Is Feminist Blogger Jeff Fecke Banning Opposition Views?
November 9th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: Last month feminist bloggers Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Jeff Fecke of Shakespeare's Sister vehemently attacked me over comments about the domestic violence issue I had made in an interview. Now feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and his compatriot Melissa McEwan are on the attack again, with Jeff's new piece The Tune's the Same, Only the Words Have Changed. My response was Feminist Bloggers on the Warpath Against Me Again, this Time over 'Power & Control in the Domestic Violence Industry--a New DV Wheel'.
Apparently either feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and/or his compatriot Melissa McEwan have banned Lee, a dissenter, from their site. (The screen shot pictured is lousy but it says at the top "Banned by the webmaster. Your comments will not be added.")
It is common practice for feminist bloggers to ban men's rights/fathers' rights blog commenters, which reflects the weaknesses in many of their arguments. By contrast, feminist blog posters are given wide latitude on my site.
To be fair, I do not know what Lee has posted there in the past. If Jeff and Melissa would like to let me know why Lee was banned, I will post their views here on my blog. Also, to be fair, I was surprised and pleased to see that a detailed comment today from Marc Angelucci on domestic violence was not deleted, or not yet anyway.
The comment Lee attempted to post is below.
Here is the comment I was going to post but was unable to at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/ because I was banned.
This is getting sickening . . . and irritating at the same time. I know I am not the most eloquent writer, I put myself through college while raising three children (my siblings) and now I have one to raise on my own. I don't have the most reputable background . . . but I am willing to wager everyone has done something in their past that they are not completely proud of.
As I mentioned before I am for both the Feminist Movement and the Men's Movement. Both have similar goals, the Men's Movement is more like the Feminist Movement when they just started. Most of you probably don't even remember, I know I don't but I studied, except the Feminist Movement also have a male support team who believed in equal rights for both sexes.
I don't know the number, but I believe from what I seen written and publish that 25-33% of the original feminists (WOMEN) have joined the Men's Movement. Why would they do that, unless they saw something corrupting the women's movement or the scales tilting over.
The problem is with attitude and lack of diplomatic communications. I posted earlier asking why the Feminist here believe that MRA/MRM/FRA want to advocate domestic violence . . . guess what . . . I GOT NO ANSWER . . . why . . . BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. As I stated MRA/MRM/FRA don't want to remove the laws (since it helped so many . . . even though it never help me and I was a victim and I am a male) but we want them reformed, modified, changed . . . to acknowledge male victims and punished those who committed those crimes. Male victims were not even acknowledged about in VAWA until 2007, and even that report was flawed. Hell, every study that has been done whether it is Pro-Feminist or Pro-Male has been flawed in one way or another. Why? Because we are human . . . with pride, ego . . . I am not talking about men but women too. We all want to be the victims, when in fact, sometimes the true victims are the ones being persecuted and the children themselves.
Which is why I asked for members of the Feminist Movement and the Men's Movement to post their issues. Put facts supporting your beliefs (Studies, Surveys, Research). Also for them to point out the Other side's Issues and Beliefs with your one supporting documents to prove your case. Then you can rebut each other findings, trying to point out the individual flaws in the study . . . where it is lacking and then maybe together, both the Feminist and Men's Movement can create a study, survey, and research that would cover all the bases, so we will have a true study, and make adjustment to policy that way.
Think is, I had a bout with sexism yesterday, or shall I say last night. I went to ToysRUS with my family to buy a talking electronic cash register which was on sale. They have both blue and pink. Guess what happen, I couldn't find the blue register, found plenty of pink ones in a big display around other pink items. I tried asking about the other registers and they claimed they only carried the pink one, which was a lie, because my nephew had one, that my sister bought for him. When I told them that, they said they must have discontinued them. Why? No answer. I even asked if they could check in the system . . . of course they said they were too busy. So we went to look for again. I found some . . . above the regular racks, in the upper level . . . I saw one unit behind a bunch of pink units. I asked to female customer service if they can get that one down. They claim they didn't see it, but when I hit it with a small bean bag . . . they said no, claiming safety reason. Then I found the only boy in the store (I call him a boy because he looked 17-18, and before you call me a racist, he was white). He then told me, that he will be right back with a ladder. Within five minutes, we had the register. When I asked him if that was the only blue one there, he said no, there was about 25 units up there behind the pink registers. That is not all, when we went to pay . . . I scanned it on one of those scanner, it stated promo (for the advertisement). At the register, they didn't give me the sale price. I showed them the ad, same manufacture, same sku except for one number [if I remember correctly] (denoting color). There excuse was, we are doing a pink sale for the girls only, not the boys. If I wanted the hot pink one and not the gender neutral blue/grey, they will give me $5.00 off. I argued about it for a moment, told them I was going to write about it, paid for the one we wanted and left. I wrote about it . . . but this is not the only place I am going to write about it.
BTW, Ginmar . . . Feminists haven't proven MRAs are pro-abusers. So I wouldn't make that claim. As for a webpage . . . you don't advertise either. And watch the name calling, we try to teach our children manners, we should used them ourselves.
Whatever . . . stop it with the Nazi commentation. It doesn't help when you get into a verbal emotional confrontation with Feminists. Things need to be discussed logically and rationally.
Flewellyn, I already told both sides to put up or shut up, asking for both sides to identify their issues and beliefs, post links to studies, surveys, research, to support their ideal. Also for them to examine their opponents, and post links to support their beliefs in the same matter. Then both sides can discuss where is each study, survey, research is flawed. Point it out exactly where it is flawed, because to me . . . both sides have research, studies, and surveys that have fundamental methodological flaws. Which to me and non-sheep followers, both sides haven't proven their point and is full of it. Make me a believer.
I highly doubt either side will do this. Why, because both sides know I am right. No study is flawless, which is why both sides need to work together on those issues and create a better place for all humanity, or we will all go to hell.
'nuff said.
"));
19 queries. 0.445 seconds.
November 9th, 2007 at 2:58 pm
I see what happened. She questioned GinMar. That's a no-no on any uterofascist blog. Nobody disputes her version of anything.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
....Of course they censor information...They are femi-fascists!!
November 9th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
I have yet to have any comment of mine deleted from that thread. I'm not sure why Lee (his? her?) post was deleted.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Addressing pandagon only . . .
On pandagon I have stated some of my views pretty forward and even addressed some questions directly to Amanda. Now I have no doubt that Lee was banned from Shakespeare's Sister but so far Amanda has given me a fair latitude even she obviously does not agree with me and I do not agree with her methods.
Regarding that she has my respect.
b
November 9th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Glenn its very simple. When and if one of thier people posts here their comments are subjected to close scrutiny by a number of the regulars and since they have no "power" here (banning power I mean) thier shallow aruguments and transparent agendas are shouted down by those of us that know better so then they run to Feckes blog and cry about "those mean old MRAs and trolls wouldnt listen to me waaahhhhhh!!!". There and Pandagon they get a sympathetic shoulder and a pat on the tush for being a good boy or girl and standing up to us bad ole potential rapists and abusers in denial.
You dont ban because you allow the discourse to go on its own way. In the 2 years Ive been coming here and posting I dont think Ive seen a situation where you have had to get personally involved with a thread unless you just want to. The rest us take care of the @$$clowns :))
Anyone else besides me notice that Marcottes blogging really changed after she was fired? I mean she was a real ball busting radi-fem to begin with but she tempered it at least some what. Since she was fired from Edwards little circle her blogs have been really angry. She says it didnt but I think the firing really shook her. By being fired from a liberal candidates campaign its almost as if she went on the offensive trying to prove that firing her for her views was the wrong move. Maybe im wrong but thats what it seems like to me.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
She says it didnt but I think the firing really shook her
Don't be silly! Nothing gets under her skin.
She's a fabulous contortionist, too: She can fulminate against the white male patriarchy but if a white male patriarch like Edwards offers her a paycheck, she can instantly bend over backwards to imitate a cute little pussycat, then flip back to insane ranting when the paychecks stop coming. That takes talent, does it not?
November 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I've definitely been banned on Pandagon. And I've certainly had my comments deleted from Shakespeare's Sister.
I've had my comments deleted and/or been banned on the following blogs: feministe, feministing, pandagon, shakespeare's sister, creek running north, and many nth tier feminist blogs including ann althouse. I've had a very few comments deleted at Broadsheet.
I've also had my comments deleted and/or been banned at the following conservative sites: little green footballs, hot air, protein wisdom, patterico, pejman yousefzadeh, and red state.
I comment quite frequently at Hullabaloo, firedoglake, eschaton, ezra klein, matthew yglesias, political animal, brad delong, tbogg, and your blog, and have never had a single one of my comments deleted from these sites, regardless of my views (which frankly are often antagonistic to the bloggers.)
From this, I've have concluded that the "safe space for women's discussions" that feminists claim are behind their moderation policies is really a smoke screen, and that in reality, they are just exercises in message control that I see are also widely practiced in the conservative half of the blogosphere. This forms part of the basis for my claim that modern mainstream feminists, regardless of their claims, share much more with an authoritarian, controlling, illiberal point of view than they do with progressive liberalism. (Further evidence is seen wrt their opposing beliefs in governmental intrusion into our bodies and our families regarding abortion and mandatory gardasil vaccinations in 9 year old girls.)
November 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
First Things First . . . I am a he . . . even though I use a shorten form of my first name.
I've been thinking on my previous comment and this one. And as far as I could tell, there could be a couple things.
1) I asked them to explain themselves . . . justify themselves and their line of reasoning. Self-centered, egotistical people have a problem of doing so, probably because they feel threaten. They want to be taken as fact without providing facts. Me, if I don't know something, I will tell you, I don't know . . . but I will try to find out, or I will state my belief (or opinion).
2) I asked them to work with the MR movement. Remember, I asked both sides (FM and MRM) to discuss the issues. List their supporting data. Feminist discuss their views and support data on themselves and what they believe the MRM/MRA/FRA are. And the MRM will do the same. If they don't provide documentation, in my opinion, then it can't stand. I think they are afraid, actually . . . I think both sides are afraid. This was not the first Feminist site I was banned at, and I would hate to admit it, but I was also banned a couple MR sites too. Of course, he had a similiar attitude that most feminist sites . . . and you know me . . . I could be a little too upfront and demanding . . . lol.
Thing is, if these issues can be discuss. Reviewing the questions asked and how the survey is analyzed and performed. Maybe a new study can me made . . . one that would satisfy both the FM and the MM. With this new data . . . with a questionaire approved by both the Feminist Movement and the Men's Rights Movement, something may be accomplish for the betterment of humankind.
. . .
To me . . . The Men's Rights Movement is the little brother of the Feminist Movement. I am probably going to piss some MRA off, but so be it. But the Feminist Movement has accomplished a lot of good . . . gotten help and protection to women who needed it, help them to obtain rights and priviledges they deserved, so on and so forth. Men do already have rights, but one of the rights that we lacked was the right to be protected from domestic violence, the right to choose . . . etc. I will admit, I don't know all the issues on both sides . . . you probably view me as an idiot for talking about something I don't know much on. I don't care, at least I am talking honestly to both the Feminists and the MRM. But the thing is, I don't see any talking between the groups, just arguments and pissing contests. Like between brothers and sisters. Come on, we are family . . . genetically speaking.
Glenn, you and several others here love to talk about the issues. You, (cumulatively), on most parts talk about issues and topics you deeply believe in and are not afraid to provide background information regarding studies, surveys, research projects, etc. But then you those Feminist who talk down to you. Act like you either don't know nothing . . . or they twist your words into something that is false. And I have seen it the other way too. It is not funny.
. . .
Hell, it took me an hour to write that comment that I couldn't post on Fecke's entry (which is probably another reason why they banned me . . . I wrote it on-line, instead of on notepad, like this one. Which took me about an hour to write) And I can see where I screwed up in my words, tangled my words or repeated the same words a couple time like a fool. Unfortunately, I don't have time to review what I wrote. Since I need to catch the train home and pick-up my son from Daycare, cook dinner, help him with his homework, make sure he brushes his teeth and get him ready for bed. It will be difficult for me to be on-line during the weekend, since the weekend is family time . . . and we need to go shopping, plan Christmas, etc.
So, I will most likely stop by again on Monday.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Hey Lee, I don't know who your worried about offending, that certainly didn't offend me. Good stuff there!
November 9th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
The feminist issue of 'domestic violence' by males must be remembered for the supercial 'evidence' it is based on. 'Brownshirts' in America or in another era are not known for their intellectually honesty, rather their commitment to bigoted, hate propaganda.
Mike
November 9th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Radical feminists feign enlightenment, but they are probably the least tolerant political activists I have seen in terms of allowing dissenting opinions to be aired. If you are in search of truth, you welcome other points of view, in fact you seek them out. These people are not interested in truth because they feel they embody it, and everyone else is a "troll."
November 9th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Lee, the reason fems don't want to get together and discuss DV is they would eventually have to share the vawa money. $1 Bil a year isn't chicken feed and much of that money goes to feminist causes. (I would love to see a GAO audit of VAWA.) Remember, Vagina-Joe (Stalin) Biden allowed no dissent in the Senate when they voted on vawa.
November 10th, 2007 at 12:09 am
Well after what I just posted I will probably join the banned list. Im reading The History of the Third Reich right now and many of ginmars comments sound very hitler-esque in they blame everyone else for their problems as a way to attempt to deflect focus off the fact that thier views and ideas are as shallow and insubstansial as the smoke screen they are attempting to put up.
But judging from the post Lee and other have made if I am banned I will be in good company.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:18 am
I've had comments extirpated from Pandagon and Violet Socks. In my opinion, the comments were moderate, but the larger issue is that limiting the spectrum of admissible debate is ultimately self-marginalizing. And it's ironic for these blogs, which purport to provide a alternative voice to the mainstream corporate media, to engage in the practices of mainstream corporate media: setting the agenda, filtering information, controlling the distribution of concerns, and limiting the spectrum of debate.
Glenn's blog became the preeminent men's and father's rights blog in part because he does not limit the spectrum of admissible debate.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
By eliminating moderate comments, Melissa McEwan, Amanda Marcotte, et. al., get to leave up the worst comments and then associate those comments with the thoughts and actions of most of us.
It's extremely dishonest and manipulative.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Look, I really don't want to get into a discussion here of whether Lee's banning was fair or not, as I don't really have an opinion on that one way or another. But there is a fact that is missing from this equation: by the time he was banned, Lee had been posting at Shakes for close to a month. He had been coming onto threads that were only tangentially related to men's rights and posting non-sequitur comments that derailed the threads. When people questioned his statistics and brought in their own, he ignored their comments and continued to post the same data. When people brought up problems with the research he cited, he ignored their comments and continued to ask why no one was responding to his research. When you've been doing that for a month, your call for fair-and-balanced research from both sides seems more snarky than sincere.
NOTE: I am not claiming that Lee's banning was fair, or even that it was justified. But taking this one comment completely out of its original context, even to the point of pretending that original context doesn't exist, and then presenting Lee as a total, unwitting victim of censorship is misleading.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:01 am
To be fair, I do not know what Lee has posted there in the past.
Just saw this. So Lee wasn't presented as an unwitting victim of censorship in the original post, at least not explicitly. I guess you could read that last sentence of my previous comment as being aimed more at the other commenters who seem to believe that Lee was banned for that one moderate comment.
I should add that Lee was banned at least twice. The first time, he returned with a different IP and continued posting, which is a big no-no over at Shakes.
November 11th, 2007 at 8:43 am
I've only ever managed to get a comment published on two feminist blogs, one of which was swiftly deleted.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:34 am
I have had some comments banned as well. Knowing it was a Feminist site and they selectively censor those opinions they cannot handle, it comes as no surprise. Lee uses a measured tone, non insulting, sticks to his guns, and asks for a rational explanation. Feminism is emotive. Its all about their Feelings. Remember Feminists have identified, Reason, Science, Empirical Evidence, Logic as Tools of the Patriarchy. And that Women have "Special Intuitive" knowledge that Men lack. This is their "Get out of Jail Free Card". As for Ginmar she is a self professed Section 8 Man Hating head case. Reading her postings on Live Journal are eye opening. She cannot engage in a meaningful debate without hurling insults at Men.
Those of us who have dispaired that Women could be reasoned with are not surprised Lee that you were banned. We in fact expected it. But the Feminists need to understand the days of their not being challenged are over. We will challenge them at every turn. And Ginmar, Jeff Fecke, and Amanda Marcotte although rabid Feminists are actually some of the saner ones. Men must confront Male Hatred even when it comes from Male Feminists. I have one head case who has posted on her blog that I approved of the rape and molestation of my own daughter. Making a posting with a slightly altered spelling of my blog name. An attention whore who is trying to Ban a MRA. We will see much more of this attempts to censor or silence Men.
That MRA allow Feminists to post on our blogs merely vividly makes our points for us with those who are Fence Sitters or "Lurkers". Which is probably 10 times the numbers who post. These are the Men we are trying to reach. Bravo Glenn for pointing out the hypocrisy of Marcotte, and Fecke.
November 11th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Guess I'll post this here, too:
"Sweetie, I have a news flash for you: just because one misguided feminist tolerates you doesn't mean shit."
We weren't "tolerating" each other. I'm not anti-feminist and she's not viciously opposed to men's rights. So we were online together seeking out common ground.
"You're still a troll and an MRAsshole."
^ trollish comment ^
November 11th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Lest you haven't figured it out yet, that misandrist Ginmar character's favorite approach is to describe anyone who disagrees with her a "troll." She's now referred to me in that way on three different blogs. One of these is the now (I'm afraid) defunct blog by HappyFeminist, someone with whom I get along rather well online. I'm not anti-feminist and she's not anti-MRA, and so she INVITED me to her blog when she was getting it started. She even asked me to write a guest view once. Ginmar showed up for another thread, called me and someone else "trolls" because we dared to contradict her hatred of men. I explained to her the situation, but she wasn't listening. Finally, HF herself set the record straight that she valued my comments, and Ginmar called HF's blog a "playground for MRAs" and was never heard from (there) again.
Ginmar now only attends blogs that mirror her own -- a fantasyland in which every man is a rapist and everyone who believes in men's rights must be a rape apologist. I doubt you'd find her rearing her hateful head here, as the host wouldn't bend over backwards to placate her.
November 11th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
khanrkumthebulgar, interesting you should call ginmar one of the saner ones. Yesterday, she absolutely literally, explicitly, and repeatedly called you a pedophile.
I think ginmar, and Amanda have similar tactics, smearing anyone they can. Ginmar is worse than Amanda though Amanda has a better and more widespread reputation and following.
bmmg39, it's funny she talks about HF as one misguided feminist. Ginmar has been tossed off, and/or stalked off many feminist blogs.
I posted in the comments in the link above, some very reasonable questions for Jeff Fecke or others to answer -- no responses from anyone. A friend of ginmar's Flewellyn was also "invited" to come by Glenn Sacks' forum and read for himself, and nothing from Flewellyn either, although he later did show up to decry all the trolls.
It's hard to know what to do about the ginmars. For the most part I ignore them because even the feminists have kicked them out.
But I think it speaks very poorly of Melissa McEwan that she would describe Fecke's post as spot on, when Fecke's attack was not logically or factually based at all.
It's the McEwan's and Marcotte's that are problematic -- they smear -- and they are rewarded for that. Over at TPMCafe, Marcotte was invited into a debate along with Susan Faludi, thereby giving Marcotte more credibility.
Sigh.
November 12th, 2007 at 12:14 am
"bmmg39, it's funny she talks about HF as one misguided feminist. Ginmar has been tossed off, and/or stalked off many feminist blogs."
Yes, and even those she hasn't been booted from she'll rail against if she thinks they're giving "the other side" (so sad there have to be frigging SIDES) a fair chance to respond. Hugo Schwyzer sometimes says some things about men's rights and men's welfare that I strongly disagree with, but he'll usually encourage the free exchange of ideas, and so the Ginmars of the world consider him just as much an enemy as anybody.
If they can't calmly discuss an issue, and instead resort to referring to people as rape apologists or wife-beaters, then anyone who isn't one of their toadies can plainly see that they have nothing to work with, intellectually, over there.
November 12th, 2007 at 8:23 am
jerry Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
I've definitely been banned on Pandagon. And I've certainly had my comments deleted from Shakespeare's Sister.
I've had my comments deleted and/or been banned on the following blogs: feministe, feministing, pandagon, shakespeare's sister, creek running north, and many nth tier feminist blogs including ann althouse. I've had a very few comments deleted at Broadsheet.
I've also had my comments deleted and/or been banned at the following conservative sites: little green footballs, hot air, protein wisdom, patterico, pejman yousefzadeh, and red state.
I comment quite frequently at Hullabaloo, firedoglake, eschaton, ezra klein, matthew yglesias, political animal, brad delong, tbogg, and your blog, and have never had a single one of my comments deleted from these sites, regardless of my views (which frankly are often antagonistic to the bloggers.)
___________
WOW dude do are you retired?
November 12th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Lee,
The only thing that offends me is that you do not seem like the PC type yet you used the word "humankind." I abhor PC and patronizing to the ridiculousness of something like man primary meaning an individual human.
b
November 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Morning everyone . . .
Bernie, you are right . . . I am not normally PC . . . I rarely am. But I try to be when trying to resolve differences or trying to focus on a problem as a whole. Domestic Violence is a problem that affect everyone as a whole, . . . Men, Women, Children . . . .
As for be patronizing, maybe I am . . . at times, other times, I can be a complete jerk. It usually depends on my mood, whether I am frustrated, or maybe hungry . . . I don't know.
As for LiteraryCritic, the time period seems correct, about a month. I know I was going to comment on the Dr. Helen entry by Fecke, I don't even remember if I did . . . I know I commented on the same subject on Amanda's entry . . . and she is on a completely different page. I did went through Fecke's Dr. Helen comments . . . and there is no post from me, but I have been there and read them in October.
Regarding multiple IP addresses . . . it is possible. During the Wildfires in California, I was home taking care of my son and four families who were temporarily displaced because of the fires. So it is possible that I may have logged in at home, but I don't remember. I may have even commented from home . . . I don't rememeber. My guests were on-line more than me during that week, communicating with their family or cruising the myspace thing (Me . . . I don't get the myspace thing . . . maybe I am a prude or behind the times . . . lol). During a normal week, I rarely go on-line at home, but I am constantly on-line in the US because of work, dealing with facilities in Europe and in Asia. Maybe, when I have a chance at home, I log in and see if I was banned at that IP address.
Regarding derailing threads, if you mean . . . getting people to think. Thank you, but I can't take the credit, the feminists do a good jobs themselves by not talking about the issues and resort to name calling. Me, I am not that much of a commentor. You can ask Glenn how many comments I made to his page . . . it is probably less than a dozen, maybe even less than that. So, I would highly doubt that I posted many comment entries on numerous blogs. There was one page, and I don't remember the name of it (Let's see if I remember it . . . It was regarding this one guy who was decieved by his girlfriend who first claimed to be sterile, then on birth control and she got pregnant, suing for child support He tried using the Rowe vs Wade . . . something like that. . . . I know, I believe I am have posted there maybe a half a dozen times or more.) I think it was tied into Glenn's article he posted there in response to another article. I can't remember and I think I may have used the name part of my E-mail address as my ID. But I did a complete search in Haloscan (searching that one month period), even though I haven't gone through all 13,600 hits, I went through almost two dozen pages and only found one entry and that was the recent one, before I got banned. And Literarycritic, since you made the claim that I made numerous posts on shakes, I will respond stating the if I did, I don't remember every comment I made, but I want to you prove your statement, which entries did I comment on . . . please provide the links, I would like to see my comments, to see if they are mine.
As for quoting statistics, if I know the sources, I usually provide the data, or the originator of the source like the CDC or something in that aspect. If I don't know the source, I will say . . . "I don't know", but I will still post what I believe in the same comment. In all those cases . . . no one has address me directly, but have address others stating that their information was based on false assumption or misprocessed methodology. I was never asked or continued to repeat the same statistics until I was blue in the face, like many do.
Khan, is correct with my assessment . . . I am what you classify as a fencesitter. I enjoy reading, but I rarely comment, unless it is absolutely necessary. But the thing is, I am not complete seditary on the issue, I have friends I talk with, e-mail, communicate with. I have friends (Men, Women, and Children) who are going through domestic violence issues with family or their significant other, and have sought help for them and for myself when the time arises.
I believe in Women's Rights as much as I believe in Men's Rights . . . what I don't believe is entitlement. To me, no one is entitled of anything except for the pursuit of Life, Liberty, and the persuit of happieness
As regards to a combined study, and having the Feminist Movement and the Men's Movement work together. Literarycritic . . . you don't think I am sincere . . . that I am being snarky. Please explain yourself. Because I am not trying to be sarcastic, sneaky, humorous, disrespectful, bitchy, short-tempered, snide, but if you think being straight forward and honest about my feeling is, then I am. But in truth, do you know what I think? I think the Feminist movement is acting a little snarky, why else would they be afraid what a fair-and-balance research project will do. Worried about funding, funding you can ear-mark for a specific sex, instead of the whole of humanity. People who have power, are afraid to relinquish it.
November 12th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Bernie,
WOW dude do are you retired?
No, but I do read and type faster than a red headed Neanderthal!
November 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Lee Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Morning everyone . . .
Bernie, you are right . . . I am not normally PC . . . I rarely am. But I try to be when trying to resolve differences or trying to focus on a problem as a whole. Domestic Violence is a problem that affect everyone as a whole, . . . Men, Women, Children . . . .
As for be patronizing, maybe I am . . . at times, other times, I can be a complete jerk. It usually depends on my mood, whether I am frustrated, or maybe hungry . . . I don't know.
_______
We are all fallible and I have made the same mistake of letting my emotions override my intellect at times also, I feel for you and completely understand the above. . .
b
November 12th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
jerry Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Bernie,
WOW dude do are you retired?
No, but I do read and type faster than a red headed Neanderthal!
________
WOW! LOL
November 12th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
This is why the only feminist site I read is Ampersand's - while he does wield the banhammer, he's upfront about when he feels people are crossing the line and doesn't simply punt you off the site forever for speaking your mind.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Oh, and I've been banned from Pandagon and Feministe - in the former case, for daring to suggest that Genarlow Wilson was not a rapist.
November 12th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Lee Says:
November 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Morning everyone . . .
Bernie, you are right . . . I am not normally PC . . . I rarely am. But I try to be when trying to resolve differences or trying to focus on a problem as a whole. Domestic Violence is a problem that affect everyone as a whole, . . . Men, Women, Children . . . .
This bears repeating. Every other societal problem starts with this common ground and then works towards a solution. Violent crime, child abuse/neglect, drug abuse, alcoholism, road rage, or anything else you see a public service message for. None of those campaigns start with blaming a smaller group for a common problem. Can you imagine the outrage if a campaign against shaking babies ("Count to ten before picking up your child..." etc) started with the claim that only women shake babies, and went on to blame child abuse on the violence inherent in all women?
There's no reason men should take all the blame for domestic violence, and even less reason that that blaming should have the force of law.
November 12th, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Lee, I was referring only to Shakes. You, or someone else using the name "Lee" and referencing the same ideas, have left, at a bare minimum, several hundred comments on that site.
You left 270 comments on one entry alone (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/explainer-whats-mra.html), and this is the only one I see where Helen Smith is referenced, so if that is the Dr. Helen you are referring to, that's the one where you left 270 comments.
You left at least another 30 comments on the thread about female body parts being used as the shapes of toilets (http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/women-are-not-prey-oh-and-by-way-theyre.html), which were later removed because you derailed the thread by bringing in statistics about gays. (All the comments responding to you, including mine, were removed from that thread as well.) Your first banning was, as I recall, because of your comments on that thread.
You returned within a half an hour, so you had to have switched IPs somehow within that half-hour time frame. I don't see what effect the California wildfires could have had on your IP address in such a short amount of time. Is that what you're claiming? Or are you claiming that you probably drove home from work within that half-hour and continued posting from home, under a naturally different IP? If so, that's understandable.
You have definitely commented on other threads at Shakes as well. I am not sure which ones they are at this point, but I remember seeing your name pop up on the sidebar repeatedly on threads I was not commenting on.
I never said you were snarky and not sincere. I said that a comment where you call for research from both sides seems more snarky than sincere, when you have been engaging in the type of derailing and statistic-mashing that you had been engaging in at Shakes.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
LiteraryCritic . . . thank you for responding. I wish I had time to do all that reading but I need to leave in a 20 minutes for a Doctor's Appointment at 3:30 and it is 1:10pm now.
Damn . . . 270 comments, I wished I had that amount of time in a day to write that much. Since you are probably not an administrator on that site, you probably don't have access to his e-mail address. But beside the point, I didn't write any of it, actually I am not familiar with the entry. Even though I may need to print it all out so I can ready what was written . . . I think that is going to take a few hundred pages . . . . One more thing, the writing style is between me and the Other Lee is completely different, plus I am not that fast of a writer.
That Dr. Helen entry that I looked at on Shakes was regarding the Interview Glenn Sacks had with Dr. Helen. That Amanda and Jeff and a few others got all up in arms about . . . beginning of October. http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/10/08/6148/ and these are the ones I read but didn't comment on http://moderateleft.com/?p=3670 and http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/10/dr-helen-sez-women-are-teh-suxor.html.
As for the other entry, first time I saw that . . . as for the Jingleboobs ad. I just saw that last week from a friend, who asked if I wanted a set for Christmas. I turned him down, because to me, that is a little over the top. BTW, what in that entry had anything to do with homosexuals, whatever he wrote must have confused and threw that thread into a loop.
During the fire, it took me over 2 1/2 hours to get home that Monday, which normally takes an hour. And I was home the entire time, except for maybe an hour on Thursday when I found out that the company I am working for decided to shut down for the week because of the fire and never notified me. Plus a fire broke out in the same valley I lived in . . . and I need to get home. A half an hour, is too short a time span for me to drive home from where I work, so there is no way that could have been me. But I don't recall going on-line except for scanning the news on the fire . . . I think I stop by Glenn's page maybe once that entire week and a couple others. Just to briefly read and keep up to date.
But, when I have a chance . . . I am going to try to read that entry (the one with over 2000 comment, the one that have 270 comments from "Lee" and to try to see what was going on in his head. But I got to get going . . . go home, pick-up up my wallet and medical ID that I forgot when I ran to work at 4 am this morning, rest a little, then off to the doctor from there. I always try to be early for my appointment.
November 12th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Lee, the 270 comments were left over a period of a week-and-a-half, from October 13th to October 24th. If those comments really weren't from you, I don't see any need for you to go through the entire thread.
No, I don't have any access to admin information on Shakes, and I did notice that your writing style is different from the "Lee" that posted repeatedly over there. However, many people do have several different email addresses, while being the same person, and writing style is not always the best indicator of identity. You may have been banned by the Shakes admins for using the same name as the "Other Lee," as they have gotten quite paranoid over at Shakes due to a sudden influx of MRA posters, many of whom engage in shoddy debate tactics and show little understanding of or respect for standard blog etiquette. This "Other Lee" had shown an extreme reluctance to leave after he was banned, and he did come back under a different IP to get around his banning, so there is no reason for the Shakes admins not to assume that he could have changed his email address.
If you were banned as a result of this "Other Lee's" behavior, I hope that you can at least understand why such a thing might happen, and that it was not personally motivated, nor an attempt to shut down dissenting opinions, but rather an attempt to keep the "Other Lee" from continuing to (as they saw it) disrupt the site.
November 13th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Literary . . . I think I want to review what was written in that blog entry, but since I was banned from commenting, I don't know where to type my comments, since he is writing on what he believes what the MRA stands for from a Feminist perspective. I would like to see if it was rationally written and if he decided to include specifics or facts, or if what he written is based on false assumptions, accusations and stereotypes, which is basically what I am a victim of. (Since, I apparently used the same name from someone else.) Which is basically what I am seeing in the comment thread I was banned at, as well as mud slinging, name calling, etc.
It may take me a while to review that entry (with the other "Lee" comments), since I do have to work for a living . . . lol
Thing is, I mentioned earlier that I was going to post an entry from home, from my home IP. To see if I was banned there, which was probably assumed, if I was that other Lee. Guess what? I was able able to post this morning, before catching the train to work. Whether I am still able to comment from my home is unknown, because I am at work, and I highly doubt I'll comment much from home because of my family. They come first in the house.
Below is a link of the comment I made . . .
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/#914961
November 13th, 2007 at 11:26 am
... false assumptions, accusations and stereotypes, which is basically what I am a victim of. (Since, I apparently used the same name from someone else.)
Lee, I don't think you're a victim of accusations or stereotypes. Of mistaken identity, maybe, but for reasons that have zero to do with you personally. There's no conspiracy to keep you from posting, just a series of unfortunate circumstances that are no one's fault, except perhaps the first Lee's.
Is there some reason why you can't just use another name? Like "Lee2"? Or "TheOtherLee," perhaps?
I've posted an info request from the admins on that thread you linked to.
November 13th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Literary . . . thanks for that post there, since I can't post anything from work . . . but I have seen their reply.
Melissa "Based on the way bans are executed, it is extremely unlikely that anyone would be inadvertently banned, same name or not."
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/#915057
It is extremely unlikely that anyone would be inadvertently banned, same name or not. . . . . which means . . . my first comment in this entry was the most probably reason why I was banned . . .
My first comment . . . . http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/#912697
You end up replying . . . "if this dude was banned on his own merit, so to speak, that's cool. Problem solved."
If I actually believe I did something that I deserved to get banned . . . I agree with you . . . I would accept it. But I haven't done anything except asked them why . . .
Then a post from danielamneus (http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/#915118) . . . explained it all . . .
"This comment thread isn't Melissa's either."
"It is hosted by Haloscan, and if she owns the server her blog is on, this thread isn't on it."
"A link does not convey ownership."
"Everything is so obvious, that anyone who disagrees or insists that you prove your First Principles is merely used as amusement." (So, according to this person . . . Melissa's page follows the First Principles as an amusement site, not a profeminist page, or at least the comment log is.)
"I admin several forums and the ONLY time anyone gets banned is for extreme TOS violations."
"I allow those who disagree to post, I don't delete their posts, and I don't delete 'annoying' 'harassing' or 'trollish' posters, their threads or membership."
(So, apparently . . . Daniel or whatever his name is . . . banned me. Because I wasn't entertaining enough . . . this is a joke to the Haloscan adminstrator Daniel . . . and only want to see arguements and fighting between MRM and FM. Which is mostly why I was banned, because I was trying to resolve it . . .
I don't think it was Jeff or Melissa . . . but their comment page host and it's administrator . . . to him/them . . . they just want us to fight and not resolve anything. Melissa may have partial control over her comment links, but she is not the only one in control.)
I just finished reviewing and writing about that other entry of Jeff . . . haven't had a chance to review what the comments were . . . but I written everything down in notepad regarding that entry . . . now where to put it.