Archive | Live free or die hard RSS feed for this section

Oh look! “Trigger-happy” protesters are planning to shut down the Detroit conference promising “things could get ugly”.

29 May




Everybody, stand back!  The intellectual powerhouse who goes by the name Joel Reinstein is hosting a Facebook page called STOP the “International Conference on Men’s Issues!”, and you know Joel is a badass motherfucker when he pulls out the ALLCAPS!


Before you go over there with your misogyny and patriarchy hanging out all over the place messing up the throw cushions and doilies, be aware that “Misogynists’ comments and posts will be deleted. Threats and harassment will be screencapped and reported to relevant authorities.”  Joel means business.


Advance warning:  this kind of misogyny will not be tolerated:



I posted it more than once and was continuously deleted, because the sheer vitriol and hatred in that was unbearable to someone as delicate and sensitive as Joel.


Some of Joel’s supporters seemed at least marginally willing to engage in debate about specific issues but Joel took the hardline and deleted comments that failed to toe the MRA=WomanHater line, leaving all the supporter responses up, so that the threads became incoherent.  Like this one:


  • Sarah Gray Safe haven laws are gender neutral, and it does *not* absolve the abandoning parent of their responsibilities.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Women are legally required in all but two states to reveal the fathers identity and notify him if she wants to adopt out.
Men should keep track of their sperm, they can always contest an adoption because fathers have rights.

3 hrs · Like

Samuel Molnar Guys, this isn’t a dialogue. Don’t get it twisted. We want to get the sexist abuse-apologists to stfu and gtfo. So dont come here looking for dialogue.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray No, women cannot unilaterally choose to have no responsibility got a child that actually exists.
When a woman has an abortion there is no child that needs support.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Safe havens most certainly do. Every effort is made to find the parents.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Funny how sticking up for the rights of children and their fathers is construed as not caring about men.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Men can leave babies at sage havens too.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Other than forcing a woman to have an invasive medical procedure. If pregnancy took place outside of women’s bodies entirely, I would agree with the general concept.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray No, a man can drop off a child at a safe haven without having legal custody.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Giving men special rights is bullshit, that’s why.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray If MRAs stopped blaming women for their (sometimes valid, but not caused by women or feminists) problems, they might be more effective in their quest for equality.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray I am correct about safe haven laws. They are gender neutral.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray If the woman agrees to such a procedure, I guess she could do that, but that’s not what is being proposed for “choice for men”, where the man opts out of supporting a child that exists while the woman has all the responsibilities.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Men should keep track of their sperm then.

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray Because “discussing these issues” involves blaming women, encouraging the abuse of women, and denying much of reality.

3 hrs · Like

Geoffrey Hughes Gee Alison, a more perceptive commenter might just get the idea they were not wanted and go elsewhere

3 hrs · Like · 1

Sarah Gray I’m not sure what your point is. We don’t have artificial wombs, and ending a pregnancy is distinct from removing a viable fetus to an artificial womb

3 hrs · Like

Sarah Gray If men are concerned about that, they should keep track of where they put their sperm.
Safe haven laws are gender neutral.

3 hrs · Like

Geoffrey Hughes Well, Alison, that sure sounds rough. Maybe you should go make your own page where you’re the moderator and you can apply your own rules of moderation.

3 hrs · Like · 1

Sarah Gray So? That sounds like a good reason for men to use birth control every time no matter what a woman says.

3 hrs · Like · 1

Sarah Gray Read up on the laws, they are gender neutral. It has nothing to do with legal custody.

3 hrs · Like · 1



Of course what they deleted was me actually reciting the law to them, verbatim, about safe havens, which is apparently misogynist and far too harsh for their sensitive brains to contemplate.


Can I really keep my baby a secret?

Yes, you can keep your secret and keep your baby safe. The Illinois law says that as long as you don’t harm your baby, you can hand your newborn (30 days old or younger) to personnel at any hospital, police station or staffed fire station in Illinois for adoption with no questions asked.


No one will ask your name. Your baby will get medical care and be adopted into a loving family. You can even provide anonymous medical information, so your baby will grow up with a medical history.


Sarah also refuses to believe that Safe Haven laws are used generally by mothers, even when they are written as gender neutral, which is not the universal case at all. In four states (Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee), only the mother may relinquish her infant.

The National Safe Haven Alliance explicitly identifies mothers as most likely to surrender newborns under these laws, no matter how the law is written.

The whole discussion should just engender (ha!) a giant eyeroll, no?  Obviously it is going to be the mothers who surrender newborns with no further legal or social responsibility – how on earth could a father take a newborn and surrender it without the mother noticing? I can’t find any examples at all, because they don’t exist no matter how gender neutral the laws are written.


The safe haven conversation, in which the fact that women do indeed have the right to legally surrender a child after it is born was proven, combined with a private conversation I have been having with the Amazing Aetheist has led to me a new understanding of how feminists (and often MRAs including myself) see key issues: oppositionally rather than inclusively.


And that is a problem, perhaps our biggest one.


Sarah, and other feminist protesters see an issue like the right of men to choose parenthood as an attack on their own right to choose parenthood. Literal legal equality is perceived as an attack on their own special status, so statements like “giving men special rights is bullshit” and “because “discussing these issues” involves blaming women, encouraging the abuse of women, and denying much of reality” doubly ironic.





The only way they can counter the dissonance is to deny they have special status in the first place, which is simply not true.  No one is saying women should not be able to choose parenthood – the argument is that since women can in fact decide if they will be parents, why can’t men?


Pick any issue, and this seems to be the dominant approach:  pointing out that men can and are raped by women does not deny that women are raped by men.  It simply highlights that rape can be and is committed by both men and women with both men and women as victims.  How does noting that fact encourage the abuse of women?  It encourages accountability, to be sure, but what about accountability is abusive?


I myself have railed heartily against the “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign in which all men are treated as rapists, but perhaps a more strategic approach would be to treat everyone as a potential rapists and to make all students sit through lectures in which consent is explained? Make women understand when they are in fact being rapists, as well as men.

ICMI Threats 1


It didn’t take long for the protesters on the Facebook page to start alluding to vague and not so vague threats.  One of the earliest posts on the page was by a man named Eduardo Guzman (Russ Tiller) who wrote “these people make me trigger-happy”. He only got four likes though.




Guzman also put forth the suggestion that the only way to properly protest was to “storm the conference” and bemoaned the fact that his inability to meet the cost of a ticket is the only reason he will not be attending.




Guzman’s own page links to two sports: motorcycles and Gabby Franco, an Olympic markswoman.  Hmm.  Interesting.  Wonder if the protesters are worried about that?




There was concern expressed for hotel employees in case they got tear-gassed, too.  My.  That’s quite a protest you’re planning if it involves tear-gas.




Another protester, Emma Howland-Bolton is apparently planning some sort of staged event that will …. I dunno – be fun I guess?  Wonder what that will be?  Maybe another staged attack like the one that “happened” at Queen’s University?  That worked really well.





Other protesters are warning that things could very ugly and it won’t be a dance party.





There is also some curious funny business going on with moderators claiming that they are not deleting comments, but rather that MRAs and those that question the protest are in fact deleting their own comments in an act of cowardice and fear, and yet when moderators accidentally delete a protester’s comments, they openly admit to deleting any and all comments that are not strictly supportive.  It was pretty serious, too.  The commenter who was accidentally deleted had her faith broken, her trust shattered! She was cruelly silenced!  I hope she didn’t get #PTSD from the experience.




So, I guess the takeaway is that democracy is alive and well?  Nothing says First Amendment quite like trying to prevent voices you don’t like from speaking and vigorously silencing all internal dissenters at the same time.  The Founding Fathers would be ever so proud, but they were all men, weren’t they, so screw them anyways.

we the people


I hope the protest goes well for our FB friends.  Sounds like it will be a riot.  Storm the ramparts, folks!  Tally-ho!


We’ll be over here, eating cake.


Lots of love,





Well, the 20/20 piece on the “Manosphere” is obviously gonna be a trainwreck

17 Oct

Let’s start with our intrepid “reporters”, shall we?

This is Alyssa Pry:


Alyssa Pry is a journalist, creative writer and photographer in the New York City area. She is currently working as a production assistant for ABC 20/20. Her recent projects with 20/20 have included breaking news specials on the Japan tsunami and death of Osama Bin Laden, longer form pieces like Children of Hoarders, and celebrity profiles on Jennifer Hudson and Demi Lovato.

She has previously worked as a researcher for NBC News and has held internships at ABC, Harper’s Bazaar and NBC Universal. Her work has appeared on ABC,, and abroad in The Prague Daily Monitor as well as other local publications. She is also the author of the blog

Alyssa graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in journalism and sociology from New York University. Originally from New Jersey, Alyssa has traveled around Europe and hopes to someday work abroad.

Well, she sounds qualified, no? She profiled Jennifer Hudson, people!

Maybe Alexa Valiente will be more promising?


Good lord.  What a joke.


Digital Associate Producer/Reporter for 20/20 and at ABC News

Sales Associate at Abercrombie & Fitch


Editorial Digital Intern at ABC News

Staff Writer at The Whitehead Envoy

Intern at Newsweek and The Daily Beast


John C. Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University


Guys, she worked at Abercrombie & Fitch and she has a degree in Diplomacy!

Off to a promising start, no?

Deep in the underbelly of the Internet is a hidden corner known as the “Manosphere”— a collection of websites, Facebook pages and chat rooms where men vent their rage and spew anti-women rhetoric.

Deep in the underbelly, huh?  Last I checked, A Voice for Men had an Alexa Ranking of 12 241.  That puts them ahead of Zerlina Maxwell and her crew at who come in at 17 098.  Guess “feminism” is hidden deep in the underbelly, too?

Protected by the anonymity of the Internet, men feel free to post hateful and violent comments. Posts such as “I really wouldn’t mind shooting a [expletive] dead in the face, they are evil, all of them,” and “Women are the natural enemies of men” are commonplace on sites like “A Voice for Men,” a Manosphere blog run by Paul Elam.

I really wouldn’t mind shooting a [expletive] dead in the face, they are evil, all of them,”

UPDATE:  Apparently this quote was taken from a 2010 article wherein Paul Elam used it as an example of something that would earn you Instant BanHammer!  It’s an example of what is NOT acceptable.

Yep, only commenters at AVFM use anonymous or pseudonymous monikers.  It’s never happened anywhere else on the internet, ever. And of the thousands of articles on AVFM, that’s the one they’re gonna highlight, is it? No relevant articles on issues like child custody or suicide or workplace deaths or boys struggling in school or male victims of sexual assault or male genital mutilation.


Those must be hidden deep in the underbelly, too.

Watch the full story on “20/20” Friday, Oct. 18 at 10 p.m. ET

Elam told ABC News’ “20/20” that while he may not agree with some of the comments that are made on his site, he believes men are society’s victims and need a forum to vent.

Oh come on now Paul.  You don’t agree with everyone all the time about everything?  That’s so weird.  It must be hard being human like that.

“There has been a change in the world, especially in the last 50 years. Women’s roles have changed drastically,” he told “20/20.” “What a lot of us in this area find is that men’s roles have not changed very much. Many find now that they have to react.”


Men’s roles haven’t changed at all.  Yoo hoo!  Reporters!  Ask him a question about that!  Go ahead!  Ask him what he means!  Dig into that topic!  No really! Go for it!

Or, you know, just focus on what you’ve already decided is the issue.

That’s what you call “objectivity”.

Elam explained that men leave these comments in the Manosphere to get people to listen.


Which is quite possibly the entire point of all communication everywhere?

Just a guess.

“It’s … very much designed to get someone like you to sit down and ask me questions,” he told 20/20’s Elizabeth Vargas. “We are addressing a group of problems that this society ignores.”

Elam said institutions like marriage and corrupt family courts have become dangerous for men.

“Marriage has become unsafe ground for men, because we have corrupt family courts that practice bias against men and fathers routinely,” he told 20/20. “And men are waking up to this, that they don’t get a fair deal.”

Okay, this is better.  We’re actually talking about men and some specific issues again.

Oops.  Spoke to soon.

Let’s make it all about women again!

While Elam told “20/20” that his site does not promote violence or hate toward women, some of his writing appears otherwise. In a post on his website, Elam wrote that women on welfare are “little more than thinly disguised layabouts.”

Wow.  That’s your example of “hate”? Women on welfare are lazy?  Yep. First time in human history that sentiment has ever been expressed.  Clearly, this new manosphere thing is taking hate to a new level.

Elam claimed it’s not anger but satire and social commentary. “What I do is reflect and study what the attitude is in the culture,” he told “20/20.” “I am not creating the problem, I am documenting some of it.”

Fuck Their Shit Up is satire.  The rest is social commentary.  Some of that commentary is bound to be angry.  Some of it is despairing.  Some of it is sarcastic.  Some is really judgy and bitchy.

Wait, you mean ALL the men are humans, capable of the full range of human feelings and emotions?

But experts like Mark Potok, from the Southern Poverty Law Center, believe this rhetoric is problematic. “The Manosphere is an underworld of so-called men’s rights groups and individuals on the Internet, which is just fraught with really hard-line anti-woman misogyny,” Potok told “20/20.”

Wait a second.  Anti-woman misogyny?  Is there another kind I’m not aware of? Calling out misandry is not misogyny any more than supporting civil rights for Hispanic workers means you hate gay people.  Those are mutually exclusive topics.  Pay a little closer attention, and you might notice that what the manosphere criticizes is a particular ideology: feminism.  People who support equal rights for men do not hate women.

Some of them ARE women!

And when a woman is on the receiving end of this misogyny, the Manosphere is unflinching in its attacks.


Yeah, and when feminists disagree with something someone in the manosphere writes, they NEVER threaten sexual violence or mutilation.  Ask Matt Forney about that one.

Miss Poppy Leigh ‏@SoFullOfSht 29 Sep

@CozworthGrind  I really hope he meets someone who chops his dick off and feeds it back to him in his food

“Women who are targeted by these sites get a tidal wave of hate mail with rape threats and death threats,” Jaclyn Friedman, founder of Women, Action & the Media, told “20/20.”

All my best death and rape threats are from other women!

Anita Sarkeesian, a media critic and blogger, learned this the hard way after campaigning on Kickstarter to raise funds for a web series on the roles of women in video games. The attacks from the Manosphere were swift.


Swiftly outed her as a con artist.

“It was … thousands of people coming after me,” Sarkeesian told “20/20.” “Threats of rape, threats of death, threats of violence,” she said.

Possibly because they were really pissed you basically stole money?

“They would Photoshop and manipulate pornographic images and put my face on them,” Sarkeesian said. Her fellow gamers even designed a special video game about her named “Beat the [expletive] Up.”

“Players were invited to click on the screen, and an image of me would become increasingly battered and bruised,” Sarkeesian said.



Oh my god, are you saying that people beat up other people in games on the internet?  Shut up!  I totally don’t believe you.  Gamers only play with kittens and herd sheep and grow vegetables.  There is no such thing as a violent video game.

Friedman was also the subject of a cyber attack after campaigning on Facebook to remove photos and groups that promoted hate speech toward women.

Right.  But all the images of beheaded men on wedding cakes and women slapping men were A-OK?  How about people were disgusted by your hypocrisy?


“I got emails and tweets and posts on Facebook that say, ‘You are disgusting. You are fat. No one would ever want you. You should be raped,” Friedman said.


Yeah, yeah.  I get those too.  From my feminist fans.  I especially love it when comments come in back to back. “You’re an anorexic bitch and I hope you get killed.” “You’re such a fat bitch you would be lucky to get raped”.

Both comments from women.

Friedman said the Manosphere is not satire as Elam claimed, but a space for people to cause damage to women.

Can you point to that damage?  What damage has the Manosphere done to women?  Did you wittle feelings get hurt?

boo hoo

Boo hoo hoo.  I feel so bad for you.

“If you look at what they actually do, it’s all hateful rhetoric,” she told “20/20.”

Please, 20/20. Come and look at what we actually do.

“And it has real impact in the real world.”

Count on it.

Lots of love,


Feminists blame misogyny for the government shut-down. Republican men just hate women!

1 Oct

Like everybody else in the world, I woke up this morning to find the US Federal Government has gone into shutdown, with all non-essential Federal workers on mandatory furlough until otherwise advised.


National parks, galleries, museums and zoos are closed until further notice.  NASA, the Center for Disease Control and the IRS are all facing severe cutbacks, with only a skeleton staff in place.  Federal loans for homebuyers and small businesses are stalled, garbage collection and parking enforcement in the Capitol is suspended and buying a gun just got harder, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is a non-essential service.

I’m no political junkie, but here’s how I understand the situation:  the federal government has passed a law that says all Americans MUST buy health insurance or face a fine, and that law has been upheld by the Supreme Court.  This law is referred to as Obamacare.  Lots of people love it, lots of people hate it, but it IS the law, and it goes into effect today.  The government shut down has nothing to do with trying to prevent the passage of a healthcare bill.  The bill has been passed.  It’s the law.

So what is the shutdown about? I think it’s straight-up posturing.  Shutting down the government is a Very Bad Thing™ and whoever ends up getting the blame is probably not going to be re-elected.  If the Republicans can stick the Democrats with the responsibility for the shut-down, they have pretty much annihilated Hilary’s chances in 2016.

Personally, I think it’s going to go the other way, and the Republicans are gonna get stuck with the shitty end of this stick, but we shall see.  The fight, as I understand it, is over whether the implementation of the law should be delayed or not. And tacked onto that delay measure was some bullshit about companies being allowed to decide if the insurance plan employees are paying for should fund preventative health measures like birth control.

This is a war of ideology:  is healthcare a fundamental right that all citizens should be guaranteed or should it be something you choose to have or not have?  I’ve lived under all different regimes:

China – fully funded national healthcare with a robust black market providing private care

England – National Health Service with some private sector health providers

Australia – separate private and public systems

Canada – fully funded national healthcare with very little private healthcare available

USA – total fucking mess

For me it comes down to economic efficiency.  A national healthcare system is just a more efficient way of spending healthcare dollars.  National healthcare systems piss Americans off in particular because they are also progressive –they redistribute the resources of the rich to the poor.  But they’re only moderately progressive. Nothing to get all up in arms about, if you ask me.

Using data on expenditures and life expectancy by income quintile from the Canadian health care system, I find that universal, publicly-funded health insurance is modestly redistributive. Putting $1 of tax funds into the public health insurance system effectively channels between $0.23 and $0.26 toward the lowest income quintile people, and about $0.50 to the bottom two income quintiles.

Health Care Financing, Efficiency, and Equity

Most of the media commentary on the shutdown focuses on these differences in ideology.  FoxNews frames the conversation as one about a “critical spending bill”, and paints the Republicans as the good guys trying to “woo” the recalcitrant Democrats into negotiation.

CNN focuses on all the workers who won’t be getting paid and blames the Republicans for hating Obamacare.

blah blah blah

There is one curious exception to the overall coverage, however.  Both Slate’s Double XX blog and Jezebel have identified the battle as being not over a fundamental ideological difference about personal responsibility, but as a targeted example of misogyny.

The government has shut down because someone hates women.

Here’s where it gets tricky:  almost ALL of the senior branch of the government is comprised of men.


The braying ladies can’t blame ALL men for this debacle, or they would end up blaming the men they count on to do the tricky, difficult job of governing for them.


What to do, what to do?

I know!  Let’s focus on that one provision that allows companies to decide whether or not to fund particular preventative health measures and make the argument ALL ABOUT THAT, because that way, we can blame Republican men and save “our” men from criticism.

And they say that in 2013 women still don’t have any power. Behold, the US government, steward of the most powerful and wealthy country in the world, is about to be brought to its knees by a group of post-fertile conservatives who, more than anything, fear a loosening of their demographic’s grip over the choices of sexually active women. In fact, conservatives hate sluts so much that at midnight to night, they’re going to shut down the government over it.

Shutdown Looming, Republicans Spent the Weekend Trying to Cut off Your Contraception Access

Amanda Marcotte

The amendment reflects an extremely creepy view of the employer-employee relationship, in which apparently your boss’ beliefs and views are supposed to be in the mix when you’re making personal decisions about how you have sex and procreate.

This is not the first time Republicans have tried to hold our government and economy hostage with their misogynist obsessions—in a 2011 spending bill, the GOP threatened  to cut off family planning subsidies for places like Planned Parenthood.

Here’s theFrisky, deploying the same tactic, helpfully illustrated with a white male Republican looking suitably grim. You just feel his lady-hate.


Congressional Republicans Willing To Let Government Shutdown Over Birth Control In Obamacare

What’s more important: letting your boss refuse to cover your birth control pills in your health care plan or the jobs of 800,000 federal workers? You guessed right — it’s your boss’s input on your family planning decisions! Oh, Lord, I just can’t anymore with Republicans.

Seriously.  Are we in need of any more proof that feminism is deeply narcissistic?  Not every debate is about women.  Not everything is a “feminist” issue.  Not everything is about meeeeeeeeeee!


How many ounces of human compassion do you need to realize that a lot of families are about to suffer with no money coming in to support them?  No matter where you fall in the debate about healthcare, how hard is it to understand that almost a million people will not be getting paychecks for the foreseeable future?

Seriously, feminists.

Shut up.

You’re embarrassing yourselves.

You’re embarrassing everyone.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: