Originally Posted by Marx

I understood, perhaps incorrectly, that marriage originally was a religious acknowledgement/certifaction.

Yeah..well traditional marriage worked pretty well overall for thousands of years and all over the world.

All of the worst distortions have come in the last few decades and more are planned.

Originally Posted by Billy

You been playing Rome: Total War?

No... Read a book (an ancient and dying custom). However, I do own a Wii!

A Radical Profeminist said:

The Western white male-dominated world I've lived in my whole life does systematic sexualised violence (read: harm and hurt) to all groups of women and to men of color--because they are women and men of color.

A Western society sacrificially created and slavishly maintained by (mostly) white men, yet it's rules and benefits are dictated by an unfaltering adherence to gynocentric concerns at the detriment of it's disposable male population. Who is really dominating?

What form exactly does this "systemic sexualised violence" take?

Notice how I boldened the several references to "men of color" to highlight the absurdity of his claim of systemic sexualised violence. According to him not only women are being subject to this by white males on a industrial scale, but we're also subjecting men of color to it.

It's a classic example of, despite common sense, feminists laughably see themselves as having some affinity with black people - because they see the historical oppression of black people as being on a par with their own flimsily touted "supposed" oppression. Such is their selective ignorance, even the sexual improprieties of (some) black men is conveniently ignored in order to furnish political expediency.

What a quandary (or lost opportunity?) for feminists, if hypothetically western peoples evolved with a dark skin pigmentation. How would they 'identify' the "enemy" then?

Originally Posted by John Dias

Exactly. Far too often we fixate on the injustice of bad policies, when in fact we should be questioning the need for politicization itself. Families would probably be in much less danger of breakup if government policy didn't make divorce such an attractive proposition to at least one of the parties.

its not an attractive proposition--it's an award or compensation for being raped and beaten while married--er.... i mean they probably did have sex and she musta been forced into it

Nice analysis CD.

I would widdle it down to this though... he IS a man of color, that is why he adds that line.... yes?

TMOTS

He's updated:

http://radicalprofeminist.blogspot.c...as-who-is.html

A Response to John Dias who is an administrator at antimisandry.com

Hello visitors.

I recently got a flurry of misogynistic/antifeminist comments (um, unposted here by me, needless to say!) from men associated with the antimisandry.com site. I also got this much more respectful comment:

John Dias said...

I am an admin over at AntiMisandry.com. Are there any questions you would like to ask, rather than just making deductions? I extend my hand to you; please ask away.

Sunday, November 16, 2008 1:50:00 PM EST.

I informed John that, in fact, I HAD posted questions over there, and they were not responded to, but were instead by-passed so a few men could rant on in antifeminist and misogynist ways INSTEAD of responding. But I don't assume each administrator over there reads everything, so John may never have seen my q's.

Below is the paragraph I posted over there, with its original questions separated out, and in bold, so as not to be missed. I have welcomed John Dias to answer them here, respectfully and sincerely. I await his reply.

I began by responding to a strange comment by an anti-misandrist man called "cybro" in which he said something about "indians". But the discussion, on my end, was focused on whether and how misandry shows itself socially, and includes issues that negatively impact American Indian women. Anything in brackets is material I have added here today at A Radical Profeminist, hopefully for clarity!!!

OK, enough already! Here's the comment:

I think we all know what happened and is still happening to Indigenous people all over the planet: white men and our values, industries, and institutions are killing them, genocidally. And white men are also systematically raping Indigenous women. See this for more:http://www.indiancountry.com/content...1096415046

What is your humanitarian response to these atrocities?

In what institutions, in what social venues, in what regions of North America, in your view, do "women rule over men"? I am eager to hear your answer.

As for where men get to speak like this: have you looked at the pornography industry in the last thirty five years; men have been putting down women there in every conceivable way, degrading women, raping women, pretending to rape women, cumming on women's faces, gang-banging women, treating women of color like sh*t in particularly racist and misogynist ways.

[So, John, I'll restate the question: Are you familiar with the content of online industry-produced "heterosexual" pornography? And would you describe the content as misogynist, not misandrist, unless it is dealing with the stereotypical portrayal and abuse of men of color?]

