ReapSowRadio #32


Paul Elam from A Voice For Men and Mykeru of Mykeru Media join Al Stefanelli and Reap Paden  to talk about….Men’s rights…actually not just about men’s rights but rights for everyone, sometimes called equal rights. Some skeptics/atheists seem to be trying to tie feminism and skepticism/atheism  together in a way that isn’t reasonable or realistic. What are some of the issues A Voice for Men deals with? What do most men really think about women? Paul gives more accurate answers to those questions than you will get from some of the critics of his site. Before you listen to second-hand rhetoric or just plain made-up lies listen to this podcast and learn a little, that way if you want to discuss the topic you will know a bit about it.

You can find A Voice for Men here

And you can find the A Voice for Men online radio here

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

19 thoughts on “ReapSowRadio #32

  1. It was elevatorgate and my terrible experiences at pharyngula (when it was still scienceblogs) that led me to AVFM and the MRM.

  2. Guys.. good introductory stuff, but you didnt really get the most out of Paul Elam.
    Philosopher Celia Green has said “The greatest superstition of our time is the belief that we have none”. Our society has internalized feminist myths, amongst others. Even Al Stefanelli has written on his blogpost that “women have been oppressed for a long time”. This is the foundational myth .. which appears true on the surface, especially to atheists because of how religions have talked about women, and also how women’s sexuality was controlled by men. Why did Nietsche and Schopenhaur write what they did about women? The other side of the coin is Male Disposability (well described by Warren Farrell). There is much to this story that the MRM understands quite well, and you can investigate this yourself.. and debate Paul on.
    feminists have capitalized on this foundational myth to pass terrible laws in our society. And men dont oppose due to male guilt and other reasons. For e.g the statutory rape case and the atheist-man losing out on child custody to an undeserving woman case that Al mentioned. These are a sample of gross injustices that have destroyed men.. and nobody really cares. For e.g how many commoners would would believe Al if he told them about that statutory rape case?

    How can this happen in a society that claims to be a beacon of liberty in the world?

    As Paul mentioned, the Mens Movement has been around for many years.. over 3 decades in fact.. and the feminists-in-power have seen to it that their voice is not heard.. If you look into old writings, you will see how men’s rights gatherings have been crushed, OR never given coverage in media.

    I challenge you to follow up with another podcast with Paul.. hopefully he will accept to come back.. with the promise of challenging the myths of our time. If you have read the ‘Letter to the SlimePit’ by the brilliant James Onen.. he has mentioned elsewhere that ‘MRAs have done to feminism what New Atheism did to religion in 2006. MRAs have done the job that Skeptics should have done.’ And thats a good approximation.

    FYI.. Here’s a mainstream interview that Paul did you might find interesting.
    Elam at Ultimate Men’s Summit

    1. Do you have a link to where James Onen says “MRAs have done to feminism what New Atheism did to religion in 2006″?

      It seems to be an interesting train of thought, but I can’t find the original with Google.

      1. I got really lucky and found it. Its post#97 on that page
        (This discussion was had on a blogpost nicknamed ‘Slimepit’ by the FTB baboons, and we wholeheartedly adopted it. some FTBers launched a campaign to cause professional trouble to the owner of the blog.. so the blogposts were deleted from there and only archives remain. The archives are somewhat difficult to navigate).

        97. James Onen
        1:43 am
        My observation is that the Men’s Right Movement is doing to feminism today what New Atheism was doing to religion in the 2000s – i.e. debunking it, openly and boldly. There is much discussion among them about the ideology of feminism through a skeptical examination of feminism’s (outrageous) claims, a reality based analysis of human nature as applied to interaction between the genders, etc. I find it to be a refreshing community of men AND WOMEN who don’t give a damn what people call them, but recognize that there is a deliberate and concerted effort to demonize men, and infantilize (rather than empower) women, by feminism.

