The latest Feminist deflection

originally posted by: Bluesma
I often wonder why the more intellectually balanced MRA's or feminists, don't attempt to curb their colleagues behavior which gives them all a bad name. They sit by silently instead.

Do MRAs have the same political power as feminists do? You really are comparing apples with oranges in that regard.

I followed that with some of my suspicions on why they do that... but I won't repost the entire thing. If you didn't read it the first time, it's still up. But obviously I DID get that key point from the beginning.

I don't think you did, and I don't believe you have now. I am not trying to be rude or offensive, just honest.

Exactly. It is true for feminisim as well as the MRA. Sit by and let a percentage of your members act like irrational jerks and you are giving the wrong impression of your movement.

This now confirms you still don't understand the key difference. How is it true for MRAs? You expect MRAs to take active responsibility for the actions of all who fall under their banner, when the actions of NONE of them who do fall under that banner LACK the power to screen a documentary (created by a female feminist) because a group of feminists (yeah, same group as the CREATOR of the documentary to be screened) had made unwarranted assumptions about the film about its views on feminism, women and women's rights?

You think limiting the radicals in MRAs is going to help them at all? No. Will it help reach a compromise with feminists? No. Will it get the messages out they are trying to get out? NO. Do you think the symbolism of the act of showing you are trying to limit the influence of the radical MRAs is going to convince feminists that the issues the movement raises are important and need to be considered? NO. Because if you support the release of a documentary that highlights your issues that was MADE by a feminist who was willing to compromise (proven because the documentary is finished and promoted by the feminist creator herself), if feminists will not even HEAR what this person — whose credibility should not be of any concern — it shows they are NOT willing to compromise.

And that is because all radical feminists (and at least half of the "moderate" ones) believe feminism is beyond criticism. Any non-feminist who criticises feminism hates women. Anybody that is a feminist who criticises feminism is asked if they fully understand the benefits they have gained from feminism and whether they would support ideas that compromise those benefits. Any prominent feminist who criticises feminism doesn't understand what real feminism is about.

Your comparison really is an apples to oranges comparison.

Sorry, you'll have to let me know where I was confused. I didn't feel it.

I just tried again. I hope we are now on the same page.

originally posted by: InTheLight
As usual, you are off kilter...off track. But, we all know that, except you.

Are you doing what you are doing on principle? Why not just point me to the post you have issue with and then we can resolve the issue you brought up? This bickering could all go away but you choose to keep it going. This suggests you don't really care about your original reply, what has become more important to you is "Dark Ghost being seen as caving in to InTheLight's unreasonable demands".

As I said, you can fool yourself and other feminists via self-delusion, it does not mean it will work on me or other non-feminists reading this thread.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost


I followed that with some of my suspicions on why they do that...

I don't think you did, and I don't believe you have now. I am not trying to be rude or offensive, just honest.

Okay, I'll go back and grab it for you -

It made me come to the conclusion that on each side, activists just enjoy conflict and though some want to stand by a rational stance, they enjoy the provocation and discord that is stirred up by their hothead irrational colleagues, even if it turns more of the public against their cause.... because then they can claim even more victimhood!!!

This now confirms you still don't understand the key difference.

No, you haven't understood what I am saying. I'll try again. I think the MRA could gain strength if it worked on solidarity and gaining more support from the public.

I wanted to ad my support to the movement, but eventually was repulsed by the irrational and hostile behaviors of a percentage of them that were just angry and looking for conflict -of any kind - with women. No matter what sincere show of support I could offer, and even the open endorsement of me from the leaders, they could not calm their emotions enough to be rational.

Gaining more members would be a good thing for them, I think. If the more rational ones could take the others aside and counsel them to keep focus on the goal instead of their personal issues, they might gain more support.

The feminist movement has a longer history, and has had time to swing the pendalum too far. A lot of women and men are turned off now by the radical misandry coming out (through this same effect). The MRA could sweep them in, if they could get some of their younguns to cool their heads...

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Will it help reach a compromise with feminists? No.

No, I don't think it will. I think that simply growing stronger and more numerous would leach power from the feminist movement. Social movements work in terms of majority adhesion.

Will it get the messages out they are trying to get out?

Yes, I do. I think, for example, here, you could gain more support and interest in this particular event by recognizing and acknowledging supportive interest, instead of twisting it into prosecution and conflict. Consider that you are, right now, for some readers, an example of an MRA. It is your behavior which they will use to consider - is this movement rational? Should I look into these issues alongside him? Do I want to risk becoming like him?

Do you think the symbolism of showing you are trying to limit the actions of the radical MRAs is going to convince feminists that the issues of the movement are important to consider?

No. I think the MRA's acting more intelligent, more level-headed, could leave the radical feminists standing alone and looking stupid, without support from the masses.

originally posted by: Bluesma
No, I don't think it will. I think that simply growing stronger and more numerous would leach power from the feminist movement. Social movements work in terms of majority adhesion.

It appears there is a consistent cohesion between MRA groups in terms of their views and the issues that they raise. The division mainly comes in when trying to effect change for these views to be recognised and addressed. This is understandable given the desperate position they are in.

Can feminists say the same? Because as I have clearly demonstrated in this thread alone, feminists can't agree on a standard definition, core beliefs of the movements are debated and they have a lack of strong evidence and reasoning to back up most of the beliefs they use to justify discrimination against men.

Yes, I do. I think, for example, here, you could gain more support and interest in this particular event by recognizing and acknowledging supportive interest, instead of twisting it into prosecution and conflict. Consider that you are, right now, for some readers, an example of an MRA. It is your behavior which they will use to consider - is this movement rational? Should I look into these issues alongside him? Do I want to risk becoming like him?

I'm not an MRA. Maybe you didn't know? I have certainly openly admitted it in this thread and other threads (maybe not in this thread's opening post in particular). I am actually indifferent to MRAs as a collective movement. I agree with many of their views, but not enough of them to identify as one. Just because I am willing to strongly criticise feminism as some of their members are, does not make mus one and the same.

The most ironic thing about your reply is that you seem to have this idea that I have some personal gain by seeing conflict and prosecution between feminsts and MRAs, as though seeing fellow humans fighting each other is giving me pleasure. Well you would be mistaken. I am SICK of the gender war we are experiencing. I told you about another thread I made, I WILL link it now: MY OTHER THREAD. If you are willing to read it (it is long but worth the effort), you might get a better idea of my own personal views. If you can't be bothered and then want to and then pretend I am an MRA and am being hypocritical, then we won't get far in this discussion.

No. I think the MRA's acting more intelligent, more level-headed, could leave the radical feminists standing alone and looking stupid, without support from the masses.

Your ignorance of the topic at hand makes me question why I am even bothering to help you understand. Then I think back to all the wise and reasonable posts you HAVE made in the past that I enjoyed reading, and those memories compel me to go on. So I will.

Comparing feminism and MRA as being on an equal footing is MADNESS. Applying the same approaches as to how they both ought to combat the issues of criticism each faces when knowing the one can get away with continually promoting lies and deceptions to justify their ideology, and the other cannot use truth and reason to justify theirs, HOW can you suggest a universal approach?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

It appears there is a consistent cohesion between MRA groups in terms of their views and the issues that they raise.

That is the predictable consequence of growth in the long term. As a movement grows wider, it tends to disperse, or diffuse, with time. Like I mentioned, feminism has had a longer time to grow (and therefore, diffuse). We have multiple waves, various different pathways of thought... it is harder to speak of them all in a conclusive way.

It was once very easy to know what someone was refering to when they spoke of "Christians". Now? There's many different branches with differing ideologies and practices. This is a consquence of it's spread over the globe.

The Mens Rights Movement is still rather small and young so far in comparison. It is expected that their motivating ideas are still rather concentrated.

I'm not an MRA. Maybe you didn't know?

I guessed that, since you asked who Paul Elam is....though he is even in the link you posted.
My point was that we are ALL seen by others as an example of what we speak.
Being mindful of that is helpful.

The most ironic thing about your reply is that you seem to have this idea that I have some personal gain by seeing conflict and prosecution between feminsts and MRAs, as though seeing fellow humans fighting each other is giving me pleasure.

You have misunderstood me then. I said the more rational and coolheaded MRA's (or feminists, on their side) do not speak up in such instances because they know it will stir up conflict and opportunities to claim victimhood.

See, if you wish to use this example here, there might be some quietly watching right now. As you provoke and stir conflict with other posters, you influence them to argue with you...they begin to speak more and more negatively of the MRA, and of their issues because that is what you are representing here.

So any of them can point to this thread and say - see? We are prosecuted and victimized by people!
They are insulting US and the issues that are important to us!

(the truth is just that you slowly pushed them to oppose you.)

I am not really interested in determining or judging you personally. I am more focused on the larger issues, and how to bring greater awareness to these issues in an efficient way.

Comparing feminism and MRA as being on an equal footing is MADNESS. Applying the same approaches as to how they both ought to combat the issues of criticism each faces when knowing the one can get away with continually promoting lies and deceptions to justify their ideology, and the other cannot use truth and reason to justify theirs, HOW can you suggest a universal approach?

I do not say they are on equal footing. I have repeated that many times, and did it again on the top of this post.
Have you done any research into the history of the feminist movement? (you obviously didn't do any into the MRA).
It is a long history, with many changes in time.

It began to really take the masses and go mainstream in the seventies. More men began to self identify with feminism. (my dad used to wear some pin that claimed he was a feminist LOL). At that time, they were using a more balanced discourse. They were being more intellectually stimulating, they were more concentrated in focus, and they put more emphasis on the principle of equality. This is what got them ahead in the race.

Then, in my opinion, the movement began it's expected degradation once it over took - power and it's corruption. There is a newer wave that is vindictive and no longer proclaims the goal of equality, but rather, feminine domination, as something owed to them, or because women are superior beings to men. That "branch" has gone nutso.

The MRA could get ahead right now, if they used the same tactic feminism did when it was still less powerful. Be reason in face of chaos.

a reply to: Bluesma

Thanks for explaining your perspective. You make some valuable points and now I better understand your perspective. Unfortunately, you are still resisting trying to understand what the issue is in relation to the opening post of this thread. Until you are willing to, I cannot discuss anything further with you in relation to this thread.

Meanwhile, the gender war will continue and nobody will try to change anything. Feminism will continue to claim it's all about equal rights for everyone, MRAs will continue to be viewed as misogynists and anybody who shares similar views will be linked to them via guilt-by-association.

Around and around the cycle goes. I wonder who benefits most from when the Gender War reaches its peak? (It's not feminism, not MRAs and its certainly NOT Western civilisation.)

a reply to: fotsyfots

Perhaps nowhere is the legal discrepancy between genders more openly tolerated than in the Family Courts. Netflix has a documentary on this (sorry, can't remember the name) that will scare a sane person silly.

Thankfully, I will never have to go through that system; both of my kids are grown and on their own. My sincere hopes that you can come out of this experience as unscathed as possible...

TheRedneck

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Do MRAs have the same political power as feminists do?

No, they do not. The reason is that they haven't been around as long and haven't had a legitimate gripe as long. Unfortunately, public support is rarely given freely or quickly.

Feminism had its roots many years ago and had quite reasonable demands. There was a period in history when women were thought of as almost property of a man. Thankfully, that period has long passed, but a substantial part of those thanks goes to the early feminist movements.

I still maintain, as I have for some time, that modern feminism is far removed from those early ideals and no longer represents anything remotely resembling equality, fairness, or reality. That simply does not keep me from acknowledging history.

Men's rights are making some small progress as of late, but there is still much to do and modern feminists will and do oppose at every turn. Time will bring things back toward equilibrium, of course, but in the meantime that is little consolation for those adversely affected by runaway feminism now.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Now why has no one answered the converse? What rights have men lost?

