Get PJ Media on your Apple

Dr. Helen

5 ‘Comfortable’ Lies Behind the Men’s Rights Movement

June 6th, 2014 - 5:15 am

One of the PJM editors sent me a piece from some site called “Cracked” where a misinformed columnist by the name of “JF Sargent” took the liberty of talking to a couple of “experts” about the men’s rights movement. The two with whom he spoke? Professional man-hater Michael Kimmel, author of a title put out by Nation Books called Angry White Men, and another guy, some former white supremacist:

Holy shit, yes. I spoke to Frank Meeink, a former white supremacist, and Michael Kimmel, a professor of sociology, about the men’s rights movement, and I found out that it has less in common with any civil rights or equality movement than it does with goddamn neo-Nazis.

JF goes on to describe some “truths” about the men’s movement: it is for the insecure and for men who hate women, hate everyone, have no sense of consequences(!), don’t have a real position and don’t care. He learned these things from a neo-Nazi and a guy who writes for the Nation, so they must be true!

Now, certainly, JF couldn’t be bothered to talk to some real men’s rights experts such as Warren Farrell , Paul Nathanson, and Glenn Sacks. That would have destroyed his comfortable “truths” and may have required him to think outside his little world at “Cracked.” He may have found out that men are deprived of their due process at colleges in this country, that false rape charges occur with few consequences, that paternity fraud is prevalent, and that men often lose their children and their property in marriage even if they did nothing wrong. But that would put a kink in his worldview and could put his career at “Cracked” in jeopardy or cause him to get some angry feedback from women, and that would not be acceptable. Besides, men aren’t allowed to complain or join in the dialog; all they can do, according to this guy, is talk about the “exquisite joy of scratching your own balls…”

What is this guy’s rant on the men’s movement really about? It is about only letting women and their sycophants have the monopoly on the discussion of the sexes in the legal and psychological arena. This guy fell for it and will continue to do so. Those of us who are more enlightened will realize that men have real legal and societal complaints here and that they need to be addressed by real grown-ups. There will be those like this JF guy, Kimmel and some neo-Nazi that enjoy basking in the feminist and PC glow that their criticisms bring. But reality will set in at some point, if not for them, then for other men and their loved ones who realize that it is types like this JF guy who are “Cracked” and the rest of us need to work on real solutions to the types of issues that men are facing in our modern world.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
They have been drifting more and more left -- and injecting that poison into even the supposedly non-political pieces.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
If one person is treated unfairly by politically correct, over zealous administrators/prosecutors there is an obligation to defend him.

And this happens http://billlawrenceonline.com/austin-scott-false-rape-charge-lawsuit/
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
A lot of men just function in a world in which they are in competition with other men for women - no empathy for other men, just a hostile stance - and they don't even think about areas where men are disadvantaged until it directly happens to them.

They need to go through the family court mill, get falsely accused of something or the like to finally get some insight.

Another problem is that men are supposed to be stoic, tough and independent in life. And that is good, up to a point. Those are virtues. But at some point it also interferes with obvious disadvantages served up to men in life. Women - for whatever reason - can very easily fall into the victim mode and get what they want. That's probably one of the reasons why feminism is so powerful and men's rights advocacy isn't.

Side note: Michael Kimmel, from what I know about him, is really an arrogant, worthless d!nk. I don't know why those kinds of people (another is Hugo Schwyzer) are able to get such credibility at universities until they self-destruct from their cognitive dissonance. Universities used to be places that looked for truth.
28 weeks ago
28 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (47)
All Comments   (47)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Cracked is just what some other posters said: humor/satire. Its print edition was the chief competitor to MAD in the 1960s–1980s. I would not take anything posted there too seriously. Really, Dr. Helen, what you described appears to have been intended as a parody.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, Cracked columnists are the brand of comedian that tries to make profound points and then hides behind their genre when someone tackles their logic.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't think this guy has a 'career' at Cracked; they're begging for people to write for them all the time, and most of their writers only have a few articles, though the guys who run the site make videos far more frequently. You have to take anything they write with a grain of salt; practically every article has some kind of counterintuitive stance, warranted or not, and they cover a lot of the political spectrum. It's last on my list, but I do read it occasionally, if there's not much else on the sites (like PJM) that I usually read.

Cracked articles are not consistently funny, or consistently anything; some writers use snark instead of wit, some figure a few cuss words makes anything funny, and crude asides often substitute for commentary. It's a bit of a mess, but that's what you get when you don't have an actual editor.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Well, Crawf, is there any meaningful men's rights movement that discusses ending presumptive paternity? Because if there were if would put an end to paternty fraud.

There are millions of men in this country being force to pay child support for children that are not theirs. And thats a fact. They had wives who ran around behind their backs, and now they're stuck with the bill--20% of every paycheck for 18 years, for a child they did not conceive.

And you're comfortable with that? Please, you're just another sychophant.

There can be no meaningful men's rights movement that does not adress changing the law, particularly marriage law. Put an end to presumptive paternity, and then you'll put an end to paternity fraud. Put an end to no fault divorce, and then you'll put an end to marriage fraud. Put an end to abortion on demand, and then you'll put an end to men's children being killed.

Hold women responsible for their decisions and action. There is no men's rights movement absent that. Hold women to the same standard as men. That requires changing the law, because women expoit the law to their advantage.

Look, a woman can "marry" a man, run around his back, get pregnant by some boy in a bar, divorce her husband for any reason or no reason, slap him with child support for a child that he didn't conceive, take half of everything including the house that he paid for, and have her boyfriend move in so they can raise their love child together, all on her ex-husband's dime.

And you're okay with that? I mean, it's the law. It's also sycophancy at its worst.

There can be no significant men's rights movement that doesn't begin with changing the law, and holding women equally responsible. If your small mind cannot grasp that, well that's simply idiocy on your part. Just don't pretend to think that not acknowledging the real problem makes you smarter than everyone else.

What is your solution to the problem? I haven't heard one. Mainly because you don't have one.

My solution is to change the law. There can be no meaningful men's rights movement without doing that. The problem is that the law was written and is still supported by sychophants like you, who care nothing about men's rights and everything about how they appear. Talk about a loser.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Frakkin' progs...they're *everywhere* anymore... ಠ_ಠ
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem with the "Cracked" article is that it's not talking about the actual men's rights movement, it's talking about the site that Elliot Rodger was involved with, PUAHate. If you subsitute one for the other in the article, it does make sense.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Good point. Some of these "men's rights" types are sickos who get off on encouraging other sickos.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Er, it's a satirical web site. It used to be a humor magazine and then reinvented itself as a satirical web page. Take a look at their "biggest propaganda backfires" article for instance - one of the six is about the Koch brothers screwing up, but three are about how communist propaganda made capitalism look awesome (their words). They are not 100% satirical! they make serious points using humor! but you can hardly take their articles at face value (not are you intended to).
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Considering how flat that article was in every way, I am amazed they got 7 thousand comments. I guess making people angry pays. Then when these people get anonymous threats they start going "See?" There are feminists who make a living defaming men and then moaning about threats. It's obvious radical feminists don't believe they are engaging in defamation, which makes them either A) idiots or B) mentally ill. Somebody wake Laurie Penny up.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Being satyrical is not an excuse for being plain wrong. This is a good satyrical article about PUA stuff... except they pretended it is about MRAs. And that's basically lying.

You could do a satyrical article picking quotes and stories about Jean Marie Le Pen, for example, and that's OK. But if after writing it, you say that article is about Marine Le Pen (both of them are member from the "Le Pen" familie, after all, aren't they?), then you're not being satyrical. Then you're just lying.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I thought the author was seriously confused in what they were actually engaged in. And satire is funny. That article is just confusing gibberish.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, I remember Cracked; they were a sort of poor-man's Mad Magazine. Nobody I knew ever read them unless there was nothing else to read.

It's a typical tactic of leftists to explain away contrary points of view as symptoms of mental illness. I.e., only a crazy white supremacist would support men having rights. They must be bitter and angry, and cling to their guns and ... well, you know the drill.

Remember, the flak's always heaviest when you're directly over the target.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Check out this job posting, sent to me by my son-in-law:

The SUNY Geneseo Department of Intercollegiate Athletics and Recreation, in conjunction with The Research Foundation for SUNY, invites applications for an Assistant Director of Athletic Communications and Media Relations. This position, which is funded through the NCAA Division III Ethnic Minority and Women’s Internship Grant Program, is intended to offer a broad-based experience in athletic communications, marketing/promotions

Required: Bachelor’s degree required. The successful candidate must be an ethnic minority and/or a female as per the NCAA Division III Ethnic Minority and Women’s Internship Grant guidelines.

SUNY is the New York State University system.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
I've read Cracked for a while and have learned to avoid most of their political articles. The ones who write politics are very far left on that site, and most of their readership is, too. On one article, merely ascribing direct blame to Obama and the Democrats for forcing through Obamacare got one commenter around 100 replies telling him how he's a misinformed right wing nut job.

Just avoid the politics on the site (which basically means when the political ads start flying, do not visit it at all) and it's usually a pretty good read.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
They have been drifting more and more left -- and injecting that poison into even the supposedly non-political pieces.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
And why wouldn't they? If they don't, the Mother Jones/Daily Beast/Daily KOS/HuffPo Lynch Mob would hang them all.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
Check your sources.
27 weeks ago
27 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All