hendrix

Becoming rock ‘n’ roll

Fidelbogan wrote an article recently entitled, Becoming ambient. I voiced several objections which still stand. But there’s something deeper and musical I’ve had to burrow down into and now wish to express, which drives me to disagree so vehemently with becoming politically ‘ambient’ as he puts it when it comes to speaking about hypergamy.

am·bi·ent   adjective

1. Being of the surrounding area or environment: The tape recorder picked up too many ambient noises. The temperature in the display case was 20° lower than the ambient temperature.

2. Completely surrounding; encompassing: the ambient air.

3. Creating a certain reaction or mood, often a subconscious one, by being wherever people tend to be: ambient advertising on a shopping cart.

4. Pertaining to or noting sounds that create a peaceful and relaxed atmosphere.

5. Pertaining to or noting close and constant social contact and communication fostered by the Internet or the use of digital devices: social-networking sites that enable ambient intimacy and awareness.

Rock ‘n’ Roll isn’t ambient like Brian Eno’s music. It’s the opposite.

Rock ‘n’ Roll isn’t background. Rock ‘n’ Roll is in your face, bombastic and unapologetic.

Rock ‘n’ Roll doesn’t hide or merge in.

In fact it actively seeks to stand out, to be heard and seen, boldly.

Rock ‘n’ Roll doesn’t censor itself or hold back words for fear of offending, but is often deliberately provocative.

Rock ‘n’ Roll doesn’t try to be sophisticated or overly intellectual, strategic and planned. It’s raw and unpretentious, spontaneous and some say primal.

Great Rock ‘n’ Roll has changed the cultural landscape time after time. Great Rock ‘n’ Roll speaks to every basic human emotion – longing and desire, sadness and loss, whimsy and madness; but not defeat and definitely not calm acceptance of the status quo.

If need be Rock ‘n’ Roll says fuck you and fuck your shit. Repeatedly.

Rock ‘n’ Roll is almost entirely quintessentially male.

It is perhaps the greatest modern artistic and political melding of two potent cultural forces – Black African and Anglo-Celtic, fired in the kiln of 20th century America, lost and subjugated by commercial forces to retreat for a time, then found again, cherished,  resurrected and polished by English musicians who re-imported it to the USA during the last great Western cultural revolution – the 60s. The rest, as they say, is history.

I’m thinking of some great rockers in their heyday – from Chuck Berry through to Johnny Rotten and Kurt Cobain, Jerry Lee Lewis through to Joey Ramone,  Little Richard and Gene Vincent through to Frank Zappa, Marilynn Manson and Eminem.

Would any of them today balk at discussing any aspect of feminism, women, hypergamy, disposable niggerhood, alienation from family, culture, mainstream politics and nationhood that concerned them? I doubt it.

They all got through to masses of people with their message and changed things socially forever despite seemingly swimming against the prevailing cultural tide.

Chuck Berry said in effect, “Fuck you, I’m gonna play with white musicians and to white audiences AND I’m gonna whip up sexual frenzy, too”.

Johnny Rotten said, “Fuck royalty and any class system of privilege.”

Kurt Cobaine said, “It’s better to burn out than fade away.”

Jerry Lee Lewis said, “Screw you record companies. I’m gonna write my own songs.”

Joey Ramone said  “It’s about being an individual and going against the grain, and standing up and saying ‘This is who I am’.”

Little Richard said “I don’t think you have to be effeminate to be sensitive”

Gene Vinent said, “I’m a crack shot and I’ve won medals for shooting. But I don’t think I could shoot a person.”

Frank Zappa said, “Without deviation progress is not possible.”

Marylyn Manson said, “My goal isn’t to make money, it’s to try and survive and make a point.”

Eminem said, “You don’t get another chance. Life is no Nintendo game.”

It waxes and wanes in popularity somewhat as producers, artists and public connect and lose each other. Yet it remains, constantly present and widespread as it has done for 60 years now.

It is everywhere – on the radio and TV, in the malls and stadiums, on our smartphones and media players, in our schools and offices, clubs and parks. In millions of heads and hearts.

And here’s the thing.

Rock ‘n’ Roll is the ubiquitous background of all our lives.

Rock ‘n’ Roll is ambient.

 

About Stephen O'Brian

Stephen O'Brian, aka Skeptic, is an MRA and a contributor to AVfM after being a long time reader. His true identity and location are under armed guard in the AVfM fortress in Madagascar.

View All Posts
  • AVFM seeks app writer volunteer

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

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

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

    Fight Wikipedia censorship! A Voice for Men and WikiMANNia are working to increase knowledge of men's issues through two wikis: the AVfM Reference Wiki for scholarly references, and WikiMANNia for general-interest men's issues. Volunteers needed for writing, proofreading, and organizing. Some knowledge of the German language will be helpful but *not* required.

    Please write to editorial_team@wikimannia.org...

  • TigerMan

    If I thought being more “in your face” would work I would be advocating it as that is more akin to my call a spade a “fucking shovel” nature and working class Northern background.
    All it seems to do though is polarise and give ammo to those who are constantly seeking to misrepresent ANY display of anger on our part as evidence of misogynistic intent and thus people get distracted from the real issues facing us.
    By all means lets be assertive and frank in our discussions but lets also starve them of the ammo they so badly want.
    I believe that because MRA’s have really started to get their shit together and have increasingly learned the value of restraint that campus feminists in Vancouver and Toronto have found it so difficult to deal with us, hence their OTT attempts at blatant censorship.
    I think this is good for us because as long as we do nothing to feed the image of “angry MRA” they will get more and more desperate and their blunders and mistakes will accrue.
    That’s just my opinion anyway for whatever it’s worth.

    • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

      The more measured but unequivocal the message, the more they froth.

      The two things that seem to have incited the most violence and aggression?

      A poster stating “men’s rights are human rights.”

      And the most soft-spoken men’s issues advocate alive.

      The message itself is sunlight to their vampirism; the more mild you make the message the more people are astounded at them hissing and clawing at it.

      • Skeptic

        “the more mild you make the message the more people are astounded at them hissing and clawing at it.”

        Yes, Typhonblue. And I reckon when the message is not delivered softly softly but delivered with loud righteous and well articulated anger it stands to reason they won’t just hiss and claw, their heads will explode in an intellectual meltdown.

        • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

          And here’s my question.

          How many bystanders will just see two equally angry people arguing and walk away.

          One of the first issues I’ve noticed in human rights movements of the past is that people being oppressed are first subject to being cast as somehow more powerful or dangerous then their oppressors. They have to fight through this public perception of hyperagency before they can receive awareness and compassion for their issues.

          Thus the non-violent resistance practiced by civil rights protesters. Peaceful protest in the face of violent opposition corrects the perception of a groups’ hyperagency and forces the overarching society into the uncomfortable position of hurting the vulnerable or allowing the vulnerable to be hurt.

          Instead of being angry; you incite anger in bystanders… against your ideological opponents.

          • Skeptic

            Typhonblue,
            You raise an interesting point and I see I need to explain myself a little more as a result.
            I have a different image in my head than the one you present of two people remonstrating angrily at each other with bystanders nonplussed.
            For there’s a difference between a person being angry and incoherent blasting out nonsense and another person channeling their anger to make an impassioned and well reasoned statement.
            History is littered with such people who did just that and didn’t come off as half-assed.
            One that springs to mind is Martin Luther King.
            Another would be the image of Fathers For Justice Spokesman Matt O’Connor.
            Another would be of Sir Bob Geldoff speaking about fathers’ rights – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WG7AeFMBgho&list=PLF51980FE0905956A&index=6

            JtO and Paul do this regularly too.

            In other instances of one on one with a feminist becoming irrationally angry they aren’t really listening but filtering, best then to issue a very brief, very simple bullet point retort or a pointed question like “What does your yelling insults say about your ability to listen to reason?” then walk away.
            Oftentimes I reckon it’s best not to talk to feminists at all though so the situation rarely arises with me.
            I reckon it’s preferable as much as possible to talk to more reasonable folks to garner their support and marginalize feminists instead. So the issue you envisage doesn’t occur much in my life.
            The last time it did happen I was in Japan with an Ozzie feminist woman who was harping on antagonistically in angry tones about “Japanese patriarchy…..blah…blah blah…….”
            At the same time she was expecting to spend the weekend being assisted like a princess in a strange city by myself and another English speaking guy.
            I turned to her and said “I don’t want your company any longer.” I could see she was mired in feminism and didn’t want to spend time debating with a zealot so when she asked “Why ?” I told her “for the same reason Jews don’t want to hang out with Nazis” and we walked off leaving her looking gobsmacked.
            I still grin every time I think of that moment.

          • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

            I can tell you as a bystander, if I see two angry people arguing a point, I will, if interested in the subject, listen to both of them and decide whose angry argument I like better.

            Don’t get me wrong. Despite all my defense of righteous anger I am pretty sure a good examination of this site provides a massive amount of calm, reasonable arguments. I’d say the small amounts of really angry stuff has been just enough to rattle some cages and gain some attention, which is a good thing.

            Above all I think it serves us well to remember that different human beings are reached in different ways. This is why I appreciate Fidelbogen’s and Skeptic’s articles as equally valuable to the conversation.

            I am sure in the end Bogey will continue on as he always has, with impeccably well reasoned argument, delivered in a balanced, if not sedate manner. Similarly, others will make their points with a little more strident and emotionally charged tone.

            Since both of these are valuable approaches, the only danger we can get in to is the tendency to seek uniformity of style. That is the killer that will cost us the people who respond better to a particular style.

            And any inference of that unanimity will always have the opposite effect. Case in point, I bet hypergamy has been addressed many times more on this website, by a great many more people since that radio show than you would find in any other similar period of time.

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

            This is something I struggle with among my friends who know I work on this web site. I get a lot of the typical emotional responses (they’re always emotional, not logical) and the most common seem to be the Code Red, Code Blue, Code Orange, and Code Brown:

            Ref: http://www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2012/04/Shaming-tactics.pdf

            Every time I start bringing up specifics, there is an effort of some sort to make me stop talking. And it doesn’t change much if I’m being irate or if I’m being calm (I do both).

            One argument I’m hearing which actually gives me hope is the argument that we are not “balanced” enough and don’t see the women’s point of view well enough and thus that we’re not different than the feminist ideologues, to which I can only respond that when we have anything even resembling the amount of cultural power, money, and political influence, and when the specifics we’re bringing up are addressed appropriately, maybe they’ll have a point–although even then it now occurs to me that I should ask more often what specifically they think we’re asking for that is unreasonable.

            Anyway, to get back on track: I get a lot of grief for this site’s supposed anger. JTO’s recent “To The Nice Feminists” with the picture of the hand flipping the bird was especially pointed out to me as off-putting. What I asked was what part of his argument was actually wrong, there was no answer; I was merely told that the “fuck you” stance was offputting.

            So what I said was that I’ve been advocating this stuff for more than a decade and been dismissed, derided, ignored, marginalized, even mocked, and everyone else I know who’s been nice about it has faced the same. So the question becomes, at what point to you have to accept that being angry and in people’s faces is going to be necessary?

            The best I have is to compare Martin Luther King to Malcolm X. To disagree with Skeptic a little, the thing with Rev. King was that it was rare to see him get angry. The nonviolent Malcolm X was angry and firey and in your face. Even when you look at someone like Gandhi, while it’s easy to remember his peaceful and extremely moderate stance, it is important to realize there were others arguing for Indian independence who were firey and full of anger.

            Violence doesn’t work usually; the IRA arguably did far more to hurt the cause of Northern Irish independence than anyone else because of their violence. I think if the Northern Irish who wanted independence had remained staunch and nonviolent they might have done better.

            Anyway, I think both approaches are going to be necessary. Although I occasionally lose my temper, as a rule I believe it’s better not to lose your temper. I know it’s better for my spiritual and psychological and even physical health if I don’t give in to anger very often. But I recognize that without the anger, we are not going to be listened to by some people. And if the anger turns some people away, well, OK, great: tell me what will get them to listen to us anyway. As I keep pointing out to my friends, guys like Warren Farrell, Asa Baber, the people at the National Coalition for Men, and others have been arguing these things for 30-40 years in a thoughtful, mild-mannered, conciliatory fashion and been laughed at, ignored, marginalized, demeaned, and in many cases viciously attacked anyway. So at what point do you keep whipping and abusing a dog and then notice that maybe the dog is snarling and snapping at you for a reason?

            I no longer believe we can convince everyone. I accept that anger is a necessary component, although not everyone has to play the angry role.

            My one friend who was giving me pushback most recently was talking about his background in marketing and saying that off-putting messages hurt. I asked him if he would give me any specifics at all on what a better alternative was to get attention otherwise. He said he’d think about it. I await his answer.

            One suggestion that I did get was that we feature male offenders on the wall of anti-male bigots. That’s actually not a bad idea. I doubt if it’s going to change that much but it’s probably worth it. That wouldn’t work for register-her but I dunno, maybe we could do a slot for it on AVfM.

          • andybob

            “How many bystanders will just see two equally angry people arguing and walk away.”
            Ms Typhonblu

            That’s easy: count the vaginas.

            Most men actually listen to what is being said during a discussion between two people, however passionately conveyed. Women, however, tend to focus on the feelings of the participants.

            “He sounded so angry,” fretted Fanny.
            “He made some really good points,” remarked Rory.
            “But, why was he so angry? It’s made me…anxious.”
            “I shall tell them to tone it down for you,” he offered.
            “Oh, Rory…”

            Most women listen for tone in order to cue them on how to judge and respond to the participants. Their primary considerations revolve around the social implications of discourse. They care about how it all looks, and whether or not they should be seen to approve or disapprove. Fanny disregarded the content of the heated discussion because all she heard were the feelings, which made her uncomfortable.

            Rory, while well aware of the emotions on display, was not focussed on them. He actually listened to what the participants had to say and based his assessment on their merits. The only impediment preventing him from fully comprehending those merits was the enormous blue pill rammed up his arse. Alas, poor Rory.

            The most frustrating aspect of discussing issues with women is their focus on tone. If you are not passionate enough, they will dismiss what you say as unimportant – why should they care if you don’t.? For many women, passion – be it in the form of anger or tears – equals seriousness. The problem is, that most women buy into the idea that all male feelings are dangerous and need to be supressed, ignored or ridiculed.

            So, where does that leave us? For me, it usually leaves me talking to the men. This means that I can focus on what I am saying, and not worry too much about my tone. The women can stay and listen, or stomp off and cling to Rory for all I care.

            Writing, on the other hand, is a whole other ball game. A careful study of Mr Fidelbogen’s art of rhetorical discipline completely altered my entire approach to engaging in written battles (which I have been doing a lot lately). I have been re-examining the many gems of wisdom and pray that the enemy never gets a hold of it. It is our “The Art of War.”

            There are many great voices at AVFM. Some, like Mr Fidelbogen, can offer guidance on how to sharpen our weapons. He is a genius who deserves his eminence among us and will always have my gratitude and respect for sharing his gifts.

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

            Andybob: Pshht, I’ve seen so many guys lose their shit emotionally over arguments, especially in things like religion and politics and even fucking sports (my uncle and my grandfather nearly had a fistfight over a goddamned boxing match with a controversial ending once) that I can’t accept the notion that men by nature listen calmly when two people are yelling and being angry. I think men do emotive reasoning just as much as women, it just tends to be different areas. There’s all sorts of people I just won’t listen to anymore if they’re being obnoxious and irritable. So it is a problem for me. YMMV and all that.

        • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

          There are 2 separate groups of people being considered here. First, the general public who are “listening in”. Second, the enemy whom you are targeting.

          In our case, feminist heads are even more likely to explode in an intellectual meltdown if you speak softly. Whereas, if you rant loudly, they will have an opportunity to play their usual tricks by calling you “violent” — and at least some portion of the general public are apt to be gulled by this.

          So what really builds up explosive pressure in feminist heads is when they are blocked from making an easy response.

          • Stu

            I agree mostly, but there is one sub-group that might not have been considered. That sub-group are the members of the listening public, who are fed up to their ears with feminist bullshit, and want someone to give them a bloody nose, and fed up with those who try to achieve something while walking on egg shells.

            I remember when I read “The Myth of Male Power” many years ago. Probably the most influential book Warren Farrell has ever written, and…..hard hitting….pull no punches…..controversial….all that shit.

            I was surprised to find that Farrell was a softly spoken mild mannered gentleman. And actually, it sort of put a damper on the positive outlook I had for “The Myth” being the beginning of men actually turning up at this war. I remained on the sidelines off and on, of the MRM, looking at various MRAs. A few years back I became a fan of Angry Harry’s, and also Paul Elam. I realize that both, are very reasonable, rationale gentlemen, but their activism is hard hitting, in your face, controversial, offensive at times, and I think time has told, that this approach works, where as walking on egg shells does not.

            I don’t know what the correct balance is, but I know it’s not being softy spoken and polite at all times. The balance that AVFM has struck so far……seems to be working very well. So my feeling is…..change nothing.

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

            @Stu:

            Do you personally know of anybody in particular who is recommending “walking on eggshells”.

            Would you be able to name that individual?

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

            @Stu:

            Furthermore, if the desired outcome (a “head explosion”) is indeed brought about, what matter if “walking on eggshells” did the trick? The head exploded . . . did it not?

            And it would more profoundly awe the onlooker to witness such a dramatic effect triggered by such a disproportionately mild action. . . .would it not?

            All right. So I would need to conclude that making heads explode by merely walking on eggshells is an impressive feat, that it takes a special kind of wizard to do this, and that such an art ought to be cultivated.

          • http://www.genderratic.com typhonblue

            @ Fidelbogen

            A rant is also more effort. If you can achieve a melt down with a whisper, then you conserve your strength.

            You whisper. They go into a frenzy. You whisper. They go into a frenzy.

            How long can you whisper? How long can they be frenzied?

            Get your opponent to run laps for you, up hill, both ways. Make holding their position so much emotional effort that they drop dead of exhaustion.

          • Stu

            No, I didn’t keep a log of all the people who have advocated that we need to walk on eggshells. Most people here know what I mean by that, and me not providing a list for you, might make it seem you have scored a winning point, but like I said, most people know that there are heaps of people that have insisted that people like Paul, JTO, Angry Harry, etc etc, are too hard hitting, and need to tone it down. There have been many discussions about this on this site, and on many other forums….and no, I didn’t keep a record of them either.

            What I’m saying anyway, is that there is room for all styles. I think if everybody adopted one style, yours or anybody else’s, it would fail. Society is not make up of one type of people. So appealing to one type of person won’t work.

            If everybody cared about who had the more reasoned argument, the most rhetorical discipline, etc, more than anything else, why are feminists doing so well? Did the civil rights movement gain it’s traction without lots of angry in your face people? Has any movement ever gained massive traction without that? Of course, you can say no movement has gained massive traction without your approach also, and you would be right. It takes all sorts, that’s all I’m saying.

            I get it, rope a dope, just like Ali. But he didn’t use it exclusively either.

      • TigerMan

        Yes Typhon you expressed very succinctly exactly the point I was trying to get across. :)

        • Skeptic

          • TigerMan

            Well I just been exchanging tweets with a couple of MRA’s who I thought were a little too prone to trolling and picking fights with twitter based feminists. Then one of them gave me a link to his personal story and what brought him to regard himself as an MRA. Not for the first time in the last few days it was a humbling experience reading what the poor guy has been through at the hands of a family law system that is biased unfair and generally fucked up for want of a better expression.
            If I had been through a fraction of that kind of shit myself I know I would have been totally onboard with the feelings expressed in that video. Getting those somewhat more ignorant of the shit many guys face to see things differently then maybe I would start with a video like the one Paul just posted with John the Others measured but otherwise uncompromsing in your your face narrative of just what it is that our desires for equal treatment as human beings is being met with by those who claim to represent equality and egalitarian justice.
            You are a guy who has also personally been vey much at the sharp end to put it mildly.
            So I apologise if in my words I have not expressed enough even my limited appreciation of what you have had to endure. :)

    • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

      Dude, if you think ‘in your face’ is the wrong way to go, you’re kinda in the wrong space….know what I’m saying?

      And there’s a reason for it. You’re here because we are a very powerful voice in the Mens Movement. And we are that powerful BECAUSE we are ‘in your face’.

      Moreover, we damned well know it.

      The problem is, there’s a constant influx of ‘newbies’ here (and people, lets be honest, there’s a LONG interval between ‘waking up’ and finishing the red pill prescription), and a lot of us have moved on from that viewpoint.

      Hopefully, though, I can clear some stuff up for you:

      This:

      “By all means lets be assertive and frank in our discussions but lets also starve them of the ammo they so badly want.”

      Is the reaction of someone who has no idea what it’s like to be utterly ignored by feminists and mainstream media while they are taking their first course of red pill therapy. The KNOWLEDGE that you were literally pissing into the wind. And we were…no one paid any attention, at all, to mens issues.

      The anger and vitriol you are so concerned about are signs of PROGRESS, not failure. It means they can no longer plausibly dismiss us, and therefore have to resort to propaganda and social pressure.

      It means we’re winning.

      As to the connection between this and the ‘Rock n Roll’ article here…well, who gets the best lines in movies? The hottest women? The most money and power? Who is the most ‘interesting’ to hang out with.

      The Rebel, that’s who. I once had a conversation with Marilyn Manson at an afterparty in Toronto a few years back. That man is INSANELY intelligent. Do you think his success is an accident, or maybe his image is well thought out…or even brilliant…marketing?

      Who is attracted to the rebel lifestyle? Young men. Young women. Women who wish they could still get the rebel. Men who remember their youth.

      Know who hates the rebel? The ruling class. The authoritarians. The status quo. The cops. The petty tyrants.

      Which group, do you think, is most likely to demand the changes needed? Who will want the abuses ended, the balance restored, the limits on authority?

      Know why we are characterized as misogynists? Because we threaten unexamined female priveleges. We are called ‘Rape Defenders’ because we demand transparency and sanity in the Legal system, and equal application of, and benefit of, the Law.

      We are opposed VIOLENTLY because they have no opposing argument of any worth, and they know it. And their vehement, over the top antics are both unavoidable with such a large group of zealots, and EXCELLENT advertising for our cause.

      The MRM has never been a violent movement. The most aggressive thing an MRA of any flavour has done is scale a building, or throw a pie. Feminism cannot make the same claim.

      So it’s natural that we will CONTINUE to pose a non violent political threat to them, and they will continue to react irrationally to that political threat, because the only way to stop doing so is to admit we’re right.

      So, the more we maintain our rebellious, even dismissive frame, the more they will prove themselves nutters, which undermines everything done in their name, which makes reform infinitely easier.

      There’s a thing we all used to do long ago that many newbies are doing as well, which is why it’s more exasperating than maddening. It’s the tendency to defend oneself against accusations of misogyny.

      Don’t do it anymore. It’s a trap. It’s the rhetorical equivalent of trying to answer the question “So when did you stop beating your wife?”

      It’s an empty accusation, and they know damned well it is. But so many MRAs freak out over the accusation, they keep doing it. And the MRAs in question often have a shitty grasp as to what mens issues really are (blue pill residual), and so defend themselves VERY poorly.

      So, instead of just wasting your time and causing discord, they now have you looking like some KKK guy saying “I love black people”.

      Just, stop it. It’s a time worn tactic too many fall for. Just keep in mind that women love bad boys and rebels, we can accomplish this best if it’s approached as a ‘gender based punk movement’, and it can be a lot more fun this way to boot!

      Plus, if you feel like mixing in a little Game, you get laid quite often as well. You’d be amazed what unapologetically standing your ground does to panties.

      • TigerMan

        It all falls on what is meant by “in your face”.
        I have no problem with a frankly worded direct response to an attack on our goals and supporters by those hiding behind an “ism” as a disguise forexpressions motivated by hatred and bigotry. John The Others commentary in the video that Paul just posted was spot on – it was direct and yes “in your face” but it was also very measured.
        when it is “in your face” like that it is in no way gratuitous nor is it a rant for the sake of venting (even though as a side effect even a measured response might also deliver that).
        When responding to direct hate filled attacks of the kind witnessed in Vancouver and now Toronto it does us no harm to be very clear about what is objectionable.
        it is also important that the denial of rights to boys and men especially those who claim to be a force for equality and egalitarianism- be puit into the context of redressing a lack of human rights rather than as a “tit for tat” response that our enemies try to frame the argument as within. This is because they know they will always win if the argument can be presented as a man v women battle because of chivalry but they know they are in trouble if the truth is exposed that it is in it’s proper context an issue of redressing a serious imbalance of human rights.
        As long as this discipline of focus is maintained in our campaings I am not in disagreement with anyone here. :)

      • Codebuster

        “So when did you stop beating your wife?”

        I love when they resort to this kind of rhetorical “trap”. Why? Because it brings us back to your most recent post, Factory, namely, projection. They think they’re so clever, but they’re simply projecting their dumb assumptions. On what basis do they think that I had ever beat my wife? What assumptions are they making? Are they misandrists and assume that all men beat their wives? Why do they only notice this kind of wife-beating man, given the many types of men that we all know exist? Or maybe, if they’re white knights, they used to beat their wives, and infer the assumption that everyone else does, too. Or maybe they are feminist women, and they’re projecting the types of men that they notice, the types of men that they believe matter.

        No, there’s nothing clever about this rhetorical “trap” at all. It is unadulterated projection of the purest form.

        “All men are pigs”. More projection. What they really mean is, “All the men that I have chosen are pigs”.

        • Kimski

          “So when did you stop beating your wife?”

          /Looks at the clock:

          ‘Can’t talk now. Have to go home and beat on the wife. Thanks for the reminder, btw’.

          The whole ideology is based on projection. When you realize that, going your own way becomes a question of survival.

      • http://vilo13.blogspot.com/ Lucian Vâlsan

        „You’d be amazed what unapologetically standing your ground does to panties.” – Indeed. I am here to confirm :).

        Otherwise, I fully agree with your comment, Factory.
        In my personal life I get to encounter a lot of feminist-leaning women and some of them are now actually in the process of taking the red pill. How did I do that? I talked back to them, I could not care less if they were calling me a racist or a misogynist.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      Really must disagree, and I think the evidence supports it.

      But first, to clear a couple of misconceptions. One, we don’t provide ammo to feminists. That is an MRA myth. Demonstrating anger at injustice is only ammunition for a mindset that does not want to allow men to feel anything about the injustices they suffer. So for that matter, saying “Would you pretty please provide some services for male victims of DV,” will be treated as ammunition by a good many feminists. And it has the added quality of being an absolutely ineffective message.

      Myth #2 “It will be polarizing.” We are ALREADY polarized. The fear of polarization is fostered by people that are in denial of that. Those are are in denial of this polarization are also usually the ones that think we can sit at the table with feminists and get results. That would be myth #3. History demonstrates this to be total fallacy.

      I believe that because MRA’s have really started to get their shit together and have increasingly learned the value of restraint that campus feminists in Vancouver and Toronto have found it so difficult to deal with us, hence their OTT attempts at blatant censorship.

      With all due respect, you have this ass backwards. The reason that we saw the vitriolic reaction to Warren Farrell is because AVfM and affiliated activists have done so much in your face activism targeting university campuses it has sharply raised their awareness of the MRM. All the rhetoric spilling out of those protesters mouths was straight up hyperbole ala SPLC, Monash and a wide range of feminist bloggers that constantly chant the same vile rhetoric because AVFM and the men’s movement in general is gaining ground and popularity.

      We have gained that ground and popularity by being antagonistic and boisterous, not from having friendly chats with feminist bigots on the value of mutual dialogue.

      Finally, I am an angry MRA. I am supposed to be angry at all this shit. In fact, if I was not angry I would think there was something wrong with my moral compass.

      We don’t need less anger. We need more of it, and AVfM is going to deliver.

      • http://menzmagazine.blogspot.com/ Factory

        Paul you kitten blending, puppy strangling, misogynist bastard!

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          I don’t know what I have done, Factory, to warrant that type of adulation, but whatever it was, thank you. I really appreciate the compliments.

      • Skeptic

        Yes. Well said Paul.
        I’m pissed too.
        It drives me onwards.
        This year I aim to produce my next solo album – a soundtrack album to aVfM gratis which I’m sure is going to be stoked with some of that anger and whilst it’s sure to be bombastic in parts I want it as danceable as I can make it too – so folks can dance out their feelings listening.
        I’ve already produced several solo albums with each one sounding more polished and professional as my recording and mixing skills improve with practice.
        I’ve previously veered away from making MRM themed songs for long enough.
        I’m not looking for financial gain in doing this.
        If aVfM can make a buck or two out of it that would be great.
        I’m not seeking popularity either, just to get the MRM message out there some more.
        I simply need to do this, and as they say on aVfM radio – “The time to act is now”

        • Kimski

          Sounds like we need to talk.

          I’ve been shopping around for a home studio lately, but haven’t decided on 8 or 16 tracks yet.
          But I think I might go for the BOSS MR-800 or the Zoom R16 for starters. Already got mic’s, mixer board, and the rest of the equipment in place, and will be doing the guitar, bass and keyboard myself, during the oncoming winter season.
          I have A LOT of material lying around from my years of playing in different bands, that can easily be transmogriffed into something supporting the MRA cause.
          I just need a really good lead axe man who can shred, and those don’t hang on the trees around here, and I’m good to go.

          Know anyone who might be interested in throwing down an additional lead track on a project like that?

          • Skeptic

            I play guitar, but I wouldn’t call myself a shredder.
            That sounds more metal than me.
            I’m more your power chord riffing and harmonic arpagiation with fairly simple solo runs kind of guitarist. Mostly Rock n Roll – Blues based.
            I’m also interested in mixing up lengthy Rock driven guitar tracks with Dance-Electro styles.
            Here’s an instrumental clip to show you what I mean (Poorer production values than I’m used to these days, but it’ll give you some idea) –

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKm-gZZfDRs

            I have the Zoom R16 and for what it’s worth get very pleasing results – very easy to use and great sound quality if treated with correct panning of tracks and levels restraint to avoid clipping and distortion.

          • Kimski

            @Skeptic:

            I do the power chord riffing myself, and are looking for something more melodic than actually shredding. A cross between Matthias Jabs from Scorpions, and Scott Gorham from Thin Lizzy comes to mind, as most of what I have done requires pentatonic or major scales. Blues is not really my thing, as I tend to go for the more melodic, melancholy feeling from hard rock.

            Thanks for the advice on the Zoom, though. It’s a lot cheaper over here than the BOSS, but it doesn’t come with the added rythm section, as far as I can see. Any suggestions? Could you also inform me how it deals with delay time, in the recording process?
            Finally, do you use the PC as an added help in mixing?

            Nice tune and article, btw.
            Sorry for interrupting things with this, but hopefully it will eventually benefit the MRA. :)

          • Skeptic

            It handles delays which I use masses of on guitar and synths just fine. There is no discernible difference between what you can hear on monitoring headphones plugged int the Zoom R16 and what gets recorded onto the SD Card. From there it’s simple to upload from the SD Card to computer to begin the mixing process in your favorite DAW.
            If you go that way have a blast!

          • Kimski

            @Skeptic.

            Actually I meant the delay between different tracks, when you do ‘pancake’ recording. Are the recording process done digital or analog. The latter has a tendency to be hearable, as the tracks layed down after the first one are not completely in sync.
            Thanks for the advices so far. I’ll have to find a way to get some kind of more realistic drum tracks layed down, than the average rythm box is capable of, but I’m really looking forward to hearing what 15-20 year old tunes will sound like today, with the improvements in equipment.

      • TigerMan

        Well said Paul – I have put my views forward perhaps more than a little ineptly with my initial response here. That said I have gone into more detail in my subsequent responses to typhonblue, Factory and John the Other.
        I am not here to win arguments but rather to help win a war no matter how small and patheitic my efforts might be.
        I am also cool (not that I think for a moment you need my approval or not) with your “anger” because for the most part it is measured and tempered by a clear vision of the humanitarian dimensions at stake. :)

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

        Awesome. I do not have to feel poorly about being pissed off and angry today. FWIW, I find it increasingly difficult putting a lid on it, anyway. I just have to look in the faces of my two boys. Everything I need to know is reflected in their eyes. Men are the paragon of awesome. And personally, I think they have the edge over women (but, being a man, I admit I am a little biased.)

        AVfM is in good hands with you Paul.

    • TigerMan

      Okay I just seen “Feminists! It is Time to Wake Up! ” put by Paul and with John The Other doing the narrating.
      There is no mincing of words and direct attacks made recently against mens rights and their activists by campus and radical feminists were addressed with an eloquent clarity. This kind of “in your face” is not only fair enough but perhaps required as specific attacks backed up with solid evidence were being addressed.
      Those who are enjoying support of the establishment yet also promoting a violent bigoted agenda under a flag of supposed “egalitarianism” need to be exposed in such fashion. It needs it becase thus far the public has been hoodwinked by a set of feminist groups along with their elite tier enablers into thinking they are something that they are not.
      A little earlier I tweeted a guy calling himself an “alpha male” who was seemingly bragging in a tweet about how
      “A woman wants TWO guys in her life: one alpha male to get herself to knocked up and one pussy-whipped beta-male to take care of the kids. ”
      Maybe I misread intent of his words but as a self described “alpha male” himself I got the impression he had some pride about his kinds role in this poisonous equation.
      Yet in other tweets he also acknowledges that men do get a rough deal overall in many areas.
      I tweeted to him that
      “It’s what society needs that is important not just one sex. We need to evolve past this alpha-beta shit too. Lets try zeta!”
      This is one of the dynamics (not to mention the other white knights, maginas and opportunist enablers ) we are faxced with negotiating even within our own sex to get our message through. It is vital therefore that we get as many women on board to understand our message because it is becoming ever clearer to me we have little prospect of hope without their increasing cooperation, understanding and help.
      The video Paul just posted hit all the right notes because our enemy is really ignorance, malignant bigotry and hatred and not the sex of whomever is delivering that toxic cargo.
      If this is the kind of reaction to bigotry that skeptic really meant – then despite my earlier comments I’m on board.
      My prime concern is to maintain an accurate delineation of what it is we are attacking and not give our enemy any ammo in the process. :)

    • Coriolanus

      Nothing wrong with being angry. Angry at a broken legal system, angry at a fucked up ideology that calls us rapists. So long as it’s constructive, coherent, focused anger. So long as it’s based in real grievances, and so long as it has real plans. And so long as it’s not hate, not bitter, not cruel or vindictive.

  • http://www.johntheother.com John the Other

    With utmost respect to TigerMan, all human rights movements are driven by anger. To be denied basic human rights /should/ provoke anger in those to whom human rights are denied.

    In addition, it was an abandonment of polite, deferential and softly delivered rhetoric which changed this movement from one which was uniformly ignored by the mainstream, to one which could not, and cannot be ignored.

    • TigerMan

      Points taken John – I thought your commentary in the video that Paul just posted was absolutely spot on as I think I made clear in my prior response written whilst you were posting the above. Againn big thumbs up from me :)

  • TigerMan

    OT – this just in http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20474197 Larry Hagman has died. Didn’t like Dallas much but whenever I saw him on talk shows he seemed a very likeable dude. :(

    • Stu

      If my Grandmother was still alive, she would be dancing to that news lol. She never used to watch much TV…..hardly any…….but she loved Dallas….and the reason she loved it was because she loved to hate JR. That man was the devil to her. :)

      • TigerMan

        Oh his character was of a thorough going bar steward no mistake but outside acting that character he came across as very a very affable chap who didn’t take himself too seriously.
        I hope your Gran never saw those chatshow appearances as she might have started liking him and that would have spoiled the sweet love to hate experience for her lol :)

  • Skeptic

    BTW.
    A big Thankyou to whoever added the wonderful images to my article!

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      You’re welcome. :)

  • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

    I have absolutely no idea what Skeptic is talking about in this article. Not. A. Freaking. Clue.

    Sorry Skeptic, try again. :(

    Yours truly;

    ~Strawbogen~

    P.S. The meaning of “ambient” is “surrounding”, or “on all sides”.

    • by_the_sword

      I thought I was alone in not getting the point of this article.

      Rock and roll has been the same ‘ol canned, trendy bullshit since 1968. There’s nothing ‘new’, nothing ‘edgy’ about shit that’s been done over, and, over and over again.

      I have more faith in the guy in his basement than in any mainstream shlock that the music business shits out these days.

      • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

        Well, the real problem here is that the point of this article does not connect to the point of “Becoming Ambient”. In fact, the disconnect is nearly total. First, some dictionary definitions of the word “ambient”, then a list of quotes from rock-n-roll legends. But how does any of that address the discussion in “Becoming Ambient”?

        But hey, the list of quotes was interesting, so it was an okay read. ;)

        BTW, I thoroughly agree that “in your face” tactics ought to be part of the ambience — subject to tactical disciplines, of course.

        • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

          I am confused by this. I totally got the connection. Matters not, though. The value of any given piece of writing is not in the eyes of the critic, but in the mind of those who find it valuable. We all have to live with that one.

          • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

            See my comment “@Skeptic”, further down the thread.

  • Codebuster

    I don’t think there is any problem with MRAs adopting a direct, “in your face” approach. Far from it. But I do think there are problems where, as Factory’s pointed out, we feel the need to defend ourselves. I agree with Factory, and would insist, don’t do it. Ever. Just laugh at them and their projections. Be authentic, strive to be truthful.

    Another mistake that I’ve seen MRAs make is assuming that men are our friends just because they have dicks. No, men are not, by default, our friends just because they’re men. Properly identify your allies and your enemies. Our enemy is not women, but feminists. Feminists are a political entity comprised equally of men and women. When you assume that all men are your brothers just because they’re men, you’re denying yourself the opportunity to laugh at many women and the idiotic choices that they make in men… don’t ever deny yourself that pleasure.

    If you identify yourself with a “men are wonderful” brigade or a “men are victims too” brigade, then you will always have problems with message delivery. Why? Because the simple truth is that male femninists, manginas and white-knights are as much our enemy as female feminists are. If you default to the assumption that men are our allies by default, then you’ll be had. When you get the formula right, you can be as assertive and “in your face” as you like without risking your credibility.

    It is a convenient tactic to market feminism as being about men versus women. Any suggestion that feminism is about women’s rights is a strawman fallacy and a convenient marketing ploy. Feminism is simply an exploitation of chivalry to neuter men, and has much in common with male-directed gendercide (elimination of troublesome opposition for political reasons). And it’s been very successful… I think Manboobz is a good example of how successful this ploy is… these people really do believe that they are fighting for women’s rights, and that they have been accepted into the sisterhood.

  • rper1959

    Can’t really convince myself of the value of this whole discussion, as interesting as it is.

    Different strokes for different folk’s, many ways to skin (Futrelle’s) Cat’s, etc. Anger and restraint have their uses, some are better at angry rants and others at quiet persuasion, some can do both or mixtures to suit the occasion, some by their public positon or employment must tread carefully when they would rather use explosive force. Its all contributing to the necessary efforts. We need more people doing more stuff more often, all, mixed in the great melting pot, till the smell and tase of compassion for men and boys is the ambience everyone accepts along with compassion for all persons regardless of their discriminators.

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      I agree, and this is where I have to out myself as having some limited agreement with a limited amount of sentiments I have heard from a limited amount of feminists.

      This thread, on all sides, is a light example of the pitfall of most all men. And it does have value, but mainly as instruction in where there is a major chink in the masculine armor.

      Zed gave a concise, if oversimplified description of this as “the circular firing squad,” which describes what it is well enough, but says nothing about its origins.

      Men are afflicted with the malady of “rightism.” We all struggle, among and with each other, endlessly, destructively, to have the “right” position on all matters of both trivia and consequence, and to battle with anyone who disagrees with us, even our own comrades, as though there were something fundamentally essential to our survival at stake.

      I cant tell you how many times that I have seen very thoughtful, well articulated articles on very important subjects that become the subject of petty dissent over the most ridiculously minor aspects of the whole works.

      There is almost always some guy (and often more) there to say “You should that said it THIS way or THAT way,” or even more commonly the hoisting up of the “This is what we should all do and say,” flag.

      It isn’t really a circular firing squad as much as it is the male drive to be “the one” with the “correct” message or idea. In is as instinctive and innate in men as competition for women, and just about as counter productive in the times in which we live.

      I get quite sick of it.

      But I am hopeful. If this discussion would have happened on any other men’s rights oriented website I can think of, it would have devolved into flames, character assassination and childish screeching almost as quickly as the dissent started, because that is, quite frankly, how most “out” MRAs conduct themselves outside AVfM.

      We are setting a new standard on this site. Real brotherhood in the midst of significant differences. The growth of that is the most dangerous thing possible to the forces we are allied against.

      That is why I encourage articles of often diametrically opposing views from MRAs. It is not just so that we can vet issues. In fact, it is not really to vet these issues or not. When all is said and done, men will do what their hearts and minds tell them regardless of what Fidelbogen or Skeptic have to say.

      The real value in airing conflicting views is to help foster a community that can learn not to dissolve because of it. On that note, I am quite happy with where we are, and endlessly hopeful about where we can go.

  • Aimee McGee

    Thinking if I can usefully contribute here, and I think I can see both sides of the debate.

    I’m pretty well known in our local health circles for getting my way, which is impressive given the hierachacal nature of health. Usually it is the doctor who calls the shots and everyone scurries around doing his or her bidding.
    I don’t, if I think there are other things that need to be done in the best interest of the patient. I will speak to the senior medic and calmly explain my rationalle and give them the details as to why our clinical perspectives differ. If they are being particularly obtuse, I am not above using words like “I disagree and wish this noted on this case”
    One of the local GPs refers to me as a “force of nature”…i.e. pretty damn hard to resist when I am at full force.
    On one side, I am completely “in their face” – I’m like a dog worrying on a bone. On the other side, I am always polite, detail focused and backed by evidence for my arguments. This kind of approach is hard work and tiring, but is the only way I’ve found to really initiate real change.
    Human rights activism is fired by anger – I’ve got plenty of fire in my belly over the injustices I see inflicted on men. But we need to take different approaches depending on our audience, and we also need to be seen to be able to deliver the message backed by facts, and I find that keeping a cool head prevents me from messing up my facts in a way that will later bite me on the arse.

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

      “On the other side, I am always polite, detail focused and backed by evidence for my arguments. “

      Polite? Me? Nah….I’m what you might call “rudely soft-spoken.”

      • Aimee McGee

        Hehehe…I have to like and respect someone before I will show my cheeky and rude side…

  • malcolm

    But it’s all too easy to turn good rock’n roll into elevator music.

  • Augen

    I think the innocent bystander question matters. Also while I personally REALLY appreciate Paul’s answer and it makes me think he’s a really good guy worthy of a leader when he says that “I can tell you as a by stander, if I see two angry people arguing a point, I will , if interested in the subject, listen to both of them and decide whose angry argument I like better.” … I have to add:
    * believing in the goodness of people over such things as this almost cost me my divorce
    * learning to disbelieve this and count a higher dollup of cards to the power of optics, has been critical to career success and the minimizing of CLMs

    So first … NOT saying we shouldn’t be in their face, I would say though that good generals sometimes use negotiation, sometimes use secret demolition, sometimes use subterfuge, sometimes use decoys and the best time to employ decoys is on the relatively rare occasion that a full frontal attack is called for. I think we should attend the military war college that studies and advocates all forms of engagement, so as to win campaigns, rather than the doctrinaire application of one modality all other facts be damned.

    I have used calmness and openness and courtesy and the willingness to demonstrate through total nonresistance…to devastating ends in everything from personal political disagreements to legal disputes and divorce to corporate politics, while in those same spheres I have been stymied of all progress at times when resorting to direct assault. I have learned that direct assault is like all things, for a time, and when that time comes, there is no substitute.

    • Augen

      If it weren’t for the fact that Will Farrell is the “Mr. Rogers” of MRM, we wouldn’t have the devastating ammunition that is the film matter of the violence of the opposition.
      I don’t want world domination, but i’ll take the metaphor: in the war for world domination there is a place for everything from the B-1 bomber to the navy seals to the 10th mountain division to the state department to the peace corps (yes) to the milquetoast chamber of commerce.
      Let us all come to the table to discuss our contributions to the inevitable victory, rather than argue for why our way and our way alone will win.

  • BrundleKev

    I thought this would be appropriate, considering the topic at hand. Also, I think we may have an ally that we didn’t know about if you listen to the lyrics.

  • TigerMan

    Wow I’m a big fan of Jack White and the White Stripes but I had missed this song. This is very much an MRA message and I shall be taking much more notice of the Lyrics Jack uses in future – thanks for posting. :)

  • http://thedamnedoldeman.com TDOM

    Fidelbogen is correct in that it takes a tailoring of the message to fit the audience in order to be heard. Skeptic is correct in that sometimes a more “in your face” approach is necessary. Rock and Roll created a helluva backlash directed at its musicians, producers, and audience. But ambience isn’t always loud enough to be heard. Both approaches are necessary.

    Just one correction, however. Someone may have already pointed this out, but Curt Cobain may have burned out before fading away, but Neil Young is the one who said it was better to go out that way and he was referring to Johnny Rotten in his song Hey, Hey, My, My. Cobain was quoting Young in his suicide note.

  • andybob

    On a feminist website, some misandric female made a joke about putting on stilettos and kicking men because she would enjoy inflicting pain on them.

    I responded by politely explaining that violence against men was no more acceptable than violence against women and advocating violence was completely unacceptable. A white knight responded with the following comment:

    “The fact is, andybob, you are a highly pugnacious and malicious individual who is incapable of making a point without embellishing it with melodramatic and condescending hyperbole. basically, you’re rude, aggressive and not amenable to civic discussion…you are so incredibly condescending to the author of whichever articles bear the misfortune of having your name appear under them.”

    Rhetorical discipline really gets under their skin like nothing else in our arsenal – or at least mine. Their hysterical responses look deranged and bizarre. Onlookers are taking it in.

    It’s all good.

    • TigerMan

      Quite right the white knight was sooo wide of the mark with his malicious critique that it makes him look ridiculous and lame to put it mildly.
      I know very well from long experience in usenet that feminist trolls will do their utmost to taunt MRA’s in order to get said MRA to lose their cool then the feminist will quote any angry reaction totally out of context in future posts – job done!

    • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

      It’s all good.

      That is it in a nutshell, which I why I had to chuckle at the hysterical reactions to Fidelbogen and similarly hysterical reactions to people who feel differently.

      With the exception of advocating violence, if your mouth is open and words in support of men and boys are coming out, you are doing much more good than the silent masses or the agents of hate that currently have the social floor. Well said, Andybob.

    • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

      I hope you screen-capped that exchange. It’s a keeper.

      • andybob

        I wrote it in response to an article titled ‘In Defense of Women-only Literary Awards’ by Coco McGrath on a site called ‘Lip’ (a feminist-plagued monstrosity run out of Melbourne University).

        http://lipmag.com/opinion/in-defence-of-women-only-literary-awards/comment-page-1/

        I initially responded with:

        “More self-pitying hysteria. You really need to burn those Gender Studies textbooks. Feminists have no respect for women. The assertion that women writers can only receive critical recognition if they are treated as a special-needs victim class is deeply offensive – to women.

        Who cares about the sex of reviewed authors? The sex of the reviewers themselves is even more irrelevant. Are you suggesting that literary reviewers are unfairly critical of work by writers of the opposite sex? Do you have a shred of evidence for this, or did you just make it up?

        Those feminists have you convinced that [women]…can’t even write books without needing to be coddled with prizes and hugs every step the way. Until you stop this nonsense, you will never emerge…as the strong, independent woman you obviously hope to be.”

        The white knight claimed that I had called the author names.

        “I didn’t call anybody names. You are the one who did that (referring to someone as a troll is name-calling – or does it magically become OK when you do it?). You even descended into schoolyard antics by intentionally getting my name wrong. I love engaging with feminists – fish in a barrel.

        Ms McGrath refers to the literary world as a “cock fest.” She obviously perceives women authors as embattled victims negotiating a world of violently swinging patriarchal penises. Poor little things. I don’t know any women writers who see themselves this way.

        If Chris stands for Christopher, then I wonder why you feel the need to constantly go into white knight mode and defend ‘the ladies’ who post here every time someone offers anything that vaguely resembles criticism. Don’t you think you are being a tad, dare I say it, patronising? Unlike you, I actually regard women as adults with agency, perfectly capable of defending their viewpoints. Let them speak for themselves.

        I would like Ms McGrath to explain why she thinks that it is acceptable – not to mention amusing – to advocate for violence against men:

        “After reading them, I get the urge to put on my pointiest high heels and go out and kick men. This wouldn’t do much good but it would make me feel better.”

        If a man had written about donning steel-toed boots to go out and kick women in order to make him feel better, there would be public outrage – and rightly so. The blog would be immediately shut down, and the writer named, shamed and probably arrested. However, Ms McGrath feels quite content to advocate for violence against men and boys. Why?

        Feminism.

        Feminism has taught women that violence is acceptable when they do it. It has turned young women like her into violent, hate-spewing hypocrites. Even the throwaway comment about being a “ball-busting feminist” is revealing. Ms McGrath believes that genital mutilation is funny, when it happens to men – I doubt that she thinks it is so funny when it happens to women.

        Violence is unacceptable. It isn’t droll, it isn’t sassy, it isn’t smart. If the young women who make the editorial decisions for this site are actually aiming to offer a forum for man-hating bigots who advocate violence, then carry on regardless. However, if you hope to claim any kind of moral high ground, which I believe you do, then it is time to clean up your act.

        Perhaps it is time to put down the man-hating screeds you have digested in your Gender Studies classes and stop blaming men for everything you hate about the world. Not enough people reading women writers? Easy – stop writing man-hating “ball-busting” drivel and start writing good books that women actually want to read.

        Ms McGrath’s interaction with her boss was actually typical of how many young women interact with men. he asked her a simple question and was met with a “rant” from someone who obviously hated him. Is it any wonder that men are becoming less and less interested about what women have to say about anything? Who wants to be on the receiving end of a hateful rant?

        If you so-called educated women can’t figure that out, then I can assure you that you are destined for a lifetime of extreme unhappiness, the causes of which will always allude you. One thing is certain, the answers are not inside your Gender Studies textbooks – and they have nothing whatsoever to do with literary awards.

        Ms McGrath’s final declaration, “WE DON’T NEED NO MEN,” could be dismissed as just another shallow feminist slogan. However, it perfectly encapsulates the arrogant dismissal that women routinely make about the massive contribution that men make to the lives of women. Women need men very much.

        In fact, you owe men a great deal. Learning how to recognize and appreciate this without dissolving into apoplectic fits of rage and resentment is a vital step towards a happy future for young women today. Feminism is not your friend.”

        The white knight continued to insist on missing my point, so I made one last attempt to get through to him (or rather, the fence-sitting readers who may have been watching).

        “Pointing out that the author believes that women need special treatment – which is deeply misogynist – isn’t name-calling. I find your unshakeable belief that it is bizarre – and rather sad. It is as though the moment you are confronted with logic and reason, you feel as though you are being attacked. You may not have the sense to realize it, but I am trying to help you to be a better person.

        The author’s call for violence is not satire. Just because she thinks that inflicting violence on men is funny, doesn’t make it satire. Just because she only fantasizes about committing violence against men and boys with deadly weapons, doesn’t make it satire. Violence isn’t funny. I tried flipping the sexes to highlight the double standard, and you still didn’t get it.

        The act of asserting your opinion is not what makes you a white knight – I never said it did. What makes you a white knight is that you infantilize women by giving them passes when they advocate violence which is something you would never tolerate from men. Your expectations of women are obviously very low. Stop treating women like babies and start demanding that they behave like adults. That means getting called on unacceptable behavior such as advocating violence.

        You may not believe this, but I actually feel sorry for you. Feminist men like you have no idea how deeply feminist women despise you. Oh they’ll pat you on the head when you are defending their bad behavior, they may even pretend they appreciate you when they can utilize you in some way. But take the word of a gay man who has heard women discuss straight men when you’re not around – feminists loathe supplicating men like you with a force as pure as fire.

        Any man willing to defend women who see them as nothing more than an evil, patriarchal rapist – and actually make them wear white ribbons like Stars of David as penance for crimes they never have, or ever will commit – are regarded as the creepiest creeps of them all. Self-respect is a very attractive quality in both sexes. Acquire some very soon. You’re going to need it through life.

        No-one has the right to inflict violence on you. You may dismiss female on male violence as harmless fun – you’ve called it ‘satire’ – but it isn’t. Women have no more right to inflict violence against men than men have the right to inflict violence against women. If the women in your life are telling you that violence is acceptable when women do it to men, then you need to tell them that they are wrong – and you need to believe it. Don’t allow them to inflict violence against you. Most importantly, don’t ever tell your sons that it is acceptable – or God forbid, satirical – for women and girls to inflict violence against them.

        Calling people trolls for pointing out that advocating violence is wrong actually makes you an enabler of violence. I’ll bet that many women reading this agree with me. If they don’t, then they are participants in a violent hate movement whose goal is to undermine the rights and welfare of men and boys. So, let women speak for themselves. You can go back to doing whatever feminist stooges do when not defending the indefensible. Chris, always remember that women don’t get to hit you, or your sons – ever.”

        I thought I had been very reasonable. I suppose you can’t please everyone.

  • BrundleKev

    Another good one here

    • Ex Machina

      True American hero right there.Johnny Cash was balls-out bad ass in a way I didn’t think a country musician could ever be.

      The songs he wrote were covered by everybody, the songs he covered were the ones I grew up partying to. Never knew he did a version of this song,though.

  • http://counterfem.blogspot.com Fidelbogen

    @Skeptic:

    The cognitive disconnect in your present article becomes apparent when you consider that the term “ambient” does not signify any particular kind of atmosphere, but simply atmosphere in the abstract or universal sense.

    Specifically, it refers to the surrounding environment in whatever form — which in theory might contain anything at all.

    The juxtaposition of the title “Becoming Ambient”, with the title “Becoming Rock ‘n’ Roll”, will serve for illustration.

    This juxtaposition sets up a false paralell between the term “ambient” and the term “rock ‘n’ roll”. Those terms are in fact not equivalent. Ambient (an adjective) means “all-encompassing”, whereas “rock ‘n ‘ roll” (a noun) signifies simply an item which is encompassed.

    See the difference?

    So in the end, “ambient” and “rock ‘n’ roll” do not exclude each other. However, “rock ‘n’ roll” relates to “ambient” as contained to container.

    So a better title for your article might have been “Becoming Rock ‘n’ Roll Ambient”.

    I would add that Rock ‘n’ Roll could certainly be a vital part of the ambient into which non-feminist/ pro-male energy ought to spread itself.

    In fact, I would dearly love to see rock bands everywhere playing songs which attack feminism. This has long been a part of my vision.

    • Skeptic

      Fidelbogan,
      I was being paradoxical.

  • Skeptic

    BTW, Check and you’ll find the phrase Rock N Roll IS used as an adjective.
    I agree I’d love to see Rock n Roll bands everywhere extolling MRA values.
    Good on Jack White for getting the ball rolling and thank you to BrundleKev for posting his video and that of Johnny Cash

  • https://www.facebook.com/pages/A-Voice-for-Men/102001393188684 Paul Elam

    @ Typhonblue

    “A rant is also more effort. If you can achieve a melt down with a whisper, then you conserve your strength.

    You whisper. They go into a frenzy. You whisper. They go into a frenzy.

    How long can you whisper? How long can they be frenzied?

    Get your opponent to run laps for you, up hill, both ways. Make holding their position so much emotional effort that they drop dead of exhaustion.”

    That is only effective if they are familiar with your voice at a much higher volume. Remember, these are people that have succeeded in ignoring whispers as well as shouting for a long, long time.

    Anyone being driven nuts by a whisper only gets so because it is stuff that has been thrown in their faces many times.

    That why all kinds of voices are necessary.

    But in terms of rhetoric, I have another observation, not quite related to your point.

    Most of what we discuss comes in the form of writing. We have videos and the radio, but I think the identity of this particular, loosely defined community of “men’s rights activists” (for lack of a better term) is the articles on this website.

    Just as I have alluded to, they contain all kinds of voices. But the measure of all effective writing is simple from a writers point of view. The most effective writing is that which gains an audience. Doesn’t speak to the quality of the writing from a technical sense, and it certainly does not speak to the validity of the ideas, but great ideas and thoughtful rhetoric don’t captivate readers. Appeals to their most intense emotions are the only way to get to them in increasing numbers.

    Let me show you some statistics from this site:

    These are the top ten articles every read on this site:

    1) Murderess Jasmine Richardson attends Mount Royal University

    2) Radfem Hub: the underbelly of a hate movement

    3) Study Reveals Female Rape Victims Enjoyed the Experience

    4) What’s the difference between the men’s rights movement and feminism?

    5) Don’t get fucked.

    6) $1000 bounty to identify Swedish SCUM members

    7) Women and Trust, The Ugly Truth

    8) Femitheist Divine suicide

    9) The power of pussy

    10) BPD: Sick, or just crazy asshole?

    I see one title that is not directly provocative. One.

    Further examination of the top 100 give the same results. We have millions of choices to look at in terms of understand what kind of material will reach the most people with the counter-theory we are trying to further.

    The record is clear that our readers, including the many new ones we have acquired, want to see these issues confronted without reservation or formality.

    Of course that, in an of itself does not prove that the methods is effective. For that we have to look at whether that approach, even if it does not inspire everyone, generally creates an environment where people will choose to help and add to the growth.

    I don’t need to look far for the answer to that one.

    I value all the voices that come here, as well as those who speak to the issues elsewhere, but we must be very cautious, I think, to not try to set a standard of delivery to which anyone feels obligated to abide. First, it will never happen. Everyone I know that writes MRM material will be doing it the same way they always have.

    Also, and this is very simple for me, going to full time whispering not only lessens the great impact whispering can have, it will cost us dearly in terms them listening at all. I think we would go right back to being ignored.

    What we are doing isn’t perfect, but it isn’t broke. No fixing needed here.

    Just my two cents.

    • Tawil

      “Most of what we discuss comes in the form of writing. We have videos and the radio, but I think the identity of this particular, loosely defined community of “men’s rights activists” (for lack of a better term) is the articles on this website.”

      The articles here are definately the trunk (to use corporation lingo), and the concrete activism, radio shows and forum are its branches. I noticed not long ago much of the AVfM energy started spreading and flowing away from the trunk and into the branches and this site became less busy with palpably less intensity, for a short time. The energy and intensity are in process of returning now – that feeling is back in the air.

      This place is the bedrock, challenging of cultural ideas in the spirit of the timeless maxim ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’. Nothing is more powerful than good quality, hard hitting journalism.

    • Ex Machina

      Mmmhmm,at both Paul and Tawil. They think they got us by the nuts but we just keep busting their chops,from every angle.

      It doesn’t take much, just a little bit of agitation going their way all the time to counter the constant agitation coming from their side to ours,to level the playing field.

      And I’m happy to do it, and to nurture the proper sentiment wherever I find it. Hell, I’m starting to love it.

      The “fringe benefits” are amazing now that we’ve moved up from “basement-dwelling troglodytes” to full-fledged “hate group” status too. You’d be surprised how much pussy you get when women think you’re an abusive psychopath who wants to chain them to a fridge,oven,bedpost or any other household object, THANKS FEMINISTS :D!!! Chicks think I’m the dude from 50 Shades of Grey when I tell them I’m an MRA now.

      Everything feminists do blows up in their faces so bad I’m half-tempted to let them continue in the belief that they might unwittingly get us a better deal while attempting to exterminate us than all of our efforts so far have wrought.

      Things are pretty bleak,but everywhere I look I see a glimmer of light here and there. Might as well stay the course,it’s worked pretty good so far and it’s certainly better than the alternative.

      When feminists start with their shopworn arguments, just turn up the volume on your FTSU and drown them out. Then they’ll go act an ass in public as they’re wont to do,we can youtube it, then turn up the volume on that when they start feministing again.

      Let them explain how not all feminists are like that until we’ve got every last one of them with their metaphorical dick in the Christmas turkey on video behaving exactly like that. Then we can close the book on that one too. Because none of these bitches have ever even met the (I would bet exactly) one or two poor deluded souls who “aren’t like that”.

  • Roger O Thornhill

    Feminists make me think of soul music. Every time I see a feminist I think, you are soul Princess. Say “you are soul” five times fast everyone :-)

    • Tawil

      Lol. :-)

  • TheBiboSez

    Just wanted to say to Mick and Keith – happy 50th anniversary you evil Rolling Stone bastards!

    I know.

    It’s only Rock n Roll.

    But

  • Verdad

    Perhaps it would be best to strike a balance between “Rock ‘n Roll” and “ambient.” Both Skeptic and Fidelbogen bring up good points however leaning to a single side is, in my opinion, not a good idea.

    Variety, grasp both sides, if that means anything to anyone. Don’t be too malleable and don’t be too hard-headed. Find the middle ground between ambient and rock ‘n roll.

  • BrundleKev

    This isn’t rockin’ roll so much, but I think this song is somewhat sad. I wish this was the relationship that men and women had these days, and its heart breaking that we don’t. Though I’m glad to say that my parents did, and that I’m glad to have grown up in a house hold that was built upon that relationship

    • TigerMan

      OMG I still have the hots for Kate – her warmth and arty quirky feminimity coupled with sharp intelligence is incredibly attractive to me. Quite a looker too – that doesn’t hurt either! lol ;)

      • BrundleKev

        Can’t say I’m familiar with her. I just recently became interested in Peter Gabriel after knowing only one of his songs, Shock The Monkey. For me this song is sad though. Its like I’m watching something that was around a long time ago, where things were better and the sexes weren’t at each other’s throats like they are now.

        Like I said, I grew up in a house hold that was built upon the idea of being supportive of each other and it really does hurt to see that any sort of remnant of that kind of relationship is all but dead.

        The fact that trying to find a woman like that would be like trying to find hay in a needle stack isn’t lost on me. Wanting to have one of the best parts of the human experience and then finding out you’d be putting yourself at a huge risk is sobering to say the least…

  • 20sides

    Interestingly enough, and somewhat relatedly, I found myself thinking the other day about various anthemic songs that remind me of the general energy and spirit of MRA’s. Exhorder’s ‘The Truth,’ Buddy Guy’s ‘Five Long Years,’ and ‘Ocean Breathes Salty’ by Modest Mouse are my elect.