antifeminism feminism further reading links MRA

>Further Reading: General critiques of the Men’s Rights Movement


Actual Father’s Rights Demonstrators

This is the first in what will be a series of “Further Reading” posts that will provide links and brief excerpts/summaries of posts, articles and books useful to critics of the Men’s Rights Movement. They will all be permanently listed in my sidebar. I will add more useful links as I run across them.

I’ve also started adding a series of pages that offer information and links rebutting more specific claims typically made by those in the Men’s Rights movement. These will also be permanently listed in my sidebar under the heading “Anti-MRM Info and Resources.”

Here are some useful general critiques of the Men’s Rights Movement:

Kathryn Joyce: “Men’s Rights” Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective”

These men’s rights activists, or MRAs, have long been written off by domestic-violence advocates as a bombastic and fringe group of angry white men, and for good reason. … But lately they’ve become far more polished and savvy about advancing their views.

A generally useful overview, with one caveat: Joyce considerably understates the amount of domestic violence that is perpetrated by women. See here for my thoughts on the subject.

Jezebel and Salon have pieces commenting on Joyce’s article. Amanda Marcotte offers some blunt opinions on the piece, as well as some reflections on her general experience dealing with MRAs.

Michael Flood: Backlash — Angry men’s movements (pdf)

In general, “men’s rights” is an anti-feminist and sometimes misogynist (woman-hating) backlash. Its analysis is wrong, its strategies are misdirected and sometimes harmful, and ultimately it does not serve men well. There are legitimate aspects to the issues it raises, but they will not be addressed when surrounded by its hostile and sexist agendas. … Feminism is a movement and set of ideas to which many men’s rights men show venomous and semi-hysterical hostility. … Men’s rights men in fact offer a bizarre caricature of feminism, a highly ignorant and selective misrepresentation.

A shorter, non-pdf version of the article.

Michael Flood: How the fathers’ rights movement undermines the protections available to victims of violence and protects the perpetrators of violence

While fathers’ rights groups often claim to speak on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, these efforts undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

Fathers’ rights advocates also: Make excuses for perpetrators; Act as direct advocates for perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of violence against women; Use abusive strategies themselves; Work to undermine and harass the services and institutions that work with the victims and survivors of violence.

More pieces by Flood and others on MRAs at

Hugo Schwyzer: Masculinity and the failure of the Men’s Rights Movement

The problem with the men’s rights movement is that they confuse men’s unhappiness with oppression. They assume that if men were in control, they would be happy, because patriarchal oppressors ought to be happy. Therefore, if a man isn’t happy, he isn’t oppressing. Newsflash, folks: Just because you don’t know you’re privileged doesn’t mean you’re not. Just because there are aspects of your power and privilege that you find alienating and burdensome doesn’t mean that you are any less a beneficiary of an oppressive system!

Other useful pieces:

The use of violence by fathers’ rights activists: A compilation of news reports

Jezebel: Should Feminism Be “About Equality For Males?”

Jezebel: In Canada, Men’s Rights Groups Gain Power And A Blogger Supports “Femicide”

Alas, a blog:  Men’s Rights Activists, Anti-Feminists, And Other Misogynists Comment On George Sodini

Amanda Hess: Can’t Feminists and Anti-Misandrists Just Get Along?

Amanda Marcotte and Alas, a blog on MRAs’ legitimate complaints.

Blogging Molly: The misguided, embarrassing war against feminism rages on

49 replies on “>Further Reading: General critiques of the Men’s Rights Movement”

>They are all professional feminists working to maintain their monopoly on funds, opinion and gender discussion. Of course their main tactic is to hiding the real issues behind negative issues, heart broken men that have had their children kidnapped by malicious women with the aid of the state are just "angry white men". I see dalrock has a good satire on Jezebells pro domestic violence article up on his blog."Kathryn Joyce: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective"Feminists are intimidated by equality between the sexes.

>David said:"Here are some useful general critiques of the Men's Rights Movement…"And here, boys and girls, is the point at which we learn that "useful" is not a synonym for "accurate".Good job everyone, heads down now.

>David, you dedicate this blot and your time to suppressing legitimate issues by outing woman bashing in the comments sections of one or two sites of mens rights sites. The you use a source a feminist publication that is pro domestic violence against men and a blog that tries to claim that man bashing is a desirable legitimate and intellectual persut as sources.For everyone else here is a useful definition for critiquing the positions and mindset of the politically correct.Definitions of doublethink on the Web:believing two contradictory ideas at the same is a word described in the fictional language of Newspeak and the act of simultaneously accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs. It is related to, but distinct from, hypocrisy and neutrality. … power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of practice of thought control necessary to be a good Party disciple. “reality control” No Party member can ever admit that the Party might be wrong. However, sometimes reality shows something to the contrary. …

>"David, you dedicate this blot and your time to suppressing legitimate issues by outing woman bashing in the comments sections of one or two sites of mens rights sites."Ok, then tell me what MR sites I should be looking at.

