Disclaimer

By accessing this blog, you agree to the following terms:

Nothing you see here is intended or offered as legal advice. The author is not an attorney. These posts have been written for educational and information purposes only. They are not legal advice or professional legal counsel. Transmission of the information is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship between this blog, the author, or the publisher, and you or any other user. Subscribers and readers should not act, or fail to act, upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

This is not a safe space. I reserve the right to write things you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, over which you may feel uncomfortable or angry, or which you may find offensive. I also don't speak for anyone but myself. These are my observations and opinions. Don't attribute them to any group or person whose name isn't listed as an author of a post on this blog.

Reading past this point is an acknowledgement and acceptance of the above terms.

Shedding some light on the subject

Discussing gender issues with feminists is like being in a complicated light bulb joke.

Of course it couldn't be an ordinary light bulb joke, because feminism can't produce anything that straightforward.

Instead, it would be a long meandering series that ends with a vague loop back to the beginning, probably something a lot like this:

Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. Feminists don't do that.

No, it takes dozens of second wave feminists to bitch that incandescent is the wrong kind of bulb until men take action to update it to an LED light.

Later, they will insist feminism be credited for the change, and say that everything was dark for women until feminists came along and invented light bulbs.

Social Justice ideologues in entertainment and journalistic media will shade their narrative to promote the feminist version of light bulb history, and it will be threaded into school curriculum, exposing the next generation.

Third wave feminists will cast the canard into debate and consider any challenge to it, no matter how much factual information is provided, to be an assault on women's light.

The light debate will burn on for years with the same arguments being exchanged while establishment feminists successfully lobby for affirmative light and lamp shade laws. Feminists will not acknowledge the dimming nature of these laws and will blame the darkness caused by their enforcement on "patriarchy." They will then suggest embracing feminism as a solution to the light discrimination they'll claim is inherent in the patriarchal system.

New-age hippie feminists will contend that artificial lighting is an invention of the patriarchy, to be rejected by all women in favor of using candles. It will not occur to them to consider men's involvement in the invention of candles, the reduced illumination candles produce, or the possibility that human manufacture of candles makes them an artificial light source as well.

Establishment feminists will respond to the controversy by suggesting that equal light could be achieved if straight white men were required to live in the dark 23% of the time.

Radfems will criticize other feminists and social justice warriors for their soft stance on patriarchal light oppression and float a plan to kill or gouge out the eyes of 90% of the male population to mitigate the danger created by men living in women's light.

Establishment & radfem bloggers will write posts celebrating illuminated women and extolling the virtues of lighting tools for women. They will write other posts painting men's need for light as shady or harsh, peppered with terms like male glare and shadow masculinity.

"Nice" feminists will talk about how The Patriarchy has kept men in the dark, and offer feminism as a remedy. Reminders of the feminist light lobby will be treated as an attack on women's light, or responded to with "not all feminists are like that."

Christian Hoff Sommers will write an article patiently explaining the actual, documented history of light bulbs and make an easy to understand video explaining why the feminist light bulb narrative is bullshit.

Social justice warriors will criticize the video's format and graphics to avoid discussing the facts, and write whiny posts about Sommers in remote and dusky internet "safe spaces" where they don't actually have to engage in any debate. They will refuse to discuss the video anywhere else.

Men's light activists will fight among themselves over the best approach to the light bulb controversy and debunking radiance myths.

Some will strive to enlighten the public. Others will participate in heated debate. Still others will get fired up and engage legislators.

Left and right leaning activists will each blame each other's political parties while proclaiming the brilliance of their own. 

Traditionalists will call life easier when men bring home the light bulbs and women see to it that they're screwed in right & properly replaced when they burn out.

Men Glowing Their Own Way will argue that women can touch the light bulbs, but not take any of them home.

"Moderate" men's light advocates will promote adopting the false feminist narrative on light bulb history in an effort to befriend them and get them to join a coordinated effort at promoting equal light today.

Everyone in both movements will criticize "flick up artists" for discussing ways to turn on the light even when the switch is difficult to flip.

Feminists will use associating men's light activism with flick up artistry to distract men's light activists from the issue itself.

David Futrelle will spotlight the controversy in his blog, framing the post in the feminist narrative on light bulb history along with the presumption that light belongs to women and men are interlopers even when invited. That would lead into portraying men's light activism as an attempt to roll back women's light, wrongfully gain access to it, or both. The writing would include mischaracterized quotes, fabrication, hyperbole, childish name calling, and dishonest barbs directed at various men's light blogs, forums, and news sites.

Social justice leaning news blogs would reference Futrelle's blog in articles demonizing the men's light movement as a call for a return to the dark ages.

Fringe establishment media will widen the spotlight, referencing the news blogs. 

Corporate run establishment media will reference the fringe and then later each other, effectively eclipsing the origin of the narrative behind layers of consensus.

Feminists will reference the articles in debate as evidence that men's light activists are demons from hell bent on plunging the world into darkness, while failing to realize they're content to live in it themselves.

And the Sunny Badgers will highlight the entire debate on internet radio for deconstruction.

The PUA cheese touch strikes again

The men's rights movement is no stranger to the tactics feminists try to use to silence viewpoints they oppose. Those tactics have been written about for years, well before the movement was as large as it is today, and well before it ever received media attention. If you're not familiar with them, read Exposing Feminism's post "The catalog of anti-male shaming tactics."

These tactics are a manifestation of a sense of entitlement to control the dialogue based on one's own belief in one's position. I'm right, so your argument must be rooted in objectionable characteristics. They're designed to put the target on the defensive against unmerited charges in order to distract from existing debate. An example would be a feminist leveling the accusation that you support due process rights because you hate women, or an attack on your masculinity in response to your discussion about female perpetrators of sexual violence and their male victims. These tactics are a window to feminism's underlying hateful attitude. Their basic premise is that agitation for any remedy to conditions which are oppressive to men is unneeded, undeserved, illegitimate, and an affront to women.

Many times, activists are able to spot these tactics and call them out when their feminist debate opponents use them, effectively rendering them useless. However, the community at large has failed miserably at this when the shaming involves an attempt to pit us against the pick-up artist community. The most recent version of this failure is an attempt to distance the two groups from each other in response to a feminist diatribe about a recent blog article by Roosh V. Here we go again, handing feminists control that they do not deserve, allowing an unmerited, illegitimate attack on the movement to put us on the defense.

Roosh's article is not bad for the men's rights movement. The feminist reaction is bad for feminists, or at least it would be if MRAs would take a step back and view it without the filter of feminist shaming language through which the article complaining about it is launched. Remove it and the complaint would largely disappear. It can be clearly identified as a vehemently worded charge of misogyny, with a layer of "by association" thrown in.

The only reason feminists feel like this tactic works is that MRAs run scared every time they do it. This is what happens when you give feminists control over the dialogue; their first impulse is to silence views they disapprove, rather than to engage. Feminist use of shaming tactics does not make MRAs or even PUAs bad people. It shows that feminists are so bigoted they can't handle the existing debate, that they must resort to mudslinging and distraction tactics, and they'll use any kind of misrepresentation MRAs are willing to accept.

Letting feminists put the movement on the defensive by carefully framing their own over-reaction to cherry-picked factors and then associating them with the MRM invites this. Capitulation is asking to be slandered again. The behavior tells the shame-thrower, "Hey, look, an enormous target! Shoot here and we'll scramble for damage control just like you want, rendering us totally ineffective for a time."

All they have to do is get MRAs to treat their outragegasm as legitimate and an accurate representation of what they're responding to, and you let them achieve that by panicking without question over the terms in which they frame their complaint. They don't have to be accurate, honest, or even remotely rational, so long as their accusation is sufficiently scandalous, because even though they've demonstrated over and over again a determination to hate, oppose, and slander the movement, there are MRAs who continue to seek their approval.

You're not going to get their approval because their approval doesn't rely on what's right, on logic or reason, or on genuinely equal treatment. It relies on you keeping your head down and saying "okay." It relies on your agreement to subjugate your advocacy to feminist interests. It does not matter if you condemn 1000 PUAs, agree with feminists calling drunk sex rape, even let feminists define all of the terms of the dialogue. None of that will earn you a more open, friendly discussion because you are dealing with people who don't want to have it in the first place.

The Raw Story writer was not really complaining out of a belief that Roosh's article means MRAs want to legalize rape. Feminists do this because they know it will shut you up about men's issues for a while, as you're tied up with damage control. They know that leveling the right accusation the right way will spread hysteria throughout the community.

And over what? The article itself is simply using the style of A Modest Proposal to point out that ideology isn't an effective shield against crime. Contained in it is a paragraph driving home the point that rape is bad and the author understands that. The reaction to it is a typical female chip-knocked-off-the-shoulder knee-jerkin' temper dance. And what's the first thought the responding writer had after reading it, but how it could be used to silence advocates for boys in education, male victims of intimate partner and sexual violence, children's right to a relationship with their fathers; to muzzle opponents of debtors prisons and discriminatory law and policy and eclipse efforts to raise awareness of male suicide. How hateful!

The rush to frame this discussion in the most inflammatory way, light it on ideological fire, and throw it at the MRM isn't a misunderstanding. It's a bigoted attempt to enforce feminism's self-assigned entitlement to control the gender issues dialogue. And it'll continue to happen until MRAs stop falling for it. You want feminists to quit using PUAs as mud to sling at the men's rights movement? Take the benefit out of it! Stop giving them the reaction they want.