Equality in Victimhood for Men is a Losing Proposition

by W.F. Price on February 18, 2013

The issue of male victimhood has exposed a rift in the MRM, with one faction advocating an equivalence between male and female victimhood, and another warning of the dangers of feeding the victimhood industry and its associated enforcers.

Angry Harry, who was one of the first real MRA bloggers online (if not the first — I was still blissfully ignorant when he got started), took issue with former US marine James Landrith’s use of recovered memories (AKA suppressed memories) to claim he had been drugged and raped by a woman.

Harry pointed out that recovered memories are far more likely to be used against men, and in fact that has been the case historically. The vast majority of people who have been accused of abuse following revelations in therapy of recovered memories have been men, and many of these men have been innocent fathers. It was at epidemic levels in the 80s and 90s, and resulted in some horrific abuses of police power.

Harry’s reaction to reading the post:

If anything, it was mid-level panic from thinking about all the horrors that generally arise from the typical activities of those who believe in the veracity of “recovered memories”. And it was also mid-level dread from thinking about all the extra hysteria that would be generated by associated parts of the trauma industry should their empires be encouraged to grow by men’s activism.

And the thought that both might be gaining traction in the Men’s Movement – something that would be absolutely catastrophic, both for men, in general, and for the MM itself – was fairly unbearable.

In the early 90s in Wenatchee, Washington, an accusation a troubled girl made mushroomed into a full-blown witch hunt, resulting in dozens of arrests and charges on tens of thousands of counts of “abuse.”

The case was a nightmare for many entirely innocent people, and well worth studying for those who are concerned about how bad things can get with out-of-control police and courts in a supposedly free country.

From a history link essay on the witch hunt:

Child witnesses, mostly from 9 to 13 years old, were often taken from their families and placed in foster care. Many said later that they were subjected to hours of frightening grilling and if they didn’t believe they had been sexually abused, they were told they were “in denial” or had suppressed the memory of the abuse. They were also told that siblings and other children had witnessed their abuse, or that that their parents had already confessed.

Angry Harry, who is well read in these matters, is familiar with the hazards of relying on suppressed or “recovered” memories, which may or may not be accurate, but in any event can be very dangerous tools in the wrong hands. And that is his main objection, as it should be.

Eivind Berge, for his part, takes issue with the idea that a man can be raped at all. As he sees it, female on male rape is a fiction, and that has generally been the accepted view for most of history. I think Eivind is closer to the the mark than those who claim that female on male “rape” is a problem, but what some are trying to call “rape” today is just regular old seduction, a term people seem to have forgotten about as every aspect of female sexuality has been given license in recent years. Rather than always being positive as Eivind would have it, seduction can have seriously negative consequences for male victims, not the least being decades of crippling child support payments. Also, when the victim is, for example, an adolescent male and the seductress a married or partnered female adult, the legacy of guilt and shame can have serious implications down the road, and in some cases the boy may end up becoming a real victim of a jealous man (22 He goeth after her straightway, as an ox goeth to the slaughter, or as a fool to the correction of the stocks; 23 Till a dart strike through his liver; as a bird hasteth to the snare, and knoweth not that it is for his life…). Seduction can be an evil deed, and women shouldn’t get a free pass for it as they do today, but calling it rape is inaccurate.

However, like Angry Harry, Eivind identifies the primary problem with promoting abuse hysteria:

To me, nothing screams bullshit as loudly as claims of sexual abuse by women … It was clear to me from the beginning that the female sex-offender charade only serves to promote feminist sex laws that ultimately hurt men immeasurably more than it can help a few rare particularly sensitive outliers who are traumatized by female sexual coercion (if they even exist)

Both Angry Harry and Eivind Berge have correctly pointed out the flaw in using fundamentally feminist techniques to advocate for men: they redound onto men themselves. I would go further than merely scrutinizing claims of female perpetrated sex abuse, however, and question the emphasis on female perpetrated domestic violence.

Female initiated DV is quite real, and more prevalent than male initiated DV (if all physical aggression is taken into account), but there is a right way and a wrong way to deal with it. The wrong way is to make the DV industry even bigger than it is today by demanding that men are treated as “equal” victims. This is problematic because in the real world men are not equal victims for the same reason that women are not equal soldiers.

Some may wonder why, if this is the case, women still start fights with men so often these days.

They do so for one simple reason: they know that they can start a fight and have the police and courts finish it for them.

Imagine what would happen if small children knew full well that if they talked trash, slapped a teacher or parent, caused all sorts of trouble and finally provoked physical intervention, they could then call a big, burly guy with a club and a gun to come beat and detain the adult, and ultimately force him or her to buy them toys every month. Not all children would take advantage of it, but a lot of them would.

If you found yourself in this situation, would you, as an adult, argue that you are equal to the child, and should also be able to appeal to the authorities in an equal manner? Of course not, because unless you were a very frail adult and the kid was freakishly large, nobody would take you seriously when you said the child was beating you up. In all likelihood, as soon as the cop arrived you’d be the one in cuffs!

The wise solution would be to remove the authorities from the equation, and to drop the “equality” pretense. Enforcing equality in a fundamentally unequal situation is usually at the expense of the advantaged party — typically the man. This is why focusing on female domestic violence and female on male rape is counterproductive for MRAs. I would be surprised if roughly half of the men who called police claiming to have been raped by women didn’t end up in jail themselves.

If you read Landrith’s post and take him at his word, it appears that the trauma he felt was more a result of the fear of what the woman could do to him if she went to the authorities than the actual sex act:

Put yourself in my shoes for a minute. I was under 21, drinking illegally in a club, while on active duty with a local, pregnant civilian. Why didn’t I report it? Read this paragraph again and think about it harder if it eludes your grasp.

If anything, it is the massive police apparatus built up around the regulation of sexuality that inspires terror.

So why are some men insisting on being equal as victims when it’s clear that this is only perpetuating the system that victimizes men in the first place? First of all, some of the most vocal advocates of this tactic are not actually men, so maybe they simply don’t understand the reality of the male experience.

Secondly, some men are trying to “turn the tables” because, in the current climate, that’s all that comes to mind for many people. It can be difficult to think outside the dominant paradigm, but that’s what The Spearhead is here for, so let’s come up with another way to think about the problem.

If men and women are not equal victims in the real, physical world, how could they possibly be equalized? It would take a force stronger than the typical husband/boyfriend to enforce this equality. A force so strong that a man could no more resist it than a poor, frail little slip of a woman could resist an enraged, brute of a man. That force, naturally, would be the state, in the form of trained officers with powerful weapons, body armor, large toothy dogs and an organized body of men behind them.

If women want to make the case that they need protection because men are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than they are, and we should all be equalized so as to avoid victimization, then men should make the case that we need protection from the state, because it is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than we are, and frequently victimizes us. To argue that the state should be empowered in any way – even for our supposed “protection” – would be analogous to a feminist arguing that in order to empower battered wives, all husbands should be given daily doses of anabolic steroids and training in martial arts.

So, what kind of backward thinking has us striving to be equal to women instead of working to put ourselves on a more equal footing with our increasingly arrogant and violent overlords? Sadly, this is a kind of slave mentality, and only shows the depths to which men have sunk in our society.

As men, we have nothing to gain from being equal to women. Let’s face it: we make pretty lousy women, so why the hell would we (or women, for that matter) want that anyway? Only a few strange, mentally disordered fanatics, like that guy who ran the Heaven’s Gate UFO cult, truly believe that we are all exactly equal “persons.” Everyone else who pretends that is the case, such as feminists, is simply using it as an angle to disempower men (note that feminists are fiercely protective of their unique status as women on the rare occasion it is threatened by transsexuals). The correct term for it is “emasculation.”

Instead of conceding even more to the enforcers by submerging ourselves in an approved victim status, we must reject outright the idea that we have anything at all to gain by joining in on the gender equality charade, and demand equality not with women, but with those men who wear robes and uniforms, and who command great sums of money they have taken from us. Whining for their protection and favor will only increase their contempt for us, and make them bolder. In short, it will make us their bitches.

{ 86 comments… read them below or add one }

geographybeefinalisthimself February 18, 2013 at 10:14

“Instead of conceding even more to the enforcers by submerging ourselves in an approved victim status, we must reject outright the idea that we have anything at all to gain by joining in on the gender equality charade, and demand equality not with women, but with those men who wear robes and uniforms, and who command great sums of money they have taken from us. Whining for their protection and favor will only increase their contempt for us, and make them bolder. In short, it will make us their bitches.”

I agree with the first two sentences of that last paragraph, but I’m pretty convinced that we already are their bitches. If someone can give me evidence to the contrary that we haven’t sunk that low, I’m all ears.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
advocate February 18, 2013 at 10:17

You said; “The wrong way is to make the DV industry even bigger than it is today by demanding that men are treated as “equal” victims. ”
I agree but add a qualifier; DV victims is a catch phrase, something to get media and financial attention with, it is a tool used for advantage.
Men are deserving of dv support services, without the need to call them victims. Men need a place to go, with or without children, if they need to get away from a potentially violent situation.
Men are deserving of equal services provided from a male perspective of providing men with a safe place to get grounded, both feet on the ground, in order to continue with life daily necessities.
Men do not, need not or required to be called victims; they are people in dire situations that require some time out in a safe place.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster February 18, 2013 at 11:14

This positioning of men as yet another aggrieved victim class originates from politically liberal MRA’s, some of whom live in socialist countries other than the USA. These are some fine men that work very hard to advocate on behalf of “equality for men” in their countries. While this “turning of the tables” (calling feminists out on their own hypocrisy), has had some limited success in those countries, it’s a flawed approach in the USA.

Not only do feminists have a vice-grip control of our media here, but they wield powerful influence politically with almost unlimited resources at their disposal – most of which is spent protecting female only reproductive hegemony. In some of these other countries such as Canada, Australia and the UK, feminist governance is so blatantly out of control (as supported in more socialist states), that it’s beginning to be openly questioned.

In the USA, Feminist Inc. has learned to be much more subtle and covert in their ongoing power-grab. They’re working behind the scenes in DC and state capitals throughout the country in hopes no one will notice long enough to mount an opposition – should there be anyone brave enough to do so.

They also operate a very slick extortion racket with Encorpera that can’t be under estimated. If you’re a Fortune 500 company dependent on female consumers, you’ll want to be on Feminist Inc’s public “under-writer” list.

Some aggrieved men trying to co-opt “Humanism” or the Humanist Movement will never be permitted because Humanism at it’s core is a gender egalitarian (read: feminism) philosophy. It’s an interesting ploy, but the MRM is far to weak financially and politically to pull it off. Trying to position men as EQUAL VICTIMS of rape, DV etc. is why the public views MRA’s as radical extremist lunatic fringe and “insane”.

Either adopting the feminist tactic of reverse-victimhood OR exposing feminists for their hypocrisy is fighting a large army with a small stick; it’s entertaining, but has limited appeal. The Men’s Movement will go no where until political correctness is no longer fashionable – men are allowed to speak on men’s issues – and they co-opt a political operative of influence along the right/left spectrum, rather than standing on-high, self-righteously proclaiming they’re above the fray.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
3DShooter February 18, 2013 at 11:16

I have to agree with the intent of this article – it is time to emasculate the state. Abolish the kangaroo family kourts, abolish VAWA and the whole DV apparatus. When women know that if they take a swing at a man that he can, and likely will, knock her on her butt with no consequences, then they may take note of their natural place and modify their behavior accordingly.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
atahualpa February 18, 2013 at 11:28

wow, spot on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster February 18, 2013 at 11:30

Men are deserving of dv support services, without the need to call them victims. Men need a place to go, with or without children, if they need to get away from a potentially violent situation.

No, the entire DV industry needs to be exposed for what it really is,
Feminist pork barrel spending. The REAL problem no one will address is alcohol/drug abuse in the home that leads to scuffles between men and women, typically white trash or minorities. Ask any cop.

Political Correctness will NOT allow an honest discussion about DV and the empirical dynamics most often at play. DV has EVERYTHING to do with feminists allowing the government to enter a man’s home and protect (equalize) women from his superior strength. It’s now a tool to persecute ALL men as the “abuser of women”.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Hf February 18, 2013 at 11:45

Good article. I agree wholeheartedly that men should not be brought down to the level of victim status.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
dejour February 18, 2013 at 11:56

I think both ways of addressing the problem are reasonable.

By treating men seriously as victims, it means that women can be treated as aggressors. The more women see that they can be accused of rape or domestic violence or what not, the more women will be in favor of having reasonable protection for the accused.

If we say that rape is only a male perpetrated crime, then women don’t have any self-interested reason to say that alleged victims aren’t always telling the truth, or any self-interested reason for letting alleged rapists be innocent until proven guilty.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 12:10

“No, the entire DV industry needs to be exposed for what it really is…”

A good way to do this is to publicize the fact that men too are affected by DV, and are ignored and blamed, which would display the ridiculous double standards of the DV industry. I must be reading the wrong sites because I don’t see a lot of guys advocating that men be lowered to equal victim status with women. I also don’t see a lot of guys demanding that government reach be expanded to add services for men in addition to services for women. I see guys demanding that services to women be cut down to reasonable proportions. That alone would prevent countless cases of male victimization. We are not demanding equal victim status, we are demanding equal human/constitutional rights.

The bottom line is that we can’t attain public support if the public doesn’t know there is a problem. If publicizing male victims makes us sound like whiners to some, so be it. The alternative is to withdraw further – MGTOW – which is simply not feasible for the majority of men, especially young males who don’t even know there are good reasons to GTOW.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Opus February 18, 2013 at 12:17

I was saying (elsewhere) the other day that I felt antipathy to ‘rights based’ law – I suspect that your Constitution and its famed Amendments lead to a rights base mentality, something that The English do not and never have had. In that respect I notice that Men’s Rights – a term I do not care for – has been expanded in that some people are now calling it The Men’s Human Rights Movement, (you know who I mean) and (as with The New Atheists) it seems to be garnering additional views (and vociferous female proponents thereof) faster than Barnacles adhering to a ship. In that respect I am with Bernie Chapin: I do not see myself as a victim needing fresh Rights (which ultimately treat everyone as less than Human), I just require men to cease White-Knighting and women (vain hope) to amend their behaviour.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 12:35

Some of us “vociferous female proponents” have been around quite a bit longer than the name change.

” I do not see myself as a victim needing fresh Rights…”

I keep asking: who DOES?

I keep getting *crickets* then misdirection in response. Chapin has tossed a straw man into the ring, and whistled for his dogs to tear it apart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 12:44

When Chapin’s attention-whoring rants result in the arrests of false accusers, put prosecutors into disbarment proceedings, get corrupt judges recused from cases, force the SPLC to back down on behalf of all of us, and get hundreds of thousands of people around the world to look at the photos and read the words of misandrist activists, THEN he can be taken seriously when he spouts divisive paranoid bullshit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
W.F. Price February 18, 2013 at 12:47

The bottom line is that we can’t attain public support if the public doesn’t know there is a problem. If publicizing male victims makes us sound like whiners to some, so be it. The alternative is to withdraw further – MGTOW – which is simply not feasible for the majority of men, especially young males who don’t even know there are good reasons to GTOW.

-Suzy

Hi Suzy.

My point is that we shouldn’t give the DV/abuse industry any legitimacy at all, because it will always be used as a weapon primarily aimed at men. There’s no getting around it: the logic is inherent.

The idea that there should be a separate justice system to “equalize” men and women has to be entirely discredited, and trying to win concessions only serves to justify its existence. I firmly believe that as long as there is this alternative legal universe, it will always be used by the powerful against men.

keyster February 18, 2013 at 13:32

The Liberal Humanist MRA seeks the purest form of gender equality, just as feminism originally intended (until they discovered women wanted to retain or enhance certian female only benefits…then they adjusted the movement accordingly to stay popular).

The Liberal Humanist MRA is a post-modernist Progressive that’s merely pointing out, while women’s equality is a righteous and necessary cause, there are several areas of concern where men are purposefully disadvantaged that feminists choose to dismiss. They’re a small faction of egalitarians asking that society recognize these inequalities and government take action to rectify them. They claim it’s hypocritical of feminists to want equality, yet deny it where it might disadvantage women. It’s a valid argument if you believe in a Marxist like Egalitarian Utopia similar to say Oceania.

What’s being posited it that we don’t need government enforced equal rights with women, we need less government enforcement of special rights and privilages for ANYONE based on their sex or race, etc. We don’t need VAWA to be more fair to men, we need it abolished altogether as it’s nothing more than tax payer waste going towards defacto homeless shelters for immigrant women and their children. Go ahead and fund it, but call it what it is. DV is an epidemic only in feminist campaigns for government funded jobs and to keep men on the defensive.

Now Egalitarian Utopia DEPENDS on government enforcement to keep us equal, because innately we’re not. If humans were intersexual beings it would make sense if one was not being treated fairly under the law. But one half of us is not only weaker physically, but provides reproduction services of the species. This is not to mention vast hormonal brain chemistry differences. We’re not equal anymore than children are equal to adults. Should children have equality too?

