Fuck feminism! Enjoy:
Men’s Rights Edmonton has launched a pro-male postering campaign which extends the narrative of their notorious “don’t be THAT girl” campaign.
The earlier campaign spotlighted the issue of false rape accusation while the present campaign directs public attention to the crime of infanticide, but both campaigns underscore the sexual double standards and anti-male bias endemic to the culture at large. Likewise, both campaigns place the feminist “don’t be THAT guy” campaign under the lens of a harshly disapproving (hence subversive) parody.
Posters are now appearing at widespread Canadian locations. Each of these is a near-duplicate of one of the posters (one of several) that recently caused a stir in Halifax, Nova Scotia when a non-feminist group in that city conducted its own campaign. The poster in question featured the provocative dumpster photograph along with business logos from Halifax organizations which had supported the anti-male “don’t be THAT guy” campaign. The Halifax poster has been modified by the Edmonton group, with text added and logos removed.
The crime of infanticide is interesting because, as the law is written, it is a crime which only a woman can commit. Article 233 of the Criminal Code of Canada codifies infanticide as follows:
233. A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.”
The language here does not suggest that a “male person” might commit the crime of infanticide. It implies that only a female person can do so. Hence, for want of any stipulation to the contrary, we are left to conclude that when a man or boy causes the death of a newly-born child, he has committed either murder or manslaughter in the eye of the law, but not infanticide.
The language of Article 233 is open-ended because fails to specify how long an infant ought to be considered “newborn” – we are merely left to speculate on what this means. Nor does the language impose any time frame on recovery from birthing – for all we are told, such recovery might stretch for years. The same remarks apply to lactation, which can most certainly stretch for years. Finally, it is unclear how we are to ascertain whether lactation or post-partum effects veritably triggered the infanticide, or whether the killing proceeded from a completely unrelated cause.
So the “relaxed” character of the language might enable a relaxed construction of the law’s meaning and hence, a relaxed treatment of the female person who causes the death of “her” newly born child. No similar relaxation would be available to any male person who causes the death of a newly-born child – be it “his” or otherwise – since the law does not give room for this.
Note, therefore, that the identical action with the identical outcome is subject to a legal double-standard. There is one law for women, and a different law for men. That is significant in light of Article 237 in the Criminal Code of Canada, which states the following:
237. Every female person who commits infanticide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
Whereas Article 235 states this:
235. (1) Every one who commits first degree murder or second degree murder is guilty of an indictable offence and shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.
And finally, Article 236 states this:
236. Every person who commits manslaughter is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for life and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for life.
To summarize what is germane, it appears that a woman can kill a baby and not be charged with murder if the baby is her own and is newly-born, whereas a man who kills a baby under any condition will be charged with murder, or at least manslaughter.
Furthermore, a woman who kills a baby in the manner described will receive at most five years imprisonment, whereas a man who kills a baby under any condition “shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life”. So all in all, if you are a woman in Canada the law permits you greater latitude to kill babies than it permits to a man.
The Canadian infanticide law supports the spirit of feminism in at least one important way: it holds women to a lower standard of moral accountability, while granting no equivalent favor to men. In another way, however, it violates the spirit of feminism: it suggests that women are frail, childlish, mentally unstable creatures who ought to be treated more leniently due to their inherent inferiority.
In the spirit of egalitarian humanism, we do object to the blatantly anti-male double-standard which informs this law. We are not surprised that the law both upholds and violates the spirit of feminism, since the contradiction is more apparent than real. In feminist terms, it is a trade-off in which the sexist stereotyping of women is “tolerated” because it lets women off the hook for the crime of murder. After all, five years in prison isn’t nearly as bad as life.
Our point is, that although the infanticide law is grounded in traditional gynocentrism rather than feminism per se, it is just the sort of thing that a feminist would be happy to keep on the books. In that sense it is effectively “feminist” after all, for nothing about it contradicts the logical evolution of the feminist project – a project that would empower women by offloading their moral accountability onto men. In the end, feminism is nothing if not gynocentric, and opportunistic.
In its current postering project, Men’s Rights Edmonton calls attention to infanticide as illustration of the sexist double standards which so widely prevail. Many such examples could be cited. However, the infanticide law is presently useful not only because it underscores cultural hypocrisy about the “oppression of women”, but because it makes an agitational focal point from which to address real-world change. It is the law, after all, that must be repealed or modified.
Once again, the current project aims to spark a societal conversation about societal hypocrisy.The now infamous “don’t be THAT guy” project is a public morality campaign, meant to hold the male population collectively accountable for the behavior of a small number. We find this campaign reprehensible.
Granted, it is customary to aver that “most rape is committed by men”, but to our thinking that bestows no license to impose collective guilt upon the male population. A man is either a rapist, or he is not – and if he is not, then he is not guilty, and no shadow of any kind must fall upon him for something that he did not do.
But if you do consider such practice acceptable, you must allow in principle that ANY group may be singled out if it appears to commit a given transgression markedly more than another group does. Hence, if the Etruscans commit transgression X markedly more than the Patagonians do, while the Patagonians commit transgression Y markedly more than the Etruscans do, then you must lecture both groups equally about their respective sins. Favoritism toward either side cannot be tolerated.
Simply put, either everybody must be liable to collective guilting, or nobody must be. That is an uncomplicated either/or proposition – the moral algebra is not hard to grasp.
Touching the crime of infanticide we say this, that women by all accounts murder newly-born children markedly more than do other groups. Moreover, the fact that infanticide is defined as a crime which only women can commit, throws the technicality of the law on that side of the assessment. So in the end it is safe to say that infanticide is a distinctly female transgression.
Accordingly, if public morality campaigning directed at specific groups is deemed a conscionable practice, then the present poster campaign by Men’s Rights Edmonton could not be impugned without incurring the charge of moral hypocrisy – in this case tinged by anti-male sexism.
On the other hand, if public morality campaigning directed at specific groups is deemed an unconscionable practice, then the original “Don’t be THAT guy” campaign must be deemed unconscionable. And as before, the present poster campaign by Men’s Rights Edmonton could not be impugned without incurring the charge of moral hypocrisy – once again tinged by anti-male sexism.
So either way you cut it, things are not looking good for the people who started the original “don’t be THAT guy” campaign. Whichever way it rolls, their stance reeks of sexist, feminist, anti-male hypocrisy.
In principle, Lise Gottell and her colleagues have a simple choice. They can either be dead silent and “suck it up” while Men’s Rights Edmonton and its affiliates go about postering, or they can terminate their “don’t be THAT guy” project and issue a joint statement of apology and self-criticism to the entire non-feminist sector.
It would be a nice extra if their statement included a critique of the present infanticide law in the Canadian Criminal Code, with an injunction that the anti-male bias be corrected by appropriate measures.
It should go without saying that once the “don’t be THAT guy” project has been scuttled, Men’s Rights Edmonton and its affiliates would find no reason to carry on with their “don’t be THAT girl” project.
Yes, two can play at that game. But two can also put away that game!
So feminist, the next move is up to you.
Will you put away that game?
This video is a satirical parody response to a feminist blogging about how her job is so tough, and how she doesn’t want to have to talk to men anymore, because they keep asking her hard questions, and doing hateful things, like asking for logical explanations and proof.
Read the rest of this entry →
Across Canada and around the world, new groups are forming to join the fight for mens rights. The following are the newest Canadian additions and links to their websites. If you live in or around these areas, you can contact these groups to see how you can become involved. Otherwise, do check into them regularly and please donate to each to help keep them going.
Mens Rights Halifax -Halifax, Nova Scotia
Mens Human Rights Ontario -Ontario, Canada
Mens Rights Help -Dryden, Ontario
In light of the expanding network of Mens Rights groups, “Mens Rights Canada” has been founded to encompass all groups, nation wide. With some work, and generous support for you, we hope this website will act as a sort of central hub for activism in the future.
MR-E would like to issue a very fond welcome to all our fellow MRAs across Canada who have also made the decision to get off their asses and take their activism into the real world. Good on each and every one of you. These are obviously very significant developments, but let us all not forget one all important thing:
Regardless of what you accomplish individually, or working together…we were the first mens rights activist group in Canada and we’ve been doing this shit since before it was cool. So haha!
Here’s to a future of FTSU!!
To the judges and lawyers and social workers out there.
More and more organizations, organizations of diversity, are springing up to begin supporting men, exposing lies and inaccuracies, and fixing the problems of family courts.
Lawyers for shared parenting in Canada
Leading women for shared parenting in Canada
CAFE – Canadian association for equality in Canada
They are worth paying attention to for any proactive person who wants to know the truth and the future.
Ten years from now students will be studying the messes you made and wondering how the heck you could make the decisions you made.
Just as they ponder what could possible motivate the KKK or other hate groups to be supported by government agencies they will look at you and wonder how you could do so much prejudicial destruction the same way.
Start living with that legacy today and maybe you can actually do some good and start reversing it. So you could look like the hero who knew what was right and acted to bring good change about. Not like the judges, lawyers, and social workers who kept condoning the reserve school system that destroyed native families. Be a hero, not a villain.
A look at the double standards regarding men and women in today’s society and how things aren’t all that they seem.
Read the rest of this entry →