Karen Straughan: Angry Misogynists! Or how cracked popular perception has become.

Why are MRAs so angry? Why are they so extreme? Why all the harsh language?

Do you all really have to ask?

The thing that gets me.
Is that it is perfectly acceptable in society for MRAs to get characterized by the idiots.
Yet, there are feminists calling for wiping out all men.
And this seems to be alright.

A conferance that wants to talk about issues affecting men, not call for the destruction of women.
This:

Get loud obnoxious protest and fire alarm pulling.
Oh and stuff like this:

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

It's like a crazy power struggle.

Feminism is a positive thing, but we need to stop differentiating. It's not "feminism," it's humanism.

There is nothing equal about giving a perceived victim the power to victimize.

a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I wish we could reduce our usage of the word victim.
It doesn't help, especially in this dialogue.

We have people on both sides who are endlessly playing the victim card.

Feminism is a positive thing, but we need to stop differentiating. It's not "feminism," it's humanism.

Or egalitarianism.

I think, in the Western world, it was once positive.
But it seems to have turned into something nasty.

It's sorely needed elsewhere however.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: LewsTherinThelamon

I wish we could reduce our usage of the word victim.
It doesn't help, especially in this dialogue.

We have people on both sides who are endlessly playing the victim card.

Feminism is a positive thing, but we need to stop differentiating. It's not "feminism," it's humanism.

Or egalitarianism.

I think, in the Western world, it was once positive.
But it seems to have turned into something nasty.

It's sorely needed elsewhere however.

Feminism was never a positive movement, just like most socio-political "ism" based movements. They all tend to try to centralize power with their progenitors and take it away from everyone else. Nazi-ism, pretty self explanatory. Zionism, well there's another easy one. Racism, as applied to say the Clan, nuther simple one. Feminism is no different.

I am all for equal rights and I believe in that kind of movement, however, feminism is very one sided. The militant, radicalized and rabid feminists really need to STFU and play nicely, they are certainly not helping their cause by being vitriolic hate filled vile and obscene little monsters who have more in common genetically with female chimps than male humans.

Cheers - Dave

PS. Funny thing, male humans have more in common genetically with male chimps than they do with female humans as well.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Feminism was never a positive movement, just like most socio-political "ism" based movements. They all tend to try to centralize power with their progenitors and take it away from everyone else. Nazi-ism, pretty self explanatory. Zionism, well there's another easy one. Racism, as applied to say the Clan, nuther simple one. Feminism is no different.

I disagree.
In the cases of injustice orginizing against it is only natural and a good idea.
But such organizations have a shelf life once their grievences are being addressed.

I am all for equal rights and I believe in that kind of movement, however, feminism is very one sided.

I agree here.

male humans have more in common genetically with male chimps than they do with female humans

Where did you read that?

Feminism has become a huge threat to society at large and is oppressive to both men and women.

I've looked into the MRA and my biggest concern with them is if they ever meet with real success they'll degenerate into another feminist style movement.

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

PS. Funny thing, male humans have more in common genetically with male chimps than they do with female humans as well.

Do you have any evidence for that claim? it sounds full on crackpot to me.

I don't understand where this militant feminism has come from nor what it aims to achieve, apart from it's apparent goal of pushing men out of every facet of life to be replaced by a woman.

Take that horrible piece of work, Caroline Criado-Perez, who "campaigned" for a woman to be on a £5 note to end the "misogyny" of only having men, which is of course total crap as women have appeared on Bank Notes for years, but apparently the decision to have a man on the new £5 design was too much for the militant feminists, ignoring the fact there was already a woman on the previous design and it was being replaced, ignoring the fact the Head of Notes was a Woman and also the fact every Bank Note has a Woman on it anyway - the Queen!

In another campaign, she called the Bank of England on their decision to replace Elizabeth Fry with Winston Churchill on the £5 note, which left no women featured on the reverse of bank notes; the Queen is depicted on the front of bank notes, with historically prominent people on the reverse. Dismissing Churchill as "another white man", Criado-Perez pointed out that the Equality Act 2010 commits public institutions to "eliminate discrimination", whereas proof the Bank had acted with the required "due regard" was absent because details of the decision-making process were not made public.Criado-Perez met Head of Notes Victoria Cleland and Chief Cashier Chris Salmon at the Bank to discuss the matter in the second week of July.

