Freshened up and fruity Friday open thread


Lots of new visitors around the blog this week, so if you are lurking do say hello and tell us what’s on your mind.

A few things have caught my attention of late which could have had a post to themselves had I had time. 

I really liked Dan Bell’s piece about men’s violence against men in the Telegraph today. Probably not surprising, as it leans quite heavily on the piece of mine that appears in the new Inside Man book, which you can, and indeed must, buy from here. Dan and a couple of other contributors were on BBC 5Live on Monday and the discussion was really unusually good. Listen again here – if you are short of time, the last half hour is the best bit.

Laura Bates’s Everyday Sexism column today pointed me towards the consent materials being delivered at the University of Bristol by an outfit called Pause, Play, Stop. I had a bit of a shufty around their website and found to my delight and astonishment that all of their information, including a ‘test’ of your knowledge of consent, was entirely non-specific. Their ‘facts’ video included prevalences of men who have been subjected to unwanted sexual contact. In short, it was pretty much an object lesson in everything I and others have been calling for over the years.

Talking of consent, there’s a court case in New Jersey that seems to have been rumbling on years, and it blows my mind. A professor is accused of sexually abusing a young man with severe learning and communication difficulties. Her defence is that she used ‘facilitated commuications’ to talk to him, through which he communicated his consent to sex. The problem is, facilitated communication has been debunked for at least 40 years. It appears to operate through ideomotor responses, used by illusionists and charlatan mediums. It is really distressing to read that someone could even kid themselves that this is a credible defence, hideous to think that she probably actually convinced herself that she had consent.

And still in the realm of strange sexual offences, the case of Gayle Newland has had everyone talking and most of them seem to have been asking me what I think, The truth is I’m really not sure. I was less impressed by the tone of Harriet Wistrich’s piece in the Guardian, which compared and contrasted to the lack of criminal charges against the undercover cops who maintained fraudulent longterm relationships. For what it is worth, I think both should be considered criminal offences,  but not sure what. I really liked the thoughtful piece here which covers all these issues and concludes that perhaps we need a new criminal offence of obtaining sex by deception. I think I agree.

And finally, after all that heavy stuff, why not relax by shagging a banana? Or at least reading this piece which kind of reminds us that why the world does need Vice. And at least there is absolutely no danger of a banana becoming conscious and withdrawing consent.

Your thoughts about any of the above, and anything else on your mind, are welcome below.

Open thread, so usual rules apply. There is no off topic, moderation will be light touch, just try not to turn things into the end of Kill Bill pt 1.

 

 

Comments

  1. drken says

    Wow, facilitated communication being used in a defense of raping the developmentally disabled. Gotta love my adopted home state. But, since you didn’t provide a link, here’s a recent story from local news: http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2015/08/judge_sets_rules_for_rutgers_professors_testimony.html

    tl;dr: The Judge ruled she can’t cite any scientific studies about facilitated communication, because everybody else in the psychiatric profession realizes it’s bullshit (or bull-shite, as you would say).

  2. StillGjenganger says

    Took the consent quiz. Very easy to guess what answer the teacher wanted. If that is all you have to go on you would never rape anyone, and you would miss a lot of mutually pleasurable sex. I would put most of their ‘Stop’ as ‘Pause’ without further information (what happened to ‘Pause’ anyway?). Does that really show the clear dividing line between ‘Yes’ and ‘No’? Hopefully the full materials would be somewhat clearer.

    But yes, full marks for the gender-neutral presentation.

  3. StillGjenganger says

    Gayle Newland:
    There is a simple alternative:

    Sex is illegal if you deceive about which person you are having sex with, or about your biological sex. Both on the grounds that it changes ‘the nature of the act’. For the rest it is caveat emptor, and conditional permission does not make it illegal.

    One point on this is that the case of F v DPP (as I remember), where ejaculation was held to negate consent, regarded a strongly subjugated wife who had consented to sex repeatedly under strong, continuous pressure [Indeed you wondered why the idiot, who was for all practical purposes married to a sex slave, could not summon the minimal restraint that would have kept him out of jail and let his highly exploitative marriage continue]. One could reasonably think that the situation was so lopsided that it was felt that it had to be possible to get the man for something. And hard cases make bad law, as they say.

    On transsexuals, I do think that my right to determine what sex to have sex with should trump the right of the trans person to be treated according to his/her chosen sex. That does put a trans person in the quite unpleasant situation of having to reveal his/her sex change history up front, but it is a matter of who gets the trouble. If you have the unusual requirement of having sex only with Jews, or military men, you can reasonably be asked to double check. But it is not a reasonable requirement that you must double check the sex of each potential bedmate up front., or that you must simply stop caring about it.

    As for a general law against ‘sex by deception: where do you stop?

  4. David S says

    @StillGjenganger (3)

    There is a simple alternative:

    Sex is illegal if you deceive about which person you are having sex with, or about your biological sex

    Sorry, but I don’t think that your alternative is simple at all. In fact I think it turns what would be a legal question into one that philosophers have struggled with for ages, namely how to designate a particular object or person. I can see that Gayle Newland deceived her victim as to her biological sex, but whether she deceived her as to which person she was depends on how the victim would have identified that person. If she thought that the person she was having sex with was the person whose online posts she had read and who she had subsequently met online, then she was not deceived as to which person she was with, only about that person’s past history (for example the supposed illness that left that person insecure about their appearance). If on, the other hand, those details of past history were actually part of the criteria she used to identify the person, then she was deceived about which person she was having sex with.

  5. Ariel says

    StillGjenganger #3

    Both on the grounds that it changes ‘the nature of the act’.


    What’s “the nature of the act” and how is it changed? The quote from the article linked by Ally: “For many people, substituting religion, or HIV status, or many other characteristics in the above quote would apply equally to a person’s preference.” If I hate journalists (yes, Ally!) and I don’t want to sleep with them, doesn’t such a deception change “the nature of the act”? If no, why not?

    As for a general law against ‘sex by deception: where do you stop?


    For a moment, let’s try to eat the frog: let’s say that the answer is “nowhere”. What’s so bad about it?

    Imagine that:
    – if you cheat me about your age, there are legal consequences.
    – if you cheat about your marital status, there are consequences.
    – if you cheat about your nationality, wealth, job prospects – there are consequences.

    And so on.

    Imagine that the only rule is: you don’t have to provide the information, but if you are asked – and you lie – there can be consequences. What’s wrong with this?

    (Explanation: at the moment I’m undecided and I don’t know what to think about the case of Gayle Newland. Please, view the above as an attempt to eliminate some really bad options – that’s the intent. My own doubts: should e.g. lying about your past depressive episodes be punishable? Lying about your alcoholism or drug addiction? In general: lying about things you are not able to face? These are my doubts. What did I omit?)

  6. julian says

    Deception cannot be grounds for making sex illegal. Sex is not a binding contract between two people. It’s at most an hour they spend together. Suppose a sex worker lies about their marital status or religion and adopts a persona very different from theirs to market themselves to a particular set of clients. That’s as close to a business transaction as sex gets and I’m almost certain no one in their right mind would call the client in this situation wronged. Lying in relationships is a personal problem one best left between the individuals involved and far away from criminal courts.

  7. Michael M says

    Julian-

    Is someone’s impersonating a specific individual grounds for rescinding consent to sexual activity with the impersonator?

  8. Michael M says

    The why can’t “deception […] be grounds for making sex illegal”? (Assuming that rape is a form of illegal sex.)

  9. julian says

    Rape is not a form of “illegal sex.” Rape is like assault; a violent action taken against someone else. This violent action doesn’t need to leave behind bruises or cuts. The initial violence will always be part of the attack and the fear of imminent harm is there whether the victim is fully conscious or not. Prostitution is “illegal sex” in that it is sex that the government has passed on laws aimed at punishing those who engage in it.

  10. Ally Fogg says

    As for a general law against ‘sex by deception: where do you stop?

    I’m rarely convinced by this as an argument against a legal protection.

    Imagine assault was not currently illegal, and someone came along and proposed the current law. You could look at it and say, ‘hang on, under that law just about anything could be a crime. If I push someone out of the way in a queue for a bar that would make me a criminal! it would make playing football or rugby a criminal offence!’

    you could play a similar game with laws against theft or various others.

    In practice, that is what the legal system is for, it is why police are constantly making decisions as to whether or not to press charges, why CPS are constantly making decisions as to whether to bring cases tp court and why judges and magistrates lean so heavily on precedent, why we have so called reasonable person tests etc etc etc

    now I am not a lawyer, i don’t know it would be laid down in black and white, but I can easily imagine a law that expects a reasonable threshold of deception before anyone would prosecute.

    so for instance, it seems to me that there are some forms of deception which fundamentally change the nature of the act being consented to. Within that, I would include both using a prosthetic strap-on while pretending it is a real penis, ot engaging in a relationship as part of a long term plan to deceive for other purposes, such as in the spy cops case.

    Those could be considered worthy of prosecution and conviction, while ‘he told me he was a footballer, but if I knew he meant a sunday morning pub league I wouldn’t have shagged him’ might not.

  11. Ally Fogg says

    and to add, if the worst outcome was that it became technically illegal to lie to get someone into bed, or to lie about one’s contraception or fertility to do so, i am not sure that would be an entirely bad thing.

    “but people have been doing that for thousands of years” isn’t much of a defence. People have been raping each other for thousands of years too.

  12. StillGjenganger says

    so for instance, it seems to me that there are some forms of deception which fundamentally change the nature of the act being consented to.

    I agree. But for a law to work you would need to list what they are. Otherwise both the sex partner and the jury would need to second-guess the ‘victim’ as to what (s)he might consider a deal-breaker.

    Item: It was decided (I think correctly) that lying about HIV status was not illegal, because the alternative would give a legal obligation of disclosure – and push people to remain ignorant of their health status. That would go.

    Item: A general prohibition against deception could be leveraged into legally sanctioned lie-detector “Before we do it: Have you seen Christina at any times since last July? Have you ever had any sexual interaction with another man? … This is of crucial importance to me!!” It could even serve to screen out police agents: In this group we have sex to promote mutual trust. Before we start: Have you ever been contacted by the police or security services? …

  13. Marduk says

    Well, your summary aside, the Law Society guy is pretty clear it is a bad idea!

    What bothers me particularly is that here you design a law that will be used only to persecute minorities. From states that have this, expect most cases to be about race and ethnic identity and the remainder bisexuality and homosexuality.

    You might be able to find a form of words that block vexatious cases (although in Israel “I’m a footballer” will get you convicted so maybe this isn’t so easy) but I can’t see how you’d prevent this turning into something pretty ugly.

    The more acute case, like Gayle Newland, might work as an example but the fact is she was convicted under the law as it stands so I’m not convinced.

  14. Marduk says

    As an example do you want see a man in court trying to argue that he never knew his estranged father was black because he was light-skinned? Or a woman trying to dispute that she knew she was infertile before getting in a relationship with a man who wanted children? She lied about how many partners she has had, lets make them all testify here and now?

    There is a certain ironic comedy in a ‘social justice’ law that could almost never be used to prosecute a rich white heterosexual male (just everyone else who lacks those privileges) but it isn’t worth it really!

    But deeper than that, if we stipulate that rape isn’t sex, I just don’t think the sexual act requires some sort of perfect and enduring warranty. Sex with someone you love is great, sex with someone you don’t love is also pretty good. I think we’re starting (or rather regressing, this is all a bit Old Testament) to turn it into something it isn’t.

  15. Marduk says

    And how do you have a healthy view of consent in this world?

    If your decision to sleep with someone is affected by the idea they might be a partner in a law firm in five years, then the right decision is actually to say no.

    And the more I think about it, the Gayle Newland thing is a red herring, she was a rapist, her victim didn’t consent to what happened to her. Whether the victim consented to something else is irrelevant and we shouldn’t act like it has any relevance. There is no need to make this complicated, the deception element (whilst colourful) is just an aggravating factor tied to the offence.

  16. julian says

    As an example do you want see a man in court trying to argue that he never knew his estranged father was black because he was light-skinned?

    I don’t think anyone arguing for this is looking at all the possible fallout. They’re just stuck on it somehow being “fair.”

  17. David S says

    @Ally (11)

    I’m rarely convinced by this as an argument against a legal protection.

    Imagine assault was not currently illegal, and someone came along and proposed the current law. You could look at it and say, ‘hang on, under that law just about anything could be a crime. If I push someone out of the way in a queue for a bar that would make me a criminal! it would make playing football or rugby a criminal offence!’

    I find them unconvincing too. I think such arguments rely on what philosophers sometimes describe as the fallacy of the beard i.e. the fallacy of arguing that two propositions are indistinguishable because they are separated by a rather vague grey area, rather than a sharp dividing line. There’s an interesting discussion of the matter in Gary Curtis’s fallacy files here

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

  18. Reg says

    In practice, that is what the legal system is for, it is why police are constantly making decisions as to whether or not to press charges, why CPS are constantly making decisions as to whether to bring cases tp court and why judges and magistrates lean so heavily on precedent, why we have so called reasonable person tests etc etc etc. now I am not a lawyer, i don’t know it would be laid down in black and white, but I can easily imagine a law that expects a reasonable threshold of deception before anyone would prosecute.

    This is a very dangerous line of thought. It is a fundamental principle that we should be ruled by laws and not by the temporary whims of government officials. It simply isn’t good enough to make something illegal on the understanding that the police, CPS or anyone else will be “reasonable” and decline to prosecute some obvious cases. The correct thresholds, whatever they be, absolutely must be laid down in law. If you don’t think that someone should be prosecuted for lying, “of course I love you dear!”, then it is important that the law not entail that that person should be sent to jail.

  19. StillGjenganger says

    @Reg 19
    You are so right.

    The law on assault would seem like a counterexample, but it is a different case. That law has been with us always and developed slowly. It is fairly well established what kind of ‘assault’ will be prosecuted, and what kind will be let go. And the penalties at the lower level are small (the starting point sanction is a high level community order, even for assaults causing injury, and a fine for less serious cases). Also, the social cost, even if convicted of giving someone a violent shove, are no more than moderate.

    Any law on obtaining sex by deception would require a lot of clarity on what was considered illegal, and a very low level of punishment for most cases. And that would be hard to reach for a new offense even at the best of times. In the current debating climate we would be more likely to end with an offense that was considered ‘tantamount to rape’, with sentencing range and social stigma to match, and a totally arbitrary application, given that the majority of the population would be breaking that law many times in their life.

  20. Mouguias says

    Last week I posted here for the first time, so I guess I am one of those “new visitors”. I like the way you try to be balanced in such polarized issues as feminism / men`s issues and I love the sober, fact-based texts which tear down the myth of the evil, all-powerful male. This XXIst century is a strange time, when things are being said for the first time ever. Who has ever said before that men suffer and need protection? It`s as if everybody had been blind for millenia.
    I wish Spanish media gave a chance to some token opposer like you of the current overwhelming and unbridled feminist sway in public discourse. Simply put, the things you write here wouldn`t have a chance in mainstream media in my country. I guess Spanish just can`t stay in the middle: all those years of stupid machismo have given way to… This. As the saying goes,”Somos mas papistas que el Papa”, “We are more Papist than the Pope himself”.
    To turn sex by deception into a crime reminds me of the ancient “seductor de doncellas”, this guy who meets some supposedly innocent maid and gets sex by promising her that they will get married. In the old days, this wicked seducer could be prosecuted. Since pornography and sex for money are growing increasingly despised in public discourse, and since segregated coaches are the new trend in order to protect women from lecherous proles, I wonder if we are on our road back to XIXth century code of virtue.
    You said no subject would be an off – topic here, so allow me to introduce you to a paper which I find fascinating and mind-blowing, but which has little relation to your blog: “Táin Bó Cuáilinge and Asturian Oral Tradition: Celtic Survivals in the Iberian Peninsula”. https://www.academia.edu/15921579/T%C3%A1in_B%C3%B3_Cu%C3%A1ilinge_and_Asturian_Oral_Tradition_Celtic_Survivals_in_the_Iberian_Peninsula

  21. says

    I am curius as to why there seems to be an overlap in the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003 Part 1 Section 1 and Part 1 Section 4 Subsection 4 a-b? I also wonder if there has been any convictions of Section 4 subsection 4. And if so – where can I get more information about the cases.

    Does anyone know who to ask to get answer to one or more of these questions?

  22. Ally Fogg says

    Reg

    It is a fundamental principle that we should be ruled by laws and not by the temporary whims of government officials.

    This is factually untrue. Read any textbook on constitutional law or jurisprudence – we are ruled by three tiers of government, exexutive, legislature and judiciary. At least in theory, the judiciary is independent of temporary whims of government, which is why our understanding of what is and is not illegal or criminal is established by precedent rather than written legislation. I’d add that the CPS guidelines on prosecution and sentencing are considered part of the judicial tier.

    I repeat, i am not a lawyer so I don’t know how one would word an effective law to criminalise sex by deception, but at the moment we have a situation where someone like McNally is prosecuted when the likes of the spy cops were perpetrating acts which amount to grotesque violations of a victim’s autonomy and agency have, apparently, committed no offence.

    Is there a solution to that? I think there should be.

    Thinking about it, is this so different to financial fraud? If I tell someone they are beautiful and that I love them and as a result they buy me expensive presents or give me money to pay off my debts, and then I decide i don’t love them after all and bugger off, i would be dick, but I wouldn’t be prosecuted for fraud.

    If i adopt a false identity and invent a tissue of lies to persuade that person to buy me gifts and pay off my debts, then i would be prosecuted for fraud.

    Is there any real difference in this ‘gain’ is sexual consent rather than money?

  23. Marduk says

    “Is there any real difference in this ‘gain’ is sexual consent rather than money?”

    Yes. The issue is what you are consenting to.

    The problem is pretty evident in the difficulties you have in framing this, you’re finding it hard to avoid producing the idea that consent is a transaction with an implied warranty. It isn’t. You are consenting to the act itself, nothing more or less.

  24. StillGjenganger says

    @Ally24

    I don’t know how one would word an effective law to criminalise sex by deception

    A good place to start would be a short list of which behaviours you want to criminalise and which you think should be allowed. Followed by a reasonably coherent phrase that could distinguish one from the other. Personally I do not think you can come up with anything that would not cast that net far too wide. And making lots of things equally illegal but count on the CPS to prosecute only the right ones is a truly abysmal idea.

    I think you are missing one point with the ‘Spy cops’. Obviously it is extremely hurtful to think that your entire life (with children) together was all a fake, done only as a police operation. But how do you know that is the case? Police spies can fall in love (or lust) as easily as anyone else. In which case they would keep their secret identity away from their lover as the only way for a much desired affair to proceed. In the end it is no different from someone keeping secret a spell in prison, a part-time criminal career, a homosexual fling – or a membership of the Tory party. Criminalise one and criminalise them all. For that matter – what happens if somebody already married is recruited to spy on a environmentalist / terrorist / criminal group he and his spouse are both member of? The sense of betrayal is hardly going to be less. Is this going to count as a crime too?

    If you want to stop affairs like the ‘Spy cops’ to from ever happening again, a better way would be to tighten the rules for what government agents are allowed to do – and under what circumstances they are allowed to do it.

  25. Reg says

    Ally

    This is factually untrue. Read any textbook on constitutional law or jurisprudence – we are ruled by three tiers of government, exexutive, legislature and judiciary. At least in theory, the judiciary is independent of temporary whims of government, which is why our understanding of what is and is not illegal or criminal is established by precedent rather than written legislation. I’d add that the CPS guidelines on prosecution and sentencing are considered part of the judicial tier.

    Why don’t we skip the legal textbooks, and look at the words of an actual judge?

    Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not by the exercise of discretion.

    As was said by Lord Shaw almost a century ago, ‘To remit the miantentance of constitutional right to the region of judicial discretion is to shift the foundations of freedom from the rock to the sand.’ Another senior judge more recently made a similar point: ‘And if it comes to the forensic crunch … it must be law, not discretion, which is in command.’ The job of judges is to apply the law, not to indulge their personal preferences. There are areas in which they are required to exercise a discretion, but such discretions are much more closely constrained than is always acknowledged.

    Speaking more practically, when you give the CPS too much discretion, you end up with idiotic things happening, like putting teenagers on sex offender registers for sexting each other. If an action should not result in criminal prosecution, then it should not be possible to prosecute someone for that action. Otherwise, prepare for the CPS etc. to disappoint you and your rather naive expectations of reasonableness, and to ruin lives in the process.

    I’m not disagreeing that perhaps some forms of “consent by deception” should be criminalised, but I think we ought to be very specific about which ones, rather than handing the CPS an enormous blank cheque which they are virtually guaranteed to misuse.

    Furthermore, any law on this matter should recognise that people have a right, in a great number of circumstances, to keep secrets from one another – even if they correctly predict that revealing the secret might drastically change other people’s attitudes towards them, and their behaviour. I have a right to keep my facebook profile private from a prospective employer, even if I correctly predict that they would not employ me if they could see it – and that does not make me guilty of fraud. Similarly, one ought not to be expected bear the contents of one’s soul to every sexual partner, even if one correctly predicts that there are some things about you that might put them off having sex with you. It is quite possible that some things (STDs, perhaps gender, perhaps the fact that you are an undercover police officer) ought to be divulged, but any law that forbids any deception whatsoever will essentially end up saying “you can have privacy, or you can have sex, but you can’t have both”.

  26. Marduk says

    #26

    “If you want to stop affairs like the ‘Spy cops’ to from ever happening again, a better way would be to tighten the rules for what government agents are allowed to do – and under what circumstances they are allowed to do it.”

    Right back ‘atcha. Exactly.

  27. says

    @Marduk

    Well, the female equivalent of rape is covered by SOA 4.4 c-d (which covers cases where the victim is forced to penetrate the perpetrator).

    However, 4.4 a-b says:

    A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the activity caused involved—

    (a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina,

    (b) penetration of B’s mouth with a person’s penis,

    A is perpetrator and B is victim.

    I can’t see what is covered by 4.4 a-b shich isn’d coveren by 1.1 a):

    A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

    and

    2.1 a)

    A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a) he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,

    So why the redundancy – why was 4.4 a-b introduced I wonder?
    And has any cases ever been prosecuted under 4,4 a-b or c-d?
    Is this redundancy the reason why 4.4 (and c-d in particular) so often is ignored/forgotten. For instance in the CSEW and also in the Play, Pause, Stop website’s The Law page which talks about the legal definition of rape and sexual assault. Assault by penetration i also left out on that page.
    Or is it just overlooked because of the incredebly cumbersome and vague name of the section: “Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent”?

