The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Feminists Protest Against Equality

Posted on | June 8, 2014 | 100 Comments

Despite my extensive critical writing about feminism, I have never considered myself a “Men’s Rights Activist” (MRA), simply because I have different concerns than do MRAs and see the problem of feminism differently. MRAs seem to spend a lot of time complaining that men get screwed over in divorce settlements and child custody; I’m a Christian and therefore against divorce, period, so those issues don’t interest me. Also, I am generally against the idea of group rights, so that it would be anomalous of me to support “men’s rights.” Having made those disclaimers, however, I know that much of my writing about feminism has been read by MRAs, so that I’m at least tacitly an ally, and MRAs often call my attention to news items relevant to these issues.

So, the MRA site A Voice for Men (AVFM) held a conference this weekend in Detroit, which feminists attempted to shut down.

Let me repeat this: Feminists attempted to shut down — to silence, to prevent from exercising their First Amendment rights — a conference organized by Men’s Rights Activists.

And you thought “feminazi” was just a jocular insult.

Seriously: Feminists — including self-proclaimed “Unapologetic Fat Lady” Amanda Levitt and notorious mangina David Futrelle — repeatedly urged people to contact the Doubletree Hotel and complain about the conference, accusing AVFM of every hateful thing you could imagine, in an effort to get the conference canceled.

So while feminists insist they should be free to speak and to publish anything they wish — and, quite often, are subsidized by taxpayers in doing so — they do not believe that their critics should be equally free, and feminists will even attempt to stifle the right of their opponents to gather privately and speak to each other.

We now have further proof that:

(a) feminists don’t really believe in “equality,” they just hate men;
and
(b) feminism is a totalitarian movement hostile to basic liberties.

We already knew this, of course, but it was nice of feminists to provide further proof of their hateful anti-freedom agenda.

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • sarahgray

    you could call them yourself and ask.
    DPD actually told the news and free press there were no threats.

  • Pingback: Feminists: Some genders are more equal than others… | Batshit Crazy News

  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady
  • http://evilbloggerlady.blogspot.com/ Evi L. Bloggerlady

    There is most definitely bias against men (when it comes to women) in family courts…that said, there is almost always two sides to a story and rarely is either in a divorce completely innocent or completely guilty. It takes two (generally) to make or break a marriage.

    Polygamy aside.

  • Rob Crawford

    Sure they did.

  • sarahgray

    “Officer Adam Madera, a Detroit police spokesman, confirmed hotel officials recently contacted the department about hiring off-duty officers who work in the Secondary Employment program. The program was established by the city in 2011 and allows uniformed off-duty officers to moonlight as security guards.

    “We provided them with information about the program, but other than that, we haven’t received any word about threats,” he said.”

    From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140602/METRO/306020106#ixzz344krnSTn

  • NeoWayland

    All other things being equal (pun intended), the side that tries to crush dissent is usually wrong.

  • cmdr358

    I’ll bet the Detroit Visitors Bureau was happy to have them all.

  • Garym

    If you’re a man and feel you must join an MRA, then you are just not doing it right. Ridicule goofy feminazis, but don’t join clubs and act exactly like them. We must crush Progressivism which is the ultimate cause of feminist bullshiite.

  • http://twitter.com/TheUsaian Isaac T

    I’m an individualist, so I’m concerned with *individual* rights. I align with “MRAs” when and where the individual rights of men and boys are threatened, and if the feminists were actually concerned about any real issues regarding the individual rights of women I would align with them *if those rights were threatened*.

    The trouble with feminism (and what will become true of the men’s rights movement if and when it enjoys success) is that once the legitimate issues have dealt with and people have their individual rights protected, the normal, reasonable people check out of the movement, since they have gotten what they wanted. Unless it is deliberately dismantled by those people, the apparatus of the movement stays intact and continues to be used by the more aggrieved and less rational people left in the movement who still want more, and the crazies whom every large movement eventually attracts. That’s the point at which I’ll shake off the dust from my feet and bid the men’s rights movement adieu, and remain an individualist.

  • Fku

    I’ve identified for a few years as MRA but this situation was weird. From my study of constitutional law, the first amendment has to do with the government not infringing on assembly in a public space; nothing to do with protesting a business for hosting what these misguided people think is a “hate group”. Thus, no matter how wrong they are, they have a first amendment right also to protest it. I’m also investigating AV4M because I feel they scammed me out of donations; they had a fundraiser to protect them from alleged threats, which recently came to light did not occur according to police, fbi office next door to the hotel, and the hotel itself. Now Dean says they are likely changing venues, pocketing all this money we donated for “security” against threats that were fabricated, either by AV4M to make money, or by the hotel to try to force the conference to cancel. I’m extremely angry at about av4m and feel swindled.

  • Quartermaster

    I have several friends that are divorced. Each of them were divorced by women who thought they could gain by doing so and so did it. The term “fivorce,” or “fivolous divorce,” was coined to describe these divorces.

    A man that worked under me was married to a woman who worked in an office at a University, with 11 other women and one queer man. One of the women decided to divorce the bum and before the year was out, every woman in that office had filed for divorce. The man under me could not have been a better father, yet she tried to throw him out of their daughter’s lives and had the gall to demand he keep taking them to the doctor and other such stuff. He refused. He went to the house he had built to get his daughters one day, she called the Sheriff on him. Fortunately, the Deputy sent out knew what was going on and served notice on her that she would be arrested for false reporting if she did anything like it again.

    While there are some divorces that are righteous, and there are very few of them, there is a serious problem when nearly 70% of divorces are filed for by women (abut 20% are filed for by men in self defense, and the remainder are the various and sundry such as some exec deciding his secretary is hotter than his wife).

    The reality is that our society is set up to rupture marriages. Dalrock goes into the various things that are out there, and points out that even many so called Christian Ministries are doing their part to destroy marriage. While it takes two to make a marriage work, it only takes one, in oiur society, to destroy it. And women are by far the worst on that score.

  • Anchovy

    Let me know when the little sweeties demand to be drafted right out of high school and sent to some Asian jungle to fight little yellow people who wear pajamas because a couple of Democrat presidents thought it was a good idea.

  • Mike G.

    I bet the cat would rather starve.

  • RS

    My quarter century of observing and participating in the machinations of Family Court supports your view. There is a cabal of organizations dedicated to advising women on how to best manipulate the system to achieve their goals. Those goals usually involve ridding themselves of any connection with their prior husbands with the exception of monthly checks. A PhD psychologist/family therapist friend of mine once told me that in her experience, men were far more likely to foster and facilitate continuing a relationship with his children’s mother than women were with respect to her children’s father.

  • Jason Lee

    I’d like to think I don’t have a horse in this race, but I would submit that the cards are stacked such that the divorce industry is able to entice women out of marriage when they would otherwise choose restore it.

    Perhaps it should be no surprise that after a ruthless lawyer and the skillful indoctrinators of the divorce-industrial complex have aligned themselves with a man’s bride, the husband begins to feel that she has been transformed into a “evil, lying, vindictive psychopath.”

    And I don’t think it takes a leap of imagination to suppose that like the rest of America’s most powerful institutions, the lucrative divorce industry is overpopulated with hateful anti-American progressives who take great delight in tearing at the fabric of our society.

    As someone who promotes marriage, I hope you will consider the possibility that many men are rationally avoiding marriage, given the high failure rate which is due in large part to the many problems that have been identified by MRAs.

    If MRAs are seeking remedies to the sad state of affairs in the institution of marriage, more power to ‘em.

  • Pablo

    Yup. How can the government be Daddy while Daddy is still in the picture?

  • Joseph Dooley

    MRAs agree with all the conclusions of feminism. They just want the same “freedom” for themselves.

  • Art Deco

    ; I’m a Christian and therefore against divorce, period, so those issues don’t interest me.

    It does not matter if you are ‘against divorce’. You and others you care about can be divorced unilaterally for reasons my mother’s contemporaries would not have given any consideration to; ordinary practice in the award of child custody and child support encourage this response to the vicissitudes of life.

    Your insistence that there are ‘two sides to every story’ is also largely non sequitur when contemplating the practice of divorce as a social institution. Roughly two-thirds of all divorces are derived from inanition and banal domestic friction. The resort to divorce to address these sorts of problems is seldom anything but illegitimate, no matter who is the more irritating party with whom to share a home.

    The administration of matrimonial law is a concern of ‘men’s rights activists’ because men are generally the defendants in divorce suits, all the more so when children are involved. You would not know that from perusing mass entertainment treatment of the phenomenon of divorce. However, the modal situation in the realm of divorce is a husband ejected from the home at the discretion of his wife for idiosyncratic reasons. You’d best hope that does not happen to any of your sons.

    Yes, we had noticed that married men satisfied with their situations tend to be dismissive of the problems other men face. You can have a confab with this guy
    http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/
    about what losers the rest of us are.

  • Art Deco

    Um, no. That does not describe either Stephen Baskerville or the pseudonymous Dalrock at all. Glenn Sacks has tried to avoid discussion of ‘women’s issues’ and Helen Smith is a fairly conventional libertarian – not antagonistic to feminism but not concerned with equalitarian projects.

  • RS

    Absolutely, positively spot-on. With the advent of “no fault” divorce, the Baby-Boom Generation elevated “self-fulfillment” to a place above Family and Marriage, thereby opening the flood gates to the destruction of both institutions which we see today. I, too, am happily married. So were many men I’ve represented over the years whose first indication anything was amiss was a restraining order allowing them to take their clothes when they were ejected from the house and denied visitation with their children. I disagree with our host that the area of Domestic Relations Law in this country is of little import when discussing Feminism. Rather, it was the first front in Feminism’s war on the institutions of Marriage and Family and continues to be fertile ground for their efforts.

  • Suey Sue

    I looked at your Detroit News link:

    You left this part out:
    “Fort Shelby owner Emmett Moten said he wasn’t aware of the conference…
    So the guy that isn’t even aware of the conference isn’t aware of any death threats about the conference that he’s not aware of.

    You also left this part out:
    ““We have received numerous calls and threats and are concerned for the safety and well-being of our employees, our guests and your attendees,” hotel officials wrote in a letter dated Thursday to Paul Elam, A Voice for Men’s founder and publisher.

    “The threats have escalated to include death threats, physical violence against our staff and and other guests as well as damage to the property.”

    Elam provided a copy of the letter to The Detroit News. He said the group is in the process of spending $25,000 to hire seven off-duty Detroit police officers to work the event.”

  • Whothehell Cares

    The more the Feminists try to derail the MHRM, the more people flock to MRA sites and read for themselves the truth about MRA’s.
    As a consequence, every Feminist attack on MRA’s helps to increase our numbers exponentially.