Mens Rights Thread

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

That whtm link above, contains the quote I highlighted from Elam way back as well:

http://web.archive.org/web/201111031...ology-of-rape/
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93212641&postcount=3

A more detailed breakdown here - it shouldn't need any more explaining, but here you are anyway:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93225059&postcount=8


This is the guy who runs 'A Voice For Men', which is the largest and most influential men's rights site (see wiki link) - so this is the kind of extremist/misogynist you get, playing a big part in leading the MRA movement.


Well, 'whtm' has provided pretty comprehensive quotes in their takedown of Paul Elam - and since they are directly quoting the guy, it's pretty much impossible to find fault with it - so it's only fair that if panning whtm, discreditable quotes/posts of theirs are shown too, otherwise there's nothing to show anything wrong with the site.

Elam is a bit like some of the extreme early wave feminists, a completely obnoxious piece of work but radical enough to get attention for his cause at a stage in its development where negative attention may be better than no attention. Even those who have collaborated with him would be slow to advocate him, albeit the men's rights space seems so relatively small that its hard for more moderate advocates not to overlap with him in some spaces. Suffice to say that its bad form to use Elam's quotes taken out of context to beat him with because there's more than enough in context quotes out there to do that.

That said, using whtm as the case for the prosecution is a bit like describing the Daily Sport as quality journalism because they ran a story about Jimmy Saville 2 years after everyone else. Whtm is a pretty obnoxious site in itself, not too far behind Jezebelle IMHO. More or less any opportunity to find misogyny is taken up regardless of how tenuous the linkage may be, e.g.
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/03/28/male-rage-aggrieved-entitlement-and-andreas-lubitz/#more-15816
(Our hero becomes a psychologist for the day I guess)

As I understand it Elam and Futrelle have been having an online pissing contest for a while now. Of course there are plenty of bloggers on the net happy to point out futrelles own chequered past. Make what you will of the following (somewhat biased) link
http://theantifeminist.com/monsterboobz-david-futrelle-disturbing-defence-film-sexual-abuse-torture-children/

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Seems like a bit of a nasty character alright but it should be understood that Americans love the extremist. Most of the outlandish nonsense from any rights movement comes from within its borders and has little relevancy over here as this sort of media play does not sit well here. One who supports equality for men (or anyone else) is not obliged to stand over all of the nonsense posted on the Internet just like most feminist would not support the more radical nonsense that is regularly posted about.
Mr Elam actually raises am interesting juxtaposition (if that is the right word) in that his comments would not be acceptable in the media here however it is not unusual to have equally as disgusting comments levelled at men to be published in reputable publications.
Hence the need this thread.

Absolutely, I agree with you there, it's just pretty regular for supporters of mens rights stuff to cite A Voice For Men (despite being owned/run by this guy), and defend it when Elam is pointed out - and a lot of the prominent writers in the mens rights movement can be shown to have been happy to write on AVFM.

I'm not sure it's true that the media here would allow equally as unacceptable comments about men ('some men are begging to be raped'?) - and I don't see the need to juxtapose either; one of the most poisonous things in gender debates, is the way that when a person puts forward an issue that women face, someone usually tries to take that down a notch with 'but men face x' (or the same with genders reversed).

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Elam is a bit like some of the extreme early wave feminists, a completely obnoxious piece of work but radical enough to get attention for his cause at a stage in its development where negative attention may be better than no attention. Even those who have collaborated with him would be slow to advocate him, albeit the men's rights space seems so relatively small that its hard for more moderate advocates not to overlap with him in some spaces. Suffice to say that its bad form to use Elam's quotes taken out of context to beat him with because there's more than enough in context quotes out there to do that.

If you're claiming that about what I quoted (instead of what whtm was quoting), you need to actually provide an argument showing that, not just stating that - because in my post the comments are definitely not taken out of context (I even include the original article), and it's exactly this kind of reflexive defence of Elam (just trying to pour doubt on criticism of him without argument) which in my eyes, discredits a lot of mens rights supporters as helping to defend him.

Also, I don't think the mens rights movement needs a radical bent. I'd be very interested in seeing what a moderate/reasoned mens rights movement had to advocate, but a lot of the kind of stuff that Elam (and related people) may write, seems to bleed out into (even otherwise fairly reasonable) peoples views, poisoning the whole movement.

When you read garbage, and allow yourself to be exposed to garbage (even if you're doing it just to pick out the good points), you are inevitably going to take-on some of that garbage; no person is immune to this, everybody will (even if they know better) 'learn by repetition' if they expose themselves to bile like Elam's all the time. Garbage in garbage out.


I don't know much about the history of feminism, but it's the second-wave stuff that got more radical, that was only a minor part of first-wave stuff; the mens rights movement seems to have skipped straight on to batshít/radical.

I'm not sure how legitimate a movement it is either, because I've got a suspicion that it gets a lot of funding from the Libertarian movement (who seem keen to fund plenty of anti-feminist think tanks) - who have a fairly present history of paid astroturfing.

tritium wrote: »

That said, using whtm as the case for the prosecution is a bit like describing the Daily Sport as quality journalism because they ran a story about Jimmy Saville 2 years after everyone else. Whtm is a pretty obnoxious site in itself, not too far behind Jezebelle IMHO. More or less any opportunity to find misogyny is taken up regardless of how tenuous the linkage may be, e.g.
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/03/28/male-rage-aggrieved-entitlement-and-andreas-lubitz/#more-15816
(Our hero becomes a psychologist for the day I guess)

As I understand it Elam and Futrelle have been having an online pissing contest for a while now. Of course there are plenty of bloggers on the net happy to point out futrelles own chequered past. Make what you will of the following (somewhat biased) link
http://theantifeminist.com/monsterboobz-david-futrelle-disturbing-defence-film-sexual-abuse-torture-children/

The whtm blog there has a misleading quote "Roughly a third of all female murder victims in the United States are killed by their exes" - I went searching for that, and it wasn't exes, it was partners. There's plenty in that blog post to discredit whtm though, so fair enough there it does seem discreditable.

