Human Rights

An open letter to Richard Cohen of the SPLC

Richard Cohen
Southern Poverty Law Center
400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104
Re: Identification of A Voice For Men as a Misogynist Web Site

Dear Mr. Cohen,

Yesterday I received the unfortunate news that your organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”) listed my website, avoiceformen.com, among others, as misogynistic, or “woman-hating.” This description is found in “Intelligence Report, Spring 2012, Issue Number: 145,” on your website at http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites.

Specifically, your report states the following:

A Voice for Men is essentially a mouthpiece for its editor, Paul Elam, who proposes to “expose misandry [hatred of men] on all levels in our culture.” Elam tosses down the gauntlet in his mission statement: “AVfM regards feminists, manginas [a derisive term for weak men], white knights [a similar derisive term, for males who identify as feminists] and other agents of misandry as a social malignancy. We do not consider them well intentioned or honest agents for their purported goals and extend to them no more courtesy or consideration than we would clansmen [sic], skinheads, neo Nazis or other purveyors of hate.” Register-Her.com, an affiliated website that vilifies women by name who have made supposedly false rape allegations (among other crimes against masculinity), is one of Elam’s signature “anti-hate” efforts. “Why are these women not in prison?” the site asks.

The excerpts you have chosen from these sites are taken out of context and misrepresent the goals of A Voice For Men (“AVfM”) and Register-Her.  Contrary to what readers of your site may be led to believe, the goals of SPLC and AVfM are quite similar: We both work to identify groups who seek to oppress others, and inform the public of the inequities they would perpetuate.  If you would allow me to do so, I would like to clear up some misconceptions about AVfM so that SPLC and its supporters can reconsider their view of my service.

A Voice for Men has more than 90 registered contributors.  Similar to the supporters of SPLC, AVfM’s contributors are male and female, Black, White, Hispanic and Asian; gay and straight; Jew, Atheist and Christian; from all points of the political spectrum; and they all hail from many different nations across the planet. We invite even more diversity. All of our contributors share a common interest and concern in the affairs of men and boys. They speak to the issues autonomously – not as a mouthpiece for the editor.  I regularly find AVfM publishing content I do not wholly agree with, or stated in terms that I personally would not necessarily use.  However, it is not my role to impose a uniform voice upon AVfM’s contributors – my role is to ensure that the site furthers its purpose of speaking truth to power.

The work of AVfM is vital and, despite what you may think, not dissimilar from the goals and aims of the SPLC.  The beneficiaries of SPLC’s labors are more likely than not to be men.  Men and boys face very serious problems in modern society.  Men are more likely than women to be homeless, on society’s bottom rungs.[1]  Men are more likely than women to commit suicide, as well.[2]  America’s exploding prison population, which overwhelmingly includes and victimizes the working class and new poor, contains more than 2 million people, but under 100,000 women.[3]  This disparity has had profound effects on African-American men, as more of them are incarcerated than in post-secondary education.[4]  Young men, ignorant rather than criminal, are placed on lifelong sex offender registries that prevent them from obtaining education and even healthcare, and ensuring that they will never contribute to society.[5]  Relatedly, male attendance in higher education has fallen to 40% and continues to diminish,[6] and men lag far behind women in obtaining advanced degrees.[7] The performance of boys in our grade, middle and high schools is deteriorating.  Meanwhile, men have become a minority in the workforce, ensuring their further social and economic marginalization, as well as any hope of upward economic mobility.[8]

Men face additional disparities in selective service, reproductive rights, healthcare funding, and many other areas.  These differences are documented and undeniable.  While society once rallied around the right of a woman to control whether she has a child – an the economic consequences it carries – there is no concomitant outcry to ensure men are not laden with the lifelong obligation of another human being.  While the NFL is awash with pink every October to raise awareness for breast cancer, nary a mention is made of its equally lethal male-only cousin, prostate cancer.[9]  The examples are endless.  These are problems that must be addressed in a just society. Sadly, until now, it would seem to have been in the purview of SPLC to help ameliorate these problems, not aggravate them.

I also believe you may have misunderstood some of AVfM’s semantics.  A “white knight” is an expression describing a traditional male, one who practices chivalry to a degree that is irrational and demeaning in this day and age. Also, the term “mangina” is not a euphemism for “weak men,” but rather a label for men who enable and excuse female misconduct – ranging from physical violence to exculpatory false reporting of crimes[10] – solely because the offender is female (and to gain women’s approval).

Regarding Register-Her.com, SPLC states the following:

“Register-Her.com, an affiliated website that vilifies women by name who have made supposedly false rape allegations (among other crimes against masculinity), is one of Elam’s signature ‘anti-hate’ efforts.”

To the contrary, all of the offenders on Register-Her.com who have been placed there for making false allegations have either 1) had the falsity of their claims proven in a court of law, or 2) publicly recanted their false police reports.  All of these actions are a part of public record. There is nothing “supposed” about these false rape accusations.

Curiously, though, SPLC has not taken any sort of stand on websites like RadFemHub.com, which openly advocates the extermination of males (including male infants), eugenics and sex-specific child abuse.  Perhaps these outlets may warrant further examination, and treatment from the SPLC as sources of Misandry.

The movement for civil and socioeconomic equality in America was and is difficult, and spans both racial and class lines.  For many years the majority resisted progress, but found that nothing could stem the human desire for civil liberty; Not slavery, not Jim Crow, not water cannons or batons or even bullets.  While the SPLC has done good work for the cause of equality across incomes and races, it was not lawyers and arms-length activists that took the brunt of standing up to an unjust system.  It was the men and women on the street that would not be bullied any more that forced the world to change. That world was as hostilely indifferent to the struggles of African-Americans as you appear to be to the struggles of men and boys.

There are hundreds of websites dedicated to real, actual hate on the Internet, with more springing up all the time.  AVFM, a human rights organization, is not one of them.  Nor are the others that you identify as sources of misogyny, such as The Spearhead and the False Rape Society.  Those who fear truth, and brand it as hatred and bigotry, hide behind the worst kind of cowardice – the sniveling complacency that for generations allowed the rich to starve the poor, for one person to own another because of the color of their skin, and for the officers at Nuremberg to claim they were “just following orders.”  For men and boys, there is no more time for complacency.

It is no surprise that a movement like AVfM’s began on the internet, as the free flow of information finally made it possible for men to see what they had long suspected: The laws and norms of society had turned against them. This movement will grow, as it has since its inception, and the time will come when the SPLC (and other groups) must admit our fundamental similarities and aspirations.  I am inviting you, with open arms, to do just that.

The alternative, I fear, is that you come down on the wrong side of history, with the likes of Dred Scott as your legacy.

Sincerely,
 
Paul Elam
Publisher,
avoiceformen.com

 

This letter available in .pdf download: Open-Letter-SPLC.



[4] Id.

[6] See Hanna Rosin, The End of Men, The Atlantic (Jul. 2010), http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/?single_page=true (last accessed Mar. 8, 2012).

[8] See Rosin, supra at n. 5.

[9] Amanda Chan, The Top 10 Deadliest Cancers – And Why There’s No Cure, MSNBC.com (Sept. 10, 2010), http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39102353/ns/health-cancer/t/top-deadliest-cancers-why-theres-no-cure/#.T1mL0a6D-1k (last accessed Mar. 8, 2012).

[10] In one study, Eugene J. Kanin found that 53% of women admitted to filing the false claim for use as an alibi. About Half of Rape Allegations are False, Research Shows, RADAR, http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php (last accessed Mar. 8, 2012).

 

About Paul Elam

Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio, the AVfM YouTube Channel, and appears weekly on AVFM Intelligence Report, Going Mental with Dr. Tara Palmatier and monthly on MANstream Media with Warren Farrell and Tom Golden.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • All2Keen

    “It’s a great day to be an MRA.” – Paul Elam

    And there is the t-shirt.

    Short, simple, positive and begs people to ask you what is an MRA.

  • harleypt
  • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

    We have a meeting going on right now regarding this issue at http://masculinists.net/video-chat we also meet nightly at 8pm Eastern. We are working on other schedules to include times convenient to men around the world.

  • Tawil

    Recommenndation: Make sure the letter is send to the highest number of individuals possible who work in the organization. That way the relevant ‘gatekeepers’ will be more likely to be asked to explain.

    Nothing like a bit of internal discussion and debate to bring accountability.

  • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

    What do you know… AlekNovy was right along, that fucking insane paranoid kook…

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-w#commentform

    Yes, that alek and his insane rambling. Remember him? The guy who kept warning us that we need to make PUA commercials and links off-topic? Yes, that lunatic and his crazy theories… He was so wrong.

    Oh wait, he wasn’t… Turns out alek was right all along…

    It’s probably still his fault. Knowing what he knows, he should have warned the MRA sooner, so it’s still his fault that the MRA is now officially run in the MSM as a “Pua movement”.

    I’m sorry, I’m not going to fake not being outraged and be polite about voicing this point, I fucking warned everyone in the MRM, and people, please don’t give me this “Oh they would have smeared us anyway” shit.

    They would have smeared us anyway, but they would have had to use a less effective smear, they wouldn’t have put us under the fucking “PUAs with fuzzy hats” banner… for fucking crying out loud.

    Do you now SEE why I was so loud about the urgency of declaring those things off-topic? People used to tell me… “Oh calm down alek, no need to point out each time a fucking PUA tries to sneak in an advert and link to a PUA blog and hire recruits for the pua cult, they’ll get over it.. Stop being so irrational alek and on such a crusade, relax alek.”

    What have we gained from allowing PUA recruiters to come into the MRA and advertise their cult? ABSOLUTELY ZILCH FUCKING NADA.

    Not a single PUA site or forum in the world discusses mra activism, but all they did was hijack resources from our movement, and allow this BS to happen. Now do you see why I was so loud about warning MRAs to chase away PUA advertisers?

    [/rant]

    • C.A. George

      Yeah, I’m always a little uneasy on the occasions that PUA shows up in the manosphere. I really think the MRM should keep its distance from PUA. It paints the wrong picture. If those in the MRM are buying books and DVDs on how to get laid, then our opponents accusations that we are just “losers who can’t get laid” starts to look like an accurate interpretation.

      • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

        Yep, we don’t care what some MRAs do in their private lives-just keep it off-topic from this movement.

        For example, I’m a bodybuilder, I am into nutrition and I’m also into getting laid and exploring sexuality… But I don’t use that as an excuse to advertise and try to sell BB or weird nutritional theories or conspiracies about sex on MRA sites just because the topics are semi-connected to being a man.

        If you’re a guy and you want to try out this PUA stuff for a few years, go ahead, but please open a separate “pua blog” with another identity and keep it separate from your MRA activism.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          I say let men talk about what we choose to talk about. Full stop. We get to disagree with each other.

          Hate mongers accusing innocent men of hate they never practiced, well I could give two shits about their opinion of us.

          • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

            I say let men talk about what we choose to talk about. Full stop. We get to disagree with each other.

            It’s not about disagreement my friend. It’s about diversion and derailment

            If marketers came into our sites and started ranting and promoting penis-enlargement-pills on every damn article no matter how off-topic, would you be fine with it?

            What if they invaded every single article and kept telling us that having a bigger penis is the solution to all male problems?

            Check the list of MRA values:

            http://www.avoiceformen.com/mission-and-values/

            Anything outside of this list is derailment. We can argue about the things on this list or how to tackle them, but chakra cleansing is not on this list, neither are aliens nor ufo ships nor is penis enlargement.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            You said “but please open a separate “pua blog” with another identity and keep it separate from your MRA activism”

            To which I replied “I say let men talk about what we choose to talk about. Full stop.”

            If the man wants to talk on his own blog about MRM and PUA so be it. If someone else on their own spaces wants to remove his PUA comments or his MRM comments, so be it. My position is simple.

          • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

            I don’t want to monopolize the conversation and I even cringe posting this one last reply…

            …but I’ll just post this one last clarification just so that I am officially on record with where I stand.

            You said “but please open a separate “pua blog” with another identity and keep it separate from your MRA activism”

            Let me clarify. I’m not a dictator who wishes to command what people do on their personal blogs.

            I was talking about people invading serious MRA sites (like AVfM) and constantly trying to push different kooky things like conspiracy theories, antisemitism, cult diets etc… etc…

            It was a suggestion, not a command.

            To which I replied “I say let men talk about what we choose to talk about. Full stop.”

            I’m pretty sure you’re not literal. Let me give you an extreme example. Imagine if 95% of the comments on AVfM were people pushing penis-enlargment pills or people talking about alien abductions. Would you be against telling those people to stop doing that? What would be an acceptable percentage for you?

            Imagine if random contributors who contributed anti-feminist texts always tried to sneak in jabs about penis-size or anti-semitic jokes. We constantly get contributors on here who will write a huge, overall good article, but will try to sneak in an advert to some kooky cult, or they’ll have 1-2 paragraphs about some kooky conspiracy shit (rockafellers, jews, WNs etc…).

            You obviously know there is a boundary, you might disagree where to put the boundary-but there is a boundary and you know it full well.

            If the man wants to talk on his own blog about MRM and PUA so be it. If someone else on their own spaces wants to remove his PUA comments or his MRM comments, so be it. My position is simple.

            You do realize we don’t disagree?

            I never said that we need to “command” or dictate to people what they post on their own blogs or that they need to only post MRA stuff on their blog.

            That would make me a hypocrite! :D – My very own blog is only 2% MRA.

            What I was saying, and you misunderstood is the following:

            -a-> If you have a personal blog that you label MRA, I am “begging you” to stick to topics the population finds sane. I can’t command anyone to not post theories about alien abductions… I am merely asking that you keep the two topics separate if you really care about the MRA’s success.

