Here’s another one of those AVFM pieces that is mindboggling in its stupidity. I’ll take the reader through this step by step. John Hambling wants to talk about his penis. The rhetoric begins:
I hope nobody minds too much if I spend the entirety of this article talking about my penis.
The thought of it repulses me but I totally understand why men like you write about your penis. You think it’s the center of the universe.
For example, I have been listening and reading for a number of years, as just about every single other voice within our shared (and fabricated) cultural narrative that tells me, and tells you, and tells anyone within hearing, in the most authoritative and condemning terms, all about my personal, private sexual parts.
The entitlement just reeks. I know men like to think women are constantly talking about men’s penises but honestly, we have better things to do. Usually women talk about the entire man, ya know, that pesky thing called a human identity that men like you don’t afford to women.
For some, all P.I.V. – “Penis in Vagina” – is rape. But, of course, never mind the rape; aren’t we all inured to that chorus of hatred by now? Nobody seems to remark at the reduction of the most intimate act of physical affection to mere mechanics.
It’s not uncommon to find MRA’s brain dead when it comes to understanding philosophical ideas about the act of intercourse within a cultural context. That’s waaaaay over all of your proverbial ‘heads.’ Hambling quotes Susan Brownmiller:
Man’s discovery that his genitalia could serve as a weapon to prehistoric times, along with the use of fire and the first crude stone axe. From prehistoric times to the present, I believe, rape has played a critical function.
It is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear.
I’m not going to tell MRA’s what this analysis means because none of them would understand it even if I did. An MRA in the comment section pretty much captured the idea Brownmiller was expressing. Here’s the comment that got uprated:
This is my penis. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My penis is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My penis, without me, is useless. Without my penis, I am useless. I must fire my penis true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will…
My penis and I know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit…
My penis is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my penis clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will…
Before God, I swear this creed. My penis and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America’s and there is no enemy, but peace!~scrufflecat (13 thumbs up at posting time)
Susan Brownmiller was absolutely right in her analysis about men thinking their penis is a weapon. Thanks MRA’s.
According to this, for a man, his genitals are not a physical connection to sexual identity, or spirituality as manifested in some religions. It is not even an integral part of himself as a physical being. No, in this narrative, a penis is an implement of pain and damage. It’s a weapon.
Yes John. That’s how countless men use it and conceptualize it and that’s how the MRA commenter conceptualized it: as a weapon of war. What do men use as a weapon of war? PIV RAPE. The fact is though John, feminists DON’T separate the penis from the man that has it. That’s something that MEN have done. Everyone knows about the ‘jokes’ men make about their dicks, as if it’s a separate entity. Don’t you ever wonder why women don’t do that with their sexual organs? I leave you to ponder that.
According to feminist orthodoxy, rape, rather than being a rarely-occurring violent crime, is a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear. All men, against all women, in a process of conscious and purposeful intimidation.
First off, rape isn’t rare. Second, she’s saying it’s a premeditated crime and yes women DO fear it because it really DOES happen anytime, anywhere, and there are no signals to look for. Get it now John? That’s why people say ‘Men can stop rape.’ It’s men doing the majority of the raping and it’s a CONSCIOUS decision to rape. Why do you think gang rapes occur John? What is it about that ritual among men? Getting the picture yet John?
Consent. Enthusiastic, ongoing, affirmative consent, and without it, the usual implied agreement by which sex is actually engaged by real people in real world is now reclassified as a violent crime–but only men are the criminals obviously.
You know, it’s so rape apologist of him to tell us that the whole world operates without consent. That’s how he’d like it to operate. Citation needed for ‘only men are criminals.’ If you meant to imply that the majority of rapists are men I would agree with you.
You: The feminists engaging in all this narrative-shaping and reality-bending declaration of the identities, the sexuality and the intentions of people who not only aren’t you, but of whom you clearly have no hint of understanding.
You do not have my consent.
Tell me why you used the word ‘identities?’ Are you saying that male identity depends on the ability to rape when they want? Seems very suspicious to me since NOBODY has declared that rape=male identity except you. We have every right to talk about rape and consent.
Hold on to your keyboard for this next bit:
You don’t have my consent to declare anything about my penis. You utterly lack my consent to hypothesize on my intentions, sexual or otherwise. You have not ever asked my permission to discuss, never-mind to declare by decree what my motive might be, what my sexuality says, or what the purpose of my penis is. It’s mine, its private, you are not invited to touch, to spy, to grope unskillfully at my most intimate sexual parts or my sexuality.
LOL. Ok John. WHO said anything about YOUR penis? Why are you writing about your penis? How does enthusiastic consent between two or more people have anything to do with your penis? If I wasn’t so feministy I would think you’re taking a serious subject and reframing it about your penis because you think it’s the center of the universe which only gives more credence to Brownmiller’s quote.
I can talk about your penis all I want to but I don’t really want to. I find everything about you, as a human being, disgusting. Now the last part I understand. If you didn’t give consent for someone touch your extremely small penis then nobody should be touching it. How can you be so stupid as to miss the point entirely and then babble about YOUR boundaries and then disrespect the boundaries of others?
My sexuality is not yours to use, or abuse for your own amusement, or in construction of your narrative. You, the feminist, however, seem utterly unconcerned that your own admonitions about consent apparently do not apply to your exercise of fiat power.
So your sexuality is your penis and feminists are abusing your penis? Bwahahahah! The only one linking your sexuality=penis=rape is YOU.
Hold on folks:
But as forbearing and accommodating as I am, and so many other men evidently are, I have had entirely enough.
I am entirely sick and tired of the assault on my sexuality. If you are a feminist, I mean you are sexually assaulting me.
The feminist narrative on sex, on masculinity and on my penis is an assault. Your narrative, feminist, is sexual assault.
Right, so having consent means that your penis and your sexuality is assaulted? WTH? If this isn’t the most extreme example of an MRA turning something totally obvious into something totally unrecognizable then I’m Batgirl.
I am not playing word games. This is not a clever play of rhetoric. The present feminist narrative on sex, on male sexuality, and the feminist narrative on my penis is nothing short of ongoing sexual abuse.
That’s exactly what you’re doing: spewing rhetoric. Consent has nothing to do with male sexuality John, you idiot. Do you realize that you’re saying consent is harmful to my penis and therefore my male sexuality? Do you understand that what you’re saying is classic rape apologia? I didn’t think so.
As feminists, you have been for a very long time using my sex and sexuality. You have used my sex in cultivation of your frankly vile hate-narrative. But you do not have my consent.
Just. Wow. How very entitled. Nobody cares about your sexuality or your penis. I can talk about male rape culture till the cows come home because until men stop raping this will be a topic of conversation.
So in all this assault on the sexuality, and all this abuse of the sexual identities of men and boys by feminists, should I now explain, as to a classroom of mentally challenged children – the affection, loyalty, devotion of men, the natural love of almost all men towards women? Should I here, enrich the tyrants still controlling our public narrative?
lolwut? I suppose this is the ‘nice guy’ schpeel after he basically says consent bothers his penis.
Wouldn’t such a gift, bestowed onto a movement of sexual abusers, also be abused and used as another tool of human harm?
Just as my sexuality, and men’s, is not on offer to ideologues in service of their cultivation of hate, neither is it free to use as entertainment, or indulgence, or as assumed service to be denied by a sexual gatekeeper.
Nobody is using your sexuality you goof. The last part was REALLY rapey. ‘Denied by a sexual gatekeeper?’
And you, the feminists, you do not have my consent, or that of any of the other men or boys you continue to sexually assault and abuse.
*claps* Brava! Nobody has to get your consent to talk about rape you entitled straight white dude. This was one of the best rapey rants by Hambling ever.
If you were an activist organization deeply concerned with the issue of male suicide what would you do? In this post we’ll be dealing with what A Voice for Men does to bring critical attention to male suicide. It’s a strategy nobody knows about yet but these brave men are leading the way in activism.
WHAT A VOICE FOR MEN DOES TO HELP MALE SUICIDE
- scream on the internet that it’s feminists fault that men kill themselves
- send between $80 thousand and $100 thousand dollars to Paul Elam for him to spend personally
- tell men that crisis or suicide lines are feminist designs and aren’t worth the trouble
- complain that feminists haven’t solved the problem
- use a suicide victim as a tool to bash women and feminists
- babbling on about a feminist they don’t like that got in their face at a protest (which is what people do at protests, especially when MRA’s are there)
- tell men the entire world is full of misandric sewage
- complain that there isn’t enough research papers on a website
- turn down a phone conversation with a national mental health service to get more information on male suicide
- claim erroneously that it’s the oppression of men and boys by women that causes male suicide
- blame the entire world (mainly women) for living their lives after a man commits suicide
- claim feminists are responsible for manslaughter (I don’t know why but hey, it’s A Voice For Men)
- claim the statistics on male suicide are feminist lies
- call feminists psychopaths
Now that’s some serious activism strategies and they’re so innovative that I bet nobody in the world has tried them yet. They are guarandamnteed to Get. Shit. Done. (Since MRA’s are so fond of acronyms I will use GSD in the future.)
Please support A Voice for Men and this awesome activism by sending your donation to Paul Elam to fund his lifestyle. In the meantime go forth and GSD!
What happens when MRA’s can’t hold their own on Wikipedia? They just make another wiki where their ideas won’t be challenged and they can link back to their own echo chamber. Curious innit? WikiMANNia started as a German project. AVFM is now on board to translate and add articles in English.
Dean Esmay introduced WikiMANNia to AVFM a few days ago. He tells MRA’s that this operation isn’t about ‘fucking their shit up’ but just the opposite. It’s more about totalitarian censorship and exclusion of any possible criticism.
The creation and expansion of a reference explicitly excluding gendered ideologies is the un-doing of vandalism and censorship in other sources. So, meine Herren und Damen, go forth and help restore un-corrupted knowledge to the world!
What passes for uncorrupted knowledge? We shall see.
I surfed the English version. What I found was ridiculous. What passes for sources are sparse random news articles and links to MRA blogs. On the introductory English page there is a featured article called ‘Mate Choice Behaviour.’ The article talks about women being hypergamous, the nice word MRA’s use for gold digging whore.
Hypergamy (colloquially referred to as “marrying up”) is the act or practice of seeking a spouse of higher looks, socioeconomic, caste or status than oneself.
The term is often used more specifically in reference to a perceived tendency among human cultures for females to seek or be encouraged to pursue male suitors that are higher status than themselves, which often manifests itself as being attracted to men who are comparatively older, wealthier or otherwise more privileged than themselves.
Hypergamy isn’t a gendered definition as MRA’s present it. It’s about class. They’re wrong, as usual.
What’s used to justify this flimsy concept of hypergamous women are anecdotes about a few German women who married rich men. What a great scholarly source! There is only one other source to support their view and the link is broken. This is what passes for serious scholarship in the Men’s Rights Movement.
When I clicked on ‘mate choice behaviour’ there are more anecdotes about a few women in China who train to serve tea and learn how to spot wealthy men. The fact MRA’s think this is a feminist conspiracy based in biology is misguided because millionaire men sign up for services where they can peruse women and choose. If you search Google for ‘find a wife’ you get 2.1 billion results. Not only that but plenty of women and men marry people they love, not necessarily people that are more wealthy than them.
To show that women are biologically programmed to gold dig the MRA’s at WikiMANNia linked to an article about online dating whereby men and women ranked qualities they looked for in a potential mate. ONE study that looked at Lonely Hearts online dating service is supposed to pass for scholarship? I don’t think so.
He asked 200 university students to rate the appeal of ads containing different categories of words. When Dunbar analysed the results, he found that men and women attached very different levels of importance to the five categories.
Two hundred students in MRA-land is generalizable to the entire human population. We’re not dealing with scholars when we engage MRA’s.
MRA’s constantly complain that feminists can’t handle criticism but I think what they really mean is that they can’t handle it. Running off of Wikipedia in a tantrum to start their own site is something we can all laugh at. Especially when on the main page it warns:
All entries must be based on reliable sources.
I was pleasantly surprised and happy that I got a thank you email from Philosophy Professor Adele Mercier for speaking up on her behalf and allowing others to do the same by writing Queen’s University. I’m quite tired of A Voice for Men attacking various women and harming them. AVFM is a hate site, and I think it’s the largest hate site for the ‘Men’s Rights Movement.’
Every article on AVFM is filled with misogynist rage, false interpretations of statistics, and other false claims. The infestation of MRA’s from AVFM on the Queen’s Journal was predictable and got them into more trouble than they were in before they left a single comment. As I said earlier in another post ‘they dig themselves a deeper hole than the one they came out of.’
Adele gave AVFM an ultimatum. They had 24 hours to remove all references of her as a rape apologist, pedophile, child abuser and so on. She might just have a case because under Canadian law, from the little I’ve read about certain defamation cases, that by writing Adele’s superiors and co-workers using defamatory terms is grounds to for a lawsuit. I don’t know what’s going to happen here but I wish the best for her.
The defamation continued when MRA’s went to the Queen’s campus and put up posters of Adele’s face with the words ‘rape apologist’ underneath. Once MRA’s focus on a female they go after her with every ounce of energy they can muster. It’s NOT about helping boys and men. It’s about slandering and harassing women.
Speaking of harassing, MRA’s on reddit went after a female college student by posting all her personal information so other MRA’s could harass her. Againstmensrights reddit quickly pointed this out. The admins on Reddit should eliminate the Mens Rights Reddit for their actions but instead the admins just told them they couldn’t link to Twitter accounts. Whenever a new rule preventing them from going after a woman is made they endlessly moan and whine. Of course that’s the entitlement that these men think they have to perpetually go after women they don’t like.
AVFM’s Peter Wright added a new addendum to their mission statement:
We support and endorse only non-violent reactions to feminist governance and in fact are trying to prevent future acts of violence that feminist governance has already inspired;
In other words, they know they’re inspiring violence and whatever violence has occurred is because feminists asked for it. When you are a hate site you can’t say you are trying to prevent future acts of violence when your motto is ‘Fuck Their Shit Up.’ I’m sure we’ll see more attacks of various women in the future.
With all the hubbub going on with the recent attack on a female student at Queen’s I’m very busy. I got an email from a Queen’s student who claimed to be one of the main spokesmen against MIAS (Men’s Issues Awareness Society).
He demanded I remove the assault victim’s name from my blog. It’s a little late for that seeing as the mainstream media has run with it and so has the local media. He stated that I should’ve contacted him to use her name and that this blog was putting her in jeopardy and if I don’t remove her name I don’t support their cause. Why does he feel entitled to speak for her?
I’m not removing the name for a few reasons. One, because it was disseminated through the mainstream media in Canada before I published it. Two, because I am not going to be guilted and told I put her in danger when I’m not the one attacking her. Three, this was a selective operation on his part. I asked him whether he wrote the HuffPo, CBC, and other MSM and he never answered so I know he was specifically targeting this blog. Four, because I don’t need to contact him to use someone else’s name. IOW, he has no authorization to approve or deny my usage of a name. To try and heap a guilt trip on one feminist blogger while the national media have reported the story is like picking up a needle in a haystack.
He accused me of using the story to make a name for myself as well as telling me I was misusing facts. I asked him, since he claimed knowledge of the event, if he’d like me to report on any other information he could give me or correct me since he told me I was wrong about things. He didn’t answer that question. His response was more of the same aggressive tone. If he thinks my blog is the center of the universe in Canada you’d think he would want to give me his facts so I could report them. He wasn’t interested.
I report on issues and give links to all my sources. If someone claims knowledge then by all means correct me but don’t write me and tell me I’m not on your side and try guilting me into doing what you want me to do. This is a small blog. It’s not the CBC. Thinking that I have such influence is really ridiculous.
Misandry isn’t a ‘thing’.
Originally posted on Bread and Roses:
Misandry. This word gets thrown around a lot by guys in the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM). Supposedly it means a hatred of men and boys, and it’s supposed to be the polar opposite of misogyny, with all the same devastating effects. It’s as if they want us to think there’s some type of Newton’s Third Law for oppression. You know, for every hardship faced by women there’s an equal and opposite hardship for men. One is just as bad as the other, and therefore Men’s Rights Activists are completely necessary; someone needs to stand up for our interests for a change. Maybe at one point women were the targets of discrimination, but in this modern age the tables have turned. Men across the country are being victimized by people who hate men. Women, on the other hand, are getting a free ride with everything being handed to…
View original 1,156 more words
Paul Elam is doing his seasonal ‘damseling’ for 20 or so thousand dollars. Let me explain the concept of ‘damseling.’ I think most of you who read this blog remember how MRA’s and other male gamers targeted Anita Sarkeesian and sent her rape and death threats. A Voice For Men added their hatred into it as well by writing several nasty articles about her and doing radio shows about her. In fact, MRA’s still whine about her, saying the death/rape threats were her own fault. The following comments by an MRA were left on an article totally unrelated to Anita Sarkeesian. In fact he left these comments on the Queen’s Journal story about the recent assault of a female student who opposed a ‘Men’s Rights’ group on campus. CLICK ON IMAGES TO ENLARGE
MRA’s will never leave Anita alone and that includes Paul Elam. Paul Elam claimed Anita was ‘damseling’ ie. acting weak and using female victimhood to get money. Anita wouldn’t have received so much support if it wasn’t for the endless streams of misogyny directed at her from A Voice for Men and other sites like 4chan but lets not let the truth get in the way of some MRM ‘activism.’
The fact is Paul does the same kind of ‘damseling’ every few months when he has a need for money, which he clearly told everyone who donates to him he spends on himself. We’ve heard a lot of MRA’s crying that there’s no shelters for men but we know the MRM is not interested in opening up a men’s shelter or doing really anything for men and boys.
Paul’s pleas for money are carefully crafted and always with a little disclaimer
Results are difficult to measure.
Yes, they are difficult to measure when you’re not really doing anything except trying to turn back the clock for women and using violent rhetoric to try to harm us. This is the Men’s rights slogan: ‘Fuck Their Shit Up.’
What was most interesting to me is the most up-voted comment on Paul’s Fundraiser post.
‘AVFM is one of the only humanitarian organizations in the world that doesn’t discriminate against anybody-not even men.’
Is this a joke or something? Does everyone reading this find that statement to be a bit odd? Why would you have to point out that you don’t even discriminate against men when you’re supposedly a movement for men? It’s an admission OF discrimination the way I read it. Well, lets not get too hung up on it because later in the comments AVFM members show just how much tolerance they have for men.
Surely ‘we don’t even discriminate against men’ but we’ll gladly call men ‘Manginas’ when they don’t agree with our woman hating.