        Feminists, in response have reacted to MRAs in precisely the same manner as the people at FTB have. They have selectively quoted from comments sections of MRA blogs and forums in order to portray the men’s right movement has inherently misogynistic. Several men’s rights sites were reported to the Southern Poverty Law Center who promptly declared them ‘hate’ groups. One is immediately reminded of efforts to have National Geographic take Abby’s blog down based on the same kind of misrepresentation, and allegations of rampant misogyny in the comment threads. Needless to say, the efforts to silence them in this way have failed (just like they have failed with respect to ERV), and more and more people are taking an interest in what they are talking about:

        I do not consider myself a men’s rights “activist” per se because I’m not one that tends to believe in the efficacy of political activism as a way of achieving real and sustainable social change. But I do agree completely with their assessments of the various claims of feminism, and I think the concerns they raise are valid.

        MRAs are doing to feminism what “skeptics” should be doing – i.e. placing under critical scrutiny, and exposing the inherent flaws within the ideology.

        1. Thanks for the effort, Astrokid.

          It seems like I missed out a lot by not reading the Slimepit.

          I’d started spending more time on Men’s Rights blogs than atheist blogs even before Elevatorgate broke, and when it broke I definitely lost my taste for that scene. But it seems there are valuable bits I missed out on.

          I should check out what’s going on there nowadays.

  3. I held back my opinion on this bullshit a long time but I must say I agree with your perspectives. It is unnecessary and harmful. I respect the way you have raised your voices rather than cowering silently as so many hosts continue to do.
    I hope you don’t mind that I have linked to two of your podcast episodes at the end of my article on this matter. It may mean more to readers to hear it from you.

  4. You might want to do a little research on “A voice for men”. I really wouldn’t want them speaking for me after posting articles like this one.

    The study has faked data and bullshit conclusions. They seem to be doing the same shit as the people they bitched about for the whole episode. This to me is no different than “Schrödinger’s rape”.

    Both ideas are equally as full of shit.

    1. You disingenuously omit the fact that the article itself admits that it has faked data, because the article is an object lesson in the dangers of faked evidence:

      “These items, indeed this entire article, are illustrative examples of what Murray Straus identified as “Evidence by Citation” and other forms of academic fraud in widespread and unchallenged use by feminist ideologues. They were presented here as an example of their destructive use.”

      1. Though i do enjoy being called disingenuous. I really have no reason to be. Maybe i didn’t explain myself good enough the first time.

        You actually helped make the point i was trying to make. The article is a lesson on bullshit but it wasn’t posted that way on the site. There is no refence in the headline about this being bad or a lesson, it’s posted as a revalation about women.

        I found this after listening to the podcast and picking up on some subtle hints that maybe these guys wern’t all on the level. Al actaully asked him a couple times for more information about some fairly odd claims that he made, but i don’t think he responded with anything useful. It threw up my bullshit radar and i dug into thier site. I can find more questionable material if you think this is some kind of “Feminist Conspiracy” on my part.

        But think what you want, im not here to control your thoughts, just bring up some interesting points.

        1. Ok, not disingenuous then; we just disagree on the relevance of the last part of the article.

          I don’t agree with you that the article is a lesson in bullshit but wasn’t “posted that way”. Why does coming right out and saying so in THE ARTICLE ITSELF not count as being “posted that way”? Unless you believe an article must make every nuance of every argument it makes right in the title, and nowhere else.

          I also can’t agree with you that the article is an example of the same tactics as Schrödinger’s Rapist. That article doesn’t end with a statement to the effect of “but everything above is bullshit – see what happens if you start with faulty premises?”. It is intended to be taken very seriously.

          Lastly, as a frequent reader of AVFM, I can say that that kind of “gotcha!” article is just not representative of the articles as a whole.

          1. Personally i would argree with the idea that everything doesn’t have to be displayed in the title or made “obvious”. But that’s because i read into the articles and check the information, most people do not and quite a few just read headlines.

            It may be that i have worked in marketing in the past and i know the subtle ommisions that are done to slant topics. And i may be misjudging the intent, but it looks kind of curious to me. Maybe I am misjudging them. But until i see some reason to feel oppressed by women, i really don’t care. I have no reason to crusade agaist them, my only problem is with people that take away another’s rights. And as a white male i don’t feel that opressed at this time.

            I personally don’t care too much about the whole A+ and feminism idea, this kind of crap happens in any group once it grows to a large enough size. And it’s also human nature to start pulling personal beliefs into other unrelated topics. There are extremeists in any group and best thing to do is not humor them. OR move start a new group.

          2. @ahuman: If your problem really is with “people taking away another’s rights”, then you cant be nonchalant about mainstream feminism. Its not MRAs alone who are saying this.. several respectable mainstreamers have been saying this in no uncertain terms for decades now.
            Barbara Kay on institutional feminism and misandry
            Michael Coren & Barbara Kay Discuss Society’s Contempt For Men
            The reason you havent felt it personally.. maybe that you havent been exposed to the law concerning gender relations. Even Way back in the early 1900’s, Legal Subjection of Men was entrenched.

            What baffles me as an atheist AND MRA, is that the atheist communities claim that they are “evidence-based” and “knowledgeable” (remember that time when they lampooned religious people when a survey came out showing that atheists were more knowledgeable in religion than the religious?).. yet when the feminist kerfuffle took place in our community, there wasnt a widespread investigation into feminism as a whole. And when an actual expert in feminism came by to participate in the discussion back in Summer 2011, he was laughed at and called a misogynist.. by the Anti-FTB folks, no less. If anybody is interested in following the relevant portion of the discussion, just search for ‘Byron’.

          3. It’s not so much about women “oppressing” men. Rather, it’s about considering both men and women as active agents who share adult responsibility for the “Gender System” being as it is today (and was, in the past).

            The standard feminist narratives would have women as the innocent bystanders who had no active control in what the “evil patriarchy” (for all intents and purposes, read Men) created. But this just plays into the exact same instinctual “woman as perpetual girl-child” stereotype that Feminism supposedly rails against.

            And when men take complete responsibility for the “Gender System” being as it is, both for creating and for fixing it, that just plays into the exact same instinctual “man as all-powerful doer of great deeds” trope that Feminism also supposedly rails against.

            MRA’s prefer to see women as adults, who share co-responsibility for their role in the “Gender System” being what it is.

            And as adults, the deserve co-equal criticism of where their actions have negative consequences. Not doing so would be treating them as girl-children.

            When men remain silent about where women do wrong because speaking up would supposedly be whining, they are actually just treating women as children, who can not be expected to take their share of responsbility.

        2. I have to say i agree the real issue is personal resposibility and accounablility. Thats why i never have taken the hard core feminist movement seriously. They are the same as the people they hate.

          It seems to be that not becoming the same as the enemy is always the hard part when trying to fight injustice in any system. Example: Patriot Act

          We just have to try and keep our instincts in check.

          1. It goes beyond mere personal responsibility.

            If it is just to expect of men to take collective responsibility for the way the “emergent properties” of their personal preferences shaped society, then, on order not to be hypocritical, one should demand similar collective responsibility of women for their share.

            For example, many individual mens’ preference for thinner and younger women, on a societal level, has a negative impact on older and weightier women. Much has been made of this, and men have been guilted and shamed into modifying their preferences accordingly.

            But then, to what extend did many individual women’s preference for more confident, assertive men lead, over time, to the very situation that Feminists blame men for – the fact that the leaders at the apex of most dominance hierarchies are all male?

            Could it be that, in a sense, the supposed Patriarchy is just as much “womens’ fault” as peacocks’ tails are “peahens’ fault”?

            (If someone honestly holds the position that “collective” responsibility is not a valid concept, I grant them that – but if that person had not criticised Feminism and esp. Patriarchy Theory on that basis until now, that would also be inconsistency and hypocrisy).

          2. In the end i guess we will have to agree to disagree about the positive nature of the previously named web site. I just don’t agree with the insinuation about feminists all being man hating jerks. It seems a little conspiracy laden to me. Yes there are extreme feminists out there and i do agree with some goals of the site. But i don’t regret the 19th amendment.

  5. Birth rape??? That’s the first time I’ve heard that phrase. I’m beginning to wonder if there’s some sort of conspiracy out there to ensure *all* women can plop themselves into the “rape culture” and be able to say “yes, it’s happened to me!” Sigh.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>