Feminism purports to concern itself only with equality – but in reality propagates mistrust, tension and hatred between the sexes.
December 13, 2007 in misandry
Here is a petition to shut down http://miss-andrist.livejournal.com/ , which promotes hatred against men and boys.
I urge all readers to sign it.
Comments feed for this article
December 13, 2007 at 9:18 pm
I disagree. I think she is doing a fine job of exposing Feminism for what it so often is, simple man-hatred.
Looks to me as if she has found a purpose in life, to serve as a horrible example. So use her for that purpose.
December 13, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Indeed. Let’s not become like the feminists we’re attempting to expose and trample on the free speech of others. We’re here to guard against the radfem institution, not echo it.
December 14, 2007 at 5:46 am
I’m with Tom on that one. Let them rant and rave… After all, aren’t WE ranting as far as they’re concerned?
May 16, 2013 at 10:53 am
I needed to write you this litlte word to finally say thanks a lot once again relating to the extraordinary views you have shown on this page. This has been simply particularly open-handed with you to offer publicly all a few individuals could have offered for an e book to end up making some cash for their own end, particularly since you might well have tried it if you ever decided. These thoughts additionally worked as a good way to fully grasp that many people have the same fervor really like mine to know the truth a lot more with regard to this problem. Certainly there are thousands of more enjoyable opportunities ahead for individuals that read carefully your blog.
December 14, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Attack them at every opportunity as they have attacked men.
December 14, 2007 at 9:02 pm
If men hold extreme positions regarding women, they get shut down. We all know that. I haven’t yet heard of a woman holding extreme views on men being shut down.
So we are already in a situation where freedom of speech is limited, and with a clear gender bias.
How long did it take we men to snap out of the ‘we’re not like that’ mode of thinking when feminists started loading the courts, academia, media and legislatures? 30 years?
If we want to do freedom of speech a favour, I think we need to present the big blog hosts with a dilemma – namely, that non-feminists demand closure of man-haters, and feminists demand closure of woman-haters. Only then will the blog hosts be forced to apply some conscious thought on how to deal with complaint as a tactic.
Right now, by clinging to notions of fairness, the blog hosts just respond to complaint and we lose. We’re actually complicit in the erosion of freedom of speech.
Why does this URL appear as the web-site on your petition?
It’s the URL of a men’s rights forum.)
December 14, 2007 at 9:13 pm
It’s also a web site that is against misandry as the URL title suggests, Rob.
It has many interesting and informative articles – I recommend a visit!
December 14, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Sorry EF, I should have made myself clearer.
To me, it looked as if you might have accidentally entered the wrong URL on your petition against miss-andrist.livejournal.com (I do this sometimes with copy/paste).
If that were so, then signing the petition would mean petitioning for the closure of antimisandry.com!
I can’t actually see any reason why antimisandry.com needs to be cited on this petition at all.
Would you clarify please before I sign.
December 14, 2007 at 9:48 pm
I see your point Rob, I’m sorry for the confusion. When signing up for a petition, it asks you for your own website – I mentioned antimisandry.com because I thought it might bring more readers there.
You’ll notice that the actual petition reads ‘We, the undersigned, call for the removal of http://miss-andrist.livejournal.com/‘, so antimisandry is not implicated in it.
December 14, 2007 at 10:24 pm
You can file a complaint for hate speech at the following web link. Mine is pending their review.
December 14, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Bob, do you mean that your own site has been implicated as hate speech? If so, that’s not something to be proud of!
December 15, 2007 at 1:53 am
The feminazi all think The World According to Bob is a “hate site” because Bob does not support feminazi misandry. Robin Steele, and other feminist hate mongers have been attacking The World According to Bob for some time, but they have all failed to silence a Man’s voice.
That link is for the LiveJournal contact page where readers can file a complaint about “Miss-Andrist” which is the topic of your article.
December 15, 2007 at 9:19 am
I followed Bob’s lead and laid a complaint against this site, on the grounds that it was inciting fear and mistrust against a group of people (men). The response was:
“Thank you for your report. While the content in question may be disturbing and in poor taste, it does not constitute a violation of the LiveJournal Terms of Service. The content posted is simply an opinion, and we allow the expression of a wide range of opinions on LiveJournal. As long as the content does not explicitly encourage others to harass or physically harm any particular racial, ethnic, or social minority, it is considered allowable.
It’s a clear statement and one I have no difficulty with.
December 15, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Let’s keep an eye out for misogynistic Livejournal blogs, and see if they are as even handed with them!
December 15, 2007 at 8:57 pm
Well, we’re now in a position to put Livejournal in an uncomfortable dilemma.
Miss-andrist’s opening posting, in which she states all men are evil, that she hates them and that all other women should too, could be copied and wherever the word ‘men’ occurs, swap it with ‘women’. This could then be the opening posting of a new blog at Livejournal called Miss-Ogynist.
It won’t be long before complaints start rolling in from femmies, but so long as MissAndrist’s original text is kept to – which we know has been cleared by LiveJournal – then it’s win-win. If LiveJournal are consistent and protect this new Miss-Ogynist, then freedom of speech has been tested and upheld. If LiveJournal fold and close the site down, then we have documented proof of a blog host that practices discrimination against men and one that can be named and shamed with great abandon about the net.
December 17, 2007 at 2:08 am
Trying to make that bimbo Robin Steele understand that ‘hate speech’ laws are horribly oppressive and will likely result in political dissidents being arrested in the near future is pointless. These women just don’t get it.
After much thought, the only way to make them ‘get it’ is to let them experience the oppression these laws will bring. Shut em down!
Every Misandrist site should be protested and shut down.
It shits all over free speech, but if the feminists have there way its gone anyways!
Let the feminists feel the bite of there own unjust and oppressive laws.
December 17, 2007 at 10:23 am
It’s here! http://mr-ogynist.livejournal.com/ Thanks to KellyMac for writing it up.
December 17, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Kelly’s done a superb job. The blog even looks better than the original! (way better). Now that I read it in reverse, it almost has a Fred X feel to it, without the humour – and he was troll bait extraordinaire. Of course, we’ve given the game away a little, but there’s nothing to stop any of us putting on our mangina hats and laying a complaint against it if nothing happens. Consider it an exercise in training blog hosts to be even-handed. Doesn’t harm our own sense of paranoia either to see, rather than fear, what success those horrible femmies are likely to achieve in closing us down.
December 18, 2007 at 12:34 am
Dear Bob Allen,
While the content in question may be disturbing and in poor taste, it does not constitute a violation of the LiveJournal Terms of Service. The content posted is simply an opinion, and we allow the expression of a wide range of opinions on LiveJournal. As long as the content does not explicitly encourage others to harass or physically harm any particular racial, ethnic, or social minority, it is considered allowable.
As such, we will be unable to assist you; we encourage you to refrain from viewing this journal in the future if you find its content offensive.
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
December 18, 2007 at 2:00 pm
You know, EF, considering that you link to a website entitled American Women Suck, which bears a truly striking resemblance to Miss Andrist — even down to the sexist jokes — you really have no right whatsoever to label that LJ a “hate site.”
Also, I really thought you were against the shutting down of websites based purely on offensive content. Guess that doesn’t apply when you’re the one being offended.
December 19, 2007 at 2:34 am
I realise you were addressing yourself to EF, but I signed EF’s petition, so that makes me answerable to the same charge.
I signed it to find out what happens. I don’t know how blog hosts determine who gets shut down and who doesn’t, and we are all inclined to think it is us that gets dealt the rawest deal. It seems to me to be constructive to do this, so that the more we see of the process, the more we may know how to deal with it.
I personally hope the petition fails, as I’m generally against the idea of specific laws devoted to ‘Hate Speech’, but the quid pro quo for our failure is that others will also fail in their attempts to silence us.
One of the benefits of this pro-active stance is that new, unexpected approaches are discovered. The notion of ‘mirroring’ extremist viewpoints with near identical documents where the subject and object are transposed presents an instrument for auditing blog-hosts, government departments, media, etc for even-handedness.
Although it seems like we’re trying to shut down a web-site, my intention is that we test the thinking behind web-host censure policy, expose the process for all to see and prevent complaint alone from prevailing over rational thought.
December 19, 2007 at 6:04 am
You are quite right to state that I am against censorship, and see my call for the banning of Miss Andrist to be in contradiction to this view.
The truth is that this proposal is a response to a feminist campaign to shut down http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com .
Childish, perhaps, but as Rob says, the real goal of my campaign is to ‘expose the process’ rather than actually close the site.
Congratulations on rumbling me!
December 19, 2007 at 10:45 pm
You say that your intention is not to shut down a website, but that’s exactly what the petition to shut down a website is meant to achieve. What if you had succeeded in getting that woman’s LiveJournal shut down? Would that have been a cause for celebration? Is “testing the policy” more important than sticking to your principles surrounding the censorship of websites? Sounds like a Phyrric victory to me, no matter which way it turns out.
December 19, 2007 at 11:24 pm
To ‘rumble’ someone is to say you ‘found them out’ in British slang. I was referring to your correct diagnosis that we are seemingly involved in something that we do not agree with.
In this case, I feel that if the site was closed down, it would result in publicity for the MRM and a demonstration to the feminists who wish to censor that censorship goes both ways – and if a double standard was exposed in the process, we would be all the richer for the example!
December 20, 2007 at 12:42 am
What if you had succeeded in getting that woman’s LiveJournal shut down? Would that have been a cause for celebration?
Far too early for celebration yet lc. But in addition to the publicity value – more material for our growing network of blogs, forums and independent media – it would serve to ally feminist interests with our own. There would be much more support for free speech and a greater understanding of its value.
Is “testing the policy” more important than sticking to your principles surrounding the censorship of websites?
“Testing the policy” isn’t opposed to my principle of not censoring free speech, for the reason I gave to your first question. I think there is a common perception that free speech, amongst other things, is arrived at by everyone practicing the golden rule (do unto others as …), but having such faith makes it too frail. The golden rule puts its practitioners at a disadvantage when others fail to reciprocate. In order for free speech to thrive, it has to be seen as mutually advantageous to as many parties as possible. Naturally, everyone has different ideas of where free speech ends and harm begins, but that compromise has to be met by negotiation, not acquiescence.
I don’t see free speech as some kind of ethereal absolute that we must all bow down before. It is an organisational feature that brings greater advantage to any group that practices it, and should be made as robust as possible.
Sounds like a Phyrric victory to me, no matter which way it turns out.
I think that’s only a minor possibility at this point rather than a material concern. As I mentioned in an earlier post, actually doing something tends to have unexpected consequences. I’ve already seen several opportunities to expand upon from this small exercise alone.
January 16, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I strongly disagree. Trying to deny the opposition the right to speak is proving them right about us. I don’t fear feminist rhetoric at all and I am happy to let it all be published and judged on it’s merits. I’d rather see it debated than suppressed. Believe it or not, feminism has done good in the past….convents were early places of feminism and in that context (nuns don’t have sex so their ideas can’t infect society), it has a place….it also has a place in the lesbian world and women who want to live alone would also benefit from it. It’s when it tries to step into mainstream society, or the family, that feminism becomes truly evil and that is why we need it out there so that society can see this. I’d sign a petition to keep a feminist web site online but not one to take it offline. That is not what freedom and liberty are about….I would recommend that you read some Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin to get a refresher on the subject. BTW, the “they did it first” excuse is really pathetic….are you 5 years old?
February 15, 2008 at 7:02 pm
I think daz has a point. Rather than shutting down feminists, I think we should increase their media profile. Every argument, every statistic, every legal action of theirs should be scrutinized for all to see.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Blog at WordPress.com.Ben Eastaugh and Chris Sternal-Johnson.
Subscribe to feed.