Feedback

15 Questions from a Feminist

ArgusEyes — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 08:45:49 GMT

Recently I was contacted by a feminist who asked me 15 questions. I rarely do so much typing without offering the end result for everyone else to see and criticise so here are my answers:

1. What is feminism to you? Is its position defensive or offensive? Do you think one could be sympathetic to its theories?

To me, feminism is the enemy. The existence of the men’s rights movement is owed directly to feminism and its influences on society. No feminism, then no MRA’s (Men’s Rights Activists). This is not to say that the movement has not achieve some good, but like most victim movements its inevitable end is depravity, and I’m sure MRAism will be the same which is why I am reticent to associate myself with any “ism” without due diligence. I am more anti-feminist than I am an MRA.

Feminisms position is primarily offensive, it is about imposing a political view on society. Even if I were to agree with the gender goals of feminism, I, as a Libertarian, would surely despise its totalitarian leanings. Most feminists are leftists, they have a plan for how things should be.

2. Because you believe in equal opportunity as opposed to material equality, do you think that little girls and teenage girls really have equal opportunity? Or are young boys disadvantaged?

What I have always said is that females have no less opportunity than males in our western societies. However, there are many areas where they have more opportunity/rights. See my video “men are more oppressed than women” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlWIfMjzBII) for examples of this. Boys are certainly disadvantaged when compared to women but I don’t want to come off as a whiner here. I don’t go around thinking “man, I’m so oppressed”. It doesn’t happen. I am a person who is opinionated and takes a visceral dislike to feminism and the ideas and attacks on men it represents.

3. Does patriarchy exist? Doesn’t the fact that men have more power, prestige, and influence in America confirm that patriarchy exists? What are your views on hegemony?

Yes. As a societal system in many countries around the world, it exists. Does it exist in the west? No. Words have meanings. If we look at the definition of patriarchy:

“a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe.”

Males must have the ruling position by design for it to be patriarchy. I’ve had a feminist make the argument to me before that since most politicians in the UK are male then it’s patriarchal, but this is ridiculous of course, they’re there because they were elected, not because of their genitalia. If we were to have more women as politicians in a year’s time then would we live in a matriarchal society? No. It was another example of sloppy thinking by a person who desperately wanted to be the victim.

4. Considering about 60% of women in America self-identify as feminists, do you really think that feminism is all about the vilification/ emasculation/ castration of men? Aren’t they more subtle and nuanced than “wanting to blame you for everything”?

You are simplifying what I believe feminism to be. Hatred of men may be a common trait in feminists but it is not what feminism is about or what attracts women to feminism. I’ve not heard this 60% figure but it wouldn’t surprise me. Many people don’t know anything about feminism and have bought into the line that is stands for equal rights and all things good. The appeal to popularity isn’t a good argument. People can buy into crap and have done so many times throughout history.

5. What would have to change before men and women achieved true equality?

Societal: We would have to adopt the opportunity view of equality and mean it; we would have to get over this instinct of sniggering when “men’s rights” are mentioned and realise that women have no less opportunity than men do and now men and boys are suffering in many regards. We also need to drop chivalry and the need to protect women using the law. If we are going to have equal opportunities then we need to get over this primitive protectionist mentality.

Concrete examples: No different prison punishments for males vs. females. Shared custody as a default. No quotas (AKA positive discrimination). Equal retirement ages. No wage coercion. Equal opportunity for protection for male victims of DV. Plus some..

Also, more women than men in the workplace, politics or university is not an instance of oppression against men if they got there by their own choice on an equal playing field. If they got there by bringing men down with the coercive force of the state, then that is what I have a problem with.

6. How do men in today’s society feel about women in general?

As a misanthrope, I cannot tell you what “men” think. Many who I’ve talked to are as fed up as I am about many aspects of modern feminism.

7. Is there a difference between women and women’s roles in England and women’s roles in America? I’ve heard that women from the UK are more independent, and we are 93% religious.

Whatever differences there are will be small. I think that the two societies are largely similar and thus will be the gender roles.

8. (Do you still refer to us as “the colonies”?)

Nope.

9. Aren’t some (some) men’s issues irrelevant to gender discrimination? For instance, I was watching John Stuart, which featured some air time about a certain men’s rights group in Canada. Their leader voiced concern that “when a football player gets kicked off a football team, none of the cheerleaders would think to still cheer for him, in class, at school… “ and that “men don’t have a place to organize and be guys anymore”. I couldn’t believe it. He’s angry that girls don’t cheer for boys MORE than they already do? And what are bars, poker nights, gentlemen’s clubs, basements, auto mechanic shops, sports stadiums, and the US Senate for? Obviously men’s rights aren’t particularly concerned about these things, but what about others? Men’s circumcision, for instance? Or the fact that more men are dropping out of school? Or the prevalence of suicide, or the exemption of women in combat? None of these issues have anything to do with feminism or oppression, and yet they’re treated as such.

That guy was Warren Farrell, he is a luminary of the men’s rights movement and he has a lot of sensible things to say. I would take what you see on the John Stuart comedy hour with a pinch of salt, they are not above cheap editing and misrepresentation.

Some problems are an indirect consequence of feminism. Girls rise and boys fall in the wake of a massive political and social movement known as feminism which is dedicated to benefiting women and girls. Either girls have reached their natural superior status and boys have fallen for some other reason, or the social engineering over the past decades has had a bad effect, or some other reason. MRA’s and anti-feminists pick the middle one.

10. Don’t most men feel superior to women on some level?

On some level maybe. Like physically. However, I don’t think men stand around feeling superior about this, they understand that men are men and women are women, and both have their good and bad qualities.

11. Can men and women treat each other with mutual respect without pandering to the conventions of chivalry and femininity?

Mutual respect is easier without the knee-jerk manbashing that I’ve encountered from numerous young women I have lived with and worked with over the years. I’ve seen nothing like this on a similar level from the men I’ve known. It’s not 50/50. Female attitudes have been influenced by the societal zeitgeist over the years and this has been driven, in turn, by feminism. The gender war has been a one-sided war so far, we have a problem with manbashing media more than the other way around. Women need to let go of their resentments if relations are to become better.

12. Why do you accuse women of ‘destroying the family’? Wasn’t the 1950s family scene degrading to women? Isn’t it good that women are putting their careers first?

This one is bemusing. Could you point out where I said this?

13. How are little boys and girls socialized, and how does this affect their perceptions of gender?

One of the greatest socialising factors in our society is feminism. Richard Dawkins, in his book “The God Delusion” refers to the actions of feminism as “consciousness raising”. He states:

“It was the feminists who raised my consciousness of the power of consciousness-raising.”

...

“Man, mankind, the rights of man, all men are created equal, one man one vote - English too often seems to exclude women. When I was young, it never occurred to me that women might feel slighted by a phrase like "the future of man". During the intervening decades, we have all had our consciousness raised. Even those who still use "man" instead of "human" do so with an air of self-conscious apology - or truculence, taking a stand for traditional language, even deliberately to rile feminists.”

[http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22it+was+the+feminists+who+raised+my+consciousness+of+the%22&source=bl&ots=1ghH-2IhyR&sig=AESfS975FZ1wnnF0afu_IHNToOQ&hl=en&ei=d8NvS8TUBof8tAOWp-2xDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22it%20was%20the%20feminists%20who%20raised%20my%20consciousness%20of%20the%22&f=false]

I feel this when I use the generic “he”. We have indeed been affected by feminist in our western societies, they have formed our language and laws. I can tell you how it affected one little boy – me. I was hurt by the feminist slogans about fish and bicycles. I felt the manbashing on TV. Feminism has had free reign – there is no normative opposition to their views until the one that is growing now.

14. Wouldn’t implementing a ‘men’s studies’ department be redundant, due to the fact that every academic subject extols the achievements, conquests, and intellectual breakthroughs of men in history, art, science, etc.?

I do not think there should be men’s studies departments. My reaction to feminism is not to instigate the same policies but with the sex reversed to males instead of females.

However, I don’t agree with your representation of many fields to extol the achievements of men. They extol the achievements of great figures in history, some of these are women but the vast majority are men because of the nature of gender roles in the past. Fair or not, these men are extolled not for being men, but for being the great figures of history.

Also, extolling the achievements of men would not be the aim of a men’s studies course. The course would be a study of the male mind and role in society. To the historical courses take this approach to understanding men?

15. Is domestic violence really 50/50 in severity, domination, long-term effects, etc.?

I don’t know about 50/50, it probably doesn’t end up that way but I do think that DV against me is played down in our society. Whether it is 50/50 or not, men deserve the opportunity of protection that is being afforded women if they are suffering from DV.

It’s the attack of the feminist stereotypes!

ArgusEyes — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:03:13 GMT

Oh lordy, I’ve been sent three links in the past day that have raised an eyebrow or two. The first is from long time cyber stalker DianaBoston, who criticises me directly by name. I won’t spoil the video but the crux of it is a moral equivalence so vile and stupid that I almost vomited on my shoes.

Check out some of her comments:

MensRifleAssociation (2 days ago)
Reply | Spam
you sure did swing your club today.

DianaBoston (2 days ago)
Reply
Men use clubs, women use their brains and a sword. The sword of justicia!

Okaaay. Moving swiftly along. We have stereotypes B and C.

I would reply to some of these but I’m just too busy.

Is homosexuality natural?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:42:09 GMT

Sometimes I make a post on a forum or discussion thread that I think is worthwhile enough to post here. Apologies if this seems cheap but a particularly interesting one arose recently. The issue of “is homosexuality natural” on my MRAS YouTube group as it happens. Why not join and join in on the discussion?

Here is the opening post:

actually..I didnt agree with it a bit. The ACT itself is unnatural. Homosexuality cannot sustain itself.It needs hetrosexuals to survive. If it was natural it would be able to sustain itself like other natural things. When he speaks of oppisites he is wrong. There is no such thing as dark.....only the absense of light.

…

creepyguy...life really aint that complicated. So would you say beastiality...polygamy....paedophilia.... are not unnatural=bad things?

My post:

When discussing this issue it is important that we rigidly decide our terms of discourse.

“Natural” purely means “formed by nature”. Homosexuality exists in a lot of other animal species apart from our own. In this sense homosexuality is indeed natural, so is paedophilia and bestiality.

But you muddied the waters by making a moral equivalence. Essentially natural=good and unnatural=bad. There is no basis for this. An animal species that is an evolutionary dead end and which is doomed for extinction is still formed by nature. Natural isn’t necessarily good. So we as a culture can create a moral code as to what we will accept and what we won’t, be it natural or unnatural. Medicine is also unnatural because they were not formed by nature, their ingredients were but medicine is a creation of man, not of nature.

Also, we don’t say that because man is natural and formed medicine therefore medicine is natural as well. We don’t apply an inheritance chain to this otherwise everything would turn out to be natural and the term would lose all its meaning.

Here are some sources:

Bestiality in nature: Mating toads leap the species barrier.

Homosexuality in nature: 1,500 animal species practice homosexuality

Can we generalise feminism?

ArgusEyes — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 06:24:56 GMT

I have been involved in an email dialog with a feminists, Jen, who bills herself as a “real feminist”, by which she means she is not like those radicals. Great. Her criticism of me is that I criticise feminism as some kind of monolithic entity and don’t pay enough heed to the real feminists like her. This discussion is so common in my email inbox that I feel it would be useful to include it on this blog. It is still ongoing so expect updates.

It starts with her original email to me:

I would be responding to your videos on your comments page, but unfortunately, there are way too many stupid people there for my taste, and no matter what I know I will be bashed because I don't hate women or feminists. This is sort of my response to the all of the videos from you I have watched.

I agree with a lot of your points on our culture's persecution of men. Fathers are just as vital to the family as mothers. Though I think it is unfair to blame only the feminists for encouraging things like no-fault divorce and fatherless families. The persecution of men began after WWII when the media portrayed responsible men, men who made sacrifices and supported families, as emasculated, mocking them, mocking the life of a "normal" man, portraying it as being shallow and unfulfilling. The movie Rebel Without A Cause embodies this perfectly. This fabricated portrayal of an empty fatherhood aroused feelings of boredom and discontent in young men who did not like what they had to look forward to. Hugh Hefner's motto of having ties to no one, including woman and family, became the popular manly ideal. This was still the 1950's. If society considered it unmanly to provide for one's wife and family, or even start one, normal, plain women were screwed. The male rebellion of beatnicks and greasers was prompted by fear of castration via fatherhood and responsibility. The female rebellion of I am woman hear me roar BS was also provoked by a fear a different one, of being left in the gutter, in exchange for Hugh Heffners more attractive, sexually active bunnies. Most guys are afraid of castration. Most women fear spinsterhood. Such is a fate worse than death for both. You know what followed in the 60's and 70's.

Since then, our society continually has two views of men: you are either a free man, a womanizing sex God who is a Chuck Norris protege - or you are the emasculated father who is literally drained by his controlling wife and whiny kids. Both are bullshit. Similarly, there are two views of women in society: you are either an attractive sex toy, or you are the ugly saggy-tit spinster, who if she were married, or someone's mother, would be a nagging volatile shrew. Also Bullshit. The true feminists, as well as the deranged psychotic man-hating ones are a mere product of this. But the heart of the evil lies in those who controlled (and still control) the fantasies of the masses in the first place.

These puppetmasters who support the psychotic feminists with their media coverage only do so, because they want to tear down those who pose an actual threat to them (fathers who love and stand by their families), not because they really care about justice or women's freedom. They want to make such men afraid to have families of their own, afraid to be responsible, to love fully, afraid to stand and fight. What these fools (the psychofeminists) don't realize is they are playing right into the traps of the tyrants they claim to oppose. Once they are done destroying the will of the only men with the courage to fight for those they love, there will be no men to protect their rights. I say it as a feminist: women's freedom depends on the state of civilization, and the support of good men. It always has and will. No amount of protesting, no law is going to change that.

I apologize for the mouthful. But it seems like you've never been exposed to a real feminist (the "men are pigs" psychos are a VERY LOUD minority, who are definitely more fun to rant about than us boring feminists who are straight, have boyfriends and love their dads), and think you know what real feminism stands for. Usually, we hold a lot more in common than we realize, but don't have the humility to want to listen to the other side. Oftentimes as soon as men such as yourself discover that I am female, or god forbid a feminist, that I can't be reasoned with or care deeply about their perspective.

I am often busy, but would gladly like to hear your response, as I believe you did want to get a dialog going. (Unless you are the male version of the psycho-feminist. I sincerely hope you arent.) :(

My first response to her:

Hi,

I can do a dialog, no problem, and I will address your points but if I may break this down a little bit to make it more manageable by asking you a question.

I realize you are young, but are you prominent in any organization or are you on the front lines of feminist thought promoting your views?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Hello again! I apologize for the late response - it is Thanksgiving here and I have been spending time with my family for the past week.

As for my "prominence" there is no official feminist organization that I see any need to join as of now, unless one counts forums and various websites and college groups. Honestly, I think one can just as much if not more accomplished through making films that reach a general audience, than by stopping traffic with a mob of annoying protesters - but that is my personal approach.

Yes, I am young, still in college, and have yet to make my grand contribution to humanity. I am not a public speaker or a politician. But I am a storyteller, and can thus reach just as many people through my work.

My response:

Hello again Jen,

I was beginning to think that you had forgotten about me.

Your answer was what I thought it would be. You're an interested individual, right? However, you're not a member of an organisation or on the head of N.O.W. I receive emails from many people who complain that I only attack the radicals and that I don't consider the "real feminists", to use you own term, but when I probe further then I find that they are people who have normal jobs and who don't push the field of feminism or steer its course.

I am not going to ask you introspect and ask you why you consider yourself to be the standard to be measured against for ideological pureness. In short, why do you consider yourself to be the "real feminist" when you are not prominent in the movement and the radicals are the ones behind the wheel? Doesn't it make more logical sense to call these feminists the "real ones"?

Sincerely,
Mark

Her response:

Unlike most movements, feminism is a loose collection of individuals. To think there is but one ruling dogma or only a few key feminists whom we all follow like sheep is outdated. Maybe a couple of older feminists, who mind you are starting to die off - but most feminists that I know, and virtually all feminists of my generation are not man-haters. Feminists do hold one thing in common: we believe that women are as fully human as men and should not be disrespected or poorly treated on the sole grounds that they are "women and therefore inferior".

Many of my ideas come from my mentors - who share my core values and HAVE made contributions to feminist thought. When I asked my mentors what it means to be a feminist, they told me what I am telling you now. As in any industry, those with the ability to succeed, those with the passion and dream to choose his or her own life, should be allowed to do so, man or woman of any race or background (provided they aren't abusing their freedom by oppressing others). Those who seek to punish and oppress men with such vehemence nearly always have some kind of emotional or psychological disorder.

Does Bill O'Reilly represent all conservatives? Does Michael Moore represent the majority of liberals in his country? They are certainly leaders of a sort and do have their following. That doesn't change the fact that most people on both sides think they are douchebags. That's why they are mocked. Likewise, radical man-hating fems are mocked. No one really takes them seriously except for the politicians who support them. Are Muslim terrorists true Muslims? Because they speak the loudest and kill people, I suppose that means they are the only true Muslims and the quiet family of Muslims next door who faithfully observe the five pillars are just a bunch of phonies.

Finally, because I'm guessing you will ask this:

Why aren't "real feminists" out there defaming those outspoken crazed feminists?
It is very difficult ground to tread. I use the Muslim terrorist example because that's a similar reason that other potential leaders do not speak up on public television and in the streets of San Francisco - because then the extremists will even attack their own. Lots of feminists (particularly younger ones) for this reason are quiet and reserved about their more relaxed (but still feminist) views. Instead, you will hear mostly from the trained apprentices of past extremists. Many people want to be leaders, or at least make some contribution, but are afraid to go against the established order - or don't know how to oppose it without being silenced forever.

This is my last response to her:

Hi Jen,

Believe it or not, your message is almost word-for-word verbatim from what many others have sent to me on a regular basis. I get this criticism all the time. They say I can't pin down feminism because feminists believe all sorts of different things. Yes they do, and so do conservatives, liberals, libertarians, communists, black liberationists and on and on..

If feminism is free-floating and nebulous then there is no point in the term is there? It has to mean something doesn't it?

I read a lot of liberal pro evolution blogs and these guys rip into conservatives all the time. But I realise that evolution denial is a common trend in conservative circles relating to their religiosity. I don't feel the need to defend conservatism against these attacks by saying that not all conservatives deny evolution, because I realise that the criticism is legitimate and fair.

There is an indiscriminate attitude that predominates in many people. What you said can be made a stock response to any criticism of a group or ideology. What you are essentially doing, whether you realise or not, is shutting down debate and it's a bad idea. Being discriminate and generalising is the essence of wisdom, if you cannot find patterns then you cannot achieve any valuable or accurate macro level picture of life. Whilst feminist do differ on things, you can generalise about the views they hold. I'll give you an example. I can think of no feminists I have encountered or heard of, apart from an ifeminist, who would accept the MRA view of the wage gap (yes we can generalise MRA's too). They would overwhelmingly say that this is proof of ground yet uncovered for women and would be activist on this issue. Criticisms of this attitude and association of it with feminism, like in the conservative example above, is legitimate and fair.

Sincerely,
Mark

Feedback: I am a failure, who is disappointed with his life

ArgusEyes — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 23:08:35 GMT

karlsmith00 wrote:

"your channel is hilarious. another example of an ugly guy who's dissapointed[sic] with his life, and then he becomes a "men's rights" activist to avoid any personal responsibility for being a failure.

you're a loser, and it's your fault. men have more rights, more than they should. but thanks for the channel, it's always good for a laugh."

This is a very good summary of people with victim based mentalities. They can respond to their personal inadequacies by attaching to a physical characteristic of their own being, by attaching to being black or a woman or a homosexual, etc. Elevating the status of the group that they belong in by accident of their birth they elevate their own status by default.

However, hateful individuals like karlsmith00, who have merely stumbled onto part of the truth, lack the ability to discriminate vise a vise the efficacy of a cause. A victim is a victim where their cause is just. If I can point out where a MRA has less rights in law and suffers genuine oppression in terms of reproductive rights then that is viable case, but it does not make him a victim in all avenues of life. When feminists turn over every rock to find grievances and to create victimisations out of whole cloth then that points to the moribund victim manufacturing nature of what the movement has become.

He also has a problem in understanding reality or seeking the truth. Evidence that I am a failure? Apparently this hugely ugly (in mind, not body) individual knows how satisfied I am with my own life. Never mind the fact that physical appearance is not important to men.

The fact of the matter is that I haven't made a video in a while because I am so busy with my personal pursuits. Programming websites, programming games, reading, writing, photography, planning a huge journey overseas, and much more. The whole meaning of an activist/victim is that they have little to their life outside the pet cause of political activism.

Bringing the sexes together – by denigrating one of them

ArgusEyes — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:33:38 GMT

Sometimes the letters from the luverly people who disagree with me make me all warm and fuzzy inside.

Now, since you do not believe in human rights (the same rights for every human being alike), I'm thinking you feel one of the sexes is inferior and does not 'deserve' the same rights as another.

I have not come across any factual, scientific books that prove the natural superiority of men. But I have come across a few concerning women. And one of them below is one that I feel will help you be more understanding of what feminism is TRULY about.

You seem like an intelligent man, but I just hate to see you put down feminism and claim it is just a silly woman-victimizing movement. Well, as a feminist, I can assure you it is not that at all.

The book that many feminists use to argue their stance is entitled "The Natural Superiority of Women" by Ashley Montagu. Now, I know you may already assume it is a female-chauvinist book, but it's stated in this book many a time that the book is meant to being the sexes together instead of widening the already gap between them. The author of the book uses only facts and science to prove how women are naturally superior. He also clearly says in the epilogue that he uses no personal opinions or rhetoric.
If you do so choose to read this book, you will better understand feminism for what it really is and not judge it based on what you think it is about or from what you read off of "feminist" websites.

I can only *hope* that you will read this book, I can't and won't try to 'convince' you to go out and invest a few dollars to widen your horizons and to understand feminism. Whenever you wish to read it is a good enough time.

Thanks for reading this.

The Dogma of Feminism

ArgusEyes — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 23:20:07 GMT

Hi BoundlessEyes, thanks for the video response. For those who don’t know, I contacted BoundlessEyes in the first place to see if she wanted to make a response to my video “what is feminism”. I did so because she seemed to engage in discourse to a greater degree than many other YouTube feminists, which is not difficult seeing as no other group seems as reticent to explain and defend their views.

There is a talk show host I admire called Dennis Prager who has a saying that goes “I prefer clarity to agreement” and that is what I thought we could do here. Clarify where we differ as opposed to just battling it out to win. To do that effectively we I want to address the most important points where we differ. These topics will be on patriarchy, on gender differences and on Harriett Harman.

On patriarchy: I do feel that your video lacked clarity as it seemed like you were less interested in explaining your position and more interested merely reciting dogma.

[see video]

Answering questions in this way will get your fellow feminists nodding in agreement but I fear it has less effect on the rest of us who haven’t swallowed that blue pill. Far be it for me to get in the way of your intellectual masturbation but could you please define your terms more clearly. Patriarchy would be rule by males, at least according to the dictionary that I know you like to use. How can a democracy be a patriarchy? We have had a female prime minister and we have women in government. Iran and the Catholic Church are patriarchal systems. Western democracies are not.

Far from being a solid concept the term seems to encapsulate whatever feminists want it to, and yes I have read a number of opinions on the subject and in doing so I have encountered raises the bar for decedent writing quite a bit. Take one particular view

Feminist writer Marilyn French, in her seminal work Beyond Power, defines patriarchy as a system that values power over life, control over pleasure, and dominance over happiness.[1]

This is not a rational argument. It is an emotional and religious one. And, to be quite honest, it reeks of conspiracy theory.

On gender differences: I believe that we should all examine the things we believe to honestly assess whether they are true or not.

Take for example the common claim that women use more words per day then men do. The numbers you will hear cited differ in each case but they always cite that women use more words than men do.

As a man I am not insulted by this claim, it is either true or it is not.

If we take these studies and add on top our understanding from other research [3] that different areas of the male and female brain are used in sounding out words along with our plain and common sense observations of our sisters and mothers and female friends talking more on the phone and in the office.

Given thus fact it is not a huge leap to posit that the actions and careers that men and women take could be influenced by our differences. I see an obvious nurturing advantage in women, evolutionarily programmed to aid in the protection of young no doubt. Would this have any effect on more women wanting to be nurses for example? It might not but as us scientific sceptics like to say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Could we have the evidence that this is societally constructed and by whom and to what ends?

What evidence you have presented would get you a failing grade in any science class for lack of proper isolation of variables. Yes a girl who was raised by dogs, as some sort of proof that humans are a tabula rasa to be scribbled upon by a conspiracy of white males intent upon god knows what. Are you familiar with the phrase “non sequitur”.

You can’t shame me with such dishonest tactics. I have always held that humans are the product of a mixture of nature and nurture as I specifically said in the original video. It surprises me not that being raised by dogs will be a profound effect on a developing child’s behaviour. The difference between the sexes is a fact and if humans can be manipulated so easily then the question of David Reimer still stands? Let’s see the intellectual honesty with which you approach this issue.

That. Was particularly loathsome. Let me read to you how David Reimer described his experience.

"It was like brainwashing. I'd give just about anything to go to a hypnotist to black out my whole past. Because it's torture. What they did to you in the body is sometimes not near as bad as what they did to you in the mind - with the psychological warfare in your head." [4]

David Reimer is now dead, he committed suicide.

I think your supercilious little dismissal about being teased on the playground is a sham. And you need to be honest with yourself about how easily you grasped onto any little scrap of information that you could use as a plausible deniability mechanism to not have to deal with the obvious black eye that the David Reimer case gives to feminism. If you ever want to know why people like myself get angry at feminists then just think about what you just did.

On Harriett Harman:

Remember at the beginning when I mentioned clarity instead of agreement? Well this is the perfect example of a clarifying moment. I don’t need you to explain how the things that Harriett Harman believes leads to her actions. I know how she thinks and why she is doing what she is doing. People who commit bigoted actions frequently do so on twisted belief systems and believe themselves to be in the right. If I may quote Mr. Prager again.

Victimhood. A lifelong study of good and evil has led to me conclude that the greatest single cause of evil is people perceiving of themselves or their group as victims. Nazism arose from Germans' sense of victimhood — as a result of the Versailles Treaty, of the "stab in the back" that led to Germany's loss in World War I and of a world Jewish conspiracy. Communism was predicated on workers regarding themselves as victims of the bourgeoisie. Much of Islamic evil today emanates from a belief that the Muslim world has been victimized by Christians and Jews. Many prisoners, including those imprisoned for horrible crimes, regard themselves as victims of society or of their upbringing. The list of those attributing their evil acts to their being victims is as long as the list of evildoers. [4]

And to that list we can add you and Harriett Harman.

A woman whose mind has become so twisted as to act like women are oppressed by some nebulous patriarchal force whilst occupying a position of immense power and using that power to actively give a governmentally mandated superior status to women.

You have no excuse, from now on, whenever you open that dictionary and say that feminism about equality know that you are participating in a massive lie. For what you actually come to support in reality is sexism and oppression by the very definition of those words that you’ll find in that same dictionary. For in Harriett Harman’s own words:

'It is about saying, "because you are a woman I'm going to put you in this promotion".' [6]

If you read that and like what it says then you can pat yourself on the back and join a very select club of totalitarians who use their grievances to push for tyranny over liberty. Who masquerade under the banners of changing for the better but who in turn bring more misery onto earth. Who push their small minded dogma onto all.

The “What is Feminism” video encapsulated all of what modern feminism means today and the Pièce de résistance is you, a young feminist coming along and proving everything that I’ve said:

Feminism is a movement with a gendered name that claims to stand for gender equality but really is an activist political movement and sexist belief system which, in its worse forms, denies reality, suppresses women’s choice, tramples liberty, hurts men, infantilises women and fosters animosity between the sexes.

Sources

[1] Patriarchy: Encyclopedia II - Patriarchy - Feminist view
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Patriarchy_-_Feminist_view/id/5367497

What is patriarchy?
http://www.essortment.com/all/whatispatriarc_rhsf.htm

[3] Men and Women Use Brain Differently, Study Discovers
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/16/us/men-and-women-use-brain-differently-study-discovers.html

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-419040/Women-talk-times-men-says-study.html

[4] The true story of John/Joan
by John Colapinto
Rolling Stone December 11, 1997
http://www.healthyplace.com/gender/inside-intersexuality/the-true-story-of-john-joan/menu-id-1427/

The Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, Glenn Sacks
http://www.hisside.com/6_6_04.htm

Death by Theory? Wendy McElroy
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120914,00.html

Told to Act Like a Girl, Carey Roberts
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0519roberts.html

[5] Why Do People Do Evil?
http://www.creators.com/opinion/dennis-prager/why-do-people-do-evil.html

[6] I'll put women in charge of banks: Harriet Harman's plans to use equality laws to challenge macho City culture
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1178140/Ill-women-charge-banks-Harriet-Harmans-plans-use-equality-laws-challenge-macho-City-culture.html

Hey, that’s a good line.

ArgusEyes — Wed, 13 May 2009 22:14:58 GMT

I received some email from a kooky guy who believes in a grand conspiracy of social elites, yada yada.. It’s the standard stuff you find all over the internet. he wrote me reams of assertions but backed up with facts and I wrote him a reply that I thought to be rather good. So here it is.

Hi,

When I say it is true that men and women are different. Then I do so only because the science and common sense seems to back up that particular claim. I do not accept the idea of absolute truth. I think it is a possibility that anything can be overthrown, no matter how solid it appears to be but if you one wants to do so then extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Feminists do not supply evidence that men and women are not the same, they only assert it. They've asserted it for decades without providing any proof for the claim and the evidence goes against it. This is why we can deduce that they follow some kind of dogmatic religious belief system.

The extraordinary claims that you make are merely asserted also, you provide no evidence for them. You say "this is the truth" just like the feminist does, therefore you are both suffering from the same mental processes. Same walls, different wallpaper.

So I choose to solidly reject your "truth". For truth with no truth in it is merely a delusion.

Sincerely,
Mark

Man, I am awesome!

Comment: re: Thai king Under monarchy you are a subject not a citizen part 2

ArgusEyes — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 13:15:54 GMT

I got a comment in reply to this video that I feel requires highlighting mainly because of its length.

I commented the below on your VDO, so I might as well put it here:

#1 I don't like how you post your VDO w/o doing reseach and giving incorrect information. But I DON't generalize you as a representative of British people. I believe there's LOTS of good British people out there who take responsbility b4 posting VDOs.

However, I also disagree with those Thais who post aggressive responses as well. In fact, those who reponse are those who can't control their anger. For those who have more EQ, they have to take 1hour++ trying to write a long response to all VDOs posts in Youtube considering the amount of information we have in order to explain to make you understand taking our culture difference..
Sigh.. It's very tiring I can tell you. Nobody's going to be that free, so it's likely you will have more of impulsive stupid response.. Sorry for that I should say.

Like I mentioned before. A Thai person emailed me and said that they tell this story to many foreigners despite it being true, the story was also relayed to me by someone with a Thai wife so I thought I was on pretty steady ground in retelling it in the video. However, if it is not true then I don’t feel that the message of the video is any different. There ARE lese majeste laws in Thailand and people DO get put in prison under them. This is a fact and the substance of the video remains the same despite a minor factual error on my part. Like most of my videos this is opinion, it is not a facts video therefore leading with the weakest and most petty point is a debate fopah against you. It is amusing that people revel in such glee when they have a factual mistake to hold on to. I feel the joy people take, like you do here, in pointing this out is related to what little substance the rest of their argument, if any, has.

Oh, and I’m glad that you feel that there are lots of good British people out there, despite me.

#2 Please don't deny it. You marked ALL monarchy bad in your 1st VDO. If you only talk about your own monarchy in the UK then why you say so much about Thailand in your VDO, including putting it in the VDO title!???? If you take all references to the "Thai" out then I'll leave your DVOs all alone. Fair enough?

Why would I deny it? Monarchies are outmoded tyrannical oligarchies. As a libertarian and individualist, why would I support them?

I talk about Thailand because I had recently found out about the lese majeste laws and the YouTube ban and I thought “hmm, that would be a good subject for a video”. There is no hidden agenda here.

#2.1 Nope you didn't criticize our King but you criticize us having a King and protecting our King using our own "internal" law. I myself choose to have Youtube temporarily banned in my country in order to ask it to moderate its VDOs mocking & disrespecting our King. (FYI: the law is written by the PEOPLE through its democratic system, not by the King. the king's only there by name but no real power.)

This is why I am against democracy. I have no doubt that people are short minded fools that would cut off their nose to spite their face. When you let populism and mob rule dictate laws such as this then you have no one to blame when an evil king comes into power and then you find yourself locked up in a jail cell for having criticised him.

Remember this: Admiration is the emotion farthest from comprehension. Because you love the king so much, you cannot see that you are creating a rod for your own back.

#3 Yes, you have your right of free speech to say it, and so do I. No personal offence should be taken here either as we're supposed to have a civilized debate. Anyway, telling incorrect information (e.g., In Thailand, one can't stamp on the money, etc.) is not really a good practice of free speech.. Other foreigners will quote from you and there'll be no end to all misunderstandings we have everywhere now. You see, we have to spend so much time in answering all VDOs.. so it'd help if you do more reading-ups first..

Again you harp on this point. As if it makes up a substantial amount of my total argument. Hopefully all rational people can see what you are doing is petty.

#4 For the future concern, leave it for future. If our future king's not this great, surely enough that Lese Majeste Law won't be there for long!;) lol! If we're not happy, surely Thai people'll never fail to voice ourselves out! (as you've seen here! lol (* can't stop giggling here sorry) OK, serious talking, no system's absolutely best in all situation, neither monarchy nor absolute democracy will be 100% great.. I do expect something bad in future to happen, we'll have to wait and see.. But for now as I commented earlyer, the king's been the country only hope against all corrupted politician we've had from our democracy system.. So without monarchy, we can't guarantee if any other system will benefit us either..

Here’s a strange idea. Freedom.

If you have freedom then people who love the king can continue to love him and people who do not love the king can have their say.

Without freedom, like at the moment with lese majest, only one of these groups can have their say.

In short: Freedom allows all views whereas tyranny only allows a certain number, the freedoms allowed by liberty are a superset of those allowed by tyranny. In a free society the fascist can be a fascist, a collectivist can be a collectivist and an individualist can be an individualist. If the collectivist takes over then he will force all to adopt his particular philosophy. This is the base evil behind collectivism.

#4(cont'd) In fact, if we don't have our monarchy to balance the power, we'd have become like Myanmar where the army has absolute power. Things're not easy there. They king has his power cuz people like me and others here are ready to fight for him, so he's the only one who can persuade the citizen to share a mutual goal. In the army fight with students 10 yrs ago, he was the only one who can stop the fight

You need an absolute power to balance the power to stop you being ruled by an absolute power? Right.

PS. You seem to be more relaxed before the end of this VDO and I'm glad to see that. As I say, I don't want this to become personal or anything. I think it's because of our culture difference. Based on the Thai & Asian context, you look very aggressive in your 1st VDO that's why you got those hateful email. Those response like "go to hell," etc. have to be ignored.
Anyway, every country has educated & uneducated, high EQ & low EQ people. As a Thai I have to say sorry for that. Anyway, your VDO is better than some others that just express their ideas using monkey face & Photoshop.

Thanks for reading.

I don’t like the approach of videos like that. I don’t know what purpose is served by being wilfully offensive and obtuse without making a decent point. I offend people because they disagree with my ideas, not because I’m trying to be wilfully offensive.

What’s to say?

ArgusEyes — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 22:14:02 GMT

I receive this comment on my “the problems with feminism” video.

The little fat man in the video is in indonesia correct? Dont forget costa rica boys I hear there is open child sexual slavery there you can destroy lives and defend your position. Piss on you Mark, I have argued with you enough to know your just a fucking pedophile, I see hundreds of you guys every year, and your all fat? how come all you child molesters look the same? I dare you to not delete this, I know you will, you cant stand the light of day. I hope you get extradited.

From wlaaaaa. A long time troll.

A feminists response to men’s suffering: “You brought it on yourselves”

ArgusEyes — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:25:24 GMT

I get a reply to my video “men are more oppressed than women”. I consider it to be one of the most important videos I have made since it succinctly makes the case for why I care about men’s rights activism and it is the video to which I desire feedback and rebuttals the most. To this day I have not received a satisfactory rebuttal. “Bri” has tried and has failed.

I know, a world where you remain a first class citizen no matter where you go, people take you more seriously, you get paid more for the same job, people don't soften their tone because they think you are a glass doll, and you are objectified to sex is so oppressive right?

Anyways...

Oh boy, Bri didn't listen to a word I said did she? Well let’s dive in.

"Men in the UK have to work until 65 to qualify for a full pension, women have to work until 60 and generally make less and have more paternity leave."

You're complaining about making way more for a tiny bit of extra time?

You’re going to see this a lot, it’s called the red herring and it’s where a non-related point is presented to try and distract me from the real issue at hand. Bri. Whether or not men make more than women do does not excuse sexist standards in law against them. In a world where we are to be treated equally, there is no places for differences in retirement like there is now and you cannot possibly disagree. So stop trying to be contrarian and grow up.

"How about the right to reproductive control."

You have one, and soon to be more. It's called a Condom.

Bri. You are a stupid stupid person. The field of reproductive control is about more than birth control methods. Do you think this is my argument? Do you think I am stupid? Do you think I am so stupid that I am literally saying that there are no birth control methods for men? Everyone else not intend on hating me and everything I say understands what I mean there. Women have more options to cancel their pregnancy and parentage, men have none. Fraud, if a man is defrauded by a woman and his sperm is stolen then does he get any rights or does he have to pay?

"How about divorce?"

The man is usually the cause. Read up on statistics.

What the hell does that have to do with anything. This is starting to sound like an illogical overly emotional tirade from a bigot and a man hater.

"A man is more likely to be convicted and convicted for longer periods of time than a woman for a similar crime, like murder."

You did this to yourselves being the blood-letters of the world that males are.

Is there any part of this filthy piece of hate that isn’t a logical fallacy. Yet again, I must ask, what is the point. All men must suffer because men on average are more violent? I guess the idea of equality is well and truly out of the window is it?

"Health spending, for every £1 spend on men’s health care, £8 is spent on women’s health care [3]."

Guys are afraid to go to the doctor, so a not as big storm is brought up and brought to attention. Again, did this to yourselves.

What a kind soul you are. Health care spending has nothing to do with “going to the doctor”. This is spending on health issues and disease. Is there a brain in your fucking skull?

"We as a society should abandon the feminist hegemony and adopt men’s rights activism as a tool to reach true equality in law. "

We already have, and it has led to the screwed up world we live in now, and the most inhumane atrocities committed ever in human history.

Ever notice the countries where women have little to no involvement due to oppression, the true oppression, are in the shitter? Only when women started having a say did we as people become more civilized and peaceful, interrupting a males brutal rule.

You did this to yourselves, and now you are paying up.

Ah, so you subscribe to the “revenge” school of feminism do you?

Even thought the men who would have “done it” are dead or old now and you young men who exist now are largely sympathetic to feminism and women’s rights. Doesn’t matter, we deserve hell because we are men, which is really the attitude that shines through in your “writing”. Bigotry like this is scary to behold.

Our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them

ArgusEyes — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:31:57 GMT

This is a follow-up to some feedback email I received. You can read the original blog post here.

Dear Mark

I could seemingly not upload this letter as a comment on your blog. Will you do that if you can?

With respect to Feministing.com I am glad that you make clear that focussing on the trivialities of a particular cause from time to time is not necessarily always a bad thing. But I completely agree with you that only focussing on trivial matters is to neglect many of the issues that really matter in this instance your trash magazine-analogy was a nice example. I do not know if Feministing.com censor opposing view, are obtuse [or] fling obscenities at their opponents, but if this is really the case, then of course they would go down in my estimation as well. I am just yet to experience this as I do not really spend much time on the Feministing home page.

You go on to say that [w]e hear a lot about women in the media and that a lot of silly commentary like Feministings does appear out there all over the place. I would argue and urge you to consider that you are having this particular experience precisely because you (because of your position in the Mens Rights Movement) are subconsciously but actively seeking out contexts in which trivialities and silliness is bound to occur. I am not making any presumptions about where you are and what you are doing, but I certainly do not experience a great interest in womens issues in the mainstream media (here speaking of the 6 oclock news and the morning newspaper; whatever your average citizen reads), and whatever issues are featured are seemingly not something which is done anything about in any case. I would, however, like to see not only more emphasis on womens issues, but on mens issues as well. If gender relations were something that all men were as passionate about as you then I believe we would have much more varied media coverage of gender issues and as a result hereof these issues would not as easily be dismissed by politicians as I often feel they are in this day and age.

Secondly I do not expect you to address reams of points in one video, but I am glad (not in the I agree-kind of way) to hear that you plan to actually formulate and publish your opinions about pornography in a YouTube-video. Notify me when you have done so, and I will (perhaps) make a rebuttal video. For now I will address the points you make in your reply.

To brand pornography evil is NOT an arrogant presumption. First of all, it could not possible be a presumption since it is not an opinion I pull out of the blue, but an assertion based on long and thorough research on the matter. Second of all it is not arrogant as my view stems from actual knowledge about the industry of pornography and thus subsequent empathy for the women in it rather than from an ignorant and ideological black/white world view which I (without makinf presumptions) think you are exhibiting at this point. Pornography and prostitution is hate propaganda and exploitation. Pornography and prostitution are factors that must be outlawed and eliminated from society in the same way that we have outlawed (but not) eliminated slavery, child abuse and the legality of men stamping on daughters necks because of their religion and bigotry. When you say that women in pornography choose to do it and make quite a bit of money doing so, you are making two assertions. 1: Women choose it themselves and are responsible for their own choices, and 2: They get paid a lot to do it. First a few words about your assertion about choice.

From the point of view you present it SEEMS (note that I am not presuming anything) that you believe that choices are something we human beings either make or do not make and that all choices are uncomplicated, clear cut and gets you from point to point in life by your own responsibility. In my opinion, to hold a view like that is simply to be ignorant of all the nuances and abstractions that a human life is full of. More than quite often, the people I meet who use the trump card argument of choice are people who will thwart any call for self-reflection about their use of pornography; most often because they are born into privilege; never having had to experience how ones social heritage, skin colour, family or economic situation, etc can affect how one makes (or is directly or indirectly forced to make) choices that will lead you to very uncompromising places in life.

I am not saying that you are necessarily one of these people. I am saying that you at least use the choice argument here as if there is not an age-long tradition of academic peer-reviewed and approved research which has long proven beyond reasonable doubt that [a] meaningful discussion of choice cant be restricted to the single moment when a woman decides to perform in a specific pornographic film but must include all the existing background conditions that affect not only the objective choices she faces but her subjective assessment of those choices (Robert Jensen. Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Cambridge: South End Press, 2007. P. 87). You ought to do some check-up research on the matter yourself before speaking so casually about choice. I assure you that thorough research has been done on the matters of childhood sexual abuse and childhood physical abuse and their later-in-life repetitive natures, the role of poverty, homelessness, economic deprivation, socially determined lack of economic opportunity, trafficking, fraudulent job advertisements, and finally cultural training and socialisation to pornified culture. There is a rich body of literature out there for you to explore, or you can perhaps start out at www.againstpornography.org. Anyway, all of the factors mentioned above must be taken into consideration when you speak of choice, and the more factors in play, the less meaningful the notion of choice becomes. Ill emphasise this with an example:

Chinese single mothers who spend 18 hours a day in a sweat shop factory under working conditions that would make even the most neo-liberal asshole cry do also have the choice to either be or to not be in that factory. But taking all of the social conditions under which these women live into consideration, the notion of choice looses all meaning. To bend it in neon for you: If one performs a degrading and/or self-destructive act whilst knowing that there is a chance of there being even worse future consequences IF the degrading and/or self-destructive act is not performed, then your choice to perform the act has been rendered meaningless.

Seen in the light of all this, your second assertion, that women make quite a bit of money doing so, i.e. doing degrading and/or self-destructive acts (my words, not yours) is not any better. That people contribute to the economy on the one side and are humiliated, degraded and abused on the other side as a consequence thereof does not a morally acceptable balance of human interests make. One would have to be either extremely ignorant or extremely cold hearted to render notions of abuse, humiliation, degradation, violence, etc acceptable as long as one could make money off of it. Unfortunately people like these DO exist and they are constantly trying to make you and others adapt their view of human kind (and women in particular, though also men) to make you buy their product and increase the demand for more abuse, humiliation, degradation and violence.

You will perhaps make the argument that some women choose to be in pornography completely of their own free will without any free-choice compromising being in play. While it might be possible to actually find these women somewhere, you still have to take into account the inescapable fact that at least some women (and probably a majority according to research) choose under conditions that seriously complicate their choices. So when you as a consumer throw on a DVD at home or engage in online pornography, you have no way of telling which category the girls you are watching belong in. Even if you knew for a fact that the particular woman or man (or donkey) you were watching was there completely by his/her own free will with no compromising conditions behind her/his decision, you are still helping the porn industry staying profitable and thus helping to increase the demand for new adult performers some of which have not made the choice themselves or under the wrong conditions. There are of course resources for getting off like YouPorn, RedTube or the good old file sharing systems, where the consumer does not contribute economically to the porn industry. But this still useless, since the consumer of porn is both altering his (or her, but in 90% of the cases his) view on sexuality and fuelling his appetite for more rough kinds of pornography; a well-known syndrome of the porn user that one kind of porn leaves you needing more and different visual stimulation for your next fix. In any case the consumer is still looking at women being degraded and humiliated and if that is his erotica then he has a problem.

I know that you are an ardent individualist, but your passionate anger about the patriarchal oppression of women in Islam leaves me thinking that you of course have empathy for other human beings. I urge you to read this article by Martin Amis and reflect on whether pornography is perhaps equally oppressive in nature. Here you go: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4153718,00.html. Now to something else.

The following I did not say in my first letter, but I am going to say it now in the light of what I have just discussed. I think that being against Islam because of Islams oppressive nature towards women while simultaneously being pro-pornography is to be against one form of oppression but for another. And now an apology:

If I in any way made presumptions (right ones or wrong ones) about you in my first letter, I am very sorry. It was a rather quick and not well though through scribbling down of commentary section material. I apologise. In this letter I have tried to emphasise when I am expressing my personal perception of you or when I am talking about people with the same attitudes and ideas as you. When I PERCEIVE something about you, I am not making presumptions be sure of that I am more than open to the fact that you are not the way I perceive you to be. Just tell me when I perceive wrongly.

Finally, I have watched your video Men are More Oppressed than Women, and I really feel that I should not mix this letter with my rebuttal of it. I will perhaps do that in another letter or make a video for you. The long and the short of it is that your assertion that men are more oppressed than women is flat out wrong, and that your arguments for it are easily dismissed we do agree on a few things in your video though.

I hope that some of the previous has made you rethink your attitude toward certain things too.

---

Sorry to bother you again, but I forgot to mention something that might not be obvious to anyone. I just want to make clear that when I say 'BAN pornography and prostituion', I am NOT AT ALL (just to emphasise!) proposing that we make it illegal for women to prostitute themselves or to participate in pornography. Even though there might be conditions that influence what choices they make, it is ultimately their own bodies and their own minds.

What I am saying is that we need to make illegal the BUYING of prostitutes and the DISTRIBUATION of pornography. In that way we will in both cases have eliminated the economic factor which ensures that it remains a growing industry. Once money is out of the picture, the ones who make porn in the privacy of their own home because they WANT to (secular society with respects to pornography as it is our goal with respect to religion) and those who have sex with 10 men a day because they WANT to, can do so without me or others suspecting that pimps and other scumbags are making money off of the humiliation of women, men and children.

At the same time we will of course have to engineer more economic opportunities and social relief for women so we remove the conditions that might make them turn to being humiliated sexually for a living in the first place and create opportunities for those who wish to leave prostitution or the porn industry

Hi,

First of all I have to say that you write well and respectfully. I appreciate that. It is certainly rare on YouTube.

Human choices are not simple, one would have to be a fool to believe that. What I think is that the government (which one implies when one is talking about laws and what should be allowed) must respect people's choices that they make. It is not the role of government to analyse the nuances in our decisions and act like mummy to us, this is tyrannical. I suspect that this is simply where we have differing opinions about what the role of government should be but I think that you too are a man who is seeking to clarify where we differ rather than win.

Some of us base our decisions around some guiding principles. For me it is liberty. The freedom to make my own choices and mistakes and to have the oppressive spectre of the government off of my back.

Bearing that in mind, let's examine your arguments where you present research. You can cite all the papers you want to me, it will mean nothing. Let's compare it to a similar situation – smoking. I know that smoking is bad for me so I don't need you to cite me research that says so.

The government deciding what it will allow me to do based upon what it thinks are acceptable ways to lead a life means we have entered a situation where our governments stifle the freedom of men in order to infantilise them. This is not a good situation.

You may say that smoking is legal and indeed it is, but the government already tells businesses that they cannot allow smoking on their own premises. Also, I cannot smoke pot can I? A substance far more useful than tobacco and far less damaging to society than alcohol is.

Basically you sound quite high-and-mighty deeming the decisions of these women to be "self destructive" and "degrading". I object to attitudes like this, be they the social righteousness of the left or the moral righteousness of the right. If people want to degrade themselves then let them do it.

To address your follow-up email. You might say that all I have written so far does not apply because you say you're not really for banning porn. Then I must say that it is quite a dishonest position to say you don't want to ban porn in spirit but want to ban the buying and distribution of it. That is imbecilic as a position to be quite frank. What is the point? That is like saying "I'm for cars as long as no-one dies in one", then you're not for cars. Also it still represents the ban happy attitude of our government where they intrude into our lives more than is necessary.

Sorry I have not written more, given how much you wrote, but I think there is a clash of fundamental world views here.

Sincerely,
Mark

I get email: 'Real Injustices'???

ArgusEyes — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:26:36 GMT

Okay, for some reason I could not post this in the comment section even when breaking it down into little pieces. If you can, please do in the name of free speech:-)

Feministing.com could spend their time on more important things.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first. If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I am almost inclined to not answer this email as it ascribes imbecility to me, but since I have far better things to do I might as well give it a shot. First of all, your email makes many claims as to what I believe that are out and out lies since I did not make these points, you made them up and then assigned them to me, in many ways this is worst than a lie. Consider this a tip on how to write decently. Address the points of your opponents only, bunch of strawman logical fallacies does not a good argument make.

But your argument seems to be that one is a coward if one does not address the biggest and most challenging problem of ones cause first.

This is an accurate summary of my position. As pertaining to Feministing. However, I would not treat this as a rule to be applied to all people who meet the criteria. There are a few extra things about Feministing that makes me call them cowards. They censor opposing view, they are obtuse and fling obscenities at their opponents, they seem to deal only with trivial crap and they pretty much symbolise the modern feminist sandy vagina method of complaining about nothing legitimate. Given all this, I have no doubts about calling them cowards.

If I was to follow this line of reasoning I too could say that YOU are a coward for taking on Feministing.com as an easy target in this respect surely there are bound to be more pressing issues out there for a stern liberal conservative than a feminist video blog, or?

Only if I don’t take on any larger issues. I do. Also there is a marked difference between an individual person passing comments on youtube as compared to an organisation with the goal of (supposedly) helping women. Given this your comparison of my situation to Feministing’s doesn’t hold up. People can focus on trivialities, we cannot go at 120mph all day, but if triviality is all you do, then I look down on that. This is why I have a certain disdain for people who read trash magazines all the time and never pick up anything better.

Feministing.com often relies on very trivial information (which is why it is not exactly respected for its academic inquiry in feminist circles), but it DOES serve the purpose of making known the day-to-day women’s issues that we otherwise don’t hear about in the media. If you are really for women’s rights then lets appreciate Feminsiting.com for what it is.

We hear a lot about women in the media, if the superficial crap that Feministing peddles doesn’t appear then there is a reason for it. Perhaps you could elaborate on what these issues actually are? Anyway, I content that a lot of silly commentary like Feministing’s does appear out there all over the place.

While I’m at it, why is it that you blame Feministing.com for NOT dealing with bigger women’s issues while those of us who DO devote our time to fighting the evils of for example prostitution or pornography (under which millions of women are suffering world wide) still have to suffer your stigma of ignorance?

I cannot address reams of points of view in one video, that would make it long and unwatchable. The remit of the video was to make a point against Feministing so let it stand for what it attempts to do. I’ll make other videos on other days about some of what you said there.

Also to brand things such as pornography evil is an arrogant presumption that will not be left standing here. A man stamping on his daughter’s neck because of his religion and bigotry is inherently evil and thus I label it as such. Whereas a woman in a free society making her own decisions as to what to do with her own body and choosing to be filmed having sex and making quite a bit of money doing so.. Is not being oppressed. And to label a situation such as this “evil” is to display your real contempt for women’s choices. I, like many other MRA’s don’t want to “turn back the clock” and remove women’s rights like you apparently want to do.

I might as well tell YOU that being against Islam because it is oppressing to women while simultaneously being against the work of radical feminists, who spend their lives fighting for women’s rights in different battlefields is a hypocritical self-contradictory load of crap. However, I am not going to.

That was clever. Ooh, but I cannot complain because you didn’t tell me this apparently. I might as well tell you that you are a presumptuous unwise dishonest fool who has bought a pack of lies.. But I’m not going to. (beat that)

It is as if you believe that the Islamic world is the only world in which oppression of women is taking place? Freest does not necessarily mean free and thus saying that the western world is the freest society for women in the world does not make inequality in the western world magically disappear.

This is what I mean by ascribing imbecility to me. To believe this I would have to be an idiot, and I didn’t say this but you assume I am an idiot because I hold different beliefs to you. This is a character flaw of collectivists and you need to get it sorted.

Remember: Your cause to secularise the Islamic world (I’m on your side there!) is not the ONLY topic related to women’s issues out there. And since you have not experienced what inequality really is, being a white middle class male living in a western society, I would be very cautious using the phrase real injustices.

I wouldn’t say that I have such a cause, but more importantly your statement that “you have not experienced what inequality really is” is the most presumptuous thing you have said so far, you know nothing about me and whilst I have suffered no serious oppressions, men are certainly more oppressed than women in modern western societies. You need to watch my video “men are more oppressed than women” for this proof.

Sincerely,
Mark

I get email #1: A rambling critique of feminism

ArgusEyes — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 14:35:21 GMT

The original email:

ArgusEyes,

First off I wanna say I agree that there are some very radical feminists out there and can come across very strongly and some are even man haters. But look at the years of oppression they were fighting against… Imagine not being able to vote, to go to collage, looked down open because your gender, not being able to work where you want to work. Did you know that in the 1920’s if a woman was to become a teacher she would have very set rules (which a man didn’t) one example is she couldn’t drink any form of alcohol (which was common back then as strange as it sounds now) not even a glass of beer. She wouldn’t be able to find a partner and would remain a ‘spinster’ and then for that reason would be shunned. If you do more study you will also find out woman where put on opium to be happy whilst doing the house work and (heroine was named for this reason) after that basically took over woman another drug was used to ween them off it and this was called heroine NICE! I could elaborate on the history of that little incident but then this letter would be way to long.

When the men where all away at war the woman were allowed into the mans jobs and in one of the adds it said ‘remember girls you’ve still have to look pretty’ Even today woman are getting 84 cents to every mans dollar even if they have the same education and working in a similar or same position as a man. That is in 2008, so I am a little offended when you prattle on about how bad feminism is. I think that people have ruined the meaning of feminism anyone who says one gender is better than the other is not a true feminist! I do thrive for equality I love men and I love woman, I want to be able to become a scientist and get recognition even if I wasn’t a ‘beauty’, and yes I know men are seen in the media a lot today and they are judged on their looks to but you have to admit it is enforced in girls at a very young age. You get Tonka and army tanks and we get Barbie and a toy oven WOOOPY. So yes it is sexist on both behalves.

I am not sexist I respect your opinion but I think you need to open your eyes, think what if you weren’t blessed with the white male privilege (and I am sorry but that if what you have) imagine if you had to abide by these unfair laws, you couldn’t have your say without looking like a piece of meat (I wont get started on Hugh Hefner). You had to be beautiful and elegant and if you wanted the chance to run your country or even have a little bit of a say who did you were just laughed at.

Also when you discussed rape, I believe this is a very important issue to tackle even if it was only 1 in a million it should be STOPPED whether it be a male victim or a female victim. I am sure you agree I just wanted to say that.

Also I have to point out that there are men feminists you know. For example Ian MacKaye, John Lennon, members of the bad brains, Bob Marley, Joss Whedon, Jack White, The Beastie Boys, Eddie Vedder, Phil Donohue and I know many male feminists. The list goes on…

Also you said feminists where all man haters!?? That is a little sexist and stupid to say, you are contradicting yourself. You want this to stop yet it seems you have very strong issue against feminists…. (Correct me if I am wrong). Anyway you threw in some quotes so I will to but you see I wont just focus on the bad or the ones where they where obviously making a joke to prove a point of how most men have been through the 1920’s – 1950’s…. but anyway here they are: but first I looked for a few of those quotes and I found the Germaine Greer quote but others like Barbra Jordon and pretty much the rest I could not find. I am interested and (I am not being nasty) would like a link to them please. Oh and Marilyn French a woman of the 1920’s come on you have to understand her angry. I did find a good quote of hers I think you will like. And she actually said “All men are rapists and that's all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes.” She is saying they take from us our rights, I don’t know how you can’t see how true that was in her day?? You should have quoted some more modern feminists.

“To ask women to become unnaturally thin is to ask them to relinquish their sexuality.” Naomi wolf

“Most urgently, women's identity must be premised upon our "beauty" so that we will remain vulnerable to outside approval, carrying the vital sensitive organ of self-esteem exposed to the air” Wolf again

The first problem for all of us, men and women, is not to learn, but to unlearn. - Gloria Steinem

For women... bras, panties, bathing suits, and other stereotypical gear are visual reminders of a commercial, idealized feminine image that our real and diverse female bodies can't possibly fit. Without these visual references, each individual woman's body demands to be accepted on its own terms. We stop being comparatives. We begin to be unique. – Gloria

How do we create a harmonious society out of so many kinds of people? The key is tolerance -- the one value that is indispensable in creating community. Barbra Jordon

“Anyone determined to find another person or group inferior can always find whole lists of grounds that demonstrate inferiority because we are all inferior to the ideals of humanness we have erected” Marilyn French

And I could go on and on but I have taken a lot of your time. I just really wanted to say all of this because I believe you have either met some really stupid “feminists” that only ever says ‘I hate men’ or ‘if woman where running the world there would be no war.’ Well once again I have to say feminism is not anti man, it really truly is a fight for equality between the sexes it is for both men and women.

You know I think Bob Marley had it right when he said “We sick an' tired of-a your ism-skism game”

I know this is none of my business and feel free not to answer but who was the douche saying that Zionists and Feminists are the same?? Oh and that Bill Maher clip was good I do love him, he is a fucking bitter old prick just like me! You also have really good taste in books, my town is so small I can’t even find animal farm anywhere! It kinda sucks when I have to scavenge in ever second hand book shop within a 30 km radius ha ha but still I will find it!

Anyway thank you for listening. Nat. :)

Idiotic viewer feedback #3 - This is obvious sexism.

ArgusEyes — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:20:17 GMT

I don't like how you failed to even acknowledge my debate on one of your videos. I think I made some very intriguing points. Again, I say this, do something constructive with your videos. Do not blame feminists for all your "man-troubles" in parenting. Blame the men who have made it hard for you. Your problems do not stem from feminism, rather you have an overall problem with women. This is obvious sexism.

My response.

Greetings,

I can assure you that I did not read your comments. For some reason the admin messages system does not report all the comments I receive on videos and I do not have time to check each video every day to see if there are new comments.

But this is YouTube after all, if you have something substantive to say then may I suggest you make a video and post it as a reply to any of mine? I guarantee that I will approve it and that I will make a video in reply to it. This allows us to make more rational arguments, see each other face-to-face and allow others to comment on our points. This is a better way to debate is it not?

Looking forward to your reply.

Sincerely,
Mark

More flies with honey. Or not, as the case may be here. No reply yet.

Idiotic viewer feedback #2 - I hate childbirth!

ArgusEyes — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:09:57 GMT

This one goes way back.

Filming people having sex is not normal and therefore could never be consensual. When a couple are in love are they always want to keep it private.Pornography is the same as prostitution and prostitution is multiple rape/sexual abuse.Anyone who doesn,t believe that pornography should be eliminated is a coward and is afraid of that people might think of you as anti-sex prudish odd and 'not-with-it'That is cowardlyFeminists can see that porn treats women as not human.There can never be regulated porn because it is not natural for women especially to have sex without love.It would still be only men who would buy porn because they don,t go through pregnancy,childbirth,emotions. It is unacceptable to be racist so it should also be unacceptable to be sexist.This is what porn is-sexist.Also you seem to have forgotten the obvious which is that sexuality is for procreating children and for love-you should not ignore natures rules. Very un natural

If you cant understand that hen you have been brought up with a very distorted version of sex education-if it can be called that. Another reason why porn is so humiliating is because is because of the pain women go through when they give birth and the hardship of pregnancy. Porn trivialises a womans sexual parts(sexual parts being the same as her reproductive/procreative parts) which is why it is so cruelly and sadistically insulting.

If you cant understand that then at least think of the fact that you would not exist if you mother never conceived you,carried you for 9 months and then gave birth to you.So you think that women are inferior then it follows you think that your mother who gave you life is inferior to you and to all men.Dont even think that childbearing is not important in itself and for humanity because without it there would be no people.

By the way, I've put this in paragraphs. The original email was all one big block of text. I imagined if this woman were saying this that she would be talking very quickly and in a high pitched way.

Filming people having sex is not normal

Define “normal” many couples film their sexual acts for their own pleasure. Also who cares about normality, the rules are not defined to maintain the common opinion.

When a couple are in love are they always want to keep it private

Nope. Swingers.

Pornography is the same as prostitution.

Maybe, but why is prostitution illegal anyway? Is sex legal? Yes. Is free trade legal? Yes. Is selling sex legal? No. Work that one out.

and prostitution is multiple rape/sexual abuse.

Nope. If it is consensual then it's not rape.

Anyone who doesn,t believe that pornography should be eliminated is a coward and is afraid of that people might think of you as anti-sex prudish odd and 'not-with-it'That is cowardlyFeminists

Punctiation is your friend. Also, you can guage the emotional sophistication of an opponent by asking why those who agree with you disagree with you. If what you get back is an ad hominemn then they are a very wise and unsophisticated person.

There can never be regulated porn because it is not natural for women especially to have sex without love.It would still be only men who would buy porn because they don,t go through pregnancy,childbirth,emotions

Really? Well how about you stop defining what women can and can't do based upon stereotypes about them eh? Seriously, generalisations are O.K. I use them a bit meself but you've got to provide examples. This flawed woman's email is a litany of generalisations and stereotypes. It's a veritable Gish-Galllop of hysteria.

Also you seem to have forgotten the obvious which is that sexuality is for procreating children and for love-you should not ignore natures rules. Very un natural

You know what else is unnatural? Cars. Give me your keys.

There is a logical fallacy called the “naturalistic fallacy”. It basically means that a person assumes that something is good if it is natural and/or something is bad if it is not natural. Poison ivy is natural and space flight is unnatural, get it? We as humans are where we are because we have risen above out environment and harnessed it to our own means.

If you cant understand that hen you have been brought up with a very distorted version of sex education-if it can be called that. Another reason why porn is so humiliating is because is because of the pain women go through when they give birth and the hardship of pregnancy. Porn trivialises a womans sexual parts(sexual parts being the same as her reproductive/procreative parts) which is why it is so cruelly and sadistically insulting.

If you cant understand that then at least think of the fact that you would not exist if you mother never conceived you,carried you for 9 months and then gave birth to you.So you think that women are inferior then it follows you think that your mother who gave you life is inferior to you and to all men.Dont even think that childbearing is not important in itself and for humanity because without it there would be no people.

I’m trying as hard as I can to follow this woman’s train of though and I’m coming up dry.<.p>

I’m anti-birth now? I don’t know what I said to set her off let along if I said anything about child birth. As far as I know I’ve always been pro childbirth. Since she petered out like a yammering cat woman I will try to sum up my opinion on porn as succinctly as I can.

Porn uses women, it exploits their bodies for the sexual satisfaction of (mainly) men in the same way as my company exploits my enormous programmatic prowess and brain power to tap away at a keyboard for five days a week. Or that a city council exploits the proletariat to fling our garbage bags into a big truck. Lots of us are exploited for our abilities and efforts. It’s called work.

This is freedom. In freedom some people are going to do things you wouldn’t. Get over it. As long as they are not forced to do it then you shouldn’t butt into other people’s business with your sexual hang-ups.

Idiotic viewer feedback #1 - I live in my parents basement.

ArgusEyes — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:25:19 GMT

From My challenge to Jessica Valenti.

I'm not sure if you're aware but you come across as a pathetic infant, splutteing in rage and indignation due to the fact that you got caught out.

It's clear you're terrified of confident and capable women and wish to blame them for all your failures. In your mind if it wasn't for feminism you would be king of the world instead of still living with your parents.

I'm just glad that England has sensible gun laws otherwise you would be dangerous. Get some counselling

My Response:

I love when people go out on a limb and make a bunch of blind guesses. In fact you're the one who looks like a spluttering infant right now. Let's take a look at each one of your lies.

“…due to the fact that you got caught out.”

Caught out? What?

“It's clear you're terrified of confident and capable women.”

On the contrary. A confident and capable woman would not go anywhere near the kind of victim demagoguery Jessica Valenti peddles. It takes an incredible insecure woman to be on Feministing’s side.

“blame them for all your failures”

Failures? Of course you know nothing about me at all. In fact, the reason I’ve not released a video in so long is due to the amount of work (in and out of home) I’ve got on so nice try. When you don’t know someone but you’re going to make up something about them then it’s not just a lie, it’s the worst kind of slander as well.

“In your mind if it wasn't for feminism you would be king of the world instead of still living with your parents.”

Again you claim I am acting like an infant but you’re pretending you know what I think and do, you are a lying slandering piece of scum who talks shit on youtube. And, like all the worst youtube scum, you don’t have any videos of your own. To make a video would mean showing the world your face and standing up to criticism. And that would require a modicum of courage, of which you have none.

B.T.W. I left home at 18. I know lots of people who continue to stay at home, not me.