Are mens’ rights websites dangerous hate groups? Chuck Rudd calls the Southern Poverty Law Center out for mission creep.
The Southern Poverty Law Center—a non-profit civil rights organization that made its bones going after the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis—has turned its cannons on my virtual homeland: The Manosphere. The SPLC, created in 1971 by civil rights activist Morris Dees, publishes a quarterly “Intelligence Report” covering the latest movements and trends among so-called extremists and hate groups. This quarter’s issue features no less than three articles covering the Manosphere.
First, what is the SPLC’s stated purpose?
The Southern Poverty Law Center monitors hate groups and extremists throughout the United States and exposes their activities to law enforcement agencies, the media and the public. We’ve crippled some of the country’s most notorious hate groups by suing them for murders and other violent acts committed by their members.
To expose the rampant hatred and seething violence of the Manosphere, the group’s lengthiest piece mentions a handful of high-profile cases of men committing acts of violence against women.
The SPLC report begins with Thomas Ball who last year set fire to himself at the footsteps of the Cheshire Co., New Hampshire courthouse after a decade long child custody battle. They discuss George Sodini, the involuntarily celibate lunatic who sought revenge against women by shooting up a women’s fitness center. The SPLC report mentions Anders Breivik, the Norwegian right-wing, anti-Jihadist, anti-feminist who killed 77 of his fellow Norwegians. They mention Scott Evans Dekraai who recently killed his ex-wife and five others after a custody dispute. They also cover the crimes of Marc Lepine and Darren Mack and sprinkle crumbs of admittedly supportive comments from Manosphere bloggers and website commenters.
What the SPLC doesn’t do is connect the words written at sites like A Voice for Men and The Spearhead and others to violent action against women. It’s overt guilt-by-association rather than guilt itself. None of the violent men mentioned—or Thomas Ball who committed violence against himself—were associated with the Manosphere. No forums; no known comments; no known web affiliations. None were a visible presence on the sites targeted by SPLC, and there have been no reported cases of men linked to these sites committing criminal acts or engaging in violence.
♦◊♦
At the widely read blog Marginal Revolution, economist Tyler Cowen recently linked to a piece of research which finds that the increase of porn usage in various countries is not associated with an increase in sexual violence. In fact, the increase of porn—which feminists have at one time or another called misogynistic or hate-based—is correlated with a decline of sexual violence against women all across the world.
I’d argue that Manosphere sites have a similar effect. There’s no question that a lot of content in the Manosphere is unsavory and offensive. Some of that is for, as it is called in the internet, ‘lulz’. Some is an airing of grievances or just irrational frustration that might otherwise manifest itself violently. This is the “safety-valve argument” that has been put forth by scholars such as Columbia University president Lee Bollinger and famed jurist and legal scholar Richard Posner who favors someone writing rather than just passively staring at a screen.
This argument also has some empirical evidence to back it up. Researchers from the University of Kansas and the University of Wisconsin studied the blogging patterns of several dozen prominent political bloggers and found that the most commonly-cited reason for entering the political blogosphere was “to blow off steam”. Perhaps Sodini, Ball, or Mack would have benefited from a forum outside of their own head.
The SPLC’s report suggests that the group is either behind the times or hard up for opponents. They are brick and mortar; the internet is fluid. The groups like the KKK that the SPLC previously condemned were ones that pushed for violent action. But the websites of the Manosphere are loosely affiliated networks of men with similar frustrations – not similar desires to act in violent ways. The KKK, the Nation of Islam, and neo-Nazis have buildings and P.O. Boxes and franchisees and mailing lists and meetings and, hell, uniforms. And most importantly, they have a hierarchy and chains of command. All of this is infrastructure for concerted violent attacks which are the ultimate—and rightly confronted—fear.
♦◊♦
Roosh V, a popular seduction blogger and author, was mentioned in the list of “misogynist” bloggers. Libertarian outpost Reason magazine giggled at the SPLC’s reliance on a blog called “ManBoobz” and at the group’s turn from gutting organizations that openly state their violent intentions to badgering internet writers and ex-pat PUA bloggers. Reason spots the ridiculousness of the report:
Take note, America: Having consensual sex (Roosh is not a rapist, but a seducer*) with someone you don’t actually like and then never calling her/him again will land you in a reputation-ruining** SPLC report.
*and a pig
Roosh is a Larry Flynt type—part Gonzo, part self-styled cad. He has faced the ire of foreign governments and their citizens before, so this is nothing new. The question isn’t whether Roosh is offensive or unethical; the question is whether an influential think tank is right in singling out non-violent websites whose main focus is seduction or men’s rights. Instead of being targeted for his violent or hateful intentions, Roosh drew attention during the course of his grand European tour in which he hopped from country to country, carrying out a “scorched disco” strategy and writing books about his encounters. After traveling through Iceland and Denmark, some Estonian bloggers began to post about the coming beard-tornado that is Roosh. But the response of the Estonians or the Danes or the Icelanders was far different from that of the SPLC. People in those countries recognized Roosh as an undesirable—an asshole, they might say—but they didn’t label him a perpetrator of hate or extremism. To put Roosh V on the SPLC watch list would be to track Andrew Dice Clay or Tucker Max. And that Roosh is on that list calls into question the other anti-Manosphere arguments put forth by the SPLC.
Roosh offered speculation for his placement in the crosshairs of Dees and company:
The reason SPLC included me was because game overlaps with a lot of the men’s rights issue. Anything that empowers men is hereby declared misogynistic, and they will attack it. You don’t see them attacking commercial publications like Ask Men, Maxim, or The Art of Manliness because those teach guys how to be obedient worker bees who buy consumer products. The SPLC list had none of those sites.
Asked if he thinks his blog and his books will be harmful to women in a Sodini-like manner, Roosh responded:
Nothing I’ve written will harm women. If anything, it will give them sexual pleasure from the men who successfully seduce them with my teachings. The irony of [the SPLC’s argument that I am] hating American women is that I’m teaching thousands of guys how to have sex with them and therefore give them orgasms, which of course is one of the most pleasurable human experiences.
Picture Fred Phelps cheekily offering his “services” to homosexuals.
♦◊♦
The SPLC’s organizational intentions are virtuous on their face, but it seems that they’ve run out of ammunition to sustain their relevance. Thus, the umbrella terms “hate group” or “extremist organization” are cast over these de-centralized, non-organized websites and blogs. This is a far cry from tackling actual, demonstrable impairments of civil rights or personal freedoms. It’s called “mission creep”, and it’s kind of creepy.
Founder Dees has a bit of a sketchy past himself. He has been criticized for using his organization as a vehicle for his own personal gain. Part of the mission creep involves railing against caricatures of bigotry and extremism in order to gin up fear and the donations that closely follow. An article written in 2000 by Ken Silverstein for Harper’s quotes a former SPLC lawyer saying that the group sought to profit off of “black pain and white guilt.”
Dees’ divorce records show a man who was seemingly more extreme in deed than any of the bloggers mentioned in the SPLC report. Questions of the legitimacy of the divorce proceedings could not be verified by the SPLC’s public relations department (though I will update if they return my call). The documents detail Dees’ volatile marriage to his ex-wife, Maureene:
Although Maureene was subjected to a number of degrading sexual episodes by Morris during the marriage which will be discussed hereafter, neither Morris nor Maureene ever wanted or sought a divorce until Morris established his permanent relationship with Vicki Booker McGaha in August of 1977. It was Morris’ absolute refusal to give up his mistress, whom he was supporting and whom he had made pregnant, that directly caused termination of Maureene’s marriage and forced her to institute these divorce proceedings.
And two years later, amidst Dees’ cheating, he gave permission to Maureene—to whom he was still married—to begin seeing other men. In one incident, Dees and a private investigator set up Maureene in a sting. Dees and the P.I. busted out of a bathroom and began snapping pictures of Maureene and her lover in bed together. From the docket:
Morris was acting crazy, and Maureene thought he was going to kill everybody in sight. He told her that he had five detectives with him (R.592). He hit her and gave her a busted jaw. (R. 592).
If the divorce document is true, it is interesting to note that the SPLC is ignoring the violent misogynist in their own midst while taking aim at rhetoric contained on a few websites.
—Photo: -Tripp-/Flickr
About Chuck Ross
I moderated the sub-reddit for mens rights up until yesterday. It was absolutely ridiculous that they put it on their list. We are still waiting to hear back from them, as their reasoning was rather poor, outdated and which cherry picked a comment by one guy on a site where anyone can post comments. We need better moderation, but the site wasn’t what they portrayed it.
You don’t understand what they’re up to:
http://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2012/03/09/splc-2011-hate-map-another-year-of-lies/
“The Southern Poverty Law Center has released its annual “Hate Map” fund-raising tool today. The SPLC claims it has designated 1,018 “hate groups” in the US in 2011.
Let’s have a look those numbers, but first, a few background facts are in order:
1. There is NO legal definition of “hate group,” which is why even the FBI does not, cannot, designate “hate groups.”
The SPLC uses the deliberately meaningless term “hate groups” in its fund-raising materials because it allows them to denigrate groups and individuals with which it disagrees without accusing them of any actual crimes, as noted in the last line of the “Hate Map” legend:
“Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity.”
The fact of the matter is that the whole reason for a “Hate Map” is to imply that the “groups” on it are violent criminals. This has been the foundation of the SPLC’s ongoing fear campaign for more than 30 years. To this end, the “Hate Map” legend also states that:
“Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”
Marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, etc. are all Constitutionally protected under the Bill of Rights. The SPLC deliberately conflates these basic civil rights with criminal acts and “hate group” activities because it frightens their mostly elderly donor base.”
(…)
Yes, thank you. I found out last night the whole story. It’s such a shame they do this kind of shit.
Every men’s rights site that I have ever participated in has been adamant about not advocating violence. Anytime someone broached violence in a capacity that wasn’t obvious satire, they were censored.
The SPLC witch-hunting operation has nothing to do with stopping violence:
http://rkeefe57.wordpress.com/2009/09/03/the-splcs-definition-of-hate-group/
“The SPLC is a self-appointed “watchdog” group. It is not subject to any review or external oversight. In its PR press releases, the SPLC claims that it “tracks hate groups,” however, even the FBI doesn’t track “hate groups” as there is no legal definition for the term.
Lack of a legal definition for “hate” is no hindrance to the Southern Poverty Law Center, however, as it has devised a definition of its own.
In March, 2008, during a highly scripted, pre-recorded, “live call-in” webcast, the SPLC’s public relations guru, Mark Potok, laid out his organization’s definition of what constituted a “hate group.”
“…a “hate group” has nothing to do with criminality… [or] potential for violence…” Rather, as Potok put it, “It’s all about ideology.”
It’s all about ideology. SPLC founder, Morris Dees’ ideology. The “law center” has no interest in criminality or violence. All that matters is whether or not a group conforms to Morris Dees’ worldview.
As such, immigration reform groups, (“anti-immigrant” and “nativist” in Dees-ese), “radical” traditionalist Catholics, (not unlike the tens of millions of Latino immigrants Dees favors), fundamentalist Christians, “neo-Confederates,” (a label of purely Potok-ian origins), publishers, and individual churches have all earned the SPLC’s scarlet H.
The fact that none of those groups have broken a single law means even less to Mr. Dees than the fact that they are all engaged in legal, Constitutionally protected activities. The “law center” has little interest in legalities.
This is precisely the reason that the SPLC hides behind spurious, meaningless labels, like “hate group,” because if they actually accused these groups of “hate crimes” they would soon find themselves in court, charged with libel.”
(…)
Yep, it seems to be the one thing they actually WILL censor. Even when AVfM published Thomas Ball’s manifesto, they excluded the parts that gave instructions on how to carry out violence.
I’m also of the opinion that had any of the violent men SPLC is desperate to associate with the MRM actually ever FOUND the MRM, they’d have been less likely to commit violence, not more. There is nothing more likely to drive someone to a desperate act of murder and/or suicide by police than feeling entirely isolated and alone in your problems. Social isolation leads to feelings of powerlessness and hopelessness, and its that powerlessness and hopelessness that drives disturbed and damaged people to do such things.
The entire SPLC thing is ridiculous. Utterly.
A really good point. AVfM and The Spearhead and any other Manosphere blog which has covered any of the incidents mentioned by SPLC – none of them said anything about committing acts of violence; none of them suggested sites to learn how to commit violence.
“I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles. And then make them clean up the mess.” – Paul Elam
Care to defend this then?
Care to post the link so people can see it in it’s full context, including the line that follows saying something along the lines of “I don’t actually mean this, I’d never condone violent action for any reason” and then an explanation for why he said it. I also believe the article includes a comment regarding how he suspects manboobz will try and use what he says to paint the entire MRM as promoting violence and hate against women.
That said, read the comment again…You are aware it is speaking of defending themselves.. excessively sure, but still self defence. Given the support feminist groups have given for battered women syndrome being a viable legal defence for MURDER, I’d hardly say it’s fair to pretend this view is unique to the MRM.
Nope, would you care to defend the scum manifesto? Or any of the other dozens of similar sentiments? Feminists call for violence against men all the time, noone brands them a hate group.
“The SPLC’s report suggests that the group is either behind the times or hard up for opponents.”
BOTH!
This is a George Soros funded, stridently leftist organization that’s run out of Hate Groups to hate. They are not a Civil and Human Rights organization. They have a political agenda and behave as political operatives for the Democrat Party. Nothing wrong with that, but they should stop being so dodgy about it when it’s so blatantly obvious.
Have they even seen the RadFem Hub, Feministing or Jezebel? There are some very compelling examples of hostility and hatred towards men and boys at those sites – and in the RadFem Hub’s case they promote “eradication of males”, gender selective abortion (males only) and chemical castration. But for some reason the SPLC doesn’t consider that the same thing. MMmmm…
While The Spearhead and A Voice for Men can get a little edgy at times, particularly in the comments, there is a zero tolerance policy towards violence of any kind. If anyone so much as hints at it their identity is tracked down and they’re subject to being reported, (fyi-this has yet to happen). These are men and women subjectively criticizing and analyzing the innate nature of the fairer gender, and the injustice and inequality of feminist governance.
We realize this is not Politically Correct and subject to scrutiny from the Thought Police, but we very much realize that men need a place to talk and let off some steam about things that are bothering them, as you alluded; leeway is given exactly for this reason. To the MRA, these sites are an oasis in a world of misandry. That’s a good thing.
If only we could have reached men like Thomas Ball, George Soldini, et al sooner, I guarantee every effort would have been made to stop them…up to and including physical intervention. Sadly, because the MRA community is so marginalized in the mainstream, they have no one to reach out to and listen to them.
Thank you Chuck and TGMP for covering this!
It can’t be stated enough that genocide advocates RadFem Hub are now *asking for donations* to be made to SPLC. This is who SPLC has attracted to their support base.
“A zero tolerance policy towards violence”
Then how do you explain this comment from last February? It received 45 upvotes from Spearhead commenters and only 13 downvotes. No one said anything in response to this
“George Sodini is going to look like a kindergarten kid compared to what’s going to happen when real men who are real pissed off eventually decide they have had enough and do it in a well planned way. A way in which they will get away with it. Try these on for size. How hard is it for any man to figure out things like this.
1. Place poisonous gas canisters into a mall. Detonate at a busy period. 80%+ will be women. The men will mostly be manginas.
2. Poison the water supply in girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.
3. Make false 911 DV calls and then shoot the cops with a long range high powered rifles. If enough men did this no cop would answer a 911 DV call ever again. There is no way to protect a cop from a high powered sporting rifle at night. None.”
Yea I feel really sorry for the guy who beat up his four year old daughter and then in a tantrum lit himself on fire and called for the murder of women because he was unable to get custody. So unfair. Poor men. Not allowed to beat up little girls anymore. What’s next are they gonna give those broads the right to vote? And as for that seduction nonsense, its dehumanizing manipulation. Teaching men to see women as objects which does in fact lead to violence against women. I don’t visit a lot of men’s rights groups because let’s face it men have all the rights in this country, its the gender equivalent of reverse racism give me a break. There are many legitimate men’s issues (I wouldn’t call them “rights” issues) that GMP and probably most men’s websites address. But you can’t pretend that theres no problem with men going to certain websites to seek validation for violent behaviors and who are then more likely to act out again and again because even if the people around them try to help, they still have a community of similarly ignorant people telling them “yea hit that bi@!!”
Easy for you to engage in libel when the person is dead, you piece of human excrement
The whole point of him being driven to frustration is because he ***did not*** “beat up his daughter”, but was treated as if he did. The whole freaking point is that he was driven to insanity due to the false treatment.
He admitted to smacking his 4 year-old in the face.
Proof?
He admitted to it in the letter the media deemed his last statement. http://fathersforlife.org/doc/Tom_Ball.pdf
My dad slapped my once when I was a child for saying something horrible to my mother. I don’t think its the best disciplinary method in the world, but its miles away from being “a danger to your children.”
” don’t visit a lot of men’s rights groups ”
Yes. That’s fairly obvious.
notbuyingit: “Yea I feel really sorry for the guy who beat up his four year old daughter and then in a tantrum lit himself on fire and called for the murder of women because he was unable to get custody.”
Dehumanising and attacking the character of a dead person. Strike one.
notubygingit: “So unfair. Poor men. Not allowed to beat up little girls anymore.”
Assumptions and unfair generalizations. Strike two.
notbuyingit: “I don’t visit a lot of men’s rights groups because let’s face it men have all the rights in this country, its the gender equivalent of reverse racism give me a break.”
Not bothering to actually visit the sites you’re bemoaning. Strike three.
Lumping all men in with the men at the top. Strike four.
Thanks to these sentences, I’m not listening to the rest of your diatribe. Strike five, you’re out.
Nice take down eagle.
Strident radical feminists don’t realize how much of their hatred and issues they reveal in only a seven sentence post.
I certainly did not detect a “strident radical feminist” in #notbuyingit’s response. More like common progressive sentiment as well as a lack of experience with Men’s Rights.
I’ll also point out that general sentiment is that men still have more power in more situations in more places and classes of society. Fighting against that is/will be difficult and take a long time to change. You might take the opportunity to be educational instead of hitting back with a “nice take down” in the future.
You want me to be educational with someone who makes statements like “So unfair. Poor men. Not allowed to beat up little girls anymore.”, “I don’t visit a lot of men’s rights groups because let’s face it men have all the rights in this country, its the gender equivalent of reverse racism give me a break.”? Statements that marginlize and erase men like me who have been hurt?
Uh-uh. Sorry, but my patience has worn thin. They want to be educated, they have to earn it. They come out spitting venom, they lost that right. I’m tired of it, I’m tired of people painting over me so I don’t exist, as one of my articles requests in the end.
read this and then read #not’s post again and then see if you can count up how many of the dismissive tactics she uses.
http://goodmenproject.com/ethics-values/what-about-teh-womenz-mens-rights-gender/
I’ll also point out that general sentiment is that men still have more power in more situations in more places and classes of society. Fighting against that is/will be difficult and take a long time to change. You might take the opportunity to be educational instead of hitting back with a “nice take down” in the future.
And it might do you some good to not hide behind “but men still have most of the power” when people point out how the system harms men. We are repeatedly told it doesn’t matter who has it worse. If that’s the case then why the constant reminders that men share gender with those in power as if it actually means something?
“If that’s the case then why the constant reminders that men share gender with those in power as if it actually means something?”
Do they?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIrVgKtktfA&context=C48c4477ADvjVQa1PpcFMddKnhdVVU9TIZStlLLmApwHXizkyufIA=
Feminist logic 1010
-> Bill Gates has a penis.
-> I have a penis
-> Therefore I have power
Ergo, if I suffer injustice, intolerance and biggotry that I never earned on an individual level, I need to “shut up and take it like a man” since I own a penis, just like Bill Gates.
#notbuyingit,
The OP is not about whether or not Thomas Ball had a good reason to self-immolate. It’s about the accuracy of the SPLC’s report labeling such sites that do sympathize with Ball’s circumstances to live up to “hate site” status.
On seduction sites: I’ll admit that they aren’t “nice”, but I’m not sure that they should be. The central theme of seduction sites is curbing what’s called “one-itis”. And it is extreme one-itis that manifests itself as domestic violence or widespread social violence. Roissy and Roosh – to name the two biggest ones that I’m most acquainted with – basically compel men to think in terms of their own self-worth and the value placed on their time. Yeah, much of the discussion comes off as harsh and critical of women. But those sites wouldn’t advocate any sort of violence towards women if only because it indicates a very unhealthy attachment to just that one woman. So seduction guys might not oppose domestic violence and such for the same reasons that a feminist would, but they oppose it just the same. If a man is at a point that he’s even thinking of committing an act of violence against a woman (unprovoked), then he’s done something wrong along the way.
As far as advocating hitting women: I challenge you to find one link or even a comment on any of the sites mentioned by SPLC which supports men hitting women *for no reason*. Yes, you’ll read supportive comments for men who hit *back*, but you won’t see any guys who think that its OK for a man to just wield his fists whenever he wants with no questions asked.
Chuck writes:
“As far as advocating hitting women: I challenge you to find one link or even a comment on any of the sites mentioned by SPLC which supports men hitting women *for no reason*. Yes, you’ll read supportive comments for men who hit *back*, but you won’t see any guys who think that its OK for a man to just wield his fists whenever he wants with no questions asked.”
In counterpoint to a popular feminist sight that does advocate women hitting men:
ht tp://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have
@ #notbuyingit i think we have a problem here Sir this pseudonym you are using seems to be to close to the my pseudonym if you are new here i suggest you change it to something else SIR.
You know, it might behoove you to know what the fuck you’re talking about before you open your mouth. Just sayin’.
Yes, PUAs do not hurt women, but they have hurt a ton of men. Scammers like this guy take inexperienced men, and make them weirder, more asocial and turn them into complete conspiratorial nutjobs who view women as a “skill” or a “task”.
1) See woman you like
2) Introduce yourself, and talk to her as you would with any other human being
3) If she seems excited with you making more and more intimate gestures, looks and topics, ask her out
4) Repeat until you find a woman who says yes
Re: Getting laid.
I apologize that these 4 steps aren’t anywhere as exotic as bullcrap that Roosh and other scammers sell to gullible men for a buck. I deeply apologize that there is no super-duper-mega secret conspiracy that has been hidden away from men about getting dates…
Yeah, I’ll go talk to a woman about Ron Paul or which team Peyton Manning is going to play for next just like I do with my friends. Your 4 step process is limited because it presumes similar end goals for any random interaction. You want a man to identify a woman he like-likes and then talk to her like he would someone he merely likes. Besides the bravado or rhetoric that goes along with the persona, Roosh et al hope to give men who would otherwise strike out against particular women a chance at upward mobility. If their course of normal conversation isn’t good enough to gain them audience with the woman they do “like like” then perhaps there is something that guy can do to improve his chances. Not saying that any of it is perfectly ethical, but let’s be clear about what “seduction steps” are used for.
I’m sorry, but what are you, a kid in the 6th grade? Find a woman you “like-like”? Perhaps a better way to talk to a woman that you’re attracted to is to hand her a note that says “Do you like me?” with the choices of Yes, No, and Maybe. Talk to a woman you’re attracted to like you would any stranger you meet. That is if you would like to have a real relationship with a woman. Not one based on power and approval, but a healthy relationship. It doesn’t seem like people know how to have one of those anymore, because I see people who assume that codependency is part of a healthy relationship.
xkcd provided some good commentary on the subject of pickup artists: http://xkcd.com/1027/
And for the record, Peyton should just retire. I don’t think that many teams are all that interested in him. Eli’s the popular Manning now. If Eli left the Giants, the NFL would turn into a rabid dog and go after him. But Peyton’s kind of old hat now. He was injured for an entire season. He’s better off just retiring.
I think you’re willfully misreading my point. Alek Novy is talking about a man singling out a woman he likes and then talking to her the same way he would anyone else. I think that calls for a need to distinguish between the different motivations that causes a person to “like” or, to borrow the corny term, “like-like” someone else. So I’m trying to tease out the word that Novy used, not trying to be juvenile for its own sake.
For some men, just going up to a woman that they are interested in doesn’t cut it. The man can either strike out by reaching too far over his head *or* he can learn about which things to do or say which might improve his outcomes after he’s found a woman he’s interested in.
To suggest that men shouldn’t practice Game or think in terms of this type of objectification is a legitimate argument. Should men think of women in those terms? It’s not ideal, but I think that even the most open and honest conversation or date is still rife with objectification. If a man is approaching a woman he is interested in, his ultimate motivation is to objectify her in some small way. From there, it just gets down to tactics.
Hey Chuck,
I occasionally read some PUA pages. Mostly citizen renegade. I am married and for me Athol Kay’s married man sex life is a much better read.
I’m not a ladykiller by any means, but I would say that applying some of the things I have read has improved my married life.
In any event, I see the PUA technique as two-fold:
1) yes an intensification of the objectification of women (i.e. saying a PUA’s goal should be to bed only 8′s and highers)
2) a 180 to that position in roissy’s statement that an approach needs to lack result dependency. You have to stop caring about “closing the deal” and talk to the woman in a way you talk with friends. On the one hand it’s about intensifying objectification, and on the other it’s about building better deeper emotional human connection through just words (and touches to the arm, back etc..). Then after you’ve shared this deep connection, you throw her back into the lake and go fishing again.
When you go REAL DEEP into the PUA stuff, this diametrically opposed thinking of sharing deep connections & humanizing the person you’re trying to pick up, but then to ramp up the objectification seems fairly psychotic to me.
Don’t get me wrong, I think there is a lot on the surface of PUA that can save lots of marriages. Like the tendency of women to sh1t test and how to pass them is the most important tool in the PUA arsenal.
I think if a man reading PUA could master this one thing, he will have accomplished 90% of the tools of finding better connections and maintaining interest in women, if his goal is a long time relationship.
But as you go deeper down the rabbit hole, you’re in danger of a lot of tar clinging to your soul when you climb out the other end. I remember reading that mystery made a suicide attempt.
This is why I like athol kay’s page better on balance. When I read citizen renegade, I take it with a grain (or pound) of salt. It seems that roissy at this point is more of an entertainer.
I also highly doubt that a lot of his posters are successful ladykillers. There posts seem just too angry for men who are supposedly laying 8′,9′s, 10′s five times a week. You can’t be getting that much affection from beautiful women and still have that much anger towards women.
John,
I agree that 90% of it is learning how to handle things like shit tests and not falling victim to one-itis and such. The first thing that learning about Game or whatever does is provide men with hope that there is a way to not suck with women or fall so far under their spell that he forgets himself or loses his identity. Game helps a man reprioritize by placing himself at the top of the list. This is a change from the tendency for many men to place women at the top of the list. That is important as the men who place themselves in the nice guy realm set themselves up for greater hostility and anger later on down the road.
But this affirmation can, as you point out, go too far over the ledge. Some tactics and strategies and gimmicks are too much for my taste. I’m in an LTR, but I never would have practiced any of that stuff if I weren’t. If I could change one thing about Game as it is presented in the Manosphere it would be to take out the language about women being bitches or fat or not worthy. Citing Spengler’s Law of Universal Gender Parity, the men of a given society are a reflection of the women of a given society.
