Can we not refer to it as the men’s rights movement? Can we make up our term like “anti-feminist” “anti-equality” “pro-misogyny” “anti-women”, instead? I only ask because I feel like there’s a genuine need for a “men’s rights” movement that takes many of the good and valuable ideas of feminism and applies them to the unfairer sex, and letting these ranting buffoons get away with hijacking the term before it’s even got started upsets me.

I tried to read that brainless rant you linked to twice. The first time I stopped when the moron writing it referred to language as being “corrupted” by feminists (language changes and evolves over time for a variety of reasons; there is no natural or correct state for it to be in). The second time was when he stated that a woman sexaully assaulting a man was not a crime (it is, it just isn’t rape). On the plus side, it would appear from posts like Scott Adams’ and this one that all the many reasonable, intelligent, sensible feminists of both genders have to contend against is people who are really rather thick (ah, how I wish that were true…)

It’s not particularly clear in my view whether Mark’s comment is in sympathy with the page he links or not.

Initially I read it another way, as in “Scott Adams’s prejudices only scratch the surface – there are more extreme attitudes within the MRA organisations themselves, and here’s an example link”.

On the other hand perhaps the comment DID mean “Scott Adams is just scratching the surface as to women’s infantile nature – see here for more details!”

Either way I guess the link is an example of the sort of position that is adopted by the fans of Scott Adams who asked for him to make that blog post (it was written in response to their requests, as I understand it). In case anybody hadn’t discovered directly the, er, joys of the more extreme end of the Men’s Rights debate yet!

But let’s not conflate commenters with the links they post without obvious proof that this is what they intend… :)

>>We are living in the sweatshop. They are living in the hotel. At your expense, I might add.

Things like facts, statistics and reality contradict this.

>>A woman refers to ‘fairness’ and ‘equality’ only when these things can benefit her.

Incorrect. I can introduce you to women who use and act on those words for the benefit of men and women they will never meet. Some directly in civil rights charities, others in their feminism.

>>’No means no’ means ‘I want the man to take the heat if I have second thoughts after we have sex’.

You want to be very careful throwing quotes like that around.

Now look, I am your biggest fan on this site. I’m a guy, and I’m a guy who AGREES that there are prejudices and inequality against men in society. They are different to those faced by women, but they are acted on by men and women every day. I agree.

I can find almost nothing in the page you linked to which doesn’t turn my stomach AND make me instantly think of several examples to prove it is factually incorrect. Sure, I know mostly UK women instead of US. I’m still fairly confident of my stance.

“No means no”: it is currently extremely easy for a women to accuse a man of rape on no evidence, and for that man’s life to be ruined before anything is proven in court. It is also nearly impossible for a woman who has been raped to prove it, ever. This tragic situation is not helped by implying “No means no” is ever anything less than 100% solid. No actually does mean no, or you acting without the other person’s consent and should be in prison.

I know you have legitimate reasons to feel oppressed in some ways, but I personally am not your target audience for this. When I wrote my posts on men’s rights movements and the ‘Alpha Male’ sites (which read very similarly to that link) I deliberately didn’t even link to the pages in question. I don’t agree with them.

Even if I did, the solution Scott Adams suggests is STILL wrong. You won’t help mens’ rights by ignoring half the planet. You help by talking to them, and raising your concerns.

When those concerns include women having control of their own lives to the same level as men, and you want that stopped because it means men giving up what they currently have, I’m not interested in your heart-rending plight.

I actually have some respect for the comic, mostly because I was in a corporate office environment where the (allegedly silly) things would frequently actually happen on the same day the calendar showed them. So I think he knows the lazy and pessimistic corporate thinking very well.

I just thought he’d be better at championing an alternative instead of buying into it.

There are quite a number of its strips I’ve enjoyed in the past, actually. Been a while since I’ve read it of late…

Wow, that’s fascinating. Doesn’t surprise me that he’s aired these views before as they’re pretty strident, but wow, he wrote to you personally. Wow. Great comment, thanks for sharing. I think I may be on the point of forswearing myself!

So this latest example of his fuckwittedness doesn’t come as a huge surprise to me.