And 'they' wondered why...
We complained about the Guvmint having control of a list of blocked content with no over-sight.
A men's issues website has cried foul after it was apparently classified as a "hate" site by Symantec. Surfers visiting A Voice for Men (AVoiceForMen.com) were confronted by a message stating that it is a "known hate site" blocking from going any further by web-filtering technology in Symantec. A Voice for Men angrily denounced …
We complained about the Guvmint having control of a list of blocked content with no over-sight.
Male spelled backwards
good spot, and on the same day the Pope resigned too...and so soon after horse meat was discovered in beef products. All the signs are there if only we would look closer
That’s actually his name. Here is his story: http://www.mralondon.org/2012/12/paul-elam-tells-his-own-story.html — feel free to judge his character by his own words, rather than by your assumptions.
There are many authors at AVfM who publish under their own name, and the number is increasing. Dean Esmay has been working with Paul Elam for years; also, many women such as Karen Straughn (a.k.a. GirlWritesWhat) and Kristina Hansen (a.k.a. TheWoolyBumblebee) have joined in recent years. Last month, they added Erin Pizzey, who founded the world’s first domestic violence shelter in Chiswick in 1971 — she was hounded out by feminists after she realized that women were just as likely to be violent in the home as men.
AVfM, and MRALondon, are both excellent organizations. Thanks, Vulture Central, for writing about this.
The riders of the apocalypse won't be coming. Their horses have been processed...
Not only that, Home Depot just switched to iPhone from Blackberry. Coincidence? I think not!
...It is not the job of Norton Symantec to be telling their customers which sites are and are not morally acceptable."
Umm, only it is, really, that's the basis on which the product is sold. You don't have to use it though.
Their job is to filter sites which can harm your computer.
"Their job is to filter sites which can harm your computer."
I always thought that Norton Diskf****er was intended to work by slowing the capabilities of any machine to such a crawl that you couldn't access any sites that might harm your computer. Recently had to remove the things from a relative's PC that was taking twenty minutes to boot.
Vile, vile software, sold to the gullible through scaremongering.
I am so glad that we, in the Linux world, do not have to worry about such things, and watch our computers strain under the load of multiple AV systems required to keep the WindblowZE nastys out of our PCs. I mean, $DIETY forbid that a state of the art Core i7 runs slower than a 386 piece of shit under the strain, because of the load imposed by all of that unnecessary AV software. Need to get some work done - use Linux.
Am I supposed to pity the poor white anglo-saxon protestants? It must be a terrible life. I've never found a single one of these "white, striaght men are the real oppressed minority" groups to be credible in any way.
I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism - I remember holding a door open for someone and being told not to patronise her, I pointed out that I was bing polite and hold doors open for men too. This sort of thing has pretty much gone away now, with the exception of a couple of Labour MPs...
I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism
Yup, remember when I was at University in the 80s I group I was involved with used to have meetings in a cafe run by a feminist collective which prominently featured on the back wall a large poster saying "Kill all men before they kill us"
I don't currently find any of the claims of any religious group you care to mention "credible in any way". I wouldn't want to ban them from the interwebs, though.
There's a rather appropriate quote kicking about in the back of my mind. Google seems to think the original is Oliver Cromwell: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.". Ho hum. He wouldn't be my *first* choice "font of wisdom". Still, I suppose that rather proves the point.
>I've never found a single one of these "white, striaght men are the real oppressed minority" groups to be credible in any way.
Reading comprehension: 1/3: Can do better. The group was at pains to point out that race or sexuality had nothing to do with it.
Just look at advertising on television (I don't mind if you don't bother)- it is very common for the woman to be portrayed as smart and the man as being generally clueless and lost without her. Were the roles be reversed, it would be broadly attacked as belonging to the 1950s.
I don't mind swimming pools having ladies-only hours, but I can't think of a men-only equivalent.
While the feminists complaining about a man holding the door for her is mostly a thing of the past the fact of the matter is that the problems stemming from excessive feminism are still around. For example I have to sit here and listen, almost daily, about the perceived failings of men from several of my female coworkers. Usually it's along the lines of men being incapable of thinking of anything except sex, football, and beer or being unable to do anything right. They are quite nasty about it, but if I were to say anything about I'd be the one accused of being sexist and written up (it's happened here to a couple guys). On the other hand if I were to make the kinds of comments they make daily I'd be dismissed for sexual harassment immediately.
And it's not isolated. It's been this way everywhere I've ever worked, from the store where I bagged groceries in high school to the assisted living place I worked at in college to the various tech jobs I've had since. The one exception to the rule was a shop I worked in where there were no female employees (apparently they had never had a female applicant who had the certifications they required for the job -- not surprising given the male to female ratio of CCNAs).
Time to go back and read the article, white anglo-saxon protestants are not mentioned. This group quite clearly state that they are promoting men's rights whether those men are white, black, red, yellow, green, brown or purple with kinda orangey spots.
I've never found a single one of these Anonymous Cowards to be credible in any way.
"Am I supposed to pity the poor white anglo-saxon protestants?"
Protesters surely? Let's not bring religion into this.
You should go tell all those divorced Dads who barely get to see their kids that there is no discrimination. It'll save them all that pointless campaigning.
> I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism.
And a little trickle through to the 90's. I recall the Uni. bookshop selling the "All Men are Bastards" diaries/notepads and thinking it was a terribly offensive thing to have on display (offensive to men in general and offensive /real/ feminists* like myself too.)
*Men and women in favour of sexual equality and empowerment for both genders, as opposed to women band-wagon jumping as an excuse to hate someone, in this case men.
"I realise that there were some excesses in the 70s and 80s feminism"
Indeed. There was an effort to teach more men to cook at Foothill Jr. College in Los Altos a couple-three decades ago. The feminists went berserk because it was aimed at men specifically. Death threats, slashed tires & paint thrown on the instructors cars, etc. It was funny, in a sad kind of way. (I was one of the targets of their ire.)
I suppose that should have been "fount of wisdom", unless we're talking Comic Sans. Ho hum, again. Point proven, again.
Doesn't the bible explicitly prohibit going anywhere near the bowels of Christ, or any one else, for that matter?
Tell your tripe to the man who lost his child in the custody battle to the cocaine-addicted wife because "women are inherently better caretakers of women." Or how about the dichotomy regarding child support/alimony that is entirely gender-based, especially punitive to males who fought long and hard to be able to keep provide a home for their children.
How about a society that says children must live with the mother after a breakup, regardless of what the children want, or one what automatically presumes a male is guilty in any case of accused sexual malfeasance. What about a society that says it is okay to send millions of young men out to die in battle, yet coddles and protects women; telling them they are too precious to fight.
I think you'll find that most men's rights movements are very explicitly not</i. chauvinist movements. Masculist are generally <i>egalitarians, seeking equal treatment, regardless of gender. In the same way that bullshit propaganda exists today which says (at it's core) "you can't be racist against white people" we have today this ridiculous belief that "you can't be sexist against men."
We have a culture that is in many ways chauvinist (glass ceiling is one sad example) and in many ways misandrist (custody laws and lack of innocent until proven guilty in rape cases.) Both chauvinism and misandry are unacceptable.
Feminism has a strong movement that is well funded by all levels of government, private donation and various registered charities to fight the good fight on behalf of women. Masculism gets easily labelled a hate site, even by companies that should know better like Symantec.
I should also say that while I am a strong believer in the gender equality - and do consider myself a masculist - I haven't visited this site in particular, nor do I endorse (or not) what may be on it. My argument is not for/against this one site, but is an argument regarding the concept of masculist itself.
I am offended that there are people who are themselves offended that men might desire to stick up for themselves and demand equal treatment. What makes men less deserving of equality than women? Should the men of today be punished for the sins of our father's father's father's long dead and long removed from the society that raised us?
I think it is as shameful that you would mock "the white male" as if you were to attempt to alienate any other identifiable group. judge people by the actions of the individual, not their gender, colour of their skin, height, weight, sexual orientation or any other such item.
I am not my skin colour, nor am I my gender. I am the sum of my beliefs and my actions. I am my words and deeds, not my outward appearance. That is worth fighting for; regardless of your gender.
You bring up a good point Trevor. After my brother in law's divorce (before he was my brother in law, I might add, so no one thinks my sister is the such-and-such I'm speaking about) my niece (yes, she's my niece even though we're in no way blood relatives) went to live with her mother despite his long hard fight to keep her. Said mother has been in and out of jail for fraud and hot checks several times over the course of the last few years and the courts STILL gave her the kid in the final custody hearing just a few months ago. She was only out on bail awaiting a sentencing hearing at the time. Why? Because 'kids should be with their mothers'. Never mind that this particular mother is a convicted criminal several times over or that there's plenty of proof that she isn't a particularly good parent. They even keep sending her back there every time the woman gets out of jail even though she can't manage to stay out for more than 5 or 6 months.
That said, as I pointed out in another post, masculism probably has nothing to do with this site being labeled as a hate site. There's a post on there (posted for rebuttal), that could easily be mistaken by a spider as anti-Semitic. I'd guess Symantec's spider latched onto that post and the mistake just hadn't been caught yet before people started getting angry.
Aand look at the dates of the postings. I doubt Symantec ae smart enough to have a time travelling web spider.
I'm not angry at Symantec's algorithm for hating on masculists. (Though I'd love to educate the dev a little on cultural attitudes about men that are more modern than 1985.) No, I'm upset at that douchewoggle AC up yonder who was hating on white males.
That bloke ought to know better.
Hm. Having known someone who has been beaten repeatedly by his wife and yet managed to get convicted of "LETHAL BEHAVIOR" even when he was the one being beaten... yes, there's a big problem on the legal side for males, skin color nonwithstanding.
There are women that consider cheating to be a basic women's right because "he's cheating anyway". And then get to divorce the dude *and* get a pension, even if she's the one at fault.
Yes, the macho culture needed to be taken down, and to be honest there's still problems with wifebeaters and male-on-female abuse, but the opposite things SHOULD be taken into account as well. Thus groups like these.
That said, there are truly hateful groups out there, like Men Go Their Own Way. That's what Symantec must've thought they were filtering.
@Trevor_Pott - you can blame patriarchy for that, not feminism. Feminism doesn't want women being lumped with the title of "only person fit to look after kids" (which has negative effects on women long term financially and career-wise, men who are the better choice for main parent in separation cases and of course the kids who end stuck with unfit mothers), and it certainly isn't responsible for centuries (millennia?) of social conditioning that has been telling us women are delicate little flowers who must be protected. Feminism is about equality and equal opportunity. It is not what is responsible for all the stupid gender roles our societies have been built on.
@People replying to me: I am not talking about the men who have lost access to their children, or other such genuine injustices, these are specific areas which have been allowed for too long and need to be fixed. That said, there aren't many genuine areas where men loose out, but this is definitely one. What I was talking about were the mewling of people who I would tend to classify as "CAMRA twats" (I speak as a member of CAMRA) who hang around the bar in the pub complaining about modern life and how the women are taking over. They tend to be WASPs, probably more likely brought up as protestant than actually practicing, who complain about feminists, Europe, the youth, immigration, women in general, how bad things are for them and they go on and on about it. They genuinely think that they are a trampled on minority.
OK just going to play devils advocate here, but I'm pretty certain that since the dawn of time, when women have gotten together they've bemoaned the oafish traits of their hunter-gatherer partners. What equality of the sexes has done is just allow them to speak their views in the open.
Just so you know where I'm coming from, my grandmother and other women in my family have always equally lambasted their husbands at times and other times speak sincere admiration for them and all they do (just not in the same conversation) - it's not a new thing.
OTOH the women in your office don't seem the enlightened type - they sound like ladettes. I never talk about football or sex and if I talk about beer then it's always my favorite continental beers. But I have been around women like that occasionally, it can sometimes get uncomfortable but I look at it as a challenge to rise above it and be thankful I know classier women. Show a bit of class, they'll soon shut up or put up.
Childrens television programmes are just as bad as advertising, except they indoctrinate the young into the same delusion that women are *always* superior to men.
Go ahead, pick a random childrens TV program (especially dramas) and see for yourselves...
"I've never found a single one of these Anonymous Cowards to be credible in any way."
Does that blow the logic of your argument, though?
> It is not what is responsible for all the stupid gender roles our societies have been built on.
You miss the point.
Whereas the shameful oppression of women in the past was a major concern, things are very different now.
There is still discrimination against women, but that has brought more to the fore discrimination of men.
In our struggle to overcome social conditioning and natural urges, we now face the prospect that women discriminate against men as well as men discriminate against women. In our supposedlly inlightened modern again, both are unacceptable.
The tidbit above describing a work situation with women bitching about men and their "idleness" and "cluelessness" is very typical and usually a bonding activity rather than an expression of the truth. I have come across it in female dominated workplaces myself and so has my nurse wife. She finds it very unpleasant.
We see this representation more and more in advertising, particularly so here in Canada where I find quite a lot of the situational adverts really quite depressing.
Is a very touchy subject with a colleague of mine.
He was divorced when his kids were little, and that vindictive bitch has done everything she could to prevent him from having any kind of relationship with his kids. She used him for a sperm donor and an ATM. For years, she has been spewing the lie that he is a dead beat daddy, and finally Karma has bit that bitch squarely on her ass.
His oldest, once she turned 18, defied the mother and contacted her dad. That re-union was extremely emotional for both of them. As they began to patch up the severely damaged relationship, the question of child support came up. The company's payroll records backed up his statement that he was having child support garnished from his wages. Mommy Dearest had some explaining to do. Things between mother and daughter deteriorated to the point where daughter moved out. My colleague is now enjoying a renewed relationship with both of his kids, as the younger one has now since turned 18, and having learned the truth about Mommy's lies; moved out also.
Life's a bitch, especially when you marry ONE!!!
more of a 'Self Hate and blame it on the feminists' site.
There are a number of humorous articles on why feminists are evil. One selected quote is as follows:
..."Women no more “give” birth than they give themselves heartbeats. Unless actively stopped by abortion, birthing continues as an autonomic process. It requires no will, just like breathing and moving bowels. So basically NOW wants international kudos for women who…poop."...
With one of Trend's products, I've seen
Tesco blocked because it sells cigarettes
ditto a local gastro-pub/restaurant because the website listed fine wines
blocking access to Marks and Spencer https addresses (but not http!) because of women's apparel and swimwear
a well-repsected charity classed as activism and therefore blocked
In this case of the last I submitted a request for reclassification and it was relisted as political/campaigning. But there's no human interaction so other - in my mind reasonable - reclassification requests have come back as "the computer says no".
Won't be that long before your friend the computer requires a retina scan to be able to process your reclassification request...
*please insert retina here*
O2 personal mobile blocks any site with alcohol on it, so I can't get to CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) without paying & getting a £2 charge/refund to verify my identity even though I have a monthly direct-debit account on my personal phone.
Yet with my work O2 mobile, I can go to the same site.
So the filtering is far more widespread than anyone wants to own up to.
Was a time when company I worked for had a project involving our site in UK and another in California so we needed to fly London->San Francisco every so often. However, finding out info on flights etc was hampered by the company webfilter deeming "virginatlantic.com" to be a "probable sex site"
Only if you take care of personal hygiene and are lucky.
I misread the headline as "Symantec branded as a 'hate group'" and wondered if John McAfee was behind it. It's been a long day...
You've obviously never used their software. I find it quite credible that they might be a front for an anti-computer group. No need for John Mcafee's involvement.
If you disagree ask your gf / wife / mum / sistser what they think about the crap on that site.
Have you read it.
I would say I am ashamed to be part of the sex, but instead they should be ashamed
Somebody's under the thumb.
You should take a closer look at it - but this time pay attention to the satire - such as taking an article posted by a modern feminist and changing the words like "man" to "Jew" and "woman" to "Aryan" to show just the idiocy of what they fight against.
You may find that "Voice for Men" isn't really so far out there as you think -- unless your gf / wife / mum / sister believes that crap that men are biologically defective and should be euthanized. If so, watch your back buddy....
Under the thumb ?
I so hope you are joking
So that is satire is it.
The cracked is satire