>David, you avoid anything that doesnt suit your agenda and prefer to collect the comments of a minority of damaged individuals posting here and there on blogs. You arent making a genuine request of me, if you were Id cooperate with you and you already know where the good stuff is.Besides, I dont see faux feminists like yourself and your supporters here as being in a legitimate position to be throwing stones in the first place as you support organised hate but as you are politically correct you dont recognize it as hate, you just believe it to be correct, which is an illusion.Cristine – sources please, can you provide legitimate evidence of organised political hatred comparable to that of politically correct feminism, and I dont mean some abuse victim venting or feminist trolling as an mra in the comments section of a blog.Under current and previous incarnations of your system the politically incorrect groups were gassed and worked to death, your death camps and gulags are cultural and legal so we have freedom of speech to object to your totalitarian system of thought and legal and social oppression based on genetic make up.

>@Eoghan"Of course their main tactic is to hiding the real issues behind negative issues, heart broken men that have had their children kidnapped by malicious women with the aid of the state are just "angry white men"."Hmmm, I guess the converse of that would be hiding real issues of how women who are raped and victims of DV by calling them "lying, greedy Ameriskanks". Where have I heard that before now? Are you really so blind to these clear double standards in your own thought processes? Talk about doublethink….@OP I thought Michael Flood's article was very eye-opening. I had also noticed independently how closely Anti-feminists' speak mirrors abusers/perps. Keep em coming, David!

>Someone should congratulate TEC, she managed to go twelve whole words without resorting to "RAPE!!!!!!(TM manhater inc.)" as a crutch for her weak argument. Of course she eventually used it as her crutch, but hey, baby steps. Good job honey. RANDOM BROTHER

>joe, i was talkin about nazi germany, cambodia and communist regines where politically correct codes separate people into good and bad groups and promise a utopia. PC feminism is the same basic ideology in different packaging.I wasn't making a baseless comparison.

>"I don't understand how MRA's can justify some of the things that come out of their camp, but justify it they do."This is going to be a two part (maybe3) response:Part1And how do you, as a feminist, justify such comments as (given you've lumped all MRA"s together, I see it reasonable to do that same):"In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape" Catherine MacKinnon"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." Andrea DworkinAnd about a dozen other similar sex (even consensual) is rape quotes"Women have always been the primary victims of war." Hillary Clinton (ignore the WWI 20 million men dead and equal number injured, and not counting the emotional/psychological scares held by the men who survived. It was the women at home handing out white feathers, and never demanding they be allowed to take the easier, trench warfare route, who suffered most)"MAN: … an obsolete life form… an ordinary creature who needs to be watched … a contradictory baby-man …" from A Feminist Dictionary", ed. Kramarae and Treichler, Pandora Press, 1985"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which a man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it." – Former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman," Andrea Dworkin (notice the lack of "potential" before rapist, no, instead she used inevitable)"The fact is that the process of killing – both rape and battery are steps in that process- is the prime sexual act for men in reality and/or in imagination.". Andrea Dworkin,"Romance is rape embellished with meaningful looks." Andrea Dworkin"men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape." Andrea Dworkin (this will be the last quote by her I include (though plenty more exists), I think you get the point, this woman is a hateful creature)" men are the product of a damanged gene." Germaine Greer"AIDS education will not get very far until young men are taught how not to rape young women" Naomi Wolf"All men are rapists and that's all they are." Marilyn French (yes, that's right she used ALL, not most, not some, all)"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometime gain from the experience." Catherine Comins (that's right. A man who is falsely accused of rape, who has his life, his marriage, his career all destroyed, should be thankful for the lesson learned)

>Part 2:"Only with the occasional celebrity crime do we allow ourselves to think the nearly unthinkable: that the family may not be the ideal and perfect living arrangement after all – that it can be a nest of pathology and a cradle of gruesome violence,… Even in the ostensibly "functional," nonviolent family, where no one is killed or maimed, feelings are routinely bruised and often twisted out of shape. There is the slap or the put-down that violates a child's shaky sense of self, the cold, distracted stare that drives a spouse to tears, the little digs and rivalries…" Barbara Ehrenreich (That's right, because your feelings might get hurt from time to time, that means the family is a bad thing… do feelings not get hurt anytime else? only while with family?)"The nuclear family is a hotbed of violence and depravity." Gordon Fitch "We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." Robin Morgan "The nuclear family must be destroyed" Linda Gordon"No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children…" Linda Gordon(a woman's needs comes before her children)"God is going to change. We women… will change the world so much that He won't fit anymore." Naomi Goldenberg"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…" Elizabeth Stanton"Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is, if you don't like it, bad luck – and if you get in my way I'll run you down." Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia. (Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia – 9 February 1996)Some pretty hateful things to say, and from published academics, not just men on the internet. Accusations tend to be all encompassing, not generalizations… with constant use of "all"Do you agree, or justify these things, coming from prominent feminists? people far more influential in defining what a feminist in modern times is (of which the failure to acknowledge feminisms change from it's 1970's egalitarian movement would fit under Joe's IE, The definition of modern feminism is defined solely by it's origin rather then it's current incarnation. By defining yourself as a feminist, that is precisely what you are doing. These prominent people are who define feminism, they speak for it, they determine it's course, and they are just the tip of the iceberg, given these are the hate-mongers who managed to get themselves known. If you are prepared to condemn all MRA's based solely on the words of several bitter, angry men, then condemn yourself as well (and MRA's are still more or less in their infancy (and with far more opposition). I remember a time when feminists were identified as man-hating lesbians…the stereotype came from somewhere, such as the above quoted women perhaps (not all lesbians, but certainly man hating))

