excellent comeback!

Started by outdoors, Jan 26, 2008, 09:05 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down


Here is an excellent rant made by Paul P on Yahoo answers after a woman was complaining about MRA sites.

by Paul P
Member since: January 24, 2008

I don't normally waste my time trying to explain what the Men's Movement (MM) is all about to people who have already clearly closed their minds to rational debate. Banging your head against a brick wall is not a sensible course of action. But I will break my rule here in the vague hope that there might just be some people reading this who are serious about understanding what is really going on.

Fidelbogen is right on the money. People who refer to themselves as MRAs cover every facet of society, and can be anyone anywhere. The term MRA is just a label that you can stick on or take off, yourself or others, as you wish. You can devote whatever time and energy you want to trying to find out who and where they are; but here is a tip - don't bother. You won't succeed and there is nothing you can do about them even if you did. I have been tracking the MM for years and can tell you that MRAs are just a part of it; like clusters of passengers on a train that is slowly gathering speed. They can hop off or on at will, but the train just keeps on moving forward with or without them. MRAs can give impetus to the movement, and often do; but they are not the whole of the MM or anything like it. I don't know how many people are out there who would call themselves MRAs; except from the evidence I see and the growing internet traffic, I am certain there are more and more every year. But you would be far better engaged on looking at the bigger picture, asking why the MM exists in the first place, and why it is growing.

Men's grievances are real and legitimate. When their life expectancy continues to drag years behind that of women, but our health services refuse to take any action to close the gap - on the contrary, pouring more resources into making it wider; when a man can be robbed of his house, money and children in a divorce court without having committed any crime, and be forced to pay the woman whose lies ruined his life; when the educational performance of boys lags grotesquely behind that of girls, while far too many inside and outside of the teaching profession think that is a cause for celebration, or at least nothing to get fussed about; when a man can have his life wrecked by the false accusation of a woman, and she walks free to do it again and again; and when a man who commits a serious crime is assumed to be hopelessly evil and punished accordingly, while a woman who commits the exact same crime is treated as a victim and offered sympathy, help and support; and all against a background of women continuing to get away with portraying themselves as perpetual victims while casting men in the endless role of perpetrators; all the while such injustices are happening every day in front of our very eyes, it is inevitable that there will be a growing tide of resentment among men. How could any sensible person expect otherwise?

MRAs basically represent the most angry and active fringe of that tide; the agitated passengers on that train, the tip of the tsunami that breaks into a wild spray and gets scattered to the wind - but then rejoins the fray. So focusing on that tip will mislead you - it does not tell you what is really going on underneath, in the heavy swell that is forced forward by the shock wave but which is so difficult to see until it hits the shore.

But you have clues if you care to recognise them. Look at the dramatic drop in the numbers of men who want to marry women. The great majority would never call themselves MRAs; most of them have probably never heard of the term. But they know that marriage is a risk they are not prepared to take, so they are voting with their feet. Look at the numbers of women desperate to get dates and husbands while their biological clocks tick away, and who are disappointed. Look at the response when another tedious feminist pops up on the pages of national newspapers or magazines and delivers a predictable attack on the male sex, blaming us for every ill in the universe - ten years ago she would have received a postbag full of support; but today she gets her head blown off by the barrage of complaints. Even growing numbers of women are getting sick of the constant male-bashing; and it is no longer heresy to support men and recognise that they have a right to enjoy the fruits of their labours without being made to carry a burden of guilt for wrongs real or imagined.

For those of you who think the MM is just a small bunch of stupid losers drifting around the fringes, just consider this. What do you think happens to all those men who lose their children in divorce courts? Or to the boys who fall out of the bottom of our education system and who leave school with no qualifications, no hope and no prospect of a job? Or to those men who are put through the mincer on the false word of a vindictive woman? Their numbers are growing too, day by day. Our government, courts, social services and the rest of the anti-male industry are the most effective recruiting sergeants for the MM. That's why it is growing. It is slow, but inevitable. It can only get bigger, and it is doing just that. There are now international links around the world. The UK, Scandinavia, America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, even Israel and India now have a growing MM. Every country where men are disrespected and kicked. Do you think they are all just going to disappear down a convenient hole and never be seen again?

Women would do well to recognise the very real threat to them created by the collapse in respect for men and the growth of an increasingly angry and active MM. It is almost certainly not the rogue MRAs that are the danger; they are just the flag-bearers and drum-beaters. But the real army is the mass of ordinary men who are getting increasingly tired of being treated like dirt by women and the state, and who will increasingly refuse to marry you, refuse to let you share their wealth and their homes, refuse to let you trap them into fatherhood, and refuse to treat you like princesses.

Are you concerned at the increasing numbers of disaffected, sullen young men joining street gangs and watching you from under their hoods when you walk down the street? Are you fearful about the epidemic of violence, drugs and anti-social behaviour in every city in the land? Do you feel safer with each day that passes, or less safe? How do you think you will fare when you get old and weak, and there are massive numbers of such people just a few yards from your front door? Can you see any connection at all between such things and the way our society chooses to treat its young men? Do you think of such people as the nation's most precious resource - or just as a massive problem that you hope somebody will fix for you before it gets too far out of hand? Your attitude might give you a clue as to why these gangs exist. MRAs are not creating them, but you might be.

Finally, a couple of points in answer to Jo:

"...claim men are 50% of the victims in DV - yet no credible sources back this --are they saying men are sitting home with broken ribs and concussions? why aren't we seeing proof?"

If you want proof, look at this:


Are the authors credible enough for you? Go check them out. All of them. Are over 200 studies sufficient proof? Or are the authors all charlatans and liars?

"When they can come up with evidence-based issues, I will support them."

So here is the challenge to Jo and anyone else who makes such bold claims.

Do you accept the above evidence that tells you that men are no more violent or abusive than women? And that therefore for every man who ends up in jail for wife-battering there ought to be a woman also in jail for husband-battering? And that there should be just as many DV shelters and just as much support for battered men as for women? Do you accept the evidence that men's life expectancy is far lower than that of women? Do you accept the evidence that boys' educational outcomes are far worse than girls'?

If so, will you be true to your word and support men and boys in their struggle to improve their outcomes and move towards true equality in all these areas? Or are you like so many of the rest of them, just blowing hot air?


There is no epidemic of violence. Crime has fallen sharply in the recent years. Other than that I like it, especially the part about how women's interests are being put at risk, all for the sake of enabling women who are liars and extortionists.

Mr. X

Fantastic response. I would just add to that it would have been useful to point out that women present men with a situation in which men have nothing to lose by getting mad and resisting. Women do nothing to bring men back. So for MRAs what's the loss? Where's the risk? What do these men have to lose when women activily make hateful comments pushing them away.

Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."


That was a good response.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.


No matter how many studies reveal that women commit domestic violence, on its own this will never be enough to convince the woman that prompted this thread.  That's because hard-core feminists try to sell the idea that when women do violence, they're defending themselves from violence.  When they initiate violence, they're not necessarily defending themselves from physical violence, but they are reacting to a "climate of fear" meant to keep them in subjugation -- or so the feminist thinking goes.  And so, according to die-hard feminists, there is always this justification for female violence -- that because they live in fear, the greater threat is the smothering patriarchal atmosphere that keeps them in check.

How can you prove that a woman really isn't in fear?  And worse, what if a woman is so deluded, that she does the violence and only later convinces herself that it was because she was afraid?  And why should an emotional state matter anyway?  Leave if you live in fear for your life.

All of these assumptions about female fear will be addressed at the upcoming domestic violence conference by leading experts and researchers in the field, "From Ideology to Inclusion:  Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence."

After this conference, we will no longer need to point people to the bibliography of 200+ DV studies compiled by CSU Long Beach professor Martin Fiebert.  We will have, for the first time ever, a solid grouping of domestic violence experts speaking out as one, telling the truth about domestic violence from an evidence-based perspective -- interpreting the growing body of research on female-on-male violence in a professional, experienced, and academic context.


JD is that not your site they claim that is hateful towards women?


It was a disappointing complaint on yahoo.  My blog didn't make her list.   Maybe next time.


Catch more of The World According to Bob at:  http://bobstruth.blogspot.com

It's time for men to retake our natural and age old leadership position.


JD is that not your site they claim that is hateful towards women?

She didn't actually say that my site is hateful towards women, but I did get lumped in with a bunch of other sites, and she asked the question how do you separate the radicals from the non-radicals?  Whatever...  Doesn't bother me.  I know what my site is about, and if she wants to misinterpret it, how can I stop her?  My site is about using surveillance to let a man prove that he didn't commit a crime.  Who could be against that?  If women have the power to falsely accuse men with no evidence and with impunity, then that is the issue -- not that women are predisposed to falsely accuse.  Again, it all comes back to the fear issue (he made me afraid, therefore he must pay).  That puts immense power in the woman's hands, whether she's predisposed to abuse it or not.  When she does abuse it, no one calls it abuse (at least, not with a unified, credible, and evidence-backed voice -- until this conference next month).  And yet it is every bit as violent as a wife beater doing violence to an innocent victim.  You think handcuffs and incarceration have nothing to do with the use (and abuse) of physical force and control?  Of course they do.  That is why I advocate videotaping, or audiotaping, everything until a man can make a smooth exit from an abusive relationship.  Even then, living apart, he still may need it.  That fact is lost on this lady.


It was a disappointing complaint on yahoo.  My blog didn't make her list.   Maybe next time.



Bob, you're one of the radicals that deserves to be pointed out.  It's guys like you that give ammunition to the feminists, enabling them to pass draconian laws that paint men as abusive and threatening -- and making it exceedingly difficult for those of us who are trying to reverse such laws.  Why don't you just go away, and re-think your life?

The Biscuit Queen

I just tried to read the last blog entry on Bob's site but could not stomach it. Yes, John, that is giving feminists all the ammo they need to discredit and paint us all with one brush.

No thanks.
he Biscuit Queen

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.


It was a disappointing complaint on yahoo.  My blog didn't make her list.   Maybe next time.



Bob, you're one of the radicals that deserves to be pointed out.  It's guys like you that give ammunition to the feminists, enabling them to pass draconian laws that paint men as abusive and threatening -- and making it exceedingly difficult for those of us who are trying to reverse such laws.  Why don't you just go away, and re-think your life?

Haven't read Bob's blog yet, but I disagree in any case.  Even if Bob advocated a society for the cutting up of all women and creating a new, truly patriarchal society keeping only enough women around for breeding purposes, he wouldn't be giving any ammunition to feminists to facilitate the creating of bad laws -- for those who didn't catch it, I am alluding to the "SCUM manifesto" by Valerie Solonas.  Reading the reviews for the book on Amazon, which proposed exactly what I said (but in reverse), there are still people who see it as a source of truth, and when it was published, it certainly didn't facilitate the creation of bad laws to oppress women.  In fact, it was seen in even better light at that time. 

The problem we are dealing with is far deeper than can be created, worsened, or destroyed by any number of radicals.  The radicals aren't the problem.  The problem is that society considers the existence of MRA radicals as a good excuse to further demonize men, but does not consider the existence of feminist radicals to mean anything at all concerning women.  In other words, when feminist radicals aren't being glorified by the fringe, their excesses are either ignored or, at worst, pinned on themselves.  Whereas the "blame" for MRA radicals, as in so many things, is pinned entirely on men.

That is the problem.


John Dias post on the Yahoo board:

I don't think that my site deserves to be designated as radical, or grouped in with truly women-hating sites (such as MenAreBetterThanWomen.com).

John, with all due respect all you are doing is taking the side of the topic starter (waswisgirl1) who is looking for people to agree that these sites are "woman hating".

Once you do that, you may as well just pat her on the back and join her because you have lost the debate.

Make no mistake, she started that thread to discredit the MRM and you are helping her do it.

Just my opinion, respectfully. 
I will stop staring at your boobs when you stop staring at my paycheck!


It was a disappointing complaint on yahoo.  My blog didn't make her list.   Maybe next time.



Bob, you're one of the radicals that deserves to be pointed out.  It's guys like you that give ammunition to the feminists, enabling them to pass draconian laws that paint men as abusive and threatening -- and making it exceedingly difficult for those of us who are trying to reverse such laws.  Why don't you just go away, and re-think your life?

Whatever. IMHO we're well past the point of discussion being possible. One "bad" word, one utterance of disagreement with the party line of the last 30 years, one wrong view towards women's rights and you're a radical nutter patriarchal sexist pig (or a brainwashed tart). Look at Hugo. He couldn't even honestly debate here with Typhon a year or two ago. Diplomacy won't work if they other side won't even meet with you with their fingers firmly in ear holes. Doesn't mean one goes truly "radical" but it does require a harsh tone, and an unrelenting attitude. Show mercy once you've made it on the road to actual changes.


FP, I do not define "diplomacy" as the decision to distance myself from people who promote and minimize cop-killing and rape.  I call it remaining true to my values.

Go Up