Its on page 1 of the OP - the right to see a documentary exploring mens rights issues made by a woman!

DENDY has become the latest cinema to ban a controversial film exploring the men’s rights movement, following pressure from feminist groups. A sold-out April 26 session at Dendy Newtown for The Red Pill, a documentary by US filmmaker Cassie Jaye, has been cancelled, and a session scheduled for Dendy Canberra on May 17 also appears to have been ditched. The showings were organised by cinema crowdsourcing website FanForce. Dendy, the art house cinema chain owned by Mel Gibson’s Icon Film Distribution, did not respond to requests for comment.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't doubt there is merit and valid results coming out of that study.

What I find rather telling is the made up name for the test female applicant used. Now why wouldn't they mention that. Was it perhaps Prudence or Olga?

Until they tell me that name I wouldn't take it as a "randomized" non-biased study.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I read a few reviews from those that viewed 'The Red Pill' and I agree with the fact that Cassie Jaye did not challenge or interview these activists on their hate speech and their insinuations that women are begging to be raped. She conducted a poor interview in my opinion by not bringing to light the fact that some of these men are directing their hate at the wrong target.

So, is The Red Pill a fair and balanced look at a rarely acknowledged side of gender issues, or a paid infomercial for misogynists?

One valid criticism of The Red Pill is that it soft-pedals or evades the extreme, even genuinely misogynist rhetoric spouted by some of its subjects — such as the prominently featured Paul Elam, founder of A Voice for Men. Jaye defends an infamous post of his proclaiming October “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” (in lieu of Domestic Violence Awareness Month) as a satirical rejoinder to a post on the feminist blog Jezebel that treats women’s violence toward men with humor and bravado. But even accepting that argument, there are other Elam posts that are hard to dismiss as satire, including one declaring that women who “taunt men sexually” are “begging” to be raped.

Another interviewee, female MRA Alison Tieman, has authored a bizarre rant claiming that most women are so sexually selfish and arrogant that it’s a mystery why men bother with them.

This is nasty stuff. Yet none of it is mentioned in the film.

Of course it would help if feminists, from Jezebel bloggers to Australian writer Clementine Ford, didn’t get a pass for equally demeaning and hateful language toward males. But two wrongs, as usual, don’t make a right.

These women-hating and rape advocates are showing their true colours and if the male-dominated legal and political systems saw fit to not grant them custody of their children, I say they did the right thing.

heatst.com...

As for Adau Mornyang having the courage to not remain silent about being raped, I say it is high time we put the blame where it belongs.

First off, she should not have been served alcohol, being 17 years old, so whoever sold her alcohol should be charged and sent to prison. Secondly, those two rapists/predators should be in prison where they belong for committing that heinous crime of raping a child and there should be no statute of limitations in place for these types of crimes.

originally posted by: InTheLight
I read a few reviews from those that viewed 'The Red Pill' and I agree with the fact that Cassie Jaye did not challenge or interview these activists on their hate speech and their insinuations that women are begging to be raped. She conducted a poor interview in my opinion by not bringing to light the fact that some of these men are directing their hate at the wrong target.

Who "should" these men be directing their "hate" at in your opinion? The patriarchy? A supposed system they cannot see, challenge, take to court, write to directly or even have dialogue with? A supposed system that if it were real would completely negate the need for them to even complain? Which would actually be advancing their interests as privileged males and not destroying them? Who/what else can you suggest?

One valid criticism of The Red Pill is that it soft-pedals or evades the extreme, even genuinely misogynist rhetoric spouted by some of its subjects — such as the prominently featured Paul Elam, founder of A Voice for Men. Jaye defends an infamous post of his proclaiming October “Bash a Violent Bitch Month” (in lieu of Domestic Violence Awareness Month) as a satirical rejoinder to a post on the feminist blog Jezebel that treats women’s violence toward men with humor and bravado. But even accepting that argument, there are other Elam posts that are hard to dismiss as satire, including one declaring that women who “taunt men sexually” are “begging” to be raped.

Another interviewee, female MRA Alison Tieman, has authored a bizarre rant claiming that most women are so sexually selfish and arrogant that it’s a mystery why men bother with them.

This is nasty stuff. Yet none of it is mentioned in the film.

So why the need to ban it then? Why can the general population not be trusted to watch the documentary and decide for themselves? Are you afraid that the majority of men that view the documentary will flat out turn into the alpha males they secretly are and use this documentary as evidence that females deserve to be mistreated? That women who view the documentary and agree with its overall message might stop and consider men's issue and question the behaviour they are promoted to take part in might not be so beneficial after all? Why are you, as a feminist, SO afraid for this documentary to come out and be seen by the general population, if it is NOT actively promoting the mistreatment of women?

These women-hating and rape advocates are showing their true colours and if the male-dominated legal and political systems saw fit to not grant them custody of their children, I say they did the right thing.

Yep, because all MRAs want to do is promote those things that demonise women and don't really care about the issues affecting them directly, sounds reasonable...

As for Adau Mornyang having the courage to not remain silent about being raped, I say it is high time we put the blame where it belongs.

Again, you misrepresent the issue being raised in the opening post. It was not about the act of rape. And nobody in this thread, including myself, did encourage her to be silent about her rape. If you don't know what the issue raised in the opening post is by NOW, 12 pages in, then you have no hope of understanding it in the future.

First off, she should not have been served alcohol, being 17 years old, so whoever sold her alcohol should be charged and sent to prison. Secondly, those two rapists/predators should be in prison where they belong for committing that heinous crime of raping a child and there should be no statute of limitations in place for these types of crimes.

The laws in Australia to sell alcohol require the buyer to be 18 years and older, so it is unlikely she bought it herself from a store (nice attempted deflection there.) So how DID she acquire the alcohol? Want to investigate that, or is anything demonstrating that she, knowing it was illegal to buy and therefore likely to be illegal as well or at least knowing it was unwise to consume before she did consume it, went ahead and did it anyway because she wanted to have fun, would that also be recognised as trying to "blame the victim"?

The two rapists should be in prison, but unless there is evidence of who they are and what they did (she has not revealed anything further) you cannot just take any two random guys off the street and blame them as guilty. If she cannot prove what happened to her and who was responsible, then she cannot achieve justice for her suffering. And your suggestion that "no statute of limitations in place for these types of crimes" part, does that include a full investigation of the events surrounding the crime for both the victim and the perpetrators, or JUST the perpetrators?

*****************

In essence, your argument is as follows:

"If a female who alleges she is the victim of rape decides to report the crime to the police, the police are obligated to immediately arrest and detain the accused until a trial can be organised. Once the trial has been organised, the accused must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not rape the alleged victim and until that is done, it is under assumption that he is guilty and must be sentenced according to a minimum period that establishes that raping women is not acceptable.

In the trial, no mention of context surrounding the alleged victim's behaviour may be taken into account, but full context as well as a detailed history must be provided to demonstrate that the perpetrator has not been involved to any degree with behaviour in the past he is now being accused of doing. Any suggestion that the female victim may be lying for personal reasons MUST be dismissed. Any suggestion the male perpetrator is lying must be fully investigated and weighed up with evidence of his past behaviour and public views he has shared in regard to his perceived or demonstrated behavioural attitude where the mistreatment of women has been endorsed."

1) If the above IS what you are hoping to achieve, just come out and say so. At least then there is no confusion as to what you want to change about the legal system in its current form.

2) If the above is a misrepresentation of what you truly want, then say why and explain clearly what it is you want changed and how you suggest we go about changing it.

If you remain silent or ignore what I have just said, I WILL take it as evidence you are agreeing with number 1 but are too afraid to openly admit it. That is your issue to deal with. At this point anybody who has seen your posts throughout this thread and thinks you are arguing for number 2 is either stupid or a feminist sympathiser themselves.