From Thunderfoot. Too good not to present here:
Tags: Thunderfoot
Why feminism is poisoning Atheism
Written by Paul Elam
Share via Social Media
Paul Elam is the founder and publisher of A Voice for Men, the founder of A Voice for Men Radio and the co-host of the Man, Woman, Truth Radio Show. He is also the Dean of Student Affairs at FTSU.
 |
201 Comments
Discipline case against Kellett heating up
The day is nearing when prosecutor Mary Kellett will possibly face the music for her conduct in the case she prosecuted against Vladek Filler. And as it unfolds it reveals a much more widespread problem of false allegations and the corrupt court officials that pursue them. Robert Franklin reports.
Remember, misandry does not exist
A Russian video that you may not actually want to watch, but which you may want to send to the next dipshit who utters the words "misandry doesn't exist" to you.
Helpless Homolka: How Justice was Battered by Feminist Censorship
A very chilling video from Canadian Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever
Perrette setting up Shivers again?
It has been established by investigators, not to mention a mountain of evidence, that restraining orders have been very, very good to actress Pauley Perrette. Are we on the verge of seeing one of them pan out nicely for her again, at the expense of ex-husband Francis Shivers?
Posters
Welcome to the poster page for A Voice for Men....
Cee Lo slangin’ red pills, yo
As is no secret to anyone not living under a rock these days, the language and sentiments of the MHRM are making their way into the mainstream. Here is another example courtesy of CeeLo Green, a mega star with the courage to let the truth fly, right in the faces of assholes.
Who is Emma Claire and why is she so hateful?
For those following the University of Toronto debacle involving Warren Farrell and a gaggle of violent protesters against the human rights of men and boys, we have our first investigative winner.
Neely Steinberg loves you, as long as you don’t love yourself
Everyone once in a while we examine what passes for wisdom on the pages of the Good Men Project Magazine. The only thing for sure on this one is that it doesn't pass for wisdom here.
A Letter to Traditional Women
You want to help men? Grasp what it is like to be one with women like you for five fucking minutes. Then we can sit down and have a little chat.
Some words on Abortion and the MRM
Abortion is highly polemicist, with the mainstay of its opponents squarely on the neoconservative religions right. Socons, as we call them.
An open letter to Richard Cohen of the SPLC
The Southern Poverty Law Center has placed AVfM and other related sites on a list identifying them as "misogynist" and "woman hating." Paul Elam responds with a letter to the SPLC president.
$1,000.00 reward for real identity of Vliet Tiptree
This is an AVfM action alert. We have recently been notified of what appears to be a developing plan to face men with the prospect of extermination.
Donate Today
You can support us by making 
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.
Featured Offenders
Emma Kadey
Bigot
Harriet_Harman
Corrupt Public Official
Josefin von Zeipel Segerberg
Bigot
Vanja Krajina
Bigot
Sophia Guo
Bigot
Jenna Myers Karvunidis
Bigot-
Featured Videos
See All »-
Remember, misandry does not exist
A Russian video that you may not actually want to watch, but which you may want to send to the next dipshit who utters the words "misandry doesn't exist" to you.
-
Street BoyYou need some love and understanding, not that dead-end life you're planning...
Activism
Misandry
Men's Rights
Feminism
Sexual Politics
Men
Women
AVfM in the Mainstream Media
Latest Comments
Arath: I’ve been reading some articles on this blog today, and I’ve enjoyed reading the articles. I didn’t know that something as cruel as this had actually happened, but I’m glad that I know...
Shrek6: Sorry 100%Cotton, but I have to stop you right there. There is much that can be said about the Catholic Church, but nowhere in its 2,000+ year history has ‘IT’ ever abused or harmed a single...
Rad: Thanks for featuring this.
Robin: I don’t think this has anything to do with stupidity. It starts with the Threat Management Unit and them securing a judge to grant an order. The guess is that the one who has the order against them will...
100%Cotton: And to think the Russians don’t want Americans adopting Russian orphans anymore… What is it with institutionalized abuse of boys, anyway? Right here in our own country are enough horror stories...
Kyle Spier-Swenson: Spoon fed? Blue October force feeds it. Heres a quote from one of the songs. “Any other man in america can get screwed just like me. … [chorus] No you don’t know, you act like you...
Feminists are such a bunch of pussies.
It’s a shame that Thunderf00t appears to be a NAFALT.
I agree. I love the guy, and his videos on science are awesome. I think he may be NAFALT simply because of that reason, science. I’d like to think that he simply doesn’t have all the data compiled yet. No worries though, continued exposure to Rebecca “I can’t identify my ‘attacker’” Watson and her cronies will give him a clearer picture.
I have made this comment before, but its worth repeating.
I am in the atheist community. The Feminists in the atheist community are getting their ass handed to them, from a grassroots level.. over the last year and a half. Initially, only a small minority were the Resistance..and they did a wonderful job standing up to the feminists who were ensconced in position of power (in terms of speaking gigs at conferences, and large blog following). But now, over the last 6 months, lots more individuals have joined in.. independently. Note that because the feminists are bullies and speak the language of “equality”, and most people are averse to fighting bullies, they back out. The small Resistance I talk of.. fought the bullies with their own baiting and ridicule tactics.. and it worked great.
The feminists have their backs against the wall now.. the only support they have is from the atheist organizations/leaders.. who are too PC and pussy-whipped. But it should erode soon.
The unfortunate reality is that even the anti-feminist factions dont spend time studying feminism and taking the red pill. So there are loads of NAFALTs. And many of them are downright hostile to MRAs. Cant help it.. but like we know.. we wont reach mainstream acceptance.. all that we need to do is to be able to convince a vanguard. And I think we are doing ok.
” The small Resistance I talk of.. fought the bullies with their own baiting and ridicule tactics.. and it worked great.”
Yes, yes YES!!
A thousand times YESSSS!!!!!!!!
At last, somebody who gets it!
At last, somebody who understands post-argumentalism!
We must combat them with their own baiting and ridicule tactics, and show no mercy!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Shrek,
I have been thinking for several days on this post. Not about religion, which I addressed earlier, but about other matters. I had decided to address it if it came up again, but I noticed today that Pee-Zed had cherry picked your words to launch an attack on us.
Now, I care fuck all about what that person thinks, but it did make me pause to come back here and speak to this at some length.
Let me say first that I am proud of the two to one down vote ratio on your post, and I hope that the bulk of those down votes are a reaction to this:
I don’t care how they put it, because the simple overwhelming fact throughout the history of Mankind, is that women have NEVER been equal to men and they never will be.
Here’s the deal. While I agree that seeking “equality” between men and women is foolish, as it does not exist. And given that our innate physiological and psychological differences will keep things that way, I don’t see changing my mind about that. Note also that there are some areas where women excel over men, so the most Chauvinistic among them could crow similarly to the way you are crowing here.
My point is this. Your observation of the inherent differences between men and women, and the acknowledgement that equality is mythological, is delivered with such smugness and prejudice that it calls into question your own equity with others, particularly here.
True, men and women are not equal. Shall we now follow the supremacist tone in your speech and infer that women and men should not be equally valued?
And this is where I often take exception with a certain kind of religious person (though I have had similar experiences with the non religious).
There seems to be something unwholesome and degrading in your proclamations, and I want to offer to you, with as much respect as I can, that I don’t think it consistent with anything I know of the MRM.
We are seeking a level playing field with women and men, legally, socially and politically. Nothing more, nothing less.
It is inconceivable that anyone crowing about their superiority (which is exactly what your post is) over half the population, could actually contribute to that goal.
In fact, it makes you dangerous to our goals here, and to an accurate perception of what this site stands for.
It is a form of bigotry, and as such is diametrically opposed to our mission and values in this place.
Men and women are not and never will be equal in every way. That does not reduce the inherent human worth of either. And I submit to you that it only reduces you to think otherwise.
@ Paul and Everyone who has misunderstood my post.
Okay, I’ll try to see if I can answer this criticism in a way where you don’t misinterpret or misunderstand what I am saying or why I am saying it. And please, I write this response with the utmost humility, sincerity and with not one ounce of arrogance or prejudice.
Not one word of what I said in the post you refer to was said with smugness or arrogance and most especially did I not once crow at any point. I would never crow, unless my sporting team beat yours that is. In this business, there is nothing to crow about in my opinion!
I have read through the post again, and I can see there is an opportunity to misinterpret my post, purely because I did not re-iterate a qualification and yes the text was a little disjointed. And that qualification was/is, ‘that all the women I was criticising, were not women in the general population, but the feminists who have destroyed our society and the feminists I meet in my daily life! I know many women whom I would never refer to in such a manner, because they are most honourable and capable women.)
For that oversight, I unreservedly apologise, and I apologise to anyone I have inadvertently offended!
It is indeed true that men and women will never be equal. And yes, I should have qualified that statement instead of leaving it up to interpretation.
I have stated before on this site and it is and has always been my belief: that women should have never been in a different class or classification to men, economically, socially or politically. Any normal thinking man on this planet will agree to that. Women are the glue that holds society together. From the most basic structure of society, which is the family, it is women who bond it together. I have never questioned their intelligence or ability in areas they are suited to. There are however, many areas where women are not suited to and they never will be. These are the areas suited to men!
Why would I waste my time praising and publicly applauding women like Erin Pizzey, if for one moment I was anything like you have described? It is just not logical and indeed not true.
I have never before and do not now, consider myself in any position above any other human being at all.
Yes, I may come across forthrightly in some of the things I say. In fact, I damn well deliberately come across forthright on many occasions. But, and I know I am no orphan, but after what I have had to deal with, I am tired of the crap dished out to men and boys in my country (and around the world), so I am now a lot less tolerant of their garbage.
I guess it has been mostly because I have suffered terribly at the hands of 2 women and the legal system (police/restraining orders/ legal theft etc) for more than 30 years. I have lost 2 children to parental alienation, seen more of my children in another marriage seriously abused by their mother, plus I have lost a brother who was close to me, because of the suffering caused by his ex wife. Losing this brother who was close to me, was the lowest point in my life.
I get that many here may hate the fact I state that I am Catholic, but at the end of the day, as a Man I am strong enough to stand up and proclaim my Manhood, and as a Catholic, I am equally proud enough to proclaim this. And yes, I am completely aware of the fact that I am making a target out of myself. But I am not afraid of standing up for what I believe in and am prepared to cop the flak. If I wasn’t, I would simply shut my mouth and say nothing.
I have also worked for many years caring for many men and women, who have been alienated from their children. I have experienced the loss of a couple of fathers who have been members of groups I have either belonged to or moderated, plus another who was a lecturer of mine at college many years ago, where these fathers could no longer face this world and the loss of their children, so they took their own lives. One even took his two boys with him. And of course my own brother is counted among the number of these brave but very sad men (except the one who murdered his boys). Suicide is a terrible thing. Losing people you know to this is one thing, but when family die (even if not exactly by their own hand, but indirectly) it puts you in a place where you find it very hard to hold any empathy for any members of ‘the enemy’ who have perpetrated this evil. And again, I am NOT referring to the general population of women!
I guess I could say that I am a little battle scarred and shell shocked. So my reactions may come across a bit unthinking, but my heart is in the MRM and for the welfare of men and boys first and foremost.
Paul, I find it very difficult to accept how you could come up with a interpretation and a criticism of what I wrote, that to me is ‘diametrically’ opposed to what I believe in and what I intend when I write anything. However, I will defer to your better judgement and knowledge in such matters, which is why I have tried to explain myself better above and apologise for any transgressions.
If for one moment I was some religious fruitcake, do you think I would spend more than one minute here on this site that has so many people who either hate religion or simply do not believe in God?
No, I would not waste my time!
But, I believe in what you do and I believe that what we all face and suffer transcends Race, Colour and Creed!
I value my membership here and even though I have been on a disability pension for a long time and am a single father, I have also contributed funds to your fund raising effort, somewhere mid last year. I believe in what you do.
If for whatever the reason, and even with what I have written here, has still come across as arrogant, crowing and ‘diametrically’ opposed to the values of AFfM, then please let me know and I shall unsubscribe immediately.
And no, I am not a silly frightened boy who will put his tail between his legs and go home crying. I am by far, much more mature than that. There is no point me persisting in an organisation that believes I have nothing constructive to offer.
As I said before, and I meant it, you are welcome here.
The only point I am making is that if you look at your post and you cannot see why people would infer that you are crowing about males superiority over females, then I think the lack of judgement is on your part, and not the readers.
A few words of arguable worth regarding Professor Preachy Choirs:
In order to damn MRAs, professor Myers has to go comment trolling, something which, for obvious reasons, is widely regarded as an illegitimate tactic. Every political movement has its non-representative zealous bigot types and a movement as controversial as the MRM is certainly going to be no exception. What Myers is doing is in its own small way the same as when conservatives back in the 1960s would use a bombing by the weather underground to damn the antiwar movement as a whole.
This tells us something entertainingly disgraceful about Professor Myers; for a professional scientist, he’s a bodaciously rotten critical thinker. That he admits to not having even watched the video he’s attacking is also strong evidence that the guy’s in a panic. If I honestly think a video is likely to show that an enemy is making a huge public jerk out of himself, I’m going to watch it carefully to get all the rhetorical ammo it can provide. If, on the other hand, I’m hostile to someone and want to bash them but fear that I cannot do it honestly, I do what Myers did; condemn them for what they said without bothering to find out what they actually said and then pick on something else.
In other words, Myers’ intent was to show that he’s strong but has accomplished exactly the opposite. Let us enjoy that.
One more thought. Amanda Marcotte during the Duke Lacrosse case infamously ignored absurdly mounting evidence of the players’ innocence and called those who were appropriately skeptical “rape apologists” and “rape-loving scum.” Then when the players were exonerated because, among other reasons, DNA evidence proved conclusively that none of them could possibly be guilty, Marcotte had a notorious public melt-down during which she wrote, “Can’t a few white boys sexually assault a black woman anymore without people getting all wound up about it? So unfair.”
Not only has Marcotte remained one of the biggest and most respected celebrities of the feminist movement she has been touted on multiple occasions by Professor Myers as one of our nation’s best critical thinkers(!).
And that’s the difference: To make the Men’s rights movement look like bigots you have to go comment trolling. To make feminists look like bigots you can quote it’s leadership.
A genuinely competent critical thinker would be able to see that.
He did not say “men are better than women” or alternately “women are better than men”.
He made a statement that the two cannot be “equal”.
Of course a douche like PZ would claim it says something it doesn’t but, that is to be expected from disingenuous, dishonest, perpetual victim.
What sane woman would want to “be equal to a man” when that entails:
¤ Being half of the victims of domestic violence but, having your pain ignored.
¤ Initiating on 25% of divorces but, being denied custody 75-90% of the time.
¤ Making up only half of the workforce but, 90-95% of all workplace deaths.
¤ Presumption of nefarious intent for any expressed interest in children that are not your own(and sometimes even when they are your own).
I had to give him an up vote. I know there will be outliers, men that prefer a feminine role and women that prefer a masculine role but, these people being outliers should not be the focus of political activism. While they need not be pigeonholed into roles they do not choose, they offer few votes and therefore little bang for the buck in the effort of chasing their support.
The biggest error Shrek made was conflating “women” with “feminists” and, even in that he could have a case as the number of women taking issue with a movement that claims to represent them is doing much they claim themselves to not support. For every GWW, Typhon, Izzey, Sue, or Aimee (sorry if I left you out this forum contains a disproportionate number of above average women) you will find 50 or more bobble-heads nodding to the beat of the feminist drum.
Shrek6 – you do realize AvFM was mostly started by atheists, including me.
Karma, after some thought, I think I should qualify my statement that you may have taken exception to.
I wasn’t criticising Atheists, I was criticising Dawkins.
I personally think the man is an idiot. I have watched some of his interviews and all he does is drop bombs in conversation, by demanding his religious opponents prove their points, but I have not seen him prove anything himself. Indeed he is a bit like watching feminists in an interview trying to survive the argument when it’s obvious they lack substance.
My apologies if my statement came across in the wrong tone.
Postmodernism Disrobed by Dawkins is well worth your time.
The feminist ‘philosopher’ Luce Irigaray is another who is given whole chapter treatment by Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton’s Principia (a ‘rape manual’) Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a ‘sexed equation’. Why? Because ‘it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us’ (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an in-word). Just as typical of the school of thought under examination is Irigaray’s thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. ‘Masculine physics’ privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray’s thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes:
You don’t have to be a physicist to smell out the daffy absurdity of this kind of argument (the tone of it has become all too familiar), but it helps to have Sokal and Bricmont on hand to tell us the real reason why turbulent flow is a hard problem (the Navier-Stokes equations are difficult to solve).
There is more than daffy stupidity here. There is a touching faith in the ability of men to do anything, anything at all. It seems The only reason we have not solved flue turbulence is that we are being deliberately mean because we hate women. This person doesn’t understand how male science does what does, and so thinks that it’s done by magic, by just wanting hard enough.
As Daphne Patai and I interviewed faculty, students, and staff from Women’s Studies programs for our book Professing Feminism, there emerged a complex picture of what we call “negative education” – a systematic undermining of the intellectual values of liberal education. And as Paul Gross and Norman Levitt have so impressively documented in Higher Superstition, it is the natural sciences that are under the heaviest fire.
Young women are being alienated from science in many ways. One strategy is to try to redefine what counts as science. For example, instead of teaching about the struggles – and triumphs – of great women scientists, such as Emmy Noether, Marie and Irene Curie, and Kathleen Lonsdale, feminist accounts of the history of science now emphasize the contributions of midwives and the allegedly forgotten healing arts of herbalists and witches. More serious are the direct attempts to steer women away from the study of science. Thus, instead of exhorting young women to prepare themselves for a variety of technical subjects by studying science, logic, and mathematics, Women’s Studies students are now being taught that logic is a tool of domination and that quantitative reasoning is incompatible with a humanistic appreciation of the qualitative aspects of the phenomenological world.
Quoting Noretta Koertge professor of history and philosophy of science at Indiana University in an article entitled “How feminism is now alienating women from science”
Good stuff! Thanks for posting that link. Same to Gwallan above.
Excellent citation. Do you have a page number for that? I might just pick up that book.
One of these hokum-factories hails from U of T. Coincidence?
Speaking in general, layman’s (heh) terms, there are three types of flow to consider here: turbulent (fast), laminar (slow), and Stokes (very slow/lubricating).
Menstral blood and vaginal discharges are best characterized as Stokes (lubricating) – even the heaviest menstral flow would fall below the level of laminar flow. The only turbulent vaginal flow possible would be amniorrhexis (“breaking water” during the onset of childbirth).
It is a wonder that, since feminists are so dominant in mathematics and chemical engineering, that they have yet to master the turbulent flow that comes out of their own vaginas. Perhaps someday, if a feminist manages to avoid her abortionist and carries a pregnancy to term, she will then have the presence of mind to solve these equations using her woman’s way of knowing, and then, educate poor dullard guys like me.
I would say that Dawkins was a very smart man, who got dragged into an argument that can never be won.
Read “The God Delusion” or any number of his other books, some of which (“The Selfish Gene”) are very interesting in their own right, and not because they are taking any shots at religion.
Having said that, you cannot ever prove that something does not exist somewhere. For all you can prove, there is a flying spaghetti monster orbitting in the asteroid belt between mars and Jupiter. You can’t prove that there isn’t. The onus of proof is therefor upon the person stating that something DOES exist.
This will be the last I type on this subject, as I’ve found the Religion versus not Religion debate to be very tiring and to result in huge arguments that can never be won.
For those that believe no proof is required, for those that don’t, no proof exists.
Which is why feminism must poison atheism. Were that correction “The onus of proof is therefor upon the person stating that something DOES exist…” to really get a foothold, and not need pointed out, where would feminists be? How much of feminism is really just a matter of faith?
Send an e-mail to Dawkins.
First though check out his anti-feminists videos on youtube.
Karma, I’m not going to get into a fight with you over Dawkins. My comment was too sweeping I admit and for that I will have to eat my words to some degree.
My position personally regarding Dawkins, is that I think and believe completely contrary to what he thinks and believes. As with Dawkins, I am not about to change my mind, anytime this side of my death.
My comment was actually disrespectful in some ways too, because I respect someone who can argue the toss and who has actually chosen a stance for good or for evil. I have no respect for those who sit on the fence.
So, arrogantly dismissing Dawkins, was a stupid thing to do, and I apologise if I have offended him or anyone else.
I am not a highly educated man, but I am an experienced man and have learnt much in my time. I am no fool, even if I may come across as one occasionally.
You and I are going to have to ‘agree to disagree’ on Dawkins I’m afraid.
Also, your comment further down the list here regarding me being disingenuous. Please don’t read anything into my posts that are not there. There is absolutely nothing disingenuous about me. I have been in this fight for a long time….around 30 years now and I have low tolerance to many things. My chronic illness also helps with the low tolerance.
I am not in a position to waste my energy on being somewhere, where I am not wanted. So, I sincerely asked that if Christians are not wanted here, then say so and I’ll unsubscribe. Paul has answered that question and I thought that would be the end of the matter.
Regardless of our beliefs in the ‘here and after’ Karma, I am still on the same side as you, in this fight!
Look, I am an Atheist. And have been for longer time than I have been a militant MRA. So is John the Other, so is GirlWritesWhat – who are the most important people on AVfM alongside with Paul at this point.
However, despite being an Atheist, I am also a conservative libertarian – which makes me understand your position better than you might think.
There are Christian thinkers with whom I disagree quite often – especially when it comes to religion. But, despite that, the same Christian thinkers have good takes on feminism, academic fraud and/or politically correctness. I generally tend to agree with them on these topics.
What this means is that I can still respect a correct idea or thought – regardless of the fact that the one saying it has a different opinion with regards to religion.
Like it or not – Richard Dawkins is a high profile individual. And he despises feminism and academic fraud. For this reason – he is important for the MRM.
So you could do the same as I do: Maintain your disagreements with Dawkins with regards to religion – but also admit that he is right when it comes to feminism, academic bullies and academic fraud.
Here is another video of his that I am sure you will like:
@ Lucian.
Thank you for raising this. I should have qualified this too. I was having a bad day healthwise, when I wrote that first post.
I only have problem with Dawkins when it comes to his position and arguments against religion or the existence of God.
Outside of that, I am quite happy to agree that he is very much a valid force to be reckon with, when it comes to those who fight the evil of feminism.
My apologies for not qualifying this position earlier.
Yes Karma, I do!
I also have been led to believe that AVfM is for ‘ALL’ men regardless of race, colour or CREED.
There are Atheists on this site, who have made damning and derogatory statements about Christianity and the Catholic Church, and being an Orthodox Catholic as I am, I have not yet once taken exception, because I have been led to believe that this battle we fight against feminism that has destroyed all our families and harmed all our children, transcends all belief structures.
I can understand why many men may hate the Catholic Church. After all, the ‘man run organisation’ that is ‘The Church’, has been directly responsible for most of the evils that exist in this world today. And ‘The Church’ has been one of the largest Pro-Feminist organisations on this planet, spreading this disease faster than a bushfire in the height of summer.
I am no fool and as my picture suggests, I have a fairly thick hide. I do not condemn any man regardless of his belief structure and always respect everyone on this site. I would hope that I would be afforded the same respect, even though I will always state my position as an Orthodox Catholic.
I have also been led to believe that as long as we all do not cross certain lines, such as inciting violence, racism or attacking other members, that we are allowed to voice our opinion on many contentious issues.
Please let me know now, if Christian men are not welcomed or wanted in this forum and I shall unsubscribe immediately.
I am the only one here that can make that call, and I can tell you that all men are welcome here. ALL of them.
I have made the mistake in the past of approving a couple of articles that were, in hind site, gratuitously attacking people of faith.
It is a mistake I have not made in a long time, and don’t plan on repeating. In that spirit, I also amended our writer’s guidelines over a year ago to read the following about submissions.
“Regarding religion: AVfM accepts no articles that either promote religion, or that are critical of those that choose to follow a religious path in life. The idea is that AVfM is not a platform for a religious message, nor is it a place to gratuitously bash religious people. Thoughtful critique of religion, however, is welcome and encouraged.”
http://www.avoiceformen.com/info/join-the-choir/
One only has to look at the secular community, as presented in this video, to know that they are not immune to dogma.
I am an atheist, but this is not an atheist website. Nor is it a religious one. It is just a men’s rights website, which does not need dogma or attacks from either side of the fence, and it is why, save a couple of bad calls on my part, precisely why men of faith and more secular minded men can coexist here with infrequent difficulty.
Thank you for clearing that up Paul.
I am very safe and mature in my skin as an Orthodox Catholic and for that reason, I am very happy to take part in constructive discussions regarding the Catholic Church.
The Church exists in two parts. Unfortunately, the larger more public face, is very much liberal and in many cases very much Atheistic.
I am angry at what feminism has done to all belief structures. They hijack everything to change it to be their own. As I said previously, the Liberal organisation of the Catholic Church is overrun by feminists and has been responsible for the spreading of this disease throughout the modern world.
I shall abide by the rules as they stand and apologise if I have crossed the line before and if I inadvertently do it in the future.
It is not my intention to offend anyone, except feminists!
My parents used to dump us at the nearest church when I was a kid for Free Sunday babysitting. We’d be sitting on the front steps HOURS after everyone else left, like a half dozen stray pups, with cops passing by asking why we were sitting there.
It wasn’t an “uplifting experience”to say the least.
One thing I remember being taught in that shabby little wrong-side-of-the-tracks Second Baptist Church besides “red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight” was this:
“If you don’t respect other’s beliefs, you cannot expect anyone to respect yours.”
People make fun of that particular religion a LOT, and most of it is justified, but that particular little teaching is about the most valuable life lesson I’ve ever been given.
Paul, the belief systems and “faith” required by feminism effectively make it a religion. It requires one to believe impossible things as an article of faith.
Shrek6…
“After all, the ‘man run organisation’ that is ‘The Church’, has been directly responsible for most of the evils that exist in this world today. ”
This agnostic disagrees.
A cult as per…
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com.au/2008/06/poverty-of-feminism.html
I am going to send affirmations to the Big Bang for your allowing men of all faiths (atheism being another) to participate in your blog.
You should know that all good will come back to you.
And, yes, that was a good interesting vid you chose to run.
Man, these dummies just don’t know when to stop.
“Please let me know now, if Christian men are not welcomed or wanted in this forum and I shall unsubscribe immediately.”
Dude that was really disingenuous.
Reminds me of “we are feminists and we speak for all women.”
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I can assure you, as an atheist, I neither need nor want your sympathies.
Nor do I need or want your insults about my beliefs, or lack of them.
Read the last post I made. It works both ways.
Check and alert. I am not going to allow anyone, religious or secular, to turn these comments into an us vs them on religion and Atheism.
If you want to argue with and provoke each other, go to somewhere else to do it.
In a way, by attracting more and more of the ire of feminists, both MRAs and Atheists are performing a real service to religionists whom have been taking severe damage from feminism in recent years.
Christianity in particular has been overrun by feminists. Although I am also an atheist/agnostic (I find most religious argument to be incoherent) I have quite a few Christian friends of both genders whose eyes light up with newfound hope when I start talking about men’s rights and feminism.
I speak to them with a boldness even when they whisper for hushed tones, for I let them know that men of truth and strength should also know courage when confronted by the painted face of feminist fear.
Watching these men and women of faith rediscover their courage is an awesome thing.
Why is feminism poisoning atheism?
Feminism poisons everything it comes into contact with. Can you think of anything is hasn’t poisoned? Atheism and gaming are just the latest targets. Thankfully the red pill is the antidote.
Spot on – feminism is being used as a means of power grabbing – as far as the venom paralyses the host victim is how much it’s protaginists get to feed. In this way such feminism (non equity forms) behaves like a predator and a parasite – always looking for new blood!
Feminism poisons everything they come across, period.
That’s for sure. I’d have thought that at least committed skeptics are immune, but sadly that seems not to be the case.
Its not just feminism that is poisoning atheism. Many of the political pathologies of leftism in general is taking over the atheism/skeptical movement.
The skeptical movement has had in the past many right-of-center members who are being pushed out for the sake of leftist political correctness.
Check out this thread from Skeptics Guide to the Universe where Rebecca Watson is a member
How large is the excess of white, old males in the movement? And how do we rid ourselves of them?
I was once a fan of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe who can no longer stand to hear Watson’s voice.
They can push people like me away with their racism and misandry and become even more irrelevant than they already are.
Just had a browse of the forum and read a few choice threads. Frankly I was somewhat disapointed. A lot of of faceitious posts and trolling going on – that said on the bright side I don’t see it as being a comfort zone for RW and her pals either. Still too many genuine skeptics around to let her have an easy ride is my superficial impression so far.
I am a man of faith and I have never felt unwelcome here.
I don’t have any arguments with atheists, as I have struggled with my faith from time to time and I recognize that with slightly different circumstances in my life I could easily have been an atheist.
This isn’t the forum for religious or non religious arguments, it’s easy to become distracted from our main purpose, and that would be tragic, we should avoid breaking off into little camps.
The atheism commununity is a logical target for feminists, as it will allow them to poison the waters of logic. I believe that the skeptical community prides itself on logic and science, and once feminism gains a foothold in that community they will try to conflate their message with that of logic and science, further muddying the waters. It’s like a virus that courses through a body’s bloodstream.
Well said, Malcolm. I’m not a religious person but I have no problem with people here at AVFM who are as long as we share the same goals and respect each other.
MRM should adopt what is called in politics ‘triangulation’ – a process by which you build coalitions and consensus by selectively adopting ideas from all different factions to build your platform. In so far as a religion (any religion) is opposed to feminism, to that extent MRM finds common ground with that religion. The logic and the motivations for that opposition by that group may be different, but they are still our allies. MRM should be a big tent that accommodates all ‘non-feminist’ sector to have any chance of overcoming the natural handicaps we are already saddled with.
Just another classic case of feminists colonising a formerly male-dominated arena, then attempting to change its rules (unwritten or otherwise) to better suit themselves. If that alienates men, so much the better (and better yet if it criminalizes men).
And, as usual, some of the worst offenders are the mangina-enablers, collaborating in a transparent attempt to score some feminazi ass. *shudder*
Still, at least the ironies involved here are hilarious. To see several self-proclaimed champions of skeptical enquiry publicly convert to the quasi-religious cult of feminism and abase themselves before the goddess is hysterically funny.
Being an atheist myself, I probably shouldn’t laugh at the infiltration but I’m not worried, it’ll end up working in our favour eventually. These cunts are simply going to get called on their bullshit and publicly humiliated more and more often in the future. If there’s one scene the fembots should’ve thought twice about trying to co-opt, it’s the atheist/rational enquiry crowd, especially online.
rake@ “Just another classic case of feminists colonizing a formerly male-dominated arena, then attempting to change its rules (unwritten or otherwise) to better suit themselves”
What’s next?
Not keeping score and handing out trophies just for showing up?
Ha! You knows it.
One should also expect a certain increased… ‘flexibility’, shall we say, when it comes to entry requirements.
At the first, fully feminist-organized atheist conference, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see Desmond Tutu hand Muqtada al-Sadr the L. Ron Hubbard award for services to skeptical enquiry…
“Not keeping score…”
?
With quick perusal I’ve likely missed your point but their whole existance is about keeping score. In the entire broad spectrum of games of which they wish to restrict others from widely participating.
Don’t underestimate them. I’ve been hearing the same things from people regarding feminists in politics, feminists in the legal system, feminists in schools, blah blah blah. One by one the dominios fall.
Don’t underestimate the mangina syndrome.
Sorry, PZ. You’ve been …
I fackin’ LOVES that tune! Thanks for posting
Oh when the worlds of “tolerance” collide!
Ironically it seems secularism will need Reformation from the Orthodoxy to include Skepchicks on the ground floor.
Through history, and especially since the Enlightenment there has been no other gender that has contributed so much to the disbelief in God than the male half of the species. And now the grrls want in on the action?
It seems that the Atheist community is forming a heirarchy of men, a “nu-patriarchy” void of the old one that was once referred to as Him or God/the church – - and they’re not very sensitive to “inclusion” of women, much like the original (or reformed) “believers”.
There are so many irony jokes here I can’t even begin.
Am I the only one who sees its just dripping with it?
I can’t mock it any better than it mocks itself as is.
I’d like to propose an Athiest Group that goes after Native American Beliefs. Do you know how many Bald Eagles those deranged fanatics strangle in the name of religion? Maybe PeTA will join us for a rally in Dakota country.
Wait a minute. So the moment something you do hurts someone else you have to stop? By that logic. These women should be Amish. They shouldn’t use the modern technology of the world because that computer they use to whine online a lot of its parts were made in 3rd world nations talking advantage of their workers, some of whom may be children.
It’s very profitable to be a professional victim for some people. All you have to do is throw away any sense of decency and ethics you ever had and blame everyone else for your problems.
So the moment something you say is offending someone else, you have to stop. There we go again, claiming the right not to have your feelings hurt lol.
Ok, shut the fuck up bitch, I’m offended by the shit you spew.
$20 says that only applies to people she disagrees with. It’s just there so she can pull out another victim card. Saying “That’s offensive to me.” is just another attempt to shut up dissenting opinions.
It’s not *that* significant a problem, but it is certainly pronounced, and it is degrading the image of the skeptics movement (especially to those seeking cracks in the facade). Thunderf00t, a single vlogger, who makes a single video, gets more hits/comments in a week than the entire fleet of feminist insurgents gets in a month.
And it drives them up the wall.
They have alienated every big name skeptic they can, and attempted to replace them with their own number. The problem, obviously, is that those particular “old, white, heterosexual dudebros” do what some dudebros and females from all demographics in every culture have done throughout time: they get shit done.
Once everyone capable of self-reflection catches on to the professional victim game, the lifetime achievement of selling pottery and pseudo-science to their gaggle of sychophants will stand in sharp contrast to the aims and achievements of those they vilify.
As an atheist, I don’t really care whether or not people believe in God or gods — I am more concerned with religious movements and the effects they have, rather than with the religious individuals themselves. Believe what you want! I will respect your ability to believe in things, even if I don’t respect what you believe in.
Well said. I completely agree.
Notice PZ scratching his head directly after his “going on right now” statement in that video. Classic conscious lie-telling behavior.
Matt Dillahunty posted a video reply to thunderf00t’s video. Here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyjW36Ri45Q
What is remarkable about Matt’s response video is that he concedes at least 3 of TF’s points but then claims that, though accurate, TF is actually lying because the feminists have retreated in fear from their original points.
The three points in question:
Point 1. Dillahunty banning (on facebook) those who disagreed with him about elevatorgate. Dillahunty now claims he reversed his bans on 15-20 people, so thunderf00t must be lying even though thunderf00t had a screenshot proof of the ban.
Conclusion: Dillahunty retreated in fear once he realized how bad the banning of dissenters made him look.
Point 2: PEEZEE’s AV slide “Atheism is the radical notion…”, the A+ redefinition of Atheism to echo the bullshit Feminist motto “Feminism is the radical notion…”. Dillahunty claims he hated that slide (it made their feminist takeover of atheism too transparent for them to be comfortable with it) and claims without proof that PEEZEE has since removed or reworded it…which Dillahunty then claims this purported removal somehow makes Thunderf00t’s accurate point a lie.
Conclusion: PEEZEE retreated in fear once he realized how bad allowing feminist language to take over the definition of atheism made him look.
Point 3: Behavior / dress codes at Atheism conferences – despite the obvious anti-sex league origins of these codes, Dillahunty claims that they are only directed at “boothbabes”, of whom Dillahunty claims are still OK with him, and that, despite the huge prejudice against male sexual desire inherent in those codes, the feminists at the conferences are sex positive. It is just the men and their desires that suck – female lust is fine fine fine.
Conclusion: Dillahunty retreated in fear once he realized how badly the naked hatred of men and their desires was damaging attendance at atheist conferences – not to mention the destruction caused by the faux victimhood and fear they were using to try to infantilize atheist women into buying into their feminist pearl-clutching.
There is a lot more bullshit in Dillahunty’s video, but the good news is this: the feminists are now in full ass-covering retreat in atheism, even if they can’t bring themselves to admit it.
I guess atheist women don’t love the Grrrl Goddess much at all.
This youtuber destroys Matt Dillahunty’s response video to Thunderf00t:
Interesting video. It seems that women, having infiltrated another institution, have corrupted it and turned it away from it’s original mission and to their own purposes.
That’s funny. Seems like I was talking about this happening somewhere else.
Where was that?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh yes, shame on us, especially the men here. How horrible that we truly believe that men also deserve fair treatment as human beings and not as money bags nor beasts of burden etc. Perish the thought!
Seriously, your assumptions about all of us hating all women is uncalled for and untrue. You conflate feminism, an ideology with women, as individuals. You don’t even bother with citations and expect people to take your word at face value. With all due respect, save your shaming, infantilisations and victim status for your echo chambers.
I won’t disregard you as another “crazy bitch who wants to enslave all men,” etc. I will disregard you as a myopic ideologue whose world view is so narrow and indoctrinated that you can’t even see what is directly in front of your eyes. Still, I will answer some of your points.
The fact that you are psychologist and cannot see through some of the mild anger here and have some understanding of where it comes from is downright scary.
There is no opposition to women’s rights here. None. It is not allowed and never has been. And if you seriously believe that which you offer without a shred of proof, then I would suggest being a psychologist is not as practical for you as perhaps seeing one.
It is the same thing with Watson’s alleged rape and death threats. You expect us and the rest of the world to panic and clutch pearls because some anonymous morons on youtube said she should be raped. Where is the police report of her death threats? Where is the investigation? There isn’t one, and for good reason. The only thing that happened to Rebecca Watson is that she was subjected to what any of us, myself included, are prone to experience as public figures; that being that anonymous morons on the internet will say hateful, mean things to people with whom they disagree.
If you believe in equality, drop the demand for chivalry, as in:
Real threats are a serious matter, regardless of the sex they are targeting. Quit infantilizing women with special snowflake status. But again I remind you that there is no evidence whatsoever of a serious threat to Rebecca Watson. In the absence of that evidence we are convinced she is playing the issue and drawing on her fellow human beings natural instinct to rescue maidens in order to gain sympathy, support and a larger audience.
And now you arrive to imply we should take that rancid bait and swallow it.
Sorry, not buying that kind of crazy today. Not that you’re just some crazy bitch, that is.
Oh and one last thing. Don’t fucking tell me what I, as a man, should or should not be doing. It is not your place. And I can bet how you read that. You likely think that I by “your place,” I am referring to the fact that you are female. You would think that because that is what people of your ilk think like.
Just know this. I define myself as a man, and no one else. Not you. Not any other man or woman.
End of story.
“I am a self-confessed feminist, atheist, humanist and general nice person. Oh and I’m also a psychologist… and a woman.”
So you want a medal?
Man, those identity ideologues just make me want to barf sometimes.
‘Well, AS A WOMAN, I think.’
‘Oh, and I AM A WOMAN.”
Jiminey Puffinfuck where’s my barf bag?
Seriously, have these people so deluded themselves that they now actually speak through their vaginas?
It just reeks of pussy centric entitlement. And the dim witted nincompoops are so in fucking left field they don’t even see it.
Tell you what it really means to me. Absolute insecurity. If you have to rely on your genitalia as a credibility factor, it must mean you have exactly shit for confidence in what you are saying.
Like we are all supposed to say, “Ooooooo! She’s a wooooman! Listen up!”
And this coming from a supposed rational thinker.
Like I said. Where is my barf bag?
/Passes the bucket:
As a man, I just want to say sorry, but you might want to be careful there. I think I left it half full, and you don’t want to spill.
Jiminey Puffinfuck
I larfed. I just may have to change my handle or perhaps use it as an alter ego.
I believe the internet slang/acronym for that is GOTIS.
Yes, what she is doing is displaying her pussy pass like a cop flashing their lights before they run a red light………it’s like before she states her case……..look, look, pussy pass coming through…..I’m special……I’m allowed to do this shit……..special consideration here…..ok…..blah blah blah…burp…..fart. LOL
Yeah, the cognitive dissonance is stunning, considering her later statement to Shrek:
“Women have the ability to perform the same tasks as men physically, mentally and emotionally.”
How the hell does that go hand in hand with expected special considerations based on genitals???
A barf bag might not suffice, septic tank might do the trick.
Dear Not_all_men_are_like_that, first of all my congrats for the nickname, I wonder how you would perceive a “Not_all_women_are_like_that”.
I’m sincerly glad that a feminist attends our show. This is one of the few places on Earth where a bunch of mysogintsts can gather and orchestrate their war against women.
Welcome.
I’ve read your post, so I reviewed quickly the comments, and I catched only one that I can consider “against women”. Many of them are anti feminist, this included. But feminist does not mean woman. If, today, I should visit a forum on any national media/news magazine, I could count dozen of articles where men are depicted in an ugly way, and for each of those articles dozen of “feminist generated” hateful comments against men.
So given this, I just wonder how you can sincerely make your statements without feeling ashamed or at least in contraddiction with your own claim of being a feminist.
But I know the answer, having spent 20 years of my life in left wing parties and close to feminists, some of them are still my friends, some of them are just persona “non grata”.
The following mind process should be catched by a psychologist, such as you; when someone adopts the feminism, he/she adopts a religion and its dogmas. If he/she does not drop of it out quickly, gradually gets tangled in its rethoric and starts to cover up the sense of guiltines for the crimes that movement is committing, to defend the comfort zone (the sisterhood and the good men), by redefining the language and by creating a just cause for the violent actions.
“Discrimination against men in the workplace?”…no it is not the case … it is an affirmative action to cope with the wage gap
“Presumption of guiltness for men?”…no it is not the case…it is fighting the rape culture
“Parental alienation?”….no it is not the case…it is fighting the domestic violence
…and so the story goes.
You felt in a trap, and your appareance in this show, it is just part of your “justification process”, …”let’s have a look to this fellow mysogynists, someone can be saved with the light of feminism”… Saddly I live in the darkness.
I truly, without sarcams, think that there is good will in your appearence. Otherwise youd would more profitably spend you time elsewhere.
But unfortunately while we run this show for you, some of your sisters (and few good men) are actively dropping poison in the water most men boys drink on daily basis.
So I’m sure you will understand if we do not buy the feminist mantra.
The show must go on.
Gee your nice
Reply to Not_all_men_are_like_that
Short answer: piss off, petal.
Slightly longer answer, in the form of a handy hint: if you want us to consider your tedious plea of ‘Not All Feminists Are Like That’ then try not to sound so much like every other fucking feminist who shows up trying to tell us what we’re permitted to think and what we may or may not say. Instead of haranguing with shaming language and appeals to chivalry, how about actually addressing the arguments?
That would actually make you pretty much unique, but as it is, we’ve read one variation or another of your lecture a million times before and, quite frankly, it’s getting boring reading the same repetitive bollocks from feminists over and over again. Seriously, you really do all sound the same, the only thing that distinguishes one moribund sermon from another is the quantity of crammed in fembot boiler plate, because the cliches never change.
I would post a longer reply, dismantling your post in detail, and maybe I will later (I may even look at that link) but right now I’ve better things to do. Specifically, I have some horse manure I need to spread around my rose garden while the weather holds and the winter light lasts. Such a pity that the heap of bullshit that you’ve dumped here couldn’t be bagged up and put to similarly good use.
So long, sister.
Rake,
Your fine comment here was scooped up by the spam-clam. Sorry about that.
I crack that clam from time to time and find pearls as is yours right here.
You have an eloquence and humour to be envied mate. If you want to write an article you let me know.
mra.effdoff@gmail.com
Cheers Dr. F, I wondered what had happened, thanks for retrieving my comment [sorry about the spammy duplicate posts].
And thank you for the words of encouragement, I’m really only beginning to find my voice having lurked/absorbed the MRM for what must be a couple of years now, but I’ll definitely keep the offer in mind next time I feel a rant coming on. Tricky part is knowing where to start, since just about everything pisses me off nowadays, lol.
Cheers, mate.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Are you aware that Paul Elam also gets violent threats on a regular basis? The difference is that he is not using those threats as an excuse to infiltrate an organisation and try and turn it into a personal sounding board where all play by his rules using his “victimology” as a pretext for limiting freedoms and slyly demonising all those who might not agree with him.
When Rebecca Watson can say the same she just might regain some credibility.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh I like the way you sneak in here using your eloquent speech and sporting a friendly monicker to try an appease what you see as a group of seething angry women hating men. Suck them in, so that you can cause a little raucous, before you leave.
Your deceit and cunning are cloaked with your feministic diseased ridden coat of arms and I’m glad to say that you have not only been spotted a mile off, but we have also smelt your foul odour from downwind.
I have not seen one single solitary conciliatory word in anything that you have written.
Why are you here?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Okay. But I thought you gave the impression that you are in some way familiar with this site??
Am I wrong to assume that you are not?
Because if you are familiar with this site, then you will know we already HAVE women here who are ‘Equity Feminists’ and whom are HERE at AVfM fighting for the equal rights of both men and women.
There is no one here who does not agree that women should be equal to men socially, economically and politically. If you have even spent an hour reading around this site, you will know that what I say is true.
AVfM already has women AND MEN fighting for what is reasonable in society for both men and women.
So, we don’t need you!
But you have made one huge error in thinking you can comment here without being soundly criticised. You came here claiming to have a foot in each camp.
The only people I have ever known to be like that, are traitors. And traitors are always hated by both camps in the end.
Actually we don’t have equity feminists here Shrek, we don’t have any type of feminists here, except blow in harpies that come preaching bullshit. We have women, MRAs, anti-feminists, honeybadgers. I’m pretty sure none of our women call themselves, or consider themselves feminists……..they can’t be…..they are strong, independent, and believe in equal opportunity. Nope, no feminists here
@ Stu,
My bad, I take that back as far as the majority of our Sisters on this site are concerned. It was late last night when I was thinking on the run arguing with this trollop, and our women plus Erin Pizzey came to mind and I just wrote the words.
I think Erin has called herself an Equity Feminist, but I much rather the list you put out, that my tired brain couldn’t think of last night.
I don’t call the cops every time some nutjob on the internet says something bad should happen to me.
I don’t do it because calling the cops or whining about some idiot hiding behind a screen name is for mentally weak people.
Jesus, grow the fuck up. Oh, but hey, if my saying that bothers you, call a SWAT team, if they are not already guarding Rebecca Watson’s house.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Sorry but no one said making such threats was right or even “okay” . There is also nothing to “bring into the open” – such threats are invariably made and issued by trolls very much in a minority – like Paul said such “threats” go with the territory and should any prove to be particularly worrying then sure by all means use the appropriate investigative authorities. Rebecca Watson with her sexism (promoting skepCHICK as opposed to the gender neutrality of skeptic is about as openly sexist as you can get) is hardly one to be giving anyone lessons about sexism. Neither is it appropriate to smear the male members of a whole community by implying female members needed a “buddy system” in order to mingle in a community of essentially nerds!
If Rebecca Watson feels genuinely unsafe moving around skeptic conferences etc she should get herself a bodyguard and be done with it – I’m sure PZ Myers would be happy to oblige.
If Rebecca Watson was in the slightest bit sincere about promoting inclusiveness she wouldn’t be so busy promoting skepchicks would she now?
If she is not interested in promoting inclusiveness then sure she can still call herself a feminist of a mainstream stripe but she had better drop any reference to being a humanist because last time I checked that philosophy was inclusive of both sexes.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Skepchick is not sexist because of its name. That part of your logic is correct.
Skepchick is sexist because the members and spokespersons are sexist. How long do you think it would be before I was banned if I even bothered to go comment there?
I would be gone with one post, just like every other feminist forum on the internet.
You are in over your head here. Perhaps the only salvation for you is that you appear too clueless to know it.
But either way, you made your point. You came here and defended Watson and her minions.
Now, is there anything else? Or are you just here for some attention? Either way, you should know that you are wasting a lot of keystrokes. We have heard all this before from people that were a lot better than you at making their case.
@Not_all_men_are_like_that:
“This in itself (the “buddy system”) is not unheard of or inappropriate for women if they want to look out for each other.”
And it shouldn’t be, if they chose to go roaming in almost empty spaces in a drunken state at 4 am in the morning.
That applies to every reasonably sane person, no matter which gender.
Personally I don’t believe a single word coming out of Rebecca Watsons keyboard or mouth. Her later attempts at damage control speaks volumes in my humble opinion. She comes across as an attention seeking, biased individual, brainwashed by the usual feminist dogma, and with a chip on her shoulder.
It’s not like it’s the first time in history that a woman so unattractive as Rebecca Watson has come up with false rape allegations or likewise, to gain the attention they so desperately crave, both online and in real life.
The only thing of slight interest in this whole ordeal, and something that I actually find quite amusing, is the fact that when she finally succeeded in getting that much needed attention, for good or worse, she just couldn’t handle it.
You can learn to keep your big mouth shut at a pretty early age or face the sometimes grim consequences, and Rebecca Watson quite obviously seems incapable of learning these simple facts of life, which also makes me question her intelligence.
Nice try but AVFM is it’s own “institution” i.e. it isn’t playing the “cuckoo in the nest” that victim based feminism groups play when they seek to take over and remodel a pre-existing group like the skeptic community for example. That is what I meant by “sexism” i.e. a hostile kind of sexism that deliberately uses division not inclusion to achieve it’s usurping goal.
In my prior response I forgot to respond to your question about being a humanist whilst being an MRA. It is a valid question and one I think about a lot because I do see the dangers of overshooting the mark. What I mean by “mark” is that as an MRA I am not seeking special rights, privileges or advantages over women. If boys and men really had equal rights in practice I wouldn’t be an MRA. As a humanist I acknowledge in some parts of the world there are practices that abhorent to humanity from denial of education to so called “honour killings” but such things are not a part of our Western culture – we have other issues to concern us. One such issue is the form of feminism which has become mainstream which also happens to be a parasitic and socially negative force. This is the form that even denies men are human beings deserving of human rights. It is because of stuff like that I am an MRA and a humanist. The sooner men and boys are treated as equal human beings to women is that day I become redundant as an MRA.
As far as I am concerned the Atheist community is of interest to RadFems because of precisely that i.e. it is a community – a community with it’s own little power structures etc. The other thing that attracts RadFems is money. Power and money an irresistible combination for all RadFems who ironically enough are invariable also Marxists albeit somewhat of a warped kind. For the same reasons RadFems are interested in taking over Traditional Christian religions. I am interested in denying these parasites as much power and money as is possible because the less they have the less damage they can do in my book.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Haha, typical of a radfem to pluck an unintentional statement out of many, but deliberately choose to not see the rebuttal by others and the re-qualification by me, just 2 posts down. Yes that generalisation was foolish and I paid for it. But I have stated my case on what I believe with regard equality between the sexes. So I guess I’ll repeat it here for you, because you seem to be too lazy to scroll down a couple of posts.
Women have been equal to men politically, economically and socially, for a long time now. But that is not the equality I was referring to.
I was referring to the fact that women and men are capable of achieving many tasks that are gender specific, and for that reason alone, neither sex will ever be equal. You can puff your chest out all you like and say women can do anything a man can do. Prove it!
Show me all the women out there who are currently doing every single thing a man does and more. You can’t!
If you wish to twist that around to meet one of your own screwed up twisted agenda, then go for it. I really don’t care.
Women have been able to vote for a long time, they have been in politics for a long time, it has been illegal to pay a woman less money for the same job as a man in my country for more than 20 years to my knowledge, and women socially receive preferential treatment over and above that of men, thus creating the overt and covert discrimination of men in all aspects and levels of society.
So please tell me, what new equality is it that you are referring to that women still need to strive for?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You really are deluded. Women do not have the same physical capabilities as men. Go and look at world records, you will see that men surpass women’s performances in nearly every field. Better still, just look outside in the real world. These equal in every way creatures you speak of, why do feminists say they are equal to men in every way, but we need domestic violence laws that make it a crime if a man raises his voice at a woman, or doesn’t hand over his money on demand, or looks at her funny. How tough and rugged these equal creatures must be. Why do they need sexual harassment laws that count, calling someone by a nickname, or them overhearing you telling someone else a joke or swearing. Why do women need a special leg up provided by others in nearly every field……rules bent to to suit them…….lower standards etc. And who put these special treatment considerations in place……..guess who…….feminists…..why……..because women without them can’t keep up with men? Could that be it? If not, then justify why these special considerations should continue to exist.
Feminists have lost the right to say they believe women are equal in anything. And if you believe they are, then go and campaign to have all these special considerations eliminated. Hey, wait…..that’s what we are doing….and you are here complaining about it……I guess you think women need all these special considerations……in fact……you regard them as rights. LOL
Do you realize how full of shit you are, and that everybody with half a brain can see straight through your bullshit
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
My points are not interesting to you, they are facts that you can’t accept. And yes, I support any individual making it to as high as they can go, ON THEIR ABILITY, and desire, and hard work. But that is not what feminism is about. It is about forcing equal outcomes. It is about pretending that every woman in the world can run 100 meters in under 10, and if they can’t, we will just stop the men who can from competing, and/or give women a head start.
No I do not say that because women are generally smaller and weaker than men that they should have special considerations. What they should do, is accept their limitations, that were imposed on them by nature…..not by men…..just the same as a man has too. For example, the military does not retool and lower standards for smaller weaker men, so it shouldn’t do it for women. The few women that can make the grade will be there, on their merit..and those that can’t….will not. But what feminism does is say…….we have to get more women in this field, that field…..and every reason there is not is ignored…and counted as discrimination. And the only way they can achieve it, is by artificially elevating women who can not make it on there own merit. And as for fields dominated by women, and advantages held by them, every effort to maintain that advantage is ramped up.
Would you like to talk to my wife about how equal to men women are and how many breaks they get in order to be perceived as equal. She’s ex military, and was heavily involved in training recruits for years. What does she say about most female military………toy soldiers lol
@NAMALT:
The same is true of ethnic minorities, where discrimination can be a real impediment in getting a job.
Bitch please.
I am an Indian living in the US, and I havent gone around bitching about job discrimination, and neither have my Indian friends here. We havent complained one bit about the culture-shock or the need to rapidly learn about the new culture.
And dont even start talking about women (or men or anything) in other countries such as India. You bimbo..you know very little of your own country and its history. What amazes me.. is that India was under colonial imperialism for 200 years, and under muslim rule for 500 years before that.. and in my entire life in India, I barely heard one or two guys bitch about how the Brits took away loads of India’s Natural resources. OTOH.. the way you feminists bitch about the tiniest shit in your life.. O God. Kill me. Send a lightning bolt and strike me dead before I have to listen to any more of this bimbo’s wailing.
What was that you said earlier? you are one of the “good” feminists? I dont believe in shame-by-association.. but by god your friends out there must be tearing their hair apart for associating with a bimbo.
“What about teh womenz!!!”
This is A Voice for Men. Notice what you’re doing. This site is for the airing of male grievances, and one of the main grievances is feminism in it’s powerful, mainstream form.
Groups of men, here and elsewhere, have watched the efforts of feminist theory go beyond equal rights. They have watched men and boys pushed to the sidelines, or even imprisoned and abused, in ways they do not deserve.
In ways that are, in short, unequal. Unjust.
Further, there are men, and I suspect Shrek is one of those, who hold to a traditional view of gender roles. This is absolutely anathema to feminism, but it’s difficult to see how either side has the right answer, at least not yet. Given that those traditional roles built the civilization and the society that feminism now critiques, and given the alarming nature of current trends post-feminism, I think it’s rather too early to rubbish the traditional views of gender.
However, no one is advocating legislation to keep women “in their place” or any such nonsense.
I don’t think women should be paid less for equal effort, but they’re NOT putting in equal effort in so many ways. One need only visit a physically demanding, non-segregated workplace to notice that women invariably feel entitled to preferential treatment based on their inability to perform at the same capacity as their male counterparts. View the lowered standards for women in the military, the behavior of female prison guards, the focus of equal representation in boardrooms but not mailrooms.
These concerns deserve to be aired, and this is one space in which they are. The beauty of AVfM is that it is unabashedly a male voice; no one here purports to speak for women. Your “issues” certainly have their place, but this is not it, and, as TF rightly argues, neither is the skeptic/atheist movement.
The problem with feminists like yourself is that you think every platform should be focused solely on the issues YOU find important, in a one-dimensional presentation that ignores, often willfully, all of the salient factors. Indeed, any platform that does not focus on those issues is, on your view, intrinsically in opposition to the rights of women.
This is an insulting, and fantasmagorical, view of activism.
The true conflict is between the powerful and powerless, and gender is simply one facet of that. Conflating the entire struggle as one between the sexes, and as a result putting innocent men to the sword (metaphorically) to right the wrong, is why AVfM et. al. exist.
Oh my, the same old feminist shibboleths have come to visit. Dreary stuff.
Ah well, an opportunity to educate.
Let’s check your claims.
Women have the same abilities as men. Good to know there are female intellectual equivalents to Einstein, Mozart, Plato, Hendrix, Picasso and many other geniuses. Funny that as educated and connected as we are these days we don’t come across them though eh? Oh but wait, they were and still are hidden under the mythical oppressive Patriarcheeeeee feminists wimmyn’s studies “ways of knowing” made up weren’t they?
When you meet a woman who can hit a ball as far and accurately as Tiger Woods let us know, we’ll be the first to want to cash in by sponsoring her.
We won’t hold our breath waiting though.
In Saudi Arabia’s tribal system women are protected by men all over the place.
Men for a few more years until laws change there will thus have to do the voting, driving and dying for them. Good to see men finally will be kicking back a bit more and insisting women do their own thinking and driving. I’ll be sure to warn my female NZ nurse friends who reckon they’ve never felt more pampered and safe anywhere on their global travels.
One result of this is that Saudi women outlive Saudi men and hells bells, the Saudi men are even building a whole city for women. Funny that isn’t it. I’ve never heard of an oppressed group – Blacks, Slovaks, Romani etc having less longevity than their oppressors, and the oppressors building a whole modern city for them!
Amazing what you can learn eh?
You don’t say anything clear about how Chad’s high infant mortality rate could have anything to do with male chauvinism either.
Pity you overlooked it has 13 million people in a state of humanitarian crisis. Oh, looky there. That would explain high infant mortality straight away.
Then the female genital mutilation you talk of is miniscule in numbers compared to male genital mutilation, and it’s almost exclusively carried out by women in any case.
Your claim about India’s prevalence of rape of women is pure fabrication unsupported by research, even small scale research, let alone a larger scale research of it’s 1.2 Billion inhabitants.
As for Oz women earning less than Oz men – well they choose easier jobs/more flexible hours/part time work/returning to college more often than men so what do you expect? Duh!
I’m having a hard time believing you’re actually a psychologist as you claim.
Then again, sadly I note that such cheap deluded assertions as you espouse could come out of many of the feminist dominated campuses I know of.
You can find citations for all the counter claims I make online. I’d provide them to you, only I prefer in this case as in many other cases that a woman do her own work instead of me chivalrously spoon feeding them information I’ve labored to gather and carefully consider.
Ah actually, I never contradicted myself once. I put up a statement that was clearly over generalised, and I stupidly did not qualify it. And like I said, I got called out on it, then I qualified it with what I meant to say. Twice now!!
Oh and by the way, I have female friends who can toss a cement pack over their shoulders, and I have male friends who cannot undo the wheel nuts on their cars to change a tire.
But they represent a grain of sand on the beach.
I like the way you wax and wane from generalised statements to specifics.
I would love to see you turn up here with proof of all these women who can achieve the same roles as men do out there in the real world. And no, they can’t have another man or woman helping them, nor a machine either. They have to do the work the same way, in the same time and under the same conditions as men.
And plleeeeze don’t suggest any industries where men are sitting in an office working on computers. Oh how predictable are all your responses. It’s like reading a book and knowing what’s already on the next page without turning it.
like I said, you sneak in here with your typical feminist conniving behaviour, with one goal, which is to set fire to the membership of this website.
You are such a joke, because you have been spotted and the only fire you are going to create, is the one on your own arse as you run from here embarrassed at the fact that all you did was give everyone a bit of light entertainment for the weekend.
Go back to your ‘Mummy girls’ and cry on their shoulders, because the bastards at AVfM wouldn’t take you seriously and they laughed at you.
Gotta go, my coffee is ready.
@NAMALT.
Sorry I forgot to address your second argument.
As in typical feminist fashion you drag up the incidences in some backward thinking countries where women are indeed treated badly, but you highlight the lessor and not the majority. I have worked with and known women from those countries, and what you talk about only happens in smaller sections of society. It is not widespread. Only the radicals perpetrate these crimes, not the majority.
I will admit that I don’t have first hand knowledge of any of this, only hearsay, which is all you apparently have.
But please, allow me to digress.
You painted a picture of how badly women are treated in other countries. Well, let my paint a picture of what it’s like for men and boys in Western Countries.
Boys for many, many decades have suffered genital mutilation WITHOUT any anesthesia, because the women liked the look of it. It was seen as clean and more sexually appealing.
Boys are held back, discriminated against and discouraged from achieving in education at ALL levels.
Men suffer from death and injury in industry, over 90% of the cases in all western nations. That figure will change slightly between different countries, but it is always mostly men.
The vast majority of murder victims are men.
Almost 50% of domestic violence victims are men, but they go unheeded and unrecorded, because society has been blinded by the lies of feminists.
When a family breaks down, the mothers get ‘full custody’ in the majority of the cases. Fathers are then alienated from their children in the most of those cases.
This scenario is much the same in pretty much all western nations.
Whenever there is intimate partner violence, regardless of who the perpetrator is, the man is always arrested and/or locked out of his own home and separated from his own children, by law. And this is mostly driven by the false allegations of women. This is the case in pretty much all western nations.
In family law cases, men in general, lose family, children, homes and property and up to approx 80% of all wealth to the woman. This changes only slightly between nations.
The vast majority of men in prisons are from single mother homes.
The vast majority of prisoners are men. It’s funny how women are rarely, if ever, placed in prison for crimes ranging from petty theft to even murder. In my country, all they need do is cry first, then introduce into their statement a story of how they have been abused by a man somewhere in their lives and they get a green pass, which allows them to be forgiven by the courts. No prison!
When a drug raid occurs on a drug lab and there are men and women there, only the men are taken away and locked up. Only the men go to prison.
When a war starts, only the men are sent to slaughter. Do you remember back in WWI, when in England the feminist bitches went around handing out white feathers to men who were not in uniform?
Yeah, typical of feminists.
Those particular women, should have been slapped in irons, taken to the harbour, put on a boat, and sent straight to the front line.
In Australia today the feminists are running another white feather campaign, called the White Ribbon Campaign, where they shame men into wearing white ribbons and pledging to never be violent to women. And being violent to women means, hitting them, yelling at them, arguing with them because they maxed out the credit card, telling them you are not going to do as they say, etc etc. The list of transgressions that a man can be considered a perp of DV today in Australia, has grown to such an extent, that even farting in the presence of a woman, will soon be considered DV.
Men and boys are abused from birth, by not only the govt/system, but by women, including their own mothers. Men die in their tens of thousands in the modern western world, all because of the privilege of women, and you dare to say anything about the women in third world countries without even seeing and mentioning the carnage around your own feet.
Get out of here. Your stench is starting to foul the air!
@Not_all_men_are_like_that:
You are swiftly overstaying your welcome here, if quote mining is the best you can come up with. It is both dishonest and very telling, besides showing yourself as being a complete waste of time.
Like others have mentioned before me, there’s absolutely nothing new in both what you say, and the strategy you use in your presentation, (defense), of Rebecca Watson and her ilk. Most of us here have seen this so many times, that we can predict exactly what you’re going to come up with next, to the point where we could set our watches after it.
You’ll just have to do better.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I’m sorry, but you seem to be mistaking me for someone who actually gives a shit about every single point you just brought up.
Noone is forcing you to stay here and read what other men are generally too afraid of the consequences to say out loud, and let me further clarify the point of my latest comment, since you seem incapable of reading between the lines, by saying:
I’m done with the kind of “freedom of speech” you feminists exercise, and I’m done with you.
Expect to see that happening a lot more from men in general, in the years that lie ahead. Let’s see how you like them apples.
Save your apologies for offending anyone. You only have to worry about that in an environment full of “emotionally as strong as men” feminists, where the slightest difference of opinion causes emotional trauma LOL.
Our women are tough though, they haven’t been reduced to pathetic fragile weaklings by indoctrination into feminist ideology. They don’t live in fantasy land and think G. I. Jane is a realistic representation of every women on earth either.
Intelligence has different meanings for everyone,
If you refer to the skill of rational thinking and capability to establish a proper correlation between a cause and an effect, I’ve serious issues in believing your words, having just today listened at Rebecca statements regarding the gaming industry at TED.
I never met her and I’m not interested; personally, I make evaluations on what she says and does. That’s fair enough to draw my conclusion on her agenda.
Regarding the freedom of speech, I agree with you, you have the right to express your opinion.
This belief is not shared by the feminist students at University of Toronto, at least when the topic is to address “boys issues”.
In your first post, here are just a few of the things that were particularly offensive and controversial:
“I am a self-confessed feminist, atheist, humanist and general nice person. Oh and I’m also a psychologist… and a woman.”
Expecting that we would grant you some sort of a free pass because of your female/feminist imperative is offensive.
“Reading through the comments and videos posted on this page I am left feeling truly saddened that there are men out there who hate women this much.”
Oh, boo-hoo. Did we hurt your widdle feewings? That might have mattered back in the days before feminists abrogated the social contract and rejected what they now deride as “the patriarchy”. When you killed the social contract, you lost any claim you might have had to any gendered benefits in that contract. Get over yourself.
“By seeing this real opposition to women’s rights and equitable treatment of women”
What opposition was that? We men are happy to treat women just as good/shitty as woman treat men – because feminists have abrogated the social contract, women have NO RIGHT to expect ANYTHING from men – no money, no protection, no sex, no food, no men’s sacrifices, no electricity, no running water, no shelter, no employment – nothing at all. My advice: earn it, or do without – just like men do.
“my first reaction was reassurance that feminism still has a real role in modern times”
To do what – extort even more free stuff from men? Fuck that shit.
“And let me qualify what I deem feminism to be…”
We know what feminism is, deary. It is offensive that you would presume that we are so stupid that we can’t see through your lies.
“It is not the systematic dehumanization and degradation of men, to be stripped of all rights and privileges, and to have these rights and privileges given only to women.”
Would you please stop lying? That is EXACTLY what feminism is.
“Instead I mean acting to change some laws/policies/attitudes where there is a real inequality in the treatment of women. And let me be very clear: I do not agree with this action being performed where it goes too far the other way and disadvantages men.”
That would be humanism, dear, NOT feminism, as long as you want the inequality in the treatment of MEN to be stopped as well. It is offensive that you don’t.
“As to the video at the top of the page I would like to say that for a woman to have death threats and rape threats directed at her is a serious matter.”
It is offensive to imply that such threat only matter when they are directed AT WOMEN. So much for your claim to be in favor of equality. Thanks for destroying your own case.
“For example: the fact that Rebecca Watson reports that she gets these threats (creditable or otherwise) every day is despicable. As men you should condemn any illusion to these threats, the intent of which is to intimidate and degrade the target.”
While I am tempted to agree that Rebecca Watson is despicable, if she acted so stupidly that she now needs a bodyguard, she should hire one. It is offensive that you want to take our protective services and not pay for them. Men do not owe you a single goddamn thing any more – you broke the contract, remember?
“By attacking those feminists who get such threats only makes their suffering worse and can be seen as a form of online bullying, which I know is not your intention.”
Not giving a damn about her own stupid, adult choices is not the same as bullying. Or, did we hurt her widdle feewings, again, by not caring that she is an idiot?
“I know that many of those on this website have had negative experiences with women and particularly feminists, but that shouldn’t mean that you should disregard the legitimate need for improvements to women’s treatment and protection from violence of any kind.”
I’d be happy to serve as your bodyguard. My fee is $20,000 per day, payable 30 years in advance. Expecting me to work on your behalf FOR FREE is offensive.
“Neither all women or all men are perfect, but they still deserve your respect.”
Expecting me to respect thieves who would steal my protective services is offensive. Respect must be earned, sugarpie. You had better get busy on that.
“Please don’t disregard me as another crazy bitch who wants to enslave all men or impose my “feminist dogma” onto any of you.”
A man who is forced to be a bodyguard against his will is a slave, and the woman who wants to steal a man’s labor is definitely a crazy bitch. Consider yourself disregarded.
“I just wanted to put up a more moderate feminist perspective that isn’t man-hating.”
Good luck with that – let us know if you ever figure out how to do that. Personally, I think all feminism leads to the murder of bodyguard men in the unpaid service of women, but I can see where reasonable people might disagree on that.
“I do believe in the inherent goodness of humanity, including men.”
I used to believe that, too – then I met feminists like you.
“My case in point of this is the fact that my boyfriend is a feminist who is much more vocal on the topic of women’s rights than I am.”
That poor bastard. Perhaps someday he will throw off his pussybegging chains just like we have.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Feminism rightly has an extremely bad reputation around these parts. It is a hate movement, and your initial sentence may as well have read “I seem to have given the impression that by stating that I am a KKK member that I am somehow anti-black. I have never said this.”
So, is it fair to tar all feminists with the same brush, even though it is only the vast majority of them that are anti-men? Hell, yes, it is. Any decent moral person should be ashamed to stand under the flag of feminism, but as you do, you hold a certain amount of responsibility for the misdeeds that it commits as a movement.
If you don’t like the reaction you get, call yourself something else.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Why are you conflating “feminists” to mean “women”?
Why do you then try and present the corollary of “feminist” as “men” when presenting the argument the other way around? Do you truly not know the difference between an ideology and a gender?
Feminism is an ideology. It is always ok to point out when an ideology is an ideology of hate, wouldn’t you agree? And to call out those who celebrate under its flag.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@NAMALT: Puh-leaze spare us dear.. Your sister TasLOLma nasreen has penned a Men are the same (i.e misogynysts, rapists) everywhere article. Its brilliant as usual.. as one has come to expect from an award winning, humanitarian, blah fucking blah writer.. and she might enjoy your company better than we do.
@NAMALT, can’t reply directly to your comment for some reason.
Look, Astrokid is right; you are wasting your time here.
Probably 90% of what the MRM does (and what this site does) is fight the misandric policies and attitudes that are put in place by feminists and feminism, almost exclusively.
There are dozens of documented, detailed examples of sexism and at best the utter dismissal of the very humanity of men and boys, by feminists and feminism. The multitude of examples can be found on this site, and elsewhere.
Here are a few more examples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqOHTxkTVIo
Bear in mind in the video above, these are all mainstream feminists being quoted.
Now, bearing in mind that 90% of what we *are forced to do* here is to fight feminist dogma and prevent it taking away the rights of men and boys, why do you expect any sympathy for feminism, or feminists, here? Seriously?
Watch this video as well,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQWoNhrY_fM
and then ask yourself: do you really want to associate with these people? Aren’t you a better human being than that?
@NAMALT: Feminism is what feminism does, and feminism overwhelmingly *does* misandry – personally, politically, legislatively, even artistically. If “nice” feminists exist and want to change the
imagereality of feminism, they shouldn’t stop at merely existing – they should take charge of the movement. Until that happens, they are irrelevant to both the image and the reality of feminism.@NAMALT:
So what do you want, an AVfM-issued NiceFeminist™ certificate to frame and hang in your bedroom? As far as I am concerned, you can have one, but it still won’t change our general opinion about feminism, unless you can demonstrate that you are in fact one of the world’s top feminist ideological leaders or policy makers.
@genuinely nice and caring NAMALT: Ignore the vids the woman-haters are offering you. Lets all watch the sisterhood instead.
Season 1
Portlandia ”Feminist Bookstore” Compilation – Season 1
Season 2
Portlandia ”Feminist Bookstore” Compilation – Season 2
Ah.. the sisters are great jokes, arent they. I luv em.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@NAMALT:
Sistah.. Reality often trumps fiction. The real feminists portlandia is based on are funny as hell. Who wants to attend a semen retention class?
Kumail Tours Portlandia – Feminist Bookstore
You mentioned Becky’s page-o-hate earlier. How come its missing this?
Becky: The Kesha of Atheism
@NAMALT:
If you are from the atheist feminist community, why dont you keep your arguments there itself? You are wasting our time here.
Your fellow feminists there loathe us, they dont want to have anything to do with us MRAs, for e.g
Rebecca Watson’s Skepticon talk is NOT an example of science denialism, he says:
It was a shock-statement, not a serious statement of scientific fact, and it’s unfair of Clint to be dismissive of Laden over such a triviality. Only the MRAs seem to take that statement seriously, and they, as a group, should be ignored whenever possible
So I tell him:
Astrokid.NJ
December 11, 2012
I am an MRA, and also an atheist who spends time in the atheist community. I will let you in on an open secret. MRAs by and large arent proactive about what the feminists do in your community.. i.e they dont butt in and argue against Laden et al.. you know why? the rest of the atheist community is doing it, spearheaded by the slimepit in the beginning.. while we sit back and LOL.
dude.. it really takes a lot of knowledge and time to figure out what exactly is going on in society, and the anti-FTB atheists are still in the first or second leg.
As James Onen (allegedly) said “Rebecca Watson has created more MRAs than Paul Elam ever could”.
Old timer MRAs have a maxim.. “we dont go out to them (i.e those who can see through feminist lies). we let them come to us”.
Good luck “ignoring us”.
So, do the 2 silly feminists down-voting everyone have anything substantive to say? Down-vote this comment if you’re too scared.
***
It’s amusing to see NAMALT desperately try to pass off the atheism+bigotry folks as nice people. They care about: feminism, feminism, feminism, homophobia(except that homophobia is greatly influenced by misandry,) and pretend to pay lip-service to racism(mostly in the form of privileged white women spewing hatred against “white males” which, of course, includes little boys. Not only is this lip-service to anti-racism, even THIS is a facade since this usually comes in the context of gender issues and of course they turned it into a racial slur. So – pretending to pay lip-service. That’s talent.) Nothing about men and boys in their mission statement.
Check out this stream of hatred coming from one of its prominent voices: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2207/
Also amusing is to see NAMALT with her cliche “there are many feminist strands” defense. You know, because so many of them are filled with misandry. But, of course, all “Feminisms” are based on the tin-foiled hat, fear mongering, paranoid conspiracy theory of the Patriarchy which tries to unscientifically pin every social malady on the minority of men who have been in power and to pin responsibility on the majority of men who haven’t. Bigotry at its worst.
And I don’t know who they think they’re trying too fool with “We care about men. We just spend WAAAAY less than 1% of our time bringing up men’s issues(in a society with tremendous feminist influence and no MRM influence.) And we somehow can then tell that women have it worse.” Good God, you’re so easy to debunk.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I don’t hate feminists. I oppose feminism. Stop putting words into my mouth, please, it is very dishonest. Feminism as an ideology tends to encourage dishonesty though, so I understand and on this occasion I do choose to forgive you.
I would only advice to all the feminists to try something very powerful against 3.5 billion boys and men, as well as female “traitors”: forgive them.
The intensity of the hate you all appear to feel towards them cannot be a positive aspect of your life.
After all they say that not forgiving and holding onto anger is like taking poison and expecting the other person to die.
Just a thought by a man with an anti-troll spray can. And it’s interesting that you chose to not address the many women in this site. Yeah, sure, you’re not a bigot. After all, you post phony smiley faces!
I forgive thee Feminism.. (although half of feminists are nice and genuine and caring, right NAMALT?).
Aah.. gone.. no more “hate”. All the hateful feminist laws have been struck from the books. Fathers are no longer being driven out of their childrens’ lives. Daily dose of misandry has magically vanished. The obnoxious feminization of the Western world has been reversed. No more Oprah. White Knights and Manginas have magically ceased to be that. Dr Phil has jumped off a cliff.
Aah.. Nice.. Thank you mamma psychologist. We will shut down AVFM this evening.
ROFL.
Uhmm..where do you live?
I want to go there on a permanent basis.
The angry white man shaming angle. LOL The pattern is so predictable.
Nothing new.
Angry white women strangely attempting to ‘accuse’ men of being angry. Is it even considered argumentum ad hominem when it’s a non-attack personal attack? Yes, I angrily protest injustice. And?
What bothers feminists about angry men isn’t the anger. It’s the men – feminists hate them.
Ever notice how if women are “angry” why that’s just justified, but if men are “angry” there’s something fucked up and deranged and sick and evil and dangerous about them?
Yeah. The misandry doesn’t get much thicker.
Always love how they feel the need to insert that “white” bit. Think they’re racist much? Like color is what matters most in this toxic stew of misandry? In fact, here’s a thought: dividing us up by race is another way they keep the hatred for us going.
It’s an old trick really: set people of different races, creeds, and colors against each other so you can keep them from recognizing their common interests. Classic stuff.
In the parable (by the way I am not a Christian nor do I follow any religion but I recognise some wisdom in parables) of the Prodigal Son – the father didn’t just forgive his once wayward son but he celebrated his return with a big feast. His son had learned some very harsh lessons from his foolishness and had rediscovered humility and his humanity. THAT is why the father forgave and that is why he celebrated.
Let me know when the “Prodigal Son” aka feminism has learned humility, the error of it’s way and rediscovered it’s Humanity (reminder Humanity comes in TWO sexes) and I although not a father will nonetheless partake in the joy of forgiving those who have learned their lesson.
Until then I will oppose them in the damage they do.
You know, as cute and adorable as it is when some well-meaning pigtailed little girl toddles up to me and says, “Mister! Mister! You are doing it all wrong!” – yet still, I think I will keep on using my own judgment rather that trusting the vicious lies of of an anti-male philosophy that treats my desires as shameful and my life and money as disposable at their whim.
You didn’t ask for forgiveness, NAMALT – you just demanded that I give it to you and your craven sisters for free, so they can keep on gleefully emasculating and killing me with my permission.
No thanks.
I will hold the door open for you, but only so I can use my toxic gaze to check out your fine ass on your way out.
Forgiveness is something you do afterwards as part of the healing process. You can not forgive somebody who is in the midst of tearing you to shreds. The only thing you can do is fight back.
The only thing we can do, is put an end to Feminism and it’s abusive practices. Only then can the healing begin. For everyone.
This.
I don’t hate feminists (people).
I hate feminism (ideology).
Let’s see if a feminist claiming to be a qualified psychologist can get her head around that simple distinction……….
Not_all_men_are_like_that
“I would only advise that all of the men on this site try something very powerful against feminists: forgive them.”
Nope…
Yes, I agree KARMA MRA. Double Nope.
I only forgive people who prove that they are willing to adopt an ethical attitude and behavior.
Otherwise it’s just dumb dumb me for caving in and forgiving someone who basically doesn’t deserve t be forgiven.
When ‘@not all men are like that’ changes her tune and openly denounces all her male shaming bullshit, then I might forgive her. Until then she’s an enemy not to be trusted as far as I’m concerned.
I’ll tell you what, how about, you refrain from calling us haters, misogynists, and telling us what we need to change to be good little manginas, and just hang around and read, listen, and learn, hopefully with an open mind, if that is possible for you at your obviously advanced stage of indoctrination.
I would suggest listening to some of our regular radio show broadcasts as well. I’d especially recommend JTO’s and GirlWritesWhat’s weekly show.
In fact, if you want some more evidence of women doing shit just as well, or even better then men……you might want to look at these arse kicking women.
Google is your friend
GirlWritesWhat, Erin Pizzey, Typhonblue, Dr Tara J.Palmatie, Nurdydancing,
Yep, they are all AVFM members, and it’s a very small short list of the women who are contributors and organizers at AVFM. In fact, do you realize that approx 50% of the upper echelons of AVFM are women…..not bad for a pack of misogynists hey. And no traditionalists that I’m aware of.
I must give it to you that you are innovative. In the 15+ years of my dealings with feminist trolls, never ever have I been forgiveness trolled.
Anyone here wonder why the 2 feminist down-voters aren’t up-voting NAMALT?
Could it be that NAMALT has created a second account that can’t up-vote her own comments because of IP issues?
If so, there needs to be a new adjective for you. Because that’s 60-year-old-living-in-her-80-year-old-mother’s-basement embarrassing.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I guess she could be one of the many radical feminists. Like the ones who agree with mainstream radical Amanda Marcotte. Or like all the radicals who think that radical Hugo Schwyzer isn’t radical enough.
And you won’t have this one much longer if you don’t start producing intellectually honest comments and quit telling members here what they should think and feel.
LOL Not_all_men_are_like_that is spending the day writing here. So is that in the basement?
You know, I did get one positive thing from NAMALT.
There has been some concern in feminist circles that there are not enough female characters in the new movie “The Hobbit”.
Well, thanks to NAMALT, I am now positive that all the man-hating orcs and trolls in that movie are both female and feminist.
NAMALT provided novice level debating practice. Not that the people who debated her/him were novices, but the level of NAMALT’s debating/subject knowledge was laughable. LOL LOL
TheBilboSez,
Mate, didn’t you know that there was a rumour that there ARE no Dwarf women?
That’s because they are hairy like the men and are often mistaken for men.
Heck, even Gimli thought it novel to go swimming with “little hairy women!” LOL
So, although I have not yet seen the movie (will this coming week), I guess we could say that there is a possibility that some Dwarfs in the movie may have in fact been women.
Yeeesss, as I tap the side of my nose with my index finger.
LOL Good one.
As a teenager 80 years ago or so, I wrote a research paper on women in the Lord of the Rings. (I even detected the probable location of the missing Entwives, a question that was never directly answered in the series to my knowledge.)
And the dwarves (that’s a term of J.R.R. Tolkien’s coinage, not “dwarfs”) were all transmen, which accounts for their stature.
Mate, I reckon that the Entwives were in the forest around Buckland (or whatever the territory was called).
These are the trees that Merry referred to, when he and Pippin were on the outskirts of Fangorn Forest.
The Hobbits had in their traditions and history, stories of moving trees and Tree Herders.
Well, that’s my guess anyway.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Oh, they are back.
JFinn, they actually took a short break for a wizz and a shower, because they nearly wet themselves and started to stink.
Snifff, Sniffff, actually, I think they still stink!
You got my downvote!
Done.
Ever watched the movie ‘The Human Centipede’?
Go see it. It will explain everything.
“Your flesh is his fantasy!”
Downvoted with glee!
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
There are many happy men and women here.
“I look forward to the day when we can genuinely say that the debate about which gender is worse off is over with. Replaced by the debate about how we should work to change for the better the lives of both genders (as well as intersex and transgendered people).”
Only you are trying to debate that. That is just so feminist. You know, having to be the victim. Only someone who has not read or understood what this site is about would suggest such a thing. Until you do yourself the favor of reading all the articles here, go tell it to the priest.
Good of you to finally acknowledge male pain.
I’m saddened to see you are even more wildly misguided than I previously understood you to be. What a terrible indictment on the training of Psychologists you represent.
I reckon you badly need re-educating as you have come back with even more daft feminist shibboleths.
We value facts and reason over ideology here.
Go here with an open mind and heart – http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.htm
Then when you’re done see – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R2vdEsteTQ
These two sources alone debunk everything you’ve said on this thread in support of feminism.
We can supply you with hundreds more sources as well.
Remember Thomas Ball, he died to save our children.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Here, JtO already said it best. This could’ve been written with you in mind.
Enjoy.
Not_all_men_are_like_that
You’ve told us what we “should” be doing, you’ve told us how we should “react” and you’ve informed us that women are physically equal to men.
You’ve told us that female graduates from uni get less money than men (a dishonest assertion as the word “graduate” means anything from the sciences to graphic design and does not talk of $ per hour for each sex in the same job) and about how women end up a million bucks out of pocket (another dishonest assertion that does not speak of total hours in a lifetime worked or choice of occupation) and I for one am going to force the issue here.
Tell us how feminism has helped males in education, or the military, or the gaol system, or the family courts, or with reproduction rights, or with health funding, or their image in society, or with false DV and rape charges, or lessening PAS, or with paternity ruling, or violence on the street (regardless of the gender of the instigator) or with misandric laws that have a government (India) pay its women money to beat their husbands and so on and on it goes.
Just pick one of those on the list I threw together in 30 seconds. Just one.
Your answer will be free of invectiveness of facts, tampering of numbers, sly of hand with omission of data and will be detailed with honourable citation.
Do this with honesty and persuasion and you stay.
Make another post that is not a reply to my comment (stalling) or talk about something else (refocusing) or pretend you do not understand (passive aggression) and I will ban your greasy bigoted backside to the kerb. Got it?
Same goes if your next comment pays any attention to “how” I have spoken to you instead of “what” I am saying, or if you mention one (1) word about how your “feelings” are after reading my post to you here.
Your move All_fucking_feminists_are_like_that.
In regards to Mr. Riggs, he played two games. He beat Court quite soundly (the first match up) after which King accepted his challenge. King massively changed her play style to counter Riggs and relied on her youth to beat him. It’s a clever way to win, but it makes one wonder how well she would have fared against a player only 10 years older than her instead of 26 (Riggs was 55, not 59).
Of course, you forget that this type of match up was done again later with Navratilova v Connors and Braasch vs Williams (both sisters, two matches). In the NvC match, Navr. had very favorable rules for herself and was still trounced by an aging and ailing tennis player (7-5, 6-2). Braasch was 15 years older than both Williams sisters, and beat both of them easily(6-1 and 6-2) as the 203rd ranked player at the time. Braasch “was a man whose training regime centered around a pack of cigarettes and more than a couple bottles of ice cold lager.”
If you’d like to keep claiming that women can compete with men by citing that one time a woman at the peak of her game beat a senior citizen, especially when he actually won one of the two matches, you most certainly can. But it does make you look ridiculous. Especially when I don’t know shit about tennis and found out all of this with a cursory wiki search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_the_Sexes_%28tennis%29
I guess that song should go “I can do anything you can do as long as your twenty years older than me!”
What was I thinking?
Of course you found no evidence to make you change you mind a measly micro-scintilla, in the puny amount of time you actually gave to checking out the links and material therein – days worth of reading and videos. And to top it off you then come back saying you’re not closed minded! Duh!
The fact is you’ve come here and right from the get go set out to stir things up with your nice feminist routine. Bullshit. Not interested.
You’ve come here trying to preach that you can be a feminist and empathic towards men. What a hoot!
Then you flip off Angry Harry like he’s some lightweight instead of possibly the most widely respected Men’s Rights Activist alive because he ‘generalised and didn’t give enough references’ Oh please! I’ll bet you’d disagree with him if he gave a million references (which incidentally he kind of does – I’m only one of them – go ahead and ask other men if they relate to what he’s saying).
I think you’re gravely mistaken to take such a facile approach to Angry Harry.
Ah well, as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water but can’t make it drink.
I’m confident I’ll be on the right side of history and have better things to do than debate with you as I don’t think you’re anywhere near ready to listen to men deeply enough, but instead seem to want to mostly regurgitate inane feminist trash points.
I see no point in continuing a discussion with you.
BTW, my brains haven’t fallen out. I’m not the one visiting a Men’s Rights website site to sanctimoniously try telling suffering men in pain how they should think. I wouldn’t be so thoughtless and cruel.
Look, guys, do me a favour.
Please stop feeding the troll.
She came in here and went through the usual BS from A to Z, starting with how she was one of the “good” feminists, even though we all know there’s no such thing. If you support a hate ideology, you’re just as guilty of the sins perpetrated by the most radical of them, as the common brainwashed footsoldier who hasn’t got a clue, and just follows the herd.
Then came the inevitable references to herself as being a woman, to which we’re supposedly expected to trip over our feets to outcompete eachother in mangina-ism and white knighting, when in reality she might as well have stated that she uses her vagina to think with, only backed up with what little grey matter her brain might hold, that isn’t doused in the emotionally based perception of reality, dictated by her vast amount of white brain matter.
Here’s a really good example of how that plays out in real life:
“And let me qualify what I deem feminism to be. It is not the systematic dehumanization and degradation of men, to be stripped of all rights and privileges, and to have these rights and privileges given only to women.”
See?
She just described exactly what feminism is doing to men on a global scale, while denying it happens. Perfect example, in my book. Go watch GWW’s video on how the brain works for futher clarification.
All the way through, she has been implying how unhappy, angry, misogynist assholes she actually thinks we are, scarcely veiled behind idiotic smileys and snarky language, and every attempt to explain why has been immediately dismissed by the usual ‘but women have it so much harder’. After which she then produces more or less correct statements about the general condition of women in some far off corners of the world, that besides being untrue in most cases, completely disregards the conditions for the men and boys in those same undeveloped areas. All backed up with little or no actual proof, and statements like these:
“I look forward to the day when we can genuinely say that the debate about which gender is worse off is over with.”
See how that works?
You present your side of the argument first, and when your opposition comes up with far worse examples, which were actually substantiated by links, you disregard your own argumental strategy without actually adressing the points made, and just move on to the next subject. It’s not very smart, completely transparent, and done without a single shred of empathy for the men and boys she then claims to want to look out for too.
Next on the list is a hyperbolic mish-mash of statements about how “women have the ability to perform the same tasks as men physically, mentally and emotionally”, which is just silly considering the vast amount of men that outperformed women throughout history in all walks of life:
The physical side of her argument is quickly dismissed after a cursory look in “Guinness Book Of World Records”.
The cultural side is dismissed after a cursory look at the masterpieces of art in every museum in the western hemisphere.
The amount of women contributing to science can literally be counted on two hands, so I’m going to dismiss that one, too.They are simply to few to mention, and in no way covers any ‘ability’ to do anything, besides riding on the back of the men who actually DID use their ability for something that benefitted their societies.
And the musical side is easily dismissed after trying to find just 1(!) symphony made by a woman, despite 400 years of musical training of upper class women. Meanwhile the black man came up with Blues, Jazz and R’n'R, while slaving their lives away in the cotton fields, so don’t even attempt to try and sell me that BS about women being oppressed.
There’s just no comparison, whatsoever.
Besides all that, having the ‘ability’ to do something does in no way constitute the WILL to do that, when you can have someone else do it for you.
And I’ll kindly refrain from going into how many different civilizations that has come and gone, as a result of the ingenuity displayed by men like the ones you’ll find in all of those above mentioned areas.
Again, there’s absolutely NO comparison, whatsoever.
This leaves me with this little pearl, which actually sort of pissed me off, considering the things I have just mentioned above:
“Today’s society is different than it has been in the past, namely, that the progress of the women’s movement has gained a lot towards the rights of women. Women are now able to vote, attend university for any course they get into, make informed decisions about their reproductive health and own property and businesses.”
NONE, and let me repeat that to clarify it for the more dimwitted, NONE of that would have been even remotely possible, if it weren’t for men doing the vast amount of work and backing women up in their demands.
As soon as men gained the right to vote, the first thing they made sure of was that that right was given to women too, despite anything you may learn in a women studies class. That was the only way to end centuries of working as slaves for the landowners, who initially were the ONLY ones who could vote. Even a cursory look at any history book published before feminism rewrote history to “herstory” will tell you that simple fact.
What we’re dealing with here, gents, is just another product of feminist dogma, while pretending to be anything else. She’s not even a turncoat, but simply being dishonest. I don’t believe for a second that she is a psychologist, after reading her continuing display of complete lack of empathy for anyone or anything that doesn’t involve women.
In my honest opinion, she’s just another women’s studies product, fresh out of the meatgrinder, and probably has a little bit of psychology learned on the side. Anyway, if I happen to be wrong I wouldn’t want to be a man with serious problems who ends up on her couch.
Trying to discuss men’s rights with a person like that, is the equivalent of trying to discuss the possibility of life on other planets with an spanish inquisitor from the 13th century.
You’re going to get burned by the sheer waste of time.
Consider it educational for us new folks. I get to see the common points raised and the effective responses to such.
I can read all the articles I like, but then I get put on the spot with the shame games and it’s hard to articulate around that. It’s infuriating and I’m sure it’s intentional, so watching you guys handle it helps.
Fuck the shame games. They’re just the icing on the cake, when they can’t keep up anymore.
There’s no way in hell that you can be held accountable for anything anyone in the past, that you didn’t know, did to somebody else you didn’t know.
The rest of the shaming games are mostly projections of their own hatred, or some form of penis envy, played out to make you shut up.
Never mind that.
What you got to be aware of is unsubstantiated lying, and the constant shifting in arguments without adressing anything, whenever you get them cornered.
It actually becomes increasingly boring as time goes by, because they all fall back on the same trivial arguments as the last one, and pretty much without loosing a comma. We’re not just talking about herd creatures here. We are talking about brainwashed clones.
There’s a very good reason that JtO keeps wishing for someone intelligent to turn up some day, but I’m not holding my breath on that one.
@Kimski:
You know the stock feminist response to Baumeister’s theory of ability, motivation, etc right? RAPE RAPE RAPE..
Why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship? Hmm. A tough question, if one assumes that there were no restrictions on the movements of young women away from their homes (because they might be raped, say, or because they might no longer be able to prove their virginity) or if one assumes that young women had access to money and time to hang out with those other ninety-nine other women, unsupervised.
In professor Baumeister’s view of history women were never banned from doing such things, even though in reality women were legally banned from the majority of occupations and most everything that didn’t have to do with giving birth within a marriage, and those children were the children not of the woman who gave birth to them but of the man who sired them. Why was it important in medieval Germany to ban women from guilds? What happened to female midwives, really? Why could women not own property? Why bother banning women from the military if women had no inclination to join it in any case? Why did women not have the vote until quite recently?
…
Oh, I forgot. He’s not just some misogynistic ass. He’s a professor of Social Psychology. Goddess help us all.
“Don’t argue! You cannot win, you cannot beat a woman in a argument. It’s impossible you will not win. Cause men, we are handicapped when it comes to arguing because we have a need to make sense” – Chris Rock
You know what my reply to the theory of rape as a way to oppress women throughout history is, Astrokid?
After following the stats on female violence against boys in a number of countries for a couple of years, besides being a victim of it myself, I’ve come to the conclusion that not only were it far more widespread in the past, but the number of women killing their offspring must have been beyond anything we can possibly imagine today, abortions not included, mind you.
From what I’ve later learned in life about violence being taught on by the primary nuturer, and especially that violence against the weaker is deemed as acceptable, there can only be one conclusion you can reach, when faced with the later consequences in the form of rape and violence against women:
You reap what you sow.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Totally laughing my ass off here. Aside from the fact that almost every observation you made is complete bullshit, I am just tickled silly by the idea of someone whose experience in the MRM is commenting on youtube videos, coming to the most prolific and successful men’s activism community on the net, one that attracts MRAs across every conceivable political, racial and sexual line, to advise us on what do to.
Priceless! Do you offer people medical advice after watching The Dr. Oz Show?
In the interest of giving you a chance to learn something, I am allowing this post here. In the meantime. I will just get some popcorn and watch you get disemboweled for our viewing pleasure.
Oh yeah, on other thing. Fuck you and your leftist agenda. And enjoy your very brief stay.
We were tanking, and then from yonder a great sheath of golden light doth beam down and the monkeys were saved.
They did huddle and chatter excitedly as that great sage threw many loaves and fish from his saddle. The heavens had split by god himself and god did say “listen to this sage on his horse.” and the troop of shivering huddled monkeys did look upwards as god spoke more of the sage before them.
“This great sage on his horse is my gift to you.” and oh the sage did flash a row of brilliant white teeth as his lord continued, “He knows much of wings and I ain’t talking of any KFC product.”
The great sage, at the apex of his pride, did dismount via a series of hooks and pulleys and grappling hooks from his horse of 100 hands high and faced the crowd with arms opened wide.
The sage was about to speak and then a young monkey stepped forward before him and said, “Great sage. You are wearing no pants.”
Hey, Dr F – a new video, part 2 of “Why ‘Feminism’ is poisoning Atheism” is now up on youtube.
There’s lots of left-leaning MRAs, myself included.
The fact that you percieve the MRM as “too right wing” tells me that you really have little involvement in real MRA activism, and rely on the outside perception of it to form your opinions.
Maybe stick around, learn a bit, and then start contributing (but learn how to write more concisely please). You will probably write yourself out of that opportunity though, but feel free to prove me wrong.
“There’s lots of left-leaning MRAs”
My thoughts exactly.
And here I was, thinking that Mens Right Activism were about basic human rights and justice for all, and not just politics.
Well, there you go..
http://politicalcompass.org
http://s13.postimage.org/aftuaoyvr/pcompass.png
>implying I’m a fascist or right wing
Hell, I’m probably that close to the line only because I’m a penny pinching miser and that reflects in my political opinions too.
Derp, wasn’t supposed to be a reply to Kimski, oh well, I’m sure you’ll figure it out.
Since you spent so much time on youtube, and are an anti-feminist, you will no doubt recognize my final words to you.
Hey leftist…..screw you.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
http://i.imgur.com/4gZYB.jpg
And with that, Agent Smith, YouTube commenting expert, ersatz MRA, legend in his own mind, leaves the building.
I am a recycling, kitten-loving, gay-marriage supporting, equal-rights demanding, traditionalist-defying, Prius-driving, artsy-fartsy Atheist guy who owns his own business and favors balanced budgets over both excess military and social program spending – and I use both my right and left wings to soar far away from the misandric toilet that is modern politics.
I am only in extreme in my commitment to the best parts of the MRM. AVfM is one of them.
I cant decide who’s more comical.. NAMALT or agentsith. Thanks for the laughs O enlightened ones. Dont call us we will call you.
“…I am probably even more anti-feminist than you…”
Really?
Such juvenile pissing contests may be par for the course in your usual venues, Mr Agentssith, but try to rise above it at AVfM – it stinks up the place. So does attacking one of our most insightful and eloquent MRAs.
Stu a fascist? Bwahahahaha. Dude. You undid yourself with that single batshit crazy observation.
If you ever decide to come back with a new account, do yourself a favor and get to know the people here before telling them what they think or how to do things. You learn more by listening than talking mate.
Despite your attempts, and the attempts of guys on the other side of the map like Bernard Chapin and rocking mr e, the future of men’s rights will be bipartisan. While it’s largely apolitical right now, I believe that it will be more so co-operative in the future. Not even the current divisive and toxic political atmosphere, feeling more and more like the 19th century, can taint the amazing feeling that a leftist such as myself feels when hearing a right-winger speaking out against misandry. It’s truly liberating. I love you all.
Oh btw, I hardly know one traditionalist at AVFM…….and none of our women I’ve spoke to would fit that label. As for me, I am probably one of the most socially liberal, not-racist, non-sexist people I have ever met…….I will bet that you have more in common with a traditionalist and their views and morals then I…….and most people on this site.
Most of the people on this site are athiest, or at least agnostic…….and the religious people here are moderate. Many of the….what would you call it…..exec positions….are held by women….and not by bullshit affirmative action “leftist” methods of elevating losers to make up number either……..WE….attract the strong independent women.
Trust me mate, that last thing we want is for you to bring all you mates here and turn the joint into a feminist organization because you’re too blind to see what it is that is fucking up your own creed, and thus, will bring it here with you.
I can vouch for Stu, as a man of colour and a fellow atheist.
Mens Rights Movement = Traditionalism.
What the hell are you smoking man?
Men’s Rights Movement should be apolitical.
WTF? Where the hell have you been for the last 10 years?
Wandering off to kitchen for coffee muttering under my breath……..”Wow…….just friggin’ unbelievable. I need a holiday.”
Boy does this thread attract these.
This is a long post, and I have to start for work, so can I just react to your second point with regard to my NAFALT comment – I think it was my comment you were referring to:
“2. I noticed the comment about Thunderfoot not being NAFALT in this very thread. While I think it is right to be wary of atheist defectors being not NAFALT, I think it is wrong to pre-judge all atheist ‘defectors’ this way, and bad for the MRM IMO.”
In Thunderfoot’s title of his video he has the word “feminists” in quote marks as here. In his description he expands that “the word is in quotes for a reason” IIRC. Honestly, what further evidence do you reasonably require that Thunderf00t is a NAFALT? And what other atheists have been “prejudged” as you are worrying about?
@not all men are like that
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSaT9utl4Ys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3o-OcTSeVcs
You can continue to be wrong, or you can start the uncomfortable journey to the truth. Please watch the above two linking youtube videos, and actually listen to them.