Wednesday, December 19, 2012

The problem with the Men's Rights movement, continued

A hysterical, silly young feminist at a University of Toronto demonstration was caught on video, shrieking that men's rights guys are "fucking scum" and so on. The prominent Men's Rights blog A Voice For Men has identified her by name, and has commenced harassing her to the point that she has already shut down her Twitter account.

There are 322 comments (as of this writing) applauding the stalking and harassment of this very silly, thoroughly unlucky girl. They are proud of their terrorism and exhorting their readers to go even further.

This kind of thing is why the Southern Poverty Law Center called the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) "a hate movement"--the deliberate and vicious targeting and threatening of feminists who annoy them in some specific (and usually silly) fashion.

Which brings me to another point: As in the whole Rebecca Watson/ELEVATORGATE foofaraw (and that threatens a monster-sized digression all by itself; here is a brief synopsis of the event), these incidents always seem to involve young, thin, attractive women. What's up with that? Are ugly, old or fat women/feminists just not as much fun to harass and rail against? Why not?

It really is rather striking, once you notice it.

For example, on page one of the popular A Voice For Men blog (whom I have criticized here for trashing older, unattractive women, simply for existing) there is a "Featured Offenders" category, of "women bigots" who have said sundry man-hating stuff. Notice every single one of these offenders is very attractive, white, young, and usually blonde. Hm.

Is man-hating somehow more egregious and criminal when coming from young, good-looking gals? I guess so.

The hysterical young woman from Toronto is, you guessed it, quite lovely. Other hysterical girls in the video, not nearly as attractive, did not even get noticed. Somehow, this woman is the one that rates their ire.

I find this a trifle obvious... embarrassingly so. Are they aware of their bias? Are they aware that women are aware of it, and therefore do not take their ire seriously since it seems to be targeting only those gals that make them hot? The ones they especially WANT to behave?

For instance, my own criticism of AVFM did not even rate a reply. (I assume it's because I admitted to being post-menopausal; I have long noticed that criticisms of ageism are not taken seriously by the MRM.) Meanwhile, other critical feminists rate all kinds of extended attention. For instance, they are STILL obsessed with every single thing the aforementioned Rebecca Watson does, while the fat girls remain ignored. (Just like in every other aspect of life.) [1]

NOTE: If you want your movement and criticism of man-hating to be taken seriously, stop focusing only on those criticisms from poster gals you find sexy, okay?

Further, check out the comments in the thread about the hysterical young woman... it only takes TWO (count em, TWO) comments, before they are trashing Marxism and the entire left. Amazing, huh? It is a recurrent theme. I am not sure how Marxism made the young lady crazy and man-hating, but the commies MUST have had something to do with it. [2]

THIS, once again, is why Men's Rights is increasingly regarded as a hate movement, which incidentally, is what the young woman in question was getting so hysterical about: A speech by Men's Rights advocate Warren Farrell. [3] On AVFM, they have written:

[young woman's name] apparently had a twitter account (which comes up on a Google of her name), which has now been shut down. But there appear to be traces of her in multiple net locations. This should be quite enough for our rainbow coalition of agents to do their work.

And we will continue to do ours to bring all of this to the light of public attention, including her listing on
Doesn't that sound like a gang of men going after one woman? What "work" do they refer to, exactly? (I like how they leave it to your imagination.)

The author of this hit-piece, Paul Elam, once wrote (in a comment addressed to a feminist): "I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection." [5] (Warren Farrell hasn't said anything that bad, has he?) As I wrote in my first post on AVFM, they believe that all feminists are "termites"--with no exceptions.

My question: Do they think this nasty, bully-behavior is helping men in any way? Really? How?!? Believe me, it doesn't. Even though I am a mere termite, I really would like the positive aspects of this movement to succeed, for many reasons. I do worry about the emotional lives of modern men and boys. I am more worried this week than I have been in a long time.

Which leads me to another crucial point: Do you realize the HARM that this piece will cause, during a week like this? In case you haven't heard: A marginalized man, cut off from mainstream society, had a very violent meltdown and engaged in mass murder... and as a result, all quiet, marginalized men will be looked at with heightened suspicion. YOU ARE MAKING THIS WORSE. YOU ARE PUTTING CERTAIN MEN AT RISK, approving anti-social, stalking behavior and telling them it is good to engage in--actually giving outsiders who want to belong, the cool label of "Rainbow coalition of agents" and calling stalking "work" instead of what it is: stalking.

Let me make it clear: Men will be dragged into interrogation rooms over this. YOU ARE WRONG TO ENCOURAGE THIS SHIT!

Please cease and desist this kind of behavior, gentlemen. This is not men's "rights"--this is about your harassment of an attractive girl who grabbed your attention in a video. (Why her and not the others?) This is about getting even, this is not about asserting rights.

And if you do not cease and desist, please understand that you ARE a hate movement. This is no different than tracking abortion doctors to their homes and taking photographs of their families! This is what a hate movement does.


[1] One sensible and well-founded complaint from the Men's Movement is that women will not ask men for dates or "approach" men. However, this doesn't refer to fat girls; I was informed by one Men's Rights Advocate that fat girls are the frequent exceptions to this rule, since they often DO approach men... in fact, in many social settings, asking men for dates is considered "fat girl behavior" and even more stigmatized than ever, for this reason. (Who knew?)

In short, they DO NOT want to date the fat girls, so these fat girls' repeated "approaches" don't count... stop bringing them up! (Stop talking about fat girls, goddammit!) They are not talking about you, fat girl, they are talking about this hysterical, pretty, thin girl from Toronto, whom they want to make behave.

Her misbehavior BOTHERS THEM A LOT... yours and mine? Not so much.

[2] The increasing right-wing drift of the MRM is also plenty disturbing, and mostly unacknowledged by its leaders. Although it is notable that many are atheists and active in the atheist movement, which I find interesting.

As a result, there is a growing rift in the atheism/skeptic community, known as "Atheism Plus"--which would be the progressive atheists (i.e. atheism PLUS other social issues). Atheism "by itself" would be the standard old-school, white men's/Richard Dawkins variety.

Needless to say, the MRM is not fond of Atheism Plus, and they largely consider it a dangerous feminist/lefty/queer ideological incursion into the sacred atheist territory of Rationalism and Reason. (You know, the kind of 'Reason' that goes after flakey feminists in Toronto who shriek at demonstrations and are unlucky enough to be pretty and thus rate extended video coverage.)

[3] I exchanged very nice correspondence with Warren Farrell back when I was about 15 years old, after having seen him on the Phil Donahue Show. He was very kind, friendly, positive and encouraging of my feminism. I kept the letter for a long time and thumb-tacked it to my bulletin board, right alongside David Cassidy and Iggy Pop, which is why I remember it. (This would have been 1972 or 73.) Therefore, I have nothing against Farrell. In fact, I left a comment on YouTube, agreeing that "quote-mining" is a negative tactic and needs to end. In that case, I hope these terribly fair-minded Men's Rights fellas will stop quote-mining Andrea Dworkin, too.

Can we make a deal on that?

[4] Register-Her started as a website naming women who make false rape/domestic violence allegations. Apparently, it has expanded to include any women who offend the MRM.

[5] Speaking of quote-mining, I can see why Paul Elam wouldn't be too fond of it.


EDIT: A Voice for Men has highlighted another shrieking, silly girl at the anti-Warren Farrell rally, so I stand corrected. This one is also named and targeted in the same way as the first silly, shrieking girl:
Additionally, over the next two days, she will be listed on as a known bigot, and her image and name will find a place on our display of featured offenders.
And by the way, did I mention? She is also quite beautiful.

I'm sure it's only a coincidence.


Tit for Tat said...

