Anti-Misogyny / Emotionally Present / Personal Is Political

Enormous Trouble Over Microcosm Of Hatred

I am amazed to see that an online echo chamber of hatred has managed to gain a mountain of mixed attention, while a group of well-funded pro-lifers who picket an abortion clinic for the express purpose of sexually harassing women in the streets has not. I am referring, of course, to the postering campaign for “men’s rights”, which stirred up a lot of emotion and controversy. And incited me to a critical breach of sarcasm.

Well, somehow or other, a freelance writer emerged to investigate the matter and interview someone about it for The writer, Derek Bedry, found one of my female friends, who invited a mutual female friend of ours along for the interview after I volunteered to join in. We met at a coffee shop just a block away from the highly controversial construction site where at least a couple of conflicts have erupted between MRAs, a few of my friends, and construction workers at the site. He was very courteous, attentive, and professional, and did not attempt to twist what we had to say in any particular manner while asking us follow-up questions. I was actually worried that some of what I said might be taken wildly out of context, and republished in a misleading manner. But that actually didn’t happen:

“It’s really just an echo chamber of misogyny and hatred of women in general,” said Jamie James, who has sparred with Vancouver MRA members in the blogosphere. “This self-victimization that women are evil and trying to tear down men, when you confront these ideas, people sometimes realize that isn’t what they meant when they said they support this movement.”


It didn’t take long before one of the locally run websites published an article attacking Bedry’s journalistic integrity, even going so far as to claim that a photo of a friend of mine tearing down an MRM poster is of Derek Bedry “manufacturing” the news he’s reporting. Because Bedry acknowledges in the above article that both Marc Lepine and Anders Breivik committed terrorist acts fueled by a hatred of women and a radical political opposition to feminism — the very sort of rhetoric and dogma espoused by the voices and activists of the men’s rights movement — MRAs decided to target him first for trolling and then for smearing. But it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to conclude that Lepine and Breivik are linked, through their misogynist and anti-feminist political beliefs, to the movement that promotes the very same dogmatic beliefs that pushed both men (who were already at the brink of a complete breakdown) to pick up a gun and shoot women.

It’s the men’s rights movement. It’s full of rhetoric that blames feminists for patriarchy, and women for problems created and maintained by men discriminating against women. It doesn’t matter that the men’s rights movement doesn’t explicitly promote violence as an answer to anything, because their words incite both non-violent persons to non-violent acts (such as postering an entire street with denials of misogyny), and those who are already violently predisposed to pick up a gun or start building bombs.

Does that mean that individual men’s rights activists are to blame for the actions of a man they never even knew about until he had committed a terrorist act? Fuck no. Don’t be absurd. Does it mean that as a collective, they are partially to blame, for having promoted hatred that would embolden such a man to the point that he actually wrote an anti-feminist manifesto as part of his suicide note on the morning of his murder spree? Yes it fucking does! Is the FBI going to bust the door down in the Houston home of a men’s rights activist when a random terrorist leaves an anti-feminist-manifesto-suicide-note in the wake of murdering dozens of people before taking his own life in Montreal or Oslo? No. But are people going to be even more angry with every individual men’s rights activist if they flat-out deny the existence of a connection instead of being as responsible as they are arrogant, by acknowledging that what happened is a tragedy and that the ideas they espouse are contributing to tragedies like these? Yes. Are people going to hammer on this point (among many, many other grievances) until men’s rights activists get the memo and change the fucking record? Goddamnit, yes. Yes, we fucking will.

It’s just like how erotica will incite both non-violent persons to non-violent internal and external behaviours (such as a guilt complex for jerking off alone, or for cheating on an established sexual partner), and violently predisposed persons to violent internal and external behaviours (such as seeking out a gradual escalation in the magnitude of depicted violence, or acting out in increasingly violent behaviours towards sexual partners). Does anyone hold the “porn industry” partially to blame for violent sexual assaults against women; and the existence of a dominant set of cultural beliefs that assert that if a woman is raped, she’s either lying or asked for it? You fucking bet they do! Is anyone going to arrest Hugh Hefner or Larry Flynt the next time a murderer’s home is searched and found to contain towers of Playboy and Hustler magazines? No. Are people going to be even angrier with them than they already are, when they fail to acknowledge the tragedy, but instead (when pressed) deny the link between violence against women and the publications they own which explicitly aim to objectify women? Yes! And will people continue to hammer on these points among many, many other grievances, until the porn industry changes the way it depicts sexuality? Goddamnit, yes. Yes, we fucking will.

