>Comments policy: Cool it
>Folks, some of you need to cool it with the gratuitously nasty personal attacks in your comments. I’ve been cutting some people slack because they are new to the comments here, and because I like to practice relatively hands-off moderation, but I will start deleting comments if this continues, and repeated violators will be banned entirely. Regardless of which side of the debate you’re on. If you haven’t already, read the comments policy.
Also not ok: Justifying violence against men or women. For example, this recent comment from witman suggesting it might be “patriotic” to shoot feminist elected officials. (I’ve screencapped it because I will be deleting it, but for now you can go see it for yourself to confirm I’m not making it up.)
Posted on January 11, 2011, in comments policy, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 119 Comments.
>To yohan:So you're the owner of the nice-guy forum ? (http://www.the-niceguy.com/). I discovered the Nice-Guy forum in 2009 because I wanted to know where Fschmidt was posting - Fschmidt was a regular poster there. And from what I've read at that time, it's clear that most poster there were bitter guys that couldn't get laid - and they didn't hate only feminism, they hated women and any guy that had success with women. I remember reading at least one posting of a guy admitting he was virgin. Many of the most controversial postings disappeared from the nice-guy forum in the beginning of 2010.
>No, I am NOT the owner/administrator/founder of the Nice-Guy Forum, I am only holding moderator-rights since many years.We do not accept hate/kill all women-messages. There are members, who are married. also some female members.You mention a certain member, but I cannot find any comment from him in our forum, which I consider as not acceptable.
>@avpd0nmmng Stop projecting you own issues onto the whole MRA movement.
>Check this posting …http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45033He's supposed to have 1010 postings …
>avp, I cut and pasted in that url accidentally leaving off the final "3" and got a comment saying this:"I like the old days, of just grabbing the bitch by the hair and demanding she becomes 'your wife'. Much easier!"http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4503
>What is your problem?This thread is in the section called:Opposing ViewsDisagree with our philosophy? Post here & tell us why. Enter at own Risk.Of course not everybody - especially in this section - (there are 3, for trolls, for conspiracy, for opposing views) agrees with everything. This is an MRA-Forum, and not a feminist blog following the party-line.You have an account, and why do you not post your comment if you disagree as other members did, and if you think, it's too offensive, why do you not report it to the administration?Report button is on the left side, this thread you mention is from Oct/2009.About this member and his 1000 or so comments, the Niceguy-Forum has totally about 530.000 comments.
>You should also mention, David, that this thread is dated 2004 (that's even before I joined as a member, and not as moderator), that 2 members of this thread were banned, and this thread was the reply to a pseudo-feminist forum about 'why men should lie to women'.So I understand you support men, who are liars?You agree to this old article from 2004?Well, in this case you are a man, we MRAs call a mangina, too afraid of a woman to tell her the truth..MRAs do not agree to such mangina behavior, better say, what's going on.MRAs do not think, men as liars are a good solution, but obviously it works and recommended by feminist minded dating advisors.What about you?Some sentences from that article:lying is smartSo should you always be honest with her? The answer is no — not if you know what's good for you. The truth is, you can't afford to always tell the truth if you want to keep your relationship healthy. Sometimes you just have to hedge your bets a little with a little creative sugarcoating.Women say they want men to be honest, but if you are, the only thing you'll be going home with is an armful of DVDs from the back room of the video store. The truth is, women force men to lie……The trick is figuring out what she wants to hear…You can lie. Bingo! Take her hands, look deep into her eyes with all the supreme male confidence you can muster and tell her she's the most desirable, beautiful woman you've ever seen. Don't even respond directly to her questions. Sure, it's a scam, and she knows it's a scam, but you're coming from a position of strength, not weakness. Remember, she wants you to lie. She expects you to lie. Wonderful advice, but not my way to go as an MRA.
>David and the others. I think you may mistake real genuine MRA's with younger people or older who like to make dark humour with insulting posts, in the hopes that someone will get a reaction over it or just to simply gain attention.There are shock jocks everywhere on the net. Depending what the forum is about, people will go in and start obnoxious humour.
