The Southern Poverty Law Center’s Creepy Mission

Premium Membership, The Good Men Project

About Chuck Ross

Chuck Ross is a freelance writer living in the Midwest. He blogs daily at Gucci Little Piggy where he writes on economics, social commentary, and men's issues.

Comments

  1. 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 We are still waiting to hear back from them, as their reasoning was rather poor, outdated and which cherry picked a comment by one guy on a site where anyone can post comments.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.”
      (…)

  2. 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.

        • Vachette says:

          “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?

          • Mark Neil says:

            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.

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            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.

  3. “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.

    • Vachette says:

      “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.”

  4. #notbuyingit says:

    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@!!”

    • Yea I feel really sorry for the guy who beat up his four year old daughter

      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.

    • ” 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.

          • Mark Neil says:

            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?

    • #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

    • not buying it says:

      @ #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’.

  5. AlekNovy says:

    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.

    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”.

    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.

    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

    • AlekNovy says:

      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.

  6. Anthony Zarat says:

    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.

    • Richard Aubrey says:

      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.

  7. Mr Dees. A lawyer methinks…..well that explains everything!

  8. Mark Neil says:

    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.

  9. 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.

  10. J.G. te Molder says:

    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.

  11. Gorbachev says:

    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.

  12. 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?

  13. 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.

      • Mark Neil says:

        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.

          • Mark Neil says:

            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.

            • Mark Neil says:

              ” 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,

            • Mark Neil says:

              ” 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).

            • Mark Neil says:

              “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!

  14. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    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.

  15. not buying it says:

    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???

  16. 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…

    • Mark Neil says:

      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.

        • Mark Neil says:

          “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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. nigeles175d says:

    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.

  20. @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.

  21. The Southern Poverty Law Center—a non-profit civil rights

    Non-profit? The SPLC is ridiculously profitable. In 2010, their revenues were about $35 million, while their net assets were about $230 million: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4482

    To keep filling their coffers, the creeps at the SPLC must brand an ever-widening proportion of public discussion as hate speech. There’s just not enough real hate in America for them.

    • The SPLC is not unique. I think some people have the idea that nonprofits are not really “businesses.” Except, many businesses are organized as nonprofits. It is a legitimate way of doing business. These organizations compete with each other for government and philanthropic dollars. Nonprofit directors can bring in millions of dollars through their compensation packages.

      People don’t think of these organizations as businesses because instead of, say, a large national retail chain competing with a small regional one, you have a large national animal rights organization competing with your local animal shelters. People would think that because they have similar missions, they would cooperate. Sometimes they do, but there can also be intense competition between them. Ideological “turf” is extremely important. Sometimes these groups cut corners or stomp on who their ideological allies should be in order to maintain dominance in the market, just like corporations do.

  22. wellokaythen says:

    I wonder if the SPLC has a consistent policy when it comes to different ethnic and racial subgroups on the web. Surely there are websites out there visited predominantly by African American men, for example, that may not be very flattering towards women or that may be clearly anti-feminist. I’m willing to believe that white guys are worse than any other when it comes to this, but surely they are not alone. I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing that it’s only when white men call for treating women as sex objects that it’s hate speech to the SPLC. Surely there are hip-hop lyrics that are the equivalent of the most rabid MRM or pseudo-MRM rhetoric. Is the SPLC going to single out those music producers for hate speech?

    Of course, my writing this could be construed as racism and therefore the GMP is now affiliated with hate speech and must also be closely watched by law enforcement.

    • wellokaythen says:

      P.S. Also, past a certain point, the longer the list of “hate groups,” the more meaningless the list becomes. At first it may be helpful to generate donations in the short term, but over the long term it undermines the group’s credibility. Anyone familiar with Joe McCarthy could tell you that – see the bad guys everywhere and you’ll look like an imbecile.

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      “I’m willing to believe that white guys are worse than any other when it comes to this”

      Why on earth would you think that?

  23. http://www.spokeo.com/search?q=Daryush+Valizadeh&s4=t15#USA

    he’s lived many places…hasn’t he?

  24. http://www.godhatesfags.com is on the hate list and they aren’t violent. It’s a hate list. You can be very damaging with hate without necessarily being violent. A Voice for Men or Spearhead – neither of these site’s articles nor their subscribers write or talk like they are out to do anything but continually bash women. The thin veil of a good cause to help men and boys is quickly ripped away to reveal a most misogynistic agenda. Oh, the problems they purport to care about are real; homeless men, imprisoned and raped men, male suicide, boys behind in school, raising our boys to be “heroes” and “tough guys” instead of 3 dimensional humans, custody courts, I get it. Hell, I used to think they actually cared about these things and stood for them. But after reading nearly every article, it became very clear they just hate women, and all their “actions” if you can even call them that, have done nothing but put men further back in caves. They rabidly attack any sign of a differing opinion and call differing commenters “trolls” and usually want them “banned” after they inflict much verbal abuse. They also target and try to publicly slander people who they deem as “bigots”. Register Her is also an interesting site (and a complete joke).

    • Mark Neil says:

      “neither of these site’s articles nor their subscribers write or talk like they are out to do anything but continually bash women”

      Women or feminists? You use misogyny as well, which, by definition is a hatred of women, which does not apply when it’s feminism that is the focus. Please make a distinction, because I know far too many people seem to think they are synonymous, and your argument would not stand if it relied on feminism rather than women. After all, isn’t hating ideologies what the SPLC is all about? Rather hypocritical of them to call others a hate group for doing precisely what they themselves are doing. Furthermore, it needs to be noted that SAVE Services is included in that list. SAVE (stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is a politically recognized and supported domestic violence advocacy group that strives to include male victims and female perpetrators. It doesn’t even discuss feminism or women, beyond women are included in both victims and perpetrators. Save was targeted because of it’s opposition to the current wording of VAWA, which, if you check the link bellow, actually excludes children from benefiting from it’s grant programs due to it’s single minded focus on women… is that misogynistic, or responsible?

      • Mark Neil says:
      • Vachette says:

        The Spearhead published an article last year titled “How Female Sufferage Destroyed Western Civilization”. I would say that’s pretty misogynistic, wouldn’t you?

        AVFM isn’t as blatant in its misogyny as The Spearhead, but Elam has made some disgusting comments insinuating that women who are raped are “begging for it”

        • Mark Neil says:

          I don’t attend the spearhead, So I can’t speak for that. As for AVfM, I think Paul lets his rage go unchecked, unfocused, rather than putting it to better use, but I am aware of the article you are referring to, as well as the out of context hatchet job manboobz did (which is clearly where you’ve gotten your information from). Paul was saying some women, under certain circumstances, are asking to be raped in the same context as a man walking down the back ally’s of a suburban slum at 3 AM wearing a $4,000 suit, a $15,000 Rolex, $800 Italian leather shoes and counting his fistful of money and singing “I’m so rich, rich, rich, got lots of money, money, money” is asking to get mugged. It’s not in a literal sense, but sometimes, you just do so many stupid things all combined that leave yourself vulnerable that it is entirely moronic to think anything else would happen. But for some reason, many feminist don’t think anything bad should ever happen to a woman, even if she does so many stupid things and leaves herself so utterly vulnerable as to make it so expecting anything else, given we don’t live in a perfect world, is actually unlikely. Why is that? Why is it feminists believe women (and for some reason, only women) should be except from the harsh realities of society, and not held accountable for, at the very least, some of their own safety?

          • If you were to switch it – for instance if a scantily clad man was attacked sexually by a bunch of women – I doubt anyone would be talking about how HIS behavior led to his attack. People would be like “what’s with those crazy chicks!?” Of course it is important not to make stupid decisions that make you a target for rape, or theft, etc – but I’m really tired of the “she was begging for it” rationalization as it puts the victim on trial and all but excuses the perpetrator. Basically, “how could he help himself?” Is the message in that mentality. I don’t care if she’s half naked at 3am, walking down dark alleys and stoned- she isn’t raping anyone! To suggest that the rapist in question was somehow triggered by her behavior, lets him off the hook and sends everyone: law enforcement, courts, public opinion, down the road of victim blaming. She ends up being on trial, and HER behavior is questioned, and no one is even talking about the behavior of the sicko who made the choice to rape. It’s the rarest form of rape anyway – so it’s annoying to even talk about. Most people are raped by someone they know.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “People would be like “what’s with those crazy chicks!?””

              I suspect people would be far more likely to assert things like “you can’t rape the willing”, or “dude got lucky, a bunch of chicks at once”, “I wish I was that guy”, etc etc etc.

              Furthermore, I DID provide a reversed gender scenario (wasn’t rape, but still a crime committed against him… or is it you have no sympathy for a rich man being mugged, making seeing the analogy difficult? Could this be because he is a man, or because the crime committed against him wasn’t of the designated crime?

              ” but I’m really tired of the “she was begging for it” rationalization as it puts the victim on trial and all but excuses the perpetrator.”

              While I personally think this assertion is hyperbole (as I don’t see people excusing the perpetrator, only claiming the crime was (potentially) preventable), I do understand it. But on the flipside, the response (such as the quote above) asserts that woman’s actions shouldn’t be questioned…This leads to presumptions that she is always telling the truth, that because she said a rape occurred, it actually did. People suggest that, to question her at all, is to victim blame her (but if police can’t question, how are they to get any details to conduct their investigation? how are they to prove or disprove who’s side of the story is correct? Are you like Jessica Valenti, who believes the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be reversed, for men only, in cases of rape accusations (is this feminist equality?)?

              Furthermore, all too often, attempts to educate women/girls about possible risk modifying actions are also deemed victim blaming, despite there not actually being a victim, and as you even admit “Of course it is important not to make stupid decisions that make you a target for rape” … How can people know what is a stupid decision that can increase risk if nobody is allowed to talk about them? How can anyone learn when girls are told you need never be held accountable for your own safety, your actions, and the consequences that come of those, are never to be questioned. This is harmful to women, not helpful.

              That said, Paul’s article uses far stronger tones, hyperbole and an unapologetic stance that is very much hostile to feminist ideals, but he makes it clear in that article, he doesn’t actually believe women beg to get raped, nor do they deserve it.

              “To suggest that the rapist in question was somehow triggered by her behavior”

              This is the problem, feminists always try and make a correlation between “this could have been prevented” and “she triggered it”. They may be close, but they are not the same.