  28. says

    I found some other answers though.

    Apparently there has been 22 cases since 2009 where a sentence for SOA 2003 Section 4 has been given, 6 with a female perpetrator.

    Although I don’t know how exhaustive the data is at the source I found.

    Source: http://thelawpages.com/

  29. That Guy says

    I find the case of Gayle Newline troubling for a couple of reasons.

    I can see, what she did was wrong, she lied about her identity and then had sex with someone who believed they were having sex with that identity.

    In isolation, I can see this case as being wrong.

    HOWEVER, in broader context, while still wrong, it contains whiffs of previous cases that strike me as being kind of transphobic.

    SO, there was a case not too long ago (also UK) that was quite similar, a teenage girl adopted the persona of a teenage boy and via similar uh, mechanisms, engaged in a sexual relationship with another girl or girls, I’m not certain (also, at work, so leaving enough details to google this for yourselves, hopefully).

    this garnered similar levels of media interest, I think there was a documentary of sorts including interviews with the victim(s), where they said that the perpetrator disguised their voice by not speaking and texting instead, even when the two were face to face.

    unlike the case of Gayle, the perpetrator in question didn’t go to such extreme lengths to create a different persona, and behaved in a way that (as a cis person) I might imagine a trans person in early stages of transition would present themselves.

    more pertinent to the trans point of view, there was another case where a transman was convicted (again in the UK, again a few years ago) under similar principles. He claimed that he’d suffered burns from a motorcycle accident I think to explain why his chest was bound, and the sex took place in a darkened room too.

    The media attention around these cases strikes me as being odd- I think there’s a hint of the lurid about “women” ‘tricking’ other women for sex, given how society seems to treat women as generally not AS bothered about sex as men, particularly when having sex with women.

    I strongly suspect the media coverage around a case with men and transwomen would be significantly different. indeed, such circumstances are played for laughs- (hangover 2, there’s something about miriam, etc). I don;t know if this is because of men in these circumstances “deserving” “it” for being so “horny”.

    Probably the biggest elephant in the room for me is that I can’t think of a case Exactly like these with ‘role reversal’, but I do recall a few which began similarly, but ended with a dead or injured transwoman. the cisman discovering he was about to have sex with a transwoman, claimed to suffer ‘trans panic’ and the results were not pleasant.

    It’s all nice and straightforward to talk about disclosure etc, but for trans people, disclosure can be an extremely dangerous business, (I imagine particularly for trans women). I feel that in these circumstance it is very tricky to talk about “changing the fundamental nature of the act” unless you restrict it to a very narrow, cis, heteronormative and unimaginative view of sex. It bears hints of argument from personal revulsion. The Victim in the Gayle Newland case is widely quoted as saying she’d rather she’d been raped by a man. while she is entitled to her views, and undergone an ordeal, I think such a view is indicative of society’s general transphobia and homophobia, that such crimes are considered ‘worse’ because the perpetrator is queer and/or trans.

    Additionally, it would be very easy to (inadvertently or otherwise) turn such discussions into a way to force trans people to disclose themselves as trans (and potentially end up in a dangerous situation) or face criminal charges.

    (disclaimer, I cis)

  30. StillGjenganger says

    @David S 4

    Sorry, but I don’t think that your alternative is simple at all. In fact I think it turns what would be a legal question into one that philosophers have struggled with for ages, namely how to designate a particular object or person.

    Not really, no. As I understand, ‘sex by impersonation’ is illegal only if you impersonate somebody known to the victim. So the question becomes ‘is this the same individual as the one I was talking to the other day’, which is clear enough. If you consent to sex with me, you consent to me. It makes no difference whether I falsely claim to be George Clooney (unless you happen to know George Clooney personally). .

  31. StillGjenganger says

    @That Guy 32
    Well there are only two ways to do this. Either you hold that it should make no difference whether you have sex with a man or with a woman, and that once you consent (with the clothes still on), your consent holds no matter what is under the clothes. Or you say that this point is so fundamental (and transsexuals are so rare) that people are entitled to assume which sex they are dealing with, and it is up to the trans person to disclose before asking consent.

    There is pain and trouble in either case, but do you really want a trans person’s right to avoid disclosure to trump my right to decide for myself what kind of bodies I want have sex with?

  32. StillGjenganger says

    @Tamen
    It seems fairly clear from the text that Marduk linked to. Apparently they have organised the law on rape around penetration. So section 1 is about penetration with your own penis, section 2 is about penetration with other body parts or objects, and section 3 is about sexual touching that does not involve penetration. Section 4 sounds a bit weird because it covers two cases: either forcing a third party to penetrate (A forces B to rape C), or normal penetrative sex forced by the person being penetrated (A forces sex on B, but A is a woman so the penetration is done by B). They could have chosen to change section 1) to cover ‘sex’ instead of specifically penetration, but they presumably had reasons to do it differently. And even so they would still need section 4 to punish someone who forced others to have sex.

  33. That Guy says

    @34 StillGjenganger
    “but do you really want a trans person’s right to avoid disclosure to trump my right to decide for myself what kind of bodies I want have sex with?”

    Honestly, I’m kind of leaning to that side. I think if you’re fundamentally opposed to having sex with certain kinds of bodies you should ask about this beforehand.

    Bear in mind, that disclosure for many trans people is a matter of safety, and I definitely think that the safety of anyone, not just trans people, trumps sexual preferences, or some slight awkwardness.

  34. StillGjenganger says

    @That guy 36
    Well, we disagree on the basics, which is fair enough.

    But your ‘solution’ is a total no-go. I thought the whole point of this discussion was whether deception should be illegal. If it is not, in this case either, then ‘asking first’ makes no difference. People just lie, as they would have a right to. And anyway, transsexuals are rare, unexpected, and people can be assumed to want to know. In that circumstance it just does not make sense to put the onus on the unsuspecting partner to ask, instead of putting it on the fully informed trans person to tell, .

  35. Holms says

    …but do you really want a trans person’s right to avoid disclosure to trump my right to decide for myself what kind of bodies I want have sex with?

    I’m not seeing how this could possibly be an issue. If someone has the correct anatomy according to your tastes, what difference does it make if that anatomy came about through surgery rather than nature? This strikes me as simple distaste rather than a rights issue.

  36. StillGjenganger says

    @Holms 38
    I could challenge that one – it relies on the somewhat doubtful claim that the only thing that matters is the look of the result, rather than the history of the person. If it was important to you to share your bed only with black people, would you think it was irrelevant whether the colour came through inborn melanin or through tattooing? But OK, once the anatomy matches the label it is a little less obvious whether the law needs to be involved, though I would still claim a moral right to know in advance.

    But the case we are looking at is someone with female anatomy and (presumably) male self-identification, who presents herself as male and manages to go through sex in such a way that the anatomical differences do not show up. Do you still think that is a non-issue?

  37. Marduk says

    The question is surely less about the individual’s identity than it is about the act. Is the act you consented to the act you end up involved in? If so, then fine, if not, then there is a problem and an offence has likely been committed. If there are contextual details that subsequently cause you to regret said consented-to act, then that is unfortunate but not a matter for the law. In the Newland case what happened was not what the victim agreed to, it wasn’t about Newland’s actual identity, a cisgender man could have committed the same crime.

    I think crafting laws to “catch out” specific marginalised groups is pretty horrid. The balance within the law as it stands seems OK to me.

  38. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 40
    I really think you got that one wrong. As far as I could read, Gayle Newland presented herself as an otherwise unknown male called ‘Kye Fortune’. If she had indeed been male, the only transgression would have been giving a false name, and using a plastic implement instead of the flesh one, which is not illegal AFAIAA. Certainly the victim was adamant that she had consented to sex with a man, and that it was the fact that Gayle was a woman that made her bring charges.

    As I understood it the question was whether the act of having sex with a woman counted as the same as the act of having sex with a man, so that if you consented to one you had no legal objection if you got the other instead.

    As for ‘catching out’ marginalised groups, the crime (if any) would be to have sex, pretending you were the gender you are not. Trans people are rather more likely to come into conflict with that one, but it is a crime that cis people can do equally well.

  39. Marduk says

    It hasn’t helped anyone that we’ve had the usual low reporting standards here, perhaps made worse by the rather lurid nature of the case but no.

    “using a plastic implement instead of the flesh one, which is not illegal AFAIAA.”

    That is exactly what was illegal (indeed, a clue to the parameters used can be gleaned from your own summary of the 2003 act above!). Note in particular why it was three and not five charges.

    “On Tuesday, a jury of eight women and four men convicted the defendant, from Willaston, the Wirral, of three counts of sexual assault by penetration, which took place at the complainant’s flat. She was cleared of two similar offences said to have taken place at hotels in Chester: largely after her defence was able to prove she had not purchased the prosthetic penis until after those encounters.”

  40. StillGjenganger says

    Some quotes:
    New Statesman:

    This week witnessed yet another sexual offences conviction for gender fraud (three counts of sexual assault, to be specific) on the basis that the defendant, Gayle Newland, “pretended” to be a man

    Lancashire Evening Post:

    A woman from Cheshire has been convicted of impersonating a man over two years to dupe her friend into having sex.

    Telegraph:

    A woman convicted of impersonating a man to dupe her friend into having sex was told a prison sentence was “inevitable” yesterday.

    And many others. There is no sentence yet, and I did not find anything from the court (probably does not exist yet). But all the articles I saw talked about the crime of impersonating a man, not of the crime of using a plastic penis (or a false name) instead of a real one.

  41. Marduk says

    I guess we’ll have to see but it doesn’t sound like it to me. I’m aware of the precedent from the McNally case but still, if they were using that, it wouldn’t matter about the other two charges.

    This was of course the most lurid story currently in circulation but our beloved Tory party seem to have trumped it:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/david-cameron-put-private-parts-6484611
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/david-cameron-black-mirror-charlie-6485095

    PM’s questions should be interesting!

  42. That Guy says

    I’ll look at this again when I’m at home, as IIRC there has definitely been a case where a trans person who identified as male was charged after having sex with a cis woman, hopefully I’ll find more details on this.

    I’m generally more on the side that “obtaining sex by deceptive means is wrong”, however maybe where I’d disagree with some is what I’d call deceptive.

    If a trans person embarks on a sexual relationship, and ‘passes’ as cis of their identified gender to their partner, the partner then discovers that the trans person is trans and cries foul, I’d say that’s not deceptive-

    if they were asked “are you really a X/Y/Z?” and they replied “yes”, I’d say that this is a little murkier but the trans person is still in the clear. Murkier because I don’t think society at large has the correct vocabulary to ask the question “are you trans?” which MIGHT be the intended question, but the trans person can only answer the question asked.

    in the case where the trans person is asked “are you trans?” and they say “no”, the trans person is in the wrong there, but, on the same level of someone incorrectly answering questions like “are you a virgin/natural blonde/devout christian/bisexual?”

    I guess comparable case would be if a cis man engaged in a relationship with a cis woman but the man, having previously lost his genitals in a tragic porcine fellatio accident, has to rely on a prothesis to do the deed. Embarrassed, he hides this from his partner.

    I have trouble believing that in this case, the full force of the law would be brought upon the man, despite the physical nature of the act being functionally identical to a trans man using a prosthesis.

  43. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 42
    Still think you are wrong. But I think I have an answer.

    I believe this link to (R. v. McNally), shows the situation. This was another conviction for ‘gender deception’, with no penetration by penis involved, and the judges say that this is NOT a matter of “[section] 76 of the Act. […](a) intentional deceit of the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act; [ot] (b) intentionally inducing the complainant to consent by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant. “. (I was wrong there). Rather it is about section 74 of the act “For the purposes of this Part, a person consents if he agrees by choice and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice.”. The judges hold that if you consent on the explicit condition that the other person wear a condom, or not ejaculate inside you, this means that if the condition is disregarded the act that happens is not the act you actually consented to. Hence it is rape. Whereas in the case of deceit on wealth, marital status, etc. etc. the act is the same, and the fact that you were deceived does not render your consent inoperative. They further say that sex with a man is (in psychological fact) so different from sex with a woman, that consent to one cannot be taken as consent to the other. And apparently that this point is so obvious that it holds even though the condition that the sex partner should be male was not made explicitly.

    When it comes down to it, it looks like we already have pretty much the situation that Ally wanted. The law allows sex by deceit to be counted as rape in particularly clear cases, and judicial discretion and precedent is used to decide which ones qualify. I admit to having been worried about the implications of the Assange extradition trial (do we now allow conditional consent? and does that mean, crudely, that ‘it is rape if the cheque bounces’?). But it looks like the judiciary is applying the principle with the consideration and caution that you would indeed expect from them.

  44. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 44
    Yes, it would still matter about the two other charges, because they were of penetration without consent, and if there was no rubber penis present, there could have been no penetration. Possibly those two cases could have been reclassified as sexual assault instead, but since that was not the charge, the lack of the implement should be enough to have those two cases out.

  45. Marduk says

    This is the best business story ever written.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/david-cameron-pig-allegations-could-harm-uk-productivity-10511347.html

    And this is the best partisan ‘damage control’ story ever written
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/11879177/Is-it-true-that-David-Cameron-had-sex-with-a-pig-It-really-doesnt-matter.html

    “In summary, this country is now led by a man whom many voters will forever believe or suspect once had sex with a dead pig. And that fact has essentially no political significance.”

    I almost feel a bit guilty for raising this, its like some sort of news tornado that destroys all in its wake. It makes me wonder a bit how the right wing press are feeling about their recent Corbyn biography dredging expedition. Seems to have stopped rather suddenly for some reason, apparently your life before high office doesn’t matter so much now.

  46. StillGjenganger says

    @That Guy 45
    Well, the judges in R. v. McNally disagree with you. They say that the sex of the person you consent to is so important that consenting to sex with a man means that the consent does not include sex with a woman – even if the condition is not made explicitly. I agree with the judges.

    In general I do not think it is reasonable to say that a trans women (e.g.) by virtue of claiming to identify as a woman is absolutely in all possible respects a woman. Rather she is someone who falls outside the classification (and if you had to force her into one class, it would be the one determined by biology, which is objective). But we have to accommodate trans people somehow, and in most cases it would be cruel and unreasonable to force them to behave according to a sex they do not feel they belong to. So, female dressing rooms, female loos, female pronouns, female passport, OK. But there are some cases where the birth or biological sex are particularly important, and cannot necessarily be overridden by the gender identity. Membership of radfem groups is one. And having sex is most certainly one.

    We can argue where the line should be drawn. But if your anatomy does not match your presenting gender (even after surgery), I definitely think the law should get involved. As to your example of a man without a penis, he would still be a man, also according to one or two definitions where a trans-man does not necessarily qualify.

  47. That Guy says

    here’s the story was talking about earlier

    https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/01/14/woman-accused-of-pretending-to-be-a-man-to-trick-women-into-sex/

    I have to own up here- “It has not been suggested that she is transgender.” so evidently transgenderism was projected onto the case by people outside looking in. (e.g. me)

    @ StillGjenganger 49; thank you for clarifying your position, however I disagree with the judges.
    Maybe I’m just a little bit worried about the concern about the gender of the person you’re having sex with- it strikes me as being uhh- a little inflexible, and going out of it’s way to uphold a certain view of sexuality.

    I don’t see any functional difference in what I proposed above with the penis-less cis man and the trans-man, and I can only see personal revulsion as being the cause behind these being treated differently. (that it is so Important that people are not Tricked into Gayness that this is enshrined in law)

    But if your anatomy does not match your presenting gender (even after surgery), I definitely think the law should get involved. As to your example of a man without a penis, he would still be a man…

    I really can’t wrap my head around these two sentences togther. surely the cis man without a penis does not match his presenting gender? if we start arguing about having a legal right to know whether someone has XX or XY chromosomes in this scenario then things begin to get absurd.

    I’d also rather not get into similar arguments about what distinguishes trans-and cis people, as these invariably throw intersex people under the bus.

    Perhaps I’m being oversensitive, and I’d like to re-iterate that in the cases where someone adopts a different identity to deceive someone into a sexual relationship is wrong, but that’s not the case with trans people. The paranoia about Not Shagging Trans People seems on par with the revulsion of having had sex with someone who had had same sex partners- it’s all about what’s happened to their genitals before you were anywhere near them, and what that implies about one’s own sexual orientation.

    in

  48. StillGjenganger says

    Surely if somebody find some particular sexual act revolting, that is a good reason to respect that person’s right to avoid it? Rather than to start telling him why he ought to feel differently? I have no right to refuse to sell to people I do not like, but surely I have a right to not shag them?

    I’d also rather not get into similar arguments about what distinguishes trans-and cis people, as these invariably throw intersex people under the bus.

    A cis person is a person who falls within the cluster of biological, and behavioural traits that matches one or the other of the two canonical sexes – and who identifies mentally as a member of said sex. A trans person is a person who falls within the cluster (etc.) but who identifies mentally as a member of the opposite sex. An intersex person is someone who does not fall clearly within either cluster of traits. Where is the bus?

  49. That Guy says

    @51
    It’s hard to tell if you’re being deliberately obtuse, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    nobody is saying you have to go out and perform sexual acts that you don’t like. nobody is even saying you have to go out and have sex with people you don’t like.

    Bear that in mind, we’re talking about people here. not acts. people with feelings, and someone not paying much attention to what you said might have thought you just described as revolting.

    you still absolutely have the right to not have sex with whoever based on whatever critera. What I’d argue is that you shouldn’t expect people to provide you with a CV of fucking unprompted. if you’re revolted by men or conservatives or black people or people who used to date racists or trans people or nick griffin or whatever, then it’s up to you to find out. I don’t think that’s a radical idea.

    I also take issue with your description of trans people as ” A trans person is a person who falls within the cluster (etc.) but who identifies mentally as a member of the opposite sex.”

    This is not really true, as you could easily argue that (especially after medical transition) many trans people have many more of the traits in common with their identified gender, rather than their assigned at birth gender.
    my prediction was based on that These arguments usually descend into someone trying to find some magical singular measure (such as chromosomes, or gene expression or whatever) to ‘prove’ that trans people are somehow biologically, fundamentally and universally ‘different’ from cis people (or, worse, ‘fakers’ not ‘real’ etc). Such a reductionist attitude not only excludes people with intersex conditions from whatever gender they are (as well as trans people), but isn’t helpful or applicable in sny way other than excluding non=gender conforming people for arbitrary reasons.

    I’ll concede that’s not what you’ve done here, but I still have problems with your description for reasons described above.

  50. Ally Fogg says

    marduk [48]

    I’m with you. The PM fucked a pig and nothing will ever be the same again

    (even if he didn’t)

  51. StillGjenganger says

    @That Guy 52

    If you’re revolted by men or conservatives or black people or people who used to date racists or trans people or nick griffin or whatever, then it’s up to you to find out.

    I would mostly agree with that, but I think your biological sex is an exception. Because 1) sex and gender have such a central role in all our social interactions. 2) because you signal your gender routinely – a flat-chested person calling himself Scott in male dress is de facto signalling that he is male. 3) because sex is about interacting bodies, so the nature of the body is particularly important. 4) because a strong antipathy towards having sex with the ‘wrong’ kind of body is extremely common, whereas your other examples are quite rare.

  52. StillGjenganger says

    @That Guy 52
    Another (long) point.

    Let us be clear about terms, here.

    Sex is biological, and fairly easy to classify (unless you want it to be difficult, of course). Humans (and most animals) come in two types: Those designed to get pregnant, and those designed to get other people pregnant. To make a classification, you measure all the parameters that could be different between the two groups: Visible and internal anatomy (at birth and at present), hormone levels, gene composition, strength, looks, behaviour, … for every person in the world, and plot them on a very large twenty-dimensional piece of paper. You will find that the vast majority of people (fertile or not) fall clearly into one of two clusters on the graph. One will contain those who can get pregnant (women) and the other will contain those who can impregnate (men). The rest will fit badly to either group on at least one or two parameters, but in most cases they will be clearly much closer to one cluster than the other (with some adjustment for which parameters are considered the more important). That leaves only a fairly small minority where it is genuinely difficult to decide whether this person is best seen as an atypical man or an atypical woman. And your average trans woman (with or without surgery), will fall clearly into the ‘man’ cluster, as will a man who has lost his genitals in an accident.

    Gender, on the other hand, is social. It describes a complex of social roles, and expectations. It is determined socially how people are classified into genders, how gender is signalled and recognised, and what behaviour is expected from and towards each. The rules can be strict or lax (ours are fairly lax). Gender is seen as describing your nature, not as something you freely choose, and as such your gender is considered pretty much unchangeable. I would claim that all societies have two genders, that match the two biological sexes. Some societies have more than two, but ours does not. Various societies can also accept that people may belong to the gender that does not match their biological sex (ours does). Again it is socially determined when this can happen, and what particular requirements (if any) are put on the people in this category.

    With those terms, I think it is fairly clear that a trans person is someone who desires to belong to the (social) gender that does not match the (biological) sex. I would add that once you make the sex/gender distinction, sex stands out as an activity that involves the body (and so biological sex) in a way that other social activities do not.

    As for intersex or non-gender-conforming people, theirs is a hard lot, but I see no obvious way to resolve their situation, beyond individual flexibility. AFAIK the biological data do not suggest a third cluster of people (unless you count ‘unclassifiable’). Simple fairness would suggest that if you do not fit particularly well to either of the biological sexes, you should certainly be allowed to choose your gender freely (if not to swap back and forth continuously). As for more complex choices, your gender is a relevant part of pretty much any social interaction. Gender is recognised automatically and unconsciously by everybody, and colours your every behaviour in ways that we do not need to think about consciously. Adding a new gender would be a huge undertaking: It would require a complete set of behaviour rules and expectations for the new group, that everybody in society would have to learn and abide by. Individually opting out from both the male and female social role is even more difficult – for the people around you. In their every interaction they now have to stop, and think, and act according to a new behaviour pattern created specifically for this particular individual. That is a lot of hard work. You might well decide to do this on an individual basis for someone you know well enough to adapt to. But it is hardly something that anyone can claim from the entire world as a right

  53. That Guy says

    @ StillGjenganger 54 , 55

    I don’t think we’re going to ever agree on this, so I’ll try and summarise what I’ve interpreted as your position.

