Male identity is one of the fundamental drivers of the MGTOW movement; which, for anyone returning to this planet after a decade of vacation, is a growing pathway of masculine self-identity in which men are rejecting a statist, a collectivist, feminist or even a female-approved definition of what constitutes a man.
Instead, MGTOW men, or Zeta males, are defining their own identities as men – without much regard for the convenience and utility of those identities to outsiders, to women or to a runaway state. It is, in fact, a revolution of thought in which men declare themselves human beings of worth – and don’t ask permission or apologize or allow anyone else to devalue their humanity in preference to their utility.
Male sexuality is of course both demonized and treated as a form of predation, but also strictly limited to a narrow set of acceptable expressions. Outside of sexual identities which place men in positions to benefit women as sexual gate-keepers, masculine sexuality is generally condemned.
This is evident in the frequent use of rhetorical attack on male sexuality as a go-to response to criticism of feminist dogma. Almost as popular as “you just hate women” is a catalog of ad hominem attacks reducing to “small penis, mother’s basement dwelling, and unemployed virgin”. These standard and frankly boringly predictable insults all relate to a man’s inability to gain access to sex, or in the case of an imputed tiny penis – to perform sexually.
The most absurd and telling indictment of this most puerile insult is that the accusation of sexual failure is nothing more than a reflection of the feminine sexual selection of whatever woman offers such commentary. Oh, you don’t fancy me? I can assure you darling, I completely understand just how you feel.
However, there is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or indeed, transsexual.
Some of the rhetoric around this refers in condemning tones to the “gay agenda”, which as nearly as I can tell, includes such radical notions as “let’s not beat up or murder gay men” and the equally shocking “let’s extend to gay men and women the same legal rights everybody else has” and so on. If that’s the gay agenda – as a MRA, or just as a decent human being, then I’m behind it.
Sometimes scriptural argument is invoked in the condemnation of gays, bisexuals, and anyone else whose sexual identity is non-heterosexual.
None of the other obsolete rules of ancient holy writings are given modern credence, but gay men are heaped with scorn and contempt and scripture is used to justify it? I don’t have much to say to this attitude besides grow up and get over it.
Male sexual identity is both policed and vilified in a feminized culture and some MRAs are now doing what amounts to the same thing. These are men (and women) whose sexuality, either chosen or not, doesn’t conform to an acceptable standard – and some within the MRM would demonize them. Gentlemen and ladies – this is nothing short of stupid.
At what point does who an individual finds sexually attractive diminish their value as a human? How is it that a man whose preference doesn’t include vagina becomes less of a man? Conversely, are we going to pretend the sexual preferences of our female colleagues matter in the context of partnership in the fight for the human rights of men and boys?
The valuation of human beings, of men and women, based on who they’d like to fuck or what kind of orifice they prefer is stupid and has no place in the men’s rights movement, or at AVfM.
Admittedly, some people might find the prospect of non-heterosexuality alien, foreign, and unappealing. As a much younger man, having inherited the prejudices of the era I grew up in, I was perplexed and scandalized to receive the occasional flirtatious attention of gay men. But then I grew up, and got over it. Isn’t it time for this human rights movement to do the same?
If we don’t get over it, then this is not a men’s rights movement, it’s a straight men’s movement. Or, it’s a white men’s movement, or maybe, a tall men’s movement, or a republican men’s movement. For myself, I find these narrow categories and self-selected separations to be unhelpful, and irrelevant in a larger fight for the humanity, and the human rights of men and boys. In the phrase “gay men”, gay is an adjective, and men is the noun.
When men are not expected to die without complaint any time higher gas prices make it inconvenient for soccer moms to drive from their gated community to the local grass pitch, or any other time men’s utility trumps their humanity, well then maybe I’ll entertain the usefulness of keeping the gays or the darkies out of the club house. On the other hand, maybe I’ll still think it’s a stupid argument. But I do know that for a so called men’s rights movement to marginalize men based on who they want in their bed – well, it’s beneath us.
247 Posts in Total
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.
If you don't have paypal, check out the other options.
If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store.
Suzanne McCarley:
yinyangbalance:
Alhamdu Yaro:
Dean Esmay:
nictusempra:
I tell you if I was a feminist with the usual apricot sized nugget of skull meat upstairs, I can tell you I’d still be smart enough to work out that there is a problem going up against the JTO.
Seriously, this bloke can talk under wet cement with a mouthful of marbles.
Nice one Mr Canada.
Thanks for saving my seat Dr. F!
I see that JTO knocks another yet another one out of the park for one more grand slam!!!
How many is that now, John?
I’ve lost count and the opposing teams are just getting their asses handed to them.
Your stats are indeed legendary!
THIS!!!:
“As a much younger man, having inherited the prejudices of the era I grew up in, I was perplexed and scandalized to receive the occasional flirtatious attention of gay men. But then I grew up, and got over it. Isn’t it time for this human rights movement to do the same?”
“apricot sized” Dr F???
About the size of one half of the peanut I reckon.
No Scatters…. wait,
I meant one of those really tiny peanut sized apricots.
Perfect. Sexual preference is not the issue. It’s a conveniently divisive distraction from the issue. Every word spoken against “gay men’s” sexuality is a word against MEN’s sexuality.
exactly suz makes no difference gay straight male female or otherwise as long as they want REAL equality for men.
btw suz did i by chance see you on thecharterproject forums?
No, must be a different Suz.
(I’ve heard we’re all pretty cool, though)
Suz, I couldn’t agree with you more.
It’s the same when Judas Priest’s Rob Halford made his coming out as a gay man. For god’s sake, so what? Music has exactly NOTHING to do with sexual orientation.
As for the MRM. IMO MRM is about basic human rights. You are no less human because of your sexual preferences, case closed.
+infinity as Priest is legend!!!
I think the vilification of male sexuality is one of the things that drives homophobia. We men are raised to be repulsed by our own masculinity and that translates to other people’s masculinity.
I’m quite heterosexual but I often feel that we men deny ourselves a number of experiences in this regard simply because of this internalized dislike of men. Men and women are not different enough to justify obsessing over the one while running from the other.
I often get complements and flirts from gay men – all the time in fact. And I have NEVER had a single one not take no for an answer. Though I’d of course prefer to get hit on by women as often as that, it’s still a complement and that’s how I take it.
I also often envy gay men for how much easier their dating life is. They have no idea what it’s like to deal with the hoops that hetero-women make you jump through not to mention the financial and emotional stress just getting through the first few dates.
Seriously, female privilege and female power in the dating game absolutely cannot be overstated. It’s unbelievable quite how much power any average woman has in that arena. You only really notice it once you get a glimpse of another arena. Nobody, who has told you that women have all the power in dating, has exaggerated. In fact I think it’s understated every time.
Sure, dating is only one area of life but it spills into nearly all other areas. This power imbalance is the basic cause for chivalry and white knighthood. That makes it the cause for pretty much all men’s rights concerns. Feminism is just another symptom of that imbalance – nothing else.
If you buy into the feminists’ depiction of male sexuality (rapist/domestic abuser/The Silence of the Lambs), they’ve already won. It’s just another feminist lie.
We wouldn’t be here today without heterosexual men. Feminists are doing everything they can to attack healthy, balanced relationships between men and women because it is the biggest threat to their hateocracy.
In dating, women can have their cake and eat it, too. That is, they can espouse and embody feminist doctrine while acting in a completely opposite manner (e.g., getting drunk and making out with cute boys) and call it third wave feminism.
Any criticism of their behavior is a criticism against all women. They refuse to accept any responsibility for their lies, their actions or their attitude. Feminists demonize male desire while vehemently denying its biological necessity.
Adi, That’s a great post. One of the reasons I am an MRA is because I see the same abusive sexual insult hurled at heterosexual men these days that I experienced as a gay man years ago and I am repulsed and angered by it. And you are completely right on when you say “we men deny ourselves a number of experiences in this regard simply because of this internalized dislike of men.” That really needs to change and men need to take a hard honest look at their own internalized misandry.
Here is a paragraph from a white paper I wrote several years ago regarding feminist abuse of hetrosexual male sexuality.
…Many young men are ill at ease with their sexuality. The Tantra of sexual pleasure that entwines men and women together has been severely compromised and in its place lies a vapid feminist inculcated politic of imposed legal, psychological and social mores devoid of joy and spontaneity. Together they construct a politically contrived aberration of sexual dictums that codify sexual encounter, when initiated by men, as an act of domination and aggression. The individual power of the woman over the man must be preserved at all cost and to her satisfaction. While women are free in today’s society to display just about any image of sexuality they like, a man’s manifested sexuality is repressed by socially inflicted shame and guilt. Wardrobe malfunction, It’s the man’s fault and he must apologize. Men’s sexual desires are thus made subservient to the will and caprice of the woman. The beautiful primordial ritual of intimate sexual tension, encounter and union between men and women; the life affirming connection of the human birthright as a biological mammal is reduced to a one night hookup. …
Some other extremely broad, intellectually invalid, generalized attacks against male sexuality:
1. ageism – e.g. older men
2. masturbation (“jilling off” is empowering)
3. pornography
4. prostitution (“paying for it” is shameful and immoral)
5. creep (anyone not meeting subjective criteria for attractiveness)
6. sports cars, phallic objects or any positive material good (compensating)
7. promiscuity (popular men must be players)
8. impotence/premature ejaculation
9. physical fitness (must be vain/homosexual)
10. dominance/confidence = coercion/oppression
11. any non-gynocentric male fantasy
12. Looking at women, talking to women, thinking about women, etc. in a way that makes them uncomfortable
I could go on, but I think everyone gets the point. Feminists try to turn positive traits into negative ones and seek out anything they see as a “weakness” to emasculate men, either physically or mentally. Many of these attacks contradict each other or feminist dogma.
Man, that’s a lot of nebulous rules…
No wonder it’s time to FTSU!!!!!
Missed one. Women also really hate male virgins, as referenced in the article.
Because, really, manhood is entirely defined by one’s obeisance to the “fairer sex.”
And also, healthy heterosexual women LOVE male sexuality. Hardly surprising given how much they benefit from it.
Here’s another attack on male sexuality, IMO, stripped from this morning’s headlines.
http://tinyurl.com/8xxgorb
“Democratic Rep. Claims Victimizing Women is ‘as American as Apple Pie’”
“A Democratic congresswoman claimed this week that victimizing women is practically a right of passage in the United States, and that doing so is even ‘as American as apple pie.’”
and
“…the Senate has sought to paint the House as engaging in the “war on women” by not expanding the act’s [VAWA's] provisions.
Moore called the House’s bill ‘very, very frightening’…”
““Victimization of women is as American as apple pie. I think people accept it and men’s right [of] passage, men’s rights as boyfriends and husbands,” Moore said.”
If anyone were to replace the words: “men,” “men’s,” “boyfriends,” or “husbands” with: Black, Hispanic, gay, lesbian, woman, wife, etc. it would be considered hate speech, according to the PC, special identity rules and the Main Stream Media would be all over it so how can this elected rep. get away with uttering such flagrant hate speech?
Ironically, the act of our flipping the script at them in this way goes right over their heads. It snaps many blue-pillers out of it, if only for a moment and eventually only brings more MRA’s into the fold. At the same time, it substantially weakens the message of the OP.
One would think they would figure this out and try some different tactics, sooner or later…
Their ignorance is only eclipsed by their hypocrisy.
If an analysis and redefinition of gender is to be made, then using their reasoning frankly “Femaleness” is in far more need of attention. No seriously it does if you read the justifications of the “Redefining Masculinity” crowd. But redefining what it means to be a Woman seems to be beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion.
Challenge feminists on this and they say women have already done this with 2nd wave feminism in the 1960′s. No, 2nd wave feminism was give me stuff and give it me now. I think MRA’s should push women to redefine “Femaleness” in a meaningful way.
That being said, all of this is one big crock and no one is really buying it. Its motivations are insincere and it will fade.
I personally haven’t seen any “gay bashing” in the MRM.
I’m no less interested in someone’s sexuality than I am there race, creed or gender for that matter.
It’s when they organize into “victim class” groups and start demanding attention for their “unique identitiy” and govt mandated favorable treatment at the expense of others, that I have a problem.
The Individual is the only thing that matters in a Free Society.
Why are those of the “hetero-normative/privilaged white male class” STILL discriminated against in college admissions and employment. Because the government never stops, it doesn’t repeal legislation, it just keeps making more of it.
The “identifiable victim group” narrative is consuming governments and society.
I was asked in a poll the other day if I was either:
Non-Hispanic white
Hispanic
African-American
Asian- America
Other
When I replied “Other” she asked what exactly, and replied “European-American”. She thought that was funny.
I did the same thing to the Census Bureau in 2010 and they sent a representative to my house to talk to me about it. An African-American guy no less! He thought it was funny too.
Agreed 100%, which is why that while I am tolerant of different political ideologies here, on a personal level this is where I know that solutions from the left are non existent. Cultural Marxism really doesn’t offer anything other than a way to divide up the human race into more and more fragmented groups competing for government handouts and hating on each other while they do it. It’s a suck ass solution by any measure.
We want to increase awareness about men’s issues here, not lobby government for a department of men’s issues.
I don’t support gay marriage near as much as I support the idea of evicting government involvement in marriage to begin with. If the bastards were not permitted to LICENSE marriage, to whichever group they think is worthy, then this would not be an issue to begin with.
That license is exactly where things go wrong. Take the state out of marriage and family and you end up with a much better right to equal access for every one, including GLBT’s.
No need for special interest politics when you prevent the government from creating special interest competition.
Man I agree with you about the “license”, which might be deemed automatic in 15 states under common-law marriage statute.
Government has no right to interfere with personal relationships between consenting adults. The “license” brings them right into our bedrooms and bank accounts.
We want to increase awareness about men’s issues here, not lobby government for a department of men’s issues.
We should lobby government to ratify and/or repeal any and all laws, programs and public funding specific to only one gender, while conveniently ignoring the other – - which is a blatant violation of our Constitution.
VAWA was pretty egregious, but ObamaCare is plain over the top.
Well said John.
I for one would sorely miss the contributions of our gay brother(and even lesbian or bi female contributors) to furthering the agenda of treating men like people.
I find it idiotic to refuse the aid of anyone that is different from the majority of us. Unless, that difference is contradictory to our goals.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You were a victim of an individual, not a sexuality. I tell idiot feminists the same thing from time to time. You are entitled to your own private thoughts on the matter, but I think the MRM doesn’t need to be homophobic to make you feel all warm and fuzzy about it. If this article makes you uncomfortable, don’t read it.
The things that people don’t want to discuss are exactly the things we need to discuss most of the time imo.
A rising tide raises all ships.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I sell rockets and oversized rubber bands to gullible coyotes.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
(in reply to Merlin)
Oh, go listen to a Natalie Merchant record and bleed it out already.
+ much for the Lulz…
Do you have any Acme brand catapults in stock???
Homophobic is a term tossed around far to freely.
I would not say you are necessarily afraid of homosexuals.
“Intolerant” might be a better descriptor.
I dub thee, Merlin: Homo-intolerant.
The owners of this site have made it abundantly clear that they support ALL men in seeking equality before the law and in society. I`d say that while not precluding a discussion on the subject it does leave them pretty much in control of the steering wheel. And, not just John`s article but the comments also seem to pretty much destroy your contradictory position.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Well, I did not dismiss you as without any value.
I still won’t.
I will say that you really need to look at your own motivations.
I stick by my assessment as homo-intolerant as dead on accurate. And, there is no need for it. You may not see it but, you are being called out on this out of respect.
I RELY on intelligent opposition by individuals here to keep me evaluating my own positions. That doesn’t mean it is always easy to hear and absorb these truths.
If you want to be an emperor with no clothes and still have adoring sycophants that won’t include me. When you hit the nail on the head you get a thumbs up or a comment. And, when you are so far off base as to declare that some men are not man enough to deserve our help… I’ll disagree with you.
John is dictating nothing and policing no thoughts. He is pointing out a counterproductive and hypocritical trend among some MRAs.
Are you for men’s rights, or are you for *some* men’s rights? That’s the bottom line. If you’re for *some* men’s rights, you might as well join the opposition, as your lack of credibility gives them ammunition against us.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
‘”…is stupid and has no place in the men’s rights movement, or at AVfM”
This is not dictatorial, it’s well supported logic. You may be taking it personally. Last time I checked, the title of this site was not “A Voice for Most Men,” and it is not a leading voice in the choose-your-favorite-adjective-men’s rights movement.
All men are men. You support men’s rights or you don’t. Half measures are useless at best, and potentially detrimental in the long run.
Here’s a dictatorial statement:
Shit or get off the pot.
That’s a recommendation from me, not an order from John.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
im not dictating anything except my opinion.
What he does have the right to do, Merlin, is posit an opinion about what he thinks the MRM is about. Would you have taken less offense if he had included an unnecessary qualifier like “in my opinion”?
I am personally assuming that he didn’t because he assumes readers here aren’t so stupid or gullible that they need to be told he is not issuing and edict, but stating an opinion.
And of course as Editor-in-Chief of this website, he certainly does have the discretion to qualify the editorial stance here. He has done that very nicely, IN MY OPINION (if that helps you understand that I am not trying to be the boss of you, poor chappy).
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Well, why don’t you tell the world? Shout it from the rooftops. I am sure that there are millions fascinated with the story of Dr. F as a mole. Start now! Don’t wait! Save the world and the MRM from fags as quickly as you can!
Oh, and by the way, nice bust on my use of “chappy” It is all part of my plan to infiltrate the UK, posing as a Brit, in order to further a pro homo rights agenda across the planet.
Bwahahahahahahaha! It’s too late! You will never stop me! Bwahahahahahaha!
Paul,
My apologies for endorsing Merlin as good representation as an MRA spokesman in England.
Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
If we can reach through that misguided fundamentalist christian bias he could still be an inclusive and representative MRA.
I had no idea of the background drama, thanks for keep that mostly to yourselves guys.
When the unpopular truth is revealed, you find out who your friends really are.
Divisive beliefs and actions will always be a part of civilization, but there is absolutely no room left for them here. People are different and the same, at the same time. No Man can know or feel another Man’s private pain, only observe and offer help, no matter what that Man’s personal beliefs and values.
We dispossessed Men come from every walk of life, in many different colors, shapes and sizes and you beter bet your ass, with differing sexual identities. This is an inescapable fact and those who would use this to divide us need to seriously consider the err of their ways.
Minds will not be changed about this and certainly never to the tune of petulant stamping feet.
The unmistakable message here is:
Get over it and get on with it, or GTFO!!!
Dr. Paul, JTO, and yes, without question, Dr. F, you continue with unflinching courage to shine your blinding spotlights, exactly where they are needed most.
Bravo to you all, sirs!
Salute!
Oh, nice switch! You’re the victim now, eh? Clever.
I think it’s been made clear that the only “alternative perspective” that shouldn’t be part of the MRM, is one that undermines men’s rights.
People put a lot of work into men’s rights. They don’t want their credibility damaged by parasites who would divert their growing influence toward some anti-rights cause. Surely you agree?
I hate to make assumptions about you based on your rather non-committal statements, so why don’t you come right out and tell “God and everybody” if there are men you think should be excluded from the MRM.
Merlin,
This is what a mole does:
————————————
1/
The mole (that’s me) has an idea that Merlin would make a great radio host in Britain representing AVfM.
2/
The mole (me again) contacts Paul and JTO about it with my endorsement, and a Skype conference with me, you and JTO is made and we discuss the idea.
————————————
Those are the facts and in the light of those same facts I have to ask you:
a – What is my motivation for trying to get you behind a microphone ?
b – Does a mole seek out and expose the bad guys among us by wanting to put those very same bad guys behind a microphone ?
You went nutty on me some months ago when you suspected that I was in cahoots with Bernard Chapin by feeding him “secrets” from our emails.
Your assertion was that I was accidentally using your British slang in my emails to Mr Chapin and when he spoke some of those words in a video you “broke the case wide open.” You had found the mole connection and I was the plant.
I let that one pass because you quickly realised it was not the case and retracted your paranoia in quick time. (Now I see you are suggesting the same with Paul and my passing on the word “Chappy”)
This second time however has the stamp of a pattern, and life is too short for this mole to untangle the scramble of twigs and sticks that make up the birds nest of your mind.
Quite frankly Mr Merlin, you are not that important for a mole to focus on, and I am not that important to take on the role of a mole itself.
Let’s see here:
You say we should give credibility to those spreading hatred toward an entire group because you were mistreated by one or two members of that group as a child?
You sound just like a feminist.
As others have said, all men are in the same boat regarding unequal treatment, non-hetero men deserve the same activism and support as best we can provide.
I’m sorry to hear about your earlier experience, however damaging that may have been, but that doesn’t make an entire subset of men not worth the effort.
Paul has gone to great lengths to excise people hating or threatening women here, instead offering support to those who might join our fold. We should at least offer the same to other men until they prove to us – as individuals – that they are not worthwhile.
Andybob, Dennis and others here are shining examples of the potential available.
Also Merlin, while you have contributed before to a post, you are not above reproach. No one is. For example, Paul has pulled me up on things I have queried and said before, JtO has said he seeks debate and competition from competent feminists.
We do not become the strong sword without the blacksmith’s hammer-blows.
Great article.
In the same vein, I think the men’s movement needs to have a deeper think about the implications of saying that wearing x and drinking y around men at parties and in clubs and bars is analogous to flashing cash in a bad neighborhood. We are not a bad neighborhood.
After much consideration, I have to agree with you.
The point at AVfM we have been trying to make with regards to women’s behavior and the likelihood of some kind of sexual assault is that all people can make decisions that reduce their risk of problems. And of course that there are some bad neighborhoods. That is not a statement about men, though.
Well the analogy is terrible, unless we want to say, yes there its a rape culture with desperate rapists running around in the same way there is a crime culture with desperate junkies running around in neighborhood x, justifying their marching and so on.
I wonder myself what the risk would actually look like. I think if dress was a predictor, we would hear more about correlations with rape and seasons and geographic locations. I understand stranger rape is more rare than murder, and binge drinking and wearing skimpy clothes is very, very common and people get stranger raped sober and in jogging bottoms, so the correlation between two? I wonder if its comparable the increased risk I take when I cross the road to get milk, tbh.
That said, I do think that there is some link, but that it only applies to a sub section of rapes/sexual assaults.
I think it is partly due to feminist controlled dialogue.
Feminists argue that regret-rape is really rape when it is not. If an adult of either gender is legally responsible for their choice to drive after drinking themselves stupid, they must also be responsible for their own choices on who to fuck. Yes, even when they have decided as an adult to pour half a gallon of vodka down their throat.
Then you have the “eternal victim-culture”, which I think it is safe to say most MRA’s have an issue with. Women have without a shred of doubt got it better than men now than at any point in the past yet, they still demand more, more, more sacrifice of life, liberty and, due process by men.
Do you have a citation for feminists arguing that regretted sex is rape?
Eoghan read this site and FRS. I cannot think for you so, please educate yourself of our concerns in these area and form your own opinions.
Feminist inspired laws have already made regret into rape all over the map. I have to assume you are new to the MRM. No one here seeks to return women to 1950′s kitchens, or render then sub-human sex slaves. Yet the last two days I’ve noticed most of your posts reflect a Go Team Woman bias. You are preaching to the choir if your goal is that all people be given the same opportunities to succeed or fail as they deserve. So, I have no use for Team Woman when, on every metric it is men that face actual bias and discrimination.
http://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/
“Have you had sexual intercourse when you didn’t want to because a man gave you alcohol or drugs?” i.e. If you as an adult voluntarily accepted a drink or a joint and later as a consenting adult had sex, if you are a woman you cannot give consent because you are just a widdle babe lost in the woods surrounded by a pack of big bad men. As in, women are not adults. Ever. And, if they feel regret for their own choices they can declare a man as a rapist and get a conviction.
I think the analogy mirrors the absurdity of slut walks and knee jerk claims of victim blaming every time anyone makes the inference that there are steps women can take to reduce their chances of being assaulted in any way.
But that is not my analogy.
I made it a point in my articles on this subject to state that I did not think “bad” dress causes rape, but that women can and do conduct themselves in ways that can invite misfortune into their lives.
And I believe that is true.
Also, we might find in significant amount of assaults, as well as other problems have strong correlation to alcohol and drug use. Whether that is causal is up for a thousand debates, but I don’t think we are out of line to suggest the possibility that not doing drugs or drinking to excess in the presence of strangers doing the same things can prevent problems, possibly even a rape.
I know its not your analogy Paul, I wasn’t making a backhanded comment or accusation, I was talking about common enough beliefs among us and the wider population and I was more talking about the “well you shouldn’t have done x and y” attitude after the fact (its like the feminist “should have kept it in your pants” if you don’t want to get fucked by a reproductive scam artist response) than I was statements to the effect of you can reduce risk by not doing x and y (although the latter thinking is likely a product of faulty reasoning following the former now that I think about it).
We probably would find a statistically significant amount of amount of assaults have strong correlation to alcohol and drug use, but does it work the other way around? Is there a statistically significant correlation between alcohol and drug use and being sexually assaulted, I would guess that the overwhelming majority of party people don’t get assaulted over the course of their partying career if that;s true as a predictor, the partying is not reliable at all.
This country clearly has an ANTI gay agenda. Being in Mississippi (a state that is so disturbed that it is literally trying to outlaw inter-racial marriage), I often hear their homophobic pseudo-intellectual vomit and scripture, especially after mentioning the MRM, lol. When they try to inject their homophobia into the discussion, I usually tell them that I am really a LGBT activist first and foremost but am secondarily an MRA. That usually fills them with rage and hatred and, more than once, has nearly turned violent. Some of the facial expressions of these Mississippians when I tell them I am an LGBT activist are to die for!
Openly gay men don’t have a chance in hell while running for public office in this country but the establisment says that we are cramming a gay agenda down everyone else’s throats. They are cramming something much worse down the throats of gay men — political apartheid.
In the military (yes, I am going there and without apology), if a male was discovered to have had sex with another male, even privately, he was discharged, even if he complied with the Don’t Ask / Don’t Tell policy. They did not discharge women who were discovered to have had sex with other women privately, however. Some of the females were lesbians and everybody knew it.
If the establishment is going to be so bigoted and railroad people into submission on the grounds that their Bible tells them that gay men are such moral degenerates that they are condemned to hell for eternity, why don’t they also stone prostitutes and kill their neighbors for working on Sunday? Further, if these self-righteous pricks ARE going to have this position, why do they use the argument that gays are cramming their agenda down THEIR throats? That is the most poorly chosen argument they could have chosen when one considers that this is EXACTLY what they are guilty of.
I often hear the argument that acceptance to gay men will make more gay men. The only person who would make this argument is one who thinks that sexual identity is socially constructed rather than innate. How can someone honestly believe that sexual identity is socially constructed if they truly have an innate sexual identity themselves? They can’t. This means that THEIR sexual identity is socially constructed which means they are clearly bi-sexual. That is just basic logic. Straight people know for a fact that no amount of social coercion could change their sexual identity.
“If the establishment is going to be so bigoted and railroad people into submission on the grounds that their Bible tells them that gay men are such moral degenerates that they are condemned to hell for eternity, why don’t they also stone prostitutes and kill their neighbors for working on Sunday? ”
That one has always confused the hell out of me. If someone believes that anothers actions will condemn that person to eternal punishment, why do they feel any need to punish that person any further at all? That attitude makes me think they really don’t have much faith in their faith if they must act as enforcers for compliance.
Many foolish individuals believe that sexual identity is a choice.
I have always known which way I roll and it was never a choice, btw.
If hetero are thinking properly they will salute homo men for being homo, because every homo male couple leaves two available women on the market, and takes two male competitors off the market, often stiff competitors at that (no pun).
This is nothing but a bonus for us, that many MRA’s seem to miss entirely.
If the MRM’s open acceptance of homosexuals in any way hurts or diminishes the message of the pushers of the traditional marriage scam, or in any way challenges the acceptance of trad-mar as a necessary duty for all Men, then it can only be good a thing.
I always love to watch the back-assward neo-kahns and other homophobic ideologues squirm, whenever the subject of gay marriage is discussed.
They sure as Hell don’t want to lose their trad-mar cash cow scam, or their divorce industry gold mine, or their CPS kidnapping and extortion ring, for that matter.
They will hide these motivations under suggestions like “Gay marriage insults and demeans a traditional Man-woman union!”, but the truth remains, Male criminality and culpablity are crucial to the gubmint’s criminal enterprise. The fact that Gays do not reproduce, is anathema to trad-tards.
Without a fresh supply of innocent children to kidnap and hold for ransom, their entire system collapses.
Gays most certainly will and do throw a giant monkey wrench squarely into Uncle Sham’s anti-family, extortion racket, precisely because they produce no children for the system to kidnap. The machine starts to crash and as much as I loathe political the resulting fallout, this particular type, can only be a good thing for our cause.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Any issues that Gay Men are facing are predominately because of their sexuality not their Maleness”
Why not their maleness? How does them being gay make their men’s rights issues disappear?
Seriously
Most would agree that Blacks in the USA suffer a fair degree of discrimination, about half of that population is Male. I do not think forms of racial discrimination against Black Men, when is heaped on Black Women to a similar extent, are an MRM issue. It is an issue of concern but not an MRM one. The discrimination is because of their Blackness not their Maleness.
There are forms of discrimination facing Black Men that are because of their Blackness AND their Maleness; in particular the Criminal Justice System and incarceration rates. These ARE issues the MRM should and is concerned with.
I believe most issues facing Homosexual Men are to do with their sexuality and not their Maleness; Lesbians face many of the same problems. Their are issues that are also because of their Maleness that are our issues, eg DV support for Lesbians but not Gay Men and many issues concerning Trans people as well.
The Feminist movement fell into the trap of picking up issues for Women that affected Men significantly or even more e.g. DV, Rape, Health Care etc. They are still trying to dig themselves out of that hole
I’m not sure about the blackness/male thing. To me it seems like a racial bigot always seems to be more bigoted towards males of the targeted race. Often females get a complete exemption from their bigotry. I’ve known lots of guys that think Asian women are so hot, and lovely, better for sex, better for wives and girlfriends, better for everything….but Asian men…..they suck. So being Asian only sucks if you are male.
The same with being gay…..they love f/f sex, their porn collections are full of it, they put women who engage in f/f sex up on pedestals……but m/m sex makes them want to puke, and fags are all sicko pedophiles. So obviously being gay only sucks if you are male.
There has never been a problem with lesbian bashing, because nobody does that. Even in strict fundamentalist Muslim states, women are only given ten lashes for f/f sex, while fully clothed. Men are stripped naked, whipped half do death, and then beheaded. They are also stoned to death, and buried alive. Walls are built and gay men are tied spread eagle beneath them, and the walls collapsed on them, they are then left under the rubble until they die.
To me, it seems that being male and black, is the problem, being male and Asian is the problem, being male and gay is the problem. Being any of these things while not being male……is not a problem. That makes all these things MRM issues.
Indeed it seems to me that women can be anything they are, or anything they want, and no matter what they are, they are women, and maybe victims.
What are Muslim men…..terrorists……..what are Muslim women…….victims. What are bisexual women……hot. What are bisexual men…..faggots. What is a man who wears a dress……..a faggot. What is a women who wears men’s clothes……a woman. What is a black woman, an Indian woman, an Asian woman……..a woman. What is a black man, an Indian man, an Asian man…..a range of racial slurs. Why is a white woman just a woman, and a white man is a cracker?
Seems to me that being male is the prerequisite for being seen in a derogatory way. Being female gives at least partial immunity, and often full immunity plus bonus points.
Damned good points, Stu… you always finger the important nuances like nobody else can.
Mr Stu,
I almost bowed out of this discussion because your comments sum up my position perfectly. You have, as you so often do, cut through all the crap and identified the heart of the matter. The men who come to the MRM must identify first and foremost as men. All of our other identities take a back seat. Feminists and their allies are counting on their assumption that we are incapable of this.
Feminists love to accuse us of being just ‘angry, straight, white men’ whining about ‘lost privilege’. Revealing that this isn’t the only demographic who are angry with them often leaves arrogant radfems spluttering in startled impotence. Point out the smart, sassy women who have joined the fray. Quoting one of Ms GirlWritesWhat’s scathing ripostes can actually cause a feminist to meltdown. Their tired old narrative is looking decidedly wheezy.
Our diversity gives the impression of angry villagers with torches and pitchforks ready to confront our oppressors. Just look at the series of articles in the “New Statesman” earlier this week. They didn’t know what hit them because we came at them from all sides. They were knocked for a six. (BTW whoever posted as ‘Feministsmakethingsup’ skewered the opposition with amazing dexterity – my guess it was Mr JTO).
I think Mr JTO is writing in response to Cyclone Majesty, who came onto Mr Phil in Utah’s “Feminist Allies” article and decided to post scripture-spewing rants about homos and perverts. I thought it was all rather sad. Not because of his intolerance for gay men, but because it trumped his committment for men’s rights.
It revealed just what a chink that kind of bigotry is in our armour. I am often guilty of writing comments that lean very uncomfortably towards misogyny without considering how offensive that must be to our women supporters whom I genuinely respect and appreciate. This article is a great opportunity for all of us to reflect on the value of our unity and how to better express it.
@Andybob:
‘Feminists and their allies are counting on their assumption that we are incapable of this.’
Exactly. And anybody giving them the satisfaction of being right, has completely lost sight of the purpose with all this. From my point of view you could be a little green man from outer space. If you fight for men’s rights, you’re my ally and I will stand beside you. I don’t give a shit about who you are, or what your preferences are, besides this single common goal.
Mr AndyBob,
You said this:
“I think Mr JTO is writing in response to Cyclone Majesty, who came onto Mr Phil in Utah’s “Feminist Allies” article and decided to post scripture-spewing rants about homos and perverts.”
…and you are 100 percent right I’ll bet.
The homophobic postings of Cyclotron Majestic last week flounced and twittered in a spat of hissy gyrations that had the most limp wristed effeminate and hysterically inclined gays taking notes.
I am guessing what tipped JTO to write of it may have been the association Mr Cyclotron made with poofs to pedophiles and lastly to murderers. Gays are pedos and pedos are rapists and yep murderers too.
“Gays = murderers” was the argument he put forward, and this is a treasonous act for all MRA’s in that the splash of violence was added to it as cologne to donkey dung.
At least a terrific article came from it.
Dang, Kimski beat me to it!
Absolutely killed it here, Stu. Bravo, decisive kill.
The epiphany continues to unfold, realizing, contrary to its shamelessly marketed image, how femininity is behind the curtain of so much evil. Homosexuality is in the interests of heterosexual males because it leaves more females on the market. What reasonable or rationale grievance do hetero males have against homosexuality of other males? It’s a bogeyman. The only logical explanation stems from females driving the agenda, they are the only ones who stand to lose on the existence of male homosexuality. Cui bono?
Very much how men were blamed for the racism of prior eras, while it was the females pointing fingers of rape and fear to direct their white knight’s next lynch job. Same story for Salem, it wasn’t men pointing fingers at who next to hang just for shits and giggles.
To the ancient Greeks and Romans, admiration between and among men was the highest form of love. The more I live, the more I realize that they were on to something, something big.
Let us not forget, chivalry was a product of the Dark Ages. Dark, indeed.
The abyss of female accountability for suffering is, indeed, a fertile place for discovery.
Anecdotally, it is hilarious how ‘empowered’ modern high status females, products of the ‘equality’ (read “female superiority on steroids”) movement, won’t shut the fuck up in demanding chivalry on online dating boards. Bitch, fuck yoself all the way.
Studies relating to sentencing always indicate that gender rather than any other factor is the primary pointer to sentence durations.
I’d bet being charged for a particular crime has a lot to with both blackness & maleness.
A clear counterexample to “most issues facing Homosexual Men are to do with their sexuality and not their Maleness” is that male homosexuality is conflated with pedophilia while lesbianism is not, similar to the way in which heterosexual males who spend time around children are automatically suspected of pedophilia.
Many foolish individuals walk around pushing their feelings as fact. The wise Man knows to use salt by the grain…
Yeah, those seem like solid points to me. I don’t think this is entirely correct, though:
“It has been brought up by some merely to split the movement.”
I think Paul and John are looking ahead and really want to put the MRM on its feet and get it running. To borrow a chess analogy, it seems like they’re playing ten moves ahead, and that’s a good thing.
“it seems like they’re playing ten moves ahead, and that’s a good thing.”
Exactly. They know that when the mainstream media can point to any evidence showing that, “The MRM is just a bunch of misogynists, homophobes, white supremacists and religious oppressors” those beliefs will grow. Quickly. This is scary business here, and the public would rather not acknowledge it.
In order to win civil and human rights for men, the MRM absolutely must include ALL men. Otherwise, we lend our credibility to “factions” that are just as dangerous to human rights as are the feminists.
“[Homosexuality] has been brought up by some merely to split the movement.”
So, writing on behalf all men, rather than just for straight men, is met with veiled accusations that the writer is trying to split the movement?
You mention that gay men make up less than 8 percent of men. But so do MRAs. So, by your logic, should we ignore MRAs because they are less than 8 percent of men also?
So we won’t have unanimity on all issues. I don’t care. But to think that homosexuality is not a relevant issue is myopic.
Gay men are bashed, when all is said and done, because they are not of utilitarian value to women, and because they are perceived as not having enough strength to be of utilitarian value to the elites.
This is a big time men’s issue, and it appears those issues are something you don’t understand very well.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
gay men are bashed more than gay women are,, because they are men,, and this is what makes it a mrm issue.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
gay men are bashed more than gay women are…
That’s a very good point.
Lesbian chic is trendy.
Women who act more like men is trendy.
Ellen and Jane Lynch are cool.
Our society is less comfortable with gay men.
Good points Rog and Keyster.
Up here in the frozen great white north we even have a common occurrence of Trendsbians. Straight women that kiss and fondle each other publicly to garner positive male approval/attention. While men acting the exact same way would be taking a significant risk of coming to physical harm.
I do fully understand. Once again, and slowly this time, gay men being bashed for being gay IS an attack on their manhood and maleness.
That is the whole point of attacking them.
Tell me this, what grounds, right or wrong, could anyone have to attack homosexuals that does not have to do with the expectations of what men are supposed to be?
Fundamentalist much?
Exactly, and if it was homosexuality itself that was the problem, than homosexual and bisexual women would be getting bashed. It’s only a problem if you are male.
Furthermore, the cultural forces that brought about this attitude towards gay men, can only have came from women, because men are not disadvantaged in any way by the existence of gay men. But gay men do not serve women’s interests, they are immune to their sexual power, they don’t marry and support women, they don’t give them children, and the more gay men there are, or the more gay men are out, and not pretending to be straight, and marrying and doing what straight men do, the more women will be without a man. Feminists also believe that sexuality is a social construct, like everything else. Therefore they believe that being gay is an option for straight men. If being gay is not discouraged, more men will be gay, and if they make things bad enough for straight men, maybe most men will be gay.
Women and feminists have many reasons to be apposed to male homosexuality. But men don’t really have any reasons to be concerned about it, except of course to fit in with the dictates of women…..real men are not gay……real men don’t like gays.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Fundamentalist much?”
ROTFLMAO! I am going to use that one.
*Hands you a (Craftsman) push broom and dustpan.
Now, lemme just drag the trash can over here for you.
And so, the true face of division, discontent and dissension within the the ranks of the MRM is revealed and manifested over not right-left politics, religion or even race, but instead, of all petty things; plain old homophobia.
They are beginning to drop like flies now…
Really? Can a committed pair of gay men adopt as easily as a committed pair of lesbians anywhere?
Adoption by gay men is definitely an MRM issue. They are discriminated against relative to Lesbian women, from what I know about it.
Well said. Honestly I don’t give a fuck who you want to fuck and I see no reason for anyone else to either.
“Attacking male sexuality”
From this title I was expecting a discussion of majority issues. The majority of males could be attracted to older looking females under the age of consent (increased since women got the vote and constantly increased by feminists). He could fall victim to strict liability laws when he kisses and fondles a girl he picks up in a 21 and over bar and even if he verifies her ID. Even if the ID is her true government emitted ID.
A mainstream male could be curious and look at photos of dressed women that look 18, but turn out 15 (google Knox vs. USA).
knox vs. usa
Then get a few years in prison. Up to life if the photos (which are 0′s and 1′s) are numerous, and maybe a bit more raunchy.
While women’s romance porn can denigrate men who feel inadequate in comparison to rich, handsome, intelligent, socially skilled young surgeons, heroes of these stories. And Amazon in Britain has a huge stash of child abuse books which avidly get bought by women. Unpunished.
The problem is that the kind of male sexuality I am mentioning is also being attacked by lots of males, probably even family oriented men right on this site.
Instead of protecting and educating and controlling their daughters, they join feminists in attacking male sexuality, they agree with feminist attitude that the government should punish other men that dare to show interest in their daughters or that just peruse photos in the privacy of their own home.
Note that this anti-sexual attitude actually victimizes women and children (see Milton Diamond)
With all due respect, gays are probably under 5% of males. Transsexual are 0.???1% of males. let us not forget 80% of healthy heterosexual males that could be tempted by postpubertal women that were declared illegal by feminist and religious inspired law. Not only illegal but “protected” by draconian punishments.
Of course, the majority of males could also be attracted to pretty 20 some year old luxury prostitutes. If the woman looks nice and healthy, and the price is as low as a dinner with a date. These men go right to prison if she turns out to be a female cop. This is an attack on male sexuality.
Yes, it’s one of many.
Off topic but somewhat refreshing: http://screencrush.com/reel-women-knee-jerk-feminism/
The demonization of men who are short or shy or have small penises is not really ok. This site really does seem mostly beyond stuff like that. However some sites like in malifide are full of hate for “weak” men.
“However, there is a thread of opinion with a growing currency among some MRAs which rejects the legitimacy of men whose self identity and sexuality is gay or bisexual, or I suppose, transsexual.”
I see the exact opposite happening – a growing currency within the MRA that accepts the legitimacy and humanity of men who are gay. And about time. Perhaps what you meant was that there is a growing Christian contingent getting disgruntled about all this and hitting your inbox? Whatever the case your advice is perfect; “I don’t have much to say to this attitude besides grow up and get over it.”
PS. beware of a raving gay hater from Australia named Wawick Marsh who is desperately trying to rid homosexuals from society and particularly from the MRM – he wants the MRM to give him moral support to that end. About 4 years ago he was sacked from his short term government job (in men’s health) for gay hate speech after publicly claiming that all homosexuals were prone to pedophilia and were therefore “against God’s plan”, and he refused to retract it… he has since been waging a public campaign against homosexuals as an act of revenge for being sacked and publicly humiliated. He is currently running around telling women’s groups that gays are trying to stop all women from ever being able to wear a wedding dress and to have thier special day, and he also gathers small bands of lemmings to do bombing campaigns to politicians or MRM groups. I should add he is an obsessive promotor of male chivalry, which perhaps explains why he finds homosexuality so problematic – being gay is against the knightly code of deferring one’s sexuality to women. In short it would not surprise me if he has attempted to contact AvFM with his hate appeal, and gathered a small coalition to join him in doing same… if some of your complainants come from Australia that is a probable source. Naturally there would be similar people in the USA and elsewhere holding the same beliefs.
We are dealing here primarily with a disgruntled Christian lobby subgroup of the MRM, and when it comes to gays I’m pleased to see the management here stay the course on upholding the human rights of all males. I have no problem standing side by side with Christian men in the MRM, but as soon as I hear unreasonable hatred against gays, especially invitations to perpetrate violence against them, I’ll be defending them.
I honestly hope I never see anyone blatantly discount homosexual men in the MRM. It was middle-aged homosexual men who kept me fed when I was on the streets in my youth. They were father figures when I needed them and they showed me kindness and respect that I hadn’t received from my male peers up to that point.
Gay men have done so much activism for men in general in the past 50 years because they genuinely care about men and they know all too well what a desolate trap the traditional heterosexual lifestyle can be (especially the ones who fell into that trap out of fear). For anyone to discredit what gay men have done for ALL male sexuality is to wipe out some of our strongest allies. Many of them have been doing activism on men’s behalf for years. I dare say we could even learn a thing or two from them.
Yes, we could learn from gay men.
Think about this guys. What percentage of men are gay? Maybe 5%. Even if you think it’s a bit higher, there is no doubt, they are a small minority. Couple this with the fact that they were extremely discriminated against in the past. Now, look what they have achieved. A small minority, swimming against a tide of hatred, yet they have made it to a point where to discriminate against them is considered very uncool.
What percentage of men do you think are MRAs, MGTOW, and generally disgruntled with feminism?
I’m betting a lot more then 5%. So why haven’t we made even more progress then the gay guys have?
I’m wanting to see the day when any form of discrimination against men, is very uncool. The MRM has been around for about as long as the Gay civil rights movement……why have they achieved so much, starting from a position so far behind the eight ball……and we have achieved so little. They have practically done the impossible…..changed the cultural attitude towards them, an attitude that existed in practically all cultures, across the world, since the beginning of time. I wish we had half their success.
A fair amount of their political success can be attributed to their alliance with the lesbian-feminists. At the same time, many gay men have resisted being sucked into their assigned role as feminist lapdogs. I think the grrrlz simply wanted to make use of them, but keep finding themselves confounded. How the hell do they control a bunch of men who don’t want sex, marriage and babies with them?
MGTOW
As far as I’m concerned, all those MRAs who condemn homosexuality as an identity, especially those of the religious variety, are really traditionalists posing as MRAs. They’re attracted to the MRM because it repudiates feminism, something it shares with the traditionalists. They think that because they have that in common that somehow these traditionalists and the MRM are allies.
That is a false assumption on their part and I think it’s time to call them out on it.
They are attracted to the MRM because it repudiates “feminism”. . . but the problem is that people are talking past each other here because the meaning of “feminism” is not generally understood or agreed upon. (Traditionalist males of the blue pill variety are typically quite clueless about what feminism really is. Red pill trads are a whole ‘nother breed, however! )
@Eoghan
Our thread ran out of room to reply directly. Just wanted to say I get what you are saying. I will address this with other editors for future consideration.
Thanks for your input.
My pleasure. There is also this discussion tread, its got a paper from pravda up there on clothes correlation.
http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrightslinks/comments/sv7t3/legalreviewsexy_dressing_revisited_does_target/
Nothing makes me more proud to be an MRA, than days like this.
Thank you, JTO.
This article in today’s business section of the NYT (Sat. May 26th) “The Costs of a Stand for Gay marriage” shows just how much we gays are bashed.
Here is an exert from that article. “…. Charles C. Worley, pastor of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, N.C. not far from Greensboro, who preached on May 13 that lesbians and gays should be separated from each other and society and quarantined behind electrified fences. ” In a few years, they’ll die out,” Mr. Worley said. “They can’t reproduce.”….. Video of that sermon circulated on the internet.
Aside from questioning exactly where in the bible the command from their god to quarantine us is, Christians are entitled to believe whatever shit they want to. They are not, however entitled to shovel their shit down my throat. Yet that’s exactly what they have done when, at this point, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments making marriage possible only between a man and a woman. The dogma of the Christian religion is thus imposed on a secular society.
I am not elbowing my way into their houses of “worship” to impose my beliefs or life choices on them but they demand, in the name of their god, that right to impose their will on me. I ask; who here is the “transgressor” who imposes his will on others by force of law? Who really is the privileged, protected class?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hi Mr. E,
A question for you.
I find this very confusing. Until recently in the US we arrested gay men on sodomy law (and I think some are still on the books). In some countries the penalty for homosexuality is death. The United Nations is still giving those countries a pass. We used to burn homosexuals here. All this is mixed in with little tidbits like homosexuals being killed in concentrations camps by Hitler, and the fact that we still control boys in this culture by calling them gay or a fag if they don’t act “manly.”
Believe me, I understand the deplorable shame that has been inflicted on men for the last half century for being masculine, but are you seriously telling me that we have been marginalized the most?
You may think that the current feminist lap dogging by gay rights activists may be giving them extra pats on the head and thus less marginalization. You may think their special interest attention has moved them past us.
You have to remember that it is only for useful gay lapdogs. Do you think that feminists give a fuck about Andybob or Merrick or any other gay man that speaks his own mind and loves other men as brothers?
I don’t like most gay activists very much, and I oppose 99.9% of what passes as gay activism, but I don’t think it is very smart to forget that part of the reason they were led astray is because most “normal” men never gave them the dignity of being regarded as a man.
Fixing that would solve some problems.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“I’ve had a guts full of everyone except heterosexual men being allowed to speak up for themselves”
The only gay men who are allowed to speak “for themselves” are those who also happen to speak for feminism.
The rest are vilified and trampled on as if they were hetero men. Worse actually; since feminists can’t use their sex drive to “tame” them, gay men are wild cards. There is nothing feminists fear more than a man they can’t manipulate.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“What objective evidence do you have that feminists pervasively attack gay men if they don’t speak for feminists?”
How about some pure logic?
They’re not PUBLICLY vilified, they are desperately and secretly feared. Feminists have two options for dealing with men who don’t speak for them – lure and/or coerce men into supporting them, or shame those who can’t be “converted.” The opportunity for sex with women is the primary lure. The threat of punishment for “misbehaving” within a relationship (with a woman) is the primary coercion tactic.
Heterosexual men are shamed, but also rewarded (with the promise of sex) when they cooperate, er, surrender. Straight men can be manipulated with sex, into continuing to provide for feminists. Gay men are immune to this manipulation, because they are willing to be fully independent of women, just like straight MGTOW: Feminism’s worst nightmare.
Think of men as slaves. God knows the Feminists do. Most of the slaves would like to be free, and many would rebel if they had a reasonable chance for success. A smart slave owner feeds his slaves, meets their basic survival needs, and gives them occasional rewards to keep them hoping for more. That how he keeps them productive. A slave who has no interest in those “rewards” is too dangerous to keep because his loyalty can’t be bought. Worse yet, he can influence the other slaves if they will listen to him.
Gay men are the most dangerous slaves; aside from whom they choose to sleep with, they are the role models for MGTOW. Have you noticed that the whining about MGTOW has turned into screeching? Feminists attack uncooperative gays by lumping them in with “misogynists.” Ironically though, the grrrlz can’t call them out publicly, or people will start to notice that most of those straight “misogynists” don’t really hate women at all – they WANT to have relationships with women.
Straight men who behave (outside of the bedroom) like gay anti-feminists – refusing to bow to feminist tactics – are the only force that can bring down the feminist agenda. Feminists can’t rule men without men’s cooperation, and gays are the original “guys who don’t cooperate.”
Of course feminists hate anti-feminist gay men more than they hate straight men (with whom they can at least have sex!) but do you think NOW is going to call a news conference and admit it?
@Rocking Mr. E
Ever heard of the phrase “Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer?” Gay men are, even if they’ve been deluded into thinking otherwise, feminists worst enemy. They can’t be manipulated with their inane instinctual ways to manipulate them. Their answer, is to play gay men’s friend, and gay men as their friends.
But the attacks are there, they are just more hidden. In public, a feminist is all gung ho about the phrase coming from homosexuals and even using the very same reasoning his and herself that goes, “Why would I choose to be homosexual if that brings me nothing but grief, trouble and condescension?”
Then, behind gays backs, in the academia, gender and sexuality, especially male homosexuality, is merely a social construct. And of course, anything that is a social construct, can be socially destroyed, and something else constructed in its stead. Yes, feminist academia and right-way anti-gay Jesus camps ARE IN AGREEMENT!
And now you can see the attack right? Homosexuality is a construct, that can be reshuffled. All that’s left to do is some propaganda that homosexuality in men is anti-women, and presto; reshuffle their sexuality.
Should feminists ever manage to push the demonization of men high enough, that destruction and concentration camps become palatable to the people in the streets (and we’ve seen from the radfemhub, that is their ultimate wet dream), made easier if you’re not actually killing them, but merely curing them of their ailment, then their biggest enemies, gay men, will be the first to go.
With my geographical bias(Canadian) I have to agree with this “Attitudes towards homosexual identity have been steadily improving since the 60′s, while it is going backwards for heterosexual men.”
I fail to see how it has any impact on accepting all men and boys as human and, in need of advocacy.
You should note also that LGBT groups tend to be dominated by lesbians. Gay men, bisexuals(who in the past were often attacked in the past by gays for not picking a “team”) and transsexuals are only usually represented by LGBT groups when their goals run parallel to feminist and lesbian goals.
That leaves gay men and bisexual men with little representation and, they are penalized more for being male than being homosexual.
Why should we not strive to be that voice?
As near as I can tell sexual orientation really is not a choice. If we are going to ignore the plight of some men because they are gay what is next? Because they have the wrong skin tone or are the wrong height?
Arbitrary exclusion will not serve us well. Nor will pretending the only issues they face are “in the Middle East”.
I should point out that gay men are also exceedingly less likely to face false rape allegations. In articles regarding that, have we even once seen the gay MRA’s saying anything about that not affecting them much so, is something they don’t have the time or energy to support?
JtO summed it up best with, “and the equally shocking “let’s extend to gay men and women the same legal rights everybody else has” and so on. If that’s the gay agenda – as a MRA, or just as a decent human being, then I’m behind it.”
But, then maybe I am more of a humanist than and MRA. And, it is just because the current climate is so blatantly punitive of all things male that I am required by my conscience to support MRM goals.
“I would NEVER prevent… gay people from becoming parents, but if they had to do this off their own backs you can bet your bottom dollar that the numbers would drop like a stone, which is for the best considering the harm this does to child development.”
The ignorance in this assumption -that gays are harmful to child development and heteros never- is breathtaking. It takes a special kind of bigot to make a blanket statement like that, one where you don’t even bother to differentiate between functional and dysfunctional parents of whatever sexual orientation.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I didnt suggest you were banning parents. My statement was clear as day- it takes a special kind of “bigot” to make a blanket statement that gay parents harm children. All the bluster in the world won’t save you from your own divisive comments.
If you want to attack me with PC shaming smears then I won’t waste my time.
It’s a blanket statement to compare heterosexual couples to other parents, just because you want to appeal to popular cultural narrative.
If the objective evidence offends you that is not my problem. I am merely interested in following the evidence.
Rocking Mr. E
It’s almost as though I’m watching some bloke sawing a branch off a tree.
Only this bloke is sitting on the same branch he’s sawing.
Part of me wants to keep looking and the other part says, “Look away, it’s going to get ugly.”
I don’t think you’re rocking Mr. E at all. I think he’s probably just irritated like the majority of us here by your many paragraphs that can be abbreviated in just 4 words.
“Gays are like ewww.”
@Rocking Mr. E
Uh, no, heterosexual couples being the best for children is not what the objective evidence tells us. The objective evidence tells us that the absence of a father is what is damaging to children.
Whenever one sees a study, one must always check whether the ones doing (or funding) the study have an agenda, would like an outcome going with that agenda, and if the outcome fits the agenda. The better it fits the agenda, the more likely it is that there is fraud afoot.
Just about every study in the area is further hampered by it being conducted in a country it does acknowledge or allow the existence of (especially male) homosexual parents.
The results then, are simple: heterosexual couple is better than single mother or lesbian mothers, a single father is better than the latter two, large percentages of those committing violent crimes come from fatherless homes.
Ergo, the objective reality, is that there is only one accurate conclusion to be taken from this, provided the numbers are reliable: the presence of a father, is what makes a good raising-environment for children, and not much else.
“Exceptions don’t make rules. It is actually a blanket statement to lumber all parents together, when men and women raising children cooperatively overwhelmingly works best OVERALL.”
With this I absolutely agree.
It still does not change the reality that we must support gay men as men 100% or be hypocritical ourselves.
It also ignores the likelihood that 2 gay men would make better parents than 2 gay women(not on an individual basis but statistically speaking DV is more prevalent in lesbian relationships and a horrible example to set for any child). Yet, a gay male couples face more hurdles than do lesbian couples.
“What objective evidence do you have that feminists pervasively attack gay men if they don’t speak for feminists?”
It’s doubtful that my personal experience will be considered objective, but as someone who has spent time in both the heterosexual and homosexual “worlds” I can undoubtedly say that there is just as much of an attack on gay men by feminists. If anything, feminists expect gay men to be allies; therefore impelling more of a backlash. The accusations of deviant perversion are rampant as are the accusations of being lower beings in general. Gay men are often accused (moreso than their hetero brethren) that they are incapable of love, selflessness, basic maturity or the ability to parent by feminists. In fact, most of the rhetoric against gay men IS carried out at the hands of feminists. Why? Because feminists hate any sex, happiness and sense of independence they can’t control, and they certainly can’t control the free sexual exploits of content, healthy homosexual men.
Now, obviously religion has a hand in homo-hating as well, but that bandwagon wouldn’t be such a streamroller if it weren’t for the feminists. Feminists are opportunists as well as shit starters. They take every chance offered to demonize men and, yes, often gay men are in their target range. For no other reason than being happy in their lives free of women.
100% agreed. Making the leap from two parents are best to gay parents are bad is purely phony, unsupported, religiously driven garbage similar to that used against all men.
It is the same type of leap that people make when they jump from gay to pedophile.
I trust no one or few will be fooled by this bullshit. I don’t hear concern for boys or children here, but a concern for abiding by someone’s 2,000 year old scripture that also calls for smearing blood on goats and selling slaves. Fuck sake.
I don’t mean that as offensive to Christians in general, but it is clear there is a religious agenda at play here, thus the illogical assertions with no support for them.
There are a lot of Christian men who visit here who don’t feel the need to jump in with this bullshit. And for them I am thankful.
What Rocking Mr. E is doing here is clearly driven by that agenda. This is not an MRA we are seeing here, gents, in my opinion. It is a social conservative with ideas on just exactly how all men are supposed to be to qualify for his club.
This movement, in my opinion, is headed irreversibly in the direction of universal male unity and a rejection of religious or any other kind of coerced control. If it does not include all men, including men of faith, it is worthless as a men’s movement. But the moment any of us yield to this kind of attempt to control, we become equally worthless.
Signing off on this discussion with a quote from a couple of my favorite writers.
Coercion is death. ~ B.R. Merrick
Fuck coercion in its sorry ass. ~ Paul Elam
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
If you are an atheist you should keep the religious dogma in check.
You are failing, and I assert intentionally, to make a simple point connect here, and it is the same point you keep getting tagged on.
You implied that gay parenting itself was harmful to children, and your support for that is the fact that a nuclear family works better than single parenting?
That does not even begin to equate. It’s inarticulate, nonsensical, gibberish that you wrapped around a warped perspective on homosexuality.
I have tolerated the fact that you jumped in a few days ago unprovoked on another thread calling names and casting personal insults coming in the gate. So please spare me the whining about your character coming into question. The do as I say not as I do club lives on feministing.com, not here.
And I see now you have made this place a temporary mission to come in with an anti-gay agenda. Fine, you will get the run of this thread for a while based on the fact that you have earned some creds with your work.
But that is going to be the limit of my patience with you, and with anyone, (read that shit however you like) else who gets the silly notion lodged up their rectum that they are going to bully any changes into this place.
Go fight you war against whoever it is you imagine to be your enemy. If you think this place is your enemy, then you have no place here and need to go the fuck your own way.
Go make some videos and put us down. For every neocon fucking freak like you that we run off, ten more intelligent and thoughtful men and women will come our way.
It is already happening.
Mr Paul, Knock it off.
This site as far as I can tell is going way down the S bend of the queen’s bog.
You are sitting up there on a fluffy white “tough guy” cloud calling the shots ? Anyone would think that this place is not totally democratic or something.
Quite frankly, I love the idea that AVfM is a great big barge steering it’s way here and there with a hundred different rudders each with it’s very own navigator thank you very much.
I’m starting to think you only said those things just now because you bloody well mean it ya bastard.
“Go fight you war against whoever it is you imagine to be your enemy. If you think this place is your enemy, then you have no place here and need to go the fuck your own way.”
Mr. E comes in like a Lone Ranger with little sense of group mission and with a general overkill toward those who disagree with his neocon vision. The overkill stands out.
His exposing of feminism and misandry has been beneficial, but not his acting as if we are seperate unconnected individuals akin to atoms rapping in a void… with no sense of group mission. That group mission as stated above is to embrace a diversity of voices fighting misandry, not just one kind of voice. I notice several other passionate conservatives here get that need for balance between individual and group.
Raven01
I simply asked you for a citation for a hyperbolic claim that you made, you cannot back that hyperbolic claim up with a citation. The law will be sympathetic to you if I get you to sign a contract while you were out if it, that is not the same thing as the law saying that the law supports the idea of all contracts being null and void if they are regretted. Likewise, people advocating to put similar laws in place for sex, are not advocating to make all regretted sex rape, as you claim. That doesn’t mean I agree with LDF or recognize that there is a loophole for regretted sex to be mischaracterized as rape. It doesn’t mean that I’m “pro team woman” either – it means that I’m pro leaving the emotional hyperbole and easily falsifiable claims to “team woman”.
“You implied that gay parenting itself was harmful to children, and your support for that is the fact that a nuclear family works better than single parenting?”
I implied that I have respect for biological parenting, and that I do not believe that people can simply become parents without this process being at its core. I can back up my views with objective evidence, and I have done so with a fraction here.
“I have tolerated the fact that you jumped in a few days ago unprovoked on another thread calling names and casting personal insults coming in the gate.”
I have called no one names. I expressed my very well researched views about leftist progaganda designed to render a propductive discussion mute and incoherent. It is exactly the same nonsense that feminism relies on. I have tried very hard to explain that, but to no avail.
You seem very concerned with keeping “neocons” out of this movment, but the same cannot be said for leftists.
I have no desire to argue with you Paul, so I will walk away, regardless of what is said from this point.
I upvoted your post here because of the last two lines.
What you said!
I don’t care what anyone else says, you Rock Mr. E.
Be aware the MRM is (and it seems always will be) composed of Leftist/Nihilist/Misanthropic social mainstream outliers.
Alienate them and you lose at least 2/3′s of your primary support base. I know, it doesn’t make any sense to me either as their worldview seems contradictory (at least to me) to Men’s Right’s and Individual Freedom vis a vis the Marxist infused Feminist agenda. And no one of the left seems to be able to reconcile this dichotomy, although some have gallantly tried recently…and look what happened; obfuscation and misdirection from the essence of why we’re here…in an attempt to win points against the over-arching debate which is:
Liberalism/Socialism/ Secular-Progressivism
Bad for Men and Fathers and Boys
Conservatism/Captialism/Traditional-Religious
Better for Men and Fathers and Boys
And those that claim to be neither cop-out to the “whole system is fucked for men and boys regardless”, while not offering an alternative solution to what’s worked best for civilization up until 50 years hence in our history (tradition) OR Secular-Progressivism.
Right, the MRM will single-handedly re-invent an entire new paradigm of existence for humans. What that is exactly, no one is sure.
Go figure.
“Alienate them and you lose at least 2/3′s of your primary support base. I know, it doesn’t make any sense to me either as their worldview seems contradictory (at least to me) to Men’s Right’s and Individual Freedom vis a vis the Marxist infused Feminist agenda. ”
You inadvertently or on purpose bring up a point that should be explored.
I would propose that men by and large are much more individualistic beings than women. I am unqualified to provide the absolute answer but, maybe better informed minds than mine can shed some light.
“And those that claim to be neither cop-out to the “whole system is fucked for men and boys regardless”, while not offering an alternative solution to what’s worked best for civilization up until 50 years hence in our history (tradition) OR Secular-Progressivism.”
Bullshit. It is not an either/or situation. You still have failed to address, “As for the Rockefeller’s and Ford’s, the right has the Dick Cheney’s and George W Bush’s(It’s just a goddamned piece of paper).
The only difference between left and right is that the right does not 100% blindly ignore human nature. This is also why the right MIGHT be salvageable.”
And, I had even left out Ronnie Raygun, since I know you are a fan of his. But, the “trickle down economics” and “war on drugs” besides being an abysmal failure, target MEN heavily.
If I was forced at gunpoint to decide right now if traditionalism or what we have now was better I would side with traditionalists every time. But, honestly that was still a crap draw for men and boys, I believe that we can do better. That we will do better and, it is what we do today that will shape this new version of society.
“Bullshit. It is not an either/or situation.”
Agreed. Its also selective reading to not notice the many posters who have championed a combination of both. History champions a combination of both… the question comes down to what kind of blend each individual is willing to tolerate. However if we listen to the more simplistic arguments it would seem we have to keep rootin’ for one side only and if we can’t do that we can only choose confusion. The lack of complexity in that argument is obvious. The fact that AvFM has not sided with one side of this pathetic dichotomy tells me that someone in the management gets the notion of complexity.
I used to be on the far right politically but got so sick and tired of the religious dogma and deranged hegemony that I completely dropped out. The only candidates that I had to pick from here in the states literally wanted to eliminate taxes for the super rich stock brokers on Wall Street while forcing even highly skilled working class men, such as welders and electricians, to depend on the salaries of the women in their lives just to be able to survive. How is this a good deal for men?
Modern American Capitalism is now a total sham. Those working class men who work for them mostly live in poverty. If they complain about it, they are told, “Well, it takes two incomes to make it” with this irritatingly somber, sage-like tone that we all hear from the baby boomers (although it is only MY generation that they are directing this nonsense at). Or, they ask us, “Why don’t you start your OWN welding or electrical business?”
So, today’s American underwater welders, pipefitters, Diesel technicians, electricians, and the like are all told that they must join the capitalist, business owning aristocracy in order to make a decent living? If everyone does this, who is going to power the United States? How is this an example of a merit based economy? How can this conceivably be regarded as “personal responsibility” among the capitalists who continually get richer while the working class men that work for them continually get poorer? Since when does the conservative dearest buzzword, “personal responsibility” not include being responsible for providing those working men with a decent way of living, rather than taking it all for themselves?
The right wingers are disenfranchising the working class men and all the lame-stream news publications are responding by shaming men into being “better” men. College campuses are chock full of middle age working class men who have been duped by the capitalists, had to drop their tools, and are now on government aid for college just to try to secure a decent future. In fact, I am one of them. The conservatives and their “personal accountability” sham has sparked college overcrowding and is inflating yet another bubble in this country — the college bubble.
To top this off, the right wing church of “personal accountability” now, predictably, doesn’t want to take “personal accountability” for this; they want to pull the plug on government tuition assistance for these displaced men.
Then, they call anyone who presents this side of the debate a Marxist. Ummmm. Okay. . . Is this the same Marx character that let his own children starve to death as he became such a megalomaniac that he used his father’s inheritance to arm a militia that successfully overthrew the Russian government, leading to decades of unconscionably tyrany in the USSR? Is this how nasty the right wing has become toward anyone who calls them on their bullshit?
It is true that progressivism cultivates a political environment in which feminism can thrive, but the right wing also harms men. But I never hear left leaning MRAs provide any strong arguments. In fact, I don’t know of any progressive MRAs, come to think of it.
Never have I heard my own political views summed up so well. That was an excellent post. You’ve somehow managed to further cement my own beliefs.
“College campuses are chock full of middle age working class men who have been duped by the capitalists, had to drop their tools, and are now on government aid for college just to try to secure a decent future.”
I’m one of them.
And I was just recently chastised in an MRA chat room (which I’m not too keen on being a part of anymore for obvious reasons) by an “Americans for Prosperity” type right wing shameless party hack for doing so. It’s utterly amazing.
Thank you for your rant based in actual realty.
Left leaning MRAs bring these issues up here and there but for the most part are shouted down and are forced to be in a position of great defense. It’s just unnecessarily tiring (extremely so). The Political Dyslexia article comment section explains why fairly well when taken in as a whole.
Not sure if you saw my comment on it there, but I also have a very similar view to yours.
In fact there are at least 7 of us so far according to your upvotes at the time of this typing, including myself.
I’m very glad you’re here.
I never read any of the comments on Political Dyslexia but I will go over there and read your comment. Regards
Oh sorry, I can’t even find it now. I think it might have been in the MRM Marxism article.
Either article seems like it would do the job though.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
“Alienate them and you lose at least 2/3′s of your primary support base. I know, it doesn’t make any sense to me either as their worldview seems contradictory (at least to me) to Men’s Right’s and Individual Freedom vis a vis the Marxist infused Feminist agenda.”
That is because you filter everything through a mainstream political perspective. It leaves you blind to everything outside the box. With all the respect I have for you, it always has.
I thought MR. E rocked as well, until he came into this MRM forum like an ill mannered bull in a china shop denigrating both writers and management here for having the audacity to post a single article he disagreed with.
His attacks were thoughtless and quite personal, but I cut him, and one other, some initial slack because I considered them MRA’s.
We are A Voice for Men, Key, which pretty much includes everyone with a penis who isn’t demonizing men. The idea of that seems to bake the noodles in the heads of some which is why we had a couple of right wingers come in here, to a well known and generally respected MRA forum acting like school yard punks.
Fuck that and fuck them.
You are defending bullies in our own circle, Key. Go back and read Rocking Mr. E’s grand entrance to the thread on “Marxism in the MRM?”
Look at the condescension and fucking arrogance he treated this community with. Be honest, Key. That means really honest.
If you think that rocks, then I think you are up to your neck in bullshit.
While i tend to agree with some of your points about the importance of biological parents ( i know what i’m talking about, i was raised by lesbians), please don’ act like an innocent angel.
Yes, you did projected some nasty things on me- after two sentence- , while in reality you don’t know shit about me.
>I implied that I have respect for biological parenting,
>and that I do not believe that people can simply
>become parents without this process being at its core.
>I can back up my views with objective evidence, and I
>have done so with a fraction here.
Ah, so heterosexual couples who can’t conceive, should equally be banned from adopting, right? In fact, adoption should be banned altogether; at how bad this is; and just stuff all the parentless children in homes and keep them there for the rest of their lives; you know, that way but a few adult figures that aren’t even considered parents period (not even by the children), let alone biological ones, get to raise hordes of them.
This post is an utter and complete fail. “Logic” isn’t you proceeding to make at least a dozen claims that are undocumented, unsupported – and in the case of “secret fears” – unobserved.
Rationalizing why feminists might hate gays based on psychologizing them in the worst possible light is no substitute for what was asked for: “objective evidence.”
Is this what we’ve come to, now? Literally making shit up to fuel the engine of victimhood? I had an MRA tell me yesterday that getting rid of government policies such as affirmative action and divorce theft is useless because, “For millions of years women got men to die on their behalf, without any state whatsoever.” (A direct and faithful quote.) This guy’s MRA activism includes rebelling against the hostile plains of prehistoric Africa. lmfao
I guess the clear and present wrongs men face aren’t enough to keep some people motivated. Now we’ve got to complain that nature itself oppresses men and evolves them into certain roles. We must now find “secret” hatreds, sort of how feminists must find the twenty million “secret” victims of rape in America.
Whatever. Enjoy yourselves as you tilt toward Utopia.
It’s hardly a conspiracy, Eincrou. It’s actually pretty obvious. Well, maybe not to you. (I do have to give your hamster credit for coming up with the paranoia angle; it’ was a rather creative distraction. But the rest of your little rant? What the hell does that have to do with gay MRAs?)
Here’s the Crayola version, just for you:
What is the greatest threat to feminism? Men who don’t take irrational, dishonest shit from women. Men who say “No. your sex does not make you a victim.”
Which men are most likely to say, “No, your sex does not make you a victim?” HMM. Let’s think this through, shall we?
Straight male feminists who agree that women are victims of The Patriarchy, and who want to have sex and babies with women. Nope. They disagree with the ladies and they don’t get laid. Suck-up manginas.
Gay male feminists who agree that women are victims of The Patriarchy, and who want to ride the victim train (even if they have to sit in the caboose.) Nope. If the victim train derails, they lose everything.
Straight anti-feminist males not GTOW. Cautious. Looking for sex and babies, but stepping very carefully. “Indoctrinating their children,” who don’t yet have any power.
Straight anti-feminist MGTOW. Yeah, most of the time, except maybe when they want to get laid. Can be coerced onto their knees with an “accidental” pregnancy, but a growing force to be reckoned with.
Gay anti feminist males. Do they owe their souls to the feminist political structure? No. Fuck those bitches. Do they want sex and babies from women? No. (Let someone else) fuck those bitches. Anti-feminist gay males have NOTHING to gain by sucking up to women.
Now let’s take a look at how feminism views these groups of men as threats:
Straight male feminists. Feminism’s bread and butter. Those white knights will do anything demanded of them.
Gay male feminists. Pack mules and errand boys with deep pockets. They can buy the signs AND carry them.
Straight anti-feminist men not GTOW. The next generation is worrisome, but for now the propaganda machine can still drown them out, and the family law machine can jail them. Plus, they’re really busy paying our bills.
Straight anti-feminist MGTOW. Satan. Throw rocks at them or try to seduce them.
Gay anti-feminist males. Have decent incomes and no kids to support. Have a fair amount of time to spare for politics. Have developed a thick skin against public ridicule. Can’t be seduced into DV/family law vulnerability. Can’t be bribed or coerced into submission. All their friends know everything there is to know about activism (and specifically feminist strategy.) If there were more of them, feminism would cease to exist.
Would a Venn diagram help?
Feminist strategists know the wisdom of not publicly calling attention to gay male anti-feminists, because that is the ONE group of males which can never be discredited by screeching, “Patriarchal Rapist Oppressor!” And the Patriarchal Rapist Oppressor theme is the primary source of sympathy for feminism, from the non-thinking public.
Now I do realize my last statement doesn’t quite qualify as “objective proof,” it’s merely an objective assessment of commonly known factors.
Oddly enough, feminist strategists don’t have much to say out loud about viable threats to feminism. Could it be that no such threats exist? Or that professional activists are completely unaware of them?
I rather doubt it.
My (wholly unprovable) guess is that Feminist Leaders are much better served by yapping about “threats to women,” and keeping their fears of “threats to feminism” a little quieter.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh, I disagree, Keyster. The vast majority of conservative pro-lifers are deeply under the influence of the VERY feminized Christian church. The church agrees with the pro-life stance, but it will not permit any other attacks on feminism. The only reason gay men aren’t having much effect against feminism, is that they’re a small segment of the population. Like I said, they are the original MGTOW. It’s them and the straight MGTOW who may change the culture with noting more than social pressure, while legal rights activists are paving the way for changes.
They would still hold the keys to reproductive access. Is there some conservative initiative to do away with no-fault divorce, insane life-long alimony, etc that I am unaware of?
Bullshit. It is not an either/or situation. You still have failed to address, “As for the Rockefeller’s and Ford’s, the right has the Dick Cheney’s and George W Bush’s(It’s just a goddamned piece of paper).
If you’re comparing the Rockfellers and the Fords to (the left’s favorite goto punching bags) the Bush’s and Cheney’s, you’re in serious need of some Feminist History Edumacation my friend.
So to answer my question, “No, you don’t know about the Rockefellers and the Fords.”…obviously.
Between the endowments of both families, they’ve managed to contribute millions of dollars to feminist causes, and still do to this day. Who do you think pays for all those women employed by all those feminists organizations, their rent, expenses etc….?
Without the Rockefellers and/or Fords, there is no organized monolithic Feminist, Inc. as we know them to be today. You didn’t know that? I thought this was common knowledge among MRA’s.
I believe that we can do better. That we will do better and, it is what we do today that will shape this new version of society.
Ahh, the foibles of youth!
When you run for political office, I’ll be your campaign manager. You better get busy raising some cash.
“If you’re comparing the Rockfellers and the Fords to (the left’s favorite goto punching bags) the Bush’s and Cheney’s, you’re in serious need of some Feminist History Edumacation my friend.”
Nice evasion of an answer. Look to the “Political Dyslexia” thread to see how I managed to annoy the leftists. Your attempt to discredit me as a left-leaning individual holds no water.
BTW, the CIA being strictly under the control of neither left nor right was also involved in funding feminasty projects. Both sides have utilized these projects to further their own power.
“You didn’t know that? I thought this was common knowledge among MRA’s.”
Actually, no it is common one-sided propaganda by right-wing ideologues. An OMMISSION of the whole truth is as much a lie as the bald-faced variety.
Also, worth reading/watching: http://counterfem.blogspot.ca/2012/02/feminism-is-right-wing-movement.html
From a man smarter than myself.
“Ahh, the foibles of youth!”
Ahh, another thinly veiled ad hominem(gotta have some fluff if you won’t answer for the rights’ misandry) to go with the “edumacation” bullshit.
For the record I am 40+, went to both university and college(most recently just finishing a trade school apprenticeship this month).
In a different environment and a different area of discussion I am sure I would have already given you a “fuck off” and thought no more of you or your points. But frankly, despite you being a tradcon/Reagan fanboy I really like how your mind works. You do bring many valid points up for discussion and, can assuredly help further men and boys lot in life.
But, if you are going to not address issues and just dismiss others points as invalid because of their source I have no use for further discussion.
P.S. Your supposed “solution” for men and boys also gave us not only Bush, Cheney, but Palin, Paul Laxalt, and so on. If you don`t know Laxalt, here is this Republican idiots world view summed up.
“No funds [will be] authorized . . . under federal law [for] purchase or preparation of any educational materials or studies relating to the preparation of educational materials, if such materials would tend to denigrate, diminish, or deny the role differences between the sexes . . .” —The Family Protection Act, an omnibus federal bill introduced in 1979 by Senator Paul Laxalt (R.-Nev.)
Right-wing Xian idiot and likely xenophobe, denying men the OPTION to live a life on their own terms. Also supported, “Pick up that gun son and, back to war for lies and oil. Oh, and don`t be queer while you are at it.”
Incase you are wondering the rest of the omnibus bill was decidedly anti-gay and racist.
P.P.S. These guys bring up a point other libertarians such as myself should consider.
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2012/04/07/welfare-bleeding-the-beast/
Worshipping female sexuality is the other side of coin: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-vagina-20120527,0,2322544.story I hope that one of the powers here gives this story a little ‘love’. This absurd SlutWalking vagina fetish needs to be knocked down.
I’m not sure I totally agree. Wasn’t the vagina being “unmentionable” before just another way of worshiping female sexuality? People weren’t allowed to say vagina because vaginas are ‘sacred’, along with the golden uterus. “That’s where babies come from!” In a way, doesn’t being able to just use the word kind of help to take the vagina down off its pedestal?
If we’re talking about The Vagina Monologues, “vagina power” and demonizing of the penis, then that is another story, of course. I’m just referring to being able to use the word freely.
Again, I’m not really sure of my opinion on this. If MRA’s can provide a good argument for why I’m wrong I am more than open to being set straight.
Yes indeed. Mystery (as in Victoria’s Secret) is the coin of the realm. I have no problem whatsoever bring the vagina or the penis into the disinfecting light of day but there’s a lot more going on here than that.
The standard of some of the commentary on this thread is exceptional. The understanding of the dynamic at work between gay men and feminists is very perceptive. People like Ben (good to have you back), Tawil, Jade Michael and Dr Elam and many others have a greater insight into the gay experience than most gay men. You could teach them so much.
Ms Suz, you’ve knocked it out of the park again. You are logic and clarity personified and always impress. I was very pleased when you added your voice here. AVFM has some of the best thinkers in the manosphere. I knew you’d be an asset.
Some people need to wake up and realize there are no Left/Right ideologies for those in power. They are merely useful tools to entice and brainwash the little people keep them at each other’s throats while they laugh all the way to the bank(before it dissolves). You entice some of the population with leftist propaganda and entice the rest with the right. Both of which are created to manipulate simple minds that love the US/Them dynamic. Those at the top who act like they’re at odds with each other, aren’t. It’s a game. A rather easy one. They then sit back on the piles of wealth they gain as they watch their victims slit each other’s throats for them.
You will be shamed and pilloried as a paranoid whackjob, for stating that simple truth.
I’d like to personally attest to this.
Pillories aplenty, in my neck of the woods.
Now let’s all get right on this.
https://www.google.com/search?q=walk+a+mile+in+her+shoes+mi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
https://www.google.com/search?q=walk+a+mile+in+her+shoes+mi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb
“Some people need to wake up and realize there are no Left/Right ideologies for those in power. “
Word.
“Some people need to wake up and realize there are no Left/Right ideologies for those in power. They are merely useful tools to entice and brainwash the little people keep them at each other’s throats while they laugh all the way to the bank(before it dissolves).”
Agreed, I’ve I’ve been observing this for years now. But some are so beholden to partisanship, that they refuse to see anything outside of their myopic worldview.
Why bother defending against attacks on male sexuality when popular female sexuality (pornography) offers so much hilarious fodder for OFFENSE: http://www.vulture.com/2012/05/gilbert-gottfried-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html Here we have millions of members of the ‘personal is political’ sex getting all hot and bothered by being dominated and used as a consensual sex slave.
What a conundrum for feebleminded feminists. I wonder how they will be able to twist THIS particular personal reality into some sort of perverted political pretzel. Looks like the more things change, the more they stay the same.
They responded predictably: admit nothing, deny everything, lie, obfuscate, and counterattack.
How dare women fantasize about sexual relations on anything other than their own terms?
It makes the entire feminist movement look like a sham.
Thanks JTO a great article.
I missed its release because I work away.
I’ve always found it publicly awkward with my passion and support for the MRM, because of my same-sex-sexuality.
I always expect the response “you just hate woman” from people. (You get this anyway)
It should amuse me, – because some of the most Radical Feminists are lesbians.
But I also know there are lesbians who enjoy male company and are nice people.
Well thanks to you guys I’m getting over it.
As I have gotten over alot of my prejudice and distrust of woman due to Feminists in my childhood and in the work place in the 1990s.
Your work is showing the world that AVFM is about inclusion. It is also showing the MRM as a whole the wining formula for success.
And displaying one of the many blatant differences between MRAs and Feminists.
MRM Feminism
We are open — They are closed.
We debate — They dictate.
We include — They exclude.
We explain — They shame.
Voluntary — Financed.
Poor — rich.
Grass roots — Government conspiracy.
Is this getting boring yet?
thanks Rod!
Great speaking points, all of them well worth exploiting here! Keep waving it in their faces.
Gentlemen, it seems we have an ample supply of Red pills. Lets get to work administering some of that MRA TLC!!!
(FTSU)
Gay men should not use the “MRM” as a pulpit, platform or megaphone for specifically gay issues. That’s what the gay rights movement is for.
So, ideally, this whole conversation doesn’t even need to be happening. It is irrelevant. Men — gay, straight or otherwise — are in the pro-male men’s movement because they are MALE.
And for no other reason.