SPLC attacks MRM. Again.

**Iron John** · 4th-August-2012

I guess our objection to male disposability has ruffled a few feathers at the SPLC. They are really riled up about men being concerned about the value of their OWN lives. How dare we not DIE on command like we are supposed to for the benefit of others more important than us! SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!!!

Men

Men’s Rights Activists Disdain Men’s Sacrifice in Colorado Shooting

Posted in Anti-Woman by Arthur Goldwag on August 3, 2012

For most Americans, the recent mass murder in Aurora, Colo., was an unspeakable human tragedy; if the story had any political dimension at all, it was guns and gun control (or the lack thereof). But for a vocal few in the misogynistic online world of “men’s rights” — and no, not all men’s rights activists are woman-haters — the takeaway was the evil of “male disposability.”

In the first few days after the shooting, a number of mainstream news venues, eager to find something uplifting to report on, focused on the heroism of some of the victims. “Three survivors of the Colorado movie-theater massacre escaped with minor wounds, but were left with broken hearts because their heroic boyfriends died saving them,” as The NY Daily News put it. “In final acts of valor, Jon Blunk, Matt McQuinn and Alex Teves used their bodies to shield their girlfriends as accused madman James Holmes turned the Aurora Cineplex into a shooting gallery.”

Less sentimental was The Wall Street Journals’ James Taranto, who, on July 24, let loose with this astonishingly sour and unchivalrous tweet: “I hope the girls whose boyfriends died to save them were worthy of the sacrifice.” Twenty-four hours later, after a deluge of negative comments appeared on his blog, he took down the tweet and issued an apology, in which he tortuously explained that he had merely been expressing his wish that the women would use “the gift of their survival well **–* to live good, full, happy lives.”

Taranto’s faux pas wouldn’t have even borne notice at A Voice for Men, one of the men’s rights websites the SPLC wrote about in the Intelligence Report last spring.

Under the headline “Three Cheers for Three Male Corpses. Heroes,” “John the Other,” identified as the site’s managing editor, explained that those so-called heroes were merely victims of their biology (males are hard-wired to protect females) and social conditioning (which tells men, as John the Other explained, that “in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat. They matter more than you. Your best and most honorable path ends in you on a slab in the basement of your city’s morgue”). Their sacrifice, he concluded, was merely a victory for misandry, the principled hatred of males. Had they not died, he added, “the preening, strutting, amoral whores of the mainstream media” would have described “them as cowards and shirkers; failed men for not doing their manly duty by dying for the convenience of others.” (Interestingly enough, one man who did flee the theater, leaving his wounded girlfriend and their two children behind—and then proposed to her hours later in the hospital—cut a wide swath through the talk show circuit.)

Over at the Spearhead, another site highlighted in the Intelligence Report, W.F. Price unleashed his ire on William Bennett, who, in an essay at CNN.com, had not only deigned to attribute the men’s actions to a code of honor, but cited a Slate essay by Hanna Rosin, the author of The End of Men. “Bennett gets it totally wrong on a number of points, which is about what you’d expect from a guy who relies on feminists to divine the motivations of young men,” Price complained. “They were solid men; the kind that families and communities have always relied on when the going gets tough. It wasn’t because they held some belief or political position, it was because they were men that they acted as they did. It is simply what men do, and that’s why they deserve honor, which Bennett is incapable of bestowing on anyone. No, instead of honoring these men, Bennett continues to measure them according to their utility to women.”

The Pigman, a self-described left-wing men’s rights activist, saw the lionization of the three men as so much propagandizing for “male disposability.”

“Cheering these men’s actions is as reprehensible as it is stupid and discriminatory,” The Pigman wrote. “Imagine if this was a cinema where roughly 50% of the patrons were black and the other 50% white, then imagine that everyone who decided to act as someone else’s bullet-proof vest just happened to be black and everyone who benefited from their sacrifice just happened to be white. Anyone with any sense would be thinking, ‘Well, this is clearly a society that teaches both blacks and whites that white people are worth more than black people.’ But because the disparity runs against not a politically protected group but against a group that enjoys neither the protection of the Right nor the victim status granted by the Left, not only does no one complain – they actually encourage the continuation of such disparity by praising the men who were foolish enough and unfortunate enough to fall for a lifetime of anti-male propaganda telling them to die for the nearest woman whenever the shit hits the fan.”

