Glenn Sacks comment threads shut down

I have a lot of respect for what Glenn and F&F are doing and I understand it when they say moderating/patrolling posts is time-consuming. (Yeah, I know). I don't know what issues they may be facing in terms of staff and resources, etc., but I do know for many (if not all) MRAs who host web sites, generate newsletters, do radio interviews, etc., this is largely a labor of love. (If anyone is gettin' rich advocating for men and fathers, it isn't me).

So I don't know enough to say anything one way or another re Glenn's decision to shut off blog comments/user posts. This is not a case of me, or more generally, any MRA, remaining "neutral for the sake of internal solidarity" (if I were doing anything like that, would I have posted the OP's submission?). Really, I know as much as anyone else does about it, since in the same way MANN doesn't review its editorial policy decisions with Glenn Sacks, he doesn't review his with MANN.

Glenn has a problem with his huge ego. Honestly. He knows what's best for us.. we don't know because he's so much smarter than us.

He HEAVILLY moderated/altered posts (without public marks), all while claiming that he was "open for discussion." He wasn't. If you made any comment he would disagree with, it would often disappear.

See, Glenn _is_ getting rich (at least making enough so he didn't need a day job) off of his appearances and websites. That's why he claims to be an MRA, but in reality is position is "beg women for permission to be equal." He knows he can't "offend" women or else he'll be ineligible to appear on TV/Radio where he makes his money. He wouldn't risk offending women, and, hell, even more than once commented that (paraphrased)"Without the feminist commentators here you men would turn this place into a misogynistic echo-chamber." He chivalrous to the point where he thinks women are better than men.

But if you want to know the real reason why he took down commenting? He lost control of his commentators. The band of us who were correctly perceiving that the real problem is the woman's vote, and that the anti-male establishment cannot be corrected without first removing the women's vote were gaining ground among the comments section. Many of us were posting how the women's vote was causing the problem, and how, and getting positive remarks from other commentators before the threads were locked. On threads where he talked about how there should be alimony, he was getting trounced by valid arguments which he would refuse to debate. Hell, in the "Nazi" thread he was totally denounced and refused to debate a single point (nobody, in fact, debated against a single point... the arguments were that solid). Later he would make other baseless claims based on his beliefs which simply were PC correctness ("women were historically oppressed!") and would never answer any requests for any proof.

Glenn is honestly my least liked figurehead of the MRA. His problem is that he's really a feminist.

I really won't respond one way or another because I have little experience with the boards at F&F (I spend a lot of time over here at MANN as you can imagine). I will say this though: Having been in MRA work now for almost 10 years, the one thing we have working constantly against us, aside of course from nymphotropism, which leads to misandry, a legal system that despises us, a society that laughs at our injuries, a self-loathing that seems to be insidious for many of us, etc., etc., is a constant state of suspicion and a stream of endless criticism directed at anyone who even appears remotely to be in a state of leadership or any kind of success at getting our message across.

I don't know if what you are saying re Glenn fits that definition or not, since as I said, I don't spend a lot (actually, any) time over at F&F, as I am busy with my day job and with MANN (and the rest of my life), but I am just saying I have seen a certain dynamic over and over again which no doubt limits MRA and FRA progress substantially. Frankly I don't know when if ever this will change but if it doesn't, I have a feeling we will stay stuck for the foreseeable future, since if a widely-unpopular or under-supported cause cannot get itself on the same page for any length of time, how can it be effective?

I have never visited the Glenn Sacks site, so I am not familiar with the comments. But my assumptions would be that if he is a 'non-profit', then he cannot be perceived as a "hate group".

If comments tend to bash, insult or spew hatred towards women then he could have been in danger of loosing his non-profit status (which has a lot of benefits ) and w/o non profit status a group will never qualify for tax exempt contributions from rich individuals or corporations.

In my opinion, allowing the bashing of any population of people (based on race, gender, etc) within a charity or advocacy group is a sure way to keep your group poor (no money coming in, since you cannot qualify for 'non-profit' status) and enrollment down.

Frankly I don't know when if ever this will change

It won't.

We are are men. We rarely get second chances, and third chances are pretty much right out.

Women, on the other hand, get second+ chances on a silver platter.

As an example, after WWII the French female supporters of Nazism got their heads shaved while the French male supporters got shot and put in the ground. Men know this, and as such men are much more likely to be critical of their leadership. Women, on the other hand, will support cockamany ideas/leader because they know even if it does fail there's a good chance someone will catch them and the repercussions against them will be small comparative to what happens to the men.

