SYG and I part ways
Here is the offending thread.
"Dr Evil," the owner of Stand Your Ground, made some arguments I disagreed with about a crass "joke" about feminists. The thread, if it remains unaltered, should give you an understanding of what happened. I disagreed with him because I found his arguments to be illogical. When I called him on it, he decided to become hostile as you will see.
This is the "joke" that started it all:
How many feminists does it take to put in a light bulb? A: Two. One to put in the lightbulb and one to suck my cock.
Here was my first answer to Dr Evil:
Dr Evil wrote:
I didn't laugh when I saw it. I think it is tastless and also lacking in any semblance of humor.
True.
Dr Evil wrote:
Maybe women don't laugh at it because it is hateful towards them. Duh.
How does a joke about feminists screwing in a lightbulb become hatred towards women? Not all feminists are even women. Even if they were, all feminists are women, but not all women are feminists. This is a matter of simple set theory. Feminists comprise a subset. Criticism of a subset does not imply criticism of the superset. Your line of reasoning here is not logical; as a matter of fact, it is the same sort of reasoning feminists use when people attack feminism. When they hear someone say, "I oppose feminism," in their mind they hear, "I oppose women." Then they start screaming and carrying on about how much the person must hate women. The problem is not with the anti-feminist, it is with the feminist.
If I were to make a similar joke about blondes, does that mean I hate blondes? Hate is a very strong word that has been cheapened over the years into hardly anything more than a weapon for one's ad hominem and shaming arsenal. His joke does not come anything close to constituting genuine hatred, and I am sure you know it.
Dr Evil wrote:
It's the very sort of thing that gets us put into the misogynist camp by those seeking to cut and paste and prove we are a bunch of cro-magnons.
No, it "proves" nothing of the sort. Surely you realise a feminist, if one was so inclined, could easily register on this board and pretend to be a raving misogynist. This feminist could then copy-and-paste her material and use it as "evidence" of SYG's "misogyny." She would be full of it, but that would be enough to convince the prejudiced sisterhood. The fact of the matter is these people do not have an open mind; they are just looking for excuses (ones which they can create as aforementioned) to think the way they do or to slander the posters here.
Feminists and their sympathisers see what they want to see and they hear what they want to hear. Real evidence not required.
Instead of considering what I had to say, Dr Evil proceeds to give me an insulting "thin ice" lecture:
This "joke" carried the message that this woman was there to service his sexual needs and had no other purpose. This is the sort of message that we might expect from a truly abusive male. He orders her around and demands his sexual needs be met. When I see someone with that sort of attitude I hope that I will help stop that sort of behavior. Whether it is acted out upon men or women it does't matter. It demeans and a hundred other things that are highly disrespectful. When I see that sort of thing on my board I will call their shit. Don't like it? Go some place else.
It is interesting that the two who have a hard time understanding this are two who have caused me a good deal of trouble in the past. I won't have one shred of patience for either of you from this point forward. You best be on your best behavior. I am very busy with things other than this board. Use caution.
It is almost as if he did not read my post. Here is my final counterargument:
Dr Evil wrote:
This "joke" carried the message that this woman was there to service his sexual needs and had no other purpose. This is the sort of message that we might expect from a truly abusive male. He orders her around and demands his sexual needs be met. When I see someone with that sort of attitude I hope that I will help stop that sort of behavior. Whether it is acted out upon men or women it does't matter. It demeans and a hundred other things that are highly disrespectful. When I see that sort of thing on my board I will call their shit.
You read all of that from this:
Quote:
How many feminists does it take to put in a light bulb? A: Two. One to put in the lightbulb and one to suck my cock.
An amazing leap there, Evil! A leap, I might add, I would expect from a feminist, not an anti-feminist. I thought you were the latter, but apparently I was gravely mistaken.
I already agreed with you the "joke" is crass and unfunny, but I am not going to agree with you on this preposterous argument of yours-a house of cards you have erected upon a foundation of shifting sand.
Dr Evil wrote:
It is interesting that the two who have a hard time understanding this are two who have caused me a good deal of trouble in the past.
Nice way of attacking the messenger instead of the message, Evil; this does a world of good for your cause. "Good deal of trouble," my foot. Have anything more than a vague reference? Are we to take your word for it?
The one who is having a hard time understanding is you. You are angry because I exposed just how irrational your arguments are. You presented no rebuttal, only more of the same unfounded rubbish.
Dr Evil wrote:
I won't have one shred of patience for either of you from this point forward. You best be on your best behavior. I am very busy with things other than this board. Use caution.
Apparently you must be too "busy with things" to consider this matter objectively. Your condescending attitude and threats are insulting.
Dr Evil wrote:
Don't like it? Go some place else.
I intend to. You have an awfully hostile, disagreeable attitude for one who supposedly has the moral highground here. I intend to immortalise our little discussion to my blog, since you are determined to burn bridges with your rhetoric.
I have not one shred of patience for your hostility anymore. Consider me gone.
I refuse to post there ever again. I had been a member there for a while and had contributed 573 posts. There are some excellent contributors there, so I am not happy about leaving. He can run his site as he chooses and I can voice my displeasure as I choose.
UPDATE: Evil has the nerve to demand an apology from me and then lock the thread, presumably to insulate himself from public criticism from other members. Here is his ridiculous demand:
Personally attacking the admin is not your best choice. Have a nice break. I may reactivate your account when you send an email to me taking responsibility for your actions and apologizing.
He apparently has some difficulty comprehending my posts; I made it very clear I was not going to post there again.
posted by Lord Feverstone | 5:38 PM
12 Comments:
We will miss you. Where do you plan to post?
Well, I for one am glad you finally saw the light and ended your affiliation with that site.
Quite frankly I found the site owner to be unstable.
He was unpredictable with these sudden attacks on posters and drove many men (and some women) away with his inconsistencies. Sometimes he would let weeks go by where he would let everyone post any hateful comment and story about women, then suddenly he would get a wild hair up his butt and attack a poster out of the clear blue sky for something when he had been allowing others to say similar things (or worse) for weeks.
That joke is a perfect example. Of course, it was in poor taste but other men have said far worse things about women including feminists and he never once chastised them for it...
Actually he allowed someone to name a turkey after me where they regularly post comments about how they are trying to fatten it up to kill it on Thanksgiving...
Clearly I could take this as an implied death threat against me if I were so inclined...yet he never once questioned that but a joke about anonymous feminists is worthy of banning...
My own theory is that he just decides he doesn't like someone and then bides his time to get rid of that person through this device of banning for supposedly 'hateful' comments.
You and/or this other person who posted the original joke were obviously his intended target.
So take it as a lesson learned and stay away from troublemakers both on the internet and in life as I can see by some of the posters you allowed here that you are easily swayed by bad influences.
Going back to review the original post, it was clear that he was attempting to get rid of that Liberty poster. He did the same thing with Sir Percy and a couple of other men whose names escape me right now. He decided that Sir Percy was a 'chivalrious male' for defending Devia from one of his frequent attacks on her. So he then let another poster attack Percy until he left as well. AND now that poster (Brian) is on the ban watch list now as well...he'll be next...
Many of the leaders of this so-called Mens' Rights Movement are feminists under the skin. A number of them not only support the strictest gender-neutralized feminists' theories, but were deeply involved originally in the early feminist movement.
They helped create it, nurtured it, gave it many of it's ideas...
It's only recently when their feminists 'friends' have turned against them that they have organized this counter movement...
Like Warren Farrell, for instance, he was on the board of NOW for a good number of years before going 'postal' on them...
They are elite opportunists who quickly see which way the wind is blowing before chosing sides. Remember even during communism some of the west's most potent allies were former communists, who after creating that frankenstein monster, then needed our help to bring it down...
In regards to SYG- I make the odd visit from time to time, but I find Dr. Evil's authoritarian manner a turn-off.
Restricted debate, in my opinion, is worthless.
And the fact he makes a habit of locking threads instead of allowing diverse opinions shows him up for being too controlling.
I'd like to see you over at Karl's Antimisandry forum, as that is the one I participate in the most, and your input would be most welcome LF !!
Rich Bansha- I strongly disagree with the hostile tone you give to antifeminists.
If we don't expose and fight feminism for the vile ideology that it is- regular men will never know what they are up against.
Feminism short-changes men in every way possible, and it needs to be stood-up to.
The very fact anti-male laws such as VAWA/rape shield laws etc exist should tell you that feminists will not stop until all men are reduced to 10th class citizens, behind shrubs and pond life.
Fred X
Well I think this Rich Bansha is correct.
Feminism per se is NOT the enemy.
It's the gender neutral strain running through it that is the problem. As let's face it equality (where it can happen naturally) is nothing for either men or women to be upset about.
Both can get educated, work, marry or not, have children or not...both can live their lives as they so chose...
I think the problem with gender neutral feminism and the mens' movement to a certain extent is that they do not wish people to have the ability to exercise these private choices UNLESS THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE STANDARD PARTY LINE WHEN THEY DO...otherwise drastic penalities exist to enforce the social engineering program currently in place...
Both groups support many laws and public policies that punish people who deviate from the androynous template...
Perfect example this drafting of women EVEN when women have been shown to NOT be able to handle front line or hand to hand combat. Which is what MOST conflicts consist of today and will be the template for war going forward...all these sorts of little insurgencies and small non-governmental group fighting...women are of NO VALUE in these sorts of conflict.
So forcing women to register just increases the cost to the armed forces as they require more benefits to allow them to participate. Actually if you took a cost/benefit analysis of what women contribute to the armed forces NOW versus what they cost I bet you see a huge drain of expenditures with little return as women contribute NOTHING unique to the armed forces...
Even Israel doesn't use women in this capacity and they are a small nation fighting for their very lives...we are a nation of almost 300 million people...YET both gender netralized feminists as well as MRAs are constantly arguing to overturn the ban on registering women in the military...
So they have MUCH in common...
I think people need to understand the basic premises behind these two movements BEFORE signing onto supporting them. Even this ridiculous and constanting fixation on domestic violence is a total waste of time for both groups. Most people do not beat each other up so what sense does it make to talk abou this ALL the time, mount campaigns about it, public vying statistics and specials on tv about it????
Anyway, there are many diverse issues and groups out there now that people can join or start their own to address their particular interest or issues.
I, too, when I first started my blog about two years ago was a supporter of feminism as I thought it was the automatic default advocate for women. I've susequently found out differently...feminism supports certain groups of women, not all...mostly those professional, educating career women looking to advances in their chosen fields with no restrictions against them...
Just like MRAs support certain men and points of view, not all...
NYMOM: "Perfect example this drafting of women EVEN when women have been shown to NOT be able to handle front line or hand to hand combat. Which is what MOST conflicts consist of today and will be the template for war going forward...all these sorts of little insurgencies and small non-governmental group fighting...women are of NO VALUE in these sorts of conflict.
So forcing women to register just increases the cost to the armed forces as they require more benefits to allow them to participate. Actually if you took a cost/benefit analysis of what women contribute to the armed forces NOW versus what they cost I bet you see a huge drain of expenditures with little return as women contribute NOTHING unique to the armed forces..."
I am 110% for drafting women into front line combat roles. 51% of troops should be women, and 49% should be men to achieve equality. Units can be made all male or all female as to avoid many issues.
I see no reason why a group of women cannot be sent into global combat theaters such as the Sulu Islands (Philippines). I am quite sure with the proper training that women 18 - 42 will be able to stand for freedom and take on the Islamic factions there (or other de-stablizing forces).
If they cannot defend themselves, well, at least they will get the opportunity to be wounded or die for their country and for freedom.
Women have all the privledges of men so they have a duty to all the costs that go along with it.
Even if loses are initially high, over time, researchers can use the knowledge obtained through the intial combat loses to improve their tactics and equipment to reduce female combat losses in future wars. You got to break a few eggs to make an omelet.
If you have daughters there is no reason they shouldn't be drafted anymore than anyone's sons.
A draft for women is inevitable. Once this has gone through the next improvement to the draft system should be obvious; a focus on drafting citizens over 50 years old, in particular women.
Most people whom have reached retirement age are nothing more than a burden on society. Older people have only a few productive years left after which they will drain scarce public funds with their "chronic ailments". Many will then exist simply as parasites, gorging themselves on public funds through programs such as social security (a pay as you go system which drains younger people), Medicare and pensions plans in much eh same way as a tick gorges itself on the blood of the host.
Younger people on the other hands, have their whole life to look forward to. They will greatly contribute to the growth of a society AND are fertile thus ensuring the continuation of the species. Jobs freed up by the combat loses of older people will ensure that they younger families get the jobs they deserve to become productive citizens.
In particular due to their longer lifespan, women past the age of 50 should be targeted in the next draft. Having long past their fertile years, they have little left to contribute to society except thier increasing health care and pension demands. Besides, better they die now to help younger generations then drain funds in a needlessly long and terrible death in a nursing home.
Why not, in the name of equality, help to balance the average life expectancy - while at the same time - ensure a better life for the younger generations. Likewise, in the name of equality, greater combat deaths of women will help to balance the sexist policy of only allowing men the honor to die in battle which has existed for decades -- if not centuries.
By having greater female combat deaths or injuries (especially from older women), women as a whole can regain the honor that was denied to them for so long and thus achieve equality.
If winning wars could be done by using the most expendable sectors of our population, don't you think that some other society would have already done it????
It quite obvious that you can only win wars using these populations if the other side is also going to do the same, ie., women can fight our wars or old people when we have an opponent who also agrees to only unleash other women against women soldiers or battalions of senior citizens against our old folks.
Wars are fought to be won and there are consequences to the losing side that most people would find unacceptable. Thus war demands that we use the strongest, most aggressive and deadliest amongst us to fight them.
That in most cases happens to be males. As females can be deadly but generally require situations of stealth to do it. War is not stealth generally (although there are some elements of stealth within it), but war is more generally a blunt instrument...
Thus, it's really a waste of resources to even recruit women. Too expensive and time consuming for what they actually contribute to the military. Which is nothing unique that can't be done easier, cheaper and better by a man...Actually one could make the case that in a country of almost 300 million people, it's probably a waste of resources to recruit most men. We should be looking for only the best and pay them enough in salary and benefits to make the job attractive enough to recruit them easily...
The same thinking should be done for the police and fire department actually...any job that involves public safety of this nature. As allowing women into those jobs actually winds up lowering the physical standards so that a lot more sub-standard men now get into them as well.
I remember, for instance, growing up where the police officers on the beat were the most imposing men in the neighborhood. Ditto the fire dept....They had certain height and weight requirements which meant that many men couldn't meet them, so it led to only the largest and strongest men even applying to become police officers.
This gave an advantage to them in most situations (and thus gave an advantage to the public, as they represent us)...Being forced to allow women into these services has also made them change their standards for everyone and thus the quality of all in these services is diminished.
Same thing for the armed forces.
I'm at a point of multi-partial agreement with various posters above.
LFeverstone, Apologies for my late arrival upon your wonderful blog but I have only recently become aware of it's existence...
Anyhow, I do agree with RB that MRA's need to focus on what is good FOR men, feminism being bad for men. That in part explains the change of name from Mathews Anti-Feminism to AntiMisandry. I truly believe that misandry itself poses a greater threat to man, individualy and collectively, than does feminism. However, in agreement with FredX, while simultaneously disagreeing with NYMOM, feminism is the core of misandry. Hence, requires study and understanding of it's hatefulness towards men.
I understand the analogy RB points to, and there is merit within it. However, there is no denying that feminism has instilled hostilities, corruption and paranoia as to the definition of man.
Too many men are being affected for it to be ignored. However, feminism is only one cog in the machine of misandry.
We need to give a NAME to the societal gangrene which is working so insidiously against the well-being of men. 'Feminism' seems as good a name as any. So, 'feminism' it shall be, at least in my book.
And who says feminism is about "gender-neutralism", anyway? It only pretends to be about that some of the time. But it operates in brass-faced contradiction to that the rest of the time. In fact, feminism is a completely pragmatic, opportunistic critter willing to trim its sails whichever way the wind blows!
Only TWO things are constant: 1.) Disaffection with males, and 2.) Advocacy for females.
You can vary those 2 ingredients, mix and re-mix them, 498 ways from Sunday supper.
Elegantly explains the 'contradictions', too!
Sorry, I don't make long posts. I like to wrap up the meat of the matter in a few choice words. ;)
Well okay, maybe I should get in my wooden nickel's worth about SYG.
I post there a pretty fair amount, mainly because it is such a handy piece of parchment. I put a lot of thought (usually) into what I write there, and dress my thoughts in some choice flowers of rhetoric, and I do all this because I know that others somewhere out there (whom I will never meet) will imbibe what I have shared and be touched by it in one way or another.
Hundreds, yea thouands, will read what I have written, and some few of them might even find matter to inspire hope, and courage to continue. Or perhaps they will find the missing link in their chain of thought, something that will make it all come together.
And some...eh...feminist, might find something to provoke an icy little finger of dread in the pit of her stomach. You never know.
So, I post away in that vast akashic archive, and augment the collective MRA "brain", and send my own thought energy rippling out across the universe.
It's an addiction, really. Like going back for just one more triscuit with some yummy clam dip spread on top of it! Mmmmm-mmmm...!
Post a Comment
<< Home