Feminist Censorship

by Featured Guest on November 21, 2012

By Ethical

As followers of the men’s rights movement (MRM) we can’t help but second guess the direction the movement’s leaders have taken. Thousands of well-written articles on countless blogs, so many devastatingly clear facts on our side, and yet we seem to be making such slow progress towards solutions. All this makes young men, already prone to doing their own thing, even more difficult to involve in growing the movement. Not that this isn’t understandable. If it’s true that attention spans of young men are fleeting except when seized by anticipation of imminent danger and excitement, young men might drift away after waiting fruitlessly for the MRM’s strongly worded articles to provoke an explosive reaction on hitting the newsstand. Because all they’ve heard so far is silence. The fact remains there are virtually no male MRM writers published in the broader public media at all. Outside of the websites in the manosphere you have to look hard to see where our words have even caused a ripple.

What’s often overlooked when we try to address the MRM’s comparative lack of exposure (as opposed to feminism lurking everywhere) is that beyond us in the MRM raising the bar by accumulating even more convincing facts, beyond us laying out even more logical and gripping arguments, beyond us capturing even more emotionally moving stories, there is the simple unassailable truth that as far as the popular media goes, pervasive and unrelenting feminist censorship makes these efforts moot. Because in virtually every mass media outlet in the country, whether conservative or liberal, whether Republican or Democrat, editorial policy overwhelmingly prohibits men from publishing articles on men’s rights. The few writers editors allow to publish articles on these issues are women. Some of these women represent the cause admirably, but nevertheless men’s voices are banned from being heard.

So I understand why not too long ago, popular game blogger Roosh called out the MRM for being ineffectual and cautioned young men against joining. Commenting on what he saw as the MRM’s seeming impotence in the face of feminism’s GREAT WALL OF ENFORCED SILENCE, he accused the MRM of “not getting the job done”. To true believers like yours truly his words stung like iodine on a friction burn. From the popularity of his website, and a review of the comments on the post, young men are listening too. The web information company alexa.com ranks Rooshv.com at 22,967 in the US by web traffic. Roosh nearly outranks feministing.com and its entire 11 woman staff who together garner only a slightly greater traffic rank of 19,666 in comparison, despite the fact Roosh is creating content alone.

Of course to be fair to the MRM, in my view Roosh’s “facts” about the MRM not having delivered are extremely flawed. In reality the MRM has been successful in lobbying for shared parenting legislation or a presumption of joint custody in a number of US states as well as in other jurisdictions worldwide such as Australia and the U.K.

Feminism’s female supremacists are recognizing this too. One article entitled “Men’s Rights” Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective ” said the following of the group “RADAR” which the article described as falling under “the broader umbrella of the men’s rights movement”:

… lately the group and its many partners have been racking up very real accomplishments. In 2008, the organization claimed to have blocked passage of four federal domestic-violence bills, among them an expansion of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to international scope and a grant to support lawyers in pro bono domestic-violence work. Members of this coalition have gotten themselves onto drafting committees for VAWA’s 2011 reauthorization. Local groups in West Virginia and California have also had important successes, criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases, and winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory.

Curiously just like the MRM, Roosh and his young followers seem to have no doubt that popular opinion and therefore government policy is based on blatant feminist misinformation that they also find deeply objectionable. Still they see no sense joining the MRM’s effort to lobby our governments in order to remove the deeply feminist biases, just as they see no sense in trying to stem the barrage of feminist propaganda that misinforms the public into supporting those feminist policies. But in the interest of openness to the truth, the feedback of these young men isn’t to be discounted. In fact their apathy begs the question: ” why do men who take issue with feminist doctrine universally perceive feminist censorship to be so widespread, oppressive, and unchangeable”?

According to psychologists who’ve studied the phenomenon of women demanding men be censored from speaking the truth, both feminist censorship, and young men responding to feminist misinformation largely with apathy, might be inevitable. It turns out that in forums where supposedly both men’s and women’s opinions are welcomed, while men tend to be truly comfortable only if they’re free to speak their opinions, women tend to be comfortable only if forums are free of opinions they find disagreeable. As a result women tend to want men banned from forums if the men express opinions the women disagree with. GirlWritesWhat speaks eloquently about this at 17:30 in her video entitled “Men not marrying? How deep does “the problem” go?”

“Plain speech … [is] often discouraged when women are present in order to spare feelings and prevent discomfort. Outspokenness is replaced with drawing new rules of discourse, and ingenuity with protocol all of which render a feminized [environment]“

Though men will typically put up with it she says, they tune out, conceivably resulting in the apathy noted previously. Thus supposedly public forums become spaces men are no longer interested in participating in because without an equal accommodation of men’s need to speak freely, such forums are no longer welcoming to men. GirlWritesWhat elaborates at 20:10 in the same video:

Where are men retreating to? They’re retreating to the internet to the few men’s spaces that haven’t tailored their rules of conduct to suit women’s easily offended natures and need for comfort”

Knowing we can’t be heard in the popular media, young and old we come to the manosphere to share knowledge. But as Roosh might ask what’s our end game in doing so? Are we in the MRM gathering facts and statistics in preparation for an honest debate while feminists are laughing behind the scenes after having already called security to keep us out of the debate hall?

Make no mistake that men are excluded wherever our interests run counter to feminism. There are countless examples of feminists censoring men from discussions surrounding gender issues this way.

“Lace Curtain” – the tendency of most major institutions to interpret gender issues from only a feminist perspective or from a combination of feminist and female perspectives.

Dr. Warren Farrell, The Lace Curtain, menweb.org

“This is pretty much the norm on feminist websites”

KrissytheWorldWithin, Censorship in Feminist Media (a feminist woman objecting to feminism’s censorship)

[Hume] … assumes that the only serious threat to freedom of the press comes from a despotic government desirous of imposing centralized censorship of what appears in print, and which it is be able to do by fiat. This is not so; there are other, subtler threats to press freedom.

I have noticed that whenever I used the word “Mankind” in an article, it emerges in the printed version, without my permission, as “Humankind”, a word I despise as both ugly and sanctimonious … The change is made with such regularity, and in so many publications, that the government might as well have decreed it, though in fact it has not. There is, presumably, a monstrous regiment of sub-editors at work, all of like mind.

Theodore Dalrymple, Feminist Censorship and Language Reform, mensnewsdaily.com

Real world examples of feminist censorship

Some feminist who was too lazy or incompetent to rebut my claim just banned it.

The message will always get out. Your best bet is to post something as to why you disagree.

Barbarossa, Feminists resort to censorship … again

Feminist propaganda dominates the media, workplace, and educational system, while anti-feminists are either ignored or berated for being “unfair”, “barbaric”, or “politically incorrect”. As a result, almost all important antifeminist contributions are hidden from most people.

Amy Chavez, University of New Mexico [web page now censored]

Serious critique of feminism has been absent for more than a decade … critique and questioning of basic feminist principles became unthinkable. My own [antifeminist] books are lost in “zone of death, the eternal ice of quiet rejection.

Jan Deichmohle, gabnet.com [translated from German]

For feminists the only legitimate rebuttal in any debate is another brand of feminism. No doubt if each purports to be the “true” feminism, then hearing both out is always in the interest of women. Otherwise there can be no dissenting opinions, there is only feminism and “hate speech”. And hate speech of course needs to be banned.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, or SPLC, names Men’s Rights Activists as a hate group, citing the MRAs’ … virulent misogyny, spreading of false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.

Radfem News Service, radfemworldnews.wordpress.com

True there are some feminists who openly acknowledge having an agenda of censorship, i.e. those who would either ban pornography or at the very least enable women to sue pornographers for damages:

[Catharine A. McKinnon’s] 1993 book, Only Words… opposing the US constitution’s first amendment interpretation of pornography as protected speech … considered it hate speech … “the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through pictures or words” … with real power … to cause the rape and murder of women.

… why not censor pornography? “Our approach is not to ban, but to offer a civil remedy to people who can prove they were harmed – rather than empowering the police and putting people in jail, which doesn’t do any good anyway. Pornographers keep their businesses going in jail.”

Stuart Jeffries, The Guardian, writing on Are women human? by Catharine A. MacKinnon

But there are other feminists who just as militantly insist that asking women to refrain from any level of nudity or sexuality (particularly lesbian sexuality) on the grounds of its inappropriateness in certain circumstances, is an either an outright assault on women’s sexual freedom, or a misogynist hatred of women’s bodies.

“The Body Is Not An Apology, an international movement focused on radical self-love and body empowerment, account was SUSPENDED from Facebook after posting a photo of an empowered female body and tribal women in Senegal with their breasts visible. We believe this sort of cultural and gender discrimination is absolutely asking women to apologize for their bodies and is unacceptable.

Sonya Renee Taylor, The Body is Not an Apology, from a petition on Change.org

Feminists Against Censorship (FAC) stands against censorship, particularly of sexual materials, in the defense of women’s sexual expression.

Wikipedia.org

Since restriction of women’s right to sexual expression is the only type of censorship feminists acknowledge, in their minds they’re actually the victims of censorship rather than its perpetrators, since television networks, film and music companies still have the right to censor the [women] artists whose work they produce.

Without the liberty to protest, parody, and mock sexism, and to communicate information about women’s lives (including their sexual lives), women could not have made progress toward equality in the workplace or broken down sexist stereotypes in pop culture.

Feminism and Free Speech: Arts Censorship, Feminists for Free Expression (FFE)

That feminists contend women are the real victims of censorship despite the massive devastation feminist censorship imposes against men leaves us incredulous. Standing just beyond the reach of feminism’s mind control rays, we have to marvel at such evidence of the collective rationalization hamster on steroids, spinning millions of mental hamster wheels furiously to outrace the truth in order to reach another irrational conclusion.

Little wonder few men young OR old really learn what men are up against until they’re up against it themselves … completely unprepared and alone; never learning how much they’re being shortchanged in the educational system until trying to see in hindsight why it failed them; never learning how much the family law system is stacked up against them until it’s way too late to arrange their affairs defensively.

This censorship is measurable and verifiable. The specific mechanism by which it happens is the tendency for women as a group to suppress any opinion that isn’t biased towards women, in contrast with the equally measurable and verifiable tendency for men not to support another man unless they specifically agree with the man’s opinion.

GirlWritesWhat explains at 20:35 in her video entitled “How feminism conned society, and other not-so-tall tales”

A 2004 study of gender differences in automatic in-group biases found that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own-group preference. Only women showed this bias in all four experiments, and in 3 of them all subjects, male and female, showed a strong bias towards women. …” which is horrifying to me because it means women in power will act strongly in the interests of women, whereas men in power exhibit no own-group preference at all but will act more often than not in the interests of women as well.

She also states at 11:35 in “Men not marrying? How deep does “the problem” go?”

“It’s not that men can’t manifest any form of own group preference, it’s just that when own group preference manifests in males it just isn’t based on maleness alone. There has to be a common purpose, a common set of ideals, or principles, a common sense of duty or cause …”

This censorship is now so pervasive all throughout society from academia on down we can no longer count the number of professors who have publicly criticized academia for having become the centers for mass indoctrination they now are, rather than the centers of higher learning they were supposed to be. We’ve reached an inflection point in history where censorship of the masses prevents wide dissemination of the truth, but the ubiquity of the internet extinguishes any possibility that the lies will go undetected.

All this brings the MRM to a devastating impasse. Newspapers and magazines know women will have deep objections to any article that doesn’t blatantly favor women, many women going so far as calling efforts to address the increasingly poor educational success of boys or efforts to address the cruel imbalance against men in family court as “woman hating”. Media outlets know as a result that women will effectively boycott any newspaper or magazine which prints articles championing men’s rights, particularly if that article is written by a man. No sensible media company executive would print the truth under these circumstances, especially given that women control most of any household’s spending on the products that businesses pay the newspaper money to advertise.

Since as a consequence men generally can’t be paid for writing on men’s rights the way women are paid for writing about feminism, this censorship also has a incalculably huge impact on any discussion that impacts public policy.

In fact the impact of this censorship is so severe it’s enough to make us question our most fundamental and treasured assumptions about democracy as a whole, namely:

  • that our democratic freedom of expression means we are effectively free to express our opinions
  • that because we lack state censorship in our democracy, there is free access to information, and public opinion is formed through this free access
  • that because our democracy is freely elected, public policy will be representative of that public opinion
  • that because our elections are free and fair the interests of one demographic won’t be over-represented far out of proportion to their relative population

Politicians offer platitudes about efforts towards evidence based government, but a creeping chill tells us the fundamental assumptions of our system are broken. Democracy 2.0 is long overdue.

When this censorship becomes a weapon enabling courts to illegally strip men of their children and property and to condemn men into alimony slavery on a routine basis, it makes such a mockery of democracy it’s almost enough for us to even begin questioning our efforts to spread this “democracy” that has so betrayed us. Because if we’ve been betrayed so badly there could be no greater political sleight of hand than causing us to spend billions sponsoring foreign wars that destabilize the countries we need for resources, that run foreign streets red with blood in the name of encouraging the very system that grinds us down daily with its suppression of THE TRUTH. Not that I’m any man’s revolutionary. I know which side my own bread is so generously buttered on. With my oversized SUV, with my blue-tooth car phone system, with my car’s GPS navigation, I’d be the last to demand non-interventionist foreign policy if oil would become so expensive ambulances couldn’t afford gas to get my elderly parents to the hospital if one was dying, or supermarkets couldn’t afford to transport the produce I need to feed my children with. Still if faced with anything short of that kind of duress I would choose to live with less because no one wants to be part of doing EVIL unto others. And I would start living with less by demanding less feminist government intervention in my family affairs.

But back to feminism; why should feminists be so threatened by an honest discussion that they’ll go so far as undermining our very democracy this way to censor away any dissension?

Censorship has always been a hatred of the truth

Barbarossa, Feminists resort to censorship … again

Because feminism’s censorship is highly effective. But there’s no disputing that it creates such systemic misinformation it breaks all the above assumptions about the merits of democracy. Basing public policy on this systemic misinformation is devastating. Much of the cruelty inflicted against men and children in courtrooms as a result of unjust rulings happens because of misinformation spread by these feminists, including the misinformation fueling the domestic violence industry, the misinformation leading family court judges to value fathers only in terms of the money that can be stripped from them rather than placing a value on giving children time with fathers, or the misinformation that women earn two thirds of what men earn.

So rather than question our “end game”, given all we’ve had to fight just to speak our piece, we in the MRM need to give ourselves a break for sometimes seeming to make slow progress. Having myself just finished writing “We’re Stupid and We’ll Die”, an article criticizing the majority of men for complicity in having created this feminist mess, that goes double for me. Contrary to feminism’s assertion that we “the patriarchy” control everything, with feminism’s censorship we’ve literally had to battle the entire corporate and government establishment to make whatever progress we’ve made. We can only be proud of what we’ve accomplished. We can even take some encouragement from the seeming disengagement of young men. Because despite all the censorship, despite truth of the anti-male injustice being largely hidden from all except those who actively go out of their way to search for it, young men are still in record numbers refusing to swallow the humiliating feminist propaganda pissed on their heads since birth, and in those same large numbers they’re also finding places online where they aren’t so castrated. Not all of them may be coming to the MRM, but regardless of whether they wind up at one of Roosh’s sites, or anywhere in the Roissysphere, they’ll get a dose of red pill knowledge just the same.

It’s ironic that as democracy in its current form races towards a hard stop against the limitations on honest discussion, we as a society will survive or perish on the backs of these young men. We can only hope after they’ve taken the red pill they still agree to carry us. These are the same young men who increasingly will have endured frustrated childhoods filled with the court’s refusal to listen when they asked for more time with their fathers, who will have been shafted out of an education and become unemployable because of education policies that openly favored already high achieving girls, who will have been passed over for whatever jobs there were left because they lacked a vagina, and who will have seen from the experiences of their fathers and uncles that divorce laws are too savagely misandrist for them to care in the first place about becoming a cubicle drone just to one day save enough to get married. God forbid these young men might get a little angry and opt out of any social or economic roles we need them to fill when they discover that on top of everything else, they mattered so little to us we allowed them to be emasculated by feminism’s lies all their lives as well because it was too much of an inconvenience to fight this feminist censorship. These chickens WILL come home to roost. It’s too much to hope that feminism will reverse its course before they do; the gender dynamics driving women to vote for female supremacist policies and men not to resist seem to be innate in the current system.

Fortunately, as compulsively as they censor the truth now, feminists could also conceivably lift the veil of lies for their own self interest. Because you don’t have to look far to see how well the rights of women will be protected in a rag tag nation of unemployable, disenfranchised, betrayed, and very angry young men. God forbid indeed.

{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: