Game Plan

Open Letter: Thank-you feminists and ideologues

This is a thank you letter, from the editorial board of AVFM to the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as other elements of the mainstream and alternative media.

In the last year, the un-funded grass roots movement consisting mostly of bloggers and vloggers – loosely associated and identified as the “So-Called Men’s Rights Movement” has come under increasing attack from not-for-profit organizations, left leaning and right-leaning media organizations, and even comedy web-sites.

However, rather than logical rebuttals or evidence based arguments, the majority of oppositional rhetoric falls squarely into the category of ad-hominem and straw-man argument, along with other formal logical fallacy. One recent “cracked.com” article stated “no REAL MAN has ever come out as an MRA” [emphasis mine] as well as claiming that opposition to feminism is equivalent to burning down a house in response to an infestation of ghosts. The implication in that metaphor being possibly that feminism doesn’t actually exist?

Other commentary condemning the rising mens rights movement focuses in on the obvious and overwhelming privilege of white males, and the clear absurdity of any complaint about unequal treatment in the family court system, the criminal courts system, higher education, employment, homelessness, suicide, criminal victimization, prison rape, life expectancy, sexually-specific health funding, misrepresentation in domestic violence education, and general disposability based on sex.

Of course, the oppositional opinion doesn’t actually address any of those topics, but takes the simpler path of denouncing men’s rights activists as sexual losers, and unemployed, mother’s-basement-dwelling cretins with small penises and a hate-on for women. When you’re a busy journalist trying to meet deadlines, researching your topic is terribly time consuming, and unneccesary if recitation of simple stereotypes will do the job of selling ads and keeping your readers comfortable.

New ideas are scary, and it’s hard to win fans by challenging convention, so we don’t blame writers on the right and left for clinging to convention as “journalism” careers evaporate in a world of online instant information overload. Indeed, as a part of this “So Called Men’s Rights Movement,” we would like to thank all the mainstream and alternative commentators for the continued and increasing attention. However, the absence of any opposition other than childish name-calling will only be effective for a limited time. The problem being that continued commentary on the mens rights movement means an ever greater fraction of your readers are becoming our readers too. This becomes increasingly problematic to gender ideologues as rhetoric and ideas published by the “So Called men’s Rights Movement” are adopted in mainstream journalism. As example, a recent Wall Street Journal article examining reluctance of young men to be sexually entangled with women stated:

“A woman’s “reproductive rights” also include the right to carry a pregnancy to term. The crucial point here is that while the decision belongs entirely to her, in the event that a child is born the law assigns financial responsibility to the male involved. That is what the boy in her study means when he worries about being “screwed for the rest of my life.” Short of sterilization, the only way for a male to be sure of avoiding this fate is to abstain from sex.”

The sentiment of this paragraph could have been lifted from any of a dozen articles on this site, and I thank WSJ contributor James Taranto for his obvious courage to say what others have not dared.

Unfortunately, this trend means the current absence of substantive counter argument in anti-MRA writing is making channels pushing yellow pixels appear increasingly foolish and dishonest.

As a lazy writer myself, a weak opposition does make my job easier, but this movement needs robust opposition, otherwise how will we ever uncover our own false assumptions or faulty reasoning? It is for this reason that this site’s Editor in Chief, Paul Elam published a how-to guide for feminists and other ideologues, so that their attacks on the MRM become stronger and more effective.

In that same spirit, I have included my own helpful guide to the opponents of male human rights, so that they might craft a better attack. We’re aware that for many rhetoricians, being provided an instruction manual on how to field an effective counter argument might seem insulting. We apologize for that, but to do otherwise would be unfair, and unsportsmanlike.

Among bloggers within the “So Called Men’s Movement”, a document has been long-circulated called “the shaming tactics catalog.” This is a list of sixteen common logical fallacies routinely levelled against anyone arguing for the human rights of men and boys. MRM bloggers use this document to quickly identify and then swat aside logical fallacies such as straw-man arguments, appeals to force, ad-hominem arguments and other common tropes of broken and dishonest rhetoric. As an opponent of this movement, you too can benefit from familiarity with this catalog. It’s just 2 pages long, and your attacks will be far stronger if you can eschew such obvious and easily deflected name-calling. Here’s a link to a PDF version for you to download. You’re welcome.

My colleague Paul Elam mentioned in his Guide-for-attacking-the-MRM that for most oppositional writers, target selection is a badly underdeveloped skill. He was right, and frankly gentlemen and ladies, your target selection sucks. The “angry white man” trope seems to be popping up with increasing frequency, and this is just sad. Even as an angry white man myself, I pity those whose point of attack remains fixated on racial and gender stereotypes. Some readers of this piece might be aware that AVfM, in addition to maintaining a web-site also produces two weekly radio shows. (whoops, now it’s three)

In addition to Paul and myself, these shows are co-hosted by several extraordinary women, namely Dr. Tara Palmatier and GirlWritesWhat. On “my” radio show, I know who the rising star is, and I am not her. In addition, AVfM features the writing of authors from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, sexual identities and orientations. TyphonBlue, Barbarossaaa, B.R.M., Izzy, J.White, Valdez, and the incandescent GWW all being high-profile, and sharply incisive contributors outside the “privileged white male” cartoon-reality regularly referenced. In fact, the “So Called Men’s Movement” has been largely unaware of race or sex or sexual orientation until the recent rise of “angry white man” rhetoric drew our attention to the idiocy of that claim. Gentlemen and ladies, sharpen your pencils, please, you’re embarrassing yourselves.

Missing the point.

Also, one of the most unfortunate and foolish tropes regularly regurgitated is the claim of the threat of violence. The Southern Poverty Law Center, whose half-baked attacks tried to paint male human rights as a dangerous hate movement is being funded in part by a group of radical feminist bloggers whose most famous rant calls for the eugenic extermination of men and the sex selective abortion of infants.

Arthur Goldwag of SPLC links to radfemhub

Arthur Goldwag, author of several of the SPLC’s attacks on the human rights of men and boys gave the call-back to the eugenics enthusiasts over at radical-hub in a twitter shout out. Does this even need my commentary?

In fact, rejection of violence is a principal driver in much of the writing from the “So Called Men’s Rights Movement” in opposition to feminists who advocate child-murder, or who use staged shootings in promotion of hate literature adapted for school children. A group of swedish feminists were exposed by writers on this site after portraying the execution style murder of a newspaper reading man, following in thier promotional video by the text “do your part”. This video posted on youtube stayed online for more than a year, in promotion of a stage adaptation of Valerie Solana’s infamous hate literature, the “Society for Cutting Up Men Manifesto”. The writing from the “So Called Men’s Right’s Movement” opposing this murder advocacy was transmuted by gender-ideologue commentators into an endorsement for violence – attributed to “So Called MRAs” including myself. The problem being that the names of individuals advocating murder were published by this web-site.

To oppositional writers, please understand this clearly. The men’s movement is an anti-violence movement. If if your enthusiasm you forget yourself and publicly endorse child abuse, physical violence, eugenics, or murder, we will publish your name. Not because we wish for harm to befall you, no. We will do this because a civil society cannot continue to function when mainstream media becomes a conduit for the advocation of violence.

For readers to whom this is stunningly obvious, and appears condescending, I sincerely apologize. Sadly for many who now earn a living behind a keyboard, this clarification is unfortunately necessary.

So, here’s one more tip for effective rhetorical attack against the “So Called Men’s Rights Movement.” Try not to call for violence. It makes you look stupid, and might even get you arrested. If that happens, then somebody else will have to attack us, and we’ll have to educate them as we’ve tried to educate you. As mentioned earlier in this article, many “So Called Man’s Rights Activists” are lazy, me for example. And I’d much rather not spend my time in repetitive tasks.

I sincerely hope that these several points will be helpful and informative to the opponents of this movement. The quality of attack must improve if those fielding opposition to advocates for the human rights of men and boys are to provide a useful foil for MRA writing.

However, I do wish to repeat my thanks to all those writers and commentators providing continued exposure of the movement seeking human rights for men and boys, and I look forward to working with all of you in promoting the “So Called Men’s Rights Movement” into the center stage of mainstream discourse on human rights.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577341862453090268.html

  • Paul Elam

    Devastating.

  • http://intentious.com/ JSutherland

    A feminist must have found my slutwalk article the other day because the hits went from ~20 per day to ~300 per day and suddenly I’m being called a rape-enabler and rapist. Even better, I found lots of websites calling me an idiot, misogynist and many other unspeakable things… all with links to my original article. It is as though they couldn’t stop themselves from spreading links to my article all across the internet. The more they screamed at me, the louder my voice against them became… but they were the ones making all the effort on my behalf.

  • Patrick Henry

    Talking about us confirms our existence to the blue pill masses. It’s free advertising. There’s no such thing as bad publicity. The more people that know we exist the more will come to our cause. You got to love when your opponent helps you win.

  • Zorro

    Superb.

    The fembots and their useful idiots beclown themselves, and JTO puts them in the floodlights.

