• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs
Kudos0

Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Today it whas emerged that Norton's DNS "service" is censoring the majority of key human rights sites seekiing equality for males and gender equality. Many of the sites do such fanstastic work and include the Natioan Coaltion for Nen not to mention the hugely popular avoiceformen.com.

Sites Norton is smearing with the riduclous suggestion they are hateful include:

http://ncfm.org/
http://egghead.adamsspace.com/
http://www.antimisandry.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
http://www.the-niceguy.com/
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/
http://www.mens-rights.net/
http://www.rulymob.com/
http://www.angryharry.com/
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/
http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/
http://failuresforgodesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.antifeministtech.info/
http://theantifeminist.com/
http://www.mensactivism.org/
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/
http://www.mgtow.com/
http://www.manwomanmyth.com/
http://mensrightsedmonton.com/

More can be listed here as they are uncovered.

I expect Norton has been the victim of a rather sneaky man hating feminist who has managed to abuse their list of hate sites by using it to censor any support for equality for males.

Coverage of this issue can be found here:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/to-norton-symantec-ceo-steve-bennett/

Please fix this issue ASAP It would also be appreciated if you could find out who exactly was responsible for falslely categorising such a large number of sites on this topic, such censorship is very distubing indeed.

Many thanks.

Replies

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Today it whas emerged that Norton's DNS "service" is censoring the majority of key human rights sites seekiing equality for males and gender equality. Many of the sites do such fanstastic work and include the Natioan Coaltion for Nen not to mention the hugely popular avoiceformen.com.

Sites Norton is smearing with the riduclous suggestion they are hateful include:

http://ncfm.org/
http://egghead.adamsspace.com/
http://www.antimisandry.com/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/
http://www.the-niceguy.com/
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/
http://masculistadvice.blogspot.com/
http://www.mens-rights.net/
http://www.rulymob.com/
http://www.angryharry.com/
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/
http://equalbutdifferent.blogspot.com/
http://mensrightsboard.blogspot.com/
http://failuresforgodesses.blogspot.com/
http://www.antifeministtech.info/
http://theantifeminist.com/
http://www.mensactivism.org/
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/
http://www.mgtow.com/
http://www.manwomanmyth.com/
http://mensrightsedmonton.com/

More can be listed here as they are uncovered.

I expect Norton has been the victim of a rather sneaky man hating feminist who has managed to abuse their list of hate sites by using it to censor any support for equality for males.

Coverage of this issue can be found here:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/to-norton-symantec-ceo-steve-bennett/

Please fix this issue ASAP It would also be appreciated if you could find out who exactly was responsible for falslely categorising such a large number of sites on this topic, such censorship is very distubing indeed.

Many thanks.

Kudos4

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Hi JohnS,

Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. I assure you Symantec does not have a political agenda here. We're investigating right now and will take immediate action to rectify the situation if we find any (or all) of the sites have been added in error.

JohnM

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Thanks for the prompt response. I can't see anything remotely hateful about the sites, one or two deal with fairly adult issues such as false **bleep** allegations so might be unsuitable for very young children, but there's no way it's appropriate to categorise them as "hateful" - they are clearly the opposite of this and concerned with exposing injustice, human rights abuses and gender hatred.

Vast numbers of these types of sites are censored. Please state if you require a list of every such site that has been censored in this way (I imagein it will be a lto fo work to test them all), or whether you'll be able to find the source of these malicious entries.

I very much hope you can solve the issue without people having to test hundreds of similar sites individually, though I'm sure people will volunteer their do this if it really is needed.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

This story is now big news on Reddit, story is featured there twice, most popular discussion having almost 500 votes and 150 replies.

It would be good PR for an Norton employee to pop over there to explain what went wrong:

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/17xrir/norton_is_censoring_numerous_mens_rights_sites/

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Hello John_Smith,

I posted in the Reddit thread directing people to this forum thread so that these forums can be utilized as the source of the most recent information on this topic.

Just to let you know, we're investigating this right now and looking in to the reasons for these categorization. 

I'll provide an update as soon as I have more information!

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

We're still investigating this but do not have any updates at this time. We will continue to investigate and provide an update tomorrow. 

Thanks for your patience while we look in to this! 

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

FWIW,

I checked each link mentioned in the original post (at 11:10 p.m. US CST), and they opened fine - no warnings triggered, all reported as "safe" in Norton Safe Web.

Regards,

Kelly

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Just to be clear, it's not Norton Safe web that censors these sites, it's the 198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60 addresses that bring up the "hate" classification block page. The product in question is called Norton DNS or Norton Connectsafe, (version C)

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

This is just outrageous. I'm lost for words. Propaganda's everywhere.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful


Tyler00929 wrote:

This is just outrageous. I'm lost for words. Propaganda's everywhere.


