I will happily use my enemies’ lies, too.

[dropcap]S[/dropcap]ince I began writing from a MRA perspective, I’ve been watching with a certain amount of amazement as the general public and the mainstream media consistently fail to grasp what seems screamingly obvious.

One of the questions suggesting itself had been: does this failure of comprehension reflect an actual lack of understanding, or is it a wilful ignorance?The answer to that was provided indirectly by the recent obtuse commentary from several different sources, including Jezebel.com and a blog on OCWeekly.com.

AVfM contributor TDOM wrote last week about a man named Scott De Kraai, who opened fire killing 8 in a hair salon in Seal Beach, CA.

In the first two paragraphs of his article, The Damned Olde Man compared the public reaction to this event with the treatment of Katherine Becker’s dismembering of her drugged and bound husband. While both events were grotesque, a man mutilated by a woman was handled as slapstick comedy. “Delightful,” was the word used by former  host Sharon Osborne of “The Talk.” Sane human beings don’t think mutilation or murder is delightful, and that’s the point TDOM made in 133 words. Ferdinand Bardamu of the blog InMalaFide.com, made similar observations.

Of course, the attack commentary from OCWeekly’s Matt Coker and Jezebel’s Anna North, makes the claim that TDOM, AVfM and Bardamu are endorsing or cheering the killing of 8 people by a man deranged by the destruction of his life. According to North, “MRAs are flocking to defend Dekraai.”

When I read the first of this attack commentary, I re-read TDOM’s piece to make sure I hadn’t missed his supposed endorsement of an accused killer. It turned out that no, I hadn’t missed it, because there was no such endorsement. The same proved true at Bardamu’s blog.

This is where the characterization of TDOM, FB and the larger mens rights movement as advocates of murder provides an answer to the question of incomprehension versus wilful pretence. Rather than addressing the emergence of the MRM with something approaching honesty, the commentary is focused on maintaining an approved narrative. Inflammatory stories about those violent, evil, murderous men’s and father’s rights activists. Paul Elam was understandably annoyed by this yellow ink, and made his ire known in an article which asked “Is that all?”

My view of the matter is more sanguine. Those who’ve deliberately characterized analysis of violence with support of violence by MRAs have effectively outed themselves. The perplexing question – are they dishonest or merely stupid is answered by “analysis” of extraordinary sloppiness. The careless enthusiasm to vilify the MRM seems to count on nobody ever reading TDOM’s original article. This assumption might have been valid as recently as a year ago. However, in spite of the best efforts of ideologues opposing men’s rights to silence, censor, defame, and shame MRAs – we are claiming an increasing share of public attention. The flagrant dishonesty our opponents have grown accustomed to has become habitual, and in spite of a changing landscape, the slow-adapting feminists and their white knights continue, for the moment, to gift us by dropping their pants in public.

At this point, I’m going to address Mr Coker and Miss North directly. Thanks, and keep it up. The attack on The Damned Old Man and our friend Mr. Bardamu is only one action, but I’m happy to exploit it, illuminating the pattern of consistent dishonesty in the pronouncements of big feminism’s proponents. The go-to tactic of flat out lying isn’t limited to criticism of MRM writing of course, as most experienced MRAs know – a great body of feminism’s standard narrative is undiluted baloney, most of which has been soundly and repeatedly debunked.

[box icon=”none”]Christina Hoff Sommers characterized the pattern of dishonesty within the feminist run grievance industry as “a body of egregiously false information at the heart of the domestic violence movement.”[/box]

The consistent repetition of lies from ideologues is due, mainly to the relative obscurity and scarcity of opposing argument. We’ve operated from a position on the margin, against opponents whose opinion controlled the public narrative. The opposition to lies sold in the open has, until very recently, been drowned out.

This situation persists, but is less true every day. In fact – although few vocal Men’s Right Activists can claim any fraction of the public’s attention – our work is increasingly reflected in content within the mainstream media, including prime time television.

The demonstrated and continuing pattern of open disregard for the truth from feminists and male collaborators will probably not persist for much longer. This is because at each instance of public dishonesty – there is a growing number of individuals ready to fact-check and call out hateful lies when they’re repeated in public discussion. The increased willingness to answer lies with data is not even limited to those who self identify as men’s rights activists. A fraction of the undecided public are increasingly inclined to refute the most obvious of big feminism’s lies.

Returning to directly address of bloggers like Matt Coker and Anna North, along with similar ideological scribblers. Just keep doing what you’re doing, and again, thank you.

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: