In another thread I suggested the term ‘Warcraft’ and the idea that MRAs should gather the arguments to better enable proper attacks on and responses to feminists. Not just arguments, of course, but facts, information, tactics, strategies etc.

Below is an article by a real warrior, Marc Rudov. He is a well prepared MRA who is so well regarded that he has a weekly spot on a TV show where he goes head to head with a feminist lawyer.

I recommend all here read this article carefully. Make a lesson from it. Study it. Notice how he identifies the typical arguments of feminists and manginas and then sets about demolishing them. Notice the examples he uses and the facts he deploys. Notice his calmness and follow through.

Now, you might say that he had time to compose his article and that is different from a verbal exchange on the hoof. Yes it is, but the latter cannot be undertaken before the work of the former. He does the work.

Effective MRAs HAVE to do the work.

Use the link and read the comments that the article generated. I especially recommend Rudov’s own comment at #4.

“Watch the typical man at a party. If a subject comes up about gender issues, he'll run for the bar, in fear of his life. He lacks the balls to face women. THAT is the problem”.

I would say that balls isn’t the problem but the lack of warcraft.

Confidence comes from practice.

Now. Treating this as a form of combat training, say bayonet practice, read the article slowly, every word, carefully, asiduously, and answer the following questions;

How many examples of falsehood by feminists does he itemise?
How many studies does he refer to?
How many discrete arguments does he use to refute the mendacities?
Categorise those arguments.
Type out the whole article so it all sinks in.
Then do 50 push ups and a five mile run. The cookhouse will be open when you get back.


http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/28/when-woman-hits-man-by-marc-h-rudov/


Now, do the work.

Quote:

How many examples of falsehood by feminists does he itemise?

Noun1.mendacity - the tendency to be untruthfuluntruthfulness - the quality of being untruthful
veracity - unwillingness to tell lies

Sorry Percy, but can please explain this more in depth. I gather the arguments are actual incidents. They are the cases he brings up.

Is the falsehoods he itemises things like this;

Glad to see you use your dictionary, Julie. You will go far. You show mendacity as a quality, a noun, but it has wider definitions too. It can be where a kernel of a truth or a truism is used to imply a further conclusion. So - that men are usually stronger than women (sometimes, often in fact, they are) is twisted to show that all men are and that all injuries to women are worse than a man's injuries inflicted by a woman.

Some woman are stronger than some men and women are encouraged to learn fighting skills to use on men. One rarely hears of a woman being encouraged to learn judo to defend herself against other women, nor of men exhorted to learn it so they can defend themselves against their wives' DV.

Your quote is a good example of a straightforward lie. It is a huge exaggeration. It is clearly false to any who have read any reasonable stats on mugging, cancer, rape etc and that to accept that DV is worse and more than all of these is plainly ridiculous. Yet the very saying of it has people believing it uncritically.

Rudov counters these lies, exaggerations and mendacities effectively.

Treat the questions as you will. There won't be a test. (unless you would like to demand one). A thorough reading and understanding of the arguements is the aim, and an ease in using them.

Thanx Percy. Yes, I get it. It is a good example.

I support the premise of the article. But Rudov got it wrong when he attempted to refute the claim that multiple health problems for women are dwarfed by the specter of domestic violence. He attempted to refute that claim with data about death rates for women. We are talking about domestic violence.

It is a fact that academic studies show that women assault men as often as the reverse, but government data show that men assault women about 12 percent more often. So what? Why not just come out and say it is 38% male victims to 62% female? What, are we supposed to just concede that the lives of men are worth nothing, until we can get our victim rate above 50 percent? I feel like a great concession is made when we focus on the notion that DV is a 50-50 game.

Now, as to the accuracy of the 38% figure, which is taken from excerpts from a U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) handout about domestic violence, which cites as its source the CDC-funded 1996 National Violence Against Women Survey. The 1996 survey was conducted using a modified version of a research instrument known as the Conflict Tactics Scales. Dr. Murray Straus, the pre-eminent researcher on domestic violence is the inventor of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Straus has objected to the 1996 survey because the modifications made to the Conflict Tactics Scales would artificially suppress the percentage of male victims.

And so the 38 percent figure grossly underestimates the likely number of male victims. It's almost as if the study were saying, "If you didn't report it (or if a police officer refused to take a report), it didn't happen." And this is certainly the case in America, where "primary aggressor" laws choose a victim in a mutual assault case. The criteria for designating who is the perpetrator is essentially slanted to describe the man. Even defensive marks on his body are deemed evidence of abuse.

With all this bias in the primary government study that shows a significant number of men are DV victims, we only have a "Violence Against Women Act" in the U.S., not a "Domestic Violence Protection Act." In my home state of California, money is spent on shelters but men are specifically excluded by law from receiving services. Take a look at the statute, and be amazed. With nearly 40 percent of male DV victims as acknowledged in a (slanted) government study, California gets away with turning all of the male victims away. In other states, it is just as difficult for abused men and their children to get services, although for other reasons.

We need to point out the total lack of concern for abused men in the culture and also in public policy. The 50-50 abuse victim claim is easier to demonstrate in academic studies, but the public (and our opponents) tend to place more weight on government studies. And so with government studies lowering that ratio down to 38% men, 62% women as DV victims, WHY CAN ABUSED MEN STILL NOT GET ADEQUATE SHELTER?

Marc made reference to the fact that more and more men are contacting him to illustrate that the only way they can report an abusive wife is to secretly record it. When combating the cognitive dissonance in western culture about male pain, the best way is to simply let the recorded footage speak for itself. Absent that, we need vivid and detailed stories about abused men and the hell they are enduring. They are not easy to find, which is why our challenge is to let them find us. My Web site, DontMakeHerMad.com, not only teaches men how to record such abuses with surveillance, but also serves as a beacon of support for them to quietly contact me and express the sheer hell they are experiencing.

It's not hard to help these men, once they reach out for it. It's as simple as throwing up a Web site and a phone number, and sharing your own story. I have shared mine, and they do call me. And I have helped them. Not one damn dollar have I ever received, and I'm happy to do it.

Anyone can reach me here:
http://www.dontmakehermad.com/contact/

And as far as the craft of practicing war, I'm not only ready, but I'm ready to train others.

Thanks for all of that John. I think I have said on this forum several times before that you are a first rate MRA with practical solutions and worth listening to. You are damned good at analysis too.

Officer present.

quote:
What’s sad is that people want to believe Lis Wiehl’s claims. Why? Because American society has chosen to “accept” that men are predators and women are victims.

Isn't this the crux of it? We all believe what we want to believe, and it seems a majority of Western men and women want to believe that women are 'good' and men are 'bad'.

"don't confuse me with the facts"

I always wonder what can really be achieved with the communicating with feminists.

I fear that it is nothing of any value whatsoever.

The state loves to engage folk in timewasting excercises.

It has no fear of such things.

This was made very clear to me with the spectacular failure of my blog experiment.

What happened?