    Your position is that trans people aren’t ‘really’ the gender that they feel themselves to be, but our society allows them to behave as if that were a case as a kindness.
    you feel that sex is unambiguously binary, is closely related to fertility and childbearing, and that some other parameters are also involved.

    you feel that because revulsion at the idea of having sex with trans people or people of a gender the same as yours is commonplace, that it should be protected and re-enforced unlike other criterion on choosing a sexual partner.

    you think that because it is difficult to resolve the position of people who aren’t either gender, and that people are obsessed with categorising each other into the correct gender in every aspect of life, we shouldn’t exert the effort in trying to change things.

    I disagree with all of these statements to differing degrees and for differing reasons.

    I feel that trans* people are pretty much functionally close to the gender that they feel they are. I am fond of the argument that if it quacks, then it is a duck. and people presenting as a particular gender, are for the vast, vast majority of interactions with them, that gender.
    This ties into my objection that gender is generally binary. I think it’s fair to argue that most people are either producing sperm or eggs, but I think aside from that, you can’t really say much.

    The variance of human shapes is massive, some men are lithe and not as strong as the average woman, some women are flat chested, etc. etc. This isn’t even considering how our ideas about gender are shaped by media- the typical ‘ideal’ western woman being blonde, slender and having large breasts is rather modern, in renaissance times, the ideal (european) had small widely spaced breasts and was slightly plumper. Things are different again for different parts of the world.

    So for these reasons, I think it’s a pointless (and probably harmful) exercise to claim, or try to make a list of universally ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ attributes, that are usually a product of society, class, ethnicity, and other factors.

    I feel that just because many people are revolted by the concept of sex with a trans person or someone their own gender, does not elevate this above other criteria. If you have sex with someone who looks, behaves and has female anatomy, but reveals they are trans, I don’t think you have much right to complain, as your revulsion at discovering the person’s gender history does not negate your initial consent based on the person’s identity and body. It just means you have issues.

    And I don’t think your issues with trans people deserve special protection under law, no matter how commonplace they are.

  54. StillGjenganger says

    @That Guy
    No, you got a number of those wrong:

    I think that it is meaningless and damaging to ask what gender people ‘really’ are. We would all like to keep it that simple, but unfortunately it is not . As a conservative you would like to say that being a woman (e.g.) meant only one thing, that gender was determined by biological sex, and anyone with a different gender identity had something wrong with them. Won’t do. As a trans person (I suspect) you would like to say that being a woman meant only one thing, that gender was determined by the gender you feel you belong to, that biological sex was pretty irrelevant, and that anyone who did not accept that proposition is nasty bigot. Won’t do either. Reality is that sex, gender, and gender identity are different things, each has a clear definition, and one does not automatically determine the other. You can then discuss individual situations without insulting anyone by arguing about what they ‘really’ are. Biological sex has a pretty clear and practical definition, as I gave above. Gender identity you can find out by asking. And gender is, by definition, determined socially. Not just for trans people, but for everybody. Take those Montenegrins who were born female, but who took on a male gender at some point, with the full approval of their society. Does it really make sense to argue whether they were ‘really’ men (as their society would say), ‘really’ women (as we would say), or that it would depend on their innermost feelings? For the purpose of social interactions within their society they were men, because they were accepted as such, and the rest is empty arguing.
    This goes both ways. I cannot tell anybody that they are not ‘really’ a man, but they can not tell me that they are ‘really’ a woman either. But once they have acquired the relevant document we can both agree that society accepts them as women, and that I have a duty to treat them accordingly. Whether I consider them as potential sex partners, OTOH, is a private matter.

    As for your arguments about the variety of human shapes, I think they come under ‘distinguishing between the sexes is impossible if people want it to be impossible’. The procedure I gave above should give a practical and objective way to distinguish between the two. And if we choose to disagree in some particular case, we are free to decide, individually or collectively, a that a specific person counts as female to us, regardless of what the ‘biological gendered characteristics index’ says about their body.

    As for people ‘revolted by the concept of sex with a trans person or someone their own gender’, the critical case is not people ‘who looks, behaves and has female anatomy, but reveals they are trans’. That one could indeed be argued either way. Much more relevant would be people (like the lady mentioned in Ally’s blog above) who are female by biological sex, but who present as male and have sex with people who assume they are male.

    Finally: Society undoubtedly has the right to set the gender roles, and the entrance criteria. How ought we to set them? The current system with only two genders is a great simplification for human interactions, is deeply embedded in everything we do, and matches pretty well (if not perfectly) with the people and the biology around us. It is a clear advantage for most of us, but it obviously is bad for the minority who do not fit in. Changing over to a multi-gender system, or to ‘no-fixed-roles-everybody-decides-his-own-personal-rules-and-demands-that-other-people-follow-them’ would be much better for the minority, but would be a definite hardship for the (much more numerous) majority. We need to argue the trade-offs, but the minority does not have an automatic right to always get their way, just because there are fewer of them.

  55. That Guy says

    @57,
    it seems that my summary was largely accurate, and we disagree on some pretty fundamental points.
    We clearly aren’t going to find much common ground, so I’ll round this off to avoid clogging up the thread.

  56. StillGjenganger says

    @That Guy 58
    You are surely right.

    Can I suggest, in parting, that you could adopt a more precise and neutral vocabulary (like mine?) without therefore having to abandon any of your opinions? It is a lot clearer to say that ‘gender identity should define gender’ (if that is what you mean), than to beg the question by getting into which gender people ‘really’ belong to.

  57. Paul says

    Ally

    I’d be interested in hearing your views on the latest from Alison Saunders of the CPS -see link at the end of this post.

    Seeking to raise the conviction rate for rape is commendable and Saunders recognizes that the burden of proof is still on the person who’s made the allegation.However i’ve concerns at the potential for innocent men having their reputations destroyed if women follow her advice given they have no right to anonymity .That potential obviously currently exists but it seems to me that Saunders has absolutely no interest in the rights of men who’re accused rape including those implicitly accused by women who wake up in bed with a man and claim they have no memory of what happened.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11881973/Women-who-cant-remember-night-before-should-speak-to-rape-counsellor-says-DPP.html

  58. 123454321 says

    Carny – are you listening. You asked for what the MRM has done. I don’t affiliate with groups as I’m an individual in the strictest sense. I acknowledge that the MRM has only just begun, but it has found a voice and that voice is spreading across the internet. it is making a difference. It is exposing lies. It is uncovering truths. woman’s hour today confessed to a lie and had to retract a statement about murders by gender. i’ll post a link if you like.

    You asked for bullet points. Here are some reasons why men and boys today might be interested in listening, unlike you.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/i-need-the-mens-rights-movement-because/

  59. Marduk says

    #61 In context Alison Saunders’ remarks are quite reasonable and balanced. Oddly she was actually directing people away from the police in the first instance if they are unsure if they have been a victim of crime. This is pragmatic in austerity Britain but not what I would have expected from her actually.

    I also thought her latest bit of writing was quite good:
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/sep/23/sexual-consent-rape-prosecution-myth-consentis

    Perhaps she was listening after all, it makes a reasonable stab at attempting to be gender neutral and its often hard for public figures to admit when they’ve screwed up directly. Interestingly the myths she attacks seem to more the kind of thing that comes out of Tumblr than the MRAs.

    Did raise my eyebrows at one point though:
    ” I think there is an assumption that the authorities consider men the suspects and women the victims – that is not true, and is offensive to both genders.”

    Not true? “Offensive”! How quickly we forget our mistakes.

  60. Carnation says

    @123454321

    Dude, why would I click on a link to that piece of shit blog?

    Are you trolling me? The vainglorious rants, the Most Oppressed Person Ever emoting, the money grabs, the disastrous PR but most of all, the *total* lack of offline activism and effective, fuck that, even remotely noticeable change, brought about by those clowns.

    If you think avfm does anything other than discredit the discourse of men’s issues, you’re not looking objectively. All that embarrassingly puerile blog does is feed the ego of its chief blogger and self declared misogynist.

  61. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 63
    Agreed.

    Though the comparison between sex ad tea-drinking is totally ridiculous. Serving tea for someone else never creates consent problems, because it is totally unimportant, nobody cares if they ever get to do it or not, and everybody is happy to refrain. Sex, as we all know, is different.

  62. Carnation says

    And yes, post a link to the women’s hour story, I’d bet £10 MRAs weren’t involved.

    Also, a statement retracted on women’s hour – that’s it? That’s the only solid, tangible achievement you can find?

  63. Marduk says

    #65

    Well, I get that its different but I’m genuinely wondering who it is Saunders is pushing back on at this point.
    It might not be what we assume or what the Guardian (which cannot think outside its own agenda) assumes either.

    For example, Valenti’s patented “enthusiastic consent” standard (alluded to via a Twitter quotation at the start of the article) which is impossible even for her to describe let alone assess let alone state what a reasonable person could reasonably understand as enthusiasm beyond mere assent and under what circumstances someone should be jailed for failing to make that determination.

    The tea example does not require anyone to assess the level of enthusiasm with which a brew is received, its arguing for the simplest possible interpretation in plain language of what the law is, not what feminists et al spin and complicate it into.

    I’ve also noted the tenacity with which on any given occasion Saunders will state that it is the duty of the CPS and nobody else to shoulder the burden on evidence. She says this over and over again, which given she has had media training, is not an accident. I’m wondering if she has looked at things that have been happening in the US (e.g., Rolling Stone) and doesn’t like what she has seen.

  64. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 67
    You are right again. Very good point. Three exclamation marks. And the content of the actual video does make a reasonable point, as you say (now that I have seen it) .

    I had only seen the tea thing elsewhere as a text reference (I generally eschew videos) claiming that ‘it was all really that simple, guys!’ And on that level I thought it missed a couple of essential points. Like the fact that for sex (unlike tea) consent is often asked and given gradually and non-verbally, and that people tend to have strong desires and strong hang-ups about sex that make the negotiations much more complex. Indeed to the point that some people may deliberately get drunk because they would not be able to ask or give consent sober.

    But yes, no complaints to Alison Saunders for this one.

  65. Paul says

    @63

    If it wasn’t clear the issue i was raising was what i feel should be the right to anonymity for those accused of rape until they are proved guilty in a court of law.

    Saunders advising women to go to a rape counsellor if they’re not sure whether they’ve been raped rather than going directly to the police sounds reasonable .Although as far as i know relatively few women who wake up in bed with a man without remembering what happened currently go directly to the police.So if a woman finds a rape counsellor and as a result of talking to him/her genuinely feels she was raped and then decides to go to the police the alleged rapist still has no right to anonymity .So even if the CPS decide not to go ahead with a prosecution the alleged rapist-who’s innocent until proven guilty-could still find his reputation in ruins if the woman tells people she thinks he raped her.And almost certainly will find his reputation in ruins if he’s taken to court and subsequently found not guilty.

    Saunders may now be being more careful in the language she uses but seeking to encourage more women to come forward in the hope of more rapists ultimately being found guilty shouldn’t be achieved at the expense of the rights of those accused of rape.Where i accept my original post was misleading was that the conviction rate as far as i know is about 50%. But there’s also a real problem of women who feel they may have been raped not coming forward.So whilst Saunders is right to encourage them to seek counselling before going to the police she’s still not addressing the rights of the alleged rapists.

  66. 123454321 says

    Carny, here you go dude, at 29:40

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06bp2vf#play

    The thing is you see, Carny, it’s quite apparent to me that even a couple of years back Woman’s Hour would never, repeat NEVER, have felt in the slightest bit responsible, or even dreamt about checking the national office of statistics against the countless exaggerations, skewed misrepresentations and lies which were permitted for broadcast on their programme without so much as a hint of a challenge. The BBC (and people in general) just let it sail on by, time and time and time again, and the wind, it appears, over the years, was always, always in their favour. Any complaints were binned or ignored and this was ok because the processes demanding rigerous impartiality and fair representation weren’t put in place. Archaic.
    But, Carny, and it’s a big BUT, there have been masses of men (and women) who over the last few years have got sick to the back teeth and thus used the internet as a tool to communicatively spread the word and raise awareness of men’s issues and also challenge some of those lies and exaggerations associated with women’s issues. It seems, Carny, that out there in the big, wide world, people have been mulling over these online challenges and it also appears that amongst the millions of people exposed to the internet, some of them are quite high up in the echelons, probably working for large, governing institutions, regulators and various other controlling and influential bodies such as the office of national statistics. They have been listening. The evidence is there. Woman’s Hour (and that is just one example of many other examples) is OBVIOUSLY now under pressure to call out the bull shit statistics and acknowledge the other side of the story. I have to say that I’ve been fairly impressed with Woman’s hour of late. They must have had a strict dressing down and received much better policy guidance because the outcome is now that the interviewers clearly DO acknowledge the stats affecting men also. Good stuff.

    No doubt, Carny, you will think this all happened by itself without the the slightest bit of help from the masses of men and women calling the bullshit out on comment sections, blogs, websites etc. which has consequently forced a challenge on society, questioning, rethinking and ultimately bringing about evolutionary change for the good of all. you will refuse to see the causal link and instead preach how everyone should shut the fuck up and let people like you silently lead the way. Yeah, right. In you freakin’ dreams, maybe.

  67. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    The “masses” of online activists heroically manning “comment sections, blogs, websites” have been so effective that you can list literally no instances of this “activism” achieving anything to help or support males.

    I have asked you repeatedly, and you have consistently failed to list a single solid, tangible positive achievement for males.

    So I will ask you again, stick to cold hard facts (X agitated for Y to help Z and achieved it), please list the achievements of the online MRM? You won’t be able to, because they don’t exist. All you can do is use wild metaphor and bluster.

    As for the Women’s Hour example, that is truly laughable. A radio programme had a guest, the guest provided information that was incorrect, the presenter had a producer check it (or the producer checked it and directed the presenter) who then issued a 30 second correction. This is a fairly typical occurrence.

  68. 123454321 says

    Carny, you can hardly stomach it can you. Your refusal to acknowledge that men speaking out is a very real phenomenon and a direct contributor towards the rectification (albeit admittedly slower than it ought be) of gender issues affecting men is truly laughable. Do you really believe that, had it not been for men making a noise, we would still see men granted their bus passes at the same age as women, the retirement age equalised, young male drivers no longer penalised for being male rather than assessed on an individual basis, parental leave granted to fathers? Even soaps have introduced storylines revolving around male rape and domestic violence against men. Do you think the fairies encouraged them to be proactive about these things? Come on, Carny, wake up, man! I suppose your thoroughly logical principles and relentless advocation in telling people on the internet to shut the fuck up and be quiet about men’s issues would have also applied to the suffragettes. Huh?

    And I send you a link to a whole host of bullet points you specifically requested and you can’t be arsed to open the link!

    Also, for you to call that Woman’s Hour example “laughable” demonstrates it is YOU who is trolling me. Woman’s Hour has completely changed its tactics of late. There is nowhere near as much man-bashing going on and the presenters are continuously mentioning the fact that the issues they discuss often affect men and boys too. They’re still bigoted, feminist manipulators who pick and choose their stories and guests to suit their agenda, but hey, I’m giving them some credit for at least starting to ditch their bigotry. I guess they changed their behaviour by tuning in and listening to you…..NOT!

    Was it you who moaned about the incompetency of the CPS when it comes to wrapping violence against men stats up in with a report named “VAWG”? Err, nope, I didn’t hear you say much about that, you’d rather stay silent. If you recall, it was Ally and a bunch of other people who garnered the support and put pen to paper to complain. You think next year’s report, which hopefully will be a lot clearer, would have made it to that point all by itself? If you like the idea of silence, then why don’t you rocket yourself up to another planet away from all those nasty MRAs who want to have a voice? Oops, sorry, me forgot you’re already on one, and it aint Earth!

  69. Carnarion says

    @12354321

    More bluster, none of it significant.

    People would respect you more if you acknowledged that the online MRM hadn’t achieved anything tangible instead of trying to obfuscate and deflect.

    That you consider that blog worthy of citation reveals your disconnect with the real world. The pseudo-activist who heads up that blog has made it onto the news the past couple of weeks. For what? Donating to a DV programme for men? Lobbying politicians about the disproportionate number of (mostly poor black) men incarcerated for non-violent drug offencea?

    Nope, drunkenly acting out a sexual fantasy with a group of other drunk “activists”, centred around two young(ish) female authors & journalists. And then attacking those who suggested that this wasn’t activism.

    That blog is a pathetic joke and a haven for the weak, the stupid and the dysfunctional. It has achieved nothing positive.

    If you can’t see that, then I worry for you.

  70. 123454321 says

    Carny, were the suffragettes successful? Why? Would you have supported them with their voice and actions? Do you only view tangible outcomes as tangible if the cause and effect is no more than one step removed? Are you shit at chess?

  71. 123454321 says

    “Nope, drunkenly acting out a sexual fantasy with a group of other drunk “activists”, centred around two young(ish) female authors & journalists. And then attacking those who suggested that this wasn’t activism.”

    Well if that enrages you, goodness knows what you’d make of this:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WivtOKzjUoA&feature=youtu.be

    Two questions:

    1. What outrages you most, the activists speaking out about an abhorrent issue that affects males, or the paediatrician expressing her delight at cutting off a whole penis?

    2. Do you think a professional male pediatrician publicly exclaiming his delight at cutting an entire vagina would be held exonerated of any accountable whatsoever by the authorities and ignored by the mainstream media as per that female pediatrician?

  72. Carnarion says

    @ 123454321

    You’re attempting to deflect, again, badly.

    I asked you to list the tangible, positive outcomes achieved by the online MRM. You have not been able go do so.

    You then posed me questions unrelated to what I asked of you. They are loaded questions, and so silly that I won’t demean myself by engaging with them.

    Were the suffragettes successful? Of course they were, and of course I would have supported them. This is a very bad example.

    What have RadFems achieved in the last few years?

    What have trans activists achieved in the last few years?

    These are the examples that would be useful for you.

  73. 123454321 says

    Carny was that you in that video you excelled yourself? Bit higher calibre than you so maybe not…..

    I have at least attempted to answer your question and given a few examples of positive outcomes. I even concede the fact that it’s hard to determine a direct link between making a noise and the results we’re seeing trickle through these days, but your refusal to acknowledge the plausibility of such a connection is an embarrassment to you!

    So are you going to answer my two questions in 75? Nah, though not.

  74. Carnarion says

    Your questions are totally irrelevant and mundane.

    We are talking about the efficacy (or total lack of it) about online activism.

    You haven’t been able to detail any achievements.

  75. 123454321 says

    “Your questions are totally irrelevant and mundane.”

    Translation: Fuck, shit, I don’t know how to answer those questions without being seen to diss the female gender. Can’t be doing that.

  76. Holms says

    I’ve been waiting for an example of the amazing achievements of the MRM too, and so far I’ve seen zero examples despite seven replies in relatively quick succession attempting to respond to exactly that request. Post #81 is typical. Instead of giving an example, I see a deflection: a totally different group of people pursuing different goals did some criminal stuff 100 years ago.

  77. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    #80

    No, they are of no relevance to your repeated and embarrassing failure to demonstrate something you claim exists.

    Let’s face it, you don’t *want* to acknowledge the total failure of your intellectual gurus but you *can’t* defend them. So instead you suffer the cognitive dissonance and try to distract and detract.

    Simply doesn’t work.

  78. Carnarion says

    @ Holme

    #82

    The embarrassingly low calibre of MRA and supporter can only result in what exists: dullards defending the weak, incurious, angry, sadistic and easily discredited. It’s something of an achievement that an alleged movement cannot detail a single positive outcome for the cohort it claims to advocate for.

  79. 123454321 says

    “I see a deflection: a totally different group of people pursuing different goals did some criminal stuff 100 years ago.”

    …which I’m guessing you support, yes? no?

  80. 123454321 says

    Carny – blah, blah, yawn. Feminism is on the way down and men’s rights issues are on the way up. I already passed you some months ago on your way down south. What’s the weather like down there, dude, getting a bit stormy? It’s bright and sunny up here.

  81. Carnarion says

    @ 123454321

    Yep, the MRM is on its way up. It’s so obvious that it’s supporters can easily substantiate it’s successes.

    Oh, wait. They can’t.

    Looks like it’s not on its way up, it’s doing what it always has: existing meaninglessly on the Internet, acting as oppressor porn for RadFems, clickbait for egocentrics and an intellectual haven for the dysfunctional.

    Seriously man, you literally cannot list a single achievement for the movement you are defending. The only words that will pull you out of the stupid corner are ones detailing the achievements that don’t exist.

    You actually posted a link to an article partwritten by a guy who proudly claimed he didn’t give a fuck about rape victims. And yet you simultaneously claim that a soap opera with a male-rape storyline is a success for those lowlifes?

    You don’t make any sense.

  82. Holms says

    Two more replies with no achievements listed. Also:

    “I see a deflection: a totally different group of people pursuing different goals did some criminal stuff 100 years ago.”

    …which I’m guessing you support, yes? no?

    Do you realise how obvious it is when you reply to an accusation of deflecting… with a deflection? And even when we set that aside, the question was still fairly useless. Would I voluntarily label their actions as criminal if I approved of them? (Hint: I don’t approve of criminal activity.)

  83. 123454321 says

    “You actually posted a link to an article partwritten by a guy who proudly claimed he didn’t give a fuck about rape victims.”

    I wouldn’t have done that intentionally and I certainly wouldn’t be proud of doing that, you know that, Carny. Anyway, which link, who and can you cite some evidence. I’m genuinely keen to avoid such lowlife myself!

    “Seriously man, you literally cannot list a single achievement for the movement you are defending.”

    And your widespread achievement, again please Carny, are? Ears are pricked up for you….

    Oh, and I see how your blithering has forced a convenient escape of the two questions you refuse to answer. shame on you.

  84. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    The vile utterings of the co-author have been discussed at length here and elsewhere. The cretinous theorisings of cranks and misogynists emanating from that blog are well documented.

    Google the co-uthor and the word rape.

    Take care with your sources – you convincingly discredited yourself immediately.

    I don’t claim to have made any achievements, so I don’t have to justify any. You claim multiple achievements and imminent victory for the “movement” you support but cannot cite a single example.

    Your questions are irrelevant to what we are discussing and I have no interest in wasting time supporting your attempts at deflection.

    Let’s stick go your repeated failure to evidence your claims.

  85. 123454321 says

    “…for the “movement” you support….”

    I don’t support any movement but I believe in freedom of speech and voices being listened to and taken seriously. i still maintain that men speaking out using the internet as a tool has and is bringing about change.

    Shame on you for ignoring my questions. Your choice speaks volumes.

  86. Carnation says

    @123454321

    OK, here’s what I’ll do. I’ll read and answer your questions, once you list the clear, tangible positive outcomes of the MRM. No bluster or metaphor, in fact I recommend the STAR method (Situation, Task, Action, Result).

    Or acknowledge that you are unable to do so.

    Once you’ve done either of these, I’ll fully respond to your questions.

    Have you researched the trash who wrote the avfm article that you linked to yet?

  87. 123454321 says

    “…once you list the clear, tangible positive outcomes of the MRM.”

    But I’ve already explained how the noise created my men online has filtered its way to higher places and thus there is a correlation between those sparks and some of the outcomes we’re now seeing. I’ve mentioned a couple of relatively recent, positive outcomes but you simply dismiss them as if they are nothing. I’ve talked pension age, CPS report changes, bus passes, vehicle insurance, paternity rights, the behaviour of various media sources and their slight positive change of attitude. Even Amanda Platell (an influential figure to millions of readers) has changed her views and writes with a different view on life now that she’s coming to terms with how people feel:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3231492/PLATELL-S-PEOPLE-Men-REAL-oppressed-sex-today.html

    I can’t keep listing things which clearly show that attitudes are changing and that we’re gradually seeing positive outcomes just to see you dismiss them as inconsequential nonsense. I guess you’re entitled to your opinions but I’m telling you, Barmy Carny, that the voices of men and women are being heard and are making more of a difference than your strategy could ever dream of. Dream on, buddy.

    “Have you researched the trash who wrote the avfm article that you linked to yet?”

    Yes but couldn’t find anything. You got a link?

  88. 123454321 says

    Anyway, we shouldn’t need to bargain with each other before you answer the questions unless you’re desperate, which you are. So, Barmy Carny, what do you think of that female pediatrician who said it would be great to cut off a penis? Did you watch the video? Was you appalled or did you just shrug it off?

  89. Holms says

    To summarise Carnation’s #92:
    “Answer my question (what tangible thing has the MRM done) then I will answer any of yours.”

    To summarise 1234’s replies:
    A complete lack of answering Carnation’s question, plus an accusation that Carnation is avoiding answering questions. Fucking rich.

  90. 123454321 says

    Oh Holms, dear Holms, I often wonder between you and Carny who is going to win the race to the bottom of that smouldering shit shaming pile. I mean you do try real hard and all that, but at the end of the day I really think Carny could just pip you to the post. He’s a fucking ninja dodger, man. Pure nin-gaaaaa.
    I don’t suppose you’d like to tell us what YOU think of that pediatrician, would you? I’ll even let you call me a misogynistic bastard if it makes you feel all big and empowered, just as Carny’s pathetic shaming tactics must make him feel all big and clever. Of course, resorting to such tactics without answering the question would make you look like a clueless numskull at best, but * big sigh * past performance tells me you’re always willing to wear a label of that ilk on your running dungarees as you try to out dodge Carny to the entrance of the shit shaming pile. And by the way, I’m desperately trying to make this post as fucking stupid and pointless as your last post. Good job this is an open thread!

  91. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    It’s interesting that you accuse people asking you to justify your proclamations of victory and social change as “shaming” you. Very telling. Perhaps you aren’t as steadfast in your beliefs as your bluster suggests.

    I’m not going to waste many more words on you, your attempts at deflection and inability to detail the modest justification required are obvious and, again, telling. Excuse the pathos of the following. Briefly, however, the article that you linked to was co-authored by the man detailed in this article: http://tinyurl.com/nvtxsn3 The Raw Story get it wrong, however, he doesn’t specify the gender of the rape victims he “doesn’t give a fuck” about. Here’s the video: http://tinyurl.com/phhh3yp

    The author was supported in his views by the most prominent online MRA, and owner of the blog you linked to. That blogger wrote to a feminist that “The idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.”

    So these are the people that you cite in your arguments to me, and are the same people that you claim are responsible for positive outcomes (though you haven’t actually detailed anything tangible).

    Using your methodology, Ally Fogg single-handly is responsible for the changes you listed: “pension age, CPS report changes, bus passes, vehicle insurance, paternity rights, the behaviour of various media sources.”

    Can you prove I’m wrong?

    Actually, scrap that. It’s female journalists on The New Statesman and The Guardian that brought about the changes that you listed.

    Can you prove I’m wrong?

    No, you can’t, because you have failed, failed and failed again to prove anything.

    Here is an example of activism in action that works – let’s use the STAR rationale.

    Situation: Ally Fogg notices data representation in a CPS report that he disagrees with.
    Task: Challenge the CPS and correct the representation in future.
    Action: Arrange an open letter to the CPS, get it published and co-signed by reputable and credible activists
    Result: Amendments made in CPS report

    So there it is. Actual activism resulting in tangible positive outcomes.

    Now, I posit that the entire online MRM is a hindrance to effectively address men’s issues, but I am open and frank about the lack of credible evidence to support this. However, thought experiment: if Paul Elam and John Hembling were signatories to the open letter, could it be taken seriously given their well publicized and disgusting views on the very victims listed in that open letter? Mike Buchanan asked why he wasn’t included. He’s a supporter of that blog, that’s a very good reason why he wasn’t included.

    You tried to deflect with irrelevant questions. I took the time out to explain to you why the link you cited was such a terribly ill-advised thing to do. To me the courtesy of acknowledging that and stop asking me questions that don’t relate to what we are discussing.

    Finally, and keeping in mind what is evidence and what is a positive outcome, can you actually detail anything clear and tangible that the online MRM has achieved?

  92. Ally Fogg says

    sorry folks, been neglecting this thread.

    The Allison Saunders stuff this week was really interesting and really important, I think.

    They started putting the ConsentIs… project together over the summer, just a few weeks after the open letter business had been going on. The first announcement the CPS put out listed some of the usual VAW orgs -Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis, White Ribbon etc. ,My mate Duncan from Survivors Manchester rang them up and said… “um…” and literally the very same day someone jumped on a train from London to meet him, and almost immediately both he and someone from Survivors UK were invited to join the steering group.

    Consequently there has been this major sexual consent initiative launched this week which used gender-neutral language and scenarios and actively acknowledged both male victims and female perpetrators.

    This was exactly what I meant when I was trying to explain to Mike B that the victory in getting the CPS to acknowledge and correct their report wasn’t just about the report themselves, but in altering their assumptions and habits for the future. Not saying the battle is won, but at least for now they are thinking about this stuff in a different way.

  93. Carnation says

    @ Ally

    At the risk of asking you to adjudicate in a dispute not of your making, do you think 123454321’s position that the online MRM is playing a significant part in shaping the media discourse is accurate?

    Or do you think that my position is more accurate; that any change in the media discourse happens in spite of the bloggers, spammers and comment brigaders?

    At the risk of courting controversy, I firmly believe that the most effective way to advance the cause of men’s issues is to reach-out to funding authorities in cooperation with feminist inspired organisations.

    Angry, anonymous blogging is a dance into mediocrity and irrelevance – the squalid spectacle of a group of drunk men fantasising about Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte is an object lesson in the logical conclusion of the online MRM.

  94. Ally Fogg says

    As I have written & said many a time, the MRM is the single biggest obstacle to developing credible and effective organisations to support the needs and wellbeing of men and boys.

    That said, it is incredibly difficult to say what shapes discourse and narratives, because sometimes good stuff happens in reaction to bad stuff and sometimes balls are set rolling by unlikely nudges.

    But the AVFM video that you allude to is pretty much the definitive example of why the MRM is a basket case and an embarrassment.

  95. StillGjenganger says

    @Carnation 99, Ally 100
    I am happy to bow to Ally’s judgement on this one. But:

    the most effective way to advance the cause of men’s issues is to reach-out to funding authorities in cooperation with feminist inspired organisations

    – well, it is certainly the most effective, but it only works if men have common interests with feminists (and their organisation) on all the relevant issues. That may prove to be the case, of course – but I would not like the need for effective co-operation to limit men’s groups to consider only goals that have feminist approval.

  96. Carnation says

    @ Gjganger

    When you work in the third sector, you become au fait with terms such as partnership working, co-funding, footprint and presence. Bluntly, in the tightly guarded and competitive world of funded provision, not many punts are taken on organisations without sufficient credibility. Even a slight endorsement or association with someone discredited (in various ways) could be the difference between getting a grant and not getting one.

    A commenter here pointed out that a service provider for men had a fairly loose association with someone connected to a prominent MRA blog. I gave serious consideration to drawing attention to this but didn’t: the only loses would be men who need help.

  97. StillGjenganger says

    @Carnation 102
    Undoubtedly.
    But if you go back to the start of modern feminism, the main effort was not about cooperating with existing organisations, and keeping credibility with the establishment – even though that might have been more effective in the short term. Effort went into talking to women, listing their grievances, analysing their situation, coming up with new, revolutionary goals and new demands, and then pushing for change once you knew where you wanted to go. Men are probably not as desperately in need of revolution as women were back then. And the current MRM has not done a decent job of the political and analytical side of things that I have ever noticed. But surely men have their own interests and grievances? And surely there is a need for that kind of work too? It seems t a bit naïve just to take over the results of a different political project, built for a different groups in a different situation?

  98. 123454321 says

    “That said, it is incredibly difficult to say what shapes discourse and narratives, because sometimes good stuff happens in reaction to bad stuff and sometimes balls are set rolling by unlikely nudges.”

    This is the corner I kick from.

    Carny – I agree that video was an embarrassment to men’s rights. Totally agree with you. I repeat that I do not affiliate with any groups. I speak as an individual and i won’t be silenced based on your views of groups or individuals such as the one you cited who affiliate with such groups and speak such despicable words. You’re still a fucking hypocrite for accusing me of deflecting when I have answered the best I can where as you stubbornly refuse to answer mine, especially in an open thread. Clown.

  99. Holms says

    #104 1234
    Except you have yet to provide an answer to the question. I noted in my post #82 that “I’ve been waiting for an example of the amazing achievements of the MRM too, and so far I’ve seen zero examples despite seven replies in relatively quick succession attempting to respond to exactly that request.” A day later and I see you’ve made a further eight replies, and still have not answered.

    You’ve answered multiple other questions since then, so I know you are reading and attempting to answer things in general, but that only makes your omission all the more conspicuous.

    P.S.
    Since I know you’re just going to pose your inane question again and again despite it being pointed out to you that it is irrlevant, no I do not approve of that pediatrician. I consider it a disgrace that such views could come from a primary caregiver, and criminal if she ever acted on her own suggestion. Although I must say I was very puzzled when the activists turned the question on her, to which she replied that she had no vulva to remove. My speculation ran rampant for a moment there; was she simply getting snippy at the people berating her, or does she genuinely lack vulva? Not very relevant I supposed, but my speculation continued, possibly into conspiracyland: is it possible that she is a trans-woman and has a distaste for penis-having on the basis that she was born with one but resented it?

    Probably a laughably inane – and most certainly intrusive – line of thought, but I felt it might actually explain her motive, far fetched though it may be.

    P.P.S.
    Let’s get one thing clear. When you said “Carny – I agree that video was an embarrassment to men’s rights. Totally agree with you. I repeat that I do not affiliate with any groups. I speak as an individual and i won’t be silenced based on your views of groups or individuals such as the one you cited…” just then, you misspoke. Carnation did not cite that rabble, you did. You claim that you are not affiliated with them, and I believe that you are not affiliated with them, but only in the formal sense of ‘affiliation’. Informally, you are most certainly affiliated in that you are repeating a large number of their claims and using their shitty site uncritically as a resource.

  100. Carnation says

    @ Holms, @ 123454321

    ““Carny – I agree that video was an embarrassment to men’s rights. Totally agree with you. I repeat that I do not affiliate with any groups. I speak as an individual and i won’t be silenced based on your views of groups or individuals such as the one you cited…” just then, you misspoke. Carnation did not cite that rabble, you did. You claim that you are not affiliated with them, and I believe that you are not affiliated with them, but only in the formal sense of ‘affiliation’. Informally, you are most certainly affiliated in that you are repeating a large number of their claims and using their shitty site uncritically as a resource.”

    To expand on this, 123454321, you have proved my point for me. You gave an example of the caustic and corrosive effect of the MRM – you cited an article, in good faith, and then with absolute ease your citation was exposed as far worse than association. So you disproved your point, and proved mine. The online MRM actively hampers the efforts of men motivated by a desire to help men.

    ““That said, it is incredibly difficult to say what shapes discourse and narratives, because sometimes good stuff happens in reaction to bad stuff and sometimes balls are set rolling by unlikely nudges.”
    This is the corner I kick from.”

    OK – in that case, you have to accept that you *cannot* list a single tangible positive outcome of the MRM. Because, as you must surely realise by know, your claims are baseless and, using your, or indeed Ally’s (or my) methodology, we can merely speculate rather than offer clear evidence.

  101. Carnation says

    “ou cited an article, in good faith, and then with absolute ease your citation was exposed as far worse than association.” should read:

    ou cited an article, in good faith, and then with absolute ease your citation was exposed as far worse than useless.

  102. 123454321 says

    I cited AVFM where, IMO, there are some noteworthy point made on numerous occasions. They speak out using their voice and so what! The site raises awareness of men’s issues where they would normally be invisible. Holds, Clown Carny cited the video which, despite me agreeing with the fact that it was fucking abhorrent in terms of its message, it certainly doesn’t represent, from what I can tell, the overall views of most MRAs. For Clown Carny to use an example like that and label the rest of the site with the same broad-brush label means we can have lots of fun this week knowing there are two clowns in town.

    But at least one of the clowns has the guts to answer the question about the pediatrician. I certainly haven’t changed my mind on which clown has the most streamlined running dungarees!

  103. 123454321 says

    and where exactly have I said that the mrm have made “amazing” achievements? All I said is that they help raise awareness that men aren’t particularly happy with deal they’re getting, and that this turbulence makes society think and react, potentially filtering through as action elsewhere.

    You’re just two bitter clowns who hate others spoiling your fun.

  104. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    You said:

    “Carny – are you listening. You asked for what the MRM has done. I don’t affiliate with groups as I’m an individual in the strictest sense. I acknowledge that the MRM has only just begun, but it has found a voice and that voice is spreading across the internet. it is making a difference. It is exposing lies. It is uncovering truths.”

    And then you linked to an article authored by a man with squalid, disgusting views, supported by another man who endorses those views and openly admits to getting sexually excited by “fucking feminist’s shit up.”

    That’s the voice that you’re talking about, dude.

    “The site raises awareness of men’s issues where they would normally be invisible”

    Yes, and the English Defence League claims to be supportive of women’s rights and gay men’s rights. But, really, all they are a disgraceful rabble who like hating on people.

    So who pays attention to avfm? Feminists and those with an interest in gender studies definitely do, where they see page after page of bile, nonsense, misogynistic ramblings and pseudo-sexual posturing. And amongst that quagmire, they are meant to take seriously the occasional article about bona fide men’s issues?

    That blog, and the “movement” it is part of, is utterly fixated on anti-feminism. They proudly boast that they do no actual activism for men. So why do you take it seriously? Why do you demean and debase yourself by associating with, defending and citing a blog written by such obviously despicable characters?

  105. 123454321 says

    However much I’d love spend my Saturday night with a clown, I actually have other things to do. But as a parting goodbye until the next time, I ask you this: how the fuck do you have the gall to come on here all of the time criticising everyone else under the Sun for the way in which they tackle – in their own various ways – men’s issues, or at least raise awareness of men’s issues when all you do is relentlessly “claim” to know what men need but only ever speak out with passion and conviction about women’s issues and rights and at the same time you openly acknowledge that you have achieved absolutely fuck all for men yourself?

  106. Marduk says

    Fucking hell, that UNWomen report on “cyber-violence” is a shocker. I wonder why it went a bit quiet about Anita and Quinn gave their press conference. Its a disaster but nobody wants to say so.

    The most grating issue is that online hurt feelings and harassment are both bundled up uncritically into “violence”. Apparently (although who thinks this and why is not explained) “cyber-touch is recognised as equally as harmful as a physical touch”. And from then on they are off and running, and indeed argue that one form of violence should never be prioritised over another.

    Throughout there is appalling sourcing and incoherent argument. Its clear the authors haven’t actually read most of what they cite as it rarely supports what they claim. This is most evident in one particularly unfortunate section:

    “Recent research on how violent video games are turning children, mostly boys, into ‘killing zombies’118 are also a part of mainstreaming violence. And while the presentation and analysis of this research is beyond the scope of this paper119, the links to the core roots of the problem are very much in evidence and cannot be overlooked. ”

    Source 118 is, er, shall we say “interesting”.

    Firstly, its 15 years old and not recent at all. Ostensibly an article in a scholarly journal if you just glance at it, its actually a front organisation. The article doesn’t disappoint…and sure enough eventually we get to the real point: “The only national leader to identify the nature of the crisis and to pose a solution, was economist and then-candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Lyndon H. LaRouche.”

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/21st_Century_Science_and_Technology
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

    Finally, its recommendations are the usual Orwellian stuff about government ‘licensing prerogatives’ and supervision/regulation.

    Once again UNWomen take a serious and important issue and basically can’t be bothered to really take it seriously and nobody will dare criticise them for it. Cyber harassment is not OK, but this hysterical nonsense is however an insult and a dangerous one at that. I am however expecting the Israeli delegation is unlikely to see the funny side of the UN using LaRouche publications to form policy so maybe they’ll get a lesson in scholarship sooner rather than later.

    This is a serious problem, smart people need to think up smart solutions based on the best evidence, this “will this do” quality report is not what was required.

  107. Holms says

    #109
    and where exactly have I said that the mrm have made “amazing” achievements?

    Your attempts to demonstrate an achievement of the MRM has been reduced to quibbling over wording. Fine, you never said they had done anything ‘amazing’… now how about demonstrating that they have done anything tangible at all? The closest you have come to an answer:

    1) Pointing to a radio show correcting some erroneous statistics presented by a guest – “…and just a slight correction, I was talking to Lynda La Plante earlier and she said she thought more women were murdered than men. We did check with the Office of National Statistics, and their most recent figures show that actually two thirds of murder victims are men, and the male suicide rate is three times higher than the female rate.” – with no demonstrable link or indication that the MRM had anything to do with this correction at all, other than your nebulous assertion that they definitely had something to do with it. All this demonstrates is that you don’t know what ‘tangible’ means.

    2) No #2. End of list.

    All I said is that they help raise awareness that men aren’t particularly happy with deal they’re getting, and that this turbulence makes society think and react, potentially filtering through as action elsewhere.

    This is as close as you’re likely to get to admitting that they have not achieved anything that you can point to. I’ll take it.

    But as a parting goodbye until the next time, I ask you this: how the fuck do you have the gall to come on here all of the time criticising everyone else under the Sun for the way in which they tackle – in their own various ways – men’s issues, or at least raise awareness of men’s issues when all you do is relentlessly “claim” to know what men need but only ever speak out with passion and conviction about women’s issues and rights and at the same time you openly acknowledge that you have achieved absolutely fuck all for men yourself?

    Just an amazing example of a loaded question, and a perfect demonstration of your bad faith approach to this discussion.

    I don’t crticise ‘everyone’ that tackle men’s issues, just the ones that have shitty tactics. You know, the ones you euphamistically allude to when you say ‘in their own various ways’; this is as close as you’re likely to get to admittiong that the MRM is full of people with just awful views and tactics.

    I have never claimed ‘to know what men need’, so this assertion of yours that I do so ‘relentlessly’ is a lie.

    The claim that I ‘only ever speak out […] about women’s issues’ is falsified by the fact that I have joined in many discussion regarding men’s issues right here on this blog.

    I have never claimed to have achieved anything at all for men’s issues, but then, I have also never claimed to be an activist for said issues. Pointing out that I have achieved zero therefore warrants a ‘so what?’ You on the other hand have made claims regarding the achievements of the MRM, and hence you are the one that needs to demonstrate your claims. So far the count is zero results out of 19 posts in this thread.

  108. WineE.M. says

    Hey Ally, just wondered if you were as yet considering joining the Women’s Equality Party? Just looks like your sort of thing, that’s all 😉 Already, I’ve seen quite a few well-educated ‘right-on’ guys giving it their backing (university science professors etc.) so it certainly does appear to have an allure for some folk on the left.

    Also, tell you what I’d be really interested to hear, and that’s a debate between you and Philip Blonde, as to whether there is indeed some kind of ‘crisis in masculinity’ or not. Heard Blonde on the radio the other week, and I thought he made some really interesting arguments about what masculinity is in the 21st century, and why political elites refusing to think about male gendered problems was indeed causing an unnecessary crisis of sorts. If I remember correctly (and this is going by memory, rather than having a text or transcript to look at), your own argument in the Huffington Post ‘videocast’ (yes, I was sad enough to be one of the three people watching) was that (as a successful, reasonably well-off journalist with lots of media connections) you didn’t worry about the futures of your own sons, so there couldn’t be any ‘crisis in masculinity’! (Though I’ll admit you did leave out the bit about being a successful, reasonably well-off journalist with lots of media connections, but that did seem to be the gist of your argument). So, yeah, think it would be a very good discussion, anyway. 🙂

  109. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    However much I’d love spend my Saturday night with a clown, I actually have other things to do. But as a parting goodbye until the next time, I ask you this: how the fuck do you have the gall to come on here all of the time criticising everyone else under the Sun for the way in which they tackle – in their own various ways – men’s issues, or at least raise awareness of men’s issues when all you do is relentlessly “claim” to know what men need but only ever speak out with passion and conviction about women’s issues and rights and at the same time you openly acknowledge that you have achieved absolutely fuck all for men yourself?

    “However much I’d love spend my Saturday night with a clown, I actually have other things to do. But as a parting goodbye until the next time, I ask you this: how the fuck do you have the gall to come on here all of the time criticising everyone else under the Sun for the way in which they tackle – in their own various ways – men’s issues, or at least raise awareness of men’s issues when all you do is relentlessly “claim” to know what men need but only ever speak out with passion and conviction about women’s issues and rights and at the same time you openly acknowledge that you have achieved absolutely fuck all for men yourself?”

    Let’s deal with this in order.

    You’re calling me a clown, because you’re frustrated and angry. You’re frustrated and angry because you have failed to justify, to yourself and readers of this blog, your beliefs. Your beliefs seem to be part of how you see yourself, so essentially you feel humiliated and you’re lashing out. It’s painfully obvious. You are experiencing cognitive dissonance. Look it up.

    I don’t criticise everyone talking about men’s issues. I criticise the dullards, misogynists, ego-centrists and weaklings that constitute the online MRM. I applaud, for example, Ally Fogg and his efforts. Because you’re emotionally invested in the online MRM, you can’t seem to recognise this.

    As for what I’ve achieved, as I have said repeatedly, I worked in the sector and volunteered. That’s why I know a/ what I’m talking about in terms of service and provisiona nd b/ just why the imbeciles that you support are damaging. You claim the online MRM is “on its way up” and indeed “passing feminism” – but just can’t, no matter how hard you try, evidence this.

    The truth, 123454321, is that you’re basically like a child coming to terms with Father Christmas not existing. You put your childish faith in the hands of a collection of fantasists and troglodytes and they exploited you. And now you are exposed for your intellectual weakness, gullible nature and emotional immaturity. I understand your hurt and anger – you’ve been humiliated in front of your peers, effortlessly, bu someone whom you erroneously believe is your inferior.

    That’s why you are struggling to keep a lid on your anger. You’re hurting. It’s ok. It will pass.

  110. Carnation says

    @ White E M

    Not sure Ally would be too keen to give Philip “Red Tory” Blond much consideration. Cameron treated him much like he did that pig, ripped off his Big Society idea, and then abandoned him.

  111. WineE.M. says

    @ 116 Oh yeah, that’s right isn’t it, since Blonde appeared about the same time as Glasman’s ‘Blue Labour’ and then there was
    that whole rather bizarre period of ‘political crossdressing’. But I will confess that even for some liberals like myself, that sort of conservatism does pose some dilemmas. I mean, it’s all very well saying that people have to give up autonomy to achieve greater social solidarity and cohesion, but then for those at the very top, the whole nature of social conformity is of a quite different nature & experience, and so it’s not surprising it might appear a slightly different offer to them than to others. The worst manifestation of that kind of thinking, taken to an extreme, is the politics of someone like Frank Field, where putting pressure on others to conform seems to outweigh any concept of happiness or personal fulfilment. Grim fellow. In a modern society such as our own, with the kind of resources available to manipulate and disseminate all kinds of information, it ought surely to be possible (in my view) to arrange things so that people have fulfilling lives by boxing cleverly instead of just ‘boxing hard.’ Dunno, maybe that’s excessively utopian, but it’s honestly what I believe.

  112. 123454321 says

    Holms – half your response at post at 113 was wasted because I was aiming what I said at the other clown.

    Questions to both clowns:

    Why is Woman’s Hour of late making far more effort to be impartial by, for example, paying careful attention to the stats they broadcast and also their efforts with respect to mentioning men in their reports/interviews/stories? What is the root cause of that distinct and obvious change in behaviour?

    By the way, Carny, I’m not in the slightest feeling humiliated because I have at least tried to answer the question you posed (despite me having no affiliation with MRM) where as you (and everyone can see this) have backed out of responding to mine. Pathetic!

    “You claim the online MRM is “on its way up” and indeed “passing feminism” – but just can’t, no matter how hard you try, evidence this.”

    Carny, you only need to look on the comments sections (but you won’t) to see what is happening out there. Man, you are burying your head. Actually, that’s what I think it is. You never even bothered to watch that video did you, Carny? You won’t click on a link you which you think might destroy your own beliefs. You are an ostrich. You’re a clown working one of those ostrich puppet outfits like rod Hull. You could make millions, man, millions!

  113. Holms says

    Why is Woman’s Hour of late making far more effort to be impartial by, for example, paying careful attention to the stats they broadcast and also their efforts with respect to mentioning men in their reports/interviews/stories? What is the root cause of that distinct and obvious change in behaviour?

    I don’t know. Do you? I presume you’re going to try to claim the MRM had something to do with it, but before bothering, you need to establish:
    – That Women’s Hour is actually ramping up their checking and correction-making. Have you measured this, and how did you do so?
    – Similarly, an evidence based link to the MRM beyond mere coincidence.

    By the way, Carny, I’m not in the slightest feeling humiliated because I have at least tried to answer the question you posed (despite me having no affiliation with MRM) where as you (and everyone can see this) have backed out of responding to mine. Pathetic!

    It has been pointed out by both of us that your question was not relevant, and clearly only posed in bad faith. Howver, I did then go to the trouble of answering it, pointless though it was. Since I’ve granted your request, isn’t it about time, after 20 or so replies, to either demonstrate with evidence a tangible achievement of the MRM… or to admit that there is no such concrete thing to point to.

    Note that after this damn long with no evidence that you are arguing in good faith, I am 100% certain you will simply attempt another transparent dodge. Now’s your change to surprise me by being honest for once!

  114. 123454321 says

    I also meant to say, Carny, that you’re prose along with your arsenal of very thoughtful and engaging words is a joy to read – a very loquacious clown you are, always throwing up some pleasurable thesaurual vomit, which has the power to quell any anger in its tracks. Always good for a laugh. I particularly liked the word ” troglodytes” tonight. It’s a shame with that language-orientated brain of yours you can’t answer a fucking simple question like the one relating to the pediatrician. If you did, I promise i wouldn’t keep calling you a clown. Honest gov. Ostrich, maybe, but not clown. Just curious, do you spit the sand out or swallow it?

    Sp once again, what did you make of the pediatrician video. Holms had the decency to answer.

  115. 123454321 says

    “or to admit that there is no such concrete thing to point to.”

    I admit and I agree with that. But that doesn’t mean it’s not true and that there isn’t a remote causal link with the noise being made and the outcomes we’re starting to see. If you think men are going to shut up and be quiet just because you say there is no link between noise and outcome then you’re in the sand with Carny. You’ll never find that shit pile you know!

  116. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “If you think men are going to shut up and be quiet just because you say there is no link between noise and outcome then you’re in the sand with Carny.”

    There is more evidence to suggest that the outcome is *despite* the “noise”, not because of it. I have detailed this already.

    Regarding the men who aren’t going to “shut up and be quiet.” How many men do you think that this is? The owner of the blog that you cited as an attempt to prove a point earlier has stated that there are 300 such men. And the co-author of the article that you cited acknowledged that they are “nearly universally despised” (http://tinyurl.com/q5kbhh9). So exactly how is a tiny group of discredited, nearly universally despised men going to make any kind of change?

    But at least you have now acknowledged that your original stance is total garbage, that you have no evidence whatsoever.

  117. 123454321 says

    “– That Women’s Hour is actually ramping up their checking and correction-making. Have you measured this, and how did you do so?”

    Yeah, I have tuned into the programme over the years and although non-scientific I have witnessed a change of behaviours and outputs. It’s fairly obvious, if you’re a listener, that there has been a change. Something must have led to their decisions and I certainly don’t attribute the change as being down to recognition of yours or Carny’s methodologies! My gut instinct tells me that it’s more likely due to the increasing noise/complaints/pressures coming from disgruntled men. Entirely plausible to my way of thinking.

  118. 123454321 says

    “There is more evidence to suggest that the outcome is *despite* the “noise”, not because of it. I have detailed this already.”

    Don’t detail it, prove it, with evidence, just as you keep asking me to.

    “But at least you have now acknowledged that your original stance is total garbage, that you have no evidence whatsoever.”

    No I haven’t acknowledged that my stance is “total garbage” you fucking ostrich moron clown. Geez, thanks for putting words in my mouth.

    Why don’t you practise what you preach and show me evidence of the noise NOT being a factor of the outcomes we’re beginning to see? Or at lease answer the question about the pediatrician. You’re actually now starting to look inordinately stubborn and incredibly stupid, not as I didn’t already know that!

  119. 123454321 says

    The thing is, Carny, I am openly willing to criticise men, call out their wrongful behaviours or admit to their woeful actions if and when necessary. But YOU, Carny refuse to look beyond your own nose and your own little world of men=perpetrator, women=victims, women are good, men are evil, and you refuse to say ANYTHING bad against women simply because they are women. You are a bigot. Plain and simple. You won’t acknowledge that pediatrician’s despicable response because you’re a bigot, a clown-faced, ostrich-suited, head-in-the-sand bigot who has absolutely no real concern for men and boys. And you KNOW it!

  120. Holms says

    #120
    …It’s a shame with that language-orientated brain of yours you can’t answer a fucking simple question like the one relating to the pediatrician. …

    This criticism of yours would have a lot more credibility if not for the fact that it took you twenty-two argumentative, snide, insult-laden posts to come up with an answer of your own. And the answer in the end: the MRM has zero achievements to their credit. Exactly what you were arguing against all along.

    #123
    Yeah, I have tuned into the programme over the years and although non-scientific I have witnessed a change of behaviours and outputs.

    The question was whether you had measured the changes you claim in Women’s Hour, and your answer is “no.”

    #124
    Why don’t you practise what you preach and show me evidence…

    – Said the person who spent this entire thread making unevidenced claims –

    …of the noise NOT being a factor of the outcomes we’re beginning to see?

    – as he demanded evidence to prove a negative proposition.

    You’re actually now starting to look inordinately stubborn and incredibly stupid, not as I didn’t already know that!

    Read this one out while looking into a mirror please, 1234. Try to remember that YOU are the one that spent over twenty insulting replies before admitting your original claim – that the MRM had any achievement at all to its credit – was a load of bollocks.

    #125
    The thing is, Carny, I am openly willing to criticise men, call out their wrongful behaviours or admit to their woeful actions if and when necessary. But YOU, Carny refuse to look beyond your own nose and your own little world of men=perpetrator, women=victims, women are good, men are evil, and you refuse to say ANYTHING bad against women simply because they are women. You are a bigot. Plain and simple. You won’t acknowledge that pediatrician’s despicable response because you’re a bigot, a clown-faced, ostrich-suited, head-in-the-sand bigot who has absolutely no real concern for men and boys. And you KNOW it!

    Sentence 2 is a lie. Sentence 3 is a slanderous lie. Sentence 4 has no content. Sentence 5 starts with a lie and then repeats the earlier slander. Sentence 6 is a bad faith argumentative ploy based on claiming that you know the inner thoughts of the person you are arguing against.

    Gee it sure is nice chatting with you.

  121. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    There is one tangible example of activism carried out for men’s issues detailed in this thread. I posited that if Ally’s letter included the signatures of the individuals you cited in earlier comments, then the disgusting nature of their “noise” would have have dire, possibly terminal, consequences for the aims of the letter.

    Is this evidence? I would suggest that it is, as it Mike B’s comments on not being included and Ally’s response.

    I’m not involving myself in indulging your attempts at deflection, primarily because it’s a far more valuable use of my time to have you acknowledge and accept that your premise is totally wrong but also because I don’t have to: if I had claimed that paediatricians are a force for good for men’s issues then your little talking point would have some relevance. As it stands, it’s irrelevant to everyone reading and remains a rather obvious comfort blanket for you to wrap yourself in.

    Calling me a bigot merely demonstrates that you resort to hyperbole when upset.

    You strident, vainglorious claims for the MRM have been comprehensively rubbished but you just cannot let go. I rejoice in your oblivious stamina but must urge you go take caution in your tone. At times I’ve started to wonder if you’re an iteration of the late, irate and intellectually prostate Sid.

    @ Holms

    Thanks – I’m on an ipad so cutting and pasting is a pain!

  122. 123454321 says

    My premise:

    I don’t affiliate with groups, I speak as individual.
    Men have the rights to speak out and they are getting fed up with feminism and being rendered invisible so they ARE speaking out.
    Many men, like me, don’t consider themselves to be part of any “activist” group, just individuals speaking out about how their gender is ignored.
    They’re making a noise in the media and people from all walks of life are reading it.
    People are starting to recognise and at least consider the points which are being raised.
    We’re seeing some changes in terms of visibility of men’s rights.
    We have seen some positive outcomes such as paternity rights, car insurance, retirement ages etc.
    The noise continues and appears to be getting louder.
    We can look back at history and draw a correlation between suffragettes, noise and outcomes.
    It would be a reasonable assumption to suggest that the noise generated by men’s groups and individuals could lead to changes in relation to acknowledgment, consideration and change of behaviour, potentially leading to fairer outcomes, just as the noise did for women’s rights.

    It is far more likely that men’s groups and individuals have contributed far more in terms of raising awareness than you two could ever achieve in a lifetime. If – and you both claim this would be ideal – all the men’s groups and individuals speaking out just suddenly shut down overnight and handed over to you two – Carny and Holms – what exactly would you achieve for men, and how long would it take? Answers on the back of a very small fag packet, please.

    You can keep harping on about the lack evidence when it comes to what MRM has not achieved but you can’t seem to rebut my premise that their is likely a causal link using your own counter evidence. You just resort to your own hyperbole and shaming, which is more irritating than a nettle rash.

    “the MRM has zero achievements to their credit.”

    You can’t fucking say that without evidence, just as you say I can’t say something without evidence. You have no proof that the noise the MRM has mad has not contributed to positive outcomes. Saying what you said after accusing me of not supplying evidence makes you a hypocrite of the highest magnitude.

    “The question was whether you had measured the changes you claim in Women’s Hour, and your answer is “no.”

    Yes I have, but admittedly not scientifically. It’s soooo easy for you to rebuke people and their suggestions, Holms, by asking for scientific evidence based on everything they fucking say. It’s a trick as old as the hills which leads to a dead end when we’re simply trying to evolve a conversation. It’s also childish and boring, just like Carny who stubbornly and childishly refuses to comment on the pediatrician.

    “Said the person who spent this entire thread making unevidenced claims –”

    Boring….

    “– as he demanded evidence to prove a negative proposition.”

    And again. Boring. BORING. B O R I N G.

    “There is one tangible example of activism carried out for men’s issues detailed in this thread. I posited that if Ally’s letter included the signatures of the individuals you cited in earlier comments, then the disgusting nature of their “noise” would have have dire, possibly terminal, consequences for the aims of the letter.”

    Carny – why do you think Ally has started looking at men’s rights in more detail these days? Do you think he pays fuck-all attention to Twitter, Facebook, comments, blogs, news articles etc. and just came to some of his enlightenments and conclusions without any obvious (or subliminal) inputs whatsoever? Do you think Ally would have written that letter without knowing he would have had substantial support from a reasonable number of people asking similar questions? What would he have done if NOBODY ANYWHERE ever showed their support on the internet or made no noise whatsoever about men’s rights or the CPS. What if following Ally’s blog piece on the CPS fiasco everyone here and on twitter told him he was being a fucking prick for even thinking the things he thought? Would he risk his career and reputation on that basis? You think the internet and the people who contribute in various styles have had zero influence? Really?

  123. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    As I’ve said before, I think Ally’s interest in gender issues probably started at university and were probably inspired by the academic discipline of feminist studies.

    @ Ally

    Am I right?

    Back @ 123454321

    I gave a detailed and credible example of the “noise” you describe having to be excluded from actual activism. You cannot provide any examples of it working. Case closed, the end, you lost. Badly. There is more causal evidence that the “noise” damages rather than bolsters men’s issues.

    Saint Bob Geldof, case in point. Talked about “sad dad syndrome” and the inequities of the family court system (even though he was, rightly, awarded custody) but, oops-a-daisy, also let slip that he “hated women” after his marriage ended. Still welcomes into F4J though! Did his endorsement of those fuckwits help their cause? Nope. They’ve achieved nothing despite their high level “noise.”

    I can prove the non-achievement of the MRM by the total absence of achievements wrought by them. Just like I can prove the non-existence of lepreuchorns despite the fact that they have their own museum (I recommend a visit!)

    Because I feel sorry for you, I’m even going to help you out. Google RadFem conference cancelled, and then thino about MRM achievements.

    Oh, calm down dear, you’re getting agitated and upset. It’s alright, we’re just talking x

  124. 123454321 says

    “As I’ve said before, I think Ally’s interest in gender issues probably started at university and were probably inspired by the academic discipline of feminist studies.”

    I agree with that, but it’s a historical statement based around the source of Ally’s initial interest in feminism. Nothing remotely to do with the latter day changes in behaviour relating to men’s issues. I told you you’re a ninja – a ninja deflector of the highest order! You keep making statements that don’t address the point. Of course Ally will fucking agree with that statement. Bloody hell, man!

    “There is more causal evidence that the “noise” damages rather than bolsters men’s issues.”

    Prove it. Show me evidence, air head. And I Don’t Give A Fuck What Bob Geldof said. He’s just one example – one example which doesn’t speak for ALL examples. You keep citing the odd example here and there and maintaining that ALL men’s rights activists should be tarred with the same brush. Coming from someone who likes “evidence” that sure is a hypocritical line of thought!

    “I can prove the non-achievement of the MRM by the total absence of achievements wrought by them.”

    No you can’t. And stop talking about the MRM for fuck sake. You can’t say that MRM noise hasn’t led to any positive outcomes. Anyway, explain to me how the noise coming from online reactions to feminist lies and exaggerations have not led to challenges and thus a potentially more healthy outlook in terms of braking down male invisibility. You can’t.

    “Oh, calm down dear, you’re getting agitated and upset. It’s alright, we’re just talking x”

    Hey, no worries, Carny, i’m hardly bursting any vessels. You can have three kisses from me. xxx.

    You’d get 5 if you told me what you thought of professional, responsible people supposedly servicing the community saying it would be great to cut off a penis.

  125. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    Are you trolling me? I gave you an example. I have offered more proof than you have. You gave no proof, I gave a solid example and then used your lack of proof as evidence that I was right.

    You then ignored this and claimed you were right again. I think you’re attempting a Jedi mind trick but it isn’t working.

    Back to Ally, and apologies for discussing him in abstentia, but you support my contention that he was inspired by feminism. And Ally himself has described the MRM as a basket case and the single biggest obstacle to men’s issues!! Seriously dude, just admit you’re wrong… people would applaud your honestly.

    The angry buffoons making noise achieve nothing except excite othe angry buffoons, both MRA and feminist, and they write and write and nobody cares.

    Much as I’d love to consider my takedowns of you and other MRAs/supporters as activism, it isn’t. It’s because I can’t be bothered scanning a pile of documents today.

  126. Adiabat says

    Marduk (112): Yeah, that report is hilarious. Did you see the part in the UNWomen report where they referenced their own C:/ Drive?

    Or the fact that a significant proportion of the references either go to dead links or never even existed.

    The report is just propaganda, and when I see propaganda in place of facts it tells me that the facts do not support their agenda. It discredits whoever is pushing it.

  127. Adiabat says

    Ally Fogg (100):

    As I have written & said many a time, the MRM is the single biggest obstacle to developing credible and effective organisations to support the needs and wellbeing of men and boys.

    Do you have a source for this? As far as I am aware at least four of the signatories of the letter you sent to the CPS have all stated feminist theory as obstacles (all four with examples and citations – two in official reports), and the only one to even mention the MRM is you.

    And even then you have several posts detailing organisations like Women’s Aid trying to block the development of services for men, as well as a post about the “reply” to your letter signed by organisations like the Fawcett Society, the “foremost feminist organisation in the UK”.

    You say that ‘the MRM is the single biggest obstacle’ but what you’ve actually demonstrated time and time again is that the biggest obstacle is from individuals and organisations who identify as feminist.*

    That said, it is incredibly difficult to say what shapes discourse and narratives, because sometimes good stuff happens in reaction to bad stuff and sometimes balls are set rolling by unlikely nudges.

    Of course. Putting aside the hilarity of commenters who believe in “The Patriarchy” while demanding ‘tangible links’ from 1234etc (while pretending that they don’t understand that influences are often more subtle than that, presumably for the purpose of scoring a few ‘internet points’) the same level of evidence would also mean that it would not be possible to show that the Suffragettes “won women the vote”. I’d be quite happy if that is the standard for these discussions as it effectively knocks a pillar of modern feminism out from under them (though being realistic it’s always a case of double standards when it comes to these people – plus I’m not a ‘ends justify means’ kinda guy).

    *That said, if you’re just saying this to get feminists on board, to play suffragist to the suffragettes, it’s probably a good idea strategically. It’s always better to convert than conquer. A quick nudge and a wink and we’ll say no more about it 😉

  128. 123454321 says

    “Are you trolling me?”

    No.

    “I gave you an example.”

    Carny, that example of Bob Geldof does NOT prove one way or the other that the noise generated by men and women on the internet isn’t contributing towards overall awareness and potentially fairer outcomes for men and boys. Give up trying to prove that noise generation is undisputed a bad thing. You simply can’t say that. It’s most likely productive in the whole scheme of things, whether you like it or not. It worked for the suffragettes but you refuse to acknowledge the same for men’s rights activists. you also refused to comment on the bbc article I linked to because, once again, you can’t bring yourself to speak negatively about anyone if they don’t have a penis.

    “I have offered more proof than you have.”

    Really, you think citing one or two examples of piss-poor MRAs (there are many piss-poor feminists too) demonstrates scientifically, and without doubt, that all MRA noise is pointless and worthless? Well, you obviously do, but you’d be wrong. What you mean to say is that you hate MRAs who use freedom of speech to call out the bigoted nature of rad feminism or MRAs who aren’t frightened to challenge your beliefs which you have garnered by looking through your rose-tinted, hipster glasses.

    “Back to Ally, and apologies for discussing him in abstentia, but you support my contention that he was inspired by feminism”

    Yes, but so what. I don’t care where Ally’s initial studies began. I’m merely suggesting that his attitudes may have changed based on the noise he hears around him, which could have led to acknowledgements, further considerations, analysis and possible actions that he wouldn’t have otherwise undertaken. He might not even draw these links himself. Much of it can be subliminal, just as feminism has successfully indoctrinated much of our population over the last few decades.

    “And Ally himself has described the MRM as a basket case and the single biggest obstacle to men’s issues!!”

    Ok, but the MRM doesn’t represent all of the noise I’m talking about. The MRM is a mere drop in the ocean. I’m sure Ally would call some feminist organisations basket cases. It means nothing in the context I’m talking of i.e. the rights of free speech in relation to men being able to use the internet as a tool to challenge some of the widespread lies and exaggerations that feminists have managed to embed across society. There are good and bad cases on both sides.

  129. 123454321 says

    By the way, Holms, I forgot to mention that I thought your explanation surrounding the pediatrician could indeed be plausible. But I doubt it. It’s more likely to do with the fact that, as a women in this day and age, you can be seen and heard to do and say whatever you like about men and boys without feeling even a hint of remorse or have any fear of ramification whatsoever. Had that pediatrician been a man, the authorities would have been all over him like a rash and he’d most likely have lost his job. This example in itself demonstrates what a poor position men and boys are in at the moment. Shameful, deplorable and inexcusable. That’s the real reason why Clown Carny won’t comment.

  130. 123454321 says

    “….the same level of evidence would also mean that it would not be possible to show that the Suffragettes “won women the vote”. I’d be quite happy if that is the standard for these discussions as it effectively knocks a pillar of modern feminism out from under them (though being realistic it’s always a case of double standards when it comes to these people…. ”

    Exactly, Adiabat. Cake and eat it….Hypocrisy at its best…Feminist double-standards…It’s different for women….men have it easier….women have always suffered more….men oppress women….men are evil, violent perpetrators…we live in a rape culture…domestic violence only affects women…women didn’t get the vote (despite it only being 10 years between all men and all women getting the vote and that it was largely a class issue and that men were held accountable for the family unit and their property and HE would suffer the consequences and be held accountable by law for their wives actions etc. feminists will still use that 100 year old argument)…

    Of course, feminists like Carnation and Holms will ALWAYS continue to have blinkered vision and refuse to acknowledge ANYTHING from a man’s point of view, regardless. Their arguments are becoming tiresome and they’re now literally clutching at straws.

    Ally keeps quiet because his brain tells him one thing and his heart another. Must be difficult.

  131. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    It’s touching you have a friend to play with.

    When did I say I believed in “The Patriarchy”?

    You, however, are an outspoken supporter of the blog that your friend and equal 123454321 saw fit to link to.

  132. Marduk says

    “At the event, Cameron will propose a £10m anti-Isis propaganda unit based out of London, which will seek to highlight negative aspects of life under Isis…being sold into slavery, having to queue for bread, and low wages”.

    Cameron seems to have confused ISIS with IDS.

  133. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “Carny, that example of Bob Geldof does NOT prove one way or the other that the noise generated by men and women on the internet isn’t contributing towards overall awareness and potentially fairer outcomes for men and boys. Give up trying to prove that noise generation is undisputed a bad thing.”

    Yes dude, yes it does. When the noisy ones are easily discredited narcissistic buffoons (a la the online MRM and F4J), then they aren’t contributing anything, except fodder for their own egos. The English Defence League, for example, have support that the online MRM can only dream of. Remember, for all the bluster, the MRM has managed (as far I know) four physical get togethers, the largest of which attracted about 100 people (I’m being generous with the estimate) The EDL can muster thousands onto the streets. They are almost universally, and correctly, dismissed as low-life bigots keen to cause trouble and offence. Individuals with analogous beliefs, such as the deluded, bigoted but polite Melanie Phillips, get plenty of press and support.

    Can you see the difference? Foul-mouthed, uncouth noise = near universal condemnation. Polite, reasoned, equally bigoted noise = influence and platform.

    Those that you (and Adiabat) support fall easily, simply and obviously into the former camp.

    “Really, you think citing one or two examples of piss-poor MRAs”

    They are two extremely prominent MRAs, the only two (that I know of) who draw/drew an income from their alleged activism.

    Can you name me any MRAs who aren’t “piss poor”? Whose beliefs and “activism” differs? Genuine challenge.

    “What you mean to say is that you hate MRAs who use freedom of speech to call out the bigoted nature of rad feminism or MRAs who aren’t frightened to challenge your beliefs which you have garnered by looking through your rose-tinted, hipster glasses.”

    Who mentioned hate? I think MRAs are, usually deluded trolls and low-lifes, but hate is a very strong word. A word that *you*, not I, used. And because MRAs are usually deluded trolls and low-lifes, their challenges are easily dismissed, as I have done repeatedly, much to your dismay.

    My rose-tinted, hipster glasses? Explanation, please?

    “No you can’t. And stop talking about the MRM for fuck sake. You can’t say that MRM noise hasn’t led to any positive outcomes. Anyway, explain to me how the noise coming from online reactions to feminist lies and exaggerations have not led to challenges and thus a potentially more healthy outlook in terms of braking down male invisibility. You can’t.”

    Eh, well, this discussion started because you point-blank refused to acknowledge the total failure of the online MRM. You then acknowledged that they hadn’t achieved anything positive for men, but first cited an article that was easily discredited. You’re getting clearly agitated about your support for the online MRM – that’s because you’re trying to defend the indefensible.

    Can you demonstrate male invisibility? Because that’s just a moronic MRA theory. Can you point to “feminist lies and exaggerations” that have been challenged by the MRM with tangible results?

    No, you simply can’t. But that doesn’t stop you clutching onto your completed rubbished belief system.

    “Of course, feminists like Carnation and Holms will ALWAYS continue to have blinkered vision and refuse to acknowledge ANYTHING from a man’s point of view, regardless. Their arguments are becoming tiresome and they’re now literally clutching at straws.”

    “Ok, but the MRM doesn’t represent all of the noise I’m talking about. The MRM is a mere drop in the ocean.”

    Yes – but it is that drop in the ocean that you claim is positive for men, and I am claiming is not.

    You realise that I’m a man, 123454321? On a gender studies blog, talking about issues that affect men and women? You realise I’ve commented many times on the effect that the online MRM is having on *you* personally, as well as men in general?

    Re the pediatrician. I’ve carefully explained to you, many times now, that I won’t support you in your obvious (and rather childish) attempts at deflection.

  134. Marduk says

    #112 (My own post)

    Victory lap. Who gives you better exclusives than me?
    http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/09/uns-cyberharassment-report-is-really-bad.html
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/im-disappointed-zoe-quinn-speaks-out-on-un-cyberviolence-report

    Well OK, this dude got there first kind-of.
    https://medium.com/@KingFrostFive/cyberviolence-citations-needed-8f7829d6f1b7

    It seems to me that this highlights less an epidemic of cyberviolence than the fact international journalism is in utter crisis as across most major media outlets in the world the report was initially praised. Now it turns out that they don’t bother reading the reports that they write about. I understand how it happenes, they just scanned the press release, but if this is what it has come to, what is actually the point of journalism as a profession (serious question). This might seem a minor case to make that judgement on but its only going to be through odd things like this that the system can be tested, and it appears utterly broken.

    If Zoe Quinn herself thinks it was crap, I think its clear we’re talking about deeper faults than things one might agree/disagree with on political grounds.

  135. Marduk says

    Last word on this from me.
    Lawyer who originally approved of report actually reads it and then realises he really doesn’t.
    https://popehat.com/2015/09/28/revisiting-the-un-broadband-commissions-cyberviolence-report/

    An interesting part of his analysis is he notes the influence that Sarkeesian has had on this and the gap between rhetoric that is widely applauded and what that turns into when you take it very seriously, write it down and make policy out of it. As activists gain more influence, they are going to have to start taking more responsibility for things like this.

    Another interesting point was that even when people were saying it was a mess, he didn’t want to hear it because he assumed it was just because people don’t like Quinn, Sarkeesian etc. This is fantastically dangerous while the likes of Saudi and China are looking for anything that they can use to continue restrict their citizens in their use of the internet.

  136. 123454321 says

    Carny, we’re going around in circles. I respect your opinion but we’re never going to agree. I think you’re deluded if you think there is no correlation between noise and evolutionary change. Whatever, I’m afraid it appears the noise is here to stay, and you probably just need to learn how to accept and get used to it. The noise out there is getting louder by the month, and if you can’t see that, you’re not looking, or you’re just burying your head in the sand….. Rodders!

    “Can you see the difference? Foul-mouthed, uncouth noise = near universal condemnation. Polite, reasoned, equally bigoted noise = influence and platform.”

    I have one word for you on that one, Carny…..”suffragettes”. We even see today plenty of criminal activities, threats, aggression and violence emanating from women and feminists who vehemently oppose men’s rights or aspects of society they don’t agree with, like posters on walls! From what I can tell, MRAs (on the whole) are far less violent and threatening. You know very well that politeness gets you nowhere and men are using the internet to show their feelings on the matter. The sole reason for feminism being as successful as it once was was down to the collaborative noise that women made and also the fact that men politically and economically levered an approach for women to reach a status of equality. But now feminist expectations have swung too far the other way and it is men who are rendered invisible in terms of political support. Yes, women still suffer and I have complete sympathy and would do whatever I could to help, not because they are women, but because they are humans. I absolutely still agree women’s issues should be addressed but where as men have politically levered change on behalf of women, I see little assistance coming from feminism when it comes to helping men, and that lack of support has angered men (and women) because it is their fathers and sons who are being affected. Women are being helped because they are women. Men are not being helped because they are men. That stance is a fucking abhorrent stance which needs to be buried as soon as possible. Feminism, to these men who are making their views known online, is nothing more than a supremecy movement. if that is their perception, then feminism has made a wrong turn somewhere. You can’t alter people’s perception easily, they can’t help the way they feel and they are only trying to demonstrate their opinions. if you want to close your eyes and ears to what’s going on, then fine, but it won’t change anything. You’re obviously angry yourself, Carny, because your bubble is being burst. A cult which you have always aligned yourself with is now under threat of fierce erosion. The banks of the river which once flowed with forceful vigour are now diminishing to a gentle current, at best. The future for feminism looks shaky. Just saying what I see as evidence – you won’t see the evidence because you refuse to look, and if you do look, you refuse to acknowledge what’s happening – like the pediatrician. I think feminism could have been extremely powerful, not only as it was a couple of decades ago, but also retaining that power moving forward now and into the future. Unfortunately, the shambolic way that feminism has behaved over the last few years means it’s now far too late to make amends. The think is, Carny, one of us has to be wrong and only time will tell. I think we need to give it another few years until we both find out. It’ll be interesting and I’d be the first to admit I was wrong. Hopefully you would do the same – but you’ll have to pull your head from out of the sand first, Rodders!

    Knowing you so well by now, Carny, you will undoubtedly request evidence. Have a quick read of the comments on this page to find out why people need feminism:

    https://www.facebook.com/fckh8com/photos/a.152651481440222.25064.145318588840178/967814419923920/

    I think the responses a few years ago would have been quite different, don’t you?

  137. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    We are going round in circles, so this will be my closing comment on the matter (much to everyone’s delight, I’m sure). Feel free to respond, I have a feeling we will be engaging in the near future…

    Then, I’m off out to get high as a kite and drunk as monkey. I’m even going to try blockquoting!

    Carny, we’re going around in circles. I respect your opinion but we’re never going to agree. I think you’re deluded if you think there is no correlation between noise and evolutionary change. Whatever, I’m afraid it appears the noise is here to stay, and you probably just need to learn how to accept and get used to it. The noise out there is getting louder by the month, and if you can’t see that, you’re not looking, or you’re just burying your head in the sand….. Rodders!”

    Britain First make a lot of (online) noise, the EDL make a lot of actual noise, F4J made a lot of noise and got a lot of attention. They achieved diddly squat with it, except attract foul and easily discredited weaklings to their ranks. Angry people make noise to get attention. A lot of anger is misplaced and is depression projected outwards. There’s also the rather obvious points that feminists, for better and worse, make a huge amount of noise online too.

    I have one word for you on that one, Carny…..”suffragettes”. We even see today plenty of criminal activities, threats, aggression and violence emanating from women and feminists who vehemently oppose men’s rights or aspects of society they don’t agree with, like posters on walls! From what I can tell, MRAs (on the whole) are far less violent and threatening. You know very well that politeness gets you nowhere and men are using the internet to show their feelings on the matter.

    We don’t see any, let alone plenty, of criminal activities and violence emanating from women and feminists who vehemently oppose MRAs. If you believe this, then you are an ignoramus, and extremely gullible.

    I didn’t accuse MRAs of being violent.

    The sole reason for feminism being as successful as it once was was down to the collaborative noise that women made and also the fact that men politically and economically levered an approach for women to reach a status of equality. But now feminist expectations have swung too far the other way and it is men who are rendered invisible in terms of political support.

    This would require far more attention, and it is of course correct to say that men suffer primarily because they are men in some spheres of life. MRAs are doing nothing pro-active about supporting these men. To describe men as “rendered invisible in terms of political support” is to engage in “hysterical hyperbole.”

    Women are being helped because they are women. Men are not being helped because they are men. That stance is a fucking abhorrent stance which needs to be buried as soon as possible.

    Some elements of truth. What a pity men’s self-proclaimed “advocates” and “activists” are such a collection of pitiful wasters.

    Feminism, to these men who are making their views known online, is nothing more than a supremecy movement. if that is their perception, then feminism has made a wrong turn somewhere. You can’t alter people’s perception easily, they can’t help the way they feel and they are only trying to demonstrate their opinions. if you want to close your eyes and ears to what’s going on, then fine, but it won’t change anything.

    Ah, now this is interesting. Some people sincerely believe that gay people have a secret agenda to “turn” children. Some people sincerely believe that immigration is terrible for the UK’s community. Some people believe that there is a danger of Sharia law being imposed on the UK. Some people sincerely believe that feminists have secretly infiltrated government and NGOs to wage a war on men. All of those people sincerely believing these things need a scapegoat. It is not the fault of gay people, immigrants, Muslims or feminists, or indeed gay feminist Muslims coming to the UK, that there are people who need scapegoats. Your point is ludicrous.

    You’re obviously angry yourself, Carny, because your bubble is being burst. A cult which you have always aligned yourself with is now under threat of fierce erosion. The banks of the river which once flowed with forceful vigour are now diminishing to a gentle current, at best. The future for feminism looks shaky. Just saying what I see as evidence – you won’t see the evidence because you refuse to look, and if you do look, you refuse to acknowledge what’s happening – like the pediatrician.

    Trust me my friend, these exchanges do not make me angry. MRAs arose feelings of disgust, not anger. Feminism quite clearly and evidently isn’t a cult. But I’d say certain sections of the online manosphere most certainly tick a few cult boxes.

    Your evidence is not actually evidence, so can’t be taken as such.

    I think feminism could have been extremely powerful, not only as it was a couple of decades ago, but also retaining that power moving forward now and into the future. Unfortunately, the shambolic way that feminism has behaved over the last few years means it’s now far too late to make amends. The think is, Carny, one of us has to be wrong and only time will tell. I think we need to give it another few years until we both find out. It’ll be interesting and I’d be the first to admit I was wrong. Hopefully you would do the same – but you’ll have to pull your head from out of the sand first, Rodders!

    Feminism is a multi-faceted movement that encompasses academic disciples, literature, service provision, lobby groups, pressure groups and has many, many thousands of supporters in the UK. The online MRM has some blogs, and a rabid right-winger losing his deposit and declaring it a victory. Men are ill-served by such cretins. That’s my point.

    Anti-feminism is corrosive to actual men’s activists because it attracts the types we discussed earlier; the sad, the weak, the stupid and those with a need for a scapegoat.

    Knowing you so well by now, Carny, you will undoubtedly request evidence. Have a quick read of the comments on this page to find out why people need feminism:
    https://www.facebook.com/fckh8com/photos/a.152651481440222.25064.145318588840178/967814419923920/
    I think the responses a few years ago would have been quite different, don’t you?

    No, I think they’d have been the exact same – trolls gonna troll! And feminism has always been a target for trolls.

    Anti-feminism has been around as long as feminism has. You should look it up.

    Have a great weekend, my friend.

  138. Carnation says

    Apologies for the epic blockquote fail – any help with that would be gratefully received.

  139. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 14
    Interesting one. Isn’t his guy basically saying that all this angry rhetoric is part of a plan to ban what these people are saying bad things about? An Sarkeesian et al. actually are/em> hostile to and actively trying to change much of game-related culture? And that he saw no problem the first time because these are his friends, so he just took sides without thinking?

  140. Testing Testing One Two Three says

    /

    test

    test //

    Ally, sorry for spamming your blog – delete at your leisure please?

  141. Testing Testing One Two Three says

    @ 123454321
    We are going round in circles, so this will be my closing comment on the matter (much to everyone’s delight, I’m sure). Feel free to respond, I have a feeling we will be engaging in the near future…

    Then, Im off out to get high as a kite and drunk as monkey. Im even going to try blockquoting! (this failed)

    “Carny, we’re going around in circles. I respect your opinion but we’re never going to agree. I think you’re deluded if you think there is no correlation between noise and evolutionary change. Whatever, I’m afraid it appears the noise is here to stay, and you probably just need to learn how to accept and get used to it. The noise out there is getting louder by the month, and if you can’t see that, you’re not looking, or you’re just burying your head in the sand….. Rodders!”

    Britain First make a lot of (online) noise, the EDL make a lot of actual noise, F4J made a lot of noise and got a lot of attention. They achieved diddly squat with it, except attract foul and easily discredited weaklings to their ranks. Angry people make noise to get attention. A lot of anger is misplaced and is depression projected outwards. There’s also the rather obvious points that feminists, for better and worse, make a huge amount of noise online too.

    “I have one word for you on that one, Carny…..”suffragettes”. We even see today plenty of criminal activities, threats, aggression and violence emanating from women and feminists who vehemently oppose men’s rights or aspects of society they don’t agree with, like posters on walls! From what I can tell, MRAs (on the whole) are far less violent and threatening. You know very well that politeness gets you nowhere and men are using the internet to show their feelings on the matter.”

    We dont see any, let alone plenty, of criminal activities and violence emanating from women and feminists who vehemently oppose MRAs. If you believe this, then you are an ignoramus, and extremely gullible.

    I didn’t accuse MRAs of being violent.
    “The sole reason for feminism being as successful as it once was was down to the collaborative noise that women made and also the fact that men politically and economically levered an approach for women to reach a status of equality. But now feminist expectations have swung too far the other way and it is men who are rendered invisible in terms of political support.”

    This would require far more attention, and it is of course correct to say that men suffer primarily because they are men in some spheres of life. MRAs are doing nothing pro-active about supporting these men. To describe men as “rendered invisible in terms of political support” is to engage in “hysterical hyperbole.”

    “Women are being helped because they are women. Men are not being helped because they are men. That stance is a fucking abhorrent stance which needs to be buried as soon as possible.”

    Some elements of truth. What a pity men’s self-proclaimed “advocates” and “activists” are such a collection of pitiful wasters.

    “Feminism, to these men who are making their views known online, is nothing more than a supremecy movement. if that is their perception, then feminism has made a wrong turn somewhere. You cant alter peoples perception easily, they can’t help the way they feel and they are only trying to demonstrate their opinions. if you want to close your eyes and ears to whats going on, then fine, but it wont change anything.”

    Ah, now this is interesting. Some people sincerely believe that gay people have a secret agenda to “turn” children. Some people sincerely believe that immigration is terrible for the UKs economy. Some people believe that there is a danger of Sharia law being imposed on the UK. Some people sincerely believe that feminists have secretly infiltrated government and NGOs to wage a war on men. All of those people sincerely believing these things need a scapegoat. It is not the fault of gay people, immigrants, Muslims or feminists, or indeed gay feminist Muslims coming to the UK, that there are people who need scapegoats. Your point is ludicrous.

    “Youre obviously angry yourself, Carny, because your bubble is being burst. A cult which you have always aligned yourself with is now under threat of fierce erosion. The banks of the river which once flowed with forceful vigour are now diminishing to a gentle current, at best. The future for feminism looks shaky. Just saying what I see as evidence – you wont see the evidence because you refuse to look, and if you do look, you refuse to acknowledge whats happening – like the pediatrician.”

    Trust me my friend, these exchanges do not make me angry. MRAs arouse feelings of disgust, not anger. Feminism quite clearly and evidently isnt a cult. Only someone who truly didn’t understand the nature of cults would say such a silly thing. But Id say certain sections of the online manosphere most certainly tick a few cult boxes.

    Your evidence is not actually evidence, so can’t be taken as such.

    “I think feminism could have been extremely powerful, not only as it was a couple of decades ago, but also retaining that power moving forward now and into the future. Unfortunately, the shambolic way that feminism has behaved over the last few years means it’s now far too late to make amends. The think is, Carny, one of us has to be wrong and only time will tell. I think we need to give it another few years until we both find out. It’ll be interesting and I’d be the first to admit I was wrong. Hopefully you would do the same – but you’ll have to pull your head from out of the sand first, Rodders!”

    Feminism is a multi-faceted movement that encompasses academic disciples, literature, service provision, lobby groups, pressure groups and has many, many thousands of supporters in the UK. The online MRM has some blogs, and a rabid right-winger losing his deposit and declaring it a victory. Men are ill-served by such cretins. That’s my point.

    Anti-feminism is corrosive to actual men’s activists because it attracts the types we discussed earlier; the sad, the weak, the stupid and those with a need for a scapegoat.

    “Knowing you so well by now, Carny, you will undoubtedly request evidence. Have a quick read of the comments on this page to find out why people need feminism:
    https://www.facebook.com/fckh8com/photos/a.152651481440222.25064.145318588840178/967814419923920/ I think the responses a few years ago would have been quite different, don’t you?”

    No, I think they’d have been the exact same – trolls gonna troll! And feminism has always been a target for trolls.

    Anti-feminism has been around as long as feminism has. You should look it up.

    Have a great weekend, my friend.

  142. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    Just a quick thought experiment: Did the “noise” the paediatrician made help or hinder her cause?

  143. Marduk says

    #148

    Don’t get me started on Sarkeesian and her weird trust-fund Svengali that everyone ignores the existence of despite the fact he gets “written by” and “directed by” credits on all her stuff. What that pair are really about and up to is anyone’s guess and its all very strange but basically I disagree with Popehat here. Anita is a bit of a puppet and McIntosh is a troubled guy who doesn’t quite get it. In broad strokes he is an unschooled child of Christian fundamentalist millionaires who went into Social Justice and approaches it in the way he was raised to approach religion. Their rhetoric is overblown, but it works for their audience, the main issue is that this was a different audience who took them at their literal word and I don’t think either of them really understand that.

    TLDR; they are both a bit silly and only dangerous by accident.

    As to why Popehat didn’t call it first time around, it was because he’d already made his mind up (credit to him for the self examination and honesty in this):
    I expected that the report would not be read, that its contents would be overstated and distorted, and that it would be treated as an open and explicit call for censorship because of the people involved with it. I wasn’t wrong to think that. But I was wrong to let that thought stop me from a more careful examination, and to allow myself to breeze by the implications of the rhetoric while looking for the specific proposals that weren’t there. If I had looked at it from a “is this rhetoric bad or not” standpoint, instead of a “imagine the reaction to this” viewpoint, I would have gotten it right.

  144. 123454321 says

    “Apologies for the epic blockquote fail – any help with that would be gratefully received.”

    That hasn’t been your only fail, Carny! And you need more than just a little bit of help, matey. In fact, you need quite a lot, more than the whole population of china could offer! I should go down the pub this weekend if I were you, to drown your sorrows and try to make yourself feel better by doing what your are best at………i.e. talking complete bollocks.

