By Sierra Hubbard, Staff Writer
KSU Men, a men’s rights group on campus, is pressing onward after recent allegations of connections to a hate group were put to rest.
KSU Men is led by Sage Gerard, a senior and computer science major.
“We are a community of men and women that talks about issues affecting men and boys,” Gerard said, “[We] advocate solutions for issues affecting male students on campus.”
In an anonymous email, an unnamed individual claimed that KSU Men is affiliated with a hate group and called for a review of the organization’s application “to ensure that KSUM meets KSU’s non-discrimination requirements.” The group in question is A Voice for Men, a sponsor of KSUM led by Paul Elam. Sage Gerard is also the collegiate activism director for A Voice for Men (AVfM).
Concerns raised in the email included the accusation that AVfM was listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The organization is known for denouncing chivalry and the institution of marriage, and their many articles condemning false accusations of rape against men.
Though it was confirmed that AVfM is not listed as a hate group by the SPLC, Paul Elam was more than willing to address these other issues.
Elam explains that the organization’s mission statement discouraging chivalry is meant to promote gender equality. “When we define chivalry, we’re talking about special treatment, special accommodations, special deference to women delivered by men,” Elam said. “That sort of social mentality is not consistent with the idea of equality.”
Denouncing marriage is more of a legal issue for AVfM.
“We denounce it as it is currently practiced and is currently affected by our family law system,” Elam said. “You’ll also note on that mission statement that we recognize that marriage has historically been a part of what we would call the fabric of our society and a very important part of it. But family courts have been corrupted to the point through the use of Title IV-D funding, through the bias against fathers in the courtrooms, the bias in custody disputes, the issuance of restraining orders without evidence or corroboration in order to get a leg up in the divorce, [this] makes it a very hostile environment.”
Elam also expresses the group’s concerns for children of these families. “Children that are alienated by fathers, through the use of the family courts, have the greatest tendency toward, what we would call, a negative impact on psycho-social factors, like truancy, teen pregnancy, drug use, criminality, you name it.”
The original email also claimed that AVfM “insists that 92 out of 102 rape cases are false accusations.” This information was pulled from a contributor’s article on AVfM’s website, and Elam denies that this is the position of his organization.
“No, the editorial position of AVfM is, I believe, the factual one, which is that nobody knows the percentage of allegations that are false,” he said. It’s not something that’s easily ascertainable. The estimates range anywhere from 2 percent to 45 percent and I saw one in one case that said 60 percent.”
“Our position is that in the end it doesn’t matter. If it’s 2 percent, that’s a lot of people falsely accused, Elam said. “Whatever the rate, it’s certainly a problem for the numbers of men that are accused of rape falsely.”
While Elam does not believe there is a strict ‘solution’ to this problem, he does believe in opportunities that can be taken to help the issue.
“I do think that educating young men on scenarios that can result in a false accusation is helpful,” he said. “I think that prosecutors and police being mandated to arrest and prosecute false accusers, which they currently cannot do, is a possible part of addressing the problem. And I think that educating people about the consequences of false accusations on the lives of people that are wrongly accused can also help be part of addressing the problem.”
In response to the concerned individual, Michael Sanseviro, the Dean of Students for KSU, sent an email explaining the university’s obligations to protect students’ constitutional rights on campus.
“As a university receiving public funding, we must afford freedom of speech on our campus, regardless of the content of that message or the parties delivering that message,” Sanseviro said. “Many student organizations affiliate, whether formally or informally, with organizations that do not adhere to the university’s nondiscrimination statement, but we can only focus on the specific behaviors and actions of the registered student organization itself and its members.”
Dr. Sanseviro confirmed in the email that no action will be taken against KSUM. “Attempting to silence the extreme or marginalized voices can risk a slippery slope of intolerance, and perceptions of what is extreme can vary greatly across time and place,” Sanseviro said. “At KSU we are committed to equal access for all voices.”
With these accusations put to rest and AVfM working as a sponsor and strong supporter, KSUM presses onward in its goals for male students on campus.
One of their objectives is to change the name of the Women’s Resource and Interpersonal Violence Prevention Center. The group wants ‘Women’s Resource’ taken out of the name.
“They offer services to both men and women at the Interpersonal Violence Prevention Center,” Sage Gerard said. “The problem is that, basically, they have a unisex restroom, but they taped a women’s sign over the unisex sign. So guys don’t even realize that the services are available to men.
The idea is to have a gender neutral name for that center so that men and women both understand that there’s a place for them.”
Shameka Wilson, director of the WRIVPC, disagrees with this viewpoint and does not believe such a change is feasible.
“I do not foresee the name of the WRIVPC changing in the near future,” Wilson said. “Men are more than welcome to take part in events and programs sponsored by the WRIVPC. In addition, the Assistant Dean of Student Success has met with the student officials of the KSU student organization, Kennesaw State University Men, and has informed them that the University is growing and that there may be opportunities in the future to develop a Men’s Resource Center.”
