Traitors Of Men

PZ Myers Makes Up Shit About Imaginary MRAs, Then Attacks Them For It

2012-02-11T14:04:00.000-08:00

PZ Myers

The atheist movement's leading feminist lapdog, PZ Myers, uses some idiotic reddit comments by "TheAmazingAtheist" to mount another attack on male human rights advocates:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/02/08/the-not-so-amazing-atheist-self-immolates/

He explains:

This whole affair was prompted by a poster on reddit going by the nickname “ICumWhenIKillMen”, which I find reprehensible too, but it in no way justifies the eruption of even greater hatred that this “amazing” atheist (going by the name terroja or TJ) spouts.

Yet Myers, like his colleague Manboobz, only acknowledges the existence of feminists like ICumWhenIKillMen when they are absolutely forced to. Such creatures are simply brushed under the rug with a token line of mild reproachment. This behavior is especially hypocritical when Myers goes on to use Amazing Atheist's unintelligent rape comments as a basis to smear all MRAs.

He then goes on to quote an unrelated Amazing Atheist video in which AA accurately decries feminists for attempting to control and repress male sexuality:

That’s a lot of bullshit.

The feminism I embrace is sex-positive. It includes heterosexual men and women, homosexual men and women, trans men and women, and every kink and twist you can imagine. It is not about controlling your sexuality, but liberating it — it most definitely does not say “you can’t have this kinda sex”. It does not judge your sexual behaviors and say “Those are aaaalll wrong.” The Amazing Atheist/terroja/TJ is just lying when he claims that’s what’s going on.

That isn't the feminism you embrace, PZ? NAFALT? Surely you must hold the same standards for MRAs, right? Otherwise you'd look mighty foolish.

The Amazing Atheist is amazingly self-centered; he complains bitterly about the limits on his desires to put his penis where ever he wants as an awful example of feminism controlling his sexuality,

AA said some truly moronic things, but he never said anything remotely like this.

completely oblivious to the fact that what he ultimately wants to do is control other people’s sexuality, putting it in service to his fantasies.

Myers uses his own completely false characterization of what AA said in order to psychoanalyze AA's sexual desires. Astounding.

That moral blindness is standard MRA egocentrism

As if that wasn't enough, Myers in now using his psychoanalysis of Amazing Atheist's sexual desires based upon his own completely false characterization of Amazing Atheist's words in order to insult all MRAs! And this, just after he used the NAFALT card. Whew. But wait, he's not done:

the whole premise of the pick-up artist is to find a way to manipulate other people into doing their sexual bidding.

Sure, go ahead and equate PUAs with MRAs, PZ! What's shit cake without shit icing?

Next, an entire paragraph's worth of ranting against imaginary patriarchal forces:

The other element you’ll often see in these guys is rage at women’s sexuality: they get extremely upset at the idea of the object of their desires making independent sexual choices. Women are supposed to be either chaste and not being sexy at all, or they must submit to the man’s desires, servicing the man’s sexual needs by whatever methods the man dictates. A woman cheerfully flirting with her choice of a partner? She’s a hypocrite (because feminists are supposed to hate sex!) and she’s a ball-buster (because she’s not having sex with me!) and if ever she said “no” to a man, she must be demeaned and detested. Or possibly raped, just to teach her a lesson.

Yet it's asking too much for PZ Myers to find a single example of any prominent MRA supporting any of these positions. It's so much easier to just rail against imaginary patriarchal strawmen opposing the fragile, victimised women, right PZ?

The monstrous comment section under Myers' article, largely consisting of brainless "freethought" sycophants whose only purpose is to repeatedly slur and slander anyone who dares step too far from Official PC Dogma rings a bell... where have we seen this behavior before? Ah, that's right.

I hereby declare PZ Myers as the Manboobz of the atheist community.

Shouting Love At The Center Of The World

2012-02-01T19:42:00.000-08:00

Ferdinand Bardamu attempts to randomly attack a PUA detractor with the following:

“Why yes I have Asperger’s, why do you ask?”

Ironically, PUAs, (most especially Bardamu and his followers) are perpetually obsessed with antagonizing Asperger's men. As with so much else they spew, this serves the sadistic purpose of boosting their own empty carcasses over those they perceive to be in a lower societal position than themselves. Overwhelmed with the feeling of their own transparent worthlessness, pushing another group of men's heads below the water is the only way they know how to keep their contemptible existences afloat.

The rampant racism perpetuated among Game cultists serves the same purpose.

Chuck, “Mister I” is actually “Kevin,” aka “georgec.” Their writing styles are identical — passive-aggressiveness (as shown by their overuse of smilies and dropping “LOL” like a valley girl says “like”), empty bravado, and halfwit Aspie psychoanalysis.

See what I mean? Obsessed.

As for Revolting Omega Virgin’s sexual harassment case, I’ve strongly suspected for a while now that he’s either lying outright about it or at least greatly exaggerating the ordeal he went through in order to score pity points from MRAs.

I’m also certain that the Omega Virgin is lying about having started his own business for the same reason. He’s an unemployed loser living in his mom’s basement projecting his failures on everyone else.

Every word Bardamu types is filled with an overwhelming need to stroke his own ego by sneering at others' supposedly inferior personal lives.

Bardamu and other PUAs have no value to men's rights or anti-feminism, and they never did. How the hell did they infiltrate this sector in the first place? While they make spurious claims of being against feminism, they undeniably spend the vast majority of their time either heckling men who refuse to buy into Game or instructing Game believers to falsify every aspect of their beings in order to satisfy female desire.

These malignant tumors must be removed from the anti-feminist sphere, sooner than later. It isn't optional.

Quotes Of The Month, January 2012

2012-02-01T13:44:00.000-08:00

Fidelbogen:

One very typical thing I notice about MovieBob is that he doesn't actually say anything substantial. All he does is toss out strings of snarky words held together by nasal mucous.

Does he have the stones to log into a non-feminist website and stand behind his words? No, of course not.

What is his real motivation for defending the cult of feminism? I will tell you: he does it because he is a conformist who doesn't know what else to do, and doesn't want to be left out in the cold. He is not a philosopher who has given any genuine thought to all this; he does not possess "empathy" or any of those other vaunted qualities. He is not philanthropic, liberal, benevolent, altruistic, idealistic, visionary, or anything of the kind. He is just your average ying-yang repeating what was he was told by mommy, daddy, teacher, etc... in order to 'fit in'. Basically he's a moral and intellectual coward who secretly craves the kind of freedom which the non-feminist revolution could offer. But he's too chickenshit to bust loose and "seize the fire".

Schrodinger's Rapist:

Frankly, I’m not willing to put the burden of proof on myself just because they (women who believe in Schrodinger’s Rapist, people who racially profile, etc) are uncomfortable. Their defensive responses aren’t justified just because they can’t figure out how to assess the threats in their life. If people want to advocate against the idea that “not walking alone” or “not walking in dimly lit areas” or any of the rest of the “don’t get raped” garbage works in any way (which I support); then they are ALSO going to have to own up to the idea that the world is a scary place and bad things some times happen to good people. All of us have to find ways to balance fear vs real threats to our safety and not let it stop us from living, and I see no reason I should go out of my way to show love and care to somebody who is willing to call me a predator simply by the sight of me.

Grizzly:

One good thing about all the rabid white nationalists – at least they openly state where they stand. Roissy on the other hand – he’s still doing this coy, passive aggressive thing where he hints he’s into racial genetics and eugenics but stops short of just saying it:

heartiste @heartiste
Neanderthals didn't die off; they were bred out of existence. There's a lesson there. bit.ly/xekO0u
17 Jan 12
heartiste @heartiste
People who evolved in higher latitudes have bigger eyes. Related: women with bigger eyes are more attractive. bit.ly/xqnPpS
17 Jan 12
heartiste @heartiste
A gene which plays a role in depression has been discovered. How many more personality traits have genetic origins? bit.ly/wndKXs
13 Jan 12
Even worse – he seems to be misinterpreting science he links to.

...

I’m new to this whole world – but I’m fascinated. I don’t know why – maybe disbelief? It’s so transparently pathetic, crazy – but intelligent people seem to be duped by it. Sometimes I ask if it’s just a group trolling experiment by couple of dozen people.

Look at those tweets from before for example. Being so coy and sneaky I’m not sure what his actual points are. I’m sure he’s connecting dots that don’t even exist using sloppy jumps in logic.

Is he saying neanderthals were bred out of existence, so that proves we should do the same to nonwhites?

Women in higher latitudes have bigger eyes, and bigger eyes are considered more attractive. So what? Is he trying to prove genetic superiority of white women? (Also, white women are most pampered and pandered to demographic on earth. Do they really need more white knighting? Seems to be more proof of group pussy begging.)

Gene linked to depression has been found. So what? Is he implying that genetic research is going to eventually prove white superiority also?

His points aren’t as intellectual mind-blowing as he seems to think. It’s now become a fun game I play – trying to decipher what wrong self-congratulatory conclusion he’s trying to slyly assert in tweets.

See if you can get this one:

Dogs can read our intent. Domestication seems to select for certain intelligence traits. Extrapolate and discuss. bit.ly/yrrfOp—
(@heartiste) January 09, 2012

Alphabeta Soup:

“…the goal of the MRM is a stable, functional, and fair society…”

Not sure I agree with this. The goal, or at least the purpose, of the MRM seems to be to stop rampant feminism. Those who write seriously on men’s rights issues don’t present much of a roadmap for what comes afterwards, and rightly so, I think.

The MRM acts as a roadblock against runaway feminism. The roadmap to a stable, functional, and fair society is for others to draw up.

Tom Snark:

I cracked up at the following from Amanda Marcotte. She makes a grand entrance at post 149. Apparently Amanda is so precious that being disagreed with by a lot of people online is actually ‘triggering’ and in her mind the same thing as domestic violence.

“I am leaving it at that and, for mental reasons, not coming back. The mob mentality that forms during a takedown gives me flashbacks to my domestic violence experiences, and I don’t need that.”

AntZ:

Hugo is not a dead man walking. He is just a warn-out appliance. There is no genuine outrage in the control room of feminist governance. Hugo is broken, that is all. So they discarded him.

Now, he is just like every other man on earth. When his utility is reduced to zero, he goes into the rubbish heap along with the rest of the trash.

That is just how they see us.

Codebuster:

Feminists will be delighted to read of the apparent role reversal between the male and the female Angler Fish (refer Wikipedia here). [1][2] The female Angler Fish is everything that the “you-go-grrrl” crowd could hope for. She is the embodiment of what feminists project that they notice in men. She patrols the ocean as an independent, free spirit, hunting for her food using the fleshy lure dangling in front of her mouth to attract food. She is the provider, maintaining her modest harem of clingy males in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. The differentiated sex roles of the Angler Fish is an example of sexual dimorphism. [11]

It wouldn’t be quite accurate, though, to think of her harem of clingy Angler Fish dudes as castrated. Rather, quite the opposite – it’s not their testicles that disappear, but their body. Their testicles become the most important aspects of their being. Their only value appears to be in becoming testicles. If we recall Germaine Greer’s famous quip describing women as life-support systems for wombs, well, the poor male Angler Fish’s mind and body amount to nothing more than a homing device for testicles. Once this homing device for testicles has accomplished its goal – which is to pair up with a female (much like a PUA) – the rest of his being atrophies. His brain, his digestive organs, liver, eyes – everything but his testicles – basically, “poof”…vanishes.

The reason that the human PUA does not atrophy as completely as the male Angler Fish, however, is that though his intelligence, honor and integrity are compromised in his reliance on validation from women; he is a utility device who still has to provide for himself. His somewhat diminished existence continues to be tested in the workplace. His productivity would be rather limited if all that remained of him was a pair of testicles. Now, as disappointing as the PUA is as a human being, his usefulness as a utility device will exact demands of him that will always test his existence at his boundaries. In the case of the male Angler Fish, by contrast, no comparable demands are placed on his survival, because he is fully provided for in the nutrients that he receives from his provider host – his entire identity is thus destined to atrophy, though his testicles will remain. The male Angler Fish, in contrast to the male human, can sustain his existence as a pair of testicles, once he has found true love in Angler Fish heaven.