The campaign, which gained the support of 35,000 petitioners, and financial support for a potential legal challenge which Criado-Perez had not ruled out, led Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, to announce a change of plan on 24 July 2013. It is now intended that the image of Jane Austen will appear on the £10 note, probably from 2017.

And also, why is it that a good many of these militant feminists are in fact lesbian? It certainly seems to me that rather than being influenced by genuine gender disparity, many of these ladies political views are born from a deep seated dislike of anything male based on their sexual orientation.

Although the lady I mentioned above (one of the UK's "leading feminists" has another reason to hate men which she now uses to judge us all:

She left school at 18, and spent a year at university, before leaving her studies. Having developed a passion for opera during her teens, she wanted to become an opera singer,and various jobs subsidised her singing lessons. Her parents divorced, and her father broke off all contact with his children

originally posted by: monkofmimir
Do you have any evidence for that claim? it sounds full on crackpot to me.

Apparently, it's the reverse, although taking it to it's extreme logical conclusion...

Link to story - apparently the Human Male Y Chromozone is very distinct from the Chimps, meaning (logically) that Woman are "genetically closer" to Chimps than men.

a reply to: stumason

In my opinion it's classic "us" versus "them" psychology run amok.
Which is happening a lot in this day and age.
Again, in my opinion.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ah that explains why I hang about with chimps more than women

originally posted by: stumason
I don't understand where this militant feminism has come from nor what it aims to achieve, apart from it's apparent goal of pushing men out of every facet of life to be replaced by a woman.

Take that horrible piece of work, Caroline Criado-Perez, who "campaigned" for a woman to be on a £5 note to end the "misogyny" of only having men, which is of course total crap as women have appeared on Bank Notes for years, but apparently the decision to have a man on the new £5 design was too much for the militant feminists, ignoring the fact there was already a woman on the previous design and it was being replaced, ignoring the fact the Head of Notes was a Woman and also the fact every Bank Note has a Woman on it anyway - the Queen!

In another campaign, she called the Bank of England on their decision to replace Elizabeth Fry with Winston Churchill on the £5 note, which left no women featured on the reverse of bank notes; the Queen is depicted on the front of bank notes, with historically prominent people on the reverse. Dismissing Churchill as "another white man", Criado-Perez pointed out that the Equality Act 2010 commits public institutions to "eliminate discrimination", whereas proof the Bank had acted with the required "due regard" was absent because details of the decision-making process were not made public.Criado-Perez met Head of Notes Victoria Cleland and Chief Cashier Chris Salmon at the Bank to discuss the matter in the second week of July.

The campaign, which gained the support of 35,000 petitioners, and financial support for a potential legal challenge which Criado-Perez had not ruled out, led Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, to announce a change of plan on 24 July 2013. It is now intended that the image of Jane Austen will appear on the £10 note, probably from 2017.

And also, why is it that a good many of these militant feminists are in fact lesbian? It certainly seems to me that rather than being influenced by genuine gender disparity, many of these ladies political views are born from a deep seated dislike of anything male based on their sexual orientation.

Although the lady I mentioned above (one of the UK's "leading feminists" has another reason to hate men which she now uses to judge us all:

She left school at 18, and spent a year at university, before leaving her studies. Having developed a passion for opera during her teens, she wanted to become an opera singer,and various jobs subsidised her singing lessons. Her parents divorced, and her father broke off all contact with his children

originally posted by: monkofmimir
Do you have any evidence for that claim? it sounds full on crackpot to me.

Apparently, it's the reverse, although taking it to it's extreme logical conclusion...

Link to story - apparently the Human Male Y Chromozone is very distinct from the Chimps, meaning (logically) that Woman are "genetically closer" to Chimps than men.

And do you remember the threats of violence and rape that that woman got for merely suggesting British bank notes should have at least one woman who contributed to making/image of Britain? It was pathetic. Just as it is pathetic to suggest that there is a war on men.

You have extreme feminists, you have extreme MRA's but what you dont have is either side winning and managing to suppress either gender.

I have yet to be convinced that men are under seige purely because of feminism. But i'll bite the bait, im open to ANY member of ATS to show me and prove once an for all that the MRA's serve an actual purpose. Because as far as i can see, their only case is their mistreatment in the family courts and unfair child support payments if they dont get to see/look after their kids. That's the only credible thing they've got going.

Ugh. I hate stepping into these waters, but here goes.

During the Women's sufferage movement, Feminism was an awesome force for equality. It did wonders to help make women more equal on the world stage. Now, women can world leaders, they can be CEOs, they can be scientists, astronauts, welders, anything they want to be.

Feminism today would make the feminists of yesteryear puke. It's all about the victim attitude and blaming every single woe they face on the "patriarchy". Rather than rising up and taking on the challenges we, as HUMANS are faced with, they want things handed to them simply because they share my gender.

It's sickening.

The MRA's are almost as bad. If something happens, it's the dirty feminazis and their devious manipulations.

It's the classic Us Vs. Them concept. Which, honestly, has been becoming a lot more prominent as time progresses.

a reply to: SearchLightsInc

It's very true that family courts almost ALWAYS side with the woman, regardless of her capability to provide for her children. Men are often the losers when it comes to custody and child support matters.

Then there's issue of Female on Male rape. Yes, it happens. A lot more than you might think. And a lot of times people just ridicule the man or saying stupid stuff like "You wouldn't have had an erection if you didn't want it." That's like telling a female rape victim "It's not rape if you had an orgasm." Yet it happens all the time.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: SearchLightsInc

It's very true that family courts almost ALWAYS side with the woman, regardless of her capability to provide for her children. Men are often the losers when it comes to custody and child support matters.

Then there's issue of Female on Male rape. Yes, it happens. A lot more than you might think. And a lot of times people just ridicule the man or saying stupid stuff like "You wouldn't have had an erection if you didn't want it." That's like telling a female rape victim "It's not rape if you had an orgasm." Yet it happens all the time.

Indeed, female on male rape should be taken more seriously because it does exist - And so does men being victims of domestic violence

Feminism gets a bad name from a very small group of women that use hateful speech. Most feminism, like 98% is positive. The men's rights guys stuff is a little more skewed. Sure there may be some need for reform of some things, like who gets parental rights etc in divorce, but over all, websites like "a voice for men" and the like are very negative and whiny and we could do without them. Those guys need to get a life.

a reply to: amazing

Yet, case in point, N.O.W. consistently opposes such things as Shared Parenting Legislation.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Feminism was never a positive movement, just like most socio-political "ism" based movements. They all tend to try to centralize power with their progenitors and take it away from everyone else. Nazi-ism, pretty self explanatory. Zionism, well there's another easy one. Racism, as applied to say the Clan, nuther simple one. Feminism is no different.

I disagree.
In the cases of injustice orginizing against it is only natural and a good idea.
But such organizations have a shelf life once their grievences are being addressed.

I am all for equal rights and I believe in that kind of movement, however, feminism is very one sided.

I agree here.

male humans have more in common genetically with male chimps than they do with female humans

Where did you read that?

Women's grievances have been addressed, so why isn't feminism dead and why hasn't it been replaced by something more egalitarian? The radical feminists give it a bad name, just like the radical muslims, radical christians, radical catholics, radical shintoists, radical jews, etc. I still maintain it's all about pooling power for a select few in any of the radical organizations.

As far as comparative genetics, you can actually look that up on google. I think it's been about a year since I read the paper that was examining genetic differences across species and across genders within species (and I only read it because my curiosity was peaked by what I thought was its absurdity). I remember thinking when I saw the research paper that it didn't make sense, but then while reading it and looking at the evidence and empirical data, it made perfect sense. Organs, structure and functionality between male humans and male chimps is much closer than one would normally suspect, even at the cellular level. The same of course applies to female humans and female chimps. And when you take it further down the path to chemical processing, enzymes, protein strings, hormones, etc. there is a lot more similarity between females across species than there is across genders.

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: monkofmimir

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

PS. Funny thing, male humans have more in common genetically with male chimps than they do with female humans as well.

Do you have any evidence for that claim? it sounds full on crackpot to me.

You can refer to my last post prior to this one ;-)

Cheers - Dave