Trying to see the other side... Male Rights Activists

[geek_dragon]

So I've been poking around reading articles at and linked to from http://www.the-spearhead.com/

I want to see their points and if they have any valid ones.  It's hard because most of the commentors and articles are centered around how women are evil creatures inacable of loving and evilly withholding sex for large amounts of money.

And there are

Comments

[anonymous]

If your reaction to opinions that go against your own is to want to punch somebody, then you have serious anger management problems and constitute a potential danger to those around you.

If you are so curious about where they "get this shit" then try doing some research instead of wishing you could assault somebody.

[geek_dragon]

Hmm I should have specified to just leave comments on my article and not taunt people on my friends list.
My bad for not having the foresight to not actually take the time to specify this.
Maybe I should have said I'll send you a copy via e-mail.
Sorry solandra. Sincire apologies.

[anonymous]

How is it taunting when she herself said she'd like to violently assault somebody? That IS, by definition, an anger management problem, and I simply pointed it out. It's also a fact that people with poor anger management constitute a potential danger since they may give in to the urge to commit acts of violence. If she can't even handle the expression of an opposing viewpoint without feeling violent rage, how on Earth do you think she handles more serious disputes?

I think it's pretty egregious to express the desire to hurt someone because of their opinions and expect a free pass on it.

[anonymous]

Who, exactly, claimed to have a "right" to sex with a female?

Few people would dispute the idea that women don't owe men affection or sex (at least outside of marriage or a relationship), but of course the other side of that sword is that men don't owe women safety or support, and they are increasingly choosing not to provide it.

If you research the 1 in 4 stat you will see that it goes by personal reports rather than police records, and uses a ridiculously broad definition of rape. By the logic used in this stat, I could randomly interview 1,000 men, ask each of them if they had ever raped someone, and if all 1,000 answer no then I have just proven that rape is a myth.

[tenou_k]

I wonder what you mean when you say that men don't owe women safety or support. I think I can agree that no one owes another person support by virtue of the gender of the parties involved, but why do you think men don't owe women safety? What kind of safety can be conferred by men? Do you mean that men are not obliged to offer women the privilege of not attacking them, or do you mean that men have no obligation to protect women from others

[anonymous]

I meant that men don't owe women protection. They can provide it if they want to, but they don't owe it. If I see a woman being attacked by someone, I don't have to intervene and unless she is a family member or close friend, I probably won't

[anonymous]

Men employed as police officers are, naturally, an exception to this rule since it is their job to protect the public and they are paid with the expectation that they carry it out as described.

[anonymous]

Do you follow the golden rule consistently? Have you never used anyone and kicked them to the curb the moment they stopped being useful? Have you never mooched your friends to buy stuff for you instead of buying it yourself?

[anonymous]

We are everyone and we are no one.
We are Anonymous, we are Legion.
We do not forgive, we do not forget.

[geek_dragon]

This above comment is freaking creeepy. Creepy.
Please no weird stalker like creepiness in my journal or I will disable anon commenting.

Respectable debate, politeness, we can have polite conversation, I know we can. Please don't prove me wrong.

[anonymous]

It's not creepy. it's the standard mantra of Anonymous. I thought everyone would recognize it, but I guess I was wrong. I can make an account if you prefer.

that site is part of the problem.

[winterlion]

I'm hoping that site is on the RCMP's "Watch list". It resembles "stormfront.org" - or at least past versions of it. (Stormfront is a white supremest organization)

It treads perilously close to Canada's anti-Hate laws.
(Hatred, in legal definition - advocating violence against some group)

Much as I tend to mock my own gender (ie: I certainly won't date a guy - guys are too batshit crazy!) - my real push is for equal rights. For me, that comes down to that people are all basically people with similar likes, dislikes and so forth. There's individual differences but sexual ones don't really stand out unless emphasized - and someone else's sexual life shouldn't matter to anyone else unless they're personally involved (or are a danger to the general public, as I'm suspecting the majority of inhabitants on that site may be).

Re: that site is part of the problem.

[winterlion]

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/04/18/be-extreme-and-unreasonable/
- certainly seems to fit the bill.

and yes it does matter what the RCMP thinks - the RCMP can and has convicted Canadians who act internationally in a criminal activity. (they won't on this site unless someone does something criminal and uses this site as an argument or organizing factor on their violence. PS: stormfront is a reasonable comparison as it's falsely claiming loss of rights as well - race instead of gender, but same arguments and "evidence")
and Stormfront tried - hard - to recruit me in the past. This site is very similar... seems ok until you start digging. I'm comparing against them with the perspective of knowledge, not because I'm arbitrarily comparing them against some "known hate group".

"male rights movements" don't seem to have any rational arguments in basis to me anyway. Can you prove to me that they're not a "male supremest"