Are you a feminist?

[Taramere]

This! Right now, instead of fighting for equal rights for everyone, we are stuck fighting againts MRM and AVFM and the likes who are just the other side of extremists 'feminism'.

As a result the fight for equality is 2X harder.

 

Funny how that works....

 

In some ways you can compare it to Islam. For hundreds of millions of people, a philosophy that gives them guidance for life. For militants a form of organised hate. A tool with which to silence others and control their lives. I suppose that whenever people define themselves with reference to any philosophy, they risk being associated with its most extreme advocates/practitioners. Or being accused of being weak and brainwashed by them.

 

AVFM seems to be a bunch of people who have modelled their behaviour on caricatures of extremist feminists. I remember back in the 1980s (I think, could have been the early 1990s) reading this story about how white social workers in London were reduced to tears because they were being made to wear badges declaring "I am a racist". I've tried googling that to see if I can find any story about it, and haven't been able to find anything. It was probably just completely made up. Earlier than that, when I was a teen, I read a brief note in a teen magazine assuring me that tampon manufacturers used asbestos in their products. I sent a letter to the "readers' letters" section of the magazine asking them to name the manufacturer and publish their evidence. Needless to say, my letter wasn't published.

 

There's been so much bullsh*t published by the media over the years that a) makes the world seem like a completely paranoid place, and b) encourages it to be a more paranoid place. AVFM is like all of those most irresponsible of tabloids rolled into one. It's all about whipping up hatred and paranoia. Encouraging its fans/members/whatever they are to transform themselves into the male equivalent of a 1980s caricature of the militant Greenham Common type of feminist.

 

With some of the women I've seen involved in that A Voice For Men mess, I can't help thinking that 30 years ago they'd have been parading around on Greenham Common embodying everything they now profess to be fighting against. Some of the men involved in it - probably 20 or so years ago Sensitive New Age Guys, now ardent campaigners against...well, themselves as they cringe to remember themselves having been 20 years ago. And the rest of us are supposed to apologise to these idiots for the trials they've experienced and the mistakes and errors of judgement that they, like everybody else, have made in their personal journeys through life.

[Maleficent]

Taramere,

I love you.

 

That is all lol

[Cristo]

Many men are feminists as they like women and see them as peers with equitable rights. They may also observe the unconscious bias that occurs in many sphere and disagree with it. Fixed assumptions of gender hurt men and women.

 

There is no bias. If anything, there is bias for women, against men.

 

While there are some extremists, as a feminist I am not part of a movement that advocates the supremacy of either sex or one that hurts anyone. I don't know anyone who believes that I am a left wing feminist with lots of other feminists and I don't know any that subscribes to this approach. It really frustrates me when people with little idea tell me what I am supposed to believe.

 

Believe whatever you want to believe. From what I've observed, anyone that calls themselves a feminist usually favors women and attempts to hurt men. The work place has become almost intolerable in this overly PC, feminist world. I blame feminism for many of the problems that the US is experiencing right now, both economically and socially.

[Cristo]

In some ways you can compare it to Islam. For hundreds of millions of people, a philosophy that gives them guidance for life. For militants a form of organised hate. A tool with which to silence others and control their lives. I suppose that whenever people define themselves with reference to any philosophy, they risk being associated with its most extreme advocates/practitioners. Or being accused of being weak and brainwashed by them.

 

AVFM seems to be a bunch of people who have modelled their behaviour on caricatures of extremist feminists. I remember back in the 1980s (I think, could have been the early 1990s) reading this story about how white social workers in London were reduced to tears because they were being made to wear badges declaring "I am a racist". I've tried googling that to see if I can find any story about it, and haven't been able to find anything. It was probably just completely made up. Earlier than that, when I was a teen, I read a brief note in a teen magazine assuring me that tampon manufacturers used asbestos in their products. I sent a letter to the "readers' letters" section of the magazine asking them to name the manufacturer and publish their evidence. Needless to say, my letter wasn't published.

 

There's been so much bullsh*t published by the media over the years that a) makes the world seem like a completely paranoid place, and b) encourages it to be a more paranoid place. AVFM is like all of those most irresponsible of tabloids rolled into one. It's all about whipping up hatred and paranoia. Encouraging its fans/members/whatever they are to transform themselves into the male equivalent of a 1980s caricature of the militant Greenham Common type of feminist.

 

With some of the women I've seen involved in that A Voice For Men mess, I can't help thinking that 30 years ago they'd have been parading around on Greenham Common embodying everything they now profess to be fighting against. Some of the men involved in it - probably 20 or so years ago Sensitive New Age Guys, now ardent campaigners against...well, themselves as they cringe to remember themselves having been 20 years ago. And the rest of us are supposed to apologise to these idiots for the trials they've experienced and the mistakes and errors of judgement that they, like everybody else, have made in their personal journeys through life.

 

AVFM and Jezebel are two sides of the same coin, one berating women and the other berating men.

 

But you'll never see women complaining about Jezebel. Most women that I know repost their articles on Facebook.

 

If I ever reposted an article from AVFM or Return of Kings, I'd probably get banned from Facebook and fired from my job or something crazy like that.

[Taramere]

AVFM and Jezebel are two sides of the same coin, one berating women and the other berating men.

 

But you'll never see women complaining about Jezebel. Most women that I know repost their articles on Facebook..

 

I've very rarely seen Jezebel. Perhaps it's more popular in the US. I took a look at it just now, and saw a list of stories....some of which certainly focus on the kind of issues that AVFM hates for the media to focus on. Top 5 stories on Jezebel (at time of reading)

 

Top five Jezebel stories

 

1. Halloween Hangovers (seems to be neutral/social)

 

2. Iggy Azalea dressed as White Chicks for Halloween - at first glance just a boring celebrity story, but there seems to be a complaint in the article about her action being in some way misogynist (eg as though a white woman is the epitome of scariness maybe? Not sure)

 

3. A story about Ryan Murphy and "All Seasons of American Horror Movie" - neither of which are familiar to me, but there's a comment at the end of the article about horror movies regularly featuring women's mutilated bodies. Certainly a feminist comment. Not an unreasonable one I wouldn't have thought. The pretty girl getting killed and mutilated is such a horror cliche that it's regularly spoofed.

 

4. A "cute and f*cking terrifying" sneezing chicken. I watched it, it was quite funny. No feminist spin on that one, I don't think.

 

5. A story about police officers caught on camera making a rape joke. I think it's a poor show on the part of the police officers in question, but Jezebel is making a meal of it, there's no doubt.

 

So of top 5 stories, 3 have a feminist angle and 2 just seem to be social/entertainment without any particular political angle. Going over to AVFM to see what their top 5 stories are....

 

Top five AVFM stories

 

1. Whiteribbon.org prepares legal battle. Looking into that more, Whiteribbon.org is owned by AVFM and talks of being about ending domestic violence for everybody. However, on looking through it, its stories are exclusively either about highlighting incidents of domestic violence against men or complaining about women being more commonly portrayed as the victims of domestic violence. So primarily an organisation that's focused on domestic violence against men. Which would be fair enough, but it's a bit dishonest to hold itself out as being about ending domestic violence against everybody.

 

2. North Dakota Bar Association donating money to an organisation that AVFM reports is aimed at defeating a shared parenting initiative. I won't research the story in depth because it's not a good use of my time since I don't live in that jurisdiction - but it seems like a valid story to report.

 

3. A story re reports of emails sent to staff at Utah State University, where Anita Sarkeesian was scheduled to speak, threatening a mass shooting if the event were to take place. AVFM Headline... "doubts cast on validity" (that, presumably, this threat was made).

 

4. University of Sydney Student Union blocked the establishment of a new student group named The Brotherhood, Recreation and Outreach Society (BROSoc), whose focus was to provide a safe space for men on campus and address mental health issues specific to men.

 

5. The Delhi Commission of Women (DCW) has released startling statistics showing that 53.2% of the rape cases filed between April 2013 and July 2014 in the capital were found ‘false’.

 

So I think there's a fairly clear difference (based on a look at the two different sites' news reporting). Jezebel has a feminist slant, but also deals with entertainment, humour etc - the kind of stories (the sneezing chicken) that people would post on Facebook without any sort of political motivation.

 

With AVFM all the top 5 stories are political and concerned with men's rights, men being victimised and/or questioning the validity of complaints where women claimed to have been victimised. There doesn't seem to be any balance involving focus on other topics/issues that might interest or entertain men but aren't focused around anti-feminism or men's rights activism. I think that lack of balance is a major factor in these sites being viewed so dimly. If Jezebel truly is the feminist counterpart to AVFM (and I don't know whether that's the case) then based on the top 5 stories, Jezebel is 40% less engrossed in gender issues than AVFM is. In addition, none of Jezebel's top 5 stories show any desire to discredit any claims of victimhood made by men - whereas 2, possibly 3 of the AVFM articles show signs of aiming to discredit female claims of victimhood.

 

So if those differences between the two sites' top 5 stories are a good indication of general differences between the two sites, I'm not surprised that linking to AVFM articles is more controversial than linking to Jezebel articles. Because with the Jezebel articles while it's possible that the link will be a political one, there's also a reasonable likelihood that it will just be an entertainment/humour link. With AVFM, on the other hand, the site is clearly very focused on men's rights, anti-feminism or promoting the notion that women who claim to have been victimised are probably lying. That last part is probably a big part of why sites like this tend to be deemed "hate sites". It's very bad faith to present as being all about promoting human rights, but then to be preoccupied with portraying one gender as liars whenever they allege that they have been victimised, while extending the benefit of the doubt to all accusations of victimhood that are made by the other gender. Which is what AVFM very clearly does.

 

There's little indication that the people who write on the site or who frequent it are interested in reporting on/reading about anything else. So it comes across as angry, relentless and generally quite obsessive (about these issues) in comparison to Jezebel which certainly seems to have a feminist slant, but is significantly less obsessive about it. Generally, I feel like with the Jezebel writer(s) I might agree with them on some things, disagree on others - but also be able to have a laugh with them about things that are unrelated to gender issues. With the AVFM lot I get the strong sense that it would be really difficult to have any conversation with these people that wasn't hostile, adversarial etc. That even if I picked out what I believed to be non controversial subjects, they would likely find a way of twisting them around to be anti-feminist, anti-woman whatever else. That really, they just want to fight with anybody who doesn't agree with them on absolutely everything - and particularly if those anybodies happen to be female.

 

"Typical female, being preoccupied with pointless trivia like sneezing chickens in order to divert attention away from the more pressing issue of domestic violence against men being overlooked...." That kind of thing. I say it because I've encountered it (on the internet, thankfully not in real life) enough times. All the stuff that feminists are stereotypically labelled with. Humourless, obsessive, desperate to see misogyny/female victimhood in absolutely everything. Replace misogyny/female victimhood with misandry/male victimhood, and it seems to me that AVFM is far more guilty of that kind of angry, humourless and quite relentless behaviour than Jezebel is.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Taramere

[KeepCalmCarryOn]

Why am I not surprised that you would be hating on Feminism!

 

Not hating on it, I just don't think it is necessary.

[Maleficent]

There is no bias. If anything, there is bias for women, against men.

 

There is no bias for women.

It's just that equal opportunities scares the **** out of some men.

[insert_name]

Just think, feminism could wipe out sites like AVFM in a second if there was a global change of tack and feminists themselves promoted true equality by promoting areas in life where there is a positive bias towards women such as in family courts. Butthe major feminist outlets have a very myopic outlook and promote only the issues that seek parity when women are disadvantaged and issues where women seek an advantage where they already have parity, as well as looking to remove responsibility from women whereever possible. Thats not really a movement that is focused on true equality and which is why sites like AVFM are needed. Because when women gain advantage it stands to reason that men will receive a disadvantage so who is going to fight the male corner? God knows there are enough men who seem happy to live in servitude and keep giving rights to women at the expense of themselves. I often wonder where these guys will draw the line.

 

I find it interesting how a few years ago feminism was celebrated by all and sundry as a positive and progressive movement, however I wonder if feminism has become too ubiquitous and too ridiculous in its aims that its now almost a parody of itself. I notice that big sites with popular comments sections such as youtube now regularly feature commenters who are bemoaning how feminism is permeating every day life in ridiculous ways and how everything that a feminist doesnt want to hear is written off as 'misogynist' as it means you dont have to form a reasonable argument in response. This was unthinkable even two years ago. Feminism is facing a real backlash with its image at the moment and its not hard to see why.

 

Feminism is also not a tolerant movement, the recent scenes at the univeristy of toronto give an indication of how there is a scary lunatic fringe that does not tolerate

Peaceful gatherings of both genders to discuss issues relating to men.

 

I do not see anything of this sort coming from the MRA side. Men may find some issues women promote to be objectionable but I do not see boycotts and picketing of female oriented conference venues, or turning on fire alrams to disrupt meetings to get them shut down.

But these incidents just tend to harm feminism and show why there is a need for AVFM, if women are that intolerant of mens issues then we really do have a problem and we need a counter movement to defend the opportunity to discuss mens issues in peace.

[patriciasex]

I used to consider myself a strong male supporter of feminism. I also used to consider myself a Republican.

 

Both movements have gone so far off the rails that I can hardly find a glimmer of what used to attract me to them.

 

I could knock on Liberals and certain men's groups too.

 

But what the espoused theories and the theories in action are so far apart in the case of Feminism and the GOP, it is shocking to me that anyone supports them any more. Not because they are bad, but because they are completely lost and increasingly reliant on hate, fear, ignorance, bullying, and extremism to survive.

 

I had to ask myself - "If Feminism is fighting for women, and Republicans are fighting for businesses and religions, and Democrats are fighting for the downtrodden - who is fighting for America?"

 

Feminism has become very dangerous to America but great for women. I cannot blame women for voting for Feminism any more than I can blame a preacher for voting Republican or Union member for voting Democrat.

 

It is just how it is, but I refuse to feed into any of these any more.

[camillalev]

Taramere, I actually thought that sneezing chicken was quite terrifying.

[camillalev]

People have spent a lot of time on here attacking feminism or feminists saying that the movement has become full of extremists, and that we are attacking men's rights or that We hate men, etc, yet I have not seen a post attacking men or any self identifying feminist saying they hate men. I've seen several posts supporting men in courts or men in the position of care givers.

[Maleficent]

People have spent a lot of time on here attacking feminism or feminists saying that the movement has become full of extremists, and that we are attacking men's rights or that We hate men, etc, yet I have not seen a post attacking men or any self identifying feminist saying they hate men. I've seen several posts supporting men in courts or men in the position of care givers.

 

This.

As I said earlier in another thread, mention feminism and you will find which White heterosexual male is scared to lose his privilege.

They are usually the ones calling feminists men haters.

 

I have had this conversation before so I got tired and googled 'radical feminism'. This led me to a Wikipedia page with a list of radical feminism organisations.

A lot of them were active in the 70s and died out in the early 80s.

 

While there are no organisations claiming their goal is to annihilate men, there is one group called 'wymen born wymen' which are essentially a bunch of anti transgender group.

I have seen more discrimination again trans women in these group than against men in general.

 

But really, considering the amount of men that believe women are responsible for all their problems, it doesn't surprise me feminists are getting such hate press...

[Got it]

This.

As I said earlier in another thread, mention feminism and you will find which White heterosexual male is scared to lose his privilege.

They are usually the ones calling feminists men haters.

 

I have had this conversation before so I got tired and googled 'radical feminism'. This led me to a Wikipedia page with a list of radical feminism organisations.

A lot of them were active in the 70s and died out in the early 80s.

 

While there are no organisations claiming their goal is to annihilate men, there is one group called 'wymen born wymen' which are essentially a bunch of anti transgender group.

I have seen more discrimination again trans women in these group than against men in general.

 

But really, considering the amount of men that believe women are responsible for all their problems, it doesn't surprise me feminists are getting such hate press...

 

I have always been a feminist, I was raised as such. We were raised in the equal treatment of men and women and the ability to make whatever choices one chooses.

 

I have never understood the arguments against it because that, to me, isn't want feminism is about. And if someone actually things we have equality for both genders, lol, get into the workforce and look. Now where close. No where close with ethnicities either.

[fortyninethousand322]

I have always been a feminist, I was raised as such. We were raised in the equal treatment of men and women and the ability to make whatever choices one chooses.

 

I have never understood the arguments against it because that, to me, isn't want feminism is about. And if someone actually things we have equality for both genders, lol, get into the workforce and look. Now where close. No where close with ethnicities either.

 

I'm sure there are inequalities. Problem is most feminist organizations look to the government to fix them. That's where I check out.

 

Just because in theory pay should be equal between men and women (adjusted for other factors) doesn't mean I think the state should mandate it. Just because I think you should be free to have abortions and use birth control doesn't mean I want to rob my neighbors to pay for it. Now if that makes me an "anti-feminist, sexist pig" then so be it...

[me85]

Ehhh...yes and no.

[camillalev]

I'm sure there are inequalities. Problem is most feminist organizations look to the government to fix them. That's where I check out.

 

Just because in theory pay should be equal between men and women (adjusted for other factors) doesn't mean I think the state should mandate it. Just because I think you should be free to have abortions and use birth control doesn't mean I want to rob my neighbors to pay for it. Now if that makes me an "anti-feminist, sexist pig" then so be it...

 

Calm down. No one called you an "anti-feminist, sexist pig".

 

If you believed no one should have access to birth control or abortions regardless of circumstance and that the law should enforce this, then I might call you an "anti feminist, sexist pig".

[amaysngrace]

I'm sure there are inequalities. Problem is most feminist organizations look to the government to fix them. That's where I check out.

 

Just because in theory pay should be equal between men and women (adjusted for other factors) doesn't mean I think the state should mandate it. Just because I think you should be free to have abortions and use birth control doesn't mean I want to rob my neighbors to pay for it. Now if that makes me an "anti-feminist, sexist pig" then so be it...

 

If the same women qualify for birth control and free abortions then they'll most likely qualify for food stamps, housing, heat, cell phones and so will their offspring.

 

It's a sound business decision to allow women access to the things you mention. Unless you want to be stepping over corpses because you think we should let poor people starve to death too.

 

Insurance companies pay for generic birth control in full. They pay for tubals and vasectomies. They won't, however, pay to reverse them.

 

So does business have the right idea or not? Should our government work like a health insurance business and follow their lead?

[Woggle]

For the most part I actually agree with the feminists on most issues. I am pro-choice and I am on their side with Hobby Lobby and the birth control issue. I also believe in equal pay and so on. That being said I have dealt with many that outright hated men and I just can't support somebody that hates me. I understand if they don't want to fight by our side in family court and education issues but at least don't stand in our way and call us sexist pigs for wanting to address them.

 

I also believe that they along with MRAs and PUAs have turned dating and relationships into an us vs them adversarial type of relationship rather than trying to promote healthy partnerships.

 

I am not talking about all feminists either but just the ones who almost seem to want to give more ammo to anti-feminists.

[Taramere]

Just think, feminism could wipe out sites like AVFM in a second...

 

I think you're attributing an unrealistic level of power to feminism. Anybody can set up a site on the internet. There's no law that says they have to be fair or rational in their views.

 

There's a message, in what you're saying, saying that the people who run the more bizarre and hate filled sites out there can in some way be "fixed" by feminism and feminists. Or perhaps by women. That's just not going to happen. I've looked at AVFM enough, and read enough of some of the crazy views of its founder, to feel very confident in perceiving it as a misogynistic site. A movement can't fix the kind of personal flaws and weaknesses that take a person down a path where they end up subscribing to the sort of nonsense that AVFM preaches. Nor can other people. But I suppose that won't prevent some people from persisting in the belief that women/feminism caused everything that ails these guys and can somehow magically fix it all.

[fortyninethousand322]

If the same women qualify for birth control and free abortions then they'll most likely qualify for food stamps, housing, heat, cell phones and so will their offspring.

 

So it's extortion then?

 

It's a sound business decision to allow women access to the things you mention.

 

They do and should have access to those things. Just like I have access to a steak dinner if I want to buy one. My inability to get someone else to pay for it, doesn't mean I don't have access to it.

 

Unless you want to be stepping over corpses because you think we should let poor people starve to death too.

 

Well I am a monocled libertarian, so I do hate poor people, and children, among other groups I'm alleged to dislike.

 

Insurance companies pay for generic birth control in full. They pay for tubals and vasectomies. They won't, however, pay to reverse them.

 

So does business have the right idea or not? Should our government work like a health insurance business and follow their lead?

 

The state (as defined by Max Weber) is an institution that is distinguished by having the legitimized monopoly on the use of violence. So given that, the government should only do things for which the use of force is the only and best solution. Taking money from some people and giving it to others so they can go have sex without having to worry about having children doesn't fit that description, IMO.

 

If it's such a great idea to give people free birth control, then people will do so on their own without having the government force them to do it.

 

As a side note, in my personal opinion, if you cannot afford to have children and cannot afford your own birth control, then you are not adult enough to have sex. I know we're all just dumb animals that can't think beyond basic instincts like the need to have sex, but I thought as a species we were a little more evolved...

[insert_name]

I think you're attributing an unrealistic level of power to feminism. Anybody can set up a site on the internet. There's no law that says they have to be fair or rational in their views.

 

There's a message, in what you're saying, saying that the people who run the more bizarre and hate filled sites out there can in some way be "fixed" by feminism and feminists. Or perhaps by women. That's just not going to happen. I've looked at AVFM enough, and read enough of some of the crazy views of its founder, to feel very confident in perceiving it as a misogynistic site. A movement can't fix the kind of personal flaws and weaknesses that take a person down a path where they end up subscribing to the sort of nonsense that AVFM preaches. Nor can other people. But I suppose that won't prevent some people from persisting in the belief that women/feminism caused everything that ails these guys and can somehow magically fix it all.

 

Its not about fixing, its about bringing everyone regardless of gender or race round the table and giving them a movement that feels like their wants and needs are being taken seriously. Feminism can never be that movement because it honestly could not care less about men. Its interesting to hear the anecdotal evidence in this thread about how yesterdays feminist is todays motherof a son, raising him in a world where affirmative action for office jobs means that he can be overlooked based on his gender (some might call that discrimination)but where there will always be a job for him in a profession with a high rate of mortality because women (for some reason!) have no problem with those industries being dominated by men...

 

There is a great piece on the huffington post of all places where a guy explains what feminism stands for using the analogy of a thermostat being cranked up to combat room temperature, 1st and 2nd wave feminism were the

equivalent of the movement gaining parity and the latest wave is the equivalent of the temperature now being cranked up so the room is now uncomfortably hot.

 

In such a climate (pun...er...sort of intended) it stands to reason that counter movements will find fertile soil in which to grow. I have to say I find that AVFM could be more eloquent and less angry in tone, but I dont find its content anymore misogynist than the likes of Jezebel are misandrist, AVFM is just a lot more serious which seems to rattle cages whereas Jezebel mocks mens issues on the surface with a subtle sinister undercurrent. Both are at extremes of the scale but neither peddle hatred.

 

History has shown that the way to deal with counter movements is to remove the validity of their arguments and render them redundant- in this sesne feminism should really be all over this, as it is a movement that purports to be about equality, however it actually just throws a can of petrol on the fire with misleading promotion of statistics and 'facts' leading to things like AVFMs white ribbon campaign headed by Erin Pizzey, a woman who knows a thing or two about how feminism peddles lies about domestic violence. In such a climate its not hard to see how sites like AVFMappear and become popular because there are very few alternatives because many men are in fear of being branded misogynistic for daring to suggest that there are areas in society where men do not get fair treatment. Ive lost count of the amount of people who take the 'women are paid less than men' nonsense atface value without realising (until i point it out) that its based on comparing the wage of an airline pilot with that of a hairdresser and part time vs full time etc. But still nonsense like this is still peddled even though it has actually been debunked becuase its a political hot potato for feminists to use to leverage against the government for greater rights over men.

 

But I suppose that won't prevent some people from persisting in the belief that men/patriarchy caused everything that ails these women and feminism can somehow magically fix it all.

Edited November 10, 2014 by insert_name

[Taramere]

I have to say I find that AVFM could be more eloquent and less angry in tone, but I dont find its content anymore misogynist than the likes of Jezebel are misandrist, AVFM is just a lot more serious which seems to rattle cages whereas Jezebel mocks mens issues on the surface with a subtle sinister undercurrent. Both are at extremes of the scale but neither peddle hatred.

 

The founder of AVFM has publicly and quite proudly stated/vowed that if he ever sits on a jury in a rape trial, he will acquit the accused no matter how overwhelming the evidence. He exhorted readers to do the same.

 

That's beyond hatred. It advocates utter corruption and does so with the justification that "the other side is corrupt". It's beyond sinister - and it's something I've seen over and over again on that site. A tactic of

 

1. Demonising the "enemy". Portraying as dishonourable and corrupt - using vague generalisations and referring to one's own set of prejudices as though they are an unimpeachable authority.

 

2. Advocating corrupt behaviour as a method of holding one's own in what is presented as an unfair war.

 

The familiar thread I see running through the MRA thing is that as a movement it reminds me very much of what is known as the "vexatious litigant". Depending on your experience/career you may have heard of this. A vexatious litigant is somebody who harbours a grievance (or more usually, a host of grievances) and deals with it through abuse of the legal system. They litigate compulsively, without probable cause and with malicious intent - but in their own eyes, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. They will proclaim grandly that it's a matter of principles and justice.

 

Here's a report about a case which had absolutely no merits and was raised with the aim of promoting men's rights.

 

Latest News | Camden New Journal

 

Feminist activists who brought about changes in the law were assisted by strong and compelling arguments which stood up in formal legal settings. Change wasn't brought about as a result of conspiracy theorising and vexatious litigation.

 

Jezebel doesn't strike me as a serious publication concerned with activism. By activism, I mean activities that intend to bring about changes to laws that the activist believes are unfair. I mean people involving themselves in the legal system in some way, and doing so with the intention of bringing about change and promoting their idea of justice. But when people do that by raising actions that have absolutely no merit (abusing the legal process for the purposes of "raising awareness") or by exhorting others to abuse their position as jurors, if they ever sit on a jury in a rape trial...that sort of activism is corrupt and anti-social.

 

I think the vast majority of people reject behaviour like that. AVFM is on the margins because it embraces that behaviour. Again, I don't know much about Jezebel and I'd need to see a clear example of the sinister undercurrent you're talking about. I would say, though, that if one is looking for sinister undercurrents they can be found everywhere. That's the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Taramere

[Rejected Rosebud]

The founder of AVFM has publicly and quite proudly stated/vowed that if he ever sits on a jury in a rape trial, he will acquit the accused no matter how overwhelming the evidence. He exhorted readers to do the same.

 

 

As long as an entity that purports to be a "voice for men" is promoting that kind of thing I think that proves that feminism is not redundant. Too bad but true.

[insert_name]

Another glorious day for feminism when a guy lands a probe on the surface of a comet and the main talking point is his shirt because it gives feminists a spurious reason to overshadow his achievements. Ironic really given how bitterly women complain that their achievements are overshadowed by what they are wesring/how they look. I suppose we need to, as always, think of the children. There may be young girls who have now been put off working in the STEM field because they saw a guy wearing a colourful shirt on the TV. If thats the case its probably a good thing as if they are so easily offended they should perhaps think of a career that involves staying at home all day hiding under the duvet covers.

 

Divided opinion over this guys shirt is predictable, if not ridiculous, but his grovelling and tearful apology is grossly embarassing- not to him but to feminism. The whole thing screams 'first world problems' and once again goes some way to emphasising my earlier point that feminism has become a parody of itself. Were there not other, far more major outrages for feminists to promote on the world stage? Like the treatment of women in 3rd world countries? Obviously not, the most heinous affront to women was the shirt a man wore.

 

That feminist outrage can provoke a televised apology also emphasises the influence that it holds and gives further political capital to sites like AVFM who no doubt will be making full use of the backlash against feminism that this incident has prompted.

 

In other news Time magazine ran a poll of words that should be forgotten about. The overwhelming winner was 'feminism'.

[insert_name]

The founder of AVFM has publicly and quite proudly stated/vowed that if he ever sits on a jury in a rape trial, he will acquit the accused no matter how overwhelming the evidence. He exhorted readers to do the same.

 

That's beyond hatred. It advocates utter corruption and does so with the justification that "the other side is corrupt". It's beyond sinister - and it's something I've seen over and over again on that site. A tactic of

 

1. Demonising the "enemy". Portraying as dishonourable and corrupt - using vague generalisations and referring to one's own set of prejudices as though they are an unimpeachable authority.

 

2. Advocating corrupt behaviour as a method of holding one's own in what is presented as an unfair war.

 

The familiar thread I see running through the MRA thing is that as a movement it reminds me very much of what is known as the "vexatious litigant". Depending on your experience/career you may have heard of this. A vexatious litigant is somebody who harbours a grievance (or more usually, a host of grievances) and deals with it through abuse of the legal system. They litigate compulsively, without probable cause and with malicious intent - but in their own eyes, there's nothing wrong with what they're doing. They will proclaim grandly that it's a matter of principles and justice.

 

Here's a report about a case which had absolutely no merits and was raised with the aim of promoting men's rights.

 

Latest News | Camden New Journal

 

Feminist activists who brought about changes in the law were assisted by strong and compelling arguments which stood up in formal legal settings. Change wasn't brought about as a result of conspiracy theorising and vexatious litigation.

 

Jezebel doesn't strike me as a serious publication concerned with activism. By activism, I mean activities that intend to bring about changes to laws that the activist believes are unfair. I mean people involving themselves in the legal system in some way, and doing so with the intention of bringing about change and promoting their idea of justice. But when people do that by raising actions that have absolutely no merit (abusing the legal process for the purposes of "raising awareness") or by exhorting others to abuse their position as jurors, if they ever sit on a jury in a rape trial...that sort of activism is corrupt and anti-social.

 

I think the vast majority of people reject behaviour like that. AVFM is on the margins because it embraces that behaviour. Again, I don't know much about Jezebel and I'd need to see a clear example of the sinister undercurrent you're talking about. I would say, though, that if one is looking for sinister undercurrents they can be found everywhere. That's the stuff conspiracy theories are made of.

 

I had to look that article up as I did not immediately believe someone could say something so inflammatory. I find when put in the context of the reasoning behind it I find the message itself much less shocking, although there is a debate to be had over the justification.

I have to say that when it comes to sending someone to prison (regardless of gender) "the other side is corrupt" is perfectly good justification to find someone not guilty by default as you are declaring a lack of confidence in the justice system and how they came by their evidence. Certainly it wasnt so long ago that this wasnt even a lunatic fringe viewpoint to have- look at the convictions for sexual assault thst were achieved in America in the 80s based on circumstantial evidence and confessions that were routinely extracted through force that are being repealed in the 2000s, its not like there is a conviction overturned every day but even one is one too many and manifests itself in distrust for the legal system.

 

But thst is not to say thatI agree thst the answer is to subversively bring the system down by sitting on juries and finding people not guilty as the logical conclusion is thst no-one ever gets sent to prison for anything and anarchy prevails and I'm pretty sure at AVFM that is not their ultimate outcome.

 

I can understand why you see the MRA movement as one that is based on spurious and self-righteous attempts to win small battles through the legal system because whilst that does go on that does not invalidate the legitimste injustices that the MRA movement tries to promote. As a counterpoint for the example you posted I shall give you the name Earl Silverman, a name you are probabky not familiar with- hell, no one is. Earl was a man who was a victim ofdomestic abuse and as a result of his experiences he founded the first mens abuse shelter in Canada, this set him on a long and ultimately fruitless road of trying to get the Canadian government to take domestic abuse where men wrre the victims seriously. This culminated in the Canadian government not providing funding for Silverman's work and he coukd not support the shelter himself and ended up tsking his own life. So this example shows that in some cases men are not being listened to because there is a systematic disbelief that men can suffer in the same way that women do.

 

Without the MRA movement I would not have been made aware of Vladek Filler who was literally persecuted by a female Maine prosecuter Mary Kellett. It turns out she even had previous with other cases involving men. If Vladek Filler had waited for feminism to save him he would still be waiting now for them to stop discussing a mans choice of shirt and start fighting for some real inequality.

 

For me, those two examples above speak far more loudly than the trivial and justify that there is a need for a movement to promote legitimate concerns thst otherwise the world would not be aware existed and feminists would be able to continue to peddle the message thst men never ever suffer genuine inequality.