Disturbing.

Not only does the author not know jack-shit about transsexuals, it shows blatant hostility and bigotry. So much hate.

nasty.

bigotry and raw hatred that was expressed there towards transsexuals. I expected a fair amount of hatred toward men, but not that. I cannot understand for the life of me how they are fighting for rights and yet it's just ducky fine to shit all over an entire group of very, very vulnerable people. Far more vulnerable to hate crimes and abuse than the 'born women'. Then, it's justified by saying you have to read all of the work, otherwise you are 'intellectually lazy'! I could barely make it through that fucking word salad, let alone a couple of books filled with that garbage.

I was pretty offended by the constant 'fuckhole' references too. I don't understand how they can howl about patriarchy and use such a word. I'm wondering if they fly into a mouth foaming rage at the use of the word 'bitch'. Hypocrisy. I'm not sure how they can extol 'born women', and yet despise a fair amount of 'born women' that enjoy sex with men. If it wasn't for the horrific piv, they wouldn't exist.

Anyway, fuck, I've searched for stuff under "The Holocaust", before.

Gee, couldn't be because I have a historical interest. Couldn't be because totalitarianism is pretty much always a relevant thing to be aware of. Certainly couldn't be because I myself had relatives who died in the camps.

No, it must be cuz I'm a Sicko™ (I post here, don't I?) and, even worse, I'm a ....

give these folks something to do all day.

I had to Google "autogynephilia" to find out what it was.

That you're a, quote, "internet wimmenz". Because no actual woman would oppose the clear, level headed logic brilliance of Dworkin and her blogosphere acolytes.

Funny, too, that's another one of those things- questioning someone's stated gender identity on DU- which will DEFINITELY result in a hide when 99% of the members here do it, but it's okay for certain special exempt people to do just because.

There seems to be a lot of that shit.

since I've refused consistently to support killing sex workers in the name of equality. Only a man could possibly think this is a bad thing. (do I need a sarcasm tag there, or are we all adults here?)

I alerted on a "disagrees with me, therefore must be a man" post a few days ago. 3-3 to leave.

DU has been strange lately.

and I've kind of given up on juries, although sometimes they get it right.

I especially think it's really funny when people who ONLY show up to complain about one particular thing, or to complain about other members of the site in regards to that one particular thing, and absolutely NEVER weigh in on other political topics or issues of the day (like, uh, the crap that's going down now?) attempt to argue that other people here must be "trolls".


Yeah.... sure.

whole slew of weird-ass, alarming shit that those women google.

and the Internet has unfortunately allowed them to find each other.

The comment section was even worse than the article. I'd really like to unread that.

Very weird. All of the shows the author used to like she now hates because the characters engage in piv sex. The Simpson's of all things. Pretty far out there imo

Hoooooly shit.

Just read the Sex and the City review.

EDIT: Holy **** at the Friends one.

Everything from the Simpson's to Bewitched gets scorched.

No one can be that hateful without it. Hell, even Buffy the Vampire Slayer gets torched.

to see a divorce trial being held like this today with padded sticks and the handicap. Knowing my mom, she'd kick my then step-dad's ass even without it.

To have piv with this one, she has stalker bunny boiler written all over her.

That's pretty much it.



And then they wonder why no one invites them to parties.

Much less try to imagine that when two consenting adults have "PIV" it's somehow a "Patriarchy-Reinforcing Act of Global Oppression" or whatevs.

And a few of those blogs have been linked on DU. Which doesn't bother me per se, more just makes me shake my head...

Very telling that.

Hate defines them.

... I would say this goes far beyond any political or social opinion. The attitudes and beliefs on these blogs are symptomatic at times, IMHO, of serious issues with rage, etc. I would venture to say it's pretty likely some of these folks are probably somewhere in the "personality disorders" spectrum of the DSM. But hey, haters gotta hate, it's a way of avoiding facing their true feelings and beliefs about themselves. Then, it becomes "bigger" when it moves beyond the individual to the group level, and we venture into the psychology of hate groups and cults.

Despair, bitterness, and anger are a terrible way to live. I think all of you here know enough about me to realize that I really struggle with those issues. And those are the very things that could kill me and would kill me if I ran with them and let them. But unlike these women, I recognize this and am working very hard to fight my demons so I can get to a much more psychologically healthy place.

Hate is no way to live, when the alternative, living a life based on appreciating all that is good, is such a beautiful and rewarding thing. I feel genuinely sorry for these radfems that they are cheating themselves out of living.

Maybe my view of these guys is slightly skewed, being a regular reader of ManBoobz, but by and large they don't seem any better than your average far-right-winger on issues of gender/race/sexuality. Not to mention they're operating on the false premise that men are somehow disadvantaged in our society - which by itself is all right, people are free to hold incorrect beliefs, I'm sure I have my share - but some of these dudes are frighteningly delusional.

Now, for the record, I realize there are extreme, hateful feminists out there - the OP makes that obvious enough. But there seems to be a desire to tar certain members of DU with that brush, which I think is unfair, and just as much of a strawman as branding Men's Group members MRA's.

I've seen MRA, but I didn't know what it meant until just now, I figured it out, I think, men's rights advocates. Mental health is a continuum, there isn't a fixed point at which one can say behavior X is mental illness. It's relative, if the person is doing themselves harm by the action, it's a problem.

Take my armchair psychiatry for all that it 's worth, which is nada. I just see in these blogs the kind of hate that masks the hurt. That statement I do stand by - in the last year, I received death threats, had a nervous breakdown, attempted suicide, had a psychiatric hospitalization, on meds, sees a psychiatrist and a therapist, and have worked hard to turn Ito turn it around. I just see patterns in these writings that look very familiar.

I've read other posts of yours detailing your mental health struggles, and I'm glad you're doing better now. I've dealt with more or less lifelong depression myself, so I'm no stranger to that aspect.

The only people I've seen advocate starving babies of the opposite sex weren't MRA's.

We tend to rationalize those views away as "reacting to triggers", or "trauma" or "victimization". Even if those "explanations" are accurate, it should still render the credibility of anyone saying it to zero.

And links from these sites, unlike links from MRA sites (even the most benign ones) are frequently used in a positive way, and regularly allowed by juries.

A while back, the Men's group polled DU and asked everyone if they self-identified as an MRA. Zero posters responded yes. I would be curious how many DU'ers would self-identify as radfem.

As I said, there are some real loonies on both sides, none of whom should be taken seriously. And you're right, understanding why someone might make some outrageous statement, doesn't lend said statement any credibility.

I have no use for genuine man-haters, any more than I do for genuine misogynists. I just don't think there are very many of either on DU.

I've seen some loony shit from both groups (radfems and MRA) to the point that I hope it was some bored troll trying to get at people. For example, that article that proposed locking little boys up in cages or something like that - there's no way that shit can be serious.

I wouldn't be surprised if she's already sold more books as well all the while promoting the most hateful rhetoric imaginable, some of which is promotedright here on DU.

Meanwhile everyone in the men's group is guilty by gender association with every "MRA" nosepicker running a website out of mommie's basement.

Very telling that.

Does she talk about other topics? For some reason I am thinking it would have something to do with Israel or gays, two topics of great interest to me. Are you aware of her other works? (I'll look her up later...thought I would ask as I was clearing out my mailbox.)

and her disgusting transphobe supporters raised a kerfuffle about it. There was stuff posted here about it when it made the news, you might recognize the name from there.

I remember many of those posts...Meta was still active. I just recognized the name, but couldn't put my finger on top of it.

They went on and held it anyway, in a different venue-- unapologetically transphobic and all.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/25/radical-feminism-trans-radfem2012

http://www.democraticunderground.com/113714791

I know this because, you know, I'm a sooper secret MRA, and I know that the fight for equality for transgender people is really just about providing cover to covert male agents of the patriarchy, who undergo gender reassignment surgery for the express purpose of sneaking into the Michagan Womyn's Music Festival and stealing female "gynergy"*



[font size=1]*no, seriously, this is the argument.[/font]

sheesh, if my car worked as badly as my memory does these days, I'd have it towed off to the crusher.

That said, this is a pretty obvious false equivalency. Sort of like what's going on in congress, right now. If you look at the blatant calling-out, the name calling, the over-the-top simply foul insinuations that have been made directly against members of this site; it's just no contest. I could run down the list, but why bother.

If I took DU seriously--- and by "seriously" I don't mean the parts I do take seriously, the coming here for information, humor, and interactions and activism on the topic of progressive current event issues and the Democratic Party, I mean the tendency of some to show up entirely for the purpose of spinning themselves into high dudgeon mode over silly drama, personality crap and feuds with random intertube strangers--- then the crap that's been flung at this group lately, some of it personally at me, would bug me. As it is, it doesn't. It's pretty much a joke.

And as Jeff notes downthread, the material linked has been repeatedly brought here; in fact, some of those specific bloggers have been known directly to troll DU. Hell, they brag about it in some of those very blogs. As for the consistent bargle of accusations around "MRAs"... I'm supposed to take that seriously? I get accused of being an "MRA"-- why? Have I once opposed any womens' rights? Have I suggested the VAWA is bad law? Have I ever even "whined about how bad men have it"? Have I made some dumb-ass argument that there's an "epidemic of false rape accusations" or any of the other hallmarks of the MRA? No, I haven't. No, I'm supposedly a big bad MRA because "MRAs disagree with Feminists. You Disagree with Andrea Dworkin. Andrea Dworkin was a Feminist. Therefore, you're obviously an MRA" .... I mean, that's the logic.



Not only that, but some here are apparently convinced I'm not just any old garden variety MRA, I'm some kind of internet MRA grand poop-bah. Yes, my clever plan was to show up on DU in stealth mode for half a decade, then pretend that I'd never fucking heard of "MRAs" at all, see.... and then deny any association with the movement that I have spearheaded MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Breeeeeeeel-iant!

Seriously. I mean, the reason I came to the men's group in the first place was because I thought it was funny that the software was throwing it out there as men's group (group) ... I thought, group (group), that's funny. That's how my mind works.

And when I realized it was a target for the small cadre of folks promoting 2nd Wave Dworkin-based silliness, well, then I decided to hang around. No, see, I don't agree with Andrea Dworkin. If that makes me some sort of member of a hate group, guess what- there are a lot of us. And Andrea Dworkin, remember, worked with Ed Meese in the 80s... Ed Meese who plotted with the Heritage Foundation to shut the government down over Obamacare. Using the same sort of "logic" what is favored by some on this site, couldn't it be argued that anyone promoting Andrea Dworkin is arguing for continued government shutdown?

...but, I digress. Like I said, I appreciate your efforts to be fair, here. I just don't think there's much point.

The folks invested in perpetuating stupid feuds on this board would do well to use the "trash group" function. That's my take.

And you're probably right, that it is a fairly one-sided thing - I haven't seen most of the members of this group make any insinuations of nefarious intent against the HoF members. Whereas some of the shit that's been flung at the Men's Group is truly outrageous, and makes me want to hang around here out of sympathy as much as anything. I've just noticed the tendency of each side to caricature the other, that's all. Even if one might do it more than the other.

And for the record, when I made that earlier comment, I wasn't referring to anyone on DU. I meant the actual MRA dudes who identify themselves as such, and who probably wouldn't last a day on here.

And every time they've tried to float that crap, they've been nuked. Sometimes by me, with my legendary zombie-sniffing powers no less. Which also would be an odd thing for an MRA poop-bah to do, although maybe that's all part of my devious cover.

Everything I've learned about "MRAs" and their ilk, I've picked up from DU. And they seem pretty lame, isolated, and pathetic. Much as the bloggers linked in the OP seem... yeah; a lot of these people are, basically, talking to themselves.

I think pretty much the ONLY people paying attention to the MRAs are the MRAs and the people who think the MRAs are the greatest threat to Galactic Peace since Emperor Palpatine. They're caught in this echo chamber feedback loop. Same with the other side. I honestly don't think the larger world pays much attention, or gives a shit. (THEEEEE ULTIMATE INSULT AEEEEEEEE!!!!! )


As for DU; Like I said, I do appreciate your rational perspective.

Yet neither seems to realize it.

For starters, I have neither the time, nor energy, nor inclination to "join", or otherwise align myself with any particular advocacy groups. Being a wage-slave, a husband and a father takes up pretty much any time I might have for that kind of thing. (Aside from the occasional recreational mushroom foraging, or shellfish harvesting..). That being said, it seems some folks here have latched onto the term "MRA", and - while misrepresenting what that SPLC actually said about them - use it as a cudgel, in shorthand, to dismiss any position which challenges their own firmly held ideology. While it seems that many of the more prominent (at least online) MRAs espouse some abjectly ridiculous shit, I do prefer to remember that even the SPLC agrees that "not all grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit." Ultimately, I prefer to examine and discuss issues as an individual, on an individual basis. Regardless of whether some knuckle-dragging jackknobs are also championing the same issues on some barely-read, fringe website.

You tell it! That was fuckin' phenomenal to wake up to!

I would not characterize you as a MRA.

Snarky, yes. Sarcastic, yes. Sometimes in wild opposition to things I believe... you betcha.

"MRA"... no.

Not that my opinion is worth the pixels it took to type this but, there you have it.

Being Aspie, about 75% of the time your humor is so oblique I can't even figure out what you are trying to allude to... but I get the sense that you amuse the heck out of yourself and I do admire a person who can amuse themselves. <=== that is genuine, not snark.

I probably have more than a little of that, myself. It is definitely in my gene pool.

And some of my jokes are just dumb. Or random. But while snarky or sarcastic, the times I've been directly mean; I'm not proud of those. I'm working on it, believe it or not.

I appreciate your weighing in.

in a conversation recently a woman I know well stated that she feared that we had reached peak "female" and that the last 60 years were the only time in human history that women had the choice and options they have had and that it was reverting to the mean.

interesting theory anyway.

Men in their everyday lives? They have to encounter men at some point. I can't imagine having that much hate and rage inside someone, and them not saying something.

Or they try very hard to ingratiate themselves into a lifestyle where they can avoid both men and women of "mainstream thought".

per se, I'm sure they live a fairly isolated existence, in the sense that they avoid mixing with anyone who doesn't believe as they do, i.e. 99%+ of the population.