              “She ends up being on trial, and HER behavior is questioned, and no one is even talking about the behavior of the sicko who made the choice to rape”

              To the second part… nobody is talking about it because everyone agree’s, if he did in fact rape her, he’s a sicko. There is no question whether rape was acceptable or not, it’s not, what is in question, and this is where feminists fail, is “DID IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN?”? Unless you agree with Jessica Valenti, that men should not be given their due process, what needs to be determined is if the act occurred, if it occurred as described (by one party or the other) and if it was a misunderstanding (or was intent involved). For some reason, feminists seem to be opposed to this part of the investigation, because it dares to question a woman’s honesty. Is that feminist equality, only men need ever be questioned, that a woman’s word is golden truth, pure and without reproach?

              “Most people are raped by someone they know.”

              Opening a lot of room for different subjective interpretations of the events. Do you seriously think police can get evidence of both the act and intent, without ever questioning the she within the he said/she said narrative? Or, again, do you suggest men should prove their innocence, rather than the courts proving their guilt? Is that what feminist equality looks like to you?

            • “Is that feminist equality, only men need ever be questioned, that a woman’s word is golden truth, pure and without reproach?”

              Oh good grief. Of course not. Real rapes happen to women. To women who know their rapist. Real rapes happen to men. To men who know their rapist. So we should cut the dramatics out here on both sides and start working to figure out ways to yes, advocate for being safe and protecting oneself, and also STOPPING THE PERPS who commit actual crimes. Cause they do. To men and women both.

            • Mark Neil says:

              You’re not replying to what I said, you’re replying to what you want to argue. There are feminists advocating for men to be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence. THAT”S what I am referring to in my question, but instead of acknowledging that, you instead pretend I’m making some “rape doesn’t happen” assertion, and arguing against that. How does “real rapes happen” play any part in justifying “guilty until proven innocent” as being equitable… unless your going to assert women don’t lie and thus when someone says a rape happened, then a real rape happened and the man should be deemed guilty. Now if you don’t believe women’s words are sacred, or that men should be deemed guilty until proven innocent, than the question wasn’t directed at you.

            • +1

            • You may have a point with the “he got lucky” likely response to a male rape – that is another double standard that drives me crazy.

              I don’t think women, by virtue of being women, are truthful and their word is gold. Nor do I subscribe to any “feminist equality” whatever that is.

              Let me be very clear – everyone: men and women, boys and girls, should definitely be educated on how to keep themselves as safe as possible. If I leave my 4 year old alone in the park, and he gets kidnapped – yes, there is some blame headed my way and not just the kidnapper’s. If I fall asleep with a cigarette in my hand and the house burns down, by all means blame me and not the murderous villainous fire. What I am talking about is the slippery slope we head down when we start questioning the behavior and attire of the victim of rape more than the behavior of the rapist. This leads to underreporting and the shame involved causes many victims to either not report, or drop charges. The fact is, rape is more likely to go unreported, than claims to be falsely made. Do false accusations happen? Of course – but it is very rare, especially when compared to how many rapes go unreported, and I wasn’t discussing that (nor do I think it is ok, etc, etc).

              My very best friend was brutally raped by a complete stranger when she was sixteen. When she was telling me the details of what led to her rape, I wanted to kill her because of all the stupid decisions SHE made. She got into the car, didn’t know him, got high, etc. It is tempting to blame her for what happened to her, but rape is such an epidemic, I think it’s more productive to talk about prevention from the perpetrator’s side of things. Prevention is put squarely on the shoulders of women, and their behavior. Is that where the focus really should be?

            • Mark Neil says:

              “Nor do I subscribe to any “feminist equality” whatever that is.”

              What “that is” is the tendency for feminists to insist “feminism is about equality”. This assertion feminism is about equality includes the feminism of these feminists (and they are feminists, even if you choose to relegate them to the radical faction, they do remain feminists) who are calling for the presumption of guilty until proven innocent. So if feminism is about equality, and feminist’s are calling for guilty until proven innocent… is that what equality looks like to feminists… or said otherwise, is that feminist equality?

              ” What I am talking about is the slippery slope we head down when we start questioning the behavior and attire of the victim of rape more than the behavior of the rapist. ”

              1: Are you certain the (alleged) victim does get questioned MORE than the accused? Or is it a matter of the alleged victim being questioned at all being deemed being questioned too much, in conjunction with the accussed’s questioning, regardless of how much, largly gets ignored because he’s presumed guilty right from the start and deserves to be questoned?

              2: When discussing date rate, it becomes a question of “was consent given”, which very much is about what the woman did (or didn’t) do, as what the man did (IE, having sex) isn’t usually in question. In this case, if is about comparing the woman’s perception of events against the man’s, which would involve, at the very least, equal amounts of questioning.

              3: When discussing stranger rape, there usually isn’t a man ready for questioning, and it is the woman’s account of events police investigate to catch the criminal. So by the time the man is caught, there really isn’t much need for questioning him, as the evidance has already led to catching him.

              That said, I do understand what you mean, in that the woman’s behaviour should be used to excuse her victimization, her attire is not consent, dancing is not consent, kissing is not consent… except that if her combined behaviours left room for ambiguous interpretations, the guy should be given some degree of understanding in that situation. No means no is clear, leaves no room for misinterpretation. I was drunk and never would have slept with him if I was sober, sure I was dancing with him very sexually and making out with him on the dance floor, yes I went back to his place after for more drinks, yes I made out with him and even took off my own shirt and his, and no, I didn’t say no when he took off my panties, while he ate me out, or when he inserted his penis in me, but I did refuse to put the condom on for him and I didn’t want to sleep with him, I don’t like him like that, it’s just that I was drunk… well, should this behaviour NOT be questioned? Sure her dancing and kissing him isn’t consent, but likewise it doesn’t demonstrate the “I’m not interested in him like that” ether.

              “This leads to underreporting and the shame involved causes many victims to either not report, or drop charges.”

              I would think rape-victim advocates constantly telling the media that police don’t take rape seriously, that women won’t be belived and will be hounded and tormented all over again, and all for nothing because only 6% of rapists get convicted (ignoring the fact that that’s 6% of reported rapes lead to conviction, the remainder includes those reports that were withdrawn for whatever reason, those that found the wrong guy was accussed and those that maliciously lied, and even were found guilty of filing a false report… IE, rape victim advocates use proven false rape reports to promote the idea that rape isn’t taken seriously)… I think this all promotes victims not to report far more than anything the police do.

              “but it is very rare,”

              Is it? We don’t know for certain because police don’t investigate a reports that don’t turn out results, they only investigate reports that find proof of malicious false reporting while trying to prove the rape did occur. Can you imagine the stink rape victim advocates wopuld make if police did investigate those reports that didn’t pan out? So because rape victim advocates are protecting false reporters, it’s dishonest to claim they don’t happen often.

              ” I think it’s more productive to talk about prevention from the perpetrator’s side of things. Prevention is put squarely on the shoulders of women, and their behavior. Is that where the focus really should be?”

              What do you propose to stop people who are willing to risk jailtime to commit an act they know to be illigal? Isn’t the law, and threat of jail, already a form of prevention from the perptrator’s side of things? So when you say prevention is put squarely on the shoulders of women, you are being dishonest. You are taking our laws for granted, while refusing to take the accountability for your own safety for granted too. As you said above “If I leave my 4 year old alone in the park, and he gets kidnapped – yes, there is some blame headed my way”, so why is rape different? Is teaching a child not to go with strangers more acceptable than teaching a woman the exact same thing? Are children to be deemed more accountable for their own safety than grown women? I don’t think so.

            • Mark Neil says:

              Correction:

              “That said, I do understand what you mean, in that the woman’s behaviour should be used to excuse her victimization”

              should read “shouldn’t be used”

            • You have some valid points. I think we’re both right in one way or another. However, I think you assume the police feel under pressure from rape crisis centers, and that is really not the case. In some cities, police chiefs take sexual assault very seriously, and they have great relationships with local rape crisis centers (like in my community). In other cities, the police treat rape survivors like crap right off the bat (as has been reported to the agency I volunteer at). Some cities, the police are excellent, but the DA won’t prosecute anything – therefore rape survivors’ advocates are trying to get him voted out (this is going on right now, in yet another city I will not name because I’m trying to remain anonymous).

              I’ll admit, my being directly involved with a rape crisis agency makes me a bit biased, maybe even jaded, but I do see first hand how rape cases are handled by varying counties, and the way victims are treated is often quite shocking. Other times – the system is working well. More often than not, the system is working to shame the victim.

              Oh, and if you are drunk, you legally cannot consent, regardless of what you say or do. Your scenario is a legal description of date rape.

            • Mark Neil says:

              “I think you assume the police feel under pressure from rape crisis centers”

              The crisis centres themselves? No, but if you wish to deny police agencies and judges aren’t required to attend feminist driven, VAWA funded “educational” programs on sexual assault and domestic violence, well, there isn’t much point to continuing this discussion. And I don’t doubt different police agencies respond to these programs differently, with some even overcompensating in their opposition to it, but I’ll show you, how your own response, provides an example of why that is…

              Where in your entire comment do you even leave room for the possibility that an accuser is speaking false? You refer to how police “treat rape survivors”, the way “victims are treated”, how the “the system is working to shame the victim”. At no point do you even leave room for the possibility these accusers are lying. At no point do you acknowledge how the accused are treated in some cases, such as by prosecutors like Nefong and Kellott. If you are unable to even examine both sides of the equation, why should one accept that your claims of imbalance and unfair treatment are accurate. Because for all you know, as unfair as you feel the accuser is being treated, they may very well be getting the light treatment compared to the accused (I can’t know, you don’t even acknowledge them, let alone whether you feel they should have a right to due process and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty). You say you are trying to get a DA voted out because he won’t prosecute rape accusers, but is he not doing so because he isn’t upholding justice, or because there isn’t enough evidence to bring to court? I don’t know, because, again, you don’t tell us, so it looks to me that he isn’t doing what you want, so you want him out… but doing what you want isn’t the same as not doing his job, because DA’s like Nefong and kellott were doing what you want, and got spanked because they were doing their jobs WRONG for doing so.

              “Oh, and if you are drunk, you legally cannot consent, regardless of what you say or do. Your scenario is a legal description of date rape.”

              I call bullshit on this assertion. If a little alcohol absolved one of accountability for their choices, DUI (drunk driving) would not be a prosecutable crime, because one could not be deemed capable of making the choice to drive or not drive, and as such, could not be held accountable for making that choice. Furthermore, it is this kind of asinine assertion, an assertion that generally only applies to one gender (you will never hear someone assert a man was raped because he was drunk, even while they are accusing that same drunk man of raping the woman who raped him), that makes so many people turn away from the feminist movement and even the rape hysteria industry (and it’s ever expanding self interest fear-mongering and redifinitions).

              Furthermore, suggesting that women should not be held responsible for their choices while drunk, while insisting they still be allowed to make the choice to drink, is rather ludicrous, and results in such injustices as happened in Nova Scotia, where a woman woke her passed out husband up by hitting him over the head, they argued, it escalated to physical violence (don’t know which started the physical, assuming you don’t accept the slapping across the head as the start), she beat him with a broom until he restrained her, then when released, she went into her friends house, where she was now safe, got a knife, returned to the street and stabbed him to death. She claimed battered woman’s syndrom (despite her actions showing she was clearly not afraid) and the judge let her go without charge. The reason… Because, while she did have alternatives such as abuse shelters and friends and family, she was drunk! MURDER was deemed an acceptable alternative to staying in her damn friends house BECAUSE SHE WAS DRUNK!. Is that what you want? where women can go around killing people because they are drunk and can’t be held accountable for their actions? Or perhaps you support the idea a woman can’t drink alcohol, since she can’t be held responsible for her actions while influenced by it?

              Lastly, isn’t it rather demeaning to a woman to suggest she isn’t capable of taking responsibility for her own actions, just because she had some alcohol, even when a man can and will be? Do you really see women as so incompetent for themselves that, even though they can make the choice to drink, they can not thereafter handle the responsibility to make their own choices? And if not, then who is, and where does it stop? Does a woman who gets drunk at a work function, slaps her boss, calls him a cocksucker for never noticing her and then tries to stick her tongue down his throat in front of his wife… should she not incur any consequences for her actions ether? I’m sure you would want to argue she should not have gotten drunk at a work function, but after that first drink, once the alcohol is in her system, can she be held responsible for the choice to have more drinks? Where does it end?

    • Peter Houlihan says:

      Sorry, but if you replaced men with women in that paragraph you could just as easily be describing any feminist site I’ve ever visited (with maybe one exception). The difference is that only MRA and masculist sites are being called out for misogyny and this being identified as the core concept of the movement. If you’re willing to accuse a voice for men are you willing to accuse jezebel?

      • Peter Houlihan says:

        Also I dispute that god hates fags aren’t violent. They mightn’t actually attack people but showing up at a funeral slandering the dead? I’ve never seen an MRA do that, or a WRA. The comparison is inaccurate in the extreme.

      • Vachette says:

        Really? You’re comparing AVFM to Jezebel?

        Have you read articles on Jezebel calling for people to “inflict enough pain on the agents of hate in order to shock society out its current coma”? Or an editorial saying that men who are raped are “begging fo it”?

        I have some problems with articles that Jezebel has published but nothing they’ve ever written has been so distrubingly hateful as anything on AVFM or any MRA website for that matter.

        • Mark Neil says:

          “Have you read articles on Jezebel calling for people to “inflict enough pain on the agents of hate in order to shock society out its current coma”?”

          Nope, But I have seen an article from Jezebel calling for people to inflict pain on the targets of their hate for fun and laughs

          http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have

          Do you actually have a link to this article of AVFM, or is your link limited to manboobz’s account of it?

        • I’ve seen some stuff on how violent or harmful AVFM is, but the one I remember was quoting a small part of a larger article that changed the context. Cut down it looks like he’s calling for violence but the next paragraph proved it to be purposely done for effect to show the hypocrisy of another article.

          It also depends what kind of pain you mean, I find some authors to be quite over the top and let too much anger through. Their message can be pretty decent except it’s loaded with anger that turns people off to listening, I really wish they’d calm down a lil. It’s ok to be annoyed, angry, but it does make it harder to understand people. I think it was Joanna who was pushed away by someones anger, I tried to say the same message without that anger and it allowed her to understand the point and empathize (Sorry if it wasn’t her, my memory is pretty terrible:S).

          When I read each side’s stuff I do my best to gloss over any misandry, misogyny, anger or hatred and understand WHY they feel that way, what would make someone hate women or men? I also read things that generalize as all and mentally change that to some as I know not everyone in a group is the same, if I focused on the generalizations it could be annoying but I do my best to ignore it when trying to understand it.

          It’s like when a friend says all women are this, all men are that, and you ask them is it all men/women and they say no, some, and it turns out to be a woman/man who has quite an impact on them such as a love interest. Casual generalizations are tossed about like candy, I probably do it myself (call me out on them! so I am aware), and this carries over into peoples online writings.

          • Mark Neil says:

            “It also depends what kind of pain you mean, I find some authors to be quite over the top and let too much anger through.”

            I very much agree with this, and ironically, when I said as much, when I said I think the anger needs to be focus and directed, instead of letting it rage free, lashing out at anyone who may question our arguments (even out of simple curiosity, wanting to test the strength of an argument before accepting it themselves), or challenge us to improve… I got told by Paul Elam himself to get the fuck off his website if I don’t like it. So, understandably, I’m not a fan of his. That said, I don’t find AVfM’s writing to be hateful, just, as you said, angry, and anger is understandable, angry writing is acceptable so long as it doesn’t cross into hate (which I don’t feel it has), it’s just where it goes from there I have disagreements about.

            I agree with the rest of your comments too, especially the undertone that both sides are guilty of the same actions they accuse the other of.

            • I so wanna get both sides together and give them a time-out. Shake hands n get over it all, work together, it’s bloody annoying!

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          Yep really, jezebel, maboobz the lot of them.

  25. What you fail to mention is Roosh V’s involvement with a website called “Fat Girl Jihad”. As much as he’d like to pretend that he is only helping lonely dudes get laid, he can’t hide from the fact that he has an incredible hatred of American women.

  26. Also I think it needs to be noted that Mensactivism.org was also listed there.

    The entry for it accused them of using a lurid headline about a Pakistani woman that killed and cooked her husband for lusting for their daughter. What SPLC didn’t say was that mensactivism.org copied that headline verbatim from the source it cited, which is pretty standard practice at that site. And by the way the source of that “lurid” headline was The Examiner.

    I’m all for calling out the venom among MRAs but this peice wasn’t about calling out the venom among MRAs. This piece was about broad brush painting all MRAs as a hate movement when that is certainly not true. If this were a piece about feminist sites I bet money that if Shakesville were listed as a hate site and all that was mentioned was how they call all MRAs abusers and rapists there would be outrage (and I would agree with said outrage if for no other reason than the conversations they have had about discrimination against fat people). But since we are talking about MRAs its okay to paint up the vilest 2% as representation of the entire movement?

    All I hope is that the next time someone, even the nastiest MRA, goes around generalizing feminists like this that feminists remember how they supported generalizations of MRAs sites like this. Plain and simple this place didn’t do its research. It just copy/pasted what Manboobz said about them.

    (And to piggy back on Mark’s defense of SAVE Services I’ve noticed that SAVE is one of the few places that has actually spoken up about having some sort of accountability for the money that goes into VAWA. Unless its now hatred to keep track of money that’s being spent to help victims? Are women so badly and regularly abused that we shouldn’t even “waste time” on making sure the money is being used properly?)

    • Vachette says:

      “But since we are talking about MRAs its okay to paint up the vilest 2% as representation of the entire movement?”

      It’s not just a small percent though. AVFM and The Spearhead are perhaps the two biggest and most popular MRA sites out there. Even on the MRA subreddit, which has about 20,000 members, one of their moderators is a frequent contributor to the “Beating Women” subreddit, and has said that a false rape accuser deserved to have her throat slashed.

      If this guy doesn’t represent moderate MRA views, why is he a moderator?

      • That’s a fair question.

      • He is above me on the mod ladder, so it was before my time. He isn’t a “frequent contributor” and he hasn’t posted in over a year. I made sure to ask that he wasn’t doing that before I let the other mod invite me. But no excuses for his commenting on that sub – same as there is no excuse for a group of feminists on Reddit, who troll with the most vile and violent comments…because they think its funny. Three very well known feminists, who I will not mention, love this group.

        I’m not going to link to the things they said or did because they are too vile. Last week, three of their members taunted a suicidal man in a thread. Because they thought it was OK to do it to a man. The man logged out and while I’d like to give you an update, I’m not going to say out of respect to his family.

        Plenty of blame to go around. God I wish the hate would just stop everywhere.

        • As do most of us. I really have never understood the dynamic. I mean I guess it makes sense, anonymity on the web…it allows anyone to say anything. But it’s so ugly.

        • “Last week, three of their members taunted a suicidal man in a thread”
          Where’s the proof that those commenters were contributing members of SRS and not just some random trolls? Even Paul Elam is saying that those people were “assumed feminists”

          Should I say that people on Youtube making sexist jokes are assumed MRA’s then?

          • Yes, we have proof and the SRS mods already took care of them. There were other trolls involved. I really rather not go down this road, because I have hundreds of screenshots of them saying some of the most awful things. If you don’t believe me, well, ask an SRS mod, or pretend it doesn’t happen to us too.

            • It happens everywhere, Vachette. It’s not cool in either direction. It’s rude at best, bullying torment at worst. We should all be against it.

            • I obviously think that the people who bullied that MRA were terrible. I’m glad that the SRS banned them because that’s what they deserved. And I’m glad that the man didn’t go through with it.

            • Real quick what is “SRS”?

            • Vachette says:

              It stands for “Shit Reddit Says”

              It’s a subreddit (like a small subforum on Reddit) that highlights the rampant racism, homophobia and sexism that is all over Reddit. It also frequently calls out r/mensrights for all the sexism and misogyny that goes on there (Recently, an MRA poster saying that women inherently have less of a sense of justice than men was given 7 upvotes and only one thumbs-down), so MRAs hate SRS.

            • but its actually produces more hate than another other reddit.

            • By “sexism” I assume you mean “sexism against women” Because from what I’ve seen the people from SRS don’t seem to have a problem with sexism against men

      • Do those places represent the entire MRM?

        But to answer your, “If this guy doesn’t represent moderate MRA views, why is he a moderator?” because even in places where there are moderate people there can still be mods that excuse the worst of behavior. Or does that mean that I can actually judge all of Feministe and the people that hold it in good graces as bad because one of its mods have allowed people to defend the idea that all men are rapists?

        I’m all for clearing out all the misogyny, misandry, racism, etc…. but I’m not playing this game of “well this bigotry is okay but this one has to go” anymore.

        • I’m not talking about a mod simply allowing someone to post that a false rape accuser should have her throat slashed, because obviously, allowing a post does not mean condone it.

          I’m talking about a mod who HIMSELF said that a women should have her house burned down and her throat slashed.

          • Peter Houlihan says:

            So completely unlike a prominent feminist announcing that people who defend accused rapists (who turned out to be innocent) are “rape loving scum.”

            http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/marcotte-and-empathy-a-letter-to-the-editor/

            The only difference being that misogyny is relegated to some back corner of the internet whereas misandry is acceptable fare for mainstream newspapers.

            Not that I’d defend the guy on reddit, its a horrible thing to say, but if MRAs and masculists are to be called out on their misogyny theres an even longer history of misandry within feminism to denounce.

      • Mark Neil says:

        “If this guy doesn’t represent moderate MRA views, why is he a moderator?”

        I’ll leave Kyle to speak for reddit and return to you how , if the multiple editors of jezebel don’t represent feminist views, why are they all still editors and the vast majority of their comments positive.

        http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have

        What about the government sponsored SCUM society in Europe? Given how much the SCUM manifesto gets associated with feminism due to Solanas being held up as an icon of feminism after attempting to kill Andy Warhol, you’d think feminists would try to shut that down, but not a word.

  27. Vachette says:

    “None of the violent men mentioned—or Thomas Ball who committed violence against himself—were associated with the Manosphere.”

    Not true. This past year, Paul Elam, founder of AVFM, posted a song written for his site which explicitly named Thomas Ball in its lyrics, saying that “his death will not go in vain”. Also, AVFM has a tab for Activism that you can click to be directed to Ball’s manifesto.

    Just last week, the MRAs on Reddit were campaigning to get Ball his own Wikipedia article.

    • “Just last week, the MRAs on Reddit were campaigning to get Ball his own Wikipedia article.”

      You realize that there are 31,500 subscribers, and anyone in the world can log in and write anything. Even in an email to Potok, he conceded this point.

      • Vachette says:

        I think they were complaining because their article on Ball kept getting deleted or something…I don’t know.

        My main point was that Rudd is wrong to say that there’s no connection between the MRM and people like Thomas Ball when in fact the connection is plain as day.

        Also, Rudd here has written some pretty foul things of his own on his “Gucci Little Pig” website, recently accusing Fluke of being a lesbian because one of her fingers was longer than the other. He’s part of the problem.

        http://glpiggy.net/2012/03/06/sandra-flukes-2d4d-ratio-and-pirates/

      • Vachette says:

        Oh I see, you’re talking about people posting whatever they want on the Subreddit…gotcha.

        The Reddit mention is not nearly as problematic to me as the AVFM one, since, far from some random guy, Paul Elam is a popular figure in the MRM and seems to be well-respected.

        • I don’t speak for Paul. What do you mean by well respected? We could back and forth with these claims and counter claims all day. So, how do we stop the hate and the violence? How do we get back to talking about the problems?

          • Vachette says:

            I didn’t see your post before I posted.

            This website seems to be a good start. I don’t always agree with that’s written here, but I think overall GMP does a service by addressing issues like masculinity and violence againt boys. That’s all I have to say about that.

      • Vachette says:

        Anyway here’s the thing:

        I’m fully aware that there are some MRAs who are legitimately concerned with men’s issues–the Subreddit is surprisingly one of the few places I’ve found

        And I think I’ve seen your name in the comments at NSWATM, which is a website that does seem to be legitimately concerned with men’s issues, so I’ll assume you are one of those MRAs. if so, I’m glad.

        However, I have seen enough to understand that misogyny and violent rhetoric dominate most of MRA discourse, to the point where I cannot support it. I would like to see something good come rom the MRM but I’m not very hopeful.

        • And you wonder why the cycle continues? You see only what you want to see. You defend one group who does the very thing you claim another group does. And I get this from both sides, denial and blame. You won’t stop either, because youve made up your mind the right and wrong. Gender wars!

          • Vachette says:

            There’s no gender war going on. That’s another invention of MRA paranoia, and a way for MRAs to justify their extremist atittudes.

            Also, no, the feminist movement doesn’t do what the MRM does. You’re going to say I’m biased but I don’t care. When one of the most popular feminist sites starts talking about how male sufferage destroyed Western civilization, then you’ll have a point.

            • Mark Neil says:

              ” That’s another invention of MRA paranoia,”

              You’re seriously going to try and pin the term “gender war” on the MRM and label it a result of paranoia?

              “Also, no, the feminist movement doesn’t do what the MRM does. You’re going to say I’m biased but I don’t care.”

              “I don’t care”… That shows an open mind and a willingness to be self critical…But seriously, just goes to show you as ideologically driven, rather than reason driven.

              ” When one of the most popular feminist sites starts talking about how male sufferage destroyed Western civilization, then you’ll have a point.”

              Care to describe patriarchy theory to me? You point to one article, but patriarchy is a fundamental theory for many feminists.

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              Male sufferage hasn’t happened yet, but several sites are describing how men standing up for their rights is a threatening action. You seem to be one of them.

        • Mark Neil says:

          ” to the point where I cannot support it.”

          But this article isn’t about supporting it, it is about the SPLC calling it a hate group and trying to dismantle it. Nobody is asking you to like us, you’re clearly come from the feminist ideology that is being blamed for contributing to or perpetuating men’s current problems, largely by your own blaming of men for doing the same to women. But to silence us… That doesn’t follow with your next line:

          “I would like to see something good come rom the MRM but I’m not very hopeful.”

          It won’t if the MRM gets shut down as a hate group, but if it does get shut down, you can be sure something very bad will happen, just as if the KKK had managed to shut down the civil rights groups as hate groups (rather than the other way round). Men are waking up to the injustices we face, if feminism keeps railing against acknowledging that, as well as railing against those who do, the results will be very ugly. And I point to feminism because Manboobz had his sausage hands all over this SPLC thing.

          • Vachette says:

            “The results will be very ugly”

            What do you mean, ugly? This sounds like another veiled threat which MRAs are so fond of making. MRAs rarely say “I’lll hurt you if you oppose me”, but I’ve seen a lot of talk about how society will collapse and widespread violence will break out if MRA’s needs are not met. MRA leaders talk about “inflicting enough pain to shock society out of its coma”, and you wonder why that gets the SPLC’s attention?

            • Mark Neil says:

              London Riots are being attributed as a consequence of fatherlessness, which is one of the issues the MRM is fighting against and gotten resistance to from feminists like NOW and Women’s bar association. The civil rights movement resulted in a great many riots as well. Men have been dropping out of the marriage racket for decades, to the point I can’t go a weak without seeing a “where are all the good men” or some hateful peter pan syndrome article. None of these were organized, and so were not someone carrying out “veiled threats”. It is a reality that when you push too hard against a group of people, they eventually push back, and men are a rather large group of people, not easily subjugated.

              “will break out if MRA’s needs are not met”

              Nice strawman. It isn’t about “if MRA’s needs are met”, it’s about “if things keep going the way they’re going”.

              But go ahead and pretend I’m making veiled threats (rather than predictions based on historical precedent) with plans to incite riots (to suggest it is a threat is to suggest I or we have both means and intention to carry out those consequences), it’s easier to play the victim than to face the consequences of your ideology.

            • Peter Houlihan says:

              Yep, when feminists have been spouting the same hate for years (but only rarely acting on it) and haven’t been called out I do have to ask why theres a sudden fervour now men are doing it.

        • Peter Houlihan says:

          I’m glad you’re generously willing to admit that “some” MRAs are concerned with men’s rights. In return I’ll generously accept that some feminists are genuinely interested in equality.

    • Mark Neil says:

      You have things backwards. Thomas Ball did not have associations with the men’s rights movement, that does not mean the men’s right’s movement does not see the issues that caused his actions and choose to use (part of) those actions to bring attention to those issues. IE, Thomas Ball did not do what he did for the MRM, nor because of the MRM, as he was not involved with the MRM.

  28. I’ll address the comment Kyle, by emailing Vachette and placing it on Mod, though I personally would like the see the question re-written. I’ve seen that quote before, and in other places, and I don’t understand the motivation for it.

    • The quote is obviously wrong headed out and in very bad taste, but I can’t control what other people write. I haven’t seen that quote, but i don’t doubt it was said. Those kind of people speak for me and most others as much as Radfems speak for the feminists here. Labels suck.

  29. Truth hurts.

    • Which truth? There are articles saying feminism is a hate-movement and can link to hate speech by feminists, is it any more true than this?

      The few do not equal the many.

  30. SPLC is just another feminist infested organization. Move on, nothing to see, if they like to discredit themeselve with such nonsense, let them do it. We’re going our way, no way to stop us.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] have a piece up at Good Men Project covering the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attack on the Manosphere. [...]

  2. [...] CHUCK RUDD: “The Southern Poverty Law Center Creepy Mission,” The Good Men Project, March 10, [...]

  3. [...] Rudd writes at the Good Men Project: The Southern Poverty Law Center—a non-profit civil rights organization that made its bones going [...]

  4. [...] Law Center Takes Aim at Men’s Rights Websites March 27, 2012By adminChuck Rudd writes at the Good Men Project: The Southern Poverty Law Center—a non-profit civil rights organization that made its bones going [...]

  5. [...] SPLC published an “Intelligence Report” which I and others argued is evidence of “mission creep” over at SPLC.  Pointing out “hate groups” helps keep the SPLC relevant.  [...]

  6. [...] is this woman on about?  Where are the roving bands of jackbooted MRAs? The SPLC report, which I addressed in my first piece at GMP earlier this year, mentioned killers like Anders Breivik and Marc Lepine and the self-imolating Thomas Jane Ball as [...]

Speak Your Mind