This Actually Happened: Men’s Rights Activists Gathered To Discuss How Women Are Oppressing Them
In Michigan, mostly white male activists gathered at the International Conference on Men’s Issues to discuss their hardships as “second class citizens” and how they’ve been held back in life. Many spoke of their ex-wives and girlfriends and ‘privileged women.’One speaker blamed women for all domestic violence because, having all the power in relationships, they could simply choose not to marry violent men.
One dissenter was deemed as a ‘fame whore’ by the social media coordinator for the conference who tweeted that out, because dissent is bad, just like women are.
“Ordinary people know,” Barbara Kay, a conservative columnist for Canada’s National Post, told her audience, “the vast majority of women crying rape on campus are actually expressing buyer’s remorse from alcohol-fueled promiscuous behavior involving murky consent on both sides.” She waited for the laughter from the audience to die down. “It’s true. It’s their get-out-of-guilt-free card.”
What she’s saying is that if you get raped, you asked for it. Damn the victims because they forced men to rape them.
The Washington Post reports:
Earlier that day, an anti-domestic-violence activist spoke on the need for male-victim resources, and a politico attempted to sell the idea of a men’s rights party in Britain.
Some of the presenters were more strident than others: a psychologist who specializes in male clients and whose fans call her “Dr. T” talked about the “special protections” afforded women by the modern social contract. (Although the majority of attendees were men, five of the 15 presenters were women.)
“A rigged game can never be a level playing field,” said the psychologist, Tara Palmatier. And a rigged game against men, she said, “is what we have now.”
There was no mention onstage of the levelness of a playing field in which women make up 20 percent of U.S. senators and 18 percent of U.S. representatives — but bring it up offstage, and several participants said the men in office are merely puppets for their female electorate….
“I’m just elated,” said Paul Elam, the head of A Voice for Men, in an interview. “This is the first time I’ve ever tried to organize a conference.”
Elam in person is a tall, polite, drawling figure — he’s from Houston — who describes his site as a “place for men to express the pain and anger which they are denied from doing” in the world at large.
Elam online is an uncaged coil of rage, whose violent diatribes have been categorized as hate speech, earning his site a mention in a 2012 Southern Poverty Law Center intelligence report about misogynistic sites.
In his most infamous piece, he declared the month of October to be “Bash a Violent B—-” month: “I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall,” he wrote. He says he was being satirical and has removed the post.
(my bold because WTF?)
“My rhetoric has toned down substantially” in recent years, he said. However, “our movement doesn’t depend on mainstream approval. It’s a subculture.”
On go make me a sammich, bitch:
An attendee from Australia kept offering suggestions for the writing of this article: “Can you please put in,” he asked, “That I told you to go make me a sandwich?”)
Now fetch me a beer, because I’m oppressed.
Late on Friday night, after the first day of the conference ended, some of the men went out to a German-themed piano bar, where a pianist played “The Impossible Dream” and women in tired-looking dirndls brought steins of beer.
Men have it bad and they have proof:
Presenters used historical laws as “proof” that women have always had special privileges — access to their husband’s bank accounts, for example — but didn’t mention that during the aforementioned time period, women didn’t legally have the right to vote.
When one speaker presented statistics and was asked about their origin, he said, “That particular statistic is from my personal observations. I’m just speaking here as a dude.”
The International Conference on Men’s Issues ended with a 12-person panel discussion, in which conference-goers were instructed to ask questions related to activism — how they could take the lessons of the conference and apply them to their daily lives. What lawsuits they could bring, how they could repeal the Violence Against Women Act, what continued vigilance over “enemy territory” — feminist Web sites — might accomplish?
I can understand that in cases of child custody, men are disregarded in their parental rights all too often by the courts. But while talking of repealing the Violence Against Women Act, it might be a good idea to not host speakers who call for a ‘Bash a violent bitch’ month. But what do I know — I’m just a lowly bitch woman.
Big thanks to one of our amazing BFF readers, TiredOfTea, for sending the link.
Image: Raw Story
Rusty Shackleford July 1st, 2014 at 8:53 am
Cite that. I’ve yet to see an MRA do so. The overwhelming majority of custody arrangements never even make it in front of a judge. The reason women overwhelmingly get custody is because men overwhelmingly don’t want to raise their fucking kids.
Anomaly 100 July 1st, 2014 at 9:05 am
Good point. I know someone that was just arrested for that. Meanwhile, he has more kids with a different woman.
R.J. Carter July 1st, 2014 at 10:35 am
You’d have to ask the folks at Cordell & Cordell.
Rusty Shackleford July 1st, 2014 at 10:45 am
The burden of proof does not fall on me. It falls on the people making the claim that the legal system established and dominated by men somehow became biased against them.
James Jackson July 1st, 2014 at 1:22 pm
http://www.attorneys.com/child-custody/why-do-women-win-most-custody-battles/
Why Do Women Win Custody?:
There are many reasons why women win custody in the overwhelming number of cases. Chief among them: Because that’s the way it’s always been. Traditionally, men worked and women stayed home to raise children. Although that is less frequently the case these days, there is still a bias toward women in child custody cases.
From a biological perspective, we are more inclined to think of the mother-child relationship than the father-child relationship. Many people make the automatic assumption that women are more nurturing as parents than men.
In awarding custody, judges will decide what’s in the best interests of the children. In determining “best interests,” the judge will look at a number of factors, including:
Which parent has the most suitable character and temperament to serve as custodian?
What is the child’s relationship with each parent?
What child-rearing skills does each parent have?
Does either parent have an illness or habits that may harm the child?
Which parent will provide the best home environment?
Does the child have stronger emotional ties to one parent?
Is one parent better suited to meet the child’s special needs?
Who has the child been living with?
What is each parent’s employment status?
What is the financial status of each parent?
What is each parent’s apparent motive for seeking custody?
Is either parent unfit to have custody?
Which parent is the most likely to allow the child to continue his or her relationship with the other parent and extended family?
Some of these factors have a natural bias that favors mothers over fathers.
Rusty Shackleford July 1st, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Look at this bit you conveniently skipped over, right at the top of the article!
Those sure do seem like some pretty big numbers we’re just going to completely ignore, especially since that first bullet point accounts for a MAJORITY of custody arrangements.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 9:25 am
Where were numbers mentioned at all? The only reference I saw that came close to an actual ‘number’ was the words ‘couples’ and ‘single.’
Rusty Shackleford July 2nd, 2014 at 9:30 am
The fact that his citation lacks any sort of hard numbers is yet another flaw of it. Those bullet points represent large numbers of people though. How many? Who knows, since his citation is vague as hell, but I do know for a fact that the first bullet point accounts for a MAJORITY of custody arrangements.
R.J. Carter July 2nd, 2014 at 9:46 am
Well, as long as you know it. Because the bullet point is so vague (as they all were), all I got was the adverb “often” to go on.
Rusty Shackleford July 2nd, 2014 at 9:54 am
Here’s some numbers if you want them.
Look at that, 51% decided on their own! In fact, 96% came to agreements without ever going to trial, and only 1.5% actually had a judge make the decision.
Also note that the odds of the father getting custody actually INCREASE when he goes to trial, contrary to the MRA’s claims that courts are biased against men.
Anomaly 100 July 2nd, 2014 at 9:57 am
I love how ‘guest’ doesn’t register his or her (I’m thinking ‘it’ is a guy) name.
Guest July 1st, 2014 at 1:25 pm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html
There are many, many studies.
Look, the point I’d really like to make here is it does no one any good to belittle one side over another. It also does no one any good to make wild claims or exaggerated claims just to make your side look better. Hell, there shouldn’t BE sides.
Carla Akins July 2nd, 2014 at 5:32 am
I noticed yesterday morning that they’ve updated their ad. I think its a fine segment of the law for a specialization, and I recognize that many times men get the shaft – especially when it comes to custody/visitation. But every time I hear their ad, I feel slimy and want a shower.
James Jackson July 1st, 2014 at 1:20 pm
Didn’t you just make the argument when you said “The reason women overwhelmingly get custody”? Isn’t that what the statement says? Now, you have a disagreement as to WHY this (women get custody of kids) happens, but the fact that it happens is stated by YOU. What I would ask YOU is to cite where it says that men don’t want to raise their kids, and THAT is why women get most of the custody.
Rusty Shackleford July 1st, 2014 at 1:29 pm
No. These are two very different statements:
1. Women get custody more often than men. (True)
2. Women get custody more often than men due to court bias (Citation needed, since the overwhelming majority of custody arrangements never go to court).
If you can’t tell the difference between those two, you’ve got problems.
I base my supposition on the fact that the overwhelming majority of custody arrangements never go to court, meaning they’re agreed upon by both parties, meaning the men involved overwhelmingly AGREED to grant custody to the women.
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 2:22 am
But in order to raise them they stay home and use dad’s child support that is not reported as income. Now we know the origin of the 77 cents on a dollar comes from. The men pay them the 23 cents and often more out of their own pockets.
Rusty Shackleford July 2nd, 2014 at 8:12 am
I love how your argument completely disregards the fact that the mother is ALSO paying money, in addition to doing the actual fucking effort, to raise this child.
Anomaly 100 July 1st, 2014 at 5:08 pm
‘Guest’, you’re trolling our readers.
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 2:19 am
It’s hard to pay 100% of child support when you are only allowed to visit them for a couple hours a week.
Carla Akins July 2nd, 2014 at 5:30 am
By law, support and visitation are not linked. The non-custodial parent is required to pay child support based on both parents income in order to provide for the child. It’s not a 100% of the child’s support but there shared percentage of the cost. This is required (both legally and morally) regardless of visitation. Visitation is determined by the court/arbitration based on what’s best for the child within the geographical limitations. These decision are generally based on the recommendation of guardian ad litem if the parents are not agreed.
Rusty Shackleford July 2nd, 2014 at 8:13 am
Children ain’t cheap, buddy. They don’t stop being expensive just because you didn’t get custody.
Tommy6860 July 1st, 2014 at 8:54 am
Maybe these guys wouldn’t feel oppressed, if they would just live with their man-bros. There, problem solved, and it would help to prevent the bigots and misogynists from breeding.
Suzanne McFly July 1st, 2014 at 11:26 am
What a beautiful world would that be. No wars, no fights, no use for guns…..ahhh your making me daydream 🙂
Holytape July 1st, 2014 at 8:56 am
It’s so hard being a man in today’s society, because of things like health insurance covering all my medications. What if I wanted to take the extra 20% in pay that companies force me to take because I am a man and buy my own Viagra? It’s just sooo hard.
spacegod July 2nd, 2014 at 1:01 am
If it’s sooooo hard, why do you need Viagra?
#hahaseewhatididthere
William July 1st, 2014 at 9:18 am
Well? asking employers and the Gub-mint to pay fer them-thar vie-sectomies, and Viagra.
Buncha sluts I tell ya.
William July 1st, 2014 at 9:20 am
Oppression of either gender is in some ways a matter of perspective.
R.J. Carter July 1st, 2014 at 10:34 am
I’m reminded of the quote Paul Dooley’s character uttered in the Brett Butler series, Grace Under Fire: “I’m a middle-aged white guy living during the one time in history when that’s the wrong thing to be.”
mmaynard119 July 1st, 2014 at 12:23 pm
Especially because women are the modern Illuminati.
Anomaly 100 July 1st, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Damn skippy.
Justin Volke V July 2nd, 2014 at 2:17 am
Do homosexual couples have this problem?
Rusty Shackleford July 2nd, 2014 at 9:34 am
Nope. I guess that makes LGB people better than you, but we already knew that.
knightrunner July 2nd, 2014 at 9:41 am
One of the speakers is a stay at home dad. So……
Why don’t you try addressing the issues instead of shaming. That is if you can which I doubt. Mmmkay cupcake.