Richard:

It's best to see feminism as a "free floating ideology" that taps onto other ideologies - and combines with them (or should I say becomes a parasite on them!)

...

Thus to blame "cultural marxists" for feminism, is like Hitler blaming the Jews, or the contemporary West using the Muslims as a scapegoat. Feminism has latched onto every area of life - be it liberalism, conservatism or left wing movements. It has latched onto every intellectual trend and articulated itself into it.

At present, the most powerful/dynamic form of feminism is that which questions not "equality" issues, but says our present culture is a patriarchal culture - thus feminists are engaging in a kind of "cultural revolution" (and you guessed it, men are not invited). There are engaging in new identity politics.

Thus if we attack "liberals" or "cultural marxists" and blame them for feminism , we cut support from under our feet. Our task must be to identify the feminist cancer which has "entered" into an existing ideology in order to hijack it. We should thus seperate liberals or marxists or whoever, from feminism, or to put it another way "quarantine" the feminist menace and isolate it from its host ideology.

Manboobz Minions Caught Attacking Male Rape Victim

2012-01-27T23:53:00.000-08:00

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/quiz-how-did-manboobzs-feminist-commenters-respond-to-a-mans-account-of-rape/

Nothing these people do shocks me anymore.

An Ode To Servitude

2012-01-25T01:30:00.000-08:00

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/shuffling-feet-a-black-mans-view-of-schroedingers-rapist

In the above GMP article, some guy named Crommunist attempts to defend the feminist notion that women are in the right to presume all men as rapists until proven otherwise, coined "Schrodinger's Rapist" by Manboobz minion Ozymandias.

He goes on to recount a few stories where people became afraid of him because he is a big black man, and he happily accommodated their fears. Crommunist then attempts to justify his actions:

Now there are two ways I could react to these encounters. I could rail against people for being racist and sexist and size-ist (if that’s a thing) – I’m so gentle and warm and loving! How dare they act as though I’m not? That’s one way – and it’s the stupid way. The other way is to recognize that while I strongly dislike the fact that people see me as dangerous because of how I look, it is up to me to decide what to do with that information. If I don’t care about spooking my neighbours, I don’t have to shuffle my feet – let them deal with their fright. But if I do care, then I have to find some way of mitigating that fear so we can coexist harmoniously.

Failing to challenge other people's unwarranted prejudices seems like the stupid choice to me. Why would you even want to coexist harmoniously with people who consider you a menace based on appearance?

Bringing this example home, men in the freethought movement have a decision to make. They (we) can rail against the hypocrisy of claiming to be anti-sexist whilst engaging in sex-based prejudicial behaviour, or we can recognize that if we want to be accommodating to women we have to make some adjustments to how we behave.

Outrageous. Crommunist is arguing for a type of male-female relationship where men should presumably never criticize any aspect of female behavior, while men should simultaneously bend over backwards to accommodate every woman's whim, justified or not. In essence, he is arguing that men act as servants and treat every woman as a precious damsel.

It comes back to the central question: do we want women to be more comfortable? If not, then we should say so explicitly – “we don’t care about your comfort, toots! Nut up or shut up!” On the other hand, if we do care, then we can’t simply maintain the status quo of behaviour and berate women for being afraid of rape. That doesn’t solve any problems.

To prioritize someone's comfort who couldn't care less about your comfort is to take the path of servitude!

As men, we are much, much more likely to be victims of a violent crime than women. On top of that, passers-by are much less likely to intervene when a man is being assaulted. Knowing that you yourself are at much higher actual risk of violence, you persist with indulging a random woman's irrational fears on the sole basis of her sex?!

The other point I want to make here, which goes back to my objection to anti-black racism being used as a rhetorical device by those who will never face it, is that black people engage in tons of behaviours to make white people feel safer. We do this all the damn time. We make accommodations in speech, behaviour, dress, mannerism, conversation topic – a wide diversity of adjustments that we make in the presence of our white friends. We want them to feel comfortable around us, and we accept the inherent racism of the need for such changes.

No, this is bullshit. I'm sure some black people, like you, do this. Many others do not. You are not an official spokesman for Black People. And if your white friends are so racist that you must change your entire personality to comfort them, that is attributable to your idiotic decision to maintain friendships with those people, and nothing more.

Regardless, how is this comparable to the subject matter? Do you also have female friends who you must act more feminine around in order to accommodate their sexism against men?

Until I am convinced that you actually understand anti-black racism (which would take quite a bit of doing), I don’t appreciate being deputized into your anti-feminist screed in this way.

Yet feminist allies like this guy have no problem whatsoever when feminists compare supposed historical female oppression to black slavery, do they?

TL/DR: I’ve frequently heard people object to the Schroedinger’s Rapist argument as sexist, with anti-black racism used as a counter-example. I reject this comparison because it neglects two important factors: 1) that the issue under discussion is about whether or not we want women to feel more comfortable; and 2) that black people often make similar behavioural adjustments to accommodate the racism of their white friends.

TL/DR: Your two main points have both been debunked.

1) If women, as a group, have no societal expectation to make men, as a group, feel more comfortable, why should men be specifically motivated to make women, as a group, more comfortable?

2) Not a valid comparison. Mainstream feminist groups, as well as traditionalists and other groups, demand that men strive to accommodate the needs of women. If you wish to adjust your behavior as a black man to accommodate your racist white friends, that is your choice. But there are no widely powerful groups in modern society insisting that you do so.

Jeff Fecke Defines "MRA": A Classic From 2007

2012-01-19T18:06:00.000-08:00

Jeff Fecke

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html

What is an MRA?

He's a Men's Rights Activist, part of the broader Men's Rights Movement. He--

Wait, wait. "Men's Rights Movement?"

Yes.

Is that like the "National Association for the Advancement of White People" or the folks who think the Christian Right is oppressed?

Yes, the Men's Rights Movement is the same kind of animal. All of these groups share a common worldview, that the traditionally oppressed groups, be they women, minorities, or non-Christians, have somehow seized control of the country and are systematically denying the straight, white, Christian men their rights.

Feminists frequently attempt to piggyback onto other social movements or groups (racial-oriented ones especially) in an attempt to garner a broader support base. Suddenly, anyone who believes in the concept of men's rights is also a white supremacist! Scary bad straight white Christian men oppressing innocents! The ultimate evil!

That's insane!

Well, yes, but don't ignore the reason for the pushback: men's traditional privileges really are under attack. It's just that these rights, like the right to beat and rape your wife with impunity, are anathema to a truly free and equitable society.

Of course, directly your confronting your opponents' actual viewpoints would be the more honorable course of action. But Mr. Fecke feels the need to frighten the more naive feminists with images of imaginary historical societies consisting of diabolical men beating and raping innocent women with glee, lest they ever actually come into contact with any legitimate "MRA" material. Such tactics have proven effective.

So they agitate for the right to rape and assault?

Not in so many words. But the MRAs do certainly seem preoccupied by the loss of that privilege. Look at the Glenn Sacks/Helen Smith interview we talked about early this week. It was all about how the Violence Against Women Act is a debacle for men, because, they say, men get sent to jail unfairly in domestic disputes. VAWA is a traditional hobby-horse for the MRA set.

Mr. Fecke has done a fine sleuthing job on this one. LOL, as if those silly MRAs give two shits about men getting sent to jail unfairly. Why would anyone care about petty crap like that?! As Mr. Fecke reveals, it's actually all about men's sacred and historical right to rape and assault women! Hellz yeah boyz!

Does this explain the obsession with the Duke Rape Case?

Yep. The Duke Rape Case is a rallying cry because, according to the MRAs, it proves that men are constantly being falsely accused of rape. Never mind that in this case, charges were dropped -- it's proof of a biased system, according to the MRAs, which is why they believe that women should be charged for rape allegations that don't result in convictions.

What?!? Wouldn't that radically curtail the number of real reports of rape that women make?

Well, yes. That's the point. It's the same reason that any discussion of date rape or contraception is instantly decried as "legislating sex" and "requiring a contract for touching." MRAs would like the option of putting a toe (or other body part) over the line once in a while without fear that they'll end up going to jail.

Fecke hits another one out of the ballpark. Why would anyone really care about men being sent to prison on false rape allegations? Whiny fucking babies need to man up. What MRAs are really on about in this case is retaining their traditional male right to rape hundreds of women daily! Oh, and sacrificing babies to Satan, too!

So are MRAs concerned about anything other than raping and beating women?

Nah, I don't think so. But if you need further confirmation, you should probably go ask David Futrelle. I hear he's the ultimate authority on MRAs. Whatever you do, don't dare visit an "MRA" website or ask them directly. They'll probably rape you and beat you.

Video Game "Journalists" vs Male Human Rights

2012-01-17T23:19:00.000-08:00

Bob "MovieBob" Chipman

Have you noticed some of the advertisement that air during American sports broadcasts? They typically involve harsh messages for the male viewing audience to "Man Up", grotesque sexual violence to the male genital area, or showcase women as intrinsically superior to men in a myriad of ways. All in the name of humor.

It was only a matter of time before the male feminists infested within the video game industry targeted their own primarily male audience. And so, they've used some random, goofy thread from the MGTOW forum as an excuse to launch an all-out attack on the men's rights movement.

http://www.destructoid.com/-wtf-is-with-empowered-women-in-video-games-now--219511.phtml

There's this, from Destructoid's infamous racist Jim Sterling, who acts as if he is horrified by "privileged, entitled, manbaby gamers" while he regularly refers to Japanese people as "slant-eyes" in his articles.

http://kotaku.com/5868595/nerds-and-male-privilege?tag=gender

http://kotaku.com/5875690/these-might-be-the-most-sexist-gamers-on-the-planet?tag=gender

A pair of articles from Jezebel-affiliated gaming site Kotaku, the first of which is an attempt to convince video game nerds of just how much they benefit from "male privilege" and ends with this carrot for the geeks:

And when you check back on Friday, I'll provide you with some concrete applications on how being cognizant of male privilege will improve your relations with women.

http://moviebob.blogspot.com/2012/01/neanderthals.html

But the most striking is the above screed from a feminist hipster named Bob. Let's key in on some of the insults Bob uses to shame the MGTOWs with:

"Men's Rights Activism" (MRA) has probably always existed in one form or another, but it got supercharged by The Internet because - shocker! - there's a lot of undersexed, pathologically-aggrieved men in the anyonymous realm of web forums. The "public face" of MRA is, of course, typically presented in the context of legal arguments about fathers disenfranchised by custody hearings or the ever-dreaded boogeyman of Affirmative Action; but a short amount of web-digging exposes just how sinister the movement's thriving "base" actually is - a toxic stew of half-baked evolutionary-psych jargon, beta-male sexual-frustration and right-wing backlash against "the feminization of the culture"... the white-hot rage of a middle-aged child-support dodger filtered through the sophistication of a cootie-phobic six year-old.

it's an article of faith with these folks that "feminism" is actually a conspiracy of power-hungry women to trick/seduce "real man" (read: men who buy into MRA doctrine) into impregnating them and paying child support while they and their "feminized men" (read: men who have sex more often than MRA believers)

Incredibly, Bob seems to fancy himself as some sort of feminized alpha male. Normally, I am skeptical of people who claim that male feminists are only in the movement for the (mistakenly believed) sexual benefits awarded. However, with Bob portraying himself as a feminist alpha hero saving women from undersexed MRA "beta men", appealing to women does seem to be his motivator.

Bob, if you're reading, I have some advice for you: Propagating feminist rhetoric and villifying men's rights activists will not grant you that which you so desire. So please stick to marathon sessions of sitting on your ass playing Call of Duty 19: Medal of Honor 28: Armored Marine 67 in between Family Guy rerun marathons, for the good of all involved.

Manboobz, Minions Make Up Slanderous Lies About John The Other, Me

2012-01-15T23:26:00.000-08:00

Looksie, gyrlz, here's a picture of a cute puppy to distract you!

Are you kids ready to take a trip to the wacky Manboobz world of slanderous lies and a fantabulous prohibition on the truth? Let's go, it's going to be fun, fun, fun!:

http://manboobz.com/2012/01/15/the-pussy-fountainhead/comment-page-1/#comments

Minion "Crumbelievable":

I can’t believe Forweg read John the Other’s post and concluded, “Nope, nothing violent about this at all.”

Forweg, what if I posted your personal information, and then someone said, “You shouldn’t do that. He could be killed”, to which I replied nonchalantly, “So what if Forweg gets killed?"

If Futrelle said, “I see nothing in Crumbelievable’s post that indicates he supports violence against Forweg”, how would you feel?

I correct the imbecile:

That’s not remotely what JtO posted, so your comparison is invalid.

Uh ohs, forweg caught one of us in a lie! What to do, what to do... In comes knight in shining armor "no more mr. nice guy" to save the day!:

Ozy, Forweg want to find a picture of you and he asked guys on his blog to email it to him if they have one

http://traitorsofmen.blogspot.com/2012/01/tools-of-misandry-false-accusations.html (comment on Jan 15, 2012 11:05 AM)

Of course, I don't post pictures of the people I'm talking about normally or anything. No, there must be a more nefarious purpose. Like, say, vigorously masturbating to the picture of this hot womyn! As we all know, female supremacist gals tend to be real lookers!

Why, here's my stalking target Ozymandias on the scene now! The femmies get really brave and tough as soon as I'm banned by dear Manboobz!:

HOW HARD IS IT TO GENDER ME CORRECTLY WHEN YOU CREEPILY STALK ME!

Pfft, like I care gyrlfriend. I thought you had us anti-feminists figured out.. We fuck anything that breathes, right?.

forweg, I will be helpful

1) http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/11/04/open-thread-8

2) I had naked pictures up on the old blog. If you asked around the Spearhead, some of them may have saved it to their hard drives for sad wanking in between pretending that I was a mere 6 and far too ugly for their refined tastes.

3) If you can figure out my real identity it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to find my face. It is possible, although difficult, to work it out. Probably the simplest method is to impersonate a feminist, email me, and get me to trust you enough that I reveal my name (this will require approximately a month of fairly regular emails in which you successfully impersonate a feminist); a second method is to work out the real identity of a different Manboobzer, find them on a social networking site, and see whom they’re friends with.

In other words: COME AT ME BRO.

Whoa there, gyrlfriend. You make gamers look modest. You seem to desperately want us "misogynists" to masturbate to you or something. Always desperate to play the victim, always desperate to make everything sexual. Q: What's worse than female supremacist filth? A: Desperately egotistical female supremacist filth.

Minion Crumbelievable is back to make up more slanderous lies about John the Other:

Yeah, that is exactly what happened. AVFM found info about some radfems, Futrelle expressed concern that revealing personal information could result in vigilante violence against the feminists, and JtO (a AVFM writer) responded to Dave with the words, “So what if they get killed?”

I'm 100% certain that Manboobz and the majority of his minions know this is blatantly untrue. Yet none of them bother to correct it. If I ran a website, and a commenter to my website slandered someone as being okay with murder, I think I just might want to correct that. This is how Manboobz and other feminist sites typically operate. They let extremist commenters make up lies and slander about their ideological enemies, and intentionally leave them unchallenged to further them. (Naturally, in the case of Manboobz the minions learn their trade from Mr. Boobz himself.)

The Boob makes a solemn pronouncement:

… and forweg is banned.

Party-pooper. :(

Here’s a hint, dude: if someone doesn’t want their personal info up on the internet, you don’t go around asking people who are hostile to that person to track down pictures of that person for you, so you can post them on your blog.

Oh dear. Really?

if someone doesn’t want their personal info up on the internet,

You silly propagandist you. I explicitly stated "pictures she posted of herself". You know, voluntarily. Despite her fantasies to the contrary, I know nothing about this Ozymandias creature other than her female supremacist views and her vanity. A picture, if available, would have inevitably produced an ugly feminit sneer as an appropriate companion piece to be placed at the top of my article.

Well, actually, that’s what you don’t do if you’re a decent human being. But since you are evidently not one, that’s what you in fact just did. So you can’t comment here any more.

Uh-huh. And it just happened to coincide with the most slanderous comments appearing.

Here's a tip, you sub-human slug: Stop being a dishonest, worthless little slug. Please? That would be nice.

(Disclaimer: I'm entirely aware of how pointless it is to engage with these people, so no need to point it out. I was really, really bored today and wanted to have some fun. :) Hopefully the serious, more dissective posts will be back *soon*.)

What Motivates A Fence-Sitter?

2012-01-15T15:12:00.000-08:00

From the comments section of my previous post...

Alek Novy:

I've been basically reading through old articles I've commented and debated in with fence sitters and I found like several dozen cases of me pointing out to the fence-sitters that they're getting nowhere - and they haven't responded in a single case.

Me:

Well, it's sort of like the situation with the gamer/paleo/racism cult. Gamers obviously have an overwhelming need inside of them to feel superior to other men, and to feel like the "big man". There's no debating with these people, because their innate need to feel superior drives them.

With fence-sitters, what I've observed is that they feel a need to place themselves "above" the whole gender war thing, and present themselves as fair and unbiased. Anyone who neutrally observes both feminist and anti-feminist websites can clearly see the emotional manipulation, censorship, and blatant lies of (nearly all) feminist sites, as compared to the purely logical nature of (many) anti-feminist sites.

But lots and lots of people in the mainstream media and lots and lots of people in society at large view feminists as inherently just and anti-feminists as anti-woman oppressors. So, the fence-sitters would never take a solid stand against feminism. It makes them look "bad" and unfair to the mainstream (regardless of the truth), and that conflicts with their drive to be seen as pious and well-intentioned.

Alek Novy:

I guess they kind of know I'm right? What are they gonna respond when they know we're right. They know they've achieved exactly 0% in terms of results.

Me:

Yeah, I think they do. They just don't care. They're more concerned with their reputation and how they look than the actual truth. Your link above is a perfect example, Alek. That guy couldn't even manage to muster a response to you. Just like EasilyEnthused couldn't directly respond to me .

I'm not saying that all fence-sitters are bad people. They just have a seriously, seriously flawed view of the world, and they are worse than useless to our cause.

I can only add to this that, as I've been involved in several online debates/arguments over the last couple days, the conversation with Alek above rings particularly true.

Every time I logically dissect a feminist, fence-sitter, or gamer's words, they do one of the following:

1) Completely ignore my valid points in favor of idiotic or inflammatory posts which they can easily dismiss.

2) Reply to my logical arguments by totally ignoring said arguments and instead responding with broad accusations or assertions about me personally or "MRAs".

3) Censor the posts into oblivion.

The Tools Of Misandry: False Accusations, Censorship, and Manipulation

2012-01-13T15:31:00.000-08:00

Over at Toy Soldiers, a random fence-sitter by the name of EasilyEnthused made a typically transparent attempt to equate MRAs with feminists, a necessity in justifying his moronic fence-sitting ways.

I called him out on his bullshit in a calm, civil manner.

So what does he do? Does he address the flaws I pointed out in his stance? Does he even bother to respond to anything I pointed out? Of course not.

Instead, he runs over to the No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz blog, and complains about me to his feminist friends:

I find myself wanting to laugh and cry at the same time when I see posts like this:
http://traitorsofmen.blogspot.com/2011/12/fence-sitters-and-concern-trolls.html

Sites like this one, Feminist Critics, Genderratic and GMP are being called out by bloggers in the MRM as “fence sitters” at the same time as bloggers in the feminist community call the same set of sites “running rampant with MRA misogyny.”

First, I am not an MRA and this is not an MRM blog. I am an anti-feminist. There is a difference.

Second, damn straight I'm calling you fence-sitters out. There is a war happening. It's a war on men and boys, perpetrated by feminists with the aid of governments across the world. Men are literally dying from lack of care and support. In making nicey-nice with the perpetrators of this war, you deserve to be called out.

Those sites are the only ones in a sea of anger and misogyny and misandry that actually give two shits about the bullshit half the population is dealing with. What it tells me is that the people who make disparaging comments about the above sites aren’t actually interested in dissecting and understanding gender issues.

Incorrect. We just aren't interested in dissecting and understanding gender issues alongside cowardly ideologues who use censorship and propaganda to further their agenda.

No, they want a full out gender war where the only goal is to leave the other side with a higher bodycount.

It's not about wanting a war. It's about recognizing that there is a (one-sided) war happening all around us. You don't try to have a polite debate with a hate-filled zombie who's holding a gun to your head.

I am so shit-tastically tired of the concept of “winning points” about which gender has it worse that I’m quickly becoming convinced that you can’t have an open conversation about gendered issues online without attracting misogynists and misandrists like they smell blood in the water.

Ah, so now anyone who criticizes the pious fence-sitters is a misogynist or misandrist. And since EasilyEnthused is basing this on my blog entry, I guess that makes me a misogynist. I challenged the dunce directly at NSWATM, verbatim as below:

You are so devoted to your fence-sitter philosophy that you try to find a bad misogynist under every corner. Any non-feminist who points out the problems with sites like this must be a misogynist, right? I challenge you to point out a single thing I’ve said that makes me a "misogynist". After all, you wouldn’t make such accusations without good reason, would you?

My post was immediately censored and not allowed to see the light of day. Let's recap:

Falsely accusing someone of being a bloodthirsty "misogynist" who wants higher "bodycounts" = A-OK!

Defending oneself against such accusations: Must Be Censored!

In case it wasn't already obvious:

No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? is an anti-male website which uses ruthless censorship in order to manipulate the narrative in furtherance of its female supremacist agenda. If you believe that NSWATM is genuinely concerned about men's issues, you are a fucking idiot.

Comprende?

Edit, 1/16/12: EasilyEnthused left this message at ToySoldiers today:

@Forweg:

I want you to know that I forgot to subscribe to this thread and haven’t seen your response to me until late last night.

I also see that your frustration over my lack of response has spread over to your own blog, Traitors of Men, so I will engage you there rather than get Toy Soldier’s comment section even further off track.

Thanks for the explanation. I'd especially like to know the following:

1. How, if you didn't see my reply, you suddenly came to know of this blog and posted it to NSWATM?

2. Why you would complain about me to a feminist website where I easily may not have seen it and where I was subsequently censored from defending myself?

3. Why you would imply that I am a bloodthirsty "misogynist"?

Looking forward to your reply.

David Futrelle's Propaganda Dissected, Part 3

2012-01-12T17:36:00.000-08:00

Futrelle wastes no time in getting to the lies and distortions in his latest propaganda piece, starting with the title:

Does A Voice for Men really think that firebombing is a form of non-violence?

Elam seems to positively revel in making his own vaguely threatening pronouncements towards his ideological enemies.

In a recent fundraising appeal, for example, Elam let out all the stops:

...

Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.
Elam is purposefully vague about just what he means by “inflicting pain,” but it is hard not to read this comment as a threat of something dire.

No violence is necessary to inflict pain on sick ideologues like David Futrelle, the Swedish SCUM group or Radfem Hub. To intentionally read violence into words which have none is the mark of a propagandist.

Futrelle then stretches himself even further by attempting to read some hint of violence into this post by Fidelbogen:

(These are wise words from Fidelbogen, by the way, and every anti-feminist needs to heed them. I've been saying something similar for a while now.)

Apparently, Elam believes that the deliberate vagueness of these kinds of threats makes them shining examples of Gandhian non-violence — or at least that it gives the site the requisite “plausible deniability” if — when? — someone actually moves beyond the threats to actual violence.

Just when you thought Futrelle couldn't get any more asinine with his distortions, he comes out with this whopper. Fidelbogen's factually correct statement that assholes and bullies only understand fear might be fuel for someone to commit violence?! LOL.

Heck, apparently it’s not even a problem if someone, using the personal information provided on the site, actually tracks down individuals targeted by Elam and pals and quite literally kills them.

Wow, I'm shocked! They have no problem with murder?! Let's see the evidence!

As AVfM managing editor John Hembling (aka John the Other) put it in a recent post:

Wait a minute. Wasn't Manboobz just whining about radfem genocide advocates having their personal info posted? As far as I know, John the Other doesn't normally go by his real name online. Manboobz participating in behavior he was just condemning in the previous sentence? Imagine that. Now, onto the incriminating thumbs-up for murder by JtO:

And what if they get killed David? What if rather than be arrested – as promoters of hate, and public advocates of murder, what if these depraved and murderous female supremacists come to harm at the hands of a citizen. If that happens, it will mean that a society’s system of law, designed to prevent hate organizations, and to allow redress of grievance through non violent due process is gone, wiped out by your ideology of violence and hate.