That second link though is talking about censorship of the '120 days of sodom' film, and Futrelle seems to be in good company in defending that from censorship:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/salo120-days-sodom

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If you're claiming that about what I quoted (instead of what whtm was quoting), you need to actually provide an argument showing that, not just stating that - because in my post the comments are definitely not taken out of context (I even include the original article), and it's exactly this kind of reflexive defence of Elam (just trying to pour doubt on criticism of him without argument) which in my eyes, discredits a lot of mens rights supporters as helping to defend him.

Relax, my comment is aimed at whtm, I'm far from a defender of Paul Elam, but equally whtm and a number of other commentators have a long history of selective spin. Ironically with Elam its unnecessary as he manages to look like a douche all by himself

Also, I don't think the mens rights movement needs a radical bent. I'd be very interested in seeing what a moderate/reasoned mens rights movement had to advocate, but a lot of the kind of stuff that Elam (and related people) may write, seems to bleed out into (even otherwise fairly reasonable) peoples views, poisoning the whole movement.

Oh no disagreement there. I think it suffers from its still relatively small scale, which means you can have say warren Farrel, Erin pizzey and Paul Elam all sharing the one stage even though there's elements where they're definitely uncomfortable bedfellows

When you read garbage, and allow yourself to be exposed to garbage (even if you're doing it just to pick out the good points), you are inevitably going to take-on some of that garbage; no person is immune to this, everybody will (even if they know better) 'learn by repetition' if they expose themselves to bile like Elam's all the time. Garbage in garbage out.

Again no disagreement that stuff like this can have an almost brain washing effect. That works both ways though, and the full spectrum of gender rights advocacy (feminist and MRA) is replete with parrots who swallowed a sociology website for breakfast. If anything its more worrying how more generally accepted organisations spin the numbers and facts to create the worldview they want. In some ways that's more damaging because they can use their wider reach to effectively demonize certain groups, or make negative traits acceptable in others.

I don't know much about the history of feminism, but it's the second-wave stuff that got more radical, that was only a minor part of first-wave stuff; the mens rights movement seems to have skipped straight on to batshít/radical.

Its an interesting one. Violence and radicalism have always had a wing within feminism. Emmeline Pankhurst has a less romantic side than is often portrayed for example and her wpsu party had a motto of "deeds not words". Its true that later feminism was more radical, though there's probably a strong correlation with wider social change that was happening at the time.

I'm not sure how legitimate a movement it is either, because I've got a suspicion that it gets a lot of funding from the Libertarian movement (who seem keen to fund plenty of anti-feminist think tanks) - who have a fairly present history of paid astroturfing.

Well have to disagree here. Many groups on both sides have a history of questionable benefactors, and IMHO anti-feminist is often just a lazy tactic to stifle debate with someone whose argument can't be legitimately defeated. If erin Pizzey for example, having done more to help women in need that most rad or academic feminists is actually an anti-feminist then it seems a bit if a fluff insult.

The whtm blog there has a misleading quote "Roughly a third of all female murder victims in the United States are killed by their exes" - I went searching for that, and it wasn't exes, it was partners. There's plenty in that blog post to discredit whtm though, so fair enough there it does seem discreditable.

That second link though is talking about censorship of the '120 days of sodom' film, and Futrelle seems to be in good company in defending that from censorship:
http://www.bbfc.co.uk/case-studies/salo120-days-sodom

I think the point is more that whtm and its author have a questionable history of their own. There's a lot of online commentary to early 90's work that doesn't exactly paint him on a good light. There's also as you've noted quite a bit of misleading stuff in there.

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This is the guy who runs 'A Voice For Men', which is the largest and most influential men's rights site (see wiki link) -....

What's your direct source for the bolded and underlined bit above?

While his comments are fairly nasty, I feel that every time this is brought up it's in an effort to discredit all men who strive for greater rights for men.

It's the equivalent of me going into a thread about feminism and going, Jezebel.com editors have violently abused their boyfriends, the sites popular with feminism, therefore feminism in it's entirety is tainted.

Pawwed Rig

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not sure it's true that the media here would allow equally as unacceptable comments about men ('some men are begging to be raped'?)

It is regularly casually dismissed as of very little seriousness and at worst as a humourous anecdote. I have often seen the rape of men in prisons for example as being referred to as a near positive for getting revenge on the perpetrator of a crime.

NI24

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Most of the outlandish nonsense from any rights movement comes from within its borders and has little relevancy over here as this sort of media play does not sit well here.

