antifeminism douchebaggery irony alert misogyny MRA penises

The brief history of the brief career of the (unofficial) goodwill ambassador from planet Good Men Project

On a fairly regular basis, Man Boobz is visited by commenters of an MRAish disposition. There are many varieties. Some start off by trying to post rape threats and other such unpleasantness, and their comments never see the light of day. Some leave a few irritated comments and head off, never to be seen again. Some manage to stick around long enough to become Man Boobz institutions.

One interesting variety: the ones who come here, they claim, to discuss the issues with us in good faith. In most cases it becomes quickly evident that they are not interested in real discussion at all, as they ignore what most of the commenters here say to them to instead argue with the straw feminists who live in their heads.

Soon many of these alleged good-faith arguers drop the pretense entirely and lash out with nasty personal attacks. At this point they go on moderation, or find themselves banned entirely.

The latest such meltdown was a fairly quick one. For those who don’t regularly read the comments, here’s a brief history of John Anderson’s brief career (so far) as an unofficial goodwill ambassador to Man Boobz from planet Good Men Project.

An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project, Mr. Anderson arrived at Man Boobz Prime on July 2nd, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, eager to learn from and about the feminist commenters here, and to convince some of us to join him and the other commenters at the GMP in healthy and fruitful dialogue.

In one of his first comments here, he explained the reason for his coming here:

I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.

In a further comment he explained that he was trying to do his part to save the Men’s Rights movement from the angry ideologues:

I was on a voice for men a while back. They had nothing but contempt for the GMPers. I’m certain that I’ll cross paths with them. It is my heartfelt intent to reclaim my movement from people who would disgrace it.

Five minutes later, alas, we learned that he had determined we were all a bunch of misandrists after all.

I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.

Oh, wait, not all of us. But we are a bunch of meanies:

I don’t think all the commentators hate men or are necessarily closed minded to other view points. I actually stepped away from a safe space to engage people who don’t see things the way I do. The feeling that I get is that there is great hostility to anyone who may consider men to be victims under any circumstance….

I’ve quoted DOJ and CDC statistics and included page numbers or links on an article that says that we shouldn’t be angry over truthful statistics. I’ve been told that the statistics have been spun. Maybe I should have refrained from that SHOCKED bit. I probably should have considered the feelings of the people on this site. I’d consider apologizing, but too many people here seem mean.

As far as I can tell, he determined that I was a misandrist because I downplayed the fact that more men are murdered than women by writing the following sentence in the OP:

While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”

I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women. You can go read the whole discussion yourself and see if you can figure it out.

The meltdown followed not long afterwards. In one comment, Mr. Anderson suggested, as far as I can figure it, that [TW: RAPE APOLOGETICS] women regularly decide whether or not to charge a man with rape after they determine how good their rapist is in bed:

When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.

But he still hoped to lure some of us over to the Good Man Project for more scintillating discussion about how feminists are evil and mean and how dudes like him think women think  about rape. Oh, and that movie about the stripper dudes.

Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.

Then, for some reason, he decided to bring up his cock:

Kyrie says,

“Fuck. You.”

No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. 🙂

At this point, I put Mr. Anderson on permanent moderation.

Or  tried to anyway. Due to a little glitch, it didn’t take, so Mr. Anderson was able to post freely for a while. Among other things, he tried to explain away that previous comment with this:

David says,

“And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”

You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic.

Not so much.

Then he whined about being moderated:

Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.

The only record set was for how quickly Mr. Anderson devolved from an earnest man of alleged good faith to a cock-talking troll.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Anderson
John Anderson
10 years ago

Argenti Aertheri | July 3, 2012 at 6:17 pm

I said

The only agreement I have with the mainstream MRM concerning not paying child support is that if the mother has the ability to unilateral adoption (adoption without the expressed consent of the biological father as determined by DNA test), the father should have the same option to place his child up for unilateral adoption. I don’t see where the mainstream MRM finds the legal precedent for a “legal abortion”. I see precedent for a unilateral adoption, but if mothers are prevented from pursuing it or must pay child support to the adoptive parents in a unilateral adoption, I would not support a father’s right to one either.
You said

“I realize that wasn’t directed at me, but google “safe haven laws”.

Thanks, that gives me something else to consider. I am kind of curious though. Since safe haven laws are a form of unilaterally giving up one’s rights to a child, it actually supports my position that there is precedent in allowing men the right to unilateral adoption, waiving their rights and responsibilities to a child. Where do you stand on this?

John Anderson
John Anderson
10 years ago

Pam | July 3, 2012 at 4:53 pm”

but if raising kids is so thankless, why would women want to do it?

“Ya got me on that one. I am a woman who is childfree by choice, so I don’t really have an answer as to why women want to do it. In addition, since each woman is different, they each probably have different reasons for why they want to do it. I do know some women who did not want to have and raise children, but did so anyway because they couldn’t handle the stigma that I sometimes endured (selfish bitch, etc.) In a slightly different vein, I have known women who did not fight for primary custody of their children when their cohabitating relationship broke down, and that is social-stigma-worthy too …”

“must be some kind of MONSTER if she didn’t fight for custody!”

You have a good point. I wonder how many women fight for custody because they think that they’re supposed to. I’ve never been a fan of forcing parents to raise children that they don’t want to raise whether it is rooted in law or in societal norms. I’m more open to compelling parents to support their children financially as long as the system is fair. Men should have the same opportunities as women to terminate their legal rights and responsibilities or women should have to pay child support if they unilaterally terminate their rights to a child. They shouldn’t be allowed to terminate their responsibility unless the father also terminates his rights.

John Anderson
John Anderson
10 years ago

Kyrie | July 3, 2012 at 7:32 pm

“Are there currently States in the USAs where the father would, by default, need to proof that the mother is an unfit parent to get a part, even beneath 50% (like, having one in two week-ends) of the custody?”

Michigan until about a month ago wouldn’t allow a biological father to even establish paternity for a child that he fathered with someone else’s wife. He had a ZERO percent chance of getting even visitatopn.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III | July 3, 2012 at 7:34 pm

“If there are men who want custody but don’t seek custody because they don’t think they’re going to get it, then the MRM could actually help men in this position, simply by not endlessly repeating the meme that men never get custody!
Actually help!

And guess what? Doing so would take even less effort that the “activism” they’re doing now. All they have to do is whine less about this one subject! If the problem is the meme, stop pushing the goddam meme!”

The “meme” is rooted in the law and its application. How do you change the laws without pointing out the injustices. You guys probably don’t realize that one of the battleground issues between the father’s right movement and the feminist lobby is the battle over “the best interests of the child” and “favoring joint custody”.

The MRM favors favoring joint custody. The burden is on the parent opposing joint custody to prove that the other parent is unfit. The parent opposing joint custody is usually the mother. Sometimes she has very good reason like the father is abusive. The fight is actually over whether she has to prove it.

“The best interests of the child” standard allows judges to apply a personal belief that children are always better off with the mother when parents are (nearly) equally situated.

John Anderson
John Anderson
10 years ago

I think I’m driving David crazy and it’s not my intention. Sorry David. I would like an article about me to hit 200 comments at least, if I may. I’m not going to bother you the rest of the day, but do want to clarify one thing.

Feminism is a lens that is no longer valid for viewing the world. Father’s rights are gaining steam throughout the country. Look at the change in the law in Michigan. Academia is feeling increased pressure to address issues facing men and boys. Look at the SFU men’s center. The bodily autonomy of men and boys is being increasingly recognized. Look at the circumcision ban in a part of Germany and the attempt to ban it in San Francisco (I don’t know if it was successful. If anyone is familiar with what happened, I’d appreciate an update).

Just like misogynists failed to recognize that men have mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters; feminists fail to realize that women have fathers, husbands, sons and brothers. The anti-circ movement was initially pushed by women. Feminism is becoming increasingly irrelevant and distancing itself from the concerns of women will speed its demise.
You can choose to stand on the wrong side of history. It’s your right, but why would you want to?

10 years ago

I’ve never based my actions or beliefs on what’s popular John. I suspect that’s the case for many folks here. I really don’t care about historys popularity contests. For that matter, feminism isn’t and has never been that popular. Only a quarter of women will have anything to do with it.

10 years ago

“Just like misogynists failed to recognize that men have mothers, wives, daughters, and sisters; feminists fail to realize that women have fathers, husbands, sons and brothers.”

This is both the most absurd and the most offensive sentence you’ve written so far. Feminism and misogyny are not similar things. One is a political movement, the other is a prejudice against a demographic group. Take a look at how you framed that, because it’s very revealing.

Also, because I’ve seen most of the feminists here around for a while, I can tell you that most of us already know that women have fathers, husbands, and brothers, because most of us have fathers, husbands, and brothers. In fact, some of the people you see commenting here are fathers, husbands, or brothers.

10 years ago

My Jo: “The best interests of the child” standard allows judges to apply a personal belief that children are always better off with the mother when parents are (nearly) equally situated.

And yet… when men ask for custody they get it half the time. Since men aren’t the primary provider, as a rule, that implies the judges might be applying some sort of standard (other than your fictive, “personal belief”).

It also implies that fathers aren’t all that disadvantaged, as a class, but happen to choose, more often than not, that they don’t want custody.

feminists fail to realize that women have fathers, husbands, sons and brothers.

What? My partner (who is a feminist) is unaware that she has husbands? I don’t think so. She’s pretty happy to have them.

My sisters don’t seem to have forgotten me (though it’s possible the youngest doesn’t identify as a feminist, she’s only 14). I think the problem is the misogynists don’t realise feminists do actually know they have husbands/brothers/sons/lovers, and presume to assume they hate men, as opposed to want equality.

. Feminism is becoming increasingly irrelevant and distancing itself from the concerns of women will speed its demise.

Again with the confusing English. If distancing itself from the concerns of women will hasten the demise of feminism (which seems a bit tautologic) why should feminists rush out to support the MRM?

I don’t think feminism is the gender related movement on the wrong side of history. I also don’t think you have much of a clue about what feminism is actually about, nor that it’s losing ground.

Irrespective of that, I’m not looking to see what “history” has to say. I’m just working to make today better.

1 6 7 8
%d bloggers like this: