The Media Blog

RSS

siryouarebeingmocked:

check-your-privilege-feminists:

So can we give a hand to all these celebrities speaking out against feminism? Because they’ve faced countless attacks for simply not wanting to associate with a hate group. It seems as though feminists believe that just because you’re a woman, you owe them something. Yet notice how none of these ladies say they are anti-woman. Yeah, that would be because you do not have to identify as a feminist to support women and equality… and you also certainly don’t owe selling yourself to the feminist movement. Especially because feminism really comes with so many negative connotations because it’s basically turned from a movement for equality into a glorified victim complex that promotes blatant sexism against men and advocates for special consideration and treatment towards women. Most people don’t oppose feminism because they oppose women or advocacy for women. They oppose it because of the harmful philosophies it perpetuates, like Patriarchy theory, and much of the harmful legislation that many feminists advocate for. And of course they probably oppose it because most feminists act like straight up jerks. I think Bjork said it pretty well, it’s more important to be doing positive stuff than complaining all the time.

So feminists, if you really still want people to join your movement, you better clean up your act. Because people right now see feminism for what it really is. And regardless of your dictionary definition of the term, actions speak far louder than words.

"Feminism is about women’s choices!"
>woman says some woman actually prefer traditional gender roles
>woman doesn’t think complaining is productive
>woman doesn’t believe in adverserial gender relations
"BURN THE WITCH!"

Of course, feminism’s reaction to things like this just pushes more people away from feminism. In fact, I’ve seen plenty of comments on articles where SJWs bleat “you don’t know what feminism is! Feminism is about equality!” without actually addressing the criticism.

The "yes means yes" campus sex law won’t turn everyone into a rapist

My comment: The fact that you have to defend this law is damning in and of itself. No one has to defend the fact that murder is illegal, or theft is illegal. The only laws that need defending in the court of public opinions are bad laws that should not exist in the first place. Stand your ground laws need defending, drug laws need defending, family and paternal laws need defending, and yes this law needs defending because it too should not exist in the first place.

Sexual assault does not happen as much as these legislators and schools are claiming it happens. Of course though it has to be said I am talking about REAL SEXUAL ASSAULT, not the redefined sexual assault where just by making someone who happens to have a vagina and tits attached to them “uncomfortable” is considered sexual assault. 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ “Violent Victimization of College Students” report tells a different and more plausible story about campus culture. During the years surveyed, 1995-2002, the DOJ found that there were six rapes or sexual assaults per thousand per year. Across the nation’s four million female college students, that comes to about one victim in forty students. Other DOJ statistics show that the overall rape rate is in sharp decline: since 1995, the estimated rate of female rape or sexual assault victimizations has decreased by about 60 percent.

Thus in the end this law and campus rules against sexual assault are not needed because in reality its a rarity for real sexual assault to take place on campus or anywhere for that matter. No matter what these fear-mongering feminists say, the numbers and data don’t lie. America’s crime rate for ALL CRIMES is DECREASING by the year. America is getting safer and safer by the day, yet people and groups with agendas will tell you otherwise.

Oct 9
hominishostilis:

more-equal:

cheshireinthemiddle:

spooky-applejack-n-batman:

Vice.Com can go fuck themselves.
Read the article yourself->:Note the explicit absence of the word rape.
THEY ACTUALLY MADE UP NEW WORDS TO DESCRIBE SEX SO THEY WOULDN’T HAVE TO USE THE WORD RAPE TO DESCRIBE WHAT A MAN DOES TO A GIRL.
(If the above picture makes you upset, but the article doesn’t, you need to reevaluate your priorities.)

This is why I need feminism

The irony here is that the person needing feminism clearly didn’t read the articleSeriously. Read the article. Just do it.

This post is a good representation of tumblr’s ability to do research before flipping out - read the article.

hominishostilis:

more-equal:

cheshireinthemiddle:

spooky-applejack-n-batman:

Vice.Com can go fuck themselves.

Read the article yourself->:Note the explicit absence of the word rape.

THEY ACTUALLY MADE UP NEW WORDS TO DESCRIBE SEX SO THEY WOULDN’T HAVE TO USE THE WORD RAPE TO DESCRIBE WHAT A MAN DOES TO A GIRL.

(If the above picture makes you upset, but the article doesn’t, you need to reevaluate your priorities.)

This is why I need feminism

The irony here is that the person needing feminism clearly didn’t read the article
Seriously. Read the article. Just do it.

This post is a good representation of tumblr’s ability to do research before flipping out - read the article.

Oct 9

raideo:

spookyelric:

sphynx-prince:

yungcoochie:

bankston:

goodreasonnews:

amazingatheist:

I’m so glad to see the younger generation waking up to this hypocrisy. 

The homeowner at 22 one is killing me.

…………………….

This meme makes me so angry because it’s so on-target.

I am screaming

this isn’t even funny to me it just makes me want to find the nearest baby boomer and deck them in the mouth

I reblog this every time because it always re-ignites my anger.

I feel you sphynx-prince.  

(Source: seriouslyamerica)

Oct 9
Accident on one of the busses  (at Gresham Central Transit Center)

Accident on one of the busses (at Gresham Central Transit Center)

Oct 9
I support ethics in gaming journalism, creative freedom and inclusiveness. I’m #GamerGate and #NotYourShield http://thndr.it/1CHmQ1N

I support ethics in gaming journalism, creative freedom and inclusiveness. I’m #GamerGate and #NotYourShield http://thndr.it/1CHmQ1N

Oct 8
The cooks at my work came up with the “kenden” burger because its “large and in charge”! ;)

The cooks at my work came up with the “kenden” burger because its “large and in charge”! ;)

Oct 5
My dog jack smiling

My dog jack smiling

Oct 3

feduptoinfinity:

draumbouy:

xoheart-on-her-sleeve:

draumbouy:

xoheart-on-her-sleeve:

ITS REALLY THAT SIMPLE MY GOD I DONT UNDERSTAND HOW PEOPLE ESPECIALLY WOMEN CAN SIT THERE AND SAY THEY ARENT FEMINISTS UGH

actually no it isn’t that simple.

Just because you believe in god doesn’t make you a Christian and just because you believe women are people doesn’t make you a feminist.

there is a list of reasons why people want to remove themselves from feminism and i think its more disgusting that instead of choosing to respect the decisions of women and men alike you get pissed at them and call them sexists for not joining your little vagina cult.

If you really want to know why people don’t like feminists you need only look in a mirror.

Actually yes it REALLLY is that simple.

If you believe women are people then what are you if not a feminist?

-someone who believes in equal rights hence that is what a feminist is.

Vagina cult? What even.
You are so ignorant. What do you mean by saying vagina cult please explain this term because you just tried to use it as an insult.

PLS EXPLAIN WHAT A VAGINA CULT IS ?

-is it a cult of women?
Because there are men who are also feminists.

If someone says something sexist OF CORSE IM GOING TO FUCKING CALL THEM OUT.

I am a feminist because I believe in equal rights for both sexes. Is there something wrong with this? Does this seem evil to you or something?

Ugh the ignorance will never end jfc educate yourself on gender equality.

It’s called feminism not misandry.

See you’re the reason why I’m.not a feminist. Youre dogmatic. You can’t accept that people don’t need labels to define themselves and you force your labels on them. If I had to entofy as anything I’d identify as an egalitarian : a person who believes that all people are created equal and deserve equal treatment. I’d take that label because it encompases more than just women. It encompases race, gender, nationality, sexuality ect.
I linked you to a list of the things feminist have done to halt and harm gender equality. They aren’t little bloggers like you. Theyre educated, certified, politically active feminists. They run the comitties and control the propoganda and they are horrible people. You can call yourself a feminist and join their movement but you need to know what you are supporting. And its clear that you don’t. Youve been dri king their kool aid for too long and that’s pretty obvious because you’re just spouting off the regular bullshit that feminists spout.
I will never call myself a feminist because I’ve actually researched it. I’ve seen feminist scholars and leaders and I don’t agree with their beliefs nor do i support their end goal.
Again believing women are people does not make me a feminist just like believing in god does not make me a christian. It just means I have a belief but I don’t have to join a cult to hold that belief and I certainly don’t have to label myself.
You’re a cult member. You’re a zealot. You’re crazy and you’re the reason why I’m not a feminist.
Now fuck off and stop telling people who they are and what they believe. Stop cramming your vagina worship down their throat. Stop being a shitty person.

No means no. Now stop trying to force a label on people who don’t want it.

(Source: roseytyler)

Oct 3

Men’s only groups = sexist, women’s only groups = necessary. So we are dealing with a double standard got it. Of course I am not surprised as double standards are the only standards feminists have anymore. (Standards for feminists = Men getting shafted while women get everything they want served on silver platter).

Oct 2

you know what really urks me about the whole "impossible body standards on women"? The fact that they are FAR from impossible. It is actually very easy for females to have what is considered attractive bodies, all they need is 15% body fat. but men, men aren't considered physically attractive below the neck unless they are closer to like 2% I have been working hard on that goal, and it isn't fair that at 15% I am unattractive, but some girl is. Fucking hell

Anonymous

it-goes-both-ways:

Whenever you see a very prominent six-pack, you’re looking at someone who has too little body fat. That fat layer in front of the rectus abdominis is supposed to be there. For men, below 5% body fat can be dangerous and can lead to fatigue, deficiencies, decrease in testosterone production and bone loss.

