The Feminists Are Right This Time
May 25th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Feminists claim that the men's and fathers' movement is riddled with woman-haters. They're wrong, but certainly not completely wrong, and below is an excellent example. It was posted on one of the major men's sites. Out of respect for their founder and his work, I won't name the site.
The news/blog entry was written by "MrReality" and is called "Blood Diamonds: How women fund the enslavement of black men and boys." MrReality bases some of his assumptions on this article, and writes:
"For years one of the biggest of fantasies for women has been the wedding. A much bigger fantasy though is what comes as a result of the wedding: A large diamond ring. Let's be honest, how many times have you seen women meet 'the bride' right after the wedding and say 'Let me see the ring!' The wife then flutters he hand around the misandric circle of women showing off her blood diamond.
"The sad truth is that African MEN are forced into slavery in order for the new wife (a member of the royal sex) to walk around and showcase her new diamond. Which many times means more to her than the marriage itself.
"How many times have you heard women claim they wish they could have 'kept the ring' once they divorced the husband. It has recently been proven that all diamonds are in-fact 'conflict diamonds' and thus any woman that nags her soon-to-be schmuck husband for one is a slave-master, just like her sisters. I would advise that no man buy a woman a diamond."
There are so many anti-woman distortions in this article that it's hard to know where to start. MrReality's first assumption is that western women who want diamonds are creating the horrendous conditions in the diamond mines of Africa. But the consumer doesn't create the conditions under which a product is produced--the company producing it does. What African diamond miners need is not a boycott of diamonds but instead a strong labor union. In South Africa, black labor unions--particularly the miners' union--were powerful, improved conditions for workers, and helped bring down apartheid.
In MrReality's mind, when a bride shows off her ring it's a "blood diamond" and when a group of women admire her diamond they are "misandric" (anti-male). Women--whom MrReality dubs women "the royal sex" and "slave masters"--apparently don't care about their marriages, only their diamonds. These assumptions are bigoted and unfair.
I wrote about the problem of misogyny in the men's movement in my column Confronting Woman-Bashing In the Men's Movement (iFeminists.com, 4/2/02).
"));
19 queries. 0.450 seconds.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Just in case you hadn't noticed Glenn(and I'm sure you have) feminists have been spewing extraordinary hatred at ALL men and ALL boys for decades and continue to do so. Nobody should be at all surprised that some men will respond vehemently. In fact I'd be disappointed if it didn't happen at all. Frankly the tolerance men have shown over the past half century is bordering on masochism. It's refreshing to occasionally see somebody bite back.
I can appreciate that you prefer a moderate approach and I tend to agree that the middle road is generally the safest. I just wish that the libbers hadn't allowed the extremists to control the direction that movement took. You can judge any political movement by the leaders it chooses. Feminism chose hatred and retribution. Men didn't but if the attitude to men doesn't improve that could change as well. The road ahead could be very rocky for feminists.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:45 am
Maybe MrReality is suffering the type of emotional dysregulation which frequently comes from
- losing his children
- becoming an economic slave to a woman, her lawyers and our "courts"
- having had a diamond ring extracted from his hard efforts and life savings prior to all of the above
Regarding his placement of "blood diamond" blame on the buyers of diamonds, it can be reasonably argued that he is more than a little bit correct. Anyone with even a basic understanding of Economics understands that by purchasing a commodity from a global market which is supplied in large part, or even significant part, by the activities illegal/immoral suppliers, does in fact economically underwrite the immoral suppliers with funding.
Men like MrReality are angry due to chronic injustice against men in this country.
The particular manifestations of his anger -- verbal lashing out behavior in this case (oh my!) -- are not of particular import in my view. The key takeaway message is that yet another man was driven by this system of injustice into the mental and emotional state called "hatred".
And like so many men, due to a lack of a complete understanding of the causal underpinnings of this ugly little American slavery system, and/or just the natural human tendency to focus on the more rvisible beneficiaries of the injustice (women), rather than the less visible ones (lawyers, GALs, court "officials"), this guy has channeled his anger towards the women.
Does this surprise anyone?
What is surprising to me is that a larger percentage of these individuals don't crack under the pressure of this system and turn to direct acts of violence towards individuals and/or scaled-up acts of violence or even terror against the institutions who have promoted these conditions.
We should all hope that conditions change before they do.
But of course, conditions have a hard time changing given the obscene profits being pocketed by the private, family court promoters of inter-gender conflict. A sad state of affairs in America.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Partial Solution: BUY CANADIAN DIAMONDS! They are marked and include certification.
I agree with Glenn about the article in question. It is badly thought out and unfair. I do agree though that feminists use similar hatred of men in almost all of their work. That said, are we better than they or not? I think we should be above feminist hate tactics, that is the right thing to do and the fair thing to do.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:24 am
This article does seem a bit bizarre to me as well. The controversies surrounding the diamond trade and use of slave labor in diamond mining is well documented. However, that is not going to stop men (or women) from buying diamonds for their loved ones. The idea of going after the purchasers (or wearers) of diamonds as being responsible for the slave trade is not unfair though. Animal rights activists have used this tactic to shame people that purchase and wear fur. And they have been largely effective in raising public awareness about animal abuse in the fur trade and, consequently, fur usage is way down. How effective this will be with diamonds remains to be seen. Maybe a better idea is to buy "used" diamonds, those that are already in a setting, and have them reset into a new ring. This would remove demand for new production diamonds and would swell the inventories of diamond producers. This would send a strong message to these producers to change the way they do business.
May 25th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Gold.
Add gold to your list of things to avoid.
The horrible, horrible distruction to men, mankind, and the earth it takes to make the trinket haning around your neck would make you sick if you knew all the details.
DanH
May 25th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Glenn,
I find it hard to believe that you think it necessary to point out the obvious flaws in the "Blood Diamond" article. Most readers of moderate intelligence, whatever their sympathies, can do that well enough for themselves.
I think articles of this flavour are more interesting for what they represent, rather than for being unreliable reference material.
Male dissatisfaction with unequal treatment before the law, coupled with laws where only men can be the perpetrator and women the victim, can only lead to a heating up of the propaganda war that has been distinctly one-sided until recently. You would have had little difficulty finding an equally flawed article with a pro-feminist bias.
Articles like this have been appearing in greater number over the past year, particularly on the blogs of younger men who identify themselves as Men's Rights activists. Many of the posters and readers on these sites are not particulalry interested in academic veracity. The purpose of the articles is to break the silence, and give other men the courage to speak their mind - however unattractive that may be to the ears of some. Their writings and commentary have the feel of warriors girding themselves for imminent battle. These men genuinely feel their grievance - they have not deduced it from abstract gender theory. As an older man, I keenly feel how uncomfortable life in the West is for men now, even though I have been spared the traumas that commonly provoke male bitterness.