But as someone who was heavily moderated (and hearing from others who were as well), as well as being banned twice for daring to disagree with the "Insight of Glenn" I will stand behind my initial post.

Now there are other leaders who I disagree with for one reason or another (Farrell is an example), but any time I've ever presented my disagreement to them I've received a debate, a reason, some evidence supporting their beliefs rather than just "I'm right and you're wrong" which is Glenn's default position.

Glenn does more harm than good because he is convinced that the solution relies on equality and refuses to listen (or allow to be posted) many arguments on how men and women are not equal. There is no solution from a premise of equality because equality is a false premise.

And that's why I think him closing the comments is a good thing... many regular posters will go elsewhere and see the truths that Glenn censored.

... keep in mind it's only hate speech if it's against anyone but males (white ones in particular). Not much we can do, apparently, about that, at this point in history, but I just want to highlight it in the name of keeping the realities in front of us. It's too easy for some of us to forget this.

Glenn Sacks is a chivlarous mangina.

I've known Glenn for over 10 years. I've watched him back in 1999 when he was all alone taking on feminists at UCLA, challenging the rape hysteria and being called names by feminists who challenged his manhood. He was literally alone as an MRA on campus, other than me, another student who connected with him by email after reading his articles. For years it was like that. After that I watched him slowly get better and better at getting publicity, because he learned to frame things effectively and get heard in the media. And he did much more than that. He helped form the L.A. chapter of NCFM, showed up and testified before the L.A. County supervisors and other public entities, helped with rallies, spoke out at meetings at universities and elsewhere . . . long before 90% of the commentators on his site were even around.

He eventually started his radio show and got a following. Then he switched to his blog and got even more. All the while he continued to publish in major papers and appear on TV. And feminists continued to call him names and bash him. He kept that up for years.

But what he eventually learned, and what the movement still needs to learn, in that we can't really get anywhere without professional lobbying. Feminists learned that long ago. So do all other political or social movements, even ones who can get thousands of people to a rally like the immigration rights people. Gun owners, minorities, medial marijuana patients, taxpayers, abortion - all of them need, and use, professional lobbyists, not just walk-ins. Professional lobbyists are in the walls of the legislature every day and know the ropes, know the contacts, know the staffers and members, know the internal politics, and have the respect of members and staffers much more than do walk-ins who are generally deemed a nuisance and crazy to insiders. We simply can't win without lobbyists and that's what we've lacked for 40 years.

So far, men lost by DEFAULT. As Warren Farrell said, a war in which only one side showed up.

Without professional lobbyists, we have a small, screaming movement that spins its wheels and makes tiny changes here and there but can hardly compete with the feminist lobby.

And that's what Glenn has been building. He has shifted his focus to fundraising, which requires careful framing of the issues in a way that's effective. It's not about "political correctness." Men's rights is not-PC from the start. But there are smart ways to frame things, and dumb or ineffective ways, when you're doing fundraising and lobbying. And Glenn has chosen to work with Fathers & Families on doing things the effective way.

I haven't talked much with him about what's going on but I know he used to be much more involved with his blog than he is now, and I believe it's because he's focusing on doing the fundraising and building the connections to get bills introduced, block bad bills, and that kind of thing. That's why he hardly ever writes op eds anymore. That's why he has someone else doing the blog.

And that's probably why he doesn't have much time to debate things like whether the MR movement should be trying to take away the women's vote, something I would bet plenty of money will never, ever happen even if I believed it would be the right thing to do (I don't), and even if every other MRA did too. Taking away the vote from a birth group isn't gonna happen. But organizing a well-funded movement that can pay professional lobbyists, that's not unrealistic.

I spent over 10 years oganizing rallies, filing lawsuits, publishing LTEs and articles, organizing a local group, serving on boards, distributing materials, speaking in universities, testifying before government bodies, connecting people, protesting, and often raising hell. I believe it works in concert with other activism. But that won't get us far at all without professional lobbyists.

Every political movement knows this except, apparently, us. We, instead, think everything will change magically overnight, or if we just scream enough on the internet. Or if we focus on things that will never happen like taking way women's right to vote, a basic human right.

There are lots of people who have done remarkable things in the MR movement going way back some 40 years or more, many who don't get recognition. That's still true today. Those doers should be appreciate more. But instead I see them get attacked, usually by do-nothing. I've watched for 10 years as a small number of people in the movement try to do things while a larger population do nothing but scream, whine and complain on discussion boards. Many of these MRIs (Inactivists) yell and yell and eveb divide the movement up but won't lift a finger to organize a rally, publish in mainstream news, testify before a government body, file a lawsuit, etc. The loudest ones, and the ones most divisive, are often the ones who do the least. No that's not always true but it's generally true.

And the more Glenn builds that, and the more successful he is, the more he's going to have "MRAs" and mostly MRIs screaming at him about how he should do things, how he did this or that wrong, why he isn't taking time to debate things when he's busy working on fundraising and organization, etc. Maybe he's concerned that if people on the site are arguing for taking women's vote away, which will never happen anyway, people will not take his efforts seriously and donations won't come. I certainly wouldn't donate to something like that and I don't know many who would. I don't know if that's what Glenn's thinking, but I think it would be a letimate concern if he is.

People can call Glenn all the names they want and divide the already fractured movement, but if it's going to get anywhere and actually change public policy it has to be through professional lobbying, which is what Glenn is doing at this stage more than anyone else I know of in the U.S. And that's the direction we better take if we want change.

So I totally support Glenn in his approach to fundraising and lobbying. I don't know what they're doing with the website but I know they're building something that the MR movement needs and totally lacks, and have already got it started in two states in its beginning stages through F&F in MA and CAFC in CA. That will need to grow in other states too, and at the federal level. Glenn is the only one I know who is seriously getting something like that going. And he has my support 100%.

To me, there are a variety of solutions to the commenting and/or spam issues:

1. Have the forum/comment site police itself.
   Many comment sites allow one to "vote" your approval/disapproval of the various comments. If the disapproval votes reach a certain threshold, the comment "disappears" and is no longer readable.
   In other sites, each comment has a "Report this to moderator" link. So, instead of the site admin being burdened down with moderating each and every comment, which is a incredibly impractical form of moderating, the admin needs only to be concerned with the comments being reported or flagged by the others. This, of course, requires that the admin trusts that the commenters help maintain order. To think otherwise shows a lack of faith in the viewing public and implies only the admin knows best.
2. Set a deadline for when comments can no longer be submitted.
   In cases where the comment section is receiving spam long after the article has been posted, a simple commenting deadline, with a Captcha or other challenge response system, can be put in place

Removing the commenting section removes the ability to participate with others by sharing our thoughts and destroys the comradery many of us enjoyed while there.

MAJ

But what he eventually learned, and what the movement still needs to learn, in that we can't really get anywhere without professional lobbying.

Even with professional lobbying, we won't accomplish anything. Men, as a group, DO NOT REPRESENT men as a group! We don't have a voting block for men like women, gays, mexicians, blacks, etc. do. No Representative fears the men's vote. None whatsoever. Men's issues are not a voting issue. Women's issues are. Race issues are. When you present legislature supporting female interests, you buy those women's votes and a large number of men's votes... you rarely lose men's votes. Turn that around and propose legislature supporting men's interests and you not only lose women's votes, but lose the votes of chivalrous men as well. Simply put, even with lobbying, we'll lose the vote counts that matter to influence legislative actions.

That is why, back in 1920 (before lobbying really even existed) allowing women to vote created an immediate, massive, fundamental shift in our government. Every government that has allowed the women's vote has exploded virtually overnight (double in size within 10 years, while maintaining their size for decades to centuries before the women's vote). You can easily find the studies that show this happening in the US, UK, France, and Switzerland. The thing you may not recognize is that women and men are fundamentally different, have different base values, and have different voting patterns.

Now, you may think that men and women being "equal" will solve the problems. They won't. Even if we gave men and women exact legal equality, the social inequality (biological granted) will cause men and women to "favor" women and have the laws shift in their favor. Due to the social inequality which cannot be corrected until we are all asexual, legal equality is only a temporary state which will become female superiority. I could point you to the full argument I made on Glenn's blog if it still existed, but the truth of the matter is to argue for legal equality for women is actually to argue for legal superiority for women. Really. A state of legal equality cannot exist between men and women. The only "equality" that can exist is social superiority for women (cannot be removed as it is biological granted) balanced by granting a legal superiority for men.

There is no other solution that works.
Period.

Or if we focus on things that will never happen like taking way women's right to vote, a basic human right.

A right to vote is a basic human right? Really? Honestly?

No.

I can argue this with you, but it's going to come down to our differing definition of rights. Let me just break it down for you: There ARE NO fundamental rights. There ARE NO inalienable rights. I realize that your background as a lawyer gives you a skewed perspective on this. You think rights come from laws, but in reality all rights come from the force of violence (actual or threatened). Let me just give you the "North Korea" example: According to you, they don't have the "human right" to vote, and it doesn't matter what your opinion is unless you bring a big enough stick to convince North Korea that if they don't give their people that right they'll cease to be a sovereign nation.