>I love how the comment mentions not "treating people like crap." You know… PEOPLE, as in women too. Also, I'm pretty sure shooting someone is treating her or him like crap.
>I just thought it was sort of ironic that going to a completely random page there (by cutting and pasting the wrong url) brought up someone making a beat-up-women joke, right after you said such "hate women" comments didn't exist.
>It's interesting to see how you ignore the other replies in 2004…same thread…More crap about how men should "adjust" themselves to get women to like them. Amazing! I don't have a woman in my life, either. Sure, I get lonely sometimes, but I'm at peace. And, my life is my own If that is (rem.by Yohan: to be a liar) what is required for any guy to get a date, I am quite happy being single —-Interesting that you do not question the article itself - to be successful for dates with girls, men are required to be a liar…. interesting indeed.
>My last comment was for Yohan, of course. Also, it's complete bullshit that NiceGuy band messages advocating violence against women. One quick search on the site (for the phrase "slap that bitch") led me to a bunch of examples:This comment, from an administrator there: Women are superior @ emotioinally manipulating men, and to counter balance that man was given superior strength to respond by a backhand to the side of the head. Of course that power was removed by feminism, along with every other power the western man once had. http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=9422&view=findpost&p=123189And this one from a guest later in the thread, happy that he found some guys that like the idea of slapping women — sorry, "bitches" — around: "Wow thanks for the replies, and I totally agree that as a man I should have been able to slap that bitch right across the mouth."I think there's probably a 50% chance than anything Yohan says in comments here will be completely untrue.
>Yohan, I say that sick fucks are murdering prostitutes and to you that's SHAMING? I am now officially scared of you. Not a decent or even semi-well adjusted person would worry about "shaming" a sick fuck that killed a prostitute.
>oops David, I scrolled up and it looks like the blog posted one of my novel comments three times. Please delete, it's embarrassing. (And that joke about Yohan pulling stuff out of his butt that we all need to disprove, I actually explained that right in the same comment as well as the next two, sigh…)
>Yohan, I say that sick fucks are murdering prostitutes …booboonation said… Gee, how about men quit fucking killing prostitutes you sick fuck? No, you said to me: you sick fuck
>… And this one from a guest later in the thread …Sorry, David, but you are wrong again,We do NOT have GUESTS. Guests do not have the right to post comments.You picked out again a thread of 2005, before upgrading to the present software.GUESTS are people, whose account was cancelled, either the person required that before leaving us, or we did it to force that person to leave.Recently banned former members will show up as BANNED.
>Yohan, ok, I'll take your word on the guest things, but the first comment I quoted was from an ADMIN. Do you want me to dig up another hundred examples?
>David: I think there's probably a 50% chance than anything Yohan says in comments here will be completely untrue. So far what I see, 100 percent of what David is posting even in his own blog is wrong. As a typical mangina, he supports even articles, where men are encouraged to lie in case they are afraid of women.And this thread you mentioned is about aggressive women…and about a MOCK FIGHT, made up..Whats a "DINK?" Much props to your wife for slapoing that ho. She sounds like a good woman.Take one man and one women and put them center stage, have them start a mock fight. We are conditioned to organize to protect females but not to protect ourselves from females.Please take some reading lessons, English is your mother tongue I guess… and most comments of the NiceGuy Forum are in English.Next please…
>David: the first comment I quoted was from an ADMIN. You quoted only 1 half of the sentence, the other half is missing…He said:Of course that power was removed by feminism, along with every other power the western man once had. Fortunately, I don't need to go that far to put my women in their place .
>"brought up someone making a beat-up-women joke, right after you said such "hate women" comments didn't exist."I highly doubt it that a woman would be deemed as a misandrist if she made a joke about kicking a guy in the gonads. It would get taken lightly.