I believe "Millie Tant" is a British blog, and is brought out any time examples of misandry are brought to attention, so it's certainly not just an American thing. And I believe some supporters in this very thread have linked/thanked that blog. It certainly isn't just radical supporters of MRAs with serious hatred of women (particularly old/ugly women)--it's the average Irish men on this site (if you would like me to name names, I'd be more than happy). You can't dismiss the misogyny of the middle-of-the-road MRAs and call it extremist. I'm not saying that every MRA has to defend other MRAs, but if the movement wants to be taken seriously, each member is going to have to take a good hard look in the mirror before they decry modern feminism on the grounds that it's sexist, otherwise, they have no right to complain. Credibility is everything.

tritium

NI24 wrote: »

I believe "Millie Tant" is a British blog, and is brought out any time examples of misandry are brought to attention, so it's certainly not just an American thing. And I believe some supporters in this very thread have linked/thanked that blog. It certainly isn't just radical supporters of MRAs with serious hatred of women (particularly old/ugly women)--it's the average Irish men on this site (if you would like me to name names, I'd be more than happy). You can't dismiss the misogyny of the middle-of-the-road MRAs and call it extremist. I'm not saying that every MRA has to defend other MRAs, but if the movement wants to be taken seriously, each member is going to have to take a good hard look in the mirror before they decry modern feminism on the grounds that it's sexist, otherwise, they have no right to complain. Credibility is everything.

Theres a few important points in response to this.

Firstly, the argument of MRAs are women haters. Its remarkably similar to the arguments any woman advocating for women's rights faced in the past- 'lesbian', 'bitter old spinster', the usual nonsense to avoid having to engage in any debate on the actual issues. There's a world of difference between disliking certain aspects of feminism and being a woman hater.

Secondly, mens rights is no more a single church than feminism is. While there are undoubtably misogynists who claim that label (in the same way there are misandrist feminists), you can't assume all MRAs share the same viewpoints.

Thirdly, would you apply the same standard and credibility test to modern feminism, based on the stuff emanating from, for example, certain us colleges? If so, how do you think its credibility stacks up?

NI24

tritium wrote: »

Firstly, the argument of MRAs are women haters. Its remarkably similar to the arguments any woman advocating for women's rights faced in the past- 'lesbian', 'bitter old spinster', the usual nonsense to avoid having to engage in any debate on the actual issues. There's a world of difference between disliking certain aspects of feminism and being a woman hater.

I know there's a world of difference and posters in here don't seem to know that. It's funny you should mention those past arguments against feminism because that is exactly what Millie Tant is-- an obviously sexist, misogynist blog and it's sole purpose is to discredit women based on their looks/age and the fact that some posters took the time to link/thank it, to me, shows an obvious hatred of women and shows they are not at all interested in combating sexism . (other comments by these posters show me how much they hate women as well) So if those posters in question want to argue against misandry, they are certainly not the ones to do it.

tritium wrote: »

Secondly, mens rights is no more a single church than feminism is. While there are undoubtably misogynists who claim that label (in the same way there are misandrist feminists), you can't assume all MRAs share the same viewpoints.

The posters I'm referring to certainly do hold that viewpoint. And they certainly aren't the "women deserve rape" extremist types, but rather, average MRAs who have a serious vein of misogyny running through their bodies. Unfortunately for the reasonable MRAs, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.

tritium wrote: »

Thirdly, would you apply the same standard and credibility test to modern feminism, based on the stuff emanating from, for example, certain us colleges? If so, how do you think its credibility stacks up?

Modern feminism doesn't need credibility--it already has its' foot in the door and a stranglehold on western governments.

Wibbs

tritium wrote: »

If so, how do you think its credibility stacks up?

It doesn't for the most part. Credibility and third wave feminism sits uneasily in the same sentence.

Lemming

NI24 wrote: »

Modern feminism doesn't need credibility--it already has its' foot in the door and a stranglehold on western governments.

Any movement - in order to keep itself relevant - needs credibility. So the above just doesn't wash I'm afraid. As Wibbs has said, modern/insert-wave-number feminism does not sit hand in hand with credibility. It has become a movement that seeks to sustain itself rather than do anything "good" (for want of a better term) and appears to be not so much lurching as sprinting to the extremes. It is most certainly not about equality any more, nor has it been for quite some time.

You seem keen to smear all MRAs (or anyone who supports mens rights for those of us who don't identify as MRAs) as misognysts and how because of the very small circle and means of media outlet in which said people currently move, it's impossible to bump into less savoury sorts who really are the counterparts of misandrysts.

BUT, and there is a but;

Despite how large, entrenched, and industrialised feminism is (and thus plenty of spokespersons to choose from potentially), the current status quo for feminism sees those people touted as its leading lights, those people touted as being its great literature writers, and those people writing the desired policies submitted to government, as the batsh1t ivory tower extremists. It's hard to see feminism in any favourable light when it would appear that the lunatics are very much in charge of the asylum and everyone else on whose behalf they proclaim to speak seems content to quietly ignore/tacitly endorse such behaviour/policy/agenda.

py2006

Lemming wrote: »

the lunatics are very much in charge of the asylum.

I love that analogy. It could be used in so many walks of life.

KomradeBishop

jackofalltrades wrote: »

What's your direct source for the bolded and underlined bit above?

There are four sources in the wiki link - if you want to make an attempt at debunking/discrediting each of them, go ahead - better yet, edit the wiki page to reflect this if you find anything wrong.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

While his comments are fairly nasty, I feel that every time this is brought up it's in an effort to discredit all men who strive for greater rights for men.

It's the equivalent of me going into a thread about feminism and going, Jezebel.com editors have violently abused their boyfriends, the sites popular with feminism, therefore feminism in it's entirety is tainted.

To be honest, every time I criticize Elam and AVFM, and point out how influential it is in the mens rights movement, it feels like people want to put words in my mouth and portray it as an attack on everyone who supports mens rights, just to try and defend him.
People need a bit less of this black/white and 'Us vs Them' absolutist thinking - it plagues all of these gender debates and seems to make people very defensive, and viewing any criticisms of their 'side' (no matter how discreditable the person being criticised) as needing a retort.

Here we also have the usual "but what about the feminists?" line of argument too - so that you can't criticize any part of the mens rights movement, without someone going "but look at the feminists" and trying to make some tenuous accusation of hypocrisy against feminists.

That just appears like evading the criticism, and trying to defend Elam/AVFM - it should be obvious to everyone here that there are major problems with the mens rights movement, and the way to gain credibility for the movement, is to acknowledge those criticisms and disassociate from the crackpots, instead of getting defensive and trying to portray critics as attacking people who support mens rights in general.

KomradeBishop

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It is regularly casually dismissed as of very little seriousness and at worst as a humourous anecdote. I have often seen the rape of men in prisons for example as being referred to as a near positive for getting revenge on the perpetrator of a crime.

That's a good point - I wonder how a TV show like Oz would be received if set in a female-only prison :pac:

Sleepy

Orange is the New Black isn't quite as hard hitting as Oz was but then are womens' prisons, sorry "centres", as gritty as the mens? Lets be honest, the Dóchas Centre looks like a holiday camp when compared to Mountjoy (which in turn could be considered similarly removed from the fictitional Oswald State Correctional Facility in Oz).

jackofalltrades

KomradeBishop wrote: »

There are four sources in the wiki link - if you want to make an attempt at debunking/discrediting each of them, go ahead - better yet, edit the wiki page to reflect this if you find anything wrong.

One of those links is broken.
The rest are just opinion pieces.
None of which contains anything factual to support the wiki pages claim that AVFM is the "largest and most influential men's rights site".

Pawwed Rig

NI24 wrote: »

The posters I'm referring to certainly do hold that viewpoint. And they certainly aren't the "women deserve rape" extremist types, but rather, average MRAs who have a serious vein of misogyny running through their bodies. Unfortunately for the reasonable MRAs, one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch.

A refusal to kow tow to modern feminist theory does not a misogynist make. tbh we get it more than regularly here that anyone who has even a slight concern about men's position is society is immediately branded a raging misogynist by folk who seem to follow these threads just for the sake of complaining about them. It gets tiring tbh:( but I guess that is why it is done

py2006

Increasingly I am seeing the word misogyny used rather flippantly. It's appears to be the new feminist buzzword. They appear to have replaced the word sexist with it.

Given how the conversation is going, posters might like to know of JDI International, which is an organisation that advocates for prisoner safety and works to hold governments accountable for assaults committed in custody. It is a 4* charity as rated by Charity Navigator, and you can donate through their website, here:

http://www.justdetention.org/index.aspx

JDI works to end abuse in all detention facilities, male, female, and juvenile.

ETA: I see the conversation has moved on, which is what happens when you go off and do something else before posting something relevant to the moment. This is in response to a poster mentioning that rape can sometimes be 'wished' on a prisoner, and it's considered no big deal.

NI24

Lemming wrote: »

Any movement - in order to keep itself relevant - needs credibility. So the above just doesn't wash I'm afraid. As Wibbs has said, modern/insert-wave-number feminism does not sit hand in hand with credibility. It has become a movement that seeks to sustain itself rather than do anything "good" (for want of a better term) and appears to be not so much lurching as sprinting to the extremes. It is most certainly not about equality any more, nor has it been for quite some time.

You seem keen to smear all MRAs (or anyone who supports mens rights for those of us who don't identify as MRAs) as misognysts and how because of the very small circle and means of media outlet in which said people currently move, it's impossible to bump into less savoury sorts who really are the counterparts of misandrysts.

BUT, and there is a but;

Despite how large, entrenched, and industrialised feminism is (and thus plenty of spokespersons to choose from potentially), the current status quo for feminism sees those people touted as its leading lights, those people touted as being its great literature writers, and those people writing the desired policies submitted to government, as the batsh1t ivory tower extremists. It's hard to see feminism in any favourable light when it would appear that the lunatics are very much in charge of the asylum and everyone else on whose behalf they proclaim to speak seems content to quietly ignore/tacitly endorse such behaviour/policy/agenda.

Of course Lemming, and my point is that if the posters in here are any indication of the movement, whatever that movement is, then at this point in time, they have no credibility. You seem to be equating feminism with the MRA movement--but they're not the same. And from what I've read of the posters here, yes, I think they are obvious misogynists. It's one thing to think certain thoughts--it's another thing to take the time to type it out on a public internet forum, as some posters in here have done. And I take umbrage at the idea that extremist ideas only exist in the US--some of the most sexist/misogynistic things I've ever heard have come from this site.

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A refusal to kow tow to modern feminist theory does not a misogynist make. tbh we get it more than regularly here that anyone who has even a slight concern about men's position is society is immediately branded a raging misogynist by folk who seem to follow these threads just for the sake of complaining about them. It gets tiring tbh:( but I guess that is why it is done

Big difference between not kow towing to modern feminist theory and what some posters in here have written(not in this particular thread). One is bringing up genuine concerns for men and the other is using every oppurtunity to disparage women--usually by their looks/age; it gets tiring, tbh, but I guess that is why it is done. And I'm going to call them out on it every time I see it.

ancapailldorcha

NI24 wrote: »

You seem to be equating feminism with the MRA movement--but they're not the same. And from what I've read of the posters here, yes, I think they are obvious misogynists.

