Messages

46

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 09:36 PM

Pretty interesting article here about AVFM  http://rockingmre.blogspot.com/2013/02/now-even-angry-harry-is-wrong.html

No I find it disappointing that a number of mens rights activists that I used to have a lot of respect for are taking every opportunity to pick over and distort every faltering step that AVFM  might make in its progress and evolution. Before I say more let me make clear that Angry Harry is NOT one of those opportunists I am referring to but "Rocking Mr E" is.
I don't pretend to know or fully understand whence this hyper-criticality has arisen but I have my own personal suspicions. Anyway to correct some of Mr E's inaccuracies in the article.
The article that Angry Harry and Paul Elam fell out about was not about "recovered memory syndrome" - the actual title of the article was "The rapists & victims they refuse to see" written by former marine James Landrith. In that article James describes a rape wherein he was raped while incapacitated and initially unconscious etc. Angry Harry begins to cast doubt on the veracity of James Landrith's account - he doesn't accuse James of knowingly lying but he begins to assert that what James described was a "recovered memory" and that he feels compelled to point this out etc. Paul Elam and some others at AVFM supported James account now at this stage let me say I really don't know which of those two sides was factually correct because as far as I know there were no witnesses to what transpired in that hotel room apart from James and his alleged rapist.
In short I have sympathy with both sides  - with Angry Harry's POV because I do appreciate the risks to our credibility when we post allegatory articles like that of events that happened (or not) such a long time ago. Those who know the author of such accounts very well may well be in a better position than most others to judge how trustworthy a source they are but for most readers they won't have that privilege. Certainly I have been personally critical when feminists have printed accounts concerning allegations of rape as if they were proven facts so I could appreciate Harry's concerns. That said Paul believes in the mans integrity and doesn't accept Angry Harry conjecture that James account is merely a "recovered memory" and not a reliable account of what actually happened.
All I can say is that since the article was published I have not seen another similar being published on the site and I am very happy about that for many of the reasons of credibility that I outlined earlier.
Rocking Mr E also claimed that AVFM is also guilty of "endorsing marxism" and provides links to a couple of articles published last year on AVFM.
Lets take the first article linked to called "MRM Marxism?" - this wasn't AVFM endorsing "marxism" but rather allowing a marxist supporter who also supported mens rights to explain his left wing philosophy and what makes fellow mra marxists like himself "tick". I thought this was a very positive thing to do because I can think of a certain country (five letters - first letter is "c" and last is "a") where this understanding could be extremely useful in the future. Some individuals though were very upset that this article got published because despite a consultation amongst supporters of AVFM overwhelmingly supporting an apolitical stance in it's activism there were others like Bernard Chapin who refused to accept that with good grace and were miffed that their partisan view did not prevail. I find this highly ironic because on balance I would say that the majority of AVFM supporters including Paul Elam favour the right in their personal political views than the left! 
This is why I chuckled when I saw Mr E write the following:

"Here lies the contradiction. Paul doesn't see the leftists, almost at the point of total domination at AVfM, as comparable to fascism."
This is pure paranoid bullshit - the takeover by "lefties" most certainly has not occurred unless you think being "inclusive" and tolerant of differences (in a genuine sense) is the exclusive province of the left! Certainly there are many right wing supporters (some very high profile) who see the wisdom of not trying to dictate what politics an mens rights supporter must follow in order to be regarded as a valid activist.
To say this kind of "reds under the beds" hyperbole is misplaced is an understatement. AVFM is managed and run by a Texan not exactly known for being tolerant of attempts to bully him into compromising what he sees as his mission and that the support he has for that mission is despite what some naysayers are trying to claim is actually rapidly growing. Only today in fact AVFM has published an article pointing out that it has now outgrown not only Feministing but also The Good Men Project the latter starting out with a massive investment of funding!
Success alas often brings resentments in certain quarters and while I don't pretend that everything AVFM does and says is beyond reproach it has got it right where it matters far more times than not.
When you see the likes of Erin Pizzey giving it her backing and active support  you can bet that that isn't just empty rhetoric on my my part.

47

Main / Re: The male positive music and video thread

Mar 15, 2013, 05:53 PM

I'm a big fan of the Chemical Brothers (My Bro is a dance DJ and turned me on to them long ago).
Here are two tracks that are largely lyricless. The first one is accompanied by a very pro-male video (in my view) the second video\track has no video except for a static image but it just always gets my pulse racing in a good way so i hope it has similar effects on at least some of you guys
The Chemical Brothers - K+D+B

The Chemical Brothers - Dissolve [Lyrics in Description Box]

48

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 05:36 PM

Thanks for offering your perspective Tigerman. That's what I was looking for.

Happy to oblige

49

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 05:14 PM

um, Tigerman, you never answered my question.  At least I couldn't find it in what you wrote.  I am curious what your perspective might be but you seem unwilling to comment.

Sorry Dr E I set out to do just that in my very long post (ie the one before the last one I made) but ended up consuming so much of my time trying to first make sense of then address Factory's accusations. Anyway here goes...

Dr E

Tigerman -  I am less concerned with the actual policy and more concerned with the daily reality.

Quote
It seems factory that you are suggesting that they have indeed excluded some for their ideas while at the same time hoisting the banner of inclusiveness.  A rather odd combo.  Can you comment on that Tigerman?

Is this correct or not?  Is there personal attacks for having ideas that differ?  Are people free to speak their minds and insured a degree of safety?  Please don't quote the moderation policy.  That is not what I am asking. 

In short no it is not true - not in my experience anyway. That said I don't think you should just take my word for it either - you or anyone else is free to examine what is written there both editorially and in the comments - the only exceptions being where some articles have been recently removed from the site because of the possibility some of them could have been plagiarised (I mentioned this earlier in this thread) but that will be only a handful of articles out of hundreds if not thousands that are published and acrchived there for all to see.

50

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 04:48 PM

Factory -   I read through the above posts and didn't see anything that seemed so bad.  Seemed more like a difference of opinions and not getting what each other meant.  Am I missing something?

Yep it was very weird reading that because it simply does not validate or demonstrate what Factory clearly seems to think it does.

51

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 04:45 PM

Factory:
Have just read your post where you copied the exchanges between yourself and Paul (and one or two others). All I can say is that as far as I am concerned it does not validate your accusations and claims against AVFM and it's "direction" etc whatsoever.
I don't want to speculate or insult you but something has thrown your judgement wayyy off.

52

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 04:25 PM

Here in this one post I am going to address both Dr E's questions and Factory's latest accusations

First of all to my knowledge Angry Harry was not banned from AVFM. That he disagreed with Paul Elam over some issues arising from a post made there I acknowledge - it was a very long comment thread and indeed Angry Harry did not make any threats implied or otherwise of a violent nature (it's just not in his nature is my judgement of the man).
Heated words were exchanged by both sides that is true and from my personal perspective it was not exactly a comfortable sight witnessing that (albeit somewhat later) .
As I stated before I have enormous respect for Angry Harry even when I may not fully agree with any particular one of his opinions (as it happens I agree with what he writes 90% + of the time) I never doubt the sincerity with which he writes nor his humanism.
There are two things that can get you banned in commenting one is promoting violence in any way and another is being chronically disruptive.
My recollection of Factory getting banned is that he was warned about expressing violent intent - he ignored it and was subsequently banned - that's it. You can accuse AVFM of many things but when it comes to the primary rule of not promoting violence (even as an idea) no one is exempt whether they be a newbie or old timer so partially is not a charge that will stick against AVFM.
As for Factory's allegations of "doxing" I honestly know nothing about this and I certainly don't recollect seeing any such details in the thread he got banned in.
Nor after all the consistent hostility, ill-will and insults that he has sent my way do I have any inclination whatsoever to be his "champion" on this issue - I am not a saint and although I generally route for what I perceive to be the underdog Factory has thrown too much shit for me to ignore and still feel some sympathy for.
Should he prove his allegation and there is no satisfactory explanations from the other side - I will take that on board and  react according to my conscience on the matter.
I should also point out there is a world of difference between being banned and so called being "driven away".
At this point let me be frank and state the extremely angry tone of Factory's responses does present me something of a challenge as although it might seem otherwise I am as red blooded a guy as the next man. That said I don't think ill willed invective laden exchanges make for a better understanding of anything on the contrary my experience is that they solidify divisive positions.
That said I will quote Factory directly because then he cannot accuse me of ignoring his points invective laden as they are.
Me:

"As for being "assholes" let him who has not been one cast the first stone to paraphrase a certain historic personage. For sure I have my opinions on what goes down not just there but everywhere else but I am also mindful of the wisdom "don't wash your dirty linen in public.""

Factory responded:

I think you are under the mistaken impression that I want to move this movement forward, EVEN IF IT MEANS SUPPORTING CRAP IDEOLOGICAL TOTALITARIANISM.  Let me put it to you straight, right now...

I will do everything I can to undermine that site, and this whole fucking movement if I have to, in order to restore some kind of humanity to it.  That fucker posted a personal email ALONG WITH MY CITY OF RESIDENCE on the Internet, and I STILL can't get a job because of it.  I once thought he was just a fucking moron for doing it,. now, I'm not so sure.  THAT is the kind of shit I hold against him and his site.  ALL of you show complete willingmness to 'sacrifice a brother for the greater good'.

I will air my dirty laundry in public till I'm blue in the face...ESPECIALLY if it embarrasses him and his sycophants.  In fact, I am publicly stating right now that anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, that would like to make use of my services or knowledge in order to undermine and destroy both AVfM and the Mens Movment as a whole, is more than welcome to contact me.,  I will give your efforts every bit as much time and energy as I have thus far sunk into both AVfM and the MRM.

Betray me, and try to toss me over the shoulder as an 'extremist'?  Fine, fuck you and the horse you rode in on...and fuck anyone associated with you.  I'd FAR rather not fight for the rights of men, if it means I have to associate with the likes of you or Paul to do it.  And I would DEFINITELY rather see the MRM destroiyed than simply replace feminism as the ideology of oppression du jour.

The sheer arrogance and expressions of hate in the above is simply breathtaking - you would be willing to undermine AVFM and the whole men's movement because YOU alone are the one that knows what "humanity" is and how to restore it???
In..fucking..credible now I have heard it all.
Perhaps you would also like to lecture Erin Pizzey on what HUMANITY is since she is also not only a member of AVFM (and MRALondon another affiliate of AVFM for that matter) but also on it's editorial board??

....
Factory:

I love how you narcissistic asshats think this is something new in the MRM.  Until your 'enlightened' asses hit the benches, we MUST have all been old white racist and sexist guys....since we didn't make a point of stressing all that shit...

Or, conversely, we were smart enough to realize that pandering in this way is THE EXACT SAME SHIT THAT LED TO THE PROBLEMS WE FIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE>  It doesn't deviate, not one fucking iota, from the exact same trajectory Feminism followed, and using the exact same fucking methodology to do it.  But yeah, you guys are SO SMART, that it won't happen to you like it did to literally every other movement adopting the memes...  Nope, you guys are DIFFERENT, therefore, it'll work this time....

Morons.

First of all let me make it perfectly clear that I do not regard recognising the common humanity in the diversity of human beings whether it be colour, creed, sex, politics or beliefs as "pandering" . If a human being recognises the need to address the issue of neglected mens and boys rights and is otherwise respectful of others differences then I have no problem with that.
As for the insinuation that "inclusiveness" is what turned feminism into what we see today I am almost at a loss for words at the stupidity and ignorance that belies such statements.
The fact that he does regard "inclusiveness" as pandering says much more about his own state of humanity (or lack of it) than anyone elses in my view.
Feminism became what it is today because a network of groups of very nasty individuals took the movement over a long time ago. In the UK how this happened and came about is presented in great detail by a woman who was there first hand to witness it.
They are the ones responsible for the very non inclusive patriarchy theory and duluth  model where one half of the population is made scapegoat for the other. Comparing AVFM genuinely egalitarian and and inclusive stance to that is preposterous and comes across as nothing less then the rantings of someone with such a massive chip on their shoulder that they have lost touch with reason.
Factory went to say:
Me:

"So sure such keeping and maintaining any sort of unity in such a diverse group requires a lot - not just from the site and it's admin but the goodwill and intelligence of it's diverse supporters. "

Factory:

'Diverse' huh?  PC speak...PC guidelines, PC 'groups', PC everything...but nope, according to you, all those identical traits are NOT indications you've gone Pee Cee....nope, nothing to see here, move along.

The term "diverse group" wasn't part of some empty rhetoric but is in fact an accurate description of the support and membership base and this FACT is something we should be celebrating not cynically sneering about! One of the consistent charges against the MRM by our opposition is that it is peopled by just a bunch of embittered, angry, right wing white men!
Now as it happens I am white, male and I used to be "right wing" ( now I am thoroughly disillusioned with all mainstream political party's right and left.) as for "angry and embittered" it is unfortunate fact that again major double standards exist ie how can we  have a right to be "angry and embittered" when  we come from a so called "privileged" group and thus such emotions have been unfairly deligitimised by the feminist dominated culture we live in. Sadly over a long period of time there false messages about mens rights supporters tend be taken in as fact as our feminist dominated MSM has been too successful in controlling what gets published and suppressing dissenting voices. This is all old news to most of us of course and on the plus side there are signs that the stranglehold of feminism on the media is loosening somewhat.
All that said most people I would conjecture (based on experience) are intellectually lazy and will tend to follow in agreement with opinions about groups that have been consistently fed to them for even a moderate period of time if they see no dissenting opinions or information that informs otherwise.
For this reason among others I would suggest (I am guessing here as I did not create the editorial and commenting policy @ AVFM) that in addition to being pledged to non-violent activism it was decided to have a strict policy on zero tolerance for expressions of violent intent from supporters and commenters. Unscrupulous quote miners from the likes of Manboobz (as an example) will still merrily take quotes out of context in any case and paint as negative a picture as they can - knee jerk reactionary readers will lap it up mostly without checking for themselves the accuracy or context of those quotes. Nothing can be done about that but then there are others (MSM journalists perhaps with a modicum of integrity) who will actually check out the source for themselves and if what they find is not representative of the picture they have had painted for them said smear(s) will backfire big time.
Anyway that is MY reasoning behind supporting a zero tolerance policy for violence.

Anyway moving on to the next piece of insult laden invective and smears...

Me:

"AVFM is not for prioritising vexatious  "venting" however - there are much better places for that and yes Factory that remark is aimed directly at you - pissing contests are for schoolkids and "talking tough" on the internet has never impressed me."

Factory responds:

Vexatiuous venting....is that what you call any kind of criticism of an INSANE course of action?  My guess is, Tigerman, that you had a LOT to do with this shift in direction.  Along with the 'contributing supporters' that happen to have a desire for this change in direction as well....hmmm...

I make no secret that I have indeed actively encouraged AVFM to evolve into a more apolitical and inclusive stance in order to attract as wide a support base as possible. I see this as a strength for reasons I have repeated before you don't - fine we have a difference of opinion so what. I am also delighted that the humanitarian aspect of mens rights is also being emphasised and as redundant as you imply this position is it has nevertheless already has helped lance the boil of feminism and help expose it's uglier side to public scrutiny

Although my ego would be flattered to take credit for any of this evolution in reality  this was the overwhelming shared consensus of opinion of behalf of both the editorial team and the active participants at the time.

The fact hat you STILL cannot admit that AVfM ever did anything wrong, or that the 'ousting' of longtime MRAs was ill-conceived at the very best.  You still can't deny that AVfM is doing it's level best (as are you) is casting as 'extremist' (just like the SRSers on Reddit have wanted for years) anyone who doesn't agree with the 'full support' of these groups, EVEN IF THE OBJECTION IS ONE OF SIMPLE OVER REPRESENTATION.  Yeah, that's the ONLY reason I was attacked...because I didn't support the Official Policy IN THE CORRECT MANNER.  I was attacked because of simple criticism of methods, not even the goals behind them.

I have never pretended that AVFM is incapable of making mistakes it made a very serious one a few days ago by one of it's editorial team I spoke out in plain unambiguos  terms about this
and to the credit of Paul Elam he acted quickly and decisively as soon as he became aware of the issue.
Nor do I think Paul and other contributors are always in the right but I do make a considered judgment on when and how to express my dissent according to the seriousness (in my view) of the disagreement.
So in summary I am delighted at the overall direction AVFM has taken - that said I take no joy at all when I see commenter's falling foul of commenting policy and ending up getting banned - in some cases I would have maybe acted differently than the moderator concerned but even that is speculation unless the responsibility is yours and you are actually in their shoes and have followed the posters concerned history.
Should someone receive a ban that was outside current policy I would question it but so far I have not seen an example of that so have had no cause to question a decision.
Again I will reiterate being banned is one thing choosing not to post there again is another ie as long as someone is not banned there is nothing to prevent anyone from posting their opinions there.

Okay I just realised something - I was using google to try and get back the thread that led to your current ban and the penny dropped regarding you, AVFM and another rather personal issue\incident.
I am not going to elaborate in case it is an embarrassment  to you.
All I'll say is sorry you are not there any more and many there have a lot of good will towards you.
That is all - peace out.

53

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 09:42 AM

;popcorn:

Good idea - I love popcorn 

54

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 06:33 AM

Sorry I'm not a sycophant I'm just someone who can put his own personal petty issues to one side for the sake of seeing some actual progress.

My ass you are, you sniveling apologist.  You want to CONTINUE to try and paint me as 'unreasonable' do you?  I spelled out in fair detail what the issue with that site is, and THIS bullshit is your mealy-mouthed response?  You're just as much opf a piece of shit as they are if you can't even drum up enough fucking humanity to denounce the IRRESPONSIBLE and downright fucking nasty betrayal committed by others...just because they are your buds....

Seriously, you, Paul, Dr F, and all the rest are soulless pieces of shit, and not one of you deserves anything but utter fucking contempt.  And you are such a fucking coward you can't even admit when you, or ANYONE associated with that site, is being a fucking asshole...probably because you're afraid they will do it to YOU too...

Yeah, excellent 'defense' you're putting up there, you and your hypocritical traitorous crew...

Just so other readers know you are talking bull droppings. It was only a few days ago that I publicly called out one of the writers for AVFM for plagiarism when the actual author of a piece showed up and mentioned it was his work (with an url to the original publication to prove it). To AVFM's credit as soon as Paul saw that this was the case the plagiarising author was banned instantly and ALL his prior published articles were removed from the site because trust in authenticity of authorship had been fatally undermined.
As for being "assholes" let him who has not been one cast the first stone to paraphrase a certain historic personage. For sure I have my opinions on what goes down not just there but everywhere else but I am also mindful of the wisdom "don't wash your dirty linen in public."
There are right wingers, left wingers, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Atheists, Agnostics, gay, straight, trans, black, white and every colour in between at AVFM and they are not there because they are sycophants or agree with everything that is done or said there. They are there for the simple reason that above all the other distinctions we are united in our common HUMANITY and our desire to see men and boys being fully included alongside with women (and trans) in societies treatment and recognition of our humanity.
This is also why AVFM stresses the "HUMAN" part in it's activism because it is both a fact and hat aspect of us which unites us all.
So sure such keeping and maintaining any sort of unity in such a diverse group requires a lot - not just from the site and it's admin but the goodwill and intelligence of it's diverse supporters.
AVFM is not for prioritising vexatious  "venting" however - there are much better places for that and yes Factory that remark is aimed directly at you - pissing contests are for schoolkids and "talking tough" on the internet has never impressed me.

55

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 15, 2013, 06:05 AM

Factory -  Please try to keep the name calling down.  Stick with the ideas and we will be fine.  It does seem to be a question worth answering, is AVFM inclusive or has it been "exclusive" to only a certain sub-set of mra's.  It seems factory that you are suggesting that they have indeed excluded some for their ideas while at the same time hoisting the banner of inclusiveness.  A rather odd combo.  Can you comment on that Tigerman? 

This dynamic is what we have seen from groups such as feminism where a party-line must be followed or people are actively excluded.  I hope we are not going down that road.

Sure Dr E love to clear up those points for you.
AVFM does NOT regard itself as THE mens rights movement nor even the mens human rights movement - it is a nexus of activism organised and represented by one website presence.
It has a clearly defined editorial and comment policy with the editorial policy being by far the stricter of the two.
It is absolutely inclusive and invites support and membership from any and all human beings who accept and willing to accept it's comment policy or if they wish to write articles for publishing on AVFM they must abide by the sites editorial policy.
The reasons why AVFM adopted and defined clear guidelines for editorial content and commentary is fully explained on the website as a sub menu item of "About AVFM" called "Editorial and Comment Policy".
As I mentioned before it is much more tolerant in it's commenting policy than it's editorial policy for what I hope is obvious reasons - that said it does have zero tolerance for promoting any form of violence.
Anyway judge for yourself - here is the comment policy:-
Comment Policy:
The comment policy is simple.  Threats, advocacy and ideations of violence are strictly verboten. All other manner of speech is allowed unless it becomes disruptive to the continuity of discussions.
Personally speaking AVFM gets my support because it genuinely IS the most inclusive activist group I have yet encountered in the promotion of men and boys getting true equal treatment. That is my opinion of course.
Anyway the full policy can be viewed here so that you can read it and make your own conclusions.

56

Main / Re: Shattering the Mens rights movement

Mar 14, 2013, 08:07 PM

To Factory
First of all *I* am not AVFM. AVFM is there - it exists and so far I support it aims and goals ONLY because they largely coincide with my own personally held convictions.
Nor am I happy with all that is decided or that goes on there but I don't have to be - it is not my site and if I don't like it enough I can ignore it and move on.
I understand and sympathise perhaps more than you think that indeed some veteran MRA's have had their noses put out of joint in clashes with site policy and\or some of any of the moderators there. I was very saddened by the clash between Angry Harry and Paul Elam for example. Had I been in charge of the site I may well reacted differently than Paul .
I still read Angry Harry's articles and I have enormous respect and love for the man.
It was he prior to the last Gulf war that initially annoyed me with his opposition to the coming campaign - at the time I was still stupid and gullible enough to believe that the offensive was for the good of the poor Iraqi's, the Gulf in general and world peace (due to the elimination of the non-existent weapons of mass destruction etc). Yet Harry's voice troubled me - Harry foresaw the coming carnage and the undue collateral damage as a basic affront to humanity and boy was he right although it took me longer than I am proud to admit to see his perspective and agree with it.
I am not the sycophant you think I am. Like I said before AVFM  is a weapon and in my view it is being honed into an ever more effective one - so please for the sake of your own nervous system chill the fuck out and let it do it's work.

Jesus.  How many times do I have to say this before it gets through your thick skull?

I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE 'AGENDA' AT AVfM.  I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE 'GAY AGENDA'.  I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM....GET IT!?!?!?

For fuck sakes.

What I DO have a problem with, is the asshat way that the masthead there (and YOU are included in this statement) along with many 'commenters', have taken a 'Our way or fuck off' attitude.  I DON'T GIVE A FUCK about the 'gay agenda' shit..  What I DO GIVE A FUCK ABOUT is the way Paul and Dr F and the rest of those assholes simply turned on many MRAs and essentially branded them (us?) as 'extremists'.

And THAT is a fucking cunty asshole move, on ANY FUCKING LEVEL.  They better hope AVfM serves all their 'activism needs', because they just sent a messgae to MRAs everywhere...'tow the line, or we'll turn on you like we did 'The Father of the MRM' and others.  It was an ego-driven fucking power grab, and it shows just how shitty those people really are, how little they understand the concepts of 'loyalty' and 'consensus', and most importantly of all, it shows how Paul and the Gang will toss your dried husk over their shoulder the instant they are done getting what they want from you.

The REAL killer here, though, is that NONE OF YOU WILL ADMIT THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED...and instead choose to paint anyone who disagrees as 'egotistical extremists that hate Gays'....you know, like you keep fucking insisting on trying to do?

You're all fucking traitors, and users, and you have shown me that the VAST majority of MRAs aren't worth even a little bit of respect.  Now, FUCKING READ THIS AND UNDERSTAND, you traitorous fuck, that I will not take your baseless accusations lying down.  In fact, I'll fucking work my ass off to sink that site, and the WHOLE FUCKING MOVEMENT if I have to, before I will give you, Paul, Dr F, or any of those other assholes so much as the time of day.

Now, FUCK OFF you sycophant.

Sorry I'm not a sycophant I'm just someone who can put his own personal petty issues to one side for the sake of seeing some actual progress.

57

Main / Re: Men’s Rights March 2013 Internet Statement

Mar 13, 2013, 08:57 PM

That is pretty well thought out. About the only thing I disagree with is the stance on circumcision. I know I am in the minority of the MRA Comunity on this and Im okay with it.

I was circumcised at birth and was also okay with until I saw a youtube video of an actual circumcision being carried out on a baby. I was very naive as I assumed that the babies had some anesthetics beforehand - I was wrong and after seeing the babies reaction and crying in agony I fail to see how it cannot result in some form of traumatic damage. Since then I saw an article claiming that MRI scans had indeed detected changes to the baseline brain pattern of a baby just circumcised.   
This factor is of course still controversial but after seeing the youtube video of such an operation I would err on the side of caution and ban all infant circumcision or at least old enough so their bodies can be safely anesthetized at the very least.

58

Main / Re: Oh this is just TOO delicious!!

Mar 13, 2013, 08:23 PM

On a side note, the crazy chick was very sexually aggressive for a feminist who supposedly hates men. She kept touching my arms and saying how muscular I was and how everyone said I was the guy to train with. I'm pretty sure I avoided a whole lot of unwanted problems and drama by denying this woman my time.

After reading that I'm glad you didn't take my advice - the woman sounds like a walking false rape allegation dispenser! 

59

Main / Re: Men’s Rights March 2013 Internet Statement

Mar 13, 2013, 01:59 PM

(para) "For now, these are only potential talking points, planks to establish a platform."

OK, I get it.
Personally, I don't have the patience to teach the same lesson over and over, nor argue what I believe to be the same proved truisms, based on the entire recorded history of the human race available to me, over and over.

Feel free to lable such an intellectual position with any derogatory idiological co-opted, dog whistle, malaprops at your disposal. Be sure to actually know what "memes" and words actually mean, NOT what others ignorantly, or disingenuously, imply, in such discourse.     

Just this - you are one cynical mo-fo who could do with lightening up from time to time. 

60

Main / Re: Oh this is just TOO delicious!!

Mar 13, 2013, 01:55 PM

The more I think about this, the more I'm kind of turned off of the whole idea actually. Why should I help someone who openely hates me and my gender? I think I'll tell her to go find someone else.

I would do it. In my book she can't be all bad if she is opposing stonings and honour killings. She might well open up to you if you tell her that you are also appalled by these practices , then should she subsequently come up with any man hating crap you can then question her humanitarian credentials and ask her why is she trying so hard to negate the otherwise good work she is doing etc. This is just my 2 cents but it could provide an opportunity for you to teach her more than martial arts ie a more balanced form of humanitarian activism.