When feminists go on about unrealistic standards and body image and how men shouldn’t be allowed to have preferences, look at the men they often prefer (preferences suddenly ok again). When you see their male partners all having very prominent and defined muscles all over, and they say in the same breath that men don’t face any of these problems when they are themselves guilty of it.

Oct 2

(Source: androlphegax)

Oct 2
This is what i look like after a good shower. #selfie

This is what i look like after a good shower. #selfie

Oct 2

What is your view on the A Voice for Men website?

permutationofninjas:

lejacquelope:

feminismisahatemovement:

That’s actually a really good summation. I don’t find myself over there that often, but I like a lot of the people who contribute there, and it’s clearly made more headway and gotten more attention for men’s human rights than perhaps anything else in the history of the world. 

Paul Elam has his flaws but I very much admire what he has somewhat bull-headedly accomplished, and I can’t think of anyone else out there that would have had the courage and tenacity enough to have seen it through to this present point, in which just this week he single-handedly brought about the very first international conference on men’s issues.

Just to be clear before we start, we are not overly fond of AVfM.  It has its issues, and tone is only one of them.  Nonetheless, as far as we can tell a lot of the points that you’ve made really aren’t well-supported, and regardless of our feelings on AVfM we’re big on the whole “getting things right” business.  Additionally, let’s insert the usual obligatory note that we aren’t in fact MRAs, with PoN generally trending towards egalitarian.

As a men’s rights advocate I fear AVfM. Its founder Paul Elam says shit like he would acquit ALL men charged with rape - this is the kind of sensationalism I’d expect from radical feminists. Supposedly his reasoning is that rape charges deny men of due process - but to the same extent so does a murder charge when it comes to black men and who’s talking about acquitting all black men? Women have a less chance of being convicted for a crime and they spend less time in jail - who’s going to acquit all men in protest for that? This level of tantrum-throwing immaturity is bad news coming from a self-proclaimed “leader” of the movement.

That is simply not true.  In the case of race, the situation is largely the product of implicit biases on the part of police officers, lawyers, judges and jury members.  Rape trials, on the other hand, are also heavily affected by concrete alterations in law which treat rape cases differently from others.  If you’re unfamiliar with those differences, they’re outlined in slightly more detail here (US-specific).  Rape trials quite literally play by a very different set of rules than others, and depending on your point of view those differences may well amount to a denial of due process.  Really, the situation is closer to the racist laws of the 1800s than modern racial biases in the legal system (not that those aren’t serious, they are), with a host of special exceptions carved out for a particular crime in which virtually all of the accused are of particular gender.

Different rules for rape trials make things especially complicated because rape is by nature a difficult crime to prove, and cases often hinge on the credibility of those involved.  To give just one example, consider the issue of evidence exclusion laws.  As a juror, you have to make a decision based on your assessment of how credible the alleged victim, alleged perpetrator, and any witnesses (if there are any) seem to be.  How might those decisions be affected by the exclusion of a slew of (potentially relevant) evidence?  Given the misuse and overexpansion of modern exclusion laws, how can you know that relevant evidence, evidence that might change your decision, hasn’t been suppressed?  (For that matter, let’s not forget the incredible levels of well-documented prosecutorial misconduct.)  Knowing the overall situation, might it even be reasonable to conclude that such evidence may exist?

That’s the question Elam asks, and (as he elaborates in the much longer version of the explanation you linked) he finds that due to a multitude of factors the answer, for him, is “yes.”  The core of his argument is that the current system is so broken that it creates reasonable doubt (as in “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the standard for conviction) that some combination of incorrect exclusion, malfeasance, or other issues have combined to taint cases on a systemic and procedural basis.  In other words, no matter how clear-cut the evidence may seem, that simply isn’t enough when you know there’s a good chance you’re not seeing all of it and the bits you’re least likely to have seen are probably the most important.

Finally, it’s important to recognize that Elam isn’t actually suggesting that all rapists should be acquitted.  What he’s suggesting is termed “jury nullification,” a well-established (if somewhat unpopular) concept in law.  In the most colloquial terms, jury nullification occurs when the jury looks at the court and says “what the fuck is wrong with you people?”  Usually, this results from a consensus on the part of the jury that the law itself is unjust, or that it should not have been applied to the case in question.  One good example would be the case of Henry Morgentaler, an early pro-choice advocate who was tried multiple times for offering abortion services but acquitted by juries which felt the abortion prohibition was unjust; the resulting case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court and resulted in the legalization of abortion in Canada.  Elam’s grounds are slightly different, but the underlying concept is the same: he argues that the jury should look at the court and say “you fucked up, fix your shit and do it right next time.”  Would that result in some unjust acquittals?  Certainly.  How many?  That’s up to the politicians and the legal system, but we’d wager it’d be a lot less than ten times the number of unjust convictions it would eventually prevent.

Then there was the time a feminist said something objectionable and got BOMBARDED by angry MRAs and she waved the white flag saying mea culpa and that she understood where the MRAs were coming from. She came off looking like the moral 50 foot giant woman, and then here came Paul Elam, raging at her without any semblance of a provocation on her part. Then he waxes narcissistic and talks about all the men of the world who rely on him for support.

Not quite.  There are actually several articles on AVfM (yay Google-fu!) regarding the situation, which really explain the reaction better than we could.  First off, we have the post that started it all, in which Elam links to the original article by Karvunidis (now gone, though a copy is hosted by AVfM) and announces her addition to Register-Her (since overhauled, and she no longer has an entry).  Naturally, she ended up facing some pretty angry backlash and as a result posted the apology you mention here.

Your own reaction to all of this (linked to above) focused largely on a single, five-sentence comment left by Elam on the “apology” post, which you frankly misinterpret completely.  (We won’t get into the later section on demagoguery, as while there are some issues there too it’s a separate matter.)  What you didn’t incorporate into your response, despite that response coming literally years later, were any of the three much more in-depth explanations posted on AVfM which addressed virtually all of the things you brought up.  In fact, you even have one directly from from the mouth of Elam himself, which actually takes a much more conciliatory tone than the blurb you yourself referenced while providing background which makes the comment far more understandable.  Whether we agree with the position he took or not, we find ourselves hard-pressed to view that position as entirely unreasonable.

On top of that, there are two further writings from John Hembling (aka “John the Other”) which address specific responses to the situation.  The first elaborates on the issues with Karvunidis’ response, and while Hembling takes a rather angry tone which we aren’t going to defend, the words “damage control” ring true.  The second is particularly interesting because it better details how the situation came about in the first place, and in doing so helps to explain the anger present in other responses.

To summarize, she said something that was blatantly objectionable, then repeatedly ignored relatively gentle attempts to correct her.  Then, she got mobbed, and while she made a decent show of contrition she continued to face criticism because her public actions did not match up to her private words and her apology included more hedging than the average topiary garden.

Finally, there was this.

Frankly, this is almost the worst of the lot, because you get it mostly right but still manage to miss the core of the issue: when he says “I don’t care about female rape victims,” what he means is not “female rape victims don’t matter” or “female rape victims should not receive help,” what he’s saying is “female rape victims are not my priority right now, because I’m busy dealing with this other catastrophe.”  That’s not unreasonable: it doesn’t deny severity, nor does it imply that the issue shouldn’t be addressed.  At worst, he labels it as “not his problem.”

Compare that to the standard feminist line on virtually anything involving men, which frequently does all of the above at once.

And.. “Humanist Counter Theory”? There’s no humanism involved in AVfM. They are as one-sided as the feminists: feminists care about women, AVfM only cares about men’s issues. What did they have to say about the specific issue of Steubenville’s rapists bragging about their deed and only getting 2 years in jail? (Versus the hacker who outed them and got 5 years for hacking???) Nothing, from what I read of their site. This isn’t humanism, it’s protecting the interests of men, which isn’t wrong, but again, it isn’t humanism. Humanism is holding the line against both misogyny and misandry.

After the last three, this is refreshing: we agree, “humanist” is an odd choice of wording and inappropriate to the scope of advocacy.  Humanism is already a well-defined movement which centers primarily on issues of religion, spirituality and morality, has little to do with gender issues, and arguably predates both feminism and the MRM.

Your example, however, has a lot of problems.  The issue of the hacker’s treatment is a matter of computer and technology law, and while it’s complete bullshit has nothing whatsoever to do with gender.  There are a handful of similar high-profile cases (Aaron Swartz, Weev, etc.) which have raised similar issues, and the whole thing falls under the purview of a completely different set of movements.  As a result, the comparison was irrelevant.  The Steubenville case itself didn’t get much comment because there was really no controversy (the case was clear-cut and the system did its thing), and while the sentences given to the rapists may have been light, they’re also characteristic of the juvenile court system.  The judge himself even commented on this, stating that had they been adults they would be spending many years in prison.  The lenience they received may be a task for judicial reform activists, but there likewise isn’t all that much to label it a gender issue because there’s nothing to suggest that the lenience was specific to the crime of rape or the genders of the victim and perpetrators.

If you are solely for protecting the interests of men and you prefer to let feminists chase down misogyny - something I used to behave like when I first started this blog - then AVfM may be for you. Assuming, of course, you can ignore/tolerate the unnecessary extremism and the nauseating hint of “I am their savior” narcissism. But if you see misogyny and misandry as two sides of the same evil coin and you refuse to accept hypocritical shit like the Hobby Lobby decision or “rape babies are a gift from God” comments or self-confessed rapists getting only 2 years in jail, anymore than you tolerate paternity fraud, men being mocked for being victims of violent women, or feminists illegally halting men’s rights forums by pulling fire alarms, then AVfM is not for you. Men’s rights may not even be for you.

Like it or not, AVfM has been at the forefront of the MRM for a long time, and has played a huge role in the growing prominence of men’s issues in the mainstream discourse.  Are they extreme?  Sure, but looking at the overall climate they’ve had to deal with it’s difficult to call that extremism entirely unreasonably or even unnecessary.  It may be before your time, but the MRM tried doing things the nice way, the conciliatory way, as a group that wasn’t just affiliated with feminism but made up primarily of feminists.  Not only were their concerns ignored, they were actively attacked and pushed out of the feminist movement.  They got nowhere.

Being loud, inflammatory and even outright offensive worked.  It made waves, it got people thinking, and it made men’s issues visible in a way that other attempts simply did not manage to do.  They’ve done this despite ongoing attacks from both feminist and conservative fronts by opponents with vastly greater reach and resources.  Even today, AVfM is tiny in comparison to a whole slew of feminist organizations, many of which draw significantly on government grants and funds.  Can you blame them for doing the best they can with the resources they have?  For that matter, can you in good conscience chastise them for failing to provide adequate attention to (not opposing, mind you, simply not putting resources towards) the issues which the groups busy actively attacking them are supposed to be dealing with?

Even the examples you’ve given have issues, because while all of them involve gender none of them truly have their basis in gender issues.  The Hobby Lobby decision was, while abhorrent, the correct legal decision: if you want to blame something, blame the U.S.’s idiotic reverence for religion in the face of common sense.  Moronic senatorial comments go in the same pile.  For that matter, despite having intimately gendered effects abortion itself is still not fundamentally a gender issue, but a matter of religious bullshit mixed with scientific illiteracy.  (Remember, despite year-to-year fluctuations men and women tend to report pretty similar views on abortion, yet education and religious affiliation are highly predictive.)  Finally, as mentioned above, the phenomenon of juvenile offenders receiving disproportionately lenient or harsh sentences is by no means limited to rape, and falls largely under the purview of judicial reform activists.

permutationofninjas:

Our views on A Voice for Men are somewhat mixed.

AVfM is a very successful website, and just about as controversial.  Speaking generally, we’d say that AVfM can be a useful resource in some circumstances but should be approached with significant caution.  Some of their content is well-written, but other portions are questionable at best, and their tone is often tailored quite clearly to offend.  It’s definitely an important part of the MRM, acting as a central hub for MRAs to congregate and interact, but it’s certainly not where we’d want to send someone brand new to men’s issues or the MRM.

In practice, the debate on AVfM comes down to attitude.  Those who favor a more direct and aggressive form of advocacy tend to support it, as its style is by nature confrontational.  On the other hand, those who favor a more gentle and conciliatory form of advocacy tend to be far less comfortable with it, because despite their stance against violence they still make liberal use of an aggressive tone and inflammatory rhetoric.

While some would argue that AVfM represents an extremist position, we would largely reject the claim.  The writers of AVfM tend to represent a variety of perspectives, and the site has a number of rules and regulations that keep things about as peaceful as is feasible without resorting to outright censorship.  Likewise, many of the ideas presented are surprisingly moderate once one gets past the initial profanity shock.  AVfM may not be gentle, but it also does little to live up to the claims of its primary detractors, most of whom have resorted to a combination of tone arguments, blatant lying, and aggressive ignorance of the concept of satire.

In the end, A Voice for Men is probably the most influential MRA site existing today.  It gives the movement a general direction, uniting activists that otherwise would otherwise be entirely decentralized and powerless.  That, if nothing else, should be respected and applauded.

You may be better off exchanging your Men’s Rights card for an Egalitarianism card.

There’s nothing wrong with focus, so long as that focus doesn’t cause intersectionality to be overlooked.  AVfM might not be the most palatable group around, but even at its worst it usually doesn’t represent an obstacle in the overall fight for equality.