A Good Men’s Rights Movement Is Hard to Find

Flickr/ liquidpremium

Only once the production crew taped the microphone on my dress did I have second thoughts. As part of an upcoming 20/20 special, I’d agreed to a sit-down with Paul Elam. Elam is founder and publisher of A Voice For Men (AVFM), one of the main hubs for the burgeoning “men’s rights’ movement.” In a blog post on the organization’s site, he made his feelings clear: “I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.”

This was not going to be a productive conversation.

With the cameras rolling, I told Elam that it was hard to know how to engage with someone who hates you so much it turns him on. He waved the statement away, saying he’d made it in the heat of conversation (this despite the fact that “Fuck Their Shit Up” is AVFM's official mantra). Elam is good at making excuses: Confronted with his own words, he typically says he has to use “extreme” language to attract attention to his cause. When that fails, he likes to claim that his work is “satire” (to which I can only reply, in the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "I do not think that means what you think it means").

Elam’s site is one of dozens of blogs and message boards that constitute the “manosphere,” where participants rant, bond, and spew ideas so misogynist they make Silvio Berlusconi look like Gloria Steinem. There are three main constituencies. There are the Pick Up Artists (PUAs), who'll try to sleep with all the women they can, by any means necessary, and Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), who claim to have sworn off women altogether. Then there are the Men’s Rights Activists (MRAs), who are animated by many of the same misogynist beliefs as their manosphere brethren, but draw different conclusions about what men should do in relation to the scourge that is womankind.

David Futrelle, creator of Manboobz, a site that tracks (and mocks) the manosphere, cites the myth of female hypergamy as one of their motivating forces: “It’s the idea that all women are these fickle, opportunistic creatures who are constantly looking to glom onto some ‘high status’ guy, and exploit him for all he’s worth, and that they’ll immediately desert whoever they’re with as soon as they find someone better. The men’s rights people talk about this as a horrible injustice in the world, whereas the PUA’s are like, these evil women are looking for guys with status, so if we can figure out how to fake that successfully we’ll get to have sex with them.”

What makes the MRAs particularly insidious is their canny co-optation of social-justice lingo. While Pick Up Artists are perfectly plain that all they care about is using women for sex, MRAs claim to be a movement for positive change, with the stated aim of getting men recognized as an oppressed class—and women, especially but not exclusively feminists, as men’s oppressors. It's a narrative effective enough to snow the mainstream media: Just this past weekend, The Daily Beast ran a profile of MRAs that painted them as a legitimate movement overshadowed by a few extremists. Trouble is, even the man writer R. Todd Kelly singled out as the great "moderate" hope that other MRAs should emulate—W.F. Price, of the blog "The Spearhead"—is anything but. According to Futrelle, "This is a guy who ... blames the epidemic of rape in the armed forces on women, who celebrated one Mothers Day with a vicious transphobic rant, and who once used the tragic death of a woman who’d just graduated from college to argue that 'after 25, women are just wasting time.' He published posts on why women’s suffrage is a bad idea. Plus, have you met his commenters?"

In some ways, the manosphere is old news. As long as there has been feminism, there has been a misogynist backlash. Warren Farrell, considered by many to be the father of the modern men's rights movement, has been at it since the '80s. But the Internet has proven a powerful accelerant for these discontents: According to Alexa.com, a web analytics service, A Voice For Men's traffic has more than doubled in the past year; the site's U.S. traffic ranks at 10,303 as of this writing (by way of comparison, the Prospect is ranked at 16,142).

The list of grievances for MRAs is long. It includes the elevated rate of suicide for men, educational discrimination against boys, economic and workplace conditions for men, violence against men, false rape reporting, fathers’ rights in custody battles, rates of male imprisonment and prison conditions, and the horrors of war. Many of these issues deserve a thoughtful response and the force of an organized movement for address them. It’s too bad that’s not what men’s rights activists are offering.

Case in point: Last month, AVFM and CAFE (the Canadian Association For Equality, an MRA group) held a “historic” rally in Toronto. Attended by a few dozen people, the rally featured speakers airing grievances about violence against men, and men’s unfair treatment in family courts, the workplace, and educational institutions. "Men matter,” the crowd cheered. One speaker, who was quickly ushered away from the mic, called for violent uprising against communism. But what was most notable about the rally was that not a single speaker proposed a solution to any of the problems they identified.

Instead, no matter what the issue is, the response from Men’s Rights Activists is the same: blame, threaten, and harass women, mostly online. (Though there has been a worrying uptick in offline activity, especially in Canada, it still represents a small percentage of what they do. The exception to that are the men who focus on “fathers’ rights” in custody cases, who, as Boston Magazine documented this summer are well organized and have been having real impact on the way family courts function).

 

Comment threads and message boards serve as the public square for MRAs, a kind of bizarro-world combination of locker room, group therapy, and organizing. Recently, on the Men’s Rights subreddit, one MRA complained of how much he had to pay in child support, and how trapped he felt by the situation. His fellow MRAs helpfully suggested that the solution to his problem was to murder his wife, a tactic many on the subreddit were eager to echo, upvote, and get disturbingly specific about.

Blogs like AVFM and The Spearhead serve as what passes for the “think tanks” for MRAs, developing and promoting the MRA agenda. I’m using that term loosely as the ideas they promote tend to be things like arguing against women having access to college education, accusing feminists of encouraging domestic violence so that we can make money, and calling prominent feminists “child abusers” for promoting feminism.

Indeed, MRAs seem to enjoy spreading disinformation about feminism, framing it essentially as whatever they hate about women. In our conversation, Elam cited only Andrea Dworkin and Valerie Solanas, two long-dead women who were extremists even in their day. At the same time, this poster from AVFM’s “Victor Zen” seems to think feminists endorse the pop culture idea of a Mars/Venus divide, while in reality we deconstruct it at every opportunity. Many MRAs are enamored of the idea that feminists are desperate to trap them in marriage, because you know how feminists are all about promoting traditional marriage.

And then there are the personal attacks: One of their tactics is to put out a cash bounty for personal information—including home addresses, places of employment, email addresses, and phone numbers—of feminists who upset them. The deluge of hate mail, rape and death threats for those on the receiving end of these witch hunts is hard to describe.

One young woman, who got in a heated argument with a men’s rights activist at a protest in Canada, was subsequently dubbed as “little red frothing fornication mouth” by AVFM and had all of her private contact information published by MRAs. She received hundreds of elaborate threats of violence. One anonymous commenter invited her to “enjoy being anally defiled.” Another gloated: “I would actually cum cutting that bitch’s throat.” Another outspoken feminist told me personally that she had to get the FBI and the state police involved when AVFM targeted her. Authorities found the threats she received so credible that they advised her to leave home for two weeks, taking her husband and young child with her. Increasingly, men's rights activists target women offline as well. Last month, members of the organization Men’s Rights Edmonton hung large “wanted”-style posters of a professor all over the University of Alberta campus, calling her a bigot. Her crime? She was involved in the university’s anti-rape campaign.

I’ve got a tiny taste of this last month. When word spread that I was going to be featured on 20/20, A Voice For Men published a hit piece, calling me a bad feminist (for criticizing Naomi Wolf), accusing me of demonizing male sexuality, and simultaneously suggesting that my bisexuality means I haven’t slept with enough men to have valid opinions about them, that I’m too fat and ugly to get a man to sleep with me, and that I’m a miserable slut who needs to manipulate other women into validating me. The comments thread features someone with the pseudonym Theseus saying “I would love to see a you tube [sic] vid with a heckler in the audience shouting out ‘Hey uh Jackie, I think a dude raping you is the least of your fucking problems’!!” Another commenter promised to do just that. As a survivor of sexual assault, threats like this shake me almost physically. While they never silence me, they always unsettle and exhaust me.

These targeted hate campaigns are common enough that they’re a risk I and everyone else have to contemplate when we consider speaking out against the men's rights groups or simply sharing a feminist opinion online. Making it terrifying to speak out discourages women from doing so, limiting our ability to participate fully in the digital public square. It’s not hyperbole to say that this kind of terror campaign prevents women from participating in our democracy on equal footing with men.

 

And make no mistake: anti-woman hate is the defining feature of the MRAs, and the examples above are the rule, not the exception. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a storied civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, told 20/20: "The Manosphere is an underworld of so-called men's rights groups and individuals on the Internet, which is just fraught with really hard-line anti-woman misogyny.” A Voice For Men makes no excuses for their hatred of women, from posts ranting about women who are “begging to be raped” to treatises about how fat women want to be sexually violated because it would mean we are desired. Warren Farrell, the aforementioned “father” of the modern MRAs—he openly called date rape “exciting” and said that incest can be a good thing—has recently signed on as a regular AVFM contributor. For over a year, AVFM hosted in their “activism” section a call to firebomb courthouses written by a man who actually lit himself on fire in front of one. Paul Elam himself wrote an infamous post in which he vowed that, should he ever be called to serve on the jury for a rape trial, he would vote to acquit even if he believed the defendant was guilty.

As bad as Men's Rights Activists are for women (and, really, for our collective humanity), they’re also doing harm to the causes they claim to care about. When an AVFM contributor in Australia called a hotline posing as a man being beaten by his wife and needing a shelter for himself and his son, he claims he was denied help. But if you listen to the recording (or read the transcript), you can clearly hear the counselor on the other line offer multiple forms of assistance, including a free hotel for himself and his son, a direct connection to a police officer specializing in domestic violence, and more. Far from their tagline “compassion for men and boys,” this incident reveals that MRAs are happy to abandon men and boys to real danger when it suits their hate campaign against women.

Every man who visits a men's rights site concerned about male victims of rape is a man who’ll be told that women are the problem and will be offered no practical solutions, a man who won’t be connected with direct services for survivors if he needs them, a man who still doesn’t know about Just Detention International, which works to end prison rape, or Service Women’s Action Network, which is taking the lead to end sexual violence in the U.S. military for both men and women. Every man who comes to them concerned about the high rates of on-the-job fatalities for men is a man taught to blame women but who is never encouraged to support or join unions. Every man who comes to them concerned about the male suicide rate is a man who won’t be encouraged to help out with the life-saving work The Samaritans do every day.

It’s hardly the “End of Men” these days (really, Hannah Rosin, get a grip). But as Ann Friedman (no relation, alas) writes in New York magazine, “America is finally getting around to having the conversation about what it means to be a man that, decades ago, feminism forced us to have about womanhood … [E]ven the most ideologically progressive men are just now starting to talk about how to break with masculine stereotypes and still hang onto a sense of gender identity.” It’s the very real pain caused by these systemic problems and cultural anxieties that Men's Rights Activists are all-too-eager to exploit.

Of course, you’ll find women (and, gasp!, even feminists) in leadership in most of the institutions actually working to make life safer for men. It’s feminists who fought a long and recently successful battle to ensure that male victims are included in the FBI’s definition of rape. Some feminists are working to integrate the military so that the burden of war doesn’t just fall on men, and some are working against the militarism that not only enables rape in the armed forces, but underpins the narrow, confining cultural ideas about masculinity that make so many men feel trapped. Feminists have ensured that, through the Violence Against Women Act that MRAs oppose, the overall rate of intimate partner violence in the U.S. declined 64 percent between 1994 and 2010, and that decline is distributed evenly between male and female victims.

It’s hard to know what to do about MRAs beyond taking every possible opportunity to expose them as the hatemongers they are. But I think that the above list of feminist victories for men provides a clue. When she interviewed me for the 20/20 segment, Elizabeth Vargas asked me if I wanted to curtail MRA’s right to free speech, noting that even Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) has the right to protest. I agreed with her then as I do now, and I advocate the same response that’s been so successful against the WBC: rather than try to stop them, we make a peaceful human chain to blunt their hate and counter it with love. In the case of MRAs, we can do that by continuing to work to improve the lives of both men and women, and to end all forms of gender oppression. There’s nothing like the truth to expose a lie.   

Comments

Sasha, only two calls may have been put out on AVfM, but that doesn't address other "calls" and it is also two too many. Doxxing of opponents is a known common practice of the MRM. See register-her for an example. Crimes Against Fathers doxxed the Canadian feminist that Sasha erroneously claims Ms Friedman said AVfM did.

Sasha further says that the reward offered for personal info on Vliet Tiptree was for the noble reason that "she called for the ''extermination of men and slaughter of infant boys'. " Except that she didn't. I'll admit her manifesto is very TL;DR in nature, but I did read it. She's got some alarming ideas, but genocide isn't one of them. Note that all the men are still around in her ideal scenario:

“Our Emphasis on Fundamental Change. We have moved beyond palliation (negotiation, mediation, reform, compromise, engagement with the System) to exploring effective means of extirpating male pathology, including being open to biological explanations and treatment of such psychopathy. We are concerned with the overall structure of male oppression. We are open to going wherever the evidence and experience lead us.

In recent years, studies of male hormones and aggression, the development of the science of social dominance theory, primate studies, and genetics have begun in my opinion to take us very close to the etiology of the underlying sickness. This emphasis on looking at the pathology of male hormonal mechanisms is a new kind of “essentialism” that offers hope, because treatments can be developed to mitigate the death-drive of men, their hierarchical psychology, their insensitivity to the pain of living creatures, their pleasure in violence and intimidation, their acquisitiveness, their rape and phallic obsessions. It’s an exciting development, though the science involved it goes hand in hand with new dangers to women which must be resisted.’

and

“My own personal vision is that women will cure the sickness that ails men and that men will stay around, hunkered in their man-caves playing the ukelele, leaving us in peace at last. As to what that cure may be, my best bet is that what’s wrong with men is that their androgens need genetic modification.”

You further claim Ms Friedman is lying about Warren Farrell thinking incest can be good (not is; can be...words have meaning). I read the 1977 Penthouse article courtesy of Liz Library. Here are direct quotes, and readers can decide for themselves how Mr. Farrell feels about incest:

"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in."

When asked about risk of publishing a book called The Last Taboo: Three Faces of Incest, "First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."

"Second, I'm finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective."

"The average incest participant can't evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."

“Incest is like a magnifying glass. In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and in others it magnifies the trauma. I’m not recommending incest between parent and child, and especially not between father and daughter. The great majority of fathers can grasp the dynamics of positive incest intellectually. But in a society that encourages looking at women in almost purely sexual terms, I don’t believe they can translate this understanding into practice.”

Make no mistake, Feminist DOXXING is encouraged as "you go grrl" feminism and as empowerment.

Proof:
ihollaback.org which publishes UNVERIFIED, ANONYMOUS, NO APPEAL photographs of men they accuse without verification of street harassment.

Proof:
mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain tumblr which uses internet campaigns to shame men whose crime is sitting on a train.

Proof:
Adriana Richards at Pycon

Proof:
Jezebel outing high school students for racist tweets about Obama

Proof:
Gawker outs reddit user violentacrez for ugly speech, but legal speech at reddit

Make no mistake Feminists love to dox and love to threaten and love to bully

Therefore everything MRAs do automatically goes from being wrong, to being right. See, when you can't defend your actions, do like all MRAs do, and distract/shift the blame onto women--oops, I mean, "feminism."

Responsibility: not a trait valued by MRAs.

Standing up against bullying is not itself bullying. Violentacrez and street harassers are both examples of actual bullies. Calling these people out publicly to shame their behavior is not bullying. Quite the opposite.

Warren Farrell's position on incest have been intentionally misquoted for 36 years now. These statements that appear at Penthouse have never appeared elsewhere and have been repudiated by Farrell many times alongside his explanation of their genesis. Here are some recent examples:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8814787&postcount=37

I do not approve of any form of
father-daughter sexual contact. And I have not approved of that in the
past. If anyone has quoted me to that effect, she or he has misquoted
me.

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/18tv7j/i_am_warren_farrell_author_of_why_men_are_the_way/

You can find another analysis here: (URL obscured to prevent spam filtering)
voiceofreaaaasoooon.blogspot.co.uk / 2012/12/ive-seen-quotes-floating-around-about-dr.html

Feminists insist on poisoning the well with these quotes because they know that in the intervening 36 years, Farrell has spoke consistently, compassionately, and with expertise on boys and men's issues -- something feminists do not want you to hear.

MRAs blame all feminists for the 45-year old SCUM manifesto written by a rogue wackaloon, yet when one of their own veers off and says something repugnant, MRAs credulously lap up the excuses they make up in their own head.

You accuse me of intentionally misquoting WF when I included a quote where he said he didn't recommend father-daughter incest. He said the stuff - it was in an interview that Liz Library photographed the pages of. It happened, and I included quotes that coincide with what you claim above are his stated beliefs - that he doesn't recommend father-daughter incest. So how exactly am I being disingenuous?

Then you say WF has repudiated the quotes many times, but include a link to him saying what I said he said, that he doesn't recommend father-daughter incest. I let the readers decide for themselves what WF might think about incest based on his own words, so YOU are the one actually poisoning the well here.

I agreed with her then as I do now, and I advocate the same response that’s been so successful against the WBC: rather than try to stop them, we make a peaceful human chain to blunt their hate and counter it with love

LOL.. We have our new Mother Theresa. She's gonna shower us with LOVE. Yep.. we can all imagine that. Jaclyn's face exudes love, just like Elizabeth Vargas' did when she was interview Paul Elam.

I see tonight that Amanda Marcotte, who just two months ago was guilty of erasing radfems, tonight links to this article and erases MRAs.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/24/how-so-called-mens-rights-activists-make-actual-work-on-behalf-of-men-harder/

Apparently, MRAs don't care about MRA issues like for instance custody and we just want submissive women. Those are her words. We don't do activism, regardless of how you can see custody laws changing across the US, we don't care about domestic violence against men, regardless of lobbying and attempts to open men's centers, we don't do activism, regardless of postering campaigns, rallies, and speeches, we just want submissive women.

In short, feminists care more about men's rights than MRAs.

Think of the chutzpah, arrogance, and bigotry of such sentiments.

It's the 1950s and white men say blacks do not want civil rights, and concerned white men care more and fight more for civil rights than black men.

It's the 1960s and heterosexuals say gays do not want equal rights, and concerned heterosexuals care more and fight more for gay rights than gays.

It's the 1970s and men say women do not want equal rights, and concerned men care more and fight more for women's rights than women.

It's the 1980s and the able bodied say the disabled do not want equal rights, and concerned able bodied people fight more for the disabled than the disabled.

Since when Jaclyn Friedman, since when American Prospect, since when Robert Reich does Group X get to define who the leaders of the civil rights group for group Y gets to be?

Don't we call that arrogant? And patronizing?

Why shouldn't Marcotte be called out by the American Prospect for pushing a bigoted line of erasure filled with errors, smears, and distortions?

I find it telling that not one MRA commenter has actually challenged any of the material in this article. The standard play book of the MRM is to immediately talk about how bad feminists and women are because that's what their 'movement' is about. It has nothing to do with issues regarding men and boys and Tod Kelly reported in the Daily Beast that EVERY men's organization who is doing REAL work on the ground for men wants nothing to do with Paul Elam, his cronies or the Manosphere.

Honestly, I am not sure which material you think hasn't been challenged that needs challening.

Um, more importantly, what I would like to suggest is that you start a blog. It doesn't have to be a public blog. It doesn't have to have your real name. Just start a blog. And then for the next 14 days, just audit the following three blogs,

1) avoiceformen.com
2) cotwa.info
3) www.nationalparentsorganization.org

and categorize (or tag) the articles you see there in terms of if they

a) address men's (or boy's) issues
b) attack women
c) attack feminists
d) support men's issues activism
e) demonstrate misogyny or homophobia or transphobia
f) whether you think they have a point or not
g) whether the issue was also addressed at Salon, Slate's XX, Jezebel, Huffington Post, the Good Men Project, or anywhere

At the end of the 14 days, publish your blog

It would take an article and more to counter the deliberate misdirection, and other tactics used to avoid confronting the issues or the direct challenge to the core ideology of feminism. "Mainstream publications will not allow such, and comment sections are an insufficient medium. My main comment does in fact counter one of the author's main points.

"a peaceful human chain to blunt their hate and counter it with love." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

Uh, wut? She recommended we take a particular type of action and you post something that is not at all what she recommends. This proves what? MRA lawgik at its finest.

Yes, intriguing isn't it.

Friedman recommended "a peaceful human chain to blunt their hate and counter it with love" but the video showed anything but that. Think about that a bit. Think about all those YouTube videos showing feminists displaying peaceful human chains blunting hate and countering hate with love.

Elam's claims that his misogynistic rhetoric is harmless (just designed to attract attention to his cause is 1) nonsense and 2) probably disingenuous. Elam is most likely saying exactly what he feels and what he wants to say, and then hiding behind the necessity of attracting attention by being provocative. Quite convenient. And even if all Elam truly wants to do is use hateful, violent rhetoric to attract attention to a non-violent and ostensibly important cause, he sacrifices all credibility (and his cause) when he makes the hideous statements he makes. It looks like violence against women. It sounds like violence against women. Guess what? It is. Elam isn't about raising men up; he's about tearing women down. I don't know what his motivation is, or where his unhealthy hatred springs from, but I know it when I see it.

I am curious, are you aware that what you wrote, while passionate, is not actually an argument? It is a series of statements, but none of it is backed up with citations or evidence. It's just truthy feel good stuff, and in the end relies on poisoning the well with an Internet mental diagnosis.

Do you have an argument?

Paul Elam's motivation is money and ego. Last year he claimed he made 150K. He makes money off of men who are vulnerable and angry. Not one dollar of it has done anything to actually benefit his 'cause'. If Paul Elam can get attention to his site he then begs for money. He also guilts people to donate to him. He's not provided a single financial account of the years of him taking money. If you look on Youtube for a user named TheWoollyBumblebee she made a video exposing Paul's fraud.

He censors ANY and ALL opinions that aren't completely in line with his woman hatred.

I am not sure I understand you when you say Elam censors any and all opinions that aren't completely in line with his woman hatred.

Can you provide some specifics of people who he has censored? Is the WoolyBumblebee unable to make YouTube videos with her views? Do you or she have some sort of claim on the space at AVFM that you two are required to be published there?

Of course they can't support any of their claims against Paul Elam. They just made them up, like the accusations of his homophobia. I think it's going to take a while for it to sink in that feminists' lies are no longer going unchallenged. It's the real reason why they're so mad at him and his supporters.

Amanda Marcotte censors anyone who doesn't coddle the feminist ass, sweetheart. I guess it's okay when you do it but when it's the other way around you throw a temper tantrum and a hissyfit. Not a problem.

The more articles like this are written about us the better it is for us. Thanks for more free publicity. It makes our work rather easy.

One more note, feminists need to learn the difference between women and feminists. Try taking an English class. It might benefit you.

I will simply point out that if we held feminism to the same standard, there would be very few feminist commentators.

Are we actually discussing men's issues yet?

Of course not. As a feminist, Jaclyn Friedman doesn't want such discussions taking place anywhere, let alone in the MSM. It simply wouldn't do to put a spotlight on the extent to which feminists and their enablers have undermined the rights and welfare of men and boys. They'd end up looking more like 'the Man' - as Paul Elam would say - than oppressed victims of the patriarchy. Playing the victiim has been very profitable for feminists - a billion dollar industry.

Ms Friedman knows, that invoking threat narratives against MRAs, with the help of lies, shaming language and oodles of schoolgirl snark have always been an effective method of silencing men who have the audacity to believe in their own humanity.

The problem for Ms Friedman, is that she is much too, shall we say, ungainly, for her eyelash-fluttering attempt to damsel to be anything other than absurdly embarrassing. The only 'second thoughts' an abrasive bigot like Ms Friedman would have had about meeting Paul Elam would have been about her ill-advised ensemble.

Ms Friedman claims to want to "end all forms of gender oppression." She couldn't possibly be referring to Australian women as gender oppressed. Most of these women, including my mother, can open beer bottles with their teeth. They're not oppressed by anybody.

MHRAs realized long ago, that discussing men's issues with feminists is impossible. They're either too busy spitting in apoplectic rage, or fainting all over the place. Ms Friedman attempts to do both, and reveals her real agenda - it certainly wasn't to discuss men's issues.

"Are we actually discussing men's issues yet?"

You're not. Paul's not. The MRM is not. You're all too busy hating feminists and blaming women for your issues that none of you ever discuss it. When you DO manage to say something about it, you inevitably rail at women for it.

"Of course not. As a feminist, Jaclyn Friedman doesn't want such discussions taking place anywhere, let alone in the MSM. It simply wouldn't do to put a spotlight on the extent to which feminists and their enablers have undermined the rights and welfare of men and boys. They'd end up looking more like 'the Man' - as Paul Elam would say - than oppressed victims of the patriarchy. Playing the victiim has been very profitable for feminists - a billion dollar industry."

See what you did there? You just did what I call self-infliction: No feminist wants to talk about it. Whaaa! Then you just spout some rhetoric and of course more woman blaming and misogynist rhetoric.

"Ms Friedman knows, that invoking threat narratives against MRAs, with the help of lies, shaming language and oodles of schoolgirl snark have always been an effective method of silencing men who have the audacity to believe in their own humanity."

There's nothing she did in this article other than quote the Manosphere's woman hatred and put it out in the public for people to rightly assess it as hate speech. You're the only one snarking here.

"The problem for Ms Friedman, is that she is much too, shall we say, ungainly, for her eyelash-fluttering attempt to damsel to be anything other than absurdly embarrassing. The only 'second thoughts' an abrasive bigot like Ms Friedman would have had about meeting Paul Elam would have been about her ill-advised ensemble."

Adhom. More woman hatred. Calling a woman a bigot for quoting you guys is rich.

"Ms Friedman claims to want to "end all forms of gender oppression." She couldn't possibly be referring to Australian women as gender oppressed. Most of these women, including my mother, can open beer bottles with their teeth. They're not oppressed by anybody."

I don't think anyone cares if your mother can open beer bottles with her teeth. If that's the extent of your analysis then you really don't belong in this conversation.

"MHRAs realized long ago, that discussing men's issues with feminists is impossible. They're either too busy spitting in apoplectic rage, or fainting all over the place. Ms Friedman attempts to do both, and reveals her real agenda - it certainly wasn't to discuss men's issues."

You haven't discussed them. Almost every paragraph you wrote began with Jaclyn's name and then a steady stream of adhom and misogyny.

The problem here is your ideology is based on perceived threats to some conception of your masculinity, which you then turn around and externalize. It's easy to blame women and feminism for your problems but every time you make a statement about men's issues it involves bringing women down. Your 'movement' deliberately manufactures untruths about public policy when you claim that things like VAWA is misandry.

Until YOU actually start talking about the issues and not expecting feminists to, while simultaneously blaming women, then people will listen. Until then, we'll just continue to expose what you truly are. It's time for the MRM to live in reality.

If you would like to see what happens when a men's human rights activist attempts to discuss men's issues with a feminist, wait for Elizabeth Vargas' 20/20 segment. Paul Elam is prevented from raising a single issue because he is bombarded with accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia and being a rape enabler/supporter/apologist. Jaclyn Friedman assists in this transparent attempt to marginalize men's issues. That's why she deserves condemnation and ridicule.

You see, we already know the futility of discussing men's issues with feminists. We've been attempting it for years and discovered that it is impossible to have a fair and honest discussion about men's issues with people who hate men. Chanty Binx wasn't highlighted on AVfM because her warbling 'Cry Me a River' in response to male suicide rates was particularly cruel or ignorant. It was highlighted because it was so utterly typical of feminism's idea of discussing men's rights. She sums-up feminist compassion for men, and was thus, nothing more than an instructional devise for AVfM newbies.

There is no point discussing anything with people who are so dim-witted that they still cite the wage gap as evidence that women are oppressed by the patriarchy. If there was a single example of an Australian woman earning less than her male colleagues simply because of her sex, feminists wouldn't be whining about it on a blog, they'd be hot-footing it to Fair Work Australia - which would be onto it like white on rice. The reason why they don't, is because they know that Fair Work Australia would have to sit them down, like a small, backward child, and explain to them, very slowly, that if women choose to work fewer hours in lower paying jobs, then they're not going to get as high a salary as men.

Alas, we discovered long ago that trying to explain why men, as a group, get - as opposed to earn - more money than women to people saturated in feminist ideology was (to paraphrase a famous MHRA) like trying to explain Quantum Physics to a baboon. The time has come when MHRAs no longer hold out any hope for an honest exchange of ideas about our issues and concerns with feminists. Your many opportunities to do so have been squandered.

There is no need to fret about it - we don't. Do you know why? It is because we don't need to discuss the rights and welfare of men and boys with feminists - and it is as revealing, as it is sad, that you think that we do. In fact, feminists are no longer even invited to the table. Sites like AVfM have restricted their invitations to the vast number of men and women who have been hurt my the vast array of abuses inflicted on them by feminism. These people are RSVPing in droves and they are as angry as they are diverse - straight, gay, left, right, and from every imaginable race, religion and socio-economic background. This is a disaster for feminists, and we're beginning to suspect that you know it.

Hatchet jobs on Paul Elam, AVfM and the MHRM (like this post and the 20/20 segment) hurt feminism more than we ever could. They are desperate and dishonest attempts to reclaim a narrative that has slipped through your fingers, MHRAs have every confidence that feminists will maintain the breathtaking ineptitude of their response: lying, shaming, damseling - and the tuneless vocals of Chanty Binx. As I have already stated, you are no longer invited to the table. After all, our issues aren't about you anyway - you are irrelevant, as all bigoted dogma-spewing ideologues deserve to be.

Your statement that AVfM doesn't address any men's issues can only mean that, like all feminists who criticize us, you have never been to the site, much less read any of the thousands of eloquent, evidence-based articles which have been posted there over the years. You have made the same mistake as Jaclyn Friedeman, and relied on David Futrelle to cherry-pick out-of-context statements that support your contention that men and boys are evil, disposable rapists who deserve to have their rights and welfare trampled on by a misandric society that only values their utility to women.

So, please, keep doing what you're doing. The MHRM will be eternally grateful.

Trust me, we live in the reality and know that all too well, but ok. I'll do as you ask.
An ideology that defines one half of humanity as in direct and fundamental opposition to the other half, in a mimic of the Marxist description of class, is inherently divisive and illogical. Men and women are different, we are two complimentary halves of the whole. We experience life differently, and yet only experience it fully together. The dynamics of that togetherness are not oppressive conceptually or operationally. Feminist ideology simultaneously seeks to ignore and incorporate the fact of our differentiation, lurching from one radical solution to the next. To propose that in being different we are inherently in conflict where one half is oppressed and the other oppressive ignores at a basic level the need to compliment as both a condition of individual happiness and the species imperative to create the next generation in sufficient numbers and health.
Feminism is a fundamentally flawed ideology, and as such can't avoid the hatred of males as males. Its corresponding policies for individual relationships are inherently destructive of male/female relationships, just as its social policies are inherently destructive of civilization, harming men, women and children in many ways.
The harm caused by feminism as feminism, to men, women and children is the issue. The specific list of current harms is long. Any intelligent conversation of one soon breaks down because feminists understand the challenge it presents to the ideology as a whole. Any meaningful redress of a specific grievance is resisted strongly, because feminists know that any redress begins to unravel major portions of their ideology and program.
I would love the opportunity, as many would, to talk about the specific issues at hand, but the iron curtain of feminism simply won't allow it. That is why we are at this point, simply often attacking feminism. It deserves attacking.
Shall we talk about human reproductive rights, male and female? Feminism can't abide that, it relies on reproductive rights being an exclusive female province. No discussion allowed.
Shall we talk about male and children's rights concerning the maintenance of marriage, the issue of divorce, and the issues of custody when divorce is necessary? Any effort to keep marriages intact seems threatening to feminists. It is to them an inherently oppressive institution. Any effort at equal custody threatens the propensity of women to get divorced, perpetuating their "enslavement". No discussion allowed.
Shall we discuss how redefinitions of rape effect the equal treatment of men under the law. Or how feminist legal positions on the issue strip the accused of legal protections afforded anyone accused of any other crime in US law? Maybe the more benign aspects of how the feminist position effects relationships and the meaning of that for society? Even bringing up such issues causes feminists to make the despicable accusation that one is a rape apologist or worse. No discussion allowed.
I won't go on here, but would love to have a substantive conversation for the record on any and all.

I see the MRAs showed up to prove that, as always, "Men's Rights Activism" isn't about men at all, it's about women--er, I mean feminists...

It's why they you can't talk to an MRA without them bringing up women in some way or another--either under the guise of "criticizing feminism" (attacking women), or just plain woman-hating. Try it. They can't talk about men's issues without veering into attacking women. It's a fun experiment and worth your time.

You mean like feminists have no valid argument. Just empty and rather childish insults. Nothing of any substance.
I'm not surprised. That is classic feminism.

Typical feminist rhetorical trick. Any critique of feminism or even a particular feminist policy is an attack on women. No, it is an attack on a specific ideology, feminism. You start with the assumption that all women are feminists, more cogently, that feminism is good for women. We do not accept that assumption. After only a few generations of feminism as the dominant operating principle in our society, the results are in. I think our case has been proven for us, by feminism. That it has harmed men and children is indisputable. That it has harmed women is becoming increasingly clear.
Just how is one to discuss custody of children in divorce without discussing the man and the woman, or the legal positions that feminism has made operative in family courts? How does one discuss the imbalance in custody awards without talking about the role and position of feminism in the creation of the disparity?
You are doing what feminists always do, hiding from the role you play, from the ideology you hold, and from your responsibility for the actual personal and social toll feminism has on our society. I understand you are mad at your critics. You should be, they are proving you wrong. They are also proving you can't mount a coherent defense of you ideology or the results of it. We would all be happy to take on the issue of divorce and custody free of feminist participation in the discussion. Non feminist women are always welcome to share their view on the subject.

The biggest thing the MRM has done is they have changed the discourse on social justice, which is something that is feared by those who have controlled the narrative for so long. I had a discussion with a volunteer at a domestic violence center and had watched an interview of the director at another shelter. Both were quiet telling.

When I brought up the subject of lack of DV shelters for male victims, the DV volunteer told me the same thing you did that they provide hotel vouchers for men in need and she had also expressed frustration that when they go into the community to advertise services to men, many men are reluctant to take advantage of them because they are often ridiculed by other men. This fits the narrative that feminists have created around patriarchy / toxic masculinity. All injustices spring from misogyny. Men are not oppressed,. If they stopped associating victimization with weakness and weakness with femininity, men will have the freedom to seek assistance.

The interview with the DV director, however, seemed to fill in the nuance. She was telling the reporter how her shelter decided to advertise to male victims and when they did, the percentage of male clients went from 3% to 17%. The increase was so great that it strained the shelters finances and she was worried that they couldn’t afford it. I had mentioned this to the DV worker and asked why they didn’t implement a similar campaign. If they knew men were being shamed for seeking assistance, why wouldn’t they simply advertise on posters, TV or radio ads, etc. ways where men would not be seen and thuse not shamed for seeking assistance. She was silent.

How does the lack of shelters for men contribute to the abuse of men? For that you need to look at economics. If a shelter were to set aside 10% of beds for abused men, that would represent a fixed cost. A cost the shelter has to pay regardless of whether the beds are used. Giving hotel vouchers represents a variable cost. If men don’t seek shelter assistance, the shelter does not have to spend the money. This creates a disincentive for shelters to advertise to men. Do you see how it’s related?

Do I think shelters don’t want to help men? No, but I think they don’t want to help men at the expense of helping women. Many shelters complain that their beds are full and they have to turn women away. Why wouldn’t they just give women the hotel vouchers? Because then they can’t contain costs. Are they heartless? I think pragmatic. They’d love to help people, but they can’t help if they got out of business. No one knows that better than the MRM. Earl Silverman was an MRA who ran the only DV shelter for men in Canada. He committed suicide because he couldn’t afford to keep the shelter open and the government of Canada refused to provide him funding.

I am male. How is it that MRAs have been fighting for their voices to be heard in important areas, and yet I have never ever ever ever heard of a single one of your issues. Despite literally every level of media being dominated by men? Almost exclusively in fact.

Additionally when have any of you, as men, been victimized or harassed in your lifetimes? I can tell you for me personally: it is zero. Literally zero.

It seems to me like the MRA movement needs to re-examine their approach. Because the loudest voices (the Matt Forneys, the Paul Elams, the W.F. Prices) are INDEED doing you a disservice. As a man I find them all disgusting, despite being well written at times.

The loudest voices will not sway the casual politico. In reality it will only cause the flame of misogyny to burn brighter in the most ignorant. Which, unfortunately, is a majority of men.

" How is it that MRAs have been fighting for their voices to be heard in important areas, and yet I have never ever ever ever heard of a single one of your issues. Despite literally every level of media being dominated by men? "

Grasshopper, how is it you do not?

The idea that most men are misogynists is absurd, and a hateful statement. Most men do not hate women. Only a tiny percent do. I can and do oppose feminism without veering into hatred of women, as do most opponents of feminism. I have seen a little of what the men you cite have done, and to characterize them as disgusting reveals an ideological allegiance to feminism. Any objective and unbiased view would have to admit they make a number of valid points about a number of issues. I can say that without buying into everything any of them or others may have to say.
The reason you don't hear our voice is because our voice is often censored, squelched and spun. That does not mean that we do not have a voice, or that we are not saying important and valid things. That you are at least thinking about those things is a sign of our progress in spite of efforts to suppress us. If you will make an effort to think critically about the subjects and listen to our point of view with an open mind, you may be surprised at how much you agree with us. We love it when we recover someone from the dark side.

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.”

— Valerie Solanas, founder of S.C.U.M. (Society for Cutting Up Men), attempted to murder Andy Warhol in 1968; S.C.U.M. Manifesto (1967)

“Under patriarchy, every woman’s son is her potential betrayer and also the inevi­table rapist or exploiter of another woman.”

— Andrea Dworkin, author and anti-pornography activist; Our Blood (1976) p. 20

“[Rape] is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.”

— Susan Brownmiller, journalist and author, co-founder of Women Against Pornography; Against Our Will (1975) p. 5

“The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist.”

— Ti-Grace Atkinson, author, president of New York NOW and founder of the October 17th Movement; Amazon Odyssey (1974) p. 86

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.”

— Robin Morgan, author and editor for Ms. Magazine; Going Too Far (1978) p. 178

“Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”

— Vivian Gornick, author and educator at The New School; The Daily Illini (25 April 1981)

“I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men … for the men women share their lives with - husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, co-workers.”

— Judith Levine, author and political activist; My Enemy, My Love (1992) p. 3

"There are times when a woman reading Playboy feels a little like a Jew reading a Nazi manual.”

— Gloria Steinem, journalist and activist, co-founder of Ms. Magazine, prominent figure of second-wave feminism; McCall’s (October 1970)

“And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a quantitative difference.”

— Susan Griffin, author and recipient of the MacArthur grant and an Emmy for the play Voices; Rape: The All-American Crime; Ramparts Magazine (1971) p. 30

“I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He’s just incapable of it.”

— Barbara Jordan, United States Representative of Texas; Running as a Woman (1994) p. 266

“Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known.”

— Hillary Clinton, American diplomat and former senator; First Ladies’ Conference on Domestic Violence, El Salvador, 1998

“If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”

— Mary Daly, philosopher and former professor at Boston College (women’s studies and others); “No Man’s Land”; What Is Enlightenment? (Fall/Winter 1999)

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.”

— Sally Miller Gearhart, author and former professor of women’s studies at San Francisco State University; The Future - If There Is One - Is Female (1981)

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”

— Germaine Greer, author, journalist and former lecturer at the University of Warwick; The Female Eunuch (1970) p. 279

“Rape represents an extreme behavior, but one that is on a continuum with normal male behavior within the culture.”

— Mary Koss, researcher and professor of psychology at Kent State University; Sexual Experiences Survey (1982)

“We have long known that rape has been a way of terrorizing us and keeping us in subjection. Now we also know that we have participated, although unwittingly, in the rape of our minds.”

— Gerda Lerner, former professor of women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, helped found the field of Women’s History; The Creation of Patriarchy, Volume 1 (1986) p. 225

“As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not … He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women … the vast majority of men in the world do one or more of the above.

— Marilyn French, author and lecturer, advisor to Al Gore’s presidential campaign; The War Against Women (1992) p. 182

“[The falsely accused] have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them. I think it ideally initiates a process of self-exploration. ‘How do I see women?’ ‘If I did not violate her, could I have?’ … Those are good questions.”

— Catherine Comins, assistant dean of students at Vassar College; TIME Magazine (June 3 1992)

“Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.”

— Catharine MacKinnon, philospher and professor at three universities, presently University of Michigan; A Rally Against Rape (1981)

“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization … to be aware of an alien and hostile force outside of oneself … For some feminists, this hostile power is ‘society’, or ‘the system’; for others, it is simply men.”

— Sandra Bartky, professor of philosophy and gender studies at the University of Illinois; Femininity and Domination (1990) p. 15

“Heterosexuality is a die-hard custom through which male-supremacist institutions insure their own perpetuity and control over us. Women are kept, maintained and contained through terror, violence, and spray of semen.”

— Cheryl Clarke, author and former educator and dean of students at Rutgers University; Words of Fire (1995) p. 244

“If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal—a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students—I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment … of persuading students that women are oppressed.”

— Joyce Trebilcot, author and former professor of philosophy and women’s studies at Washington University; Who Stole Feminism (1994) p. 92

Radfemhub "The Underbelly of a Hate Movement" : http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/radfem-hub-the-underbelly-of-a-hate-movement/

What sparked the SPLC article on the manosphere: http://www.avoiceformen.com/updates/news-updates/agent-orange-files-released/

Register-her doxxes people? I just see names and general locations here:

http://register-her.com/index.php?title=Vanja_Krajina_--_Bigot

Those names and photos were easily found on the internet. There was no doxxing. Just more feminist lies to paint themselves as poor helpless pathetic victims.

Here's what I don't understand about MRAs and other self-proclaimed anti-feminists -- they don't seem to understand that feminism is not a coherent ideology.

Outside of impressionable college co-eds, I frankly doubt that you will find two feminists who agree on everything. In fact you might find two feminists who would be hard-pressed to agree on anything.

I consider myself transgender although I do not cross-dress much anymore. I still consider myself, politically, TG.

There is probably no group of people in America who have both suffered, and profited, from various feminisms more than the male-to-female transgender community.

You have on one hand, old-school second-wave feminists like Janice Raymond who saw transsexuals were some kind of patriarchal plot to destroy womanhood. And on the other hand you see third-wave feminists who are perhaps TGs strongest allies.

Outside of the TG community, you will see feminists disagree on all kinds of stuff. You'll see some argue that lesbianism is the ultimate form of womanhood, while others will insist that heterosexuality is more feminine.

You also see big differences in emphasis between feminists of color, and white feminists. Between religious and anti-religious feminists. Et cetera.

Feminists disagree on a number of points:

* What does it mean to be a woman? What does it mean to be a man?

* What does it mean to be privileged?

* How does male privilege intersect with racial, social and economic privilege?

If I have a point, it is this: it is ridiculous to blame feminists or feminism for the world's problems, because feminism is not some sort of monolithic cult of man-hating.

Progressives who are serious about improving the lives of men (staight, gay, etc.) need to find some feminists they can work with, and start a dialog. Rather than trying to shout them down or mansplain (which seems to be the primary mode of the MRAs).

This is another typical dodge of feminists. "Hey, we ain't really here", "What feminism, nah, just us gals talkin'". Seriously Jim. Feminism is a very real ideology and a very real movement. It consistently filters lines of thought into specific legal and policy initiatives. It has philosophers, legal scholars, lawyers, judges, politicians, activists. It occupies commanding positions in education, law, government, and media. The feminism doesn't exist trick worked years ago, and was responsible in large part for the success of feminism in achieving its policy goals. Their ability to cover up through this trick is gone.
You need to get the new playbook, no one here is buying the old lie. Your list of bullet points sounds like it came straight from some Women's Studies 101 class. Sorry, the propaganda level stuff doesn't work with us. We have seen the real stuff and clearly see its effects on our society. They are not good, because feminism is not good, as Bundini said, from the root to the fruit.

If you would like to see what happens when a men's human rights activist attempts to discuss men's issues with a feminist, wait for Elizabeth Vargas' 20/20 segment. Paul Elam is prevented from raising a single issue because he is bombarded with accusations of misogyny, racism, homophobia and being a rape enabler/supporter/apologist. Jaclyn Friedman assists in this transparent attempt to marginalize men's issues. That's why she deserves condemnation and ridicule.

You see, we already know the futility of discussing men's issues with feminists. We've been attempting it for years and discovered that it is impossible to have a fair and honest discussion about men's issues with people who hate men. Chanty Binx wasn't highlighted on AVfM because her warbling 'Cry Me a River' in response to male suicide rates was particularly cruel or ignorant. It was highlighted because it was so utterly typical of feminism's idea of discussing men's rights. She sums-up feminist compassion for men, and was thus, nothing more than an instructional devise for AVfM newbies.

There is no point discussing anything with people who are so dim-witted that they still cite the wage gap as evidence that women are oppressed by the patriarchy. If there was a single example of an Australian woman earning less than her male colleagues simply because of her sex, feminists wouldn't be whining about it on a blog, they'd be hot-footing it to Fair Work Australia - which would be onto it like white on rice. The reason why they don't, is because they know that Fair Work Australia would have to sit them down, like a small, backward child, and explain to them, very slowly, that if women choose to work fewer hours in lower paying jobs, then they're not going to get as high a salary as men.

Alas, we discovered long ago that trying to explain why men, as a group, get - as opposed to earn - more money than women to people saturated in feminist ideology was (to paraphrase a famous MHRA) like trying to explain Quantum Physics to a baboon. The time has come when MHRAs no longer hold out any hope for an honest exchange of ideas about our issues and concerns with feminists. Your many opportunities to do so have been squandered.

There is no need to fret about it - we don't. Do you know why? It is because we don't need to discuss the rights and welfare of men and boys with feminists - and it is as revealing, as it is sad, that you think that we do. In fact, feminists are no longer even invited to the table. Sites like AVfM have restricted their invitations to the vast number of men and women who have been hurt my the vast array of abuses inflicted on them by feminism. These people are RSVPing in droves and they are as angry as they are diverse - straight, gay, left, right, and from every imaginable race, religion and socio-economic background. This is a disaster for feminists, and we're beginning to suspect that you know it.

Hatchet jobs on Paul Elam, AVfM and the MHRM (like this post and the 20/20 segment) hurt feminism more than we ever could. They are desperate and dishonest attempts to reclaim a narrative that has slipped through your fingers, MHRAs have every confidence that feminists will maintain the breathtaking ineptitude of their response: lying, shaming, damseling - and the tuneless vocals of Chanty Binx. As I have already stated, you are no longer invited to the table. After all, our issues aren't about you anyway - you are irrelevant, as all bigoted dogma-spewing ideologues deserve to be.

Your statement that AVfM doesn't address any men's issues can only mean that, like all feminists who criticize us, you have never been to the site, much less read any of the thousands of eloquent, evidence-based articles which have been posted there over the years. You have made the same mistake as Jaclyn Friedeman, and relied on David Futrelle to cherry-pick out-of-context statements that support your contention that men and boys are evil, disposable rapists who deserve to have their rights and welfare trampled on by a misandric society that only values their utility to women.

So, please, keep doing what you're doing. The MHRM will be eternally grateful.

I post this to inform the public about the current antiquated alimony laws still in existence around the country. This is my alimony horror story. In the no fault divorce state of Florida, the ex had many adulterous affairs with other women (while pregnant with the second and last child) and including her incestuous relationship with her own 20 year old female cousin. She gets rewarded for this and her changed sexual orientation with lifetime alimony by the Hillsborough County Court (Tampa Case No: 05-DR-013627) and I get punished financially. How is this right and just? It certainly isn't and the time to fix such an injustice is now. The duplicity continues and she blogs and writes as well as conducts her day to day life under an assumed last name, only using her legal last name on the driver's license and to cash the hefty checks I write. If you are outraged about this avaricious hypocrite, please get involved to fight the unjust alimony laws around the country. There is no reason why a judge can't order her to return to the workforce. She is a four year university graduate. The children are adults and no longer living in the home. There's no reason why an able bodied, healthy, educated woman can't be instructed by new law and guidelines to fully financially support herself.
The ex filed in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, FL Case No: 13-11991 Division G and on August 21, 2013 the judge ruled for
Order of Dismissal of Temporary Injunction for Protection
"The evidence presented is insufficient under Florida law".
The ex-wife attempted in her demand to muzzle our alimony reform efforts. She even had our 18 year old son testify against me.
Please support alimony reform.
Elvina and Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL - Pays lifetime alimony to woman unable to remarry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l523XAgv_vc

Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL - Pays $4K in permanent alimony to lesbian ex-wife
www.youtube.com
This is Lee Kallett and Elvina Kallett. He pays permanent alimony to a woman who left the marriage because she chose to live a lesbian

I post this to inform the public about the current antiquated alimony laws still in existence around the country. This is my alimony horror story. In the no fault divorce state of Florida, the ex had many adulterous affairs with other women (while pregnant with the second and last child) and including her incestuous relationship with her own 20 year old female cousin. She gets rewarded for this and her changed sexual orientation with lifetime alimony by the Hillsborough County Court (Tampa Case No: 05-DR-013627) and I get punished financially. How is this right and just? It certainly isn't and the time to fix such an injustice is now. The duplicity continues and she blogs and writes as well as conducts her day to day life under an assumed last name, only using her legal last name on the driver's license and to cash the hefty checks I write. If you are outraged about this avaricious hypocrite, please get involved to fight the unjust alimony laws around the country. There is no reason why a judge can't order her to return to the workforce. She is a four year university graduate. The children are adults and no longer living in the home. There's no reason why an able bodied, healthy, educated woman can't be instructed by new law and guidelines to fully financially support herself.
The ex filed in the Circuit Court of the 13th Judicial Circuit, in and for Hillsborough County, FL Case No: 13-11991 Division G and on August 21, 2013 the judge ruled for
Order of Dismissal of Temporary Injunction for Protection
"The evidence presented is insufficient under Florida law".
The ex-wife attempted in her demand to muzzle our alimony reform efforts. She even had our 18 year old son testify against me.
Please support alimony reform.
Elvina and Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL - Pays lifetime alimony to woman unable to remarry http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l523XAgv_vc

Lee Kallett of St. Pete Beach, FL - Pays $4K in permanent alimony to lesbian ex-wife
www.youtube.com
This is Lee Kallett and Elvina Kallett. He pays permanent alimony to a woman who left the marriage because she chose to live a lesbian

“Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), who claim to have sworn off women altogether.”

LMAO! MGTOW have sworn off their government husbands.

Declining to sign binding contracts with power loving government sycophants is a rational decision, whether male or female…but the government refuses to marry men so it’s women who receive the benefit of that relationship.

Contracts with women are inferred when you work with them, live with them or just date them. It is a financially hazardous, irresponsible decision to choose prolonged interaction with someone who has unilateral control over your liberty and can end it with one phone call, either to HR or the police (i.e. inherent moral hazards have predictable results – MGTOW)

I hope the women here find peace with their government husband and encourage them to read how his previous marriages worked out. HINT: Fantastic! You Go GrRRLL!

P.S. Excellent Article! The greatest advertising for MGTOW is a woman, writing without makeup.

Warren Farrell, considered by many to be the father of the modern men's rights movement, has been at it since the '80s.

You've forgotten to say that, before that, he was an active feminist. In fact, the reason he went on to be the "father of the men's rights movement" was -and is- because feminism doesn't cover men's issues and many times actively fights to stop resolutions to such issues (I'm thinking, for instance, of fathers' rights and shared parenting, which you mention and which are oh so frightingly effective).

In fact, the whole men's rights movement was once pro-feminist, but became anti-feminist due to opposition to such things as shared parenting. Feminists promoted the notion that men become more involved in the family but did nothing to protect such an idea after divorce.

Warren Farrell, the aforementioned “father” of the modern MRAs—he openly called date rape “exciting” and said that incest can be a good thing—has recently signed on as a regular AVFM contributor.

Uh, no. He didn't call date rape "exciting" - he said people found it exciting before modern awareness on how date rape was wrong. He never said "incest can be a good thing". This was a distortion of a Penthouse interview about a study he did about incest sponsored by the Kinsey Institute where the interviewer confused the word "gently" for "genitally" and some people stated they "enjoyed" incest - 2 in 600, or ONLY 3% of the interviewees, to be exact. In fact, he stated in the same interview that he was originally afraid of publishing the study due to concerns rapists would use it to justify their rape.

I forgot to tell two things.

1) The study about incest, which was to be published in book form, was never published;

2) He made that study while still a feminist.

Where is my comment I did on Warren Farrell? Put it back on, please! I believe it was not against your comment policy.

I am still looking for a good organisation for men's rights that understands that feminists is our friends but still focus on the rights of men. Can anyone tip me of a GOOD organisation that is good for both men and women but that has the men's angle?

Feminists are not our friends. If you still believe this, you are still lost. Come home brother, we need you.

As usual the feminist response to criticism, especially from the "men's rights movement" is to dismiss the criticism by holding MRA blogs, etc. to standards feminists would never accept themselves. I won't get trapped into making apologies for everything anyone may say in relationship to the issues. Some men are angry and respond that way. When our viewpoints get a seat at the academic, legal and policy table, and an unbiased treatment in the mainstream press, then it will be fair to hold advocates accountable. We do not fear such accountability, as the feminists do by their constant use of censorship, shaming tactics and misdirection.
The typical feminist dodge is clear in your passage about Andrea Dworkin. She was not some fringe radical. She worked with Steinem and other very "mainstream" and influential feminists on issues important to feminists. Dworkin's ideas concerning the inherent coercion of sex has been incorporated by feminists in legal arguments and rulings, has redefined the definition of rape for the purpose of research in many fields, in the law and in policy. Other aspects of her writings have become important parts of feminist philosophy, legal theory and policy initiatives. One charge we make against feminism is that is dodges and hides itself from the public, presents a propaganda face, while doing the work of radicalism.
Men of many backgrounds, academic preparation, and ability to articulate understand the radical and destructive nature and ends of feminism. We are getting better at defining coherent narratives to explain our viewpoint. We are not yet at the point that it can be called a movement, but we are getting there. It is not just a set of specific complaints, but a fundamental disagreement with the ideology of feminism, and its social, legal and political application.
At some point, feminist censorship, shaming tactics and misdirection will no longer work. That is why feminists are desperate to disparage us now that we are just getting started. Feminism has no answer to our challenge that will stand up, and the feminists know it.
Nice try though.

It's actually quite easy to find a men's rights group that doesnt use the same tactics. This article just points out what happens when feminists speak about MRA's. Their ideology requires them to make MRA's seem unacceptable and extreme. There is almost nothing in this article that could not be written about the feminist echo chamber and their comment sections. If you want to see a Men's Rights group that is making legislative change to the raw deal men get, look no further than the National Parents Organization (which had to change their name from Fathers and Families due the left wing smear campaign...like this post). This is where I donate my money, but of course, the author does not have any interest in talking to a group that threatens her ideology.

https://nationalparentsorganization.org/

How is the "Men's Rights Movement" hurting anyone? Women are just upset because men have something that isn't about them other than how men are victimized by women and always have been systematically exploited by them.

https://vimeo.com/86497479

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement