Monday, November 24, 2008

Too hot for Glenn Sacks

This post was deleted from Glenn's Blog. He removed the post, because it was not "acceptable".

I'm beginning to agree with those who think Glenn has gone too far in his moderation.


Jeezus. OK, all you feminist posters on here saying that MRA's should do this, that or the other, or that unless we do or say certain things we are "rape apologists"....

Screw you.

All of you.

I will NOT play your game.

It's monotonous, it's got nothing to do with men or men's rights....hell, the loudest calls for MRA's to jump through hoops are coming from a woman who has never, and will never consider the actual argument of anyone on anything, she will just simply stuck her fingers in her ear and said "Oh yeah, but what about rape"?

Seriously, we could write up a bot script (hey, maybe that's what she is) to do that.....any thinking going on?, because all I see is a one track soundtrack and outright refusal to really "debate"....more like kneejerk disagreement, with ZERO substance....

I will state it categorically, for my own bad self.

I DO NOT GIVE A RAT"S PATOOTIE ABOUT RAPE. I might have at one time, but no longer.

The feminist posters here have made it VERY clear that there is ZERO impetus to engage, it's simply derailment and obfustication. Even when presented with clear cut examples of genital/sexual torture, feminists cannot come up with enough (fake even) "sympathy" to avoid looking like the evil, man-hating people they prove themselves to be...

When Feminists have "taken care of" Male reproductive rights, sentencing disparity, MGM, Divorce and Custody imbalance, Misandry in the media, Father's rights, etc....THEN and ONLY then will I give a flying f**k about rape.



Now granted, it's an obnoxious post.....but why censor? Because it's an "extreme" position? Because it might "make MRA's look bad"?

I'm sorry, I don't think we have an image to protect, and I think we already have a "rape-apologist" image anyway...why not use the "bad" reputation to get some things said that NEED to be said.

Women aren't the only gender in society. Women have shown vanishingly small interest in problems faced by men.

Why is it bad that I (a man) have decided to show the same level of interest in "women's issues"?

In short, why are MRA's held to a higher standard....ESPECIALLY when one of our biggest complaints is that we are held to a higher standard in society....?


Edited to add:

The approach criticized above is not my own and therefore I have no control over it's use. What I will do, whenever possible, is encourage men to speak their mind, the truth of their thoughts and feelings, without "filtering them for PC sensibilities".

Only when men can feel as free as women to say what's on their mind will there be a truly egalitarian society. Unlike some, I believe this freedom is ESSENTIAL for any of the other goals to "stick" in the public consciousness.

In short, as long as it's "taboo" to call bullshit on certain feminist arguments (ie "rape crisis" bullshit and the like), men will forever be subjected to double standards that are impossible to overcome. Receiving these double standards at the hands of a men's rights activist is especially nauseating....

If nothing else, the fact that it is FEMINISTS who demand MRA's be more "accommodating" to them should give one pause, and in my view is cause to reconsider that course of action. If nothing else, women deserve the EXACT SAME level of interest in their "issues" that they have shown in regards to men's issues. Additionally, men should make no bones about this idea at all. When confronted, a simple "I care just as much as you do" response is sufficient.

After all, I've spent years on this subject talking to feminists, and visiting feminist sites. Not one example of feminist support of men's issues.

Not one.

In 40 years.

Yet we MRA's have to be "accomodating" to these people? We have to debate THEIR issues on MRA blogs? WTF???? Ever heard of, I dunno, SOCIETY as a place to debate "women's issues" (ie, get told what the "reality" is, then told what will be done, and how much it's going to cost)?

Nope, not going to play that game anymore.


  1. Hi Factory,

    I agree that it's an obnoxious post, but it is hard to see which specific blog rules it violates. The only one which it potentially violates is the one about "obscenity or vulgarity". Yet that is debatable, because he usually allows a similar amount of coarse language in most posts.

    A couple of months back he deleted a comment of mine where I said that I thought Jeana had quit and that we should throw a party to celebrate. Admittedly, it was a cheap snarky comment. But I don't see how it breeched any of the comment rules.

    It does pose something of a problem when comments get deleted that are not in clear breech of the rules (however much Glenn doesn't like them), because it creates a lack of certainty about where the boundaries are.

    It may be that Glenn deleted your comment because it makes MRAs look bad or that some feminists will use these comments as more ammunition for their claim that MRAs are rape apologists. If so, it's hard not to call that censorship if it's merely designed to keep us 'on message' and suppress views that may reflect negatively on MRAs.

  2. I've been pushing in a few places to see where the limit is.

    I have come to the conclusion that it is, indeed, censorship. It's his right to do, but it's my right to decide not to support that. I grew up my whole life with my "hands tied behind my back" when it comes to saying things, always making sure I don't "offend" anyone.

    Now I get to do it on a Men's Rights blog....don't scare the wimminz...they might not like us anymore if you do...

    Bah! Who cares?

    It seems the more success we meet with, the more restrictive his policies get.

    Again, his prerogative, my choice.

  3. Hi Factory,

    I got an email from Glenn about this, and he pointed out that the rules for Feminist Dissident threads is that "uncivil comments will be deleted".

    I forgot about this specific rule, and I only remembered after I had posted.

  4. I know that point is in there, and that is precisely where I have a problem, much like the slew of posters who left a while ago.

    Namely, chivalry and double standards ARE in play, although at a much reduced rate.

    PC think is inexcusable, always. No one has the right to not be offended, and while I agree "taking the high road" can be effective when dealing in politics, I can't help but compare F4J and Glenn, and seeing Glenn's success as building on the publicity generated by F4J.

    In other words, there's room for far more than one approach, indeed, a necessity.

    I'm just tired of arguing the same damn point, with the same damn people, with the same damn arguments made, with the same damn outcome, every same damn day.

    It's a waste of time, resources, and intellectual capacity. It distracts MRA's from the real issues.

    If he would do "Rape free" topics, where posts that refer to rape are deleted immediately, well, I'd see that as at least a step in a productive direction.

    As it sits, everyone spends their time arguing with "Oh yeah, what about RAPE!!??!?!?!?!" arguments, which are, to put it mildly, total bullshit arguments rather clumsily designed to distract us (once more) from becoming more cohesive and focuussed. It also serves to make us defend ourselves, and defend men in general, all the time.

    I'm sick of it, and if that's what he has to offer, I'll vote with my keyboard and find somewhere more relevant and engaging.

    Of course I'll likely still pop by, but as for discussion there's a broken record.

  5. Ironically enough (or logically enough), the argument I get at PAB is miles above anything the Feminist Dissident has brought (by way of discussion thread at any rate).

  6. I guess the reason why he has that rule regarding civil comments only on FD threads is that the whole purpose of the thread is to draw out the opposition and see if there can be any dialogue.

    I don't think it's really chivalry in this case, in that the Feminist Dissident threads are not really that favorable a forum for them. In realiity, there are usually many of us poking holes through their arguments. While the author has to defend their position against many different fronts of attack.

    So it makes sense to create an environment that is not overly hostile, to draw contributors out of the woodwork.

  7. I guess the reason why he has that rule regarding civil comments only on FD threads is that the whole purpose of the thread is to draw out the opposition and see if there can be any dialogue.

    I don't think it's really chivalry in this case, in that the Feminist Dissident threads are not really that favorable a forum for them. In realiity, there are usually many of us poking holes through their arguments. While the author has to defend their position against many different fronts of attack.

    So it makes sense to create an environment that is not overly hostile, to draw contributors out of the woodwork.

  8. Sorry about the double post. I just did it to piss you off :-)

    I've been thinking about posting on PAB as well. Although I will probably stay posting on GS for now.

  9. You make a good point Nick, were it not for a couple of points.

    1) The comment was directed at a regular poster who, though she often protests how "scary" we all are, nevertheless finds the strength to continue to post, day after day.

    2) The writer of a FemDiss column is not required to respond to every posted reply, indeed I counseled Lisa several times that it would be impossible, or highly difficult, as well as unnecessary.

    3) The post was every bit as much of an "argument" as it was responding to.

    4) My argument is not with the need to "protect" the poster from personal attacks, but Jeana (for example) has made several assertions without fear of reprisal or rebuttal in kind, and the inability to "get right back at them" mirrors society a little too closely for me.

    It might not hurt to point out, also, that I was fairly instrumental in getting Lisa (the first real Feminist Dissident article posted at his site if you ask me) to post there in the first damn place. If my "offensive" nature was sooo terrible, would the moderator of a feminist blog care what I have to say?

    She's a real person, with well thought out views and arguments (although she's jaded from some serious MRA abuse), I hope she's treated well there.

    There are other "feminists" posting there that are nothing more than man-hating female-supremacists, and those deserve nothing less than active contempt.

  10. Factory, I agree that Lisa is a lot better than the other feminists who post there, and the previous FD contributors.

    I left a comment on that thread asking her to stay. It's true that she tries too hard to answer everyone's points, which is too much effort for anyone. She should simply pick out the most salient points and answer them.

    But she is far more reasonable than most feminists. And, frankly, she is a breath of fresh air compared to some of the other tossers who have filled the Feminist Dissident position before.

    On another thread she actually agreed with me that society places greater value on women's lives than men's. Is that progress or what?

  11. BTW: Factory, can you tell me who the comment was directed at?

  12. The comment was pretty much directed at Jeana really, but that attitude is the problem, not the person.

    Seriously, I think MRA blogs are going to have to start moderating out references to rape, just to keep the thread on topic.

    And I don't like moderation all that much.


  13. I agree that it is easy for people to throw the rape issue up in order to derail a discussion. But in general I'm against excessive moderation.

    The reason feminists love bringing up rape is that it's an issue that is essentially rigged in their favor. So long as biology makes it harder for women to force themselves on men than the reverse, it is inevitable that men will commit the crime more often.

    Yet feminists invariably pull out the rape issue as though it proves that women are more morally innocent than men. Even if not explicitly stated, that is the clear implication.

    It would be like arguing that because women commit paternity fraud more often than men commit maternity fraud (okay, it's a surreal example, but the best analogy I can come up with), this proves women are more morally challenged than men. It's a bullshit argument, because you are taking something that is inherently rigged due to biological differences and then using it to villify one gender.

    Feminists also love bringing up rape because it's an issue where most people have an emotive, gut level reaction against, thereby preventing rational debate and helping to utilise shaming tactics.

    Effectively the bargain Lisa offers is that if men bend over backwards to guarantee women's safety and solve their problems, then women will maybe call the dogs off as far as the fascist police state being unleashed on men.

    I don't buy it. If anything, paying ransoms to pirates guarantees more pirates.

  14. Glenn is a typical married man with a heavy ball and chain.He is an intellectual light weight, who has absolutely zero fuel to blast feminist ideological hypocracy.

    He is an chivalrous, self-critical, whimpish and weak kneed MRA. His site is more an excercise of self-promotion.