's rights specifically.

*Not all feminists hate men of course but I think we can agree that some do.

As an interesting aside to this, I came across a couple of bios over Christmas of people who have at various points contributed to or collaborated with AVFM I'd known warren Farrell had collaborated with Paul Elam but never realised Erin pizzey had done so quite extensively. (Then again a quick google of her brought up so much bile against her that its easy to see why she might want to disassociate from many women's groups and advocates. Wehuntedthemammoth was gem-anti feminist? Really? Someone whos done more to help women in need than most keyboard warriors ever will is an anti feminist now? Incredible)

Does go to show how small the online presence of men's issues really is though when such a wide range of advocates (good and bad) seem to converge in the one place. The unfortunate thing is it makes it easy to make a cheap shot against good advocates, and while its easy to argue against that it takes away time that would be better served making points about men's issues

iptba

(December 31 article)

This Is What a Men’s Rights Activist Looks Like

By Paul Bisceglio
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/mens-rights-activist-looks-like-95551/

An interview with a female Men's Rights Activist (FeMRA).

MissInterested

Hi everyone,

I was thinking to myself how shocking it is that there is barely any kind of support for men in which are victims of domestic abuse.

I just want to ask everyone's opinion about this social issue? Why is it that Ireland provides such little support for domestic abuse against men? I have a fair idea, it just seems ridiculous that this social issue has been swept under the carpet for as long as it has.

Also, I'm curious and I am trying to look into ways in which could possibly help male victims. I believe there is a high demand for some sort of shelter or refuge for men and their children to flee to for safety, however, I am wondering does anyone have any ideas as to where a shelter or refuge could be based to start off in Irelands? I have a few ideas though I would be interested in other peoples ideas.

Thanks everyone

py2006

MissInterested wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I was thinking to myself how shocking it is that there is barely any kind of support for men in which are victims of domestic abuse.

I just want to ask everyone's opinion about this social issue? Why is it that Ireland provides such little support for domestic abuse against men? I have a fair idea, it just seems ridiculous that this social issue has been swept under the carpet for as long as it has.

Also, I'm curious and I am trying to look into ways in which could possibly help male victims. I believe there is a high demand for some sort of shelter or refuge for men and their children to flee to for safety, however, I am wondering does anyone have any ideas as to where a shelter or refuge could be based to start off in Irelands? I have a few ideas though I would be interested in other peoples ideas.

Thanks everyone

There is a variety of reasons why there is little support for men:

A) The attitude of some that there is no need.
Male victims fear ridicule.
C) Abuse campaigns focus solely on women.
D) Some feminists are outright offended and angered at thought of a support for men.
E) Some of above see talk of male victims as ridicule or rejection of female victims

iptba

MissInterested wrote: »

Hi everyone,

I was thinking to myself how shocking it is that there is barely any kind of support for men in which are victims of domestic abuse.

I just want to ask everyone's opinion about this social issue? Why is it that Ireland provides such little support for domestic abuse against men? I have a fair idea, it just seems ridiculous that this social issue has been swept under the carpet for as long as it has.

Also, I'm curious and I am trying to look into ways in which could possibly help male victims. I believe there is a high demand for some sort of shelter or refuge for men and their children to flee to for safety, however, I am wondering does anyone have any ideas as to where a shelter or refuge could be based to start off in Irelands? I have a few ideas though I would be interested in other peoples ideas.

Thanks everyone

In case you're interested, most of this thread esp. after the start, is about male victims of domestic violence and related issues:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057082283

iptba

(6 mins 57 secs)

He says that a lot of MRAs talk about the dangers of feminism or the evil of misandry but he feels that a focus on positive male (and female) role models would be good. However, he seems to talk about fiction exclusively so not sure how easy it is for most of us to influence this (except to complain about bad role models). He had created his own story previously (he links to it)

py2006

Not sure what thread to post this in....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6glZ2VfKiUo

Wrong on both counts but it does highlight a lot of what is wrong today

iptba

(Story from India)

I Got Arrested For Offering To Buy Her Coffee And I Was Labeled An “Eve-Teaser”
[i.e. for asking a woman out]

http://akkarbakkar.com/got-arrested-offering-buy-coffee-labeled-eve-teaser/

iptba

An interesting development.

PSA: Paternity testing can be done safely prior to birth after all!
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2qx7w1/psa_paternity_testing_can_be_done_safely_prior_to/
---

I had to look into this and sure enough they do regular tests nowadays for genetic abnormalities via a Maternal Serum Screening in the first and second trimesters. Another option is the cfDNA test that can be completed as early as 9 weeks!

This is a monumental change for men's benefit, which I cannot stress enough how awesome this is. Guys, please do yourselves a favor and take advantage of this ability to have paternity testing completed so early in the pregnancy!

Sources:

http://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default?id=common-tests-during-pregnancy-85-P01241[1] <- Scroll down to "Second Trimester Prenatal Screening Tests".

http://www.cyh.com/HealthTopics/HealthTopicDetails.aspx?p=438&np=459&id=2760[2] <- Scroll down to "Screening tests".

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/babys-dna-in-moms-blood-noninvasive-prenatal-testing/[3] <- cfDNA is discussed along with other options

---

It really is an amazing improvenent. Amnio just for a paternity test, in the absence of risk factors for serious diseases, was NOT a reasonable request, and men seemed realize that. But a blood test at nine weeks? That's a totally different ball game.