Until such an entity exists, however, KSUM will continue in its efforts to change the center’s name.
Secondly, the group wants to see changes to the Gender and Women’s Studies Program at KSU.
“What we want to do is we want to diversify the literature,” Gerard said. “In essence, there’s coverage for LGBT, black community, and women. But there’s no coverage necessarily for masculinity, at least not in a way that’s really sensitive to the male experience.”
Stacy Keltner, coordinator of the Gender and Women’s Studies Program, points out the many different areas covered. “If you look at our course offerings, you will see that our program is very diverse,” Keltner said. “We have courses on Masculinity Studies, Black Feminisms, Transnational Feminisms, Queer Theory and Sexuality, and we just passed a course on LGBTQ Identities that will launch next fall.”
This has been taken into consideration by KSUM, however, and does not satisfy their concerns.
“I don’t think that the masculinity studies course is approaching men with a good attitude,” Gerard said. “It approaches men with the attitude that they are, in essence, angry, incapable of controlling their emotions, and things of that nature. I don’t think that the masculinity studies course is fully representative of the full male perspective. Again, talking about renaming things, I’d say go ahead and call it Gender Studies. That branding thing doesn’t need to be as centric on one gender.”
Dr, Keltner defines gender as ‘multiple and variable’ and explains why the name includes women.
“To say that gender is ‘multiple and variable’ means that gender is not essentially determined by a two-sex biological model of difference,” Keltner said, “but by a multitude of factors that are not only much more physically complex and varied, but also social, political, cultural, and historical.
“When faculty came together in 2006 to found the interdisciplinary program at KSU, we wanted the name to reflect our academic ties to the student, civil rights, and women’s movements of the 1960s and 1970s, from which ‘Women’s Studies’ as an academic field was born. However, we also found it limiting and decided, therefore, to add ‘Gender’ to the title.”
Dr. Keltner concludes, though, that the program is anything but stagnant.
“Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies is, like other fields, growing and ever-changing,” she said. “We embrace this process and welcome contestation, complexity, and imagination.”
The last main goal of KSUM focuses on the RAD For Men program.
“The first and most major issue is that it’s not really a self-defense course,” Gerard said, disturbed by the language of the RFM manual and its insistence that men should stop sexual assault if they see it. “It’s one of those things where RFM does not have a practice that is indicative of really investing in the safety of male students. It’s rather trying to hold them responsible for things that could put them in great danger.”
Brandon Cortolano, the lead RFM instructor, explains that the program has a large focus on educating young men.
“Well, the purpose of RFM is to inform men that there’s more options available when they’re confronted in an aggressor type situation,” Cortolano said. “A lot of men have been brought up to stand up for themselves and fight back, and what RFM does is it teaches options, that you don’t always have to confront aggressive behavior with more aggressive behavior. You have an option to just turn around and walk out the door.”
Cortolano believes that the program is still a self-defense program and explains the dual purpose. “It’s a two-prong course where we teach you to educate yourself so you can be prepared in these confrontations, and the second part of it is learning the techniques in case there’s no way to escape without using force.”
He believes the RAD system is gender equitable and does not think that having a gender neutral class would be beneficial.
“With the women’s class, what we’re teaching is defense against abduction, whereas, with the RFM, we’re teaching men that they don’t have to fight all the time,” he said. “So that’s two different entities here.”
Cortolano’s other concern is the amount of survivors of encounters that take the class. “There’s a sense of comradery, you know, where the women can talk to each other and get comfortable with each other. And if you throw a man into the situation women may not open up as much or they may back down.”
Gerard does not think combining the classes is needed to promote gender equality. “I would say that just the removal of the gender roles is appropriate,” Gerard said.
KSU Men is holding a conference in the Student Center on Nov. 1, called Male Students in Peril, with several notable guest speakers on men’s issues and educational equity. Despite opposition, they invite all to attend the event and RSVP via ksum.eventbrite.com.
…
What do you think? Leave a reply below.
I want to thank Sierra for her professional, objective approach to the sensitive topic of gender, and to thank The Sentinel for remaining fair to the varied positions involved.
There is one editorial mistake, however. Where Paul Elam is quoted saying “Children that are alienated by fathers […]” it should read ““Children that are alienated from fathers […]”
I hope everyone watches KSUM carefully, because our work is only just getting started. The campus is a long way from gender egalitarianism, and KSUM will be a pivotal force in helping neglected male victims find the help they need.
Very well done! This is what journalism looks like.
‘ In addition, the Assistant Dean of Student Success has met with the student officials of the KSU student organization, Kennesaw State University Men, and has informed them that the University is growing and that there may be opportunities in the future to develop a Men’s Resource Center.” ‘
What? What if the athletics department said that to the female students? I believe that would be a Title IX violation right there.
File a Title IX complaint:
Contact the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at 1-800-421-3481 or use their online complaint form at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/complaintintro.html
Uh, you do realize there is already a Women’s Resource Center, right? Adding a men’s resource center would FIX the Title IX problem, not create one.
Maybe she meant that YOU should file a Title IX complaint?
If so, then I just misread. I have already asked the legal division to look into Title IX issues before, and there will be follow ups. 🙂
Now, this is REAL journalism, and much more even-handed than the feminist-dominated media that attempts to erase men’s issues from all consideration.
Sierra Hubbard did herself proud and I am proud for her.
If you’re worried about gender roles, feminists have already done that work. The point here is that getting a group on campus that spreads false statistics, cherry picked studies AND is associated with a misogynist hate site is bad news.
The problem is nobody said AVFM was a hate group, it IS a misogynist HATE SITE. That’s the technical legal language you are all leaving out.
I hope this never happens as it’s an extension of Paul Elam and his ‘bash a violent bitch’ screed and how women are begging to be raped.
He also doesn’t believe in women’s reproductive choice and thinks men should tell women they’ve impregnated to fuck off and not pay child support. The latter is part of his official platform.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFs0oOCMs
Here are AVFM’s official spokespeople saying and doing the misogynist things they try so desperately to hide or call satire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evNf1PssYy4
Here’s my take on the conference and planned protest:
http://youtu.be/FZqpGE9SmLs
I’m looking forward to attending this conference and hearing some new diverse perspectives on these subjects. The ticket price is reasonable enough to accommodate most budgets.
Dr. Keltner: “Women’s, Gender, and Feminist Studies is, like other fields, growing and ever-changing” …. “We embrace this process and welcome contestation, complexity, and imagination.”
What Keltner et al DON’T welcome is conducting an examination, outside Marxist/feminist ideological space, of the real-world disenfranchisement, demonization, and victimization of men.
For Keltner’s program, the only legitimate goal is the deconstruction of men and masculinity so that men can be reconstructed to serve the feminist agenda. That’s why men have to speak up on their own behalf, using their own, non-feminist language to understand their own experience.
Readers would be well advised to read the associated editorial, which contains an additional quote from Paul Elam, and to read more deeply into the Men’s Rights movement online. What they will find will likely disturb them. As a true believer in equal rights for both genders, I fully believe there are real and important issues relevant to both genders. There are also extremists on both sides whose message is muddled by hatred and confused by a mischaracterization of “the other side”. What seems to be missing are “men’s rights advocates” who advocate for the issues affecting men and boys without simultaneously attacking women and girls.
The men’s rights movement, like any other movement, is a highly diverse collection of individuals and organizations from all walks of life. You will find both humanitarians and yes, even hateful people on the men’s movement. But the same can be said for any movement, including the women’s movement.
No one is denying the existence of extreme people, but Paul Elam is not one of them, and A Voice for Men is not the whole of the men’s movement.
Let’s get to the heart of what you seem to not want to state plainly: You don’t like A Voice for Men or Paul Elam. Ok. That’s your opinion. But when forming that opinion, have you bothered to talk to the women of A Voice for Men to get their perspective? Have you bothered to look at quotes from Paul IN CONTEXT?
Something tells me you have an ax to grind.
It is wrong to say that there are no people who advocate for men and boys without attacking women and girls. I am one such person who actually defends gender equity, and I don’t appreciate you speaking as if that people like me don’t even exist.
And I also don’t appreciate you trying to take the moral high ground by saying you are a “true believer in equal rights.” What is that supposed to mean? Who says what a “true believer” is?
Speaking for myself, I’ve helped a suicidal man give himself another chance at life, volunteered countless hours for rallys, a conference, writing, fundraising and other events, and worked with teams to investigate the real motives behind people who merely profess to be “for equality.” And believe me, I got way more experience under my belt.
What, specifically, have you done to BUILD a more equitable campus? Because all I’m seeing right now is another pundit with an ax to grind trying to keep the word “equality” all to herself so that she can cast everyone else as bad people.
I can see right through that.
Sage,
First, I don’t appreciate your patronizing tone. That you can “see right through me” implies that I am attempting some sort of secretive agenda. Implying that I truly believe in equal rights for both genders does nothing to belittle the beliefs or efforts of others. If you have a guilty conscience, don’t attempt to impart alternative motives on my behalf.
In my comment I also acknowledged that there are extremists on both sides of the issue, so clearly we agree there.
What we absolutely do not agree on is the characterization of Paul Elam. I have absolutely researched the actions of AVFM, and your actions Sage/Victor, and am intimately familiar with your views on women and feminists (and despite the arguments on this page to the contrary, members of your movement quite often conflate the two). Paul Elam is a hateful individual who very infrequently focuses on anything other than how women are to blame for everything bad that has ever happened to men.
Context matters little when a quote contains the words “Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.” or “Progress for men will not be gained by debate, reason or typical channels of grievance available to segments of the population that the world actually gives a damn about. The progress we need will only be realized by inflicting enough pain on the agents of hate, in public view, that it literally shocks society out of its current coma.” (both direct quotes from Paul Elam)
I do not have an ax to grind, I have an opinion to state. I am not an angry feminist (nor have I ever met one). I am an American citizen with the right to free speech. I have done many things to fight for equality, but do not feel the need to list them here as if they provide me with some special importance.
If you care about men’s rights, then please by all means go out and fight for them and I will be thrilled to stand at your side. Don’t waste your time attacking me for asking others to do due diligence in looking at publicly available information on your movement.
If you think criticism is “attacking,” then that’s your problem. I also have an opinion to state, and you can sit there and think whatever you will of it.
“Context matters little?” How can you say that and pretend you have no ax to grind? All you’ve done is sit here and make accusations against a man I personally know, and he is not how you portray him. Anyone familiar with context about his words and character cannot reasonably draw the conclusions you have drawn. The quotes you cited are out of context, period.
But I won’t speak for Paul. He will be on campus soon enough, and you are free to ask questions after his speech. The RSVP link is on the KSUM feature article.
If you looked at our site, you would find that we are working on feeding homeless students, building gender neutral counseling services around the IPV center, and more. And yet you sit here like we aren’t doing anything? Do you realize how insulting that is to the people who bust their butts trying to make this thing work?
I have dealt with ignorance like yours for long enough to know that it’s not something I can forgive just because you claim you are for “equality.”
Words are empty without action behind them. So after all the baseless accusations you’ve made and disrespect you’ve shown, excuse me if my tone isn’t dolled up to your delicate sensibilities.
You told me to fight for men’s rights. And I will. It includes calling wrong opinions wrong. Can you deal with that?
Sage-
I am glad in your personal relationship with Paul Elam, you have experienced something more complex and less hateful of a person than what he has communicated more broadly through his internet presence. I sincerely hope that you are correct in your judgments of his character, and that he begins to tone down the rhetoric and turn up the positivity.
Again, I will remind you that I have looked at your site, at the AVFM site, and at the men’s rights movement more broadly. I have seen your actions. I have read your words. And I disagree with them. I do not misunderstand them. I disagree with them.
There is no need to be angry with me for that, as I am not angry with you – I simply disagree with you.
I fundamentally feel that you and AVFM are approaching the issue from the wrong perspective and are taking the wrong actions to deal with the issues. That does not make me angry, however.
Let me rephrase that using your own words. I am not ignorant, nor are you. If we were ignorant to these issues, we wouldn’t even be discussing them. We would be out getting ice cream or something (which I’m certainly not implying that we never do – I’m not anti-ice cream). We simply have very different viewpoints.
I take the rights of men and boys very seriously. I also take the rights of women and girls very seriously. My approach to doing so simply differs from yours.
My last reply appears to have disappeared for some reason, so I will attempt to recreate it. The basic essence was this:
Sage, I am not ignorant of your actions or the actions of AVFM. Nor am I angry with you or AVFM. I do, however, disagree with you and have every right to say so.
The purpose of my comment was to simply ask others to look more into the men’s rights movement so they could judge for themselves whether the Sentinel article did justice to its actions.
Ideally, as we are both interested in pursuing equal rights for the genders, we could work together to further these issues on the KSU campus. I would ask that you avoid ad hominem attacks and intimidation tactics toward me and others on our campus, not because of any sort of delicate sensibilities on my part or the part of others, but because they do little to further our cause. Of course, that is up to you.
I spent some time on the AVFM site before, it was a scary scary place. Nothing prepared me for the extremism of their forum.
Threat narrative detected.
If you believe in “equal rights” for both genders, I wonder what your opinion is on rhetoric like “male privilege”, “patriarchy” and “rape culture” that demonizes men and places them in a position of being women’s moral inferiors.
Researchers into how hatred is manufactured point to casting one group as “privileged” as the primary mechanism of inciting visceral hatred towards that group.
Yes, reading more into the Men’s Rights Movement (MRM) is a good idea. I’m not sure exactly what you’re trying to say, but it looks like you’re trying to smear the MRM without actually providing any support for that claim. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
The best thing for readers to do would just be to visit the site A Voice for Men and come to their own conclusions.
I’m not sure how asking people to look into something more could be construed as smearing it… I’m actually asking them to look more into it so they can form their own opinions…which is exactly what you said. Weird!
Instead of saying AVFM is icky, tell us what you think is bad on the site. Simple
“…What they will find will likely disturb them.” (Poisoning the well)
“As a true believer in equal rights…” (insinuating AVfM aren’t)
“What seems to be missing are ‘men’s rights advocates’ who advocate for the issues affecting men and boys without simultaneously attacking women and girls.” (Directly inferring AVfM attacks women)
All of these things are slanderous, not just “asking people to see for themselves.”
And in true fashion, with nary a citation. There’s over 4000 articles to choose from — surely you could have found something.
The feminist movement has from its very start, even in the actual literature for the declaration of sentiments (feelings) of 1848, the systematic undermining and attacking of men and boys. Only someone who is oblivious to this historical truth would make such a vacuous statement about the MRM “attacking” women and girls. And on that note, feminism ( NOT equal to ” women and girls” ) really has been hostile to men and boys. Anyone doing their homework without biased goggles can easily see I have spoken the truth here.
I am not at all oblivious to the historical roots of feminism.
In my comment I acknowledged that there exist extremists on both sides of the issue. There are extremists on both sides, but there appear to be ONLY extremists on the side of the men’s rights movement. Where are the men’s rights advocates who never attack feminists and only focus on men and boys?
“…but there appear to be ONLY extremists on the side of the men’s rights movement.”
If that’s how you perceive things then either you’re not listening, you have no developed sense of empathy, or your own claims for real equality are false.
Decide for yourself, are they extremists? I think so. http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showthread.php?11275-Too-much-stupid!
Men’s advocates may appear to be extremists only because women’s advocates have successfully portrayed feminist ideology as “neutral.” (It is not.)
Liz, could you paste and copy the associated editorial? Provide a link?
Where you write, “What seems to be missing are “men’s rights advocates” who advocate for the issues affecting men and boys without simultaneously attacking women and girls,” can you give a couple brief examples where men’s rights advocates are attacking more than the ideas being promoted by feminists?
Graham, see the link just below the article, the opinion piece titled “The problem with the Men’s Rights Movement”.
For your other request, see numerous quotes by Paul Elam and others about women in general asking to be raped and needing to be beaten, etc.
You’re right, Liz, in that Paul Elam is not a particularly good-spirited guy. While he does know how to tone it down and make some decent points on many occasions, for the most part he’s less a thinker and more a firebrand. His popularity is largely driven by the degree to which so many men feel similar anger at significant legitimate grievances, and by the fact that he’s willing to sacrifice his own reputation in order to advance the dialog. Essentially, he’s a Malcolm X-like figure; what I think you’re saying is that you’d like to see the emergence of a figure more akin to MLK. I think you’ll find few who disagree.
I would disagree, in that I would say both MLK and Malcolm X were representing a historically powerless and discriminated-against group, whereas Paul Elam represents a group with some legitimate concerns in an entirely different context.
MLK/Malcolm – good cop/bad cop – like it or not it is effective.
Attacking feminist ideology is not attacking “women.”
@ Liz
Actually, in our writings we in the movement to obtain human rights for men usually attack FEMINISTS. One common feminist rhetorical trick is to twist this to claim we are attacking women and girls.
Feminists are not synonymous with women and girls.
There are many reasons advocates for human rights for men confront feminists, but chief among these is that we are clear on the fact that feminism’s only goal is to obtain and exercise coercive, totalitarian power, and that feminism’s actions and positions are always and only political. Disenfranchising and exploiting men is part of how feminists seize control and crush opposition, and this ruthless, hegemonic ethos cannot be disentangled from feminism or
feminists.
All feminists support Marxism — with all of Marxism’s brutality, intolerant collectivism, hive-mind, and seizure of universal power. There is no other reality at the core of feminism, and there are no other types of feminist.
Further, we grasp that the apparent multiplicity of feminist viewpoints is a distinction without a difference — a byproduct of the reality that, within the feminist war machine, different feminists do different jobs. For instance, some are waging war against men, while others are waging peace against men. Even if they wear different shoes they nonetheless advance in lockstep.
So, we are not on a search for “good” feminists. There are none. Accordingly, we are not under the misconception there are feminists who believe the same things we do. There are, however, feminists who pretend to do so as a matter of tactics and strategy to advance feminist power.
I would consider myself a feminist, and I know dozens of others (men and women) who would also consider themselves to be feminists. None of us are Marxists. None of us are angry. We are all very different people, who believe very different things. Not one of us hates men (actually, most of us like men very much – and as I mentioned, some of us ARE men!). I am quite sure there are many feminists who are angry, who are marxists, and who are probably even lesbians – but we aren’t all the same.
As I have demonstrated above and as can easily be seen by looking at AVFM materials, Paul Elam quotes, etc. women and feminists are quite often conflated. Not my mistake – theirs.
@ Liz
You write: “I have done many things to fight for equality, but do not feel the need to list them here as if they provide me with some special importance.”
Is that a confession that you are a feminist activist? If so, that’s what I expected. No wonder you know “dozens of others” who consider themselves feminists. Your effort to claim advocates for human rights for men is just the sort of disinformation and demonization feminists have inflicted on men for 40 years.
It would also be unsurprising you would conceal your feminist activities. Posturing as disinterested and objective is standard feminist practice in non-feminist forums. Not long ago, I read a one such piece at a university website. Only later, when the author chose to participate in the comment thread, did we learn she was a feminist activist.
Her apparent evenhandedness and openness was a Trojan Horse to invite readers into discussion inside feminist ideological space — an Orwellian place where the terminology is loaded, “facts” are not required to be objectively grounded, feminist dogma is presumed superior and thus enjoys special protection from criticism, and the scope of acceptable thought is tightly controlled. Outcomes there are predetermined. It’s a place where men and masculinity can be deconstructed and then reconstructed into what feminists want them to be.
Wait, is this the same Sage Gerard who fantasizes about slapping AVFM stickers over the mouths of feminists in his YouTube video (as Victor Zen) where he is sneaking into women’s bathrooms at KSU? And the same Paul Elam who has been quoted as saying that he would love to be on the jury in a rape trail so that he could vote not guilty no matter what the facts of the case?
As a decent educated man I want no part of AVFM or KSUM message. I am however very interested in real issues that men and women face in our society. Higher than average suicide rates among men is a real issue. “The friend zone” is not.
You are welcome to your misguided opinion. How about you come to a meeting and see what KSUM is for yourself?
Not an opinion sir. I saw the video and read the quote. I’m sure you will say that It was taken out of context and I consider that no excuse. It’s still a crappy thing to say. And if this is what the leaders of the men’s rights movement have to say then I am not interested in going to a meeting to hear more.
I hope your mind opens in the future, but if you will not make the effort to actually hear people out, then that’s not my problem. Thank you for making this conversation easy.
I have to agree with you, nothing provides greater disservice to the real issues than watching a few minutes of his diatribes. They are really sad actually.
You may not like the “diatribes,” but they caught your attention, which is a necessary first step.
Please provide the links.
Oh! Now I understand! It’s not a “hate” group. It’s a “misogynist” group. Wait… Umm… Err?
It seems to me that the Men’s Rights Movement has gotten too caught up In attacking Feminists and has lost sight of the goal of promoting issues facing men and boys. When you speak and act in the ways I mentioned above you are not advancing men’s issues. You are being a jerk and possibly breaking the law.
The Feminist Movement does not have to be the enemy of the Men’s Rights Movement. They can work together to solve the very real issues facing men and women.
And before anyone says it, yes there are plenty of feminists who say terrible things about men out there. They are also acting like jerks. However I think they can be more easily forgiven due to the historical lack of equality that women have faced over the last thousand or so years.
Feminist are working hard to get men to engage in dialogue with feminists. The goal is to co-opt and subvert the movement for human rights for men, and to preempt organized opposition to feminism.
Further, feminists have discovered that, for several reasons, they need men to support the next wave of feminist hegemony. Especially, they need to prevent men from disengaging from structures designed to indoctrinate, disenfranchise, and exploit men. So everywhere we look, we see feminist outreach accompanied by superficially conciliatory posturing, repackaging, reframing, and a calculated, tongue-biting shift away from decades of demonization and abuse directed at men.
BTW, it’s good to see you trying to intimidate and threaten commenters by suggesting they are breaking the law. The feminist movement is totalitarian, coercive, and power-seeking, and has made a specialty of perverting legal, quasi-legal, and cultural systems to serve its ends. Your statements confirm your support for this, and blow away the smoke of your fig-leaf reference to feminists sometimes acting like jerks.
We clearly see the feminist movement in different ways. If the feminist movement is working hard to open a dialogue with me and other men then I am all for it. I think a dialogue is exactly what’s needed. I believe that my ideas are strong enough to compete against any others but I am open minded and mature enough that if someone has better ideas then I will listen. I believe that by uplifting one group can uplift us all. This is not a zero sum game.
I must have missed the decades of abuse and demonization at the hands of women. It seems to me that it is women that have been abused and disenfranchised by men and not for decades but centuries.
And finally, my mention of the law. Not intended to threaten or intimidate anyone. I did say possibly break the law because last time I checked it was at least trespassing for a man to enter the women rest room unless it’s his job. But I admit I do not know hence the possibly part. In addition saying that you would vote not guilty in a rape case despite the evidence is illegal. At least the act is. That’s called perjury. Simply saying that you would do so is just being a jerk. I will admit that the women’s movement is ” power seeking” ands attempts to change laws in this country. But since many laws historically favor men and are unfair to women I see no problem with this. And power seeking… Well of course they are they want equal power to men, not less so of course they are seeking power.
You can see the feminist movement however you want. A dialog is rejected, and so long as you and the feminist movement stands out of our way there shouldn’t be a problem. You do your activism, and leave us to do ours.
And voting “not guilty” in a rigged proceeding isn’t perjury, it’s jury nullification — and it’s perfectly legal. Jurors, ultimately, are the boss of a court room.
Reading your comment just makes me sad Mr Johnson. I genuinely do care and wish to address the issues that men face in their lives. I would happily stay out of your way and even walk with you. However if you are rejecting so much as talking to those you disagree with then I feel you are doomed to failure.
I’ll concede the point about weather it is perjury or not. I highly doubt that Paul Elam would ever make it onto the jury of a rape trial. Those lawyers should be fired for incompetence if he did.
Anyway, good luck to you sir. If you change your mind about that dialog I’d be happy to debate with you.
“However if you are rejecting so much as talking to those you disagree with then I feel you are doomed to failure.”
What is it then when, besides not talking to people you disagree with, you also try to prevent them from speaking at all?
I understand that there is a conspiracy among faculty and others to do exactly that in regards to the KSUM planned conference in November.
The feminist movement is working hard, in an act of tribal aggression, to open a dialogue with men. The goal is to have men agree to be subverted and exploited, and to having their masculinity redefined by feminists. Feminists know the power of organization, and why it’s important to co-opt and preempt the movement for human rights for men before it gains public visibility and awareness. One common method is to claim the movement for human rights for men is unnecessary because feminists are already fighting on behalf of men. Wow — who knew feminist hegemony was good for men too?
You’ve missed the decades of demonization of men by feminists? Here, let me help you dip a toe in that oppression:
http://thoughtcatalog.com/jake-fillis/2014/05/23-quotes-from-feminists-that-will-make-you-rethink-feminism/
You can also take the time to read up on methodical disenfranchisement and marginalization of men attending college. The method du jour of demonizing them there is the fabrication of the phony “rape culture” meme. Feminist discourse is privileged above all others inside the university gulag; only feminists have standing there. On campus, men are the less-equal animals. Feminists are enlightened and wise, men are primitive knuckle-draggers in need of coerced reeducation by their feminist betters.
THE primary issue facing men and boys – feminists.
” However I think they can be more easily forgiven due to the historical lack of equality that women have faced over the last thousand or so years.”
And what of the lack of equity that men have faced over the last thousand or so years?
What of the the fact that millions of men have gotten conscripted into wars where they got maimed, shot at, shot, mutilated, and killed?
What of the fact that only men have to register with the Selective Service System today? What of the fact that this still causes some problems such as not having the opportunity to get a federal job or federally funded student loans if one doesn’t register with such a system?
What of the fact that male victims of domestic violence have basically never received any support until recently, and still to this day rarely receive support?
What of the fact that countless legal systems that have ruled out a priori that men could get raped?
What of the fact that since 1997 female genital mutilation, unless there exists a known and present existing medical condition, has come as illegal, but male genital mutilation in the form of foreskin removal on children without a known and present existing medical condition continues to get practiced to this day?
“And what are about the lack of equity that men have faced over the last thousand years?”
I’m sorry but are you implying that women have somehow been keeping men down for that time? I don’t mean to belittle you. Truly I don’t and I’m sorry if I’m offending you but that is a ridiculous claim.
The rest of your comment however is interesting and bears reply.
Men getting conscripted into wars can hardly be lain at the feet of women. Women did not even get he right to vote till 1920. Before that any possible conscription or draft act was at the decision of men. Women have served officially in the military since 1901. And unofficially since long before that. Women have only been trying to gain more freedom to serve in the military since.
Women do not have to register for selective service and men do. This does not seem like a serious issue of unfairness to men due to the fact that there is no draft and that it is very unlikely to ever be one again, however you mention that there are grants and jobs that are unavailable unless you register. That is not a problem for men due to the fact that they have to register it is only unfair to women due to the fact that they cannot register.
I am all for changing this standard to include women in the selective serve requirements.
Now comes the real issues.
Female on male domestic violence is a real issue that I would love to discuss. This is a real mens issue and I think you will find a great number of feminists that agree and want to do something to help abused men. All I am seeking is equality. I think domestic violence is horrible weather it is women or men getting abused. Both genders deserve equal protection under the law and support from their communities when reporting, escaping and recovering from said abuse. I doubt you will find many feminists that disagree.
The legal systems that think men can’t get raped are wrong and that also is a men’s issue that needs to be addressed. I am not aware of the rulings that stated this but if you pass along a link I’ll be happy to educate myself further. Men can be raped, by women and by other men. Both are horrible crimes and need to prosecuted harshly. But women can also be raped by men and other women. This is also a horrible crime that needs to be addressed. Rape for either gender is not taken seriously enough in my opinion. It is under reported, under prosecuted and the victims are not supported enough by their communities. Again again I doubt you will find many feminists that disagree that men can be raped and that it is a horrible crime that needs more attention.
Male circumcision as I understand it is primarily a religious practice. Does that make it right? Absolutely not! I am not religious and I find the act of disgusting. I don’t hear any feminists arguing that it continue though. And you cannot make the argument that male circumcision is somehow a way to subjugate men at the hands of women. Religious rights is a debate for another forum.
Please understand Mr Spoonwood. I am not saying that men have no issues to address in this world. There are many more than we have discussed. They need to be discussed and they need to be fixed or addressed in some way. However, and I’ll add in the comment just above yours, feminists are not the primary issue facing men and boys. Feminists could be a powerful ally to the men’s movement if they accepted the open dialogue that lastango seems to think is such a bad idea.
I believe that if the men’s rights movement actually spent their time working for male rape victims and male victims of domestic abuse, that they would find little resistance. The problem is that the men’s rights movement dose not want that. It seems to me that the men’s rights movement would rather spend its time demonizing feminists. I am not interested in that. I am interested in fixing the real issues at hand for men and women.
I have a lengthy point-by-point response to your comment here:
http://pastebin.com/mmjrZGsF
The spam filter is convinced it “may” contain spam.
Working class men did not have the right to vote for a long time, either. Voting was relegated to the wealthy property-owners, which means the decision to conscript did not lie with all men as you claimed. And the men who happened to posses the voting power are not to be used as tools to blame men for conscription.
Women perpetuated the concept that men should be at war with the White Feather Campaign, which I will leave you to read.
Finally, so long as the feminist institution presumes that men have power that they don’t, and spreads hateful narratives that shame men into compliance, there will be a need to criticize it.
Feminism is an ideology. An idea. A view. That means it is subject to scrutiny like anything else, and it is childish to act as if no one is allowed to criticize it.
Can you say that you care about equality and then not give ideas an equal chance?
“Women do not have to register for selective service and men do. This does not seem like a serious issue of unfairness to men due to the fact that there is no draft and that it is very unlikely to ever be one again, however you mention that there are grants and jobs that are unavailable unless you register. That is not a problem for men due to the fact that they have to register it is only unfair to women due to the fact that they cannot register.”
All aforementioned grants and jobs are available to females WITHOUT registering. It is only males who have to register in order to qualify.
If history begins with men and women being each other’s equals, then how were men able to impose their collective will on women without women being able to prevent it?
The founder and funder of KSUMen believes women are demanding to be raped. I don’t want him or any of his disciples near my daughter or her school. If KSU is going to embrace this kind of treatment of young women, as it appears they are doing, then my daughter will have to reconsider KSU as a possible university. I imagine I am not the only father to feel this way.
http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/07/02/mens-rights-conference-host-says-women-who-drink-dance-are-begging-for-rape/#
“The founder and funder of KSUMen believes women are demanding to be raped.”
This is taken out of context on a hit piece on a site that “challenges the right” and “advances social justice (code word for redistribution of wealth),” which itself cites work from ABC’s 20/20 preliminary to a hit piece of their own that they were writing.
Before you presume to speak for others, you should at least do your own research which would include getting your information from the source (which is readily available), and placing things in their proper context.
Paul Elam made this statement on video and is quite proud of what he said. The statement can be found on numerous sites, including those supported by Elam. If you are truly his disciple, shouldn’t you be shouting his profound pro rape statements from the rooftops and not attempting to hide them by claiming they are out of context? As if there is some context that would make these statements okay.
Bottom line: if you are not okay with the statements and positions your leader advocates, maybe you should stop following him.
There’s always a context that can change the meaning of something 180 degrees.
Also, would you convict someone of a crime if the defendant was not allowed to defend theirself? I wouldn’t. Regardless of the charge.
Some of the issues listed on the KSUM site are very legitimate issues for men: custody issues, child support burdens, false accusations of rape. That being said, attacking women (feminist or not) to get attention for your cause undermines it. Equality means that no one gets preference. A Voice for Men is an extreme group that belongs in the same category as Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK. Same message, different packaging.
There are many fine men at KSU. I just don’t think KSUM represents them.
First I’d like to point out that your name, “very concerned,” is the beginning of the threat narrative that you are weaving now which targets KSUM.
Neither KSUM nor AVfM attack (another element of a threat narrative) women at all. They criticize feminism, feminist theories, and gynocentric culture. And it’s not to get attention, it’s to effect change.
We all know what equality is.
Finally, your _attack_ on AVfM and your opinion of KSUM are both unfounded. Or at least you didn’t bother explaining why these comments shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
If equality means no one gets preference, does that mean you care calling on feminists and the women who support them to give up their privileged position on campus, and their status as a protected political class?
I love these arguments. They make life interesting.
“I love these arguments. They make life interesting.”
Then attend and participate in the upcoming conference if you can 🙂
I support all efforts Sage and KSUM are making against a tidal wave of intolerant people. Shameka Wilson, shame on you for telling men to ‘stay in the back of the bus, this is a girls club’ when you refuse to include men in the name of publicly funded resource.
Bravo to Dr. Sanseviro for doing the correct thing.
AVfM absolutely is on a list of hate websites from the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report.
Yes, SPLC clarified that the entire Men’s Rights Movement is not a “hate group.” But AVfM is a hate website. This was some poor reporting.
That is merely an opinion expressed by the SPLC, not a fact.