Some feminists will outright oppose all erotica and pornography, arguing that it objectifies women (e.g., Andrea Dworkin — see how William Parent rebukes this claim, by reading a book about feminist philosophy some time). Some feminists will say “Wait a second. Sex workers are women too,” and try to offer viable and safe alternatives for sex workers to continue to work in the industry, but with the end goal of producing erotica and pornography that empowers women instead of objectifying them. See also: the difference between a sex-negative feminist and a sex-positive feminist.

And like the feminist “sex wars” struggles, some feminists will want to permanently censor men’s rights activists and the rhetoric of their movement, while some would prefer to give them just enough rope to hang themselves with. This brings me back to Derek Bedry and the interview I participated in, about these posters. As a group, we considered and discussed the potential benefits, alternatives, and harms associated with going to the press when the posters first emerged. And as a group, we could not reach a consensus. While some argued that any attention we help cast on the men’s rights movement is just feeding the trolls, others (myself included) argued that it is to a much greater benefit that they are exposed for the trolls they are while alternative arguments are offered concerning what feminism is really about. Ultimately, none of us tipped the press off, because we couldn’t agree. They found us anyway:

And like our disagreements over whether or not to tip the press off, we disagreed about how to address the posters. While some argued in favour of tearing them down, painting and writing over them, and/or postering right over them; others (myself included) argued in favour of leaving them up and postering next to them. While some argued in favour of very lengthy and even technical or scientific facts on our posters, others (myself included) argued in favour of very concise and even sarcastic statements on our posters. Ultimately, we used all of these tactics (among others), because we couldn’t agree. And then one of my friends decided to invite a couple of local men’s rights activists to a debate panel for a moderated discussion of whether or not feminism has gone “too far”, before successfully confirming any feminist speakers of the female sex.

She received hate mail and threats by private messages (which she will be reporting to police); and was publicly bullied, shamed, and silenced by a number of my friends and fellow activists. There was talk of boycotting and picketing the space in which the debate was to be held, and she was accused of perpetrating misogyny and hate-mongering by the very act of positing the question, “Has feminism gone too far?” and confirming the first two speakers for the affirmative side of the debate — a total panel of six people was being planned for the event: three for the affirmative (i.e., it’s gone too far), and three for the negative (i.e., it hasn’t gone too far as a whole; if anything, it hasn’t gone far enough). While some argued that this was creating a space to allow the airing of hatred, some (myself included) argued that this was creating an opportunity to give the affirmative side just enough rope to hang itself with (e.g., it’s now illegal to menstruate in Arizona because personhood begins at ovulation — how the fuck has feminism gone too far?) The event organizer has since cancelled it and deleted the event page itself.

Ultimately, what happened is exactly what men’s rights activists wanted to happen (what they would have done if we hadn’t beat them to it): feminists attacked each other* and shut down the opportunity to engage with local members of the men’s rights movement.  Some made absolutely absurd arguments, showing any MRA who was watching that we don’t know how to respectfully disagree. And now they can complain that we aren’t committed to freedom of speech, too, or that we don’t respect democracy, and that we go too far to ensure that the men’s rights arguments are never heard. We’ve become our own trolls. Why do we even need MRAs if this is how we’re going to handle a debate we’re not interested in attending? Especially one which was clearly for the benefit of the greater public, not the feminist community members who have already heard the men’s rights arguments and know that the answer to the question being asked is a resounding NO.

* Update: Since it seems unclear to some of the feminists who were involved in passionate disagreements on the event page, let me make this as clear as possible. These conversations — the bullying, the silencing, the shaming — were happening all over Facebook. Many people were engaged in these attacks, and many (though not all) of them self-identify as feminists. Rest assured, word spread far and wide, and what I have stated is not a criticism of individual people, but of behaviours that represent a fairly serious problem.

But fear not! Jezebel’s own anti-joke chicken was on top of this too, smearing my friend’s name and making sure anyone else who wants to can continue to send her threats and hate mail, by linking her full name to her Facebook profile. The best part is, she didn’t even have all her facts straight before writing this time (not like she did the last time I felt compelled to include a reference to her in my writing, either). She just enthusiastically paints my friend as a hate-monger who had exactly zero plans of providing a balanced debate with female and feminist speakers. I’m just so glad that I suddenly seem like I’m doing a more professional job than an established writer at a well-known blog. So glad, I could punch a puppy. Thanks for that, Katie.

42 thoughts on “Enormous Trouble Over Microcosm Of Hatred

    • I love you too,blog author,although it’s pretty clear you’re a retard. Your own side is lodging death threats against someone for asking questions and you just can’t quite see where feminism may be at fault. Admit it. Feminism is not a scientific discipline or a movement for change, it’s a religious cult. Unquestionable dogma should be red flag No.1.

      “And like the feminist “sex wars” struggles, some feminists will want to permanently censor men’s rights activists and the rhetoric of their movement, while some would prefer to give them just enough rope to hang themselves with.”

      Unfortunately,what men want for themselves is none of any feminist’s or woman’s business,any more than you believe a man should have a say in whether or not you have an abortion. A scapegoat for the group’s failure or an enemy to vent their religious ire upon is red flag No.2 for cultism.

      “And now they can complain that we aren’t committed to freedom of speech, too, or that we don’t respect democracy, and that we go too far to ensure that the men’s rights arguments are never heard. ”

      You people can’t get through a discussion without chastising each other for your (whatever)sm. It’s a wonder you can speak at all. Feminism and freedom are antithetical to one another. In feminism, one can be tried,convicted,and punished on what your perceived intent was,aside from one’s actions. This goes against 2000 years of Western philosophical thought,which had been hashed out in just the type of debated feminists are eager to quash with death threats.Feminist theory,in contrast, is built on an untested,unproven, foundation of rainbows and stardust wishfulness. None of the central tenets of feminism are proven or provable,which is why feminists can’t allow the existence of even a small number of men with a counter-narrative. When empirically tested, each of feminism’s core claims folds like a cheap suit. You have relied solely upon emotions,false claims of “hatred” (i.e.when the truth disagrees with feminism),female privilege, and the goodwill usually offered to those capable of providing something everyone wants,i.e. sex.

      That’s how you sold women’s advancement in the 60’s and 70’s, free and easy sex for the masses.

      You did it again at the DNC, literally showing up as walking vaginas,cheap whores prostituting yourselves for birth control paid for by others,mostly men.

      You feminists would be great entertainment if you weren’t willing to kill others over most of the ridiculous crap you believe. Speaking of that, I note that you forgot to mention Valerie Solanas’ assassination attempt on Andy Warhol,fueled by her feminist beliefs. I suppose it slipped your mind in your rush to pin ideological violence on MRA’s committed by people 30 years before the MRM existed. Oh well. You can’t expect consistency from someone who has denounced empiricism as a “patriarchal plot” against women.You mentioned Dworkin,but I didn’t see her “egalitarian” appraisal of men anywhere in there,nor her calls for violence against them. Nor in your whole rant against supposed MRA “hatred” did I see such classic feminist ideas as “A man is a machine,a walking abortion” or Mary Daly’s egalitarian idea about reducing their numbers to 10% of the population,and describing it as a “cleansing”.

      Since you seem to be such an erudite scholar on all things gender,though, I wonder if you can answer a burning question I’ve had ever since I heard about Patriarchy Theory…Who is the leader of “The Patriarchy”? A worldwide conspiracy to oppress women must have a leader,yes?

      How is “The Patriarchy” able to continue operating for thousands of years across different cultures? Where is the funding coming from? Don’t you think the lack of any visible leader,champion,or backer might be a clue that,in fact, “The Patriarchy” only exists inside that hamster wheel you call a brain? I mean, no one’s been rounded up or come forward as part of a worldwide conspiracy to oppress women in over 5000 years of recorded history? Doesn’t that seem a little fishy to any of you idiots?

  1. Pingback: Four-Month Summary: Action Against Misogyny « HaifischGeweint

  2. Hi, thanks for this article. Can you clarify a couple of points for me?

    You’re saying that Derek Bedry was not the person who was recorded tearing a poster down?

    Did you see that person tear that poster down?

    Do you know the name of the person that tore the poster down?

    Do you know anyone at your protest that you believe probably does know the name of the person that tore the poster down?

    • 1) Yes, that is what I am saying. I’ve met Derek Bedry, and I know the person who is in the photo, and can assure you that they are not the same person.

      2) I wasn’t there. I am one of those feminists who doesn’t believe tearing the posters down will do anything productive. You are asking if I am a direct witness, and I am not.

      3) Yes, I know the name of the person who tore the poster down. As well as names of many people who tore many other posters down, both at the incident from which the photo was taken, and at multiple other similar incidents.

      4) Yes, many people know who tore that poster down, and many people know his name.

      I spotted MRAs writing about their posters being torn down, on their own websites, and claiming that Derek Bedry was manufacturing the news he was reporting. Seeing as how Bedry informed me that his interview with John H was over the phone, rather than in person, it would seem that John H would be talking out of his ass by identifying Bedry as the man in the photo — and Paul Elam, of all people, is especially guilty of this himself, given that he also hasn’t met Bedry and isn’t even local to the area (and thus, has also not met him).

      Three of us, who all know the man who is actually pictured in that photo, sat down for a face-to-face interview with Bedry, who hadn’t even seen the posters up anywhere himself, because they were being torn down so quickly.

      • Thanks for your direct responses.

        I am just some guy that lives in the southwest US, seemingly a million miles away from this. I am not Paul Elam or John H.

        But I ask you directly to pass this message on to the person you say you know is in the photo.

        Please tell him that Derek Bedry *is* being accused of tearing the poster down.

        Tell him the easiest way to show this is false, and the easiest way to show the MRAs are wrong about this, would be for him and Derek to take a picture together.

        There are already plenty of pictures of Bedry available, and one picture of the person that tore the poster down in profile, so all they need to do is take a picture together with Bedry full face and this person in profile posed as he is in the picture of him, presumably in the same clothes.

        It would certainly be better if he were willing to take public responsibility and provide a full face picture as well as write a blog about what he did and why, but it would probably suffice if he and Bedry just take a photograph together. Actually, I truly encourage you to allow this person to write a guest blog post here or to crosspost his blog post if he posts it elsewhere.

        I grew up at a time where the height of liberalism was for the ACLU to defend NAZIs marching in Skokie. I am Jewish and I remember being proud that the ACLU would make that defense.

        I am very dismayed that anyone would tear a poster down. I am saddened that liberalism today seems to subordinate free speech. I think all social justice requires free speech for all and a respect and defense for free speech for all.

        I ask the person that tore the poster down to write a blog explaining his actions and why he believes his actions were moral and just. And invite him to expand on the claim that the posters cover up for some hate organization.

        Will you please pass this comment along to that person you know was in the photo?

        Thank you

  3. The mens rights movement is simply about bringing to light injustices that befall men caused by the western legal system which punishes men more harshly than women who perform similar crimes, a legal divorce system that favors women and can financially destroy men after separation, an education system which prioritizes girls despite statistics that show boys are falling behind girls, the media outlets which increasingly demonize men as useless violent sexual perverts, and feminism itself which many believe is going too far by seeking to disadvantage men like women have been in the past.

    If you check out the mensrights forum on reddit (r/mensrights) you will find a lot of info which I think can give feminists more perspective if they want to know about it. MRM is not about hating women, but of course if you look around your going to find some crazies…. and you’ll find just as many in the feminist camp.

  4. The amount of ignorance in this article is overwhelming.

    The idea that a woman is just as capable of wrong-doing as any man is the sign of an intelligent agent. The idea that she should be responsible for her actions is as feminist as it is possible to be.

    MRA’s generally don’t have an issue with “old feminism”, they have an issue with the feminism that turns women into perpetual victims, the feminism that says that women are always the rapee and men are always the rapist. You can rationalize your old-world arguments all you want, you’re representing an idea that is as old as humanity itself, and that is this:

    Women are weak and must be protected.
    Men are strong and can protect themselves.

    This isn’t feminist, this is a fossil of old-world terrors. Give women equal footing, and nothing more than that, as they are just as capable of causing grief as any man.

    Of course you don’t think so.

    You’re more worried about when you’re next going to get laid than you are about real justice being served.

    • The amount of ignorance in this article is not overwhelming, it is average considering the ideological source.

      The amount of intellectual dishonesty is average, too.

      I have yet, in the midst of all this histrionic tossing around of words like hate, misogyny and the like; even the more creative but no less histrionic attempts, like “microcosm of hatred,” to see one of these individuals make an actual case for the use of those descriptions.

      Never. Not here or anywhere else.

      Derek Bedry wrote an outrageously disingenuous article, alleging MRM ties to mass violence without a shred of evidence. And he presented no evidence because he has none; because there is none.

      He didn’t even show the posters he wrote about because there is no hate speech in them and he knows it. Just as he know the posters also specifically called those who hate and fear women as not being decent human beings.

      It is not remarkable or special or anything but garden variety bullshit bigotry from people that can’t rise above that sort of thing

  5. 1) Mam, I love how you link mens rights with “terrorism” and “building bombs”.
    Men, you can’t have free speech because you are terrorists…

    2) “because their words incite persons to non-violent acts”
    Now we can’t have that, can we… it may undermine female privilege.

  6. Dear non-natives of Scandinavian Countries. I am from Sweden, neighbour country of Norway. I feel I have to respond to this weird text about Marc Lepine and Anders Breivik since it so clearly spread false information.

    “But it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to conclude that Lepine and Breivik are linked, through their misogynist and anti-feminist political beliefs, to the movement that promotes the very same dogmatic beliefs that pushed both men (who were already at the brink of a complete breakdown) to pick up a gun and shoot women.”

    Actually, it would take a complete idiot do make that conclusion because a) Marc Lepine was killed 1989 before internet made it possible for any MRM to exist and b) Breivik wrote about 1000+ pages about him being an crusader against Islam. Also he didnt target women, he targeted leftwing politicians (“socialdemokrater”) and goverment buildings in the capital of Norway.

    Anders Breivik is a serious matter who caused huge tragedy around here. It has been proven beyond all doubt (in Norways largest police investigation ever) that he acted alone. People should not throw his name around in political matters to make the other side “seem bad”. When people threw his name around in our newspapers a high ranking psychiatrist, D. Eberhard not only called bullshit on them.

    He also concluded that clearly Godwins law can be applied to Breivik as well..
    Derek Bedry may be innocent to being in the picture ripping down posters.
    But he still has as a jouralist written a piece where the research was a complete joke.
    If you have any questions on why his research is a joke I d be happy to answer.

    /Erik Wedin, Editor for Aktivarum

    • “Marc Lepine was killed 1989 before internet made it possible for any MRM to exist”

      [sarcasm] Yes, because the women’s suffrage movement (to win the right to vote and be considered a legal person), which began prior to WWI, relied entirely upon a matrix of social media to organize itself. [/sarcasm]

      “…that he acted alone.”

      [sarcasm] Indeed, because this should always definitively prove, in and of itself, that decades and decades of anti-feminist and misogynist writers railing against women for entire volumes of books, has no bearing at all on the private thoughts or personal motivations of someone who would pick up a gun after brain-washing himself by reading those materials as if they were the gospel, until the day he acts alone and commits a mass murder. [/sarcasm]

      That’s just… air-tight logic there, bro.

      • HaifischGeweint

        1) I wasnt talking about the suffrage in early 1900s I was talking about men and during present conditions. Not only do we live in entirely different times. We also have the substancial issue about men NOT being women. Meaning logically men succeeding doesnt mean women do and women succeeding doesnt men men do.

        2) You are using a negative statement (prove they dont..) You do not prove negatives in science! Neither does your argument stand for the legal premise “Innocent until found guilty” You just assumed they are guilty and asked me for evidence they are not. This makes me curious. If you neither respect science, nor law. What do you base your opinion on?

        3) Your assumtions on motivations are way off target! Breivik did not even read that islam-critical stuff as gospel. I told you I live in Sweden, neighbour to Norway, Do you have any idea how much this case was discussed and debated over here? Unless you work for the Norwegian Police investigation I cant see you having any credible sources into Breiviks mind.

        4) I have studied Breiviks “manifesto” as well as the source material. He only read the parts he agreed on and he ignored the rest (hardly gospel reading) In many ways he treated the source material the same way islamist terrorists treat islam. By the same logic the entire Islam would be a hate-group. Also not only did Breivik use islam-critical sources he also got inspiration from several other people including Winston Churchill, George Orwell, Mahatma Gandhi, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Edmund Burke, Bernard Shaw, Mark Twain, and lets not forget the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

        “Those new “hate speech” codes the Left is already clamoring for might find it easier just to list the authors Europeans will still be allowed to read.” Mark Steyn

        How about that for logic?

  7. Funny how these days it’s the feminists who are conservative old-school and holding on to gender stereotypes while the men’s rights people are progressive and challenge gender roles. Looks like equality was never meant to extend to include men.

  8. Its good that the general public are getting a chance to see how bullying and abusive feminists are to the male component of the gender debate and any feminists that don’t toe the line.

    To the OP, if you are concerned about feminism’s public image and bad behaviour, why are you supporting DB article, which as we both know is full of the usual false accusations and smear tactics typically employed by feminists instead of reasoned responses?

    • I support his article because I respect his journalistic experience and professional opinion more than I care about the hurt feelings of a microcosm of people who claim that “female privilege” exists, and who blame women for the problems men face as a result of discriminating against women.

      • You didn’t actually answer my question. If you are concerned about feminism’s public image and reputation, why are you supporting an article that’s full of strawmen, false accusations and intellectual dishonesty?

        • I did answer your question. The only straw man arguments, false accusations, and intellectual dishonesty that are associated with that article are in the comments about it. Such as your comment:

          “…why are you supporting an article that’s full of strawmen, false accusations and intellectual dishonesty?”

          • You are chosing to respond my to questions about your support of a dishonest article with more dishonesty and projecting the characteristics of the article in question, onto me. Which again leads to the question, why behave like this in public if you are concerned about feminism’s reputation which is already tarnished and getting very strong opposition and criticism for exactly this kind of bad behaviour?

      • But female privilege does exist, theres no question about it: The fact that the data shows gender symetry in things like intimate partner violence, yet there is no money spent on any services for battered men. Or female only scholarships at the fedral level, while there are no male only scholarships at the same level because that would be sexism, even though there are currently 4 female studnets for every 1 male student in universities.

        Not to mention things like the unbalanced nature of family courts, divorce law & such travesties as VAWA.

        Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for equal rights between men & women, but at this point in time, women in the western world are the most pampered, self enabled, propped up, supported & self entitled group in the history of humanity. Women have become the new leisure class: To argue otherwise is an indefensible position, that flies in the face of demonstrable data.

      • “I support his article because I respect his journalistic experience and professional opinion”

        Appeal to authority fallacy.

        “more than I care about the hurt feelings of a microcosm of people who claim that “female privilege” exists,”

        They have facts to back it up. But apparently you don’t have any to disprove it.

        “and who blame women for the problems men face as a result of discriminating against women.”

        This is an outright lie. Show some evidence or don’t make the accusation.

        • OK then. Next time you get into some sort of accident or develop a terrible illness while homeless, make sure you walk away from any professionals who have experience dealing with your particular ailments, because otherwise, you’d be committing a logical fallacy. Wouldn’t want to make yourself look bad.

  9. Pingback: Feminist fear dialed up to frappe | A Voice for Men

  10. Dear former shark. What you say about MRA’s is completely false. MRA’s are people (men and women) who want true equality for men in today’s society. Education, homelessness, divorce, custody, health and the list goes on- women are the more privileged. Now they are just the facts. How you interpret those facts is up for your mind to do, but there is an overwhelming amount of research which clearly articulates that men are at a disadvantage.

    By the way, your point about menstruating in Arizona, I highly doubt it.

    Let’s say you are on a ship with both men and women. The ship is sinking and there are very few lifeboats. If you are a woman what is your chance of getting onto a lifeboat? If you are a man what is your chance of getting onto a lifeboat? And we live in a male privileged society? Yea right. And what about the war dead, mostly men? Male privilege? What about prostate cancer funding versus breast cancer funding? Misogyny?

    I recommend manwomanmyth for a list of youtube videos that show quite clearly the state of affairs.


      You’re right. They DIDN’T make menstruation legal, it has to do with abortion.

      Sigh… So many people snapping at each other! I’ve even read where some feminists want to forcibly sterilize men and kill any who refuse… somehow they think tyranny will bring peace on the earth!

      And this woman who allows her friend to be attack and threatened by both sides, that is NOT a friend, you don’t let your friends be treated like that fro just questioning something you believe… she got death threats for cripes sakes!

      I believe in truly equal rights. I have looked at an MRM site, A Voice For Men and I didn’t see anything on there that was misogynistic! I saw that there ARE men being harmed by woman! It happens, some woman CAN be abusive and to assume otherwise is foolish! Feminism was originally supposed to be about equal rights but some feminists are treating men as lesser and criminals for JUST being male and THAT is sexism! To assume every man is automatically a rapist or a criminal or lesser just on sight IS sexism! God, I even read a comment on a blog about how a woman planned on treating any born sons as garbage to spiritually kill them because she hated men! There really are abusive woman out there! NO child should be mentally (spiritually) or physically neglected! It sickens me what I read on some of these feminist sites, it isn’t equality at all, it’s hate and cruelty towards men with no distinction for any individual’ man’s actions… if you’re male according to them, you’re a criminal and garbage! THAT is NOT equality it is tyranny and hate!

      So if you’re wondering why men have a movement, maybe it’s because some feminists really ARE out of control and have become hateful sexists themselves and like any human, these men want to make a support and activist site to stand for their right as HUMAN BEINGS! Don’t assume every MRM member or group is bad, look into what they say. I have and I, from an equal rights perspective, have found that there really is abuse and hate towards men that does fall under the definition of sexism. So take people as they are, do not make snap judgments based on gender, for to do so is discrimination based on sex – sexism.

      • There’s a time and a place for discussions about lateral violence, and that time and place is not literally any time a self-identifying feminist is trying to discuss how misogyny impacts women. That would be called derailing the discussion.

        That is something I find far too common among MRAs, whose primary priorities include turning every conversation they can into one about how this elusive man-hating feminist you describe is represented in virtually every feminist.

        That is not how to have a conversation. It’s how to lecture feminists about what you think they have going on in their heads before even taking the time to understand their politics individually. You know. The exact thing you apparently think I and all other feminists do to MRAs, when we, according to you, make “snap judgments” of them.

        You can’t have demand that everyone else stops the very thing you’re doing without inviting further speculation on yourself and the values you claim to uphold, representing yourself as a hypocrite to anyone observing this interaction, or giving an air of projecting (that’s Freudian for “NO U!”)

  11. According to your logic, you can be blamed for the shooting at the Family Research council, for you promote an environment that leads, however indirectly, to such acts.

    I take it logic is not your strong suit.

  12. Really the MRAs didn’t want this it seems more like hte feminists don’t want to it I mean if women commit roughly half to DV case then that really does make them half the problem and why should I care about your feelings when you are the ones waving box cutters arround like 9/11 hijackers

    • On this blog, you’re only talking to me. And I wasn’t at the incident in which a single person had a box cutter in their hand while they made non-violent gestures with their body as someone tried repeatedly to engage their attention.

      I saw the video. No one was “waving” it around like a hijacker, or in a threatening way. And as for everyone else who was there? They were carrying fucking paint scrapers.

      Again: you are not addressing those people on this blog. You’re addressing me only (unless they engage on this blog as well), and I wasn’t there with them for that event.

    • Go right ahead. Observe all the fucks I give.

      Spoiler: there are none.

      Addendum: I say that with the impression that we don’t know each other, or if we do, you’re one of the people who has decided to open an emotional chasm between us since I published this. No one else has reason to question my motives or my “credibility” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean on a blog like this).

  13. Pingback: The U of T Student Union needs our help. | A Voice for Men

    • Note that the AVFM website claims that feminists “claiming to be MRAs” made threats against a feminist in the events described in this post, then points to this post as the source for that information — even though no such claim is/was ever made. Threats were received by MRAs, and personal attacks were made by feminists. At the same time, and all directed towards the same person, passively (e.g., not in her inbox, but in the comments on someone else’s status) and actively (e.g., directly to her inbox).

      Also note that the AVFM website claims this blog is a “feminist website”. If by “feminist website”, they mean “written by someone who allies themselves politically with feminism, but is not always writing about feminism”, then fine. Unlike AVFM, I actually write about all sorts of subject matters, and not just one single topic I have a gripe with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s