What’s needed is a cooperative partnership between men and women as pair bonded couples, not more fighting over who is more equal than whom, imposed by government fiat. The fight should be for LESS government and more self-reliance for both men and women. Not a government that falsely props women up in lieu of men. This is the feminist imperative, and the Liberal MRA Humanist is falling right into the trap they have set. Like all critics of the Left, you will be marginalized and ridiculed into obscurity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 13:41

I agree, Bill, but since the industry already has deeply entrenched “legitimacy,” how can we eliminate it without calling attention to it? The act of demanding concessions while knowing they will not be forthcoming (since the grrrlz can’t afford to let us get so much as a foot in the door) is in the long run, not so much an earnest demand for concessions as it is a way to expose what’s wrong with the system.

The only other way to do this is to GTOW. However it is a small minority of men that recognize the extent of the need to GTOW; most MGTOW come to that status independently, as a means of self preservation. They don’t even know there’s a movement, and that their lifestyle has the potential to choke the system. How do we teach them? Show them the extent of the inequities in the system. How do we illustrate those inequities? Show how the system victimizes men and ask for ideas and cooperation, and I think one of the great ways to do this is to very loudly ask why we don’t have an equally funded VAMA to mirror VAWA. It is so patently ludicrous and nobody will ever demand such a law, but the next step is to either change or eliminate VAWA. We must do whatever we can to change the way people perceive male/female relations, because their perceptions have been influenced (dictated) by feminism for an entire generation.

In a way this discussion is circular. The only way to effect any changes is for different men to attack the situation from different approaches, in cooperation with each other – even when they disagree with others’ methods. The biggest mistake we can make is to discount one another’s contributions. The only “approaches” that should be discounted, are those that undermine the entire movement. And division undermines the movement. We can disagree without eviscerating each other.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
bruno February 18, 2013 at 13:49

I don’t agree that men should chivalrously refuse the be seen as victims, while it so clear that that’s exactly what we are: victims of a totally insane tyrannical feminazi dictatorship.

Women will never drop their victim rights, so the only way to get things straight, is to get the same rights for men.

There will only be legal equality between men and women, when an equal number of women and men:

- make a financial profit from marriage, divorce, and child support,
- die in combat,
- die or get wounded while doing dangerous jobs,
- are net-taxpayers,
- are net-profiteers from the social system,
- are imprisoned,
- etc…

For example: why there are so many more men in prison, than there are women in prison?
Are men more evil than women?
Of course not.

It’s because the lawmakers choose to make the bad things that men do punishable by law, while they let the bad things that women do go unpunished.

To fill up the prisons with women, to an equal number of men in prison, I propose to put draconian prison sentences on some evil things that women like to do, but before went unpunished:

- have an abortion without permission of the father,
- have a child without permission of the father,
- smoke, drink, use drugs while being pregnant, or any activity that endangers the health of the unborn child,
- refuse visitation right to the father,
- lie about using contraception,
- make false accusations,
- etc…

If a man has to sit in prison for doing a bad thing, why shouldn’t a woman be treated in the same way?

The statistical balance between the number of men and women in the prison system will demonstrate how equal and non-discriminating the criminal law is.

Equality now!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Brian February 18, 2013 at 14:13

At this point in time, it’s extremely difficult to change laws and policies through the traditional means of lobbying, campaigning, writing letters, etc. Despite all the government tyranny today, it’s still not worthwhile for individual men to deliberately take time out of their lives and become political activists. They have lives to live, jobs to work, and they want to support their desired comfort levels. However, it is worthwhile for a growing number to examine today’s state of affairs and how human beings are and have been throughout history.

I can’t see any practical way to cut down our tyrannical government except to bankrupt it (unless maybe the gun lovers get so pissed they start shooting cops). For better or for worse, our government officials are already doing a good job of this by recklessly spending, taxing, and borrowing money. But private citizens are also opting to shelter more of their assets from the government via tax loopholes, off-shoring, or simply hiding assets and “staying under the table,” so to speak.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
CerberusAlpha February 18, 2013 at 14:13

W. F. Price

I could not agree with this post more, and have written about it here.

http://thisiswhymgtow.blogspot.com/2013/02/shocker-women-invade-mra-spaces-make-it.html

I see it as part of a larger problem that has coincided with the infiltration of men’s spaces by women, such as Suzanne above (also referenced in my post), who would rather tell men what they need, than listen to (and accept) what men are saying.

These women think they can decide which men get to belong in a movement for men, and to tell others to “get the fuck out” if they don’t meet their PC criteria.

As I say in the post, I don’t associate myself with the MRM any more, for this reason. You are correct in saying that there must be another, a better way, and I realize now why you have always hesitated to call this an ‘MRA site.’

Great post. Thanks.

CA

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Stick February 18, 2013 at 14:23

Way off topic, but why is this cunt ‘spared jail’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2280483/I-shouldnt-lied-Im-sorry-Teenager-spared-jail-writing-police-confessing-agreed-sex-man-accused-rape.html

It’s a losing battle, fellas, because if you have a cunt you can do whatever the fuck you want with minimal or no consequences.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh February 18, 2013 at 14:23

What about those zimbabwean women who raped men at gum/knifepoint and used the semen for black magic rituals? They had men helping them sometimes but it was the women who did the actual…collection.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 14:23

Keyster, we need BOTH. There are reasonable moral people all across the political spectrum, and every last one of them needs to hear our appeal. Valuable future allies will not become allies if we demonize them. Excluding new advocates will ensure that the MRM remains small. Has it occurred to you that maybe the “right” is playing into feminist’s hands by keeping its focus narrow? This dynamic plays both ways.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Wilson February 18, 2013 at 14:25

Sounds good, but how practical? Female victimhood gets votes, and female subsidies get votes. This legislative trend is becoming dominant. Government will grow, and every President from now on will be a feminist. The only limits are economic and legal feasibility. Abandon the equal protection principle of the law at your peril: women will vote all your rights away

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 14:28

Really CA?
As far as I can see, everything I’ve come up with in “telling men what they need,” has not been particularly original. I learned it primarily from men, but is seems that several tens of thousands of men happen to like the way I say it. You aren’t addressing the message, you are attempting to vilify the messenger, and you seem to have a bit of trouble comprehending the difference between disagreement and “silencing.” Are you sure you’re not a feminist-trained troll?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
attila February 18, 2013 at 14:38

men need to ridicule the professional victims as often as possible. the darlings seem to wig out when they get ridiculed. drive them over the edge to make them look unreliable and less than credible.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
CerberusAlpha February 18, 2013 at 14:40

Gents,

See directly above for what I mean … Suzanne now gives as evidence “several tens of thousands” of anonymous men who agree with her, and disagree with me.

Yet what I see every single day in the manosphere, is men becoming more and more dissatisfied with ‘MRAs’. This has coincided with the sharp rise in females claiming to be a part of the men’s rights movement. NOT a coincidence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 14:41

Additionally, you seem to have missed the part where Key apologized for his personal attacks. No doubt you missed the entirety of the situation, but here’s how it played out:
I wrote a post (on MY blog) that criticized a man who happened to be gay, for his feminist whining. Key wrote a comment that was an anti-gay diatribe and instead of deleting the comment (you know, “silencing”) I answered that his bigotry wasn’t welcome on my personal blog. He then went on to post a disgusting vitriolic PERSONAL attack on me, at MRO. Paul saw it and called Key out on his bigotry. I had nothing to do with that decision and the last time I checked, Paul was not in the habit of kissing whiny broads’ asses. (He is, however, in the habit of accepting valuable contributions to men’s rights, from women, when those contributions are forthcoming.)

Key later acknowledged that such divisiveness is counter productive in the pursuit of men’s rights. Smart man.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
CerberusAlpha February 18, 2013 at 14:49

Additionally Suzanne seems to have missed the part about the context not mattering, the issue being that of women thinking they can decide which men do and do not belong in a space for men.

W. F. Price: I apologize for this … this will be my last post here on the matter, I didn’t want to start an argument in the comments (although some things need to be said).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price February 18, 2013 at 14:55

…since the industry already has deeply entrenched “legitimacy,” how can we eliminate it without calling attention to it? The act of demanding concessions while knowing they will not be forthcoming (since the grrrlz can’t afford to let us get so much as a foot in the door) is in the long run, not so much an earnest demand for concessions as it is a way to expose what’s wrong with the system.

-Suzy

Well, I’d say there are different ways to draw attention to it, and trying to draw attention to the hypocrisy of it by demanding a piece of the pie is one method that could have some utility. However, there are a couple problems with this approach:

First, it’s disingenuous (if not outright dishonest), and that will confuse people. Secondly, some people will indeed win some concessions, and then they will be co-opted and themselves become part of the problem as they begin to support the status quo. In the end, we will end up no better off, and perhaps worse.

As for my own method, I prefer to simply challenge the entire premise behind it. It may be a bigger job than I can handle alone, but when you have a system or machine that was deliberately designed to create the kind of situation we find ourselves in now, I don’t think it’s sane to work with it and assume we can create a different outcome.

To be perfectly candid with you, I don’t think we will succeed in dismantling/repealing it through normal political means anytime soon. My hunch is that these unnatural policies, laws and programs will eventually become unsustainable due to the damage they do to society, and only when they have been forgotten due to their irrelevance/lack of funding & enforcement will they be replaced by something else. As you probably know, there are many laws on the books in the US that contradict each other, are obsolete, or are totally ignored because they are anachronisms. I think this is the eventual fate of VAWA and the like, so what I am concerned about is what they will be replaced with, even if that might be some time in the future.

This is another reason I think it’s not only harmful to try to work with them, but probably useless in the long run as well.

As for disagreeing without eviscerating each other personally, I agree — that’s a waste of time and usually no more than petty self-indulgence. However, ideas and arguments are always fair game, and they should remain so.

justeunperdant February 18, 2013 at 14:58

Is there someone in here that cares about what Suzy McCarley has to say.
I sure don’t and it is all about her.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Poiuyt February 18, 2013 at 15:05

Everything Welmer, AngryHarry and others against male equalism say would be quite true and correct, in a rational and straightforward world.

We reside not in a rational nor a straight forward world, but in a world so steeped in ideology, sexual politics and victimism, that only irrational responses and counter intuitive reactions are effective and appropriate. Then there is also the additional plus of male actuated equalism helping to overload and overwhelm an already odious and expensive system males themselves want destroyed.

Male actuated equalists pump-priming of an obviously absurd and contradictory system, may sooner and more effectively bring about its demise than all the rationalism and good reason in the world. There is method in such a madness, if one can see it.

It is always to remembered that Statist-genderism, being an aggressively-insidious form of female parasitism, needs good, clean minded, productive and unsuspecting males as ever renewable subject matter on which to feed itself. But such a disgusting mess of a system necessarily and immediately grinds to a halt whenever you reach a point where everyman is also successfully able to define themselves and their groups as greater status-victims. It is indeed a filthy game but must be played to destruction.

For example: Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales is now belatedly calling for the keeping of rape accused’s names out of the public domain. [... Because many falsely accusing females, it has been discovered are found to have been telling as dirty lies as their natural character predisposes them to]. And female perjurers exposed as such, are breaking the female as victim narrative that genderism feeds itself on.

So Welmer, AngryHarry: What would the right decision for mens activists be? Anonymity for falsely accused males, or a continuous exposing of females in open court as natural liars not to be taken at their devious word.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21487266
Sex case defendants ‘should get anonymity’ [Maura McGowan]
When a defendant is convicted “everything should be open” says
System ‘let down’ choirmaster victim
Choirmaster victim ‘killed herself’
Rape anonymity pledge abandoned

Suspects in sex cases should have their identities protected until they are convicted, a senior lawyer has said.

Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council of England and Wales, said defendants should get the same right to anonymity as complainants.

She wants the change because sexual allegations carry “such a stigma”.

But the charity Rape Crisis said anonymity for defendants would discourage people from reporting sex crimes and “victimise victims further”.

Ms McGowan told the Stephen Nolan Show on BBC Radio 5 live: “Until they have been proven to have done something as awful as this, I think there is a strong argument in cases of this sort – because they carry such stigma with them – to maintain the defendant’s anonymity.

“But once the defendant is convicted then of course everything should be open to scrutiny and to the public.”

Jo Wood, of the charity Rape Crisis, said it would “never condone” anonymity for defendants in sex cases.

“There are so many barriers to victims reporting sexual violence,” she said.

“Hiding the name of their perpetrator is just one more way to victimise victims further.”

Ms McGowan said there were arguments on both sides. When anonymity had been accorded to defendants before “there was a sense that perhaps it was affording too much protection to people. There is obviously a public interest in open justice – people would say they’re entitled to know not simply who’s convicted, but who’s been accused.”

In cases like that of Jimmy Savile, she added, it might be that “if one complainant comes forward against a person, it might give other people who don’t know her – but who went through the same experience – the courage to come forward as well.”

Also on the show, Terry Harrison, who was falsely accused of rape five years ago, said: “I contemplated taking my own life on a couple of occasions, I was on the Middlesbrough bridge, I couldn’t believe what was happening.
‘I’m still judged’

“If a person has done such a heinous crime then they should be named and shamed, I agree – but not until they have been done for it.

“I was guilty until I was proven innocent and even when I was proven innocent I’m still getting judged.”

But Jill Saward, campaigner for victims’ rights and a rape victim herself, said: “When you have anonymity for a rapist or potential rapist, you protect him, you make him what people believe to be a safe person to be with.”

The treatment of those involved in sex cases has gained attention recently following the apparent suicide of Frances Andrade, 48, after giving evidence at the trial of Michael Brewer.

Plans to restore anonymity to rape defendants were included in the 2010 coalition agreement but the scheme was dropped later that year. Ministers said there was “not enough evidence” to justify the move.

Anonymity was granted to rape defendants under the 1976 Sexual Offences Act but removed in 1988.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer February 18, 2013 at 15:23

More From Around the Web

Speaking of “equality”, a Nobel economist repeats the same old narrative to prove he doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground :

Equal Opportunity, Our National Myth

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dhanu February 18, 2013 at 15:34

Price, I agree with the premise of your stand. However, I see no way of achieving the stated goal. You’ve also not outlined any practical steps to follow here. Therefore, I fail to see the point of the article at this point. It would be more appropriate to invalidate a given point of view if one first has an alternative strategy. Otherwise we keep looking up to the proposer as what to do and receiving some abstract generalizations that can be read and debated on only, rather than concrete steps that can be followed to keep the movement from being stalled.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
Suzy McCarley February 18, 2013 at 15:40

CA:

“Suzanne now gives as evidence “several tens of thousands” of anonymous men who agree with her, and disagree with me.”

That was not evidence that anybody disagrees with you, and I don’t recall claiming it was. Your comment shows a lack either of reading comprehension skills, or of honesty. One of us is primarily discussing issues, and the other is primarily discussing personalities. Feel free to continue your appeals to fear and bigotry without me. Good night.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3
jay February 18, 2013 at 15:54

@W.F Price

Its called starving the system. That seems to be the best solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTno0aZCfvg&list=UU6TJdRrZR_WacbxJWiRZ5_g&index=5

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Salvatore February 18, 2013 at 16:12

**** Breaking News ****

Charles Rangel introduced a bill to Congress to reinstate the draft, this time requiring all females 18 to 25 to register. It was just introduced the other day.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
keyster February 18, 2013 at 16:31

Keyster, we need BOTH. There are reasonable moral people all across the political spectrum, and every last one of them needs to hear our appeal. Valuable future allies will not become allies if we demonize them. Excluding new advocates will ensure that the MRM remains small. Has it occurred to you that maybe the “right” is playing into feminist’s hands by keeping its focus narrow? This dynamic plays both ways.

You can’t have both. One won’t let you in. The one that refers to itself as “The Party of Women”. Feminists have the Democrats tied to their apron strings. Now do you honestly believe a Democrat will take on the feminist establishment in the least possible way? There is not “reasonability”, only political expediency. Morals are relative. This is what MRA’s fail to understand about politics.

The “right” battles feminism every day. Liberal MRA’s wouldn’t know because they ignore Conservative media outlets.

The issue with AVfM that Bern and others have is that it claims to be a totally apolitical/bipartisan “Humanist Movement”, that evicerates both political wings regularily (sneaking in snide comments about Conservatives when it can) making enemies of all…as if they’re above all that nonsense. That leaves the “Movement” very much alone and with no support.

You know its OK to just come out and say “Hey, we’re a Left leaning advocacy group for men and boys.” …or something. Stop pretending you’re not…because no matter what you do or say you’ll be labeled a “violent extremist right wing hate group” because you’re for men, and if your for men you must hate women, and we all know conservatives have mounted a “war on women” already.

Social Movements that try and ride the middle (hate everyone) stay on the fringe. Yeah, politics matters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Mobile PT February 18, 2013 at 17:14

Suzy McC: “I had nothing to do with that decision and the last time I checked, Paul was not in the habit of kissing whiny broads’ asses.”

Last time I checked – he was. We must have checked at different times.

“Are you sure you’re not a feminist-trained troll?”

I’m pretty sure CA isn’t, but you are rapidly convincing me that you are.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Visionary February 18, 2013 at 17:19

The issue is primarily that women not only control a majority of the electorate, but that they also tend to vote en masse in a self-interested fashion in a way that men simply don’t. Unless you’re calling for a complete upheaval of democracy as we know it, it’s fairly impractical to attempt to argue for systemic change while keeping the incentives aligned for women to game the system over and over again at the expense of males.

As a result, if you successfully cast men as being victims on an equal footing with women, you then are able to successfully cast women as victimizers on an equal footing with men. Which destroys the female incentive to false-claim (in the DV example) with impunity because now she too can face the absurdly inhuman treatment that men face currently by default.

Once the above begins to happen (and it certainly is slowly) and women are affected NEGATIVELY by feminist laws, then they’ll vote en masse (like they always do) in their self-interest to limit the currently misandric laws.

In other words, if we rebuke the notion of trying to get equal status under the law as a gender altogether, then we lose the ability to incentivize women to passing laws that, for the moment, are the ultimate foundation of their privilege.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
justeunperdant February 18, 2013 at 17:40

Just sharing the link.

Three US women converting to ISLAM and talking about it. Me comment: women are submissive by nature that is biology. I don’t think you need to covert to ISLAM to be a submissive women.

Anyway. look and make your own opinions.

While western feminists, governments and media lament over “oppression” of women in the Islamic countries, women of the western societies escape their feminist system to Islam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pa9mSJucGkk&list=UUYV_hvs0wHIZUIRoaDiaBmw&index=1

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snoeperd February 18, 2013 at 18:03

I respectfully like to add this comment, since i always liked the writing on this site.

You’re wrong. Even if some of the MRA’s use the “victim mentality” to gain some support in our litigation-heavy society it won’t matter. It won’t matter because society at large will find it ridiculous to empower men to the same level of victim hood it now empowers women. As soon as this hypocrisy is made more and more obvious (it takes time, and effort, effort that MRA’s with a “victim mentality” are willing to put in) the sexists laws regarding women will be changed little by little.

This is how a bargaining process works. You show the less informed constituents of the group you’re bargaining for (the majority of men) their weak bargaining position (VAWA, domestic violence laws, paternity laws etc etc) which mobilizes their voices to improve their own position.

That’s it. If you can’t motivate the majority of men you can’t do shit.

And how are you going to motivate men? By telling them to “man-up” even more in their struggle against gender apartment? NO! You tell them to stand up and shout! Cry out to remove this injustice. I never heard of black freedom fighters in the ’60ties crying about how the leaders of their struggle shouldn’t portray them as victims. They KNEW they were victims because they were being disadvantaged.

For me this is the same as not opting to use welfare because you don’t agree with it politically. Well if you want to end welfare the most obvious strategy would be to actually use welfare so that the system will come crashing down earlier and expose all its horrid marxist adaptations.

Same situation here. Don’t let a biological instinct as a protector together with the feminine-central social definition of male utility as slave-labor define when you can cry, whine, complain, protest and fight!

I also don’t see how you can convince anyone, even men, that less legislation regarding the physical conducts between men and women is a good idea. This would mean the physically strongest in a relationship will always dictate the terms and i don’t see anyone agreeing with that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
greyghost February 18, 2013 at 18:30

I agree with Welmer on making changes being outside of conventional politics. The MRM is still trying to hard to change human nature. Rather than try and change women and feminism . Change the invironment so that natural feral selfish nature of women and feminism will work in the interest of sustainable society. Trying to out victim hamsters powered by solipsism and hypergamy is crazy. How in the hell do you argue compasion from someone that will kill an unborn child?
Make as many women as possible childless spinsters. Make sure they have plenty of dick and good jobs just no husbands and no kids. better to do it on MRA terms than have it happen with blue pill frame due to collapse. (lotta gun owners out there)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
numnut February 18, 2013 at 18:52

Perhaps fidelbogen is correct,this is a disease,a virus of victimology feminism that needs to run it’s course and then die out.
I think it’s true the reason the House and Senate did not want to cover gays and lesbians is that messes up the narrative that the MAN is always at fault.

Hard to point the finger when the genders are all confused and mixed.

This is about keeping the Narrative of “for the women” to further the Police State.

It’s always been about freely breeching Constitutional protections.

Go your own way and avoid women,deny them sperm,wallet and roadside assistance,starve the predatory State of tax funds and voluntary contributions,and hamper their efforts whenever you can do w/o fear of reprisal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
David F. February 18, 2013 at 18:53

I’ve had doubts about the direction of AVfM for a long time. The editors’ college-girl casual profanity (akin to Jezebel), fondness for vulgar personal attacks, heavily policed comments, whining demands for “human rights,” and hostility towards natural or traditional masculine ideals marked it as a fundamentally left wing victim movement, ripe for takeover by feminists and homosexual activists.

Nevertheless, I just visited it, and was genuinely shocked by how completely feminized it has become. The “For clarity’s sake” video seemed like a grotesque parody of the worst aspects of the MH(?)RA.

I do not want to snipe at sites that are making some sort of positive effort, and AvFM deserves credit for making noise and publicly protesting the most egregious injustices against men by public officials and bureaucrats.

However there is no future for men as victims begging at the altar of an omnipotent state.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Anonymous February 18, 2013 at 19:12

@Opus

“In that respect I notice that Men’s Rights – a term I do not care for – has been expanded in that some people are now calling it The Men’s Human Rights Movement, (you know who I mean) and (as with The New Atheists) it seems to be garnering additional views ”

You expose yourself once again as a predator/provocateur. The first time, on your ‘coming out of the closet’ when you identified as a predator attorney advocating that ‘men should walk away from their children’. Secondly, you came out as an Apollo landing denier and were soundly denounced as a crank – which you are. And now “Men’s Rights – a term I do not care for”. These are just three of your more egregious missteps – just from memory. Your colors clearly expose your biases. So do you hang out here to find new way’s to undermine men in YOUR kangaroo family kourts where YOU violate the rights of men? Ore maybe an SPLC plant (and we know TS is on the SPLC radar)? So what is it old man (or are you really a woman, as you write like one more often than not)??

No my friend, the only thing ‘gathering barnacles’ is the old guard view of withered old men (women?) like you. And I’m a withered old man, and atheist myself – just calling you out . . .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Astrokid.NJ February 18, 2013 at 19:37

@Keyster

The Men’s Movement will go no where until political correctness is no longer fashionable – men are allowed to speak on men’s issues – and they co-opt a political operative of influence along the right/left spectrum, rather than standing on-high, self-righteously proclaiming they’re above the fray.

Even this strategy can be pursued by the group of people who feel this way, right? I mean.. Bern has 4K+ subscribers, for starters.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Epimetheus Highway February 18, 2013 at 20:26

I too despise the practice of endowing victims of crimes with special authority, moral or empirical, to speak about matters in general and so forth. However, I don’t see how Eivind Berge can claim that female sexual crimes against men are rare to non-existent without empirical support, so it seems that here ideology precedes before all else (as with feminism). But I’m going off what has been quoted in the article, so maybe I’m way off. In any case, if we set aside the government’s odd definition of rape as exclusively the non-consensual reception of penetration, we find that 1.1 percent of American men were made to penetrate in 2010 (this is from the National Intimate Partner Violence Survey from that year). And what do you know, that’s precisely the percentage of women who experienced rape in that year, with a difference of only 3000 crimes nationwide. It seems reasonable to suppose that these men were by and large victimized by women; to suggest otherwise seems to imply that homosexual men are extremely prone to rape.

I can’t say what sort of advocacy should be undertaken for these male victims, but it would be unjust to ignore them entirely merely to deny feminists the possibility of more power. I see no reflection in the article above about the completely obvious; advocating for men who’ve been victimized by women upends the feminist narrative completely, and would actively challenge their power. We see this confirmed by the total silence of feminists on this subject (indicating fear), and in the quiet redefinitions of rape to exclude men.

Feminism aside, would advocacy for male victims of female rapists simply increase the malignance of the state? I sincerely doubt it. There’s been longstanding advocacy for male victims of domestic violence, and yet governments simply don’t give a shit. Either they don’t see the opportunity to expand state control in this area, in which case we probably have nothing to fear by advocating for male victims of rape, or they’ve forgone such an opportunity to appease feminists, in which case the same conclusion follows. Any change must take place in the cultural climate first, and this is where such advocacy (rape and DV alike) poses an existential challenge to the feminist narrative.

And indeed it does; we can see that the feminists are playing a zero-sum game with government funds by noting their aforesaid duplicity. If they’re correct in that assessment (and I think they are, given their proximity to state power), then lobbying the government on behalf of male victims will displace, not increase, feminist financing. This effort is logically compatible with small government ideals, as one can encourage slashing government power and the awarding of funds in just proportion to victims where those funds escape the cuts.

If anyone can correct me on the empirical data regarding male victims of female rapists, please do so.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh February 18, 2013 at 20:32

IS there any other site that can provide the in-depth coverage AVFM provides? Instead of complaining about them let’s give them some competition. Is opus available? He could be the legal expert for a second “register-her” wiki if necessary.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire February 18, 2013 at 21:28

Both Angry Harry and Eivind Berge have correctly pointed out the flaw in using fundamentally feminist techniques to advocate for men: they rebound onto men themselves.
——————
when the woman is the victim it’s to keep the man from getting sex

when the man is the victim it’s ALSO to keep the man from getting sex

elam & co. : “don’t worry son, we’ll protect you from the worlds 20 or so predatory milf teachers!”

schoolboy: “i sure wish you guys weren’t so kind to me”

and yes, the accelerating trend at avfm is quite disturbing

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zorro February 18, 2013 at 21:53

Dr. Lenore Terr, a world famous specialist who treated numerous cases of psychogenic amnesia, wrote in Unchained Memories that recovered memories are extremely easy to fake to all but the most experienced clinicians. I wouldn’t approach recovered memories from a victimist standpoint (assuming I take the articles point correctly). I would encourage anyone accused to a crime by someone who claims their memories were repressed to get a superb lawyer and get in touch with someone like Dr. Terr or one of her colleagues. Very few psychologists have much experience (beyond reading the literature), and there is a generally accepted eagerness to take on cases of such rarity. And then you get a McMartin Daycare charade and a shitload of innocent people getting the shaft.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Zorro February 18, 2013 at 21:54

There should be an apostrophe in “article’s” above. I’m at work, typing with rubber gloves on.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
migu February 19, 2013 at 00:10

Keep it up men. Flak is a good sign. MRAs will leave a failed legacy just like the feminists.

The most important point of the whole piece is the last statement, bit I would modify it. MRA victims just want the honor of being the state’s bottom bitch.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Suzy McCarley February 19, 2013 at 00:16

Keyster, the Republican Party is also the “party of women;” it just doesn’t admit it out loud.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brian February 19, 2013 at 00:48

Suz, Keyster wasn’t talking about Republicians. He was talking about the right side of the (accurate) political spectrum, where people on the extreme ‘left’ want complete government control of everything (think Orwell’s 1984) and people on the extreme ‘right’ want absolutely no government (anarchy). Most members of the Republican Party are in fact republican in name only because they sincerely want the government to control people in all kinds of ways. Therefore, you could actually call these people leftists. However, it absolutely true that Democrats are way more left than Republicans and therefore much more dangerous to everybody except their friends in government and business.

Check out these links:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/rethinking_the_political_spect.html

http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/upvsdown.htm

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
BC Dad February 19, 2013 at 02:30

“men should make the case that we need protection from the state, because it is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than we are, and frequently victimizes us”

You hit the nail here. The state has always been the greatest perpetrator of violence, and there is no more abusive state than one which is dominated by an ideological perspective.
This argument leads to the ultimate conclusion: the state must be reduced to the role of keeping the trains running on time and pretty much nothing else.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Opus February 19, 2013 at 02:59

@Anonymous

I thought no one would see through my disguise, but I confess: You are right. No longer can I pretend that I am anything other than a Woman (and an old one at that) who comes here as a plant from the SPLC to find new ways to undermine Men’s Rights in Kangaroo Courts. Furthermore (so it seems) I will also use any attempt I can to belittle American technological achievements.

‘Is that what you want me to say – can I go now Mr Futrelle?’

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
CerberusAlpha February 19, 2013 at 03:07

Snoeperd,

Just a response to your last point.

“I also don’t see how you can convince anyone, even men, that less legislation regarding the physical conducts between men and women is a good idea. This would mean the physically strongest in a relationship will always dictate the terms and i don’t see anyone agreeing with that.”

Currently, the state is in every relationship. Every relationship is not just between a man and a woman; it’s between a man, a woman, and the state.

And the state, obviously, is the physically strongest; and is essentially, an extension of the woman’s power.

At the moment, men are the weakest party by default, in any relationship; which is why many of us will not put ourselves in that subservient position at all.

Is it somehow unjust to suggest that men should change things so they are NOT the weakest party any longer?

The party which physically abuses men is the state. Women can be physically abusive, but the only reason men do not defend themselves from this is because they know the state will show up and kick their asses if they do so. Thus the state, not women, is the ‘REAL PROBLEM.’ So how will this problem be fixed by giving MORE power to the state, by making the state even stronger?

The physically strongest dictates the terms of the relationship … yes, this is a natural and immutable law. Wherever a physically stronger party does NOT dictate terms, it’s because he is held in check by an even stronger party … e.g. the state, which does dictate the terms. So the physically strongest still rules …

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
greyghost February 19, 2013 at 03:27

Brian
you have nailed it. Finally someone that understands the political spectrum. The republicans and democrats are variations of leftist type government control. The only differences are in what is controled. Both still have a ruling elite class as a foundation.
You are right extreme right wing is Somolia.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
greyghost February 19, 2013 at 03:36

“men should make the case that we need protection from the state, because it is bigger, stronger and more aggressive than we are, and frequently victimizes us”

This has already been taken care of. It is the constitution and the bill of rights. It was diluted by the ruling elite first with socialism, racism and civil rights laws,PC laws and feminism. Joining in on the victim game used to divide the country along race,sex, religion etc etc further legitimizes the elites ignoring the bill of rights and the constitution.
The best way to attatck this is at a constitutuional level. The greatest fear I have of a civil war is that the rebels will be not fighting for rule of law but fighting to be the ruling elite. That is what so foolish about the western men cowardly waiting for the muslims to liberate them from feminism with sharia law.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
JFinn February 19, 2013 at 04:15

I just hope that all factions can understand we have more in common(anti-misandry) than not. Rather than fighting over our differences, perhaps it would be better for MRAs to identify also as members of a certain sub-group of MRAs, rather than hold on to the notion that we should all be identical. Fight on several fronts.

Also, human rights =/= humanism.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
meistergedanken February 19, 2013 at 04:32

Suzy wrote:
“” I do not see myself as a victim needing fresh Rights…”
I keep asking: who DOES?”

Uh, [most] homos? “Transexuals”? Where have you been? Not to mention “working mothers”, and all their “special needs” in the workplace, which are now viewed as rights… Shit, two years ago my firm gave up a perfectly good office just to convert it into a “lactation room”. I used its fridge to store my yogurt; I figured, hey, it’s still dairy, right?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Towgunner February 19, 2013 at 06:54

Victim? No, no, women have proven to be the perpetual victims. If men follow this route, well, we’re no better than what women think of us today. After all being a victim is weak. I want a small gov that can never be bought by a voting demographic and/or even if it is, said gov, (state, local, federal) will be so limited and checked we’d never have to worry about crap like the potus office for women and girls. I want a society that encourages individuality not collectivism. I want a society that would never “engineer” others…my God what a violation! And in turn acts in harmony with nature and natural law, not against it. The path of victimhood is weak and that’s what I think about those cretins over at avfm – weak. Men need to be waken-up and that’s not going to happen if we have a men’s movement that is masquerading as a women’s or homosexual movement…this should be obvious to someone like elam, you’d think. Side-note – we need to encourage men to strive for excellence, once again, and stop being held up by a neutering media, EEOC, affirmative action, quotas, “proportionality”, title 9…to sum up from jealous and envious women. The MRA should be advocating things like sex segregation in schools, a constitutional amendment to abolish all social engineering etc. Under a small gov paradigm men do exceptionally well, and as pointed out by numerous commenter’s here at The Spearhead, it’s impossible for feminism to exist. And with that female supremacy. That’s the kind of platform I support, because its real. Men and women are different and, too bad so sad, when you take away the training wheels women can’t measure up. And on that note, I don’t seek to be “equal” to women. I’ll choose who I aspire to be equal to! The people I look to for example are not irresponsible, not anything goes, not sluts, not gluttons, not leaches, not egoists, not narcissist…women today are horrible people, why would anyone want to be “equal” to that? Worse, why should we be forced to? Now, I do think we all should be treated the same under law, but, other than that you’re on your own. You mess up as a freshman at yale and get pregnant…to bad, not my problem, I didn’t nor did anyone else force you to have sex. As callous as it may seem that’s’ one less person I need to compete against…women say they want to be men, ha, that’s it right there…being a man means having to play this game of survival at all times, it never lets up. From what I can tell, per all the whining, the new laws etc, women can’t handle it, not in the least.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 19, 2013 at 08:13

Opus
Furthermore (so it seems) I will also use any attempt I can to belittle American technological achievements.

I suspect you’re deeply psychologically invested in this particular conspiracy theory, but here’s some grist for the mill from someone who knows what he’s talking about. Very entertaining too.

The technology to go to the moon existed in 1969 but the technology to fake the moon landings didn’t.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster February 19, 2013 at 08:49

Keyster, the Republican Party is also the “party of women;” it just doesn’t admit it out loud.

There in lies the problem. No matter how blatantly obvious it becomes that Democrats are fighting in lock-step with Feminist Inc. for more funding and anti-male legislation – the Liberal MRA strains to find SOMETHING bad about Republicans too. Reagan passed no-fault divorce, Bob Dole supported VAWA, Bush did something or some D-list “SoCon” wrote an article three years ago shaming men into “manning-up”. “While Democrats are bad for men, Republicans aren’t any better.” – – plays well to your support base, if they’re liberals.

So inessence, everyone is bad for men and there are no political solutions and there never will be any, because men are victims of that too…as if it was all created in a feminist vacuum just to keep us marginalized. Really?

What’s telling about the non-partisan/apolitical MRA is that whenever an articulate intelligent liberal woman presents herself, she’s welcomed with open arms as a “sister for the cause”. But heaven forbid one of those intrepid evil TradCon/SoCon women should appear and they’re quickly run off by the chorus of “disposable utilities” sycophants.

AVfM and it’s devoted staff and supporters are noble people, working towards a noble cause. They’re just approaching it from a secular-progressive Liberal angle in the hopes that the stridently feminist Left will eventually realize the evil of their ways and acknowledge men have been wronged too. Since the Left controls academia and the media, they will ALWAYS protect women as their preeminent victim class – marginalizing ANYONE who subjectively criticizes this view…including erstwhile fellow liberals. Just ask Warren Farrell how he’s been treated or Christina Hoff Summers.

Political Correctness fostered by the left, is the gate keeper that keeps men’s issues marginalized to the very fringe.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1
Migu February 19, 2013 at 09:24

The ends never justify the means. That is why AvFM is losing. They’ve adopted the philosophy of failure. They have entered the debate on corrupted terms.

I don’t care that they include women. So what. They are forming a marxist style ideology that relegates their opponents to the dustbin of history. Same Schtick different wording.

A study of Molotov, Ribbentrop, Goebels and their ultimate failures would benefit that crew.

BTW trolls. You ought to go have a brainstorming session. Those tried and true tactics are as obvious as gravity.

Peace MRM, and thanks Welmer for not being a douche.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Opus February 19, 2013 at 10:04

@Anonymous

At last – we have it!- what annoys you is my supposed insult to you as a Proud American, that your country’s great achievement is so much smoke and mirrors. Naturally, were I an American I too might feel insulted. As it is, I am merely a wry obersever of all things American and am not personally invested in the outcome. I can understand however that you would feel insulted and offended, much as I might if you were to suggest that The British Empire was anything less than the greatest force for good that the world has ever known or (as no less than two British Prime Ministers have suggested) that at the time of The Battle of Britian in 1940 Britain was America’s junior partner therein, a view which I am sure would greatly surprise yourself as a Proud American, and even more than it surprises me – much as I would be surprised were it to be suggested that America was Britain’s Junior Partner in Vietnam – which you may recall we passed on.

We thus have history which seems to be a movable feast or at least written by the Victor, and Myth; which may not be true but which is certainly beneficial. You may also recall the context in which I made my comment, which was that I was writing in support of America! – for I was opposed to the view that America’s glory days of technological innovation were passed. I should have realised that my remark was bound to offend many Readers and Commenters at the Spearhead including newly-minted American Charles Martel and for all I know – though he was too polite to say – W.F.Price himself.

I do not think that The Spearhead is the place to discuss the question of the authenticity of The Moon Landings nor do I think that even were we to set aside from now until Domsday to do so that any agreement would be reached thereon. You may however so be intrigued to learn that amongst my closer friends and acquaintances I know two other people – perhaps more – who are equally skepticle, and so over here my view is by no means out of the ordinary, although you will doubtless conclude that my frinds and acquaintances are deliberately drawn from the worst people my country has yet produced. My reasoning is largely my own;, the person whose name I can not recall and who it was claimed I was following I had never even heard of. I just look at it this way: when I ask myself whether, given the almost miraculous nature of the event, whether there is even on a Balance of Probablility Test the event took place I find myself unable to answer in the affirmative.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer February 19, 2013 at 10:32

I want to apologize to everyone for imposing Einstein’s nipples on you.

It was Price who added the graphic to the banner. I had it buried deep in my essay Air Force Compiles Catalogue of Shame for dramatic effect.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Migu February 19, 2013 at 11:09

Opus,

That be boxer, or an acolyte.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel February 19, 2013 at 11:33

Migu
That be boxer, or an acolyte.

No it was me. Not logged in. Hate it when that happens.

I don’t consider NASA has anything to prove as the moon landing sites have been photographed extensively, etc., etc. However, the video in this link is a very entertaining and informed discussion of the limitations of video technology in 1969.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tam the Bam February 19, 2013 at 13:25

@ Poiuyt: characteristically, the innocent Harrison spent as much time in jail (for breaking bail & “witness” intimidation) as the demented old slapper Prince (if not more eventually, given the ridiculous remission of sentences our oh-so-”humane” judiciary are wont to award to even the most insanely dangerous criminals).
As he said
” I ended up going to jail for something I didn’t do. I was in the paedophile wing, the rapists’ wing, the grass wing. I was there for three months before the DNA results finally came back negative. But the stigma is always there.”

“As part of his bail conditions Terry wasn’t allowed to visit his home town and missed family birthdays and a funeral.
He also lost the tenancy on his house and was forced to live in a hostel in Middlesbrough for five months.
In an attempt to deal with his ordeal, he turned to alcohol and sleeping pills.
‘It was hell, I felt lower than low and several times I contemplated killing myself.
‘I was spat at in the street, I had my windows put through and my house was burgled.
‘My head felt battered, I even missed out on jobs because I wasn’t allowed to move abroad.

In a desperate attempt to clear his name Terry broke his bail conditions and intimidated a witness for which he ended up in prison.
‘I lost my temper one night and sent a text message saying I’d kill someone. I never meant it literally, but was prosecuted for witness intimidation.
‘I was put in prison with paedophiles and rapists. Even some of the prisoners hated me because they knew I was accused of rape. It was horrible. People were threatening to slice me up.”

as a result of what idiots like Saward wish to maintain as a system of anonymous denunciations, Stasi-stylee.

She’s a bloody maniac, I think the (notorious) 1986 crime may have damaged her more than she admits, poor woman; I heard her on Nolan the other night, seemed unshakeably of the opinion that you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few (male) eggs, despite Harrison’s testimony. What’s the big deal, she seems to think. Better a thousand innocents should perish, than one potential rapist (i.e. any man) should slip through the net.

By the way, I don’t suppose I have to tell you lot {spoiler}

Shirley Prince, 42, is a single mother , and Mr Harrison, 34, is mixed-race.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Towgunner February 19, 2013 at 13:48

@ CerebusAlpha:

“Is it somehow unjust to suggest that men should change things so they are NOT the weakest party any longer?”

NO!

Ours is a just fight, because without the state it’s not patriarchy, it’s not sexism, it’s not evil ole white men…it’s the nature of things at work. Also, men wouldn’t need an MRA. When the chips are allowed to fall where they may remarkable things happen…people and resources are optimally distributed. Right off the bat, let’s address key feminist concerns related to optimal distribution. female sports would probably be a pittance of its size, why, because women and girls are not very exciting to watch as they’re not very good at sports and, mostly, because if left to their own devices they wouldn’t choose sports. Many women would embrace motherhood and be perfectly happy staying at home, doubt it…well, if I gave you enough money to set you up for life – would you work? women’s roles in the military would be rightly reflected, nurse corps etc and absolutely never put anywhere near the front lines. Just to name a few, sports, motherhood and the military…is that really awful and oppressive? And in changing things we have an advantage in that we at least know what needs to be done and it doesn’t take some “long march” infiltration into society’s institutions. feminism cannot exist without a big state ergo the MRA is, well it should be (avfm doing their part to usurp this) advocating for a small, very very very restricted government at all levels that encourages self sufficiency and personal responsibility. Matter of fact, if we could culturally become just a little more responsible…you’d be amazed at how much power feminism would lose. It stands, feminism is an irresponsible ideology and it encourages irresponsibility in society. Back to small gov – This is what avfm doesn’t seem to get, by trying to mark the MRA as a victim group, they reject the fact that the very institutions that we’d petition for “rights” are the very same ones that have succumbed to the infiltration of marxist incrementalism. And, worse, these are the fester hives that gave us feminism in the first place. Even better, if the MRA is about destroying feminism then the small gov solution works like a charm – it will necessarily destroy all those infiltrated institutions. That means no more potus office for “just” women and girls or the center for women in the media.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
keyster February 19, 2013 at 15:40

This is what avfm doesn’t seem to get, by trying to mark the MRA as a victim group, they reject the fact that the very institutions that we’d petition for “rights” are the very same ones that have succumbed to the infiltration of marxist incrementalism.

They’ll claim Republicans are just as much a detriment to men because they didn’t work hard enough to stop feminist governance, and in some cases supported it. That’s the rationalization anywaze. As if Feminists have always found the Democrats to be perfect allys.

If MRA’s in general understood the machinations of our political system and how to exploit it as much as Feminist Inc has/does, it’d be no contest. Political activism is really not that hard, but it is more time consuming than blogging or vlogging.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
greyghost February 19, 2013 at 18:20

It is pretty hard to make smaller government when dealing with ruling elite. About the same as asking a feminist to go for equality under the law.
Leadership requires that the government be shrunk. Why shrink the government? To reduce it’s ability to affect the individual. The best way to shrink it is to bleed it. Encourage elected officials and government workers to get pay raises. Pay them all 60 to 175 k a year so what. Let them raise the number of people on the dole MRA’s too. I stopped being too proud and independent. Sign up for free shit. You will never remove the desire for large governmet to control you not from this bunch. Just as you cannot change female nature. But you can change the ability to get what you want.
Anonymous 70 made a comment once about how Mexico is just as feminist in it’s government as we are but just can’t afford to play fem cunt, so women do the next best thing get married and regularly fuck the guy to keep him around.
Remember the town that went broke and said they would no longer answer DV calls. That is how it is done. Muslims blow up shit and kill people that offend islam. Now sharia law is used in some communities and kept under wraps and a new PC classification is added islamophobe (what ever). Make it too expensive won’t change minds will change behaviors.
Men don’t lead by consensus

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh February 19, 2013 at 18:41

If it’s not that hard then why don’t you submit an article explaining how to do it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 70 February 19, 2013 at 19:15

Landrith was right. You are wrong.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Attila February 19, 2013 at 21:00

It all started with Eve (Hava) in the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden) — she didn’t want to take responsibility for eating the apple from the Tree of Knowledge (Etz Da’at) so she blamed the Serpent (Nachash) instead.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
jack February 19, 2013 at 22:25

Equal victimhood between men an women regarding rape and age-of-consent is not achievable because 1) it’s men who want more sex, not women 2) it’s men who want sex with younger, rather than older, partners, not women. Men will invariably and overwhelmingly be the losers in any repression of “rape” or AOC infringement.

The only way to re-establish equality in sentencing (equal goulag for all), would be to re-criminalise predominantly female crimes like abortion and paternity fraud.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire February 20, 2013 at 00:34

Keyster, the Republican Party is also the “party of women;” it just doesn’t admit it out loud.

——————
if it were then why wouldn’t it?
what does it have to lose by admitting it?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus February 20, 2013 at 04:49

Tam the Bam (best writer here! – though sometimes incomprehensible even to me) responds to Pouiyt but fails to comment on Frances Andrade who Pouiyt mentions – so it gives me an opportunity to do so. Andrade’s sad story is this: she was as a young teenager a pupil at Cheetham’s Music School in Manchester where she studied Violin. She was 14 or 15. She alleged that her teacher whose name I forget Raped her – a surely implausible tale, but a decade later he is charged not with Rape but sexual assault. That is possible but knowing young teenage Violinists it is more than probable she came on to him – they are the Prima-Donnas of the orchestra and only marginally less slutty than Sopranos – which is saying a lot. Naturally Counsel for the Defence cross-examined her as to the accuracy of her testimony. Take it from me, Judges control Counsel who go too far in cross-examination, and how far is that? Merely leading questions, such as ‘come come Miss Andrade you encouraged him’ and ‘surely this is a tissue of lies’. She was under no duty to give evidence had she not wanted to and so I regard her testimony as misandry. The stupid woman however announced that it was like being raped all over again and then topped herself. Well!, as Steve Moxon tells us women get over even the worst Rape – and this was neither the worst Rape nor even Rape at all – in three months, so we can be pretty sure Andrade was clearly nuts and her suicide should have – in my view – led to extreme doubt being placed on any of her testimony. Is it any wonder that men are leaving Music Teaching in droves to avoid false allegations. No wonder the Berlin Phil is an all-girl orchestra now, since Simon von Rattle wrecked it.

Some years ago there was another Violinist, a teacher thereof – in Brighton, (not Hove) actually – who was strangled by her lover but he said it was part of a sex game gone wrong. This seems to me to be entirely plausible, for Teachers are right little sluts – usually. The Courts cannot imagine that any Teacher would engage in kinky sex and so once again women are white-washed by the Judiciary and an innocent man is imprisoned.

I will save the time of anyone who now asks (as usually happens) how many men I have had imprisoned as a result of lieing female testimony – for which I, apparently, am responsible – and say that I cannot recall, but choose any number you are minded to.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
keyster February 20, 2013 at 07:54

If it’s not that hard then why don’t you submit an article explaining how to do it?

You establish a relationship with local politicians. Call them up and ask for an appointment with them to discuss how you’d like to see laws changed or eradicated that effect men or fathers. Get statements and positions from them, follow up with them.

For congressman and senators you make an appointment to meet with one of their assistants. Present your case on why VAWA funding is government waste and/or biased against men, as an example. I already did this but I’m one guy, not an organization. MRA’s aren’t really very organized in most states.

If you’re in DC it’s not hard to get a few minutes with a politician or one of their assistants in the Capital building. Feminist groups do it all the time. MRA’s aren’t really “activists” in the true sense of the word. They’re more like social commentators, pointing out the absurdity of feminism, pop culture and certian injustices to men and boys.

Most MRA’s have no idea who their state rep, congressman or senator even is.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
TFH February 20, 2013 at 09:29

Keyster,

MRA’s aren’t really “activists” in the true sense of the word. They’re more like social commentators, pointing out the absurdity of feminism, pop culture and certian injustices to men and boys.

Yep. That is why Men’s Rights is still a proto-movement, not a movement.

At least Keyster is talking to politicians… if there was an MRM, this should be the most basic 0f steps.

I have done my part in posting flyers in a manner that exposes the ideas to thousands of new men, and I know of about 5 other guys who put in a lot of time to get us past the 1000 hours. As a result, Men’s Rights awareness is much higher than two years ago. But we have to build on that.

But activism is not something a lot of MRAs do.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Snoeperd February 20, 2013 at 09:55

@CerberusAlpha

I totally agree with you, it makes sense for a man to reduce the power of the state’s involvement in modern relationships because the state is biased against males.

We both agree that there needs to be some state involvement in the protection of the rights of individuals. IMHO every individual needs/deserves protection from the state.

I’m all for the referee, the referee should just have a balanced set of rules to follow

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gilgamesh February 20, 2013 at 12:03

Well shit. My congresswoman is the first welfare mother to take office. Only in California.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Tom936 February 20, 2013 at 17:43

Secondly, some men are trying to turn the tables because, in the current climate, that s all that comes to mind for many people.

That was my thinking for a long time. My reasoning was this: Feminists have won the battle. They’ve enshrined their hysterical overreactions into law. So we have to work with what we have. The very worst thing we could do is to let them have it both ways.

But your argument makes sense.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bruno February 21, 2013 at 15:07

Even while it is clear that men are victimised by government, laws and by violence, many times more than women are victimised, it is women who succesfully play the victim card, and use it to get even more absurd levels of privileges.

Victimising men, by pretending to be the victim themselves, that’s how women always get the upper hand.

This is possible because men have feeling of compassion, affection, and the urge to protect, towards women.
That’s why women can “play the victim”.
Towards each other, men don’t have those kind of feelings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Venom Froggy February 22, 2013 at 01:19

“As men….we make pretty lousy women…..”

Yeah? Have you ever been with a hot, passable t-girl? I’ve been with several. More than enough to make me realize men are better at the job than most women are these days.

Better than Western / Americanized women, at any rate.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Opus February 22, 2013 at 02:30

I think Keyster is right. There is no real MRM – although AVFM seems to be going in that direction. For myself: I turn on my lap-top. I peruse what interests me. In commenting I refine my thoughts. I switch off my lap-top and resume normal life, though my on-line experience colours my attitudes and what I say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: