The Feminist Dissident: Glenn Sacks Demonized Divorced Mother in Recent Post
September 17th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"Glenn Sacks jumped on the divorced mother out of all proportion to what she said and without any corroboration of his views."
The purpose of The Feminist Dissident is to give feminists a chance to speak directly to my audience, and my audience to debate the issues with them in a civil manner. To read previous entries, click here.
The Feminist Dissident column below is penned by Traverse Davies, a writer based in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. His blog is at http://logic11.wordpress.com.
If you are a feminist and are interested in submitting a blog post, please email me at glenn@glennsacks.com.
In his post, Davies criticizes my recent blog post 'Being Single Sucks and So Do Men'. I don't agree with his criticisms, but I'll keep my mouth shut and let him say his piece. It is a companion piece to Davies' recent post MRAs Are Unwilling to Acknowledge that Feminism Has Some Valid Points.
Glenn Sacks Demonized Divorced Mother in Recent Post
By Traverse Davies
The Men's Rights Movement's unwillingness to acknowledge that feminism has some valid points tends to lead to stuff like this. When you read this, keep in mind that the original post is on www.exrants.com, where women are vilified almost constantly, both in the comments on their own rants and in the men's rants.
It seems that there is far more animosity towards women on www.exrants.com than there is towards men. In the case of the linked rant, the woman uses a slightly nasty (but very slightly) sort of humor about her ex, and then drops even that to talk about being lonely. Glenn Sacks jumped on her out of all proportion to what she said and without any corroboration of his views.
Basically Glenn (and he seems to be by far kinder than those who left comments on his page) comes up with a few scenarios that he thinks would explain why the woman is single now. All of them are mean-spirited. He lists four possible reasons why her marriage didn't work out, but here are a few other possibilities:
5) He cheated on her.
6) She cheated on him.
7) They grew apart over a period of several years and one day decided that it just wasn't working anymore.
8) He hit her.
9) She hit him.
There are a whole lot of other options. See, her post really doesn't reveal that information, making this a classic case of demonizing women out of all proportion to the evidence.
"));
19 queries. 0.617 seconds.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:30 am
yup traverse ANY critique of a woman is blantat sexism and demonization. Any critique of a man though nope thats humerous.
And your "source" which serves as the basis for lableing MRM members as unwilling to acknowlege feminism is a website called ex-rants??
PAH-LEESE - first of all ex-rants is NOT a MRM website. Second -anyone who would use a single website as scientific basis to arrive at a conclusion is well let's say their conclusion would be LAUGHED out of any classroom.
get some SCIENTIFIC facts and then come back to us with an opinion till then - class dismissed
September 17th, 2008 at 9:34 am
[...] info By Traverse Davies Categories: Uncategorized Glenn has published part two of my piece criticizing the Mens Rights Movement. It is fairly short but is more critical directly of him than the other part, which makes it a real [...]
September 17th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Ah, DCR.
The thing is, what I said wasn't that ex-rants was an MRM website, what I commented on was actually the response on here to what someone wrote on ex-rants. You see, ex-rants is actually pretty irrelevant to my argument (except tangentially) but the lack of depth in looking at the issue the woman was talking about on ex-rants that was shown here was phenomenal. Glenn started it by being quite narrow in his list of possibilities (to be fair he did acknowledge that there were other possibilities... but only listed the ones that made the woman look bad). Then the forum comments started...
September 17th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Oh, one last thing DCR... this is an opinion piece. Science is something else entirely and would involve a lot more data than I have collected as well as controls, a formal hypothesis, etc.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:02 am
DCR says:
Second -anyone who would use a single website as scientific basis to arrive at a conclusion is well let's say their conclusion would be LAUGHED out of any classroom.
Not in a wimmin studies classroom.
It is common practice.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:08 am
"It seems that there is far more animosity towards women on www.exrants.com than there is towards men."
Conveniently, your mind is predisposed to filtering-out most instances of the latter.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Badger... I am way harsher on the feminist movement than I am on the MRM. I have huge issues with the lack of understanding of science that exists in womyn's studies (spelling intentionally ironic) and the refusal to accept that objectivity can even exist. However, as I stated above, this is an opinion piece not a scientific study.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Of all the people that I know that are divorced, it was the woman in just about each case that initiated the divorce. A lot of them took place in the 90's. It seems that when the financial rewards became instant for a woman, marriage lost it's meaning. My first wife and I have children, and I believe she had no fear of being single so she cheated on me. After I caught her, I filed for a divorce but we had a period of time that I would have reconciled things, she knew she would get child support. She had no fear of being single. I think that plays a big part in things.
Divorced people are going to say mean things, men and women, but to say that MRA's are more vicious toward women in divorce is wrong. There is a difference between equity and inequity, and most of the posts I see here from the regular gang indicate that equity is what most MRA's are looking for. That does not exist in the family law courts today thanks to the feminut movement. Big money, big lobbying.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Demon discovery questionnaire:
Would a demon make false accusations?.
Would a demon throw their marital vows aside?
Would a demon alienate the other parent?
Would a demon be a member of NOW and hate men?
Would a demon make up lies about an anti-NOW candidate?
Would a demon not allow visitation?
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, we can call it a duck.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:13 am
Sungjun:
Have to disagree with you there. Really, I read a whole bunch of pages and on the site (until I was feeling kind nauseous as a result) and the level of abuse heaped on women was incredible. Not that this is an indication of the MRM... because this site is not an MRM site.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:24 am
She says: "...I thought about killing him in his sleep."
You say: "the woman uses a slightly nasty (but very slightly) sort of humor about her ex,"
that's fine except,
She says: "I'm not even kidding."
Glenn says: here are a few possibilities (implying there are more possibilities),
1) They worked the same yet he expected more housework from her. (Noting this acknowledges the possibility it was his fault).
2) He worked more thus expected more housework from her. (implies she may have been at fault).
3) They had different ideas about what a clean house is. (Noting this acknowledges it was noone's fault).
4) She was emotionally immature. (implies she may have been at fault)
Then you say: "Glenn Sacks jumped on her out of all proportion to what she said and without any corroboration of his views."
To which I say: "Really? You think so?"
September 17th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Ahhh Traverse you say this is an "Opinion" piece but yet you dont seem to like OUR opinions because they disagree or contradict your opinions.
And just like a majority of feminists who have posted here you tend to give veracity to pro-female statements but then say we are who post on Glenns site are "Mean Spirited" because we dont agree with you.
A statement like tells me you are clueless about MRAs and what we do and stand for. The majority of us are nowhere near mean spirited. We are hardhitting,straight forward types who do not pull punches an tell it like it is. We are tired of having to spend MILLIONS of dollars in legal fees to be parents to our children.
We agree that feminists do have SOME legitimate complaints but they have used tactics that are reprehensible to anyone who has a sense of fair play. They have lied, cheated ,manipulated, coreced and used false and misleading data to give them extraordinary rights at the expense of men and fathers. We are more and more being pushed to the fringes of the family unit by the Government, The Courts, The Media and public opinion because of these tactics.
So in closing save your whining for other sites. You will get no sympathy here.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Glenn sorry if the last post was out of line but it really didnt sit well.
TOMD
September 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Bill C:
Somehow saying that there is sexism against women, or saying that some MRA's are mean to women has become my saying that there is no sexism against men or that women are more fair than men are. This is not the case, I have never asserted that women don't sometimes treat men poorly, or even that it isn't more often than the reverse.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:36 am
"get some SCIENTIFIC facts and then come back to us with an opinion till then - class dismissed"
What?
If he has facts, he has no need of an opinion. If he has an opinion, it is likely because there aren't enough (or any) facts to the matter.
If he gets scientific facts than he is doing so to test a hypothesis. I'm glad you are not actually doing the teaching.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Really, I read a whole bunch of pages and on the site (until I was feeling kind nauseous as a result) and the level of abuse heaped on women was incredible.
Traverse I've noticed harsh things said about women (but Glenn is much stricter on what he allows here than on almost every feminist site I've ever been on) on this site as well but I wonder if you are calling someone venting out their grievances abuse. There seems to be this double standard in which a woman can say whaterever she wants and any attempt to stop is "silencing" (which I would agree with because she should have the freedom to vent her anger) but at the same time a man that tries to speak freely is accused of "silencing", "shaming", "abusing", etc. women.
The difference is that men will actually go to women's sites and say something about it (and that is not to be confused with the jerks that only go to those sites with the intent to disrupt things) while women will read a few things on men's sites, conclude that all men think that way, then go back to their own safety sites and complain (often making things up, generalizing, and clinging to myths as "evidence")
September 17th, 2008 at 10:39 am
The Other Mike D:
Don't worry on my count (Glenn, that goes for you too). I wouldn't dish it out if I couldn't take it. For the record, I'm not the power feminist you seem to think I am... I see shades of grey and tend to be on the MRM side of things, but I do read the posts here and often (like in the case I mentioned) they seem very harsh towards women. Now, I know some on here will say that, yeah, they are, and that this is legit. If that is your assertion, well then we disagree a bit but fundamentally I won't try to change your mind. On the other hand, if you don't see how things are a bit harsh towards women then I am simply trying to shed some light on it.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Danny:
Actually, I was replying to the statement that Sungjun made regarding the number of anti-female statements on ex-rants vs. the number of anti-male statements. That wasn't even about the actual rants, more the comments on the rants (although there are more rants about women than about men, at least last time I visited the site).
I do give Glenn a lot of credit for moderating his forum the way he does. I have gotten out of line a time or two and been gently corrected. I think in every case I know of Glenn was completely in the right.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Traverse why dont you try to "Shed light" on the criticism at some of the femenist sites and see how far you get.
Im sure that Violet Socks or Jeff Feakes will be more then receptive to you.
TOMD
September 17th, 2008 at 10:56 am
There are no shades of gray; I do not see my child; you perjured to take my money; you lie and maliciously slander your objects, you wish to enslave me for your benefit. . .
September 17th, 2008 at 11:00 am
TF: um...
I really didn't do any of those things, I would have remembered. Last time I checked I was the father of one child, who I now (after many years of struggle) get to see on a regular basis. I'm pretty sure I have never maliciously slandered any of my objects, and enslavement is really something I'm opposed to.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:08 am
The Other Mike D, calm yourself down. This guy seems ok, I mean the second post on his blog is named "Empower girls is fine… but boys are people too" and rather than just saying Glenn has a small penis or is a wife beater is actually arguing. You also seem to forget that the main point of the discussion is whether or not Glenn was too harsh on this woman, which is entirely subjective. Traverse, just like all of us is entitled to his opinion on this point, and I would tend to agree and say that Glenn was if not too harsh then overly presumptuous.
On another note your blog's quite interesting, I just read the part on physical preparation, and although I find it unlikely that I would ever get the chance to use it, it was still entertaining.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:19 am
Traverse Davies Says:
It seems that there is far more animosity towards women on www.exrants.com than there is towards men.
I have never asserted that women don't sometimes treat men poorly, or even that it isn't more often than the reverse.
Glenn started it.....
September 17th, 2008 at 11:21 am
I'll have to say that "Don't Date Him, Girl dot com" is considerably more viscious. They also feel justified in their anonymity in slandering someone by name (or libel, I can never keep that straight). They site admin won't remove posts under protest, and there's no way to track back to the original poster.
EX-Rants is a place to blow off steam. Most of the comments there are juvenile, and are not expected to be any better, for either gender. It's not a web site for personal exploration and insight. It's like going to "The Onion" for news. Considering how few places men can actually talk freely without repercussion or judgement, Ex-Rants serves a purpose.
Considering the villification that men receive in just about any venue, and the tacit endorsement and normalization of it, the fact that men gripe about how women are not the perfect martyrs they imagine themselves to be probably comes as a shock.
Then, there's "See my ex dot com", which should actually be labeled, "see my ex naked". (No, I haven't contributed pictures of my ex there, or to any other website.
I get that the woman who made the original post did so with a wry sense of humor. Glenn's post used hers to illustrate the general dissatisfaction that women express with men, and the lack of appreciation. Her's was mostly articulate, and short, which is probably why it was selected.
You're right - her post griped about the problems of living with her ex. Then laments being lonely. Most of the men that I read on there have dealt with women who are completely irresponsible and hostile, things that are not conducive to a long tern relationship. Or, they're ranting about the double standard of behavior - her spiteful and atagonistic actions were minimized, while he was held accountable for any minor infraction.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:23 am
"corroboration of views" to merely list "possibilities" ?
September 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
That is a cute if not very sophisticated ploy to accuse MRA's of "demonizing" women, especially since the entire sexist core idea of ideological feminism is one that "demonizes" men via the Evil Patriarchy concept.
But then,women's studies majors do not typically learn much Western philosophy, or Eastern philosophy, or Middle Eastern philosophy or even southside.Chicago philosophy.
Frankly, I still do not know what they learn, or if they can learn.
I was hoping the author of the piece would illuminate feminism's "valid" points.
Nope.
Not even a decent Bob Dylan reference....
Now, that man knows women.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Hey Roy:
I'm not a women's studies major... not even a little bit. My background is pretty much all IT. My study of philosophy comes from my own time, not from a university.... having said that I can quote many zen koans by heart, understand the difference between nihilism and general depression, am familiar with formal logic (I have to be, it is part of my day job). I understand if people have issues with what I wrote, but it isn't all of what I believe in.
As to specific examples of sexism: do you want ones from the MRM community or society in general?
From the MRM community, read the comments section on my last piece here for many, many great examples of sexism. I will not name the posters, but I'm sure if you read them you will be able to figure them out.
For society in general: There is a bunch of debate as to whether assigning value to a woman based on appearance is sexism on here. I believe it is, because it is stating that a womans appearance is her most important attribute. For that, look at my previous piece on here... since that is what it focused on.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Traverse said "Oh, one last thing DCR... this is an opinion piece."
yes but an opinion without fact to support it is worthless.
Case in point - it was the "opinion "of oh pretty much everyone that the world was flat (or if you prefer that the sun revolved around the earth) at one time.
Funny how that opinion worked out didn't it - those silly facts always seem to get in the way ........
oh and Badger I do stand corrected you are 100% correct on that i have no doubt.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
DCR:
Please tell me what would constitute a fact to you. I mean, I was talking about a specific post on this site that I felt jumped to a conclusion about someone else without adequate evidence. Please point me to the evidence that backed up the supposition that this woman was divorced for one of the four reasons listed. Now, if you really want to get all factsy and stuff... take a look at the comments that accompany the article I referenced. Add up the ones that criticized this woman who has given no indication of the circumstances of her divorce and the ones that defended her...
September 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
DCR:
Oh yeah, the flat earth thing is a bit of a fallacy. There were points where many people believed it, but it was never the predominant view. In Columbus' time the majority of navigators believed the earth to be round but thought that it was very large, meaning that a passage to India was impractical. Columbus doubted their size estimates and headed off anyway. Turns out he was wrong but insisted that he had found India and took credit for it. Just a weird little factoid.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Traverse why dont you try to "Shed light" on the criticism at some of the femenist sites and see how far you get.
Im sure that Violet Socks or Jeff Feakes will be more then receptive to you.
TOMD
Violet Socks banned me for disagreeing with her opinion that the entire duke lacrosse team got away with rape
September 17th, 2008 at 11:50 am
From:
http://logic11.wordpress.com/
Traverse Davies Says:
"Glenn Sacks (you will see him mentioned a few times in older posts) posted a piece I wrote on his site. It seems to be getting a bit of attention (read: hate and vitriol) which I love."
Hmmm... "hate and vitriol"? Do you reserve these terms for everyone who posts comments here, or just for those who disagree with you?
"which I love."
Possibly because it may increase traffic on your blog?
Sigh! There are several reasons why Glenn's web site continues to attract large audiences:
(1) It serves an obvious need;
(2) It is usually filled with interesting, thought-provoking and well written articles;
(3) Glenn usually does a good job of following a fair and balanced approach without resorting to childish name-calling.
Perhaps you should try this approach sometime.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Dave:
Did you read the rest of my blog? Just wondering because I don't think it says what you think it says. Now, I don't have anywhere remotely close to the readership Glenn does, but I do try to be fair and balanced (although I cringe to use those words). I also think that Glenn has more interesting things on his site per week than I have total entries on my blog... which is why I read this site on a regular basis. As to the more traffic... notice the complete lack of ads on my site? I don't make money off of this (at least at this point) and I have never really wanted fame (okay, not much anyway. There was a period in high school where I was locally infamous and sometimes that was kind of fun)
September 17th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Oh yeah, as to the hate and vitriol... there were many people who disagreed with me in a way that was fairly hate free, but there were a few who were just angry and wanted it known. That is okay, like I said... I am a big boy and I can take the heat ;)
September 17th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Traverse Davies -- "As to specific examples of sexism: do you want ones from the MRM community or society in general?"
That is a pretty fair and reasonable response to my question.
So my answer is "yes."
September 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Wait a minute, that's your case against Sacks?
Some woman posts a "rant" at a site that encourages ranting, and Glenn comes up with one alternative to it, and Glenn is demonizing women?
A response to a rant becomes demonizing?
Also note, there really is an indication this is a mother, but it's not clear she is. A response to this women's rant, becomes "demonizing A MOTHER?"
Ya know, when someone stands up at work or in a bar and lays out some bullshit story, often times the reaction is a) laughter, b) sympathy, c) someone telling an even bigger whopper. What was this woman doing at ex-rants then? Calmly and evenly and objectively detailing the many reasons from both sides as to why their marriage failed?
No, she was ranting, and Glenn offered one piercing of that rant, using the commonalities he has heard over the years.
Regarding comments left in the thread. For right or wrong, the blogosphere long ago decided that within certain bounds (violence, privacy violation, harassments) the comments are not the responsibility of the host.. I think it's safe to say any ugly thing you find in these comments can be found 50x over in the feminist blogs. And yet, here, unlike there, Sacks permits almost anyone to post without moderating comments. Do divorced men and women, or women and men "injured" in relationships say ugly things? You bet they do. What would getting rid of those ugly statements do for anyone? Make it seem like divorce and relationship breakups are easy and sweet smelling? Or just send people away, feeling unheard of as usual.
If you want to find fault with Glenn's writings, find fault with Glenn's writing. Attributing to him anything else is bogus.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Traverse Davies Says:
"Oh yeah, as to the hate and vitriol... there were many people who disagreed with me in a way that was fairly hate free, but there were a few who were just angry and wanted it known."
Have you visited the comments section of any "mainstream news" web site recently? You will certainly see plenty of examples of "hate and vitriol" on virtually any topic from just about every facet of the political spectrum, including liberal feminists. This is why it cracks me up to see someone make some kind of comment about "hate and vitriol" as though they have never seen it anywhere other than on Glenn's site or some other site concerned with men's issues. Oh, Puhleeease! Spare me the drama!
September 17th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Roy:
Society in general:
Girlicious, Maxim Magazine, The floor of any blue collar manufacturing plant, construction work, most of the third world. See, white collar work is actually pretty strenuously anti-sexist (at least against women) and the tweed collar world (what I call academia) is so far in the other direction it is scary. That doesn't change the fact that blue collar is typically very sexist. Also, just because a woman is protected from something doesn't make it not sexism, or even not sexism against the woman. If you protect a woman from hard work because you don't believe she can handle it, you have just committed a well intentioned act of sexism.
Now as to the MRM movement, read the comments section on almost any article. There are a number of folks who prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is sexism in the blog.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Jerry, Dave:
Again, you seem to have me mistaken for someone else. I don't believe that the MRM is a bunch of ogres out to beat up on women, merely that there is a tendency (as is not even surprising) for many in the MRM to not take women's concerns seriously. That was the point of the whole thing really... I have never claimed that feminists are better (and don't count myself as one despite being in the feminist dissident category on this site). You are making the usual false dichotomy "We can't be wrong because the feminists are wrong. Either you agree with us 100% or them 100%". I agree with the MRM on many points and with moderate feminists on some.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Traverse Davies Says:
"I agree with the MRM on many points and with moderate feminists on some."
If by "moderate feminists", you mean those who believe that our society should treat people the same, regardless of gender, with no special privileges for either gender, and equal responsibilities to go along with the equal rights, then I also agree.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Traverse: "The woman uses a slightly nasty (but very slightly) sort of humor about her ex,"
I really disagree with this view. Statements like "I thought about killing him in his sleep" and "I'm not even kidding" constitute a mean-spirited threat. That's not humor at all. I even remember an extreme feminist called "Biting Beaver" who once thought she should've aborted her son after catching him looking at pornography. Her friends felt she was justified in her thoughts, along with other parents who believed her to be letting off some steam.
You're just kowtowing to society where these thoughts are acceptable provided the target is a man. Which is just as counterproductive as the sexism you find directed toward women.
Face it, Traverse, calling a woman a "Bitch", "Whore", "Slut", or even threatening to beat sense into her in the real world is very frowned upon and will likely lead to severe consequences; loss of a job, fines, jail time, etc.
Whereas if a woman calls a man a "Pig", "Sex Fiend", "Bastard", threatens to castrate him, beats him down, thinks all men are rapists from the day they are born, this is called "Girl Power" and will be celebrated by women and men who have been emasculated. Even today's feminism has become nothing more than society's butt kisser since their argument is "Men have all the power" so they deserve it after what women went through in history. Let society shoot men in a barrel, we'll provide the guns and the motivation seminars.
While men go as far as women in unjustified criticism, they also know they are forbidden from ever speaking ill towards women lest their reputations and careers get ruined in the real world while women get off scot free with their male bashing since we're supposed to laugh it off and stop being so serious.
Since you're open minded, how do we solve this problem, Traverse?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
lujlp
I know thats why I told him to go there and see how he fared ;-)
The woman who runs violet socks is an EXTREME manhater from the word go. You cannot express any opinion there that is not syncophantic with her viewpoint of its insta ban. Although I did have a little fun using a proxy when she banned me. By her viewpoint we are ALL trolls and abusers.
Dapper Swindler,
Im very calm. I just dont like someone telling me I have to see things in "Shades of grey" when this site in comparsion is MUCH more liberal then similar sites from the other side.We at least are willing to listen and discuss.
September 17th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Just a quick question Traverse. Have you had these types of discussions on feminist sites and if so what was their reaction?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
I have never even tried to claim that Glenn Sacks is the equivalent of Violent Socks (I mean, come one... violent socks?). There are moderate feminists out there who are willing to discuss things. On the other hand, about two seconds into searching mens rights on the internet I found this gem: http://www.mensrightsblogs.com/feeds/feminist_scum/
I don't judge the MRM by that blog, and I don't judge feminism by Violent Socks. If I thought that the MRM was psychotic and dangerous I wouldn't even bother writing... because there would be no point. However, I think the MRM is mixed but mostly just men who are sick of dealing with horrible things that are not their fault.
As to commenting on feminist blogs: I have done so, I have never been invited to contribute to them however... and I have been shut down a time or two.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Gentlemen! We have to remember that only what women have to say about men is of any importance. It doesn't matter what she'd have to say about a particular man, or men in general, it's all fine. What men have to say about women on the other hand(when it's negative, or when it's about how attractive he may find her) that's when it becomes a problem. No one cares what men think, you see. That's why when men dare to speak their mind about women its considers vitriolic, sexist and hateful.
Since all men are part of the ruling class (teh patriarchy) and get off on oppressing women, men shouldn't have any complaints about women. Mens lives are all perfect. So when a man does have something not completely positive about a woman, it can ONLY be borne out of misogyny.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Hey DwS:
Have you actually tried reading my site? I think you will find that it is a little less feminist positive than you think it is going to be. I believe that the post right before the one referencing this article was about how female only schools in the third world are an incredibly bad idea and we need to offer the same thing to both sexes... not long before that I posted about false rape accusations and immediately before that I posted about how my Mother's generation hasn't realized that the world has changed, and that boys from my generation grew up with more disadvantages than advantages due to our gender.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Traverse: So, yes, woman-bashing exists in some places online. Not exactly a shocking or original observation and you'll notice not too many people here are telling you flat-out "it doesn't exist, no where, no how".
I guess your advice to everybody here is that they ought to watch their p's and q's so as to not offend anybody, and they ought to be slimed if some fellow somewhere has got a bikini calendar taped-up on his locker room door. Misogyny is bad in all its forms, after all.
Feminists, of course, may continue unrestrainedly using every linguistic weapon at their disposal, including mischaracterizations of the MRM, because it's wrong to "silence" them and add to the oppression they face.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Traverse: So, yes, woman-bashing exists in some places online. Not exactly a shocking or original observation and you'll notice not too many people here are telling you flat-out "it doesn't exist, no where, no how".
I guess your advice to everybody here is that they ought to watch their p's and q's so as to not offend anybody, and they ought to be slimed if some fellow somewhere has got a bikini calendar taped-up on his locker room door. Misogyny is bad, especially the hidden kind that you have strain your eyes to see.
Feminists, of course, may continue unrestrainedly using every linguistic weapon at their disposal, including mischaracterizations of the MRM and open man-bashing, because it's wrong to "silence" them and add to the oppression they face.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Traverse Davies said:
"On the other hand, about two seconds into searching mens rights on the internet I found this gem: http://www.mensrightsblogs.com/feeds/feminist_scum/"
Haven't seen this one before. I wonder if "Feminist scum" is in any way a play on the feminist "Masterpiece" the S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Sungjun:
Not even close to summing it up. I saw an issue and I spoke about it. I don't actually spend nearly as much time reading feminist sites because they aren't representing me... when I see something on a feminist site that I have an issue with, I comment on it. More often than not my comments don't end up ever existing in the forum. Tell the truth, I love this site and a lot of things Glenn has had to say have really helped to change my life (it was a heck of a lot easier to realize that I was abused by my ex wife thanks to this site...).
Feminism doesn't get a free pass from me, but neither does the MRM.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
That's a good question Danny!!! so how about Traverse? I was just thinking the same thing
September 17th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Harrison, Danny:
As I pointed out a couple of times... yes I have written comments on feminist sites, no I haven't gotten a good reaction when I was critical. Yes, I think Glenn's site is excellent, and while I disagree (occasionally) with Glenn I have a great deal of respect for him. I get less respect by and large when I post MRM related things on feminist sites... to the point of not getting to have these discussions because my post simply isn't there.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
One of the things I like about Glenn is that he often goes to great lengths to say when he's on the same page as feminists. Part of this is, I'm sure, because he hopes they'll do the same on some occasions. It doesn't seem to ward-off being called a misogynist, though.
I mean, feminists should theoretically be against man-bashing-- for the simple self-interested reason that it runs the risk of making feminism look bad-- but it's not much of a priority for them.
Hey, do a google search for "confronting man-bashing in the women's movement" and guess what comes-up? Glenn's article entitled "confronting woman-bashing in the men's movement"! Odd, isn't it?
September 17th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Yeah, and I don't disagree with you. If I could change feminists mind to get them to reject man bashing I would. Glenn did give me a place to voice my opinion, to date the opposite hasn't happened. If it does, I will say things that will probably make the extremists among the feminists cry out for my blood, but that many of the moderates might even agree with... kind of like here.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
One World Is Enough For All of Us
Personally I don't think that Glenn's response was "mean spirited;" indeed, I thought his was a reasoned and supportable response. The fact that we're being challenged for our opinions on his response and our own solicited contributions to the woman's missive about her ex is simply another example of the double- and more strict and demanding standards that men are compelled to live with every single day. I have never encountered similar challenges to feminists, in cyberspace, the classroom, the town square, etc., that weren't immediately put down by feminists and their fellow travelers.
As far as this, and his "don't feminists have a valid point?" post go, I mostly reject them both because they imply that we must look at the world in a strictly compartmentalized way. In this thread and the other, Traverse gives responses like (paraphrasing) 'I know MRAs have legitimate complaints, but I'm not addressing those, I'm addressing feminism's legitimate complaints.' This sort of thing is disingenuous because 1) society acknowledges, and in many cases obsesses over, feminist's complaints; 2) the world of men's and women's rights is not compartmentalized; we don't live in a vacuum. For good or not, in most cases the two are inexorably linked because in most cases that we deal with men and women have competing interests.
If you ask me to focus on women's concerns about being fat or unpopular while at the same time ignoring the fact that men are dying unnecessarily every day due to workplace accidents, violence, suicide, etc., I'm going to look at you like you're completely nuts. I mean, really, that's like asking me to go fetch a woman a glass of water to drink while Rome burns.
For me, it's all about proportionality and priorities.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
If there is more animosity posted on ex-rants towards women than men, could that be because women aren't deprived of their property, children and reputations by divorce courts? Maybe men have something to complain about while women don't.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Again, you seem to have me mistaken for someone else. I don't believe that the MRM is a bunch of ogres out to beat up on women, merely that there is a tendency (as is not even surprising) for many in the MRM to not take women's concerns seriously. That was the point of the whole thing really... I have never claimed that feminists are better (and don't count myself as one despite being in the feminist dissident category on this site). You are making the usual false dichotomy "We can't be wrong because the feminists are wrong. Either you agree with us 100% or them 100%". I agree with the MRM on many points and with moderate feminists on some.
Sorry, your dog doesn't fly.
In both this post and the preceeding post you made claims specifically about Sacks that just don't hold up. This time, he demonizes mothers because of how he posted a possible alternative to one woman's "rant", and also somehow because people who comment at his blog sometimes write ugly things.
I am the last person in the world to make the argument you're either with us or against us against you, but I do ask you read and argue against reality not against straw.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
There was something that confused me... and then I got it. I didn't ever refer to the woman in the rant as a mother. In fact, the title is Glenn's not mine. O.K., glad I cleared that up in my own head (was a very minor point but confused me all the same).
As to the rest... Jerry, we disagree but that is fine. I don't think I'm going to change my mind at this point (if there was an argument I was going to find compelling it probably would have come up by now... but hey, you never know) and I don't think you are going to change your mind either. Chalk it up to a difference in opinion.
Mancan: I believe the most common comment I saw on ex-rants was that if the women knew how to give a good blow-job they would not be single. That isn't really related to child custody. Again though, I was talking about the reaction on here... none of the men on this site are responsible for the behaviour of the men on that site.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Traverse seems to be far more reasonable in his criticisms than let's say our resident fem, Jeana ... who, believe it or not, Traverse, often set out only to provoke and antagonise even while she claims she doesn't agree with the horrible things that happen to men as highlighted in Glenn's posts. Her defense is always that because there's so much "vitriol" here toward women, that doesn't endear her to the MRA cause and thus, she lashes out.
Isn't that typical of us women, allowing our emotions to rule our every action? I guess its sexist of me against my own gender to say that?
Listen, I see shades of grey too, but in this case I don't think its relevant. What's discussed on Glenn's blog is not just a bunch a guys being b!tches about having to take out the garbage. They are aggreived about actual issues that's affecting lives for better or worse, usually worse. Therefore, either you believe in what's fair or right or in what's not fair and wrong. There is no shades of grey there. I realise that you realise this and pointing it out is not a criticism of you, just sayin'...
There is a way to criticise men who you feel are being sexist without painting the whole species as such. From your post and your responses to the other posters so far, I'd say you've done it the right way. Jeana should take a page out of your book.
Now that that's said, I want to point out that there will always be extremists associated with ALL movements, MRM, WRM, Civil Rights Movements etc. It's always good to remind us to keep ourselves in check (as you've done) but at the end of the day, it's also futile. Because as one extremist is silenced another pops up. Heck, there are some women's advocates (eg Jessica Valenti over at feministing) who is strongly opposed to men having their own movement. Why should women have a movement, but men shouldn't?
There are also many extremists on that site, though I've encounter many reasonable ones too. In the early days of my support for MRM issues, I'd attack these extremists but it was a complete waste of time and energy because they never go away. Or they do and someone else take their place. My point is that, yes, there are nutzos and whackjobs in the MRM, get use to it--they ain't goin' nowhere. The fact that they are there, though, doesn't invalidate the issues of the movement. Furthermore, isn't that what you--and other feminist supporters--also say when the Feminist Movement is criticised for the very same thing?
Its just better to attack something more tangible than people's opinions on something as trivial as the exrant post--because that's what Glenn's and his responders posts were ... opinions, rants even ... to which every individual is entitled even when we don't agree with them.
If Glenn, on the other hand, was advocating that this woman--and women in general--be devaginised (using this here as the equivalent of women wanting men to be castrated)--when they do something bad to a man in their lives--then you'd have a more valid argument in my opinion.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Mr Bad: "sort of thing is disingenuous because 1) society acknowledges, and in many cases obsesses over, feminist's complaints"
To the obsessive, no amount of obsessing is ever enough. That tends to complicate things in FeministLand.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Hey Davina:
Thanks for the kind words. To tell the truth, Glenn asked me if I wanted to write this piece and I did... I feel it is important to point this sort of thing out from time to time. Heck, even when I'm wrong at least it starts a discussion.
I agree that shades of grey are not always relevant. If your child is taken away from you then there are no shades of grey. I spent a period unemployed and was not able to keep up child support payments for a while (prior to that point I had already lost my apartment due to keeping up child support payments) and recently had this period thrown in my face as a reason I did not deserve to have custody of my son, so yeah, no shades of grey there for me.
For the record: I consider myself to be more sympathetic to the MRM side of things than the feminist side of things, but never on the side of extremists.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Sungjun, Mr. Bad:
I was bringing this message to people who are not sympathetic to feminism. There would be no point in me going on CNN and saying "Yes, there is sexism against women"... so if I was on there I would talk about the issues men face. However, saying "Men face sexism" on here is pretty much the same thing.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
By the way TD: For situations in which a woman is spanked and a man is stabbed by the same attacker, it just seems a little dumb to gush sympathy for the woman, then, turn to the man and shrugging: "Gee, that stabwound looks pretty bad, but you've really got to acknowledge your portion of responsibility for the systematic spanking that's going on out there and DO something to make things right. I mean, you DO share the attacker's genitalia and all..."
September 17th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Sungjun:
Can't argue the point, don't think it's relevant. If a man was just stabbed, I would find something to compress the wound with and then call for an ambulance. As a metaphor that just really breaks down all over the place.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Quite frankly I hate the term shades of grey, there is no such thing - only a mtriad of black and white situations seen from a bad vantage point
September 17th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Without even pointing one's browser towards it, I think that anyone who is the slightest bit up on Internet culture can tell two things right away about a site named "exrants.com": (1) it isn't intended to be taken all that seriously, and (2) it will be a troll magnet. So I'm going to go over there to look at it now...
Yeah, it's pretty much what I thought. Anonymous posting (not even screen names); nobody has any idea whether someone claiming to be a woman is really a man, or vice versa, or a dog, or a Turing test, etc. At least half of all the responses are obvious trolls. Is it possibly to trust anything at all that is posted there? Probably not. The original article that Glenn commented on, which started this whole thread, may have been a troll for all we know. I'm not saying that the site doesn't serve a purpose, but as far as drawing conclusions about society, it's not exactly a representative sample.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
That's why I didn't draw conclusion based on that site, but based on this one. However, I was trying to show examples of sexism at one point and this site had quite a few. In retrospect I am sorry that I didn't include more examples of sexism both from MRM sites and from more mainstream sites... it took all three seconds with google to find many of them.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
True enough, Traverse, but I can just as easily find examples of reverse sexism. Just because you can find examples doesn't prove that it is running rampant in society. I think I get where you are coming from -- MRM needs to take the high road, etc. -- and I don't disagree. The thing you have to realize, though, is that Glenn's site serves several purposes, and one of this is, quite frankly, giving men a place to blow off steam where they won't get into trouble for doing so. (Such places are rare in our society today.) I've seen instances of things that people here have posted and thought "wow", but then I realized that the poster just needed to vent, and what I needed to do was leave it alone.
The real question, for all of us here, is that when we have a bad encounter with a womem, do we assume that most/all women are like that? If we do, is that assumption sexist, or are we just facing up to reality? And if it is reality, what's the root cause? And I would be willing to listen to an argument that says it's a self-reinforcing, circular phenomonen; men treat women badly, so women react by treating men badly, so men react by treating women badly, etc. I've seen some people state that that's the case, but they always proceed from there by trying to lay blame for who started it. To me, that's not relevant (except in an academic sense); what's relevant is: how do we stop it? Is it even possible to stop it?
September 17th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
I think the way to stop the circular thing is to be the one to stop... no matter how angry you are. Don't react with anger, react with calm and judgment. When I was arrested for assault on my ex I stayed calm, I talked to the police officers that arrested me, I let them examine the evidence. The one cop was incredibly angry when he discovered that the crown was going to move forward with charges and even punched the wall. They were sympathetic enough to me that they let me go and buy a pack of smokes (I stayed calm, but my nerves weren't great for some reason and this was years before I quit). I do not have animosity towards my ex now. We worked through it for the good of our son and even though I would rather slit my wrists than get back together with her I can be civil to her... which allows her to be civil to me. I am not saying that this will work in every case, or right away... but it will work more than it will fail.
For the record... I had her charged with assault as well and she was found guilty. That wasn't anger, that was calm, rational action based on the fact that she assaulted me.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Traverse: "Demonized"? Bet you couldn't even get that divorced mother to agree with you on that. Glen certainly is tolerant to let you on his site. Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, your writing so far is just a strident waste of space. Please try harder.
September 17th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
I admit, the word demonized was more aimed at the commentors on the blog, although I do think that Glenn was too harsh and hasty in his judgment of the woman... but I guess I'm one to talk since I came out sounding too harsh on Glenn.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
1) Glenn is always respectful, balanced and doesn't light his hair on fire running around the room.
2) Traverse Davies is not and needs his mouth washed with soap - often.
September 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
# Traverse Davies Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Badger... I am way harsher on the feminist movement than I am on the MRM. I have huge issues with the lack of understanding of science that exists in womyn's studies (spelling intentionally ironic) and the refusal to accept that objectivity can even exist. However, as I stated above, this is an opinion piece not a scientific study.
And I was been sarcastic though you never know with the womyn's(spelling intentional) studies "professors".
September 17th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Chris Jones:
Two quick questions for you...
1) How was I disrespectful?
2) Are you my half brother? I know Chris Jones is a very common name, but had to ask.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Traverse
I think you're well reasoned when it comes to gender issues. Even though I was virtrolic in the past, I've come to accept the fact just now that it's not really getting me anywhere.
I just wish I knew where all those moderate feminists are that you speak of. So far, I've only encountered extremists or well-intentioned women who have issues they are working through and have let those issues cloud their politics.
If only I were in the company of those moderate feminists, then it would make me feel at ease and I can actually work on my anger rather than always encounter the extreme ones who set me off.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Traverse said: "I was bringing this message to people who are not sympathetic to feminism."
False premise. There are plenty of people here who indeed are sympathetic to feminism, or at least the stated goals of feminism - including me - but as I pointed out before, IMO the injustices suffered upon men in our society vastly outweigh the injustices al suffered upon women, and since we don't live in a highly compartmentalized world (or at least I don't) I need to prioritize. Furthermore, since much of the blame for the injustice against men can be correctly placed squarely at the feet of the feminist movement, I have a strong animosity towards it and it's adherents. Therefore, because I exercise my right to pick my priorities, I choose to fight for men's rights and because of the sources of the injustice that puts me up against feminism much, if not most, of the time. I know it seems a bit incongruous to be sympathetic towards some of the stated goals of feminism and at the same time be very, very much against the movement, but IMO on balance feminism does much more harm to men than good to society as a whole.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
I have read some of your comments and posts and have to say you have hit the nail on the head. While Glenn is somewhat fair (most of the time - sometimes he can be quite oinky), the commenters on his blog are definitely oinky - as in chauvunistic. I have been a reader (and sometime commenter) on here for several years, and find myself looking back in time when I read some of the comments. The commenters are harsh. I have only seen one incident in whcih I felt Glenn went a little over the top and acted piggy in nature. This was on the blog post in which he offered up what he would say to his wife should she catch him looking at other women. Any man of mine looked at another woman in the manner the guy on the cell phone commercial did, he would be having to run after he in order to have any type of intimate contact. I do not believe in looking, if you are unhappy or think the grass is greener, then by all means go graze but don't expect to come back to your home pasture.
Now I am sure this will offend some on here, and will probably even be pulled due to the fact that I called some of the men on here oinky, but so be it. The day will come and women who have been terrorized by the types of men who comment on this board will be able to speak out about everything discussed on here. And I predict that board will be even larger than this one is. It is only a matter of time. Then we will practice the censorship that is practiced on here.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
@Traverse...
WHEN I see legions of men openly and shamelessly stand to applaud a man for the brutal sexual mutlilation of a woman THEN I will think you may have a point.
In my country in the last couple of years hundreds of thousands of women sponsored a sex tourist in the consumation of her grooming of a fourteen year old boy. No probs...cutesy love story.
That is mainstream Traverse. Not some isolated internet blog. MAINSTREAM. And it's not just feminists Traverse, it's women more generally.
I've discovered recently where the bar is set for women Traverse. Simply claiming a case of the blues is enough for us to turn a blind eye if they rape a kid. I've spent the last two days dealing with women who got sucked into the now standardised victimhood narrative built around female sex offenders. Not feminists Traverse. Normal every day women. Women who think a ten year old post natal depression should excuse a woman of raping a kid.
The incidence you highlight is going on within a couple of tiny internet blogs. The hatred and discounting of men and boys is mainstream. It's in our governments, our schools. It's taught to our kids for crying out loud.
My nephew left school a couple of years ago believing all men are pigs. His parents and I pursued this with him and a few of his mates. Turns out it was quite usual for their female teachers to spout this crap in classrooms. The boys ended up believing it.
In the classroom Traverse. In the classroom.
So get back to us when MRM or Glenn Sacks inspired hatred goes mainstream or is taught in our classrooms.
Until then women have an absolute monopoly on legitimised, overt gender hatred.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
You state that "The real question, for all of us here, is that when we have a bad encounter with a womem, do we assume that most/all women are like that? If we do, is that assumption sexist, or are we just facing up to reality? And if it is reality, what's the root cause? And I would be willing to listen to an argument that says it's a self-reinforcing, circular phenomonen; men treat women badly, so women react by treating men badly, so men react by treating women badly, etc."
I can tell you until I met my ex and was terrorized by him, I had no ill will towards men. Now everytime I turn around I find reason not to trust. I have been married twice now (he has 4 under his belt - should have been a huge red light warning bell), and my first ex and I get along wonderfully. Even in the divorce there was no animosity, we each split everything ourselves, we decided what would be done with the children and we each went our seperate ways. To this day we still see each other and while it could never be rekindled, we are still happy to see each other. I have also dated 2 or 3 men, and each one has expressed regret over the relationship ending. My last ex-husband however, is a whole otehr ball game. I have family who thought I was exagerating about his control and narcissism. They no longer doubt having heard him speak to me and to our child. This marriage was a living hell and the divorce and post divorce period were even worse. This man would not be happier if he could completely remove me from our child's life and insert new wifey in the picdture. He in fact tries to do this at every single parenting time with her. Thankfully our child loves me too much and has little feelings for the new wife, so whenever they speak of new wife being able to be a better mommy, our child says no way jose.
So yes I do think some of the mistrust from men to women and from women to men is caused by actions like this. I had no reason to mistrust men before my ex. Now every man is in question. You can thank the abuser, the narcisistic man for that one. And to be fair, you can also count the psycho women in that picture too.
But this question is like the chicken and the egg, which came first. I had no hangups regarding men until after my second marriage. Now I cannot stay far enough away. There are you men on here who hate women, and have no qualms about being very vocal in that hatred. Now who is right and who is wrong? Chciken or egg?
September 17th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Oh, and Traverse, in the past few days I've also been trying to get the national braodcaster in my country to deal with the overt sexism of some of their female radio presenters. Moderators on their forums have told me that suggesting a woman is sexist is defamatory.
Gee whiz.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
To traverse Says "The day will come and women who have been terrorized by the types of men who comment on this board will be able to speak out about everything discussed on here. And I predict that board will be even larger than this one is. It is only a matter of time. Then we will practice the censorship that is practiced on here."
Censorship? When on earth have you ever been "censored"? I bend over backwards to allow feminists to have their say here. Please provide an example of this "censorship" to me at glenn@glennsacks.com.--GS
September 17th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Bloody well said, gwallan, on both posts!
That's the point I was trying to make to Traverse too, but you certainly articulated and illustrated it a lot better than me.
Great job!
September 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Projection again. Women hate men so they project that hatred onto men, believing all men hate women in the same way.. On all those female/feminist sites, they will censor you if you don't agree that all men are scum, potential rapists and need to be wiped off the face of the earth. So of course, they'll project that onto men like Glenn who run sites like this.
September 17th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I pray that the day "To Traverse" is praying for will come because then people with penises will be allowed on the feminist blogs under topics as ____ dissidents. If the censorship that Glenn practices is allowed on feminist blogs... we will be able to challenge their "facts" and that is unacceptable. NO ONE Questions the Veracity of the Feminist cause.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Traverse says: "Feminism doesn't get a free pass from me, but neither does the MRM."
Factory replies: That's the fairest thing I've seen you say. Excellent thinking, keep it up. And yes, I'm being serious.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Glenn has indeed bent over backwards to give feminists freedom on this blog, which just shows how painstakingly fairminded he is.
Try posting comments at feministing which are critical of feminism in general and their regulars in particular, and see how many seconds it takes to get banned.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
To Traverse (weird to write that):
I have to say, I have never felt censored by Glenn, in fact he gave me a platform to speak from when I was criticizing him. The closest it has ever come is that Glenn has limits on bad language in his forum, so he (with my permission) toned down a couple of curse words in one of my posts. He has been a gracious host in every way and I find myself having to defend him in that.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
I'm getting pretty used to people telling me I don't consider the points of feminism, and give credit where it's due. As an MRA, I stand eternally accused of misogyny, and my opposition to feminism is attacked for not “acknowledging feminism's valid points”. These arguments are usually accompanied by remarks about tone and demeanour, and suggestions that I (and others like me) be more polite.
Now, it's no secret that many Men's issues run counter to the best interest (or greed) of women in general, IF you believe the absolute worst of the people involved. 50/50 shared custody and no child support could be perfectly reasonable to one woman, and blasphemy to another..the only difference is motivation.
So let's consider feminist talking points for a couple minutes...
Rape is BAD, and it's an EPIDEMIC!!!! (Rape/sexual assault/unwanted attention/”male gaze”)
Women make less money (on average across the whole population) than men.
Sexism is rampant against women (meaning women are judged on their looks (still), and the hotties get preferential treatment)
Take back the night!!! (Women fear to walk alone at night – men are responsible)
Sexual freedom!!! (Questioning women's sexual behaviour is “Patriarchal (tm)”)
Abortion is a Gaia-given right! (But ONLY for women)
Men owe us because we say they do. (Litany of laws/regulations/social customs that hold men “responsible” for everything from children's welfare (even those not their own), to unsafe sex, to women's success)
That's about all I can come up with, I'm sure there's more (maybe even major points, but I couldn't be arsed).
As to the rape thing, of course rape will become more prevalent when you increase the “radius” of the definition. When these grossly inflated statistics are then placed against the conviction rate for rape (even given the ridiculous standards to which men are held, for “accountability” dontcha know?), the quality of the charges are so low, that very few men are convicted.
One can quibble, but seriously, given the political value of this topic, one can assume everyone involved is busting their butts to get convictions as well. Odds are pretty good it's the low quality evidence, coupled with “no drop” policies, resulting in low conviction rates.
The stress on each and every one of those defendants is real though. The only way one could not care about them, is to assume they're each and every one guilty.
Women make less money... Hmmm, 70+% of middle managers are female. If you don't have a degree, or a trade, you pretty much work in “female dominated” retail or service industry. The vast majority of retail is woman-centric, ergo fewer opportunities for men. Same with service industry (waitresses make the cash, not the busboy/dishwasher/cook). Public sector is completely dominated by women as well, unless – again – you have a trade or degree.
Which leaves dirty and/or dangerous work for the men without education or a trade (even some of those).
Who has the worse employment situation again?
Take back the night? OK, let me know when it's safe to walk alone at night...until then, I'll continue to be cautious.
Sexual freedom would be so great. I wish men had it too.....
If abortion rights are so sacred to feminists, why exactly do they oppose men having the right to disavow the unborn child, thereby absolving himself of all financial/legal obligations in relation to the child? Aside from a “worst case scenario” of feminists wanting the right to force men to finance the babies women will CHOOSE to have, without any input from him, what other motivation can there be?
I'm in favour of bringing men's and women's reproductive rights directly in line (meaning legally indistinguishable, not literal), wherever that line may happen to fall. Anywhere from “no one can have one” to “no one can be forced to be/finance a parent”, I'm good wherever. Seriously.
As to the “men owe us” bit... Well, that depends on whether or not you accept “Patriarchy Theory” at face value or not. Taking the stance that men oppressed women, and therefore what women are doing is OK is “accepting Patriarchy Theory at face value” by the way...
If you, like me, reject the ridiculous notion as the unprovable, even unquantifiable bullsh*t that it is... well then you see the whole “men owe us” line for what it is.....sexism in the nastiest sense of the word. Justification for the pillaging of men's goodwill. Ego soothing balm for a guilty conscience.
In actual fact, the only time in North America a gender has been singled out for attack and dehumanization is now, and by feminists. These same feminists are now focussing on the TONE we use in our posts, the “offensiveness” of said posts.
They never address the actual arguments.
When they do, they say “You guys should really do something about that”. But only when they've got no other false arguments to give.
And yet we MRA's are being “insensitive” and “unwelcoming”.
Nevermind that we can't (and haven't been able to for years) discuss these things on feminist forums, either real life or virtual – because we're censored out of existence quickly. They're just “empowered” to provide a “safe and nurturing environment” for feminism.
We're the real pricks.
But, leaving aside all these things....all these tired arguments that are no less true today than they were 5 years ago...let's drop all that and consider...
What would you, as a feminist, have us do?
Seriously, shoot. Give me your list of actions that we as a society must take, and results that must be achieved, before we FINALLY consider some MRM points without the nit-picky criticisms of language and demeanour?
While you're at it, please explain to me how being “more polite” will acieve results, when said tactic hasn't worked in the past (especially in light of the success of more “extreme” actions in garnering attention AND public sympathy).? And just for good measure, tell me again why I have to rein in my opinion simply to avoid offending someone, since I think Political Correctness is an equally damaging force similar to (and spawn of ) feminism?
I'm willing to hear you out. Be straightforward, and honest, and you will be dealt with with respect.
September 17th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
I made a comment on a post about 2 weeks ago and it said moderated waiting to be approved and it never was. I have been warned that men on this blog will attempt to discover your identity if you post against them. I know my isp can be discovered but I refuse to divulge my email to anyone, and anyone who attempts to make contact with me through any means will be met with law enforcement. I see the anger on this board from many men (and some of the woman supporters) that are directed to feminists.
I may be one that you call the femi-"blocked word here". If I am to be called this name simply because I am not a sex machine for use by my husband at his will whenever he wants, because maybe just maybe I could have had a bad day and dinner was not ready waiting for him with an open can of cold beer, if I want to spend time with my friends every so often, if I want our child to cultivate many relationships, if I think it is extremely controlling for anyone to demand to know someone else's whereabouts 24/7, if I believe all this and you think this makes me a feminist, then that is what I am. If I feel degraded by something and choose not to do it, I should not be forced to do it. And if I am forced to do it, then it is either assault or rape. It should not matter if we are married. A marriage license is not a license for sex.
I read some of the same foul spew that came from my ex-husband's mouth on this blog. I have been in the position of watching my then husband flirting with other women, ignoring me, and those women being disgusted by his actions, if all this disgusts me and I feel I deserve better, then by all means I am a feminist. Marriage is not a 50/50 proposition. It is a 100/100 and when one cannot give 100 it is up to the other to take up the slack. I recently had medical issues that have been around for many years. Simple procedure would have fixed it 7 years ago, yet I had to endure major surgery from which my doctor had dificulty reviving me, I find this reprehensible. Simply because another new toy for him was more important than my health I was denied medical attention. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
So to say I am feminist or the other femi word some of you are so found of spewing - well I say go ahead. I will wear my feminist badge of honor with pride.
Oh and to make a point - Glenn only took from my post what he wanted to comment about. I now have two posts where he showed some oink. You want a woman who will treat you right, yet you treat us as psychos or as sex objects. We are people and we have brains and feelings. A pageant queen is not some sexy bimbo - she must be more than just a pretty face - she must have brains, talent, and intelligence. Of course that is too much for many on here to understand, because in their minds women are NOT equal and should never be. In some people's minds, women should bow down to the man and do whatever he chooses her to do. Not this lady, sorry. And I have a mind and a mouth and am not afraid to use it. I also have a computer and a keyboard and a very understanding male friend who is also disgusted by this site.
Like I said it is only a matter of time...........
September 17th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Re: Glenn's accurate comment about "censorship."
It is intriguing that when men debate and disagree, we just debate and disagree.
When a man disagrees with a woman, that is sexism.
Why?
I have had arguments in bed with women I really liked about this topic.
It usually leads to a trip to the nearest airport for her.
September 17th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
When a girlfriend disagrees with me about the foolishness of feminism and its ideology, I just put her on an airplane.
Solves the problem.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I am not a representative of feminism... I am pro fathers rights (as a father that kind of makes sense). However, I believe that men being sexist doesn't help fix the situation and is bad simply because it is. Simple for me I guess. Someone else doing the wrong thing to me doesn't give me the right to do the wrong thing as well. Why is this a binary equation in your mind? You can do the right thing and still fight for your rights...
September 17th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
I truly hope this was not directed to me. I am simply stating that like a dog most men and women when bitten hard enough to hurt badly will react accordingly. And notice I am saying men and women. This could very well be why these men are faring badly with women. Either they hooked up with a truly mentally ill individual (and no their opinion does not count - my ex says I am insane however I have several people who have listened to both of us and they disagree with his statement), or they have hooked up with a woman who is quite like myself - she would love to have a companion, not someone to whom she must be tied either literally or figuratively for the rest of her life. And by that I mean, if I want to go have a girlfriend's day or overnight or even weekend every so often, then I should be able to go. There should be no "oh she is "allowed" to do this or that" I am an adult and live in the USA and I am free to do things also. A marriage license does not give one person permission to make a slave of the other. I know enough to only be friends with men, I will probably never be married again nor will I have any type of relationship with a man aside from friendship, due to my ex's extremes. I am but one woman - I am one of those women whose ex's have made miserable. I am smart enough to realize however, that I will never be able to have a relationship with a man because I will doubt anything and everything he does. I was NOT like this before. So YOU explain it to me - how marriage to the monster did this?
I could tell you stories about this man that would make your toenails curl and all of you "good dads" would simply cringe in horror. Every other man I have told some of these stories to were flabbergasted. They simply could not believe that a man could hate his ex enough to do what my ex has done. I can't believe it still either and rather than show some more of my anger towards my ex I will leave this board for tonight. Have a good night all and be good to your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend/sgnificant other before it is too late. Don't destroy a loving human being simply because you are selfish. That is what this boils down to is a selfish person.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
To all Says "I made a comment on a post about 2 weeks ago and it said moderated waiting to be approved and it never was."
You're not on moderation. However, it's possible that the moderator picked up something you said--I tend to be pretty strict about vulgarity, for example, though it might have been another issue here.
Normally when someone posts something that violates the blog rules, I send them a letter explaining the problem and I often suggest how they can remove the offending words, etc. and repost. I don't always do this--my time is short and I don't like to spend much time moderating the blog--but I often do send these notes.
However, since you've decided not to provide me a functional email address, I have no way of communicating with you when a post is a problem, so my only option is to not fish it out or delete it.
BTW, to cite "censorship:" over one post that probably violated blog rules anyway is not a very convincing argument. You've made several posts today and in the past which are hostile to my point of view and they're all on the blog. I think it would have been appropriate for you to mention that..--GS
September 18th, 2008 at 12:32 am
@Glenn...ban the whacker. Multiple posting names and a fake email address spells troll.
@Traverse...
So I can get a handle on what you consider to be sexism why don't you parse my earlier couple of posts with that in mind. I have been fairly harsh in my judgements of women, feminist or not, in this thread. But does it actually constitute sexism? Is the mere criticism of women actually sexist?
September 18th, 2008 at 12:59 am
how does speculating on a single story (which everyone has the right to do, of course), translate into "demonizing women"? The o.p. is out to lunch. His time would be better spent emailing hate-monger Nancy Grace for condemning the Duke boys. But no, he wouldn't want to hold women to the same high ethical standards he is holding us - would he?
September 18th, 2008 at 1:12 am
Traverse is genetically predisposed to protect and "big up" women (and correspondingly, "do down" men), as are we all. Since this behaviour has its basis in the unconscious, it is typically a waste of time to argue with people on a "peicemiel" issue-by-issue basis as is being done above with Traverse.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Davina,
“My point is that, yes, there are nutzos and whackjobs in the MRM, get use to it--they ain't goin' nowhere. The fact that they are there, though, doesn't invalidate the issues of the movement. Furthermore, isn't that what you--and other feminist supporters--also say when the Feminist Movement is criticised for the very same thing?”
So then why do all the MRAs get so bent out of shape by the same handful of feminists who have made a comment or two that are extreme? They seem to believe that the handful of feminists who make these comments are the norm. The nutzos and whackjobs in the feminist movement aren’t going anywhere either, and they don’t invalidate our movement. So get used to it!!
And I could say “hello” and it would be seen as provoking and antagonizing many of the posters here.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:37 am
Danny,
“The difference is that men will actually go to women's sites and say something about it (and that is not to be confused with the jerks that only go to those sites with the intent to disrupt things) while women will read a few things on men's sites, conclude that all men think that way, then go back to their own safety sites and complain (often making things up, generalizing, and clinging to myths as "evidence")”
You know what doesn’t help? When a man makes comments that are pretty wacky, and no one stops him. So it is very easy to believe that some crazy statements are acceptable and then generalize this to all MRAs. You MRAs really only seem to criticize men who show a bit of empathy for feminists or for a female point of view. Not that you have to moderate yourselves; you should feel somewhat free to say what you wish. But you will be judged on what you say and what you don’t say.
That website that Traverse commented on (http://www.mensrightsblogs.com/feeds/feminist_scum/) is really horrible. That guy is really an idiot. The kind of person that reminds me why I consider myself a feminist. It would be really easy to read it and use it as proof that all MRAs are pigs and worthless. (The same could be said for hateful females on some of their blogs.) I don't think you can blame women for this.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am
One more thing—I don’t think it matters that exrants.com isn’t an MRA site. It still has a lot of hatred for women. Cousin Dave said, “I'm not saying that the site doesn't serve a purpose, but as far as drawing conclusions about society, it's not exactly a representative sample.” I think you can draw conclusions by what you read there. I read things on YouTube and the comments that males make are so very hateful and disgusting when the subject is something feminist. I don’t look at pro-male things, so maybe there’s the same kind of things there too, but I somehow doubt there is as much of the hate as you see coming from men.
September 18th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Lol
"bent out of shape by the same handful of feminists who have made a comment or two that are extreme?"
handful? comment or two? Hey aren't you the one that has still not found a feminist blog that refrains from demonizing men? I guess only the man-hating handful have blogs. WHERE are the rest? Why does it not take more than 15 minutes to find something very anti-male on a feminist blog?
I will tell you why - because feminism has no other flavor than hating men. The degree of hate varies, but hate still exists. Don't blame me for looking out for myself.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:14 am
To all says,
"I have a mind and a mouth and am not afraid to use it."
The key is to connect the two.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:27 am
Factory says,
"These same feminists are now focussing on the TONE we use in our posts, the 'offensiveness' of said posts..."
and
"we MRA's are (accused of) being 'insensitive' and 'unwelcoming'.."
Speaking in this manner has become so common that today even most MRA's do not blink at it. What one must realize is that ,a) speaking in this manner, with these and similar word, reflects a "female model" which has reached a saturation point in our society; and b) relatedly, it reflects a "therapeutic" model (related in the sense that the therapy profession is dominated by women).
September 18th, 2008 at 2:55 am
@jeana...
How the hell would you know. You've stated several times previously that you don't read feminist websites. You have no basis on which to make any comparison.
jeana I've been around the internet for over a decade. Much of that time was spent debating in the bear pit that is Usenet. I've also been actively involved in the brutal world of party and union politics for forty years.
This place is a fu***ing tea party by comparison.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:35 am
{The kind of person that reminds me why I consider myself a feminist. It would be really easy to read it and use it as proof that all MRAs are pigs and worthless. (The same could be said for hateful females on some of their blogs.) I don't think you can blame women for this.}
It doesn't matter Jeana, because the goal isn't for all of us to run for office, or otherwise win any popularity contests. We need to agitate constantly and spread the word to as many men as possible about the issues that are important to us. As we continue to beat the drums many men who otherwise would have suffered in silence will come out of their dens and start making noise. The emotional level needs to rise until things finally get done.
Feminist rhetoric is horrific. Just about any important feminist leader from the 70's has a long list of quotes that would rival anything Hitler ever said. But the feminists have succeeded in converting society and subverting the legal system to their values. In court these days, facts simply don't matter; all that matters is emotional slogans. This impacts us in countless ways, since any man who ever gets married or has a child can end up in court.
September 18th, 2008 at 6:18 am
“When you read this, keep in mind that the original post is on www.exrants.com, where women are vilified almost constantly, both in the comments on their own rants and in the men's rants.’
While I agree that the site is contemptible, it is irrelevant which sex gets the most vilification at ex-rants, as it is not a men’s rights blog.
“In the case of the linked rant, the woman uses a slightly nasty (but very slightly) sort of humor about her ex, “
Yes, she says she wanted to smother him in his sleep and that she wasn’t joking in saying so, then she says that now she wants to kill him all the time. Humor? Probably. Only slightly nasty? Obviously not. And I dare say that if one of us ever posts such humor traverse will be the first to decry it.
“ Glenn Sacks jumped on her out of all proportion to what she said”
What, you mean he threatened to smother her with a pillow or something? What did I tell you? Violent humor is okay for the goose but merely sarcastic humor is “vilification” when committed by the gander.
“Basically Glenn (and he seems to be by far kinder than those who left comments on his page) comes up with a few scenarios that he thinks would explain why the woman is single now. All of them are mean-spirited.”
Given the woman’s rancor it seems not unfair to suggest the split may be her fault especially since she cant come up with anything more serious against her husband than snoring and criticism of her dietary habits.
“He lists four possible reasons why her marriage didn't work out, but here are a few other possibilities:
5) He cheated on her.”
Do you really think a woman like this would have failed to tell us that?
“8) He hit her.”
Do you really think a woman like this would have failed to tell us that?
Here’s another possibility for you.
He didn’t want to be smothered in his sleep.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:24 am
@Binary equation:
No, my last post was directed at factory.
@gwallan:
Yes, saying negative things about women does constitute sexism. Saying negative things about a particular woman does not. Saying negative things about a political movement does not. Saying negative things about society and the way it treats gender does not. The minute you make the leap from specific to general (all women are...) you are being sexist (unless what you say is verifiable, for example all women have two x chromosomes). This one piece of understanding may help us in our debate from here on in. An example: a woman says all men are pigs... she is being sexist. A man says that woman hate men... he is being sexist. Now, if a woman meets a guy and says he is a pig, she is voicing an opinion on that man (it could be right or wrong) and that is not sexist. A man meets a woman and says she hates men, he is voicing an opinion on the woman (it could be right or wrong) and that is not sexist.
Now things get a bit more complicated. If you decide you know what someone meant and you do so based largely on their gender then you are being sexist. The really horrible thing is that we are all, to some degree, sexist. Men and women are all occasionally guilty of stereotyping based on gender. One thing that is important is to try and notice such behaviour in yourself (this goes for racism too) and to try and fix that.
That is the role I was trying to play, because it is such an easy trap to fall into. "Women did this to me". Well, no they didn't. Women don't all agree on a single thing in this world, some women and some men pursued an agenda that seems to come from the modern feminist movement despite it only being tangentially connected to the original goals of that movement.
Then there are the others who actively state that women should not be equal. Those people are not people I expect to be able to reach. We are never going to find common ground on these issues (I'm looking at you PolishKnight) but that doesn't mean we have to hate each other. We can disagree vehemently on this and almost every other issue and still treat each other with civility... I promise to do my best if you folks do.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:01 am
My hypothesis on Traverse is thus:
Traverse only cares about sexism in social interaction. Actual legal discrimination is not interesting to Traverse.
Hence the continual threads about who called who what, while ignoring actual discrimination in VAWA, police procedures, the selective service, the family courts....
September 18th, 2008 at 9:21 am
So Chris_C:
You know that I am harder on the MRM than I am on feminism huh?
That means you have ignored many of the comments I have posted here and haven't looked at my blog at all. On the other hand, maybe you are simply cherry picking.
Again, for the record: I am a divorced father who lost his child to the court system and at one point lost his apartment due to child support payments, and then was unable to keep the payments up (being unemployed sucks) and was raked over the coals by the court system. I was married to an abusive woman who tried to have me charged with assault and I was one of the rare men who had enough actual evidence to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that I was not guilty and that she was and I still had to go to trial.
These are things I have issues with. It doesn't make the other issues go away and ignoring them or perpetuating them isn't (in my opinion) the right thing to do. I believe in doing the right thing, even if you have been wronged. That does not mean blindly defending all women all the time, but it does mean acknowledging that sometimes some women need defending, as do some men.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I have been in revolutionary committee meetings where everyone had guns and the individuals were more polite than what sometimes happens on this site.
I did not so much mind the guns. The lack of manners was what pissed me off.
People....
respect every voice.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Roy:
You should have seen usenet in the nineties...
September 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Sigh... I have to explain Internet 101 to Jeana again...
"So then why do all the MRAs get so bent out of shape by the same handful of feminists who have made a comment or two that are extreme? "
Because Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, and Pandragon are not anonymous commenters on a blog. True, they are only a "handful" of feminists -- buit they are politically well-connected, influential women who set the agenda for feminism. PK, Roy, and I have not been employed by a Presidential campaign to write policy for gender issues. Amanda Marcotte has. And she is barking-at-the-moon insane.
To tie this in with the breaking-the-cycle discussion that Traverse and I had about fifty comments back: Misandry is now a multi-million dollar industry. The cycle now has a life of its own; I don't think it is within the power of individual men to break it. There is virtue in turning the other cheek, but at some point you run out of cheeks. People like Marcotte and the family-court lawyers are making serious bucks off of misandry, and they aren't going to give it up willingly.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
And as for our every-post-under-a-different-name commenter: I'm not going to bother responding yet because I give it about a 90% chance that you're a troll. If you want to establish a regular screen name, give Glenn an email that works, and stop blaming all men for what one man did (allegedly) to you, then maybe we can talk.
September 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Cousin Dave:
I actually don't advocate turning the other cheek. Never have. Civility, moral action, combined with actual action. The trick is you never want your group to be the crazy fringe group so you shouldn't act like one. It is good strategy as well as being the right thing to do. That does not mean you don't write letters when a newspaper prints quotes from a feminist activist who tries to claim that most MRA's are abusers, or that you don't take whatever legal action you can to prevent sexist anti-male policies, or that you don't hold protest rallies, or that you don't (in a civil tone) call feminists on it when they lie or deceive (I use deceive because a lot of feminists simply are misinformed about the issues, although convincing them of that can take some real work)
September 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I'm inclined to give the woman who posts under a different name the benefit of the doubt as to her sincerity. I will continue to respond to her as if what she says is her experience... if it isn't then it is an experience that is mirrored many places. That doesn't mean men are bad people who abuse women... it means her ex (and possibly her other ex) were bad people who abused women, most of us aren't like that.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
So Traverse Davies,
I don't read your blog, I read this blog, and on this blog your gripes are about social issues not legal ones.
You've trotted out your bona fides before, but you didn't come back here to talk about that, you came back to gripe about Glenn's reaction to a bunch of anonymous sniping on exrants.com.
How about next time you start the post with what you think of discrimination of men in the courts?
September 18th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Actually, I recently wrote a piece from me that tackles the other side and it also deals mostly with social issues.
As to the legal issues... they aren't at this point the main issues facing women (at least not in North America or most of Europe). The distinction between legal discrimination and actual discrimination is disingenuous however. If all the laws preventing discrimination against men were suddenly changed it would be great... but it wouldn't mean that there were no more obstacles to overcome. In many ways social issues can be just as damaging. If the law states that you can't discriminate against black people but in a certain town no black person ever gets a decent job, stores that hire them as clerks get no business, etc. then that town has a lot of social racism. Note: that was an extreme example to illustrate social prejudice, not a real case, however many women do face large difficulties due to social prejudice and that really is most of what I was writing about.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
My experience is very real. If Glenn Sacks is still around posting in 11 years then I will reveal my story more on this blog. It could even happen sooner (depending on if the health issues my ex has are fatal - and these issues are multiple). Until then I do not trust many of the commenters on this board due to the anger I have read in their posts. I have been reading this blog for almost as long as it has been around. At first it was mild but then as it took off and postrers started leaving links I could not believe the other websites I read. The beliefs of the posters here is sometimes unbelievable, yet it is there in black and white.
Also there is no allegedly to my story. It has been witnessed by many people, and one person testified that my ex admitted to him. Thisperson asked about bruises on me and my ex said to him - oh I did that to keep her in line. This person also stated that due to those comments he minimized contact with us because he simply did not know how to deal with the fact that I was abused.
Like I said if I could trust I could share some stories about things my ex has done pre and post divorce that would make your hair stand on end. But I have little trust in you people on here and believe, realistically so, that you would attempt to create doubt or try to make it somehow less than what it was or worse. Our child was violated by a stranger at my ex's insistence. And it was legitimized by the state and numerous politicians. Our child had to undergo counseling in order to move past it. Had I allowed the same thing - I would be villified on here.
In closing - my brain and my mouth do connect. I have a very busy life trying to care for myself and my child, and sometimes I cannot come up with unique words to say what I want to say. I also have an issue due to the abuse with typing and will often switch letters or insert extra letters while typing.
I will also say that as an advocate for these issues, I have 2 to 3 women a day who contact me about the same problems I have. Hopefully I prepare them like I prepared myself so my child and I would be protected as much as possible. For a man to suddenly be father of the year when the woman is claiming dv - to become disneyland daddy, when during the marriage he would come home, demand dinner, pat the chidl on the head and walk out the back to drink until dinner or bed, that is not a dad. A dad is someone who supports the woman and knows about the children. My ex does NOT.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Cousin Dave,
“There is virtue in turning the other cheek, but at some point you run out of cheeks. People like Marcotte and the family-court lawyers are making serious bucks off of misandry, and they aren't going to give it up willingly.”
I never said to turn the other check. Spreading awareness of your issues is probably the best thing you can do.
Blaming all feminists, though, because of the things that a few say is only helpful to those who already hate feminists. Pointing out remarks and tying them to specific people to make your point is more effective. Otherwise it’s too easy to ignore you.
September 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I don't know that I agree completely oh woman with no name: A father is someone dedicated to the child. I was abused by my ex wife and no matter how much attention I paid, no matter how much work I did (all the housework plus a full time job, plus most of the child care) it was simply not enough. If I had it to do over I would have spent a lot less energy keeping her happy and a lot more on myself. Our society has this link between mother and child that is unquestioned, but is not completely real. People who behave like you described your ex's behaviour are not good parents, but sometimes they are women and not men. In the end, the kid needs to be the important one.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
jeana said: "You know what doesn’t help? When a man makes comments that are pretty wacky, and no one stops him. So it is very easy to believe that some crazy statements are acceptable and then generalize this to all MRAs. You MRAs really only seem to criticize men who show a bit of empathy for feminists or for a female point of view. Not that you have to moderate yourselves; you should feel somewhat free to say what you wish. But you will be judged on what you say and what you don’t say."
I've been saying exactly the same thing about women not calling-out crazy nutjob feminists for years. When Valerie Solanas, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine McKinnon, Marilyn French, et al., spewed their bile, nary a word from the 'more moderate' members of the feminist movement. And the number of non-feminist women who said anything about it is in the single digits.
Get back to us when you feminists clean up your own house.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Hey Gents, the poster who can't decide what her name is sounds to me like a certain mom from New York. If so, heaven help us all.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
"I don't read your blog, I read this blog, and on this blog your gripes are about social issues not legal ones."
Traverse, with regards to the above I have to agree with Chris C.
Might I remind you that we do not live in an ideal world, pleasantville--where everyone knows how to be civil and simply agree to disagree without getting their draws all up in a twist. Often we live in a dark, unconpromising world with selfish people who only seek to further their own agenda.
All this talk about men being sexist because they're angry at women is just trivial nitpicking--and you need to get over it. In the heat of the moment, men hate women, women hate men, sometimes even I hate women and I'm a woman! As you say, we're all sexist or racist at some point or another--toward our own and or toward those who are different from us. But really ... think about it, in the grand scheme of things can you say the majority of sensible people really HATE ALL membersof the opposite sex? I'll go out on a limb, Traverse, and say that in our daily lives many people on here can be and probably are just as reasonable as you are. We are flawed human beings who have momentary feelings of severe anger toward the opposite sex or toward another race--often within a valid context (like the issues discussed here). That's just the way human nature works.
I believe in egalitarianism. Quid Pro Quo. That's what life's all about. Maybe sad, but true.
For 50+ years women have been given free reign to spout all kind of nasty things about men unchecked because we were poor little victims in need of a voice. Fine, really, I have no problem with that as long as you don't protest when the object of your vitriol seeks to defend itself or use the same gutter tactics as you've employed.
And jeana, I'm not interested in getting into this with you. All I will say is when it comes to gender wars, the Feminist movement mastered the art of vilification first. Now that men are giving you ladies a taste of your own toxic medicine woman up and don't cry foul. I've hardly ever seen anyone here complain about the vilification of men that's rampant on feminist sites. Sure, some people from here go to these sites trying to get them to change and for the most part they're normally banned. Therefore, people here just want to reserve the right to fight fire with fire. Then folks like you and Traverse (though I'm far more inclined to listen to what he has to say considering that he's proven not be some spoilt entitlement prince who thinks the world should revolve around women, but not men, never men) come along chastising the big bad boys for bullying poor little (white) girls. Please.
I can agree that parties on both sides are often too busy sniping at each other rather than focusing on concrete issues. I'm guilty of it too, and I'm tired of it. Now I want action, no matter what it is. I just want to be doing something rather than sitting in front of computer
b!tching at people like Jeana and professional victimologists like that To whomever person.
That's why change is so slow in coming. If you really want to do the right thing as you say Traverse, try getting people to actually DO something to change the way things are or at least bring at attention it--start in your neighbourhood (not everybody has internet to read your blog). You're the ideal poster candidate because of your experiences.
In my environment SO many people are ignorant to the corruption of our systems. So many people support movements and causes because they believe in their spoken claims but have no clue what these people lobby our politicians for (Case in point, VAWA for eg). At the moment, I support the MRM because what they claim to want and what they are actually fighting for (legislatively and otherwise) seem to be consist. Can't say the same about the modern feminist movement, now can we?
Organise the rallies and the letter compaigns etc. I'm tired of the sniping, now I want to see CHANGE and I've started by handing out fliers in my neighbourhood with bullet points about how corrupt family law and DV policies are in this country. Next we'll invite the people for a neighbourhood talk in a local high school gym. It's not a big deal, a lot of people might not turn up but its a start, its a dialogue--at the grassroots level.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
@Davina
you really are something and I mean that in a good way, you are an exception to the rules not many women have dare I say it mastered the art of using ones brains to come up with logical conclusions, I believe what goes up must come down eventually its a fact of life, anything build on false premise will never stand the test of time, right now we can say feminism has hit its peak and on doing so has shown no mercy to anyone that stood against it, I think of it as going to war and winning at all cost even if that includes killing innocent people as long as the end justify the means, I really hope that when the tide change women such as yourself don't become innocent victims, the more people are pushed into a corner the more they loose that sense of fairness. Anyway Davina that last post of yours was impressive and it’s a good reminder to me that no matter what I think of many feminists, I should remember that not all women bought into it.
September 18th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Constant exposure to women as victim, has lead to some now very serious civil rights violations against men/fathers/boys.
What is the media Lace curtain???
http://www.menweb.org/lacecur1.htm
September 18th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Constant exposure to women as victim propaganda has made the American male the most callously treated, and near disposeable male in all the first world.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
To the anonymous poster--
You know, I started to respond to you, then thought the better of it, not wanting to feed the troll. But then I decided I needed to set the record straight on this.
If we men, who have the temerity to ask for equal protection under the laws of the nation we have bled and sweated to build, are so terribly frightening to you, why not stay the hell away from us? You dismiss the actions of abusive female partners as mental illness, but the same actions on the part of your ex-spouse are somehow indicative of all men?
You're afraid to give an email address that works because we will somehow track you down (By email? Seriously?) and tell your ex that you were talking about him? News flash for you-- we have better things to do, like working to see that we and our fellow men aren't ground underfoot but the feminist agit-prop machine that you are part of, whether you realize it or not. Simply put, you are not that important.
If your story is completely true, which frankly I doubt, there are plenty of feminist websites that would love to hear all about it. In fact they'd love to hear about it regardless of its veracity. You are not needed here. You contribute nothing to the discourse. Glenn shows remarkable restraint in not just banning you outright and you still take an issue with that.
I've got a solution: ban yourself. Just go away, and don't come back. That way, you don't have to feel threatened by the proximity to all us evil men, and we don't have to hear your incessant bleating about what a victim you are.
Good day.
September 18th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
After that last missive, I'm now convinced that our no-particular-name poster is either a troll, or someone with serious fantasy/reality separation problems. Her story gets more fantastic with each retelling, and that last one is approaching the Tawana Brawley level. In a few more posts, I suspect that she (or he, it, whatever) will be telling us that she has been raped by Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
All political movements attract people who make whacky and emotional comments, including the mainstream political parties. I listened to talk radio a while back, and the conservatives were claiming that Barack Obama was planning to transform America into a Marxist state (literally). Meanwhile the left spits up nutty conspiracy theories about global trade, world bankers, etc. There is plenty of craziness to go around, and you don't have to be at the fringes to find it.
What MRAs can't afford to do is agree to accept a double standard in which they will always be rational and polite while allowing feminists to rave like Linda Blair in "The Exorcist." If we do that then we are accepting permanent status as America's servant class.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
I use my "Name" to summarize my posts if possible. Now on to some of these posters here.
Cousin Dave:
Her story gets more fantastic with each retelling, and that last one is approaching the Tawana Brawley level. In a few more posts, I suspect that she (or he, it, whatever) will be telling us that she has been raped by Bush, Cheney, and Rove.
My story might seem to you to get more fantastic each time, but my story is the truth. My ex invited a stranger into his house and this stranger with the help of his current wife disrobed our school aged child and did other things not worth mentioning because again I will not be believed. I have contacted law enforcement and politicians to no avail. That's okay though. If he could have stopped the assault on our child and myself I would have dropped any action against him. Well not happening now. Our child will be 18 one day and on the day after, I will be on the rooftops telling the world what an awful man he is. His new little wife and her children will also be exposed as one of those children is an adult murderer that they purchased freedom for. (Yes I know more fantastic - but it is the truth). And no I will not claim to be raped by anyone other than my ex, because my ex did rape me. Unwanted sexual contact is rape whether the parties are married or not where I live.
ipso:
You dismiss the actions of abusive female partners as mental illness, but the same actions on the part of your ex-spouse are somehow indicative of all men?
You're afraid to give an email address that works because we will somehow track you down (By email? Seriously?) and tell your ex that you were talking about him?
I do not believe I said this is indicative of all men - I believe I said that some of the comments posted on here sound so much like my ex - so full of anger and hate and control and abuse. I know of women whose exes have been located by some of the angrier fr's (mra whatever you want to be called) and assistance was offered in the form of lawyers, atty fees, and more. So yes it is justified. You might not have done this but others have done this with women I know and I choose not to subject myself to that. And on another note - many of you claim women file most divorces - I did not do so - he did. If he had simply gotten help for his issues (controlling ways, abusiveness, entitlement) we might very well still be married today. Also I know of men who did get help when they were abusing their wives or children. They did it because they finally stopped and smelled the roses and said hey I am nasty, mean, vindictive, cruel. 'I' need help and 'I' need to quit blaming my job, the kids, the wife, the neighbor for my screwups. Some of thes emen did discontinue the abuse.
Mr. Bad:
Hey Gents, the poster who can't decide what her name is sounds to me like a certain mom from New York. If so, heaven help us all.
Nope not from NY far from NY, sorry to burst your bubble. I am from an area that will be taking this action to the street and the people very soon. We will be heard because we will not perform crazy stunts like scaling buildings (f4j), shooting judges (Darren Mack), killing ex-wives (Darren Mack), kidnapping our children (Rockefeller), or claiming that a not guilty finding or dropping of charges means allegations were false (Tong).
Mr. Sacks can ban me if he so chooses - this cannot stop me from reading and starting my own blog/site. And if I am banned here all of you will be banned there and we will be able to constructively tell our stories and expose the truth as shown by the APA, the ABA, the Leadership Council, Battered Mothers, Stop Family Violence, Justice For Children and many other groups. We will also be able to point out the anger, violence and control issues in these posts without feeling the need to justify our examples or being told we are suffering from some unnamed delusion, or having it said we suffer from fantasy/reality seperation problems and even worse. It amazes me that when you don't like what someone says - you simply feel you should be able to tell them to shut up and go away (not in so many words) and they MUST obey your direct order (control issue, entitlement?).
Hmmmmm.
September 18th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Mr. Sacks openly ogles a woman and then jokes about it and still refuses to even comment on my question regarding his direct and open sexism?
Again...hmmmmmmmmmmm.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Good for him.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Wait-- you mean Glenn practices heterosexuality and doesn't even apologize for it? What's the world coming to?
September 18th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Ten years ago I was a fairly radical feminist. That changed after I started to learn of the extent to which feminist activity marginalises male victims of abuse. Feminists aren't originally responsible for that marginalisation certainly. Male victims have always been swept under the carpet. It's dark and stifling under there too, let me tell you. Feminists just came along later and stood on that corner of the rug. In high heels.
September 18th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
@Traverse...
Thanks for your response. I'll reply in some detail a little later today. Clients to see. Taxes to avoid.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
directed toward ( I will change me name if i want)
Wow lady, you are off you're rocker, firing randomly and hysterically in all directions.
With you're nasty language, i assume you're of the "new gender raunch culture" feminist.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Sometimes, I wish the trolls would go away too...we know full well just how deep the animosity women have for men runs (maybe with some exceptions like Davina). But it's been said before and when I think about it, I tend to agree: their voices shouldn't be silenced.
1) We're nothing like them. We don't (obviously, since this is the Feminist thread) silence those who disagree with us. Unlike feminists, we have actual fact on our side and can meet dissenters with factual & statistical evidence. As such, we don't have to chase away those who disagree and whose only real argument is "you're just angry/bitter/jaded/a misogynist".
2) It's important that we hear what these very influential, very hateful, very dangerous people think. It'll give us an idea of what we'll have to face and put us on guard. Just think, if they were banned right out, we would have missed the "cute" and "funny" story about a woman that poisoned her husband. This is the sort of thing we need to be warned and constantly vigilant of...but human nature being what it is, if we aren't reminded of these things, there's a chance we could forget. Unless any of these people are being disruptive, vulgar or anything of the sort, they should be allowed to post their views.
September 18th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
menscollegeactivist.org Says:
September 18th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
directed toward ( I will change me name if i want)
Wow lady, you are off you're rocker, firing randomly and hysterically in all directions.
With you're nasty language, i assume you're of the "new gender raunch culture" feminist.
Okay where did I use nasty language? And going off in different directions? I addressed everyone whom I saw post a comment directed towards me, I copied their post and then commented on it. I see no fould language in that post, nor do I see any randomness nor any hysterics. I simply am stating what has happened to me. I am simply making correlations between some of the things my ex has said or done and the language he has used and some of that in the comments on this blog.
I will try to make it easy like I do when I explain something to my child. You walk up to a dog and it approaches and tries to lick your hand. You kick it. You then walk away. repeat this process over a long period of time. Someone else walks up to the dog and raises his or her leg as if to kick the dog. The dog will then cower because of fears of being kicked. It is like rats in a maze, dogs being beaten, children growing up and many other things. When something is done repeatedly and over a long period of time it becomes second nature and we react accordingly.
I have become accustomed to listen to the rants from my ex stating many of the things that have been said on this blog. Now due to my behavior modifciation in reaction to my ex, it is only natural that I would arrive at the same opinion regarding abusive posts I see on here. In fact men on this blog attacked georgia girl and another lady because they conversed on here rather than commented on here. They were told to go shopping or some other such nonsense. yet I have seen you guys do the very same thing (conversing with one another) Would it be appropos of me to dig up those posts and make the same comment towards you men? I truly believe a portion (not all) of you on here would attack me and say derogatory things about me saying that male hatred is the root of all of scoiety's problems.
Again please point out to me where I used foul language? As far as randomness/hysterics I have attempted to address each and every comment. If I came off as random I apologize. Maybe I should use smaller words ;-)
And since this is a blog and you cannot see me that is not intended as nasty, it is intended as sarcasm. I guess that is only reserved for the men's club too?
September 18th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Im going to say something ive never said before- ban the troll. Block her ip address. Nothing this cringing coward says is of any worth- she is here simply to distract us.
"Mr. Sacks can ban me if he so chooses - this cannot stop me from reading and starting my own blog/site.”
The difference being that this site has thousands of readers and hers wont.
“And if I am banned here all of you will be banned there…”
What kind of idiot thinks this is a threat? The enemy won’t publish our views as it is. You cant threaten us with what is already happening.
And I hope that she does start her own site- then the tech savvy amongst us will know who she is and she wont be able to publish her hatred in anonymity.
“We will also be able to point out the anger, violence and control issues in these posts…”
See, extremist pinheads, that’s why I pounce when you say really stupid things- as I said in the angry dad episode, that’s exactly the kind of crap the enemy is trawling these sites for.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Wanted to clarify something. The post I was referring to was the one in which Glenn ogled a woman and was proud of it (so it seemed to me) and satchmo told georgia girl and the other woman to quit with the vipid girl talk and go watch Oprah. Now I take that as condesending towards both of those women. They might not as they might have a higher tolerance level than I do. I have seen some really not so bright posts on here and do not take offense. My tolerance level might be higher than others. The point is each of us has our own tolerance levels. And in order to live in a peacful society we each should try to respect those levels.
This is the same with sexual discrimination. I worked somewhere with all men. They could get quite crude at times. They were not directing this towards me so I took little to no offense to it. Another woman in a different area heard what they said and that woman was floored that they would be talking like that. Point is everyone has different tolerance levels. Mine was higher than hers. Talk between people when you can see them, look at facial expressions does not generally upset me. It did her. Reading some of these comments upsets me, other commenters do not upset me.
(new thought hence new paragraph) Many of you have also suggested I stay away from here. Why should I? It is a free world and I want to know what I consider misinformed men to be doing to be of importance to me due to my situation. Some of you on here visit and post on "feminist" blogs. Why do you visit there? It is so you can stay updated about what you consider the other side and see what they are doing and saying. That is all I am doing, nothing more, nothing less.
(new thought hence new paragraph) If some of you are truly abused like you say, I will restate from another comment I made. If you are the victim, stop acting like a victim and do something. I am. My ex continues to attempt to victimize me and our child, however I have taught our child about empowerment and the intelligence concerning this is quite amazing considering our child's age. This is how I will stop the circle of violence, education.
Gnight all and have a truly wonderful life with what you have.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Also wanted to point out this post:
Chris D Says:
June 19th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
If I knew the identity of that woman, I would contact her husband. He has a right to know this so he can choose to move on from this ungrateful, disloyal woman.
Link:
http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2331
Read the first part. And this is not the first time I have read that in this blog. And it has been by numerous posters not just Chris D.
September 18th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
To Anonomous Poster
What are you doing here? Seriously.
What do you want to gain from this site?
You have a lot of rage inside you. While I sympathise, it's incredibly toxic and self-destructive as well. Are you going to spend the rest of your life shouting from rooftops about how much of a monster your ex-husband was? Or better yet, you want to waste your years away spewing venom at a men's rights activist you hardly know?
To be honest, you've come to the wrong place if you're thinking of rounding up any empathy towards your situation. This isn't a website for a woman's shelter. This is a site for men who are fighting for their rights. And, from your post, you're trying way to darn hard garnering up sympathy. If you were an actress starring in a movie and I the critic, I'd harp on you for chewing the scenery.
Normally, I'd go off on a harsh rant against you. But now, I'm not going to waste my time with it.
What I will say is this: It's horrible what you went through. I sympathise. But it's your choice not to trust men. I didn't make you distrust them, nor did anyone else. You did so of your own power. This is your choice. If you want to continue distrusting men, fine. But don't get so indignant when you're called out on it.
(I can't believe I just spent precious hours debating with a faceless entity)
September 18th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
PS: If you intend to start a war with Glenn's site, you're insane.
September 18th, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Ogling is okay, patronizing is okay, crude is okay. If you don't like it then quit reading MRA blogs and get a new job. Freedom and capitalism are both wonderful things.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:08 am
ManCan -- I have never been able to understand the zombie-like belief that "capitalism = freedom."
How is the current economy working out for you?
Like the Gender Wars?
How about the Family Court system?
The tyranny of Wall Street's collapse?
Can't get a loan to buy a house?
I'm sure that as a capitalist, you feel very secure about your future, right?
Every day, you get up and wonder .... WTF?
Or, maybe you think, Jesus will make this all OK?
Believe whatever you want.
Reality is indifferent...
September 19th, 2008 at 1:49 am
Davina says "Traverse seems to be far more reasonable in his criticisms than let's say our resident fem, Jeana ... who, believe it or not, Traverse, often set out only to provoke and antagonise even while she claims she doesn't agree with the horrible things that happen to men as highlighted in Glenn's posts. Her defense is always that because there's so much "vitriol" here toward women, that doesn't endear her to the MRA cause and thus, she lashes out.
Isn't that typical of us women, allowing our emotions to rule our every action? I guess its sexist of me against my own gender to say that?"
Of course, it is always Jeana's excuse that she can't get on board because we are too nasty. But when people try to patiently explain things to her, she still doesn't want to know anyway. She just looks for any excuse to bury her head in the sand.
This, however, is a fairly standard feminist tactic. They try to push unfair or intolerable policies, until they eventually provoke a backlash from men. Then they cite the backlash as further evidence of how nasty men are, and how women need to be vigilant.
September 19th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Roy says "How is the current economy working out for you?
Like the Gender Wars?
How about the Family Court system?
The tyranny of Wall Street's collapse?
Can't get a loan to buy a house?"
Roy, it's funny how a lot of the critics of capitalism complain that businesses are just out to make profit. Yet when businesses stop making profits, and start losing money and going to the wall, then they are bad also.
So corporate profit = evil
corporate losses = evil
People who complain about businesses making profits can't really complain when businesses start making losses and causing collateral damage for others.
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for!
If you want to bring down the evil corporations, good luck. But be careful you don't get buried in the rubble!
September 19th, 2008 at 2:49 am
Nick S, you are too complicated.
Memorize some simple rule without understanding anything about economics and become a liberal.
Lesson 1: Corporate = bad
Lesson 2: Govt = good
Lesson 3: Man = bad
Lesson 4: Woman = good
Lesson 5: You = bad
Lesson 6: Me = good
Are you done with those? Good.. now you can call yourself a liberal.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:44 am
....and "ogling" women makes the leap to "abusive" and "sexist"......
Anyone doubt that male heterosexuality is under attack?
When was the last time you criticized a woman for looking at men "apologetically"?
Sexist.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Traverse, what you advocate is a "high road" approach to gender issues. I advocate telling women in no uncertain terms that they WILL get what they give. Most women take issue with it, until they are reminded of things they said or did that make my words seem trivial....until such time, the vast majority of women don't see their own sexism. Comes from being "empowered", they just assume that is the way the world works.
I aim to disabuse them of that notion.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Er, that should be "unapologetically"....
September 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Well Factory... I don't disagree with letting a feminist know what feminist policies have done to me (although, I haven't had much luck actually getting many of the dedicated feminists to listen - women who don't self identify as part of that movement tend to be more receptive)
September 19th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Well, until women know, and I mean KNOW, that men are pissed off, they will do precisely...nothing...to help men out.
Experience shows that in abundance.
You go ahead and be nice...I'll go ahead and be belligerent at times....you be good cop, I'll be bad. Since I'm not at all concerned with "getting dates", I'm more than happy to say the things most men won't for fear of alienating women.
But disagreement does not entitle you to lecture. I've been at this a LOT longer than you....guaranteed.
September 19th, 2008 at 9:09 am
What does entitle me to lecture is when the owner and primary writer of the number one MRM blog in the world invites me to...
That isn't a dig and I believe that you may have been at this longer than me, and definitely have been in an organized way. I grew up outside of North American society by and large (even when I was living in Canada I was living in communes or other equally bizarre settings) and had no idea what this society even looked like until my teenage years (I went to public school but had no TV and read almost constantly which meant not much social interaction with the normal kids). My observations are almost the observations of an alien in many ways, although I have become much more acclimatized since then.
Sometimes an outsider perspective is valuable. It is really easy to get caught up in the memes of your movement and never really examine them. An outsider or new voice can open your eyes to things that are happening a certain way because that is the way they have always happened.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Traverse (I bet she changed her name to this amusing moniker) Davies is exactly why marriage and cohabitation are totally unnecessary for men with game. You can obtain everything you want for FREE without getting married, at a higher quality Take note guys. She stalked all of you because her positions are indefensible and she uses classic shaming tactics and shouting people down with her shrill, histrionic voice without any subtance, data or verifiable information. The actual data opposes her, and that makes her angry and even more irrational than she already is.
September 19th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Ben:
She?
Last time I checked I'm not a woman. Have you even read my comments on here? Really, I regularly mention my ex wife, my custody issues over my son, my general pro MRM viewpoint.
Check out my website if you want further verification, the link is at the bottom of the actual article. Check out the pro father comments I have made many times on this site. Unless you are confusing me with the woman with no name... but it doesn't sound like it from your comment.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Folks, please don't feed the troll. This person, whoever it is (and I'm not at all convinced it is actually a woman), has clearly done some reading here and knows what to say to push our buttons.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
If it walks like a duck, quacks like duck then it must be a duck. If you wear a dress, then you must be a woman.
September 19th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Ben:
Read the rest of what I have written. My blog is not exactly a clearinghouse for feminist ideals. This call for an even handed approach is actually partially fueled by the fact that I am confident in who I am and don't believe that I need to bring others down to bring myself up.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
So Traverse is a woman in Ben’s eyes since Traverse has expressed some ideas that are not extremist, psycho, or insane. And being a woman, his (her?) voice has been described as “shrill, histrionic”. And so shouldn’t be listened to. Can men be shrill? And could Ben come up with ONE example of something Traverse said that was shrill? Because I’m not getting the whole shrill thing.
September 19th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Factory,
“Since I'm not at all concerned with "getting dates", I'm more than happy to say the things most men won't for fear of alienating women.”
How’s that going for you, Factory? Because there’s no better way of convincing someone of your point than to talk down to them or tell them how dumb they are for not seeing The Truth. I can listen to someone like Traverse because he says things in a reasonable manner. I know I have my own beliefs, but some of them have been challenged here (well, all of them) and I have revised somewhat the way I see things. If you think that women are going to chuck everything we think and have seen, heard and experienced because an MRA comes up to us and says, “VAWA sucks!”, you’re wrong. The best thing you people can do, in my opinion (which is worth nothing), is to spread awareness of your issues to people who’ve never even thought of them before. And do this in a reasonable way. In a blog, I guess, you can be more belligerent, but in person, you really, really need to be more civilized.
September 19th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Jeana: I am more than a little different when I talk about these issues, depending on audience and social situation. I tailor my "message" to suit the intended goals...including when I'm being belligerent here.
There is little point to being reasonable, it's been tried (by myself and others) for a VERY long time...and nothing happened. Then men started to get more "in your face" about these issues (and in public even), not backing down or "moderating" themselves. And guess what? It WORKED! It got attention and social awareness.
The more men stand their ground, and refuse to coddle the feelings of the feminists around them (without going out of their way to start a fight), the better. It means that women are going to hear a lot of things that men have stifled in their presence.
It means people are going to say some unusual, even sexist stuff. Sort of like feminists do, only with men it's not so casually dismissed, but rather examined through a microscope.
When I say what I do, in the manner I do, it's playing to the audience more than anything else. People like watching Jerry Springer, people like watching a good fight, and people like when someone gets their a$$ handed to them in an argument. I try my level best to provide a bit of each.
Call me the "trash TV" of MRA's.
You also may have noticed I don't make blanket assertions like "VAWA Sucks!" unless it's reasonably certain the audience/respondent understands the subject thoroughly enough to connect the dots.
I will admit I sometimes place the dots pretty far apart.
Incidentally Jeana, you may be interested to know that the result of men doing this is that they'll be more...well, manly. Assertive, unapologetic, risk-taking, confident.....sorta like a smorgasboard of male traits to peak the interest of the female...no?
Plus, it'll lead to a lot of "angry sex", which as we all know is the best kind.
Traverse: That certainly is a unique childhood, and yes it would make you an ideal "outside observer", who can look at certain things with more objectivity. The only problem is, you ARE a unique individual in that way, and we need to reach the rest of the world.
For many men, it's a revelation that other men feel the same way about certain things that they do. For some, it's the first time they heard any of the things said. A good portion of men are terrified of doing anything that would make the women around him mad (self-imposed restrictions usually), ergo all a woman has to do to stifle debate is be unhappy with the conversation.
Those are EXACTLY the times a guy like me, or PK, or Gonzo, or any number of MRA's should be on hand to speak up. Sometimes people have to be shocked out of complacency before they can be reached.
And sometimes simply stating things like "No DNA, No Pay" sounds misogynistic. The irony there is that usually in these situations the reason offense is caused is because of the truth behind the statement, as well as it's inherent fairness PLUS it showcases bad behaviour in women AND it's social prevalence.
Whew...I GUESS the only response could be an accusation of misogyny....
The reason why I take little heed in your (and countless other feminists) appeal to civility is because the vast majority of MRA's aren't saying anything I haven't heard tons of men say (when there's no women around), and again the VAST majority of posts I read are factual and fair in nature....
The real reason to be offended is that facts, and fairness, are nearly outlawed these days. The "debate" has been pulled so far into "women's issues" land, that talking about men at all seems vaguely misogynistic to many people. Ergo, another reason for men to start speaking up.
September 19th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Now this is funny. I haven't worn a "dress" since my mothers funeral two years ago. So am I a man, a woman, or something else? Men wear skirts sometimes (kilts) and women wear pants. This is exactly the chauvunistic type of discussion I mean. The shrill and histrionic. If I wanted to come across as shrill or histrionic, I WOULD DO IT LIKE THISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
But I didn't. Now I am getting amused. This is how else I can tell some of you are identical in thought processes to my ex. Because I get angry at him for pulling a really dumb stunt, then I get over it, and then it goes into the amusing. I have gone past the anger with the oinkers on here and now am in amusement mode. Because if you really sat down and read your posts you would see exactly how amusing you truly are.
September 20th, 2008 at 12:59 am
Just to be clear.
I am not a liberal.
I am a socialist.
That means I believe we need real people's democracy and some degree of control over capitalist manipulations of society.
Like, maybe not allowing 5 million jobs to be outsourced?
"Free market ... for who ... to do what ... for how long?"
All you free markeeters are gonna love paying for the Wall Street bail out.
Well, freedom is expensive, except for the 2% that own it.
September 20th, 2008 at 1:55 am
Wearing a dress: Way to be all superior `n` stuff.
You`re too cool for me.
September 20th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Roy says "All you free markeeters are gonna love paying for the Wall Street bail out."
Non-sequiter. No free marketer enjoys government bailouts. In a genuine free market, businesses are allowed to succeed or fail on their own merits without government bailouts.
"Just to be clear.
I am not a liberal.
I am a socialist."
I thought so. But it's good to hear Roy. You know, GW Bush is basically a socialist as well. He believes in more government spending, bailouts and regulation. So, you've had one of your lot in the White House for the last 8 years! Aren't you pleased at your good fortune?
September 20th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
The Other Mike D Says:
September 17th, 2008 at 10:28 am
"The majority of us are nowhere near mean spirited. We are hardhitting,straight forward types who do not pull punches an tell it like it is."
"We agree that feminists do have SOME legitimate complaints but they have used tactics that are reprehensible to anyone who has a sense of fair play. They have lied, cheated ,manipulated, coreced and used false and misleading data to give them extraordinary rights at the expense of men and fathers. We are more and more being pushed to the fringes of the family unit by the Government, The Courts, The Media and public opinion because of these tactics."
TOMD: well stated!
September 20th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Nick S,
GW is not a socialist. He is a neocon. He believes in government spending and bailouts for RICH PEOPLE. What regulation does he believe in? Besides regulating what we do in the privacy of our own homes?
But I guess he is a socialist in one respect: he believes that corporations should have profits that are privatized and losses that are socialized. We all should pay for the screw-ups of the super-rich neocons, and they keep all the profits. Socialism for billionaires.
September 20th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
@jeana...
Agree with you here.
Similarly in Australia we have just completed over ten years of conservative rule. They continually put in place social legislation that diverted money from those in need and toward business.
Mind you our new "left wing" Labour government will likely be no better. I'm already seeing signs they may be worse. They haven't been in power for a year yet.
September 21st, 2008 at 12:42 am
Glenn Sacks
Please ban this "Anononomous Poster". It's clear she doesn't want to engage in any meaningful debate except stir things up and get a reaction from us.
"I have gone past the anger with the oinkers on here and now am in amusement mode. Because if you really sat down and read your posts you would see exactly how amusing you truly are."
This statement clearly illustrates what a troll is: Barges into forums and posts just to get a reaction. She thinks we're all her ex, so there's no reasoning with someone like this.
Also calling people names ("Oinkers") is the cherry on the top of the disgusting cake she offers to us.
Get rid of her. Please.
And don't even think about pulling your garbage on me, poster. I'm not responding to you.
September 21st, 2008 at 2:22 am
Eagle30 Says:
September 21st, 2008 at 12:42 am
Glenn Sacks
And don't even think about pulling your garbage on me, poster. I'm not responding to you.
You just did. No biggie dont wanna talk to you either :-) And yep I did respond to you. Know why? Cause it is fun to watch you all squirm and try to act superior and say I am a troll. The internet is a wonderful thing isn't it?
September 21st, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Jeana,
You have no clue as to what socialism is. Do you? Socialism is always for the billionaires. The label never matches the product and still people fall for it. Learn a little bit more than mumbling meaningless garbage. And yes a neocon is a Trotsky-ite socialist, believing in constant revolution (constant war, constant emergency and unquestioned support of govt).