On top of that, voting is not only a right, it's a right with an attached responsibility. And that responsibility is conscription. If someone influences the government, they have the responsibility to be accountable for that government's decisions and serve that government in times of need. Women have been granted the right of suffrage without the responsibility of conscription. As such, women have not earned suffrage and do not deserve to have suffrage gifted to them. They are exercising rights without responsibility for them.

I'll get to more later if you wish.

Lobbying, I mean. But it is expensive. One thing I have seen that is hard to do is get MRAs to cough up cash.

Ever hear of "EMILY's List"? Some people have, others not. It is a fund put together by pro-choice Democrat party women to help them run for office. URL: http://www.emilyslist.org/ It is specifically for pro-choice Demo party women seeking Congressional office. Pro-lifers don't get the support, even if they are female. So there is the distinction, at least in their case. But they have been quite successful in their efforts and indeed, have shown that money talks screams, and is the difference between success and failure, regardless of what the cause is. (This could have been a cause in favor of getting green M&Ms pulled from the market, it wouldn't matter; if the money is there in sufficient quantities, there will be transactions that get the end much closer to being realized than otherwise.)

Is that what Glenn is trying to do, but only for MRA/FRA issues? I hope he can pull that off. Like I said, getting money from MRAs even in service to the cause is not the easiest thing in the world to do.

"We don't have a voting block for men like women, gays, mexicians, blacks, etc. do. No Representative fears the men's vote. None whatsoever."

Yes, and that's exactly why we need lobbying. Many of the legislatures in CA can see what's wrong with alot of the feminist bills and even are tired of feminist bullying but they don't have any "political cover" to allow them to vote against feminists. When a professional lobby group like CAFC goes there and frames things the right way, knows how to work the political arena the right way, they can get alot done. They have successfully blocked lot of bad bills, reformed others, and passed some, even without any staff. If they had a full staff with an office, etc. they could even do alot more. No of course it's not perfect. Even that won't change everything overnight. It will be a very long process no matter what approach is taken. But good lobbying is the most effective way, and is in fact the only way we'll make serious change.

Removing women's right to vote, on the other, is so totally unrealistic that I hesistate to even give it any credibility. It's never going to happen, period. Never. You might as well hope the great spirit comes down and gets rid of all misandrist feminists from the earth. It won't happen. And even if it could, somehow, possibly, happen, I don't see how it could change much at all. Women will still have tremendous influence over men and their votes especially with all the feminist lobby power that will still be there, in fact it will increase because, without women having a vote, much more money will pour into the feminist lobby groups. They'll still have the power. Men as a block won't vote anti-feminist for the most party. But even if they would, it is a totally unrealistic approach. It won't happen at all (I don't agree with taking someone's right to vote based on their genitals to begin with but that's not really relevant here).

"That is why, back in 1920 (before lobbying really even existed) allowing women to vote created an immediate, massive, fundamental shift in our government."

That's an association, most likely becaue it happens in conjunction with government shifts anyway, as minorities and others gain more leverage in the legislature and get more programs like for homelessness, after school programs, etc. Women voted in favor of wars about about a 10% lower rate than men did, which isn't very much. I don't agree that the gap between how men and women vote is so huge as to blame women's vote on larger government. Nor do I even necessarily oppose larger government per se. I oppose anti-male discrimination, which comes in many forms aside from larger government (criminal sentencing, circumcision, public health policies ignoring men's health, etc.).

"Now, you may think that men and women being "equal" will solve the problems. They won't. Even if we gave men and women exact legal equality, the social inequality (biological granted) will cause men and women to "favor" women and have the laws shift in their favor."

I haven't said anything about "equality" in the sense of equality of outcome. I support equal rights under the law, period. Equal treatment. And no I don't think that alone will solve all discrimination against men. There will still be inequality in dating expecations and many other areas. But as an MRA, my goal is equal *rights* between men and women, such as in child custody, criminal sentencing, selective services, health policies, etc. Nothing is going to solve all problems. But it's what I fight for.

"Due to the social inequality which cannot be corrected until we are all asexual, legal equality is only a temporary state which will become female superiority."

That I do not agree with. Laws change societal attitudes. Giving Blacks the right to vote and be integrated with Whites in schools helped change societal attitudes against them. The social bias was still there but it disintegrates faster when they law gives them equal rights. That's one reason gay people fight to equal rights to marry, even the ones who don't want to marry, because they know it helps change societal bias faster than when the laws treats them with less rights. Same for other groups, and same for men. When men have equal 50/50 custody, their rights as parents will, over time, be more respected. When women get the same criminal sentences that men do, societal biases about letting women off will die faster than if the law keeps giving them discounts. When women have to register for the draft and are not given special treatment under the law, it sends a message that men deserve to be treated equally, and hearts and minds follow much faster than when the law says otherwise.

"A state of legal equality cannot exist between men and women. The only "equality" that can exist is social superiority for women (cannot be removed as it is biological granted) balanced by granting a legal superiority for men.:

Again, I totally disagree. Society and social attitudes evolve and change, just as they have for Blacks, for gays, and for other groups that were not given equal treatment. It takes time, and changing the laws makes it happen faster. It's a matter of increments, not something happening overnight. We've already seen men's custody increase dramatically since the 1970s. It started with the eradication of the "tender years" doctrine. Yes, I know, the doctrine is still practices, but over time less and less. That's just the point. It takes time to change societal attitudes, and changing the law makes that happen faster than if you don't make the laws equal. Same with anything else. When we eradicated the discriminatory law in CA the said men don't get DV services, it didn't change things overnight, but it has already made changes and those changes are still gradually happening as activists work within the DV councils to get the new law enforced. We couldn't be making those changes as easily without the law having been changed.

"I can argue this with you, but it's going to come down to our differing definition of rights. Let me just break it down for you: There ARE NO fundamental rights. There ARE NO inalienable rights. I realize that your background as a lawyer gives you a skewed perspective on this. You think rights come from laws, but in reality all rights come from the force of violence (actual or threatened)."

Yes, they come from force. But in the U.S. and most civilized countries, the "force" is the enforcement of the law. So yes, the law does, absolutely, give rights. As far as "basic human right" I'm talking about under the U.S. Constitution, which gives people certain rights including the right to vote if they're law abiding citizens. That's what I mean by a basic human rights. And really, we can argue forever about the philosophy of laws but that doesn't change the fact that you will never, ever, ever take away women's right to vote in the U.S. Period. Again, might as well wish for the moon to come down and wisk you away to la la land. On the other hand, change can come, and already has been coming, through lobbying, in conjunction with lawsuits, organizing, etc.

I agree that *if* there is a draft registration then both men and women should have to register, and that it's hypocritical to only make one sex register while giving both the right to vote. But it's far more realistic to fight to make the draft apply to everyone, which alot of politicians already agree with, than to remove women's right to vote, which virtually no politician, and very very very few people in general, will agree with. It's just not going to happen. Fighting for that not only is a total waste of time but makes our movement look exactly like feminists want it to look. If feminists had their choice I'm sure they would LOVE it if the MR gave up on lobbying and instead tried to remove women's right to vote - because then NOBODY would listen to us at all. Nobody.

"getting money from MRAs even in service to the cause is not the easiest thing in the world to do."

I would add that getting MRAs to do ANYTHING for the cause is not the easist thing in the world to do. I have an easier time getting them to donate money than I do getting them to help organize a rally or, for that matter, show up. We have had some successfully rallies in L.A. but only when one person was willing to almost kill himself doing 95% of the work.

Glenn isn't focusing on MRAS. He knows better. From what I understand he's focusing on people who have the money to donate and are sympathetic though not necessarily "MRAs." There are such people out there and money has been raised enough already to hire some staff. And it's just beginning. Yes we can "hope" all we want, but we really don't have any choice. Serious change will only come when we go this route. Or otherwise it will take about another thousand years to change on its own.

Legislatures are where laws and public policies are made, for the most part, and that is where the battle is most critical - in the walls of the legislatures, both state and federal. And those laws and policies influence public and societal attitudes. They're critical. They directly affect lives every single day. We don't have any real choice. We have to raise money and hire lobbyists, and that's why I'm very thankful that Glenn is taking this route. Of course he'll be criticized by those MRAs who want him to do things their way. That's just the nature of things.

I suspect that guilt by association is what worries Sacks most, especially given that many feminists have attacked him for what his commenters have said. If you go back a few months, you will notice that all the old comments have been removed! They could simply have closed down new comments, thereby doing away with the need for moderating while still preserving all the old comments, but they have chosen instead to wipe everything clean. Given some of the bull that got flung around there i cant say i blame him for wanting a clean slate, but he really should just get a volunteer mod that knows how to kick heads - no commenting at such an important site just drains too much drive out of the movement.
----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

I think you hit the nail on the head MichaelClaymore. Glenn doesn't want to be held responsible for what other people say. My problem is that he is way to far left, and way too much of an appeaser. Also if you didn't agree with his view, or said something that offended him [and he was easy to offend] he would often delete your blog post. I stopped even reading his blog until he brought in Robert Franklin, Esq. who actually knows how to write an article worth a damn.

That's not to say that Glenn hasn't done some great things, or; that I don't support him and his endeavors. I do. But his blog posts just weren't hard hitting enough for me, and I didn't feel like I would say what was really on my mind. Both of which where problems for me.

I was angry at first when he closed down comments. But now I think it's actually for the best. It will drive more commentors here; where we will be able to say what we really want to say. And we will be able to say it without worrying about being censored.

If a blog post goes up over at glennsacks.com and one of us thinks that it merits discussion we can always add it to the news feed, and talk about the subject here. That way Glenn gets the political cover he desires, and we get to have a place to discuss the issues where we can really speak our mind.

On a semi-related note I don't really think it's fair to compare MRA's to other groups when it comes to raising money. I mean one of the main problems that MRA's face is that many of us have the majority of our income taken from us by the government and given to people who actively work against our best interests or outright hate hate us. Eg. ex-wives/ex-girlfriends/feminist lobbyists/scumbag politicans.

I personally I have over half of my income extorted from me by the government after taking into account taxes, and transfer payments. When push comes to shove; men will make paying unreasonably high amounts of child support to stay out of jail, and paying their rent to keep a roof over their heads a higher priority then donating to organizations that advocate for them.

Yes, and that's exactly why we need lobbying.

And, again, lobbying will change nothing. All it will do is give MRA's "hope" while nothing changes.

Women identify with being a woman. Blacks identify with being black. Men do not identify with being men. We don't. We've been competing against each other for far to long to considering "being male" a bonding factor. PC correctness prevents men being proud of being men. We do not bond as "the male masses". Men do not form a voting block on men's issues. That's why lobbying will not solve the problem. Lobbying only works if the people in power fear losing their seat if they upset the people represented by the lobbyist.

Removing women's right to vote, on the other, is so totally unrealistic that I hesistate to even give it any credibility. It's never going to happen, period. Never.

But it will. This is not the first time in history that we've had Feminism. It will likely not be the last. Feminism destroys the society in which it infects. Western civilization will crumble because we are attempting to form the basis of society upon a lie: that men and women are equal and equivalent. When this society falls and we descend into anarchy, women will give up "equality" to gain protection and women's suffrage will disappear until we are one again in a successful society and it's "safe" for women to be equal again. And, thus, we will repeat the cycle.

Read "Sex and Culture" by J D Unwin (1934). This cycle will repeat.

I don't agree that the gap between how men and women vote is so huge as to blame women's vote on larger government.

Our government fluctuated between 3% and 5% of GNP from 1776 to 1920. By 1930 we were over 8% of GNP. Currently we are pushing 40%. The exact same patterns happened in the UK (1918), France (1945) and Switzerland (1971). Women are not men. When you give a class of people who are accustomed to being taken care of by others the vote, women WILL turn the government into a surrogate husband/father to provide for them out of the mostly male taxpayer's pockets.

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html <-- the US example.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/x737rhv91438554j/ <--- Swizerland
(I read UK and France on paper, no easy links).

I haven't said anything about "equality" in the sense of equality of outcome. I support equal rights under the law, period.

I haven't said anything about equality of outcome either (men will always be overrepresented at the top and bottom, again by biology). Again, supporting equal legal rights is really supporting female superior legal rights. Women, simply put, have more social value than men IN EVERY SOCIETY. There is no society that treats it's women as disposable cannon fodder for war. It simply doesn't happen because might makes right, numbers make might, and women make numbers. Until men figure out how to asexually reproduce, women will have greater social value. Equal legal rights + greater female social value WILL become greater female legal rights. There is no other path, there is no equilibrium.

When women get the same criminal sentences that men do

THEY NEVER WILL. Again, women have higher social value than men. Society as a whole will not dispose of women (send them to jail) in the same regard that they will men. Simply put, biology has determined that men are more disposable than women are, and society is built upon biology. The worldview you are desiring demonstrates a disconnect with reality.

When women have to register for the draft and are not given special treatment under the law

Will never happen (much like flat tax will never happen). Women represent 52% of the vote. People unfairly benefiting from the progressive tax system represent >50% of the vote. Were the female draft or the flat tax ever happen, whoever supported it would be voted out of office and the government will be re-adjusted to the previous condition.

Again, I totally disagree. Society and social attitudes evolve and change, just as they have for Blacks, for gays, and for other groups that were not given equal treatment.

Again, you simply just don't get it. The difference between blacks and whites in genetic trends is a drop in the bucket compared to the differences between men and women. Come back to reality: men don't get pregnant. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. That alone has decided and will continue to decide the relative social values of men and women, over and above the numerous other differences.

That's just the point. It takes time to change societal attitudes, and changing the law makes that happen faster than if you don't make the laws equal.

Where are the laws unequal concerning murder performed by man vs murder performed by woman?

Anywhere?

And yet women are still less likely to be convicted?

And yet women still get lighter sentences when they are convicted?

And you think changing the laws to be somehow more equal than equal will change anything?

We already have an example of what you desire: equal laws. And yet we are getting what I am telling you will happen: female superiority/preferential treatment.

Yes, they come from force. But in the U.S. and most civilized countries, the "force" is the enforcement of the law. So yes, the law does, absolutely, give rights. As far as "basic human right" I'm talking about under the U.S. Constitution

The US Constitution, which outlaws indentured servitude, and yet our government gives a big middle finger to that when it comes to child support?

Wait, you mean our government ignores the Constitution on a regular basis?

And you still don't get that it's their superior firepower which grants them the rights, rather than any stupid law written on paper?

"Civilized" societies are no different than the barbaric ones. The only difference is that we give a monopoly on violence to the government.

I'm going to spell it out for you in the most simplistic terms: Civilization itself was built by men upon male ideals. Any time in history that we have allowed women too much influence over the direction of civilization, we have lost that society. We cannot sustain a society where we allow women equal rights (we've tried and failed in the past, read the book. If you don't have time, read http://www.denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm and pay attention to the formation of civilization)

You can continue to talk about how thinks "should be"... I keep explaining to you how they are. Men and women are fundamentally different creatures, and that fundamental difference is in the biology, not some dreamed up "social construct of gender." Until you can recognize that difference, any plan you or Glenn come up with as a "solution" will fail, and it will fail because it is not grounded in reality but rather upon a false premise.

You can't build castles on clouds.

and as a final note:
If feminists had their choice I'm sure they would LOVE it if the MR gave up on lobbying and instead tried to remove women's right to vote - because then NOBODY would listen to us at all. Nobody.

No, they would. Start talking to men and ask them if they'd like 35% more pay. Demonstrate how men pay 80% of the taxes yet women receive 80% of the benefits. Demonstrate how this pipe-dream of "equality between the genders" has destroyed marriage, increased crime rates, is causing the war with the middle east, and basically fucking our society over. Convince enough unhappy unemployed men that the reason things are so bad now is because we've strayed so far from the path that does work, and men will up and demand that our government changes lest we remove it. Government will listen to votes (owned by women and women's interests) until we get enough men to say listen to us or we will replace you forcibly. Threaten revolution... or, if need be, revolt. That is the only solution that will work on a national level.

Or continue to sell this castle on clouds and keep men complacent until the system finally collapses into anarchy and solve nothing.

There is no utopia of equality. Human beings are not equal.

Demonspawn, please tell me if I get this right: You want to take away women's right to vote, and you think the MRA movement should get behind this idea?

manonthestreet

If society crumbles as some think it certain to do then probably there will be no voting in the future so women will de facto loose their vote. As some one who has utter contempt and loathing for women (particularly Kris) I see it as an enticing prospect that that things will deteriorate to such an extent that the only option will be for women to seek the protection of men. At which point I hope we kick them in the face.

The problem here is that you, like Marc and Glenn, see this as a men vs women issue. It's not. It's a society vs society issue. Our society will advance or fall based upon the type of society we construct.

The question is not "Should we give men and women equal legal rights (because we presume that they are equal)?" The question is "Will giving women equal legal rights advance us as a society or lead to our downfall?" The answer to the first must seem simple to you, an obvious yes. The answer to the second is also simple and easily demonstratable: A society cannot last when we give men and women equal legal rights.

So you are free to propose that men and women should have equal legal rights, just recognize that the cost of that choice is the end of our society. Now, which is more important to you: Legal equality or civilization? Of course, you're free to choose whichever you think is more important (mind you, the deck is stacked because the end of Western society will also end the legal equality of men and women... women will give up legal equality for preferential treatment when equality contains a substantial risk of life and limb).

So, to make sure you get this right: The only solution, on a societal level, which will keep our society working is to remove women's direct influence over government. It is the only answer which will create a society of "general equality" (men have more legal rights, women have more social value) and also the only answer which will keep us advancing as a society. Any other solution simply will not work until we get sex bots for men, artificial wombs, and a number of other technologies which circumvent the biologically granted greater social status for women.

Given any two groups X and Y, legal equality + social inequality in favor of X will become legal and social inequality in favor of X.

Put another way, we cannot release men from the majority of their traditional gender roles (be disposable, sacrifice for the greater good via conscription, refrain from violence, etc) or else we will be commiting social suicide at the immediate level. Well, freeing women from their traditional roles (refrain from promiscuity, be the goal for men to advance and obtain marriage status, etc) is also social suicide, just at a slower pace.

So, we have only two answers:
1) Return to a social system that works (traditional roles for men and women, women do not directly influence government, men have legal advantage while women have social advantage).
2) Get the hell outta dodge and leave this society for one where feminism has not yet headed the society towards self-destruction.
3) Attempt to implement some answer that is neither 1 or 2, and you or your children will be in the society when it finally collapses.

So, I think the MRA can get behind any idea it wants, but if it chooses 3, I'll be choosing 2.

What you propose is somewhat interesting. You propose a throw back to a complete patriarchal society. You propose that due to biology women shouldn't have equal rights under the law, or for that matter men as well. Yet, you dismiss the training and manipulation that both genders have suffered under due to psychology based on control. A human being is a human being regardless of gender. I would suggest some study of human nature. Perhaps some anthropology. Our problem isn't that men and women can't get along, it is that our relationships have been perverted as a means of societal control. It is working, we have people that are proposing things that most sensible people wouldn't consider. If we were to follow your suggestion we would be guaranteeing that we would have more problems in the immidiate future. But hey, I can understand why a man would want to feel like he was in charge, as it has been a long time since one actually was.

David A. DeLong

You propose a throw back to a complete patriarchal society.

Can you name any matriarchal society which has progressed past grass huts?

Civilization itself is based upon patriarchal ideals. Matriarchy does not create civilization. Our current "solution" of attempting to replace basic patriarchal ideals with matriarchal ideals gives us a society which is like a stack of Jenga blocks: replace enough of the bottom "male" ones with misshapen "female" ones and the entire stack will come falling down.

You propose that due to biology women shouldn't have equal rights under the law

I propose that women CANT have equal legal rights under the law due to biology. Due to social favoring of women, equal legal rights will result in unequal application of law (again, my laws of murder example: women can use "he made me wear high heels!" as a legal defense and it will be accepted, men cannot use anything of the sort).

But hey, I can understand why a man would want to feel like he was in charge, as it has been a long time since one actually was.

Men were never in charge. The needs of survival for the society were in charge.

That's what you are missing.

"As some one who has utter contempt and loathing for women (particularly Kris)"

Not quite a personal attack but I am going to suggest that you keep the focus on ideas and less on particular people. It only distracts from the point of the board.

If he can be successful in any measure by using this strategy, and I really, really hope he is, that'd be great.

At this point, as you have pointed out, our progress has been quite limited. I will say that advocacy sites are doing something important: increasing exposure and widening the scope of discussion at least for those who go to them, if even they are "the choir". Think of this: for every person listening to a radio or TV interview, even if the host is hostile to the cause, or who stumbles across an MRA-related site, at least new ideas are getting added to their brains, even if they categorically reject them -- at first. Even if they do so all their lives, they may at some point in casual conversation mention the ideas to someone, even to lambaste them (à la Jon Stewart). At least the ideas that were not even in a person's brain before are now there. That's a start, no matter how meager. Was "feminism" even a word in 1700?

As a word, or as an idea?

"Feminism" was around back in Babylonia when their women had the right to vote, freedom from "marital rape", and "equal rights" of men.

Rome? They too attempted to give "equal rights" to women and paid the price.

Whenever a society becomes successful enough that "equality" doesn't mean risking life and limb, women will want "equality." Right now is not the first time, and I doubt it will be the last.

for showing us precisely why Glenn shut his comments down, and deleted all the old ones.

----------------------
Rise, Rebel, Resist.

It's a shame he couldn't handle it.

So rather than engage and rebut with facts, he decided to silence his critics by censoring them.

Sound like the tactics of any other group you know?

P.S. I've got several of the old posts where I commented archived if you want them for whatever reason.