CDZ Mad Men: Inside the Men's Rights Movement—and the Army of Misogynists and Trolls It Spawned

[Disir]

That is the title of an article over at MJ. You can find this article here:
Mad Men Inside the Men s Rights Movement and the Army of Misogynists and Trolls It Spawned Mother Jones

The article has two responses that I think are extremely important as well. One is written by Warren Farrell and the other is written by Paul Elam.
Mad Men Inside the Men s Rights Movement and the Army of Misogynists and Trolls It Spawned Mother Jones

This is from the letter written by Warren Farrell:
MJ generously afforded you 6,000 words that could have been used to advance a compassion for boys' and men's issues as discussed in Detroit. For example, each of the following dozen issues was explored. Your article barely mentioned a couple, and completely ignored the rest:

--the boy crisis

--children's need for both parents (equally-shared parenting);

--why the pay gap is not about discrimination against women;

--the need for men's studies;

--a men's birth control pill's importance to both sexes;

--paternity fraud;

--male-only draft registration as a violation of the 14th Amendment;

--men as the disposable sex (in war, the "death professions", and as dads)

--the debate between society being controlled historically by patriarchy vs. by the need to survive;

--boys' and men's suicides--the reasons for the increase;

--the negative media images of men, and their negative impact on our daughters' ability to love men;

--how to listen to the other sex with love rather than argue with blame

What a gift you and MJ could have given the world had you made these the article's meat, while peripherally condemning the more-sensational excesses.

____________________________________________________________________________

I want to quickly point out a few quick items in the hopes that I do not have to revisit them and can address the issues presented in the letter.

One of the things that irritates me to no end is the tying of Elliot Rogers to MRAs. That is a dirty, low down tactic.
Elliot Rodger Report Details Long Struggle with Mental Illness

He had severe mental health issues but had shown no signs of aggression before and the parents had sought help for this kid. Many parents find themselves battling these issues. Using Elliot Rogers in this method has made sure that those conversations won't take place. Congratulations. If in some magical thinking process we are to assign responsibility or blame to the MRAs then step up to the plate and accept some of that responsibility.

Secondly, there are those that may or may not be associated with MRAs that troll. They are a relatively small group and the threats that are being made currently were made before they had an online presence by....... trolls. Trolls suck. They have always sucked. While it isn't something that I would wish on anyone, you will run into them. They stalk, threaten and act like trolls.
There is a big part of me that says this is an intentional passive aggressive game that is being played out. Choosing not to address the actual issues will invite those that are not level headed to make rash statements or the whacknuts to step up and out. We saw the same exact thing played out with immigration. There are those on the left that refused to acknowledge that "undocumented workers" depressed wages and this was leaving the door open for the most racist folks to fill the gap and then acting shocked and dismayed and using that as what you are fighting. They had every opportunity to do so and chose not to. It was intentional, willful and deliberate.

No. I will not go rallying to the causes of individuals that are doing everything within their power to silence others. Ending anonymity online would only help these folks silence opposing voices. I am disgusted. There are trolls. I'm sorry. Never underestimate the sucking capacity of folks.

Well, that's out of the way. I'd really like to address the issues. Tell me what you think of the article and responses.

 

[Disir]

Chickens. Let's destroy some myths.

The Cult of Domesticity lasted from about 1820-1860 and was the guide for the newly created upper middle class white women. This defines and limits women's role to the private sphere (home and children). Unpaid work. The middle/upper class women did not actually perform household chores or take care of the children or do anything close to work. Women lower on the socioeconomic ladder did those jobs. White, newly arrived immigrants and later on older women of color did those jobs in these areas.
The Cult of Domesticity

Note on these areas: The first labor strike took place in 1824 and was led by 500 working women at Slater Mill. Women preferred working in factories verses in the houses of the upper middle class households due to their idiotic micromanaging of everything not work related.

Does it all end in 1860? Nope. It's still operating as the Victorian era in America. Guidebook not necessary.

"As the century comes to an end, many observers fear for the future of America's families. Our divorce rate is the highest in the world, and the percentage of unmarried women is significantly higher than in 1960. Educated women are having fewer babies, while immigrant children flood the schools, demanding to be taught in their native language. Harvard University reports that only 4 percent of its applicants can write a proper sentence. There's an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases among men. Many streets in urban neighborhoods are littered with cocaine vials. Youths call heroin "happy dust". Even in small towns, people have easy access to addictive drugs, and drug abuse by middle class wives is skyrocketing. Police see 16-year-old killers, 12-year-old prostitutes, and gang members as young as 11. America at the end of the 1990s? No, America at the end of the 1890s.

...In 1955 alone, Congress discussed 200 bills aimed at curbing juvenile delinquency. Three years later, LIFE reported that urban teachers were being terrorized by their students. The drugs that were so freely available in 1900 had been outlawed, but many children grew up in families ravaged by alcohol and barbiturate abuse.

...Rates of unwed childbearing tripled between 1940 and 1958, but most Americans didn't notice because unwed mothers generally left town, gave their babies up for adoption and returned home as if nothing had happened. Troubled youths were encouraged to drop out of high school. Mentally handicapped children were warehoused in institutions like the Home for idiotic and Imbecilic Children in Kansas, where a woman whose sister had lived there for most of the 1950s once took me."
The American Family - Author Stephanie Coontz

So, when does the man as breadwinner filter down to the rest of America as an accepted norm?
1920s. AFTER the kids have been removed from the factories and mines and are required to attend school.

 

[Circe]

Yeah, yeah, poor babies. I am not sympathetic to the Men's Rights Movement, and I participated in such a group online years ago. Some of them --- this is true --- were posting from prison.

Members of this group are a bad lot generally and much given to physical and verbal abuse of women. Not of interest, none of their issues. The WHINING!!!! I could not believe the whining, as above, all those complaints.

 

[Ravi]

Not sure what point is being made.

 

[Disir]

Not sure what point is being made.

--the boy crisis

--children's need for both parents (equally-shared parenting);

--why the pay gap is not about discrimination against women;

--the need for men's studies;

--a men's birth control pill's importance to both sexes;

--paternity fraud;

--male-only draft registration as a violation of the 14th Amendment;

--men as the disposable sex (in war, the "death professions", and as dads)

--the debate between society being controlled historically by patriarchy vs. by the need to survive;

--boys' and men's suicides--the reasons for the increase;

--the negative media images of men, and their negative impact on our daughters' ability to love men;

--how to listen to the other sex with love rather than argue with blame

Anything on the above would be great. The second post I made was to counter arguments (versus debates) that I have encountered over the years. Besides, it became obvious that I was going to be carrying on a conversation with myself.

Secondly, I am really ticked off at what I call the elitist feminist squad (as a feminist) that carries on in this manner and the rest of us have to deal with their bullshit.

 

[Disir]

Yeah, yeah, poor babies. I am not sympathetic to the Men's Rights Movement, and I participated in such a group online years ago. Some of them --- this is true --- were posting from prison.

Members of this group are a bad lot generally and much given to physical and verbal abuse of women. Not of interest, none of their issues. The WHINING!!!! I could not believe the whining, as above, all those complaints.

Because you say so. Well, that's good enough for me.

 

[Circe]

I am not clear whether you are a feminist or a male rights advocate?

 

[Disir]

I am not clear whether you are a feminist or a male rights advocate?

I'm not clear whose sock you are.

There is nothing in my posts that indicate that I am a male rights advocate.

 

[Ravi]

I am not clear whether you are a feminist or a male rights advocate?

I'm not clear whose sock you are.

There is nothing in my posts that indicate that I am a male rights advocate.

It wasn't clear to me either.

And then you posted this:

"Secondly, I am really ticked off at what I call the elitist feminist squad (as a feminist) that carries on in this manner and the rest of us have to deal with their bullshit."

Which makes it sound like you are a male rights advocate.

 

[Disir]

I am not clear whether you are a feminist or a male rights advocate?

I'm not clear whose sock you are.

There is nothing in my posts that indicate that I am a male rights advocate.

It wasn't clear to me either.

And then you posted this:

"Secondly, I am really ticked off at what I call the elitist feminist squad (as a feminist) that carries on in this manner and the rest of us have to deal with their bullshit."

Which makes it sound like you are a male rights advocate.

Did you read the article?

 

[Ravi]

I tried but I really couldn't figure out what the point of it was.

 

[Disir]

I am not clear whether you are a feminist or a male rights advocate?

I'm not clear whose sock you are.

There is nothing in my posts that indicate that I am a male rights advocate.

It wasn't clear to me either.

And then you posted this:

"Secondly, I am really ticked off at what I call the elitist feminist squad (as a feminist) that carries on in this manner and the rest of us have to deal with their bullshit."

Which makes it sound like you are a male rights advocate.

Do you read the columnists at other news sites and did you read the article posted?

 

[Disir]

I tried but I really couldn't figure out what the point of it was.

Ravi, do you follow the online feminist columnist pieces at other news sites?

 

[Ravi]

I tried but I really couldn't figure out what the point of it was.

Ravi, do you follow the online feminist columnist pieces at other news sites?

No. IMO it's like getting into the Pali threads here. Lots of hate flung and no real rational discussion.

 

[Disir]

I tried but I really couldn't figure out what the point of it was.

Ravi, do you follow the online feminist columnist pieces at other news sites?

No. IMO it's like getting into the Pali threads here. Lots of hate flung and no real rational discussion.

Ok.

For the past several years there have been feminist columnists that write these four or five paragraphs but don't actually address issues. I call them the elitist feminist squad. They can afford the platform. They are upper middle class white chics. They spend a lot of time commenting on other columnists.

When I first encountered them, I realized that this is pretty much an ongoing online drama fest and/or a conversation that is to be maintained between the upper middle class white crew. They get to decide what is important and not important. They would get responses to columns and twitter that could be pretty bad but now the name of the game is that we are to rally behind the columnist and be outraged. You can see this here with Amanda Hess:
CDZ - How the internet is destroying us US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

It's a passive aggressive game. If you are SHOCKED, then you will take part in an online anger game to have a columnist removed. This is what we saw when the numbers were questioned on the college sexual assault-albeit in a horrendous way. But, you won't question the "study". If you are SHOCKED by the online trolls that hit the alleged feminist twitter accounts, then you will automatically dismiss the primary beefs in question (and demand that online anonymity end). It has become highly political and we are not to consider that there is an issue without the upper class white chic approval. I have questioned a columnist and received a response from said columnist that indicates they know exactly what they are doing.

I don't need their approval. There are issues. Let's deal with them. I am a feminist with a father, brother, and son.

 

[Ravi]

Okay, I sort of remember the Amanda Hess incident. What did she write that led people to make nasty comments to her?

 

[Disir]

Okay, I sort of remember the Amanda Hess incident. What did she write that led people to make nasty comments to her?

The same crap you find with Panda or the Guardian and occasional diatribes from Salon.

There were trolls before the MRMs were anything on line and said the same crap.

 

[Ravi]

I don't know if I agree with you then. They may be writing things that people take offense at, but they certainly shouldn't be treated to the nasty things people post about them. Not that there's really anything logical to do about it unless you just don't hire them to write garbage.

 

[Disir]

I don't know if I agree with you then. They may be writing things that people take offense at, but they certainly shouldn't be treated to the nasty things people post about them. Not that there's really anything logical to do about it unless you just don't hire them to write garbage.

--the boy crisis

--children's need for both parents (equally-shared parenting);

--why the pay gap is not about discrimination against women;

--the need for men's studies;

--a men's birth control pill's importance to both sexes;

--paternity fraud;

--male-only draft registration as a violation of the 14th Amendment;

--men as the disposable sex (in war, the "death professions", and as dads)

--the debate between society being controlled historically by patriarchy vs. by the need to survive;

--boys' and men's suicides--the reasons for the increase;

--the negative media images of men, and their negative impact on our daughters' ability to love men;

__________________________________________________________________
Do you have an interest in discussing any of the above?

 

[Circe]

Did you read the article?

No, I don't usually read articles or watch Youtubes in forum posts --- I am interested in what posters think, and discussion of their ideas. when I am interested in reading articles, I can find them in the magazines and sites I follow. I'd be spending a lot of time reading and watching propaganda if I clicked on many links in posts.

I did read your points more than once, but could not figure out whose side you are on, men's or women's.