Hang on, we're all misogynists now? That's quite an accusation. Anything to back it up with?

NI24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Hang on, we're all misogynists now? That's quite an accusation. Anything to back it up with?

Excuse me, I meant to say some of the posters--I certainly wouldn't tar everyone in here with the same brush. I actually think certain posters in here bring up very valid complaints and from their posting histories, they have total credibility.

ancapailldorcha

Any sort of thread about women or feminism will attract the odd misogynist. It's a problem the mods here have had to deal with in the past and, very likely will have to confront in the future as well. I wouldn't call any of the forum regulars misogynists at all.

NI24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Any sort of thread about women or feminism will attract the odd misogynist. It's a problem the mods here have had to deal with in the past and, very likely will have to confront in the future as well. I wouldn't call any of the forum regulars misogynists at all.

And that's where I would have to disagree. I'm pretty familiar with poster's histories on this site and I certainly have my reasons for why I have come to this conclusion. Some of them have since tried to justify their comments later (to no avail) or completely flip flop since then, but it won't work--it's on their profile in black and white. Those posters who talk of equal rights for men have no place being here.

ancapailldorcha

In that case, I would encourage you to use the report post function when you see misogyny again.

NI24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In that case, I would encourage you to use the report post function when you see misogyny again.

?
I didn't realize misogyny was against site policy-- it certainly doesn't seem that way. Regardless, they've already posted what they've posted so it's a little too late for that. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy behind some of the movement's members and that if they want to make progress, it would be in the movement's best interests if these members bowed out gracefully.

Lemming

NI24 wrote: »

?
Regardless, they've already posted what they've posted so it's a little too late for that. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy behind some of the movement's members and that if they want to make progress, it would be in the movement's best interests if these members bowed out gracefully.

You argue a very black & white perspective. The world is a thousand billion shades of grey in between, and people do both change their minds and come to better understanding of issues on which they deliberate every single day. That an ardent *ist could have their views reshaped either by others pointing out - or even better, they themselves realising it - shortcomings in their world view of a subject should be welcomed, not told "sorry, not gonna happen". Such an attitude is unabridged extremism and does nothing to promote understanding & empathy for other people.

Remember, it's only hypocrasy when you say one thing and do another, not change your mind because/and/or realise that you were wrong and correct yourself.

iptba

‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

One of them is calling men misogynist(s).

Many men, I get the impression, would likely to be reluctant to bring up men's issues in the 3-D world because of the shaming they could face. One sees it particularly with politicians who tend to avoid highlighting men's issues.

It's a real problem I think in getting men's issues addressed.

NI24

Lemming wrote: »

You argue a very black & white perspective. The world is a thousand billion shades of grey in between, and people do both change their minds and come to better understanding of issues on which they deliberate every single day. That an ardent *ist could have their views reshaped either by others pointing out - or even better, they themselves realising it - shortcomings in their world view of a subject should be welcomed, not told "sorry, not gonna happen". Such an attitude is unabridged extremism and does nothing to promote understanding & empathy for other people.

Remember, it's only hypocrasy when you say one thing and do another, not change your mind because/and/or realise that you were wrong and correct yourself.

The posters I'm referring to have not corrected themselves--in fact, they've ratcheted it up a few notches recently. And if they have changed their minds, they certainly haven't acknowledged that fact.

NI24

iptba wrote: »

‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

One of them is calling men misogynist(s).

Many men, I get the impression, would likely to be reluctant to bring up men's issues in the 3-D world because of the shaming they could face. One sees it particularly with politicians who tend to avoid highlighting men's issues.

It's a real problem I think in getting men's issues addressed.

It's not a shaming tactic when you can point to specific instances--and posters--on this site. It's not the issues that are the issue--it's the people associated with it that are. I believe the phrase guilty by association comes to mind. Is is unfair? Sure, but that's the way it goes. If those representing a movement have hatred for women, then the entire movement is going to be associated with that, whether they like it or not. And posters on this thread, and indeed on this site, are perpetuating that.

iptba

NI24 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’
https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

One of them is calling men misogynist(s).

Many men, I get the impression, would likely to be reluctant to bring up men's issues in the 3-D world because of the shaming they could face. One sees it particularly with politicians who tend to avoid highlighting men's issues.

It's a real problem I think in getting men's issues addressed.

It's not a shaming tactic when you can point to specific instances--and posters--on this site. It's not the issues that are the issue--it's the people associated with it that are. I believe the phrase guilty by association comes to mind. Is is unfair? Sure, but that's the way it goes. If those representing a movement have hatred for women, then the entire movement is going to be associated with that, whether they like it or not. And posters on this thread, and indeed on this site, are perpetrating that.

But people here are just individuals. I haven't said anybody here represents me (nor has anyone said I represent them).

And I haven't met anybody on this site and associated them with their username so don't find I have a good memory of who people are, what they've said before, etc. A lot of it's a blur.

If there are instances of people saying things you are not happy with, I suggest you challenge the individual saying them (not other people) in the thread it was said.

Also, while I don't believe I have done it myself, I don't think referring to an individual's looks or age means such a person hates women in general. No more than a woman referring to a particular man's height, job, car, level of sexual experience, place they live (e.g. with their parents), physique, etc. means such a woman hates men in general. It is not necessarily a desirable trait or behaviour but doesn't seem to me to prove a hatred of a whole sex/misogyny. If somebody said all women are old and ugly, then one is getting closer to misogyny. But it would be an odd thing to say that I doubt it has been said much if at all.