>@ nicko81mViolence from women against men remains a frequent topic all the time in MRA-related websites. I do not think, that men who are posting their stories on their blogs or in MRA-forums are all liars dreaming in their sick fantasy world.I wonder if David is already retired. It seems, he has plenty of time to search in old archives from 2004 or 2005 in our Niceguy-Forum among over 500.000 comments from banned former members if they contain something 'misogynistic' - Has he nothing else to do? No job, no family, no hobbies otherwise?The administration of the Niceguy-Forum has guidelines about what we consider as acceptable comments and what not - and surely David, the MRA-hater is one of the last persons on earth we would ask for advice how we manage our websites.Men need a place, where they can talk about their personal problems, and David's MRA-hater blog surely is not the right place for them.
>avpd0nmmng said… "MRAs are not interested into games like US-hook-up-culture and one-night stands with certain women in certain countries."Why books by Roosh are advertised on the Spearhead ?Why Roissy is admired by most MRAs ?"You are grossly misinformed about this world, if you really think all foreign countries are 3rd world countries, all foreign women are poor and doormats and only American women are 'rich and independent'."I never said that, what I meant is that MRAs go to third world countries because they hope women there are submissive and desperate because they have no success with women in developed countries. And I doubt that even in a third world country, they can find a submissive and desperate woman. Nice try in painting women as "desperate" in other countries when there are many desperate women over in the US—but they don't want to appear bitter or desperate and project it on men.Plus, what do have against someone who wants a consential relationship with a submission woman—or a woman that likes being that way? I'm certain you think most MRA aren't "successes" with American women but when the dating pool is suspect you can always think they are not suitable or desirable. Ever wonder if there are undesirable women out there as well in the US? Or do you think that American women are the be all, end all of the mating game?
>avpd0nmmng said… "I discovered the Nice-Guy forum in 2009 because I wanted to know where Fschmidt was posting - Fschmidt was a regular poster there. And from what I've read at that time, it's clear that most poster there were bitter guys that couldn't get laid"False. There are married, divorced, and single guys there. I bet you revel in the fact you think they "couldn't get laid" although there is a cross-section of men there. There are more issues dealt there other than getting sex—perhaps you are hung up this thing with men, eh?You really have something about this, or you are just employing poor psychology. " - and they didn't hate only feminism, they hated women and any guy that had success with women."Nice Guy himself got married and men applauded his success. Apparently, you don't spend time there very much."I remember reading at least one posting of a guy admitting he was virgin."So, what's your problem? Would you have a problem with a woman thinking her virginity was okay? Probably not."Many of the most controversial postings disappeared from the nice-guy forum in the beginning of 2010."Whatever you deem as controversial, of course.
>booboonation said… "Yohan, I say that sick fucks are murdering prostitutes and to you that's SHAMING? I am now officially scared of you. Not a decent or even semi-well adjusted person would worry about "shaming" a sick fuck that killed a prostitute."Goes to show feminism thrives on guilt and fear. Afraid of Yohan? He's so level headed and down to earth that your rant would be a sad joke if you weren't so serious. (laughs uproariously)
>Yohan. Great. He can "put her in her place" without literally hitting her. What a wonderful fellow. Also, how about these:"I'd slap the fucking shit…no I'd punch a bitch dead in the mouth for suggesting that I suck a dildo. I'd part that hos hair."http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=45492&view=findpost&p=506763"Ain't that the truth. Can't stand those types of people — talk loud just to hide the fact that they are entirely insecure about themselves. Bitch needs a good punch-out. "http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40009&view=findpost&p=452916And this hilarious joke:Chick: "Hey baby, I just changed the tire, checked the coolant, and gave the car a tune-up."Guy: "Bitch, what I tell you about knowing more about cars than me?" *slap* http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49946&view=findpost&p=553888"Cheer up mate, once our economy collaspses, you can freely bitch slap them without fear of the law, and they will be BEGGING you to take care of them. Your future is bright "http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=49646&view=findpost&p=551675Also, just so you know, I'm not searching through thousands of old posts. The NiceGuy site has a search function. Type in words related to violence against women, and to-da! You find posts in which guys advocate or joke or fantasize about violence towards women.
>Futrelle, you had to know you'd open up a category 5 shit storm, when you decided to subject MRA's to your canned defamatory snakiness. Agitprop tends to elicit that reaction.
>Dr. Deezee: "Taking a page right out of my primer on public discourse I see. Why refute an argument when you can just dismiss it with ad hominems and stupid analogies?"Dr. Deezee, I don't care about your primer. Using the word "discourse" in a sentence doesn't make you an authority on logic or rhetoric. For starters, you didn't make an argument. You made a factual statement with an implied conclusion so ridiculous on its face, it doesn't merit formal refutation. As for what this "woman" wrote — once again, it's not an argument, but a rant; and as with your suggestion, its premise is so ridiculous, that no formal refutation is necessary. Moreover, you operate under a logical fallacy that mocking a statement proves its substance. Obviously, this defies the basic principles of logic. Nor is an assertion proven by the opponent's refusal to engage it, since the grounds for such a refusal aren't limited to actual inability. Therefore, it proves none of the contents of that rant for me to say that I will not engage any "argument" the premise of which is that women are subhuman waste by virtue of their gender, who do or say nothing of value, and should have the legal status of property.Yohan: "You want to FORCE other people to accept your feminist guidelines."Although I don't agree with everything that booboonation says, or how she says it, I don't see in what way she is forcing you to believe anything. Do you have a gun to your head? Do you have a knife to your throat? Have your assets been seized and your bank accounts frozen? Can you honestly, in good faith say that you are in a reasonable fear, supported by experience, of being exiled to a gulag because you don't agree with booboonation? Or do you mean to say that you consider merely disputing your statements to be oppressive and unfair towards you?This proves, once again, that MRA's operate on the basic assumption that men are the default gender, and women exist solely to accommodate "people", i.e. men. Thus, any right or privilege exercised by women, though identical to that of men, is seen as an erosion of men's rights. Women's suffrage is constantly decried as a disenfranchisement of men, even though men's and women's voting rights are exactly identical. A husband and wife both keep their original last names, and this is seen as an act of subjugation of the husband, even though he gets the exact same thing as the wife. A woman expresses an opinion, and this is characterized as coercion against men who disagree with her. The inevitable conclusion is that women aren't to speak at all, except in endorsement. Has it ever occurred to you, Yohan, that by expressing your opinions here you are "forcing" them on people? What are you saying, exactly? That a woman may only speak to parrot what you say, or else stay silent? Whereas men are entitled to say whatever they want? Some "marketplace of ideas" you envision there, pal. And how ironic that you deny being privileged.
>Booboonation, a radical feminist is now scared of Yohan, MRA…Nothing to worry about, for sure David will protect you…Well, true, the Men's Rights Movement is successfully fighting against feminism. —-@DavidAbout your link (from 2008)http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=40009related to comments abouthttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=edc_1230094877Crazy Chick Picks a Fight With Off-Duty Marines at 7-ElevenIf you really call THIS to be violence AGAINST women, then you are crazy…—-Yes, you are searching and nitpicking through 1000s of old posts. Otherwise you would mention some others, from various sectors from 2011, related to violence, like this one…http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50037(why men kill themselves)or what about this one…http://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50135(tragedy: children from single parent families - 70 per cent more likely to become a drug addict)or this onehttp://www.the-niceguy.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=50134 (Nurse -female- punched dying patient -male- who walked with a Zimmer frame)This is about what we do as MRAs. We do our best to inform people about topics, where feminists remain silent…
>Amused: 1 -Women's suffrage is constantly decried as a disenfranchisement of men, even though men's and women's voting rights are exactly identical. 2 -A husband and wife both keep their original last names, and this is seen as an act of subjugation of the husband, even though he gets the exact same thing as the wife.All what I can say, as a male immigrant from Europe to Asia myself after 35 years, I do not have any voting rights, and it does not disturb me at all.After marriage, that's the law in many Asian countries, the foreigner keeps his/her name, and the national of that country keeps her/his name, and it does not disturb me at all.What you mention here is more about personal feelings and Western history/law, not everywhere in the world it is like that. It has nothing to do with the gender as you see in my case. Other circumstances also have to be considered.And about marriage, maybe a feminist can explain me for what marriage is good for in case you are a man? Any benefit for a man if he marries? Which benefit?