Often and routinely over these many years, the pornographers (I'm here I'm talking about the big fellas: the white corporate pimps, not someone at home alone or with a partner using their webcam) make feminists and feminism the targets of this scorn, contempt, and defamation: that's a multi-billion dollar a year industry.

I ask this in earnestness: can you name for me one multi-billion dollar a year industry that promotes (accurately) the perspectives of radical feminists?
Because I can't, and I've looked.

Practically every woman I know has been seriously harmed physically, emotionally, and sexually by a man or by several men, often within their own families of origin: I'm not a youngster, and this means dozens and dozens of women, just those women to whom I am personally connected. One woman friend was molested by three different men over one summer when she was nine years old. Another woman was raped by her father, older brothers, and male cousins when she was a girl. My female dental hygienist was murdered by her ex-boyfriend; he came to her home when she was alone and killed her. I also know boys who have been raped or molested or assaulted by men: again, their numbers are in the dozens, but approximately half as large as the population of females harmed by men in these ways.

Do you know even five women who have been charged with rape, incest, child molestation, criminal battery, women who have detained boys or men in their basements as sexual slaves, women who have trafficked in boys and men for the purposes of sexual gratification, at the expense of the humanity of those so used and abused?

I see men treat one another like sh*t often, beating each other up outside of bars, shouting and threatening each other: white men threatening and discriminating against men of color; heterosexual men bullying and beating gay men.

I'm curious why you don't see men as a significant population of man-haters. [That's a question.]

I honestly (I'm being entirely serious here) know of not one single woman who hates men. Not one. I know women who fear men, based on past experiences; I know women who fight for justice for women, for women to be free from rapist culture, from pornographic culture, from a dominant culture in which Indigenous North American women can be raped by white men without any recourse. I can't "reverse" this phenomenon and match it to reality.

Could you name the social experiences, on a large scale, that lead you to see the world this way?

Regarding your use of the term "feminazi": Given social-political reality, aren't white men "the Nazis," and women of all ethnicities more like "European Jews" than the other way around?

In what sense do feminists in North America control the media, run state police forces, direct the military, and form an unfathomably inhumane dictatorship, as Hitler did?

What sense does it make to call any feminists "Nazis"? Please explain this to me. (Thank you.)

How have you been harmed, personally, by women?

I look forward to your response. Thanks for engaging on this topic. I appreciate your willingness to keep the dialogue open.

Julian

[NOTE: the above was posted on July 24, 2008 11:13 AM at antimisandry.com. John never responded to me there. There were no extended hands... until now.]

I left the below message, which is moderated... Wonder if it'll come up?

Hi ARPF,

You say you have posted these to antimisandry.com but a quick search I did came up empty handed...

Could you please supply a direct link to where you posted these questions?

I've done a search for :
"can you name for me one multi-billion dollar a year industry that promotes (accurately) the perspectives of" and found no posts from July.

I then searched for :
"Are you familiar with the content of online industry-produced "heterosexual" pornography?" this also came up empty results (aside from this very thread)

Then I searched for :
"Regarding your use of the term "feminazi": Given social-political reality, aren't white men "the Nazis," and women of all ethnicities more like "European Jews" than the other way around?" which had three results, this thread, one started by frostyboy (aug 08) and one by Kim (aug 08).

I've used the same quotes he claims to have left here in July 08, and cannot locate any. I'm begining to suspect he's talking out his ass.

"""How have you been harmed, personally, by women""

there is a whole nation of men in the Western world that have been

these men have been processed by the feminit Family Courts set up by feminits and manginas in the last forty years

the hearings are in camera ( justice is to be done and seen to be done)

in Australia any publication that publishes details of the Family Court deliberations has committed a criminal offence

that is secrecy is institutionalised in statues ( star chamber)

wimmin typically get the issue kids matrimonial assets of the marriage and in Australia maintenance organised by the Australian CSA

men typically get the shaft

so it is clear that men are harmed by wimmin bigtime it is chronic and endemic in Austalia

Classic anus gazing from a top mangina..

What a pitiful creature he is.

Originally Posted by Marx

I've used the same quotes he claims to have left here in July 08, and cannot locate any. I'm begining to suspect he's talking out his ass.

It turns out that Kim made a post in July, which quoted a comment that Julian made on another blog:
Another Women's Studies Major

Here's where Julian actually made his original post:
http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/200...90098919292294

So as far as I can tell, he never actually registered as a user and started a thread. He was quoted by one of us, and as a quoted person, he thinks that we owe him answers to his quoted questions.

Originally Posted by John Dias

It turns out that Kim made a post in July, which quoted a comment that Julian made on another blog:
Another Women's Studies Major

Here's where Julian actually made his original post:
http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/200...90098919292294

So as far as I can tell, he never actually registered as a user and started a thread. He was quoted by one of us, and as a quoted person, he thinks that we owe him answers to his quoted questions.

Ahh - well, you see, when he wrote, "the above was posted on July 24, 2008 11:13 AM at antimisandry.com.", it suggests he posted it. Usually a person would state directly if they were quoted vs personally posted.

Since he dedicated a post specifically to letting me give our side of the story, I posted the following comment on his blog today.

- - - - - - - - -

I did a search on AntiMisandry, and found a post in which you were quoted. The quote was taken from a comment that you left on a post at the blog of Rex Patriarch. That post on Rex Patriarch was written in response to a Washington Times article entitled, "Calling for truce in War of the Sexes," which is a book review of "Save the Males: Why Men Matter, Why Women Should Care" by Kathleen Parker.

So it seems that this is the chronology:

1. Kathleen Parker writes a pro-male book, entitled "Save the Males," in 2008.

2. Washington Times columnist Larry Thornberry writes a column on July 20, 2008, which is favorable to Parker's pro-male book.

3. Cybro, owner of the Rex Patriarch MRA-oriented blog, quotes liberally from the Washington Times article, using the quotes to illustrate how radical feminism has unjustly demonized innocent boys and men for the actions of a few.

4. Julianreal (you) comments on Cybro's blog posting on July 24, 2008, and is subsequently and summarily dismissed by Cybro as a feminist ideologue and likely women's studies graduate.

5. Kim, a pro-male female blogger who is also a member at AntiMisandry.com, creates a thread that quotes from and lambastes Julianreal's comment on the Rex Patriarch blog post.

6. Julianreal creates a post on his blog entitled, "Antimisandry.com: An Introduction," dated November 12, 2008. The post seems to be critical of the MRA-oriented site AntiMisandry.com. However, Julianreal cites no examples of objectionable content on AntiMisandry.com, and instead links to

• several
• other
• Web
• sites.

Athough the title of Julianreal's article is "Antimisandry.com: An introduction," not one example is provided of writing on the site. The only links provided to the site pertain to the average age and full listing of the site's membership. What is critiqued is the general outlook of the site: AntiMisandry.com opposes misandry (the teaching of contempt for males in popular culture). The theme of Julianreal's post concedes that it's possible that wrong can be done to men, and that when it happens it's wrong.

7. I, John Dias, respond with a comment on that same day (November 12, 2008), inviting Julianreal to ask me any questions.

8. On November 19, Julianreal creates this post, offers me the opportunity to comment on the question that he believes he posed back in July to the community at AntiMisandry.com.

So here I am. As you can see by the above chronology, your post was not made on AntiMisandry.com, but rather on the blog of Rex Patriarch. You made a comment in response to a blog posting that was in response to a book review that was in response to a book. None of this had anything remotely to do with AntiMisandry.com. So let's be clear on that: you were not ignored, nor mistreated.

So these questions that you would now have me answer were not even directed to our site. Nevertheless, since you've given me the opportunity to represent AntiMisandry.com and our outlook, I'm happy to do so.

Your comment referred to an article on the IndianCountry.com Web site, entitled, "Sexual violence against indigenous women discussed at United Nations," published May 18, 2007. The link to the article that you originally cited no longer works, but I dug up the article via Archive.org.

Before I begin responding to your questions, I would like to comment on the above article which you used as their basis:

"Beverly Jacobs...said the well-being of [indigenous] communities depends on the well-being of women."

I would say that the greater issue is that the well-being of any community depends on the preservation of the intact 2-parent family, preferably in a close-knit community of families, in which the natural abilities of women to nurture the members of the family are complemented by the abilities of men to nurture that family's survival. Here's a YouTube video that illustrates this perspective eloquently:

Pt. 6: Introduction to Patriarchy
By Elder George

I believe that a community of families as described above is nurturing and healthy, because it is made safe and secure (by the men) and its members are nurtured (by the women). It is governments which disrupt this delicate and natural balance, but not just governments. Cultural decay can do it too. The intact 2-parent family can mitigate the impact of anti-family influences, but a 1-parent mother-only family cannot do it alone, at least not as effectively.

"Where I come from is a matriarchal, matrilineal society where the women in our communities are the backbone of our communities, and when we have healthy women we have healthy nations and healthy communities. I think it's a very critical situation that we're in right now. Women in our societies are saying, 'That's enough, that's enough, that's it, and what are we going to do about it?'" Jacobs said.

Again, I point you to the video below, which extols the value of ensuring the safety of women, but emphasizes that men will be most motivated to do this when women in turn nurture the men and the family. The security provided to women by men means that such men are putting their lives on the line for those who they love. Hatred of men, and sidelining male influence in the family and culture, only breaks down the family, hence leaving women more vulnerable:

Pt. 6: Introduction to Patriarchy
By Elder George

"Where I come from there is no word for sexual violence, there is no word for sexual assault, so it has to be a created word to understand what it is. It's something we need to think about and know this is occurring across the world," Jacobs added.

Oh, please. Like her culture has absolutely no concept of women being raped. Who is responsible for the raping, then, if indigenous peoples simply have no concept of it? Why of course, the Western white males! Never mind that Ghenkis Khan, a member of a Mongol tribe (indigenous, I'd say), is famous for lopping of the heads of his vanquished and stacking them in huge piles. He must not have gotten the memo on the inherent peacefulness of indigenous people who hadn't yet been subdued by the Western hordes.

Now, on to your questions.

"What is your humanitarian response to these atrocities?" [the atrocities being, of course, "white men systematically raping Indigenous women"]

I suppose that you expect me to tell you that we need a halt to Western industrial colonialism, or some such left-wing ideology. I will simply say that we need a restoration of intact 2-parent families, and from that will come both personal security as well as an increase in personal modesty. The family is the answer, and hyper-industrialization along with hyper-consumerism does tend to turn our culture in a somewhat narcissistic direction, in my view. That's why innocent people (not just indigenous peoples) are hurting -- from violence, yes, but also from loneliness, isolation, and poor substitutes for group-belonging (gangs, etc.).

"In what institutions, in what social venues, in what regions of North America, in your view, do 'women rule over men?'"

In schools, women comprise the vast majority of teachers. Normal behavior by boys is misinterpreted by these women as disruptive, and as a result, boys are falling behind in academic achievement. Colleges now have a major gender gap between female and male graduates, which I believe is partly due to the female-dominated education that boys have been subjected to throughout elementary and primary school.

The point of your question seems to be that female domination is not possible if females are not actually making the decisions, and occupying the positions of political and financial power. You probably won't agree with this, but elected leaders place a lot of value on not offending the female electorate. The business world also recognizes the spending power of women and caters to win their business. So you can see that women are more than capable of exerting their influence via proxy.

"Are you familiar with the content of online industry-produced 'heterosexual' pornography? And would you describe the content as misogynist, not misandrist, unless it is dealing with the stereotypical portrayal and abuse of men of color?"

Whether it is stereotypical or not, it is a business, and to the extent that the participants are engaged voluntarily, on what basis would you limit it? Sure it's degrading, but it's degrading to humanity. If women are portrayed in pornography as sexual objects, certainly the men in such videos are unfairly "representing" men too.

What demonstrates a cultural sickness is not the existence of pornography, but rather the demand for it. If men and women were able to unite outside the influence of a hyper-sexualized culture, their sexual needs would be met. Pornography exists because men, who are expected to initiate romantic relations, are mocked for their failed attempts at romance (at one extreme) or are vilified as potential rapists (on the other extreme). So, facing such suppression and demonization of male sexuality, such men turn to artificial means of getting their rocks off. In the process, they run the risk of associating women in general with the women they see portrayed in pornographic material.

Here's a suggestion: let's stop painting manhood and masculinity as irrelevant at best, and threatening at worst. Let's celebrate men and manhood for a change, rather than making men out to be abject fools. If manhood is just a continuum of "affable doofus" on one extreme and "competent menace" on the other extreme, our boys won't have much positive to look forward to. Porn is a symptom of the problem of misandry. In summary, misogyny is the effect of porn, but misandry causes the demand.

"Can you name for me one multi-billion dollar a year industry that promotes (accurately) the perspectives of radical feminists?

The family courts, family court mediators, family court psych evaluators, child protective services, divorce attorneys, trial lawyers... And those are just dealing with the legal sphere. Then there are the media mavens and their sponsors, with their misandric portrayals of men. Where do we see realistic and plausible men portrayed as heroes, providers, protectors, competent, and yes, sexual (in a positive way)? This is rare. It's the result of decision makers in powerful positions (political, judicial, cultural, financial, and commercial), all reducing human beings -- BOTH men and women -- into caricatures and commodities.

Despite the fact that men compose 38 percent of all domestic violence injuries, there are no shelters devoted to men. Despite the fact that a significant body of research reveals that men suffer from domestic violence at similar rates to women, little attention is devoted to this fact (you'd think acknowledgment of male-victimization would be higher, since more men than women are elected officials). And of course, we have men being 98 percent of war dead, plus a requirement that only men must register for the draft (women are exempt, although Obama has indicated a willingness to change this). Men comprise over 90 percent of work-related injuries. But we have no "Office of Men's Health." Do you see how men's pain is being ignored, or merely acknowledged as a part of being a man? I have a son, and I'll be damned before I have to tell him that he's in for domestic violence, work-related injury, and eventually being a war casualty all because that's just what it means for a boy to become a man. Forget that!

Anti-misandrists are trying to highlight the negative effects of the above phenomenon on men. That's not to say that we intend to ignore female suffering. But someone has to be a voice for the pain that men feel, and the cultural isolation that we experience. We are that voice.

"Practically every woman I know has been seriously harmed physically, emotionally, and sexually by a man or by several men, often within their own families of origin... Do you know even five women who have been charged with rape, incest, child molestation, criminal battery, women who have detained boys or men in their basements as sexual slaves, women who have trafficked in boys and men for the purposes of sexual gratification, at the expense of the humanity of those so used and abused?"

No, I don't know that many female victims of such crimes. I guess those atrocities must not be so widespread as you suggested, since I haven't encountered as many victims as you have. Perhaps your ideology has helped you to seek them out, or perhaps they seek you out. Or perhaps, you don't really know the whole story. Or maybe, in particular cases, there never was an atrocity.

I would surmise that you woke up one morning and decided to hug the entire oppressed world, and noticing the world's ambivalence, you can't figure out why they are not joining with you in the worldwide hug- and cry-fest. You conclude that they're reinforcing the oppression.

You have fallen victim to an ideology.

"I'm curious why you don't see men as a significant population of man-haters."

Oh, I do! I very much do! I referred earlier to men in power placing high emphasis on pleasing the female electorate and female consumers, giving women influence-by-proxy. But let's take a much less conceptual example. See what kind of reaction you get if you talk in mixed company about a man who has been beaten by his wife. What kind of reaction will you get from your male listeners? The answer is that a significant portion of them will scoff, calling such a man either a wimp, or a tyrant who somehow deserved it.

Male pain is not a politically correct subject. We must always go back to the continuum of men as either affable-yet-impotent, or potent-yet-menacing. Nowhere can male pain simply be acknowledged.

Here's another short video. It's only 5 minutes, but I encourage you to watch it. Please reply with YOUR reaction to it:

"Men's Issues" video
Boy's and the Boy Crisis Conference, July 13-14, 2007
http://www.trueequality.com/video.html

"I honestly (I'm being entirely serious here) know of not one single woman who hates men. Not one."

It seems that you are concluding that women don't hate men, and that if they are hostile, it's a reaction to the male-imposed victimization that they have endured. Again with the ideology.

"Could you name the social experiences, on a large scale, that lead you to see the world this way?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "social experiences." At first I thought you wanted me to cite personal experiences, but you want the "large scale." I believe that I have provided some examples above. Especially the "Men's Issues" video.

I can give you a glimpse into what catalyzed me personally to get involved in the men's movement. I have a Web site of my own, apart from AntiMisandry.com, and on that site I tell my story. Take a look at where I'm coming from. Also, if you're interested, here are some other men's stories. We are unhappy, some of us angry, about the way men have been treated in our culture and under our laws. Have the courage to acknowledge our perspective, and don't think that doing so is to invalidate women's pain.

"Regarding your use of the term 'feminazi': Given social-political reality, aren't white men 'the Nazis,' and women of all ethnicities more like 'European Jews,' [rather] than the other way around?"

"Aren't white men the Nazis?" Are you serious? Don't ask a question like this -- especially in a rhetorical way (thinking that the obvious answer is to agree with your ideology) -- and expect me to proffer a dignifying response.

Next question.

"In what sense do feminists in North America control the media, run state police forces, direct the military, and form an unfathomably inhumane dictatorship, as Hitler did?

"What sense does it make to call any feminists 'Nazis?'"

More about the "feminazi" word. I don't use that word, but I know some who do, and their use of the term refers to those feminists who are ideologically hostile to men as a biological group.

"How have you been harmed, personally, by women?"

Well, like I linked to earlier, I was falsely accused.

Then there was the year-long mind-washing program that I was required to take after accepting a plea bargain for my Ex's false allegation.

But that's not all. Last year, I learned that my Ex (who shares child custody with me) was dealing drugs out of her home, and letting the drug dealer live with her and spank my son. I learned that her plan was not to report on him, but rather kidnap our son and move off to another state, on the pretext that it was all a "vacation." I brought this to the attention of Child Protective Services (CPS), the police department, the Sheriff department, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, all of whom refused to take a report (except CPS, who said that if they did take a report, they would remove my son not just from his mom's home, but also from mine). Finally I took the case to a judge in an ex-parte hearing. He told my son's mother to stay away from drugs and to keep our son in town. But that was it. He referred the case to family court, and washed his hands of it. A couple days later, my Ex falsely accused me of threatening her, and sought a restraining order. I hired an attorney for thousands of dollars, then weeks later, on the day of the hearing for the restraining order, my Ex didn't even show up. The female judge dismissed the case, shaking her head. I had spent thousands of dollars in my defense, and all of this (the false allegation) was simply a way for my Ex to deflect attention from the drug dealing that she had been involved in. All that drama was for nothing, and I was out thousands of dollars in attorney fees for it. I was trying to protect our son, and I paid dearly for it.

These types of incidents are very common in divorce and child custody proceedings. Where the court steps in, the delicate bonds that exist between fathers and kids are disturbed, and often completely cut off. Mothers are connected to their kids through child birth. But fathers are connected to their kids only by their emotional commitment; they could have impregnated the mother and then vanished. But sticking around is a noble decision, and even when fathers want to remain involved with their kids after a divorce, the family court treats the father's involvement as superfluous. "Just pay that child support check," the court tells fathers, "and you can have dinner with your kids a couple times a month. Oh, and don't complain about it either." When sole child custody is contested, over 90 percent of the time the family court awards it to the mother. This is devastating to both fathers and children, in my view. And the motivation for judges to make such rulings is misandry, which we identify and combat, at AntiMisandry.com and other places.

Well, I hope this answers your question. I ran down the links you provided, read through not only that article on IndianCountry.com, but also read through various other articles on the site that the article linked to, IndigenousWomensForum.org. This included declarations they submitted to the United Nations, such as this one, this one, and this one. I read them all, to get a good understanding of where you're coming from. Now I challenge you to do the same.

Take a look at all the links and videos that I have referenced in this reply (especially the videos on Men's Issues and Patriarchy. Do some research on my position, as I did on yours. Look into what we opponents of misandry believe. You don't necessarily have to agree with it, but I challenge you to look.

Why does the board convert my text links into YouTube movies, and also adds Amazon.com icons next to my links that point there? It screws up the formatting.