ETA: Also, as Lemming said, people can change. Somebody's views may have changed over time.

jackofalltrades

NI24 wrote: »

It's not a shaming tactic when you can point to specific instances--and posters--on this site. It's not the issues that are the issue--it's the people associated with it that are.
I believe the phrase guilty by association comes to mind. Is is unfair? Sure, but that's the way it goes.
If those representing a movement have hatred for women, then the entire movement is going to be associated with that, whether they like it or not.
And posters on this thread, and indeed on this site, are perpetrating that.

The forums called "The Gentlemen's Club".
Constantly throwing around accusations is not considered gentlemanly behaviour.
Tarring "some posters" as misogynists without a shred of proof is highly unfair.

NI24

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The forums called "The Gentlemen's Club".
Constantly throwing around accusations is not considered gentlemanly behaviour.
Tarring "some posters" as misogynists without a shred of proof is highly unfair.

And neither is the behavior of some posters who frequent this thread. I have plenty of proof, but, at the end of the day, misogyny is subjective and the ones I am referring to would never admit to it, so they are able to continue without consequence. My biggest beef is when they come here, talking of men's rights, which is, at it's core, about what is fair and unfair, and yet, they have no concept of that themselves and are the poster children for hypocrisy. And then they continually blame the US for extreme behavior when the blog I mentioned earlier (which is about as misogynistic as it gets) is encouraged by these certain posters.

NI24

iptba wrote: »

But people here are just individuals. I haven't said anybody here represents me (nor has anyone said I represent them).

And I haven't met anybody on this site and associated them with their username so don't find I have a good memory of who people are, what they've said before, etc. A lot of it's a blur.

If there are instances of people saying things you are not happy with, I suggest you challenge the individual saying them (not other people) in the thread it was said.

Also, while I don't believe I have done it myself, I don't think referring to an individual's looks or age means such a person hates women in general. No more than a woman referring to a particular man's height, job, car, level of sexual experience, place they live (e.g. with their parents), physique, etc. means such a woman hates men in general. It is not necessarily a desirable trait or behaviour but doesn't seem to me to prove a hatred of a whole sex/misogyny. If somebody said all women are old and ugly, then one is getting closer to misogyny. But it would be an odd thing to say that I doubt it has been said much if at all.

ETA: Also, as Lemming said, people can change. Somebody's views may have changed over time.

Iptba, there's no need to get defensive/paranoid, I'm not talking about you. And when people disparage older women on the basis of their age, or ugly women on the basis of their looks, that does signify someone who hates women-- they are disparaging them for their existence, and are indirectly disparaging all women (after all, all women grow older). So, like I said before, if any people who advocate for men's rights want to be taken seriously, they need to take a good hard look at themselves and what they stand for, because from what I've seen, many don't seem to stand for anything except to distrust/dislike/demean women.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note NI24 - enough of the mud slinging. You haven't backed up one single thing you have said in your attempts to tarnish this forum and it's posters and as a new poster to the forum you need to understand that throwing around allegations with no backup is not allowed. If the posts you refer to were reported then they have been dealt with. If they haven't been reported then do so.

Wibbs

What's this "Millie Tant" blog that's been referred to of late? Genuine question. The only Millie Tant I know of was/is the VIZ comic character.

Sleepy

NI24 wrote: »

If those representing a movement have hatred for womenmen, then the entire movement is going to be associated with that, whether they like it or not.

Sound familiar?

NI24 wrote: »

when people disparage older women on the basis of their age, or ugly women on the basis of their looks, that does signify someone who hates women-- they are disparaging them for their existence, and are indirectly disparaging all women (after all, all women grow older).

Read your own post again. It's utterly devoid of logic. All men grow older too, does this make someone who disparages an old woman on the basis of her age a misanthrope? No, it doesn't.

People use the ammunition they have to hand when they want to hurt someone. When a bitter older woman says something misandrist, it's a rather natural (if not desriable, or useful) human reaction to say something hurtful back to/about her. As our society fetishises youth to the extent where women support the multi-billion dollar industries of anti-aging creams, cosmetic surgery etc referring to a woman as old is almost always an easy (and yes, cheap) way to hurt her so it gets used. It's not reflective of any hatred for old people or old women in particular, it's a cheap shot that does what it sets out to do: hurt someone's feelings.

NI24

Sleepy wrote: »

Sound familiar?

Not really. Unless you're referring to feminism.

Sleepy wrote: »

Read your own post again. It's utterly devoid of logic. All men grow older too, does this make someone who disparages an old woman on the basis of her age a misanthrope? No, it doesn't.

Do you mean someone who disparages an old man? How many people dismiss men's rights on the basis that the men are old and ugly? Ridiculous comparison.

Sleepy wrote: »

People use the ammunition they have to hand when they want to hurt someone. When a bitter older woman says something misandrist, it's a rather natural (if not desriable, or useful) human reaction to say something hurtful back to/about her. As our society fetishises youth to the extent where women support the multi-billion dollar industries of anti-aging creams, cosmetic surgery etc referring to a woman as old is almost always an easy (and yes, cheap) way to hurt her so it gets used. It's not reflective of any hatred for old people or old women in particular, it's a cheap shot that does what it sets out to do: hurt someone's feelings.

