Sunday, April 22, 2012

Dave's Slippery-eel Style of Polemics Is Rotten

Here is his most recent article. He is truly "in the tank" for the femin-SS. A real "sonderkommando" of the worst kind.

Should We Be “Celebrating” Equal Pay Day Today — or in January?

Jonathan Kitchen / Getty Images
Jonathan Kitchen / Getty Images
Today is a holiday that no one is interested in celebrating. [I'm oviously a recipient of too many "social promotions" and a self-taught journalist.] No, not Tax Day; some people are proud to pay their taxes. I’m talking about Equal Pay Day, a sort of anti-holiday invented by the National Committee on Pay Equity to mark the sad fact that women and men still don’t earn equal pay for equal work. [Confused? That's what I'm trying to accomplish here.] According to the American Association of University Women, women working full-time jobs still only earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men with full-time jobs, a 23% gap. [How's THAT for an Appeal to Authority fallacy!] Today, April 17, marks how far into 2012 women would have to work in order to match what men earned in 2011.

We’re not talking about pocket change. In 2010, the last year for which we have data, American men working full time took in roughly $47,700; women earned only $36,900, a gap of $10,800. That’s almost enough to cover average housing costs for an individual over the course of a year. (Or one gigantic shopping spree at the dollar store.)  Over the course of a career, the typical woman earns a staggering $434,000 less than her male counterpart. [Say, does this apply to Hollywood, Television, Advertising, Holding Political Office (Elected or Appointed), Civil Service Jobs, Federal Service Jobs (Say GS-7-9-11-), Private Entrepeneurship ... to name but a few sources of employment?] 

However, at the same time - (MOREWomen Are Overtaking Men as Breadwinners)

But what if this giant pay gap is the result not of discrimination, but of something less pernicious – like the different life and career choices made by men and women?  When you look more deeply into the numbers, critics suggest, the alleged wage gap simply disappears. On the conservative, for example, John Perazzo argues that the wage gap is “a complete fiction. A gargantuan lie, actually.”

Women, he argues, are more likely to work in non-technical fields, to avoid dangerous jobs, to seek jobs offering more flexible hours.
An even more significant cause of the gender pay gap is that women tend to compile fewer years of uninterrupted service in their jobs than men. Indeed, women are far more likely to leave the workforce for extended periods in order to attend to family-related matters such as raising children.
As a result of these sorts of differences, Perazzo argues,
when men and women work at jobs where their titles, their responsibilities, their qualifications, and their experience are equivalent, they are paid exactly the same.
Well, not exactly. [It's time to play "insinuate the fallacy innuendo" once again!]
Perazzo is right that different “life choices” do account for some of the wage gap. But not all of it. According to a 2003 report by the US Government Accountability Office, even after accounting for different work patterns between men and women, and other such factors, there’s still a 20% wage gap. A 2009 report prepared for the Department of Labor by the CONSAD Research Corp suggests that the gap is considerably smaller. According to CONSAD, “observable differences in the attributes of men and women … account for most of the wage gap.” The real gap, the report argues, is only between 4.8 and 7.1%. [Where's the refutation here? For that matter, where's even so much as a counterpoint?]
So should we really be “celebrating” Equal Pay Day sometime in January? Well, no, because the different “work patterns” and “attributes” of men and women explain less of the differences in pay than the critics claim. [Another broad-sweeping specious claim slipped in right under your noses!]Take the issue of motherhood. As Perazzo argues, motherhood does indeed have a large effect on women’s wages: while childless women make 94% of what childless men make, mothers make only 60% of what fathers make. (Men, by contrast, get an economic boost from fatherhood.) [Exactly how this happens ... well. it just DOES and everybody knows it!] Indeed, economist Jane Waldfogel argues that motherhood may account for up to half of the wage gap between men and women. [Please refer to the opening sentence of this paragraph and the AAUW claim in the opening paragraph of this article.] 

But career interruptions only account for some of the “motherhood penalty.” As sociologist Michelle Budig points out,
Having children reduces women’s earnings, even among workers with comparable qualifications, experience, work hours, and jobs … That mothers work less and may accept lower earnings for more family-friendly jobs partially explains the penalty among low-wage workers, and that mothers have less experience, due to interruptions for childbearing, explains some of the penalty among the highly paid. But a significant motherhood penalty persists even in estimates that account for these differences: the size of the wage penalty after all factors are controlled is roughly three percent per child, which, in 2009, means the typical full-time female worker earned $1,100 less per child. [I'm addicted to using the Appeal to Authority fallacy ... female sociologists rule!]
Some of the wage gap, as critics like Perazzo point out, is due to the fact that women tend to work in fields that pay less than fields dominated by men. But when women enter these higher paying fields, they still tend to earn less than their male counterparts. The gender wage gaps in heavily male dominated science and technology jobs, for example, range from 81% in civil engineering to a relatively egalitarian 94% in chemistry, according to government data recently compiled by the AAUW. [Remember, none of this is in any way impacted by the salaries women receive in modeling, fashion design, acting, dance, government service jobs (salaries fixed according to one's grade), holders of political office at any level, private business owners, military personnel, etc., etc.]
(MORE: Are We Paying Our CEOs Enough?)
Moreover, talking about the differences in the career paths of men and women as the result of free “choice” can be misleading. As psychologist Hilary M. Lips puts it,
The language attributing women’s lower pay to their own lifestyle choices is seductive—in an era when women are widely believed to have overcome the most serious forms of discrimination and in a society in which we are fond of emphasizing individual responsibility for life outcomes. …
[But] the language of “choice” obscures larger social forces that maintain the wage gap and the very real constraints under which women labor. The impact of discrimination, far from being limited to the portion of the wage gap that cannot be accounted for by women’s choices, is actually deeply embedded in and constrains these choices. [Don't bother to ask me for the details supporting this emotionally-soaked generalization. My purpose is to oversimplify and thus "get over" on the readership!]
One reason women may be less likely to enter tech fields, for example, is that they have been taught their whole lives that women aren’t good at that sort of thing. “From childhood onward,” Lips writes,
we view media that consistently portray men more often than women in professional occupations and in masculine-stereotyped jobs. Not surprisingly, researchers find that the more TV children watch, the more accepting they are of occupational gender stereotypes. Why does the acceptance of gender stereotypes matter? Gender-stereotyped messages about particular skills (e.g., “males are generally better at this than females”) lower women’s beliefs in their competence—even when they perform at exactly the same level as their male counterparts. In such situations, women’s lower confidence in their abilities translates into a reluctance to pursue career paths that require such abilities.
[Just remember, women in jobs whose salaries are fixed by "grade" and/or one's rank, women in the media, advertising, Hollywood, television, theatre, the arts, modeling, fashion, women who are political strategists and consultants, women elected or appointed to public office, who head charities and NPO's, who are in real estate, who own their own businesses, etc., etc. - they do not count and are to be excluded automatically from consideration here. It's all about mothers with children and scientific/technology careers ... understand?] 

It doesn’t help, of course, when the relatively small number of women who take engineering courses at the college level are treated like exotic creatures, sex objects or ersatz men.
You may recall the infamous talking Barbie doll that told young girls that “math class is tough!”
Well, inequality is tough. Not just tough to fight; tough to understand. And to really understand it, you need to go beyond the numbers.
[Just one "red herring" after another. First it's a 23% gap, then a 20%, Then a government-funded study says more like 4 to 7 % - half of which is made up of working mothers; the other half being women trying to "integrate" the engineering and tech fields. Forget about women in academia, the media, fashion, politics, the arts, advertising, real estate, public relations, public office holders at any level, the legal profession,the medical profession, military personnel, government jobs with salaries determined by grade,and private business owners!]

Read more:

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

The SPLC Sucks In Futrelle's Squidfartz.

The Southern Poverty Law Center has now officially lumped Men's Rights and Men's Rights Activists in with the KKK. After several years of trying to counter the term "Feminazis" with analogies between MRA's and the KKK, feminists have now apparently paid off  the SPLC to make a flatulently flat out accusation that the two groups are synonymous.

In doing so, they are once again reaching back to the 1960's and their assinine attempts to equate themselves with the african-american civil rights movement. In this day and age, these two-legged anachronisms will brag how superior they are and how they've "come a long way, baby!" But whenever they want to go any further, feminists will always revert to form and fall back on the agit-prop that they are really still treated like a bunch of N-words, deep in the Jim Crow South.

