AgentOrange and the Screencaps of Feminazi Doom
Santa is no longer interested in bringing joy to girls.
Christmas came early for the MRAs this year. Earlier this week, a generous soul calling himself AgentOrange posted a 165 MB present online for them, an assortment of super-secret internet postings from a private forum connected to the RadFem Hub, which Mr. Orange collected by bravely going behind enemy lines and, er, screencapping a bunch of shit. As the OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE declared:
[B]oth feminists and MRAs alike, have been anxiously awaiting the promised complete files of screen shots and associated materials collected by Agent Orange.
These files are apparently so vile and incendiary that Mr. Orange has deemed it necessary to reveal the personal information of some of the RadFemHub commenters. Not to encourage anyone to stalk or harass or harm them, just so that those offended by them can do whatever it is people do when personal info is leaked on the internet that doesn’t involve stalking or harassing or harming them. Send them postcards?
But in any case there is no reason whatsoever to think that a group of really really really angry people who love making threats on the internet and think their opponents are as bad as Hitler could ever do anything that would be in any way problematic.
So, you might ask, what dastardly secrets do these new files disclose? Oddly, the PRESS RELEASE doesn’t actually specify. The AgentOrange website doesn’t say either. And the 165 MB download is just a bunch of files with no explanation.
But I have spent some time going through these files myself in a completely random manner, which is evidently what AgentOrange expects everyone who downloads the files to do. To be perfectly honest, I haven’t spent that much time on this. I’ve really been quite busy with other things. But I have spent some time. More than twenty minutes, anyway.
So let me share with you some preliminary findings.
Here, straight from the AgentOrange files, are some RadFems discussing a news story about a male midwife who thinks that mothers should embrace the pain of childbirth as a “rite of passage.” (Click on the teensy image on the right to get it full-sized.)
Apparently some of those RadFems don’t think this is a good idea! One of them says:
Does he even know what uterine cramps/contractions even feel like?
Another adds:
I read that and rolled my eyes. … If only it were possible to subject mister midwife (my ass) to the joyous pain of childbirth. I guess a swift kick to the balls is as close as he’s ever going to come to it.
Clearly suggesting that a male midwife suffer pain similar to what he suggests women should suffer is nothing short of GENOCIDE!
But wait, there’s more! Another woman writes:
There is no reason why women should have to endure pain like this in this day and age.
That sounds exactly like something HITLER would have said! (If you replace “women” with “Jews” and “no reason” with “every reason.”)
Still another adds:
This is phenomenally stupid, and completely out of step with current pain management theory and procedures.
Is there no end to this feminazi depravity!?
Oh, but there’s more, much more. In this thread — click the image to the right — the evil RadFems complain about guys trying to pick them up in a creepy manner. One of the ladies suggests that a good way to get the guys to leave you alone is to tell them you’re a widow.
You see now that feminism is all about DECEPTION!
Maybe it should be called Deceptionism!
Ok, ok, just one more. In a thread called “I’m mad as hell” — right over there on the right again — one commenter complains about getting a computer virus.
She’s so mad she says she’s even considering downloading Ubuntu and forgoing all Microsoft products, which are frequently targets of viruses! What? Huh? DOES NOT COMPUTE. BZZZZZZZ. LADY USING LINUX ERROR ERROR. *$^*$()*%(*$$$$$$$$. EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN.
CARRIER.
REBOOTING.
FLUSHING CACHE.
Ok. I’m back. Another commenter there says something about castrating guys who write viruses.
That does seem a little excessive. Though I don’t think she means it literally.
I will return to this topic later, after I recover.
In the meantime, if you want to see the most ridiculous comments on the matter from Reddit’s Men’s Rightsers, you can find some of them collected together here. Among the highlights:
This isn’t public shaming, its outing criminals that are planning your genocide.
A story of a plan of naziesque proportions is about to broken.
I think we can all agree that feminism inevitably heads down the road of male genocide.
MRAs, more melodramatic than emo kids.
Oh, and by the way, two of the Reddit quotes above come from a fellow known on Reddit as Sigi1, but who may be more familiar to Man Boobzers as Eoghan. Without clicking on the links, can you guess which two?
This post contains:
Posted on December 22, 2011, in antifeminism, creepy, evil women, I'm totally being sarcastic, misandry, misogyny, MRA, none dare call it conspiracy, oppressed men, paul elam, threats. Bookmark the permalink. 630 Comments.
I’d love to see a mainstream news agency cover MRAs simply because it would make it very clear just how far outside the mainstream they are. Even something like Fox News that leans noticeably sexist would balk at most MRA talking points.
The whole MRA enterprise is dependent on isolating themselves so that they don’t have to listen to regular, mainstream opinion, since that opinion is going to be “you guys are hateful, scary lunatics”.
Also, yeah, MRAs may superficially resemble some conservative religious folks, and there’s even some crossover, but try saying “we should remove the voice boxes of little girls” or “that dude who shot his wife and some other people in the hair salon was totally justified because she was a bitch” to more conservative Christians and just watch the disgusted, horrified looks you’ll get.
I don’t like fundies, but other than a few very extreme sects like FDLS they’re not like MRAs.
I totally agree. I think most people we think of as “sexist” in everyday life-you know, the guy who thinks “get back in the kitchen” is edgy humor or the guy who thinks “men just make better leaders”-would still be completely appalled by the MRM. It goes so far beyond regular sexist.
Yes to what Holly said a thousand times. This is a cesspit, not a gathering of ordinary “he-man womanhaters. “
As an experiment I once tried out some MRA talking points on an in-law who I do think is very sexist in the old-school sense. He’s a conservative Catholic, anti-abortion, very traditional. He was absolutely horrified, and immediately pulled his little daughter onto his lap like he was trying to protect her. I don’t think he even realized he was doing that, it was totally instinctive parental “don’t even think about trying this shit on my kid” behavior.
I don’t think he’d have realized it either. I think that’s just the human response, really. MRA has actually been shedding the decent in layers for years. I think Elam just peeled off another one, (And that one was pretty bad) and I’m morbidly curious as to how far they’ll go…
One of the things about conservative Christianity is that it’s usually very family-centric, and while this is definitely not all good (“family values”), it does mean that most of the men have at least one female relative-mother, wife, daughter, sister-that they’re pretty close to. It sure as hell doesn’t insulate them from sexism, but it does mean they can only go so far into “remove their voiceboxes at birth!” territory.
At some point they’re gonna hit the “wait, that’s my sister you’re talking about” wall.
This is why the MRM doesn’t keep me up at night.
This was what really struck me during Meller’s rants about the totally-not-brothels, how sure he was that most families would be totally down with sending their wayward non-virgin daughters into unwilling prostitution. I really hope that he personally does not have children, but in a more general sense, it’s one of the more baffling things about MRAs, the complete lack of that normal sense of loving and wanting to care for the people in your family even if those people have vaginas.
Like, I grew up partly in the Middle East, where most people have really strong feelings about virginity for girls. And some bad stuff really does happen there in relation to that. But even in, say, Saudi, if you were to start up with the stuff about cutting out voice boxes most men would be fucking horrified. And it’s really super weird for someone who values virginity to think that families would be cool with sending their non-virgin daughters into sex work.
Okay, that’s true. I do see some crossover between extremist sects of fundamentalism and the MRM, but I agree that the MRA’s are much worse. That’s probably why I’ve seen some MRA’s bash tradcons (traditional conservatives) like The Thinking Housewife and Penny Nance from Concerned Women for America. They agree on some of the misogynistic points but then Christian conservatives also expect men to have responsibilities, which is a dealbreaker for MRA’s.
They both say things like
1. Feminism is wrong.
2. Women should be submissive.
3. Women should dress modestly to prevent rape.
4. Battered wives should avoid provoking their abusers.
After that, though, the MRA’s do go further than even radicals from The Christian Coalition or Focus on the Family would ever go.
@CassandraSays, I recently showed A Voice for Men to my brother. He was horrified and said “Do people in the world hate half the population this much? Is this some kind of joke?”. I also showed him Register Her. He said, “I want to start a blog about how awful this is!” so I showed him manboobz. He said that restored his faith in humanity again.
I really would like to see them dragged into the mainstream, in a way, just as an object lesson in the fact that no, actually, most men don’t secretely agree with them. Though they’d presumably just declare that 95% of the male population are manginas.
No, they’d triumphantly declare that a silent majority supports them.
Well, Meller does keep declaring that most men would rather wank to dolls and do unseemly things to their pets than fuck modern women, despite all evidence to the contrary, so…
I wonder what it would take for them to realize that the lurkers do not in fact support them in email.
So NWO would have us believe that the time he hit his cut hand on a railing was so bad he almost passed out, but childbirth… that’s trivial.
Never mind that the only thing I’ve heard women who’ve done it say was worse/comparable was kidney stones. I’ve had kidney stones. The 8,000 dollars I was billed was worth it to alleviate the pain.
I’ve been present/assisted at three births. In all of them the women were in pain. The Bible says that women in childbirth experience pain.
You deny it. You’ve never done it, but you assert it that the women who have, and that things like the Bible, are just making shit up.
That’s why we say you are an idiot.
Holly: Regular marshmallows have gelatin (made from animal… let’s go with “parts”) so they are not vegetarian, kosher, or vegan.
There is kosher gelatin, so there are kosher marshmallows.
They can also be made from the sap of the marsh mallow, which would make them vegan.
NWO: It’s natural because it’s basically part of that cycle. As in part of nature. The term “natural” in the context doesn’t derive from misogyny. Sometimes, on rare occasions, everything isn’t about women being victims of the bad mans evil ways.
Dying from smallpox, or appendicitis, or an abdominal wound is, by your definition, “natural”, but we can stop it. Which is also natural, because we are part of nature, and we’ve figured out how things work.
NWO: As far as I know, new life ain’t popping up in the oceans and stuff. How come?
That would be the problem of “no vacant niche” as expounded by Steven Jay Gould (Wonderful Life, 1990). In the first place, the available ways to make a living are already filled. In the second, even if a niche becomes empty there are other lifeforms (from bacteria to birds, to fish, reptiles, arthropods, mammals, marsupials, etc.) which have a head start. So it’s not true that no new lifeforms are being, “created” but that they have a huge handicap in dealing competitively with the life which already exists.
When one gets to macroscopic life it’s even harder. The greatest change seems to have been the discovery of vision at the beginning of the Paleozoic (defined at the pre-cambrian/cambrian boundary, see “IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE, Parker, Andrew, 2004).
As to the question of proteins outside of cells: repeat after me, “Proteins have been created outside of cells.”
Just keep repeating it until you have come to realise it’s true.
I’d imagine that childbirth isn’t fun, but what’s befuddling to me is the fact that many women voluntarily do it Again, and Again, and AGAIN…….O_O If the pain is so agonizing why subject yourself to it more than once??? Hopefully in the future robots will have replaced humans and will reproduce asexually and painlessly.
I do have to say one more thing about radfem though……………What I find quite Cr33py and at the same time pretty pathetic are the uncanny similarities between the “radical feminists” of radfem and christian fundamentalists. radfemmers think that Nature is “perfect” and doesn’t make any sort of biological mistakes and this intended people to be born & live exactly as they are. Not to mention their fanatical hatred of sex. ><
Someone above claimed MRA’s say things like:
1. Feminism is wrong.
2. Women should be submissive.
3. Women should dress modestly to prevent rape.
4. Battered wives should avoid provoking their abusers.
I agree MRA’s do say #1, but I’ve not encountered #2,#3 or #4 being listed by any MRA group… Could you show me precisely where this is being said by MRA’s?
marx, you can find examples of all of these things in previous posts on this blog. And from MRAs in the comments here:
David K. Meller, an MRA, talks endlessly about how women should be submissive in the comments here.
See also practically any MRA/MGTOW discussion of “western women” and their supposedly more submissive eastern counterparts:
http://manboobz.com/2011/03/07/asian-women-sexual-strikebreakers/
http://manboobz.com/2011/10/19/american-women-dumpsters-or-septic-tanks/
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/01/america-land-of-soulless-hamster-wusses/
http://manboobz.com/2011/04/11/body-heat/
Look at some of my posts about Lara Logan and the slutwalks for examples of #3.
http://manboobz.com/2011/05/03/lara-logan-redux-more-victim-blaming-rape-denial-and-rape-apologetics-from-in-mala-fide/
http://manboobz.com/2011/11/28/women-why-must-you-assault-men-with-your-evil-sexy-outfits/
http://manboobz.com/2011/08/08/spearheaders-on-the-slutwalks-again-its-bad/
Almost any MRA discussion of the slutwalks is going to contain some version of the “if they dress like sluts they deserve what they get” or “women need to take responsibility for their actions,” by which the MRAs mean their action of dressing in a way that, in the MRA mind, might lead to a man getting so excited that he rapes her. (Never mind that in fact what women wear has no correlation with whether or not they are raped, or that the idea that men are such simple creatures that they can’t control themselves when women dress “provocatively” is really pretty insulting to men.
Are you asking this question seriously? Have you even read the endless discussions of slutwalks on your own site?
One example of this attitude from there:
http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/look-out-bra-walk-near-you-41817-post268679.html#post268679
As for women “provoking” violence against themselves, see:
http://manboobz.com/2011/09/20/violence-against-women-blame-it-on-feminism-says-w-f-price/
http://manboobz.com/2010/10/12/quoteotd-whatever-terrible-shit-men-do-its-all-womens-fault-their-sexy-fault/
Once you read all these I will be happy to answer any further questions.
*Hands David the internet of his choice for brilliant pwning via linkage*
Bravo, David.
@marxantimisandry: Saying something along the lines of how you aren’t claiming that women should revert to the status of chattel but feminism is wrong is akin to saying that you think the Civil Rights Movement is wrong, but you aren’t saying people of color should be second-class citizens.
Merry Christmas, everybody.
While I am critical of certain radfem points-of view – namely the ones that denounce pornography and sex-work – I at least respect where they’re coming from. I’m a sex-positive equality feminist, who will fight hard for sex workers’ rights, freedom from censorship, and real men’s rights (like freedom not to be blown up in wars, and rights to child custody and financial support, which I’d like to see more awesome dads, like my awesome dad, get – but not the right to make a “Who would you rape? list” at a fraternity). So sure, I do sometimes feel that some radical feminists don’t see eye-to-eye with me, and a couple have called me mean names on their blogs, but to be perfectly fair to them, they haven’t threatened or condoned violence against me. Or at least not to my knowledge.
Same deal with most religious conservatives. While a few advocate violence, the vast majority will merely grumble about how they find GLBT people’s lifestyles misguided and about how abortion is immoral. A few might even call me anti-gay slurs, but they’re not out there calling for me to be burned at the stake. They’re mostly just planning to vote Republican in the next election, and that’s about it.
I can’t say the same for many MRAs. At best, they want to silence women. Even women who are on the side of men’s rights best shut up, because they’re women, and women = garbage. More often, I’ve seen MRA blogs that salivate over the thought of violence against women and GLBT people. I guess the thinking goes “If I can’t see every single thing in society go my way, I’ll ruin it for everyone else.” And I’m not ok with that.
The MRAs (I call them “Moron’s Rights Activists”) are correct about one thing though: mainstream society really, really dislikes them. But they’re wrong about the reasons why. It’s not because they’re men. It’s not because of their chromosomes or what’s between their legs. It’s because the language they use and the “solutions” they advocate are so anti-social, radical, and sometimes, even violent that even your average hard-core conservative or “Gee I wish society would return to the 1950s”-type person feels repulsed. They can’t find widespread support – NOT because society is vastly misandrist, but because society doesn’t find a call-to-arms against more than 50 percent of its population to be all that awfully cool.
Back to the RadFem screen captures. Did you not read the section on elimination of the male gender on-mass? Or the bit on throwing (male) children out the window?
Those comments are from senior female academics and women in positions of power. They’re also from women who work in childcare! Does that not concern you?
The MRA comments regarding submissive women or the way women dress is very tame by comparison.
——
One example of this attitude from there:
http://antimisandry.com/chit-chat-main/look-out-bra-walk-near-you-41817-post268679.html#post268679
——
David, I don’t know whether you intentionally misrepresented my site or just didn’t realise how ‘quoting’ works - the post you took me to was a member quoting the original article from another site, they were NOT his words.
My experience with feminism is that it’s followers have a nasty habit of misrepresenting with the full intent of deceiving others and crediting people where they do not deserve credit. That seems to be the case on this occasion, you are crediting (and misquoting) an anti-feminist in order to deceive your readers into believing he said to effect that women who dress in a certain manner ‘deserve’ to be rape - which is absolutely not the case.
Your article (this one) reinforces my opinion of feminists being deceptive as you only managed to talk about very benign issues and utterly ignored the more problematic areas of the rad-fem discussions, such as poisoning pregnant women to induce abortions and poisoning men to affect their sperm. You failed to discuss any of the topics that were the main target of the agent-orange concept. Instead, you opted to misrepresent the entire point for your readers in order to minimize the potential here. Why would you do that if not with the intent of supporting the bigotry that has been exposed?
Now tell me David, IF you had stumbled upon similar topics from a men’s rights site - would you ignore the calls for violence, the threats to poison innocent people, the demands for women to be reduced to 10% of the population, the fact that these MRA’s held influence & power, etc. etc.? Of course you wouldn’t - it would be the meat of your article.
As far as can tell from what bits I’ve read, you seem to be very supportive of the hate campaign against men and supporting misinformation which only serves to demonize an entire sex.
I am saddened, but not in the least surprised, by your efforts to deceive and manipulate.
omigod it’s like every whiny concern troll cliche rolled into a single post
it’s like you guys think if you slather everything with this ‘i heartily disagree and good day to you, sir’ flowery debate club nonsense people aren’t going to notice how incredibly juvenile your shit is.
‘a woman feels she should be allowed to walk around without a shirt on. time to flip the fuck out about what a poor marginalized baby i am because other people are doing things’
Marx, how am I misrepresenting anything? That comment says pretty clearly that telling a woman to dress more modestly will help to prevent rape.
The exact words:
These are his words, not anything quoted.
ChristianJ responds with this comment:
And the original guy I quoted says this:
Which makes pretty clear what he meant in the first comment.
So how is this not the same as “Women should dress modestly to prevent rape?”
Also: what about this comment from ChristianJ?
How is THIS not the same as “Women should dress modestly to prevent rape?” (Only in a sarcastic tone and using the word “bitch.”
Again, I haven’t misrepresented anyone in any way.
I notice you didn’t refer to any of my other links either? Are they all evil misrepresentations too?
And speaking of misrepresentation: you cay this about me:
This is blatantly false. I don’t “demonize an entire sex.” I call out SPECIFIC men for being misogynist assholes. I do it by QUOTING THEM DIRECTLY AND ACCURATELY.
Please show me one quote from me — one single quote — that shows I’m part of a “hate campaign against men” or that I’m “demoniz[ing] an entire sex.”
Hey there, fake Marxist. You better put down that big, heavy imaginary violin that you’re playing before you hurt yourself.
Marxantimisandry said
Hey, I was the one who made that list of MRA beliefs. David already did an excellent job providing examples for you, but I want to back up my statement, too.
1. Feminism is wrong. Okay you’ve already admitted that most MRA blogs say that. It is the stated goal for most of the manosphere, after all.
2. Women should be submissive. Just read the blog posts at Roissy/Heartiste’s site or Boycott American Women. They love to whine and complain about how “Ameriskank” women aren’t submissive enough, but LBFM’s (Little Brown Fuck Machines) are the solution to western men’s prayers. Uncle Elmer at the Spearhead loves to brag about his foreign wife he calls his “mail order bride”. These are just a few examples of men in the manosphere saying that women should be submissive to men.
3. NWOSlave is an MRA that comments here all the time trying to convince everyone that if women dress provocatively, they are tempting men to rape them. He compares scantily dressed women to a meal being dangled in front of a starving man. All of the comment sections at AVfM and the Spearhead dealing with Slut walks usually include some posters saying that a scantily clad woman is like a person walking around thieves with large sums of cash in hir hands.
4. Just read the post “How to slap your way to slavery” at A Voice for Men. It describes a scenario where a woman nags and pesters her husband until he begins hitting her. The story shows the abuser in a sympathetic light and shows the abused woman as the victim.
Correction, I meant to say that the story shows the abuser in a sympathetic light and the abused woman as the villian, not victim.
Kendra, don’t forget our very own DKM, who totally understands how some man could be provoked by his wife into hitting her. Not that he endorses that or anything. /sarcasm
In fact, he understands why a man might want to beat me up for the comments I make here! Just hypothetically, you understand.
That’s right, DKM does give a lot of examples of domestic violence victim blaming. His little “I’m not blaming the victim when I say victims provoke their abusers” rants are an excellent example of my fourth point.
—-
Almost any MRA discussion of the slutwalks is going to contain some version of the “if they dress like sluts they deserve what they get” or “women need to take responsibility for their actions,”
—-
You then directed to me a quote where a guard suggested a woman might be safer if she covered her breasts. The poster of the words you quoted said in response it wasn’t about her ‘rights’ but rather trying to protect her.
And you call that an argument of she ‘deserves’ to be raped? What? There is simply no comparison. You are blowing words out of context to serve your purpose of marginalizing the point he was addressing.
You then ignore the point I raised about how you selectively posted segments of the Agent Orange Files in order to misrepresent just how bad they really are.
My question asked: Why would you do that if not with the intent of supporting the bigotry that has been exposed?
If I came upon a Nazi site plotting ways of destroying the world we live in yet selectively quoted only the most benign elements, such as quoting someone who said “I like blue eyes” and intentionally left out other quotes such as “Let’s kill those who don’t have blue eyes” - wouldn’t that strike you as a bit… odd?
I realise I’m wasting my time pointing out your obvious hypocrisy in this issue. Your name is well known over the interwebs for your distortions of reality.
Having spoken with you directly now and seeing your tricks in action - I see why others suggest not bothering with you… Your arguments are akin to an abusive man saying “She ‘made me’ hit her because of the dirty looks she gave me after serving a cold dinner!” and flatly refusing to acknowledge he has done wrong.
How is “she asked for it” (when speaking about something she obviously doesn’t want) different from “she deserves it”?
Saying that women shouldn’t dress this or that way to avoid rape is
- a lie, as such thing has never been proven effective
- a way to control how women dresses
- a very common way to subtly shift responsibility from the rapist to the victim by saying that her actions cause the rape.
Misogyny, misogyny, misogyny. But on top of that, we should care about your concern-troll’s feelings? Sugh.
She’s right you know?
“Your arguments are akin to an abusive man saying “She ‘made me’ hit her because of the dirty looks she gave me after serving a cold dinner!” and flatly refusing to acknowledge he has done wrong”
I lollled… so much lollling. In fact I lolled so hard that my ass remains on the floor due to me not being able to stop lolling in order to reattach it. David, by looking for and finding the abundant rape-apologising and abuse-apologising posts in the manosphere you are exactly like an abuser trying to excuse away his abuse. If anyone sees an ass lying around Woodbridge or Toronto please contact me as I may have been thinking of this post during my travels and am frantically trying to find it
“Your arguments are akin to an abusive man saying “She ‘made me’ hit her because of the dirty looks she gave me after serving a cold dinner!” and flatly refusing to acknowledge he has done wrong.”
Except that the only manboobz regular commenter that could say such a thing is a MRA. Funny how things are.
How could I miss that? You come here concern-trolling because you feel you’re being misrepresented and give us a link to a forum whose official definition for feminist is “a sexist female-supremacist who advocate preferential treatment of women over men or possibly someone who does believes in true equality and is miseducated on what feminism is truly about” i.e. “evil or stupid”.
“…and give us a link to a forum whose official definition for feminist is “a sexist female-supremacist who advocate preferential treatment of women over men or possibly someone who does believes in true equality and is miseducated on what feminism is truly about” i.e. “evil or stupid”.”
I didn’t give the link - manboobz did, I’m simply referencing it. I judge feminism on it’s actions - not it’s claims. Things like VAWA demonstrate that feminist pushes for women to be treated considerably superior to men.
Anyway, I’m out - have a nice day.
I didn’t give the link – manboobz did, I’m simply referencing it. I judge feminism on it’s actions – not it’s claims. Things like VAWA demonstrate that feminist pushes for women to be treated considerably superior to men.
The problem is with how you define “superior”. MRA’s invariably treat any erosion of male privilege as women becoming “superior”, because they see equality as some kind of a separate-but-equal deal with a division of labor: men make decisions, define things and give orders, while women follow and obey. Willingly, of course, so we don’t call it “submission”. Any woman who refuses to follow, of course, is a female supremacist committed to making women “superior”.
And so: women make up 10% of elected officials? Oh, no, women are taking over the government! Women make 40% of college faculty? Obviously, an evil plot to “feminize” education. Women make $0.78 to men’s $1.00? Well, clearly, men have to bend over backwards to make a buck, whereas women get their $0.78 just for batting their lashes.
A case in point: a few days ago I read an article which dealt with a backlash against the trend of married women keeping their maiden names. You would think that when a woman chooses not to forego her identity, both she and her husband get the same thing: she gets to keep her name, he gets to keep his. Neither is required to symbolically cut him or herself off from their premarital existence. And yet, there was no shortage of comments about how women who keep their names are hysterical feminazis who refuse to honor their husbands and commit to them. Plus, of course, comments about women trying to be “superior” and predictably vague ruminations about the supposed “differences” between men and women that supposedly mandate that women have less autonomy, less identity, less opportunity, less leisure, etc. This is by far not the only example of MRA’s claiming, essentially, that any time women aspire to having as much dignity, as much opportunity, and as much fulfillment in life as men are considered to be entitled to, women are trying to establish themselves as “superior”.
@Amused
Great comment. It’s amazing how making an important personal choice about your identity still has a bunch of men tut-tutting in 2011. Her husbands honor? what about honoring the wife’s freedom of choice in what name she chooses? It really makes you wonder why the men leaving those comments place such importance on taking away women’s identities. Do they view marriage as a partnership between two human beings, or where the wife is now the husbands personal property?
Female dominated society my ass.
Hey, Fake Marxist, guess what? When I got married I kept my own name.
Horrors! Evil emasculating bitches! It’s like being a man who beats his wife, symbolically speaking!*
* If you pretend that you’re a deluded, batshit crazy misogynist who’s really bad at making analogies. Whatever his day job is, I hope it doesn’t involve much writing.
Wrong. Despite the name, the provisions of the Violence against Women Act apply equally to both men and women who are victims of domestic violence. For example, battered husbands can apply for an immigrant visa petition without their abusive wives’ knowledge if they want to divorce and escape the abuse but are afraid of being deported. This information comes from The US Citizen and Immigration Services. The truth is that men can receive help under VAWA as long as they meet eligibility requirements.
Let’s see how long he’s able to stick to the flounce! Any bets?
Seriously though, dull concern troll is dull.