There's a lot here I could argue, but what would be the point? But I agree that people who take shots like that are cheap.

Getting back to that Paul Elam quote, to simply pass him off as an a$$hole is letting him off far too easy--the man is a sociopath. And to blame it on americanism is grossly unfair, I certainly wouldn't blame English people for what that Mustafa woman said/wrote.

Seriously?

NI24 wrote: »

Getting back to that Paul Elam quote

That quote is brought up time and again, taken on its own I think most people would agree it’s pretty reprehensible. But as you would expect from a site like WHTM it’s taken out of context. The source article its here

But of interest is the editorial comment associated with which I’ve quoted below.

Editorial note: we find it fascinating that this article, written in 2010, is still frequently cited by the Mainstream Media and critics of the Men’s Human Rights Movement as “typical” of the views of the movement and/or this web site. The truth is, this was written in the very early days of A Voice for Men to be deliberately provocative, to get attention and challenge people to think. It was, to use a phrase feminist Camille Paglia once used, a “necessary savaging” of a once-taboo subject.

But in reality this is just the usual feminist/SJW tactic of muddying up the messenger to attack the message. If they can’t directly invalidate the men’s right message they seek to discredit it through the use by guilt through association.

ancapailldorcha

Seriously? wrote: »

That quote is brought up time and again, taken on its own I think most people would agree it’s pretty reprehensible. But as you would expect from a site like WHTM it’s taken out of context. The source article its here

But of interest is the editorial comment associated with which I’ve quoted below.
But in reality this is just the usual feminist/SJW tactic of muddying up the messenger to attack the message. If they can’t directly invalidate the men’s right message they seek to discredit it through the use by guilt through association.

A quick snippet from the source article:

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<em> begging</em> for it.

Seems pretty vile to me.

Seriously?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Seems pretty vile to me.

There's no denying that the site said incendiary things back 5 years ago before it became a more established entity.

For me the quote you’ve shown is about personal responsibility (granted presented in an antagonistic manner), call it victim blaming if you will. But the argument that people who place themselves in compromising situations bear some responsibility is not an unjustified one to me.

This is obviously the message if you include the paragraph before your quote.

That’s my interpretation as to what the message of the quote is; other may disagree and that’s fine.

But if this article is really representative of the AVFM site, then I challenge people to show similar articles published in the past year for example. The fact is it isn’t, which is why you have the same article constantly dredged up.

Seriously?

I would quote the previous paragraph, but the language is a bit choice

Sleepy

NI24 wrote: »

Not really. Unless you're referring to feminism.

If you're going to apply that logic to the mens' rights movement, you have to accept it as being true of feminism also.

Do you mean someone who disparages an old man? How many people dismiss men's rights on the basis that the men are old and ugly? Ridiculous comparison.
There's a lot here I could argue, but what would be the point? But I agree that people who take shots like that are cheap.

Ridiculous? So you've never heard a man dismissed for being short? As being a "loser"?

While we're all equal, there tend to be different insults we use to hurt someone based on their gender. Men tend to be less likely to be hurt at their not being considered young or beautiful whereas women tend to be less likely to be hurt by the observation that they're short, not particularly successful or still living at home with their parents.

That someone use different language to dismiss someone based on their gender doesn't make them a misogynist or a misandrist. It's simply an awareness of cultural norms and a desire to dismiss / hurt someone.

Getting back to that Paul Elam quote, to simply pass him off as an a$$hole is letting him off far too easy--the man is a sociopath. And to blame it on americanism is grossly unfair, I certainly wouldn't blame English people for what that Mustafa woman said/wrote.

Have you any proof that he's a sociopath? A clinical background that might lend some weight to such a remote diagnosis? Or are you simply throwing a label at him in to dismiss him?

The man's the Andrea Dworkin of the men's rights movement. He comes across as a misogynistic arsehole from what little of his stuff I've seen. I can see kernels of truth in what he's trying to say but what he extrapolates from those kernels is hardly worth noticing. In the founding spirit of boards: attack the post, not the poster. You'll win far more people to your view by explaining what's wrong with theirs rather than simply dismissing what they're saying because of their referencing something that came from a source that has also published claptrap.

To be fair, I'm as likely to utterly dismiss something that's been published by Jezebel simply because it's been published by them so it's the pot calling the kettle black to say it but mightn't we see some more progress if we could all refrain from it?

Maybe in the same way that we might further equality not by dividing into men vs women camps of feminism and mra but by joining together in an egalitarian movement?

Potatoeman

NI24 wrote: »

And neither is the behavior of some posters who frequent this thread. I have plenty of proof, but, at the end of the day, misogyny is subjective and the ones I am referring to would never admit to it, so they are able to continue without consequence. My biggest beef is when they come here, talking of men's rights, which is, at it's core, about what is fair and unfair, and yet, they have no concept of that themselves and are the poster children for hypocrisy. And then they continually blame the US for extreme behavior when the blog I mentioned earlier (which is about as misogynistic as it gets) is encouraged by these certain posters.

When I hear misogynist now it doesn't mean anything. Its so abused and thrown around so much it usually means I don't like you or don't agree with you. It's used to try and invalidate opinions people don't like rather than debate them.

Your posts on the male white privilage thread were very bitter and one sided so I wouldn't consider you a very good arbitrator of what's acceptable.

KomradeBishop

Seriously? wrote: »

That quote is brought up time and again, taken on its own I think most people would agree it’s pretty reprehensible. But as you would expect from a site like WHTM it’s taken out of context. The source article its here

But of interest is the editorial comment associated with which I’ve quoted below.
But in reality this is just the usual feminist/SJW tactic of muddying up the messenger to attack the message. If they can’t directly invalidate the men’s right message they seek to discredit it through the use by guilt through association.

You're claiming the quote from the article is taken out of context, and that claim is false. You have not backed up that claim, yet you are accusing others of taking him out of context (including me) - show how the quote is taken out of context.

This is exactly the kind of reflexive defence of Elam - saying he is being taken out of context with no argument to back that - which in my view, gives individual posters who defend him with such shoddy arguments, a bad name, and makes me suspect their real motives for supporting mens rights, when they are reflexively defending someone as reprehensible as Elam (and note: 'individual posters' - i.e. I don't extend this to mens rights supporters in general).

Here is my full breakdown from before, of what he said in that article, to give more backing that it is not out of context:

His article is precisely trying to portray it [rape] 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.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93225059&postcount=8

Now, show me how any of that, is 'taken out of context', or is otherwise an inaccurate interpretation of what he said.

KomradeBishop

Sleepy wrote: »

...
In the founding spirit of boards: attack the post, not the poster. You'll win far more people to your view by explaining what's wrong with theirs rather than simply dismissing what they're saying because of their referencing something that came from a source that has also published claptrap.

To be fair, I'm as likely to utterly dismiss something that's been published by Jezebel simply because it's been published by them so it's the pot calling the kettle black to say it but mightn't we see some more progress if we could all refrain from it?

Maybe in the same way that we might further equality not by dividing into men vs women camps of feminism and mra but by joining together in an egalitarian movement?

I disagree with the bolded bit (though the last sentence I agree with fully): Ad-hominem among posters is bad for discussion (though is ok for diminishing credibility, so long as accompanied by an actual argument - on its own isn't acceptable), but Ad-hominem for discrediting the credibility of a source is a valid/non-fallacious use of ad-hominem, and is an indispensably important part of discussion.

For example, if you have a poster defending the idea of smoking not causing cancer, and is citing research funded by a tobacco-company-funded think-tank, which has a notorious history of putting out falsified/fraudulent research, then yes - you are perfectly justified in using ad-hominem to discredit that, instead of wasting your time delving into their research to try and discredit it directly (which is exactly intended to require wasting a large amount of time for you to pick apart and debunk).

If posters put arguments in their own words, ad-hominem is not a valid means of debunking their arguments, but if you held the same standard to sources that posters link to, then that just hands posters pushing an agenda, the ability to pick from an endless pile of 'research' from sources with an abysmal track record, requiring you to waste impossible amounts of time to debunk - so ad-hominem for attacking sources is perfectly valid.

The idea of this is well backed:

...Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.
...
When an ad hominem argument is made against a statement, it is important to draw a distinction whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[8]

Doug Walton, Canadian academic and author, has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[12] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

The philosopher Charles Taylor has argued that ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues, and contrasts this sort of reasoning with the apodictic reasoning of philosophical naturalism.

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

Seriously?

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Now, show me how any of that, is 'taken out of context', or is otherwise an inaccurate interpretation of what he said.

It’s taken out of context because you conveniently leave out the paragraph which frames the point he's making (quoted below), this is done intentionally to dishonestly represent what he’s saying.

Do women ask for it?
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 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?
Obviously, we still blame the car thief for the actual theft, but don’t most of us turn to the person who owned the car and at least <em>want</em> to ask, “What the **** were you thinking?”
Wouldn’t the insurance company take a dim view of paying a claim in the midst of such stupid irresponsibility?
We should, though, also remember that at least the guy who set himself up to have his car jacked wasn’t doing anything sinister to begin with. Stupid, but not sinister. We can’t say the same for some of these women

But again if you believe that the out of context quote is truely representative of what AVFM or Elam believe, prove me wrong by providing links to some additional recent articles that back up the claim (rather than selective quotes).

You mightn't like the language but the point still stands, women like men are reponsible for the situations their careless actions can lead them into.

Seriously?

If I parked my car in an area known for crime, people will say I was asking for it to be robbed. No-one seriously believes I actually wished to be robbed, or even that my car should robbed. But we all acknowledge that I bear some responsibility for the loss of the vehicle.

But we all know this is what is being said in that 'rape' quote, it just suits some people to spin it differently.

Wibbs

Funny enough, or not, before these recent pages I hadn't heard of this AVFM place, I think I had some vague recognition for the Elam guy, but of his writings no.

KomradeBishop

Seriously? wrote: »

It’s taken out of context because you conveniently leave out the paragraph which frames the point he's making (quoted below), this is done intentionally to dishonestly represent what he’s saying.

But again if you believe that the out of context quote is truely representative of what AVFM or Elam believe, prove me wrong by providing links to some additional recent articles that back up the claim (rather than selective quotes).

You mightn't like the language but the point still stands, women like men are reponsible for the situations their careless actions can lead them into.

What you have quoted, does not change the context of any of the below statements, as none of them depend on how Elam defines 'asking' for rape (literally asking vs having responsibility):

His article is precisely trying to portray it [rape] 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).

The above is unchanged - the criticism stands, even after 'put in context'.

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.

Even 'in context', the criticism stands, that he is engaging in victim-blaming, only - when put in context - he is not implicitly, but directly shifting responsibility away from rapists, to the women.

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.

This is completely unchanged, when put 'in context' - the criticism stands.