Good post. As much as I believe there needs to be dialogue in regards to certain issues for men, it sure as shit shouldnt be these guys doing the talking. :(

Conseglieri said...

I am somewhat reminded of the split between the JDL and the JDO. It feels as if these folks have it in mind to be more masculinist than the next guy or gal, and willing to prove it with intimidation. I might be concerned by her positions if I thought there is a serious risk that they will become wide spread, but that's not going to happen.

Imagine what would happen to the 2nd amendment rights activists amongst their number if you were to call on all women to be always armed.

Paul said...

Let me say up front that I'm not sure I agree with the tactic that AVFM is taking... but I'm not sure I disagree with it either.

First of all, Daisy, i don't think I agree with your characterization of what the protester did in that video as "silly." had the genders of that particular confrontation (Getting in that guy's face, screaming at him, following him, trying to get in his way) been reversed, I have no doubt in my mind the protester would have been arrested. But, because she's a woman confronting a man, she's just "silly." No. I don't accept that.

Secondly, the guys at AVFM have, to my knowledge, revealed no information that she herself has not already put in public on the internet. They haven't published her address, phone number, or place of employment, (again, to my knowledge.) Only pointed to information that she herself posted. Nobody forced her to post that stuff on the internet, and actions have consequences.

Do I wish they hadn't done this? Somewhat, if for no other reason than to "be the bigger person" but at the same time, I'm frankly rather sick of women being able to spew hate for half the human race and have it just be written off as "silly and fun LOL!"

YogaforCynics said...

I just got asked to join some kind of "conscious men's group" on Facebook, by someone I consider a good guy and a friend. While they're not the same thing as "men's rights" groups, I'm always highly suspicious of "men's movements" in general, since they always seem to involve a thin veneer of new agey touchy feely vibes on top of an utterly bogus sense that men and masculinity are somehow endangered by changes in society (i.e. feminism, increasing acceptance of GLBTG folks, etc.) and that, therefore, men need to band together and play drums and...whatever the fuck these people do. Count me out.

John Powers said...

I don't mean this comment to trivialize the content of this post. It's just that the existence of "older unattractive women" jogged my two brain cells. "Attractive" has lots of meanings, and as I go on in life the meaning of "attractive" that boils down to something like: Thank God you're here" seems more and more potent. The content of our character really does matter. Children have all sorts of prejudices, but not, it seems to me against "older and unattractive." I want to be more like the kids.

bryce said...

paul - throwing tantrums is *silly*.

d used words like silly & hysterical for a reason: women have been raised 2 act like that. stamping yr foot & screaming doesn't 'make it so'. d didn't say she was "silly and fun LOL" - u did. she meant silly as in *childish & inaffective* in yr actions. which she was. but not dangerous & not 2B taken serioously.

these avfms then take that shit 2 another level & will wonder why theyll be busted 4 hacking when somebody steals from her or sends a threat [as someone prob has already.] its all fun and games till someone loses an eye.

putting her dumb ass on video was enough, then u go &create sympathy 4 her? nice going mrm!

& what yogaman said.

D. said...

As I understand the rules of this sort of "engagement" are:

1. Men may hate/mistrust on all women at any time.
2. Women may not hate/mistrust on any man unless that man has done specific wrong, in which case she is expected to forgive and forget.
3. Specifically, young fashion-magazine-compliant women are not allowed to mistrust or have the slightest scintilla of discrimination about anything male.

Y'know, I would not, personally, trust or want around me in any way anyone who'd subscribe to that set of beliefs.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Great comments from everybody, and thank you!

Paul... what Bryce said. "Silly" does not mean "fun" -- it means ridiculous. And she did not "get in his face"--since he was about 2 feet taller than she was and that was patently impossible... she was a pest, like an offensive, yappy little dog.

I find your characterization (and wholesale write-off) of cyber bullying rather scary. The paparazzi said all that about chasing Princess Diana into a tunnel at 100 mph, too, remember? Is everyone "fair game" if you decide you don't like them? Perhaps you would feel most comfortable in the Church of Scientology, those are their values also.

Harassment is not okay because "nobody forced her to put that stuff on the internet"--are you actually using that as a moral measurement? If so, we are coming from very different ethical frameworks, and I really do not expect you to understand what I am saying.

Maybe when Miss Hysteria presses charges against some dorky kid who was going along for the ride, you'll understand? But considering your ethics, probably not. His fault too, right? Omelet, break a few eggs, etc.

If this is where your movement is going, its going belly-up fast. Way to strengthen feminists and make them look even MORE like victims, as Bryce said. Maybe THAT is the secret agenda of whoever engineered these little (big) stunts.


Tit for Tat said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tit for Tat said...


Actually the last woman calling the man "fucking scum" was violent. No if ands or buts about it. You make one mistake by assuming because she is smaller that she might not pack a punch. "Its not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog".
Case in point, look at some pics on line of Ronda Roussey.

Anonymous said...

did you expect principled behaviour from an unprincipled movement?

why would you do that?

DaisyDeadhead said...

Tit, maybe in Canada. That little display of hers would not even get the cops called on you in the USA.

Are you saying when the Bob Jones University people threatened me, I had a case against them? Because everyone laughed at me and told me I did not, until they actually touched me. (They followed me, and that was just something I had to endure until they got bored and quit.)

Yelling and screaming, or even 'following' (extremely hard to prove in a free society) is not violence. Or rather, I guess "violent" depends on where you are. This is South Carolina, and we tend to have a relatively high threshold for what "violence" is. They would laugh at you if you tried to say that here. The cops would say, cool down and go home. And that would be that.

Believe me, I know.

Tit for Tat said...

Tell you what Daisy. Pretty much every fight I have ever been in or seen started with the verbal violence. The truth is, if there were no cops you can bet money people from both sides would have been throwing punches. The question is in this case, who are the provocateurs. I dont think we need to argue about that, do we? Ronda is pretty cute though, dont ya think? ;)

Tit for Tat said...

Oh, and by the way, define bully for me, cause it sure looked like those nice feminists fit the bill.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Tit, my definition is the same as the dictionary's:


1) A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.

2) Corned beef.

Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

Very good; first-rate.

An expression of admiration or approval: "he got away—bully for him".

splendid - dandy

(Corned beef? Who knew?)

Strength is a factor, you know. And beyond that... LOTS of men ("rainbow agents") have more power and strength together, in a group/gang, than one female they are targeting and following. Yes, that would be true the other way too... but that is not what they are doing... they are printing info about the girls and encouraging thousands of their readers to harass them. Surely, you can see the difference?

Sure, I guess those irate college girls were "bullies"--but I have a hard time even taking them seriously. I am not a spoiled, middle class college girl and never was. There are 3 wars going on, Wall Street bail-outs, health care/social security and fiscal cliff negotiations, people (men) getting lethally injected... and this is a ridiculous thing to protest... so I confess it just seems dumb as hell to me, on the face of it.

Oh yeah, I forgot: CANADA. Not much to get mad about in Canada, is there? They have to get themselves in a lather about something to feel like important radicals. (Most of us lefties would be thrilled to have a govt like Canada's, so its hard to digest that, you know?)

Tit: The truth is, if there were no cops you can bet money people from both sides would have been throwing punches

I have been in several demonstrations (riots) when we all came to blows. In fact, you can go to 3:21-40 in this video (the blonde in front, screaming and hollering, is me). And as you can see from the footage, cops don't really help too much when you truly decide to wallop somebody.

Comparing that video to the Warren Farrell rally... do you see the difference now? Do you see how dopey the girls are, in comparison? I should take them and their "cause" seriously --why? (What's supposed to so wrong with Farrell anyway? I didn't get the memo.)

Speaking of memos, I think its interesting that your first comment last night was sympathetic to my view, until you got YOUR memo from the Genderratic crowd. Did they tell you what to think? And now you do an about-face?

If you are this easily-influenced by groupthink, makes me wonder what other opinions will change on a dime when you are told what the official MRA view is.

Independent thinking = its a good thing.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Actually, I'd start the video at about 3:19 to get the whole context.

I was watching the Emmy awards one night in 1978, and saw a clip of myself... THAT was pretty weird! That segment is a combination of law enforcement video and footage from a documentary titled "The New Klan"...

Now, THAT was a riot. Those girls shrieking? Laughable and silly.

Tit for Tat said...


Dont be paranoid. I agree wholeheartedly with you about the Avfm shitheads. I also think those protesters from Toronto were a bunch of punk ass bullies too(different shit, same stink). In fact, I think that the Avfm and those protesters have way too much in common. But in their defense(both ways), I think it is born of pain(as in they were all likely abused or bullied at some point in their lives)

Tit for Tat said...

By the way, Im Tat, its the wifes Tit. ;)

DaisyDeadhead said...

And you know Tat (I still prefer the name Tit), I mighta slapped that chick... so it is hard for me to argue with you about that... then again, I might have been laughing too hard. I probably would have been the one holding the camera and would have tried to "interview" her which would have been far funnier. (The Yippies taught me how to get the humor out of such people/situations.) In fact, in any interview, I would have asked her name right out of the box, and none of this would even have been necessary.

But see, I would NOT have been there in the first place... I can not take such a demonstration seriously... WHAT DID FARRELL DO? You'd think he was fucking General Petraeus (who I am getting ready to blog about) or something. What is the crime he committed?

Am I missing something?

Tit for Tat said...

I dont think youre missing anything. Some people just need a venue to express their pain. When I was younger it was usually someone else's face(thank god I grew outta that). My wife did concur, if a man was in the face of a woman like that it would definately be viewed differently(Paul was right). Anyways, not really knowing Farrell and believing in free speech I think the protesters were the first one's to "draw blood", unfortunately it seems they have run into the real deal nutjobs from Avfm. The ones at the protest were just wanting to watch a speaker. You know the old saying though, "Dont bring a knife to a gunfight". It seems Avfm boys like their guns(metaphorically speaking of course).

Anonymous said...

I think you nailed something. My own experience (here and overseas) tells me that these males have to punish females that they deem are less likely to be sexually available to them. That would cover feminists, absolutely. But only the younger ones.

evilisgood said...

Farrell said some pretty nasty things about incest and date rape:

DaisyDeadhead said...

Evil, 1977? Well, that explains everything.

At the risk of sounding like an old hippie, let me say: lots of people talked like that in the 70s, including Catherine MacKinnon's ex-fiance, Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson. (gasp) It was fairly common. It's all been dropped down the memory hole now, but some of us remember. At about the same time, Andrea Dworkin wrote oddly how "children and animals are sexual beings"--and I am simply grateful the MRAs who hate her have not yet discovered those quotes. (I know where they are, though.)

That was the 70s, and it was a strange time. Fortunately or unfortunately (some weird combination of both) --if it wasn't for those excesses, we probably would not have had the extensive speak-outs (with resultant research) on incest and molestation in the 80s.

But this language was not uncommon, among feminists, too. I don't think people should be dogged forever, by bizarre stuff they said eons ago. Especially by people who weren't even around then and do not understand what the general hyper-permissive atmosphere was like.

If this is why feminists were protesting, I understand that, but blocking entrance to buildings is still a bit overwrought and silly.

angry again said...

i've noticed their obvious attraction to the prettier women like Rebecca Watson. i've been just as offensive (the MRA def of offensive and sexist) and they couldn't care less. it is definitely about the sexy grrls who won't obey or notice them so this is what they do to get their attention, like boys in middle school. if you are fat, ugly, old, they do not even register your existence.

for all the talk about 'feminazis' they seem to forget what -else- Rush said, that feminism evolved 'to give unattractive women access to power.' we regular unsexy women are what make feminism happen, not just their fantasy grrls that make them mad enough to write blog posts and stalk them. and we will keep on doing feminism, while they jerk off to their fantasy grrls.

this is what will bring them down. they will put the so called important stuff on the back burner and chase whoever gives them a woody. their own maleness will be their own defeat.

mens rights is a fad. or maybe it will become a little selective club, like bowling leagues or collecting action figures. either way, just wait a while and it will go away. we will endure.

Anonymous said...

I followed this link from Feministe. I liked the post a lot. However, I got a bit of an "icky" feeling from your repeated characterizations of the young woman as "silly" and "hysterical." Those are highly gendered terms, in this context, and bring up all sorts of ugly stereotypes of women's irrationality and hyper-emotional status. Perhaps you could pick different words next time...

Tit for Tat said...


I agree, I think angry and bullying are much more succinct.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Anon, I don't know if you are still reading, but it took me awhile to formulate a reply to your comment. It kinda freaked me out on several levels, and in many ways, sums up everything I believe is wrong with Third Wave feminism.

Feminists certainly don't hesitate to use "icky" terms to describe unpleasant gendered behavior in men. Do you take issue with my use of the words 'bullying' and 'harassment'? Aren't these also mostly-gendered terms, as currently used?

I believe the femninist reply to such a criticism would be: Stop harassing and bullying and we will stop calling it that.

Likewise, the task at hand is to cut out the unpleasant gendered behavior, not to refrain from describing reality as it is. The whole issue at hand (which prompted AVFM's post in the first place) is these women's behavior, which is hysterical and silly. If you or they do not want me to use those words, they need to stop acting hysterical and silly, and I will be glad to oblige.

But no, I do not rearrange reality and my perceptions for the sake of political correctness. That is the fucking problem. As a result, people do not CHANGE their unpleasant gendered behavior, because critics (of said behavior) have been hobbled by the language-police and are often rendered unable to DESCRIBE such behavior and express our negative views of it. If you can't describe why something is bad, then you can't describe why something is bad, and effective criticism cannot take place. As for me, I will not start using Newspeak, until the Ministry of Truth forces me to. Until then, if you are a bully, or harassing, or silly, or hysterical, I will use the words that I think are appropriate. The answer to this word-dilemma is for men and women to STOP BEING LIKE THAT, the answer is not to be polite and not call the behavior exactly what it is.

In our 'post-feminist' era, I doubt the young star of our video has EVER been called a hysteric and waved away as a silly teenybopper not worth listening to. If she had, she would have learned that presenting an argument in a more-or-less rational way is how its done, not screaming incomprehensibly in people's faces.

THIS BEHAVIOR is the result of people being far too polite to her. You know that, right?

And you want me to be even MORE polite to her?

I will stop calling her hysterical, when she stops being hysterical, and not one second before.

Yes, it certainly is 'icky'--when women this age are still acting like children, isn't it? I certainly wasn't given this type of latitude as a young feminist; I would have been knocked upside the head.

The nongendered term SPOILED BRAT also comes to mind.

DaisyDeadhead said...

Update: One of the popular commenters over at A Voice for Men finally deigned to reply to me, linking this. Know what he called me? "A declawed cougar"... really.

See? These men reduce all women to sexuality/ attractiveness and deny our common humanity. One's ideas don't matter... only whether they deem you fuckable or not. (PS: I thought "cougars" were botoxed-up older women who deliberately went after younger men? Does this term now apply to working class rednecks married for 25 years? Has it simply morphed into a catch-all term for older women who get mouthy, or what?) There is NO equivalent male term for cougar, of course. That's how you figure out if something is sexist, which apparently the crowd at AVFM never figured out, as they enthusiastically approve sexist language while simultaneously claiming they are (cough) NOT sexist.

Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby rest my case.

I couldn't have asked for a reply any more illustrative of how misogynist they are, if I had written it myself.

Daisy -- your Carolina Cougar