Here they come to save the day!!!!

Yes, ABC is using it’s power of persuasion (And the show 20/20) to pretty much do a hit piece on the MHRM.  Now someone might ask why this might be a hit piece.  Well, I will link it and you see how it’s written.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/women-battle-online-anti-women-hate-manosphere/story?id=20579038#disqus_thread

That’s not so bad.  But some of the comments that have been popping up in the comment area are.

Some of my favorites, with the requisite responses by me (only my stuff, as others can do their own):

This gem from Magdalen:
“MRAs love to talk about the bias in the courts against men for custody battles. It’s one of their big pulls and it’s actually quite true. There is a significant bias against fathers in court cases regarding children. But they like to ignore they “WHY” of that. Which is actually rooted in sexism against women. The outdated ideal of women being natural care providers and nurturers regardless of the circumstances. The answer to the issue of court bias against men is rooted in Feminism.”

My response:
“Really?
“We need more feminism over here, because we didn’t have enough to this point!”
Let’s think this out, for a minute. Feminism has had 50+ years to re-educate people.
That’s plenty of time to affect several generations, and pretty much get rid of the “sexist attitudes” that were so prevalent in the world for so long.
Then why do they still exist? Why are they still practiced, if feminists have been working hard for half a century to wipe them out?
Here’s a better question: If those same attitudes are still prevalent in today’s society, wouldn’t that be considered a failure of feminism for not being able to get rid of them in the last 50+ years?”

A nice little discussion (Sarcasm) with a wonderful (Sarcasm) lady named Adela:

Her response to someone else:
Are you saying that men have a higher place in society relative to women or that you think women have a higher place in society now and you want equality?
Your comment is suspiciously old school religious.
What is a man’s “proper place” in society?

My response:
I will guarantee he is saying that women now have a higher place in society, and we are fighting for equality.

Her response:
“Equality?” LOL
Well yes we women have gained a lot. We are not considered a man’s property anymore at least in the United States. We can vote. We can get jobs.

My response:
Ah yes. Because men couldn’t possibly have cared about their mothers, sisters, and daughters through history?
Men were all powerful, and women had no ability to influence men (through shaming men, whispering in their ear, etc). right?
Need I bring out the works of Shakespeare? He even notes in MacBeth that women used their power indirectly.
That’s over 400 years ago. But women had NO power through history, right?
Get educated.

Her response:
Well yes in Shakespeare’s time women voted and worked for themselves. (sarcasm)

My response:
Some did work for themselves, I am sure.
But voting, well all women in the US got it only 70 years after men. Up until 1850, men had to own land, in order to vote.
Oh darn. 70 years after men.
Up until that point, it was only the rich and powerful.
That must be horrible, having to wait an extra 70 years, because some of the most vehement anti-suffragettes (all women, mind you) didn’t want it.
And when they did, they were given it almost immediately. Where as men had to sacrifice and die in order to pay for it.
Must be horrible to be given something, that someone else had to die for their future progeny to receive.

Her response:
Poor victim. LOL I can vote now!
I’m sorry millions of women didn’t die in the process! (sarcasm) I guess in your mind millions of women SHOULD HAVE died.

My response:
Oh yes. Because I am pointing out how things happened, I am wishing that millions of women had died.
Right.
You use sarcasm rather often. I hope you can recognize it when it’s sent your way.

Her Response:
So you are pointing out how things happened?
I don’t believe you are being sarcastic. Why write a long post only to say you were sarcastic?
Usually sarcastic posts are one or two-sentence posts.

My response:
“Oh yes. Because I am pointing out how things happened, I am wishing that millions of women had died.Right.”
That’s the sarcasm. The previous post was the educating you on what actually happened in history. Thank you for playing, have a wonderful day.
(Hint: You can mix sarcasm in with being serious, too)

A fun one with a psychic (well, most likely psycho) calling herself Michelle:

My reply to her acting like she knew what MRA’s were thinking:

All three of your points debunked, in one shot:
Are you a mind reader? No? Then I am pretty sure you can’t say what someone else was thinking. Also, just because Valenti says she supports something, doesn’t mean she actually supports that thing. It’s called actions not matching words. And Valenti’s actions (advocating policies that enable and encourage child abuse), tends to support the claims that are made.

Her response:
Actually you proved my points over and over again, Nice try, but you failed.

My response:
Right.
And Bill Cosby got the conversation correct between Noah and God.
Thank you, come again.

Another one, this from Roxanne, who was a real charmer:
This is concerning your statement of ‘If a man doesn’t want a child, he has no say in the matter’. He does have a say in the matter. He decides if he wants to keep it in his pants or put it into a unknown entity and risk making a baby. It’s called self-control and if he has none then he also has no power.

My response:
Turn that around. Women have that same self control, supposedly.
So if a woman get’s pregnant, it’s all her fault?
(Let me set you straight: If a woman decides she wants to get pregnant, she can lie, manipulate, deceive, etc. to get a man’s sperm. Up to and including going against what the guy she is with wants. If a man wants to have a child or not, his choice is completely co-opted by a woman)

Her response:
Oh thanks Nightwing, you really set me straight. Hahaha. You da man. My comment refuted XIRA statement that men have no control. I know it’s hard for you boys to manage your zippers but give it a try. That is your control. As for sperm, there are sperm banks. If you don’t want a lying, deceiving, manipulating women having her way with you then keep it in your pants. No way can you be deceived unless you made a baby with a loser.

My response:
And you would be a real charmer, yourself.
Obviously you can’t see what I was saying. This happens in relationships. Not as much one night stands.
But obviously you women are completely superior to us men, right?
You never make mistakes, or choose the wrong person to be in a relationship with.
I hope you take your own advice and keep yours in your pants.

(Boom!  Headshot!)

There was plenty of white knights out in force, too.  This from Fred:
Really? You do know that women weren’t allowed to vote in the U.S. until 1920 and that in the 19th century they weren’t allowed to own property, and that under the common law, women were classified as “chattel.” (i.e. “a movable article of personal property”), don’t you? Please tell us about the pre-1850 U.S. laws specifically granting women rights.

My response:
What is this common law thing you speak of?
You mean that same law that allowed men to be conscripted with just a word from the ages of 16-80 to fight in wars that most often got them killed, while women stayed safe at home?
That same common law that created indentured servitude so a man MIGHT own property if he was successful enough to pay off his debt, or pretty much death if not, while women were safe from that obligation?
Want me to keep going?

And last, but certainly not least, an interesting flower named Ashley:
I’m not talking about the choices of individuals. I’m talking about the societal pressure of men and women to take on traditional domestic roles is linked to the societal bias for mothers to be in primary custody.

My response to the delicate flower:
Really? So if I google “female breadwinner divorce”, the first article won’t be New York Magazine stating that there is a problem when women out earn the men they date/marry?
Here’s the reality: Women want to be with a man that brings them upwards in status and financially. As stated in the article: “For women, the shift in economic power gives them new choices, not least among them the ability to reappraise their partner. And husbands, for their part, may find to their chagrin that being financially dependent isn’t exactly a turn-on. According to psychologists (and divorce lawyers) who see couples struggling with such changes, many relationships follow the same pattern. First, the wife starts to lose respect for her husband, then he begins to feel emasculated, and then sex dwindles to a full stop.”
This is reality. Women want to be taken care of, and treated well. (who doesn’t, actually?) But more than that, they lose desire and respect for men they have to take care of. That is biological, not sociological.
So saying these are “traditional domestic roles” and that they are linked to societal bias, is pure bs, as shown by increased divorce rates of women who are financially supporting a husband.

All in all, it was very amusing.  And there is still more to come, as the fun won’t stop until after they air the episode of 20/20 on the 18th of October.  That’s coming up very soon.  I know I am ready to tune in for this.
I hope others are, too.

Advertisements