The feminist website Manboobz has collected these and many other gender-centric takes on the shootings, here, here and here.

**Yan Yan** · 4th-August-2012

A nice piece of media research from Iron John. Many thanks.

What I don't get is this; Although the rising tide of male rentment grows ever higher and stronger, the feminist dam still stands firm.

I suspect it's because business, the media and male politicians have grown accustomed to look to feminism for their very survival.

The tipping point will only come when they realize that they're backing the losing side.

The groundswell is now well established. How do we bust this fragile dam?

**Rof L Mao Esq** · 4th-August-2012

We won't.

We claim the higher ground until it crumbles of its own lack of structural integrity, or dries up for lack of inflow from upstream.

And, either way, as human beings, go down and help the survivors. They'll need it.

As far as this media circus goes, let's just hope anyone with a shred of adulthood won't alter for the worse the way they make decisions about any of their fellow humans in need, crisis or otherwise, on the basis of ideologically opportunistic bloggery in the wake of tragedy.

**The Possible Human** · 4th-August-2012

Dams tend to fail when a small leak over time eats away at the structure. What was a small drip becomes a stream of water, then a jet of pressurized water tearing away at the earth and concrete. The MRM can break the dam by constant and unabated pressure, adding members to our cause and making ordinary people question the dogma of feminism.

Like any religion, feminism has it's zealots, close adherants, pious belivers, and those who just associate themselves with the religion because everyone else is doing it. Every religion and social movement carries the seed of it's own destruction. The seed starts to grow when the fertilizer of dogmatic thought is spread thickly. Rational individuals begin to ask "Why?" and then the light of truth begins to shine on the tiny seedling giving it the means to grow.

Feminism will come to an end at some point in time because the zealots will have turned it into a pure hate movement. Hatred can only remain powerful as long as their are people willing to feed it. Sooner or later, people just get sick of the constant stream of negativity and hatred and look to something or someone else.

Politicians support feminism because it keeps them in power. What the feminists don't see is the very nature of the beast they feed and keep in power. While they get some benefit from the beast, they will become the next item on the dinner table when their usefulness is done. Nature abhors vacuums and imbalance and that vast power is a self correcting mechanism.

**Zuberi** · 4th-August-2012

Quote from The Possible Human

Feminism will come to an end at some point in time because the zealots will have turned it into a pure hate movement. Hatred can only remain powerful as long as their are people willing to feed it. Sooner or later, people just get sick of the constant stream of negativity and hatred and look to something or someone else.

Feminism was a hate movement from the very beginning.
The pioneers of feminism were members of the KluKluxKlan, remember?
If anything, feminism is defeating itself since "big sister" can't force women to marry before having kids nor stop women from utterly destroying themselves while chasing an illusion.

**Rof L Mao Esq** · 4th-August-2012

I don't know, guys. Having feminism crosshaired like some high-value target package seems like a big distraction from the everyday business of just being men, and our objection to its tenets doesn't just grant some historically corrective license to dedicate our lives and resources to destroying it for destroying it's sake.

Over the last five thousand years or so a lot of people and peoples have set themselves to eliminating the phenomenon of folks going ahead and being Jewish, and one after another those cultures collapsed as Judaism rose again and again from their ashes.

This business of feminism, feminine supremism, whatever we want to term it, has its roots and reasons in history, just as socialism, religious separatism, capitalism, any attempt to engineer an environment to a special-interest set of values, all have their life span, and even the opposition they face and their eventual destruction should it occur has more to do with the weaknesses built in to the system than some concerted attempt to destroy it.

Of course there are extreme examples that refute this thesis too. If we want to cross the Rhine and go marching through the Reich killing and capturing and destroying, there is that model to respond to in history. But, and this is no small thing, I don't see in the rhetoric or activities of the men's rights phenomenon any kind of a Marshall Plan for dealing with the aftermath of such an apocalyptic undertaking.

And, I just don't see the need. This feminism thing will die a merciful death of irrelevant senility, at the hands of tomorrow's young women. It turns out, plenty of young men and young women like what they see as traditional gender roles just fine, and will raise kids to be same way, and single parenthood as some sort of separatist political statement or folk heroine status will lose any brief shine it may enjoy for another few election cycles. What we are doing to oppose it now is somewhere between enduring injustices and surviving until their eventual obsolescence, to await other forms of injustice still unpredicted, that women and men will form strong alliances to oppose, and life goes on. Ratchet this effort by men to right the wrongs up to a full-scale assault now, and like all wars, there will be no winners, and the outcome even of unconditional surrender will bear little connection to the reasons for the campaign in the first place.

In other words, this stuff is fun to write and debate about, and now and then I think each of us makes a difference, or even all of us together already are the difference, but....

Ain't gonna study war no more, brothers, and when you're talkin' about destruction, don't you know that you can count me out?

**Iron John** · 4th-August-2012

Quote from Yan Yan

A nice piece of media research from Iron John. Many thanks.

In all fairness, it was Benard Chapin who found it. I just watched his video and reposted it because I knew it was important. You can watch it here:

**Celtic Druid** · 5th-August-2012

Quote from dinohip51

I don't know, guys. Having feminism crosshaired like some high-value target package seems like a big distraction from the everyday business of just being men, and our objection to its tenets doesn't just grant some historically corrective license to dedicate our lives and resources to destroying it for destroying it's sake.

Correction, destroying feminism and it's adherents is the everyday business of a committed MRA. I very much disagree about the irrelevance of feminisms influence. I want every influential feminist (metaphorically) beheaded. I'm not about to get lazy or feel soft for an enemy that sought ill of me and my fellow males for so long across the social divide and caused so much personal destruction. Every one of them must be punished no matter how long it takes (man or woman).

This business of feminism, feminine supremism, whatever we want to term it, has its roots and reasons in history, just as socialism, religious separatism, capitalism, any attempt to engineer an environment to a special-interest set of values, all have their life span, and even the opposition they face and their eventual destruction should it occur has more to do with the weaknesses built in to the system than some concerted attempt to destroy it.

You're argument doesn't make any sense only that what is bad might eventually be punished. I want absolute certainties where tax-paying individuals are concerned and those who transgress common law.

And, I just don't see the need. This feminism thing will die a merciful death of irrelevant senility, at the hands of tomorrow's young women.

Are you aware feminism (1st world) has been around since 1848 (birthed from Marxism)? Yes, the dates shock many.

Fine, so let's speed things along.

Bottom line, feminism isn't something to accept or work with, it's either destroyed, or you are as an individual!

**FloatyBoaty** · 6th-August-2012

Quote from Celtic Druid

Bottom line, feminism isn't something to accept or work with, it's either destroyed, or you are as an individual!

Right on.

**That Nordic Guy** · 6th-August-2012

You know. I have to say I'm at odds with myself when it comes to Chivalry. I have no problem being a Chivalrous knight for a woman. But she damn well be a princess worth it. I won't throw my life away for gutter tramps. I actually enjoy the protector role. But I have to be needed to protect. I won't just go out of my way.

**shaazam** · 6th-August-2012

I treat feminitism as a living lie and all lies poison those in contact with it

**Nikonian** · 6th-August-2012

It is funny how groups like the SPLC never cite remotely reasonable sites on MRA's like the GMP but only the full anti MRA site Manboobs. In fact they don't even cite AVFM or any sites like it directly but merely through the man with boobs...

They missed the whole point anyway. Mra's aren't angry that a man "stepped up" and saved a woman. They are angry that it is expected of them and that society sees them less valuable than women and uses chivalry as an excuse. I should have just as much of a right to live as the woman next to me (of course society sees me as an object/utility so it doesn't matter)