Huh. I don't see a single thing there about being okay with murder. Why does silly Manboobz lie about these things? Does he believe his followers are so easily deceived?

Nonetheless, Hembling, like Elam, insists that “I do not and will not lend myself to the support of violence, or indeed, of murder.”

Yeah, and I've seen no evidence that he does. How about trying to explain how the previous statement does support murder, Futrelle?

Futrelle goes on to note that a few AVFM articles were posted lamenting Thomas James Ball's tragic demise, and concludes that because Thomas Ball wrote a few pro-violence passages in his suicide note, this must mean AVFM supports violence too.

How does Ball’s explicit advocacy of terrorist acts directed at government buildings, acts that if carried out would almost inevitably mean the deaths of people within those buildings, square with Elam’s purported no-advocacy-of-violence policy for his website?

I'll speak for myself. I feel great empathy for what Thomas Ball went through, and it was tragic the way he ended his life. I even relate to the overbearing hopelessness and pain he went through at the hands of those in power.

This does not, in fact, mean that I agree with everything Thomas Ball may have said or done. Is this concept too complex for the likes of David Futrelle to comprehend?

You’ll have to ask him. I have no fucking clue.

No, Manboobz, you know very well. Professional propagandists always do.

Cult Leader Ferdinand Bardamu Humiliates Himself Yet Again

2012-01-12T00:49:00.000-08:00

In Hitler-wannabe Ferdinand Bardamu's latest directive, he explains to his minions that sexless men can't be trusted:

Why You Shouldn't Trust Men Who Can't Get Laid

This follows a similarly bizarre edict, A Reminder Of Why You Should Hate Nerds. If you have the stomach for it, head over and read both articles. Hell, read the whole In Mala Fide website, for my words are unable to do it justice. Then come back.

Have you noticed a theme? Bardamu's numerous diatribes boil down to three repetitive concepts:

-Lower-caste "omega" males must be shunned, hated, abused etc.

-Whites are the superior race, and all non-whites must expelled or exterminated.

-The Paleo Diet makes you healthier, stronger, and more sexually attractive than other men.

See what links them? Bardamu has an overwhelming desire to feel superior to other people, and especially other men. Denouncing "omega" men makes Bardamu feel superior. Declaring Whites as the superior race makes Bardamu feel superior. Being on the Paleo diet makes Bardamu feel superior to all those suckers who aren't in on the secret.

The man is obviously psychologically disturbed. As we know from history, the most famous example being Bardamu's idol Adolf Hitler, individuals with an obsessive desire to feel superior to others are often the most inadequate, feeble beings alive in reality.

Bardamu is so desperate to be the big man, so desperate to be an "alpha", that he is willing to sacrifice anyone or anything in exchange for access to female genitals, or in exchange for his euphoric feeling of superiority.

I will close by quoting Bardamu:

Among my friends, all of us are splashing in the pussy fountain. Some are sipping, others are gulping, but none of us are thirsty or dehydrated. I wouldn’t be friends with a man who was perennially hopeless with the ladies. I might empathize with him, but I wouldn’t want to be near him. So you should live your life as well.

Have you ever read anything more pathetic than this in your life?

(Thanks to Kevin at The Black Pill.)

Another Futile Fence-Sitter

2012-01-11T13:38:00.000-08:00

Preface: A feminist propagandist named Soraya Chemaly wrote an article for The Good Men Project advancing the deranged conspiracy theory known as rape culture. In summary, while Chemaly admits that not all men are rapists, she implies that a large portion are and that all men must vigilantly police all other men from raping helpless women, lest their evil male nature gets the best of them. In addition, male rape victims exist, but they are insignificant in comparison to female rape victims.

So, TGMP gets one of their many fence-sitter commenters, Peter Houlihan, to write a rebuttal article. It starts like this:

I was asked to write this article after I wrote an, unfortunately angry, point-by-point response to this piece by Soraya Chemaly.

"Unfortunately" angry, Peter? Any response to an article which demonizes men in general and makes outrageous demands of all men should be an angry response. If you are not angry at an article which places the blame of rapes worldwide on your own sex, there is something wrong with you.

When I wrote my response I felt somewhat hurt by what I perceived as her, probably unintended, marginalization of male victims of assault.

Probably unintended? Are you fucking kidding me? That article's sole purpose is to place blame on all rapes worldwide on all men, and portray all women as oppressed victims. I can only say that you are incredibly dimwitted if you believe that marginalization was unintended.

The rest of Peter Houlihan's article consists of calmly and politely protesting Chemaly's anti-male lies. And as evidenced by Chemaly's comment to Houlihan's article, it had all the effect of pounding one's head against a brick wall. She says that:

female rape is part of a widespread, planetary, spectrum of violence against women used to oppress them and inhibit equality. So, regardless of numbers or gender of aggressors and perpetrators this remains fundamentally true.

You see, Peter? Has it sunk in yet? It doesn't matter how diplomatic, how civil, how nice you are to female supremacists. They do not give a shit. It doesn't matter how many times you and your fellow fence-siiters meekly protests their propaganda. It doesn't phase them.

Feminists have all the power in modern society, and the only thing that threatens those in power is fear of losing that power. Pleading, simpering fence-sitters are only wasting their own time.

HelperDogFromHell Throws In The Towel, Gives In To Feminists

2012-01-09T23:07:00.000-08:00

HelperDogFromHell was an emerging player in the anti-feminist movement, creating an excellent series of videos on YouTube exposing the extreme anti-male atmosphere at his college campus. But it seems he has given in, judging by a comment he made to this AVFM article:

Wow, Paul. After reading this article several times, I conclude that Feminists have total control, here and there. I don’t think this will ever be reversed. I hate to sound like a defeatist, but this is my honest opinion and I think I will just throw in the towel permanently. After an entire year of rigorous activism on campus, I have gotten zero student-supporters, copious ridicule, one phone call from police, and a mandatory student referral to counseling services.

I don’t think Feminist governance can be fixed or that we can go up against the disgusting and dishonest ideology of feminism. It just seems far too entrenched.

If I were you, Paul, I would just begin to phase out of the effort gradually. Please try to understand that I mean that with complete respect. You are honestly one of the fiercest and most honorable people I have ever met but I don’t want you to overdo it and lose your quality of life in your fighting for something that you believe in. This goes for all MRAs, too. If we cannot win, why continue?

I honestly do understand where Ben/HelperDog is coming from, to a point. He has taken a tremendous amount of bullshit from everyone around him for simply speaking his mind. I'm sure it has been hard for him to deal with what can only be called oppression. If Ben wants to make the choice to give in to his oppressors, that is his choice to make. It isn't a choice I would make and it isn't one I can respect. I would rather die fighting for what I believe in than meekly allow my oppressors to enslave me. But again, his life, his choice.

But what is incomprehensible is the way Ben pulled all of his videos from YouTube. Some of those videos were invaluable exposés revealing the anti-male hate culture prevalent in modern American universities. They were superb. And he deleted them? Why deprive future young men a chance to see what they're getting themselves into before they enroll? For what purpose? It is cowardice.

By posting this, my intent is not to shame Ben. If he were to have second thoughts and return to anti-feminist activism, that would be fantastic. But if this is really the way he leaves, he does himself and his former allies a great disservice.

Fence-Sitters And Concern Trolls

2011-12-17T20:53:00.000-08:00

Websites of the type described in the title seem to be in vogue recently. Let us examine four of them.

Feminist Critics

This blog is run by two men, one a self-admitted feminist, one not, who both agree that all MRAs are too extreme to even consider, yet any feminist is dearly welcomed. The "Feminist Critics" title is entirely misleading, as these men spend a much larger portion of their output appeasing feminists than criticizing feminism. Daran, the mentally disturbed leader of FC, is so maddeningly obsessed with female approval that he even had to make two copies of almost every entry on the website, one being a special "No Hostility" zone where feminists are not allowed to have their feelings hurt no matter how outrageous their own comments may be. At the top of every page are several links, one of which is an article extolling the virtues of feminism, and another which serves as an endorsement of Pick-Up Artists. In fact, one of the regular contributors at Feminist Critics is a pro-feminist PUA. Very interesting indeed.

Daran is so extreme about welcoming feminists that he actually invited a deranged radfem who advocates for the worldwide castration of all men to make a guest post there. Yet he has multiple times threatened commenters with bans for making sarcastic or slightly hostile anti-feminist remarks. Despite all this, Feminist Critics comically claims to be unbiased.

(For a slightly angrier rant about FC on my defunct blog, see here.)

No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz

This openly feminist blog, created by David Futrelle minion Ozymandias, pretends to care about men in the tired "The Patriarchy Hurts Men Too" sense. In other words, they show deep concern for such vital men's issues like men feeling ashamed for wearing pink or boys not being allowed to play with barbie dolls, while sprinkling in blatantly misandric filth into the mix. An example of this can be seen in a post titled Schrodinger's Rapist. In it, Ozymandias urges men to avoid being creepy at all costs as we're all potential rapists and women are right to fear us (she calls it the "gift of fear") for any particular reason they like. Enough said.

Genderratic

A new fence-sitter blog dedicated to "non-partisan gender analysis". They don't espouse blatantly pro-feminist viewpoints like the rest of the sites I'm listing, and in fact they spend lots of time attacking feminists. What's so wrong with them, then?

Well, their position seems to be that both MRAs and feminists are equally flawed. As contributor Ginkgo puts it, they aim to "lob rounds at both camps". I'm as well aware as anyone of the negative side of the MRM. In fact, I do not consider myself an MRA due to the tremendous amount of baggage and riffraff that has attached itself to the label.

But to compare this with the cancer upon the world that is feminism is a false equivalence. As evidenced time and time again, most recently with the exposure of Radfem Hub by AVFM, the depth and consistency of unabashed evil displayed by many feminists is far worse than even the most extreme MRAs. There is no valid comparison to be made. Period.

The Good Men Project

Anyone who has read previous entries to this blog should know what a fraudulent, anti-male website The Good Men Project is. After all, the vast majority of their articles have a pro-feminist bent and they are even endorsed by Ms. Magazine. Why am I even including them here, then?

Because despite all evidence to the contrary, TGMP pretends to have no particular bias or agenda in regards to feminism. They even attempt to convince the gullible of their fairness by very rarely running a pro-male rights article. But these are almost always immediately drowned out by a multitude of feminist articles (which the site actively promotes).

An example of what I'm talking about can be seen from a while back when TGMP ran a whole series on the men's rights movement, and they did publish articles by a few noted MRAs. However, these articles were essentially ambushed by a parade of articles from prominent feminists like propagandist David Futrelle, pedophile obsessive Hugo Schwyzer, and infamous bigot Amanda Marcotte. The Good Men Project prominently displayed the feminist attack pieces while burying the MRA articles. They are nothing but dishonest cowards.

---

In conclusion, most fence-sitters (genuine or otherwise) fall on the safe side of the fence in the end. They are every bit as useless to our cause as any moderate feminist. Fuck them.

Michael "White Ribbon" Kaufman Denies The Presumption Of Male Guilt

2011-12-15T20:44:00.000-08:00

Michael Kaufman

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/why-the-presumption-of-male-guilt-is-a-backlash-myth/

Myth One: “Feminists (or Whoever) Say All Men Are Violent. People Always Assume That if Violence Happens, It’s Been Done by a Man.”

Uh, in case you missed the newsflash: most violent acts around the world are committed by men. By far. Overwhelmingly. Off the charts.

Yes, most physically violent acts around the world are indeed committed by men. But that in no way refutes your supposed myth, nor does it take into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of victims are also male.

The vast majority of the world’s violent acts are:

Violence among men (from homophobic bullying and fighting in schoolyards to armed robbery, from sexual assault of boys/other men to murder and war).

Then why did you create the White Ribbon Campaign to "end men's violence against women", Michael Kaufman? You damn well know that most victims of violence are men. Why are women's lives so much more important to you?

Violence by men against women (domestic assault, sexual assault, stalking, trafficking into prostitution, etc.).

