There is a fairly famous video on youtube of several feminists who infiltrated a forum for battered-men. They went in and began verbally abusing the audience and speakers, accusing THEM of being the abusers.

Yeah those women in that video were despicable.

I don’t have a problem personally with organisations being single sexed, it’s the double standard that is so often in play that’s the annoying part imo.
take the girl guides and boy scouts, women’s groups campaigned pretty hard to get girls accepted into the scouts and one of the main reasons given is that the scouts do more exciting activities, well the obvious answer was to include those activities in the guides programme but the truth is that the real purpose was to break down all male spaces, a stated goal of early feminists, of course boys could not be accepted in the guides because “girls need their own space” lol.

The same goes for working men’s clubs, gentlemen’s clubs and other such places, women always had their own groups and clubs but could never stand the idea of men having their own spaces, the same attitude prevails today with women only days at public libraries women only sessions at gyms and public swimming baths, all these are a ok but anything similar for men is instantly condemned as sexist, discriminatory, misogynistic. The double standards are appalling.

The same forces are at play in the DV industry, it’s completely infected with radical () feminists who seek to deny male victims any kind of recognition or funding whatsoever and they have sympathisers in government who enable them, any organisation that receives public monies should be entirely sex neutral or if it’s felt that victims need to be separate from the opposite sex then the funding should be split accordingly. The reality is that the DV shelters/industry needs a thorough overhaul by a completely impartial body and the ideologues need to be routed out and replaced by people without an axe to grind.

Originally Posted by Marx

OK, valid point... but what if there existed an anti-hospital group, who only ever talked about bad hospitals, did studies on the screw-ups that a minority of hospitals made, only ever talked about the worst cases scenarios and invited all people with all injuries to use only band-aid from then onwards? What if this group had a vested interest in the selling of band-aids, and had been known on occasion to help 'bump up' statistics of band-aid usage across the world? What if this group ignored all the good that hospitals did, consistently claiming things like "all hospitals murder their patients" or similar? What if this group only seemed to exist for little reason aside from bashing hospitals while highlighting how wonderful band-aids were? What if this hospital even used statistics to 'proof' that all hospitals were a danger using circular logic: "50% of patients in hospitals all sustained serious injuries..."? What if this group produced literature and blatantly agenda-driven 'studies' with such affect on patients, that people literally began walking out of the hospitals waiting rooms ... some, mid-surgery? What if this group produced little but fear and panic in people ranging from those who cut accidentally cut their thumb to those who had fell from a height and broke their leg/s? Their panic - so great - they would prefer to use a band-aid than visit a hospital... a hospital that could put them right in next to no time.

At this point, you're arguing against a very specific type of support group, and it's beyond hyperbolic to try to claim that every single victims' support group out there treats the subject in this manner. I assure you, I never attended a group that demonized men in the manner you are referring to. There was no anti-male literature passed out. They never once claimed that all men are rapists or capable of raping. To say that women's support groups as a whole are guilty of this is irresponsible. And to be honest, you're arguing a point that I conceded from the absolute beginning. My original post states:

"It would be naive of me to assume that none of those women's groups are operating under an unfair/biased premise."

So you're arguing just for the sake of arguing with me on that point. The very fact that I included that concession in the original post should have made my angle clear.

Originally Posted by Marx

See, this is the difference. If a woman opted to hide away from men all her life because of one bad man... that would be her choice. But when a woman goes to counselling and is recommended to avoid all men for the rest of her life... well, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.

I was never told to avoid men for the rest of my life. You are taking something that happens in some counseling services and attributing it to womens' support groups at large. And really, this all has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I was specifically addressing the subject of why some support groups cater to only one gender. I was not claiming that every single other thing that is said during the counseling services in every single group is beyond reproach. Considering that the only part of this that I was ever arguing about was the actual intent behind the choice to segregate (a point which you seem to have understood since you just said, "Ok, valid point"), everything else you're throwing at me is unnecessary, and frankly undeserved. You're looking to argue with me about things I never said or claimed to support.

Originally Posted by Marx

But they DON'T. Feminist groups have literally gone and hounded men's groups. There is a fairly famous video on youtube of several feminists who infiltrated a forum for battered-men. They went in and began verbally abusing the audience and speakers, accusing THEM of being the abusers. It is those YOU affiliate with that stop men being able to get support. That is just one example. More recently, feminist groups spoke out against a revision of an English law which was being reviewed with a possibility of making it gender neutral. Feminists recognise that by having TRUE equality with men, men might finally be able to legally speak up and get support - feminists can't afford to let that happen, so instead they accuse men of 'hypothetically' doing what women already do.... making false allegations of rape. This is why they don't want true equality - feminism demands selective equality that fucks men up the arse and panders to women.

Ok, who are you arguing with in pointing out that those men's groups don't exist in equal numbers? Did I NOT say that it is my belief that they should? Again, arguing just to argue with me, when anyone who reads what I wrote can see that I already conceded the fact that they most certainly should have those resources and should have them funded equally. I don't believe that that even hints at the idea that I am unaware of the fact that they don't get that same consideration, or that I'm supportive of the fact that this is the case.

And you can talk about "those who I affiliate with"...you have no idea what kind of feminists I affiliate myself with. What a feminist group in England did recently has nothing to do with my beliefs and I in no way "affiliate" myself with them. Not every anti-feminist group is making valid complaints, like child support or custody issues like many here are discussing. I'm sure that you know that there are many out there who are simply misogynist. I've never sunk so low as to claim that because you both use the categorization "anti-feminist", you must believe what they do and should reasonably be held accountable for what they're up to. I've never claimed that they were those you "affiliate with". I haven't resorted to such hyperbolic, baseless accusations against you. Yet it seems that the respect with which I have continually treated you and your position won't be offered in return. That's telling.

Originally Posted by Marx

In this case, promoting women only at the expense of men ... which has become typical.

Kimber merely questioned whether the motive for single-sex counselling was necessarily a bias against men, while emphasising that men should have at least as much counselling available to them. He is not promoting women-only at men's expense but is suggesting that maybe women-only in one facility AND men-only in another facility makes more sense than one facility for both.

There could be something to be said for the argument. However, given that the only main men's shelter in the country is staffed by as many women as men, I think there is a lot to be said for mixed staffing. It may be better to accept a little risk of trauma for the long-term good of teaching a victim (male or female) that the problem is not with ALL men or ALL women. I'm not a psychiatrist so I only have a layman's understanding. I would think that if someone is so traumatized that they can't be around someone of the opposite sex at all, they are not in a fit condition to be moving to and from one building to the next but need to be in a psychiatric ward until the trauma is healed enough.

Originally Posted by Douglas

Kimber merely questioned whether the motive for single-sex counselling was necessarily a bias against men, while emphasising that men should have at least as much counselling available to them. He is not promoting women-only at men's expense but is suggesting that maybe women-only in one facility AND men-only in another facility makes more sense than one facility for both.

There could be something to be said for the argument. However, given that the only main men's shelter in the country is staffed by as many women as men, I think there is a lot to be said for mixed staffing. It may be better to accept a little risk of trauma for the long-term good of teaching a victim (male or female) that the problem is not with ALL men or ALL women. I'm not a psychiatrist so I only have a layman's understanding. I would think that if someone is so traumatized that they can't be around someone of the opposite sex at all, they are not in a fit condition to be moving to and from one building to the next but need to be in a psychiatric ward until the trauma is healed enough.

If you could work towards gradual integration it might work, if there is a fear of all men/women that is developed then to have multiple counselors who rotate working in an area may be helpful, and swap out some female staff for male staff (or the other way around). It may be a little less risky of trauma as the surroundings would become more familiar.

We gain more by trying these thing than by ignoring them so it is definitely worth a shot.

My my.. Marx and Kimber, when you talk about victims' support groups you don't mean the same thing.

Kimber, you say that sometimes victims-only support groups are needed because of possible trauma. You also say that those groups should focus on normalizing the victims' lives and abolishing their fears. In addition, you say that such groups should exist for both, men and women. I agree with you.

Marx, you on the other hand say it's wrong that only women have those support groups and that woman are being favored over men. Furthermore, you are against malicious groups which recommended women to avoid all men, such as VAWA domestic violence shelters. You are correct.

There is no need to argue over that.

In some cases specific support groups may indeed be the best bet. I am sure those groups were created with good intent, but also sinister ones exist. I think that those support groups should have mixed staff in order to show victims that not all men/women are the problem. A highly traumatized man could at first be looked after by male staff and later he could be accustoming to female staff as well. Of course, the problem is that such support groups for men don't exist yet, but we are trying to bring about the change. Luckily such traumas are extremely rare, in Finland at least. I don't know about the other countries.

Originally Posted by Kimber

At this point, you're arguing against a very specific type of support group, and it's beyond hyperbolic to try to claim that every single victims' support group out there treats the subject in this manner.

Hardly. It's typical. There are two literally a 2-3minute walk from my home, if I continue walking towards town there are more. This 'women only' mentality has been going on since the 60s when Erin Pizzey was attending them. Just about every shelter in England is set up with women only as staff. Some may have a male manager, who is only rarely in the building. If these women are so incapable of being around a man, they need serious help. Reinforcing that mentality can only make things worse and set these women up for further failure.

Originally Posted by Kimber

I assure you, I never attended a group that demonized men in the manner you are referring to. There was no anti-male literature passed out. They never once claimed that all men are rapists or capable of raping. To say that women's support groups as a whole are guilty of this is irresponsible.

I'm not saying 'as a whole', I'm saying it's typical and normalized and has been since the 60s.

Originally Posted by Kimber

I was never told to avoid men for the rest of my life.

I doubt many of them spell it out so bluntly... but they reinforce the mentality by calling women-only spaces things like 'safe haven' or such, giving the obvious idea that male/mixed spaces are 'not safe'... it's all about presentation.

Originally Posted by Kimber

You are taking something that happens in some counseling services and attributing it to womens' support groups at large.

I attribute it to most because I keep seeing the same bs from those groups. Even in the 60s this was happening by deception. Women in hairdressers were invited to 'knitting get togethers', tea parties, and such like - only for the reality to be discovered they were feminist groups (which by definition excluded men). Sure, feminism has tried to invite men into their ranks since that time, but only those who push for female superiority and/or eternal victimhood. While I was married, my then-wife often lied about stuff we were doing. She'd convinced an entire mother's forum (yet another 'no men' policy) that I was abusing her, causing arguments with her family and so on and so on... They, not knowing the truth/facts all kept pressuring her to divorce. I discovered her lies and confronted the admin of the site in private and laid out the facts from my side. Was anything done? No. Did they care to know the truth? No. Did my then-wife get anything? Yes.. more sympathy. I'll give you a typical example.
My version:
I had returned home a while as my Mother had just caught her 2nd spate of cancer. I used this time to see my kids in England too, naturally. Her Brother got on messenger and left me a stack of ranting posts, calling me all manner of names and telling me how much he hated me, how his so-called Mother had only tried to help and I was oh-so ungrateful for her endless interferences in my life. I blocked him. He sent me a second load from a new account he made and ranted that my Mother's cancer was just an excuse for me to leave my then-wife with our child. I blocked him again. He made a 3rd account... This one discussed childhood issues I've since deleted from an earlier post. Apparently, I enjoyed it and I was certain to do it to my daughter. This went on for SIX accounts. On his sixth one, he made what I perceived as a veiled threat of malice, "You need to show me respect, I have your daughter here". At which, I told him my perception of that statement and given his history of abuse to his siblings and mockery of others' abuses, I would be taking legal action to safe guard myself and our child.
He finally stopped his stalking, mocking of my mother's cancer and hateful comments in general. I got a message from my then-wife saying Alan had refused to babysit any more and it was my fault, she now had to find a babysitter so she could go to work in the day. I sent her $90 of the $120 she needed each week for the babysitter she found.
Her version:
I found a post on her 'mothers forum' (which from where I was stood, looked more like a bash on husbands/boyfriends forum) claiming only that I had pestered her wonderful brother so much that he now refused to babysit for her. She went on that it was costing her $120 weekly to have someone else babysit.

Naturally, her friends drew their own assumptions. I'd done the stalking of her brother, I'd made first contact, it was I who hated him and I had paid not a penny towards the baby sitter's fees. She actively encouraged their wrong assumptions. She lavished in the sympathy they were spreading over her.

Apparently, I was the abusive one in our relationship. Never mind that I suffered a broken rib through being attacked from behind. Never mind that I bordered suicidal during that marriage because of the endless nagging and complaining. Never mind that I couldn't go literally a DAY without her or her mother going out of their way to cause some pain. Never mind that our daughter was denied duel citizenship thanks to her mother's interference (my so-called mother in-law's). Never mind that our daughter was used as leverage continually (do as I want or you will lose her). Never mind anything - so long as women can portray themselves as ongoing victims to support the feminist mentality that only men do wrong and only women do right. Sure, this is one person (well, two really as her mother did similar to her husband, but he was clueless about it)... I recognise that. Nonetheless, the *mentality* is far from limited to these two individuals.

Originally Posted by Kimber

And really, this all has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote. I was specifically addressing the subject of why some support groups cater to only one gender. I was not claiming that every single other thing that is said during the counseling services in every single group is beyond reproach. Considering that the only part of this that I was ever arguing about was the actual intent behind the choice to segregate (a point which you seem to have understood since you just said, "Ok, valid point"), everything else you're throwing at me is unnecessary, and frankly undeserved. You're looking to argue with me about things I never said or claimed to support.

I'm not saying you support anything - I'm saying you affiliate as a feminist, which shows support for the mentality of man=bad/woman=good.

Originally Posted by Kimber

Ok, who are you arguing with in pointing out that those men's groups don't exist in equal numbers? Did I NOT say that it is my belief that they should?

Yes, you as a unique individual did say that. Feminism as a whole works AGAINST that though. It's your choice to affiliate yourself with those who try to retain superior funding & services for women only.

Originally Posted by Kimber

Again, arguing just to argue with me, when anyone who reads what I wrote can see that I already conceded the fact that they most certainly should have those resources and should have them funded equally. I don't believe that that even hints at the idea that I am unaware of the fact that they don't get that same consideration, or that I'm supportive of the fact that this is the case.

Feminism in general works against men having equal funding/services/etc.

Originally Posted by Kimber

And you can talk about "those who I affiliate with"...you have no idea what kind of feminists I affiliate myself with. What a feminist group in England did recently has nothing to do with my beliefs and I in no way "affiliate" myself with them. Not every anti-feminist group is making valid complaints, like child support or custody issues like many here are discussing. I'm sure that you know that there are many out there who are simply misogynist. I've never sunk so low as to claim that because you both use the categorization "anti-feminist", you must believe what they do and should reasonably be held accountable for what they're up to. I've never claimed that they were those you "affiliate with". I haven't resorted to such hyperbolic, baseless accusations against you. Yet it seems that the respect with which I have continually treated you and your position won't be offered in return. That's telling.

Here's the difference.
Feminist groups who push for women-only services, superior funding, research, etc. etc. carry a LOT of political clout. The more moderate arm of feminism, which you say you're more into, carries very little clout.
MRA's who are misogynist are not well known column authors in high-name newspapers, they're not politicians, they're not bookwriters, they're not in a large group funded by the government, they're a bunch of 'nobodies'.
In short, when feminists say "Women need xyz" they get heard. When an MRA says "we need xyz" no one gives a shit.
The powerful feminists insist on ignoring equality when it benefits men.

Kimber, if you seem to me to be representing here, at least, fairly moderate views. If you do, as I've just read Marx say, call yourself a feminist then I would urge you to read this article and either comment where it is wrong or understand what feminism really is. As Kim, has said "women have allowed feminists, a group that in no way represents their interests or desires....to represent their interests and desires."
Why many women think they are feminists -- and why they are wrong.

Women wouldn't need to be the victims is men weren't allowed to victimize them in the first place.

Control men, make life better for women. Pretty simple. Aren't men into "self-sacrifice"?

Originally Posted by Douglas

Kimber, if you seem to me to be representing here, at least, fairly moderate views. If you do, as I've just read Marx say, call yourself a feminist then I would urge you to read this article and either comment where it is wrong or understand what feminism really is. As Kim, has said "women have allowed feminists, a group that in no way represents their interests or desires....to represent their interests and desires."
Why many women think they are feminists -- and why they are wrong.

Oh god no....Jesus H...don't do it Kim. I want dinner tonight.

Originally Posted by Douglas

Kimber merely questioned whether the motive for single-sex counselling was necessarily a bias against men, while emphasising that men should have at least as much counselling available to them. He is not promoting women-only at men's expense but is suggesting that maybe women-only in one facility AND men-only in another facility makes more sense than one facility for both.

There could be something to be said for the argument. However, given that the only main men's shelter in the country is staffed by as many women as men, I think there is a lot to be said for mixed staffing. It may be better to accept a little risk of trauma for the long-term good of teaching a victim (male or female) that the problem is not with ALL men or ALL women. I'm not a psychiatrist so I only have a layman's understanding. I would think that if someone is so traumatized that they can't be around someone of the opposite sex at all, they are not in a fit condition to be moving to and from one building to the next but need to be in a psychiatric ward until the trauma is healed enough.

I am relieved to see that the point I was trying to convey was understood. As someone who has used such services in the past (that didn't use a strategy that even slightly resembles the picture that has been painted here by some), I can say that it's truly heartbreaking to know that men don't have such services offered to them. I know what it did for me, and I don't belittle how important it is.

I want to also note that I don't think that the women in those services necessarily feel traumatized to the point where they can't be around the opposite sex at all. I think that there are two possibilities in play (though clearly, I'm speculating since I can't speak for all victims):

In one, some victims "relive" the experience in a way while telling their story. It is a time of magnified vulnerability to the tricks one's psyche can play on them, versus one's day-to-day life where they are not directly confronting/picturing every detail of the assault.

In the other, some victims certainly are full of anger toward the opposite sex in general after their attack. While this is something they obviously need to work past, it may not be quite the time to tackle that part of their trauma. Depending on how "fresh" the trauma is, they may just not be quite ready to jump that hurdle. If an assault happened just a couple weeks ago, most could understand that the fear is still fresh. As zetamale proposed, gradual integration would be a reasonable thing to propose.

That being said, for the groups who were further along the "healing process", there were male psychologists who volunteered their time to counsel the women in my experience. So the mixed staffing that you spoke of does exist, though maybe not to the extent that you will feel is ideal. Granted, I couldn't claim that this is how all of those services operate. But there are facilities that are being run responsibly and aren't operating with the intent of spreading an anti-male message.

Originally Posted by Marx

I'm not saying 'as a whole', I'm saying it's typical and normalized and has been since the 60s.

While you say that they are so commonplace that you could point out two in your immediate vicinity, I can point out an equal amount that operate in the manner that I am familiar with in mine. Does what you speak of exist? Yes. Is it a rarity entirely? No. Does that justify an anger towards the very concept of all gender-specific facilities? No, not in my opinion. We should trash the ones that actually operate responsibly because of the existence of many who don't? Does that honestly make sense to anyone?

Your original post was aimed at gender-specific groups who get government funding. You didn't specify that your anger was towards those who operate irresponsibly.....you scoffed at the very existence of such services who dared to separate the genders. All I did was point out that the reason for separating them shouldn't be assumed to always be about an anti-male sentiment.

Originally Posted by Marx

I doubt many of them spell it out so bluntly... but they reinforce the mentality by calling women-only spaces things like 'safe haven' or such, giving the obvious idea that male/mixed spaces are 'not safe'... it's all about presentation.

While you may not have intended it to sound that way, wording it the way you did is slightly insulting. I am no idiot, and I can grasp nuance and indirect references. It's not that I didn't see the message because it wasn't spelled out bluntly for me. I didn't see the message because it wasn't there. While on one hand you admit that it wouldn't be fair to say they do that "as a whole", you turn around and make it seem like it must have been there but I was too dense to notice the subtle message. It would have been far more reasonable to suggest that perhaps I was lucky and found one of the facilities that didn't resort to derogatory messages about men.

Additionally, the point isn't that mixed spaces aren't safe in general. Assuming that this is what they mean by the term "safe place/haven" isn't fair (though of course, anyone could twist it into meaning that, including facilities that are operating irresponsibly). It's that those women aren't at the point where they feel safe yet. And if the assault was recent, who could blame them? You continue to argue with me as though I am denying the very existence of irresponsible counseling, while the truth is that I am only asking you to not generalize and/or assume that all of them are like that. That's it.

Originally Posted by Marx

I'm not saying you support anything - I'm saying you affiliate as a feminist, which shows support for the mentality of man=bad/woman=good.

Because you read what the biggest loudmouths are saying as being representative of the whole does not make it factually correct. Your site is aimed at pointing out the instances of feminism that are acting irresponsibly. Fair enough. But if my business sells cups, then I'm going to go searching for suppliers of cups. I'm not going to waste my time looking for forks. Since your site isn't aimed at including the instances of feminism that truly are acting in fairness, you don't waste your time reading what we're saying....it's of no use to your purpose. Maybe if you did, you'd see that there are far more of us than you give credit for.

Originally Posted by Marx

Yes, you as a unique individual did say that. Feminism as a whole works AGAINST that though. It's your choice to affiliate yourself with those who try to retain superior funding & services for women only.

Sorry, but I'm not all that special. There are entire groups of feminists that are like-minded, and haven't tried to retain superiority in any area. And no, it's your choice to be so insistent on only making room for one kind of feminist in your mind.

Originally Posted by Marx

Here's the difference.
Feminist groups who push for women-only services, superior funding, research, etc. etc. carry a LOT of political clout. The more moderate arm of feminism, which you say you're more into, carries very little clout.
MRA's who are misogynist are not well known column authors in high-name newspapers, they're not politicians, they're not bookwriters, they're not in a large group funded by the government, they're a bunch of 'nobodies'.
In short, when feminists say "Women need xyz" they get heard. When an MRA says "we need xyz" no one gives a shit.
The powerful feminists insist on ignoring equality when it benefits men.

I'll say this.....your experiences in the UK are not being disrespected or denied by me. From what I can tell, radicalized feminist groups within your country are very politically active. This is no longer the case where I live. There is no law requiring that half of an executive board must consist of women (or other similar legislation found in other countries) in America. The most influential female politician that can be dubbed feminist is Hillary Clinton, and I cannot find a single law or proposal that she's made that is designed to benefit any single gender. I can't think of a single anti-male columnist in a high-name newspaper in the States (of course, our newspapers are obsolete anyway, with the internet having taken over).

Regarding MRA's who are not misogynist, and nobody giving a shit, I'll say this: It's a fair assessment. There is no good excuse for that. But is it the feminists who have denied MRA's the consideration? Or is it rather the governmental bodies that don't listen to your side of the argument? If you can't focus on exactly who/where to aim your attack, what it is you hope to accomplish will never come to pass. Fighting the legislators will get you what you want. Fighting any woman who calls herself a feminist, even if they aren't politically active, isn't likely to produce the results you seek, is it?

Originally Posted by Kimber

Regarding MRA's who are not misogynist, and nobody giving a shit, I'll say this: It's a fair assessment. There is no good excuse for that. But is it the feminists who have denied MRA's the consideration? Or is it rather the governmental bodies that don't listen to your side of the argument? If you can't focus on exactly who/where to aim your attack, what it is you hope to accomplish will never come to pass. Fighting the legislators will get you what you want. Fighting any woman who calls herself a feminist, even if they aren't politically active, isn't likely to produce the results you seek, is it?

This is an internet forum dealing with misandry, here folk discuss their experiences and opinions, feminists come in for some harsh criticism here because they (the non moderate ones at least) are among the main sources of misandry, any activism carried out by the MRM hear or elsewhere is aimed at legislators, politicians, or businesses and organisations who operate in a misandric way. Activism is not carried out against feministsagainstopentoesandals.com (yes I made that up) for instance because that would be pointless. We know that.
We may have the odd row with theses types of feminists or even some of the more insane one’s and that kind of internet "debate" is not entirely without benefit in as much as they can convince neutral observers, raise awareness of men’s issues and sharpen rhetoric, but we’re not stupid enough to think that they are going to change policies.

One prominent MRM blog recently garnered the attention of the NYT, interestingly comments to the article were closed but traffic to that blog spiked as a result, so even though the article was generally negative it does show that the MRM is getting noticed and isn’t just about shouting at any feminist who happens to be hanging around and feeling insulted that we should dare to criticise their movement.

Originally Posted by Kimber

I'll say this.....your experiences in the UK are not being disrespected or denied by me. From what I can tell, radicalized feminist groups within your country are very politically active. This is no longer the case where I live.

Thank you for not disrespecting the situation in the UK. Equally, I feel that I can not let a disrespect for the dire situation in the USA to go unaddressed for long. I don't see how a country can be so socially biased against men yet "no longer" have feminists active. I'll let those in the USA point you to more relevant articles and threads to read up on, as I'm sure there are plenty here, and on other egalitarian web sites. For now, here's a short sample:
Rain and Thunder: A Radical Feminist Journal of Discussion and Activism
Political Cowardice » pre-teen boys being neutered by radical feminist organization: Family Violence Prevention Fund (endabuse.org)
12 indisputable indicators that Men are Second Class citizens in the USA
Violence Against Women Act Abuses Rights of Men - HUMAN EVENTS
http://antimisandry.com/feminist-mis...yny-37172.html
The male incarceration rate is roughly 7 times the female incarceration rate
Military Service / Conscription & Public Office
Radical feminist proposal for UN ‘super agency’ wins Obama administration backing :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

Originally Posted by nivek

We may have the odd row with theses types of feminists or even some of the more insane one’s and that kind of internet "debate" is not entirely without benefit in as much as they can convince neutral observers, raise awareness of men’s issues and sharpen rhetoric, but we’re not stupid enough to think that they are going to change policies...... so even though the article was generally negative it does show that the MRM is getting noticed and isn’t just about shouting at any feminist who happens to be hanging around and feeling insulted that we should dare to criticise their movement.

It's unnecessarily demeaning to frame the issue I am having as merely "feeling insulted that we should dare to criticize their movement". I've stated, time and again, that there are many complaints/criticisms here that I couldn't in good conscience argue with. I've stated, time and again, that my main objection is the generalization that takes place, as well as the tendency of some members here to seemingly think that it's reasonable to tell me that the problem is me as well because I identify as a feminist. That's not merely criticizing the movement, that's turning it into a personal attack.

Additionally, moderates like myself are (according to some) prospective allies in the fight that some of you have ahead of you. How exactly does one expect people like myself to hear you out ("you" being a generalized "you", not you specifically) when, from the get-go, the greeting we get is one of finger-pointing at us personally? That's a ridiculous strategy. "Let us yell at you about how you're personally accountable as well for what women you've never met are doing because you dare to identify with the same political group that they do. Then we're going to berate you for not immediately taking our side after we're done insulting your very character for using a word to describe yourself that we don't like." Yeah, what a way to convince the moderates.

And this isn't "Just about shouting at any feminist who happens to be around"? Really? In this very thread, the only thing about Marx's post that I voiced any objection to was the reasoning that many support groups have for separating the genders for counseling. That's it. Yet look at what it turned into. Look at what I have been accused of supporting (even when I took the time to point out what I certainly didn't support). Look at how, even when it's established that I had a "valid point", instead of just leaving it at that it just turns into 5 more paragraphs of other things to argue with me about. Is that really all that far off from just yelling at a feminist because she's there, even if/when she hasn't said anything objectionable?