Welcome,

In a perfect world everything works perfectly all of the time. We are not perfect nor is the world we live in. The problem is known and the people who can fix it are working on it. They will make an announcement WHEN it's fixed but I don't think they are willing to guess when that will be [other than as soon as possible]

Stay well and surf safe

Dick Win7x64 SP1 current NSBU
Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

If Norton have been victims of a rogue man-hating employee then they are just as much the victims here as all the websites that have been censored and all the men who have been denied support and help.

I think the fact Norton appear to be taking this issue very seriosuly refelcts rather well on the comapny thus far.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful


John_Smith wrote:

If Norton have been victims of a rogue man-hating employee then they are just as much the victims here as all the websites that have been censored and all the men who have been denied support and help.

I think the fact Norton appear to be taking this issue very seriosuly refelcts rather well on the comapny thus far.


John_Smith,
I've been a user of Norton products for over 20 years and I have yet to see them do anything but take very seriously any problem that detracts from the integrity and reliability of their products. I wouldn't be surprised if they even got a few people out of bed to help in addressing this issue. Stay tuned there will be an update.

Dick Win7x64 SP1 current NSBU
Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I'm not goint to go as far as thanking Norton for their professional response on this (they should not be acting as a morality arbitrator IMHO), however, I do respect their efforts into looking into it and hopefully finding a resolution.

I can recognise that this was not intentional on behalf of Norton, however, I would suggest they think again about acting as some kind of  crowd sourced moral/political arbitrator service. Stating that the genuinely held beliefs of a (non-violent) group of people are "hateful" is largely subjective and very different to designating that a website contains malware and/or will harm your computer. For example, I personally find the views expressed by radfems, which go as far as calling for the castration of male children and gendercide to be "hateful". However, I don't expect Norton to step in and to start censoring websites I don't like.

Norton, I sympathise with you guys, but you were just asking to get dragged into a debate like this where a small number of dedicated fanatics are willing to submit false reports in order to defame people they oppose.

Personally, if it is possible, I would be interested to learn who/how submited the "hate site" reports in the first place?

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I read A Voice for Men regularly. I find this whole thing outrageous and more than a little suspicious.  Radfemhub, none of the redfem sites are blocked.

If Symantec now has an anti-men's rights agenda, please be kind enough to let me know so I can discontinue use of your products. As is, my trust has been shaken.

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Avoiceformen certinally is an excellent resource with some very high profile board members now. One example is Erin Pizzey - the founder of the world's first women's shleter and all the largest domestic violence organsiations in the UK.

Many of the sitess are concerned with helping vulnerable men, it's quite extrordinary for them to be labelled as hateful.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I have Norton Internet Security through a big Internet provider for a few bucks a month. They kind of snuck up on me with it - free for a while, and then advance cancellation policies in very small print. So I just accept it.

I can't stand this kind of censorship, and if Norton is really blocking men's advocacy sites (because of some man-hating feminist or whatever other reason), I'm going to go upstream and demand that my provider (1&1) get a different firewall product.

I'll wait to see if there is a determination as to who really labeled these sites. If Norton doesn't care, neither do I with regard to nailing them.

Kudos3

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

This has nothing to do with Norton Internet Security or Norton Antivirus.

This concerns Norton DNS, also known as Norton ConnectSafe

https://dns.norton.com/dnsweb/homePage.do

Norton DNS is a free service that is used to "filter" websites.  It is not installed with any other Norton product and it is not forced upon anyone.  It is a free service that the user must install themselves or manually set the system or router to use the Norton DNS servers.

Here is a quote from the FAQ's

Which content filtering policies are available for home and personal use?
The following three pre-defined content filtering policies are available for home and personal use:

Policy 1: Security (198.153.192.40 and 198.153.194.40) This policy blocks all sites hosting malware, phishing sites, and scam sites. To use Policy 1, you should configure the DNS settings of your home router or Web-enabled device to use the following Norton ConnectSafe IP addresses: 198.153.192.40 and 198.153.194.40. 

Policy 2: Security + Pornography (198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50) In addition to blocking unsafe sites, this policy also blocks access to sites that contain sexually explicit material. To use Policy 2, you should configure the DNS settings of your home router or Web-enabled device to use the following Norton ConnectSafe IP addresses: 198.153.192.50 and 198.153.194.50. 

Policy 3: Security + Pornography + Non-Family Friendly (198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60) This policy is ideal for families with young children. In addition to blocking unsafe sites and pornography sites, this policy also blocks access to sites that feature mature content, abortion, alcohol, crime, cults, drugs, gambling, hate, sexual orientation, suicide, tobacco or violence. To use Policy 3, you should configure the DNS settings of your home router or Web-enabled device to use the following Norton ConnectSafe IP addresses: 198.153.192.60 and 198.153.194.60. 

It's that "policy 3: that is the concern here.

If these sites should be "blocked from young children" and if so, under what "group" they should be put in.