    Don’t forget to have a drink on me, Rodders.
    🙂

  145. Holms says

    That hasn’t been your only fail, Carny! And you need more than just a little bit of help, matey. In fact, you need quite a lot, more than the whole population of china could offer! I should go down the pub this weekend if I were you, to drown your sorrows and try to make yourself feel better by doing what your are best at………i.e. talking complete bollocks.

    Remind me. Which of the two of you made claims as the the effectiveness of the MRM, only to reluctantly admit that there was no evidence of a success that could be linked to their noise? Which of you was forced to distance himself from a poisonous source and thus directly prove the claim that said source was deleterious rather than beneficial? It’s just astonishing how quickly you forget that you, and MRAs in general, have nothing but vitriol on their side.

  146. Marduk says

    #150

    I’m sorry but that isn’t a fair argument and while I agree with you generally, you can’t get away with that.

    “gay people, immigrants, Muslims or feminists”

    Can you see why one of these things isn’t the same as the others? Its usually an offensive blood-libel type argument to make out that minority groups in society have a political agenda and absolutely how scapegoating occurs as an agenda they may or may not hold is associated with people purely on the basis of who they are. However, to try to pretend that actual political movements that people voluntarily join in order to change society don’t have an agenda or its unfair to ask what their agenda might be is simply daft and dishonest.

    I’m sorry but if I went along with your argument, you’d be asking me to accommodate the rights of fascists and men of violence to avoid scrutiny because I think minority groups have a right to go about their daily lives without scrutiny. Its not right is it, we’re not talking about the same thing.

    What can be debated is what their agenda is and what it means for other people.

  147. 123454321 says

    “Remind me. Which of the two of you made claims as the the effectiveness of the MRM, only to reluctantly admit that there was no evidence of a success that could be linked to their noise?”

    That was me. And I still maintain the noise made by the MRM as well as many other groups and individuals, whom you probably despise, have raised awareness and, as Ally said, nudged a few boulders in various directions which has probably led to positive action or at least paved the way for a brighter future for men and boys. Just because we can’t attribute direct evidence doesn’t mean to say that the link isn’t there. It’s a complicated system of communication, action, awareness, perception, negotiation, realisation and outcome. You seem ok with attributing some of the successes women reaped as a result of the suffragettes, but what else could I expect from Hypocrite Holms!!

    “Which of you was forced to distance himself from a poisonous source….”

    But I acknowledged that source and showed by disapproval. Which one of us couldn’t bring themselves to comment on the paediatrician, or the last link I provided showing what some people feel about why they need feminism?

    “It’s just astonishing how quickly you forget that you, and MRAs in general, have nothing but vitriol on their side.”

    Nah, I think you’ll find it’s the other way around. If you look carefully (and you don’t need to look too hard) you’ll see far more vitriol and outrageous behaviour from feminists aimed at men than you would the other way around. Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them. Knife blocks depicting the stabbing of men. Kill all men. Hate all men. Bomb threats etc. The hatred is out there and almost unbelievable; the evidence of this is literally everywhere. Do you really need links because it’s really very easy to use google to find these things. Or just watch TV and witness the violence against men in adverts, films, soaps, whatever. Reverse the roles and there’s no way most of this stuff would be deemed fit for broadcast. By the way, speaking of evidence, Ally asked me a while back to keep a pad and pencil next to the TV and record the number of male genitals compared with female genitals. So far, on mainstream TV I’ve counted zero female genitals (albeit a small handful of merkin/pubic hair shots and a few censored genitals) but over 50 graphic, close-up penis shots. The last two were last week, one on Russell Howard’s Good News, which showed a full frontal of a man at around 9:30 and the other was a film called “Skin Deep”, which I wasn’t watching but just happened to flick over to at about 11 at night just in time to see a man with a full-on erection walking into a pool. There was nothing left to the imagination and when I switched back to the film about 15 minutes later there was yet another man with a clear erection on full display shown walking into another pool. The next day I listened to a radio programme where some feminist claimed there was far too much gratuitous and intimate female nudity on TV and in film – the usual claim made by many a feminist. Go figure.

  148. Holms says

    …Just because we can’t attribute direct evidence doesn’t mean to say that the link isn’t there.

    But it does mean that your claims as to their achievements are currently not supported by any ecidence. You were made to back down from your initial strong claim, and now you are resorting to claims too nebulous to investigate. A tactic shared by religious apologists, by the way.

    You seem ok with attributing some of the successes women reaped as a result of the suffragettes, but what else could I expect from Hypocrite Holms!!

    I actually made no such statement. However, the suffragist movement set out to give women the right to vote, and I can’t help but notice that this goal has been achieved. This stands in stark contrast to the MRAs who, as you were forced to admit, have no such concrete example of change that has been sought and achieved. This difference means your comparison is bunk.

    But I acknowledged that source and showed by disapproval. Which one of us couldn’t bring themselves to comment on the paediatrician, or the last link I provided showing what some people feel about why they need feminism?

    Your memory is highly generous. You neglect to mention that you initially introduced the source uncritically, and had to distance yourself from it after the poisonous nature of the author was pointed out to you. You didn’t initially acknowledge shit.

    Oh and that question about the pediatrician was an obvious distraction on your part; I really shouldn’t have indulged in your bad faith shittery by giving an answer.

    It’s just astonishing how quickly you forget that you, and MRAs in general, have nothing but vitriol on their side.

    Nah, I think you’ll find it’s the other way around. If you look carefully (and you don’t need to look too hard) you’ll see far more vitriol and outrageous behaviour from feminists aimed at men than you would the other way around.

    It’s just amazing that you can say this apparently sincerely, when two sentences earlier in the same post you acknowledged that an MRA source was too odious to fully endorse. There is just no reasoning with someone arguing so obviously in bad faith.

    And dear god man, you launch into a greivance gallop at the drop of a hat. Any excuse to list off all the penises you’ve seen on tv…!

  149. Carnation says

    “Ally asked me a while back to keep a pad and pencil next to the TV and record the number of male genitals compared with female genitals. So far, on mainstream TV I’ve counted zero female genitals (albeit a small handful of merkin/pubic hair shots and a few censored genitals) but over 50 graphic, close-up penis shots. The last two were last week, one on Russell Howard’s Good News, which showed a full frontal of a man at around 9:30 and the other was a film called “Skin Deep”, which I wasn’t watching but just happened to flick over to at about 11 at night just in time to see a man with a full-on erection walking into a pool. There was nothing left to the imagination and when I switched back to the film about 15 minutes later there was yet another man with a clear erection on full display shown walking into another pool. The next day I listened to a radio programme where some feminist claimed there was far too much gratuitous and intimate female nudity on TV and in film – the usual claim made by many a feminist. Go figure.”

    I almost self-combusted with laughter after reading this.

  150. Marduk says

    So I’ve been reading a number of feminist websites that say the Oregon situation earlier in the week was an example of ‘toxic masculinity’ and that masculinity is dangerous and a threat civilisation. Example of ‘toxic masculinity’ might include, for example, being interested in guns, “tough guy” activities like cage fighting or even joining the military and apparently such people have no place in society. Oregon proved this.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3259455/I-m-overwhelmed-support-Hero-army-vet-student-charged-college-gunman-shot-SEVEN-times-thanks-wishers-hospital-bed-donations-700-000.html

    Hrm. Its almost as if its a bit more complicated than these silly theories suggest.

  151. 123454321 says

    “But it does mean that your claims as to their achievements are currently not supported by any ecidence.”

    And neither can we provide evidence that Carny scratched his arse and sniffed his finger in the last few weeks but let’s postulate that it’s highly probable, shall we. Geez, do you understand science at all, my friend? Do you have the slightest clue that theoretical postulates often come way before scientific experiment reaches a point where the evidence becomes available to back up the theory? You are clueless, dude. Pure clowny cluelessness engulfs your cranium in an auras of colourful clowny cluelessness. Everyone out there, please now stand and rejoice in Holms’ clown cluelessness, we are on the verge of worldly, scientific breakthrough with the invention of loony, clowny cluelessness derived wholly by future noble prize winner Holms who undisputedly overturns and supersedes the world of science as we have come to know it. This is fucking Star Trek stuff, man and the world needs to know about it. You have discovered that it’s impossible to postulate without evidence. Fuck me, you will be famous and I’m literally begging you for an autograph! Purleeeeze, I’m begging….

  152. 123454321 says

    Seriously, Holms, you don’t actually need any evidence for something you suggest turning out to be true and correct. It’s called intuition, matey, which is often derived from wisdom – something you obviously haven’t come across yet.
    Let’s see where feminism gets in the next 5 years, shall we? And then you’ll have all the evidence you need to back up what ever argument you think you have left!

  153. 123454321 says

    “I almost self-combusted with laughter after reading this.”

    Almost? Damn, I must try harder!

  154. Holms says

    And neither can we provide evidence that Carny scratched his arse and sniffed his finger in the last few weeks but let’s postulate that it’s highly probable, shall we.

    Asinine, but amusing: did you even realise that you just put the MRM’s achievements into the same category as the possibility of Carnation scratching and sniffing in that they are both equally unverified?

    Do you have the slightest clue that theoretical postulates often come way before scientific experiment reaches a point where the evidence becomes available to back up the theory?

    a) Not all claims turn out to be true.
    b) A claim that has yet to be investigated at all, let alone proven, is hypothetical at best.
    c) Your initial claim – that the MRM could be definitively linked to achieved goals – had to be abandoned by your own admission.
    d) Your new claim – that the MRM is achieving its goals in ways to vague to be demonstrable with evidence – is impossible to investigate by design and therefore not worth bothering with.

    Everyone out there, please now stand and rejoice in Holms’ clown cluelessness, we are on the verge of worldly, scientific breakthrough with the invention of loony, clowny cluelessness derived wholly by future noble prize winner Holms who undisputedly overturns and supersedes the world of science as we have come to know it.

    May all my opponents be as stupid as you 🙂

    You have discovered that it’s impossible to postulate without evidence.

    I think you mean ‘it’s impossible to verify without evidence’. And you appear to be the one discovering – or at least encountering – this for the first time.

    Seriously, Holms, you don’t actually need any evidence for something you suggest turning out to be true and correct.

    You don’t need evidence to suggest, no… but you do need evidence in order to know whether your suggestion is correct. Until then, hopefully you have realised that it is speculative at best.

  155. 123454321 says

    Hey, Holms, you should be congratulating me for even being able to start my computer up and log into Ally’s blog after downing a bottle of red, let alone writing a post to include reference to your cranium being engulfed by colourful clowny cluelessness. You’ll have to forgive me for getting an “l” and an “e” mixed up! Geez….but thanks for pointing out, much appreciated.

    Anyway, you’ll have to live with the fact that many a hypothesis can stand its ground without evidence and still turn out to be correct. Your dull approach by asking for evidence at virtually every single post demonstrates your limits. It’s a jolly good job Einstein didn’t listen to the scientific community which existed at the time, calling him out as a crackpot! I mean what on Earth would we have done if we refused to acknowledge and accept the postulates Einstein laid down! Shock, horror, I wouldn’t be able to listen to your garbage babble dross via the internet. Life would be so dull! 🙂

    “You don’t need evidence to suggest, no… but you do need evidence in order to know whether your suggestion is correct. Until then, hopefully you have realised that it is speculative at best.”

    Yes, I agree with that. But bear in mind that we don’t have to KNOW something is correct for it to BE correct. Also, looking at historical similarities can lead to intelligent assumptions, like:

    Statement 1 – The noise the suffragettes made led to awareness and widespread consideration, leading to various actions and positive outcomes for the welfare of women.

    Statement 2 – The noise the MRA groups (and individuals using the internet) is making could also lead to awareness and widespread consideration of men’s issues, with various actions and positive outcomes for the welfare of men becoming realised further down the line.

    You have no evidence to suggest that statement 2 is incorrect but you demand evidence to show it is correct, despite the fact that we haven’t quite reached the point on the timeline where we can verify the causality as part of history. Smart, very smart….. NOT!

  156. Carnation says

    @ Marduk

    Your point doesn’t apply in this instance – I was using feminists/Muslims etc as groups of people attacked by a certain subsection of people – specifically, weak, unpleasant and usually stupid people who require a scapegoat in their life. It’s about those people, not their scapegoats.

    That’s pretty clear.

  157. Holms says

    Anyway, you’ll have to live with the fact that many a hypothesis can stand its ground without evidence and still turn out to be correct.

    The word for this is unverified. Or in the case of your initial claim, refuted.

    Your dull approach by asking for evidence at virtually every single post demonstrates your limits.

    ‘Goshdurnit can’t a guy just make a bunch of groundless claims in peace without being asked to verify anything!’ – 1234. If you consider yourself a sceptic at all, it should truly bother you that you are retreating ever more into the realms of religious apologetics in terms of tactics.

    It’s a jolly good job Einstein didn’t listen to the scientific community which existed at the time, calling him out as a crackpot! I mean what on Earth would we have done if we refused to acknowledge and accept the postulates Einstein laid down! Shock, horror, I wouldn’t be able to listen to your garbage babble dross via the internet. Life would be so dull!

    Good thing he provided evidence then.

    Does it bother you that your argumentative tactics are increasingly resembling those of religious apologists? Protestations against being asked to provide evidence, making claims too nebulous to investigate, comparing your claims to those of a renowned scientist…

    Yes, I agree with that. But bear in mind that we don’t have to KNOW something is correct for it to BE correct.

    And the way we verify our various claims is… evidence.

    Statement 1 – The noise the suffragettes made led to awareness and widespread consideration, leading to various actions and positive outcomes for the welfare of women.

    Statement 2 – The noise the MRA groups (and individuals using the internet) is making could also lead to awareness and widespread consideration of men’s issues, with various actions and positive outcomes for the welfare of men becoming realised further down the line.

    A slight wrinkle in statement 2: even other men’s issues advocates, the non-MRA (and hence non-arsehole) sort, find the MRM brand detrimental to men’s advocacy. Note the testimony of one Ally J. Fogg, Esq., in this very thread! Oh also note that the apoplectic, grandstanding Mike Buchanan had to concede that he has achieved less than a single sober, level-headed open letter from AF et al., despite having a much larger platform.

    So not only can we say statement to is currently unevidenced, we can go further and say that it is actually contra-indicated.

  158. Marduk says

    Its fair game to attack people whose stated intention is to change society for changing society. This might be misguided or simply incorrect but it isn’t scapegoating. If you are going to take on a position where your stated aim is to enforce your views on other people, you have to answer for it I’m afraid and not everything that gets lobbed at you will be in good faith. This is why I find the feinting couch (bring me the smelling salts!) attitude of many activists so annoying – guys, you might even be in the right but you are still trying to change things that affect everyone, accountability and scrutiny is not something you can or should ever seek to wriggle out of. And no, trying to pretend you movement is primarily therapeutic (which is the Tumblr/SocJus line) is simply despicable, its the equivalent of taking to a battlefield, burning your uniform and pretending to be a civilian with all the protections that should provide right up until you pull the trigger on someone or lob a grenade. And then cry that you are civilian again when people come looking for you.

    However, it isn’t fair to insinuate people with a given identity have an agenda in the first place, that is scapegoating. Mostly they just want to get on with their lives in peace.

    Different things mate.

  159. Carnation says

    @ marduk

    My discussions with @123454321 which led to the comparison I made were about the online MRM. That “movement” (for argument’s sake let’s use avoiceformen as an example) is based upon a hysterical and deluded “understanding” of the power, scope, reach, influence and motives of feminism. It is not an attempt at “accountability and scrutiny” it is an exercise in the sheer stupidity of those who require a scapegoat.

    “However, it isn’t fair to insinuate people with a given identity have an agenda in the first place.”

    Yes it is, and no it isn’t. Members of the EDL are gullible, crass and mostly stupid. Weaklings in need of a scapegoat. Supporters of avoiceformen are gullible, crass and mostly stupid. Weaklings in need of a scapegoat. etc

  160. Adiabat says

    Holms (157):

    However, the suffragist [I assume you mean suffragette, which is what we’ve been talking about, and you’re not intentionally pulling a bait-and-switch] movement set out to give women the right to vote, and I can’t help but notice that this goal has been achieved. This stands in stark contrast to the MRAs who, as you were forced to admit, have no such concrete example of change that has been sought and achieved. This difference means your comparison is bunk

    C’mon, you know this argument is bullshit. Is this just silly tribalism on your part?

    Firstly, you’re comparing the end results of a movement with one that has comparatively just started. By your standards you would heap as much scorn on the 1917 Suffragette’s as you do the MRM. It’s a ridiculous argument based on 20/20 hindsight.

    Secondly, your argument relies on the idea that a movement with an aim which later happens automatically means that the movement caused the result. Either you make this argument and admit that the recent increase in recognition of male victims in areas such as DV and rape (including Ally’s letter, as well as the more general trend) is “caused” by the MRM (in the same way that the suffragettes caused MP’s to give women the vote (at the same time as men)), or you abandon claims that the suffragettes won women the vote. Anything else is hypocritical. Your argument in support of the suffragettes means that you’ve let yourself get into the position that any improvement for men can be attributed to the MRM, and any other group with the aim of advocating for men.

    (A third option of course is that movements can affect opinion is roundabout ways that can be hard to nail down (and is often nearly impossible to meet the standards of evidence you are demanding here – including for the suffragettes “winning the vote”), and being hard-line either way to score cheap internet points means that you either reject anything unless a direct connection is made, or you accept all nebulous connections. There’s a reason why historians debate things like this: often all they have is tenuous links that they have to piece together.)

    Holms (166):

    A slight wrinkle in statement 2: even other men’s issues advocates, the non-MRA (and hence non-arsehole) sort, find the MRM brand detrimental to men’s advocacy. Note the testimony of one Ally J. Fogg, Esq., in this very thread!

    “Look at all the contemporary Suffragist (and media and parliamentarian) sources saying the exact same things about the Suffragettes!”

    Jesus Christ the wilful stupidity on display in this thread is mind-blowing, even for FTB.

  161. Adiabat says

    123454321 (135):

    I don’t care where Ally’s initial studies began. I’m merely suggesting that his attitudes may have changed based on the noise he hears around him, which could have led to acknowledgements, further considerations, analysis and possible actions that he wouldn’t have otherwise undertaken. He might not even draw these links himself. Much of it can be subliminal

    Erm, why don’t you just go look at his old blog?*

    Specifically the “Like Minds and Places of Interest” blogroll section on the right.

    Let me know if you recognise some of the names on that list…

    * https://archive.is/GcECT

  162. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    “Jesus Christ the wilful stupidity on display in this thread is mind-blowing, even for FTB.”

    Says the guardian of, and recruiting sergeant to, the MHRAnation (LOL).

    The point is, Adiabat, that a few dozen malcontented bloggers with calloused typing fingers does not a movement make.

    All your MHRA (LOL) heroes do is engage in online wankery with other online wankers (I include myself in that). You are as much of an activist as I am. That is, not an activist at all.

    The MHRAnation (LOL) has no actual activists, which is why they have achieved the square root of fuck all, whereas feminists have even more malcontented bloggers with calloused fingers, as well as actual activists, which is why, for better or worse. they achieve results that the MRM will simply never, ever be able to.

    It’s a question of calibre. Adaibat, you’re probably the best they MHRAnation (LOL) has to offer.

    Jesus wept.

  163. StillGjenganger says

    @Marduk 167
    Thanks for the understanding, clarity and honesty of your #167. The kind of thing that makes you see more clearly.

    If this one is your opinion rather than just a quote:

    I think minority groups have a right to go about their daily lives without scrutiny

    I might disagree (if ever I wake up enough to string the argument together).

  164. 123454321 says

    “Or in the case of your initial claim, refuted.”

    You haven’t refuted anything. Zilch, nowt, diddly squat zot. You can’t refute anything that hasn’t ran its course. We will see who is right, just give it time. Just look at the responses to the future of feminism on the internet. It’s worse than bleak and you know it.

    “….you are retreating ever more into the realms of religious apologetics in terms of tactics….”

    Holms wonders lonely in the forest like a lost little puppy barking up all the wrong trees. Come over here and let me stoke you you poor, sorrowful, dejected little puppy.

    “….comparing your claims to those of a renowned scientist…”

    You need to go read up on the methodologies behind rigorous scientific approach. Seriously, you do. Cuz if you knew even a little beyond jack shit you’d know that hypothesis often comes before experimental evidence backing it up. The renowned scientist I referred to actually theorised relativity way before experimental evidence proved him right. Even today, there are elements of Einstein’s work which are flaky and don’t quite match with the evidence, so his theories aren’t completely water tight. Black holes were theorised way before we had evidence to support their existence. Even some elements of quantum mechanics were theorised before experimental proof. So yeah, I have every right to use Einstein as evidence to prove the point that you don’t necessarily need empirical evidence in order to hypothesise, theorise, postulate, or whatever, and turn out to be correct.

    “Protestations”

    Fucking great word, that. Almost as impressive as Carny. Shame you used it amongst a paragraph full of wordy bollocks.

    “So not only can we say statement to is currently unevidenced, we can go further and say that it is actually contra-indicated.”

    Any chance you could reword that using plain english….reading all that mush makes it real hard to decipher even more mush. It’s just mushy mush after mushy mush spouting the same old mushy mush which says that because you can’t directly evidence something it can’t possibly be true…. mushy mush mush and more mush will undoubtedly follow as we all have to wade through Holms’ trail of pointless, futile wordy mushy mush.

  165. 123454321 says

    “Erm, why don’t you just go look at his old blog?*
    Specifically the “Like Minds and Places of Interest” blogroll section on the right.
    Let me know if you recognise some of the names on that list…
    * https://archive.is/GcECT

    Hmmm, oh yeah, thanks Adiabat, how very interesting and kinda demonstrates my point does it not. “The Rights of Man” – great blog. I wonder who Skimmington was, and I wonder where he is and what he is doing right now. Rolling stones sure do gather moss, even when people like Carny and Holms desperately try to strip it away as it rolls. No worries, there’s now far too much momentum for that. They won’t stop the boulder rolling. Progressive evolution will see it gets to the bottom of the hill fully laden. Time will tell….

  166. Marduk says

    Hah, this has an funny common thread.

    Part 1 – in which the kinds of people who created it can’t protect themselves when its turned against them:
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/oct/06/london-woman-charged-over-alleged-killallwhitemen-tweet
    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/06/feminists-doctrine-conference-free-speech

    Milo is mentioned in one article and is the only person who has defended Bahar so far in the other.

    Part 2 – Milo, who I am not really a fan of, has really started messing with some minds.
    http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/04/living/amber-rose-slutwalk-feat/

    But this massive asshole has one point at least: “Our opponents would like us to be angry, old, doddering, white male conservatives. Instead, they get a sassy gay shitposter and a fearless hot blonde female politician, both of whom who refuse to be drawn into the senseless victim culture that the Left has sought to construct around both our identities.”

    What Milo says is typically disgusting but he has the oppression points and he is fabulous, what can they really do about him? Its sooo annoying, apparently he even pals around with our beloved J.Bindel in real life. Bahar similarly is in trouble for what she said, apparently the CPS hasn’t accepted her defence that her identity means its ok.

    Moral of the story: its not your identity, its what you say and believe and your character. Which used to be what everyone thought (e.g., Martin Luther King) but is now held to be incredibly offensive and/or a shocking revelation. What the hell?

  167. Marduk says

    Just noticed I was growled at and sent over here to talk about SJWs.

    When I say SJW I don’t mean people who are interested in social justice. Those people are called socialists, feminists, anti-racists etc.

    Social Justice Warrior is supposed to be ironic, nobody thinks they are really in favor of social justice, that is just their excuse. They are actually social authoritarians who have constructed complex webs of rules under which virtually anyone can be aggressively condemned (if not find their families threatened) for saying anything. Think of it as a sort of trolling game in which you get to make up cassus belli to attack anyone you want.

    There is a community of SJWs primarily on the internet more than in real life, although people who think Tumblr is marginal should look at the share figures some incendiary material gets (‘white men are always the enemy” had 2.5 million shares for example, assuming the usual ratio of shares to reads, that means millions of people read and agreed with what they saw, the Guardian does about 800k and a well-commented article will get about 800 shares).

    If you find this distinction confusing, Martin Luther King was interested in social justice. He said he wanted people to be judged by the content of their characters. SJWs think Martin Luther King is a “PoC” and should be primarily judged by the colour of his skin.

    Their ideology is now so extreme that its become its own opposite (‘horseshoe theory’). Today we have seen a recent emergence of calls for “separate but equal” in American cities coming from SJWs. This is not and never was social justice as any reasonable person understands it. Hope that clears it up.

    If you identity as an SJW because you are “into social justice” you’re missing the joke. Maybe you should identity as Kim Jong-un because you are interested in democracy (he is the head of the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea”).

  168. Adiabat says

    Marduk (175): The people Milo often goes up against have as their main tool public shaming and “outrage”. Playing up the ‘massive asshole and proud of it’ angle effectively neutralises their main “debating” tool. This forces them to rely on other things in the discussion, such as their incredibly weak ‘theory’ such as “Patriarchy”, and “Rape Culture”. The truth is that they can’t rely on that in a fair debate and expect to win, or to not be laughed at by everyone else (remember how Bahar’s SJW definition of racism defence fell flat during her last scandal – no one buys it except other people with similar views in their echo chambers). It’s why he’s been so successful, going from unknown to what seems like everywhere in the space of a year, where ‘serious’ critics flounder under endless false accusations and smears.

    Plus he has amazing hair; you’ve got to take that into account.

    As for Bahar’s arrest: it’s ridiculous, primarily because the law that people like her have championed for years is ridiculous (though I must admit to a momentary smirk at the ironic “justice” of it all). Obviously they never considered the possibility that their ‘hate speech’ and ‘freeze peach’ crap would ever apply to their views and the things they say, because they don’t realise that they are the worst harassers, racists and bigots on the internet.

  169. Adiabat says

    Marduk (176): Spot on. Personally I’d like to ignore SJWs as just another group of ‘crazies’ on the internet, except that they seem to receive ridiculous amount of institutional support way out of step with their numbers, wider support from the population, or the degree that their ideology even makes any kind of sense in relation to reality.

    Their campaigns are ‘megaphoned’ by the mainstream press, either in earnest due to the upper middle class “journalists” receiving similar indoctrination during the poor standard of education and rigor at their university and in their peer groups, or simply because the SJW craziness makes good clickbait.

    I’d love to just be able ignore these people without it coming back to bite me in the ass a few years later because some moron in a government, legislative or corporate entity hasn’t the intelligence to see through their rubbish, resulting in ridiculous and unjust laws, decisions, and campaigns.

  170. Holms says

    #169 Adiabat
    Firstly, you’re comparing the end results of a movement with one that has comparatively just started. By your standards you would heap as much scorn on the 1917 Suffragette’s as you do the MRM. It’s a ridiculous argument based on 20/20 hindsight.

    Yes, but of course. The comparison being made is precisely a comparison of the results of two movements, one of which is long since over and the other of which 1234 spent over twenty posts defending before reluctantly admitting that it had no results that could be definitively tied to its actions. He abandoned the initial, evidence-based claim and made a second: that the MRM is making things happen through means that can’t be traced.

    So, the conversation moved on to examine the revised claim. Provisionally, it may well be true but that does not change the fact that it is currently unevidenced. Add to that the fact that advocates of men’s issues have directly identified the MRM movement as being antagonistic to their work, and we see that the claim actually has some weight against it.

    Secondly, your argument relies on the idea that a movement with an aim which later happens automatically means that the movement caused the result. Either you make this argument and admit that the recent increase in recognition of male victims in areas such as DV and rape (including Ally’s letter, as well as the more general trend) is “caused” by the MRM (in the same way that the suffragettes caused MP’s to give women the vote (at the same time as men)), or you abandon claims that the suffragettes won women the vote.

    Not quite correct. The suffrage movement (in the broad sense of the term) is undoubtedly what led to the female vote, because there is no other competing movement that might have done it, by definition really. On the other hand the MRM is not the only group agitating for change re. men’s issues; there are plenty of more level-headed advocates outside of that swamp working towards change. I find it much more likely that the more sober approach is making inroads, while the AVfM types simply spit outrage in blog form without ever doing actual beneficial work.

    If you want to dispense with the suffragists in the broad sense of the term, and analyse which specific groups (e.g. the Suffragettes) did what and which of them were more effective, then have at it but I will have to bow out of that discussion. As you note in your next paragraph, this would be one for the historians.

    “Look at all the contemporary Suffragist (and media and parliamentarian) sources saying the exact same things about the Suffragettes!”

    I find it amusing that you consider the MRM within broader men’s advocacy to be analogous with the Suffragettes within the general suffrage movement. I suspect that there’s a touch of the ol’ Galileo Fallacy in there too.

    #173 1234
    “Or in the case of your initial claim, refuted.”

    You haven’t refuted anything. Zilch, nowt, diddly squat zot. You can’t refute anything that hasn’t ran its course. We will see who is right, just give it time. Just look at the responses to the future of feminism on the internet. It’s worse than bleak and you know it.

    You overlooked the bit where I specified your initial claim had been refuted. Your initial claim, the one that started this whole discussion, was that there were success stories that could be linked to the efforts of the MRM in a tangible manner. How quickly you forget that you ever made that claim!

    Also, the ‘…and you know it’ method of argument continues to be 100% bad faith. You don’t know my thoughts, stop pretending I secretly agree with you when I clearly don’t.

    You need to go read up on the methodologies behind rigorous scientific approach. Seriously, you do. Cuz if you knew even a little beyond jack shit you’d know that hypothesis often comes before experimental evidence backing it up. … So yeah, I have every right to use Einstein as evidence to prove the point that you don’t necessarily need empirical evidence in order to hypothesise, theorise, postulate, or whatever, and turn out to be correct.

    And the point that you continue to overlook is that until that evidence turns up it remains entirely accurate to observe that the theory is currently unevidenced. That’s the point being made, so often that I tire of saying it. You’re claiming tht the MRM is making change through subtle, hard (or impossible) to verify means; I’m saying that this claim is currently unevidenced and even, yes, contraindicated.

  171. Carnation says

    @ Holms

    The online MRM, with endearing regularity, announce actual or imminent “victory”, which of course makes it far more pertinent to point out that they have achieved literally nothing.

    Hilariously, 123454321 actually alluded to the ascendancy of the online MRM whilst simultaneously being unable to evidence a single, tangible outcome that they have been responsible for.

    Don’t pay Adiabat too much heed, elsewhere on the ‘net he isn’t as measured in his tone as he is on this blog. He’s a very, very typical MRA, just slightly more articulate. Still a wingnut with a belief set that reeks of insecurity and delusion.

  172. Adiabat says

    Holms (179): Now you’re just repeating arguments that have already been dealt with.

    The comparison being made is precisely a comparison of the results of two movements

    One of which is ongoing, and your argument against it would apply equally to the entire suffrage movement in 1917, just before they apparently achieved anything.

    that does not change the fact that it is currently unevidenced.

    This is not true. The evidence just doesn’t meet the standard set by two people trying to score internet points by setting it ridiculously high (to the point which many claims would find it hard to meet), yet who believe in a “patriarchy” that works in all sorts of subtle ways to keep people down.

    It is incredibly difficult to say what shapes discourse and narratives yet you use this fact to attack a group you dislike, dismissing any possible evidence which by the nature of the problem isn’t going to be a direct link, and ignore it when it comes a group you support. It’s a dishonest tactic, and even worse is that I suspect you know what you are doing but choosing to double down.

    The suffrage movement (in the broad sense of the term)

    Now you’re not comparing like-for-like. A comparison here would be all groups agitating for men. If you do this then you have to lump the MRM in with Ally et al. This circles round to the point that you are analysing groups differently based on your personal like or dislike of said group.

    If you want to dispense with the suffragists in the broad sense of the term, and analyse which specific groups (e.g. the Suffragettes) did what and which of them were more effective, then have at it but I will have to bow out of that discussion

    Because you know that that is the necessary comparison and you know that it means you are wrong.

    I find it amusing

    This isn’t an argument. This is you trying to avoid the argument using snark and feigned superiority because you know you are wrong but double-down instead of being intellectually honest. And there’s no Galileo gambit in there; you’re grasping.

    Unless you can bring a decent argument to the table, and actually address mine, I think we’re done here.

    Carnation (180):

    Don’t pay Adiabat too much heed, elsewhere on the ‘net he isn’t as measured in his tone as he is on this blog.

    Trolling or not, now you’ve got me curious. Got any links? (I suspect not, as you never evidence any of your attempted smears).

    I suppose it’s possible I instinctively cover my ass here a bit more due to the people on FTB who use any ambiguity in someone says to attack them, giving them the most uncharitable reading possible, but I don’t think my actual views change wildly between what I write here and elsewhere. And from memory I’ve only ever commented on one MRA blog (depends if you count Feminist Critics), and not for a long time. And even there I told them that I wasn’t an MRA (they used the same argument feminists make: that the movement is actually for both men and women’s issues which is obviously untrue).

    Plus, you really should stop with the creepy cyber-stalking obsession with me. Even if it’s rent free I’ve no interest in living in that space in your head.

  173. 123454321 says

    “Your initial claim, the one that started this whole discussion, was that there were success stories that could be linked to the efforts of the MRM in a tangible manner.”

    Show me where I said there was direct, tangible evidence linked to the efforts of the MRM.

    I thought I had made it clear that I’m talking about the general noise men have been making and the, albeit indirect, rewards reaped in various forms that I listed earlier, as well as generally raising awareness, which I claim is a good thing overall. I can’t recall supporting the MRM group directly but i do recall telling you several times that I don’t affiliate with groups.

    Keep digging yourself deeper.

  174. 123454321 says

    “Even if it’s rent free I’ve no interest in living in that space in your head.”

    But you’d get free access to the circus every night. Fuck me, how could you turn that down!

  175. 123454321 says

    “Hilariously, 123454321 actually alluded to the ascendancy of the online MRM”

    Carnation, for the zillionth time, I don’t care what groups you want to label people up as being attributed to, MRM or whatever…I am talking about the general noise that men (and women), either as individuals or as groups, are making across the internet, which is successfully reaching out to millions of people and challenging their indoctrinated beliefs that have formed over the last few decades. I’m suggesting that the noise we’re hearing, despite the fact that it is being delivered from various sources and in various guises, is raising awareness across society and feeding people a positive message that men and boys are human and have issues that need resolving too, not just women and girls. You claim this approach is a hindrance barrier but you have nothing to show or present for yourself in terms of personal, positive delivery. Nice blaming tactics, though. Also, you never seem to complain when people crow about women’s issues on the internet and it is YOU who persistently slithers up to the table with your ridiculous, defensive approach of shaming tactics and feminist-driven falsities but then has to snake away with hypocritical hilarity as you struggle to find evidence you accuse others of not bringing to the same table. I mean what do you bring? You are monotonously boring with your repetitive attacks and yet you have no alternative approach to offer. If men switched off their voices, what exactly would you do? I herby appoint you and Holms as MDs for a newly formed men’s rights working group. I trust you care about men and boys, right? So what you gonna do, dude? Show me the business case, we’re all shutting down our computers. What are you going to need and what will you deliver and by when? You do care about men and boys? You are going to deliver, aren’t you?

  176. Holms says

    #181 Adiabat

    One of which is ongoing, and your argument against it would apply equally to the entire suffrage movement in 1917, just before they apparently achieved anything.

    Are you even aware of what I’m saying? There is nothing inherently bad with saying something is ‘currently unevidenced’ while waiting for evidence, but for some reason 1234 and yourself seem to take it personally. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, but yes if we look back in time to some point before suffragists achieved anything, it would indeed be correct to say that they had not yet achieved anything. Correct, and tautologous.

    This is not true. The evidence just doesn’t meet the standard set by two people trying to score internet points by setting it ridiculously high (to the point which many claims would find it hard to meet), yet who believe in a “patriarchy” that works in all sorts of subtle ways to keep people down.

    “Ridiculously high”? Ally’s open letter managed to pass that ‘ridiculously high’ standard of evidence: a problem was identified, the letter was written with a mind to bring attention to said problem and hopefully see something change, and the goals of that letter were fully realised. See? Carnation and I have not been asking for anything our host has not met.

    Mike Buchanan (in an earlier thread) and 1234 (after twenty or so posts in this thread) admitted that the MRM had nothing similar to offer. The bar is not insurmountable, it’s just that the MRM goons can’t jump very high. This is why 1234 revised his approach to the ‘conversations started, balls nudged into rolling, the wheels are in motion’ approach. This is a reasonable claim, it’s true that social change can be very hard to pin down to particular things, but it is a claim that is currently unevidenced, remembering from two paragraphs ago that this is statement is not a personal attack so don’t get huffy all over again.

    …Although, there is the point that the more level-headed, less apoplectic men’s advocates find them obstructive…

    Now you’re not comparing like-for-like. A comparison here would be all groups agitating for men. If you do this then you have to lump the MRM in with Ally et al. This circles round to the point that you are analysing groups differently based on your personal like or dislike of said group.

    I made it clear that I was comparing general to general, specific to specific after you after you criticised me for not being clear on that.

    This isn’t an argument. This is you trying to avoid the argument using snark and feigned superiority…

    Oh shiiiiiiiit, suddenly argument-free snark is bad. Maybe you’de like to address that criticism to 1234, for paragraph upon paragraph of nothing but gratuitous insults. Shit like this:

    “Pure clowny cluelessness engulfs your cranium in an auras of colourful clowny cluelessness. Everyone out there, please now stand and rejoice in Holms’ clown cluelessness, we are on the verge of worldly, scientific breakthrough with the invention of loony, clowny cluelessness derived wholly by future noble prize winner Holms who undisputedly overturns and supersedes the world of science as we have come to know it.”

    Insightful argument, completely not snark at all, thanks 1234!

    “Holms wonders lonely in the forest like a lost little puppy barking up all the wrong trees. Come over here and let me stoke you you poor, sorrowful, dejected little puppy.”

    Wow, good point!

    “I also meant to say, Carny, that you’re prose along with your arsenal of very thoughtful and engaging words is a joy to read – a very loquacious clown you are, always throwing up some pleasurable thesaurual vomit, which has the power to quell any anger in its tracks. Always good for a laugh. I particularly liked the word ” troglodytes” tonight. It’s a shame with that language-orientated brain of yours you can’t answer a fucking simple question like the one relating to the pediatrician. If you did, I promise i wouldn’t keep calling you a clown. Honest gov. Ostrich, maybe, but not clown. Just curious, do you spit the sand out or swallow it?”

    Oh yes, this definitely added to the conversation, thanks!

    There’s much much more by the way, this sort of shit is 1234’s calling card. So, would you like to upbraid him on that shittery? Oh but I see I interrupted your sentence, please continue…

    …because you know you are wrong but double-down instead of being intellectually honest.

    Oh shit, back to the ‘you know you secretly agree with me’ disingenuousness; I see 1234 is not alone in this regard.

  177. 123454321 says

    Yeah Holms but at least my words are written with an obvious air of jovial piss-taking in mind, just to lighten the mood. Would you now like to list some of Carny’s deliberately condescending posts? Not as anything Carny has ever written has offended me in the slightest. He is free to bring on even more if he likes – and you, if you can stomach the response you’re likely to get when your logic gets torn apart as usual 🙂

  178. Adiabat says

    Holms (185):

    Are you even aware of what I’m saying? There is nothing inherently bad with saying something is ‘currently unevidenced’ while waiting for evidence

    Yes, I’m aware of the narrative you’re now trying to make; I’m just not buying it. Above in this thread (as one example #126 among others) you have clearly taken the position that not providing a ‘tangible’ direct link means that the MRM have achieved nothing, that 1234etc is saying that, and that the claim that something can indirectly shape discourse and opinion (for the MRM only, while accepting this when it comes to things like the Patriarchy or the suffragettes) “is not worth bothering with” (which in this post you’ve switched to saying that it’s unevidenced but presumably worth bothering with – despite the fact that it is evidenced, just not to a standard you’re demanding (but would be fine for any history scholar and probably some areas of the social sciences, judging by how much they like to claim that mere consumption of media influences societal violence or misogyny)).

    You’re playing a Motte and Bailey tactic and now claiming that your position (the Motte) is that “it’s merely unevidenced (which it’s not – you just reject any evidence, big difference), and there’s nothing wrong with that”. The goal until now is clearly to criticise the MRM in a way you wouldn’t criticise something you support (the Bailey), as demonstrated by your unwillingness to honestly address the suffragette comparison.

    I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, but yes if we look back in time to some point before suffragists [sigh…] achieved anything, it would indeed be correct to say that they had not yet achieved anything.

    Actually no, you’re wrong. It would not be correct the say that they not achieved anything prior to 1918. Raising awareness is ‘achieving something’. Influencing opinion and spreading ideas is ‘achieving something’, and this is precisely the claim wrt how the suffragettes (and suffragists) “won the vote”. The entire claim that they “won the vote” is based on the idea that they achieved these things to a sufficient degree prior to 1918. There is no other tangible link between the suffragettes (and gists) and “winning the vote”.

    I hope you see the relevance now, because I’m going to struggle to make it any simpler.

    I made it clear that I was comparing general to general, specific to specific after you after you criticised me for not being clear on that.

    In #179 you compared the achievements of the entire suffrage movement (stating that you don’t care about the specifics) to the MRM which is a specific group within broader men’s advocacy, which is comparing the general to the specific.

    Your argument consisted of “The suffrage movement (in the broad sense of the term) is undoubtedly what led to the female vote… On the other hand the MRM is not the only group…” You dismiss the MRM in a way you don’t for the Suffragettes by lumping the Suffrage groups as a whole, then treating the MRM as separate from their “broad group”. It’s a blatant attempt to bypass applying the same standards to the suffragettes that you do to the MRM.

    …Although, there is the point that the more level-headed, less apoplectic men’s advocates find them obstructive…

    Which has already been answered by referring to the contemporary view of the suffragettes. You deflected answering it by using snark. Refusing to answer someone’s point then making your same point as though it hasn’t already been debunked is how comment threads end up going in circles. It also makes you look dishonest.

    Oh shiiiiiiiit, suddenly argument-free snark is bad. Maybe you’de like to address that criticism to 1234

    The difference of course is that 1234etc actually answered your points before he resorted to snark. It wasn’t just a tactic to avoid answering you. It’s not snark that’s the problem, but you avoiding points made against your position. A position I might add, which directly contradicts the Motte you set up above.

    Oh shit, back to the ‘you know you secretly agree with me’ disingenuousness

    Frankly, with the points you’ve been pushing and the glaring contradictions in your position I’m at the point where I have to decide whether its maliciousness or incompetence, and I don’t think you are that stupid so I’ve put your position down to dishonesty. The deliberate switching of terms and bogus comparison in #157 cemented it for me. Plus the avoidance of answering a point, just to make the same claim it debunked in the next post you made. What else do you call it when someone dissembles madly, and writhes rhetorically, in the service of a goal oblique to their stated aims?

    P.S I’m going to be busy the next few days, and decent-internet-less for a week or two after that. Feel free to reply and I’ll reply if necessary when I can.

  179. 123454321 says

    “The difference of course is that 1234etc actually answered your points before he resorted to snark.”

    Yes, exactly. I answered all of Carnation’s questions the best I could and even confessed my disapproval of individuals, or at least the specific incidents relating to those individuals when provided with evidence from Carnation. Carnation, on the other hand, persistently fuelled the discourse by refusing to answer a simple question relating to the despicable behaviour of the pediatrician I linked to.

  180. Marduk says

    Another one for the “live by sword, die by the sword” collection.

    “But when meant these rules to apply to other people, not us”.

    Poor Helen Lewis, deputy editor of the New Statesman weeping her tears…
    http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2015/10/what-row-over-banning-germaine-greer-really-about

    Turns out all those unfashionable arguments are free speech are correct, you have to allow it to people you don’t like because otherwise sooner or later people will turn on *your* speech.

    “There are places on the internet where you will be told to “die in a fire” if you write “transwomen” instead of “trans women”.

    Really Helen? You’ve been vigorously denying SJWs are capable of such things for years… and now all of a sudden you’ve just realized its pretty much all they do now its finally being turned on you and your friends. So much for those glowing articles about the internet 4th wave. Have fun with that, told you so.

  181. StillGjeganger says

    An interesting twist in the trans debate: A ‘Woman of the future’ award has just been given at the same time that said woman came out as a trans man. One might certainly file this one among ‘shits I could not give’. But, assuming anyone cares, how does this fit into the ‘who-is-a-woman-and-who-is-a-man’ debate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *