JABbering Stooge

It would appear that I’ve struck a nerve with the author of that atrocious bit of misogyny over at Men’s News Daily. In comments, he writes:

That is funny. I am the original author of the article and I never thought of that when I said “you could be hit by a truck”. I was just saying that American men need to change their wills early and not procrastinate.

I don’t think the mafia would be getting involved with fighting rabid feminism.

Hey, I’m not the one who carelessly strung together a phrase intended to encourage men to write their wives out of their wills that ended up reading like a mafia-style threat.

By the way, the only reason why I got into men’s rights is not because of anything the MRA blogs had been previously talking about (father’s right to save money by raising a child himself instead of paying child support to the child + his mom).

Yeah, sure. Keep telling yourself that, Sparky.

I got into men’s rights because the other side went way too far.

Woah, hold up! Talking point police! Pull over! Seriously, this is the classic dodge that these "men’s rights" (to treat women like shit) jerkoffs always use to deny that what they are really all about is preserving the status quo where men have far more power and priviledge than women. If "men’s rights" were really about providing a check to make sure feminism doesn’t try to do to men what men have been doing to women since the beginning of time (because in the eyes of "mens rights" advocates, all feminists are trying to turn human society into the praying mantis reproductive process), "men’s rights" advocates wouldn’t be deriding pro-feminist men as "manginas" and other sexist, derogatory terms for "feminized" men. And they sure as hell wouldn’t be advocating for blatantly sexist policies like we’re about to see in Mr. Peterson’s comment. The third strike against Mr. Peterson’s cop-out claim that "men’s rights" advocates are only active as a backlash against "overreaching" by "feminazis" is this: At no point in the original screed does he make even the slightest effort to distinguish between "good" feminists and "bad" feminists. It’s only when he’s called on his misogynist bullshit that he tries to fling rhetorical dirt in the ref’s eyes. But please, let’s see if you can dig yourself out of the hole you got yourself into.

There is now a law called IMBRA that forces American men to have background checks in order to say hello to a foreign woman online. This is totally against the Right to Assembly

Okay, now you’re being deliberately misleading in an effort to set up a slippery slope fallacy. IMBRA is about regulating, if not reining in, the mail-order bride industry - an industry that is at best inherently creepy on its face (only pervy losers would have to resort to it to find a woman willing to marry them), and at worst, a wretched hive of human trafficking scum and villainy. And that’s on top of all the shit mail-order brides go through even if they aren’t being used in a human trafficking ring (more on that in a bit).

and many feminists agree on this point.

Thank you for that report from the Some Say Network News™. Seriously, what feminist is in agreement with you on your BS claim?

It is not “feminism” that has suddenly declared itself my enemy, but a few arrogant radicals,

See my point about anti-feminist cop-outs, above.

primarily at a place called the Tahirih Justice Center and NOW, who think they can speak for foreign women and take away their right to meet men without time-consuming paperwork.

Oh, sure. Never mind that 85% of the victims in intimate partner violence are women, or that three-fourths of the rapes in this country were committed by someone the woman knows and “trusts.” Every single rape accusation is faked to pick men’s wallets.

And as for your weird obsession with the Tahirih Justice Center, one of their biggest causes is fighting against such things as female genital mutiliation, human trafficking, torture and rape, especially in Third-World countries. You know, the sort of issues that conservatives constantly use to incite violence against Muslims, then conveniently ignore or even flip-flop on when doing so suits their purposes (i.e., when it means that American women might possibly come within a mile of getting on equal footing with American men).

Signing written approval to have contact with an American involves an extensive, if not permanent, time delay for foreign women who do not check their email every day or who do not have email. They previously gave out their post office boxes and they still expect letters to arrive at these post office boxes, but IMBRA is making it so they never come.

Except via the 70% of dating sites that completely ignore the IMBRA law, which will be defeated in federal court with the help of women soon.

So some Nice Guy™ has to jump through a few more hurdles to prove that he’s a Nice Guy™ before pulling a reverse Michael Henchard. Boo-frickin’-hoo. Oh, and by the way, don’t look for the courts to rule that men can treat foreign women like shit anytime soon. The last few lawsuits over IMBRA haven’t fared too well…

You know, I’d seriously consider sending Mr. Peterson a copy of Jessica Valenti’s book, particularly with the entire text of Chapter 4 - “The Blame (and Shame) Game” - highlighted, but somehow I get the feeling that he’d use it for toilet paper, instead.