Petition to Classify the Men's Rights Movement as a terrorist group

It was just a matter of when the MRM was going to get labeled (or, a push to classify it as such in an "official" sense) as a hate movement. Appealing to fearful generalizations about males will be the primary modus not just now but going forward. Did the horrible little misogynistic lunatic who just killed those poor girls and that poor guy in the convenience store in Santa Barbara champion such causes as equitable treatment of fathers in family courts, male genital integrity, the elimination of selective service registration or if it must be retained, then requiring women to register also? Not that I'm aware of.

I wonder, if I am inclined to conclude one of two categories of person may represent the greater threat to life and liberty based on their stated goals and actions, would it be MRAs or feminists, it'd definitely be feminists, the more prominent of them making statements that show they are at least ideologically committed either to the elimination of most human males or such subjugation of males as to reduce us to abject slavery. Thankfully the typical feminist doesn't hold such ideas as defensible. But their top leadership seems if not to embrace such ideas openly, then they at least tolerate such people among them.

Are there people who are prominent in the MRM writing or saying they want the female pop'n reduced to 10% of the total just for reproduction purposes? Or that females should be stripped of all legal rights? Well, that's what more than a few prominent feminist leaders believe should be done to men. And, they mean it. They are patiently waiting for their chance, even if they personally aren't around to see the dream come to fruition. But the dream will be passed along to others and, they hope, one day, a male-free world will be a reality.

So, which category of person has more to worry about? MRAs or feminists? And which gender has more to be concerned with re its future, men or women?

As I said in another comment I wrote tonight here on MANN, conflating the MRM/MRAs with sociopathic mass-murdering men (who make up what, .00000001% of the population) and asserting that MRAs are if not sympathetic to such delusional monstrous assholes then actual supporters thereof is along the same lines as their other attempts to make MRAs out as "rape apologists", or worse.

It's rather unfortunate that feminists and MRAs not only have no actual common ground but are engaged in an openly antagonistic struggle against each other. I think this is inevitable though, as fundamentally this is not as much a contest over rights as it is of interests. The rights of people are the same, but when put in front of a judge or in other contexts, it's now a matter of whose *interests* are to be given priority. Feminists claim the interests of men are held paramount to women's in most if not all significant ways, while MRAs claim likewise but in reverse, of course. There's no reconciling the camps, and I doubt the adherents in either will accept a truce. After all, if by "truce" one needs to give up their natural right to see and be with their child or children, give up the right to be presumed innocent when charged with a crime of a particular type, etc., the terms won't be acceptable.

So, as feminists seek to capitalize off such senseless and vicious murders as what just happened to conflate sociopathically and insanely violent behavior by a few men by pushing for more laws that reduce or eliminate men's human rights and to raise money for campaigns of defamation against the entire male sex, stay tuned for more efforts to make the mere objection to such things as circumcision, presumed innocence of male defendants when accused of any crime by a woman, unnecessarily gender-segregated spaces or services, etc. tatamount to terrorism.

Brace yourselves.

The petition states that the men's rights movement is celebrating Elliot Rodger as a "martyr and a hero." Where do they get this from?

Well, Kris. When you're a feminist, apparently, you don't have to back up anything you say with facts. Everything is because you said it is. At least, that's how they seem to view the world. This is a fine example. You'd be hard pressed to find a single MRA anywhere on the net heralding the actions of Elliot. But facts be damned, he's a celebrated hero and martyr of the MHRM apparently.

I have never seen evidence that the men's rights movements are celebrating the violent actions of Elliot Rodger. I see evidence of the opposite. They should back up their statement with a source.

BTW I still think about feminist Sharon Osbourne and her laughing and describing it "hysterical" when a man had his penis cut off. Wasn't there about 5 women sitting around her (presumably feminists). Not one feminist that I am aware of critised her behavior.

Here is a site I came across with some quotes. The reason I am posting is because I feel it is a good time to remind everyone of just how hateful and violent feminists can be.

http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/feminism-is-a-hate-group.html

“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor

“To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he’s a machine, a walking dildo.” -– Valerie Solanas

“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin

“The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men.” — Sharon Stone

“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart

“Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” – Catherine Comins

“Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release.” — Germaine Greer.

Would a competing petition be a good idea, one to clarify to laypeople that men aren't monsters?