>Yohan: you completely missed my point, which was about the perception that if women occupy any part of any public space, they are seen as encroaching on men's space. The fact that you don't care about not having the right to vote is neither here nor there. It remains that you claim that if a woman merely voices an opinion that's contrary to yours, she's "forcing" you — implying that women shouldn't speak, except to agree."And about marriage, maybe a feminist can explain me for what marriage is good for in case you are a man? Any benefit for a man if he marries? Which benefit?"I am not an advocate for marriage. Marriage is a personal matter, and I am not in the habit of "selling" marriage OR singlehood, to anyone. Every lifestyle has its own set of complications and costs. Whether the benefits outweigh the costs in a particular set of circumstances depends on a lot of variables and individual perceptions. If the only possible "benefit" you see for a man in marriage is having an unpaid servant, then yes, we feminists have done all we can to deprive you of that "benefit". If you don't believe marriage has anything for you, unless you can own another human being like an appliance — then by all means, don't get married. That will make some woman very, very lucky.
>Amused - Your understanding of logic is twisted probably beyond repair, but, as I said, thanks for continuing to operate based on my primer. I should get that shit published and disseminate it in colleges.
>Oh, "doctor", I can tell you have such sweet dreams — Saudi-style repression, colleges buying your "primer", you being an authority on argumentation … A part of me is tempted to suggest you should lay off the old malmsey, but then, who am I to rain on your parade?
>Amused - Between the two of us, you certainly aren't going to be the authority on argumentation any time soon. Or reading comprehension.
>"If the only possible "benefit" you see for a man in marriage is having an unpaid servant, then yes, we feminists have done all we can to deprive you of that "benefit"." -AmusedAnd why should a man be a servant to you? That, and top it off with giving feminist-minded women the "right" to exploit men after marriage with inane amounts of ailmony or enable false charges in children custody and visitation battles. Your cause is an anti-men one and female supremacist. Admit it.
>Why should she admit it? What in her comments or in the feminist creed requires a man to become a servant to a woman?
>Bringing this thread back to its original topic:I had a brief exchange with Witman wherein he revealed that in his perception, the language feminists/women use to describe men is so intensely dehumanizing that he related it to a genocide against men. He is basically creating a fantasy world where the intentions of women/feminists towards men are so dire and malevolent that violence against them is not only justified, it might even be necessary. I mean, if I thought a genocide against a group I belonged to was a real possibility, I'd view violence as a justifiable response. So his comments at the top of the page didn't particularly surprise me. Apparently he truly believes that a genocide against men is, at the very least, a remote possibility. If you accept that premise, his comments make some sense. Wytchfinde's insistence that he can read Amused's mind is in a similar vein. She's an anti-man female supremacist regardless of what she says. He believes it, so it must be true. Believing that a large number of women truly hate men and actively conspire to destroy them and hurt them can justify acting in hurtful and destructive ways towards women. As a feminist, I don't believe men are out to hurt women. There's no vast conspiracy. There's just a lot of cultural baggage and institutional inertia left over from the days when women were not legally considered full persons. Being considered less than a citizen, less than a person, benefits nobody. I'm grateful I live in a time when my personhood is taken for granted. It's just too bad that this basic right comes along with cultural changes that are so disconcerting for so many people. But then the culture was and is entirely fucked up in so many ways-the change, painful though it is, is worth it in my book.
>As for Dr. Deezee-you assert that Amused lacks logic and reading comprehension. But saying it doesn't make it so. Show exactly where her logic doesn't add up, and what precisely she failed to comprehend. It just makes you look like a person with an inflated sense of his own intelligence.