It is incredible to me that such a conspicuous rising tide of discontent, with clear societal cause and obvious remedy, should continue to be treated so lightly.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Women are not the enemy.
The government must change.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Women are not the enemy but our liberalized and feminized population has ruined a good 20% of Western women. You take a real chance when you marry a Western woman as she always has the legal right to destroy your wealth and steal your children.
The feminists really do hate women and I really do hate feminazis! I am not joking in the slightest. I don't hate women who take advantage of a situation that landed on them as the feminists have orchestrated it that way.
Women are not the enemy and that is why I am happily engaged to a woman. But she is not American!
May 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I agree with Mr Reality, insofar as you should be conscious of the true economic and social cost of production of consumer goods, which we take for granted in the West. However, his points about the diamond trade could equally well apply to the production of sports shoes in Asia , the harvesting of coffee in Africa, or (closer to home) the conditions in meat processing plants supplying the fast food industry as detailed in "Fast Food Nation". All these are products consumed equally by men and women. To simply focus on one product which is geared towards women is dishonest.
May 25th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
Glenn, I thought that was a good article and said so. It is crystal clear in my mind that if you buy diamonds, even whitewashed ones as sold in the US, you are supporting the horrendous conditions of diamonds mines in Africa. This is irrefutable - this is exactly why people who buy stolen goods are also liable for prosecution, and you would be dishonest to deny that if there was no demand, that the conditions would improve or the trade would die down.
I'm responsible for the term "the royal sex" and feel that it truly represents what the gender divide is like in the Western countries. Women can do no wrong, while men can do no right.
I enjoy your writing, but you really don't have to shoot your fellow MRAs in the back to prove that you're a centrist and "not like us haters."
Feminists and women have been getting away with male hate for decades, aren't we allowed even a tiny bit of leeway? When our souls are cleansed of the hate that we have been washed with over the past few decades, we can move on. But until then you lead the way. You also should have noticed the comments section castigated MrReality very badly. Actually, here's a link to the website: http://news.mensactivism.org/node/7838
Read it for yourself and see how much hate the guys over at MANN tolerate.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
I think one of the biggest barriers to success in the Fathers' Rights Movement is this sort of misogynistic talk amongst our own.
I've had male and female lawyers tell me not to let the courts have any inkling that I might pay attention to fathers' rights groups.
I've seen many blog posts from otherwise well informed divorced men saying that this sort of extremism is why they think that fathers' rights groups are completely full of shit.
And of course, it makes it very hard to defend the vicious and uninformed posts at the feminists blogs.
My experience is that most women actually agree with us in the basic issues. When I moved to a new state, the best advice on how divorce and the courts work here came from women that I work with that completely understood the unfairness towards men.
It's completely counterproductive to encourage or participate in hate speech, regardless of where it comes from. I think Cathy Young wrote (paraphrased) that it's necessary for each side to point out it's own hate mongers.
I would love to see the day when a significant number of the commenters here are women. That will be indicative of real progress and a real chance to win legislators over.
May 25th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
The other issue is one of demanding fair trade agreements and not free trade agreements.
Right now the free trade economists are encouraging the United States to subsidize the developing world. But this subsidies comes at America's expense through lower wages, increased job instability, offshoring of jobs, loss of industries.
Fair trade is not about tariffs. Fair trade is ensuring the individual workers in the other countries "enjoy" the same or similar worker safety regulations, environmental regulations, ability to unionize and bargain with the employer, child labor laws, etc.
Did you know that China was willing to allow its workers to unionize until American CEOs demanded that China not allow its workers to unionize? Why would American CEOs not want Chinese workers to unionize? (That's my rough understanding of what happened.)
Glenn, have you interviewed or debated Susan Faludi of both Backlash and Stiffed fame? I've actually never read her, but from what I understand of Stiffed, she might actually be supportive of many arguments that you make towards men and fathers. (It would be quite a coup to turn her into a men's rights supporter....)
May 25th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
"shoot your fellow MRAs in the back"
"Shoot in the back"? You must be kidding. If anything I was too nice. And I'm sick of all the woman-hating bigotry I have to listen to.--GS
May 25th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Glenn, I can appreciate your frustration. The chief ammunition that feminists have against men's rights are the extremists within.
The problem is that men's rights has two groups of men who say things that are destructive to it
1) Social conservatives who want things back "the way they used to be" either for religious or traditional reasons. That attitude creates problems because it confirms all the feminist comments about "patriarchy" and subordination.
2) Misogynists. Most men fall into this site after feeling the sting of a bad relationship, divorce, whatever, so it's not a big surprise that many men let their rage become hatred. But remember - every misogynist I'd ever heard had become that way after being horribly scarred by a woman.
For the former, there's nothing to be done but distance them from your own movement. Conservatives are not equality activists, and equality activists are not conservatives. They have different goals, even though they share many of the same grievences. A conservative wants the traditional family back, with the woman managing the home, "Father Knows Best", "Till Death Do Us Part", no gays, etc. This is totally different from your movement, who just wants to be treated the same as women, which should be the goal of any liberal who acknowledges that the problem exists.
For the latter, all I can say is that I wish they'd let go of their hate. A fact of modern life is that you shouldn't make broad, sweeping generalizations about _any_ group. It's bigoted, wrong, impolite, and totally counterproductive. Have painful relationships given me some unpleasent thoughts about women in general? Probably. But you have to realize what those thoughts are - sexism. And sexism, racism, and any other form of bigotry are the abominations that started this whole mess. Sexism is the whole problem Sacks et. al are trying to fight.
If the goal is to truly get equal treatment, then you have to let go of your hatred so that the feminist man-haters will not have a justification for theirs. And wouldn't it be a better world that way?
May 25th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
It is not woman hating to be against the National Organization for Women's anti-male agenda. It is a natural reaction and like I said earlier, I don't hate women who take advantage of the laws in their favor but I do hate those who purposely made those laws so one-sided.
We need to stop worrying about this issue so much as we are playing into the hands of the feminists many of whom really do hate men. We need to realize many men in our movement have lost everything to their ex-wives who were rewarded for affairs and unnaccountable behavior by the divorce court. If I do something "Bad" should I be rewarded? Of course not but it happens everyday for American women as they know they have all the rights without any accountability. False accusations? Don't worry, it won't affect the accuser just the accused as every mechanism of our legal system is at their disposal and for their benefit.
I watched Judge Judy on Armed Forces Network today and she had a 35 year old mother of seven children (obviously a single mother) trying to get money from a 18 year old girl for wrecking her car. The mother admitted to letting her use the car but had a bunch of excuses that all came down to her unnaccountable character which is "somebody else has to pay." How did she get such an attitude? I guess having seven children and collecting welfare/child support greatly contributed or she would not have attempted that argument. Maybe the only time the courts (Judge Judy is pretty fair by the way) will be fair is when women face each other?
