Here is another feminist blogpost.
The main post is about the venue cancellation for “Radfem” and even seems to be an attempt at distancing themselves from it. But this is the part I noticed:
“The so-called MRAs appear to be living on a different planet: a planet in which women have so successfully seized control that men and boys are now a downtrodden, [marginalized[ group. It isn’t really within the scope of this article to [criticize] their position, but a beautiful piece that does so can be found here.”
The following is my response:
In the world I live in, if a man is a victim of domestic violence, he is still the one arrested. If a woman decides to make a false accusation of rape (say for giggles) her identity is shielded, whereas the man she accuses has his life ruined even if he is lucky enough to prove his innocence. Most people will remember only the accusation (front page of all the papers) and assume it’s true. In divorce, the wife gets everything automatically (except the bill, which goes to the husband.) She doesn’t even need a reason to file for divorce. That’s what “no fault” was created for.
The fact is that it is the planet Earth on which the typical man is marginalized. It is this planet on which men have no *inherent* value. Women are deemed valuable automatically. Men have to “earn” value through great achievements. And most don’t make it. Instead, they’re considered to be ATMs
I am anti-feminist because I see feminism’s claim that it is about equality to be a lie. Feminism is about female supremacy. It is quite plain why you do not want to give opponents “a platform.” I, on the other hand, want you to be heard. I want you to be recognized for what you are, outside of your echo chamber.
I don’t expect her to approve my response. After all, she doesn’t want to give a platform to opposing points of view. It’s not nearly as effective as using strawmen.
They want to avoid marriage and relationships. That’s fine. In today’s society, in which a woman can file “no fault” divorce and take 90 percent or more of everything the husband has or ever will have, marriage is a losing proposition for men. Some even go so far as to want to have nothing to do with any women in any capacity. I think that is unwise. But I will get back to that later.
Some people are trying to ridicule those who op out of marriage saying that they are “betas” and probably wouldn’t have children of their own anyway. But really, that’s the point. They already know this. They know that they would get burned in divorce court and spend the rest of their lives paying for the children of other people. Opting out of that scam sounds very sensible to me. And society is pretty much built on the backs of “betas.” I don’t blame anyone for deciding he doesn’t want to be a sucker anymore.
But feminists are not going to want to let their cash cow go. Sooner or later, they are going to push for laws to make marriage mandatory. They will not want “opting out” to be an option. In order to keep from being burned again, they are going to need the majority of the population that marriage should not be forced on men who don’t want it and that bachelorhood should not be punished. And this is where I think having nothing to do with women is unwise. In order for society to continue to recognize that bachelorhood is no crime, there have to be women on board. If all women were to support mandatory marriage and a few male politicians played along for something that they would get out of it, it would be out of the frying pan and into the fire.
Ultimately, this needs to be about recognizing the humanity of men. And there are women who will recognize that humanity. Not every woman has a marriage and a divorce planned out. Opting out of marriage is fine, and even a good idea. Opting out of politics is suicide.
On this blogpost, wwomenwwarriors claimed that SPLC declared MRAs to be a hate group and that that meant that MRAs are of the same order as the KKK.
My reply was to point out a simple fact. When we identify the Klan as a hate group (which is appropriate) we point out the things that they have done — cross burning, lynch mobs, and the like. As yet, MRAs have done nothing that warrants such a classification. So all they have is a declaration by some group. The owner of the blog found this reply to be inconvenient and deleted it. I’m really not surprised.
The post is here.
Now, the author is claiming that WoolyBumblebee is not a real MRA and seems to be suggesting that she is trying to sabotage the movement. As evidence he provides a screen capture of part of an internet discussion, but no link. He says he’ll tell you the context. As you might guess. I like links. I like to check things out for myself. And his claims do not fit well with my existing observations.
The cynic in me says that this is someone who wants to dismantle the men’s rights movement. It looks like he is using a divide-and-conquer strategy. Creating strife and driving all women away would certainly play into the hands of those who want to eliminate the men’s rights movement. But I don’t know for sure that that is his intent.
Personally, I think this smells fishy. As always, people will come to their own conclusions.
My revised opinion is that the original author is seeing women trying to take over when they are not. I think this partly fits the adage of “once bitten, twice shy.”
The post is here.
She follows the standard practice of inventing lies and accusing people of harassment. Admitting the truth, that she belongs to a hate group that excludes and wants to kill men, is just not her policy.
One such complaint is here.
Now, that person makes a lot of accusations. But that country has a law on the books that says people cannot be excluded from such events on the basis of sex. As it turns out, that particular group excludes men. Now, I realize that feminists don’t see men as actual people. They would be up in arms about an event that excluded women. And they would use that law to stop it. They’re upset because the law works both ways. They only want it to their advantage. They think it’s perfectly acceptable to say “women only.”
I don’t buy it. Some feminists are more active than others. But I don’t find feminists objecting to the banner of feminism being used to pursue sexist policies. They only object to being called out on it. Well, I realize that no one likes to be called out on bad behavior.
Another claim I hear quite a bit of is that there are “hundreds of different types of feminism.” Which is strange, because they just identify themselves as “feminists.” Now, there is one group that identifies itself with an adjective beyond “feminist.” That group claims to be “radical feminism.” Personally, I think it’s a con. The “radical feminists” are simply those feminists that are politically active. They function as a sort of “cat’s paw” for the rest of feminism. For lack of a better term, we will call the rest of feminism “mainline.”
“Mainline feminism” drums up support, recruits, and collects funds. Then funds and resources get transferred to “radical feminism” to be used for political ends — lobbying, protests, campaigns for their preferred political candidates, and so on. This would allow them to avoid blame when the public at large disapproves of something “radical feminism” does — except that some of us can see this is an act.