            Heck, your blog could be 95% about cooking and collecting insects and only 5% mra – what do I care, I do the same. But posting the equivalent of an “MRA post” that says aliens are funding the feminists? That’s fucking selfish and is serving nobody.

            -b-> I am suggesting that serious MRA sites do not link to sites which dabble in conspiracy theories, anti-semitism or promote any sort of cults. The damage is greater than the benefit. Not every site that has an anti-feminist post is an ally… Some do nothing more than ruin our reputation.

            That’s all I’m suggesting. I never suggested any of the things you thought I was suggesting. I am suggesting self-enforcement for personal blogs, and merely friendly warnings on serious sites like AVfM.

            If you see an article about family court and someone comes in with a comment about how “the jews” invented the family court to torture gentiles or some crazy shit like that – vote them down and publicly declare distance.

          • ThoughtCriminal

            I get what Alek is saying, and I get what AABM is saying. I think you guys are just talking across each other.

            I agree with both of you to a point. PUA isn’t necessarily MRA,I guess anything could be MRA if that was the intent,but what most of us who are seriously interested in a change in the status quo support are things like civil disobedience,non-violent debates on the facts, and petitioning governments and their officials for redress of grievances.

            We don’t advance any concomitant agenda,like the supposedly egalitarian radical feminists do when they say things like “Castrate all men to end rape!” and other vile shit like that.

            That said, it’s every man’s right to believe in whatever he wants and to promote that in his own space.

            I agree with AABM in supporting the rights of all men,even though some men are more harmful to the rights of men than some sexist women,I also support the idea of a Geneva convention guaranteeing rights to enemies in war time and protecting them from things like being sexually assaulted by (their) enemy soldiers in POW camps.

            The reason why I support this idea is that our behavior sets the standard by which others may treat us. It’s a lot more difficult to justify torturing your prisoners of war if the other side is treating your countrymen respectfully.

            So I understand what he’s saying. I support a mangina or white knight’s right to see his children,even if he would take mine away and give them to the mother and jail me for committing the “crime” of being divorced by their mother. I support his right to not suffer sexual assault in prison, even if he would laugh his ass off if it happened to me.

            I would not deny them the rights they should have-but-as in war, force them to pay reparations to the men they have wronged by engaging in hostilities against peaceful people. I would not extort unreasonable sums from them based on what I think they should owe, but ideally, compel them to be part of the cleanup effort.For example, a person who formerly purveyed biased or misleading statistics on domestic violence could be compelled to offer both sides of the story from now on.To the type of person who delights in harming men, this would be like a death sentence. For those who were compelled to do harm to men by the establishment, or motivated by fear of reprisal, or attacks by their peers, this sort of punishment will be a welcome opportunity to cleanse their consciences.

            It is possible to correct the problems men currently face,enact justice,and prevent future injustices in one measure,fairly and humanely, and in such a way that it is we who assume the mantle of the righteousness. We just cannot do all that and do it vengefully.

            The only people who will drag us down are those who are more interested in vengeance than justice,and these are the only people I would worry about distancing myself from.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            Alek, yes you and I are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.

            On AVfM if Paul wants to moderate, its his space, if a contributor or author wants to moderate and Paul has given them ability, its their space.

            If someone wants to advertise skittles, as much as I like them, over and agian, I’d likely get irritated.

            So we’re looking at several circumstance:

            1. Advertising without consent..
            2. Running your own space…
            3. Supporting a man even though he harms me…

            Refusing to let people spam my space is not contrary to my desire to support men. ThoughtCriminal summarized my intent as if he were a 167. I appreciate the way he said it. And I stand with him on it.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Fact:

      I am celibate. I have been told I hate women for this. I have been told I am a misogynist.

      Fact:

      My mother beat me. I have been told I hate women for stating this. I have told that stating this makes me a misogynist.

      Fact:

      I like bacon. I have been told I hate women for this and that I am a misogynist because I like bacon.

      I am not a PUA but yes, absolutely whether PUAs are in or out of the movement, facts are we will be declared to be misogynists regardless. I refuse to tolerate it anymore. I define what I hate, not women, not feminists, not men. What do I hate?

      Being told that I think, feel or do something I do not think feel or do. So these folks can fuck off and I welcome PUAs as I welcome all Men. It is my Oath as a Masculinist and will soon be in my Oath as first Initiate of The Temple of Men. No I am not joking. My life is dedicated to the Movement and that’s that. I support all Men.

      • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

        Hate mongers accusing innocent men of hate they never practiced, well I could give two shits about their opinion of us.

        Except I never said anything about pleasing the hate-mongers. Read carefully.

        I am talking about not driving away potential allies. In this case all the libertarians who could have come to MRA sites and see for themselves that the smear is untrue.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          I read exactly what you said. A person that is “driven away’ because they blame me for the conduct of other men are people that are best driven away. A reasonable person evaluates individuals on their own behavior. I still do this even after someone self identifies as a feminist. I demand the same in return. If it is not given to me I disengage from the person.

      • Zerbu

        “Fact:

        I am celibate. I have been told I hate women for this. I have been told I am a misogynist.”

        I bet if a woman was accused of hating men for that same reason, it would be considered rape.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          Aye. Since I am unafraid of using feminist tactics, I regularly accuse them of rape apologetics when they claim that I am a misogynist because I am celibate.

  • Jay

    Just wanted to say to Pierce Harlan and Paul Elam – you guys are heroes. I cannot say I respect any person in the world more than you both. I have been pointing out the unfair nature of particular laws for years and how they unjustly discriminate against men, and everytime I am automatically labelled a misogynist – without even having my arguments logically examined. It’s an incredibly tough climate. Wonderful letter Paul.

  • scatmaster

    Paul while my blog just links (basically without commentary) writings that interest me about the MRM. When you send your letter I demand that my site been included on their list.

    http://www.badgersbastion.blogspot.com

    Hell. I insist.

    • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

      Scatters,

      Don’t worry. You’re included. I mean just one look at that clam on a stick you wave about and by Jingo we all know how much ‘misogynation’ you carry.

      • scatmaster

        Cut it right off a mermaid Dr. F.

  • Keoni Galt

    Of the three articles they generated after reviewing the “manosphere” the absolute worst was the article, “Leader’s Suicide Brings Attention to Men’s Rights Movement.” (Note the disingenuous nature of the article begins right out the gate with the title…Thomas Ball is a martyr, he is not, nor ever was a “leader.” The MRM never heard of him until he immolated himself in protest).

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women

    In it, the SPLC essentially seeks to use the exact same tactic Bill Clinton used to try and tarnish the entire right wing talk radio genre with Tim McVeigh’s bombing of the OKC Fed building.

    It is by far the most ominous of the 3 articles posted…this is going to be their primary tactic moving forward.

    They are attempting to tie Thomas Ball’s suicide, and the Sodini, Lepine and Darren Mack murders as the actions of men “instigated” by MRM bloggers.

    Note the final sentence: “But she did not, becoming instead the latest in a long, sad line of victims of women-hating men.”

    There you have it.

    We are all now “women-hating men” and being associated with “women-hatred” we are de facto guilty of instigating murder and domestic violence.

  • AntZ

    Does anyone know who funds the disgusting mass of human filth known as “the southern poverty law center”? I think I want to write some letters to see if any of them have a heart or a conscience. Sending money to the SPLC is like sending money to the Ku Klux Klan.

  • Keoni Galt

    And how’s this blatant lie:

    “But Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology and the author of Equality With a Vengeance: Men’s Rights Groups, Battered Women, and Antifeminist Backlash, argues that cases in which fathers are badly treated by courts and other officials are not remotely the norm.

    That’s an utter lie.

    • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

      In her screwed up feminazi head, she’s actually “telling the truth”. Because if she had her way, men daring to no longer be good enough for a woman – need to be divorced, have 90% of everything taken, as well as have their balls castrated (to make it fair y’know)

      So to her men giving up 50% of everything to a woman who did nothing to earn it is not “bad treatment”. Heck, men even get to keep their organs!!

    • blueface

      Couldn’t agree more. Fathers are treated badly in the courts. It is the norm, because the laws are set up to disadvantage men.

      What makes this lie worse, though, is the attempt to hide behind a fake statistic.

      For example, 10 men people in court today. Tell them that either they agree to only see their kids for the bare minimum, or they won’t see them at all. Eight men, who don’t have the money for the legal fight, agree. The other two fight it out in court. One doesn’t get to see his kids at all, the other get to see his kids for a couple of extra days.

      The statistic will show that 9 out of 10 men agreed with the court decision.

      The laws are misandric. The courts are misandric. The statistics that come out of the courts are misandric.

      And if you ain’t misandric, you won’t get far in academia.

  • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/09/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-now-w#commentform

    Check out the comments… Half of the comments are PUAs arguing with the regular commentariat. They’re going around and yelling “shut up beta!” and “you need to treat women like shit, coz roissy told me so, society is a beta conspiracy and women love violent felons!!”

    Yes, we’re REALLY served by these doofuses going around and saying they’re our representatives… (rolleyes). They’re poisoning the well.

    I can’t wait till the other nutcases sweep in to “defend us from the SLPC” by swooping into the article and preaching about paleo diets, aliens and how “the medical establishment is killing people”… that will really make us look even better than shouting “you beta!” to random libertarians who are potential political allies…

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      Heavy weighs the crown…

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Not my representatives. Their actions have nothing to do with Paul’s, mine, or anyone else. I have this incredible ability to judge a man on his own actions, rather than on the actions of others. Society ought to give it a try.

      I am an UPUA..un PUA…being celibate by choice.

      • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

        My life is dedicated to the Movement and that’s that. I support all Men.

        Do you support male feminists?

        Do you support male feminists landing on MRA sites and selling theories about how good feminism is for men, and how it’s good for your sex life, and how supposedly being a feminist man is the bestest thing ever as they keep lying their ass off and giving false anti male information?

        Yes or no?

        If no, then why should other nutcase groups such as men trying to sell us magical diets or conspiracy theories about the medical establishment be embraced? Merely because they too own a penis?

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          “Do you support male feminists?”

          Did I stutter? Did I make myself unclear?

          I said “I support all men” and that’s damned well what I meant. I did not say “I support all actions of Men.”

          YES I support MALE FEMINISTS. How? By working for the freedom of Men. Full stop.

          “Do you support male feminists landing on MRA sites and selling theories about how good feminism is for men, and how it’s good for your sex life, and how supposedly being a feminist man is the bestest thing ever as they keep lying their ass off and giving false anti male information?”

          Do you support taking one statement of a Man and attempting to convert it to another?

          “Yes or no?”

          What am I your kid that you speak to me in demanding tones? I am a Masculinist. I support ALL MEN. Period. I should not have to say “when I say I support all men I do not mean I support men committing murder, molestation, misandry etc etc etc….”

          “If no, then why should other nutcase groups such as men trying to sell us magical diets or conspiracy theories about the medical establishment be embraced? Merely because they too own a penis?”

          Wrong. You do not get to decide for me which Men I support. I support all Men. I support you not having certain diets, not accepting conspiracy theories about medical establishment, having religion, not having religion, singing, not singing, living as you choose. I support this for all Men. Since I support this for all Men, it precludes me supporting that another Man decides for them who they live and that includes me.

          I don’t like the PUA philosophy. I am celibate. By choice. In seven days I take vow for one year to celibacy to focus all of my energies on Mens Rights. So it should be pretty clear that their philosophy is not my philosophy. Yet there are two things of import. Firstly if they want to speak about their philosophy, I support that. Secondly I oppose any idea that I am to be blamed for their philosophy and actions which I neither hold nor practice.

          Fence sitters that will run from the Movement because they judge everyone in the movement by a PUA are better left ran from the movement.

          • Stu

            Well I don’t support all men, and never will. Manginas will never have my support, nor will anyone, male or female who is peddling misandric rubbish.

            Sorry, but this masculinist oath thing sounds like cultish bullshit. I don’t get it…….there are as many men out there that are the enemies of mens rights as there are female feminists. In fact, if it weren’t for the men that support feminism…….feminists would be impotent to do anything to hurt mens rights at all. If you are going to fight an enemy, you first have to identify that enemy…….feminists….misandrists……and all who help further their cause…….are the enemy……male or female…….I don’t support our enemies….so I don’t…….and can’t……support “all men” Some men are our enemies after all.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            “Well I don’t support all men, and never will. Manginas will never have my support, nor will anyone, male or female who is peddling misandric rubbish.”

            Working to end things like false rape allegations, DV laws which jail men at a whim, onerous child support and the like ends up eventually benefiting all men. I think and hope I made quite clear that I can support a Man and not support his actions.

            “Sorry, but this masculinist oath thing sounds like cultish bullshit.”

            Cult used in the manner you are using it was first used in this manner by in the 1930s. A feminized world took a perfectly legitimate and positive term and turned it negative. It originally simply meant a group of people bound by an ideal, philosophy, or person. We Masculinists are bound by the ideal that misandry should end, the philosophy that Men are men, men are good (not moral always) and men are worthy, and we are bound by a person, our own personal selves. So a cult? Sure why not.

            Our oath is one wherein we swear or pledge (depending on the masculinist) to work to end misandry.

            “I don’t get it…….there are as many men out there that are the enemies of mens rights as there are female feminists.”

            Yes there are.

            “In fact, if it weren’t for the men that support feminism…….feminists would be impotent to do anything to hurt mens rights at all.”

            True that.

            “If you are going to fight an enemy, you first have to identify that enemy…….feminists….misandrists……and all who help further their cause…….are the enemy……male or female…….”

            We have identified our enemy.

            “I don’t support our enemies….”

            Well first, my response was originally about PUAs. It was suggested that a PUA keep a separate blog of his PUAing and his MRMing. I stated I support all Men and that I support PUAs speaking their mind. The response I received was “wa wa what about feminist men! do you support them!!!??? Yes or no?” I replied yes and I explained what I meant. We are all adults here and I should not, as I stated in my reply, have to say “by supporting all men, even feminist men, I do not mean supporting ALL ACTIONS of all Men.”

            Honestly this is not that complicated Brother. I do not know why people read more into what I said than what I said. If a feminist man is drowning, I WILL swim to him. If he is falsely accused of rape, I will speak up for him. If he is slapped in the face or raped by a woman I will say he did not deserve it. I will SUPPORT him. I will encourage him. We Masculinists have had feminists that converted to Masculinism and stated they were still feminists. That lasted, countem, FOUR DAYS tops then they rejected their feminism. The Indian Hindu MRAs have accepted Muslim men in trouble with 498A with open arms. The Muslim men at first do not trust them, but then they convert to MRAs. I follow this successful pattern.

            To follow this I state plainly what action of the Man I repudiate. But the Man, the being himself, I support.

            I can support a Man and I can deny support for certain actions. And in any case I see no reason why an MRA that is a PUA should not speak of his MRM and PUA activities in his own blog. Any blog owner or site owner that wishes to remove any comments, that’s their business.

            “so I don’t…….and can’t……support “all men” Some men are our enemies after all.”

            Didnt ask you to. I stated what I do. Masculinism is not for all Men. We just support and defend all Men. We do not defend all actions of all men.

            I hope that helps clarify.

          • Codebuster

            So what’s your message, AABM? Who is your enemy? Is it, simply, women? Are the fine women that support our cause on this site to be counted among the enemy? I’m sure that you would not be so stupid so as to believe that. Which leaves us with the generic “womankind” as the enemy. Is it generic “womankind” that is the enemy? I would reject that, too.

            Or is it more specific, like feminist women? If it is, then why do you distinguish between male and female feminists?

            Stu’s comment reflects my perspective 100%, so I have little more to add. But I am puzzled about your own perspective. What happens when two countries go to war with one another? How does each of them define the enemy? Geography? Belief? Religion?

            Or might you be alluding to some kind of Ghandian or Christian ideal of peaceful revolution? I suppose I can respect that sort of position as logical, at least, though I won’t necessarily agree with it.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            “So what’s your message, AABM?”

            The Four and Twelve: All Men are Men, All Men are Good, All Men are Worthy, All Masculinists are Dutiful. That is my message.

            “Who is your enemy?”

            Since I am enemy to no one, my enemy is anyone that decides to be my enemy.

            “Is it, simply, women”

            Who said anything about women?

            “Are the fine women that support our cause on this site to be counted among the enemy?”

            That is for them to answer. Masculinism is growing and many women are joining our ranks. As the Christian Bible says, “The Women are a large army…”

            “I’m sure that you would not be so stupid so as to believe that. Which leaves us with the generic ‘womankind’ as the enemy.”

            Not us, you. I never made reference to women being the enemy.

            “Is it generic ‘womankind’ that is the enemy? I would reject that, too.”

            Maybe it is generic pretzelkind. See, pretzels are as much the enemy as women. Since I never claimed pretzels were the enemy either.

            “Or is it more specific, like feminist women? If it is, then why do you distinguish between male and female feminists?”

            I do not. You did. I judge individuals as individuals.

            “Stu’s comment reflects my perspective 100%, so I have little more to add. But I am puzzled about your own perspective.”

            My own perspective is simple. The substitution for instance of “enemy” with “women” was made by you, not me.

            “What happens when two countries go to war with one another? How does each of them define the enemy? Geography? Belief? Religion?”

            We are not talking about two countries.

            “Or might you be alluding to some kind of Ghandian or Christian ideal of peaceful revolution?”

            I am a Masculinist. I am talking about a Masculinist Revolution.

            “I suppose I can respect that sort of position as logical, at least, though I won’t necessarily agree with it.”

            Ok. Do note that logic has not won you MRAs this battle. The Masculinist will use logic when needed and we will use irrationality when needed. We will use feminist tactic when needed. We will be religious, spiritual, seculary, theist, atheist, socialist, capitalist all when needed. No longer will we wait for someone else, we simply are going to gird our hips and do the thing that needs done. Whether you respect our methods and tactics or not will ultimately matter little to us as we are focused on results. We have our gurus and we are gurus. The ones we need to respect us individually are our own individual selves.

          • Stu

            The way I’m using the word cult, may not be the original meaning that existed before I was born, but the way I used it is consistent with the current commonly held meaning.

            The statement…..”I support all men” may have a different meaning to you then it does to most people who read it. The fact is that I’m not twisting the meaning of what that statement says to most people.

            Joe Biden is a man, so he’s included in “all men”. What would the average person who knows of Joe Biden’s history think if I said…..I support Joe Biden? Adolf Hitler, Manboobz, Ted Bundy……..all men.

            Nope, I do not support all men, and will not take an oath to do so. Why, because I have no intention of supporting men who are the enemy of human rights, or men’s rights in particular.

            To fight an enemy, you can not support members of the enemies forces. You are fighting against misandry, against feminism…….are you not? That means you must fight against men who promote these things…….fighting against somebody’s attitudes, beliefs, or actions is the opposite of supporting them.

            So your oath…..to support “all men” is not true…..unless of course you attach a different meaning to that statement then the average person……the majority would. Which is what I think you are doing. Wouldn’t it be better to put that oath into language that is perfectly understandable to most people….men…….and to have it in terms that most men can agree with.

            How about, I swear an oath to fight against all agents of misandy/feminism, be they male or female, and to support the rights of men in all things, blah blah blah.

            I’m sure there are plenty of others here who could explain what I mean better than I, but I’m willing to bet that the vast majority of men here, and woman for that matter, get where I’m coming from and agree with what I’m trying to explain.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            Stu,

            I get where you are coming from. I meant what I said when I said I support all Men and when I explained in detail what that meant and that I could support a man but not support his actions. I wish no harm ever to any man. This is the Masculinist Philosophy.

            My Oath is my Oath and it is only for me to interpret. Another Masculinist taking The Oath of The Masculinist is the only one that may interpret his Oath. I do not interpret it for him.

            I do not hold that you should say The Oath. The Oath must only be sworn or pledged by those that wish to do so.

            As we Masculinists say, so I say to you, Peschena Eiwa Paquaia my Brother. Which when translated means “I, a Man, notice that you also, are a Man.”

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

      That’s the way PUA’s are: all mouth and no brains yet they think they are god’s gift to humanity. If they’re a gift where is the return department? These STD carriers better not fuck it up for us.

  • Keoni Galt

    Man oh man, I’ve read and now re-read that article…it’s a veritable case study in feminist agit-prop.

    “One kind of abuse that is undeniable is the vilification of individual women on certain men’s group websites. The best example of that may be Register-Her, a registry of women who “have caused significant harm to innocent individuals either by the direct action of crimes like rape, assault, child molestation and murder, or by the false accusation of crimes against others.”

    Got that?

    It is an undeniable kind of abuse to register any women who commits a real crime of violence or is exposed or admits to falsely accusing a man of such crimes.

    Than we have this:

    “And many are quick to endorse violence against women.”

    This was bolstered by quoting Paul…and it even included the context:

    “The real question is whether men deserve to be able to physically defend themselves from assault … from a woman.”

    In other words, putting forth the idea that a man defending himself from assault by a woman, is an endorsement of violence against women.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      This Cohen piece of detritus is the kind of filthy sick fuck that I detest more than anything on this earth.

      The men on the “sex-offenders” registry, this “the kind of abuse that is undeniable vilification of individual men”?

      Self-defense from the physical act of aggression of another human being, this “endorses violence against women”?

      This Cohen piece of detritus is the kind of filthy sick fuck that I detest more than anything on this earth.

  • Not buying it

    I am a black man & i am really sick & tired of feminist trying to use civil rights organisations to smear the men’s rights movement as a racist misogynist movement which is far from the truth, the movement is comprised of men & women of all colors & creeds & they are people who are concerned with the many negative dismal stats when it comes men in general & poorer young men in particular.

    it seems the only people interested in the truth or sounding any kind of alarm when it comes to the dire state affairs of men specially the poor by providing solid stats & facts from reliable source’s (government & private entities) are on website’s like (AVfM) & others like it(spearhead,false rape society,..etc) & now they are being silenced,attacked & Marginalised as bigot’s for being too effective in highlighting the fallacies of the feminist movement & all of it’s negative effect on men & women.

    Will let me make a prediction by saying they will not succeed, truth & reality & has always prevailed throughout history & it will in this case too, i just hope us as a society don’t have to pay too high of a price for it.

    The feminist movement represented by the national organisation of women & various others are trying to silence any public discourse when it comes to gender equity as it relates to men.& it seems their goal is to stop anybody whether on university campus’s or the cyber space of the internet from trying to shed a light on the draw backs of the so called unintended consequences & harm full effects of various policies & biased legislation’s like VAWA.

    These policies are harming all men in general & having a profound negative effects on certain segment of society, particularly young men from poorer back grounds, regardless of color ,!!!! does anybody at (SPLC) gives a dam to the plight of these men being ensnared by these misandric laws any consideration, or does everybody believe’s in the disposability of men???

    • Stu

      I wouldn’t be so sure that they won’t succeed, in fact, they have had a great deal of success already. This organizations collectively known as the abuse industry, are nothing but a parasite on society. They employ hundreds of thousands of individual parasites whose sole purpose for existing is to extract money from society for fighting to cure problems that only exist in greatly smaller quantities then is required to justify the huge industry that exists to combat them. They are continually trying to validate their own existence, and hide their parasitical nature by turning mole hills into mountains…….not enough rapes…….redefine rape to mean any sex…..anytime…..with anyone….and convince the dumb arse public that they are heroes fighting bravely against a massive enemy with great bravery…..when they are just bullshit artists sucking money out of government and private citizens by creating hate, and fear. They have had a great deal of success. I’m continually amazed at how far they have come, and what warped, twisted, convulsed bullshit they have got people to believe.

      But, organizations like these can only exist in a society that has a massive surplus of resources. They are a drain on the community……all of these people…….produce nothing…..and consume much. If common sense and truth do not eradicate them……the coming collapse and depression will. A parasite can only survive while the host is able to provide the sustenance to keep it alive……and the day is coming when they will be cut off from the life support they live off.

      • Codebuster

        dang, once again, we are 100% in agreement. I make no prediction as to winning or losing. Being on the side of truth is redemption enough.

        • ThoughtCriminal

          If we show up,speak the truth, and refuse to back down, we win. It doesn’t matter if they drag us from the back of a car down a cobblestone street afterward, and they actually might, we have still won. When you stand up for what is right,everyone wins.

          On another note, the radfems showing their strong support for the SPLC is like having the KKK endorse your presidential bid. I hope they make their support as public as possible. We have the statements of this actual hate group archived,when the MSM picks up on it,we’ll just send out a little press release to clarify the parts that the feminist media whitewashers will undoubtedly leave out,like the vociferous support for the murder and abuse of male children.

          Once the public sees who’s in bed with the SPLC, and by that I’m referring to all those would-be child murderers,eugenicists,and gender fascists,we won’t have to utter a single word in our own defense.

          On Ben’s remark from above, I’m laughing my ass off about that 70% of rapes go unreported claim. Wasn’t it 60% a couple of years ago? If we hold out long enough,they will be claiming 100% of rapes go unreported. Then we should have no trouble at all in convincing people they’re full of shit.

      • Not buying it

        I think this just might back fire on them Stu, some times arrogant liberals specially on the far left of the spectrum bite more than they can chew, the simple fact is (SPLC) lumped web site’s that are unknown to the average Jane & joe blue pill’r site’s like (AVfM) & fidelbogen’s site with others site’s like SAVE, falsely accused society,..etc, the average Jane(even if she’s not a feminist) & Joe will dismiss them due to the direct language, the simple fact is we don’t mince words at site’s like this & unless the average Joe or Jane knows where we coming from he or she will write us off as misogynist’s, specially after some parasitic organisation parading as a civil rights organisation like (SPLC) throws an accusation like this, anyway i don’t think (SPLC) can make their accusation stick as easily on SAVE,falsely accused society for example due to their some what more acceptable public image like Alek NOVY alluded to earlier on this discussion page, just a calculated guess on my part or maybe wishful thinking on my part bud.

    • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

      10,000 plusses, my friend.

      Feminism hijacked, leeched off of, parasited, molested, perverted and bastardized the once noble Civil Rights movement in a manner so disgusting I can hardly even talk about it.

      Women were never oppressed. Females, as group, have never lived shorter, lower quality lives than males, as a group.

      Women were never oppressed. Females have never sacrificed more than males.

      The words ‘women’ and ‘oppression’ are like oil and water, they do not go together.

      Is there a sicker lie?

  • Luek

    Paul you are looking at the SPLC through rose colored glasses. They are a for profit organization that is in business to make a good living via contributions for their executive staff (Morris Dees) and other well paid employees of SPLC. The organization itself has been under some scrutiny by the media for their fund raising tactics and the cash flow of the contributions they get.

    Actually, it is an honor to be on their shit list because it is said one can be judged by the quality and type of enemies they have.

    SPLC SUCKS! THEY ARE A PREDATORY WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING OUTFIT!

    Also, for what it is worth read Morris Dee’s divorce decree from his wife. It has been all over the net for years!

    http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/MorrisDeesDivorcePapers.pdf

    • Paul Elam

      I appreciate the sentiment of your post, but honestly, I wish you guys that actually think I am naive would just give it a rest, and THINK before you presume to know how I look at anything.

      Study some more of my work. Look at how I have approached things in the past. And perhaps consider that I think strategically enough to adjust the tone and content of specific pieces at specific times for a reason.

      Vomiting out everything you think and everything you know up front is piss poor strategy.

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        We’re watching your strategy and learning.

      • scatmaster

        I think those of us who have been around awhile Paul know you don’t have a naive bone in your body.

      • Luek

        I meant no offense to you Paul but I was somewhat taken back when I read in the first 3 paragraphs that AVfM and SPLC were “similar” in goals and follower makeup. The main goal of SPLC is to enrich Morris Dees and the other hangerons by scaring the socks off of elderly contributors to SPLC by inferring there are zillions of Nazis and KKK out there that will get them if it wasn’t for SPLC filing SLAP lawsuits on occasion against them.

        • Paul Elam

          Our real goals are similar to their claimed goals. And there was good reason to state things in that way, on this subject, at that particular time. Take a look at the second article I did and you will see a difference. But again, it is calculated. Each piece has a reason for being written the way it is.

          I didn’t take offense, but again, I just encourage you to consider that there is more to this business than just pouncing on every detail with every word written.

          We are very in your face with the articles here, but that does not mean we ignore the need for finesse when the time is right.

          I appreciate your concerns, but trust me, by the time we are done there will be nothing left unsaid.

  • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

    Quoting from the SPLC:

    “Run by a New Jersey Tea Partier with a financially underwater house ”

    Classism.

    “and a chronic medical condition, ”

    Ableism.

    Nuff said.

  • DarkByke

    We are not making this up, this is a truth.

    Anyways, just wanted to leave a quick comment on another great article. I sure hope they read this.

  • rebtus

    American feminist are generally porky and ugly, but Russian feminists are slender and attractive.At least this You Tube video of topless protesters against Putin and voting creates that impresion.

    • Zerbu

      It doesn’t matter how attractive or unattractive they are. The point is what they do, not what they look like.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    Hmmmm. Just tried to submit something. Did it go through? If so, delete this. If not, please post the words below:

    Man oh man: let’s take this ball and run with it!

    (1) Tear the boneheads to shreds on radio, TV, etc.

    (2) Research what other misandric screeds the jamokes have pumped out in their publications, speeches, etc.

    (3) See if they have anything on youtube we can use to our advantage, creating more youtubes…and publicity.

    (4) Call in air-support and assistance from other MRM sites and spokespeople.

    (5) Find out what other members of this toxic claque has said and written that’s demonized men. Any of their lawyers, paralegals, board members, etc. done things anti-male?

    (6) Get Ben involved. See what this “mentally-impoverished” group has said and done to protect males in Southern colleges.

    (7) Send up flares-and-prayers to Anonymous. Maybe they’ll repeat what they did per the sexist Swedes.

    Beezjuzz: that doofuss manginksi sure handed us a golden goose!

  • http://patricestanton.com/ wholebrainartist

    Don’t have the time to read all the comments right now but just wanted to say, Grand-Slam Home Run, Mr. Elam. If this is what you accomplish while you “rest” I need to know if that’s a “Sleep Number” or a “DUX” bed you rest on!

    1) Perhaps it’s all a misunderstanding; perhaps SPLC simply defines “Intelligence” differently than the rest of us do.
    2) I’m hoping your statements of being akin to the SPLC are mere rhetoric, because they are one of the biggest professional hate-groups in the USA. At least for the last 15-20 years they have been lapdogs to any and all politicos with their own anti-Liberty, hysteria-mongering anti-gun Agenda. Here is only one quick reference, but MANY more can easily be found: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/southern-poverty-law-center-equates-gun-owners-with-haters
    3) Based upon my knowledge of them, being labeled a Hate-Group by the pimps at the SPLC ought to be considered a badge of Honor – I knew there was something I really, really liked about this site the first time I visited about a year ago.

    Thanks for being on the front lines, Paul.

  • http://www.cyclotronmajesty.net CyclotronMajesty

    So the matrix attempts to smother their opposition…

    I didn’t see the NFCM up on that list… wonder what stopped them? Perhaps it’s non profit status? Maybe it was this article… (which I still cannot palate or comprehend being on the NFCM):

    http://ncfm.org/2012/03/news/feminism-news/ncfm-mexico-liaison-robert-yourell-asks-could-a-feminist-be-good-for-your-love-life/

    Someone PLEASE explain that to me…

    NFCM also gets very little traffic it seems.

    I’m just amazed that a government law firm can criminalize a group for holding a political view, and perhaps experiencing an emotion? The list of sites and rebuttals to the argument are superficial and meandering. I think this action by the SPLC clearly shows conspiracy in action. Feminist / Government conspiracy.

    Criminalizing the disagreement with feminism and having a certain emotion towards women seems the epitome of tyranny and oppression. Not to mention hateful.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Masculinists.net wasn’t there either. And we have actual articles with titles such as “I hate women, really I do, honest!” We are in process of writing our demand to be added to the list. We were highly offended that we were not on it.

  • http://traitorsofmen.blogspot.com forweg

    RadFem Hub is coming out in full support of SPLC, even soliciting donations for them:

    http://feministsspeak.blogspot.com/2012/03/genocide-advocates-radfem-hub-solicit.html

    You know there’s something wrong when a supposed civil rights organization is earning the support of legitimate hate groups.

    • Steve_85

      Follow their link to manboobz’s site… someone made an awesome rage-face-Elam in the comments. Paul should use that as his avatar for a few weeks.

      http://i.imgur.com/EB7zi.png

      Would have to change the background though.

      • Paul Elam

        Hmmm. Interesting idea. :)

        • Steve_85

          Winning!

          +1 internets for you sir!

          • Steve_85

            Almost an hour later and I’m still laughing.

        • http://lifespeculiarities.blogspot.com/ Izzey

          Laughing my fucking ass off. (Did not even want to abbreviate that) ;)

          Perfect retort without uttering a word.
          You definitely should keep that as your gravatar.

          ha ha ha

          • Kimski

            Agreed.
            Best feminist repellent I’ve seen in a while.

            Will it be available as a spray or a shirt??

          • Paul Elam

            Yeah, I knew the moment I saw it I was home. Feels all warm and gushy. :)

        • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

          Hey Paul, here’s the edited version:
          http://i.imgur.com/q2SAk.jpg

          I removed their background, try using this one.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            Excellent!

          • Paul Elam

            Cool!

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/Razlo5000?feature=mhum Raz

    So…according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the rules are: if you’re anti-feminists, you’re misogynist. Additionally, if you’re openly advocating violence, & bigotry towards the male half of the population, you’re a legitimate proponent of equality?

  • jdgalt

    The rich have never starved the poor, and saying so makes you sound like the same kind of theftists SPLC are. But the rest of your letter is right on.

  • keyster

    Just in case anyone was wondering NWO/Socialist George Soros and his “affiliates” are SIGNIFICANT funders of SPLC and it’s activities.

    His “grants” are in the millions, (primarily meant for immigration, amnesty and open border efforts).

    You can bet that if there’s a significant leftist movement afoot anywhere in the USA, Soros money is behind it.

    SPLC is a “right wing watch-dog group”. The human/civil rights branding is nothing but a front.

    If anyone thinks the MRM can co-opt the “Human Rights” narrative, they’re dreaming. Connect the dots people!

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Dots? These are splashes of red paint and flashing neon arrows.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      The Masculinists are seeing many Jews, Muslims, Christians, Atheist, Pagans and others amongst us. We’ve found out that Jews love us. A Jew was the first one besides me to speak The Oath of The Masculinist in a video to others, all others wrote and sent it.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    Ben: Have you considered writing something about “Men in High-heels?” for more public, er, publications?

    I think some conservative outlets might be interested.

    Back in the day the Washington Times, though allegedly right-of-center, covered men’s issues. They might again, especially since it seems to have butted heads already with Dees’ outfit. You could tie into the “Sudden Potty Law Center” shite AND the irony that the truly “real men” today are those who buck being demonized by femanginaknights (a demented branch of Mennonites?), the weenies being males who buckle under the lash of misandric lasses. That is, it’s the knights who are nuts while supposed women -haters are sane.

    The frat farce you describe reminded me, yet again, of Heller. In his great CATCH-22, Captain Black inaugurates a “Glorious Loyalty Oath Crusade.” The humor, of course, is wickedly black (pun intended). Like feminists he “talks” about crew-members being free to sign or not.

    Then he adds, “The men don’t have to sign Piltchard and Wren’s loyalty oath if they don’t want to. But we need you to starve them to death if they don’t.”

    Too effin’ true!

    Anyway, good you haven’t given up. The ship o’ the world takes some time to reverse course, but it’s happening.

    Finally, Paul: Since the SPLC has “deep pockets,” might we sue it for publicity and profit? Maybe get Sid Siller to present out case?

    • Steve_85

      I would donate to support this cause! In fact, I think I’ll donate again anyhow. Got some extra dollars this week.

      • Kimski

        Great idea!
        Money on the way.

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

      Bro, I’m usually the first one on board to what you propose but I can’t go along with this:

      Maybe get Sid Siller to present out case?

      Siller is about protecting his income above all else and he could have used his clout to push the MRM forward but he didn’t. He just played it safe.

      I believe Roy Den Hollander is a better choice: http://www.roydenhollander.com/

      • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

        Mr. Roy is doing god’s work. Bless him for it.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    Dees reminds me of the founders of Promise Keepers, the Good Men Project, and other male-shaming outfits. To wit: someone who hasn’t owned-up to the shite in his own life, so thinks all men must be as eff’d up as himself.

    Shrinks call it “projection.”

    (Makes one wonder if he was a racist before joining SPLC).

    Dees is on a tear about PUAs and anyone else who has a pair and refuses to be a mangina per women. Why? Perhaps because they have what he lacked: integrity?

    He seems to have been unable to trump his Inner Creep with “character.” So now he’s jealous of guys who can pump-that-poon and not sell their souls. He atones for his “sexual sinfulness” by being feminism’s lapdog, flagellating himself while nipping the ankles of any men who come near his would-be harem.

    Por ejemplo:

    “This Morris Dees guy from the SPLC just goes way overboard….Here are two pages from his divorce proceedings. This man is not just a sex addict and a womanizer, that’s not a problem. Worse, he is an out and out pathological narcissist. He’s like Ted Bundy or Jeffrey MacDonald….For instance, it appears that Dees enjoyed peeping on his 16 year old daughter when she was naked. Also, at age 16, he appears to have either attempted to have sex with her or at the very least acted very inappropriately with her….Morris Dees, sexually, is simply a creep. I hate to say it, but it’s true. He’s more than a womanizer; he’s an emotionally destroying monster. He’s a sexual psychopath and an emotional terrorist. As a man, he has no class. As a human being, he’s no good. The guy’s simply a prick….”

    http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/morris-dees-pathological-narcissist-and-ultra-creep/

    In sum: what a PERFECT target for collective action from the manosphere! He’s the ticket to growing the MRM. All we need to do is tell the truth about him….and his misandric enterprise.

  • Steve_85

    Off topic:

    This guy gets it. The WAR ON WOMEN!!!

    • Kai

      I don’t think he does get it. Birth control doesn’t necessarily have to be about sex. There are plenty of health benefits that come with birth control. Also, she was testifying *after* Obama changed his policy from placing the responsibility to pay from the Catholic Churches to insurance companies. Because, remember, this all started not because of any current mandate. It’s about future mandates that would come in to effect in 2014 under the new healthcare law. Yet the Right totally distorted that point and turned it in to “She wants to force Catholic schools to pay her to have sex”. Good grief. So what’s that about distortion?

      Also, an organization opposed to birth control in 2012 is akin to a flat Earth society complaining when modernity interferes with their detachment from reality. If they’re going to be so backwards about it voluntarily then they have to shut up when reality overlaps in to their delusional world.

      Oh yeah, I’ll like to add, the reason why Planned Parenthood can offer birth control so cheaply is because of government funds. But if certain people get there way even that wont be around for long.

      • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

        “Also, an organization opposed to birth control in 2012 is akin to a flat Earth society and complaining when modernity interferes with their detachment from reality. If they’re going to be so backwards about it voluntarily then they have to shut up about it.”

        No it is not. The earth is not flat. Whereas birth control is a choice. Some will think it moral, some not and some won’t care. But if someone does not like birth control and thinks it is wrong, it is not the same as believing the earth is flat, which is demonstrably false.

        I believe in birth control so much, I am celibate.

        • Kai

          Why is the Church against birth control? Because of what they call “natural law”. They think there shouldn’t be any artificial barriers getting in the way towards the development of life. That’s all fine and dandy if that’s what they want to believe. But in the 21st century that’s the philosophical equivalent to believing the earth is flat. They can believe what ever they want, but reality and practicality is going to disrupt it. When that happens they whine and get all pissy about it. I’m saying they need to stop being such whiners and concede that reality shouldn’t always have to acquiesce to their religiosity.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            No, it’s not the 21st century equivalent of believing the earth is flat because the earth is not flat. Whereas the decision to like or not like something is a personal choice. I get to think all you people that eat asparagus are disgusting louts. You might not like that, but it’s not the same as my believing the earth is flat.

            Legislating against birth control or asparagus eaters is something I oppose. I can do so without conflating the two with a false allegory.

        • Kai

          For some reason there’s no reply button to your last response to me so I’m doing it here.

          You’re completely missing the point to what I’m saying. What I am saying is, their belief is so at odds with modern developments that they are going to be confronted with challenges to their beliefs. Obama made a compromise that didn’t force them to go against their beliefs, so that isn’t even the issue that I’m talking about. What I am saying is, they are being whiners about this issue when they know very well that their “natural law” philosophy is out dated by many centuries. They didn’t want to let it go even after Obama offered an alternative that can solve the problem. That is what makes them whiners and why this small issue has been made in to a big kerfuffle.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            “You’re completely missing the point to what I’m saying.”

            I am not missing your point at all. I know very well what you are saying. My disagreeing with your point does not mean I am “missing” it.

            Being opposed to birth control, abortion, or even gasp, sex, does not mean someone is not living in the modern world. These are opinions. The Church and even Zetas get to dislike these things if they want and even not want to associate with people who do them and that’s just A-OK.

            “What I am saying is, their belief is so at odds with modern developments that they are going to be confronted with challenges to their beliefs.”

            Every one of us is going to be confronted with our beliefs. SO what? That does not make anyone’s beliefs at odds with modern developments. What modern “developments” oppose the idea that someone can think birth control wrong? Its a choice and has nothing to do with science. If you are talking sheer numbers, then the hundreds of millions that do agree with it contravene your claim. Numbers of people do not make a belief right or wrong. If you dont like their belief dont fucking work for them. I am Pagan, you see me working for a Catholic business? Nope. Cause I have a little thing we Men like to call FUCKING BRAINS and INTEGRITY. I dont go to work someplace and try to force them to live my lifestyle.

            “Obama made a compromise that didn’t force them to go against their beliefs, so that isn’t even the issue that I’m talking about.”

            False. You and Obama are not the ones that decide if the decision goes against their beliefs. They are. All of the time people tell me that I am not living my Oath of the Masculinist. They don’t get to decide if I am living it. I do.

            “What I am saying is, they are being whiners about this issue”

            Yes because people who have beliefs different from us are “whiners”.

            “when they know very well that their “natural law” philosophy is out dated by many centuries.”

            They get to have beliefs that are centuries old. I bet you have beliefs that are centuries old. For instance the belief that when new beliefs come along old ones have to be discarded and they are wrong, that’s a centuries old belief too. I know someone in this conversation between you and I that holds that belief and it damned well aint me.

            “They didn’t want to let it go even after Obama offered an alternative that can solve the problem.”

            Obama and you are not the ones that decide if the alternative is the solution for them. They want nothing to do with any of their activities being about birth control. Period. That includes them paying an insurance company which then pays for birth control. So no, he did not solve the problem, he enforced federal will.

            “That is what makes them whiners and why this small issue has been made in to a big kerfuffle.”

            No they are not whiners. The ones that are whining are the ones who have no integrity and deliberately go to work for companies, schools and churches that they know have opposition to their lifestyle and then insist that those persons change their beliefs while the worker gets to keep her belief. She is the one making this a big kerfuffle because there are literally millions upon millions of companies nowadays she could have chosen to work for that would pay for birth control. We have a word for women like this. Cunt.

            Cant Understand Normal Thinking.

            As I said I am a Pagan, and I do not choose to work for companies that violate my beliefs and then try to force them into my belief system. That’s because I have integrity and honor and no desire to force other people to live my my lifestyle like these worthless slags who spend their day joining jobs, not working and sucking the lifeblood from our society.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    It’s never-ending, the gift that keeps on giving! We can feast on SPLC’s carcass forever!

    Dees done demonized da wrong dudes (and dudettes).

    Behold, some folks we might want to contact:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4f6HgW0Dkw

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Fucking bullies and terrorists. I extend to them no more courtesy than I would Stalin, Hitler, Bin Laden, ………

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      “We asked CNN to remove some of the CRAZY things he said….”

      Um this guy is a bigot who thinks it is ok to conflate the neuro atypical with either real or purported hatred. Referring to people as crazy throws the neuro atypical under the bus Mr. Cohen and this is wholly unacceptable to spread hate like this. Clearly you and your SPLC are spreading. We demand you cease and desist immediately.

    • Kai

      O’Rielly represents everything that’s wrong with society today: No standards, anything goes. SPLC doesn’t like him, but other people do like what he has to say so therefore he’s a voice which “should” be heard. Facts don’t matter. If Dobbs was perpetuating lies about Obama’s citizenship, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is how I *feeeeeeeeel*. All opinions are equal because in the end what matters is how I feeeeeeeeel.

      • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

        Who do you think we should contact?

        Ed Schultz?

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

      O’Reilly has had Marc Rudov on his show so it’s worth a shot.

      It never hurts to try.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “They are attempting to tie Thomas Ball’s suicide, and the Sodini, Lepine and Darren Mack murders as the actions of men ‘instigated’ by MRM bloggers”

    What? How DARE they!

    Why no mention that we drugged all the unicorns at Andrea Dworkin’s marriage to a vibrator?

    Why not kudos for our struggle to ensure that every fierce, feisty feminist on every campus world-wide gets her own duenna?

    Why no recognition that due to evil us, every female health plan now includes free smelling salts to revive womyn who faint during math classes?

    Finally, why no admission that, after after seeing herds of bovine-like, harry-legged harridans marching in streets we named the phenomenon: “the wimmin’s moooooo-vement”?

    • scatmaster

      LOL

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “Couldn’t agree more. Fathers are treated badly in the courts. It is the norm, because the laws are set up to disadvantage men.”

    Actually, no. Women’s groups presented bills and lobbied legislators. Men did little or nothing to oppose them. In fact, most men’s groups chose NOT to show up to even hearings.

    When one army is hungry, armed, and on-the-march and the other is asleep, what do you think happens to the undefended?

  • http://mrathunderinthehammer.blogspot.com/ Dannyboy

    Why is it that all bigoted researchers have a road to Australia?

    “Molly Dragiewicz, a criminologist at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology”

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/a-war-on-women

    MOLLY DRAGIEWICZ, Ph.D.

    M.Phil. in Women’s Studies, 1997
    University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

    http://www.mollydragiewicz.com/Dragiewicz_UOIT_CV.pdf

    and again she goes back for another refill of feminazism or was it just to spread her fraudulent findings?

    “We were the only speakers invited from Canada,” said Dr. Dragiewicz

    http://www.durhamregion.com/community/education/article/1234107–violence-toward-women-a-growing-issue-uoit-professor

    I have a question just who the hell was the femtwit teacher at the uni of of western Australia back around 1997?
    Reason being she spawned one hell of a litter of fraudulent femies.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    > “If we show up,speak the truth, and refuse to back down, we win.”

    Maybe. It tends to be the battlecry of new recruits.

    As bullets start flying, though, and newbies gain “thousand yard stares,” views change.

    It’s one thing to talk about god and country in bootcamp; another when your eyes are being gouged out by torturers.

    The women’s movement is huge, well-entrenched, and fortified with laws (and law-enforcers!) funded by (and empowered by!) “anti-terrorism” agencies. It’s not being paranoid to note folks can now be “disappeared” in America without trial…just like back in USSR gulag days. It seems the fembots and their patsies are trying to bring us to the attention of Homeland Security agencies. I know that sounds crazy, but you must have noted how more and more vague things are becoming crimes…like whistling at an attractive woman.

    How many of us have money to fight legal attacks? Or can afford to spend time in jail while being investigated for “hating women”?

    Again, I don’t mean to be fear-monger. Just saying that until you’ve actually been in-field a bit, it’s awfully easy to over (or under) generalize. Like the elder Karamazov noted, the more he loved humanity in general, the less he could stand people in particular.

    So who is an ally, who an enemy? During war, children can and do kill. And “friendly fire” does, too.

    I don’t have all the answers. Too often I lash out at those who complain about our current situation, having witnessed the inaction of preceding decades. At the same time, I know things take time. Historical events (like the Civil Rights Movement) get simplified by time. DURING them there’s much fog…and little sense of movement, much less direction. It’s hard finding the balance between passion and patience.

    Personally, I’d like to see us FTSU more. Still, newbies need to read-up on things. So what to do?

    I want more engagement with the enemy. It’s no good when, under heavy bombardment, too many of us sip beer on beach chairs reading Warren Farrell. We’ll just fill field hospitals.

    > “When you stand up for what is right,everyone wins.”

    Depends if, and how soon, “they” shoot us down.

    We need to field some fighters. Soon,

    • ThoughtCriminal

      I hear you,brother.I understand if some men would rather just agree with us in principle and then go sit down (to urinate) like the government tells them to in order to avoid the pain,but in my opinion, as the penalties for standing up to the discrimination we face increase,so does the need for a Men’s Rights Movement.

      Yes,we need fighters,and we need funders,now or sooner.

      If we don’t get them in time, my advice to every man is to stock up on luxury items-coffee,tea,tobacco,sugar,seasonings,perfume,etc. If the people we’re fighting win, they will bankrupt the economies of their host nations. These items will become nearly impossible to obtain. Then, we will be the well-funded ones and our enemies will be forced to acquiesce to our way of doing things,i.e. a way of life that does not treat men as disposable objects of utility,whipping boys, or cannon fodder, but rather as human beings with interests and needs specific to them.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      “It’s one thing to talk about god and country in bootcamp; another when your eyes are being gouged out by torturers.”

      Precisely

      “How many of us have money to fight legal attacks? Or can afford to spend time in jail while being investigated for ‘hating women’?”

      The Indian MRAs train men to become unafraid of jail by using peaceful non-violent civil disobedience to get themselves arrested. Poverty is incredibly freeing for men and some Masculinists will be taking our vows next year. When you have nothing, they have nothing to take. When no one will obey, then no one can command and demand.

      “Personally, I’d like to see us FTSU more. Still, newbies need to read-up on things. So what to do?”

      Let them read up but then demand action. The Masculinist Fourth Truth says “All Masculinists are Dutiful,” and that in part means teaching and working and doing. Talking is not enough once you are a Masculinist. We are giving presentations in person, handing out fliers, doing street work. Soon in the states we will be placing newspaper ads, holding our Pigwalks and conventions. In the Philippines we have seen two churches convert to Masculinism with more churches requesting our presence. Masculinists are tattooing themselves with our Sigil and are rallying around each other when threat arrives. Soon a Masculinists store will open near tourist regions so that the philosophy can spread from there to visitors.

      In India four years ago there were 60 MRAs. Now there are 30 thousand MRAs and Masculinists. Our Gurus there were young Programmers that took their experiences in the USA there and demanded the old Guard make up their mind, are you going to put the A in MRA? Any that did not, were no longer considered by them to be MRAs. THey took a hardline stance. No more thank you cards. No more thank you emails. You want a thank you, it is through a handshake at the march when you show up. Now they have a Mens Rights Community Center. They learned that many men will not donate so they charge a monthly fee for membership. Those impoverished can go to the community center for free on Saturdays. Soon Masculinists in Philippines will be leading the way with membership dues of 2 dollars a week. These funds can then be used there to secure advertisements, leaflets and more.

      In short if you want Men to do something you have to do three things:

      1. Do it yourself.
      2. Provide them the tools so they can do it.
      3. Broker no complaint that you are doing it from those that are not doing it.

      The full number of the 167 will be filled soon. Then we will begin work in earnest on The Masculinists Manifesto. Once that is complete we will comb it for the wise words of those that wrote and will create from it The Masculinists Teacher’s Guide, The Masculinists Student’s Workbook and The Masculinists Pocket Reference. These four tools (Manifesto, Guide, Workbook, Reference) will be used in concert to create certification programs for Masculinists and MRAs. Then when a Man says “I am an MRA” we will know to ask what sort of MRA he is, we will insist on the A being there if he is going to continue to use it after the newbie stage. After all how many years will A mean… Anything but Activist?

      Activist can mean many things and does include online activities such as commenting on blogs. But the time to take this to the next level has arrived. Elam and John and you and others here and in other places are doing this. Men are itching to get this shit going and our Gurus (here, other places) are leading the charge. We’re following and know what is going to come is not going to be easy. Neither was looking at myself in the mirror this morning without my dentures. So be it, hard things come daily.

      So yeah lets fuck their shit up more.

      We meet nightly at http://masculinists.net/video-chat for planning sessions, complaint, training, expressions of our Masculinists Oath, recruiting sessions and much more.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    Hey Richard POS Cohen, count the variety of fuck you’s I have for you.

    Females are approaching a DECADE of longer life span than men. Longer, healthier, more privileged and provided for, ridiculously higher quality of lives than men whose backs are trampled to facilitate such aristocracy, gross privilege.

    The Klanswoman Healthcare Bill specifies money for females 134 times; and contains, count them- ZERO- instances of money specified for men.

    To recapture- men are derided into the dirtiest, most disgusting, most dangerous, stressful and health hazardous jobs courtesy of codified racism against men known as “affirmative action”, to the effect that said men DIE almost a DECADE prematurely of all known causes of death, and the Klanswomen Healthcare Bill has been architected to shoot cannons of money derived from male labor at… wait for it… the health care of the female aristocracy which already enjoys a decade longer of luxurious, provided for, high quality life.

    Because I realize you’re a fucktard of abject idiocy, I’m going to further simplify.

    — Current empirically superior state of health and well-being = females by almost 10 years.

    — Current Klanswomen Health Care Bill = steal more money from men to further enhance female health and life superiority (134 vs 0 specifications in the bill).

    Now let me pose the question to you, how are you not a complete asshole?

    • Atlas Reloaded

      Why, I can answer that most expediantly and straightforwardly Pers. Because, he’s not a misogynist! “He “, is a feminist!

      Oh everything you said is gospel truth! But, since you point it out, since you dare mention it, since you dare shout out not only is the EmpRESS not wearing any clothes but she is in fact a fat, fugly bitch…..YOU and I are misogynists! And his not being one and being a feminists trumps any chance of him being a complete and total asshole with 0 balls and 0 decency.

      • Atlas Reloaded

        OOpsies. Fergot one lil thing:

        GO FUCK YOURSELF MR COHEN.

        • scatmaster

          I have always felt that using ones moniker:

          Mr, Mrs, Mzzzz, etc was out of respect.

          Calling one by their last name only denotes derision in my mind.

          FUCK YOU COHEN!!!!!

          • Atlas Reloaded

            Fuck Mr,Mrs, Ms and Mzzzz Choen…respectively.

        • Stu

          OOpsies. Fergot one lil thing:

          GO FUCK YOURSELF MR COHEN.

          And while you’re fucking yourself……..eat shit

          • Atlas Reloaded

            And while you’re eating shit anf fucking yourself blue, stop slandering us!

          • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

            @ the Cohen asshole:

            Choke on shit,dickwack.

  • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

    Our favorite hate-group, the feministas love using the dictionary/encyclopedia argument… So I went to check out the definition for hate speech…

    Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic.[1][2]

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech

    Funny, this definition doesn’t say anything about an exception based on owning a penis. Why isn’t RadFem on the list of hate groups?

    The definition covers them…

    Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of [...] gender [...]

    It doesn’t say “on the basis of not owning a penis”. It says gender… meaning any gender. Which part of the definition implies that the SLPC has an excuse to support hate groups such as RadFem?

    • http://aleknovy.com/ Alek Novy

      Hate Group Definition:

      A hate group is an organized group or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society. According to the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) hate groups have a “primary purpose is to promote animosity, hostility, and malice against persons belonging to a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin which differs from that of the members of the organization.”[1]

      I don’t see any qualifier in this definition that says “Unless the target owns a penis” – therefore I don’t see how RadFem is not on the list of hate groups?

      SLPC what is your excuse? Do you have a different definition?

  • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

    3. Supporting a man even though he harms me…

    I can’t go along with that. If he is my enemy he is going to lose. Just because he has the same equipment I have doesn’t make him my brother. Take Dr. Phil for example.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Yes well, then you need to reread what I said Brother. I will clarify again:

      Working to free men means I am working to free the one I do not like, he benefits when men are free. SO I am supporting him.

      Working to ensure that no man is jailed on a false accusation of rape means that the man that tries to harm me will also not be jailed on a false rape allegation.

      Working to ensure that no man is disposable means that the man that I am ideologically in disagreement with also is not seen as disposable because he is male.

      I could go on. I do not understand why, even after multiple times of clarify that this is what I mean by supporting people still act like what I am saying is “helping the one trying to harm me, with his attempts to harm me….helping feminist men with their feminism… etc”. I mean this position of myself and the Masculinists is not that complicated.

      • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

        It’s not that I don’t understand you it’s that I don’t agree with you.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          Ok that is fair brother.

          As long as you do not try to prevent me from calling All Men my brothers, I will not prevent you from calling some Men only your brothers.

          That of course is our goal as Masculinists. Let each Man live as he wishes.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/RockingMrE?feature=mhee Rocking Mr. E

    How long are resistant MRAs going to keep up the pretense that the radical left isn’t behind this smearing of men via feminism? It seems to me that the goal to give men the civil liberties they deserve cannot happen until this staunchly occurs.

    The SPLC is the quintessential mouthpiece of culturally Marxist propaganda, and the fact that they are involved with the radfemhub is disgusting, not to mention very telling.

    Good job to Paul for standing up to these “thugs”. The fact that the big leftie boys are coming out to play shows that the message of the MRA is becoming louder.

    The more these people try to create martyrs, the more people will flock to the cause. They have nothing but hyperbole and lies – truth will out!

  • Darryl X

    A reasoned and articulate response. Unfortunately for the audience, reading comprehension requires analytical skills to understand content. Most people have no reading comprehension skills. People don’t think anymore. The ears on which our arguments fall aren’t so much deaf as they are attached to idiots.

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

      People don’t think anymore. The ears on which our arguments fall aren’t so much deaf as they are attached to idiots.

      Major fucking big time. I see that everyday.

  • Steersman

    Great site with lots of pertinent information. While I don’t agree with everything here and I generally think that women have gotten it in the neck for far too long, I think that the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, at least in more than a few specific cases.

    For example the Wikipedia article on women’s suffrage in the US indicates that while the 19th Amendment granting that was passed in 1919, Georgia didn’t ratify it until 1970 and it wasn’t until 1984 that Mississippi had the dubious honour of becoming the last to do so. Looks to me like a rather odious and systemic bias against women.

    In addition, I notice that the Wikipedia article on rape indicates some 200,000 victims of “rape or sexual assault” in 2005. And even assuming the higher number of 10% for false accusations plus the fact that only “about 5% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail” it seems that one might be forgiven for suggesting that women have some cause for being bent out of shape.

    However, that said, I sort of look on feminism as analogous, in some ways, to unionism. There were a great many abuses by various “robber-barons” of laissez-faire capitalism in the 18th, 19th and even the 20th centuries for which unionism was and is a necessary and welcome corrective. However it is also fairly obvious that unionism has produced, and still produces, its own abuses – which is maybe not surprising given the adage about power corrupting.

    And similarly, feminism has also provided many necessary and welcome correctives – for everyone, not just women: the Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung said that no nation rises higher than its women – part of the reason many argue that most Islamic countries are so backward. But it has also produced some abuses of its own, many of which seem to derive from either self-aggrandizement or an excess of self-righteousness. I’m reminded of Daniel Dennett’s tribute to Christopher Hitchens which suggests that sometimes in such cases rudeness in defense of liberty is no vice:

    Of all the “Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse” Hitchens was clearly the least gentle, the angriest, the one most likely to insult his interlocutor. But in my experience, he only did it when rudeness was well deserved – which is actually quite often when religion is the topic. Most spokespeople for religion expect to be treated not just with respect but with a special deference that is supposedly their due because the cause they champion is so righteous.

    • Kimski

      This is a search on Men’s Rights on Wikipedia:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights

      This is a search on Womens Rights:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Womens_rights

      Notice any major differences, besides the amount of warnings and tags in the first one, and why do you think that is?
      What makes you think that anything that Wikipedia informs you about is not just as biased, when it comes to other searches on these issues?
      Do you believe you’ve read the truth or a manipulated version of history, made up to fit into a current political agenda of bigotry against men, when you mention what you’ve read in the first two paragraphs?

      Besides these questions, please inform me as to what feminism have done that helps men in any way, that doesn’t come with an equal amount of costs, both economically and emotionally.
      -If you can just name one thing, that would be fine.

      • Steersman

        Notice any major differences, besides the amount of warnings and tags in the first one, and why do you think that is?

        As an answer to both questions I would say that the relative newness of the men’s rights movement would qualify. Seems it really didn’t develop until the 1970s while the women’s rights has threads going back to the 1700s, although one might argue that it didn’t really take off until the suffragette movements of the late 1800s.

        In addition, while even the human rights of men seem to be relatively new, it also appears that women traditionally got the shorter end of the stick. For example, the women’s rights Wikipedia article has this:

        … 17th century natural law philosophers came to regard women along with children, slaves and non-whites, as neither “rational” nor “civilized”. Natural law philosophers claimed the inferior status of women was “common sense” and a matter of “nature”. They believed that women could not be treated as equal due to their “inner nature”. The views of 17th century natural law philosophers were opposed in the 18th and 19th century by Evangelical natural theology philosophers such as William Wilberforce and Charles Spurgeon, who argued for the abolition of slavery and advocated for women to have rights equal to that of men. Modern natural law theorist, and advocates of natural rights, claim that all people have a human nature, regardless of gender, ethnicity or other qualifications, therefore all people have natural rights ….

        Doesn’t look to me like that was a particularly equitable arrangement. And one that still has some odious manifestations in these “modern” times.

        What makes you think that anything that Wikipedia informs you about is not just as biased, when it comes to other searches on these issues? Do you believe you’ve read the truth or a manipulated version of history?

        Considering that most historians are and have probably been men – including the one who was the source cited several times in the above quote – I would think that accusations of excessive bias might be a little hard to justify. Do you have any evidence that would do so?

        Besides these questions, please inform me as to what feminism has done that helps men in any way, that doesn’t come with an equal amount of costs, both economically and emotionally.

        As one example, I would say that the role they played on the “home front” during World Wars I & II was substantial and that it was probably a consequence of the feminism that paved the way, particularly for WW II, with Rosie the Riveter being representative:

        According to the Encyclopedia of American Economic History, “Rosie the Riveter” inspired a social movement that increased the number of working American women from 12 million to 20 million by 1944, a 57% increase from 1940. By 1944 only 1.7 million unmarried men between the ages of 20 and 34 worked in the defense industry, while 4.1 million unmarried women between those ages did so. Although the image of “Rosie the Riveter” reflected the industrial work of welders and riveters during World War II, the majority of working women filled non-factory positions in every sector of the economy. What unified the experiences of these women was that they proved to themselves (and the country) that they could do a “man’s job” and could do it well.

        But the increasing role of women in the work force, at all levels at least in Western cultures, since then should prove the value of their contributions. As for what the social costs might have been I certainly can’t say for sure. But it seems to me that it is really bad karma, individually and socially, that rights and opportunities should be denied on the basis of either sex or skin colour.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          “But the increasing role of women in the work force, at all levels at least in Western cultures, since then should prove the value of their contributions. ”

          Uh huh. When I see women collecting trash, crab fishing, working the back room editing floor and taking all manner of jobs that men do, en masse and without complaint, then I might by this.

          As it stands now overwhelmingly the jobs women take are the easy shit. When they take something like programming they spend a majority of their time complaining and not working.

          There are notable exceptions. But as a group, no they have not contributed.

          Now the solution? Make them contribute. Simple. Women are not special they are people and we should treat them like people. THat means we stop giving them just the easy jobs.

        • ThoughtCriminal

          “In addition, while even the human rights of men seem to be relatively new, it also appears that women traditionally got the shorter end of the stick.”

          Explain to me how not having to do anything in order to survive except draw air into your lungs is the “shorter end of the stick”?

          I will give up my fucking right to vote and own property right fucking now if some equally courageous woman will make a legally binding pledge to support me for the rest of my life including all of my medical bills,luxury goods, and any drug I may voluntarily consume, and agree to be legally responsible for all debts I hold.

        • captive

          Wikipedia is extremely biased. I was thrown off of it it for arguing against a quote from a disreputable source which said that antisemitism and Islamophobia are the same thing.

    • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

      Lets go with your dates for women voting. Ratified or not women were voting in all states after suffrage. In fact before Federal suffrage states were one by one giving women the right to vote.

      Now that is a key point there, the *right* to vote. This is something men do not have. Men have the privilege to vote. A man that does not register for conscription is not allowed to vote. We men have the *privilege* of voting if, and only if we are laying our lives on the lines.

      So you can fuck off with your attempt to make me whinge about cunts (Cant Understand Normal Thinking) who whinge that they get the right to vote and I do not.

      • Bombay

        I liked the article that mentioned conscripted service that only was done to men – and a significant percentage of men. I think those men would have gladly been oppressed as women rather than being privileged as males. At this point, anyone who cites women’s lack of voting “rights” a sign that men oppressed them needs history lessons.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          One useless slag told me “Well women werent allowed to join the military so it all evened out..”

          No you worthless Cant Understand Normal Thinking it does not all fucking even out. You NOT having the ability to GO FIGHT and GO DIE is not the fucking same as me being FORCED to fight and die. My entire life I have lived non violently and I never wish to take a brother’s life. So because you want to murder and cannot do so, is not the same as forcing me to murder. Then I told her to fuck off.

          Then we have the Republican “war” on women… Notice they have to call it a war because women are not actually suffering at the hands of the Republicans. They want to conflate the very real, forced, conscripted suffering of men in trenches, without food, without warmth, without provisions, cold or hot, wounded, dejected and when they return home homeless…with a woman not being able to get the Catholic Church to pay for her 41 dollar a month birth control. Which by the way is the most she would pay.

          Almost makes me want to become a Catholic just so I can tell such a woman to fuck off. Except of course I’m pagan so I get to tell it to her anyhow.

      • Steersman

        A man that does not register for conscription is not allowed to vote. We men have the *privilege* of voting if, and only if we are laying our lives on the lines.

        While I’ll agree that there is some disparity there, it also seems that many feminists are fighting for the right to contribute in that area as well. And, if I’m not mistaken, there were a great many Russian women who served on the front lines during WW II. Although I might quibble a little and argue that rights to vote also carries some responsibilities as well for both sexes with the capabilities of each having some bearing on the latter. More specifically, although one might argue that more men than women died in combat, that is probably balanced out to some degree by maternal death rates, at least historically.

        So you can fuck off with your attempt to make me whinge about cunts (Can’t Understand Normal Thinking) who whinge that they get the right to vote and I do not.

        Just out of curiosity, is that C.U.N.T. acronym – clever, but not particularly accurate – something you think applies to all women or just some of them? While I’ll quite readily agree that at least some of them are rather vapid and silly, although one might argue similar terms probably apply to similar numbers of men, it seems the history of women in science readily justifies the argument that some of them can think, and have thought, rings around most men. The article includes descriptions of Emmy Noether [“groundbreaking contributions to abstract algebra and theoretical physics”], Hypatia of Alexandria [“credited with various inventions including a hydrometer (and) an astrolabe”], Marie Skłodowska-Curie [“Nobel prize in 1903 (physics)”], and Barbara McClintock [studies of maize genetics led to “Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1983”].

        But that right to vote is only the tip of the iceberg – you might want to try reading that Wikipedia article on women’s rights for additional details.

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          I stopped at “While I’ll agree that there is some disparity there,”

          There is not some disparity here. Women have the fucking right to vote. Men are lucky to get the privilege. And it is stripped from us all the fucking time.

          You can take your attempts to sell me on feminism and fuck off. I am a Masculinist because Masculinism is the first pro-male philosophy in history. Feminism is entirely anti-male. Go sell your snake oil to a self loathing male. I am Aoirthoir, a living god, so I will simply not be swayed by your obnoxiousness.

          • Steersman

            I stopped at “While I’ll agree that there is some disparity there,”

            Typical; “don’t confuse me with facts; my mind is made up.” [Or in the sand, as the case may be.] But you’ll no doubt be amused to know that some dogmatic feminists over on “Man Boobz” have the same philosophy.

            You can take your attempts to sell me on feminism and fuck off.

            After you Alphonse; you can go and fuck off yourself. I would say you’re being a real prick – and an ignorant one to boot. As indicated in my previous post about women in science, more than a few women can think, and have thought, rings around you and me both, not to mention most other men, so your acronym is just blowing smoke.

            In addition, while there are some rather odious abuses of feminism and some feminist principles, not all of those principles are unworthy of due consideration. Failing to acknowledge that only provides some credibility for charges of blinding ignorance at best and of misogynism at worst. Not to mention of cutting off your nose to spite your face. But don’t take my word for it; here’s a cogent and sensible point from “John the Other” in is “Fear and Loathing” article on this site:

            I know a number of men and women who self identify as feminists, and whose activist goals, although not identical to mine, point in the same direction. That is to say: the pursuit of equality of legal rights and opportunities in employment, education, representation, and protection from harm under the law. Their goals are largely the same as mine, and although they might not use my nomenclature – for clarity in this discussion I will call them humanist feminists. Another group, or set of groups, also calling themselves feminists have a decidedly different list of objectives and these goals are – from my point of view – monstrous.

            You also might try differentiating between those two types of feminism yourself. There certainly seems to be some rather seriously off-the-wall and deluded radical feminist types out there – for example, this article, courtesy of a poster on this site. But, equally, there are some men who are just as bad if not worse and who entirely justify the term “misogynist” – at best, as “sociopaths” and “psychopaths” might be more appropriate, this for example. As a general philosophy for either men or women, “my sex, right or wrong” doesn’t do anyone any good.

    • ThoughtCriminal

      “In addition, I notice that the Wikipedia article on rape indicates some 200,000 victims of “rape or sexual assault” in 2005. And even assuming the higher number of 10% for false accusations plus the fact that only “about 5% of rapists will ever spend a day in jail” it seems that one might be forgiven for suggesting that women have some cause for being bent out of shape.”

      Statistical manipulation. Do you understand that “sexual assault” can mean tapping a woman on the shoulder and asking her for the time if she decides she was uncomfortable? Under the new FBI rape definition, a man, and only a man, is a rapist if he and his wife drink champagne at their wedding reception and then mutually decide to consummate their marriage while under the influence.

      That “only 5% of rapists will ever see a day in jail” is similarly not “a fact”. You see, to arrive at that number, they use the number of people charged with rape vs. the number of people in jail. For all other crimes, to determine the rate of incarceration they use the number of people convicted of a crime vs. the number in jail. Again, that’s a little sleight of hand trick feminists use when they need more money. Also, the number was supposedly six percent two years ago or so. They continuously raise or lower the number,depending on what will create the greatest alarm.

      You have been mislead.

      Besides these questions, please inform me as to what feminism has done that helps men in any way, that doesn’t come with an equal amount of costs, both economically and emotionally.

      *bold mine

      “As one example, I would say that the role they played on the “home front” during World Wars I & II was substantial and that it was probably a consequence of the feminism that paved the way, particularly for WW II, with Rosie the Riveter being representative”

      Lol.

      Clearly, you misinterpreted his question.

      • Steersman

        Clearly, you misinterpreted his question.

        Unless you happen to think that it would have been to men’s advantage to have lost WW II – which might well have happened without the contributions of women which were, arguably, the result of feminism in some substantial ways – I think it is a reasonable conclusion to say that feminism has helped men.

        Which looks to me like it answered directly his question.

        • Kimski

          The disadvantage of losing would have affected womens lives, too. Their contribution to the war effort was just as much born out of necessity and selfdefense, as out of anything feminism wants to take credit for in their newly re-written history of mankind.

          Which means you haven’t answered my question yet, but that’s okay. Better men than you and I have tried, and they’re still looking for something..

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          Considering the United States has more MEN in prison than any government IN HISTORY it makes absolutely fucking no difference who won WWII to Men. We are caged or die at the hands of the right, we are caged or die at the hands of the left, at the hands of “free” countries and despotic regimes.

          The number of MEN that died in that war and every other war in history far outstripped the number of women. There is our “advantage” of winning that or any other war.

          In the words of the great Sage, Aoirthoir An Broc, Masculinist, Fuck Off.

          • Steersman

            Considering the United States has more MEN in prison than any government IN HISTORY it makes absolutely fucking no difference who won WWII to Men.

            So, Einstein, you think that’s maybe because generally more men than women commit violent crimes? Read this for details:

            At yearend 2008, the number of offenders sentenced to state prison for a violent offense reached 715,400, up 95,400 violent offenders from 2000.

            Considering that they say elsewhere that some 93% of the prison population is male I think that even you should be able to reach the conclusion that men are the more violent sex.

            The number of MEN that died in that war and every other war in history far outstripped the number of women. There is our “advantage” of winning that or any other war.

            Considering that most of the casualties in various wars have been civilians and that, last time I checked, women made up 50% of those, I would say you’re blowing smoke again. Here are few details for you to chew on:

            According to a 2001 study by the International Committee of the Red Cross, the civilian to soldier death ratio in wars fought since the mid-20th century has been 10:1, meaning ten civilian deaths for every soldier death. Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the number of civilian casualties as a proportion of total casualties has been rising.

            And, considering the Crusades and the like, seems that civilians have historically been slaughtered left and right.

            In the words of the great Sage, Aoirthoir An Broc, Masculinist, Fuck Off.

            More like ignorant asshole and prick extraordinaire. Fuck off yourself.

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I stopped at “Steersman in reply to Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist”.

          • Kimski

            Steersman, please go somewhere else and try to sell your feminist goodies. We are experiencing problems in the AVfM-family, and this is not the right time to try to push an ideology, that almost took away one of the family members tonight.
            Try to show some decency and respect to another human being, okay?

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            “Try to show some decency and respect to another human being, okay?”

            I would normally laugh uproariously at this, but do to the sensitivity of this situation I won’t.

          • Kimski

            @Aoirthoir:

            Thank you, and much appreciated. I have no problem expressing my emotions and that came from the heart, hilarious or not.

          • Steersman

            Kimski said,

            Steersman, please go somewhere else and try to sell your feminist goodies.

            Not really very credible to say that when “John the Other” in his article on “Fear and Loathing” on this site acknowledges some differences between different brands of feminism , and, apparently in his view, that some of them aren’t entirely beyond the pale.

            We are experiencing problems in the AVfM-family, and this is not the right time to try to push an ideology, that almost took away one of the family members tonight.

            Sorry to hear about it, of course. Although I see on the relevant Reddit thread that he seems to be Ok – which I’m happy to see.

            Try to show some decency and respect to another human being, okay?

            Bit of a false note there I think. If there’s any credibility in the claims of the Men’s Rights Movement – and I think there is, although I also think that a lot of it is highly questionable – then one of the most effective things that can actually done in this case, at least for those not actually on his doorstep or with access to the relevant authorities, is to carry on with developing and discussing those claims.

          • Steersman

            Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist said,

            I stopped at “Steersman in reply to Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist”.

            All you’re really proving with that is your own ignorance. And your affinity for the ostrich with its head in the sand ….

    • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

      Dude,you are way off base if you think women have ever been oppressed. The oppression of women is a lie. Feminism leaches off legitimate civil rights causes, the plight of the black man. The plight of the black man is very real. Now the plight of the black man is the plight of everyman.

      As far as voting goes not every man was allowed to vote. If you didn’t own land you couldn’t vote. When everyman got the vote it wasn’t long after that women got the vote.

      Don’t let anti-male ideologues do your thinking for you.

      • Steersman

        Dude, you are way off base if you think women have ever been oppressed. The oppression of women is a lie.

        Do read that Wikipedia article on women’s rights and the related ones and then tell me again the same thing. You might also try reading Ibn Warraq’s Why I Am Not a Muslim – there’s an online version on Scribd – that has some really odious details about the second-class citizen status of women, historically and even currently. While Muslims are at least 600 years behind the West, the view of Christianity and Judaism – on which current laws are based – is not a whole lot better.

        The plight of the black man is very real. Now the plight of the black man is the plight of everyman.

        Big improvements since the freedom marches of the 60s, although still a ways to go yet. But the lack of equal rights for everyone is detrimental to the well-being of every person. And, as indicated, John the Other [“Fear and Loathing” article] seems to think that some feminists aren’t entirely beyond the pale.

        Don’t let anti-male ideologues do your thinking for you.

        Ideologues all over the place, including some in the men’s rights movement. Maybe we should shoot them all – right after all the lawyers …. [joke]

  • Kimski

    @Steerman:

    Others have already answered on the subject of womens ‘rights’ versus the lack of responsibilities that came along with these ‘rights’, i.e. the ‘rights’ to be splattered all over the nearest battlefield during WW1 and WW2, and any other war before that.
    The rights to be shamed by women, if you chose not to participate in these wars, was another ‘priviledge’ that only men had, whereas these same women did not have to go to war. And they still don’t.
    All ‘rights’ I certainly do not think that women even wanted at that time. Looking at the amount of women in the military who are actually on the frontline on battlefields nowadays, it would seem they still don’t. Neither does the majority of men, but we still have that ‘right’.

    It might also be worthwhile noticing that in the 17th century NOONE besides the very wealthy landowners and royalties had any rights. The average man was a peasant kept as something akin to a slave, working for the landowners, and were not allowed a vote, or had the right to move away from the area where he was born.
    -So much for ‘rights’, right?

    Now, let’s take a look at the priviledges that came along with being a woman at that time,-besides not having to go to war,-that was not bestowed upon males and still are not:

    Women didn’t have to go down in the mines and die from destroyed lungs at an early age, or perform any other hard labour that could kill them. They still don’t.
    Women were guaranteed a place in a lifeboat if a ship went down. And they still are, where men are shamed for trying to save their lives. Even single dads.
    Women didn’t have to work the fields for the rich landowners, and come home to work their own fields after dark, until it put them in the grave. Men did that.
    Women didn’t have to climp the scaffolds of scyscrapers, risking a fatal fall. Men did that.
    Women have always had a far longer lifespan than men, even then. They still do, because most of the funding to the health department is earmarked to female-related diseases.
    Women have always been protected by men to a point were men would sacrifice their lives in doing so. And most of them still do. We call them the blue-pillers, and a lot of other not-so-nice things.
    Women have never been sentenced to jail for the same amount of time as men for an equal crime, and they still don’t. Actually, even today women gets away with killing their children or husbands, and are set free with a slap on the wrist.

    One of the first thing men did, after getting the right to vote for themselves, was to make sure that women got that right too. Anything else would have been stupidity beyond belief, when taking into account the lives men had to live and still do.
    That is one of the very good reasons that those who finance feminism has kept the destruction of the families as a top priority all along. Besides the fact that before feminism actually succeeded in this, they could only tax one half of the demographic.

    The results of this hateful ideology has so far caused untold misery and pain to women, men and children everywhere on the planet, as well as the abortion of more than 30 million unborn children.
    How can the destruction of the very fabric of modern society and civilisation in any way be justified with the ‘liberation’ of anyone?
    -And especially a gender that has so far payed the lowest price in building up that civilization from the ground, as well as maintaining it, and still does not contribute in any substantial way?

    I could go on for a very long time with this, but it is 6:42am where I am, and I’ve been up all night. But let me just ask you this final question:

    Based on the examples of priviledges reserved for women, which man in his right mind would not choose those, when all you had to give up was the right to vote???
    -A right most men don’t even take advantage of nowadays, as it is simply pointless for a man to vote when all the politicians in the western world are busy sucking up to women, and granting them more ‘rights’ without responsibility or accountability.

    I shall return for your replies in a couple of hours.

    • Steersman

      Women didn’t have to go down in mines, and die from destroyed lungs at an early age, or perform any other hard labour that could kill them.

      True enough. But, speaking of hard labour, not too many men died as a consequence of making babies either – I see that during the 1800s in England that the maternal death rate – women dying during childbirth or from complications – reached 40% of the total in some institutions although historically it’s been about 1 in 100 births. Considering that one estimate of the number of humans who have lived is 100 billion that means possibly a billion women who have died in childbirth – great privilege that.

      One of the first thing men did, after getting the right to vote for themselves, was to make sure that women got that right too.

      That seems to be, at best, painting with a rather wide brush – and a white one at that. The Wikipedia article on the history of feminism indicates that a great many men fought tooth and nail to deny women all sorts of rights:

      As feminism sought to redefine itself, new issues rose to the surface, one of which was reproductive rights. Even discussing the issue could be hazardous. Annie Besant had been tried in 1877 for publishing Charles Knowlton’s Fruits of Philosophy, a work on family planning, under the Obscene Publications Act 1857.

      During the beginning of the 20th century, as women’s suffrage faced several important federal votes, a portion of the suffrage movement known as the National Women’s Party led by suffragette Alice Paul became the first “cause” to picket outside the White House. …. On October 17, Alice Paul was sentenced to seven months and on October 30 began a hunger strike, but after a few days prison authorities began to force feed her. After years of opposition, Wilson changed his position in 1918 to advocate women’s suffrage as a war measure.

      That doesn’t look to me like men as a group doing much to enfranchise women.

      … the abortion of more than 30 million unborn children. How can the destruction of the very fabric of modern society and civilisation in any way be justified with the ‘liberation’ of anyone?

      I’m not particularly happy either to see that many fetuses aborted, but I sort of look on it as a regrettable case of triage. And it really isn’t something that you can lay at the doorsteps of just women either.

      Based on the examples of privileges reserved for women, which man in his right mind would not choose those, when all you had to give up was the right to vote???

      You’ll take on all the hassles associated with menstruation and child-birth and status as second-class citizens as part of that bargain? I think I’ll pass.

      And, as it is after midnight in my neck of the woods, time for me to call it a day.

      • Kimski

        “not too many men died as a consequence of making babies either – I see that during the 1800s in England that the maternal death rate..”

        That deathrate went down to nothing, after the doctors started washing their hands. It does not justify the amount of priviledges women still have. I can show you a population of 6,6 billion people on this planet, proving that childbirth is no big deal today. If it were, we would not be fighting overpopulation.

        “The Wikipedia article on the history of feminism..”

        Look, we’ve already established that Wikipedia are unable to even mention men’s rights without a substantial amount of warning signs. I’m not going to adress any amount of ‘evidence’ from a male-hating, bigoted or biased site. And that includes anything from RadFemHub or the politically correct, btw. You’ll just have to do better than that because I just don’t believe that shit, and from my point of view I have every reason to believe it was written by the same biased people, that doesn’t even want to mention men’s rights without raising a red flag. And,-quite honestly,-you can’t blame me for that, given the circumstances and the zeitgeist of today.

        “And it really isn’t something that you can lay at the doorsteps of just women either”

        Ehh..women have the last say when it comes to childbirth, as men don’t have any reproductive rigths. Her choice, his wallet, remember? In my book her choice also means her responsibility, but that’s probably where the real problem lies in this..

        “You’ll take on all the hassles associated with menstruation and child-birth and status as second-class citizens as part of that bargain? I think I’ll pass.”

        I fail to see the relevance here, unless you want to blame men for a concept that nature came up with.
        I also have to carry around 40% more muscle tissue in my upper body, equivalent of the weight of a fetus, for the rest of my life. Besides being careful everytime I sit down, so I won’t crush my balls. And, being a man, I’m already considered the most violent and evil gender, and therefore by definition a second-class citizen in the modern world.
        So where’s my priviledges for that?

        Besides that, you’re starting to handpick the issues you want to refute, while not adressing the substantial evidence layed out in front of you. I have witnessed this strategy on several occasions before this discussion, and I am beginning to wonder if I am wasting my time again.
        You started out just fine, but it is beginning to resemble the same old same old.
        Why don’t you stick around in here for a while and listen. You might actually learn something that is far closer to the truth, than anything you’ll find on Wikipedia.

        • Steve_85

          You lot are doing it again!

          Don’t argue with feminists. It’s like trying to teach a pig to sing. It doesn’t work. All you do is annoy the pig, and even if by some miracle you DO succeed, no one wants to hear a pig sing anyway!

          If someone can read the articles on this site and STILL wants to defend feminism then they’re a lost cause. Maybe one day something will cause them to remember and they’ll be back, but until then you might as well argue with that pig. It’ll be about as effective.

          • Kimski

            Advice taken, and discussion ended on my part.
            Damn, I just keep relapsing. I could have been asleep for hours now.
            ;)

        • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

          Not to mention that mortality rate, was a spike in history, in a historical period when men were dying in huge numbers. That period was a dangerous one all around.

          Notice it’s oppression fucking olympics this slag is playing.

          Yeah? Well men die seven years sooner than women yeah? Yeah? Well this woman died in her teens!! See! It all evens out.

        • Steersman

          I fail to see the relevance here, unless you want to blame men for a concept that nature came up with.

          Just trying to suggest that it was a package deal, historically anyway. And that maybe we should be looking for ways of leveling the playing field.

          Why don’t you stick around in here for a while and listen. You might actually learn something that is far closer to the truth, than anything you’ll find on Wikipedia.

          I might do that as it seems there’s at least some justification for the positions taken. But I really find it most unfortunate and highly problematic that some people on both sides of the fence seem to be working under the assumption of “my sex, right or wrong” and rather obstinately insist that there’s no justification for the other person’s arguments. Nobody’s right if everybody else is wrong ….

          • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

            I stopped at “Steersman in reply to”

      • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man

        Okay,Steersman,

        Men were required to go to war via the draft. How were women required by law to become parents if they didn’t want to?

        http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2011/07/feminism-and-dark-history-of.html

        http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2010/02/feminist-quotes.html

        http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/2011/10/feminist-quotes-2.html

        • Steersman

          Men were required to go to war via the draft. How were women required by law to become parents if they didn’t want to?

          Up until the development of reliable birth control and the end of its discrediting by the likes of the Catholic Church, I would say that the circumstances had the equivalent force of law – if women were limited in their educational and vocational opportunities then it seems that marriage and kids were, for many of them in many cases, the only avenue open to them for survival.

          • Bombay

            Checkout the Wikipedia entry on James Ball. After you read it did you feel some embarrassment in regards to using that source for anything relating to the topic feminism or women’s rights?

          • Steersman

            Bombay said,

            Checkout the Wikipedia entry on James Ball. After you read it …

            Don’t see any Wikipedia entries for any James Ball that seem to have anything to do with men’s or women’s rights. You have one specifically in mind? All I see is this “disambiguation page” which don’t lead to any apparently relevant topics.

      • http://www.mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/ Masculist Man
  • http://www.shrink4men.com/ Dr. Tara J. Palmatier

    WARNING POTENTIAL OFF-TOPIC TRIGGER:

    Lisalyn R. Jacobs, former NOW attorney and VAWA chief counsel, copped a plea on February 28, 2012 for assaulting Ben Vonderheide, otherwise known as Daddy Justice, in the hallway of the U.S. Senate last summer.

    Not-so instant karma got her. 32 hours of community service – how much you wanna bet it’s at a DV shelter where she’s treated like a hero. Nevertheless, she copped a plea and is receiving some justice.

    http://vimeo.com/38342545

    http://www.shrink4men.com/2012/03/12/now-and-vawa-attorney-lisalyn-r-jacobs-cops-a-plea-for-assaulting-daddy-justice-ben-vonderheide/

    Oh yeah, not so off-topic. This violent criminal has ties with SPLC.

    • Kimski

      32 hours down in the sewers would have been a more fitting sentence…
      Oh, wait.-She’s already there, mingling with the other rats, I see.

  • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

    Much news to tell Brothers. Keep in mind the Masculinists are meeting nightly http://masculinists.net/video-chat to discuss this and other issues. Time: 8pm Eastern.

  • donB

    Great article Mr. Elam! I am only sorry that you had to write it and spend your time defending yourself and us. But thank you for your efforts. —Well appreciated!

    Most of the comments have been wonderful too and right on the money. I want to point out something that I have already said before…and will keep saying until it is embraced…somehow, someway!

    Our task is to get mainstream men to stop auto-blindly-supporting everything feminist. It is as if those men are stuck in some kind of mental time warp that is sucking the truth-life right out of them. When we are successful at getting the average man to buck up against rad-feminism (based solely on telling the truth—the same truth the femeroids hate), then we will have made the best progress we can that will really start the ball rolling.

    I know most everyone on the this site already knows it, but I repeat that we need to concentrate our efforts to teach the average man out there that:
    1) they have been duped and sold down the river!
    2) manhood that centers ONLY around women and kids is a dangerous myth
    3) lots of sex, babies, and being miserable, stuck in a one-size-fits-all manhood mentality runs counter to modern concepts of power for males
    4) it is OK to criticize women because they are half the world’s population… we darned had better take a very good look at how they behave (duh)
    5) being careful to look before you leap and when you see things you do not like or want to do, then DON’T DO IT!
    6) It is not hatred of women for men and women to be smart enough to employ things that preserve societal sanity for men and boys too
    7) when there are many more men who heed the above warnings and thus are independent men, it is the rest of our responsibility to make these men proud and supported.

    When we get mainstream men to change and not think they HAVE to “get the girl”, have babies, etc in order to be “man enough”, then, having robbed feminists of so much blind-support from clueless men, with lonely women on our side, we stand the greatest chance of reversing the hatred toward us men and boys.

    Feminists aren’t winning because they are right. They are winning (=everyone else loses) because mainstream men are not fighting. They are clinging to losing and will continue until jolted out of their stupor.

    I know you all know this already, but we need to find ways to have the impact. Let’s put our heads together and figure out ways to accomplish this.

    Together we must stand; Apart, we will be erased!

  • http://none universe

    Good letter, Mr. Elam

  • http://oathofman.com Aoirthoir An Broc Masculinist

    The International Association of Masculinists has given its official response to this debacle.

    http://masculinists.net/2012/03/open-letter-to-the-southern-poverty-law-center-demanding-masculinists-net-be-listed-as-a-hate-group/

  • notsince67

    Would like your thought’s Mr. Elam. So here goes.

    Your most heavily cited paragraph, in attempt to qualify the legitimate status of this site, not as misogynistic, but as a bearer of the human rights torch, to me, carries many red herrings. I’ll elaborate.

    First, I believe your statement of men “committing” (it is hard to commit what is no longer a crime, as you as a “mental health” professional should understand.) suicide more often than women is in fact a red herring and simply a misrepresentation of the issue of suicide. Women are far more likely to attempt suicide, whereas men are far more successful in COMPLETING suicide. Reasons for this have been attributed to the difference in lethality of suicide methods when split along gender lines. Your statement is made to present that men are under more mental duress than women, but the numbers tend to suggest the opposite is true.

    Secondly: “America’s exploding prison population, which overwhelmingly includes and victimizes the working class and new poor, contains more than 2 million people, but under 100,000 women. This disparity has had profound effects on African-American men, as more of them are incarcerated than in post-secondary education… Young men, ignorant rather than criminal, are placed on lifelong sex offender registries that prevent them from obtaining education and even healthcare, and ensuring that they will never contribute to society.”

    I first, had to laugh. Let’s call a spade a spade. Criminals (IMO) are violent and property offenders. Sex offenders are violent offenders. “Young men ignorant rather than criminal…placed on lifelong sex offender registries” in itself displays sympathy for ALL male sex offenders, regardless of the specifics of the offense. Now I do understand, yes there are men who are wrongfully convicted as the result of fraudulent accusations. However, I’ve seen the figure placed at around 10% or less. So do we give 90% a free pass? And how does the picture change when you taken into account the under reporting of sexual crimes, on both side of the coin? The statement in itself in itself draws sympathy to all sex offenders. That’s garbage. If your bone to pick is the WRONGLY ACCUSED, so be it, but it seems it is not.

    But in terms of the prison population, it’s entirely unrelated to gender dynamics when you consider all the facts. The reality of the situation is the vast majority of the explosion in the U.S. prison population is due to the use of mandatory minimums on drug crimes, with drug offenders representing the largest growing segment of all incarcerated offenses. When you take into consideration the vast majority of drug offenders (and crack vs. powder cocaine sentencing beginning in the 1990’s) that police departments centralize enforcement in poverty-stricken black communities, and the black male population bears the brunt of these harsh sanctions. Add in the fact labour at 0.18 cents an hour for 40+ hours a week is MANDATORY in Texas prisons, you see an evolving scheme of neo-slavery which strengthens the prison-industrial complex. What you speak, or point to, is not an issue of gender rights, it about punitiveness and racial equality. It is a criminolgical issue which you have entirely hijacked to support your cause. And let’s not get into the effect “three-strikes and you’re out” type legislation has on the mentally ill and essentially makes life sentences for drug addicts who struggle to shake their habit.

    Finally, I laughed too at this: “Relatedly, male attendance in higher education has fallen to 40% and continues to diminish, and men lag far behind women in obtaining advanced degrees. The performance of boys in our grade, middle and high schools is deteriorating. Meanwhile, men have become a minority in the workforce, ensuring their further social and economic marginalization, as well as any hope of upward economic mobility.”

    Is seems to suppose that there is some sort or concerted effort to discriminate men from employment. Is that what you suggest? That employers are denying candidates jobs for being male? That academic institutions are turning away otherwise qualified and dedicated applicants on the basis of having a penis, and systemically they are denied education where ever they turn? Is that something you can support?

    ———

    I’ve read a few articles. I can say that you touch on real issues. Gender-bias in the courts, the use of family law and domestic violence policy that is preferential to women. But to attribute it to feminism is misguided. Why? If you killed EVERY feminist, the policy would remain unchanged. Feminism is not the issue, policy is the issue. I understand the link between feminism as the advocates for change, but saying “well, fuck them” is ignorant of the issues (and that’s aimed at more of your “minions” than you yourself) and really is misguided anger. Don’t be mad at women, be mad at the courts. So women fight to keep that staus-quo? Engage in dialogue. This “fuck those bitches” type mentality is just a sign of someone who feels sleighted which, as someone with BPD, is what cause stupid rage. Rage gets you no where, and is unproductive. What works is constructive dialogue, such as what MLK aimed to do.

    I could go on, but I’ll leave you the chance to reply and leave a little meat on the bone.

  • captive

    Even addressing the SPLC gives them an air of legitimacy that they do not deserve.