think about it
Your cart is empty
Visit The Shop

feminism and testicles: andybob and a voice for men

A few weeks ago a lovely character by the name of Andybob left a series of comments on my article about Tracey Spicer and misogynists. He accused me of insinuating that misogynists are gay because I offered them ‘lavender-scented tissues’.

It goes without saying, but we’re no longer living in the 1960s. Saying ‘lavender’ instead of ‘gay’ is kind of outdated. If I was referring to homosexuality, I would simply say ‘homosexuality’. But wait. That would be the logical thing to do.

Andybob also assumed that I was a girl (when I am in fact a guy). He then went on to use that as a basis for calling me ‘pathetic’. I think that goes a long way in illustrating what kind of person this troll really is.

Andybob also said that criticism of Julia Gillard ‘is misogyny. Criticism of President Obama is racism. Criticism of Adolf Hitler was unpatriotic. Anyone see a pattern?’

I don’t know about you, but did this guy just compare Gillard and Obama to Hitler? If that isn’t enough, I was called ‘homophobic’ and a hypocrite. This is a bit rich coming from somebody who writes that:

‘Lesbians barged into gay men’s spaces in droves jabbing their stubby fingers at everyone. Predictably, they proceeded to boss everyone around, making the gay rights movement about them. Note that homosexuality was a criminal offence for MEN ONLY. Lesbianism was never against the law. They had jackshit to whinge about, but they made gay rights about them anyway, and used it as a propaganda vehicle to support feminism.

‘Notice that GLTT became LGTT? How’s that for petty entitlement? Gay men should have fought back, but, to our everlasting shame, we didn’t. The only gay men who remained in GLTT were slimy political types seeking personal aggrandizement, zeta poodle carriers and moronic party boys who don’t give a shit about anything except the pattern on the umbrella in their drinks. Of course, the MSM focus entirely on this noisy, spangled disco version of real gay men like me: men who know exactly how greedy, relentless and downright shady those lezziefems are and don’t trust them one iota.’

The complete lack of commonsense and human decency from this guy does not need to be pointed out. I’m not even going to spend my time responding to such idiotic claims. To quote Andybob back at himself: ‘Pathetic’.

If you’re wondering where these quotes came from, you only need to head over to the website ‘A Voice for Men’. This is a website that claims to exemplify compassion for boys and men. However when you delve a little bit deeper into this website, things start to get a little dark. The website’s mission and values page states that they hope to ‘educate men and boys about the threats they face in feminist governance’ and to ‘denounce the institution of marriage as unsafe and unsuitable for modern men’. In addition, they wish to ‘push for an end to rape hysteria’ and view ‘all organised mainstream political options as misandric’.

Again, the lack of commonsense here does not need to be pointed out. Nor is it hard to imagine the kind of people who read—and indeed contribute—to this website. One person who commented on this article wrote that:

‘Feminists hijacked the whole sorry saga of this young Irish girl who did a very stupid thing and ended up paying the ultimate price for her foolishness. These bloody women who are now pushing this “Jill” campaign, are going to have some very nasty changes to the law of our country effected [sic] and men/boys everywhere will suffer for this. While I do have sympathy for this young woman who was raped and killed, I am also angry at her, for her stupidity in behaving like all the other stupid women in our country.’

The actual articles aren’t much better which, in all honesty, did not surprise me at all.

What do you think of Andybob’s comments and the ‘A Voice for Men’ website?

Here at Lip, we value insight, debate and shared experiences. That said, we don’t publish content that is discriminatory, derogatory or spam. Please respect that our readers come from different backgrounds, experiences and viewpoints – keep this in mind when posting comments on our site. You can read our full comment guidelines here.

(Image credit)

10 thoughts on “feminism and testicles: andybob and a voice for men

  1. though you claim andybob has a lack of common sense, you do not refute anything he’s said. just another male-shaming tactic exhibited by a fellow male. sad to see how little men care about their gender.

  2. “though you claim andybob has a lack of common sense, you do not refute anything he’s said” – I can’t help but agree.

    The problem with Andybob, and the reason he deserves criticism is not that he is offensive (though, of course, he is) but rather that he is wrong on all the major questions.

    His claims of misandry and feminist domination of the state are easily debunked by reference to statistics that show that, in the first place, women, on average, earn far less than men, and, on the other, that male on female violence is far far far more prevalent than female on male. Better to beat andybob on the merits of his argument, rather than be caught up with his pugnacious demeanor.

    • but no, you see you’re the one who refuses to look at the statistics. the wage gap that feminists like you covet like it’s going out of style is actually an annual average of both men’s and women’s salaries. whereas there are a group of the .00000001% of the worlds richest CEO’s which can throw off the scale, the amount of part time workers that are women do the exact same things. there are a multitude of reasons which factor into the wage gap, all of which feminists refuse to acknowledge because it would invalidate almost everything they stand for.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

      this is just a brief summary of the reasons for a gap. there are about a thousand more which go more in depth.

      violence is something feminists, both male and female, will never admit can be garnered equally from each gender. sure, men are bigger, stronger, etc., but that does not make them more violent, prone to violence, breeding and concocting violence, etc. women tend to be more violent with objects, and men are FAR less likely to report being beaten up. they’re too proud, too stupid (frankly) to finally admit they can be physically vulnerable to women. prolly b/c they’re afraid they won’t be as attractive to females if they’re actually on the same level.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html

      who cares what andybob’s demeanor is?? that’s what happens when the VAST majority of men and women hate men, and marginalize them, and only concentrate on women’s issues.

      • re: CBS article –
        I think you’re confusing the principle of equality of opportunity with the principle of equality of outcome. As you rightly state, there are a multitude of factors which dictate male and female career directions, one being the fact that women are less likely to want to become lumberjacks. The lack of women in the lumberjack industry therefore, reflects a consequent lack of women wanting to be lumberjacks. The flaw in this argument is that there is a large disparity in the gender gap between different Western nations. The gap in Scandanavian countries, for example, is far lower. If the gap was the result of personal choices, you’d expect it to be similar across different countries. (see 2010 World Economic Forum study for details)
        Consequently, if you look at reliable studies, such as the Australian census, it notes not only that there is a under-representation of women in leadership roles but that there was an *under- utilisation* of female skills, focussing therefore on the inequality of opportunity rather than the inequality of outcome, as your CBS article insinuates is the case. ( http://www.eowa.gov.au/Australian_Women_In_Leadership_Census/2006_Australian_Women_In_Leadership_Census/2006.asp )

        Interestingly, also, looking at figures published by the University of Canberra, the greatest wealth disparity between the genders were within industries where there were a lot of women working (eg. retail and health, for example) and the smallest disparity was in construction. ( http://www.catalyst.org.au/campaigns/equality-speaks/102-wealth-distribution ) which would seem to contradict Mr Tobak’s assertion that men earn more because they are more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, in fact it shows the opposite.

        Regarding your Independent article, it doesn’t actually agree with your assertion that violence can be “garnered equally” by both sexes, because the author argues that, “Male violence remains a MORE (my emphasis added) serious phenomenon: men proved more likely than women to injure their partners”.

        What the article does do is show that notions of violence can’t be categorised in one gender or another, which is totally fair. What it fails to do (indeed, doesn’t try to do) is invalidate the notion that women are at a greater danger from domestic abuse than men. Furthermore, it is not an insignificant point that more than 90% of homicides are committed by males.

        It’s great that we can have a constructive debate on these issues. Please put forth more supposed evidence re: both pay gap and risk of violence.

        • well, if female skills are being under utilized, well i don’t know what to say. how is the world supposed to operate if we have to create a space where female skills are needed? this is how the world works, and the best workers are found to do the best jobs. i will NEVER trust a website which promotes women in the workforce, equality for women, etc., solely because that’s the type of interest group i fundamentally disagree with. i believe that in today’s society, there is no need to prop up one gender over another, ever. the perpetual infantilization/victimization of women by their own political parties is what bothers me. why women are under represented in leadership positions can be explained by the amount of hours women are willing to put into the job. it’s a fact that women work about five less hours per week than men do, work about 1% of all overtime work, and are less likely to be as singular minded about their career as a man would be. leadership positions require just that. if you demand a more flexible schedule, then you’re not going to be fit for the job. you’re not going to be available when the public needs you. again, people who advocate strictly for women want the world to change to suit their needs, and not the other way around. they wish the world be redeveloped with their vision, yet want men to at once be the passive spectators women have claimed to be for so long, and still create an atmosphere which gives women special privileges.

          i don’t doubt that men murder more, though i’m fairly certain that the 90% ratio is based on rates of conviction, as is the domestic violence stat. women are FAR less likely to be convicted of a violent crime when compared to a man, and as stated before, men are FAR less likely to report it. in america at least, the past seventy or so years have found nearly two hundred men sent to death, whereas i believe two women have ever received the same punishment. women committ infanticide more often than men, and child abuse. fact is, a woman will never receive a comparable punishment to a man when committing the same crime, murder, child molestation, abuse, etc.

          http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/feminist-researchers-find-female-sex-offenders-get-slaps-on-the-wrist/

          • “it’s a fact that women work about five less hours per week than men do, work about 1% of all overtime work, and are less likely to be as singular minded about their career as a man would be” – You might be right that men, on average, work more hours a week than women – but saying that men work “on average” more often than women, does not mean that *every* last man works more often than *every* last women. By conflating every individual with the average properties of their group, you’re making a statistical error similar to claiming every woman has 2.5 kids.

            There are plenty of women who work harder than plenty of men, I think this is proved by the prominence of women in high-profile leadership positions such as Christine LaGarde, Angela Merkel, An Sun Su Ki, Gail Kelly, Nicola Roxon, Hillary Clinton, Julia Bishop, Penny Wong and Heather Ridout. They demonstrate that there are plenty of women who are not “demanding” a more flexible schedule, contrary to your assertion. The problem is that not enough women who want to work the extra hours are getting the jobs they are qualified for – remember what i said about the difference between equality of opportunity (which is what is important) versus equality of outcome?

            “women are FAR less likely to be convicted of a violent crime when compared to a man, and as stated before, men are FAR less likely to report it” – This is interesting, but you’ve provided no evidence whatsoever. I feel just as inclined to mention, with no supporting evidence, that it is a well known fact male on female rapes are severely under-reported. One assertion for another.

            The article you link to doesn’t talk about conviction rates, it talks about the *severity* of a conviction. Having read that, I’m sure it may well be the case that men receive harsher sentences than women (although the authors of the study admit that their study is limited, according to the blogger) but that fact has no bearing on the conviction rates, contrary to your assertion (unless you can find any other evidence?..)

            “Women commit infanticide more often than men” – This is hardly surprising. One expects that a very large proportion of homicides by a female would be desperate mothers killing their newborns.

  3. I will never understand the mentality of people who purposefully seek out subjects and people that they know they’re going to disagree with on a fundamental level, and then go about trying to “educate them of their wrongs”.

    Nobody is dying here people.

    What we have here is essentially two groups of people who disagree with each other on a set of deeply personal beliefs. All of us have come to our own conclusions as to which side of the argument we fall on based on our own unique life experiences. I hate to break it to you, but our beliefs are unlikely to change because of a barrage of men (and who knows, maybe some women) who believe that feminism is ruining their lives.

    I’m sorry if you guys have encountered some feminists in the past who have hurt or distressed you, but that’s your life experience, and nothing I’m going to say will change either your experiences or your mind.

    My experience of feminism, is one of finding great and long lasting friendships (with men as well as women), and of feeling a sense of community and personal empowerment.

    Please have the respect to understand that just as you have a strength and conviction in your beliefs that cannot be swayed by anything I say, I and presumably many of the people who are behind and read this site have the same.

    I realise that this is probably going to make no difference whatsoever, but a girl can hope, right?

    • The thing is, no one is going to suppose that you support feminism because of your experience of it as leading to friendships and community. We’re going to suppose that it is because you agree with some of the propositions that feminism generally supports.

      Likewise, you ought not to suppose that we disagree with it because we had bad experiences with feminists (or women, which is a conclusion that far too many leap to). You should suppose that we disagree with it because we disagree with the same propositions you prescribe to. As such, it might be helpful to look into why we believe what we do, since it has more to do with what we know (or at least what we think we know) versus how we feel.

      Attributing someone’s opposing opinion to being affected only by their positive or negative experiences is making the assumption that they couldn’t possibly be right since it supposes that they haven’t given their opinion any real thought. Start with a charitable treatment of opposing opinion and then decide on an intellectual level what to believe.

      • First of all KJ, can I just say thank you so much for replying in such a civilized and well thought out manner. I was a little reluctant to post on this article for fear that it would all descend into name-calling and aggression, but you have helped restore my faith in the ability of people to disagree on closely held ideals whilst still being polite.

        As to your points: Of course I agree with some of the propositions of feminism, the main one being that there should be equality both in terms of opportunity and respect between the sexes, and that this equality has not yet been achieved. This, I feel is something(though perhaps I’m wrong) upon which we fundamentally disagree. My understanding of your particular group’s belief system is that equality between the sexes has already been achieved to the extent that it can be. Furthermore some of you seem to believe that now the balance of power is shifting towards women. Please feel free to correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

        This brings me to your next point. I in no way meant to imply that your opinions are not based on any knowledge or research. On the contrary I (perhaps naively) tend to assume that in order for people to be truly passionate about a cause they must have at least somewhat independently researched the area.

        I do however also think that once you believe something so passionately the dye has been cast, and nothing the opposition has to say is going to change your mind. That was more the point that I was making when talking about experience.

        Obviously I do think there is a right and a wrong on this issue, I just don’t particularly see the point of arguing it against people who hold polar opposite beliefs to the ones that I do. It all seems an exercise in futility to me, then again maybe I’m just a pessimist.

        The one aspect of your post I take issue with is your assumption that I have no knowledge of your groups arguments. I of course am maybe not as up to date with anti-feminist theory as you are, but I do have some familiarity with the biggies, mainly: biological differences(this is one I encountered a lot during my biology classes at university), the skewing of purported statistics particularly with regards to the gender pay gap and seemingly totally anecdotal accounts of female on male discrimination.

        I am aware of these arguments, but I also dismiss them, and place more emphasis on the more numerous, and indeed more scientific research which supports there still being a need for feminism. I say all of this not to try to change your mind, but merely to point out that my belief system is, I believe just as educated a decision as yours. One that I did indeed choose “on an intellectual level”.

  4. Marriage unsafe for modern man?
    Last I checked it’s usually men that do the proposing.
    And if he was pressured into it, clearly he’s not much of a man, no one should fold to peer or partner pressure in marriage.

    As for end rape hysteria?
    It’d be a completely different story if men were the ones getting taped more often now wouldn’t it?
    Any decent law abiding man knows that while women who dress tarty aren’t helping themselves remain inconspicuous, that it is NEVER the victims fault, and that campaigns to stop rapists are necessary.

Comments are closed.