I work in Government contracting. Do you know I can award to the highest bidder if I decide to as long as it woman or black owned enterprise? You have got to be kidding right? But if I were in America I would be required to do it at least 15% of the time! Why is it there are over 250 various federal and state commissions for the status of women and there is only 1 for men and it is under attack by feminists trying to close it?
As an Army Major (I am innactive now) with an infantry and special operations background I am trained to recognize my enemy and use their tactics against them. When an enemy takes shots at you it is best to shoot back rather than worry about anything else. Positions of weakness in negotiation are likewise bad. We better buck up and stop our infighting and face a common enemy or continue to lose as we have been for the last thirty years. Anyone who focuses their attack on our limited fellow members of this movement is almost as bad as those on the other side in my book.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
kenboiraq,
Having never served in the armed forces, and with a knowledge that comes only from reading Sun Tsu and watching Star Trek The Next Generation and Kung Fu, I thought,
I am trained to recognize my enemy and use their tactics against them.
I thought "hate" and "hate speech" was a weakness to be exploited and not a strength and tactic to use against them.
Look how Amanda Marcotte shot herself in the foot and how William Donoghue didn't "hate against" her but just used her hate speech against her.
Somewhat related, in an article I just read, look at the cojones that GM has.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/AUTOS/05/25/gm_vs_camry/index.html
They will be making the Honda Accord and the Toyota Camry available for test drives in their Saturn Showrooms. They feel that if a customer has a chance to ride the Accord, the Camry, and the Saturn, they will buy the Saturn. I am incredibly impressed with the guts that takes, and it makes me think more highly of Saturn.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
I agree that MrReality has mistaken logic. I agree that woman-hating is wrong. However, keeping a lid on extremism is not in our best interests, either. For those seriously interested, I suggest studying the strategies of Malcolm X as opposed to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. We know the strategies that overcame the opposition. But Malcolm X was no dummy, and he was not useless to his movement, either. Even though his advocacy of violence defined the outcome of his followers, the flashpoint he created drew many to follow him, but also drew many more to turn to and follow King, as a better alternative.
Yes the advocacy of hate is bad. Like a wildfire, it will hurt those who use as much as those who are attacked by it. But if you need to manage a forest, eventually you have to see the fire as a natural consequence of bad management, instead of spending your efforts to put it out. Putting it out on your own becomes the appeasement of those who refuse to fix the problem. Many in our society will only change the management, when they can see the fire.
Build your better plan, by all means; create the better path; but don't spend your time containing someone else's hatred. That is a job beyond any of us, and a waste of your time.
May 25th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Ghandi won more debates than soldiers tend to, and his creeds were all very simple. The one most relevant here is "Be the change that you want to see in the world. " If you want to end the hatred and prejudjement of men, then you have to avoid those same things in yourself. You get more flies with sugar, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Obviously, Kenboiraq, nobody is suggesting you hate women. The problem is that your social conservative values still differ so severely from the liberal elements of these groups that your association actively interferes with them reaching across to fellow liberals. Many conservative elements of the men's rights groups frequently talk of the abolition of divorce, the need for women to return to their traditional gender roles, etc. These ideas are outright revolting to liberals - they violate personal freedoms that they consider sacred.
Glenn is trying to win the debate in centrist-liberal circles. Remember that liberal discourse changed the USA many times - segregation, embracing various homosexual groups, women's lib, etc. It's hard to deny that fundamental shifts in the way the world views ethnic and social groups come from the center-left.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
My values are not the issue and reaching out to sheep who've been cursing the darkness when a candle is close has been my burden. I have been responsible for the most progressive child custody legislation in America (Iowa) and I've build a group even when living overseas. I don't care who I offend because most of those in this movement will fall away within two years when their lives stabilize. I've made it a mission to fight for this cause and paid heavy personal and financial prices for this movement.
When others begin to be successful I will pay attention to their tactics. My tactics have produced results and they would've been much stronger if I hadn't been overseas of five years.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Iowa has enacted a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting AND Iowa family court judges are required to write the reasons for rejecting shared parenting when they do.
May 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Michael is correct.
It took years and even one veto before we got it through. The head of the judiciary committee at the time was fellow Army Reserve Officer who pushed it through. Republicans were our saviors in so many ways and our enemies were often feminist Democrats serving in the House. We got unexected help from minority male members who'd endured what we'd endured losing our children. Governor Vilsack signed it the second time around because we hit him on so many fronts and had somebody very close to him pushing it. We even contacted some of his major donors.
Once it was signed the trial lawyers came out against us as did National Organization for Women advocacy style groups. We had lawyers threatening us and thanks to a very prominent Republican lawyer, Ted Sporer one of the Iowa Republican Party leaders, we defeated an attempt by a woman's group to shut us down.
Unfortunately, not all judges will write a reason despite the law so we went after one last session to demonstrate we were serious. We didn't knock out judge Pelton be we created quite a stir. We also clobbered him in his own county where we'd employed a single auto dialer for only 20 days. This year we attempted to strengthen the law and passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee 16-0 only to have the D-emocratic Senate Majority leader lie to us with regard to a floor vote. We are now targeting him with an incessant campaign starting with 1000 daily negative phone calls to his district. We will call every voter in his district once every month until November 2008 with the goal of knocking him out of office. We did our homework, he's in a district that should break Republican if there is a serious challenger. We really don't care who beats him and we will stop our calls if a Democrat takes him out in the June 2008 Primary so we aren't partisan. We also have courthouse protests several times a month and have meetings in various cities to build a stronger movement.
We are doing a lot more than just blogging on the internet and we're showing results. The only sin in my book is when we snipe at each other as we are too few in number with the other side full of man-haters and opportunistic profiteers. We need to stick together and do what works rather than worry about what our enemies say we should be doing. As a matter of fact, if feminists say guys like me drive them crazy maybe that is a good thing.
May 25th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
I agree very strongly with Michael's statement that women are not the enemy, Government is the problem.
More to the point, it is not at all a government conspiracy, but the more usual problem of lack of govenment self-management. In this case, it is manifest by "governmetn" allowing a handful of money chasing professions to completely hijack and pervert the charter and activities of family court. I don't even believe that the feminists are such a big factor. I can assure you that if the money-crazed lawyers and GALs could make more money on an anti-woman agenda, they would steer things that way. This is as "follow the money" trail problem like so many problems in America.
I also feel that John Thomson has made a profoundly important point above:
"It is incredible to me that such a conspicuous rising tide of discontent, with clear societal cause and obvious remedy, should continue to be treated so lightly."
It is incredible. Or at least very, very concerning to any older, rational person.
Now let me make a prediction of something very horrible emerging from that rising tide:
Somewhere in the U.S., and for various good reasons, I'll predict that this is most likely to happen in the heartland of the U.S. rather than on any of the coasts, there will be some fathers who completely "crack" as a result of their treatment by the courts, and proceed to become completely and morally lost to society's laws. These fathers will fuse into a small group -- which at its core might have only 2 deeply committed individuals -- and they will become obsessed with making a country-shaking protest against what is going on in our family courts. And then they will attempt, and possibly even pull off, something on the scale of what was done by the already tried, convicted and executed former U.S. Marine Timothy McVeigh.
Why am I so sure this will happen? It's easy:
1. The starting pool of individual males who are extremely frustrated and feel deeply wronged is growing by leaps and bounds. Arguably, it is now in the millions. This is the universe of individuals who might "crack" and blame-shift their anger onto family court or government more generally. It is apparent that some if not many get caught in a mental/emotional loop which might be best characterized as a "rage feedback loop" in which rational thought can be compromised, sometimes deeply so.
2. There is a clear upwards trend in the number of individuals (fathers) who have undertaken horrible deeds of violence against other individuals relating to current, likely or past family court mediated situations and outcomes.
3. There is a clear upwards trend in the boldness, scale and degree of horribleness of these deeds by fathers
4. There are many, many thousands of individuals returning to the U.S. from Iraq who one guesses have all the same technical skills (and perhaps even more) as former U.S. Marine Timothy McVeigh.
5. It can be predicted with 100% certainty that a significant portion of these men returning from Iraq already have, or will have, the usual gut wrenching anti-male experience of rage-inducing injustice in a U.S. family court. You can imagine their internal thoughts:
"How can they do this to me".
"I was defending my country - I was defending them, I was defending YOU"
"And SHE cheated on ME"
"And now you take my kids, you take my house, you take my money, and you make me a money slave for the rest of my life!"
"And what is my crime? What did I do?"
"And you do this to me?"
What many forget about veterans who have experienced lots of violence and senseless killing, is that their own mentally and emotionally acceptable range of "acceptable actions" for themselves when facing an enemy, and their own acceptable range for the possible negative outcomes to themselves, no matter how severe, tends to get very significantly expanded.
In other words, they have already stared death in the face. They have already successfully dealt with the very real likelihood that they might die or be horribly maimed. They might also have clarified for themselves that they were fighting for their own children's future safety, as well as the future or others' children and even those childrens' future children. At a minimum, they must have an internal rationale for having daily faced death and fought long and hard in Iraq. A rationale which goes beyond just their job spec and their paycheck. This is the type of individual who is most likely to attempt and perhaps even successfully complete a Timothy McVeigh-scale attack on something which they perceive to be an appropriate target to "send a message" to America. And to the extent that their internal rationale for fighting in Iraq was love for their own children, the very loss of those children in the often heartless and hurtful American family court system will only serve to turbo-charge such a man's rage, and increase the scale of any rage-filled deeds by him. And finally, one should not forget that some men, when they lose their kids, actually lose interest in continuing their own lives. Go figure.
Older and smarter men than I who have witnessed much of America's history, and who have very good memories for detail, will surely have already predicted this. But who is going to listen? As usual in a country like America, likely nobody will listen until something terrible happens. Why? Because those in a position to do something are enjoying too much prestige or profit or status to want to think about the fact that maybe it's time to put a stop to all in the injustice against fathers. Economically slaughtering and enslaving fathers is a big, roaring industry. So what if the fathers scream in agony? They're just a bunch of whining "deadbeats", right? Heck, we've already got a label to cover that little problem.
History repeats itself again and again in any country where the people in power tend to be too obsessed with, and enamoured, of their own present power trips and money-trains, and certainly America is one of those countries if there ever was one.
May 25th, 2007 at 11:32 pm
The old "Blood in the streets routine" of social upheaval? I've heard it before and I think the only variation is these guys are focusing it on their cheating ex's rather than a society that enables it. I pray it never happens and one of the reasons I do what I do is so those enduring the injustices of our divorce industry have an effective outlet. Learned helplessness is very dangerous and simply doing something is better than nothing. We need to harness those suffering the "fresh burn" and focus their actions as many stop caring once they survive it and get on with their lives. We need groups all across America that march to the same drum as 50,000 individuals are not powerful especially when they take turns backstabbing each other over methodology disputes.
May 26th, 2007 at 4:25 am
Pete: There are plenty of non-African diamonds available. As I said, Canadian diamonds are easily available throughout the US. Russian diamonds are harder to get in the US, but are available. Reputable jewelers will have the Canadian diamonds and can get the Russian ones.
All: I agree that feminists have been hating males over the last thirty years and governments have helped them spread their hate. Women in general have refused to stand up for their sons, husbands, brothers, fathers and friends. There's no doubt about that. Yet, I must ask again: Are we better than that? I think we can be.
May 26th, 2007 at 6:37 am
Hating feminists who hate you is not hate speech. And truthfully, I stretch it a bit by claiming I hate them as I really don't mean anybody harm. But I recognize them for an enemy just as much as I recognize Osam Bin Laden as they similarly hate me as an American man.
Sticking my head in the ground when someone is shooting live bullets is not a good defense nor is it good to let the feminists run amok with our judicial and political processes. We must use their same tactics and politically organize unless we want to continue to be defeated. When they publish a study it must be refuted for the farce it is whenever it is a farce. We need to organize to the point we conduct our own studies and force legislatures and courts to study our issues. We must push all courts to publish their divorce & custody awards. That will not happen if we only blog.
Just as Glenn gets upset at religious hypocrisy I get upset at innaction from our members who should know better. Even more upsetting is when members of our movement get upset with people like me who are doing something rather than just complaining. We need a national movement we can all get behind with a recognized leader. So far what do we have?
May 26th, 2007 at 6:58 am
I agree that the misandry in the majority of the feminist movement is worse than the misogyny in the men's movement. But that does not at all justify it! The biggest criticism of feminism is the rampant and unending sexism. To come back more sexism does not help the men's movement.
Glenn, thanks for pointing this out, the men's movement really needs to try and hold the moral highground.
May 26th, 2007 at 8:43 am
And continue to be irrelevant as we only have bloggers?
I think we need to be a lot more like F4J if we want to be effective. Another aspect, I don't see a lof of woman hating in our movement but I see a lot of man hating by the other side.
May 26th, 2007 at 10:58 am
"Unfortunately, not all judges will write a reason despite the law so we went after one last session to demonstrate we were serious. We didn't knock out judge Pelton but we created quite a stir. We also clobbered him in his own county where we'd employed a single auto dialer for only 20 days. This year we attempted to strengthen the law and passed out of the Senate Judiciary committee 16-0 only to have the D-emocratic Senate Majority leader lie to us with regard to a floor vote. We are now targeting him with an incessant campaign starting with 1000 daily negative phone calls to his district. We will call every voter in his district once every month until November 2008 with the goal of knocking him out of office. We did our homework, he's in a district that should break Republican if there is a serious challenger. We really don't care who beats him and we will stop our calls if a Democrat takes him out in the June 2008 Primary so we aren't partisan. We also have courthouse protests several times a month and have meetings in various cities to build a stronger movement. "
Excellent. Keep up the good work.