  • valdez_addiction

    I just got the email today from Chapin about those assholes over at Cracked.com.

    They call themselves a comedy site but here lately they’ve been leaning towards making political statements. Unfounded but political non the less.

    • Patrick Henry

      Bern lets them have it in his video.

  • valdez_addiction

    Awesome article JTO. I’m glad you addressed this issue. I thought I was gonna have to write an article.

    I don’t really want to because I’d rather keep playing Halo in my mom’s basement. Lol.

    What the hell. I’ll make some time to write one about Cracked.com. I told Chapin I would.

  • mongo

    Pardon my crudity, but I have to say it.

    I like JTO’s attitude. I like his message. He has a great talent. But I wish he could say what he meant in fewer words. I’m asleep half through the 3rd paragraph.

    Then there’s Paul Elam.

    With his writing, I start with my arse flat on my seat, and by the time I’m finished I’m sitting on the edge. He runs out of words before I’m done reading. I have gone from casual reader to “feminist fuckers! Their day has come!!”

    Wouldn’t bother saying if I thought it would make no difference.

    Less is often (who’m my kidding, almost always!) more.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

      I don’t get that. By the 3rd paragraph I’m on the edge of my couch.

      • Merlin

        Tension, suspense…gripped by what’s being said and the way it’s being delivered, and just long enough to get the reader wanting more.

        • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

          Absolutely. I find jto’s writing some of the best and most engaging on the web or anywhere else. (also his rant the other night was EPIC!)

          • Steve_85

            JtO lost his shit? Please elaborate (and link if possible!).

    • Steve_85

      Different strokes for different folks. I quite like JtO’s style.

    • mongo

      I can’t argue with folks who like what they like. They know their subject better than I do. But I do think the feedback should tell authors what they need to hear.

      I think it’s a given that we all agree with what’s being said here, otherwise we would all be down with Feministing telling Jessica what a great gal she is. The fact we are even here means we like the message, for God’s sake!

      The thing is, we are growing, and getting more play. It’s not so much what we say now – because we are all roughly on the same page – but how well we say it. Our better communicators should be rewarded.

      But how can they known that they are, you know, better communicators?

      AVfM doesn’t qualify the uptick and downtick boxes. By default, most of us would read that to mean “agree/disagree”. I argue that this is not useful. We all agree, most of the time.

      How about “I read this to the end: yes/no”.

      Forget what we think. Ask your authors what they think.

    • andybob

      Mr Mongo,
      Keep in mind that contributors must be aware that many readers are new to the MRM. Articles like these offer helpful summaries of recent events, provide handy lists of MRA concerns (good to reel off when snide opponents try the ‘privileged’ attack), introduces the indispensible ‘Shaming Catalogue’, and offer a well-deserved shot of encouragement to us all.

      The ‘Shaming Catalogue’ is a brilliant resource. I have lost count of the times I have undermined shrill feminists by categorizing their tactics the moment they make them. It’s a great party trick. (“Grow up!”; “Code Green – The Peter Pan Attack”). The men always give me their e-mail addresses so I can forward it to them.

      Shaming, along with whopping great lies, is such a vital part of their man-hating arsenal, that laughing at it makes them apoplectic with impotent rage. It is fascinating to witness this impotence on such a grand scale. Offering them this kind of pseudo-assistance as they drown in their own bile is almost elegaic in its subtle cruelty. I like it a lot.

      Even after absorbing so much information and so many ideas from sites like AVFM, I still find articles like these extremely useful. Mr JTO’s style is witty and urbane. He runs rings around morosely flat-footed feminists. Keep rockin’ dude. (Look at that – talking about JTO’s style makes me go all hip hop).

      • Alan Vaughn

        andybob,
        I should have read your comment before agreeing with mongo… Ah well I live and learn every day.

    • Alan Vaughn

      “less is often more”

      In this instance I would say that rule should be applied.

      Whilst I loved reading John’s letter, in fact all of the writers on this site write with nothing short of literary genius, where all articles are VERY inspirational and thought provoking, but most of all: have the effect of eroding many of my learned and worthless preconceptions about many things related to our society.

      I agree with you mongo, but only in this case because it must be born in mind that the open letter is addressed to people who (let’s be honest) don’t like us and who are most likely NOT INTERESTED in anything we have to say; they have already made up their minds that we are a pack of woman-haters, bigots and losers who all reside in their mother’s basements, blah-blah-blah…
      Therefore they probably wouldn’t feel that their time would be worth spending, reading a lengthy albeit perfectly written and FAIR letter from someone they regard as their opposition or enemy
      They could quite possibly just discard the letter, thinking: ‘Aghh, can’t be bothered reading their BS’…
      If you keep written communications to those BIASED people short and sweet, they might just read all of it and whatever is said must surely penetrate at least one or two readers thoughts…

      I know I’m new here and my opinion probably won’t be appreciated, but I have had some experience dealing with ‘difficult’ people before and have found that by keeping communications short and polite, whilst ensuring the essential points of what you are trying to tell them are clearly conveyed seems to work best.

      • scatmaster

        Why are we getting in a discussion about ones literary styles as compared to another.

        • Alan Vaughn

          I wasn’t actually discussing anyone’s ‘literary styles’ as such, my point was more about how things could be perceived by ‘our opposition’ – the addressee’s of JTO’s open letter.

          I think JTO’s literary style is nothing less than literary genius. I thought I made my point quite clear about that in my comment (in reply to mongo).

          However this is not about what I think or what WE MRA’s think of his writing style,
          it’s about how they who oppose us and even regard us as a ‘hate group’ would take one look at (any) long anecdote sent their way from their (wrongly) perceived enemy and probably regard it with the same contempt they already hold for us, thus could quite likely: not bother to even read it.

          I shall put it another way and hopefully this will help you to better understand what I am alluding to:
          Whenever I myself come across any comments left on OUR blogs by feminist or mangina trolls, I don’t read them and IGNORE them, if they are more than about 2 paragrphs long, because I am not interested in their nonsense. I am BIASED against feminists and their misandric mantras.
          (I am quite sure too, that I would not be the only MRA who harbours that attitude when it comes to feminists and their generally ridiculous and pathetic attempts to humiliate us, by trolling our blogs)…

          So I am merely stating that it would be reasonable to assume that they would hold anything we write with similar contempt and would be similarly inclined (like me when it comes to their comments) to ignore anything that would take them more than a minute or two to read through.

          That is why I said to mongo that I agree with him but ONLY in this case.

          I was only trying to offer a helpful tip based on my own experiences, NOT criticise anyone, or compare ‘literary styles’…

          • Stu

            I’ve said it a million times, it does not matter what feminists think of us…..well it does to a point….but you already know what they think of us….and nothing……nothing is going to change that……..we are scum…..no matter what we say or don’t say or how we say it……even if they read……or not read anything any of us write…….it makes no difference to their opinion of us…..there opinion of us is based on hateful ideology and has nothing to do with anything we…..or any other man is doing or has ever done. The seed to extract resources from men as a whole…..the hate…..the lies……and the bullshit is just a way to demonize and dehumanize men to make the resource extraction easier.

            Our audience is not feminists…..they have already decided which side of the fence they sit on. And nothing will change their minds about that.

          • Stu

            A little change to what I just said. There is one thing that will change feminists……not their mind……but their behavior…..and that is pain…….not as in violence…..as in negative effects to them from their actions. They have never had any before you know.

            The goal of feminism is actually the same as it is for traditional women…..resource extraction from men.

            Lets view men like an oil field. Men are like the source rock….the oil bearing sedimentary rock that contains the oil. The resource that men contain….is their labor..and ability to produce wealth…resources……which are used to live on.

            Feminists are like the oil companies struggling to extract those resources…..and their equipment is the legal system, government…media etc. Just as an oil field produces much oil when it is first drilled, and then as the oil is pumped out and pressure drops, and ground water encroaches on the field, more and more effort must be expended to keep production up. More resources must be used up, and more desperate measures employed to keep the flow of resources coming. First more wells are drilled….then water is injected into the field to keep the pressure up…..then water removal equipment is employed to remove the increasing water cut from the produced oil…..then gas is flared to remove the developing gas cap, as well as injected beneath the field to drive oil up. Horizontal wells are drilled to increase the surface area in contact with the remaining, and shrinking productive parts of the field. Eventually, there is nothing you can do to prevent declines……and the amount of resources you have to invest to keep operating……outstrip the value of the resource you are obtaining. At this point there is not point continuing……your oil field has become an energy sink rather than an energy source…..regardless of price.

            So like the oil company, the feminists are at the stage where enhanced methods of recovery are needed to keep the resource flowing. And just like an oil field eventually becomes an energy sink, so will misandry.

            Lets look at marriage for an example. Marriage V1 was like the conventional oil well. Drill down a few hundred feet…hit oil under pressure…..and it flows out….beautiful…not much effort….massive returns. But then the consumption ramps up…to use all of the new supply….and they want more……..always more….so more wells are drilled…..no fault divorce..marry up…hypergamy….child support…..alimony..etc. But just as the more wells drilled…causes a surge in resource extraction…followed by a decline…….so does feminism’s tools of increasing extraction. Marriage strike, etc. Then we enter the next stage, where defacto relationship are included……this is analogous to ultra deep-sea wells, tar sands extraction…..mountain top removal…..and other desperate and expensive methods. The extra infrastructure required for the oil company to exploit these expensive and lower quality resources….also consume much of the resources extracted. Just as the state apparatus put in place to increase the extraction of resources from men costs billions of dollars to maintain…and must be paid for out of the very same source that it seeks to extract resources from for women’s benefit. The less resource there is, and the more dispersed it is……the harder it is to extract , and the more and more increasingly expensive equipment, personnel, and environmental damage is required.

            The advanced methods of extraction that feminists are now using…including jailing men who can not afford to pay, and allowing woman to extract resources from men on the basis of casual relationships, one night stands, proven paternity fraud, false allegations etc, demonstrates that they are at the point of peak resource extraction, and declines are inevitable regardless of any further methods which they may employ. In fact, further methods will hasten the decline,and make it more steep, perhaps after an initial uptick, but then much steeper decline then would otherwise be.

            Peak feminism, and peak oil this decade. Both declining steeper in the following decade. Any further efforts to increase extraction will result in far greater environmental damage….(increase in MGTOW, MRAs, etc) and less revenue for both women…and the government.

          • Patrick Henry

            Fantastic analogy Stu!

          • Alan Vaughn

            Stu,
            Thanks for the very creative way you described their evil agenda, I think that is probably the best way of describing it that I’ve seen!
            As for your first comment – yes I’m well aware of that – it’s worse than banging your head against a brick wall until you knock yourself out doing so.

            Our audience is not feminists…..they have already decided which side of the fence they sit on…

            True, there must be others that do think with their brains, who will eventually see our work and the INTELLIGENT (as opposed to their rubbish) commentaries such as JTO’s open letter and much more, and they are the people we WANT to alert to what is really happening.
            (andybob actually said more-or-less the same thing, I wished I’d seen his comment before hap-hazardly agreeing with mongo)

            Your oil exploration story also explains so well WHY Australia and many other Western industrialized nations have such ridiculously high taxes.
            We (blokes) are effectively supporting these parasites through our taxes to hate us, criminalize us and ruin us!

            I’d love to see all of them exiled to my wife’s home country, where there are NO tax-payer funded women’s pensions for this, that and everything else they expect as their ‘right’ to demand.
            They don’t even have the dole let alone anything for selfish feminist protected women ‘victims’.
            If they have a divorce, no husband to bleed dry either, he just fucks off and finds another girlfriend and that’s the end of it – no feminist ‘family’ law courts there!

            About the only thing they can do there, is if a man actually and really assaults her, she can charge him for assault, (although I don’t think they call it ‘DV’, just assault) same with actual and REAL rape, not ’15 years ago rape’ or ‘regret I went on a date with this loser rape’ and numerous other invented false-rape varieties, like here!

            What’s ironic though is how we (western society) look down on them and say how ‘corrupt’ their govenments, police and their societies overall are…

          • Darryl X

            No, Stu. I think you had it right the first time. It really doesn’t matter what feminists think. Mostly because they have no capacity for thought. And even if they did, it still wouldn’t matter.

  • All2Keen

    When will the opposition learn that sending out the kiddie-squad to shoot down the MRM with spit-wads and name calling while JtO is using cannons is not working?

    With all respect, GWW may be the rising star, -watched the interview, nice job- JtO you are providing the one-two knockout writing that brings me back. Keep firing them cannons JtO, they’re feelin’ it.

    Gotta go, Bern’s got a video, I must of missed.

  • Steve_85

    … then they fight you…

    I’ve always been told I shouldn’t be so condescending… that means I talk down to people.

    And to finish, a question:

    Q: Why is there always this big no-no hanging over violence? I agree that advocating violence is not something we should do, nor is wishing it upon someone, but violence itself is not inherently bad. It is simply a tool. A knife is a tool. It can be used to kill, but it is not BAD just for being a knife. It can also be used to make other tools, or to provide food, or to shave a beard. A knife can be used to prune away dead foliage, encouraging and even aiding a plant to grow.

    Just as the knife, violence can be used for good purposes. It is a critical component of our laws. Our entire society (and all societies) is based on coercive violence. Follow the laws or else. Violence is also one of the best teachers I know of. Don’t play with matches or your parents will smack you. Don’t be a mouthy bitch at the pub on weekends or you might lose a tooth. etc

    Violence is a tool like any other, it can be used for good or bad. Why do we malign it so?

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/MRAGreatestHits MRA-GH

      Politics.

    • Otter

      Good and evil are relative. They refer to benefit and harm. When applied in the context of a society the good of the individual(s) is weighed against the good of the entire group. That which is good benefits some or all of the members and that which is evil harms some or all of the members. The basic principal of a society is cohesion. That cohesion is predicated upon trust. Violence although necessary in some circumstances threatens the cohesion of a society because it not only causes harm to the individual(s) at whom it is directed but it undermines trust in one’s safety. I would replace your knife with a chainsaw because violence is not quiet. it represents a threat to all members of a society and has psychosocial ripples beyond the bloodshed.

    • Raven01

      “Violence is a tool like any other, it can be used for good or bad. Why do we malign it so?”
      Short answer: We are smart enough to achieve the same results without the use of violence.
      You should note that violence in self-defense is not seen in the same light.
      But, unlike our adversaries we are above using violence as a compliance tool to further our goals of having men universally acknowledged as fully human.

      • xnook

        For those of us who believe that Violence, or perhaps more properly, “Use of deadly force” is at times justified (self-defense, etc…), I read these missives keeping in mind the following:

        1) JTO and others here who are loudest about “no violence” also staunchly defend the right to defend oneself.

        2) Go somewhere like http://www.nononsenseselfdefense.com/, and you’ll quickly realize that if you own yourself, your boundaries, and so forth, that what constitutes Self Defense – though possibly legally even more restrained than I think is morally right (just and legal do not always mesh) – is actually far more proscribed in almost any moral context than most who haven’t seriously THOUGHT about it may be aware at first. Continuing to fight once you can safely disengage is “fighting” not self-defense. (This is also why taunting someone when they’ve given you a chance to back off, or promising to “come back” is a no-no in the wrong part of town. You’re promising that letting you go is just an opportunity for you to blindside them later…).

        I also recommend that you look at Eric Raymond’s article “Ethics From the Barrel of a Gun” (http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html) which is what being constantly armed or often in a situation where decisions have life-or-death consequences (frankly guys, most in the west are coddled when it comes to severe consequences, which is why the family court system comes as such a shock to many) teaches about self restraint, consideration, etc. He’s also the guy who gave us the term “Kafkatrap” – (http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122)

        If you have any glorified ideas about violence, no matter how necessary it may be, get it out of your skull. It’s a great way to get hurt for the rest of you life. It’s also why I use “use of deadly force”. Once a fight starts, it’s easy to escalate, HARD to de-escalate, and pick up the wrong thing and clock someone with it and you have dead or permanently injured people. You could be one of them. Even something as justified as pushing someone aside to get past them to the door can be taken by them, in a rage, as escalating instead of escaping.

        It’s also one of the reasons that many MRA’s here are disgusted by the license given to women to hit, slap, etc. without consequences in kind or of similar severity (shaming, etc.). Or to goad other men into defending them simply because they are upset. At the wrong time or with White Knights, it can easily provoke a fight, with all the potentially lethal consequences noted even if nobody meant to kill anyone to start with.

        3) That while I personally believe that “Violence” is justified at times, (see self defense above), and may disagree with some foreign policy issues, using that term here muddies the waters. It then requires elaboration as to whether or not we mean self defense. From a purely political standpoint, it gives those who want to paint us as hateful to others (both the painters and their audience often being those who live in a coddled environment and think that “don’t ever hate” or “never get angry” is the height of wisdom) a stick to beat us with. Even when we DO elaborate that we’re talking ethically justified violence, they’d like nothing more to turn what we say into “They believe it’s OK to beat your wife” because they’ll cherry pick the facts and ignore the part where a slap or pushing them aside was preceded by them hysterically flailing at you or throwing things at you or cornering you while doing so.

        It doesn’t matter if under no circumstances we would condone a guy walking up to somebody and slapping them because dinner was cold, or any other stereotype by the domestic violence industry, that’s the brush they’re trying to paint us with.

        So much like navy engine room terminology uses “raise” and “lower” to talk about changing equipment speeds instead of “increase” or “decrease” (easily misheard) – to avoid confusion, and to minimize the possibility of our words being used against us, the term is avoided here. And frankly, since ethically bound use of (potentially) deadly force between individuals is effectively limited to self-defense (we’re not debating global politics and warfare here), there’s really no use to EVER promote use of force, much less violence, in any context other than to do as JTO does and state that self defense against physical threats is not only a moral right, but a moral obligation.

        • Turbo

          xnook, I think you summed it up perfectly

    • jack

      Two compelling reasons why MRAs in general, and in particular MRAs on this blog, are explicitly non-violent are that 1) any advocacy of violence would result in immediate censorship and 2) we have no means of violence at our disposal (Luxembourg doesn’t threaten China).

      Admittedly though, there’s no certainty feminism can be defeated by democratic means. Its military arm is formidable (Police + National Guard + Army). For now out task is to get bigger. We are like tiny mammals biding our time between the toes of dinosaurs.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    A thank you letter JTO ?

    Oh yeah they’ll like this, and for that matter whiskey comes from cocoanuts, fruit bats are big moths, golf balls are the devils hail, kelp is King Neptune’s pubic hair, chickens are made of chocolate, the space shuttle is made of plasticine, nails are thorns from iron roses, acid rain is god’s wiss, penguins have underground bases, our DNA is lego for germs and doughnut holes are gathering great armies on the outskirts of the cities.

    Well that’s what I reckon anyway and a flaming good article to boot.

  • Gauze

    I found AVfM a week or two ago. I really love your methods in disarming these simple-minded keyboard warriors.

    • Kimski

      Welcome, Gauze.

    • Patrick Henry

      Welcome to the cause Gauze.

    • scatmaster

      simple-minded keyboard warriors.

      snicker

  • Muk

    What’s Ironic, is that My genesis as an MRA came from an assignment from my feminist English teacher.
    She assigned for us to write an expository essay on Domestic Violence.
    My being an asshole, led to me doing the essay on “Domestic Violence…against Men”

    My being a diligent student who refuses to do half-assed work (and wants to pass his class) led me to seek out actual studies (and not just websites talking about the studies, which turned out to be *very* important because bitchez be lyin!), *and* the MRM.
    Initially, I thought “lolol what a bunch of woman-hating misogynists!” but as I delved further and further into my research…well…I haven’t stopped researching yet.
    That was two years ago.

    So I can thank feminism for my becoming an MRA
    THANKS FEMINISM!

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/activism-page/karma/ KARMA MRA MGTOW

    “….has come under increasing attack from not-for-profit organizations….”

    maybe should read “has come under increasing attack from so called not-for-profit organizations”

    • Just1X

      the organisations may be not for profit, but there sure is a good living to be made out of working for a “charity”.

  • outdoors

    Thanks JTO,excellent than-you letter.

    I more or less said the same thing in a comment in one of Bernard’s vid’s the other day.

    The more we are attacked and exposed as mra’s,the louder the silent ones become.

    These feminist’s are to stupid to realize that their attacks only make more men stand up and take notice to the blatant misandry that they are perpetuating.

    • Cacography

      “The more we are attacked and exposed as mra’s,the louder the silent ones become.”

      Indeed. Exposing someone who speaks the truth only serves to propagate the truth. Unsuccessfully challenging a point of view only reinforces that view to third-party observers.

  • AntZ

    Feminist ideologues attack with off-target carpet bombing.

    MRAs respond with precision munitions.

    We use far less explosive, but for far greater effect :)

    • Otter

      I would say they are disregarding the rules of war (healthy and honest debate) and lobbing biological and chemical weapons by the dozen.

  • http://intentious.com/ JSutherland

    JtO, I just have to say that when you lost it during your rant on AVfM Radio the other day I thought you were magnificient. I know it’s not PC to lose it like that, but I think that’s a big part of why I loved it so much. Good work dude.

    (I was going to write *manly salute*, but that sounded wayyy too crude and/or corny)

  • Rper1959

    many of us “so called mens rights activists” thank you JTO, for at least attempting to raise the level of discourse from our opponents to some sort of minimally valid level.

    Regrettably I doubt it will make much difference, they , the “anti mens rights lobby” simply don’t have any valid arguments to proffer, unless they actually do begin to argue for gender equity, in which case they be with us rather than agin us.

  • scatmaster

    When you’re a busy journalist trying to meet deadlines, researching your topic is terribly time consuming, and unneccesary if recitation of simple stereotypes will do the job of selling ads and keeping your readers comfortable.

    Zing!!!!!

  • rickster

    I really love this article because of how it sums up what is now our place on the field of the political scuffle. I’ve often bounced ideas off my siblings who are feminist turns out, and it’s honed my ability to defend my stance as an MRM advocate.

    Revisiting Steve_85′s comment, I happen to agree that violence is not wholly evil, any more then anger. Violence has its purpose and place in a civil society, such as in the act of defending our freedoms, liberties, and family to the point of shedding blood. But I believe people in the MRM want to avoid that at all costs because like any decent human being, they abhor violence. War is hell and violence its ugly little colleague, which has been devastating societies throughout history, tearing up families, dividing friends and turning allies into enemies. However, though I hate conflict I will never run from it, and neither will members of the MRM because though violence has had such a devastating impact, it has also been used as a tool for positive change, for ending corruption and tyranny, and even saved the lives of countless generations by ushering in eras of peace. I am grateful to be part of a movement that understands that and has been level-headed this whole time while their opponents openly advocate unnecessary and appalling acts of violence, such as male gender-cide.

  • Otter

    Last night at a party I was talking to this guy who just got engaged. I began telling him about the realities of divorce court, VAWA, and the incredibly high rate of paternity fraud. I told him about how often false rape accusations are made and the lie of the gender wage gap. I told him about misandry in the media and specifically how it is perfectly acceptable to ridicule a man who was just castrated by his wife but it would be considered horrific to ridicule a woman who was genitally mutilated by her husband. I went on and on in hushed tones about our struggle for equality and I could see him waking up to this reality. He told me that I had opened his eyes and asked me what this was called and where all this information comes from. As his fiancé walked up behind him I whispered “the men’s rights movement” with the powerful feeling that I was telling someone of the existence of “la resistance.”

    I think we need a secret hand signal to identify ourselves.

    • Bombay

      LOL. Once he became engaged, he probably picked up on “the change”, but it had not quite come to the forefront. Your talk helped his awaking. Nice!

    • Patrick Henry

      Preach on Brother!

    • Stu

      Well he can’t say he wasn’t warned can he.

    • Alan Vaughn

      Your experience is certainly encouraging, you should be pleased that you found a way into his otherwise indoctrinated thoughts.
      It’s very sad how so many men cannot see what’s going on around them and what is being done to them all the time.

      I have tried what you have described here and most of the time they laugh at me as though I’m some sort of eccentric fanatical fringe-dweller.
      Nearly all men I try and discuss this with have never even heard of the word ‘misandry’ and I mean guys that have been ruined by the family law courts and everything else.
      Sometimes I just want to (but never have) smash them fair in the face, just to try and wake ‘em up!
      Who was it that made-up that silly phrase ‘ignorance is bliss’?

      They can’t see the wood for trees…

  • Bubbles

    That wraps things up quite nicely. Well done.

    Feminists have painted themselves in a corner, and the MRM is as unstoppable as the winds and tides.

  • http://www.manwomanmyth.com Perseus

    OT:

    Um, so.. we’ve been here before..

    “…one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

    Insipid women-veneration

    This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.”

    • Atlas Reloaded

      They recognized what is their proper position, but with the contention that we should “be indulgent toward their weaknesses”. Uh…no.

  • Skeptic

    Thanks JtO.
    Bang on target brother.

    Thanks also feminists for taking for granted and using up every dumb chivalrous impulse I ever had.
    You freed me by trying to enslave me.

    MGHOW.

    • Bombay

      “You freed me by trying to enslave me.”

      This is a good tee shirt IMO. Something positive from all their negative.

  • JinnBottle

    Brando said it best: “Hey STELLL-AHHHR”, JtO.

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/ St. Estephe

    I rarely refer to myself as an MRA. Several reasons. Side issue. But I must say that I am quite enamored of the term “So-Called Men’s Rights Activist.” Thus I WILL call myself a SCMRA. I also just a-dore these terms: “running dog lackey” (that’s me), “tin foil hat” (never leave home without one), “right wing extremist” (bingo), “reactionary” (my ticket to the gulag where all honest people belong). If any of you “folks” (The big Zero’s favorite word) would like to take a close look at SPLC search the still-ongoing Jesse Trentadue story. It is explosive! THANKS JtO!!!

  • Cacography

    JtO, I love your writing.

    I would like to point out, though, that a much more nicely formatted 3-page version of the shaming tactics catalog can be found near the end of the first issue of Factory’s “MRM! Magazine,” which can be found here: http://archive.org/details/Mrm-Issue1

    It’s on pages 32 to 34 of 36 of MRM! and is entitled “A Reading From the Anti-Male Shaming Tactics Catalog”.

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/ St. Estephe

    Phase 1: The ideology, criminal tyranny and fake data are well-exposed. Phase 2: The “historical oppression” as supported by the university-forged “Herstory,” which is the very foundation – the very justification – for the phase 1 issues, is utterly obliterated by the exposure of the ignored historical facts which the universities have successfully suppressed since the invention of social constructionist “social history.” — Phase 2 is just beginning. The more phase 2 discussing the quicker “herstory” will collapse into dust like a thermite-rigged tower.