Seriously? wrote: » mods, any chance we could get the feminist attacks against Elam (any by extension avfm) moved into there own thread (or roled into another)? It would be nice be able to get a list going without it getting sidetracked ?
Earl Turner wrote: » Of course, because it doesn't toe the pc line it's 'racist and sexist'. And no, gays and women are not welcome there, why should they be? It would be like me commenting on a website for women or homosexuals. My opinion would be neither wanted or welcome.
Slot Machine wrote: » Racist, sexist, homophobic (for a time, women and gay men were banned from commenting) assholes. It's more than a little concerning to see sites like this popping up in tGC.
Earl Turner wrote: » Return of Kingshttp://www.returnofkings.com/48731/remove-the-man
A note on the difference between "red pill" and MRHM RP and the MHRM are pretty divergent. While they're not mutually exclusive, the foci are radically different. •RP'ers general approach is that the world "is what it is", that there's no point in trying to rail against it, and accepting that things are what they are is the first step to improving your lot... coming to terms with that is what they call "taking the red pill". Once that's accomplished, it's suggested that the only rational thing to do is optimize your ability to move within the reality you're in (with 'optimize' usually taking on a context of access to greater quality and quantity of sex). In order to do so, it's expected that individuals work on their own "value" to become better, more valuable commodities in the sexual marketplace. At its core it's a philosophy of self-improvement... as such, most efforts are directed inward. •The MHRM is concerned about things that effect all or most men. Inequalities under the law, attempts to eliminate due process protection exclusively for men accused of certain crimes, lack of funds and interest in aiding men who are in abusive relationships or who have been sexually assaulted, the ever-widening education gap, and so on. MHRAs generally believe that society can be changed if sufficient numbers of people want it to change. Our efforts are largely focused outward. Basically, the only real area of overlap is that both groups are largely comprised of men interested in the things that tend to interest men.
Jose Mourinho GOAT wrote: » I've read a bit about that "red pill" stuff on a blog called "The Rational Male". A lot of very valid points are made. I don't agree with all of it but there is a lot of merit to it. I agree that women are primarily attracted to masculine or "alpha" traits during ovulation.
tritium wrote: » I think that's pretty spot on. The other issue given how vocal these groups are (seems like half of the Irish time opinion pieces sometimes) is the implied double standard they introduce to debate. They'll happily cast a sweeping generalisation at any group- all men are rapists, mras are all misogynists, etc. However when someone makes a similar identification of say feminism they'll skulk back to the mainstream and throw out the 'feminism isn't a hive mind/ not all feminists' stuff. It's pretty depressing to argue with and fairly dishonest. Especially when you see some of those same people sitting amidst the more mainstream proponents masquerading as nice as pie. Mulally and Ivana bacik spring to mind in that space. One of the most frustrating aspects is trying to understand why feminists don't speak out against them- that becomes easier to inderstand when you realise how some of these have managed to pass themselves off as very mainstream so that to criticise them implicitly becomes a criticism of a feminists own position
iptba wrote: » I think men can justifiably feel feminism is something that can be feared. Some feminists push all sorts of odd agendas and other feminists won't generally stop them and many other people are afraid also. One recent example is 40% gender quotas for politicians in Ireland: this doesn't seem to be that popular a move but once Ivana Bacik got going, politicians seemed generally afraid to stop her. There are gender quotas in boards in some European countries and it seems quite possible the EU may make rules on this.
iptba wrote: » I've heard a lot of men's rights activists complain about the Return of Kings. Also on places like Reddit, there are separate forums for redpillers and men's rights forums, with quite a lot of people in the latter complaining about the former.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » The problem is that the former is taking root thanks to bloggers, "journalists" and the like (*cough* Una Mullaly *cough*) leading a lot of men to believe that feminism is an enemy to be feared.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » This is one of the biggest problems with movements like this; they inevitable become sacred cows any constructive criticism of which is seen as unacceptable. As you say, ivory tower US feminism is becoming synonymous with feminism as a whole which isn't a homogeneous entity. The problem is that the former is taking root thanks to bloggers, "journalists" and the like (*cough* Una Mullaly *cough*) leading a lot of men to believe that feminism is an enemy to be feared.
Wibbs wrote: » Personally I find Paul Elam and sites like Return of Kings(sic) angry clickbait nonsense for the most part, designed to rile and rev up this imported American gender war bullshít, by highlighting out the odd good point and throwing a load of crap on top. Handy earner for them too as they get loadsa pageviews and a few of the contributors are busy pimping their ebooks on top of it. The Roosh bloke a perfect example of the breed. And they're exactly like the "feminazis" and "SJWs" they rail against in that they can't handle debate, it's their way or the highway. The only difference is in how they shut down debate. Your more radical feminists do so passive aggressively, your radical manosphere types do so minus the passive part. They're more amusing though, generally less whiny, but then again I have a weird sense of humour... Check out the aforementioned Roosh's forum. Unless you're bowing to his gospel(and him) you're out/banned. You see a lot of longterm posters with banned under their names and they get banned for the most part for straying from the "path". Hell check out the plethora of animated gifs featuring the Roosh bloke himself. Too many sheep worshipping at his feet, probably getting a little frisson(no homo) if he reps or thanks their post. Like I say and like all extreme types they can make some good points. Indeed the extremists of all hues can as they're outside the scope of the average, but considering the guff they add in on top, I wouldn't mistake it for anything approaching wisdom, or I'd apply a gimlet eye as a general rule.
Wibbs wrote: » TBH A, I have no issue with taking modern feminism to task, minus the vitriol, as I find too much of it unalloyed nonsense and provably so. Though too many(and usually the vocal ones) modern "feminists" find proof, debate and questioning misogynistic in of themselves, which tells you all you need to know really. However what far too many of these manism bloggists do is conflate dopey US college feminism with all women. They see an entire gender as an homogenous entity, with subgroups of fatties and SJW and "would bang". It's all terribly adolescent and daft and insulting to men as well as women. The latest meme is "foreign women are better" and the Roosh bloke has made hay with that one. Grass is greener mentality at its finest. Though I would say given America's divorce stats and laws, I'd reckon you'd be daft as a brush to get hitched in the US if you're a guy.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Of course vitriolic assaults on feminism don't help anyone but that's not the point.
A lot of men, especially white men feel victimised and that there is noone who's prepared to speak for them. Those of ethnic minorities have campaigners for racial equality and rightfully so but the ultimate side effect is a demographic who will turn to the only group or individual claiming to represent them.
KomradeBishop wrote: » The focus is on Elam personally, as founder of A Voice For Men, and his own sexist (borderline misogynistic) views, not the wider debate he was engaging in. His article is precisely trying to portray it as less of a crime, and shift the blame onto the victim - it shouldn't even need dissecting for that to be obvious, but here we go anyway - you have parts like this: Using scare-quotes - "victim" - to imply these women are not actually victims of rape (or not victims of 'true' rape). Mocking women who have been raped in these circumstances, and flat-out saying they are begging, demanding to get raped - which is straight-out victim blaming, and is implicitly shifting responsibility away from rapists, to the women - i.e. implicitly promoting a view saying 'well, they asked for it!', as if excusing it. Saying: Again with scare quotes, as if being raped in these circumstances is not a "plight" - pretty much trivializing rape, especially in comparing the crime of rape, to a lesser crime of losing your wallet, and saying women who have been raped in these circumstances, should draw only a trivial amount of sympathy.
Potatoeman wrote: » It does not make it any less of a crime but if something is or was avoidable then the victim should examine their actions.
Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.
But are these women asking to get raped? In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED. They are freaking begging for it. Damn near demanding it. And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended
KomradeBishop wrote: » 'Personal responsibility' of the victim in this case, i.e. an extremely ugly example of victim blaming, saying that certain women are begging to be raped...It's a short article though, so I encourage anyone who's even a little bit doubtful that this is what Elam meant, to read it; it's pretty clear.
Seriously? wrote: » It’s an inflammatory article which proved quite divisive at the time, but anyone who reads the article can see its fundamental argument presented in the opening paragraphs is one about personal responsibility. Others may of course interpret it differently.
“Whilst Undercover Color’s initiative is well meaning, on the whole,” she said, “Rape Crisis does not endorse or promote such a product or anything similar. This is for three reasons: it implies that it’s the woman’s fault and assumes responsibility on her behalf, and detracts from the real issues that arise from sexual violence.”
Rebecca Nagle, one of the co-directors of an activist group called FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture, agreed, writing "The problem isn’t that women don’t know when there are roofies in their drink; the problem is people putting roofies in their drink in the first place."http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcommunity/2014/08/nail-polish-that-detects-date-rape-drugs-proves-controversial.html
KomradeBishop wrote: » Just be mindful that the founder of that site - Paul Elam - is heavily sexist, bordering on misogynistic:http://web.archive.org/web/20111103174336/http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/ Elam is an outright scumbag, in my view, for coming out with stuff like that.
Seriously? wrote: » A voice for men.
In that light, I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get **** faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the “victims” of rape.But are these women asking to get raped? In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.They are freaking begging for it. Damn near demanding it. And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads. In my opinion their “plight” from being raped should draw about as much sympathy as a man who loses a wallet full of cash after leaving it laying around a bus station unattended.
