Post: #1

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...t-mrm.html

I didn't read it yet but noticed I am portrayed as a rapist.

Post: #2

Yeah it's just the sort of hit piece you'd expect. The gist of it is that men have legitimate grievances because they're being "left behind" by the economy but instead of seeking "policy changes" (becoming progg foot soldiers, I guess) they are going crazy and advocating rape and railing against feminists for no good reason except lies and easily debunked conspiracy theories. Elam is portrayed as the undisputed leader and Hembling as the heir apparent.

Post: #3

I've never even heard of this Elam guy. I guess he makes the best straw man.

Post: #4

Quote:The ability to congregate anonymously online with like-minded men has been a perfect incubator for such a mish-mash of banners, many of them politically incorrect. The single common thread that binds them all together is their deep-seated hatred of feminism.

Hah, true.

Quote:Just how big of a community can one build on the foundation of despising feminism? Pretty damn big, it turns out.

One theme I'm seeing in the article is this: "MRM has some valid points, but they are just too forceful and in-your-face about discussing it. They should calm down and be patient and reasonable while feminists make up lies about them." In the next couple of years you will have some guys be the "public face" of the MRM, like Spearhead's Price and Elam, and then you'll have the black sheep who stir up trouble without mainstream acceptance or permission.

Post: #5

It's amusing that the opening, which relies on the reader being shocked at the "Don't be that girl" campaign, with the horrifying claim that "many young women who engage in consensual sex later lie about having been raped," coincides with the "Help I'm getting raped" meme and real life fiasco. (/thread-29171.html)

Post: #6

Praise on Price:

Quote: In contrast, one could easily see Price’s arguments being picked up by a mainstream politician and resonating with voters. To put it another way, while Hembling has been perfecting a way to generate page hits, Price has been working on a narrative that might actually make a difference to the men they each seek to help.

Post: #7

(10-20-2013 09:11 AM)Roosh Wrote:  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...t-mrm.html

I didn't read it yet but noticed I am portrayed as a rapist.

At least they got your name right.

Post: #8

Damn, that article is really long.

The manosphere has officially entered the mainstream.

Post: #9

(10-20-2013 09:54 AM)Roosh Wrote:  Praise on Price:

Quote: In contrast, one could easily see Price’s arguments being picked up by a mainstream politician and resonating with voters. To put it another way, while Hembling has been perfecting a way to generate page hits, Price has been working on a narrative that might actually make a difference to the men they each seek to help.

Yes, but this doesn't make Price a bad guy or blue pill or a useful idiot or whatever--Price is as anti-feminist as it gets. Until he goes off the rails, he's one of the good guys in this struggle against feminism whether he gets MSM approval or not.

And I don't agree with Price on everything, but he's a damn good writer and his style is definitely preferable to Elam's (although I have nothing bad to say about Paul Elam--I think he's doing good work for the most part).

Post: #10

Unbias reporting is no more in the MSM. Everything you read is a microphone/platform for that person's indoctrination. Are you expecting a Woman Studies major reporting on issues affecting her "oppressors" to be fair and balance?

Post: #11

Roosh, stop giving drunk horny girls in Iceland a good time, that is rapey!!!

On a more serious side, who is the clown that hires these "journalist"? Looks like any chimp with a Mac computer can be a journalist these days.

Post: #12

Damn. I don't know much about that Elam guy but this is sheer brilliance:

Quote:The 300+ lb. basilisk of man-hate had a face big enough and pockmarked enough to be used to fake a lunar landing. Her body was roughly the size and shape of a small sperm whale … Dworkin wanted to be raped, which in her mind meant being sexually desired, but didn’t have the goods to make that happen so she made a career of hating both the source of her rejection, men, and the source of her competition, attractive women… The concept of rape has a lot of utility for women. One, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. Two, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. That level of irresistibility is the pinnacle of a woman’s sexual viability and worth.

Post: #13

Also saw a new great word on a Youtube comment:

Rapetards.

I'm gonna submit that one to Merriam Webster

Rape-tard
/reɪp`tɑːd/
noun

1. One possessing the symptoms and/or diagnosis of Rape Tourette's, esp. common in feminists and manginas.

Post: #14

Paul Elam is the dude that goes after PUAs all the time. He also has more women on his staff than men, so his site should be called A Voice for Men, By women.

Post: #15

(10-20-2013 11:49 AM)thedude3737 Wrote:  Damn. I don't know much about that Elam guy but this is sheer brilliance:

Quote:The 300+ lb. basilisk of man-hate had a face big enough and pockmarked enough to be used to fake a lunar landing. Her body was roughly the size and shape of a small sperm whale … Dworkin wanted to be raped, which in her mind meant being sexually desired, but didn’t have the goods to make that happen so she made a career of hating both the source of her rejection, men, and the source of her competition, attractive women… The concept of rape has a lot of utility for women. One, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. Two, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. That level of irresistibility is the pinnacle of a woman’s sexual viability and worth.

Here is the feminist he is talking about, Andrea Dworkin. The photo speaks for itself. Apparently she was a feminist who argued that porn causes rape.





[

Post: #16

jesus. I'm going to unsee that

Post: #17

Jesus christ, put a warning label before you post pictures like that

Post: #18

Moderates are marginalized? The MRM is where you find the moderates. It's the culture that is radical.

Quote:Or, as Hembling tells feminists, apparently without irony: "You are losing control of the narrative, and the vicious, sadistic and amoral character of your movement is increasingly and glaringly obvious. You might just want to check yourselves in a mirror, dummies."

Yeah, mangie, those are the same. On the one hand you have a 50-year-old largely unopposed radical feminist movement that's gone off the rails, put into place laws that can only be considered sadistic in their misandry, claims we live in a patriarchy, and accuses men of being privileged, oppressive, rapists. And on the other you have an emerging reactionary men's movement that's angry because they're disregarded and marginalized by the mainstream.

Totally the same.

Post: #19

Quote:MRM leaders say they find it especially frustrating when their critics label them as misogynists for bringing up these issues. To a person, each says this characterization is unfair. Hembling insists the charges of misogyny stem from critics conflating femaleness with feminism. “Much of men’s rights writing opposes the ideology operating under the name of Feminism,” he writes. “Critics and opponents of the MRM claiming this equates to a hatred of women make several false assumptions. The first such assumption is that ‘women’ and ‘feminism’ are synonyms. One is an ideology, one is a biological demographic.” Each MRM advocate I spoke with shared some version of this same idea.


However, there is a significant disconnect between what MRM leaders say when accused of misogyny and the often-misogynistic content they are willing to write and publish. Much of this content appears as angry fist-shaking. Recently, for example, AV4M’s Jason Gregory posted an open letter to all women that said, amongst other things, “We don’t need you in the house anymore, so get the f**k out… Perhaps you should consider making yourself useful as something other than a sandwich-maker and create a meaningful existence for yourself.” Another by August Løvenskiolds counseled men against marriage so that “you won’t have to watch/hold/carry/rebuild [a wife’s] f**king purse.” Another post decried the increasing visibility of female vocalists in country music as the promotion of “pussy beggar shit” that lacked “balls.”

Although this article went into more depth than the ABC hit piece, the author is using the same tactics. Take a couple extreme comments to show that this entire movement is really just all about misogyny. The political issues lose their legitimacy because you can dismiss all of this as angst from creepy guys who are loose cannons.

Post: #20

(10-20-2013 12:46 PM)Vitriol Wrote:  

Quote:MRM leaders say they find it especially frustrating when their critics label them as misogynists for bringing up these issues. To a person, each says this characterization is unfair. Hembling insists the charges of misogyny stem from critics conflating femaleness with feminism. “Much of men’s rights writing opposes the ideology operating under the name of Feminism,” he writes. “Critics and opponents of the MRM claiming this equates to a hatred of women make several false assumptions. The first such assumption is that ‘women’ and ‘feminism’ are synonyms. One is an ideology, one is a biological demographic.” Each MRM advocate I spoke with shared some version of this same idea.


However, there is a significant disconnect between what MRM leaders say when accused of misogyny and the often-misogynistic content they are willing to write and publish. Much of this content appears as angry fist-shaking. Recently, for example, AV4M’s Jason Gregory posted an open letter to all women that said, amongst other things, “We don’t need you in the house anymore, so get the f**k out… Perhaps you should consider making yourself useful as something other than a sandwich-maker and create a meaningful existence for yourself.” Another by August Løvenskiolds counseled men against marriage so that “you won’t have to watch/hold/carry/rebuild [a wife’s] f**king purse.” Another post decried the increasing visibility of female vocalists in country music as the promotion of “pussy beggar shit” that lacked “balls.”

Although this article went into more depth than the ABC hit piece, the author is using the same tactics. Take a couple extreme comments to show that this entire movement is really just all about misogyny. The political issues lose their legitimacy because you can dismiss all of this as angst from creepy guys who are loose cannons.

Stupid to conflate the two. This piece quoted contributors to AVFM, not just driveby commenters. The criticism is fair considering that AVFM is publishing that content.

The piece is a bit skewed, but not outwardly dishonest. It would have been much better had the author explained why he thinks well of Price, and showcase some of his ideas.

I don't read the Spearhead much but I like Price's work, and never taken issue with it.

Post: #21

R. Tod Kelly, the author of the Daily Beast piece, actually approached me for an interview for the article several months back. This was around the same time that ABC wanted to talk to me. Thing is, Kelly ended up canceling before he got the chance to interview me (he told me that he had wanted to do an in-person interview; he lives in Portland, but I was out of town at the time). Kelly also told me that he was trying to pitch the article to the Atlantic; I'm guessing they weren't interested.

I later talked to W.F. Price about all this (he and I are friends in real life). Apparently Kelly told Price and me two different things; he didn't mention the Atlantic to Price, instead telling him that the article would appear on Kelly's blog, The League of Ordinary Gentlemen. We came to the conclusion that Kelly was just a clueless blue piller, rather than being actively malicious like ABC was.

Tl;dr: Kelly is a far better journalist than anyone at 20/20, but still, watch your back around him.

Post: #22

Any piece on the "manosphere" that doesn't go in-depth on the details and divides between PUA and MGTOW and MRA is ignorant bullshit.

Post: #23

(10-20-2013 01:12 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  We came to the conclusion that Kelly was just a clueless blue piller, rather than being actively malicious like ABC was.

Tl;dr: Kelly is a far better journalist than anyone at 20/20, but still, watch your back around him.

That's the sense I got from reading the article. He's willing to explain the issues of unfair child support laws throwing men in jail and men being victims of domestic violence or rape which is largely ignored by society, but at the end of the piece he concludes that this is just a group of angry men who want to bitch about women rather than try to really change anything:

Quote:And even if Elam is sincere in his desire to dial down the vitriol once the movement is large enough, there’s an inherent problem with growing a political movement largely by referring to women as bitches, whores and c**ts. At the end of the day, you have a lot of members who joined up simply because they liked calling women bitches, whores and c**ts—and any eventual pleas to come together and sing "Kumbaya" could likely fall on deaf ears.

This, of course, is the real tragedy of the MRM. Male victims of domestic abuse need more help than they’re currently getting, as do male victims of sexual assault. Lower-income divorced fathers need a different system to ensure the well-being of their children. But all of this help requires both financial and political resources, and getting society to allocate those resources requires support and interest from the larger tax-paying community.

What the MRM doesn’t seem to realize is that every time they lionize someone who says a four-year-old girl drowning is a good thing, or giggle over a leader bragging about taking sexual advantage of a woman who’s too drunk to understand what’s happening to her, or theorize that fat women want to be forcibly raped, or float a preposterous claim that women’s brains are physically incapable of comprehending morality, they only put those resources that much further out of reach. It is telling to note that of the professional male-victim advocacy organizations I spoke with, every single one specifically asked that I not allow readers to think they were in any way related to the MRM.

Both of these recent articles seem to make the mistake of thinking that because you can cherry pick some off the wall statements from individuals that may or may not be associated with the MRM or manosphere, any attempts to gain legitimacy or cause real social change will ultimately be defeated. They don't realize that real wars aren't fought on the internet.

Post: #24

I didnt really read anything I disagreed with.

The author was right about a lot of things. Primary of which is that until there is an organized face of the 'movement' that doesn't Minter up the place all the time, it will be very difficult to be taken seriously.

The author pointed out the valid points, talked about the female matrix and generally gave fair shake i think.

i think some of us forgot just how crazed/silly many of the writers in the manosphere sound.

Post: #25

You have to look at the bottom line in these sorts of articles and how the rhetorical argument is structured. It's pretty much always the same.

If the guy just wrote something like, everyone in the manosphere is a monster, they should eat shit and die, it would not be seen as credible by a neutral reader. So the way to do it is to first make some gestures along the lines of, sure the manosphere has a few valid points, some of these men don't even seem to have horns, etc -- but always bring it around to the idea that ultimately we are deluded fools at best and rape-loving bullies in the main.

It would be no different if the article was about, say, some end-of-days militia or whatever. It wouldn't start out by saying that everyone there is a monster. It would show how people who are, surprisingly enough, human beings, join the movement because they have "real grievances" (which of course the writer long since knows the correct solutions to). But then sadly they become deluded by all sorts of rabid propaganda and conspiracy theories, and finally the article would end up where it was really going all along, which is that they're pretty much the monsters you always knew they were.

It's always the same template, pretty easy to do, but people who don't know any better will fall for it, and even some people who do know better will mistake it for the writer trying to be "objective". He's nothing of the sort.