The story AVfM broke about the Radfem Hub is the most read material on this site. And now the story returns, with Fidelbogen at the helm in concert with the illustrious Agent Orange. Luuuucy! You got some more ‘splainin to do!
Much of social discourse hinges on the battle to claim ownership of terms. “Feminist” is a great example. Fidelbogen tells us who has the right to define it.
We are all familiar with the “man wrong – woman right” paradigm. Fidelbogen gives us the breakdown on the ideology that puts us in the middle of it.
Fidelbogen, recently appointed to the editorial staff at A Voice for Men, offers a few words of introduction, to new readers and old friends alike. We’re all smiles around here.
Fidelbogen lays out the case, simply and to the point. The lack of voting rights for women and oppression are two entirely different things, and both have been blown out of proportion.
Effectively, one would need to create an anti-rape police state. I am sure that most feminists, male and female alike, would find nothing to not like about such a scenario.
The crosshairs fallacy springs from a childish belief that the vital force of the non-feminist revolution concentrates in a point source — for example, a certain community of websites
The opponents of feminism are famous for speaking their minds “not wisely but too well.” In this way they offer grappling points to their enemy and make their own work needlessly difficult.
Or as stated early in this article: man-hating is feminism’s moral center of gravity; without man-hating or at least some degree of disaffection with males, feminism could not logically continue to exist.
People sometimes like to make things complicated, and I sometimes find that their motive in avoiding simplicity is to avoid realizing, or thinking about, something which they find mentally indigestible. Consider, for example, the matter of rape. Rape is a complicated subject, and yet . . . in certain connections it is very simple. I would like …
