Bulletin Board v306

Addressing the Lack of Research on Male Childhood Sexual Abuse — On Thursday July 20, fans across the world mourned the loss of Chester Bennington, the lead vocalist for the world-renowned band, Linkin Park. Bennington’s suicide by hanging at the age of 41 stunned fans, but it also brought to light a rarely discussed topic: male childhood sexual abuse. One in six boys are sexually abused before the age of 16—yet the issue remains underreported, undertreated, and highly stigmatized.

Court: Juvenile sex crimes can be basis of civil commitment — Civil commitment of offenders who have been designated as sexually violent predators can be indefinitely extended for those whose crimes occurred when they were juveniles, the Washington Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday.

Fear of being called racist ‘stopping people from raising child abuse concerns’ — Potential cases of child abuse are not being raised because people fear being labelled racist, a Labour frontbencher has argued. There is a need to acknowledge that the “majority of perpetrators have been British-Pakistani” in the towns and cities where grooming gangs have targeted girls, Sarah Champion has said. Continue reading

Jody Allard reveals feminism’s true abusive colors

Jody Allard is back. For those who do not recall, Allard wrote an article in 2016 titled My teen boys are blind to rape culture. Allard argued in the article that despite all her efforts as a good feminist single mother, her two teenage sons are riddled with misogyny. Instead of taking heed of Allard’s demands that they check their privilege, stop their internalized misogyny, and challenge their friends who deal in “rape culture”, the boys laughed her off.

Any reasonable parent would look at that response and reflect on their own behavior. They would ask themselves why this approach did not work. They would ask why their children reject the very foundation of their parent’s identity and political beliefs.

Allard, however, is not a reasonable parent. She is a narcissistic, passive-aggressive, sociopathic ideologue, and so she does what anyone so mentally deranged would do: blame and publicly humiliate her sons. Again. For the fourth time. Here is the title of her most recent article:

I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons)

Think of what type of person you must be to write something so vicious about your own sons. Think about how warped your mind must be to in one breath say that your sons are good and in the next accuse them of being rapists. Because that is what Allard did. You need not take my word for it. Take Allard’s: Continue reading

Why the left became ban happy

I suppose one could argue about generalizations. Yes, not all people on the left want to censor the opposing side. However, it does appear that most of the current voices attempting to censor are on the left. It also appears that while those speaking may represent a small group of people, a significant portion of the left as a group does not seem to have a problem with the attempted censorship.

We are seeing the attitude appear in every sphere, from the news to entertainment. Look at the situation with Cassie Jaye and her film The Red Pill. Feminists have successfully blocked its showing at several theaters, despite that most, if any, of those objecting to the film have never watched it. They are blocking not based on its content, but based on their feelings about what they assume the film discusses.

We can see this within the comic book industry, where several covers were pulled or replaced because of complaints from the left. This has happened in the video game industry, which led in part to Gamergate. The most recent instance occurred a few days ago at E3. This attitude has even made its way into the news, an outlet that is supposed to be unbiased, yet proves highly partisan.

So I think it is worth asking what is going on with modern liberalism that makes its adherents so inclined to this behavior. Continue reading

How not to conduct an interview

One of the first rules of journalism is to know about your subject before interviewing them. No journalist wants to appear ignorant of the basic facts about a person, particularly when that information is easily acquired.

Another important rule is to respect the subject. Obviously this will not apply to everyone. Sometimes a journalist may need to be confrontational. In most cases, however, there is no need to badger the subject. Respect garners better interviews than disrespect.

Those two basic rules escaped the hosts of an Australian morning talk show: Continue reading

Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings

Youtuber TL;DR released a video recently concerning an intriguing paper called Phallic Affect, or Why Men’s Rights Activists Have Feelings. A one Jonathan A. Allan wrote the paper. Allan is the Canada research chair in Queer Theory and Associate Professor in Gender and Women’s Studies and English and Creative Writing at Brandon University. He is the author of works such as Virgin Envy: The Cultural (In)Significance of the Hymen and Reading from Behind: A Cultural Analysis of the Anus. He is also the vice-president of the American Men’s Studies Association.

Given such stellar credentials, it is not surprising that a substantial portion of Allan’s work focuses on criticizing masculinity as bad or toxic. In his paper Phallic Affect, Allan argues that men’s rights activists have co-oped the language of feminists in regards to the personal is political. Feminists contend that a woman’s feelings on a matter are important and validate her concerns, even if the evidence suggests her concerns are unwarranted. This usually manifests as “the personal is political” or “listen and believe” or “feels equal reals”.

Allan, however, does not think the men’s rights movement has any legitimate grievances. Continue reading

Feminist proves MRAs have a point by trying to disprove that point: Part 2

This is a continuation of my previous post about Suzzanah Weiss’s article in which she explains where men’s rights activists go wrong in their arguments by ironically proving their arguments. Here we go:

2. Fathers Are as Important as Mothers

Another common men’s rights issue is child custody and, more generally, men’s ability to play as active a role in the family as women do.

Feminists totally agree with this as well. Everyone should have a choice regarding what role they play in the family, and their a/gender shouldn’t factor into that.

That is an interesting position given that feminists either ignore or oppose efforts to increase father’s roles in their children’s lives. For example, the National Organization for Women opposes shared parenting laws, claiming that they give abusive men access to their victims.

Feminist organizations pushed for government-funded family programs that often exclude fathers as potential beneficiaries. Family courts routinely grant custody to mothers, even in cases in which the fathers are the primary caregivers. Child support laws appear gender neutral, yet they are applied primarily to fathers. Noncustodial fathers often receive limited contact with their children, which is subject to change at the mother’s request. Yet rather than supporting fathers in their attempt to address this bias, feminists claim that the bias is a myth concocted by bitter men and sexist men’s rights activists.

In fact, having more equal households benefits people of all a/genders. In relationships between men and women, for example, women whose male partners are helping out around the house are more able to prioritize their careers.

That has nothing to do with recognizing the roles fathers play in their children’s lives. Rather, it prioritizes women’s desires over fathers’ importance. It also assumes that men do nothing in their homes or that want they do matters less than what women do.

But men’s smaller role in the household is also not evidence that they’re oppressed.

The argument about oppression does not come from men’s role in the household, but how they are treated when it comes to custody issues. Men are held financially responsible, yet treated as physically negligible regardless of the clear importance to their children’s lives. When both parents agree to a particular arrangement, say that the father will work and the mother will stay home with the children, this equal decision is flipped on men during separations or divorces and used against them. Now they can be shut out of their children’s lives, lose a significant among of their pay check, and face mounting legal bills because of the “sacrifices” the woman made to stay at home. Continue reading

Feminist proves MRAs have a point by trying to disprove that point

Everyday Feminism is precisely what is wrong with modern feminism. The writers for the site are typically so misinformed and uninformed that it is shocking they are able to construct complete sentences containing any information. The site is a view into a Fortress of Solitude-size echo chamber, complete with backpatting, groupthink,  and flat-out lies. Yet it is the condescending tone found in many article that often results in the site’s best idiotic material.

Enter Suzannah Weiss. She wrote an article titled “4 MRA Arguments That Actually Have a Point – And Where They Go Wrong“. One already knows it will be a trainwreck of ideological nonsense just from the title. The most impressive part about the article is how blind Weiss is to the nature of her own statements. As one reads through the article, she contradicts herself within one or two sentences. A simple proofread would have caught this. One would expect an editor to catch it as well. Yet Weiss readily disproves her own arguments against men’s rights activists so frequently I can only assume she typed it and posted it immediately.

The article is fairly long, so I will break it into parts in order to address them fully. Let us begin: Continue reading