There's absolutely nothing to indicate that this makes up even a portion of the vast majority of the world's violence, and Kaufman cites nothing to support it.

Violence by men against children (most sexual violence against children, more of the physical violence—although in that area women give men a run for their money).

Once again, reliable statistics indicate that women are much more likely to abuse children, including all types of abuse. How is this evidence of men's violence?

I can hear a few of you winge and whine:

Like clockwork, if a man dares to disagree with a feminist, he's whining.

“Are you saying all men are violent?” Why does that follow? That’s like saying “most cases of breast cancer occur in women,” only to have someone respond, “are you saying all women have breast cancer?”

Just to give a loving hand to any insecure guy who feels I’m attacking him: most men do not use violence in their lives, certainly not as adults. I don’t. Chances are you don’t either. (Although far too many of us do.)

Saying that “most violence is committed by men” does NOT mean that most men commit violence. It does NOT mean that all violence is committed by men. (In fact, in North American schools, violence committed by girls is increasing faster than violence by boys, although there is still more of the latter.) No one presumes male guilt.

Then why do you even need to spout all this garbage? None of it in any way disproves your "myth". Myth One: Failure.

Fact One: Most feminists DO say (or imply) that all men are violent. People assume that if violence happens, it's been done by a man.

Myth Two: “There Is as Much Violence by Women Against Men as Men Against Women.”

There’s a mini-industry of men’s rights types who amass an impressive bibliography to prove this myth solely by quoting each other back and forth.

Yeah, except all those cases where they actually cite unbiased statistics and studies to back up their claims.. Unlike Michael Kaufman.

True, all relationship violence is bad, but when it comes to measurably more serious violence that requires medical treatment or causes lost work time, there is no symmetry: such violence is far more likely to be committed by a man against a woman than vice-versa.

No citation provided.

Men who experience emotional or physical violence in relationships at the hands of a women are less likely to live in fear of that violence than the other way around. Men might not like it, men might know they’re stuck in a crappy and abusive relationship, but they’re less likely to be living in terror compared to women. In other words, the impact of the violence is not symmetrical and that’s because the level of the violence is not symmetrical.

No citation provided, and an utterly despicable attempt to trivialize and deny male victimization.

These statistics leave out sexual violence in relationships which, when it happens, is disproportionately committed by men.

Yes, because those statistics are about domestic violence, not sexual violence. Sexual violence committed by women is a severely under-researched and under-reported phenomenon, which none of us know with certainty the prevalence of. You wouldn't be trying to shift the goalposts, would you Michael?

In many (but not all) cases, the more serious acts of violence by a woman against a man are either in self-defense or are a final, desperate retaliation for years of abuse.

Yet even if the female party is the instigator and aggressor, police arrest the man regardless. They are instructed by protocol to do so. Given this, the system is set up to encourage women attribute their violence to self-defense even if it isn't true. And the women will be believed. After all, who would show leniency to a wife beater?

(That’s why women’s shelters and better policing to end men’s violence against women are life-savers for men: they help a terrorized, trapped woman get out of her marriage without thinking the only way out is through killing her spouse.)

A clearer statement of anti-male hatred would be hard to come up with. Myth Two: Failure.

Fact Two: There is no conclusive evidence to indicate whether women's violence against men is more prevelant or vice versa.

Myth Three: “Men Are Presumed Guilty Until Proven Innocent”

Huh? Ever see the statistics for how many sexual assault charges lead to a conviction? Ever see estimates of what percentage of sexual assaults actually lead to an arrest? If anything, when it comes to sexual assault, the sad assumption is still either that “she asked for it,” “she was dressed provocatively,” “she should have known what she was getting into when she went to that party,” or “she had sex and then changed her mind.” The real presumption is of a woman’s guilt or, at least, duplicity.

Oh, an entire paragraph's worth of feminist lies and delusions with (as usual) nothing backing it up. The mere existence of traitorous, misandrist filth like Michael Kaufman and his spineless cronies is enough to disprove his own claims. Myth Three: Failure.

Fact Three: Men are presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Myth Four: “Women Win, Men Lose In Custody Battles”
A hundred years ago, in rare cases of divorce, men almost always got custody. After all, both the wife and children were his property

Ain't it grand how these lying scumbags rewrite history to suit their own purposes?

I believe that if a man (or woman) has committed serious or ongoing abuse of his children or such abuse against his spouse (which, research tells us, when witnessed by children, has as negative an impact on the child as if it was directed against the child) he has forfeited his right to custody. It is not emotionally healthy and often not safe for the children if he has custody. That accounts for some cases.

Yet women are more likely to abuse their children than men.Yet abusive mothers nearly always retain visitation rights to their children, whereas abusive fathers do not. No matter how abusive a mother is, as long she lies halfway convincingly, the state will support her. I have seen evidence of this personally as my little cousins lives are being destroyed by their mother.

It is true that some men have gotten a raw deal in custody, alimony, and child support cases. It’s also true that some women get a raw deal.

False equivalence. The former is common, the latter is exceedingly rare.

(And it’s also true in the U.S. that men don’t pay 24% of court-ordered child-support payments and only partially pay another 30%, depriving our children of $13 billion a year in support. As good men, that really should piss us off!)

And it's also true that many of these same fathers are unfairly barred from having any contact with their own children. Why in the fuck should they be forced to pay for their children's welfare if they are prevented from seeing them? (And that's not even getting into the fact that many single mothers hardly spend a dime of "child support" on the children.)

Child support is one of state-sponsored feminism's most monstrous injustices. Ripping away a man's own children from him and forcing him into giving all of his income to the same woman who made it happen. It's nothing short of slavery.

Most divorcing parents actually get the custody arrangements they want. Except in cases where there has been abuse, both women and men usually want to share custody. (That desire by men to share custody is one of the great gifts of feminism to men: that encouragement and assumption that we can as good parents as women.)

My legs are quivering uncontrollably at the thought of all of feminism's great gifts to men! In fact, I should get down on my knees right now and praise the divine feminism... er, feminine! Whichever.

Or not. Myth Four: Failure.

Fact Four: Women win, men lose in custody battles (barring extraordinary circumstances), as per the unsaid policy of the state.

Michael Kaufman is a writer and educator who’s worked for 30 years engaging men and boys to promote gender equality and transform our ideas of good men. He’s the co-founder of the White Ribbon Campaign, the largest effort in the world of men working to end violence against women. Author of 9 books, his latest is The Guy’s Guide to Feminism. @GenderEQ www.michaelkaufman.com www.michaelkaufman.com/facebook

And there you have it. Kaufman exploits and destroys his fellow men for monetary gain. An unforgivable act.

Chris Crass: Leftism Necessitates Misandry

2011-12-13T19:39:00.000-08:00

Chris Crass

http://www.xyonline.net/content/going-places-scare-me-personal-reflections-challenging-male-supremacy

“What do you mean I’m sexist?” I was shocked. I wasn’t a jock, I didn’t hate women, I wasn’t an evil person. “But how can I be a sexist, I’m an anarchist?” I was anxious, nervous, and my defenses were up. I believed in liberation, for fighting against capitalism and the state. There were those who defended and benefited from injustice and then there’s us, right? I was 19 and it was 1993, four year after I got into politics.

In feminism's world, all men are born sexist/misogynist/oppressive (take your pick). The only path they can take to cleanse this affliction is through indoctrination sessions with feminists, as we're about to discover.

Nilou, holding my hand, patiently explained, “I’m not saying you’re an evil person, I’m saying that you’re sexist and sexism happens in a lot of subtle and blatant ways. You cut me off when I’m talking. You pay more attention to what men say. The other day when I was sitting at the coffee shop with you and Mike, it was like the two of you were having a conversation and I was just there to watch. I tried to jump in and say something, but you both just looked at me and then went back to your conversation. Men in the group make eye contact with each other and act like women aren’t even there. The study group has become a forum for men in the group to go on and on about this book and that book, like they know everything and just need to teach the rest of us. For a long time I thought maybe it was just me, maybe what I had to say wasn’t as useful or exciting. Maybe I needed to change my approach, maybe I was just overreacting, maybe it’s just in my head and I need to get over it. But then I saw how the same thing was happening to other women in the group, over and over again. I’m not blaming you for all of this, but you’re a big part of this group and you’re part of this dynamic.”

Oh no, men are talking amongst themselves and not attending to special little me 24/7! Sexism!

This conversation changed my life and it’s (sic) challenge is one I continue to struggle with in this essay.

That conversation changed your life? Are you fucking kidding me?

Clare Bayard of Anti-Racism for Global Justice puts it pointedly in addressing gender privileged activist men, “It took years of study and hard work to develop your political analysis, why do you think emotional understanding should just come to you, it requires work as well.”

Translation: Even if feminism makes no logical sense and feels wrong on a basic, intrinsic level, you must indoctrinate yourself into believing it to be fully accepted into our hip lefty circle.

There are thousands of us who recognize that patriarchy exists, that we have privileges as a result, that sexism undermines movement , that women, transgendered folks and genderqueer people have explained it over and over again and said “you all need to talk with each other, challenge each other and figure out what you’re all going to do.” And yet there are far more white men in the movement who agree sexism exists in society, perhaps in the movement, but deny their personal involvement in it.

No, that's not quite accurate. Most male traitors readily admit that they are of little worth as compared to women, but at least they aren't as bad as all those other men! House negroes like Chris Crass need female pats on the head as much as they need oxygen.

When I think back to that conversation with Nilou and her explaining how sexism operated. I remember trying not to shutdown and I tried to listen. The word “But” repeated over and over again in my mind, followed by “it was a misunderstanding, I didn’t mean it that way, I didn’t know you felt like that, I wasn’t trying to do that, I would love to see you participate more, I don’t understand, no one said they didn’t want to hear what you have to say, we all believe in equality, I love you and would never do anything to hurt you, it was circumstances not sexism, I don’t know what to do.” Looking back ten years later, it’s amazing to me how often that same list of “buts” comes running to mind. I’m more like those ‘other’ men that I’d like to admit.

Bad Chris Crass! Bad boy! Don't you dare even think of disagreeing with Mistress Nilou or forming your own independent thought! Just agree with everything Mistress Nilou says and all will be well.

Nilou spent hours and hours talking with me about sexism. It was tremendously difficult. My politics were shaped by a clearly defined dualistic framework of good and bad. If it was true that I was sexist, then my previous sense of self was in question and my framework needed to shift. Looking back, this was a profoundly important moment in my growth, at the time it felt like shit.

Wow, this almost sounds like someone going through a torturous ritual in order to be accepted into a cult. Huh.

Two weeks later, at our anarchist study group meeting, Nilou raised her hand. “Sexism is happening in this group.” She listed the examples she had told me. The defensive reaction that I experienced was now amplified by the 5 other men in the room. Other women started speaking up. They too had experienced these dynamics and they were tired of taking it. The men were shocked and defensive; we began listing all the reasons why claims of sexism were simply misunderstandings, misperceptions. With genuine sincerity we said, “But we all want revolution.”

After the meeting, the woman who had been in the group the longest sat me down. April had been part of the United Anarchist Front for well over a year and she too gave me example after example of sexist behavior. Men in the group didn’t trust her to handle responsibilities, even if they were newer. She wasn’t looked to for information about the group, nor were her opinions asked for on political questions. Others joined our conversation and men continued to challenge the assertion of sexism. April put forward an example that she had just clearly explained to me and men denied it as a misunderstanding. A few minutes later, I restated the exact same example given by April and this time it was met with begrudging agreement from other men that perhaps in this case it was sexist. April called it out immediately, I hadn’t even fully realized what happened. I looked at April as she broke it down. April’s words coming from my mouth were heard and taken seriously. There it is. I didn’t really want to believe that sexism was happening, but now I saw it. I felt horrible, like a kick to the stomach. Nilou and April desperately trying to get us to agree that there was a problem. How could this be happening when I hadn’t intended it to? I was scared to say anything.

These women (and kowtowing men) of the "United Anarchist Front" seem to be a lot more concerned with feminism and gender politics than anything to do with anarchism. Just what the hell does anarchism have to do with feminism, anyway? Why are they being packaged together like this?

Because leftism demands compliance to all of its myriad dogmas, free thought be damned. The same can be said of the right. Such is the folly of admittance to rigid political groups.

Two months later, I was sitting in a men’s caucus silently. We didn’t know what to talk about. More specifically, we were scared, nervous, dismissive and didn’t put energy into creating a useful discussion about sexism. Nilou and April had suggested we spend a day talking about sexism and we’d start with caucuses.

A whole day! Nilou and April found themselves some prime bait!

“What are the women talking about”, we asked ourselves. When the group re-united the discussion quickly turned into women defending themselves, defending their understandings of their own experiences. I felt horrible and struggled to believe what I was hearing. I felt completely clueless about how to move in a useful way. Several people of all genders left early in tears, disillusioned and overwhelmed by powerlessness.

Again, this sounds strikingly like a description of a scene from some religious cult.

My Mom had observed part of our discussion and asked to speak. “You’re all taking on enormous issues and these issues are hard. It makes me happy to see you all at such young ages seriously talk about it. It shows that you really believe in what you’re fighting for and it’s a conversation that doesn’t happen in one day.”

Yeah, you gotta get 'em young for the brainwashing to be fully effective. Mom must be proud.

I could feel the heaviness in the room as we looked at each other, many with tears in their eyes. It was clear that challenging sexism was far more then learning how to make eye contact with women in group discussions, it was challenging a system of power that operates on the political, economic, social, cultural, psychological level and my internalized superiority was but the tip of an iceberg built on exploitation and oppression.

How many years did it take you to utilize all of those feminist buzzwords, Chris? You're a real pro now, aren't ya?

An organizer working on Palestinian Liberation wrote me saying, “some things gender privileged people can do: offer to take notes in meetings, make phone calls, find meeting locations, do childcare, make copies and other less glamorous work. Encourage women and gender oppressed people in the group to take on roles men often dominate (e.g. tactical, mc-ing and event, media spokespeople). Ask specific women if they want to do it and explain why you think they would be good (don’t tokenize). Pay attention to who you listen to and check yourself on power-tripping.”

So "gender-privileged people" (are they not even allowed to be called men now?) should act subservient to women in every possible way. That whole "gender-privileged people" thing sounds it like it might be just a bit of a misnomer.

Men working with other men to challenge male supremacy is just one of many, many strategies needed to develop women-led, multiracial, anti-racist, feminist, queer and trans liberationist, working class based, anti-capitalist movements for collective liberation.

Now I'm speechless. You just bunched together a bunch of totally unrelated shit in order to shoehorn people into accepting them all in the name of leftism. But rigid political groups are perfect for unthinking cretins like Chris Crass, so it's to be expected.

Hugo Schwyzer Is Against Emotional Incest! He Must Be A Good Man!

2011-11-29T10:04:00.000-08:00

http://goodmenproject.com/families/youre-not-your-daughters-handsome-prince/

My daughter Heloise is nearly three. She’s tall and talkative for her age, and a source of wonderment and delight to her mother and to me. But as cute and charming and funny as she is, she is no princess. Or, to put it more accurately, she may occasionally dress up as a princess–but I am not her prince.

In August 2009, I posted a piece on my own blog, She's got you wrapped around her finger: fathers, daughters, and a variation on the myth of male weakness in which I noted the extraordinary number of folks who expressed to me their certainty that I would treat Heloise as a flawless angel whose whims I could not help but indulge. But there’s an even more troubling aspect of the father-daughter relationship that needs calling out.

Yes, Hugo, men having imaginary sexual desire for little girls seems to be one of your very favorite subjects, one you've written about time and time again. In fact, you almost seem obsessively fixated on the subject. It really makes one wonder.

Becoming a parent for the first time in one’s forties has myriad advantages, not least that I’ve had the opportunity to watch a great many of my peers “do it all first.” (I have three high school friends of mine who are already grandparents.) And I’ve seen, a time or nine, an unhealthy triangulation occur with dads, moms, and their daughters. While the dangers of physical incest and abuse are real, there’s a kind of emotionally incestuous dynamic I’ve witnessed over and over between fathers and daughters, one in which dads seek from their daughters the validation and affirmation that they feel they are entitled to, but are not receiving from their wives.

Emotional incest? OK. Hugo Schwyzer accuses doting fathers of committing emotional incest. Duly noted.

Here’s the thing: some men play their daughters against their wives, mistakenly believing that the way in which their daughters see them (as heroic and perfect) is the way that their spouses ought to as well. If a man hasn’t done his “work”, he may find himself looking at his daughter, gazing up at him with adoration, and he may start (resentfully) to contrast his girl’s fierce and uncomplicated devotion with the somewhat less enthusiastic reception he may be getting from his overworked and exhausted wife. In most cases, this doesn’t mean the papa will turn to his daughter sexually, though it surely, tragically, maddeningly does happen more often than we like to think about.

You, for one, Hugo, seem to like thinking, writing, and talking about it a whole lot. Feminists as a whole seem to adore the very concept of father-daughter incest (even when it is brought about by hypnosis or illusions), just as they adore the occurrence of actual rapes and "domestic violence". For without these tools to demonize and shame the entire male sex with, feminism doesn't have the fuel to burn.

Men who do believe that they are being deprived of what is rightfully theirs may indeed go elsewhere. Disastrously, for fathers of daughters, that “elsewhere” may be to their little girl. Again, that doesn’t mean physical incest in every, or even most, instances. What it means is that a great many dads (and it wasn’t until I became a father to a girl myself that I realized how common this was) start to rely more and more on the simple intensity of their daughter’s love rather than doing the much more difficult work to remain connected with their wives. I’m certainly not saying every father of a daughter does this, but it is common — and if you ask the mothers of daughters, as I have, you’ll hear plenty of anecdotes about this.

In feminism's world, if a woman merely perceives that her husband loves his daughter more than herself, it is considered "emotional incest". It boggles the mind to consider how depraved one's mind must be to come up with such sick, psychosis-induced theories.

Princess culture is huge for little girls, as surely anyone who spends time around children between three and eight knows. I’m convinced that princess culture is in part fed by fathers’ longing for validation. After all, princesses need princes; giving your daughter her princess fantasy is a way for a man to feed his own longing to feel like a handsome prince, indispensable and heroic and good. The gulf between the “handsome prince” in his daughter’s eyes and the loved but decidedly imperfect man in his wife’s eyes grows greater and greater. All the more reason to do what more than one man I know has done, and spend one’s family time basking in a daughter’s affection — and then, after the kids have gone to bed, spend time compulsively using internet pornography. And of course, there’s almost no time spent actually engaging, face-to-face and eye-to-eye, with one’s wife.

I agree that engulfing little girls in "princess culture" is damaging and unhealthy.

Yet, as anyone with two eyes can see, the overwhelming majority of the time it is mothers feeding their daughters into this culture, entering them into beauty pageants and the like. Hugo Schwyzer's convictions were pulled straight from his ass.

This doesn’t mean that we won’t ever let Heloise dress up as a princess. But it does mean that as devoted to my amazing, lovely, grace-filled daughter as I am, I’m very clear that in that relationship, validation needs to be a one-way street. Plenty of daughters grow up with a sense that they are somehow responsible for taking care of their fathers emotionally, for being the good and understanding woman in his life (as opposed to the mother/wife figure, who is invariably cast as judgmental and cold.) To do this to a daughter is child abuse, and I am determined not only not to do it myself, but to call out other fathers of daughters when I see the signs of what can only be called emotional incest.

The message is clear: If fathers love their daughters too much, they are abusive and committing incest. If fathers don't love their daughters enough, they are neglectful deadbeats. The only solution is to follow in Hugo Schwyzer's footsteps and become a Good Man!

David Futrelle And The Mountain Of Lies

2011-11-22T13:39:00.000-08:00

http://manboobz.com/2011/11/21/mens-rights-site-a-voice-for-men-offers-1000-bounty-for-personal-information-on-swedish-feminists/

A Voice for Men, one of the most influential and popular Men’s Rights websites, is now offering a $1000 “bounty” for anyone able to track down the personal information of several Swedish women involved in a tasteless video advertising a theater production based on Valarie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto.

Note how Futrelle immediately downplays the video by merely calling it "tasteless". Stronger adjectives, such as sickening, reprehensible, or misandric would seem to suit such a video better, but Futrelle chooses "tasteless".

The comments posted on the article at AVfM suggest that such “retributive” violence is a real possibility. Indeed, here’s the very first comment (which currently has 17 upvotes from readers of the site):

Was this an optimal manner for someone in the men's rights movement to express himself? No. Does it suggest that "retributive violence is a real possibility"? No.

These are the words of a man who just watched the Society for Cutting Up Men promote the murder of random men, for no other reason than their sex. I would even argue that violent threats would be understandable in such circumstances. However, this isn't one. He phrased it "shoot back", and in a follow-up comment ZenoCo calls it "defending himself". If, in the future, members of SCUM decided to follow in the footsteps of their idol and chose to enact their "theatrical play" in the real world by shooting at random men, those men surely would be justified in shooting back, would they not?

A commenter called Xnomolos, in another upvoted comment, adds:
i would love to hunt down these women myself.

It is possible that Xnomolos meant he would like to go to Sweden and "hunt down" the women who advocate for murder. It's also possible that Xnomolos meant he would like to metaphorically hunt down the women's information online. Lastly, having never heard of this person myself, it is possible that they are a feminist attempting to make MRAs look bad.

Regardless, none of these possibilities indicate violence actually occurring.

JinnBottle responds to this comment by advising “all men to start carrying guns"

Within the context of his comment, JinnBottle is clearly suggesting for men to carry guns in self-defense only, and he even backs off from that soon after. That Futrelle attempts to portray this as an endorsement of proactive violence is illustrative of his transparent propaganda in action.

There is no question that the video itself is offensive, and designed to provoke.

It is not designed to "provoke" anything but taking joy in the murder of innocent men.

Futrelle just got done cherry-picking three AVFM comments, from 239, which he indicated were violent and threatening. Within the next breath, he is back to downplaying the Swedish SCUM video. The hypocrisy is unfathomable.

But John the Other, and the other commenters on AVfM, claim that it is more than this: that that the video of the staged murder, intended to provide publicity for a theater production based on Solanas’ notorious SCUM manifesto, is quite literally an open call for the murder of men. As John the Other puts it:
Open advocation of murder cannot be allowed in a civil society, without that society devolving into a culture of brutal violence.
Evidently he has no problem with, or has somehow not noticed, the comments on AVfM fantasizing about shooting and killing the women involved in the video.

Except not a single comment fantasized about shooting and killing the women. Futrelle has built his base of lies, and is making further lies from them.

Is the video a literal call to murder? Is it, as one AVfM commenter puts it, evidence of a “conspiracy to commit mass murder?” No. Violence and murder have been dramatized in the theater since its beginnings. No one accuses Sophocles of advocating fratricide and incest, though both are dealt with in his play Oedipus Rex. No one accuses Shakespeare of advocating mass murder, though many of his most famous plays have body counts that put many horror films to shame.

Does the tag line at the end of the video – “do your part” – transform the video from a depiction of murder into an open call for it? No. The “threat,” such as it is, is vague; it’s not aimed at any specific individuals. It might be seen as akin to someone wearing a t-shirt that says “kill ‘em all, let God sort them out” – tasteless and offensive, but not a literal threat. “Kill ‘Em All” is actually the name of Metallica’s first album. While a lot of people see James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich et al as pompous idiots, they have not been jailed for conspiracy to commit mass murder. That would be ridiculous.

Let us look at the facts clearly, free from Futrelle's deceptive framing:

1) The group is called The Society for Cutting Up Men.

2) The author of the SCUM Manifesto, which the group bases their beliefs upon, actually put her manifesto into action by shooting and attempting to kill a man.

3) The video portrays a woman shooting and killing a man.

4) The video portray the woman and her accomplices as gleeful and orgasmic in reaction to the murder.

5) The video ends with the message "Do Your Part".

6) There is no other context to be extracted from the video, nor is their any apparent humor.

7) The people who made this video belong to a Facebook group called "Destroying the male gender".

Now, what other meaning could one possibly derive from "Do Your Part" other than an endorsement of murder?

I repeat, David Futrelle chooses to defend and downplay this hateful video, and instead attacks and accuses members of A Voice For Men for their angry reactions to the video. Mangina is far too kind a word for the likes of David Futrelle.

I'm Already A Likely Rapist

2011-11-22T04:43:00.000-08:00

Just five entries in, and I've already received an e-mail from one of Yashar Ali's rabid female followers declaring me a likely rapist. This blog must doing something right. :)

From: Amy

You suck.

Your blog attacks a writer who has recently gained a lot of attention for his awareness of subtle sexisim. Perhaps your male code has been threatened or you are afraid he holds the keys to your sexisim being revealed. I wouldn't want to share an elevator with you late at night to put it simply. Don't you have something else to write about? Isn't there a football coach out there you can criticize? A man who writes about women's issues is interesting to women. I wouldn't expect it to interest you but to attack him seems like you have an interest there, one you dont want revealed. To relate to women and understand them doesn't make him a traitor. Maybe you would feel better if he were writing about the best way to slip a girl a rufy. Your not making any reader friends. Good luck with your blog vomit.

Sent from my iPhone

Ironically, I would probably follow Yashar Ali's lead if ever confronted with sharing an elevator with a woman like Amy. Not for her consideration, certainly, but for my own safety (and sanity).

Yashar Ali: Another Conscious Man

2011-11-21T01:52:00.000-08:00

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/we-may-never-understand-a-day-in-the-life-of-a-woman/

The other day, my friend Dina was talking about her experiences of being catcalled—street harassment is a more accurate term—while walking around the streets of New York. This wasn’t the first time I’ve heard about the epidemic of street harassment. Many of my women friends have remarked about experiencing and dealing with this kind of harassment and how unsafe it makes them feel.

For Dina, one particular instance of harassment on the streets of New York was cemented in her memory. She was walking alone, during the day, on the Lower East Side of Manhattan, when she heard a man taunt her, “Hey baby, you’re lookin’ good…”

“Don’t call me baby,” she responded.

He looked her up and down and said, “…fucking dyke.”

For the record, Dina is straight—not that it would have been okay if she weren’t.

This particular incident is cemented in "Dina"'s memory, is it? I can't even imagine what trauma the poor dear will go through, recalling something so horrific throughout her life. I mean, killing and dying in meaningless wars, being driven to suicide for lack of support systems, surviving homelessness on the street... those surely must pale in comparison to Dina's ordeal!

This wasn’t the first, nor will it be the last time Dina faces street harassment. She has been harassed in public places, and on a number of occasions, followed by men. Many studies indicate that almost 100 percent of women will face some sort of street harassment at one point in their lives.

Common sense indicates that almost 100 percent of human beings will face some sort of street harassment at one point in their lives.

In cities large and small, women contend with comments that range from mildly offensive to disgusting. Beyond being verbally harassed, many women are followed and some women are even forced to deal with the same harasser on a daily basis. For some women, this “harmless” harassment leads to assault.

In cities large and small, men contend with comments that range from mildly offensive to disgusting. Beyond being verbally harassed, many men are followed and some men are even forced to deal with the same harasser on a daily basis. For some men, this “harmless” harassment leads to assault.

Unlike women, however, men don't have sycophantic female equivalents to Yashar Ali pandering tales of woe about how tough it is to be male to fake women's websites.

Women not only deal with discriminatory behavior on a daily basis, but they are also loaded with the baggage of their social conditioning. Women face lives that we men will rarely see and never feel. Women are constantly reminded that they are different from us.

Women are constantly reminded that men and women are... different?! I can't even begin to imagine...

As men, we will never know what it’s like to get to get as primped and ready for work as they do. If a woman shows up to work without makeup they look haggard and tired to us. A woman who doesn’t have makeup on for work is seen as unprofessional.

I really don't enjoy shaving every day. I'd much rather spend my time doing something else. Yet if men show up to work with overgrown, wooly beards, they might be seen as unprofessional. The discrimination is unbearable.

As men, we very rarely, know what it’s like to face unwelcome comments and jokes from a co-worker and go through a process of deciding, like so many women do, if it’s “worth it” to say or do anything.

This statement is so transparently stupid that the only audience I could imagine lapping it up would be extremely gullible or deluded women looking for external validation of their own precious victim status.

We don’t know what it’s like to deal with the burden of birth control. We don’t try to understand what it feels like to remember take a pill every day, to deal with the insurance and associated costs, to confront yearly invasive exams, and to live with possible physical side effects. We don’t seem to realize that birth control is not just an issue for women deal with; it’s an issue that we should also take responsibility for.

Women (and only women) having the option of birth control is oppressive... to women? It's almost as if Yashar Ali is attempting to parody himself.

We don’t know what it’s like to have our intuition dismissed, especially when we sense danger and feel unsafe. How would we know?

I'm simply running out of words to describe this. It's hard to believe anyone even has the mendacity to come up with it.

My friend Mike gets very frustrated with my writing about women because he doesn’t see a need for it. He sees the way men and women relate to each other in the world as a competition, instead of as an opportunity for us to help and defend each other.

Just the other day, he asked me, “Why don’t you defend men?”

Without the support and care of women, without their consideration of our aspirations and how we feel, we wouldn’t be who we are. Our daughters, wives, co-workers, mothers, sisters, girlfriends, need to understand that a day in their life doesn’t have to be lived alone.

That doesn't even remotely answer "Mike"'s question.

Having consciousness about the daily struggles of women is something that I am still learning how to do. Like so many men, I have been conditioned by our society to think that women are here to support my needs, instead of learning that we are here to support each other.

And how do you suggest women support men, Yashar? Allow us to live so we may worship the divine feminine? Kindly genetically modify us like corn?

Last weekend, I had an experience that reminded me to think about the struggles of women. After leaving a dinner meeting, I walked to a bank of elevators that led to the parking structure where my car was parked. When the elevator doors opened, I was greeted by a woman who was headed to the same parking garage. Given the situation—it was late at night with no one around—I told her, “I’ll take the next one.”

I’m not a saint. I still have so much to learn. But at that moment, I, as a man, made the conscious decision to calculate how riding elevator late at night with a strange man would make this woman feel. And by putting myself in her shoes (as much as I could), I adjusted my behavior accordingly.

This woman knew nothing about my intentions and nothing about me. Did I want her to spend the next thirty seconds wondering what was going to happen to her at 11pm at night? Nope. I wonder if she would have asked me to take the next elevator. I know she has probably been conditioned to think, like so many women, that asking a man to take the next elevator would be rude and presumptuous.

I wonder if women appreciate the fact that Yashar Ali treats them like overgrown children who don't know how to look after themselves? Judging by the adoring comments to his article, many of them do.

That night, I did what most women do for men on an everyday basis: I considered her needs. I thought about how the situation would make her feel—not because I wanted to avoid a reaction, but because I wanted to support her. It’s just not something men do as easily for women.

Hopefully, my decision was a respite for her. But I know it was a brief one.

It would surely be impossible for anyone to say this with a straight face. Lo and behold, a note after the article confirms my suspicions:

Yashar will be soon releasing his first short e-book, entitled, A Message To Women From A Man: You Are Not Crazy — How We Teach Men That Women Are Crazy and How We Convince Women To Ignore Their Instincts. If you are interested and want to be notified when the book is released, please click here to sign-up.

Yashar Ali's tactics are no different than those of big corporations. Relentlessly pander to female narcissism, trash men, profit. He is likely more of a shady profiteer than a true believer. That so many women fall for his garbage is disturbing.

Josh Jasper: Still Up To His Old Tricks

2011-11-19T12:56:00.000-08:00

Josh Jasper

Back in February, Paul Elam and A Voice For Men rightfully targeted an Iowan feminist stooge named Josh Jasper for creating a disgusting local TV commercial which portrayed baby boys as potential rapists. In response, Jasper claimed that he had "re-evaluated" his core values and promised to not neglect male victims of violence and abuse in the future.

Not unexpectedly, a cursory glance at his blog reveals that Jasper has failed to live up to his word. In a late September entry, he summarizes the backlash against him like this:

I started the year receiving death threats from around the planet due to a commercial that I created that spoke of ending men’s violence against women.

Jasper received literally hundreds of intelligent, reasonable comments criticizing his baby rapist commercial. He chose to ignore every single one of them and instead recounts only "death threats from around the planet". (Somehow, whenever a particular feminist is heavily criticized by men's rights supporters, mysterious, unseen death threats are sure to be involved.) It appears that victim fetishes are not confined only to female feminists.

Jasper goes on to brag about placing the following billboard above a local strip club:

Women are not, by and large, forced to work as strippers. It is their own choice. Is Jasper against women freely making their own choices in regards to employment?

In another post, Jasper makes the following proclamation in bold:

An estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by their intimate partner each year, and nearly 90% of domestic violence is never reported to authorities.

An uncounted number of men are victims of physical assault by their intimate partner (and numerous other individuals) each year. But no-one actually bothers to compile stats on male victims because male lives are valued less by this society. And nearly 100% of domestic violence against men is never reported to authorities, because men know the police are instructed to arrest them no matter the circumstances when dealing with domestic disputes!

Jasper goes on to say:

Speak out against sexist jokes and demeaning language toward women.

Because if you don’t, who will?

Are you equating jokes and language with domestic violence, Josh? I wonder if those unsourced statistics you brought up earlier did the same?

On November 1st, Jasper decided to bitch about some random Halloween costumes he saw in a store:

To begin with, what kinds of expectations are we giving women and girls when we only provide them with costumes that set them up to be objectified? Sexual objectification is seeing a person as a sexual object and emphasizing her sexual attributes and physical attractiveness, while deemphasizing her existence as a living person with emotions and feelings of her own. In my experience, violence is too often the outcome when women and girls are objectified. Why would we want to reinforce this behavior?

How in the fuck does dressing in mildly sexually suggestive Halloween costumes necessitate seeing someone as an object with no feelings? And mildly sexual Halloween costumes cause violence? How about citing a single incident of such a thing happening? You can't, because there are none.

But don't anybody dare suggest that women are culpable for their own choices. No, no, no, don't even think it. If women choose to dress in sexy Halloween costumes, and this somehow results in violence against them by unknown forces, they aren't responsible. The evil patriarchy is to blame for forcing those helpless women to buy sexy Halloween costumes!

Furthermore, take a closer look at the occupations provided to boys and girls with Halloween costumes. Girls are often given the options to dress up as a waitress, maid, a sexy nurse, and a flirty officer, whereas boys are given the options of a doctor, a superhero, police officer, Marine, a SWAT team member, and a pilot. Ask any 5^th grade girl what she wants to be when she grows up and I doubt she aspires to wait tables and clean up after others. No, my guess is that she wants to be a doctor, a lawyer, or even the President of the United States.

Josh Jasper doesn't seem to understand the basic principal of supply and demand. If women didn't want to wear those costumes, they wouldn't buy them. Women have thousands upon thousands of choices of what to wear. If they happen to choose something Josh Jasper doesn't like, why is that such a problem? Does Josh Jasper want to control women or something?

More to the point, Jasper's egalitarian rhetoric about equality, helping all victims and the like was a hollow lie intended to momentarily take the heat off him. He's back to promoting women (as a class) as helpless victims and men (as a class) as exploitative predators. Jasper is still a prominent force in his local community at destroying male lives.

Someone needs to put another boot up his ass.

Tom Matlack Argues For More Pedophilia Hysteria

2011-11-18T00:57:00.000-08:00

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/hypocrisy-of-psu-rage/

I tuned in to my favorite sports radio talk show again today just to check: Is it still all pedophilia, all the time?

Yup.

Are you complaining about this, Tom? Then why do you argue for even more focus on pedophilia throughout the rest of your article?

Don’t get me wrong; I am all for a national discussion of child abuse.

Why do you focus exclusively on child abuse of a sexual nature, though? Is it because that's the easiest way for you and other feminists to blame masculinity and maleness?

But my question really is: Where have you guys been this whole time? When the Catholic Church scandal broke here in Boston, no one called sports radio to advocate the Firing Squad for Cardinal Law. We don’t get hour after hour after hour of rehash on the national morning shows on the trafficking of minors for sex.

Actually, we do get hours and hours of blather about sex trafficking on radio stations like NPR as well as various other media outlets. The focus is not put on trafficked minors, however. It is on trafficked women and girls only.

And yet none of us want to talk about the problem in our midst. We want to talk endlessly about Joe Pa.

Why?

I think it has something to do with the idea that perverted sexual activity was occurring these last decades right at the very epicenter of masculinity—the PSU football locker room. We thought we knew what it meant to be male and good, and we have now found out the exact opposite is true.

No, it has utterly nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with power, politics, and individual perversion. Matlack provides no reference or source for his clam that this incident has anything to do with masculinity. He just blithely asserts it because it fits his feminist agenda.

What really fucking pisses us off isn’t the badness itself; as part of the great wave men buying pornography and sex overtakes our country, we have been perfectly willing to look the other way as sex crimes accelerate

I'm not quite sure what Matlack is trying to say here, but I see two possibilities:

1) Bad men buying pornography causes sex crimes.

2) Bad men buying pornography is just as bad as actual sex crimes, and we all should be just as enraged about that.

Either bizarre meaning showcases what a demented, anti-male traitor Matlack actually is. Notice how he blames men exclusively for "buying pornography" and "sex overtaking our country", which he seems to imply leads to sex crimes accelerating (a transparently bogus claim). The idiocy of this is self-explanatory.

We like a constant world order, and this shakes up everything—even if you are a dumbass, beer-swilling college football fan.

Again, the stereotype of a "dumbass, beer-swilling college football fan" invokes images of bad men, dumb men, useless men. Men are to blame.

Perhaps the hardest question of all: What do we do to punish Sandusky and those who protected him?

Let’s start with the problem. To date, we have been unable to bring hardcore pedophiles to justice because, frankly, not enough people cared or were educated on how damaging this behavior is to the victims.

Right, which explains continuous pedophilia hysteria in the media and the runaway success of To Catch A Predator, Nancy Grace etc. Not to mention these programs focus on young girls and young women as the victims the overwhelming majority of the time. Even the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal was used as material for numerous late-night comedy jokes.

The real issue is that not enough people care or are educated on how damaging this behavior is to male victims, especially when the perpetrator is female.

Joe Paterno is a devout Catholic. Don’t you think he might have connected the dots from the large number of priests who had done so much harm to the abuse happening right under his nose? The answer is an obvious no. We have not learned our lesson.

So how does "Joe Paterno" magically turn into "we"? The logic is nonsensical.

But amidst all this narrowly focused hate directed toward Sandusky, Paterno, and McQueary, I really wonder where we are in dealing with the underlying issue. You can give all three the death penalty (it is amazing to me that at this writing Sandusky is free on $100k bail, but that is a side issue) and that still will not do anything to protect the country’s children or deal with the much larger truth that angry callers on sports radio refuse to acknowledge

We all share the blame here.

Ah, the idea of collective male guilt for the actions of a few. A favorite of male traitors, and just as morally indefensible as always. The nature of the rest of his article, and the way it blames masculinity and men for pedophilia and sex crimes, makes it clear Matlack really means "we men" when he says "we", even if he doesn't explicitly say so.

But the only way we are going to really deal with this problem is by admitting that we collectively have let it go on way too long—not just at Penn State, but also in our own churches, at our own schools, in our own communities. It’s the lack of action—the cover-up—that perpetuates the problem.

Just what type of "action" do you suggest take place, Tom? Totalitarianism? Witch-hunts?

Matlack seems to be suggesting that pedophilia takes place in every church, school, and community, and if it doesn't, we better be damn sure we obsess over it anyway, just to be safe. I'm sure children will be mentally healthier if they think of every random man as a scary monster who wants to molest them. Oh wait, they're already taught that.

The pathologically ill pedophile is not ever going to stop. He (or she) will keep going until we stop that person—and up until now we just haven’t done enough to do that.

Note how Matlack slyly slips in "or she" in brackets to appear fair and impartial. But the entire article seeks to blame masculinity and men in general for the problem, making such a gesture meaningless.

The real problem is that until now we haven’t wanted to look at sexual misconduct in our own communities. And it’s about time we did.

Essentially, Tom Matlack is arguing for even more pedophilia hysteria in modern society. Guess what, Tom? Even "Good Men" won't be shielded from false accusations in that case. I advise you not to go to the park with your own children if what you argue for comes to pass.

Hugo Schwyzer Blames The Sexual Abuse of Young Boys on Misogyny

2011-11-15T23:43:00.000-08:00

Hugo Schwyzer

http://goodmenproject.com/gender-sexuality/resist-the-old-boys-and-their-ways/

As we continue to assess the fall-out from the Penn State scandal, a near-consensus has developed that “Old Boys’ Networks” are a huge part of the problem.

That's the first I've heard of this "near-consensus". A near-consensus among what group? Feminists?

If we don’t want more Penn States, we need to do more than opine about accountability. We’ve got to dismantle the Old Boys’ Networks (OBNs). And the most enduring way to dismantle them is for young men to refuse to join in the first place.

The implication being that if women were hired as coaches of male football teams, no such sexual misconduct would ever take place. If Joe Paterno was a woman, his enhanced moral character would've made him do the right thing. Yeah.

Particularly for young white men working for older white men, the pressure to join the OBN can be simultaneously intense and subtle.

Why the need to bring in race? Feminists love pretending they are naturally aligned with racial minorities and anti-racism causes because it nets them a wider base of passive acceptance among certain other groups. "Women and minorities" is the new "women and children".

But notice how "white men" are consistently smeared as a whole by these people without a passing thought while "white women", as a group, are untouchable.

The desire for a protégé is a common one: once he reaches a certain point in his career, middle-aged men are taught to look for younger versions of themselves.

They are? By who? The Old Boys Network Patriarchal Grand Wizard?

Even those male supervisors who want to mentor women may find themselves more likely to support and nurture a young man with whom they feel that emotional affinity, that narcissistic sense of themselves at a younger age. Add in an all too familiar awkwardness about working with younger women (fear of company gossip, fear of what wives might think, fear of sexual harassment allegations), and the temptation to focus heavily on young men becomes intense.

The threat of sexual harassment claims is quite legitimate, and avoiding situations in which they may arise is a practical strategy.

Invitations to the OBN don’t come on monogrammed Crane’s stationery. They frequently come in the form of the casual, “Hey, we’re going out for drinks later. Why don’t you come with us?” Sometimes, the Network is obvious in its sexism, inviting “Derek” but not his fellow intern “Delilah.” More commonly, Derek and Delilah both get invited. Delilah, however, soon senses that the invitation to “hang with the guys” was made more out of obligation than desire. She may notice that some of the men seem uncomfortable with her, or that the conversation over drinks seems designed to exclude her. The Old Boys in the office don’t have to take their junior colleagues to Hooters or a strip club to make the sexism obvious.

Although he just acknowledged "the fear of sexual harassment allegations" in relation to older men avoiding younger women, Schywzer stills calls this obvious sexism. A basic tactic of self-preservation is not sexism.

Shaming men for maintaining male-only spaces yet encouraging women to create female-only spaces is a common feminist ploy. See: The Colonization of Male Space.

Invitations to the OBN come in many forms, some subtle, some crass. When I was in graduate over than 20 years ago, I worked as a research assistant to a very distinguished historian, a man in his early 60s with a publication record longer than my arm. I was also enrolled in one of his seminars, where I was one of eight students—but only two males. When I was meeting with him alone to talk about our research project, Professor M (who had a reputation as a lecher and a harasser) was always eager to talk about the bodies of my female fellow graduate students. I felt uncomfortable, and usually tried to change the subject, but on one occasion gave in and indulged him.

I remember the way Professor M’s eyes lit up, and how much more friendly he seemed to me after we’d finally left the topic of what the young women in my department were wearing in order to talk about work. He treated me as if I’d earned his respect and his trust. But I felt sick, having lost respect for myself as well as for him. I felt as if I’d betrayed the female students who were my friends. When the quarter was over and my research contract with him was up, I made sure never to work with Professor M again. But I never forgot that feeling—sickening and flattering all at once—of being taken into the sexual confidence of a renowned scholar who seemed to treat me as a potential protégé. The allure of the OBN is powerful, and no male-dominated institution is immune.

So the words and actions of a single professor from over twenty years ago (if he really exists) mean that all or most older men in any position of power belong to a secretive, anti-woman "OBN" cabal? And all "male-dominated institutions" are a part of this? Wow.

But what does this have to do with Jerry Sandusky raping little boys at Penn State again?

In academic as well as corporate settings, Old Boys are good at assessing which young men will “play along” and which ones won’t. When a young man seems to treat women as genuine equals, and shows a reluctance to embrace the OBN, the Old Boys may test him. As a man doing academic work in women’s studies, one of my grad school supervisors asked me, “So, are you really serious about this feminist shit, or do you just want to get laid?” An Old Boy may be more oblique: “Come on, son, the women aren’t around, you can drop the touchy-feely stuff.” If you are a young man, low in status in a newsroom or a corporate office or an academic department, the senior men will almost always try and assess your suitability for the OBN early on in one way or another. What is often euphemistically called “collegiality” or being a “team player” is just code for “willing to go along and not challenge us.”

Yes, these are not simply casual comments average Joes might make, but top-secret "OBN tests". Makes perfect sense.

The OBN thrives on the lie that it’s okay for men who work together to lead collective double lives. Today’s Old Boys are publicly committed to proper procedure and gender inclusiveness, having learned the importance of saying all the right things. In private, however, they value loyalty above transparency. That’s the mindset that explains why Mike McQueary, the young Penn State assistant who witnessed a boy being raped by a revered campus leader, chose to tell only his father (and a father figure, Coach Joe Paterno) rather than going at once to the police. McQueary had already been well-groomed to understand that his loyalty to the OBN trumped even the responsibility to protect a child from an OBN member.

Or Jerry Sandusky is a disturbed pedophile and a few people who saw him commit those acts didn't speak up for fear of losing their own positions of power. Many people in this world do not have upstanding moral characters. Only a demented feminist could twist this incident into being about a wider conspiratorial male network.

One key way to make it easier is to seek out mentors of both sexes. Another is to form close working relationships with women as well as men, resisting the temptation to “flee” to all-male spaces.

I'm sure you feel the same way about all-female spaces, right Hugo?

As long as we maintain the fiction that that’s too difficult or too at odds with the laws of nature, the OBN will continue to have a much easier time finding new recruits among the ranks of already privileged young men while excluding women of every age. And a new generation in the Old Boys Networks will learn to cover up for the most indefensible and horrific actions of its members.

This article in a nutshell: There is a vast conspiracy among men to exclude women and make nasty comments about women. And that's why Jerry Sandusky raped little boys at Penn State.

David Futrelle's Propaganda Dissected: MenCallMeThings

2011-11-15T01:25:00.000-08:00

David Futrelle

http://manboobz.com/2011/11/14/mra-who-cares-if-mencallyouthings-its-not-like-women-have-any-real-problems/

Oh, ladies, must you complain so much?

Yes. Throughout history this is self-evident. The modern, extreme version of this phenomenon is called feminism.

I mean, who cares if every time you say something on the internet some random dude threatens to rape you?

Not only is this a lie as a literal statement, it is a lie as an exaggeration. I have never, in my countless hours of exploring the internet, witnessed a man threatening to rape a woman. I have seen a few men threaten to rape other men. And I've seen countless women threaten to sexually mutilate men, including at Manboobz.

Just another Futrelle lie.

Exactly. We need to stop talking about men raping women to focus on the much more important issue of women not having sex with White and Nerdy.

Let's look at the implied statements in Futrelle's smarmy sarcasm:

Implication 1: We DO need to talk about men raping women. A lot. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Feminism needs rape. Feminists adore rape. Without rape, feminism crumbles as a religion. How would the patriarchy conspiracy theory operate without it?

Implication 2: White and Nerdy is pathetic because he can't get laid lolz what a loser shaming tactic shaming tactic.

In essence, this is one highly unattractive man shitting all over another highly unattractive man in order to grovel to women. It is a miserable, pathetic, and despicable spectacle and needs no further comment.

Such is Dave Futrelle's MO.

Note: This post may contain sarcasm.

No shit, Sherlock. But that doesn't shield you from the implicit messages behind the sarcasm. Nice try, though.