And his name is misleading, too! It’s like those folks who call themselves “pro-life”, even though “anti-choice” would be way more accurate.
I think “FauxAntiMisandry” or “MarxProMisogyny” would be better choices.
That’s true Kollege, but nobody like “anti-”. For accuracy’s sake, they should be called pro-foetus’ life. Because a pro-lifer (if we let plant out of the deal) should be anti-death penalty, anti-war, vegan, pro-free-health-care, etc… Anti abortion or anti pill should be at the bottom of this list.
@Amused
“And so: women make up 10% of elected officials? Oh, no, women are taking over the government! Women make 40% of college faculty? Obviously, an evil plot to “feminize” education. Women make $0.78 to men’s $1.00? Well, clearly, men have to bend over backwards to make a buck, whereas women get their $0.78 just for batting their lashes.”
If the percentage and relative position of women in power translates to the relative power of women as a whole than black men are the most privileged group of people in U.S. society since Obama is black. Since that most definitely isn’t the case your analogy has no merit.
The wage gap myth has be debunked so many times only the most idiotic of women even attempt to repeat it.
A woman in human resources for a construction company will not get the same pay as a man who risks his life doing the actual construction.
Women work less amount of time than men. This is a fact. You will not get the same overall pay for working less time. You will not get the same consideration for advancement when you work less. You will be judged on merit, extra time working shows initiative.
Men work on average 5 to 7 years longer than women, which is why they die 5 to 7 years earlier than women.
Also, “Women can “trade up” to the larger Social Security benefit if the husband dies, since you receive 100 percent of his full retirement at your full retirement age.”
The reverse isn’t true. The vast majority of social security is paid by men due to more hours worked every year and more years worked. The vast majority of social security goes to women who work less hours per year and less years. They also live longer due to not being worked into the grave, consequently they collect more both in terms of yearly collection and years of collecting.
———————
You’re either stupid, intentionally stupid, or simply a liar trying to continue the myth that women are victims of oppression. Women were never oppressed. Modern day women are privileged above men in every realm of society. Stop your irrational hatred. Take a day off.
———————
@Kendra, the bionic mommy
“Wrong. Despite the name, the provisions of the Violence against Women Act apply equally to both men and women who are victims of domestic violence.”
Facts bear out that VAWA is only woman-centric. Every independent study show women commit non recipricol DV at a rate of 2 to 1 and women commit the vast majority of child abuse. Yet all monies either go to womens safe projects or to educate men to be non-violent towards women.
Mandatory arrest and predominant agressor theory are used for blaming men for all DV. Since women commit half of DV they should be half of arrests in overall domestic disputes yet they make up a minisclue portion of arrests.
The official position of VAWA and I-VAWA is when a man commits violence against a woman he is trying to control the woman. When a woman commits violence aganist a man she is trying to control the situation. Her violence is good and justified. His violence is bad and controlling.
VAWA is a hate law.
This is VAWA from the UN site.
http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/vaw-gp-2005/docs/experts/goldfarb.legaldomain.pdf
Here’s just one small quote. Everything about VAWA is an infringement on a mans constitutional rights. VAWA is hatred of men.
Civil orders of protection, also known as protection orders or restraining
orders, are a major innovation in the states legal response to domestic violence.
An order of protection is a court order that prohibits an offender from further
abusing the victim and may set other limits on his behavior, such as evicting him
from the family home, forbidding him to contact the victim, and prohibiting him
from possessing firearms. A number of features make these orders particularly
useful. An order of protection can be obtained in a self-contained legal proceeding,
without initiating any other legal action such as a divorce or criminal prosecution.
A temporary order can be granted on an emergency basis, without notification to or
the presence of the accused; in some jurisdictions, proceedings to obtain a
temporary order are available seven days a week, twenty-four hours per day. A
final order can then be obtained at a later hearing. The procedure is usually
designed to be simple enough that a victim can manage without an attorney,
although legal representation is helpful in obtaining the desired outcome.15 A
violation of a temporary or final order is a crime.
In the above quote from VAWA you’ll notice that the word “him.” is the only word used as the aggressor of a crime.
Also notice… “A temporary order can be granted on an emergency basis, without notification to or the presence of the accused”
This means exactly what it says. A woman can have a man evicted from his home with nothing but a phone call. He cannot face his accuser. He does not need to even be notified. He has been found guilty. He is punished. This is a hate law. You support this law. You support the hatred of men.
Whatever, NWO. Come back when you have new “facts.”
You just ducked right into that punch lol.
That’s exactly the point, dumbass. There is no gynocracy, just like there is no Blackocracy. If there was, reality would reflect it Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton notwithstanding. It doesn’t.
And all that crap you mentioned about men working longer hours, not leaving the work force etc? They control for that. Because they are professionals and because these studies have been repeated by many, many people who routinely think of other things to control for, if only to get grant money (if you want to be as cynical as possible about it). And they aren’t comparing human resource workers with construction workers. They compare construction workers with construction workers, or other very similar jobs with similar pay. Jesus fucking christ do you think you’re the first person to think of this? Arrogant much?
Yet the effect does not go away. Further, it’s been decreasing over the decades. If it doesn’t exist at all then how is it decreasing over the same time that more women are responsible for doing the said research? Is there a conspiracy to make the effect look like it’s, um, reflecting reality?
That doesn’t mean the reason is “because men are EEEEVIL!”. It means a lot of things, including that some women might need to adjust their wage negotiating strategies.
For example: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/5207.html
I know that’s going to be a tl;dr for you, but whatever. You can’t say I didn’t try…
He’s still on about VAWA?!
I thought he had gone on vacation or something. Seriously, Owly, just take a break!
Holly: I’m a pantheist.
…I worship cookware.
Then I must be a priest of pantheism… I sell cookware; and help people to get the cookware they need.
You’re mad they used “he” and “him” as gender neutral pronouns. Whenever I use the gender neutral pronouns “zie” and “hir”, though, you also complain. There is no pleasing you, NWO.
The predominant aggressor theory is about determining who is acting aggressively and not arresting a victim who tries to hit back in self defense. Again, this is gender neutral. Contrary to MRA dogma, domestic violence is not 50/50. The sources of those claims rely on misrepresenting studies that use the CFS, Conflict Tactics Scale. The very authors of the CFS do not agree with MRA’s that use their research to deny and minimize violence against women as mutual fighting. Another factor is that if a woman hits a man, she is the aggressor. If he uses disproportionate force in response, then he has escalated the fight and is guilty of a separate act of assault. There is a difference between self defense and escalation. If you’re confused about the difference, just ask and I’ll try to explain it to you.
Finally, I think it’s good that restraining orders can be used to keep an abuser away from hir victims. Why should the victims have to leave their own home when the abuser is the one who was wrong?
NWO: If Jesus, as head of the church (that selfsame church in that epistle) washed the feet of the disciples, then the woman ought to be the one being cared for.
You say you believe, but you also advoacte hatred, and violence, then turn around and pretend you are all sanctified, and better than other people because of it.
Never mind the stones you cast, despite your obvious sins. Belief isn’t magic, one must also practice.
Their ain’t a man alive that’s witnessed a woman do any kind of labor. Child labor is the limit of modern womens work ethic. Find me a woman with callouses on her hands. I dare ya.
I’m a man. I’m alive. I’ve seen lots of women do labor. I’ve even got photos of it. I’ve seen women fill sandbags (against fire, and against flood). I’ve seen women shovel shit: I’ve even seen them being paid to do it, and hired to do it again. I’ve swung pick and mattock and axe next to women who were clearing land and tilling it.
I’ve seen women milking cows. I’ve seen one knocked unconscious when a pasteuriser had a steam line break loose and club her upside the head.
My grandmother shoveled coal into the furnace, by spring she had callousses; and she was in her eighties when she decided to install electric heat.
You are, in this, as in so many other things, either a fool, or a liar. Regardless you are a caitiff and an knave. You may depend on this: Jesus, were he alive now, would be spending his time with you.
VAWA does not do this. VAWA is gender neutral. When you guys constantly repeat this stupid non-fact, it reveals your movement for the sad pity party it really is is.
i’m gonna see the woman who watched me when i was a baby tonight. she doesn’t come into atlanta much anymore, but she has to see the doctor today on account of she’s got limited mobility in her right arm as a result of years of doing farm labor.
i was out at her place last week. she lives on a couple of gorgeous acres in the country that she and her now deceased husband cleared themselves. and no, he didn’t do most of the work. he could work, but his movement was hampered as a result of a childhood bout of polio.
Is it bible quoting time again: John 11:35, Jesus Wept.
NWOMy new rule is, since there are Jewish folk on this blog. Mock a Christian and I cut lose with Jewish mockery. Fair enough? Cause I don’t like it. For all your empty words about respect ya sure don’t show any.
So bring it on folks!!!
Really? Ok… you are a self-professed christian. Fine. You are piss-poor one. Turning the other cheek, you won’t. Loving thine enemies? You won’t. Forgiving those who have harmed you, yea! to seventy times seven times? You won’t do it once.
Know you’re a christian by your love? I don’t think you’ve ever listened to the the song.
Sheeps and goats my man; there are those who will come to the final judgement, and they shall be numbered with the goats, put into the outer darkness, amid wailing and gnashing of teeth; why? Because they were not nice to other people. Because when you are unkind to the least of mankind you are unkind to Deity.
You, you revel that unkindness. I’ve tried to be gentle with you, to treat you as I would be treated (though I find Hillel’s formulation; which predates that of Jesus, to be better; Do not do unto others what you would not have done unto yourself), but if you want to play that way, I can oblige. I would try to hold the words of Jesus on the cross, “forgive them Father, they know not what they do”, but you do know what you are doing, and despite the teachings you claim to revere you are looking for motes in the eyes of others, while refusing to ponder the very ideat that there might be something you’ve not considered; not even that you might be wrong about the details; even if you have the substance correct.
No. You are hateful little man; foul, and wallowing in your filth; as maggots in the bottom of bucket of slops, you are more than just content in your stench, you wave it about as the badge of your pride (which goeth before the fall). You are posessed of eyes, and refuse to see, you have ears and will not hear. Presented with charity you pretend it is hatred. You have asked to be maltreated, and when you are given what you request you whine the people are mean to you.
So, having tried to share the word with you, and been abused; for the witness I bore, I depart, and as I go, I shake the dust from my sandals.
May God have mercy on your soul.
Except it doesn’t say that. It says:
A woman breaks into her ex-boyfriends home, beats him, and runs off into the night before police arrive. Man gets a temporary restraining order when the police arrive because there is little else he can do.
Should he have to wait to get her signature on the restraining order in order to file it? Has she actually been found guilty of anything or is it a temporary means to attempt to protect the victim from further threats and intimidation pending an arrest and trial? Does it give him an opportunity to protect himself before those threats escalate into more violence? Or to give him an actionable way to protect himself that he might otherwise not have, particularly if she is bright enough to know how to threaten without actually breaking a law?
…
Those laws exist for all victims. It is up to the rest of us to make sure that everyone, including men, can use them.
If you are concerned about the safety of male victims, then you should support laws that protect them whether or not we live in a society in which they are invisible. (And I agree, they generally are.) This doesn’t mean the law is bad, it means we need to be better about training police to recognize male victims and that we all need to take male victims seriously. It also means we already have the tools available to do that, largely because of feminists and victims rights advocates.
It’s not the law that doesn’t recognize the existence of male victims, it’s our culture. And due in no small part to people like you who are constantly perpetuate the myth of the weak, naturally submissive woman and the strong, assertive man.
Do you see now why belittling women is bad for men too?
NWO is a CINO, Christian in Name Only. He thinks he’s persecuted because some of us talked about the conversion of Constantine, a historical fact. I won’t dare tell him about the Council of Nicea, because talking about the history of Christianity is oppression. Then he turns around and quotes KKK websites’ claims about Jewish holy texts, acting surprised when people called him out on his religious intolerance.
NWO loves to fantasize about being oppressed. He’s oppressed by atheists and Jews who understand his own religion better than he does. He’s oppressed by laws that help protect women from rape, domestic violence, and discrimination. Mostly he’s oppressed by the fact that nobody wants to join him in his sad, little pity parties.
VoiP: re Augustine: Yes, he was saying men could be raped. Sexuality was complicated in Rome/Greece. Fucking other men was ok, if one was being the fucker. To be the fuckee immediately made one effeminate, forever.
This is why so many ephithets in Rome involve raping men, anally, or orally (there is a difference between active/passive in the ways penile/oral contact is done… fellatio is the active act, irrumatio is the passive: giving head/mouth-fucked).
And slaves… no right to bodily autonomy. So men were raped, a lot.
Ooooo! Protecting victims from their offenders is HATE! Look at the HATE! Forbidding contact!!! Prohibiting firearms!!!!!
It’s almost like domestic violence offenders are violent! It’s their constitutional RIGHT!
Also:
Why is having callouses the only definition of “work”?
Accountants don’t do work? Lawyers don’t do work? Police officers don’t do work? Scientists don’t do work? Cab drivers? Doctors? Software designers? IT specialists? Graphic designers? Security and prison guards? Electrical engineers? Teachers? Nuclear power plant operators? Pilots? Gas station attendants? Astronauts? Health and safety specialists? Journalists? Coroners? Clergy? Curators? Mathematicians? Parole Officers? Civil engineers? Pharmacists? Actuaries? Vets? Air traffic controllers? Truckers? Do truckers have callouses besides the ones on their asses?
And the biggest laugh of all: Men’s rights activists? Oh wait- well they might have callouses, just not from “work”.
Cops have callouses, but not where one would expect. they have them on their hips, and collarbones. From the gear.
Polliwog: Oh my goodness, this thread got completely hilarious today. I think my favorite bit was the part where knowing extremely basic biology without having to look it up is “cheating” because, apparently, no one actually knows things! Too funny.
But if you have to look it up, you didn’t know it, so it doesn’t count.
Owlslave if vawa is so obviously violates men’s constitutional rights, how come that wasn’t addressed when scotus examined its constitutionality?
hint: you don’t have a constitutional right to be wherever the fuck you want just because you want to be there. if due process is satisfied, due process is satisfied.
hint 2: despite what you may have been told by people who were making shit up, disparate impact is not a basis for a XIV Am. claim.
Marxantimisandry said:
Uh, no, YOU’RE the one who connected yourself to that site. The quote in question comes from antimisandry.com. Your name here references that site. Your gravitar is the logo from that site. Your name links to that site. You wrote two articles on the front page of that site. According to your profile there you’ve posted 17,874 comments on that site.
Also, the comment I quoted from there specifically references the slutwalks and, in particular, the comment from the policeman that led to them in the first place — ie, he said if women didn’t dress like sluts they would be less likely to be raped. The commenter in question was relating the topless woman to the slutwalks. That was, after all, the whole point of the thread.
And again, Marx, you came here claiming that MRAs weren’t saying several specific things, and that we were misrepresenting them by claiming that they were. I find it impossible to believe that you haven’t run across MRAs saying those things, but whatever, I and several others offered proof that numerous MRAs DO in fact say those things. Instead of responding to that, you’ve argued over one piece of that evidence,which you in turn have misrepresented.
Then you made a bunch of unproven, incorrect assertions about me.
So, yeah, I guess I agree that further discussions with you are probably pointless.
Oh, and NWO, laws often use male pronouns, for simplicity’s sake and because male is sort of considered the default gender. It is understood that these laws apply to women as well. And indeed VAWA makes that explicit.
That doesn’t count! Those aren’t real callouses! Probably if they weren’t such lazy manatees doing make-work they’d have hand callouses like real men. It’s just dry skin or something. ;D
NWO said,
NWO, both men and women can obtain temporary restraining orders against their abusers. Here is a quote from Katherine Greenier of the Women’s Rights Project at the Virginia chapter of the ACLU. She said,
from a guest post at feministe.
Sometimes receiving a restraining order quickly is a matter of life or death. Victims in dangerous situations shouldn’t have to wait for safety from an abuser who intends to kill them. The most vulnerable time for victims of ipv is the when they first leave their abusers. Temporary restraining orders and regular orders of protection are both very important for victims, and it’s also important that they are enforced.
If a stranger threatened your life, you would expect the police to protect you and keep the dangerous person away from you. Why should it be any different for someone who needs protection from a spouse or partner?