In reality, feminists work very hard to conceal the existence of the word misandry or deny the fact that it exists at all.  They studiously avoid references to androphobia, gynocentrism and, above all, "matriarchy."  Feminists smugly assume we will all forget posters they put up like this ...

Or concepts they tried to spread, like this -

and this -

and this -

With mollusk men like Dave Futrelle, these fanatics are in the procees of establishing a "Jane Crow" society for all males in this country.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Dave's Pickled Red Herring Does Not Go Over Well

This is an article from the Traitors of Men blog.

David Futrelle And The Mountain Of Lies
A Voice for Men, one of the most influential and popular Men’s Rights websites, is now offering a $1000 “bounty” for anyone able to track down the personal information of several Swedish women involved in a tasteless video advertising a theater production based on Valarie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto.
Note how Futrelle immediately downplays the video by merely calling it "tasteless". Stronger adjectives, such as sickening, reprehensible, or misandric would seem to suit such a video better, but Futrelle chooses "tasteless".

The comments posted on the article at AVfM suggest that such “retributive” violence is a real possibility. Indeed, here’s the very first comment (which currently has 17 upvotes from readers of the site):
Was this an optimal manner for someone in the men's rights movement to express himself? No. Does it suggest that "retributive violence is a real possibility"? No.

These are the words of a man who just watched the Society for Cutting Up Men promote the murder of random men, for no other reason than their sex. I would even argue that violent threats would be understandable in such circumstances. However, this isn't one. He phrased it "shoot back", and in a follow-up comment ZenoCo calls it "defending himself". If, in the future, members of SCUM decided to follow in the footsteps of their idol and chose to enact their "theatrical play" in the real world by shooting at random men, those men surely would be justified in shooting back, would they not?

A commenter called  Xnomolos, in another upvoted comment, adds:
i would love to hunt down these women myself.
It is possible that Xnomolos meant he would like to go to Sweden and "hunt down" the women who advocate for murder. It's also possible that Xnomolos meant he would like to metaphorically hunt down the women's information online. Lastly, having never heard of this person myself, it is possible that they are a feminist attempting to make MRAs look bad.

Regardless, none of these possibilities indicate violence actually occurring.

JinnBottle responds to this comment by advising “all men to start carrying guns"
Within the context of his comment, JinnBottle is clearly suggesting for men to carry guns in self-defense only, and he even backs off from that soon after. That Futrelle attempts to portray this as an endorsement of proactive violence is illustrative of his transparent propaganda in action.

There is no question that the video itself is offensive, and designed to provoke.
It is not designed to "provoke" anything but taking joy in the murder of innocent men.

Futrelle just got done cherry-picking three AVFM comments, from 239, which he indicated were violent and threatening. Within the next breath, he is back to downplaying the Swedish SCUM video. The hypocrisy is unfathomable.

But John the Other, and the other commenters on AVfM, claim that it is more than this: that that the video of the staged murder, intended to provide publicity for a theater production based on Solanas’ notorious SCUM manifesto, is quite literally an open call for the murder of men. As John the Other puts it:
Open advocation of murder cannot be allowed in a civil society, without that society devolving into a culture of brutal violence.
Evidently he has no problem with, or has somehow not noticed, the comments on AVfM fantasizing about shooting and killing the women involved in the video.
Except not a single comment fantasized about shooting and killing the women. Futrelle has built his base of lies, and is making further lies from them.

Is the video a literal call to murder? Is it, as one AVfM commenter puts it, evidence of a “conspiracy to commit mass murder?” No. Violence and murder have been dramatized in the theater since its beginnings. No one accuses Sophocles of advocating fratricide and incest, though both are dealt with in his play Oedipus Rex. No one accuses Shakespeare of advocating mass murder, though many of his most famous plays have body counts that put many horror films to shame.

Does the tag line at the end of the video – “do your part” – transform the video from a depiction of murder  into an open call for it? No. The “threat,” such as it is, is vague; it’s not aimed at any specific individuals. It might be seen as akin to someone wearing a t-shirt that says “kill ‘em all, let God sort them out” – tasteless and offensive, but not a literal threat.  “Kill ‘Em All” is actually the name of Metallica’s first album. While a lot of people see James Hetfield,  Lars Ulrich et al as pompous idiots, they have not been jailed for conspiracy to commit mass murder. That would be ridiculous.
Let us look at the facts clearly, free from Futrelle's deceptive framing:

1) The group is called The Society for Cutting Up Men.

2) The author of the SCUM Manifesto, which the group bases their beliefs upon, actually put her manifesto into action by shooting and attempting to kill a man.

3) The video portrays a woman shooting and killing a man.

4) The video portray the woman and her accomplices as gleeful and orgasmic in reaction to the murder.

5) The video ends with the message "Do Your Part".

6) There is no other context to be extracted from the video, nor is their any apparent humor.

7) The people who made this video belong to a Facebook group called "Destroying the male gender".

Now, what other meaning could one possibly derive from "Do Your Part" other than an endorsement of murder?

I repeat, David Futrelle chooses to defend and downplay this hateful video, and instead attacks and accuses members of A Voice For Men for their angry reactions to the video. Mangina is far too kind a word for the likes of David Futrelle.

Monday, October 3, 2011

Dave Dishes Out Plenty of Half-Baked Fluke to Paul Elam

"You have been provided, David, with ample studies, clearly conducted by persons without a political attachment to their work (at least you have not established such an attachment) and you need to respond in kind or your entire position becomes a sham.

Critiques of surveys, or of the CTS, are fine and needed to make your point, and I will indeed address those critiques, and more adequately than you will likely care for, within the deadline on my next post, as well as the DOJ stats, etc. But it needs to be clear from the beginning, you are putting Greenpeace on trial and trying to stack the jury with whaling execs. I won’t let it pass without calling you out on it.

Get some real research, David, and some untainted, credible critique. And if, perhaps, you have a hard time finding anyone but gender ideologues that are challenging the soundness of the research in question, then you will have stumbled on yet another reason to rethink your position.
Futrelle responds:

So, Paul, instead of actually responding to anything substantive, you:
*attack feminist scholarship that I didn’t actually cite
*rehash a tiff you had with one of the experts I quoted
*attack someone else completely irrelevant to the debate at hand because he happens to belong to an organization the the guy you had the tiff with also belongs to
*list a bunch of researchers that I do actually cite, but that you’ve somehow decided are evil ideologues and not to be trusted, without actually examining any of their work, simply because they have described themselves as “feminists.”

I guess your modus operandi is simple: when you have no ammunition, you start flinging bullshit.
Elam Response:

Ah, no. What I have done is reveal the fact that the authors of your sources are biased, in fact that all gender ideologues are biased, and that their reaction to any non patriarchal, and thus not exclusively male model of domestic violence is predictably negative. It is called research bias, and it is fair game here.

Remember this?

*attack feminist scholarship that I didn’t actually cite

One of your most prominent sources was from your main squeeze Kimmel. Your claim here about attacking scholarship you didn’t cite is bogus.

Now, regarding the critiques of CTS specifically, and aside from the fact that your “source,” Michael Kimmel, is clearly biased, yes, there are some limitations and difficulties with the information gathering. That has been pointed out by Gelles and Archer, so there is no secret about it. But let’s take a closer look at the objections you raised. Or at least for what you are passing off as objections.
You say:
As a result, one critic notes, the CTS 'equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs. It labels a mother as violent if she defends her daughter from the father’s sexual molestation. It combines categories such as “hitting” and “trying to hit” despite the important difference between them. Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a woman to a man’s 15 year history of domestic terrorism.'
This is about as poor an example of the problem with CTS that can be found. Let’s try that statement with simple sex reversal.

As a result, one critic notes, the CTS 'equates a man pushing a woman in self-defense to a woman pushing a man down the stairs. It labels a father as violent if he defends his son from the mother’s sexual molestation. It combines categories such as “hitting” and “trying to hit” despite the important difference between them. Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a man to a woman’s 15 year history of domestic terrorism.'

I am sure you don’t get this David, but both of these descriptions are equally valid. The only problem you can come up with is if you enter the analysis, as your quoted reference here clearly did, assuming that the male MUST be viewed as the default perpetrator." ( ... )

Dave Shows You How To Serve Up Some Nice Cold Squid

"What if the feminists realize we are on to them and start doing things differently?  What if they start using rational arguments instead of the same cheap tactics which they have used for 50 years?  What then? But then you would be forgetting one of my other key points:
Their tactics never change.
As evidence, I present to you Exhibit A:  Ferdinand’s DV Debate: David Futrelle fulminates; loses temper and debate.

I admit I didn’t read the whole debate between Paul Elam and the male feminist who’s cups runneth over.  He went there to trade study for study on the question of whether women really do commit domestic violence against men at similar levels as men do to women.  His argument was that since he could point to more studies showing the orthodox feminist view, his perspective must be right.  I stopped reading after a commenter to the debate jumped in the ring and knocked the feminist out with a link to the Jezebel post where feminists brag about all of the domestic violence they have committed against their boyfriends:  Have You Ever Beat Up A Boyfriend? Cause, Uh, We Have.

Stay classy feminists.

The feminist looked like he might come to just in time to avoid the count.  He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends.  Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.  And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

Then a commenter on his own blog pointed out that there are multiple pages of comments on the post, and referenced examples of the women breaking into ex boyfriends homes and stabbing them, etc.  Even the feminist was stunned.  I pretty much stopped following the action at that point.

So I wasn’t surprised to learn that shortly thereafter he stopped backing up the feminist study dump truck and decided to find an excuse to end the debate and remove the record of it instead."

Dave Provides Doughnut Holes To Go With His Chowder

Quote from: John Dias on January 10, 2011, 03:00:12 PM

I've been commenting over at Futrelle's blog for months now, BQ, and I have to say that your presence there is a welcome addition.  We need reasonable and articulate voices to counter the assertions that the author makes routinely.  The purpose of David Futrelle's blog is to unfairly portray the various misogynistic statements that he finds around the Web (as well as statements that are conflated by David into examples misogyny) as somehow representing the men's rights movement as a whole, and to discredit its aims.  That's what is really in play here:  legitimacy.  If our movement is not socially perceived as legitimate, then we face a tougher time gaining leverage in the legislatures and at the ballot box.

I've seen his picture that was associated with his previous online writing.  Also, I've talked to him over the phone.  He's a real guy.  Unfortunately, I believe that deep down, David Futrelle thinks that the people who advocate on behalf of men are somehow by definition apologists for misogyny.  His blog exists in order to perpetuate the legitimacy of the status quo (he told me that his intent is merely to study misogyny as a phenomenon, but I highly doubt that). In my opinion, his blog has a political purpose.  He wants his writing to thwart the political momentum of the men's and father's rights movements.;wap2

If It Smells Like Fish - It's Definitely Dave

What's Wrong with David Futrelle: A Comprehensive List

The execrable David Futrelle recently 'subjected' one of my posts to scathing and ignorant 'rebuttal'.* However, his schoolboy attempts to comprehend (let alone rebut) my arguments merely highlighted the shortcomings of this errant White Knight. His puerile efforts were not wasted, however. Obscurely, Futrelle's ignorance illuminates certain features of the Anglobitch Thesis, while simultaneously showcasing the extent of his own folly.

Although clearly a liberal progressive, Futrelle displays the same pro-female self-abasement that defines Anglo-American conservatives like Thomas Fleming. One wonders whether this tendency has masochistic undertones - and whether his public utterances partake of a troubled private life.
Below, I engage with Futrelle's piece point by point. I don't see a single valid point in his juvenile fulminations, let alone authentic understanding of my position.

1. Introductions

The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog -- devoted to the notion that "Anglo-American Women Suck!" -- has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an "inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men" in the "Anglosphere."
Florid references to a "rambling, loopy rant" indicate a specious argument is on the way - and David does not disappoint. After all, he misrepresents my argument from the first. I do not say hate crime legislation is inherently misandrist, I merely argue that men are seldom (if ever) beneficiaries of it, when considered solely as MEN... yet, as numerous examples demonstrate, men ARE extensively discriminated against as MEN, for example in the media and before the law. Far from decrying hate crime legislation, I call for its extension to protect men as men. And why is Anglosphere mockingly enclosed in speech marks? Isn't David aware that many reputable academics in economics, law and politics accept that the English-speaking nations are bound by more than language? Ask a silly question...