(I'm just trying to explain, I'm neutral on the subject and I'm not familiar at all with these sites).

But lets keep in mind this is a voluntarily setup, filtering (censoring) service.

You can't complain about "censorship" if you setup your system to use a "filtering" service.

(You can only complain about if the site should be blocked or not in accordance with your self imposed censoring)

I believe John_Smith is simply making a case that he feels these sites do not fit the policies for level 3 filtering.

(People using Norton DNS policy 3 should not have them blocked)

Dave

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful


DaveH wrote:

But lets keep in mind this is a voluntarily setup, filtering (censoring) service.

You can't complain about "censorship" if you setup your system to use a "filtering" service.

(You can only complain about if the site should be blocked or not in accordance with your self imposed censoring)

I believe John_Smith is simply making a case that he feels these sites do not fit the policies for level 3 filtering.

(People using Norton DNS policy 3 should not have them blocked)



It is censorship, and in fact propaganda too and people are entitled to complain. Norton shoudl either block both sides of the arguemtn or neither. Currently they are endorsing all forms of feminism and man-hating by banning any criticism of such ideologies.

There's also teh issue of defamation too. The sites are not merely blocked for some vague reason. they are quite clearly all wrongly smeared as "hate" sites. The reality of the situaiton is quite the opposite - its''s clear the sites campaing for the msot vulnerable people in society and go out of their way to highlight and campign against real hatred and sexism.

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Whatever

I'm just trying to explain to some of the people what is happening, I have seen several posts here and on reddit from people thinking it is coming from a Norton Product like NIS or NAV.

I thought I made it perfectly clear that

I'm just trying to explain, I'm neutral on the subject and I'm not familiar at all with these sites.

Dave

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I wasn't clear on how these sites were blocked and what mechanism was doing it.

How are these sites filtered, are the websites listed specifically in a database, or does it search for meta tags such as "men's rights"?

Who would be responsible for creating these policies and what rationale was used to label these websites as "hate sites"?

When I first read about this, I didn't think it was true, I thought someone or some entity (such as a restaurant) set a specific personalized policy, but the problem is far bigger - evidently on Symantec.

This is a pretty big red flag considering certain political ideologies subjectively assert that men's rights groups are hate groups as a stratagem to censor men's rights groups. These groups are not objective, and are generally fanatical and incredibly biased. This action Symantec takes would be be analgous to labeling Republican GOP sites as "hate sites" due to Republican's views on abortion - a completely relative and ideological stance.

So this problem is evidently not an arbitrary error or coincidence, someone of the ideological persuaion previously mentioned intentionally did this, but how? Do they work for Symantec? Is someone high up in the company who holds firmly to ideological beliefs stated previously pulling the strings, and thus this issue will never be resolved?

Whatever the case, I hope the issue is resolved; I don't want Islam,Christianity, China, or radical feminism telling me what sites I should or should not browse.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Ender - it is a database of some sort by the look of things. Not every men's rights site is banned, just a great many. It seems newish sites/blogs are not on the banned list, only established ones, hence it's doubtful that anything tag related is causing this.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I'm not sure about the rest of them, but avoiceformen is absolutely not family friendly. The following is a selection of quotes from the site. Three of them are by the founder of the site and its primary submitter of content. They are not user-submitted comments. They are from actual published articles.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/the-fembots-are-already-bent-out-of-shape/
"I am not going to stop. You see, I find you, as a feminist, to be a loathsome, vile piece of human garbage. I find you so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of **bleep**ing your **bleep** up gives me an erection."
-----

http://bit.ly/zvcpRi
"I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living **bleep** out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the
wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.
And then make them clean up the mess."
-----

http://bit.ly/sGwHR3

"But are these women asking to get **bleep**d?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET **bleep**D.
They are freaking begging for it.
**bleep** near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses **bleep** won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING **bleep** – PLEASE **bleep** ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads."
-----

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/domestic-violence-a-long-winded-response-to-paul/
"Let’s face it guys if it was about size or domination, or patriarchy or anything other than power, wouldn’t we be kicking the **bleep** out of women on a daily basis in the streets? The only reason men don’t randomly pound the **bleep** out of women who can’t keep their mouths shut, is because they don’t mean anything to us and they have no power over or in our lives. They are not worth the trouble! That’s the only reason there isn’t bodies strewn all over the streets."
-----

They frequently refer to feminist news organizations as "the c***-o-sphere".

They have been labeled as a hate site by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They run a sister site called "register her" which is a site for collecting a list of women to stalk and harass online.

Here are some other relevant links regarding their family friendlyness. Note that you will need to disable safe seach for the full effect.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:avoiceformen.com+%22cunt%22

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:avoiceformen.com+%22bitch%22

https://www.google.com/search?q=site:avoiceformen.com+%22slut%22

edit: I have just noticed that several of my URLs do not work because they contain slurs that these forums censor. That in itself should tell you everything you need to know about why avoiceformen is not family friendly - even linking to it violates the civility of these forums.

Given that level three filtering is about protecting children from objectionable content, and this site is run by an editor who advocates the r***, beating, and cyberstalking of women, and is big enough that it caught the attention of the SPLC, it should probably remain blocked.

edit 2: I have shortened the offending URLs. I hope that is acceptable. I realize that URL shorteners are frowned upon in the security community.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful


Grickit wrote:

They have been labeled as a hate site by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

They run a sister site called "register her" which is a site for collecting a list of women to stalk and harass online.



SPLC never labelled AVFM as a hate site, they merely criticised it and have already backtracked from that article you linked to. Furthermore, even if they did (which they dcertianly did not) then who cares becasue they've labeled plenty of legitimate opponents as "hate sites" simply for haivng opinions SPLC disagrees with.

As for your second point, register-her is actually used to expose female criminals, the sort of people who stalk and harass other people and deny them basic human rights. The only organisaiton mentioned in these threads which publishes lists known to be used to stalk and harass peopel is actually the SPLC, with their defamatory hate site map now on record as used by left wing terorists to carry out attempted mass murder of their opponents.

http://www.therightsphere.com/2013/02/media-bias-101-the-splc-edition/

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

That's interesting, here are some quotes by renowed feminist and feminists organizations showing the movement is not "family friendly." Matter of fact, manyy of them want to destroy the family.

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the **bleep**work that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"I claim that **bleep** exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
-- Robin Morgan

From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry):

* p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist.
* p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.
* p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.
* p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed ****ED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers".
-- Robin Morgan

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
-- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
-- Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
-- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Marriage as an institution developed from **bleep** as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin

"To be **bleep**able, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Q: People think you are very hostile to men.
A: I am." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men use the night to erase us." -- Andrea Dworkin

"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives."
-- Andrea Dworkin

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."
-- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
-- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"**bleep** is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys

"Politically, I call it **bleep** whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
-- Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is **bleep** because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
-- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress

"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo."
-- Jodie Foster; Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine.

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin, **bleep**: The All-American Crime.

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them." - David Angier

"Men who are unjustly accused of **bleep** can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can **bleep** women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
-- Marilyn French (her emphasis)

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Looks like many words have been censored in these quotes, that should tell us something.  Let's continue...

 

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
-- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room.

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
-- Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"
-- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"The media treat male assaults on women like **bleep**, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."
-- Marilyn French

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
-- Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman.

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."
-- Germaine Greer.

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
-- Judith Levine; Authoress

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to ****/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
-- Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."
-- Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes **bleep**, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, **bleep** intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."
-- Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)

"All men are good for is ****ing, and running over with a truck".
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.

((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The ****ing Molesters Society". (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.))

((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY **bleep**; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.))

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
-- Popular Feminist Graffiti

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".
-- Sylvia Fraser; Journalist

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."
-- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital **bleep** and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital **bleep** sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose.
-- Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed"
-- Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."
Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers."
Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, Heterophobia

"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages."
-- Heather Hart 7

Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organization for Women.

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!" (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine).

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women.... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988.

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."

Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate". "......Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck--and if you get in my way I'll run you down."
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb., 1996.

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

ender98, I do not understand how any of those quotes make avoiceformen any less hateful. Please elaborate.

If you feel there are additional websites that need to be blocked along with avoiceformen, it would probably be more productive to start a new topic for them. That way we won't get this discussion stretched off in a thousand different directions.

edit: In fact, none of those quotes appear to be from websites. Why are you spamming up this discussion with unrelated garbage? 

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Some of the quotes are from the National Organization of Women, and the quotes reflect a general minset in the feminist movement, so feminist sites such as N.O.W should be blocked, but why are they not? Why are Men's Rights sites singled out and defamed by Symantec?

I will criticize your post directly soon, but it seems some of what I wanted to say has alreasy been expressed.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

The quotes reflect a general mindset in feminism, whoever labeled all of these men's websites as hate sites generally thought the men's rights movement was hateful. A Voice for Men is the most controversial website out of all of them, their satire, sarcasm, and provocative articles (of which the quotes you mentioned are taken out-of-context) are meant to shock people and draw attention.

A National Coalition for Men is the complete opposite in style - not provocative or inflammatory at all and can not construed as sexist or hateful, so whoever set the policy didn't have justification (based on evidence from a website) to do so showing their action was determined by a belief that the men's rights movement is generally hateful.

But here is one hateful feminist website (radicalhub.com) mentioned by your favorite website A Voice for Men (actual screenshots of hateful posts): http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/radfem-hub-the-underbelly-of-a-hate-movement/

N.O.W's documented sexism is more subtle on their websites than in their quotes outside the website, such as seen in this pdf: http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/FamilyLawNewsletter-Fall2012.pdf

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I still don't understand how screenshots of user submitted comments and forum posts from other websites makes avoiceformen suitable for children or mitigates the hatespeech in their articles written by their chief editor and founder.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Your criticism isn't really pertinent to the thread as you say AVfM isn't "family friendly", there is a strong difference between being labeled as something not family friendly and a hate site. Besides, A Voice for Men's style is vastly different to other men's rights sites that use no profanity.

Besides, the SPLC said this:

"It should be mentioned that the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false **bleep** accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we did call out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence."

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/05/15/intelligence-report-article-provokes-outrage-among-mens-rights-activists/

That's funny, I also pointed out tons of examples of misandry (the hatred of men) and implicit and explicit threats of violence in many quotations from feminists. Besides, the men's rights movement isn't a hate movement according to the SPLC's own words. Moreover, the SPLC conflates murderers such as Anders Breivik with the men's rights movement, yet Anders Breivik had absolutely no affiliation with the movement and was motivated by Islamphobia.

The quotations you used from A Voice for Men are maliciously taken out-of-context, there is no promotion of violence and AVfM have a strong anti-violence policy. Register-her is like the SPLC's "hate map" so citing register-her as a hateful example is ironic. Register-her exposes female criminals, and bigots similar to the ones exposed in the quotations I cited, and there is no evidence to suggest that people are encouraged to stalk and harass the criminals and bigots on register-her.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Norton:

Please do not listen to these hatemongers. A lot of people, especially myself, were thankful that you blocked such hateful, vitriolic sites like A Voice For Men, which advocates harassing, beating, and raping women.

It should be obvious why those sites should be banned by seeing how this thread has turned into MRA sockpuppets pasting misogynistic talking points instead of staying on-topic. Look at ender98, who seems intent on completely missing the point of the filtering by posting abuse statistics and unsourced quotes instead of actual links to hateful material that should be filtered by your software.

As long as you continue to block these hate-filled, misogynistic sites, I will happily choose Norton for my computer and internet security needs. Major props for blocking them.

Oh, and to the MRAs who come into this thread seething with rage that someone dare try to stop children from reading websites that advocate the **bleep** and abuse of women, try not to make yourself look as bad as ender98 just did. I know it's hard for you, and I know you just need to have your hate and bigotry spew from every digital orafice it possibly can, but stay on topic and don't say anything misogynistic or bigoted. Thanks!

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

A feminist troll from reddit's SRS making false accusations, how redundant. The sources are provided, and the grim looks of it, feminism is a veritable hate movement.

Someday it will realize by providing links to the four quotes from AVfM (the four so commonly passed around in feminist circles on reddit) that it  provided a context in which contradicts its own fantastical interpretation.

Here is another great example of feminism and quote mining at the Warren Farrell protest at the University of Toronto last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0

Here is an article written by Erin Pizzey on the Toronto protest, Erin Pizzey is internationally famous for having started one of the first women's refuges in the modern world, moreover a contributing writer at A Voice for Men:

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/erin-pizzey-reflects-on-toronto/

Great quote by Pizzey from the article:

"Though I am horrified at their actions [protestors actions at the Warren Farrell protest], part of me is celebrating because finally here is the true, ugly face of the women’s movement, stripped of its phony, egalitarian mask, and placed on permanent display for the world to see.  For too many years the truth has been hidden behind intellectual arguments and bureaucratic edifices while the virulent ideologues produced by feminism have burrowed their way into positions of power and influence. As epitomized in this protest video, and the university administration’s non response to the violence, infiltration into academe is one of their greatest successes."

The posters here from SRS, Warren Farrell protestors, and the plethora of quotations from feminists demonstrate the highlighted point well.

 Edit: Besides the quotes and bigoted opinions of radfem hub, N.O.W, and Jezebel on their websites, I would like to mention a quote from Wikipedia on The **bleep** Monologues.

"In 2000, Robert Swope, a conservative contributor to a Georgetown University newspaper, The Hoya, wrote an article critical of the play. He suggested there was a contradiction between the promotion of **bleep** awareness on V-Day and the monologue "The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could", in which an adult woman recalls being given alcohol and statutorily **bleep**d at 13 by a 24-year-old woman as a positive, healing experience, ending the segment with the proclamation "It was a good **bleep**." Swope also noted the double standards involved, asking "why is **bleep** only wrong when a man commits it, but when it's by a woman committed against another woman, who just happens to be 13-years-old, it is celebrated and a university club sponsors it?"[10] Outcry from the play's supporters resulted in Swope's being fired from the staff of the Hoya, before the piece was even run. Swope had previously criticized the play in an article he wrote entitled "Georgetown Women's Center: Indispensable Asset or Improper Expenditure?" His termination received critical editorial coverage in The Wall Street Journal,[14] Salon.com,[15] National Review,[16] The Atlantic Monthly, The Washington Times, the Weekly Standard and Wendy McElroy of iFeminists.[17]"

The **bleep** Monologues as one can see isn't very family friendly (as most feminism isn't), perhaps Symantec could filter allusions to and webhosts hosting it in their policy.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Erm, what the hell is "reddit's SRS"? Is that some boogeyman you all like to blame? You're the first one talking about it in this thread, sweetheart, but if it's a group that scares you so badly that you bring them up completely unprovoked whenever someone disagrees with you, they can't be all bad.

I'd like to get this thread back on topic, so could you stop failing so badly? I don't think anyone is falling for your pathetic attempt at a citation by linking to that hate site.

Thank you again, Norton, for blocking legitimate hate sites from children. I can't believe there is a group of men who want to remove hate sites from filtering software and would dare claim they're "human rights sites". Please don't listen to this minority of angry men. They do not represent your customers and are only here to spread their bile.

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

While these numerous MRM sites are blocked, no legitimate MRM site does anythying that constitutes hate speech:  harassing, threatening, or inciting or even condoning violence.   

This can not be said about groups, such as radicalhub, who do condone violence and even advocate for the forced sterilization of men, saying any number of hateful things about men.  They are fans of the genocideal manifesto written by Valerie Solanas, and unabashad about that association.  

And yet, that website is not blocked by Norton, and it says things that are clearly bad.  

This is obviously the case of someone with their own bigoted political agenda at Norton who acted unilaterally to block these sites; we find it hard to beleive that the company as a whole would be in favor of the censoring of political minorities.  

And, now this is a touchy issue for you Norton, but it isn't going away; more and more people are becoming aware of this problem and they're laregly going to raise some eyebrows at it...and not in a good way.    Unless Symantec wishes to appoint itself the guardians of political orthodoxy and the silencer of dissent for its customers, this error is going to have to be corrected.  I know you don't want to  be seen as misogynistic, but then rest assured that it isn't misogynistic, and neither are these websites you mention hate sites.   

This is just a claim made by feminist radicals to silence any who disagree with their extreme views;  and it would be a shame if Norton continued to be knowingly complicit with such a nasty  and disingenuous activity.  

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I'm not going to be lured in a petulant flame war here and argue  2 + 2 is 4 when someone asserts it is not. Arguing someone's firmly held beliefs is futile.

Everything that needs to be said has been said, the evidence speaks for itself if the viewer remains objective.

I hope Symantec resolves this problem, and if not, I can respectfully no longer be a customer of Symantec due to its ideological beliefs. I hope the hundreds of thousands of men and women who support the men's rights movement also take the same stance if the problem is not rectified.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Looks like this thread has strayed way off message.  The point was made in the first post, and Norton is looking into it.  There are fora aplenty for this type of socio-political debate, but this is not it.  As a lawyer, I can tell you that the discussion about "censorship" is way off - if you can put the filter on, you can take the filter off.  Filters of any sort are far from perfect, and sometimes they're overprotective; for example, there are several occasions where I've seen legitimate learning resources blocked by aggressive filters, and had to be corrected by admins.  The solution seems simple, if you don't like the filters, lower the settings; if you don't like the product, don't use it.  After all, this one is free.

Looks like a good time to lock this thread until Symantec can come back with a reply.

Kelly

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

I think this originally came to people's attention when some were attempting to access the sites through connections provided by third parties (restaurants, coffee shops, etc) that were apparently using the software.  Thus, it wasn't something the people that were bothered by it had direct control over.

Though I agree, this has strayed pretty far off topic.

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Labeling individuals or groups as haters is a common tactic used by the political left to silence critics.

Many people will be uncomfortable with the tactics used by avoiceformen, but people should focus on the message, not the delivery method. No reasonable person (ie. someone with an open mind and no agenda) could read the site and conclude that they are a hate group.

Norton DNS is a rather unsophisticated tool for filtering web content. It has the potential for being abused by those with a political agenda. Norton/Symantec really need to have robust processes in place to ensure that this does not happen (especially with the 'hate' category) - they clearly do not.

The SPLC ended up with egg on their face when they allowed a rogue member to label the MRM as hate groups in an annual report. Although they now state that they never labelled sites like avoiceformen as hate sites, they are still frequently cited (and will continue to be as seen on a previous post on this thread). Norton/Symantec can now expect their name to be used in a similar fashion.

The major difference between avoiceformen and radical feminists is that avoiceformen wants to publicise what the radical feminists are saying/doing, whereas radical feminists want to silence avoiceformen and will use any tactic at their disposal. Norton/Symantec are their useful idiot.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful


Kelly wrote:

Looks like this thread has strayed way off message.  


Yeah all these people showed up with their "feminazi" conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with the sites in the original post. 

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Radfems, starting with Dworkin, have aligned themselves with fundamental Christian groups in their wars on porn and the like. Censorship is their calling card. So, I don't look at this as a political or left/right issue. Many on the left are sick of the old style 2nd Wave Radfems and their attempts to shut everyone else up.

I understand this filter is voluntary, but if Symantec has now developed an anti-male mindset in favor of the radical feminists, as a consumer I want to know.

Kudos2

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Grickit wrote:

Kelly wrote:

Looks like this thread has strayed way off message.  


Yeah all these people showed up with their "feminazi" conspiracy theories that have nothing to do with the sites in the original post. 





Strange since you seem to be the only one to have used that word.  

And yeah, all those conspiracy theorists here... almost as bad as  all those radfems who showed up saying "yeah, thanks for silencing these people who we don't like, good job Norton".  

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Yes, I can't imagine the psychological damage (possible suicide) that would be caused to an eight-year-old boy if he found his way on the radfem hub forum where they openly discuss male genocide, murder, and eugenics. If a MRA (considered the devil to radical feminists) managed to become a member of that forum, I would imagine that it wouldn't be very difficult for a curious kid to be able to do the same.

The third party use of the DNS is what concerns me the most, would private and public entities (public libraries) use it also? It's not so much these websites are blocked, but that they are explicitly labeled as hate sites which sends a clear message to stay away from these sites, even if you're not using the DNS.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Mother, youth social worker, and user of Norton DNS here.

I have not been able to read all of these posts but I personally do not want my children reading the opinions of misogynists, regardless of how "toung in cheek" they are. Reading someone state and argue that women who flirt in bars deserved and beg to be **bleep**d is sick, demented, and could do irrepearable harm to how children think of male-female relations during sensitive developmental periods.

This is why families like mine use Norton's software and DNS safety features: to protect our children from content that could disrupt their ability to grow and develop normal, healthy relationships with other people. This isn't about censorship; it's about mental health and psychological safety to me.

Sick leaders from these "mens rights" groups are free to say what they want but I personally would like their form of hate and terror filtered for a utility that promises family safety to its users. We don't want any sites shut down, we just want the safety promised by Norton (THE SAFETY AND SECURITY (both from malware and malicious content like misogyn) THEY ARE KNOWN FOR BY COUNTLESS FAMILIES).

Just my input, thank you.

Kudos1

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

The filter was applied by someone who erroneously believed that the men's right movement was a hate movement; I don't exactly know what their justification was since the SPLC doesn't even label it a hate movement.

There has been far move evidence posted here in this thread that indicates feminism is a hate movement more than the men's rights movement, and its sites (NOW, Jezebel, radicalhub) should suffer the same filtering if the rationale is applied evenly.

Feminism is an ideology, it does not equate to women; both men and women can be and are feminists just as with Democrats. Most women are disillusioned with the feminist ideology, and like the singer Katie Perry have distanced themselves from it due to its current radical nature.

Some might say that the feminist movement may say some pretty bigoted and frightening things toward men, but they are not violent. The Warren Farrell protest at the U of T proves this assertion patently incorrect. Moreover, many people including Erin Pizzey have been threatened by ideologues in feminist movement. This behavior is what MRAs have to deal with on a daily basis, now the universal feminist strategy  is to shut MRAs up by falsely labeling the movement as a hate movement.

Murray A. Strauss, Professor of Sociology and Co-Director Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire has noted this propensity for violence, harassment, attempts to slander, libel, and defame (just as we see in this situation with Symantec) in the feminist movement. In his paper "Process Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence," he notes some of the methods in which feminists use intimidation to silence others, In the paper, he writes:

Method 7. Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence
That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

Suzanne Steinmetz made the mistake of publishing a book and articles (Steinmetz 1977,
1977-1978) which clearly showed about equal rates of perpetration by males and females.
Anger over this resulted in a bomb threat at her daughters' wedding, and she was the object
of a letter writing campaign to deny her promotion and tenure at the University of
Delaware. Twenty years later the same processes resulted in a lecturer at the University
of Manitoba whose dissertation found gender symmetry in PV being denied promotion
and tenure.
My own experiences have included having one of my graduate students being warned at
a conference that she will never get a job if she does her PhD research with me. At the
University of Massachusetts, I was prevented from speaking by shouts and stomping. The
chairperson of the Canadian Commission on Violence against Women stated at two
hearings held by the commission that nothing that Straus publishes can be believed because
he is a wife-beater and sexually exploits students, according to a Toronto Magazine article.
When I was elected president of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and rose to
give the presidential address, a group of members occupying the first few rows of the room
stood up and walked out.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

L.craft, are you referring to this quotation on AVfM?

"In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET **bleep**D.

They are freaking begging for it.

**bleep** near demanding it.

And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses **bleep** won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING **bleep** – PLEASE **bleep** ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads."

Did you finish reading the entire article and the addendum at the bottom? It's important to put these things in context. I was a little unclear on the article's intent, but considering the addendum, I understand it.

"[addendum] I have noted the objections of some MRA’s here to the perspective expressed in this article about the etiology of **bleep**.  After careful consideration, I reject those concerns.  I am not painting men as incapable of controlling their sexual impulses, but simply acknowledging that there is a tiny fraction of men who, for whatever reason, won’t.  And I am suggesting that if women are concerned about their safety from a crime like **bleep**, a common sense acceptance of that and choices consistent with that knowledge are in order.  I may not have said it as delicately as some would prefer, but the message was clear nonetheless."

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

You people have to be kidding me. The men's rights movement is hardly about "men's rights". All they ever do is **bleep** about feminism. You only see them bring up their pseudo equality issues when they want to derail a conversation about a women's issue. That's what men's rights is at its root, a group of bitter contrarians who have dedicated themselves to demonizing and opposing everything feminists do.

Their goal is to amplify all the bad things that occur within the feminist movement and to ignore everything good that has ever come out of it. MRAs don't care about men at all, they only care about opposing women. A voice for men is just one of several websites that serve no other purpose than to warp the minds of its readers and turn them in to rabid little zealots that are then unleashed upon the rest of the web to hunt for anything with the word "feminist" in it.

Men's rights activists do nothing to solve issues that men have. All of their arguments are engineered to oppose and slander feminists. They're not about equal rights, they're about antagonism. In fact, I would venture to argue that it is against the MRM's best interests to fix any issues men currently have because they need those issues as leverage in their mission to delegitimize feminism.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

This thread is supposed to be about the websites in the original post; not "men's rights movement" versus feminism.

Why do any of you think that this forum is the right place for that ideological fight? 

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Grickit,

Agree - was wondering that myself.

Regards,

Kelly

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

Hi. I've been informed that this website has been mistakenly listed as a p0rn site: womenagainstvawa.org. Please fix this.

Kudos0

Re: Norton DNS defaming numerous human rights sites, blocking them by pretending they are hateful

"

Mother, youth social worker, and user of Norton DNS here.

"I have not been able to read all of these posts but I personally do not want my children reading the opinions of misogynists, regardless of how "toung in cheek" they are."

That's a pretty strong word you're using.  Care to quote anything that actively promotes the degredation of women on any of these sites?  

"Reading someone state and argue that women who flirt in bars deserved and beg to be **bleep**d is sick, demented, and could do irrepearable harm to how children think of male-female relations during sensitive developmental periods."

Quotes, please.   

"This is why families like mine use Norton's software and DNS safety features: to protect our children from content that could disrupt their ability to grow and develop normal, healthy relationships with other people. "

You sound like a shill.  

"This isn't about censorship"

What do you call putting relatively benign sites such as Friends for the Protection of Men and Girlwriteswhat (Written by a woman, BTW) in the same boat with an outright hate site like MGTOWforums? 

"it's about mental health and psychological safety to me."

Your right to mental health and psychological safety does not, shall not and should not interfere with other people's rights to free speech, especially when this speech highlights an often ignored sector of society.  


"Sick leaders from these "mens rights" groups are free to say what they want but I personally would like their form of hate and terror filtered for a utility that promises family safety to its users."

 


You're using emotionally charged words to present what you claim to be, is a logical fact.   You have any proof that these MRA sites are promoting hate?  

 

"We don't want any sites shut down, we just want the safety promised by Norton (THE SAFETY AND SECURITY (both from malware and malicious content like misogyn) THEY ARE KNOWN FOR BY COUNTLESS FAMILIES)."

Practice what you preach.  If you're such a crusader against hate speech, maybe you should ask norton to filter other hate sites, such as manboobz, democraticunderground.com and jezebel.com.   From the looks of your post, you look like you think anything that disagrees with your philosophical POV is "hate speech".  

I would like my family to not see hate speech too.   My family values honesty and mercy over violence, hate and fraud.  I will reiterate, It's unfortunate that many of these MRA sites do resort to misogyny.  However, the ones that do not are good, decent sites.  We promote father's rights, stiffer prosecution for and exposure of false **bleep** claimants, prosecution for paternity fraud and clairification of anti-domestic violence laws.  Yet even the most benign sites are being flagged as "hateful"  You claim to be about family values, right?   Are fraud, lying and slander family values?   They sure aren't my family's values.   You also claim to be a social worker.  You should know firsthand the effects of false accusations of **bleep**, false accusations of domestic violence and false paternity does to a family.   Yet you continue to support those who seek punative measures against those who engage in those activities.   Why?  Does your philosophical outlook preclude you from making an unbiased judgement?   In that case, you may be in the wrong field.  

"Just my input, thank you."

Your "input":sounds like a poorly researched political rant.   It scares me that an extremist like you can determine the fate of a family.    

Replies are locked for this thread.