AH had 540 votes when vote displays went secret, FS had 420. You mean to tell me that AH LOST 94 votes and FS gained 299 in one month? That NOT ONE SINGLE ADDITIONAL VOTE was cast for AH in weeks? I'm sorry, you have no credibility. This 'Award' was clearly fixed. I simply don't trust you or the results.
Added on 14 Nov 2007 at 06:02PM EST

Angry Harry: "Western men die some five years earlier than women. They suffer more from nearly every medical disease and ailment that there is. And yet, far more money is spent by governments on women's health than on men's health. Men are also nowadays educationally disadvantaged significantly compared to women; with the curriculum, the teaching methods and the resources being designed to cater far more for women and girls than for men and boys. Men make up 80% of the homeless. There are more of them in social service care-homes as boys. They are many times more likely to be wrongfully arrested, wrongfully imprisoned, mugged, assaulted or murdered. They are 5 times more likely to lose their children when families break down, 4 times more likely to lose their homes, 4 times more likely to commit suicide, 20 times more likely to be killed or injured at work, 20 times more likely to be imprisoned, and, probably, more than 100 times more likely to be demeaned, denigrated and ridiculed by the mainstream media. Men also pay much more in taxes than women but receive far less in benefits from the government. . . In other words, when compared to women, men are significantly disadvantaged when it comes to their health, their lifespans, their homes, their children, their education, their families, the tax burden, the law, the benefit system, and even when it comes to their own personal safety...They are nowadays also being heavily discriminated against in the work place. How is it possible, therefore, that women are being 'oppressed' more than men?”. . . . . . Indeed, statistically unproven assertions of unobservable widespread domestic abuse and rape cannot possibly outweigh the statistically confirmed reality above. If feminists' doctrine really were, “equality of the sexes” then a crusade to lessen these enormous disparities would already be underway. Instead, leading organizations like NOW declare war on men who pursue the very thing that feminists profess to uphold - equality! Behold the infuriating hypocrisy and transparent duplicity of “modern” two-faced feminists!
Added on 03 Nov 2007 at 04:51AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: "...You refuse to believe what is right in front of you" - - - - Once, the fact that men celebrate their teams' Superbowl victories by beating up their wives was "right in front of me"; but, that 'fact' ultimately proved to be an illusion. It was once "right in front of me" that men were allowed to hit their wives with sticks as long as the sticks were no wider than their thumbs; but, that 'fact' ultimately proved to be an illusion. The fact that the Earth's surface is flat was once "right in front of people"; but, that 'fact' ultimately proved to be an illusion. The third instance is a natural illusion. The first two are illusions that were contrived by feminists with the intent to elicit unwarranted sympathy that might be exchangeable for greater legal and social advantage. Accepting what is "right in front of me", when it has been placed "in front of me" by feminists would be foolish of me in view of feminists' record of credibility.
Added on 27 Oct 2007 at 04:47PM EDT

"My conclusion is: You, (and other MRAs), know you are wrong. You refuse to believe what is right in front of you.">>>>>>>>>>>>.No, we question your assumptions. For instance Women Abused vs. Men Abused. The sad truth is that now women in partner relationships hit and commit DV as often as the man.>>>>>>>>>>>Your assumptions are based upon outmoded social mores where Woman Is Good and Man Is Bad. You also are almost completely unwilling to look at any research which does not comport to your worldview. This, of course, often results in data being made to comport to ideology. This is not a surprise.
Added on 24 Oct 2007 at 11:02AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “. I do enjoy the fun of the arguments though, and seeing what you come up with next. That's why I'm here…”. . . If you are genuinely here to debate then establishing good communication between debaters should be foremost. Speaking vaguely and veering off into red herring rants isn’t debating Cheesy. Further, if you expect your questions answered then extend the same courtesy. Begin first with your trumped up accusation against me. I inquire again, if your former question “…heard of tackling a violent problem at source rather than ‘responding’ with ‘more’ violence?” does not refer to self-defense violence, then where does your obscure reference to violence derive from? Do you still feel my former inquiry (4:27am & 6:07am) is a “good example” of twisting your ideas? If so, explain how.
Added on 23 Oct 2007 at 05:22AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “My conclusion is: You, (and other MRAs), know you are wrong. You refuse to believe what is right in front of you. “. . . Your conclusion is presumptive and unrelated to our current discussion. I dismiss your hasty conclusion as baseless drivel used to divert attention away from subjects at hand . . . Cheesywotsit said: “You know you're wrong, hence the obsessive picking up of words to twist an argument, not believing ‘any claim’ without backed up stats.”. . . How did you determine that I reject “any claim” unsupported by statistics? The statistics I requested were specific and should be attainable in abundance if your assertions are correct. Besides, reluctance to accept wild claims without evidence is the mark of sound mind. Your scatterbrained tirade coupled with your unfamiliarity with supportive stats indicates brainwashing and lack of research. You also failed utterly to display how I twisted your ideas.
Added on 23 Oct 2007 at 05:14AM EDT

Conclusions, Xaver? OK. My conclusion is: You, (and other MRAs), know you are wrong. You refuse to believe what is right in front of you. You don't need 'statistics' and 'evidence' to prove what happens in front of your eyes everyday...although the stats about women in poverty vs. men, women abused vs. men, women in positions of power vs. men, women trafficked vs. men...bear this out. Anyone interested in humanitarian causes knows this stuff, the statistics are repeated time and time again...are you denying all this happens? It's kind of beyond belief. You know you're wrong, hence the obsessive picking up of words to twist an argument, not believing any claim without backed up stats. A random unbacked example: women in Saudi Arabia do not have the right to drive. I'm sure you know this, but I have no idea how to 'prove' that to you, but it's insane to deny it's true. It's the same thing as what you are doing. I'm sure you're aware of Amnesty's and WHO's stats, but you don't believe them, so are you gonna believe me? Doubtful. This is why I don't spend my afternoons regurgitating stats for you. I don't see the point. Your head(s) are so far into the sand. I do enjoy the fun of the arguments though, and seeing what you come up with next. That's why I'm here, I don't really have any intention of 'changing' your mind. So yeah, sorry. But get over it. You know deep down you're a feminist-in-denial...
Added on 21 Oct 2007 at 08:04AM EDT

“zero crime is unrealistic, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother attempting to reduce the number, and I believe it is possible.”. . . I agree however, feminism contributes greatly to the problem not the solution. You still have not offered tangible conclusions, nor explained why my long-term remedy would be ineffective considering the statistical facts Lee and I contributed.
Added on 21 Oct 2007 at 06:11AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “Xaver - surely 'even you' 'realise' that we were discussing general, long-term 'solutions' to rape, rather than when a woman is stood facing a 'violent rapist';”. . . I discussed both yet my long-term remedy for curtailing rape has absolutely nothing to do with violence, so your former question is still ridicule worthy. Pay attention as I repeat, the only violence I advocated was for women using self-defense against rapists. This explains my deduced response, “Are you suggesting it’s preferable for a woman to suffer rape than use self-defense?” In other words, there was no other mention of violence applicable to your question, “Have you never heard of tackling a violent problem at source instead of ‘responding’ with more violence?” If “responding with ‘more’ violence” does not refer to self-defense violence, then where does your obscure reference to violence derive from?
Added on 21 Oct 2007 at 06:07AM EDT

Cheesywotsit:::::"I'd love to spend my day gathering 'statistics' and 'evidence' about the validity of feminism, I already have a hectic day scheduled for watching some paint dry. The facts are everywhere for you if you care to look -newspapers, advertisements, books, people, websites."::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::That is not how debate and establisment of facts works. You claim that feminism is valid, then state the proof is everywhere. No, you need to PROVE IT, one item at a time. What is so wrong about that? Your ideas are Revealed Truths, Obvous to an Oyster - it should be an easy victory. You claim, you prove. We do not do your work for you.
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 04:31PM EDT

Cheesywotsit:::::"I do find it pretty hilarious that you say my claims of sexism are "outlandish". And quelle surprise, the Duke case is brought up...that's like the basis of any MRA argument as to how evil women are, isn't it?":::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: You just don't get it. Duke isn't and wasn't proof for how evil women are, it is proof that the judicial system is constructed so that if she does she receives *no* punishment and no accountability. Nifong served ONE DAY IN JAIL. That's punishment? They can ruin the reputations of so many men, cost them millions, and she does not get held accountable AT ALL?
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 04:29PM EDT

