Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

harrietharmman

There's some interesting stories coming out of Canada with feminists objecting to posters which state "Men's rights are human rights". They've been ripping the posters down despite those posting them having permission to put them up.

How the hell can anyone disagree that men should have rights?? Anyway, here's the video:

it's well worth watching and pretty entertaining stuff if you like to see idiots acting really dumb, skip to 2 mins 10 for the fun!

They've finally identified the "star" of the video who was organising the vandalism. Rather worryingly she a teacher:


Here's a news report on the issue:

Posters in support of men's rights ripped down in Vancouver

There is backlash from both sexes after posters supporting men's rights were ripped down in Vancouver's Commercial Drive neighbourhood.

Some of the posters read "Stop violence against women, but not men, because men don't matter -- despite being more often the victims of violence." Many of the posters have been either taken down or defaced.

News1130 hit the streets to find out what you think about the controversial message. Men and women we spoke with say they should be left up because we don't hear enough about men's rights. They also believe Vancouver is an open-minded city.

"I can understand that there can be violence against men as well. I don't agree that they're being ripped down," says one man.

"I think these posters should definitely be good to go. I mean, anyone who's against violence against either men or women, I'm all behind that," adds a Vancouver woman.

Others say if you don't agree with the movement, then don't look at the posters -- but no one should have the right to vandalize.

"You don't hear a lot about [men's rights] and that's the surprising part. It is very surprising that they're being ripped down. Definitely, they should go back up. You see signs up for everything around here and to select which ones we put up and which ones we don't, it's a little bit ridiculous," explains another man.

In a written statement to News1130, the founder of the local men's rights blog MasculisM.ca, which is behind the movement, says he got involved because of his experiences on the Downtown Eastside.

I think the only solution to such censorship is for people to put up even more posters. What do other people think?

smash

I think the responsible parties should be charged with inciting hatred.

IvySlayer

That's the problem with some feminists, if they wanted equality they wouldn't be called feminists.

MetalDog

I really hate to be today's Captain Obvious, but imagine the what the reaction would be like if a group of men ripped down women's rights posters.

biko

There are some very angry people out there.

source

biko wrote: »

There are some very angry people out there.

Angry, brain washed and misguided.

Reku

Sadly feminism has been a hideout for many an angry young woman for many years now, they're unhappy with their lives, don't want to take responsibility for that and instead latch on to the socially accepted scapegoating of the other half of the population for all the ills of the world. Raising the issue of discrimination against males flies in the face of men being responsible for all the problems, and ergo all THEIR problems, and so is received as a personal affront, as you are effectively attacking their belief system.
Their belief system unfortunately readily lends itself to "you're either with us or against us" and so any reasoned dissent, or even intelligent debate, doesn't last long.
Don't worry mens' rights groups will also go down this pathetic route in time (assuming they haven't already done so).:(

B0jangles

Have any of you gone to the site given on that poster? It's like the kind of thing someone would put together as a satire about MRAs but it's sincere.

Sample: one of the 6 intro articles for new readers explains how most male on female domestic violence is actually the womans fault for being a bitch.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/how-to-slap-your-way-to-slavery/

Nice.

Oh and according to the author, the woman will reassert her power and control of the relationship by goading the man into beating her. You can't make this shít up...

coffee_cake

Wtf
Women only get beaten up because they're asking for it because they're such bitches
If that's the sh!t being propagated in these posters, I'm not surprised anyone is angry

smash

B0jangles wrote: »

Sample: one of the 6 intro articles for new readers explains how most male on female domestic violence is actually the womans fault for being a bitch.

Ok, I'll retract my earlier statement if that's the message the posters and associated group are trying to portray.