>just as a continuation: this article (with a picture of Andrea Dworkin proudly displayed as a figurehead at the beginning of the article, the very hateful woman responsible for several of the quotes listed above), Suzanne Moore states that, while tired (due to not being a morning person) and thus, less capable of censoring herself, she told her daughter the reason she was a feminist was because "Because men do horrible, horrible things". She admits this was the wrong thing to say because it was "Warping the mind of a young girl", but not once in the article does she say it wasn't how she felt, or what she believed. In fact, the article is all about justifying that hateful depiction of men… not some men, but men in general (as in enough to generalize about the intentions of all men).This opinion, as seen by the quotes I've provided in my above comments, shows this view of men to be actually fairly common, and despite Suzanne Moore claiming that's not how feminism conducts itself, one has to wonder if maybe, she was merely saying that in the same way she admits she should have censored her feelings to her daughter, telling something that should be said, not something as it truly is?My point is, MRA's don't have a monopoly on hate speach, and moreover, theirs generally don't tend to show up in large publications like the guardian ( )

>Hey, Kratch;if nothing else, you're quoting of Clinton *missed the point entirely*. Guess who was hurt WORST in WWII – the WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE WARZONES. not "the women of soldiers who stayed behind in safe non-warzones" but the WOMEN AND CHILDREN CAUGHT IN THE WARZONES.THAT is what she meant – that in war, the people most hurt, are generally the WOMEN AND CHILDREN IN THE WARZONE. we don't even HAVE numbers for the non-combatants killed in WWII [aside from those in concetration camps].[and now i'm going to, probably, waste my time]over all, the problem with Dworkin et al. is one of resentment – i am not a man-hater, i don't advocate men being killed or herded in camps or whatever – but i CAN understand why some women feel that way.attend: depending on where you get the stats, between 1/4 and 1/3 of women have been sexually assulted – not "raped" per se, although rape is certainly one of the list of assults. until the 1920's, women couldn't VOTE, in most US states women couldn't OWN PROPERTY, and often wasn't even the one paid for her labor – no, her husband, father, brother, son, or other male was paid because women WERE NOT CONSIDERED PEOPLE.we got the vote. and not damned much else, for *decades*men were allowed to do ANYTHING THEY WANTED to their wives, short of straight-out murder – and, even in the case of murder, all he had to say was "my wife cheated on me" and he was good.women are just as smart and capable as men are – and rightfully resented their oppression.and we still do.yes, there are places where the law has bent too far – VERY few places, but they exist. in general, i am sympathetic to a few of these, especially custodial rights. if a divorce is NOT because of Domestic Violence, and the father wants custody of his kids, i see no reason that shared custody cannot be arranged; in cases where the father is obviously the more fit parent, i think it's beyond idiotic that the mother gets custody [also very sexist, against BOTH genders]when it comes to women committing DV, i think it should be prosecuted as fully as male DV [and i think, in generally, that DV is VERY fraking under prosecuted].but – and here is the but – that DOES NOT mean that women are somehow "on top". in a VERY few areas, we have what appears to be "more privilege". even looking at those few places, you see that it is PATRIARCHY causing the problem – women overwhelming are assigned custody because every BELIEVES that "women are meant to be the nurturing caregiver parent" and that women are the ones who will take time off work to deal with the kids, etc. [men are often PUNISHED for taking time off for kids, because "that's what women are for"]my good male friend was the stay at home parent. now that his kids are in 1st and 4th grade [and so have all-day school] he wants a job – and is having trouble getting one, because *why the hell was he playing mommy* and similar BS.BECAUSE OF's said often; Patriarchy hurts men, too. and MRAs need to realize that they aren't fighting WOMEN, or even FEMINISM [because, despite your quotes above, feminism is NOT the enemy. feminism would LOVE a world where men could get custody and be the stay-at-home-parent without punishment] – they are fighting against all the sexism that Patriarchy thrives on.

>I don't want to get into a debate on whether women were oppressed or not (because I use the dictionary definition of oppressed, and generally, feminists use their own), and especially don't want to debate the idea they still are. And I am dumbfounded by your absolute adherence to the patriarchy concept, that it is so evil as to oppress men in order to force women into their role. Did 80% of the men on the titanic die in order to ensure that women continued to be seen as inferior? Whatever, it's all irrelevant to my point. David is lumping all MRM's together as a single entity, and I am showing how hateful that makes all feminists look when the same is done to them. Feminists come in all sorts of different forms, from those who hate pron and think it should be censored completely out, to those that feels it's empowering to the women who "choose" to perform it. Feminists that hate men, and see any act of sex as rape, to those that love sex and herald the pill as one of the great liberators of women. There are some feminists who continue to believe they are oppressed, despite every single complaint they have being considered illegal under the law, and then there are those that feel feminism has gotten what it's asked for, and those left have turned the movement into a hate campaign against men. What David is suggesting is that any group like MRM's or Feminists should be lumped together as a single entity and have the worst attributes brought forward. that is the very purpose of this website.And feminism is not fighting against all sexism, not anymore, and not for a long time. The feminism that holds any kind of power in government is fighting to get women what they want at the expense of men (and feminism isn't limited to just women, as David proves). Don't believe me, look up the interview with Kristina Schröder, a minister who criticized the feminist belief that even consensual sex is rape, and implemented a department for boys and men within her women's affairs ministry, and was called hopeless and unqualified by Leading women's rights activist Alice Schwarzer. Or how about Canada's Minister for the status of women funding projects to get more women into university science and math course, despite women already having 60% of all diploma's earned and over 800 more scholarship opportunities in order to go to university… where is the gender equality there? There have been studies from the early 90's showing men are abused in relationships too, yet, it's still nearly impossible to get reasonable funding for men's shelters in Ontario Canada, because the funding comes from The Ontario Women's Directorate.Feminism, in particular, the hateful kind, has become far more prominent and influential then you think, and the fact that you still blame everything on patriarchy, is quite terrifying, but not really surprising… as feminists have always shirked responsibility for their failures and errors onto men. but just remember, so long as you continue to believe the patriarchy exists and oppresses, you will always be a victim to it, and no success will ever be your own. To believe that any failure on your part is due to the patriarchy, mean's they have full control, and thus any success is likewise due to the patriarchy. you deny your own achievements when you deny accountability for your failures.

>I should also point out that, the area's where you admit the law has bent too far are what the vast majority of MRM's are fighting for, and are receiving resistance to from people like David. When even you, a believer in the patriarchy concept, acknowledges that some of the MRM arguments are valid, and yet, we still get significant resistance (we say from feminists, you say from the patriarchy, which does David count as?), do you not understand why we're angry too? And yet, we continue to be portrayed as monsters for wanting what you yourself acknowledge we should have, simply because some MRA's have gotten more angry, hateful and belligerent then others, just as some feminists did/are.PS: Re: Clinton; I quoted her correctly…"Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat." Her comments aren't restricted to women in warzones.See here, 9th Paragraph.

>While Clinton did go ahead and add language that included women not in warzones, she had to add it on the the meantime – i don't "blame patriarchy for everything" – just a LOT of things. and i specifically have reason. let me tell you it.i'm [obviously] female. i found out, when i turned 30, that i was BORN with displaysia of the right hip [as in, born with my hip dislocated]. i've been in constant chronic pain since i was *3 years old*, i quite literally do not know what "not being in pain" is like.why? because i was a *girl* and *girls are hysterical*. i'm now completely disabled, i cannot even SIT, because for 30 years of my life, doctor after doctor looked at me, saw that i was female, and refused to FIND THE PROBLEM. i was a girl, and THAT was the problem, in their eyes.a simple bloody XRay, taken when i was 3, SHOWED THE PROBLEM. according to the records attached to the XRay, it was taken at my mother's insistence, and NO ONE EVER LOOKED AT IT, aside from the [female] radiologist, who recommended the pediatric orthapedist look at it – his reply to her was "i refuse to waste my time validating the hysteria of a crazed mother who has trained her daughter to scream"my hip is *destroyed*. i've had 6 surgeries, in an attempt to fix it. which won't do much good, considering all the nerve damage – all of which can be laid at the feet of patriarchy.because it's STILL TAUGHT IN MEDICAL SCHOOLS that women are "hysterical", here in the US. Tons of studies from Europe have proved that women are not only NOT hysterical, but are more likely [as a whole] to have something *really* wrong with them when they go to a Patriarchy responsible for everything?i suppose that depends on HOW you define Patriarchy. how about, instead, we discuss our "Social System" – that system that INSISTS women are to be Mothers First! and that men are to be Only complain about specific things – and don't see the point of those specific things. women are still treated badly in math and science majors; i had to work over twice as hard to "prove" that i was in my program for the EDUCATION – because every, including professors, kept making remarks about "here for a husband shopping?". when i'd tell people i already had a guy, thanks, that i was here for an EDUCATION, and a CAREER, they were dumbfounded.because "women aren't good at math", i was acused of sleeping my way to a 4.0. when i was stalked by a [crazy, creepy] classmate, everyone [including police] insisted that i had somehow "led him on" – when the only contact i'd ever had with guy was him asking me out, and me saying "sorry, i have a boyfriend". but men never just stalk a woman, oh no – women are the reason for all ills, don't'cha'know, and i MUST have done something to "make" him stalk me. it's not that i don't see that there is validity in SOME of what the MRAs say – it's that they [including you, it seems] refuse to see the validity in what WE say.i didn't become, and don't stay, a feminist because i hate men.i became a feminist, and stay a feminist, because i love me.period.

>i'm intelligent, there is NO REASON i should be sexually harrassed IN SCHOOL because i happen to be female. no reason i should sexually harrassed by strangers on the street. no reason why stranger in stores should be allowed to harrass me because i don't have kids. i've been passed over for a promotion because i don't wear makeup and heels [i don't wear makeup because i'm lazy; i don't wear heels because i CAN'T, not with the hip]pregnancy will kill me [literally], i'm over 30, and yet i STILL can't get my tubes tied – i keep being told "oh, you'll change your mind! you'll want babies!" because women only ever want babies. [i don't want babies]. also been told "come back when you've had 3" [protestations that i'll be DEAD before the 1st gets to 5 months non-with-standing] and been told "Come back in with written permission by your husband. no husband? get married so you have can get permission from a husband"but my boyfriend just walked in, said "i'd like a vasectomy" and was scheduled for one a week later. he said "do i need to get permission from my wife?" [because i had been told to get permission from my husband] and the doc said "of course not! men don't need permission]i could go on, for days, about the way things are weighed against women.the point isn't that one gender has it worse – the POINT is that BOTH genders do, and the thing to fight against isn't "women" or "men" – but to fight against the Social Constructs [which, by the way, WERE created by men. which is why we call them "Patriarchy" – they were created by men to serve men – not ALL men, just the men with the power] that insist that women want nothing but babies and men would never want babies. that insist all women want is to get married, a situation that pays off for men WAY more than it does for women, while insisting MEN don't want to get married, or GET anything from marriage, when in fact men are much more rewarded for marriage then women are [over all. exceptions to every rule. etc]you are great at spouting random, out-of-context quotes. can you read behind them, to the reality that caused those quotes?

>Kratch: "David is lumping all MRM's together as a single entity"Uh, I make clear again and again in post after post, and in my FAQ, that the people I quote don't represent all MRAs/MGTOW/whatever. Many of my posts are not related to the MRM; I do not mention the MRM in them or tag them with the tag "MRA." There is a disclaimer in my sidebar as well. I'm not sure exactly how I could be more clear that I am NOT lumping all MRAs together as a single entity. I do think that misogyny is widespread in the MRM and in MGTOW, but this does not mean that ALL or even most MRAs are misogynist, though I tend to think that most probably are. MGTOW tend to be much more openly misogynistic, though there too I think there are some who aren't.Also, thanks for spamming the comments with another recycled list of out-of-context feminist quotes. Yes, Andrea Dworkin said many crazy things. That's not really news at this point. But Barbara Ehrenreich's quote? I really don't see what is objectionable about it. Many families are fucked up, and she's simply asking the question of whether or not family is the ideal structure. Ehrenreich is a very vivid writer, and I think whoever compiled this list confused her vivid writing with some sort of feminsit fanaticism. She's actually a pretty nuanced writer. I just googled and found the essay that quote is from and, yep, it's a pretty nuanced article suggesting only that we try to consider what is good and what is bad about families rather than simply assume that "family values" are inherently good. So yeah, I'll defend that statement. It's not hateful in the slightest.–cwQ8l9mzstPfgb9-c&hl=en&ei=5yw-Te7zCYXTgQetyMTcCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22Only%20with%20the%20occasional%20celebrity%20crime%20do%20we%20allow%20ourselves%20to%20think%20the%20nearly%20unthinkable%3A%20that%20the%20family%20may%20not%20be%20the%20ideal%20and%20perfect%20living%20arrangement%20after%20all%22&f=false

>David. Actions speak louder then words, and your actions speak of the act of misrepresentation that I accuse you of. No amount of disclaimers will suggest otherwise. the only thing I can think of that may alleviate things is an open acknowledgement, perhaps in that same disclaimer, that misandry is equally as rampant amongst feminists, even if that's not what you choose to focus on… note that this does not mean that ALL or even most Feminists are for Dworkin… The reason she keeps coming up is not because she was one hateful women, but because, despite being so hateful (and as you acknowledge, crazy), she became very successful, producing 10 books and becoming a prominent spokeswoman. You can't do that if people think your beliefs are wrong, hateful, crazy, etc. She became a success because people… feminists, agreed with her, and repeatedly bought her books, and after the first one, it couldn't have been just out of curiosity. You can pick out all the hate-mongers on internet websites for the rest of your life and you will never find someone as damaging to the MRA as Dworkin is to feminism, because not a one of those MRA hate-mongers will ever become as famous, or as revered as Dworkin was in a time where the internet wasn't available for easy dissemination of opinion. This is a blight the feminist movement will always have to live with, and that's why it keeps coming up.As to Ehrenreich's comment, it isn't so much hateful as ridiculous… the idea that, because family can hurt your feelings, that it's value should be reconsidered… can not friends or co-workers also hurt your feelings? should we reconsider those as well? Of course, you will likely be unable to see this being said, as you will undoubtedly view her comments in a far more positive light, dismissing her words as something far more benign. Just as there have been several comments from MRA's, or even 1933's musician's, long before the men's movement, which you have been interpreted as being far more misogynistic then what is written… (or did you not accuse If you want to be happy's lyric's "And she'll always give you peace of mind" as referring to a blowjob. First written as ugly woman by Calypso singer Roaring Lion, 1933. do you really think 1933 calypso singers are talking about blowjobs?). It's easy to see hateful or hurtful things in what people said when you already assume they are hateful/hurtful before you even begin reading, just as it is easier to gloss over such things when your impression of the writer suggest they wouldn't do such a thing. Perception of the writer plays a huge role in how you interpret their writing. the fact you tend to think most MRA's probably are misogynistic will allow you to see misogyny in most things they write, regardless of if it's there or not. And this is why many of us have taken offense to your site, because, regardless of your disclaimers, by only focusing on the worst of the worst amongst MRA's, you provide your readers with a faulty perception of what to expect from an MRA. I'd be curious to know how many of your readers were even aware of the content of your disclaimer, prior to this discussion. I can be certain that several of your readers have indeed, despite your disclaimer, taken your posts to be representative of all, or at least most, MRA's. And I suspect that you are ok with that, given I've seen you defend their view.

>It's easy to see hateful or hurtful things in what people said when you already assume they are hateful/hurtful before you even begin reading,Yeah, sort of like how you interpreted my joke about blowjobs as something more than a joke. If people misread what I write, there's not much I can do about it. But guess what? The people who misread what I write most often and most egregiously are the MRAs/MGTOW crowd, and they manage to misread me no matter how crystal clear I am. They are forever assuming all sorts of things about me that aren't even remotely based in fact. I'm regularly attacked (in the comments here and elsewhere in the manosophere) as a "radical feminist" when I am nothing of the sort, as a "man hater," and lord knows what else. You're doing the very same thing here. For what it's worth, I've criticized Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, in print, in publications that have many times the readership of this blog. I am not responsible for what they say. I do not agree with them. I don't deny that they were both influential. But at the same time they were also heavily criticized by other feminists, including me. If there were any in the men's rights movement willing to stand up to the misogynists in the same way that pro-sex feminists stood up to Dworkin et al, I would happily write about them on this blog and give them some support. But I haven't found any. The closest I've found to this: There are some people who criticize misogyny on the men's rights subreddit; that's about it, and it's not clear if they consider themselves MRAs at all, or if they are simply redditors who've run across the MR posts on their Reddit main page.If you can point me to MRAs/MGTOW who are critical of misogyny, I would be grateful.

>"By "piece of mind," I believe Mr. Soul is referring to "blowjobs."" there to indicate that line was a joke. Even if the intention of the article itself was satire, this particular line gives no indication that it is not to be taken as intended. There was no reason to make interpretations of the song's lyrics. "For what it's worth, I've criticized Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, …"Good for you for speaking against them. Given you’re a man, I certainly hope you don't believe consensual sex is rape. Though, criticizing Dworkin etc is not criticizing misandry, it is addressing accusations that you’re a rapist. That said, what you’re doing, picking the worst of the worst of the MRA comments, is no different then me pointing that feminists such as Dworkin exist as blots on the feminist movement. You may have spoken out against her personally, as have others, but that is ONLY because she actually gained some credibility worth opposing. If she were just a crazy commenter on some hack's blog, you would likely just ignore her, just as you do with Booboo and Kave when they consistently misconstrue your quotes as representative of all MRA's, despite your best intentions.Also, you claim you are not responsible for what Dworkin etc have said, but then hold MRA's up for what a few wackjobs have said? Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? These guys you keep quoting haven't had 10 books published. Hell, they don't even have one published, because they are inconsequential, despite your consistently bringing them to the surface."If there were any in the men's rights movement willing to stand up to the misogynists in the same way that pro-sex feminists stood up to Dworkin et al, I would happily write about them on this blog and give them some support. But I haven't found any."If there were any misogynists being published and revered the way Dworkin et al have been, you would find people criticizing them. Your problem is that you are equating some guy on the Internet as being equally as influential and in need of confrontation as a 10 time published radical feminist.I'm curious, do you agree or disagree with the general goal of MRA's… IE, to gain equality in such areas as family and divorce court (IE, presumption of shared parenting unless deemed not in the child's best interest), to gain equal considerations in education and government (name me one country that has a men's minister to compliment their women's minister?), equal consideration regarding health concerns (IE research funding for breast vs prostate cancer), acknowledgment and support of male victimization in domestic violence (regardless whether you examine perpetration or outcome, men are still represented in the victims, but not in the support). What about concerns such as women getting to retire 5 years earlier in the UK despite living longer, or the proposed women's tax break considered in Ireland… are these really examples of "equality"? Are men in the wrong for wanting these issues dealt with? Do they really deserve the resistance they have gotten in seeking these things? Do spend as much time advocating for these things as you do attacking MRA’s (be it as a whole or individually)?A great many feminists were misandric during the beginnings of feminism, and some (many of the prominent ones) still are. They didn't get nearly the resistance men are getting. And yet, you seem to have forgotten that fact, and have chosen to point out the anger of some of the men in the MRA, completely ignoring feminisms own guilt in the same regards. It is nothing more then an underhanded effort to stir up opposition to MRA's, and thus, the issues they are fighting for.

>Those are some great links David, thanks! This movement of self-pitying assholes we call the "Men's Rights Movement" is indeed dangerous. Interesting material. And damn, you have to spend a lot of time battling the trolls dont'cha?

>They sure don't seem to want the rhetorical high ground. Or perhaps they've convinced themselves that to attack attack attack, make facile comparisons, and never concede shit, is actually to have the rhetorical high ground.

>You need to consider, like feminism, the MRM isn't a single unified movement. There are those who are just hateful, like the dworkins, mcKinnon's, Valenti's, etc. Those are the ones that David here focus's solely on.As for the tactic's used, well, regardless of what is said, they will be deemed misogynists. My simply stating men need a gender minister in government as an egalitarian counterpart to the women's minister that exists in every western nation, has earned me the title misogynist.Just that one idea alone, that has nothing to do with how I feel about women, and more to do with the definition of equality, makes me hateful of women? Furthermore, If I choose to debate the topic politely, I am deemed a whiner and ignored as such, but if I am aggressive, I am deemed hateful and inspire debate, just to prove me wrong. I'll take the later, thanks, as that at least forces those who don't want me to "win", and those who take a stake, or interest, in the debate, to hear what needs to be said. Sometimes I actually manage to cause people to question themselves, sometimes I discover the objections are to my bringing it up, rather then the actual topic (which is itself a problem, but can then be noted) and sometimes I simply prove that objections to my opinions are based on misandry and a disrespect for men, and my actual arguments are entirely irrelevant.

Lol these people are only giving us ammunition if they had ans sense at all they would just ignore the topic completely… they are giving us publicity, and giving us evidence that what we say about them is true. If what we MRA’s where saying about them wasn’t true, they would not be trying to discredit us, but they would be trying to make sure, we had nothing to complain about, by helping us. A person who is not guilty won’t need to argue the case when he can easily prove it. Proof is in the putting, if they wanted to prove the opposite was true, all they need to do is advocate that men are people with needs too. this would contradict the claims made against them. It the smartest tactic and its the only tactic that will ever evade our wrath!!! until then We claim they lie, and they prove us correct by lying…

The “putting?” Is that near the juggler?

Oh, no, not your wrath. Anything but that!

Illiterate clown.

It the smartest tactic

The jokes, they write themselves.


It’s difficult to extract meaning from our friend’s semi-literate babble, so I’m going to assume that the putting comment was a whimsical reference to his belief that all MRAs will some day become very successful at golf.

Ladies and gentlemen, the world’s douchiest facebook profile photo has come to prophesy his wrath!!!

My mind is blown that this dude is willing to associate his identity and those of his family’s with his goofy syllogistic screeds.

Unfortunately, People who claim to be feminist do not have enough historical education to understand what feminism really is… If they know who there founders where, and who the people that ran the multimillion dollar operations that have: blocked out male birth control research for decades, those who responsible for 63% of male domestic violence victims (the rest, accused or even made fun of only taking mercy on 1-8% of them) being refused shelter for them and their children, those responsible for perpetuating the lie that men dominate the work force when women clearly do (2012 statistics get up to date feminists women also make 8% more on average) and also out populate men; little do they know the people responsible for raising them to being absolute lies about men, responsible for ignoring Men’s needs, are the real wealthy feminist anti-male campaigns that they them selves fly they banner of. They do not realize that the monolithic version of feminism ghastly out sizes their miniscule idea of feminism. They have become so religiously involved, that like a Christian or Muslim, if you insult there belief systems name or the belief systems hierarchy, (feminism) you also insult then as a person, as well as all the good things they stand for. they Have come to believe that with out feminism that will not be able to support laws that are good for women… they are so side tracked by their belief system they have not realized that the big well funded champagnes do not consider how to achieve women’s rights and men’s rights together, but only women rights period and with the battle of the sex’s mentality to boot. no matter what you have in your head, you are deluding yourself if-you think you do not support these anti-male people, when you chat on their blogs and give them money. You chat on there blogs, your promote their ads, many of you even fund them. You may claim to not agree with the result of their actions, but that sure never stopped you from helping them do it while tuning a blind eye to the inequality caused by it. If your a feminist you have likely helped with all of this in some way, knowingly or unknowingly… By supporting pro-female bills/amendments without properly analyzing them in concern for another gender other then your own, for example… Or giving money to an organization that is reported to directly discriminate against men and paint men in a bad picture, or blame men for women’s problems. Opening and supporting female only shelters with out the same for male’s… Attending their protests , meetings and fundraisers,and not setting up your own non-gender biased ones… the list goes on, you make speak your mind on the internet and claim to be a good person.. but proof is in the putting, and the proof is: you feminists are only putting your time and money into a single gender… If you wish to combat these claims, then your cations should be to:

1. Criticize: male gender stereotypes, male shaming, mass male blaming, failure to take responsibility, anti-male jokes, anti-male bias in general, the victimization of men through violence, the victimization of men through verbal or mental abuse, forcing men into male gender roles, the denial of men’s needs, the denial of men to have emotions or the right to express them in their own way, the false representation of statistics to demonize men, the false representation of statistics to ignore men’s needs, the false representation of statistics to paint women as the only victims, criticize people who negate men’s suffering, and any other unfair gender bias you see.

2. Defend: men along side women, little boys forced into gender roles, Men who are 2 times more likely to be raped then women, men who are 3-4 times more likely to commit suicide, men who are between 40-50% of reported domestic violence victims, defend men who are 2-3 times more likely to suffer from general violence, teen boys pressured to conform to gender roles while seeking male maturity or peer acceptance, defend men and boys as much as you defend their opposite gender.

3. Promote: Anti-male bashing ads, Healthy male language, healthy perspectives of males, non-gender biased perspectives of males, male domestic violence shelters, pro-male/non-gender biased education programs, Promote male birth control,
Promote male homeless shelters since men are the majority of the homeless, take time to analyze and promote the needs of men alongside of those for women.

4. Use non-biased labels: There are many labels I will not be able to cover, do not assume the right to label just any man a creep, do not us the label “reverse gender discrimination” to imply women are the focus, do not use the false anti male term patriarchy when protesting female rights, and finally be an FRA. You can be an FRA , you can also be an MRA at the same time, these are labels for individuals, they are not grouping labels. An activist is “an individual” who supports “a cause.” A feminist is an individual who supports certain cause under the label of a monolithic association of groups that are mainly anti-male and all center around women.

7. Report: bigotry, discrimination hatred, rape, violence, domestic abuse, verbal or mental abuse, and injustice against men, as well as women.

6. Encourage: Both men and women to take responsibility by holding them equally accountable. Both to seek help, both to be who they want to be, both to live life with out regret, both to be aware of threats, both no to live in fear, both to be safe, both to be kind, both that their feeling matter, both that no one person is more important then they are, both not to be forced into or limited by the gender roles of others, both to empathize with others, both to accept their own faults, both to be humble, both to be strong, both to be independent, both to believe in themselves, both to have a good education, both to use the potential in their natural strengths, both to compensate for their natural weaknesses, encourage them both equally in everything you wish for any of your female or male children/adults.

there is more than can and should be done to prove you are the opposite of what is aid about you…

Feminist organizations say they want men to not hate them, but they do everything in their power to make men want to. If that was truly their goal, common sense should tell you, there actions and words would be different.

@ Thomas Allen: TL;DR

I have no pithy comment to make, I just don’t have the energy to slog through your wall o’ text. In a year-old post.


lol actually your the clown making joke and never one making a single point.. You have exposed yourself by attacking my typing and accusing me of illiteracy. You have nothing intelligent to say, you only have mud to sling. congratulations you have accomplished making yourself look as cool as a high school bully.. lol the it is so ironic you called me a clown when your words are of exactly that nature…

If i where mildly dyslexic and had poor typing skills would every thing I say be invalid? What if English was me second language what then?You see this is exactly what you have implied, and you have exposed your own lack of intellect by doing so. Your ignorance is exposed… make a point or shut up… Clown…

Your the clown-making joke exposing yourself! Congratulations!

On a serious note though, don’t try to engage us about feminism when it’s clear that you don’t know jack shit about it. Your goofball conspiracy theories won’t fly here.

If I could edit my typos I would, but I don’t see the option. I’m humble enough to recognize weakness in typing… that is why I never tried to be a secretary or editor…. Right now you for providing how sexist, ignorant and hateful you are by attacking me over and over. it is very clear you like to hurt men. You must hate men. I pity you. do you think attacking me make you look smart? It make you look like a a fool, and when i claim that people like you only have the interest of causing pain or spreading hate, here you are proving me right. spread more of your hate…. give me more proof… attack attack, be cruel, prove me right.

If I could edit my typos I would, but I don’t see the option. I’m humble enough to recognize weakness in typing… that is why I never tried to be a secretary or editor…. Right now you for proving how sexist, ignorant and hateful you are by attacking me over and over. It is very clear you like to hurt men, or just people. You must hate men, or you just a bad person. I pity you. Do you think attacking me makes you look smart? It makes you look like a fool, and when I claim that people like you only have the interest of causing pain or spreading hate, here you are proving me right. spread more of your hate…. give me more proof… attack attack, be cruel, prove me right.

When he says “exposing yourself” it sounds like things are about to get all kinky, and then you realize that he’s just babbling again.

Sorry to break it to you, my agitated friend, but this is really not that kind of website.

If I could edit my typos, I would, but I don’t see the option. I’m humble enough to recognize weakness in typing… that is why I never tried to be a secretary or editor…. Right now you are proving how sexist, ignorant and hateful you are by attacking me over and over. It is very clear you like to hurt men, or just people. You must hate men, or you just a bad person. I pity you. Do you think attacking me makes you look smart? It makes you look like a fool, and when I claim that people like you only have the interest of causing pain or spreading hate, here you are proving me right. spread more of your hate…. give me more proof… attack attack, be cruel, prove me right.

When he says “exposing yourself” it sounds like things are about to get all kinky, and then you realize that he’s just babbling again. < how cute, reminds me of when I was like 12 years and on the school bus, I once had that type of humor then…

Dude guilt doesn’t work that way.

Just because somebody you don’t like says something is filthy doesn’t mean that it must actually be clean.

I guess he found that next to last comment so fascinating that he had to post it 3 times? Which would be excusable if there was any actual content there, but unfortunately there is not.

Wait, aren’t us feminists supposed to be the ones who yell “SEXISM!” at every passing slight? That’s the stereotype, right? So what’s dudebro here doing accusing us of hating men just because we said he sounds stupid?

Lots of men don’t sound stupid, dudebro. Several of them even post on this site! The key is that they don’t use ellipses all the fucking time.

Well, and they don’t rant about ridiculous conspiracy theories focused on making their lives terrible, but the ellipses thing would be a good start.

Thomas, not to piss on your parade, but you do realise a lot of the regular commentators here are men? And that large numbers of commentators who are not men are in relationships with men?

If you want to find evidence of man-hating you are honestly not looking in the right place.

Also, you’re making the same arguments are every troll who has ever appeared on this blog.

Let me rebut your argument.

No we do not hate men and we do not like hurting men.

Any more questions?

I’d even be willing to tolerate the ellipses, but I’m still not sure what “..” is supposed to signify.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.