Chuck writes:
“Game helps a man reprioritize by placing himself at the top of the list.”
Agreed. This is a very un-natural mind-set for men.
But, from what I can see this attitude (of me 1st, not so much pua) is growing fast among younger men.
Marriage being such a landmine for men and gen y & younger men seeing divorce 1st hand has turned many younger men into serial daters.
The up and coming generations of men are no longer family-starting, over-time working, ladder-climbing men.
From the articles I have read and books I have seen mentioned everybody from social conservatives to rad fems are collectively crapping their pants at men building lives without women or children.
I know it’s bad for society, but until divorce becomes fair to men I say good luck and god bless to these men.
Bravo! It is sad to witness the fall of this venerable institution. The SPLC was once was a force for good. Now it has become a pure political lobby, and an ugly and corrupt one at that.
Anthony. You’ll note that the bosses at the SPLC have solved the poverty problem, at least as regards themselves.
Yep, after reading a bit about them–including their tax forms and the opinions of a few civil rights lawyers and judges–I’m inclined to believe they’re the Jim and Tammy Faye of social justice, right down to metaphorical gold-plated faucets in the laundry room.
Mr Dees. A lawyer methinks…..well that explains everything!
Bomb threats against Erin Pizzey, SCUM manifesto and it’s more recent government funded schoolhouse theater group, support for violent women like Bobbit (so long as the victims are men), a plethora of 2nd wave feminists spouting hate speech and promoting violence, Radfem… Seems to me the SPLC has a far easier target available. But truth is, they have become weak and obsolete, and could actually stand against a socially accepted movement anymore.
Seriously though, how can they not consider radicalhub.com a hate sight? Their official M.O. is promoting marginalization, dehumanization, and hatred of men. This double standard is nauseating.
SPLC has gained RadFem Hub’s support. Nothing more needs to be said.
A commenter on AVoiceForMen said on this mess something I agree with: the different sites should ban together and file a class action suit against these bozos.
If this is the best the left can wield, then it’s pretty weak sauce.
I’m sure the smart ones on the radical left are as embarrassed by the SPLC as anyone else.
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax
http://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/downloads/resource/SPLC_2010FORM990.pdf
I never heard of this strange US-based organization before, but it is remarkable how much money so-called directors of this charity are receiving for their work.
There are also contractors receiving compensation, but for what kind of job?
I hope this means some of the haters will be “cut loose” by the more respectable MRAs, like at this blog. Rather than defending Roosh, et. al. (and you do sound like you are defending them, by minimizing or acting like what they say is not really what they mean) — its time to understand the similarities between them and the “real” hate groups. I honestly don’t see any difference at all. And you mention (in passing) Andrew Dice Clay and Tucker Max? Is that supposed to be a VINDICATION?
Instead, your comparison just convinced me that SPLC is right.
You think Andrew Dice Clay and Tucker Max should be placed on the radar of law enforcement agencies and used to drum up fundraising dollars for the SPLC? That group will now profit by using the Manosphere cites as kindling. I’m not saying that Roosh is a saint. He is what he is. He’s a self-styled jerk who enjoys thumbing his nose at feminists and such. But he’s one among many who do the same thing but aren’t mentioned in the same breath as mass murderers. Howard Stern, Tom Leykis – I do consider Roosh to be on a similar spectrum as those guys. And as for the men’s rights sites – my main criticism of the SPLC there is that they make absolutely no link between what’s written on those sites and the men who’ve committed heinous crimes against women. Absolutely no link besides the post hoc discussions on the events surrounding those crimes. So if the SPLC’s purpose is to merely point out incidents on the internet where people make hateful comments, I wonder why they’re stopping only at the Manosphere. The internet is filled with this type of speech.
They are equating anti-feminism and the men’s rights movement as the same thing. I’ve seen it done before.
@DAISY “I hope this means some of the haters will be “cut loose” by the more respectable MRAs, like at this blog.”
Funny, I’ve been telling feminists they need to do the exact same thing. Difference is, feminists do have articles (and even a commercial and theater performance in Europe) promoting violence (against men) and yet, somehow, it’s the men’s rights movement put on the list and being told to cut the hate. Hypocrites.
Ummm, we did. A long time ago. Like, in the 70s. Read the Mary Daly obituaries, the brawls that broke out online, even several decades after the fact. (It was all rehashed ad nauseum, in detail.)
The fact is the haters are loud and always get more attention. That’s how it works.
The only feminist I ever seen speaking out against the radicals within the feminists movement is Cristina Hoff Sommers, who many feminists call an anti-feminist, and try to have her ejected from the movement (IE, expunging her name as a feminist), an act I have never seen done for radical feminists.
Perhaps you shouldn’t have limited your outcries to “a long time ago” and kept it up this whole time. but radical feminist still holds sway over a great many feminist actions within the political landscape, even if they are more carefully worded with softer, more genial tones.
The only feminist I ever seen speaking out against the radicals within the feminists movement is Cristina Hoff Sommers
Um, are you kidding? All the women driven out of feminism during all the 70s splits? I believe Sommers was ONE OF THESE, wasn’t she? That’s what she says, and like Camille Paglia, I have no reason to doubt her.
Sommers, Paglia’s and Katie Roiphe’s politics changed AS A RESULT of these purges.
I have been purged in various eras myself. In fact, you must have missed the recent purge, which was over (dare I speak his name) Hugo S. (Ginmar is gonna be SO mad that she did all those posts about me, and yall were not even paying attention!)
Perhaps you shouldn’t have limited your outcries to “a long time ago” and kept it up this whole time.
I haven’t been keeping it up the whole time? Really? Tell me what else you know about me.
but radical feminist still holds sway over a great many feminist actions within the political landscape
Hello? Where are these radical feminists? On a couple of blogs, maybe. Are you confusing THIRD WAVE feminists with radical feminists? Please tell me you are joking.
IF you aren’t, can you tell me what is supposed to be radical about them?
“I have been purged in various eras myself. In fact, you must have missed the recent purge, which was over (dare I speak his name) Hugo S. (Ginmar is gonna be SO mad that she did all those posts about me, and yall were not even paying attention!)”
Didn’t know about this until you mentioned it. Thanks. But I just started reading it. I feel like I should get popcorn and just enjoy it. I mean I have to admit enormous pleasure at what Hugo Schwyzer has been able to do to feminists. I am especially enjoying the attacks on Amanda Marcotte. Its like a snake eating itself. Its soooo nice.
@Daisy: I have to ask one fucking question. BTW, I am surprised you support Hugo. But I need to bring up one tthing because its just too juicy to forget. In all the rantings against Hugo, you did remember his post about Kyle Payne didn’t you. I mean it should have come up because its so ironic
http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/2008/07/10/self-awareness-good-navel-gazing-bad-some-thoughts-on-men-accountability-and-the-lesson-of-kyle-payne/
I do not “support Hugo”–as I have said 18,000 times. (approx, give or take) What I am angry about is how people in the feminist blogosphere are so respectful of autism and mental illness–schizophrenia, depression, bi-polar, etc… but not drug addiction, which I consider a form of mental illness (and is often a poor-person’s attempt at self medication of the conditions I mentioned). As an ex-drug addict, I resent that I am expected to be quiet about my experiences, lest I get fried in the way Hugo was fried. That simply isn’t fair and sends the message that drug addiction is somehow worse than everything else, so SHUT UP about it. This shaming of drug addicts infuriated me, still does.
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2012/01/dead-air-church-30-years.html
And for sheer popcorn value, you might like this thread too:
http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/hugo-schwyzer/
Got kinda ugly in there, but that is the first place I laid out my case.
” All the women driven out of feminism during all the 70s splits? I believe Sommers was ONE OF THESE, wasn’t she?”
Christina Hoff Sommers is very much egalitarian… So I think you’re actually proving the point of those who call feminism hateful, or supremacy movements… After all, when the ones getting drummed out are the ones fighting for both genders, what’s left?
The rest of your two posts in response to me are largely attempts to try and dilute the accusations by claiming there are lots of different groups within feminism… but as you yourself admit, there is often overlap. When women like Solanas and Bobbit are heralded as hero’s and icons of feminism, while Sommers and Paglia’s get drummed out, why should it be accepted that feminism is about equality? If it really was about equality, these women would not have been the ones drummed out.
When women like Solanas and Bobbit are heralded as hero’s and icons of feminism, while Sommers and Paglia’s get drummed out, why should it be accepted that feminism is about equality?
Is Christianity only about Pope Benedict and Joel Osteen? Which one should we listen to? Who is “right”? Fact: nobody owns it, despite their claims. Nobody owns ideas, mythology, history or basic concepts. I can call myself a feminist and be egalitarian and tell all the factions TO FUCK OFF and in fact, I have recently done exactly that.
If the RCC drums out nice nuns trying to become priests, does that mean the whole Catholic church is bad? Some would say so. Others would say no, its old-fashioned priests trying to hold onto their authority. So, why should it be accepted that the church is about mercy and righteousness?
If the USA engages in endless, undemocratic wars, does that mean the values espoused in the Constitution are all bullshit? Or are these wars unconstitutional?
Etc.
I could go on, but suffice to say, I think feminism is about equality. If others have defined it differently and acted on that definition, it doesn’t change mine. It just makes me more determined.
Got another comment still in moderation,
” I think feminism is about equality. If others have defined it differently and acted on that definition, it doesn’t change mine.”
But, if the definition of feminism is subjective, and thereby your definition is yours and mine is mine and there is no constant in the definition, aside from making the word utterly useless, where do you get off telling me my definition is wrong? If I see feminism as a hate movement (I don’t… I see it as a female empowerment movement. The degree’s and views on men vary from faction to faction, though I suspect a large portion are hate based), you’re “you’re painting us all with one brush” is claiming my definition is incorrect and that I must allow and recognize, on an individual basis, every individual feminist definition for feminism out there… and 1) that’s ridiculous. 2) It attempts to invalidate my own definition by making it applicable to nobody. I will not accept the english language works anything like that way.
“Is Christianity only about Pope Benedict and Joel Osteen?”
Nope, but everyone who supports and holds them up as examples does validate their ideals. It isn’t that Bobbit and Solanas were the way they were, it is that so many supported them for being that way. Dworkin wrote something like 11 different books. You don’t get that many book deals if nobody’s reading them.
(sigh)
Feminism is not subjective. I never said that it was. Here is the NON subjective definition:
fem·i·nism noun \ˈfe-mə-ˌni-zəm\
Definition of FEMINISM
1
: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2
: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests
Not subjective, its right there in black and white. Obviously, a lot of room for interpretation.
I have answered your questions carefully, and you have not returned the favor and answered mine, although they were not rhetorical. Your mind is made up, and I can see its a waste of time to continue. I know this since my mind used to be made up too.
You are deliberately misreading, or maybe you agree with Henry Ford that “history is bunk”… I was trying to talk about factions and history and the origination of certain aspects of feminism. Instead, you tell me I am saying “your definition is wrong”–I am saying it is incomplete, just as if you showed me a map that left out Europe. (It is also extremely ageist, but I realize that charge likely isn’t taken too seriously here.) I am talking about the last 40 years of feminism and you are talking about the last 5 years as if it has been ever thus, and no, that simply isn’t true. I know this because you used one of those silly Third Wave words that means nothing: EMPOWERMENT. (spits) No, read the definition. No EMPOWERMENT in that definition. EMPOWERMENT has come to mean high heels and bikini waxes, and of course, those are the problems, not the solution. EMPOWERMENT is crap.
In light of this, I really doubt you know more about a movement I have studied for 40 years. Do you understand I know a few things you might find interesting? Do you REALLY think you know everything there is to know already? If so, nothing I can add.
Have a nice day!
And Daisy gets the last word apparently (seemingly rightfully so).
“Feminism is not subjective. I never said that it was.”
Actually, you very much implied it when you said:
“I think feminism is about equality. If others have defined it differently and acted on that definition, it doesn’t change mine.”
You say what you “think” feminism is. You then acknowledge other’s definitions as being different from your own, and that it doesn’t change yours. This implies that the definition can be different from person to person and each of those definitions can be correct (or else, it implies your definition is absolute and you are closed to acknowledging anything else… I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, plus I have actually run into many feminists who turn to the “feminism is subjective” argument.
“Definition of FEMINISM
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes”
I’m curious where you got this definition. This is the first time I’ve seen this definition that ends in “of the sex’s” rather than “for women”.
“2: organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests”
This is far more common.
So, let me ask you, you said your definition of feminism is that feminism is about equality…How does being on behalf of women’s rights amd interests (and only women) promote equality?
Now back to your questions you seem to want me to answer…
“If the RCC drums out nice nuns trying to become priests, does that mean the whole Catholic church is bad?”
Now, but we’re not talking about drumming out nuns wanting to be priests, we’re talking about nuns being drummed out for openly stating priests molesting childen are wrong rather than drumming out the priests. I think that would send a pretty damn clear message about the church (disclaimer. these are not my views, I am simply building off the anology provided me). Remember, we’re talking about good egal feminists being drummed out by the hateful element, not good, egal feminists being drummed out by “the Patriarchy”.
“If the USA engages in endless, undemocratic wars, does that mean the values espoused in the Constitution are all bullshit? Or are these wars unconstitutional?”
Yes, the wars are unconstitutional, as is the government and those that continue to support that government. Doesn’t speak on the constitution itself, but it does demonstrate the group tasked with upholding it as having discarded it’s values, and deserving of being chastised for it. Of course, I’d hardly call feminism equivilent to the constatution. After all, contrary to the belief of some, the rights listed within the constitution aren’t just for women.
Re: Empowerment: Definition (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empowerment)
em·pow·ered, em·pow·er·ing, em·pow·ers
1. To invest with power, especially legal power or official authority. See Synonyms at authorize.
2. To equip or supply with an ability; enable:
Seems it has meaning after all. Furthermore, given both feminism deems women to be lacking in rights as compared to men, the empowering of legal rights would very much be involved.
So my definition, the empowerment of women, means to invest legal power or official authority in women. This accomplishs the tasks described in the definition of feminism you provided. Furthermore, it can apply to egal feminists, in that that empowerment has a limit (and also does not restrict it to only women, allowing those who truly want equality to also empower men), but it also applies to the totalitarian gendercidal feminists, as well as everything in between.
“Instead, you tell me I am saying “your definition is wrong”–I am saying it is incomplete, just as if you showed me a map that left out Europe.”
Oh, my mistake. Incomplete… coming from someone who says feminism is about equality, despite the fact that many MANY feminists over the last 40-50 years have been atively promoting female supremacy, gendercide, a female totalitarian regime, etc etc etc (as extreme examples. there is far more subtlty in most of the misandry feminist’s spew (and note, I didn’t say “ALL” feminists, I believe there is room for exception)), all while remaing feminists, or even being held up as the epitome of feminism. So, while your definition of feminism only encorporates some aspects of the feminist movement, and actually contradicts others, my definition applies wholesale across all variations of feminist activists… yet it’s my definition that is incomplete?
I would compare Clay, Tucker Max, etc to Santorum and Limbaugh. For some reason, I guess because they are “funny”–they are not considered the same.
I hope you know that radical feminist “Off Our Backs” was broken into by FBI and feminist newspapers (like innocent cultural-feminist, bread-baking “Womansong”!!) were subjected to law enforcement surveillance?
This is what happens when you become a serious political faction. People start taking you seriously, and it may not be the way you’d prefer.
Its time to delineate your movement, who is “beyond the pale” whom you consider an ally.
If you don’t, expect people like SPLC to do it for you.
Just sayin. I been to this rodeo before!
Nice write up.
They put False Rape Society on the list. The entire Web site is devoted into looking at how false accusations harm men, waste police departments’ time and also hurt the families of those falsely accused.
This is a hate site? What does it say about the SPLC that they consider a site devoted to exposing injustice “hate?”
I didn’t include FRS only because I don’t read them very often. What’s funny there is that they are a watchdog which is also SPLC’s role. FRS points out incidents of false rape accusations. They serve a very important function – unless, of course, you don’t care about the men who are falsely accused of rape.
I am a black man & i am really sick & tired of feminist trying to use civil rights organisations to smear the men’s rights movement as a racist misogynist movement which is far from the truth, the movement is comprised of men & women of all colors & creeds & they are people who are concerned with the many negative dismal stats when it comes men in general & poorer young men in particular.
it seems the only people interested in the truth or sounding any kind of alarm when it comes to the dire state affairs of men specially the poor by providing solid stats & facts from reliable source’s (government & private entities) are on website’s like (AVfM) & others like it(spearhead,false rape society,..etc) & now they are being silenced,attacked & Marginalised as bigot’s for being too effective in highlighting the fallacies of the feminist movement & all of it’s negative effect on men & women.
Will let me make a prediction by saying they will not succeed, truth & reality & has always prevailed throughout history & it will in this case too, i just hope us as a society don’t have to pay too high of a price for it.
The feminist movement represented by the national organisation of women & various others are trying to silence any public discourse when it comes to gender equity as it relates to men.& it seems their goal is to stop anybody whether on university campus’s or the cyber space of the internet from trying to shed a light on the draw backs of the so called unintended consequences & harm full effects of various policies & biased legislation’s like VAWA.
These policies are harming all men in general & having a profound negative effects on certain segment of society, particularly young men from poorer back grounds, regardless of color ,!!!! does anybody at (SPLC) gives a dam to the plight of these men being ensnared by these misandric laws any consideration, or does everybody believe’s in the disposability of men???
While there is some truth in what they say when I got to what the SPLC had to say about MensActivism.org I laughed. The accuse them of using a lurid headline but then don’t mention that they did an exact copy/paste of the source that they got it from, The Examiner.
I’m all for MRAs clearing out the negativity among their movement but the SPLC is clearly trying to get us to throw the baby out with the bathwater and just blanketly accuse all MRAs of acting like the worst of them.
And if you get down to it this sleight of hand isn’t too different from what is done to feminists on a regular basis, who seem to have no problem when its done to MRAs…
Does that mean we should start crying “we’re not a monolithic group”?
Yes. Start singing it loud and clear, or as I said above, get ready for them to paint you as one.
You guys like to say “men rights guys are not the ones in charge!”–and then you seem surprised when you find out that what you say is true and the (pseudo) mainstream media/culture can distort your message in any way they please. What did you expect to happen?
Time to fight back. Clean up the joint, purge Mary Daly, and get it together. Or resign yourselves to getting viciously stereotyped the way you often have stereotyped radical feminists.
You are now seeing what happened to us.
“Or resign yourselves to getting viciously stereotyped the way you often have stereotyped radical feminists.
You are now seeing what happened to us.”
By us, are you including yourself among the radical feminists, or are you ignoring your own words and equating the vicious stereotyping of RADICAL feminists to be vicious stereotyping of all feminists? (and just for the sake of clarification, there are many MRA’s that will use the term “all feminists are …” but most just use the term “feminists are …” which leaves room for exceptions. So we may be swinging with wide brush strokes, but the brush doesn’t hit everyone.
As to your second paragraph, what we are surprised at are how, as you yourself admit, we aren’t in charge and the mainstream media/culture proves it yet we are still repeatedly accused of being the ones in charge and just doing it to ourselves, and that our being in charge means women (radical feminists) need more power
As a last word, it seems to me you are reveling in this in an eye for an eye kind of way, Feminists got hit with this back in the early days when they tried to get started, and they didn’t like it, so it’s only fair MRA’s should get hit with it too, despite the fact feminism should know better.
Ah, another round of “gotcha”… maybe yall don’t realize that THIS is where you get the questionable reputation in the first place.
By us, are you including yourself among the radical feminists
Second Wave feminists, in particular. “Radical feminist” currently means nothing. If you mean Second Wave radical feminists, yes.
Mary Daly and Janice Raymond, whom I mentioned, were also Second Wave. I believe they both categorized themselves specifically as lesbian feminist.
or are you ignoring your own words and equating the vicious stereotyping of RADICAL feminists to be vicious stereotyping of all feminists?
Okay, who exactly are we talking about? You do remember the splits between feminists, in the late 70s? First would be the radical vs cultural split, second would be the radical vs lesbian split, finally would be the radical vs socialist split. (They all overlapped, it wasn’t quite 1-2-3 like that.) I see all of you heading toward similar splits that will be codified into ‘camps’–at least that’s how it happened with us.
As to your second paragraph, what we are surprised at are how, as you yourself admit, we aren’t in charge
And yet you still attack me here? Interesting, isn’t it. See first sentence.
and the mainstream media/culture proves it yet we are still repeatedly accused of being the ones in charge and just doing it to ourselves, and that our being in charge means women (radical feminists) need more power
I am about getting rid of “power”–not increasing it. You sound like you are talking about the liberals like N.O.W., Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary. I’m not one of those.
As a last word, it seems to me you are reveling in this in an eye for an eye kind of way,
The more I am ignored and corrected and patronized about feminist history, “shut up, we know everything already”–the more this attitude comes to the fore. See first sentence.
Feminists got hit with this back in the early days when they tried to get started, and they didn’t like it, so it’s only fair MRA’s should get hit with it too, despite the fact feminism should know better.
Nobody “knows better”… (?) Where are you getting this stuff?
Umm, I am giving advice. But you know everything already, so never mind. I’m sure you have nothing to learn from our movement.
I have heard a number of MRAs say (sensibly) that early feminism got kinda weird too, and there were similar phases, that MRAs are going through now. This makes sense to me, and I understand it. So, I have started making connections and comparisons. But when I do, I am told to shut up, as you basically are telling me right now.
So, you can see the dilemma. I can speak my mind and say “I saw this before, and here is what I would do”–or stand aside and let you re-invent the wheel. If re-inventing the wheel is what you prefer, be my guest and feel free to ignore everything I have to say. You will anyway.
I for one would enjoy an education on feminist history…..especially all the splits. Why don’t you write an article. I have always believed that someone (I was thinking I should but I am just too lazy) should write an article about the motivations, history and nature of men who are MRAs.
However, I would love to have someone write about the feminists from a similar perspective…views, motivations, splits, etc. Why don’t you write it. If you have advice for the Men movement there are many who would be eager to hear you.
BTW, we are already seeing splits between MRAs and PUAs. And the Spearhead magazine has already purged many of its most extreme members. BTW, Roosh and even Tucker Max are not that extreme. The extremists are the ones who believe ALL women are evil and no woman can be trusted. You see a lot of that on the Spearhead.
Why don’t you write it.
Sorry for all the personal Sturm und Drang in this, about how badly I wanted to be PC! But facts are facts, yo, Do not be offended. But this covers the “big radical feminist newspaper of the 2nd Wave::
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2009/10/demise-of-off-our-backs.html
Meh, its a start. But plenty of warnings in that, for those who can see em. Especially about racism.
I think Tucker Max, like Rush, can do far more damage than a now-marginalized movement, because they have the power to bring in the newly disaffected. One thing I’d advise: yall need to jump in there and talk to the newbies, point them in the right directions. People arrive in movements all wound up (also noticed this in OCCUPY) and they need to have this burst of initial energy directed in positive ways.
Daisy,
In light of your comments above, you might be interested in the following post by yours truly:
The Season Of The Sistahood’s Dis(sed)content
http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com/entry/60053
Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
O.
Hey Chuck,
Nice piece, thanks for writing it. Just two quick points:
1. I fail to see how the NOI can be compared to the KKK; please explain?
2. Oneitis has nothing to do with a Man who is in an LTR; it’s about Men who pine after Women they have not had actual sexual relations with.
Other than that, again, good writeup!
O.
Obsidian,
I mention NOI along with KKK mainly because the SPLC considers both to be hate groups and tracks both of them on their website. Also, both are organized with leaders, a hierarchy, fundraising activities, etc. Besides their internecine squabbles, it’s safe to say that the KKK has been a bigger blight than NOI.
Chuck,
Point taken. Still, I take issue with the notion that the NOI and the KKK are on the same plane, for one very simple reason – one group has a long and documented history of terrorist activity against American citizens; the other does not. Therefore, I cannot see any equating of the two.
But, given the fact that you are merely following the SPLC’s “logic”, I can see where you’re coming from. But I trust you get where I’m coming from as well.
O.
Game is for helping out Gonorrhea, Chlamydia and Herpes.
Really? How so? What empirical evidence can you offer that supports your assertion? Please explain?
Moreover – if indeed Game “helps” various and sundried STDs, what say you of the socalled “sex-positive” feminists and the like? Do you hold the same view when it comes to them or not, and why? Again, please explain?
O.
I hope the public question the credibility of the SPLC when they quote David Futrelle (“ManBoobz”) as an investigative source. We have yet to learn whether the SPLC will accept donations from the RadFem Hub, nevertheless the RadFem Hub’s actions are highly indicative of how they view the SPLC. If the information presented about Morris Dees’ divorce are correct, it is hypocritical, and perhaps psychological projection is the reason for them pointing the finger at the MRM.
@Chuck
Many organizations and people have bad mouthed men’s rights movement in past and continue to do so in the present. What is so special about this Southern Poverty Law Center that MRAs care about???
The SPLC takes it to another level. Before, the MRAs and feminists kind of duked it out in their little arenas, but that was purely academic. Not that the SPLC is an arm of law enforcement or anything – I’m not saying that – but now the focus reaches another echelon which puts these groups on the radar of guys with guns.
SPLC is a redundant organization trying to reinvent itself. It does not have either the credibility or the political clout to take anything to another level. Its leaders are only making fool out of themselves by writing such ridiculous reports.
Its a mainstream organization that targets hate groups. As in the KKK and Neo-Nazi’s. Ask yourself a question, are MRAs as marginalized as Nazis and do you want to be as marginalized as the KKK. Because if MRAs get treated like the KKK then the MRA movement is completely doomed.
In Canada hate speech is against the law. This implies that all men’s rights groups could be targetted. Same is true in Europe. This type of suppression has major consequences. Its not nothing.
By targeting MRAs as hate groups, SPLC loses any credibility it ever had. Do you think that just because SPLC thinks MRAs are hate group, police would start targeting them??? It is a sham non profit organization out to make some money from wherever it can.
“Do you think that just because SPLC thinks MRAs are hate group, police would start targeting them??? It is a sham non profit organization out to make some money from wherever it can.”
Yes I very much DO. Sure its a non-profit organization out to make money but that doesn’t mean it does not have power. And SPLC only loses credibility if somebody speaks out which is what Chuck did.
Let me explain to you how the world works. You vastly overestimate the intelligence and critical thinking people possess. Almost nobody thinks for themselves and I mean nobody. The writer of a newspaper is simply going to read what SPLC writes and reguritate it. The reader of the newspaper article is going to believe what they read without thinking. Then what SPLC writes becomes the new reality. Nobody is going to think…oh the SPLC has just made a fool of themselves. Not unless someone actually tells them “oh the SPLC has just made a fool of themselves”.
And that is the valuable service Chuck is providing!
What Chuck is doing here is really valuable, but I think ti would have been better to bring libel suit against SPLC, draining it of finances and sending into oblivion. I am not overestimating the intelligence and critical thinking that people possess, but you certainly underestimate mine. Reports made by the so-called watchdogs normally go to garbage bin without anybody taking a second look.