Yep.

I rarely get a chance to post around this realm. I made it quite clear that it’s Hugo’s blog he can do what he sees fit. Cries of censorship won’t change the fact that people freely posting on them are still visitors, regardless. If I had an active blog, presently, I’d have no qualms either doing the following: excluding anything irrelevant or characters that flood it with b.s., or . . .

. . . resort to allowing a separate area to confine more open ended comments that could be anything from personal attacks to tangents. This would be in order to leave the more pertinent ideas and earnest-minded blog personalities to engage in argumentation without the foolishness. The latter is a better plan that has been already implemented on several forums.

At the same time, as others pointed out, baiting MRAs and then getting even more strident with regulations and policies isn’t terribly conductive for any serious debate about issues discussed here, and will eventually stop luring lurkers if they aren’t allowed to counter assumptions and premises declared about them. I only started posting when Hugo quoted me, and continued to back off simply because 1) I don’t usually have the time 2) I do have agendas that reach beyond this forum. I admit I’m somewhat interested in what goes on here, but I feel it would be greater served with the typical feminism versus anti-feminism camps (simply put, because not every case is so black and white) could really be put to the test now and again while staying generally on topic. It’s not usual when an area is able to contain such heated discourse without tempers flaring or people duking it out back and forth. In the search for “truth” ugliness and anger aren’t something that always goes away.

But as The Chief pointed out, being restrained in a fight while an opponent is allowed to launch more aggressive attacks isn’t merely poor sportsmanship, it’s an imbalance that clearly is demonstrative of hypocrisy. It would be like someone with a Tae Kwon Do, point-sparring background entering with a large, hardened contact fighter like myself in a cage fight—and not be allowed to use the majority skills AND power I’ve acquired to nullify my assailant because of too many rules imposed on me . . . and the other guy can dance around as much as they want ***because the ref in charge said so.*** That TKD fighter may “win” with by scoring a quick point, but in a more reality-based context, my opponent is going to have a far, far more difficult time even if the arena isn’t mine.

Eventually, if it does become an echo chamber over here, I have no problems with going toe to toe with someone who can openly challenge me on my semi-regular stomping grounds, and with me in particular if they don’t like being ganged up on.

We’re not always going to agree on every matter, gender-relations based or otherwise. No two people in the universe agree on EVERYTHING. But even while diametrically opposed on some matters, we should be able to find some common ground and make progress, rather that have two camps not speaking to each other.

bg

The odd thing is: many female feminists on your blog have stated agreement with me or at the very least acknowledged a distinction between MRAs like me and those who do genuinely troll. One even invited me to be a poster on a blog she was going to start up. I knew she was a feminist and she knew I stuck up for men’s rights, and she wanted me along anyway because she saw common ground. We wouldn’t (and we don’t) always agree, but we realize that it’s not the end of the world if we don’t.

And yet you (and some who are supporting your policy) consistently put all who support men’s rights into the same box, so that if I end my post with the signature “Men’s Rights = Women’s Rights = Human Rights” I get lumped in with those who come on here calling all women “bitches” and “accusing” you of being gay.

I wouldn’t lump most of the feminists here with the more famous ones who claim that “all men are rapists” or “hating men is all well and good.” So would you at least acknowledge that not all MRAs are alike?

boy genteel

Not so many, really, which may lend credit to Hugo’s decision. It’s really just a loudmouthed few that drive away good conversation (at times; not always). These, not suprisingly, are the few that are so concerned about Hugo’s numbers going down if they are no longer allowed to comment…

And, as the word gets out about the new comment policy, I predict more men and women who used to come here will come back. But even if I’m wrong there, Hugo doesn’t seem to have changed the comments policy in order to strike a blow against men, plunky–it just happens that there are fewer men who are interested in feminism in a positive light than there are men who are interested in various flavors of anti-feminism, and they’re vocal about it.