Xaver - surely even you realise that we were discussing general, long-term 'solutions' to rape, rather than when a woman is stood facing a 'violent rapist'; the answer to that one is fairly clear, but apparently I need to point out the difference. I don't hold with the pessimistic, conservative view of a changeless society "there will always be rapists and murderers"; zero crime is unrealistic, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't bother attempting to reduce the number, and I believe it is possible. In terms of the rapists, feminism has an important role, it's one of the most ambitious aims. I do find it pretty hilarious that you say my claims of sexism are "outlandish". And quelle surprise, the Duke case is brought up...that's like the basis of any MRA argument as to how evil women are, isn't it? Much as I'd love to spend my day gathering 'statistics' and 'evidence' about the validity of feminism, I already have a hectic day scheduled for watching some paint dry. The facts are everywhere for you if you care to look -newspapers, advertisements, books, people, websites..
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 08:45AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “According to statistics, to avoid rape, most women should avoid having boyfriends, ex-husbands or male family members.”. . . . Which statistics suggest boyfriends, ex-husbands or male family members are likely to rape MOST women? Do you realize you said “most” women are likely to face rape? Quit beating around the bush and reveal those statistics and their sources please. Has it ever occurred that ex-wives and ex-girlfriends might file false rape charges out of spite? The Duke Lacrosse case exemplifies the reality of women incurring little to no consequences for falsifying charges. Remember that wretched excuse for a man Nifong served only ONE DAY in jail for nearly destroying three lives deliberately for political gain. That case highlights a serious breach of justice with far-reaching implications. The judicial philosophy concerning rape seems to be that accused men are guilty until proven innocent. Recall back to hysterical feminists and media ready to lynch the Lacrosse players without a shred of evidence, other than the inconsistent hearsay of a shameless and disreputable stripper. Our broken system encourages spiteful women to trump up charges against men who ruffle their feathers.
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 04:50AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “In response, in a nutshell, I would suggest encouraging women's fear of assault (arming them) is not going to help the ‘vast majority.’”. . . How would arming someone encourage his or her fear of assault? For instance, if you suspect rabid wolves are in the vicinity, how would arming yourself increase fear of attack rather than quelling it? Your suggestion is one of the most irrational I have ever read. . . Cheesywotsit said: “Going out in groups is a good short term deterrent, obviously the long term thing is to eradicate the crime entirely.”. . . Unfortunately, there will always be rapists, just as there will always be murderers. What’s your grand plan for eradicating rape entirely? If lack of power breeds rapists and misogynists then what conclusion can be draw for a solution?. . . Cheesywotsit said: “Xaver - this is not me giving a practical suggestion, to clarify for you.:”. . .What? No kidding.
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 04:34AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “This is a good example why you are impossible to talk to. I've never seen anyone so keen on twisting ideas and inventing things in his own head.”. . . Ironically, you are notorious for distorting ideas and making things up. You are grasping at straws and attempting to rewrite history using one unexplained example. Since you used my question as a good example, I will unmask your latest fabrication and throw it with the heaping evidence attesting to your dishonesty. My question, “Are you suggesting it’s preferable for a woman to suffer rape than use self-defense?” was in direct response to your former misplaced question, “Have you never heard of tackling a violent problem at source RATHER THAN ‘responding’ with more violence?” The only violence I advocated women respond with applied exclusively to violent rapists. Hence, tackling rape at “the source” rather than (instead of) responding with violence would result in needless rape. I simply addressed your ridiculous question within the context of the discussion. If you meant something other than, what you actually said, that isn’t my fault.
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 04:27AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “You want examples of misogyny in the world? Or even just in your own country?”. . . Yes, I want examples of misogyny and statistics showing oppression of western women to analyze and scrutinize when time permits. I also want detailed examples of me allegedly twisting your ideas. I.e. offer explanations in addition to merely “quoting” my statements or questions. . . Cheesywotsit said: “You've chosen to pretend it's not happening.”. . . Stop fibbing; do you expect me to believe you without seeing any evidence whatsoever? As a reminder, you have not yet offered a single statistic in support of your outlandish claims.
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 04:20AM EDT

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." Catherine Comins, Vassar College Assistant Dean of Student Life in Time, June 3, 1991, p. 52.. "We forbid any course that says we restrict free speech!" Dr. Kathleen Dixon, Director of Women's Studies at Bowling Green State University, Sep. 28, 2000
Added on 20 Oct 2007 at 01:48AM EDT

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." --Rebecca West Feministing kicks ass!
Added on 19 Oct 2007 at 09:43PM EDT

Kerislawen said:"...there's more difference within sexes than between them." This is a classic "signal/noise" problem. The fact is that we are easily able to separate the pattern of differences that distinquish one sex from the other (the "signal") from the random individual differences (the "noise").
Added on 19 Oct 2007 at 08:09PM EDT

Well, on the bright side if they win they'll be even more encouraged to continue being crazy so we'll have lots to talk about over at Herdwatching.com . BTW - "feministing" has nothing to do with feminism really - it's all "radical feminism" which is a lot like "9/11 Truth".
Added on 19 Oct 2007 at 10:59AM EDT

Leeraconteur - I liked your response, although obviously I don't agree with it. It was almost poetic. Being aware of abuse against women doesn't mean I deny violence against men. Feminists don't deny that men suffer too - everyone does until men and women are equals. However, feminism IS specific; it's about women, not men. I agree that violence against men is often more accepted (which is wrong). This is the stuff I was talking to Xaver about, the issues that MRAs should be caring about, not just slagging off feminists. However, all these things happen FAR more to women than men. And whether or not it does happen is largely under the control of men. One of the biggest hurdles now is to change the way that women are seen in society. This is pretty difficult because it's not like campaigning to change legislation. Not in a Cultural Revolution way, of course (!)...I am still looking forward to the communism/feminism reply. I assume this forum will close soon. One thing I forgot to ask the MRAs on your forum LeeR is whether they hold the same views on the race front, ie do they think that people fighting for equal race rights have already won their freedoms and are 'going too far' now. Would be interesting to know..
Added on 19 Oct 2007 at 10:26AM EDT

Christ! Are feminists still going? Women achieved equality years ago. They got the vote, they got equal pay, what are they going for now?? Find a hobby ladies!
Added on 19 Oct 2007 at 07:20AM EDT

"Young women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on their own behalf on issues that affect their lives and futures." How is this true, at least in the USA and other western-style democracies? In what way do American women lack opportunities had by those who are not young women? If anything, feminists in particular have a disproportionate amount of clout with the US government, what with gender-norming in all its outrageous forms and the various opportunities available to females but not males. Sounds like more feminist whining to me.
Added on 18 Oct 2007 at 10:22PM EDT

Feministing rocks! Intelligent and down-to-earth news & commentary on current events concerning women can be found at feministing.com every day.
Added on 18 Oct 2007 at 06:44PM EDT

"You want examples of misogyny in the world? Or even just in your own country? Why? You'll just deny any claims of violence, abuse, discrimination, glass-ceilings, patronisation or sexulisation. " Feminism is simply in incorrect way of viewing the world. Just because there is any violence against women, does not mean there is no violence against men, and does not support a claim of misogyny. Just because there is any abuse against women, does not mean there is no abuse against men, and does not support a claim of misogyny. Just because there is any discrimination against women {a claim I strongly dispute}, does not mean there is no discrimination against men, and does not support a claim of misogyny. Just because there are fewer women CEO's is not proof of discrimination against women, and does not support a claim of misogyny. Women earn the same as men for same job, education, responsibilities and performance. This has been the case for over a decade. Just because there is any sexualistion of women, does not mean there is no sexualisation of men, and does not support a claim of misogyny. Just because a very few family members rape women in their own family, does not mean there is no rape of men by their own family members, and does not support a claim of misogyny. Men do not benefit from Fear Of Rape, and the concept is simply incorrect.
Added on 18 Oct 2007 at 03:57PM EDT

You want examples of misogyny in the world? Or even just in your own country? Why? You'll just deny any claims of violence, abuse, discrimination, glass-ceilings, patronisation or sexulisation. You've chosen to pretend it's not happening. "Are you suggesting it’s preferable for a woman to suffer rape than use self-defense if necessary?" This is a good example why you are impossible to talk to. I've never seen anyone so keen on twisting ideas and inventing things in his own head. In response, in a nutshell, I would suggest encouraging women's fear of assult (arming them) is not going to help the vast majority. I believe in statistics; a woman is more at risk crossing a road than being raped by a stranger in a dark alley situation. NB I am only talking about this type of rape. According to statistics, to avoid rape, most women should avoid having boyfriends, ex-husbands or male family members. Xaver - this is not me giving a practical suggestion, to clarify for you. It's an illustration. Giving women facts, and using common sense, is far more helpful than a tasar. Fear of rape is far higher than actual instances of 'stranger rape'. Going out in groups is a good short term deterrent, obviously the long term thing is to eradicate the crime entirely. To do that, you have to look at why it happens in the first place. It's about power. Misogyny, anyone?
Added on 18 Oct 2007 at 08:12AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “BTW, your 'solution' for rape, is complete arse, if you don't mind my saying. Have you never heard of tackling a violent problem at source rather than responding with more violence?”. . . Did I mention you are incapable of reasoning well? Your level of thinking (eliminate marriage altogether) expanded the source of the problem in the first place - confirmed ironically by statistics you already know about… Unfortunately, rapists are unlikely to stop to listen, so violent force may be a woman’s only option. That is, if pulling a gun or blasting a warning shot does not scare would-be rapist away first. Remember I also mentioned tasers and mace. Women going out at night in groups if possible would be a non-violent deterrent, although being prepared is still prudent. Are you suggesting it’s preferable for a woman to suffer rape than use self-defense if necessary? Kerislawen suggested that women are afraid to go out at night, so I offered practical solutions to alleviate that fear, however you’ve only offered gobbledygook, which is typical. Your pacifistic attitude within this context shows your naivety and detachment from reality. Kerislawen did exaggerate (for lack of substantial proof of oppression) but sadly, if feminist’s level of thinking remains prevalent then rape may become rampant to the point of exceeding those exaggerated levels. Tell me now, what is your proposal for tackling the problem at the source? What exactly should women fearful of rape do in the mean time Cheesy?
Added on 16 Oct 2007 at 04:47AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “Yeah well I know you've been put in charge of deciding who has 'credibility' and all,”. . .Your lack of credibility is your own doing and I have simply exposed you for it. . . Cheesywotsit said:“are you seriously saying this with a straight face?? Do you actually want me to point out the vast amount of misogyny that's just in this thread?”. . . Yes, but I was thinking of examples on par with my own. (I could take forever citing examples of “fembot” misandrists on MRA blogs and whatnot but it’s weak tiered evidence.) In addition, criticism of women (as you seem to think) does not equate to misogyny. Misogyny is hatred of women, not criticism of unethical women or clueless, hypocritical feminists especially. . . Cheesywotsit said: “but I just like to hang round to piss you off”. . .That’s childish and doesn’t work on me. Frankly, it’s something I’d expect a teenybopper to say. Are you a teenager?
Added on 16 Oct 2007 at 04:35AM EDT

Cheesywotsit said: “Xaver - RE 04.12AM post - Ach, ‘I DO SUPPORT’ these aims. ‘IF’ the MRA movement were actually about men's rights (without being anti-feminist - it is possible, try it one day), ‘I WOULD SUPPORT’ them in getting these goals.”. . . Contradicting yourself doesn’t help your position or boost credibility. As I said, your support for men’s issues depends on whether or not they have an anti-feminist stance, which is hypocritical considering your touting of “human” rights. If you think about it, MRAs should actually be irrelevant to whether or not you support men’s rights. . . I fail to see how being pro men’s rights and anti-feminism is mutually exclusive, given the example of NOW’s blatant misandry. As another illustration, go to Youtube and search for “Feminists disrupt forum about battered husbands.” Those videos represent a more accurate view of the face of feminism. As I alluded to before, if feminists genuinely upheld equality for all, then vast disparities (of rights, services etc.,) for men would not even exist! Unlike MRAs, feminists currently wield the power to instigate change, yet are busy stifling our movement, encouraging promiscuity and fighting for women’s infanticide “rights” instead. Therefore, the discord between literal feminism and misandrists merely professing feminism is unmistakable.
Added on 16 Oct 2007 at 04:29AM EDT

Xaver - RE 04.12AM post - Ach, I do support these aims. If the MRA movement were actually about men's rights (without being anti-feminist - it is possible, try it one day), I would support them in getting these goals. "I’m surprised you returned since you have less credibility.." Yeah well I know you've been put in charge of deciding who has 'credibility' and all, Xaver, but I just like to hang round to piss you off. "By the way, what is the misogyny that you keep referring to without examples?" - are you seriously saying this with a straight face?? Do you actually want me to point out the vast amount of misogyny that's just in this thread? Or go to any MRA page...if you really don't think MRAs are by and large misogynists, that's pretty worrying, and explains a lot. BTW, your 'solution' for rape, is complete arse, if you don't mind my saying. Have you never heard of tackling a violent problem at source rather than responding with more violence?
Added on 14 Oct 2007 at 07:24AM EDT