Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Stop frigging apologizing!
There is a tactic being used by various feminists that seems to be working. Sadly, that tactic is the same one used to stifle debate since the early 1970's and people have not learned from their mistakes at all.
It should be common knowledge by now that "men only" anything has been outlawed, or very nearly so, throughout the west. This meant there was no place for men to openly speak with each other about issues that could potentially mean "no nookie tonight" if the wife was around.
There was no place to say "Hey, if women can opt out of parenthood after the fact, why can't we?"
There was no place to wonder aloud why women got custody so much more often than men.
There was no place to debate the merits of affirmative action policies.
There was no place, in short, for men to organize.
This, more than any other thing, is responsible for the state of men's rights, and the general position of men in society for that matter.
Feminists could declare anything they want, with impunity, because men couldn't talk it over with each other in a wide social network. Sure, we could complain to our friends, sometimes even around women, but never to a large audience. Not without intense scrutiny from the women present at any rate.
Of course, there has never been a shortage of "women only" places, both implicit and explicit.
Which is why feminism enjoys the power it does.
Then along came the internet. And blogs. And alternate news sources.
Suddenly, controlling male discourse became MUCH more difficult. Some websites are getting tens, even hundreds of thousands of hits each month!
Since this came in to play, men's issues are starting to get "airplay" on the mainstream media. Worse (for feminism), they're starting to get POLITICAL attention!
What to do?
Simple. Shame and blame. Put 'em on the defensive.
Just like they've always done.
And because some MRA's believe we have to avoid looking like misogynists, it's working...... quite well.
Here's the deal people, if you're self-censoring on the internet because you're trying to avoid "looking like the bad guy", how exactly is that any different from what you have to do at work? In society?
How did that work out for you in the real world? Not so good?
Then why the HELL are you doing it online?
The worst part is, they accomplish this with as few as 2 or 3 women in a room full of men. Even when they're just names on a screen.
I agree with the idea that feminists and MRAs have to come together and debate issues. I agree that feminists bring a different viewpoint to the table, one which has value.
But understand this: pandering to their feelings online will result in exactly the same outcome as pandering to their feelings in the real world.
Stop friggin apologizing! Debate the issues, do not allow yourself to be sucked into a defense. We have no reason to apologize, but feminists sure as hell do!
Let's not piss this opportunity away, OK?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I concur wholeheartedly. The same effing disclaimer emitting from virtually EVERY MRA/MGTOW's fingers is the same damn:
ReplyDelete"No, I don't hate women."
Men, has this shit accomplished anything yet?? Have the femmies EVER thought differently of any of us for claiming we don't hate them???
Come oooon!
It never will because THEY HATE US! And are stifling giggles at our compliance of being gullible little puppets. This is NOT a winning tack, and is royally pissing me off.
Guys, stop the fucking chivalry.
And even if I haven't posted in a while, I still have a right to say this. I'm still always reading.
FLAIL at the femmies with your arguments. Use every angle available, whether on your own blogs or on theirs, and DON'T be dissuaded.
*grumble*
One of the advantages of online debate is that people are more candid in calling others on things than they would be in a real life face-to-face situation.
ReplyDeleteFor example, when women try to use the typical shaming tactics against MRAs online we often call it for what it is. Whereas in a real life situation it is harder to make those arguments, as one is more exposed to the psychological effects of these tactics.
Once we define the tactics that women tend to use to exercise power over men, it becomes harder for women to continue to use them. It is a matter of "belling the cat".
Shaming language isn't the whole deal though. We continually defend our right to exist, our goals (and even that the goals are legitimate!!)...basically, we're called on to defend ourselves about absolutely everything, to the point where that's all we talk about.
ReplyDeleteI'm sick of it.
Factory,
ReplyDeleteSlightly off topic: One of the amusing things about Glenn's blog is the way that since he has banned the use of Nazi analogies people have started slipping in Nazi allusions below the radar of moderation.
It's almost like issuing a challenge.
In a way I do understand Glenn's predicament. When you are moderating a blog that receives a large number of comments, there is some need to adopt a more stringent moderation policy. Otherwise there is a danger that some arguments can get out of control if you give people too much freedom.
Whereas if you are running a blog that only receives a small number of comments, that is not as much of a problem.
I have absolutely zero problem with Glenn making his rules the way he does (OK, I wish his "restricted word" list was the same as tv, that way I'd know if my comment was about to be moderated, and therefore be missed in the flow of debate.
ReplyDeleteOther times, I wish he would remove a post or two of mine.
As to the NAZI thing, I think a more fitting analogy for what has been done by feminism is quite unlikely to surface. And yes, for the record I DO think it's entirely possible that in 10 years time, men will disappear in the night, never to be seen again...and what's with the smell and curious ash-like stuff falling from the sky?
Likely?
No.
Possible?
Well, it HAS happened a few times the last 100 years or so...why not again?
Welcome to the MRA circle. Your efforts on youtube is getting major attention from my own blog as well as here
ReplyDeletehttp://antimisandry.com/showthread.php?t=13361
All the best and keep up the good work..
Cheers
Factory,
ReplyDeleteI agree about Glenn's restricted word list. Often I get comments moderated and I don't even know what it is that would have caused the comment to be sent to moderation.
For example, a comment I made about Jeana being a troll got sent to moderation.
About the Nazi thing, if you go back to Weimar Germany I am sure that a lot of people would have scoffed at the notion that their supposedly civilised and progressive society would descend into barbarism. History shows that civilisation hangs by a thread, and we have been doing our best to destroy that thread.
The level of societal prejudice against men today is at least as bad as that which has been traditionally directed at various minorities. The difference is that it is easier to exterminate an ethnic minority than it is to exterminate a gender.
It seems that men don't need to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps. The tactic is to simply marginalise, persecute and villify men enough, until eventually they will top themselves.
One thing I have noticed in these debates is that too often MRAs will fall into the trap of getting into arguments where we are forced onto the defensive, instead of putting the feminists on the back foot.
ReplyDeleteFor example, whenever a debate emerges about the so-called 'wage gap' some MRA bloggers will spend all their time arguing about how the so-called wage gap is not real, or that if you compare genuinely equal work the wage gap disappears.
Yet this approach is flawed because it still assumes that men somehow benefit from this, and it still creates a situation where we are forced to justify ourselves.
It would be better to simply point out that the so-called 'wage gap' is a rigged statistic, that so long as men have more financial responsibilities and fewer opportunities to live off others, it is inevitable that average male earnings will be higher.
If you point out that all the extra money men earn gets redistributed to women, and that women consume much more of society's resources than men, then suddenly feminists start to look stupid for even raising the issue.
Instead of trying to justify ourselves, we should learn how to reframe the debates to point out feminist hypocrisy and female privilege.
More to the point, wouldn't it make sense to look at them (figuratively speaking) and ask, "What the hell does that have to do with the subject at hand?"
ReplyDeleteThis is where it usually falls off the rails, with statistics and whatnot...
Wouldn't it be more to the point to ask "What kind of bitch are you to not give a rats ass about these innocent little boys?" or somesuch?
Because in my view THAT would truly reframe the debate...and put HER on the defensive. It's why I love calling feminists manhaters. Well, that and because it's usually true.
I agree that some of these tactics can be effective.
ReplyDeleteWe should try to turn the tables on feminists and maybe use the same shaming tactics that they use on us.
One argument that is particularly effective is to say that women who have sons and support the feminist agenda are effectively jeopardising their future. This really gets to some of them.
We should really drive the point home that feminists are heavily implicated in a host of social problems, including crime, family breakdown, higher male suicides. This often has the effect of encouraging women to distance themselves from the feminists.
If there is one thing that women don't like, it is an attack on their gender identity. Women like to be seen as the arbiters of decency and society's values. So women will run a mile if they think they are going to be associated with such a destructive and evil movement.
Nick, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I've recently taken to outright calling feminists man haters, usually after I have enough "ammo" to do so. Then I just refer to everything they say as "manhating rhetoric" until they start defending themselves.
ReplyDeleteWorks quite well actually. Especially when you have Proof.
Absolutely correct, men have been denied a meeting place intentionally to control us. A bit like communist Russia and their like..
ReplyDeleteTime men stood up for themselves and told them to get lost..
Glenn is a typical married man. He does not have the courage to critique the female gender. He just defends the rants of feminists. He will never be offensive.
ReplyDeleteHis wife seems to be a big-shot lawyer. I can appreciate the predicament of a married man with an ultra-assertive wife.