Reku

I would advise people to actually go and read the article rather than rely upon peoples' biased synopsis of it, as at the end it goes on to point out that the male is clearly wrong, however it is not a simple case of him being a misogynist & abuser, he is slowly being ground down by his partner's nagging and nit-picking and just snaps because he's too stupid/afraid to get out of a bad relationship.
It is an attempt to provoke thought and make people think more about the reasons behind the situation than simply following a black and white gender based analysis of what happened.
I have however only read that story the above poster linked to after they linked to it and have no idea what the rest of the site is like, so maybe it is just a awful site, I do not have the time at present to investigate further.

coffee_cake

Reku wrote: »

I would advise people to actually go and read the article rather than rely upon peoples' biased synopsis of it, as at the end it goes on to point out that the male is clearly wrong, however it is not a simple case of him being a misogynist & abuser, he is slowly being ground down by his partner's nagging and nit-picking and just snaps because he's too stupid/afraid to get out of a bad relationship.

Right. He hit her because she's a nagger, she deserved it, oh and by the way
genuine violence doesn't actually happen, or rarely:

One, you have the guy who is just ****ed up. He comes home drunk and beats his wife because there was some dust on the venetian blinds in the second bedroom that she didn’t get to when she was cleaning. This character is your fembot stereotype; the “go to” guy for fundraising, passing laws and “educating” the public on the problem of domestic violence. He’s an artifact of evil patriarchy and the extension of socially constructed and oppressive male dominance in the home; the only source of violence in the home that feminists recognize.

AND THAT IS AS FAR AS I WILL GO INTO THE FEMINIST THEORY OF ALLEGED PATRIARCHAL UNDERPINNINGS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. IT ONLY LOOSELY APPLIES TO A STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF MEN. OH, AND ALSO, IT’S ALL BULL**** .

It's a pity, nearly, because I do think alongside various other inequalities biased toward men, there is an issue of those biased toward women where they shouldn't be. I think there should be men's rights groups addressing these things. But stuff like that is not going to address anything.

Reacting to all that atheism+ (which is really some kind of insane women's group from what I can see) with their 'mansplaining' nonsense by going the same distance in the opposite direction instead of just ignoring them... *shrug*

Are relationships more complex than Bad Guy and Good Guy? Yes. Does domestic abuse toward men happen? Yes. Does any of this mean domestic abuse does not happen where the woman is not to blame? No.

LeeHoffmann

it is not a simple case of him being a misogynist & abuser, he is slowly being ground down by his partner's nagging and nit-picking and just snaps because he's too stupid/afraid to get out of a bad relationship.

anybody who ´snaps´ and lashes out violently at other people isn´t to be pitied imo, male or female. If you´re not happy in your relationship, end the relationship. There´s no excuse for violence, ever, by anybody/either gender etc etc

Links234

B0jangles wrote: »

Have any of you gone to the site given on that poster? It's like the kind of thing someone would put together as a satire about MRAs but it's sincere.

Sample: one of the 6 intro articles for new readers explains how most male on female domestic violence is actually the womans fault for being a bitch.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/how-to-slap-your-way-to-slavery/

Nice.

Oh and according to the author, the woman will reassert her power and control of the relationship by goading the man into beating her. You can't make this shít up...

Wow. just wow. what a wonderful and fanciful tale about how complex relationships are and when he beats her, it's ALL HER FAULT! disgusting, victim blaming trash is all that is, a spun narrative that's only goal seems to be to placate wife-beaters.

if I saw THAT site linked to on a poster, I'd tear it down too!

B0jangles

Reku wrote: »

I would advise people to actually go and read the article rather than rely upon peoples' biased synopsis of it, as at the end it goes on to point out that the male is clearly wrong, however it is not a simple case of him being a misogynist & abuser, he is slowly being ground down by his partner's nagging and nit-picking and just snaps because he's too stupid/afraid to get out of a bad relationship.
It is an attempt to provoke thought and make people think more about the reasons behind the situation than simply following a black and white gender based analysis of what happened.
I have however only read that story the above poster linked to after they linked to it and have no idea what the rest of the site is like, so maybe it is just a awful site, I do not have the time at present to investigate further.

Yeah, let's look again...

Oh look and article from from the site's owner about how all men called to act as jurors in rape/sexual assault trials should automatically say NOT GUILTY, no matter what the evidence says:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/government-tyranny/on-jury-nullification-and-rape/

This is, of course needed to fight the uncontrollable flood of false rape claims.

(Oh and the comments are even better, right down to the man who recounts a story (horrible, be warned)

about another guys grandad regularly anally raping his wife any time she was deemed to be acting bitchily as was a way of putting her back in her place.)

)

coffee_cake

B0jangles wrote: »

(Oh and the comments are even better, right down to the man who recounts a story (horrible, be warned)

about another guys grandad regularly anally raping his wife any time she was deemed to be acting bitchily as was a way of putting her back in her place.)

)

jesus christ I think I'm going to throw up

LeeHoffmann

I feel exactly the same bluewolf. I read on this far -

To avoid being sodomized is one of the prime directives (if you will excuse the phrase) to being a man. IMO, and from my observations, a man is put into an un-righteous and unnatural position of submission to other men who are trying to dominate him gruesomely. This particular crime, especially if allowed to spread throughout a society and become entrenched, will quickly lead to the absolute denigration and dissolution of the family, the extended family, and “civil” society. (Please see this element and its terrible results in prison societies, for reference.)

In contrast, a woman who is similarly taken in the “exit”, has a very unpleasant time, I don’t much doubt. But, no danger is created to her place in society nor to the family itself nor to society itself, by that. In such a case, she is *rather roughly* put into her natural position of being submitted to a man.

It´s horrifying that there are people who really think like that :eek:

Links234

B0jangles wrote: »

Yeah, let's look again...

and THAT ladies and gentlemen, is why men's rights aren't taken seriously, if the authors of such hate are putting up posters

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

It´s horrifying that there are people who really think like that

Wow! misgynistic AND homophobic!

LeeHoffmann

I´m sure most men´s rights campaigners aren´t anything like that. It´s always a few extreme, crazy bast0rds that give everyone a bad name - it´s the same with feminism.

Reku

bluewolf wrote: »

Right. He hit her because she's a nagger, she deserved it, oh and by the way
genuine violence doesn't actually happen, or rarely:

:rolleyes:
I don't know you that well so please keep your words in your own mouth and stop trying to put them in mine, at no point did I say any such thing.:rolleyes:

Though I do find it interesting that in any other context constantly nagging and nit-picking on someone would be classed as bullying, and even were a male to regularly put down his female partner it would be jumped upon as abuse, yet it seems perhaps males are expected to just brush it off and get on with things.

Links234 wrote: »

and THAT ladies and gentlemen, is why men's rights aren't taken seriously, if the authors of such hate are putting up posters

Reku wrote: »

Don't worry mens' rights groups will also go down this pathetic route in time (assuming they haven't already done so).:(

It's the nature of any of these groups that only represent a specific subsection of humanity, it gets too easy to fall into the habit of just blaming those not of that subsection regardless of the merit (or lack there-of) in the reasons behind blaming them.

coffee_cake

Reku wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I don't know you that well so please keep your words in your own mouth and stop trying to put them in mine, at no point did I say any such thing.:rolleyes:

Erm, I quoted the article saying it. Obviously.

the_syco

Watched both videos in the OP. Seems all the hate came from "daddy issues" which is quite sad. Hope the bitch in question somehow overcomes her problems, but not through hate.

Links234 wrote: »

and THAT ladies and gentlemen, is why men's rights aren't taken seriously, if the authors of such hate are putting up posters

Sounds like some of the bull**** from the extreme feminist websites.

H3llR4iser

Oh my, guys, are you for real? Your reactions to the articles are an incredibly accurate example of the status quo they talk about.

As simple as it is, we live in a culture that dictates that whenever a woman is allegedly the victim of a crime and the alleged perpetrator is a man, the latter is automatically considered guilty.

Try a little social experiment: the next time the news report an alleged case of rape, notice how anybody hearing it will go into the "that's horrible, poor woman" reaction. Try and say "let's wait until the investigation is complete and see if that really happened", and see what happens: you'll be instantly attacked for, essentially, saying something that should be obvious and normal - that an alleged crime has to be verified and a proper investigation has to be conducted before anybody can be charged.

The articles deal with extremes and are supposed to be provocative: They are in no way suggesting that "Harry" is right to beat "Mary" up and in no way advocating all male jurors to automatically decide for "not guilty" in any rape case; What they are trying to say is that in some cases there might be more to the truth than initially apparent and that we, as a society, are always inclined to pinpoint any wrongdoings on men, regardless of what might have really happened.

The cases mentioned in the article about rape make quite a good example. More often than not, a sort jury nullification happens in the form of the defendant being judged guilty regardless of evidence of the contrary.

This generates the incredibly dangerous situation society verses in right now; Any man that got accused of rape is almostautomatically considered guilty and has no really viable defense option, even if he is actually innocent. Moreover, simply talking about the possibility of an alleged rapist being wrongly accused will get you nasty looks, angered replies and accusations of condoning rape.

That is really what it all is about; It's not about saying that abused women are just "calling for it by naggin' their hubby", nor that men should be able to force sex out of anybody they want.

It is about making it clear that currently there are two weights and two measures when approaching reported crimes that involve different sexes.

If Harry slaps Mary, he's a violent bastard that needs to be locked up and have the key thrown away. If Mary slaps Harry, c'mon dude, man up, it's just a slap. If Janet goes out with her friends, meets Eddie, follows him to his car, has sex with him, realizes she has a child and an husband waiting at home and feels ashamed by what she did, the next morning she'll go to the Police and report Eddie spiked her drink and raped her, Eddie is a sick bastard of a rapist and should be locked up forever; Castrated, even.
If Eddie says that Janet actually willingly walked to his car and engaged in intercourse, Eddie is a sick rapist piece of scum and should be locked up forever, possibly castrated.


The comments to the article, however, are a different story. There are quite a bit of scum posting bull**** that makes them deserving to be lined up and shot. But then again, it's the Interwebs - you'll be surprised to discover how many of the "manly man roughing women around" in the comments are actually either 12-years-olds trying to look cool or sad basement dwellers that never saw a woman other than their mother from less than 20 feet away. And a few genuine scumbags, of course.

B0jangles

H3llR4iser wrote: »

The cases mentioned in the article about rape make quite a good example. More often than not, a sort jury nullification happens in the form of the defendant being judged guilty regardless of evidence of the contrary.

This generates the incredibly dangerous situation society verses in right now; Any man that got accused of rape is almostautomatically considered guilty and has no really viable defense option, even if he is actually innocent. Moreover, simply talking about the possibility of an alleged rapist being wrongly accused will get you nasty looks, angered replies and accusations of condoning rape.

No time right now to deal with all your points but according to figures recieved by the Irish Examiner in 2011, 70% of sex offence cases were rejected by the DPP. (so there was never a prosecution at all).

Quotes from the article:

"The figures show that, in 2010, just 10 convictions were secured in the Central Criminal Court, where 67 people were initially prosecuted. Of the 145 offences tried in the Circuit Court concerning 154 suspects, there were 32 convictions.

Also last year, of 203 suspects in 173 alleged crimes against under 18-year-olds, the DPP did not prosecute 163 (80%) of the suspects. "

How exactly do you square this with the view that men are automatically found guilty in sexual assault/rape cases?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dpp-rejects-70-of-sex-crime-referrals-172463.html

Piliger

B0jangles wrote: »

Have any of you gone to the site given on that poster? It's like the kind of thing someone would put together as a satire about MRAs but it's sincere.

Sample: one of the 6 intro articles for new readers explains how most male on female domestic violence is actually the womans fault for being a bitch.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/how-to-slap-your-way-to-slavery/

Nice.

Oh and according to the author, the woman will reassert her power and control of the relationship by goading the man into beating her. You can't make this shít up...

Is the article you are referring to headed "A different look at men’s violence" ?

H3llR4iser

B0jangles wrote: »

No time right now to deal with all your points but according to figures recieved by the Irish Examiner in 2011, 70% of sex offence cases were rejected by the DPP. (so there was never a prosecution at all).

Quotes from the article:

"The figures show that, in 2010, just 10 convictions were secured in the Central Criminal Court, where 67 people were initially prosecuted. Of the 145 offences tried in the Circuit Court concerning 154 suspects, there were 32 convictions.

Also last year, of 203 suspects in 173 alleged crimes against under 18-year-olds, the DPP did not prosecute 163 (80%) of the suspects. "

How exactly do you square this with the view that men are automatically found guilty in sexual assault/rape cases?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dpp-rejects-70-of-sex-crime-referrals-172463.html

First of all, we are talking about cases that DO get a prosecution. Think about the example I made about "Janet and Eddie" - in such a case there would probably be grounds for prosecution, as medical reports would verify that the two did have intercourse and that she was possibly mildly intoxicated. Add Janet's friends testifying for her, saying that they saw them talking and possibly that he looked "dodgy" or "sick", and you have it.

As for the number of cases not being prosecuted in Ireland, I would say truth is in the middle. It is very likely that a number of genuine scumbags got away with it, but it's also very likely that the "non-prosecution" has saved some innocent men. The reality is that more often than not, the alleged victim refuses to go through the required medical checks and, in absence of any hard evidence, it is indeed impossible to proceed with a prosecution; Prosecution that, any judge will know, will likely end in the defendant being charged guilty.

Such a point is further validated by the stance of both the media (e.g. the Examiner) and groups such as the Rape Crisis Network - they are essentially angry and scandalized about so many cases not being prosecuted; However, would they be happy if all these cases were prosecuted and the defendants found not guilty? They wouldn't, they are all about "convictions", not "prosecutions". Therefore, in the public eye, prosecution for rape must end up in the defentant charged as guilty, otherwise the whole thing would be considered a farce.

My guess is that the DPP is moving very carefully on the matter, due to the social perception and expectations for the type of crime and the potential prosecution outcome and they dismiss the case unless they are sure they can reach a conviction; This is an approach that is extremely bad for the victims of real sexual assaults, where a dubious but real case could lead to a rightful conviction with proper investigation and trial.

As you can see, the current mentality stems problems both ways. The point I'm trying to make is that currently, a trial for rape cannot be expected to be fair towards the defendant, and this causes both innocent men to be locked away for years and victims of real abuses to never receive any justice for their pain.

harrietharmman

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

anybody who ´snaps´ and lashes out violently at other people isn´t to be pitied imo, male or female. If you´re not happy in your relationship, end the relationship. There´s no excuse for violence, ever, by anybody/either gender etc etc

Yes there is - self defence. We get all this "never hit a woman" nonsense in society, which is of course sexism. If a woman is coming at you with a knife you get to defend yourself, the way some people suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

B0jangles

Piliger wrote: »

Is the article you are referring to headed "A different look at men’s violence" ?

That's the one.

LeeHoffmann

there is no excuse for lashing out violently at other people - i.e. no excuse for starting the violence. Of course you can defend yourself but nagging doesn´t count as an attack

B0jangles

H3llR4iser wrote: »

First of all, we are talking about cases that DO get a prosecution.

a trial for rape cannot be expected to be fair towards the defendant, and this causes both innocent men to be locked away for years and victims of real abuses to never receive any justice for their pain.

Again, as I just quoted from the DPP::

In 2010 :10 convictions were secured in the Central Criminal Court, where 67 people were initially prosecuted. Of the 145 offences tried in the Circuit Court concerning 154 suspects, there were 32 convictions.

Still not seeing where people accused of sexual crimes are automatically convicted.

B0jangles

harrietharmman wrote: »

Yes there is - self defence. We get all this "never hit a woman" nonsense in society, which is of course sexism. If a woman is coming at you with a knife you get to defend yourself, the way some people suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Well yes of course, that's obvious. Someone tries to kill you, you are entitled to defend yourself.

What's not obvious is the "voiceformen.com"'s argument that if you are in a long-term relationship with a woman who buys ugly sweaters for you, then criticizes you for wearing them, you're justified in beating her for being a bitch. He also argues that said woman asserts her control over the relationship by triggering futher beatings for herself.
He is not a rational person and should not be used as a source of information by anyone.

Edit: also you say things like " I would say truth is in the middle.", " My guess is that the DPP is moving very carefully on the matter" - your guesses and thoughts are not actual rebuttals for facts and statistics gathered across the whole country. It is clear you would like it to be an inarguable truth that the criminal justice system is biased against men like you, but sadly the recorded facts are not on your side.