Forbes Magazine declares its love for radfems and disapproval of mensrights

neo-futurist · 2013-06-16T15:07:35+00:00

So, the accounting blogger of Forbes decides to write an article about the poor victimized radfems. They interview Brennan without response. The ultra left Counterpunch did the same thing

MechPlasma · 2013-06-16T16:43:48+00:00

The offending statement in particular:

Regardless, you don’t have to agree with radical feminists to see that they have a worthwhile viewpoint. Unless you are a “Mens Rights Advocate”. Then you have to petition the city council or whatever it is they have in a country where they don’t know how to spell center to shut down their conference so your ears won’t burn while they say nasty things about you among themselves.

Keep in mind that Radfem 2013 was kicked out of their original venue... for being too discriminatory, not because they were going to say mean things.

(Bonus point: "I think radical feminists call that kind of talk 'mansplaining'", on the topic of why explaining why there's only 20% of women in the senate and in... partner groups in public accounting? How eerily specific.)

I wouldn't say that Forbes itself stands behind this position though. I believe Forbes does have editing for its opinion pieces, but there's a good chance they didn't themselves know in-depth about the Radfem2013 issue.

femdelusion · 2013-06-16T15:56:28+00:00

He links to that God-awful Lindy West piece on Jezebel as "the best feminist response to MRAs that I have ever seen". Given that the intellectual competition could hardly be characterised as fierce, I'm curious as to whether this was an intentional case of damning with faint praise.

typhonblue · 2013-06-16T18:53:52+00:00

And we grow. Thanks Forbes! Keep shaming men and pointing to us to the solution. :D

TracyMorganFreeman · 2013-06-16T18:40:55+00:00

Gender only exists for the benefit of men, as a class, at the expense of women, as a class.

Yeah men aren't hurt by expectations of masculinity or what it means to a "real man", often determined by women.

Radical feminism goes to the heart of female oppression by naming male domination and violence as being responsible for women’s subordination.

"Women are incapable of enacting violence but somehow capable of being taken seriously when enough of them ask for something, even if it's to the detriment of men, but since men are in charge women can't be oppressing anyone".

Herpaderp hypoagency dialed up to 11.

OK. Well after half a century of “equal opportunity” take a look at the US Senate. It is about 20% women

Opportunity is not the same as results.

Unless you are a “Mens Rights Advocate”. Then you have to petition the city council or whatever it is they have in a country where they don’t know how to spell center to shut down their conference so your ears won’t burn while they say nasty things about you among themselves.

Insult MRAs about MRAs not liking to being insulted, and the only reasons anyone would disagree or oppose the radical feminist viewpoint is not having a thick enough skin.

Meaningwhile, all those spaces for men better not have anything negative to say remotely about women or feminism, or they're misogynistic and need to be shut down.

IHaveALargePenis · 2013-06-16T19:07:57+00:00

So this uncultured bastard makes a big deal of the spelling for "center" even though it's the Americans who spell it differently? You know, how we spell color they spell colour, etc. Canadian school kids have a greater understanding of the English language than this fucking turd.

If you are a chess player, you don’t have to worry about bridge players showing up at your tournaments with decks of cards. I could go on with a multitude of stupid examples, but the point is that radical feminists are entitled to the same respect.

I would compare radfems to westboro baptist church before I would compare them to chess players.

McFeely_Smackup · 2013-06-16T16:41:19+00:00

It's clear that he knows his target audience well. He actually felt the need to explain how he defined the terms "male" and "female" and was apologetic that he did so from so crude a measure as genitalia.

focusinertia · 2013-06-16T20:46:40+00:00

One of the author's comments:

"Some of the comments on the cases are in the vestpocketed articles on the side. I am still pretty weak as an interviewer and I ended up not getting a lot of details about exactly what happened at the conference. The overarching story seemed to be was that they were glad the conference went on at all, which is kind of odd. I’ll try to do better next time."

He ended up not getting a lot of details about exactly what radfems are about. Dumbass.

focusinertia · 2013-06-16T18:09:42+00:00

A comment from Jezebel article:

"The things you outline in your first paragraph are because of patriarchy. Patriarchy assumes and expects men to be strong, powerful and aggressive and women to be passive, weak and vulnerable. Men who do not conform are taunted not because of "misandry," but because they do not fit the patriarchal model of masculinity.

You saw women doing this because...DING DING DING... women can internalize patriarchy too!"

I suppose that's patriarchy talking. Could it be that the patriarchy has taken over her?

DarthOvious · 2013-06-17T10:28:30+00:00

Then you have to petition the city council or whatever it is they have in a country where they don’t know how to spell center ..................

Other than the obvious that he was standing up for Radical Feminists with biggoted views I was also surprised at his attack on my nation for the way we spell the word centre. Somebody might want to inform this idiot that the English people invented the English language and so it might not be a good idea to tell us how to spell our own bloody words.

2013-06-17T13:12:16+00:00

Forbes HATES menrights because we are encouraging men to no longer be workhorses that generate capital.

ZimbaZumba · 2013-06-17T16:24:21+00:00

Brennen = Fred Phelps of feminism.

2013-06-18T14:33:21+00:00

Wow Forbes. And to think how proud I was when you first published one of my articles. And then another and another. Guess who's not sending you any more content.

zagus · 2013-06-16T18:55:25+00:00

Is this guy an actual Forbes journalist, or just one of many bloggers they have?

Honestly, I barely have any idea what his point is (or what he's talking about). Some sort of 'radical' feminists who don't like gender but also don't like transgender women? That's what I got out of it.

Edit: I googled "Cathy Brennan", and while I don't know much more about her, the rationalwiki article on her is hilarious.

UnbiddenKarma · 2013-06-16T22:01:51+00:00

I can only assume that entire article was a social experiment to see if a given position is received better when coming from an older white gentleman.

Any moderates whether feminist, mra, or egalitarians are going to laugh the article off as soon as they have the roughest idea of the positions expressed by some Radfems or Cathy Brennan at all. She has a low perspective of men to be sure but her real bread and butter is her self celebrated transphobia which most people will agree is an already vulnerable group.

So for what ever social science student who created "Peter J Reilly" I hope it was informative apparently the patriarchy is not so strong where any white male can espouse any given shit online and it will be respected by the masses.

mrfauxpas · 2013-06-17T06:05:08+00:00

It's sad that most radicals confuse "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome".

OK. Well after half a century of “equal opportunity” take a look at the US Senate. It is about 20% women.

As far as I know, there is no "political ceiling". Women, just like men, can stand for election, and win/lose. So why is "ONLY 20% in the senate" a sticking point? Am I missing something?

You might have an answer for that, also. I think radical feminists call that kind of talk “mansplaining”. Regardless, you don’t have to agree with radical feminists to see that they have a worthwhile viewpoint. Unless you are a “Mens Rights Advocate”.

Umm... a) its not a worthwhile point of view just because you will it so. And especially when there is no logical foundation to the argument b) WHAT??

OrwellHuxley · 2013-06-16T20:41:57+00:00

I don't see how this is "Forbes declares its love for radfems". It's one guy who contributes to writing content for Forbes.

failblorg · 2013-06-16T18:22:14+00:00

i wasn't aware that feminists are pushing that transgender surgery be deductible. just another reason the movement should stop uncritically parroting the incoherent feminist nonsense that is trans theory

Title	Forbes Magazine declares its love for radfems and disapproval of mensrights
Author	neo-futurist
Upvotes	62
Comments	44
Date	June 16, 2013 2:53 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ggf9c/forbes_magazine_declares_its_love_for_radfems_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/forbes-magazine-declares-its-love-for-radfems-and.1171069 https://theredarchive.com/post/1171069

Comments