Discourse.

Discourse was one of the topics under discussion at the Nathanson and Young lecture at the University of Toronto on April 4 of this year. It has always been one of my goals as a Men’s Human Rights Activist. It is to the proponents of our culture’s major ideology of gender that my efforts at discourse have been directed. However, a seemingly monolithic and persistent refusal by gender ideologues, to allow that discourse has informed many of my expectations of feminists. That refusal led, in 2011 to an article called “Where is the Counter Argument”. It is now hosted on AVFM under the heading “Why we don’t try to reason with Feminists”.

There is a persistent refusal by gender ideologues to respond to any argument for the basic human rights of men and boys–except with accusations of everything from rape apologetics to genital hypotrophy. The gender-ideological response to any address of male human rights has been irrelevant, unfounded and gleefully sadistic narratives of the malevolent evil, and the sheer rapy-ness of any male daring to define himself or his brothers as humans with human rights.

And when even that is apparently too complex or nuanced, just : “Shut the fuck up!” and ”Patriarchy! Fuckface!”

And this long standing trend, familiar to anyone who has argued for the recognition of basic human rights for men and boys – is what informs a certain attitude among Men’s Human Rights Activists toward the cult of false humanism known as feminism, based on real violence and hatred.

In June of 2011, I wrote words which resonated with men and women around the world. Men and women weary of the lies and double-standards of gender ideologues.

I don’t mind telling you, I am no longer here to debate, or to reason, or to converse, or to hope you may be reached by logic or evidence. I am here to fuck your shit up.

My friends, it has been a busy couple of years.

What should be obvious to anyone with at least a few years of experience in this movement is that as the MHRM has grown, the tenor of gender ideological discourse has shifted rapidly.

On December 13, 2012, the Jezebel contributor Kate Harding wrote a public lament that Men’s Human Rights Activists, in their stubborn refusal to shut the fuck up for the benefit of feminists – are preventing them from solving the problems and human rights issues facing men. Yes, according to Harding, feminists have been trying all along to address men’s human rights issues, and (according to her) it is us preventing the solution.

Says Harding:

Fuck you [men’s rights activists], first of all, for making it nearly impossible for decent men struggling with abusive partners or unfair custody arrangements to get the help they need and deserve. You have forever tainted those issues with your rage-filled, obsessively anti-woman horseshit, to the point where it’s become difficult for any rational, compassionate person to trust a man who claims he’s been screwed over in family court or abused by a female partner, even if he has.

According to Harding, and apparently many of her comrades – if only we’d all shut up and go away, the femmies would have our human rights concerns sorted out and solved by next week.

Indeed.

In other news, the endless repackaging of the second-wave feminist talking point “all men are rapists and that’s all they are” continues apace. Obviously, nobody taken seriously still uses that old, false and obviously hateful slogan. Rather, gender ideologues re-frame it to make the core message of hatred palatable to modern sensibilities. “Rape culture” is a re-packaging of the same message, as is “men can stop rape” and “teach men to not rape”. The implication is that without special education, the default state for the male half of the human race is a complete willingness and desire to commit the violent crime of rape.

One of the most recent re-framings of this nugget of hate takes the form of “consent is sexy”. Let’s set aside the puerile and simplistic conception of sex as a transaction practiced in clear unambiguous language of agreement, notarized with witnessed receipts and professional bureaucrats to approval stamp every step of the way. This “consent is sexy” rhetoric does just what gender ideologues like Harding have done, in her ham-fisted attempt to claim ownership of male human rights advocacy.

Rather than attempting to dictate their false reality to the world: “all men are rapists” or “men run the world for the purpose of oppressing women” – gender ideologues have changed their rhetoric.

The feminist rhetoric “Consent is sexy” is an attempt to bargain; to negotiate their way into acceptance that “all men are rapists,” by framing it in different language, with the promise of some pussy attached.

They did this because the idea that “all men are rapists” is so incredibly, patently ridiculous on its face that it needed to be peddled more softly, even adding a poontang reward into the mix to make it palatable. This helps enlist the services of male sycophants and quislings when needed to block doors or strong-arm people into being quiet.

Similarly, the claim by gender ideologues that they are thwarted by MRAs in their efforts to address the human rights issues of men and boys is an attempt by them to clamor for lost ground. They know that with the enormous growth of the MHRM, and also with the explosion of people who are not MHRAs but are just sick of feminist lies and victim mongering, that the days of them owning the podium are over. And so now they come, with promises of their dedication to actual human rights issues, not to mention their available vaginae, in an attempt to negotiate their way back into an authoritative position.

Gentlemen and ladies ( and others ) of the MHRM, return the podium to the gender ideologues! They have our best interests at heart, really, really. Agree with the most recent reframing of the second-wave’s claim that you are, if male, automatically a rapist. Just give in, and if you do, there’s approval and maybe even some sex in the deal for you.

“Consent is sexy”.

Ooh, what a deal! I can hardly wait to have feminists carrying their share of this human rights movement forward.

Well, except for a minor hitch. Just the fact that like everything else from gender ideologues before now, it’s all a sham. I’m also not the only person in this conversation to carry a sharp awareness that feminism’s long-standing operational mode has been the infiltration and corruption of other social movements (civil rights, anyone?). I mention those complaints only in passing, however.

What’s most interesting is that for the first time, in part thanks to AVFM, gender ideologues have found it necessary to attempt to bargain, rather than dictate. And this brings us back to the topic of this discussion.

What is necessary for honest discourse?

And, for the gender-ideologues who might be reading this: So you want to come to the table to talk, do you?

Earlier in this piece, I mentioned the concluding paragraph of an article published on this site in 2011.

The fact that shutting me up, and shutting up other MRAs is a major goal is illustrative of just what we oppose. The truth does not require state funded enforcers. Now, in addition to not shutting up, and in light of my, and other’s increased understanding of just who and what you are who oppose the men’s movement – namely that you are violent, lying hypocrites lacking interest in truth, and consumed with a self serving philosophy which relies on escalating harm to those you pretend to protect. I don’t mind telling you, I am no longer here to debate, or to reason, or to converse, or to hope you may be reached by logic or evidence. I am here to fuck your shit up.

In other words, if you come to this conversation with a gun in your hand, or a box-cutter, a bludgeon (as those feminists I’ve recently faced have done), or screaming “Shut up, fuckface!” at others in the conversation – DON’T expect to be treated as anything except a stupid, armed and dangerous thug.

Expect instead to have your shit fucked up.

I have been saying for years that the gender ideology calling itself feminism was violent and hateful, and what did its proponents do to prove me wrong? They came in force, bringing bludgeons in Toronto and knives in Vancouver to silence opinions they disagreed with, all while screaming their narrative of threat through megaphones, to justify the weapons in their hands. They even advertised on blogs and websites that they were coming with violence on their minds.

Lets be clear in our expectations, although the threats of violence and the menace of a masked, armed mob failed to silence the members of the Men’s Human Rights Movement, I expect the use of force to be dialed further upward by gender ideologues. And that won’t work either. Remember, we didn’t come carrying weapons – we kept our calm, and we carried cameras.

And that, combined with what appears to be a congenital incapability for rational discourse among gender ideologues, was precisely what fucked their shit up so effectively. That has now resulted in transparent efforts to attract pussy beggars and idiots for support as anyone rational distances themselves from your ranks.

So what is required for actual discourse to occur? What is it going to take, for gender ideologues to become a useful part of the conversation?

[unordered_list style=”green-dot”]

Recognize and repudiate the initiation of violence in your feminist rhetoric and policies. This needs no explanation. Killing or brutalizing children, based on their sex, promoting the extermination of men, publicly fantasizing about forced castration and so on – these are fantasies which would have embarrassed Joseph Goebbels;

Abandon and repudiate the constructed narrative of rape culture. It’s a transparent re-framing of the second-wave feminist talking point “all men are rapists”. It’s not simply a vile nugget of distilled hatred, it’s also demonstrably false, based on uniform criminal victimization data collected by the FBI and law enforcement agencies around the western world;

Abandon censorship. It’s a totalitarian urge, and has no place in a movement pretending to advocate anyone’s human rights, even the subset of humanity identifiable as women;

Repudiate and abandon the tactic of othering through identity politics. This tactic demonstrates that your movement is at present, the antithesis of a human rights movement.

[/unordered_list]

In short, abandon most of the major tenets of your ideology in it’s current form. Then we can talk.

Now, it’s worth noting that I am not attempting to bargain here. I want nothing from feminists, and I expect nothing other than more of the same abuse, hatred and escalating violence in rhetoric and action from their camp. The list provided here is a ticket price for admission to the conversation. There is nothing offered nor promised in exchange for these points.

I am simply saying that these four points are what are required from you, feminists, to be even considered to be allowed to join any serious discourse. Your continued failure to even address this list, or any version of it from other authors demonstrates in mile high neon lettering that you are the members of a violent hate movement, and your public posture of humanism is a false veneer for a masked, armed ideologue with evil intention.

If you still cleave to any of the four listed tactics, while trying to convince anybody of the validity of your cause, you are simply bringing violence or its threat to what would otherwise have been a civil conversation. Right now feminists, you are, stated simply, toxic to any civil conversation or society.

It’s a simple list, and indeed, something already accomplished by every adult with a credible grasp of basic decency. And I don’t believe you are capable of even entertaining any political will to accomplish the goals of that short list.

But those four items are what I recommend for everybody in this human rights movement, that current gender ideologues must satisfy, before being allowed into the conversation.

Prove me wrong about you, feminists.

I will not be waiting, or holding my breath. I will simply continue my work, to push your hatred, your violence, and all your proponents into the trash-bin of history; to fuck your shit up. And I thank you for your kind attention.