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.
The blog entry is here.
I made the following response:
Peter Clarke:
They have posted videos of these feminist activities — activities which include such actions as blocking entryways and pulling fire alarms (both illegal.) This looks to me to be more an effort to expose these groups for what they are. But, of course, feminists have no problems when they post pictures, names, addresses, and places of employment of those people feminists consider “enemies.”
Rsmtoronto:
MRAs do not categorically blame women. They categorically blame feminists. There is quite a difference. Most women are not feminists. Now, MRAs certainly say that feminism encourages women to do things like gold-digging. But they do not accuse all women.
I do not expect it to be posted. As is common on feminist sites, comment moderation is enabled so that the site owner can ensure that no “inconvenient” comments are ever seen.
At any rate, she is deceptive. MRAs do not hate women. They are not too fond of feminists. But since feminists seem to think that males are less than human, that is not too surprising. And she states other falsehoods. What I would like to point out to my readers is that, while she claims that she has found hundreds of sites that are blatantly misogynist, she doesn’t provide a link to a single one. You have to take her word for it.
The article is here.
The article claims to be the story of an MRA who converted to feminism. I think it reads very much the same as those “atheists” who “converted to christianity.” That is, I am not impressed. The blog owner managed to get the comments arranged in a way that she liked and then closed comments. If experience is any guide, they were heavily moderated before she closed them anyway. Anything that might persuade a reader that the “conversion” was utter hogwash was, of course, removed.
If you want to know what MRAs believe, go to an MRA site. Don’t go to a feminist site to “tell you what they really believe.” Even if you think the MRAs are lying about their beliefs, it’s best to check their words and their actions first. I will admit that I think feminists lie about their beliefs. But I point you at actual feminist sites. When I say what I think they believe and what I think they are trying to hide, their own sites are my evidence. Now maybe some of you won’t agree with me. And that’s okay. But I ask you to note that the blog owner takes care not to give any actual MRA site any publicity.
Strictly speaking, I am not an MRA — though I recognize that they have some valid points. I am just not that active. But I too am a patriarchy-denier, as well as a bigfoot-denier, a leprechaun-denier, a tooth-fairy-denier, and a loch-ness-monster-denier. I see nothing wrong with denying the existence of things that don’t exist. And the “patriarchy,” said by feminists to advantage all men and oppress all women, does not exist.
Well, It’s nearly Easter. I can tell because of the candy sales — that and the library is closed tomorrow. At any rate, around this time, christians like to claim that their original leader is “resurrected” and still alive. For some reason, they are never able to produce him. Surely someone that famous, if still alive, should be making television appearances. Is he that reclusive?
Now, a lot of these christians will insist that the fact that we cannot produce an identifiable corpse is proof that this guy rose from the dead. Well, no it’s not. I can’t produce an identifiable corpse of any prisoner executed and dumped into a mass grave thousands of years after the fact. It is not reasonable to expect me to be able to do so. And it is not evidence that any such person rose from the dead.
I know some christians are going to ask “wouldn’t it be easier for the authorities to produce a corpse in the few months following the death?” And it would. But it would serve no purpose. This man was (supposedly) executed around 785 AVC. The early christians claimed a spiritual resurrection. That is, it wouldn’t matter if the Romans produced a corpse. The corpse was just an empty shell. The spiritual body was “much more glorious” and he had no use for the earthly body. The christians were similarly convinced that they would have no need for their earthly bodies. It was not until around 825 AVC that the claim of a bodily resurrection was made, with the attendant challenge that the Romans produce a corpse. By this point, no one would be able to pick the right body out of the mass grave and almost no one would recognize the right body if they could. The challenge was a sham and deliberately so.
Some people might wonder if my challenge to produce the living person is equally a sham. It is not. While I would certainly not recognize this person by face (I have never seen him) I would recognize someone displaying the talents attributed to him. Someone miraculously curing the sick would be very impressive. Alas, we still need doctors and technology.
The “patriarchy” has always been a result of women’s choice in mate. The predominately straight white male at the top of the Royal Class is endorsed by the internalized misogyny of the matriarchy. The result is what I call the “lion” effect.
The Lion appears to be a patriarchy where the male simply eats and reproduces with multiple partners. It sounds like, and would be every males fantasy… if you only look at the head of the pride.
In reality… it is an exaggerated model of misandry at work because 7 out 10 male lions don’t live to the age of puberty. Of the remaining 3, One is head of the pride, and entitled to reproduce. One is occasionally allowed to be a “beta” whose only reward is to remain with the pride basically as a childless assistant. The last survivor is driven out of the pride at the approach of puberty and usually ends up either a lone hunter, or finds another exiled team mate to hunt with.
This effect is softened by society in humans. We have one of the best male survival rates for any species, yet this natural misandry is still the law of the jungle.
…
A male lion at the head of a pride must constantly defend his territory from younger males. His future is to be deposed as king and end up a slowly starving to death. With 1% of the male population using the entirety of society to eliminate their younger and stronger competition, misandry is simply a good tactic to keep power.
Norman is, once again, insisting that Hitler was an atheist. Of course, he is lying. Hitler was a christian. It is well known that Hitler was a christian. But that fact is inconvenient for people like Norman; so, in his own words he wants to “give Hitler to the atheists.”
Now, let’s start off with some understanding. A christian is simply someone who believes that the bible is the “word of god” and worships the god of the bible. As Hitler met both of these criteria, he was a christian. The fact is very straightforward. But for those christians that are most like Hitler, those who are hate-filled, and those who want to repeat his methods, the fact is problematic.
The christians I am talking about want to demonize outsiders (a tactic very popular with totalitarian regimes.) One of the methods that they use for this is “guilt by association.” They seek to associate outsiders with the methods of brutal dictators. Norman and those christians most like him call all outsiders “atheists” regardless of their actual beliefs. Now, there is no shortage of brutal dictators that have actually been atheist. But if they were to admit even one was christian, their strategy of “guilty by association” would blow up in their faces. So they do a “No True Scotsman.” They insist that nobody who did what Hitler did could possibly be a christian.
Pay attention when people like Norman claim that Hitler was an atheist. They are revealing their own inner darkness. They want to dehumanize those not like them and make it more “acceptable” to do to outsiders what Hitler did to his outsiders. They will even tell themselves and each other that mass slaughter is “god’s will.” And they will have bible verses to back it up.
Now, of course, none of what I have said above applies to most christians. Most christians believe in something like “forgiven, not perfect” and don’t need to deny Hitler being christian. They only need to reject the “guilt by association.” And they are correct in the rejection. Hitler was a christian. But his actions were not representative of christianity. Again, this is only a problem for those who would demonize outsiders.
One problem I find in discussions, particularly internet discussions and most particularly those with a controversial topic, is that people will have a tendency to be dishonest. It is as though they are trying to score points with their base or something and not trying to convince the person who believes differently.
For example: Abortion supporters will chant “her body, her choice” as if it should make the wonderfulness of abortion self-evident. They refuse to admit that those of us who are opposed to abortion do not think the child is her body. Many of them will deny that we believe what we believe. Only too often you will see “oh, you only want to control women” or the term “anti-choice.” (There is a secondary consideration in that many supporters of abortion do not apply the concept of discretion over one’s own body to other topics — if they oppose recreational drug use or elective amputation. For these people, the mantra is false outright.)
The first indicator of what someone believes is what he says he believes. If you are going to declare outright that he is lying about his beliefs, you should first have evidence to that effect. You should be able to point to statements and/or actions that do not fit in with his stated beliefs. No, holding up your propaganda and saying it says he believes X when he says he believes Y does not count.
pvblivs 