Ashli Howell publishes feminist “pub-rel”

Ashli Howell published a piece lovingly called, “The Problem with the Men’s Right Movement” smearing Zen Men (formerly KSU Men), A Voice for Men, the entire men’s human right(s?) movement, and offers a phony olive branch to Sage Gerard. Or the MRM. It’s not really clear which.

But here is a point-by-point refutation of some key pieces of feminist propaganda devices. Her misandry shows directly right up front, but is also evidenced by her lack of intellectual honesty, shown in all the feminist contra-male narrative and strategically placed lies. The quotations are very terse and assume the reader has read the named article in entirety. All quotations are sic.

“(mostly men)“

In case you have two separate standards for deciding whose concerns you care about.

“Barbra Kay, a speaker at the men’s issues conference…”

First off, that “the vast majority…,” is not really one of the talking points of the MRM. You’ll find consistently that it doesn’t matter how prevalent it is, the point is we have a system that enables false accusation with little risk of consequence (and very little risk of consequence to the degree of harm that would be done, were the accusation be believed).

“I first became aware of KSU Men after seeing a few posters…
…it appears to have some valid points.”

But don’t bother repeating them here.

“However, bringing awareness and discussing these issues is not the goal of KSU Men.”

Specious.

“The posters I saw around campus said, ‘Meet KSU’s non-feminist community’. An ad in the KSU Sentinel read that KSU Men is a community where ‘we critique feminism for the damage it has caused due to its inherent hatred of males.'”

This doesn’t mean their goal isn’t discussing issues around boys and men. There is a community, potentially a large one, of non- and anti-feminists who have been underserved for a long time. Sage is filling that void at KSU. Feminism is a problem that needs to be addressed, as it stands in the way of men and boys addressing issues that concern them. One of those videos of Sage’s, which “has some good points,” addresses this directly. You, and this article, are an example of that opposition. All rebuttals are directed toward the author, as dialog.

“There are three main problems that I have. The blame game the men’s rights movement plays…”

Feminists get some.

“…the shock value statements they make…”

Many movements rely on shock value statements in their infancy. This is pure tone-policing. Can you deal with the message?

“…and the incorrect characterization of feminism.”

Characterization of feminism at AVfM and other men’s rights, MGTOW, PUA, and any other ‘red-pill’ site is spot-on, given their perspectives. This is demonstrated endlessly all over the web.

“While researching the men’s rights movement, there was no shortage of feminist vitriol, there was a lot of discussions on the A Voice for Men discussion board about the friend zone, and there was very little about any issue concerning men’s rights.”

You might check your syntax. Are you saying that there is very little in the forum about issues concerning men’s rights, or in the movement at large?

If the former, why are you confining your observations to a forum (not even the commentary on its articles)? If the latter, have you seen the mission statement at A Voice for Men or the March 2013 men’s rights internet statement?

“That’s not to say that it did not exist,”

Just that when it does exist it can be ignored. Because it’s terribly inconvenient to your threat narrative.

“…was always accompanied with blame.”

Feminists are to blame

“It seems to me that the men’s rights movement is not trying to advance any concerns they have, but to degrade and discredit feminists at any opportunity.”

Part of advancing concerns of the MHRM have involve highlighting where feminists degrade men and women and discredit themselves.

“He didn’t bring attention to the issues that A Voice for Men claims to be concerned about, it merely infuriated most sane women…”

It got your attention, didn’t it? “If you don’t agree with us, you’re crazy.”

It’s a single statement. It wasn’t designed to “bring attention to … issues.”

“It also landed A Voice for Men on the Southern Poverty Law Center Misogyny sites list, further detracting from any issues it wants to address.”

Who cares?

“The final problem I have is that the men’s rights movement really misses the mark. They believe that because you are pro-woman, you must be anti-man.”

It certainly does not — that is an empty feminist aspersion onto the MRM. Many MRAs constantly try to disambiguate feminists from women. This is feminist projection; feminists conflate feminists with women, and men with “patriarchy.”

“This equates, in my mind, to the idea that I have to hate gelato because I love ice cream. It’s absurd.”

It is absurd. But it’s your aspersion, and the reasons MRAs argue feminists hate men (and the women who love them) are not because they’re “pro-woman.” If feminists gain women special privileges at the expense of the basic human rights, or complimentary privileges, are they really being as “pro-woman” as they could be?

“In general, feminists support equality for all…”

Equality of what?

“…and prefer movies with a trong female lead over movies like Twilight…”

So what? You can like what you want to like.

“Unlike some prominent figures in the media seem to think…”

Which figures, and what media? Do be specific.

“[Feminists] favor equality.”

Equality of what? And for whom?

“The bottom line is, if there is to be any meaningful discussion about the concerns that groups like KSU Men have, the hate has got to stop.”

Translation: If feminists are to maintain domination of the public discourse, KSU Men has to be stopped.

“When researching some of the issues facing men, I could not see through the blame.”

Your shortcoming.

“And yes, extreme feminists that bathe in the tears of men have some blame here too, but I do not know any feminist that bathes in the tears of men…”

Are you saying you’re a feminist and you’ve never heard of Jessica Valenti? You’ve never heard of the #MaleTears hashtag?

“So, if groups like this want to really to raise awareness about how men commit suicide at four times the rate of women, that male enrollment in college is decreasing, and the plethora of other issues that exist, I’m all for it.”

Then kindly stand out of the way and let the MRM get to business. Maybe even do some reading at AVfM and help.

“But let us discuss those things – not a hateful judgement of feminists.”

Yes. Let’s. And for a change, in a forum not governed by feminist policing.

It’s astonishing how consistently the same predictable tactics and demonstrably false claims are used, but it’s refreshing to see it being called out more brazenly these days.

Evils of Traditionalism

From my perspective, traditionalism was a necessary evil up until the industrial revolution. Feminism was a necessary evil to destroy the cushy lifestyle and gynocentric advantage that traditionalists enjoyed after the industrial revolution. That’s about the only good thing that has come from it. Feminists have gone too far, of course, and have untold amounts of blood on their hands. They are enemy #1 in the realm of human rights and public discourse. But Feminists and traditionalists are cut from the same gynocentric cloth. Where Feminists believe in female victimhood and legal supremacy, it is my contention that traditionalists essentially believe in female moral superiority and “lead-from-the-bottom” social supremacy.

I’m glad to have traditional women fighting alongside MRAs and MGTOW to end the reign of terror by big-F Feminism. We need all the help we can get. But once that goal is achieved and we are standing in the ashes of Feminist machinations, it will be time to turn to them and say, “about that moral superiority…”

So I’m glad we have an enemy in common, and would indeed recognize a non-aggression pact between traditionalists and MRA/MGTOW for the time being. But how similar are we? How intimate is our connection? How long can we stay friends? Once Feminism is destroyed, is it back to the homestead and easy, sheltered, protected-and-provided-for lifestyle for women? Is it back to marriage-as-usual? Is it back to making a mockery of the male emotional matrix and using the protection of “his fragile ego” to cover her own transgressions? MRAs are oft accused of wanting to “turn back the clocks to the ’50s,” but isn’t that what traditionalists want to do?

Traditionalism in the pre-industrial era has had plenty of dark underpinnings (to be fair, from both sexes) that need to be addressed in the post-industrialized world, and especially in the post-service-revolution world. So what would the modern post-industrial, post-service “traditional,” or “trad-prog,” family arrangement looks like? Which traditional values are conserved? Which are dispensed with?

The blue-piller is unaware of the reality that surrounds him. Feminists and traditionalists control the discourse. The pick-up artist refutes the feminist and traditional discourse, but in PUA terms, his willy “controls the frame,” not his sovereign mind. He is not fully “red-pill.” He is defined and constrained by his pursuit of sex. A complete red-piller is either a man going his own way, a men’s advocate, or a human rights advocate.

The entry point of the Myth of Feminism into the public discourse is centered around the exploitation of the biological caveat of men that has allowed society to enroll them as producers and protectors, and partly expendable. It seeks to magnify these positions and make them slaves, meat-shields and dispensers-of-violence, and fully disposable.

What are ideas that are constructed of a mixture of observations of objective reality and Feminist Bullshit? It must also be Feminist Bullshit, or if it needs another name, to be treated, as Feminist Bullshit in the way that it is a useless product for discourse, except for the inspection and deconstruction of the Myth of Feminsm.

In Feminism Poisons Women: A Political Statement, Fidelbogen outlined a strategy to form a collective consciousness and internal dialog among non-feminist men and women. He stated that this consciousness would operate completely outside the Myth of Feminism. To that end, I propose that any who are interested should start a project to delineate all Feminist Bullshit in the public discourse. I will provide a definition of Feminist Bullshit here.

Feminst Bullshit: All vocal, written, and graphic rhetorical impulse applied to public discourse, individual interaction, and organizations from feminist advocates.

That is to say, if it is feminist lie, feminist half-lie, or predicated on either of these things, it is Feminist Bullshit. It can be said that the Myth of Feminism is the body of Feminist Bullshit.

You can advocate for the well-being of women without feminism. Attacks on feminism are not attacks on the advocacy for women. Feminism isn’t for women. Feminism isn’t even for feminists.