If these autodialers are effective then more groups need to start using them more frequently.
I recently read that Hillary Clinton was advised not to even campaign in Iowa.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Hey Ken, that's exactly what I said, there's more sexism in femnism than there is in the women's movement, but that DOES NOT justify it.
Believe it or not, not all MRAs are republicans, in fact, from Glenn's general pro-union stance and article about Michael Moore, I would say he lies on the left of the political spectrum.
However, all you are doing is trying to label misandrists as democrats, which does not help the movement at all. I'm more liberal than your average democrat, probably as I come from a European perspective. And trust me, the right is just as anti-male as the left. Your incessant screaming about gays and liberals doesn't help at all.
BTW, I'm only 16, so yeah maybe I will start protesting once I'm in uni, until then, I'm gonna have to stay one of the bloggers you loath so much.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Are you going to be a Panther? Great to have you in Iowa if that is the case and we need your help even if you have a ways to go in this evolutionary process.
I don't hate my enemy as much as I recognize my enemy and for anyone who has never carried a weapon in combat that may not make sense. But let me assure all of you who've never been under real enemy fire that it certainly helps to feel a high level of anger for your enemy when the time comes to do what you must do to survive. We are in a similar fight and hiding from it gets us nowhere.
And show me how I am a woman hater with concrete examples rather than my vague statements. Also, the two I've gone after the hardest were MALE even though I had excellent FEMALE targets. I go after those who I feel we can get and will make a strong statement.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:37 am
Republican/Democrat, conservative/liberal, European perspective/ American perspective....
A person's attachment to such labels, whatever they once were, become severely diminished and can be replaced with just ONE purpose when that person's parenting time with his children is threatened.
Let that one purpose be the enactment of a rebuttable presumption for shared parenting.
"We need a national movement we can all get behind with a recognized leader."
I agree with Ken.
May 26th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Thanks!
May 27th, 2007 at 7:48 am
Kenbo and all,
Women are not the enemy. The divorce industry is the enemy. Women's rights are tne "noble motive" which the divorce industry hides behind while manipulating the entire system for profit. The economic stakes for this recurring revenue business which these participants enjoy are enormous. This is the force which has been driving family court behavior against men.
Women are being used as pawns in this system. The fact is, that many (not all, but many) women are easily manipulated by those with less than good intentions. This system has not delivered happiness to women at all. It has delivered happiness to the bank accounts of divorce industry participants.
Thus, I would suggest that one way to target legislators (and judges) is to hit them hard and repeatedly with charges like:
"Is representative Jones in the Pocket of the Divorce Industry? We believe he is. Visit our website and see why."
"Is Judge Jones in the Pocket of the Divorce Industry?"
etc.
It is an ugly notion to be in anyone's pocket, let alone the pocket of such a disgusting group.
I say this because these charges, at the end of the day, will turn out to be the true underlying cause of all of this, but also, beyond being true, these resonate better with voters than
"Is representative Jones favoring women over men?"
"Is Judge Jones biased against men?"
Best to attack the real snake in all of this, and put the question to the voters with your autodialers of: "Is Politician Jones in bed with the Snakes?"
May 27th, 2007 at 8:03 am
P.S.
Prior to having any concerns over the behavior of family courts, my overwhelming impression of public opinion on "feminists" and the "feminist movement" was that the general public see them as somewhat whacky, and certainly extremist, and also as "has beens".
Just because they are out there being whacky extremists -- and holding views opposite to those of MRAs -- DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE THE ONES CAUSING THE CURRENT FAMILY COURT CONDITIONS.
Think about this for a minute.
Yes they hold opposite views. Yes they have websites. Yes that are extremists. And...
YES, THEY ARE AN OBIVOUS TARGET,
And they'll even shoot back!
BUT,
They are NOT the real enemy.
The real enemy is the divorce industry. Repeat: The REAL ENEMY IS THE DIVORCE INDUSTRY.
And the divorce industry LOVES the fact that they can hide behind women's rights. And they LOVE the fact that they can use the Feminists to draw attention and draw fire away from themselves as the true beneficiaries and manipulators of all of this.
Follow the money trail and it will lead you to the real enemy. Merchants of greed. A sick, anti-family, anti-American group of thieves who are hiding behind mother's skirts while they pick everyone's pockets.
That is your enemy. Feminists are irrelevant. No politician is going to declare he is "alligned with feminists". But every politician who is accurately accused of being aligned with the divorce industry will be desperate to clear his name of those dirty charges. And the only way for him/her to do that is to vote appropriately.
Help the politicians to take credit for winning the war against the divorce industry.
This is better strategy than trying to convince them to join any war against women, or even feminists.
Because, the divorce industry is the true enemy.
May 27th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I am doing what works already and I only go after those who've individually blown off this movement. I have yet to really go after a feminist although I do go after Rekha Basu of the DSM Register (Newspaper) and the head an anti-father organization in Iowa who also happens to be a woman.
The auto dialer attacks on Judge Pelton and now State Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal are far more intense.
May 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Kenbo,
Great that you are going after Judges and characters like Gronstal. Unmasking them for being on the side of -- and perhaps in the pockets of -- the greedy divorce injustry, can make these two so ugly in the eyes of voters that they will either do a 180 or get replaced. Keep the pressure on. If one looks at the backgrounds of these two, they are clearly small-timers who likely have no capacity for self reflection or taking an objective view of the broader context around their "positions". These are two lemmings who rose simply by standing in the same place for so long while others left the field. Not leaders, certainly.
You Kenbo, could do a great service to the rights of men throughout this country by making Iowa a showcase for what the voting public can and will do to judges and state legislators who allow families to be looted by the divorce industry. The greater your success, the greater the likelihood that state legislators and judges around the country will find themselves saying:
"We don't want to find ourselves being politically scalped like our comrades out in Iowa. Time to reverse our views before we become political history."
Keep on them Kenbo. And my recommendation is that you not stop until the specific wrong-doers are completely banished and all know why they were banished.
Then sir, you will have created a deterrent of national proportions.
May 27th, 2007 at 10:50 pm
Glenn likes to pussyfoot sometimes with the enemy.
The enemy is anyone, male or female, who would deny men their god-given rights to associate with their issue, and to women and politicians who would propose and pass laws to facilitate that.
I may be the only one here old enough to witness the original women's rights movement, one of gender equity. I stood with those women, in my youth, just a year or two ago (yeah, right). Their cause was noble, and just.
However, to get traction, they brought out thier equivalent to today's feminazi, who overstated, mischaracterized, and threw their opositions bovine leavings back in their face.
Today, that is called hate speech.
Now, our enemies are on two or three fronts. The woman supremists, like at www.nwwlc.org, who are very effective at getting, all for me, none for you laws passed, depending on if you have one hanging or not is one group. Second is the courts, who do just as they please, regardless of the laws, and answer "so?" if you catch them not following the law. (write me offlist for the story, but in Snohomish County WA, I discovered that they threw out family court records after six months, contrary to the law. Now they keep them the mandated 6 years)
Lastly, the disingenuous politicians, who say they hate divorce, or are the party of family values, but pass and keep laws that subsidize and encourage behaviors that they claim to abhor.
Our tactics need to be different with each. Calling out bovine scat is not hate speech. Occasional disobedience, or what some call the "risk premium" need to be exploited. Next time a man "goes off", don't defend his actions, but point out how public policy may have drove him to it. Where there is child abuse in single mother headed households, note, respectfully, that the public policy encouraging that is the cause, not the particular bad mom.
Talk, talk talk to your local representatives, and edumacate them as to how DV laws, while gender neutral, have a disproportionate impact on men. Let them know that indeed, civil rights are violated when this is a civil issue, instead of criminal, and men are deprived of liberty and property based only on an accusation,and that the simple statement that you are "in fear" or "it hurts" absent any red marks is all it takes.
So, sometimes, a rational calm reactions, a la Mr. Sacks is appropriate. Other times, some teeth baring rage is not unreasonable, if you are a normally reasonable guy (like me). Call out wimmin's industries bullbleep whereever you find it. Write letters to the editor, develop relationships with reporters, and editors. Take a day off from work, and call on your legislators in the capital.
We have one guy who works swing at the lazy B (Boeing) who pickets the courthouse several times a week, before work, during the lunch hour. Folks stop and talk. Sometimes you do it retail, one on one, other times you do it wholesale, write letters, meet with like minded men, and sometimes, unfortunately, we have guys who "go off" and do henious and harmful things.
We need them all. And we need to adapt our tactics to the situation at hand. Getting a divorce? Mamma escalating? You must adopt the Glenn Sacks method of peaceful resistance. You old like me, kids grown, but concerned about your three sons getting into this system, then you can be more, uh, visible, and high profile.
I am far from radical in my actions, but one peep that Kenbo talks to occasionally asked me the other day, "you are always in these guys faces (politicians and bureaucrats, and editors) yet they still talk to you and do business with you" Howcome?
Because I have my facts down, because I am right, because I am consistent, and because I am unafraid to expose their crap, unless they change their ways. I suggest you find your "edge", and be an activist up to your "edge", but no further.
There is a cost to making this change. Writing on these boards to exchange info is good, but whining is not. Take that energy and do something, to your capabilities. It may be as mild as the polite and gracious Mr. Sacks, or it may be uh, more high profile. But put that energy out, and remember, it is not your fight, but is the fight for all men, for your sons, your co-worker's sons, the kid down the street, and the future of America.
/rant
The Geezer
May 27th, 2007 at 11:40 pm
Lastly, the disingenuous politicians, who say they hate divorce, or are the party of family values, but pass and keep laws that subsidize and encourage behaviors that they claim to abhor - The Geezer
How true and that is exactly how pastors and Conservative Republicans have colluded with the Liberals, Democrats, Feminists, and the divorce industry profiteers without knowing it.
Thanks for the positive thoughts from many and I will continue my attacks against beatable judges and politicians to send the message we are for real.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:06 am
Chase them through the gates of hell Kenbo.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Logically you are correct Glenn. Yet in the battle that is going on, where rhetorical arguments are used to damn western white men endlessly (with far far bigger streches of rhetoric than this) going back to whatever time period that any feminist wants it to go. It is good to know that you can be called on for a holding of fire from ourside. Bravo!
I would disagree with someone making this point, but to use it in the way you have done here is less noble. I 'm not so sure about not stooping to the other side level either, for had the allies in WWI not stooped to using gas second, after the Germans used it freely we might have all been drinking Germans beer -if the Canadian regiment have stooped to pissing in their hankies and putting over their faces. Stooping is so dirty and unbecoming isn't it? Maybe they should have just run and grabbed the moral highground. It is such a popular spot high in the clouds.
May 30th, 2007 at 8:54 am
I do not intend to add an intellectual argument to this topic as I am sure that has been done. I'd just like to say that personally Mr.Reality's comments are headed in the general right direction for me. I do not hate women, however the institution of marriage today ain't what it use to be for men!
May 30th, 2007 at 9:24 am
Glenn, thank you for that. In fact, you are one of the reasons I am still here - reading away, learning, and sharing what I learn with others. The main reason, however, is my desire for equal rights for both men as well as women. Misandry DOES run rampant - it's not just our collective imagination.
That said, it's difficult to want to remain involved when you read post after post on some of these MRA message boards. There are those see you as purely evil merely because you're a Western woman - as though somehow, all the negative qualities so obviously inherent in any woman born in the US some how escaped each and every last female in the rest of the world. Not everyone can rise above the insinuations, the hatred, the bigotry - even though the persons spewing this vitriol are definitely in the minority. Actually, it was a woman who drove me over the edge on one of those boards. IF she's a woman. And I'm not so sure she's human, either, but I no longer give a rat's ass.
In the end, I couldn't handle the MRA message boards even though, on the whole, I was treated well. The lunatic element was too much for me, I have since had to learn how to seriously kick ass and not take things so personally, but at that point in my lfe, I was too raw from the ineffable pain and suffering of a false accusation aftermath. I'd probably handle it better this time around, but the question would be, "Why bother? What good would it do"?
So I look forward to Glenn's news letter and take part in what I can.
I certainly don't expect others to do that which I could not - which would have been to swallow the pain and ignore the hatred and barbs. I don't expect men to like being trashed and labelled as inherently evil any more than I did. I also understand the pain of men who have had their lives torn apart and their children ripped from them - I'm living with one of those men. The pain is, at times, unbearable. And I'm only suffering vicariously. His nightmares alone make me lie next to him in tears.
So much pain - I can understand the need to lash out but that understanding does not make the hurt any less. .
There are whackjobs and whiners in every movement. The feminists do the hatred and whining thing better than everyone else. If hatred gets one nowhere, then why the hell are THEY doing so well?
I don't know the answer to that - I would very much appreciate any insight because it baffles the hell out of me.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Yo, Geezer - great post. I have had NO LUCK whatsoever getting any politician to respond to me. How do you do it?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Germaine Greer remarked decades ago that women have no idea how much men hate them. At the time, her statement, as with most feminist propoganda, was false -- men did not hate women (in truth, women did not know how much feminists hate women who are not feminist). However, now that we Westerm men have marinated in a feminized, toxic, man-bashing social environment for decades, Greer's comment is increasingly a true statement -- as the feminists have intended all along, of course. An earlier comment asserted that each gender must silence its own hate-mongers. But how shall men induce women, who have for the most part silently accepted the "benefits" claimed by feminism and who have acted as its enablers, to begin silencing the feminist haters? I suggest, with all due respect to Glenn, that we men indeed need to get "in touch with our feelings" and let the women in our lives know (non-violently) the depth of our hostility and resentment. It will be frightening and traumatic for most, but only the shock of waking up to the nightmare developing around them will spur women out of their smug complaceny about the truly alarming state of gender relations. Women somehow have deluded themselves into believing that men will continue to "play the game," and stay in their harnesses like dumb mules, now matter how badly we are treated. Ultimately, only women's fear of losing what they truly need and desire will motivate them to turn off the spigot of feminism's poison. As the feminist saying goes, "the personal is political." Men need to get the women in their lives to understand that "the political is personal." It is only fair that women start paying for the "free lunch" offered them by their feminist "liberators."
May 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Although I don’t agree with everything MrReality has to say. I will say this…
If more women would put the same energy, care, emotion and thought of planning their weddings into the relationship, there would be a lot of longer lasting marriages in America today.
May 30th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
It's a sad but inevitable response to a culture-wide assault against the male gender. When 'maleness' becomes pathologized, it's ineluctable that reactionary responses to the pain occur. It's no different to when women complain of being marginalized in the workplace or historical sexism, and react with junk science and institutionalized gender based "equity" programs, affirmative action based preferential treatment, or Inquisition-style court allocations of children and assets upon divorce.
People will listen to us when we are fair, consistent, and strong. Otherwise, we risk being minimized as "unfair or unbalanced" even as we rail against those very forces. We must arrive at a place of respect for each other, or we'll overreact to the pain.
May 30th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Got to read the posts after my recent blog; Kenboiraq and Michael H, you sound like you've been through the ringer. Me too.
You see that we are a fragmented group, but growing. Ken sees that, regardless of ideology or etiology, we must act, and we must spend our efforts working on the cause, not each other. We will not agree on all points, so we should work on consolidation of our numbers and strengths, and a practical agenda most can work with. I propose:
1. Working on national referendum for presumption of shared custody, a la Iowa. (good work, Kenboiraq)
2. Legal reform at the state level, to include required pre-marital counseling and binding mediation at the back end of relationships. We must get homes, assets, and future relationships with children "off the table," to reduce trial lawyer incentive (greed) and secondary divorce industries out of the picture. We must make the destruction of families unprofitable. This is the hardest element, as it will require some strong input from the legal lobby, and likely tons of money and coordination.
3. Intrustion of good social science data into policy and lawmaking. Marital success is predicatable, and while divorce 'frees' women from "patristic" financial & social control (gag), it is bad for kids. This, and other negative outcomes of divorce, is largely ignored, for obvious reasons, at the debate level. We must continue to educate policy makers and the public.
Any ideas of your own?
May 30th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Don,
With respect to my relationship with my children, I'm lucky and I'm thankful.
A rebuttable presumption for shared parenting (50% physical custody for each parent unless there is compelling evidence that this is not in the best interest of the children) is our goal. States must keep statistics on judges.
We're all doing what we can.
I have suggested that members of the fathers' rights movement take off from work on the Friday before Fathers' Day. I think it will work. Please spread the word.
Best wishes,
Michael H
May 31st, 2007 at 3:12 am
"There are so many anti-woman distortions in this article that it's hard to know where to start. MrReality's first assumption is that western women who want diamonds are creating the horrendous conditions in the diamond mines of Africa. But the consumer doesn't create the conditions under which a product is produced--the company producing it does. What African diamond miners need is not a boycott of diamonds but instead a strong labor union. In South Africa, black labor unions--particularly the miners' union--were powerful, improved conditions for workers, and helped bring down apartheid."
Sorry Glenn, an assumption does not make for a distortion unless it is shown to be false, and for it to be shown false requires showing women, in general, really care more about the conditions in which diamonds are produced than the diamond. You have not shown that so your position it is a distortion is unsupported. Of course, the original position, women care more about diamonds than how they are produces, is unsupported as well.
Making both appeals to bias and bigotry.
Second, "the consumer doesn't create the conditions under which a product is produced--the company producing it does" is false. No demand, no conditions. If you can show one example where brutal conditions exist to produce a product which has no demand, zero, stand corrected. Faster, better, cheaper is the driving economic force. This context is defined within the frame of long term, or short term, and then brings the focus back to a sustainable economy, and what is it about diamonds that makes a system stable? Why a diamond in the first place? What is the value?
When you answer these questions, think you will find "MrReality" position is not as misogynist as you think.
JT
May 31st, 2007 at 9:58 am
YOU are wrong this time Glenn. The article is right on the money about female assault on men and our money, the Wedding, and their greed for blood diamonds. It wasn't men who started the hate war, but many men have justifiably responded to massive hate by being very rationally offended by women who hate men. While there may be a very rare female in our naiton who isn't part of the feminazi hate war on men, they are nowhere to be found when hating men is the topic. Even females who go on radio and rant about feminists like Dr. Laura, are man haters who have relegated men to second class status, they have absorbed and believe all the anti-men hate and prejudice that the feminists have taught them. "Phone the police" ils Dr. Laura's first response to any female who plays the "DV" trump card, or the "abuse" card. All the hate spews forth, inbetween her "I'm not a feminist" claims. Virtually every female in America today is much the same, despite their claims of "I'm not a feminist" they believe and practice all the anti-men hate, and vote for anti-men hate mongering legislatures.
Feminists are wrong, on this one and every one. Time to wake up Glenn!
Bob
May 31st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
I think it is very important to distinguish between anger and hatred.
If your kid knocks a ball through your plate glass window, you are likely to be very angry, and might say or do something bad. But you will never hate your kid. If someone upsets you, you could get mad with them in the heat of the moment. That's anger. But if you sit down and plan how you are going to wreck someone's life, that is hatred. Anger is hot, usually temporary, leaves room for forgiveness, and does not usually do lasting damage to the person who feels it. Hatred is cold, relentless, uncompromising and eats up the soul of the person who feels it.
All clear on the difference?
Now I encounter lots of anger on MRA blogs. I feel that same anger myself with much that women in general and feminists in particular say and do. Sometimes I feel desperately disappointed with women when they let themselves be led like sheep, or act selfishly. But I don't hate them. I contribute to some blogs and often let fly myself at the injustices and stupidity that I see. But I don't hate women. Anger is not necessarily a bad thing. It is often the vital pre-cursor to action, and can galvanise people into changing the world, hopefully for the better. If nothing else, it can be a safety valve for letting out pent-up emotions that are better spilled out than kept in. It's better than being nice, because nice doesn't work. Nice is despised and ignored.
But I don't hate women. I don't hatch up diabolical ideas for hurting women, or press for actions that will diminish their lives or their rights.
And in my experience, MRA bloggers don't do either. They just express their anger and let off steam. Occasionally people come up with extreme comments that suggest something more sinister is going on in their minds, but these are rare and not part of the mainstream men's rights movement. So I don't think the anger you see on MRA sites is bad, or to be condemned. On the contrary, I am glad to see so many showing their anger and turning up the heat under those who would do us harm. It shows they care and that the resistance is growing, as it needs to do. But never confuse that anger with hatred.
But now compare what the other side have been up to. Sure, you have very similar feminist blogs telling us everything that is wrong with men and how women have always been oppressed, and how they need to fight back etc. But the feminist movement has moved way beyond the outpouring of anger. They have sat down and planned, in cold blood, all the ways they want to hurt men and boys, and to diminish our lives and rights. And they have put those plans into action, and been spectacularly successful at it. Now that is real hatred. Nobody reading here will be in any doubt about it, and I don't need to make a list of everything that they have done. By their fruits shall ye know them.
That's why there is now a men's rights movement. It was inevitable, and it has to succeed because there is not going to be any justice or balance between the sexes from any other source.
So quite frankly, if anyone starts off supporting the men's movement but claims they are put off it by reading the occasional crazy rant from the lunatic fringe, then their commitment cannot have been very strong in the first place. I would suspect they were really just looking for an excuse to bale out. In which case we can do without them.
BTW, pay some attention to the comment by Anonymous on 25 May at 7.16 pm. I think he/she is dead right. I have commented previously to Glenn that explosions of violence by frustrated and stamped-on males are the easiest predictions to make, and I have been proved right. It will happen again.
May 31st, 2007 at 4:57 pm
In fairness, I would just have to point out that Western women are not the only people in the world who like diamonds.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
John Clark stated:
So quite frankly, if anyone starts off supporting the men's movement but claims they are put off it by reading the occasional crazy rant from the lunatic fringe, then their commitment cannot have been very strong in the first place. I would suspect they were really just looking for an excuse to bale out. In which case we can do without them.
Uh - wrong.
Wrong.
WRONG.
I have not been put off - I just choose not to expose myself to men who clearly hate women and are seeking only revenge. I do not need, nor do I desire, bedfellows of that sort.
Who are you to judge what I find hurtful and what my motivation is?
May 31st, 2007 at 8:52 pm
Juststopping:
Thanks for that comment. My sister was once engaged to a Chinese man. His mother warned him, "White women only want jewels". My sister was like, "WTF?" My sister is a Ph.D. She has no interest in jewels. She can purchase her own if she truly wants them.
Many non-American women are extremely mercenary, and many American women are modest as well as frugal.
But apparently, on the MRA sites, all American women are "EVIL" -
I don't give a flying fuck either way, Marry whom you want - but please don't come crying about how that lovely, submissive Asian woman turned all fat, hateful American when she was clearly a DRAGON LADY from the get-go.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Well said John Clarke!
Anger is healthy, and it is often a necessary stimulator of positive change.
I too hear anger, rather than hatred, at these MRA sites, in spite of the strong posture and blue language. I hear a lot of humour as well, much more than in the mainstream press. That alone says something.
May 31st, 2007 at 9:00 pm
I'm so angry - and that's a good thing.
See, I'm just an EVIL WOMAN who STOPS SUPPORTING MEN'S RIGHTS when my FEELINGS GET HURT -
Whatever.
You don't need me? Too f-ing bad. I'm here to stay. And don't you ever purport to tell me what should or should not offend me again.
Signed,
the woman some guy on Stand your Ground said should be wrapped up in a burka.
May 31st, 2007 at 10:51 pm
"The sad truth is that African MEN are forced into slavery in order for the new wife (a member of the royal sex) to walk around and showcase her new diamond. Which many times means more to her than the marriage itself."
in between the - -
The sad truth is that -some- African MEN are forced into slavery -by other MEN- in order for -the new husband and- the new wife (a member -s- of the royal -civilization- sex) to walk around and showcase her new diamond. Which -can- many times means more to her than the marriage itself.
The truth is, women want them and men buy them, and possibly one or both could careless what it truly cost.
To recognize, women, in general, want diamonds (symbols of wealth,) regardless of how much another, mainly men, have paid to get them, is not being misandric to point this out.
If it is, then to point out men want to buy them, possibly without any concern for the cost to others, to get them, would be man-hating.
Which it is not!
JT
June 1st, 2007 at 7:17 am
The only point that I was making is that women are not the only ones who wear diamonds. To blame them for all the problems in the diamond industry is ridiculous. If you want proof that men wear and want diamonds, check out any hip hop video. I am not in anyway saying that there are not problems in the way men are treated in family court and in the media. I am saying the using the situation in diamond industry to do it is not a good example. Men and women alike wear diamonds and I don't think it is only western women who want to wear them. In case nobody knows I am a woman too. I am a very happily married mother of one. It is odd that I support this cause given my upbringing. I am am product of a single parent home my father was on a personal mission to populate earth, I have eight sibling and am the third. He did not want children yet when I was born (my siblings and I have 4 different mothers) so he did not want anything to do with me other than paying child support. He only raised the children from his marraige, including her children for before the marraige. He started trying to be a part of my life when I graduated from college. The point of this statement is the all types of women want to help. I would like to help men who want to be a part of their children's lives and are not allowed to. People like my dad are part of the reason the system is so messed up now . That said, I understand that there are angry people in this movement. There are some men out there who bash women though. I don't really care though because most of the things they say are not true about women as a whole but may be true about the woman they chose. Bashing on either side does not help. Saying that women started it first, is not a good reason to bash also and on top of that not all women bash men. People I know consider me a feminist, simply because I have a degree in a technical and work with all men. They also think it is odd that I work full time and have a son and should be at home. (yes women tell me that) So some of them also bash each other. I don't think that women are the enemy, I think the real enemy is the judicial system. Sorry this post is so long, there a lot of factors that go into this. Didn't spell check, hope the post makes sense.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:07 am
This article is indeed immoderate in tone, and badly thought out. However, I cannot avoid wondering if it does not reflect the frustration and anger--NOT MISOGYNY-- of this individual author,which would be almost inevitable in many, perhaps most men,(and the women who love them), given the excessive attention given to the opposite side in these controversies.Tell the truth, this is merely one "antiwoman" artilcle, by one author, written perhaps in a moment of pique, in conttast to the thousands, if not millions, of even more bitter, more extreme, and more reckless accusations against men from feminists. Hatred, quite naturally, begets hatred.
Such articles are not the best way to get our poinrs across, but they are an entirely understandible response to the years of malice, ignorance, and viciousness of the mainstream feminist movement and TH;EIR literature, in both style and content!!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
December 13th, 2007 at 8:14 am
[...] justifiably so. Nonetheless, within the spectrum of MRAs, Glenn is actually very far left, since he objects to misogyny on occasion, and also takes positions such as favoring same-sex marriage — for which Glenn [...]
April 21st, 2008 at 1:33 pm
[...] The Feminists Are Right This Time [...]