>SallyStrange -Oh, no kidding? You mean when I say shit it doesn't make it so? Kind of like what Amused is doing when s/he says "that argument is beneath me and not worth refuting?"Fancy that! Amazing!
>"Believing that a large number of women truly hate men and actively conspire to destroy them and hurt them can justify acting in hurtful and destructive ways towards women." Sally StrangerThanks for acting as if you know what I think. Your implication would be an insult if I cared.I suppose in your world men are out to get you. Too bad you feel that way. And then you state:"As a feminist, I don't believe men are out to hurt women."Cognitive dissonance, anyone?"Wytchfinde's insistence that he can read Amused's mind is in a similar vein."And you know what believe and think? You're a hypocrite as well."I mean, if I thought a genocide against a group I belonged to was a real possibility, I'd view violence as a justifiable response."So, you're admitting you be violent toward men. You're a bigot, too.
>Dr. Deezee: You fail to distinguish between a statement of individual attitude and a statement of purported fact — and you claim your "primer" will be studied in colleges? Oh yeah, I bet once they read your "primer", Plato and Hegel will go right the fuck out of print. Everyone will just study YOU — especially after you pepper your "primer" with a few more fifty-cent words. *eye roll*wytchfinde555: I will not admit something that's patently false. The fact that you had to twist my words into a pretzel in order to arrive at your ridiculous accusation speaks for itself.
>Amused -You fail to detect sarcasm and you routinely say in fifty words what could be said in five. Get learned.
>Deezee, you routinely say in five words what could be said in zero, so I think she's still ahead of you in the substance arena.
>David talking about substance is like getting your legal advice from Saul Goodman.
>"The fact that you had to twist my words into a pretzel in order to arrive at your ridiculous accusation speaks for itself."-AmusedIt's not ridiculous if it's the truth. I don't have to take anything out of context—what you write is proof enough.
>Uh, no, wytch, I think by any objective standard you twisted her words.
>"Uh, no, wytch, I think by any objective standard you twisted her words."—DavidBy calling her a female supremacist? By your standards or by objective standards?I'll show you that she'll trip up. Give it time.
>@David Futrelle:"Uh, no, wytch,…"I shall now bang my head against the wall.
>If any comment deserved an "uh," it was that one.
>"Because the truth is, it's just another boundary invasion of women by people that think women are owned and have no personal agency. Men that attack the feminist movement just don't want women to have a group identity that they define themselves, or clear boundaries. It's fine that men have otherized us since Eden and look at women as such a separate species they cannot even maintain a friendship with a woman."???Are you serious? DO you really think men are so devious, malevolant, and oppressive that they see women as separate, lesser thing with no souls or minds? What planet do you live on??If you look at the evidence of gender standing in the western world in the last 100 years, you will see a marked advancement of women in every single part of life, and a marked decline of men. The evidence, the statistics on everything from life expectancy to education and job rates to suicide and death rates prove that women are not oppressed. The fact that many men work very long hours in often dangerous jobs they are not passionate about to provide for their wives and children show that this is idea of yours is not the case. You are so out of touch with reality I cannot believe you ever leave the house!MRA's want women to be equal to men. That means if women have the right to vote, they must also register for the draft. That means men have as equal of reproduction choices as biology allows (paper abortion option, more birth control options, laws which make it illegal to withhold paternaty knowledge, assumed access to kids for fathers unless proven unfit in criminal court.) That means that parents have equal treatment in divorce cases rather than blindly siding with mothers. That means in rape cases innocent until proven guilty stands as in every other crime. It means punishment for false allegations. It means taxpayer dollars are spent equitably on both male and female issues (such as cancer and dv)That means that when a woman breaks the law she is treated the same as a man. It means seeking gender parity for fields such as nursing and teaching, which are female dominated and hold a strong "glass ceiling" for men based on unmerited fear and suspicion of all men. Most MRAs want true equality. That means equal rights AND equal responsibilities. Feminists are all on the rights for women, but not so much on the responsibilities.