Second Prize

Goldwag is right, MRAs disdain human sacrifice

As closely as I can determine it, arguing for the human recognition – and human rights – of men, must, by necessity imply the subjugation and hatred of women. This comes from an attempt at rebuttal of one of my recent articles by the SPLC’s Arthur Goldwag. Goldwag starts with stating the painfully obvious.

 

For most Americans, the recent mass murder in Aurora, Colorado was an unspeakable human tragedy.

The implication here is that MRA’s don’t care when people die because we’re sociopathic monsters, or something. I should refute this, right? Make a grand and pious declaration of “Oh, no, I think it’s a tragedy too!”? Or can I just assume that’s understood without endless recitation, or at least understood by readers with a modicum of common sense?

Goldwag, (who has not to date denied that he is an anti-semite) continues:

 

If the story had any political dimension at all, it was guns and gun control (or the lack thereof). 

Oh, good call, Arthur! It’s the guns that make people violent, because without guns, nobody would have a murderous disposition, or be so anaesthetized to violence that murder in the news barely merits notice.

It’s not the normalization of solving problems by the application of lethal force – such as a President who cheerfully admits to maintaining kill lists and conducting extra-judicial murder of Americans, as well as foreigners, using drone strikes. Its certainly not the ethical trickle down effect of heads of state flatly ignoring the law, killing Americans and foreigners. It’s surely not that human beings, as social animals, are influenced by leaders who kill anybody they feel like, without pretence of due process, through the proxy of the military. Yeah, it’s just whether the guns are legally available or not.

The moral and intellectual giant Goldwag continues:

 

But for a vocal few in the misogynistic online world of ‘men’s rights’…

How does Goldwag make the logical jump from advocation of human rights for men and boys, to hatred of women? From the “misogynistic online world of ‘men’s rights’”?

Well, he doesn’t make any logical jump, he’s simply invoking an emotional hot button, to let his readers know who the bad guys are. It’s like playing sinister music when the villain of a film first steps into camera.

The posting of mine he was responding to argued the point that the social expectation of men in times of violent crisis, to serve as willing human bullet shields is, in my view, fundamentally unethical. I refer not to an individual’s choice to fatally self sacrifice, but to our culture’s prominent public ethic, reflected in editorials by the likes of Bill Bennett, Hugo Schweitzer and Hannah Rosin – who all variously held the self sacrificial deaths of three men as the correct and proper male role, and in the writing of those who excoriated men who chose to protect themselves.

What cowards, choosing to live, rather than throwing their lives away. What failures as men, eh?

The emotional value of whose deaths matter, and whose death don’t, is evident every time a news-reader reports on a tragedy in which miners, or settlers, or workers, or any time people die, but are described by job title rather than the designation “people, humans, or men.” Extra-special pathos is added to reported tragedy by invocation of “women and children” among those killed. These are the human beings we care about, because dead miners, workers, or volunteers don’t tug our emotions, unless they owned ovaries.

“Among the dead were women and children”

Goldwag does get it at least partly correct, titling his rebuttal, “Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting”.

However, his reading and my reading of that heading differ.

This is what I see: “Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Human Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting”.

See what I did there Arthur? I substituted the word men for an alternative word : “human”. And I did that because I think men are human beings. But Arthur is right, I do distain the public cheering of the use of humans for bullet shields. Even if they’re male, which means, you know, disposable.

However, Arthur’s article is posted along with the sub title:

Posted in Anti-Woman by Arthur Goldwag on August 3, 2012.

That’s the paint-by numbers emotional cue to his readers to something he doesn’t quite get around to making any kind of case for. It’s an assertion without even an emotional argument behind it. And it is so everybody knows who the bad guys are. The argument that men (human beings) are not of lesser value, or disposable due to their sex. Rather, men arguing for their own human rights must be, in this emotional landscape – anti woman.

No case needs to be made, no evidence provided, because this is deeper than reason or rational thought, everybody knows that men unwilling to conveniently die must surely hate women.

Although I recognize this ethic, I don’t know by what logic the conclusion can be reached. Perhaps in Goldwag’s view, human rights are a finite commodity and affording them to men means taking them from women. Or he may simply be pandering to the un-intellectual and reactive by pressing the hot-button of “anti woman” to ensure donations continue to flow into his hundred-million-dollar (ahem) poverty palace.

Interestingly, Goldwag doesn’t attempt to refute or even criticize any part of my repudiation of the socially normal expectation of fatal male self sacrifice. He simply repeats it, listing his article filed in the category of anti-woman. It’s almost like he doesn’t have any rational or ethical argument to make. In fact, it’s almost like he’s catching on to the fact that the MRM is a human rights movement, and he’s fighting on the wrong side. Didn’t the SPLC once act as a human rights organization in the 1960’s and 70’s?

Don’t let it keep you up at night Arthur.

Oh, I almost forgot, when Golwag types : “ Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting.” his use of “men” doesn’t mean “human beings” in the same sense I understand the term. It’s that darned principle of ethical universality I keep tripping over. You know, if the lives of one group of humans matter, then the lives of other human’s matter in the same degree, without weighting or preference of ethnicity, religion, social caste, sexuality or sex.

Goldwag also takes a swipe at James Taranto, whose tweet speculated on whether the self-selected deaths of three men acting as bullet-absorbers were worthwhile sacrifices. The backlash against Taranto was based, of course, on the public assumption that compared to human females, human males are disposable. Goldwag called it sour and unchivalrous. Chivalry, of course, is the antiquated idea that male human beings are disposable in preference to females. Taranto’s tweet was indeed unchivalrous, and that’s a good thing, because de-valuation of human lives by preference of one sex over another is antithetical to any ethical or moral principal.

Chomsky states this simply :

 

…the most, elementary of moral principles is that of universality, that is, If something’s right for me, it’s right for you; if it’s wrong for you, it’s wrong for me. Any moral code that is even worth looking at has this at its core.

Like racism, chivalry is atavistic, socially toxic and must be abandoned if any consistent recognition of human beings is to ever be realized.

Of course, having already pointed this out a number of times, claims of female “heroism” will be obligingly trotted out by bad actors clinging with a fingernail grip to the idea that anyone rejecting the socially accepted model of male disposability is nothing more than woman-hating scum.

Mytheos Holt, writing for theblaze.com named a man who raced for the exit as a coward. Clearly, not a worthwhile man at all, because he has the sheer unmitigated nerve to flee from gunfire. Nobody, meanwhile, is claiming any female who may have saved their own asses are by that action, no longer worthy human beings.

The admirable Hugo Schwyzer makes the case for which most other trad-cons and feminists alike are too intelligent to give voice. That is simply that men alive today live under a debt, payable by their own deaths, for women who died in childbirth throughout history. This apparently inherited guilt is biblical in it’s character. Schwyzer omits from consideration the millions of men who have died through history in provision and protection of women, and the total failure of ethical reason in positing guilt to previous generations of men for deaths in child birth. But Hugo is absolutely correct in his distillation of our mainstream’s calculus of whose death matters, and whose doesn’t.

Goldwag, after quoting my prediction of the media’s excoriation of the man who fled the gunfire, also writes a conclusion and pretends it is mine. Attributing this statement to me, he says:

“Their sacrifice, he concluded, was merely a victory for misandry, the principled hatred of males.”

Goldwag wasn’t quite stupid enough to wrap this in quotes (Hello Tory), but It’s most revealing that he not only identifies hatred of males, he calls it principled.

Let’s never forget, it’s not a culture of male human disposability to which I or other MRAs object. Just listen to Arthur. The objection to praise for dead men, and their use by the strutting media whores can all be explained away by invoking that ever serviceable boogyman: hate towards women. Or something.

So gentlemen, get back to serving, providing and dying when convenient, and then maybe Arthur will allow that your own self worth as a human isn’t actually hate of who he thinks you should die for.

Also, this article was filed in the category of Anti-semitism, on Saturday August 4th. For no particular reason, except that anti-semites are very bad indeed, and it’s a big red hot button to push.

  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

    Are you an MHRA? Can you write apps for iPhone and Android? Are you willing to do that for AVFM on a special project? Please contact us.

    A Voice for Men seeks a volunteer with solid app writing experience to help us develop an app that will be linked to the AVFM brand. If you have the qualifications and are serious about following through, we would love to hear from you. Your efforts could be of great assistance to this website and to our cause. Please contact Paul Elam at paul@avoiceformen.com for more details...

  • Wikimasters, Editors, Translators, and Writers Wanted *Apply Now*

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! Add to and improve the AVfM Reference Wiki. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please create an account and then follow instructions here

  • dhanu

    SPLC doesn’t have enough credibility left that it be taken seriously. But I believe there still are people reading them, some maybe even taking them seriously. The article is an eye-opener for them, should they choose to take the red pill. Well put JtO, as always.

    • Robert St. Estephe

      The SPLC is extremely wealthy. They would not raise so much money if they were not taken very, very seriously. The organization works closely with FBI and DHS and Threat Fusion Centers to identify both genuine criminals and, germane to this discussion, those persons and groups that politicians and the lobbyists who pay them wish to silence, marginalize and eliminate. To the fellers with the big guns (government guns) who “are just following orders” the SPLC has quite a bit of credibility. And to the wealthy donors, they have a great deal of utility.

  • Kimski

    Why is it, that the ones who are hiding the largest amounts of skeletons in their closets, are always the first to get up on this particular soap box, and start telling everyone else what to do?

    The dog Arthur Goldwag is wagging his golden tail again, and everybody jumps to attention. I consider the man little more than a complete waste of skin.

    • BioCan

      I know it’s not necessarily useful in a debate, but you have to think:

      Would he sacrifice himself given the same circumstances?

      It is easier to order others around, than to do what you ask of others to do.

      • Kimski

        ‘Would he sacrifice himself given the same circumstances?’

        Of course he wouldn’t.
        He’s got a profitable business going in genderbased hatemongering. Which basically makes him a hypocrite or a pussybeggar.
        And very likely both.

        • Robert St. Estephe

          Re: “genderbased.” — Please consider the significance of this conundrum. I was born before the era of cultural marxist hegemony (before the 1970s-80s, in other words). Therefore I was not born with a gender, nor was I accused, as a child, of having a gender — ever. I was born with a “sex.” Consider talking to geezers about what they think of this generational difference. Ask them if they were born with a sex or a gender, and if they were born with a sex, but later on their biological sex designation was taken away and they were no longer allowed by the bureaucracies to have a biological sex identity, but are now required by same bureaucracies to have a — by definition, “socially constructed” — “gender.”

          What does this mean to you, to your male acquaintances?

          How do you wish to identify your own status? Are you allowed to have a choice?

          • Kimski

            I see where you’re coming from, but understand that the translation to my second language from yours gives the same results, no matter which word you use. No matter if I use ‘gender’ or ‘sex’, I end up with the same word over here.

            ‘What does this mean to you, to your male acquaintances?’

            I guess what we’re seeing is the same thing that we see in the media, where everytime it is men suffering or saving someone, it is phrased as being some sex-neutral entity, whereas when it is men doing something wrong, it is specified that it is men who are the perpetrators. It is a deliberate attempt to twist the words used, in order to always portrait men as bad or non-existent, and vice versa when they’re talking about women.

  • JFinn

    For most Americans, the recent mass murder in Aurora, Colorado was an unspeakable human tragedy.

    Only partly so. Most Americans were overjoyed to hear about the men who sacrificed their inferior lives. For MRAs, however, the recent mass murder in Aurora was a complete tragedy.

  • Rper1959

    Arthur, Posted in “Anti-Woman” on SPLC , interesting will have to check out the “Anti-Men” tag on their site to see where they highlight radical feminist hate – male genderocide, eugenics and withdrawal of nurturance from male infants ! What there is NO “Anti-Men” tag on SPLC
    Well Chomsky said it well, and my parents said it simpler, if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander

    Funny how this seems not to apply to human rights? I just don’t get that.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com Dr. F

    The man seems to have polished off an entire bowl of fruit cake pills. If he chooses to brush tar on those who advocate primal sanity in a shooters arena then so be it.

    However, when he seeks to clock mileage on tragedy, well that’s a different story. It has me reacting where I tense up and let out a growl. A gut-hard growl to be sure.

    Seems fitting really when you consider it to be an anagram of the man’s name.

  • Mercer Williams

    “That is simply that men alive today live under a debt, payable by their own deaths, for women who died in childbirth throughout history.”

    Wh-WHAT? What is this, I don’t even.

    Does Hugo even try to explain this insane breed of troll logic? Or does he assume that all of us are big enough pussy beggars that we’d go along with it without examining it further.

    And in other news, Goldwag bleats even more about the eeeevil MRAs *thunder crackle*, all while receiving a fat paycheck underneath the table from his gal-pals at Radfem Hub, who have graciously promised to kill him last and to make sure it is quick and painless.

    I’d laugh at this all if so many people didn’t take it seriously.

    • keyster

      This is the “social justice” theme promoted by the Progressive/Left; that past injustices brought about by the “privileged white male class” throughout history must be remedied by government fiat.

      The SPLC, like all human rights organizations, are Progressive/NWO in nature and therefore will not be for white men of any kind. We’ve had our glorious period of dominance. It’s time for people of color and women to take over…because they’re just as good if not better at Civilization.

      Hugo has a point in that as many as 1 in 20 women died giving child birth as late as the 19th century. So it’s only “fair” that men die saving women in the 21st century. That’s the feminist rationale.

      Whereas the SoCon rationale is “Women, like children, are inferior and it’s therefore man’s “duty” to risk himself to try and save her.” It’s only practical that the strongest, fastest and most cunning Human around, try and save the weak and slow. It’s heresy for a Liberal to say this, and a Conservative will be banished to obscurity for even hinting at it.

      • Raven01

        This is one of those difference of opinions I often have.

        AVfM is a human rights site(That odd insistence that being born with a penis should never disqualify anyone from full membership in the human species).
        The activism bred here is not Liberal/Progressive/NWO. Even if some MRA’s may self-identify as left of center.
        Dishonest human rights groups that keep insisting that some humans are just more human than the rest, might find more succor on the left which is rife with success-guilt.

        • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

          Any reasonable look at history shows wave after wave of reform movements. Even today’s “conservative” movement is a reformist movement.

          I have no interest whatsoever in male supremacy or turning back to a “patriarchal” order per se; I mean, if that’s the way you want to run your own family life, and you and your partner want that exact same thing, more power to you. But I have zero interest–ZERO–in being sole provider and breadwinner for a stay-at-home mom who is essentially my servant (or who makes me her workhorse to provide for her). I seek equal partnership. Indeed, when I found myself in the role of sole provider in the past, a role I did not even seek, it nearly destroyed me.

          The truth of the matter is that the modern “conservative” notion of the “nuclear family” is itself a construct of previous generations of social engineering; the whole model of dad working and providing everything, mom doing all the housework and taking care of the kids full time, is MOSTLY a Hollywood-created illusion. If you look at the vast sweep of history, VERY few families ever really worked that way, although a lot of the social policy in the Depression, World War II, and post-WWII era (you know, before the dastardly Cultural Marxists supposedly took over) was geared toward providing that whole “every man has a castle, a wife, and 2.5 kids” life for everyone.

          The truth is that around the world and through most of history, that is NOT how things worked. Women for example have always worked, even though there was usually a division of labor. Also, rare was the family that consisted in its own discrete unit of husband+wife+children all arrayed against the world; extended families providing mutual support were the default MOST people lived in throughout most of history. It was “social engineering” (conscious and unconscious) that created that illusion in the first place.

          Look at most of the world: grandparents, aunts, uncles, living with you or within shouting distance was and still often is THE NORM. That’s not an illusion, it’s an anthropological fact. It is a very odd state of historical affairs that we even THINK you’re supposed to go out and take on the world alone and marry your woman and be her sole breadwinner while she’s your sole nurturer and housekeeper/nanny. Nonsense! If that works for you, fine, but that isn’t really how most people have always done it when left to their own devices!

          It is indeed arguable that in the early days of “feminism,” one of the main reasons they were able to gain any traction was because they actually WERE speaking to the unspoken desires of a lot of women who did not want to be shoehorned into that “traditional” model–a “traditional” model that was in part based on a fantasy of one man providing everything for you in the first place, historically something you saw only in the very rich. Women didn’t like being shoehorned and stereotyped, and spoke up. I don’t think there was anything wrong with that; where it went awry was with bad policies, bad assumptions, and by ignoring the other half of the human race.

          I don’t believe the “New World Order” stuff, because my look at history shows “social engineering” to be something governments have been engaged in for thousands of years. One reform begets another, begets another. Does anyone really think Sparta and Athens were not “socially engineered?” Or the Republic of Venice? Or Rome? Or China? Or ancient Egypt? Of course they were.

          I reject the notion that the urge for change and progress is some sort of sinister agenda. True liberalism looks to make positive, progressive change; true conservatism looks at progressive proposals and says “Hold on a minute, here’s why those may be bad ideas, we may not want to change what’s already working.”

          But I mean, seriously: does anyone believe that Nelson Mandela was NOT leading a progressive revolution?

          • Raven01

            “It is indeed arguable that in the early days of “feminism,” one of the main reasons they were able to gain any traction was because they actually WERE speaking to the unspoken desires of a lot of women who did not want to be shoehorned into that “traditional” model–a “traditional” model that was in part based on a fantasy of one man providing everything for you in the first place, historically something you saw only in the very rich. Women didn’t like being shoehorned and stereotyped, and spoke up”

            No. Early feminism promised one thing only.
            MORE! MORE! MORE!
            And, it spoke not once of the expense of that “more” ever. It was shit on sale and, boy did they buy it up on credit.
            Well, the bill is due and they are ticked at the payments.

          • keyster

            If the traditional construct, that’s been in favor for millenia is something that we all need to “progress” from; what is it you propose that we become?

            Androgynous drones all pretending that we’re “equal”? Kinda like a government enforced Egalitarian Utopia?

            Or should men be men and women be women, just as it’s been for 5000 years or so?

          • http://pinterest.com/zetapersei/male-privilege/ Perseus

            Wow, you just dropped a whole lotta sense on me, Dean. I’ll be ruminating on this, thanks for the post.

          • Tawil

            Agreed, historically women frequently did work with men in subsistence labour, and men likewise substantially share-cared for kids with the mother. Many traditional cultural complexes were agriculturally/farming based more than hunting based -at least for the last 10,000 yrs. In agriculturally based societies males may do a little bit of killing of animals but the vast amount of labour is devoted to crops -tilling, planting, cultivating, harvesting, processing, storing- and men and women (and children!) all get involved.

            The model which champions a radical and complete division of labour -man exclusively at work, woman exclusively at home- is a new norm, and Hollywood does love it. As a social mandate it’s oppressive of both sexes and I for one am happy to see it go…. along with the bankrupt fantasy that it has been with us for thousands of years as the only model.

            Any “progression” away from our extreme labour division toward shared labour is actually a progression to the past. Those that want an extreme labour division are welcome to live it out- good luck to them. But those who want to share kids or labour should also have that option.

          • BioCan

            Why do things have to be considered “engineered”, such as social “engineering”, in the first place?

            It gives the notion of a monolithic structure dictating what a society can and cannot do, and where that society will be heading. That might be too simplistic.

            I think of it more like a complex web of networks, organizations, and structures that influence or have an affect on each other. You can say there is some directionality toward positive change, but how much of it is developed within the brains of supposedly morally righteous, left-wing or progressive activitists and not aided by technology? It could be that the progressive policies and peaceful societies of today have been facilitated by the growth and development of technologies and systems that make our lives easier. Perhaps the world of men is indeed fading with automation and cheaper labor. You shouldn’t go back to the old world dominated by men because there is no need to go back to it unless you want to halt the progress of innovation, but I don’t ever see that happening.

            I look at the trends in workplace and school demographics, and I look at the many troubles men face with the ongoing pressures on legal systems and courts by corrupt, bloated organizations. A post-industrial society that becomes ever increasingly technological relies less on the work of men. It is no surprise that harsher societies in the past were dependent on the provisions of men. Perhaps it is because the average higher strength of men was required for families to survive, and for tribes to defend themselves against others.

            What I find appalling is the continual destruction of our rights, and that fact that the male gender is often ignored while the other is not. Why can’t both coexist? The desires of men are considered antiquated and barbaric by feminists and the like, equating them to nothing more than behavior exhibited by apes. Yet, they’ve been around since the beginning of the species.

            Feminists make no such claim for women. Their antiquated beliefs of chivalry, romantic fantasties involving expensive wines and a bloke playing the cello in an expensive restaurant, and desires for masculine men who succumb to the feminist’s every demand are just as childish and feckless. They are best left in books found at the flea market.

            It’s about time some of us realized that the demands of one group, the feminists, are too much for the common man who can only survive on scraps in a modern economy that is biased towards him.

          • Kukla

            “It is indeed arguable that in the early days of “feminism,” one of the main reasons they were able to gain any traction was because they actually WERE speaking to the unspoken desires of a lot of women who did not want to be shoehorned into that “traditional” model”

            I don’t think that’s the reason they gained traction. It sounds a bit simplistic. As for those “unspoken desires” sure, maybe some women didn’t want that. However, I think most didn’t really care since it was like that for a long time. If women had to go back to a “traditional” way then so would men, but feminists(like you said) ignored half the population(men) and men didn’t speak out about it either. Since most of them probably didn’t care.

            “Women didn’t like being shoehorned and stereotyped, and spoke up.”

            I don’t think they were being shoehorned or stereotyped, no more than men at least. They were made to believe that they were being treated unfairly(which wasn’t the case) and that is why they spoke up. Feminism was sour from the start.

            I agree that women did work back then as well and that men did take care of children too. But I think there was still a division. Men would do MOST of the work(esp. the hard labour), and women would do most the child rearing/house keeping. I don’t think they could survive if they had clear cut divisions.

        • keyster

          “Human rights” is code for “the benefit of women”.

          If AVfM is a Human Rights site why is it labeled a Hate organization by a liberal human rights group?

          Are there any human rights group anywhere in the world willing to embrace Men’s Rights as righteous and relative? If there is, I don’t know them.

          To Human Rights groups MEN ARE THE PROBLEM, and women and children the victims of them. Human Rights groups are NOT Apolitical, like your struggling to make the MRM…they all, without exception, are Left and feminist.

          If men are the perpetrators of violating human rights, how does one expect a Human Rights organization to justify embracing men’s rights – – and continue being funded?

          • Raven01

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00vxx55/The_Documentary_An_Unspeakable_Act_Episode_2/

            Fully 40% of those raping women in the DRC are other women.
            But, the UN ignores this info. Just like they ignore that while yes, 30% of all women in the DRC are raped so are 22% of ALL men in the DRC.

            Neither the SPLC or the UN have any interest or, credibility on human rights issues. At least not with anyone capable of any degree of critical thinking.

      • Kimski

        Completely forgotten is it, though, that it was male doctors that invented everything in a maternity ward, and made it safe to give birth.

        This came about after 250.000 years of wise women taking care of it, and no new inventions to make it safer, whatsoever.

        Even such a simple thing as the bloody wooden thingie you use to listen for a heartbeat, was invented by a man, and can hardly be called an instrument of male oppression or technology.

        We might as well all start learning to make fire by rubbing two sticks together, and learn to make roofs out of leaves, because in matriarch society that’s just about the top of inventions you’re going to see.

        But, hell, we can all just sit in a circle, holding hands and singing kum-ba-ya, when winter comes around.
        I’m sure that’s going to help a lot.

        /sarcasm off.

        • Raven01

          A matriarchy is much scarier than just grass huts and hit and miss fire production.
          South African tribes surprised me with just how gleefully violent their women were. And, without exception these women justified their violence with, “because the community wants this”.
          I am talking about beating people and then burning them alive kind of violence, not knocking out a few teeth either. And, these women would demand this happen at the same time they sidestep accountability for their own demands….. Oh, the crime in question was an unproven case of cellphone theft.
          To a woman in South Africa….. That is what a human life is worth….. one lousy cellphone.

      • Kukla

        “Hugo has a point in that as many as 1 in 20 women died giving child birth as late as the 19th century.”

        Actually the pinnacle of maternal mortality was in 1890-1895 and the mortality rate was only a bit over 600 in every 100,000 births. It has since gone way down. However women’s life expectancy has always been higher. That “1 in 20 women” figure is a lie, but what do you expect from a feminist?

        Here’s a video by barbarossaaaa where he shows the graph(at 4:38):

    • The Real Peterman

      Yes, women died in childbirth bringing men into this world, so men owe women their gratitude. But women also died giving birth to women, so…women owe women their gratitude? Hmm, that almost doesn’t make sense!

      But seriously, childbirth is safer now than it used to be thanks to doctors (mostly men) who made it safer. So maybe we can call it even.

      • Kimski

        It was ALL men that made it safe. There’s not a single thing in a maternity ward, that has been invented by a woman.
        Not. A. Single. Thing.

        Look at the post above to see how long it took them to come up with nothing. Look at the list of inventions made by women for the past 50 years, in spite of better education and more money to do it with. And then compare it with the loooong list of things, that men has invented during those same 50 years.There’s no comparing of those lists.

      • Kukla

        “Yes, women died in childbirth bringing men into this world, so men owe women their gratitude.”

        I disagree.

        1. Without a man, those women would not even be giving birth. Let’s not forget that men are half the equation(that seems to slip peoples minds)
        2. Women don’t choose the ability to be able to give birth, nor do men choose to be “birthed”.
        3. The amount of women who die during birth(even back then) is minimal.

        In my opinion they don’t deserve gratitude for that.

  • ActaNonVerba

    I’m gonna try my hand at spoiled 7-year old yellow journalism by “responding” to Goldwag’s article, mirroring his despicable style.

    Title: SPLC Shows Its Hatred For Men
    Posted in Anti-Kittens in Anti-Men by ActaNonVerba

    For most normal humans, the complete hatred of men and silencing of their voices would be an unspeakable tragedy. But, for a vocal few in the lucrative Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)- and, no, not all people who work for a so-called not-for-profit hate men-that hatred is considered a good thing.

    In the first few days after the Aurora, Colorado shooting, for example a number of a number of men’s rights websites,eager to find something uplifting and informative to report on, focused on the issue of men’s health as it relates to our culture’s easy acceptance of maiming and killing of men.

    Less sentimental was a tweet by a Twitter user with the screen name KasondraLuyten, who, on July 25, let loose with this astonishingly pro male-disposability, shaming, and self-serving tweet: “Real men, not all men are the same.” As expected in our culture, she received no criticism and saw no need to take down her heartless, sexist tweet.

    Luyten and the other hundreds of thousands (if not more) anti-male tweet wouldn’t have even borne notice at the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the anti-male pseudo non-profit organizations that AVFM has written about.

    Okay, at this point, I’m making myself a little nauseous imitating a despicable tool like Goldwag. I’ll just leave everyone with this thought: Why does the Southern Poverty Law Center hate men…and kittens…and rainbows?

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

    This SPLC is really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to get more $.
    And yet amazingly enough the SPLC willfully chooses to ignore calls for genocide based on sex by the radfem cult.
    Lets just remind Arthur what all has been permitted to remain on the radfem hub for about 10 months now.

    “Even if we killed off 90% of men, the majority of women left over would do their best to keep the oppressive system. I’d dare say we’d have to kill off all the women too and leave the little girls and radfems to create the utopia.”

    http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

    Still I guess we are wrong for thinking men matter.
    Arthur you really are a piece of work am sure your father is proud of your hatred towards men and masculinity.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Most human rights movements face this: reactionary forces who respond with hysteria and hate and false allegations. It’s how it works. The irony is hard to escape when you notice that groups once ostensibly dedicated to human rights become the opponents of human rights for others. That happens too. We see that here. It is to be expected. It is also a sign of progress: if we were really so marginal and stupid and hateful, we wouldn’t be growing like this.

    • http://thereluctantmysogynist.blogspot.ca/ limeywestlake

      Plus one thousand my friend. I get angry often, but I am not hateful. Reading some of the comments at the SPLC, it seems as though we are turning the dialog to our favor. It is only a matter of time….

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

    This SPLC is really scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to get more $.
    And yet amazingly enough the SPLC willfully chooses to ignore calls for genocide based on sex by the radfem cult.
    Lets just remind Arthur what all has been permitted to remain on the radfem hub for about 10 months now.

    “Even if we killed off 90% of men, the majority of women left over would do their best to keep the oppressive system. I’d dare say we’d have to kill off all the women too and leave the little girls and radfems to create the utopia.”

    http://radicalhub.com/2011/10/04/radical-feminism-in-the-21st-century/

    Still I guess we are wrong for thinking men matter.
    Arthur you really are a piece of work am sure your father is proud of your hatred towards men and masculinity.
    Great article JTO enjoyed it immensely.

    • Raven01

      Yes, but those old evil hairy-legged crones send Arthur a cheque.
      So, their verifiable hatred is acceptable, while made up out of whole cloth accusations warrant hate labels from him.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Funny about the word games. This big bucks organization arbitrarily adds a tag of “Anti-Semitism” which has no other purpose than to make sure that the readers with this as a primary interest will get the alert and then read about how wicked the MRM is. But anti-seminism is a complex issue. The most well-known aspect of it, namely the holocaust, is tied directly to progressivist eugenics (of British origin and American devolopment and funding prior to adoption by the German National Socialist government). The step from bias to mass murder is the step called “eugenics.” And this, it turns out, is exactly what the progressivist feminists who John the Other condemns in print on AVfM are engaged in eugenics promotion.

  • http://thereluctantmysogynist.blogspot.ca/ limeywestlake

    Activism time ladies and gentlemen. Went through the comments at SPLC article, and there is not enough push back I fear.

    • OneHundredPercentCotton

      They didn’t censor me. I really thought they would.

      • http://thereluctantmysogynist.blogspot.ca/ limeywestlake

        Me neither. I told them that I had never heard of the MRM before and that they had, in fact, enabled ‘first contact.’ :)

        • tallwheel

          I read that comment on the SPLC site first, and it gave me a lot of hope. I was really disappointed when I came here and read this.

          Dude, if you’re gonna ‘doctor’ the comments section, at least don’t announce it on a public forum… :(

  • Arvy

    ” – such as a President who cheerfully admits to maintaining kill lists and conducting extra-judicial murder of Americans, as well as foreigners, using drone strikes.”

    But, if they’re “military age males” (i.e., have a penis and are older than 12 or so) even Americans give up their status as specially exceptional humans and are presumed to be in cahoots with those nasty “foreigners” (i.e., anyone resident in any land other than the imperial power’s own) and thus become eligible for presidential/monarchical exercise of arbitrary powers of life and death. If dead former imperial tyrants — real or alleged — can be green with envy, George III must be spinning in his grave. He had to deal with inconveniences like Magna Carta and interfering parliamentary busybodies.

    Conversely, a different category is reserved exclusively for “women and children” being equally deserving of special consideration regardless of the former’s purported liberation efforts in recent times. Remember that women have fought long and hard for “equal rights” in certain areas convenient to themselves. They just didn’t specify exactly who they wanted to be equal to. It seems to depend a lot on whether the face any threatening circumstances, in which case equality with children appears to be a primary objective. And that feminist objective is to be met through male sacrifice as are most others.

    Now please quit your misogynist whining and get with the program.

  • http://www.youtube.com/user/MassEFR34k J3DIforce1

    I am deeply sadend that the SPLC has turned into the same knuckle dragging bullies as those they claim to stand up against. My jaw hit the floor in disbelief when they claimed the MRA as a hate movement. I know these attacks are to be expected now that they have made such a laim claim,but for me at least its still mind blowing that they continue down such a disgraceful path.

    • keyster

      If you’re white and for border enforcement, you hate hispanics.

      If you’re white and against welfare, you hate blacks.

      If you’re Christian and against gay marriage, you hate gays.

      If you’re a man and you advocate for men, you hate women.

      If you’re whole 501C3 business model is to fight hate, you have to imagine it happening, wherever someone is opposed to something a “special indentifiable group” might benefit from…except of course the “privilaged white male group”…of which MRA’s, along with the Nazi Party, the KKK and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, are considered a part of.

      If you’re against something benefiting women, that might disadvantage men or even harm society – – you hate women by Political Correctness default.

      How dare you sir!

      • Robert St. Estephe

        If you are a father and don’t want your child to become blind you hate the blind. If you are a father and do not want the government to use behaviorist techniques (following cultural marxist theories and social engineering protocols) on your child, without your knowledge and permission, to manipulate their sexuality then you hate homosexual persons.

  • http://manamongoaks.com/index.html Ray

    …we aren’t chivalrous enough. He wants us to block bullets and open doors for women.”

    Show me!!! Male feminists first. :-)

  • Gamerp4

    “This is what I see: “Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting”.”

    Sacrifice, have any of you wondered what does word sacrifice means :D, there are 2 meanings of it in Cambridge dictionary.

    1. to give up something that is valuable to you in order to help another person.

    2. to kill an animal or a person and offer them to a god or gods.

    I believe Goldwag is talking about the 2nd one, Why would you want A Man to sacrifice for another human being well basically this would mean to appease the god or Goddess, In this sense i feel i have the right what to do with my LIFE, IT IS MY LIFE and MY CHOICE SHOULD MATTER WHAT I SHOULD DO ABOUT IT, i dont need Goldwag or the MSM to tell me what my role in the society and in the life of women is, I AM NOT A WOMEN HATER when i talk about my rights, Did Goldwag called FEMINISM Men-haters when they demanded rights for women, Is their anybody in the state or MSM who talks about Men’s Right, Do they take Men as another half of HUMANITY, Does Human Rights means MEN, WOMEN & CHILDREN’S RIGHTS, or Men are excluded if i am not mistaken here.

    For goldwag to cry over Men’s Rights disdain just because we are asking for equal rights turns the shit on GOLDWAG and SPLC’s face that they are the biggest hypocrites of them all when they say HUMAN RIGHTS because not only they are denying MEN their natural rights but they are projecting it as “hatred of women” which simply says that WHAT KIND OF AN ORGANIZATION they are, Either you accept Men’s Rights logical demand or stop your bullshit by calling Human Rights because it seems that in SPLC dictionary MEN ARE CATTLES USED FOR SACRIFICIAL PURPOSES and In reality HUMAN means WOMEN AND CHILDREN, although i believe children to be protected by if you define WOMEN RIGHTS as HUMAN RIGHTS then your bigoted activism shows the true nature under which MEN are excluded as Sacrificial cattles.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Here is a lovely story of male chivalry that ought to make the SPLC universal thought-monitors giddy with male self-effacing hugginess and delight:

    The murderess and serial-marryer who was the inspiration for the 1926 play “Chicago” (later a musical and 2002 movie) was Beulah Annan. The story of her chivalrous husband’s “rescue” and the punishment he received for his “good deed” is an object lesson in pathological white knightism.

    “The Definitive “White Knight” Cautionary Tale: The Saga of Beulah Annan – 1928”

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/search?q=beulah

    A new post on Unknown History of MISANDRY “Female Serial Killer Quotations” is a useful source for bloggers and assertive commenters. (It is already very rich, with over 30 “strong women” represented, but there will be more juicy additions to come).

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2012/07/female-serial-killer-quotations.html

  • BioCan

    Great article, JtO.

    All of the people that you mentioned (Goldwag, Holt, Shwyzer) do not seem capable of understanding issues beyond their own distorted and narrow worldviews.

    Help me follow the logic here: Goldwag is a feminist, feminists don’t take kindly to chivalry (seeing it as chauvanism and patriarchy, they want to open their own doors without us holding them for a second or two), and he’s arguing against sacrifice and is for chivalry? I think my bullshit-meter just went off the charts. I thought feminists were all about breaking the social barriers to live in a world free of traditional roles or actions carried out by the genders. Now it seems they want to keep this one because they know how useful it is to their livelihood.

    If there is anyone who has ever given a convincing argument against sacrificing yourself for another woman, it is Goldwag himself. All you have to do is not take what he says seriously and do exactly the opposite of what he says is true and morally righteous. It’s a simple formula or guideline to keep in mind when reading feminist dogma and hate-speech. They’re just a bunch of charlatans and crooks.

    • Mercer Williams

      Feminists only care about breaking social barriers and eliminating traditional roles for women that are inconvenient. They still fully expect men to fulfill the majority of their traditional roles, with only a little deviance so that they can point it out and go “See, feminism helps men too!”

  • dhanu

    Just discovered that humans really means women only. If you perform a search on Google for any phrase containing the word ‘people’, Google will search for ‘women’ as well (and highlight it in the search results, even though your search term didn’t have that word). But not ‘men’, nor ‘children’.

    Funny thing is, since there’s a plethora of sites discussing women issues, fashion, feminism, etc, those are the ones prominently displayed (that is, specifically women-oriented), rather than the intended sites.

    So you have to add ‘-women’ to your search term to get the useful results, at the expense of missing out those sites that do include both ‘people’ and ‘women’.

    • Mercer Williams

      I’m not quite sure what you are talking about. I just tested this out with Google and the only words I saw highlight were “people” and “human”. What phrases did you use to come to this conclusion?

      Otherwise, please don’t go looking for misandry where there is none.

      • dhanu

        @Mercer Williams

        I searched for the following:

        I worry about people finding out that I wear themed boxers

        • Mercer Williams

          Interesting. I’ve tried it with the search “black people” and got “African-American” and “black men” highlighted. That one was probably a coincidence, I don’t think Google is really misandric. After all, if Google is going to take over the world, it needs everyone on board.

  • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

  • AntZ

    Goldwag is a sexist bigot. The SPLC is an instrument to separate wealthy idiots from their money.

  • JohnUK

    Unfortunately I believe the SPLC hit job on the MRA is partly working. I’ve been seeing more and more men’s rights sites being blocked by my employer’s internet filter for being “Intolerant and hateful material” including this site. It started with this site and every few days another site goes filtered.

  • Auntie Pheminizm

    We should keep exposing the SPLC as a practitioner of misandry, misanthropy, and fiduciary douchebaggism. To wit: show it to be a fraud and malignancy like feminism:

    http://www.johntanton.org/answering_my_critics/southern_poverty_law_center_splc_info.html

    Apparently over 89% of its income is spent on fundraising-administration. That is, only 11% goes to helping anyone other than the owners. Plus Morris Dees himself makes $280,699 annually. Wow! Over a quarter million semolians for someone who claims to be helping the “poor.”

    (Looks more like he helps himself!)

    Someone depicted it as being staffed with “…parasitic hucksters who live high on the hog by raising money on behalf of needy people who never see a dime of it.”

    And wasn’t Dees accused of hitting on his own daughter? His womanizing and divorce details seem ripe for attack/exposure:

    http://tinyurl.com/7scth9m

    Perhaps it’s time to burst SPLC’s bubble….