Roy T. Dye, “men’s rights activist” is such a loser, he has to pay women to have sex with him. Not only that, he beats them when they show up to provide paid sex services. Yes, this is what the “men’s rights movement” is: men who hate and abuse women.
Don’t believe it? Look at their Facebook page, if you can stomach it. It’s full of seriously sick, twisted s***. Racism, sexism, lies, hatred, yep, that’s what these pathetic needle-dicked little s***s are all about.
There is no need for a “men’s rights” anything. We males own most of the world’s wealth, control most of its governments, and are in charge of nearly all of its law-enforcement. Really, who is oppressing us? Answer: no-f***ing-body is oppressing us.
The only people who think we need such a “movement” are pathetic, useless, violent, stupid, hateful, misogynistic people who can’t even be called “motherf***ers”, because no woman in the world would willingly f*** them. They take their psychotic attitudes and try to pretend they are somehow “victims” of all those big, bad, evil wimminfolk and their global conspiracy to cut off our penises (really, one of their posts actually mentions the need to protect our junk from the feministas).
So, the next time one of your Facebook “friends” posts a “men’s rights” link, just remind them that the guy behind it is a woman-beating, unemployed piece of crap that has to pay women to talk to him. An inspiring leader, isn’t he?
Mr. Blunt and Cranky
bluntandcranky 
[…] bluntandcranky Just another WordPress.com site « “Men’s Rights Activist” Busted for Beating the S*** out of a Prostitute […]
So, how’s being a gay transvestite working out for you?
An amazing display of medical ability, to be able to look through your Internet connection and make such a diagnosis.
And an actual conviction was record where exactly? All you have noted is that he was charged, yet you have completely failed to cite any evidence of that charge leading to a conviction. If a mere charge without actually leading to a conviction is sufficient evidence of conclusive guilt for you, then I put it to you that you clearly believe that the Salem Witch Trials are a textbook example of “due process” too.
If a court rules that he is not a prostitute-paying, woman-beating pile of sheep raisins, I’ll publish a follow-up and acknowledge such.
You really need to revise the legal system in the Western world before posting this. I’m not the individual in question, but if I was I would have legitimate grounds to sue you for libel.
The fact at the moment, the individual in question is merely alleged to have committed the crime in question and until such time as he has been found guilty of said crime, that is all the charges are, allegations and your aspersions on his character are legally baseless.
But then what can you expect from someone who indulges in blatant chauvinistic piggery like this: “There is no need for a “men’s rights” anything. We males own most of the world’s wealth, control most of its governments, and are in charge of nearly all of its law-enforcement. Really, who is oppressing us? Answer: no-f***ing-body is oppressing us.”
By that argument, disabled men, abused men and boys, non-caucasian men and homeless and destitute men dehumanised and regarded as subhuman – you know, all the groups of men and boys who conveniently happen to fit completely outside of that narrow definition of men you try and pass off as all-encompassing.
By that argument, children being raped by female pedophiles and then court ordered to pay child support is a non-issue to you (http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm).
By that argument the fact that domestic violence programs are designed to regard men exclusively as perpetrators and women exclusively as victims, even though experts have known for more than 40 years that domestic violence equally perpetuated and endured by both genders, is a non-issue to you (http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm).
By that argument, the fact that even though as recent studies have shown, men and women rape each other in roughly equal numbers, the law refuses to recognise female-on-male envelopment-based-rape, is a non-issue to you (http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/false-rape-culture/manufacturing-female-victimhood-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/).
By that argument, the fact that men commit suicide at 3-5 times a higher rate that women is a non-issue.
By that argument the fact that men account for more than 90% of workplace fatalities is a non-issue.
By that argument, the boys’ crisis in education, widely acknowledged by pedagogy academics, is a non-issue.
Of course this ignores issues facing men on racial grounds, issues facing disabled men on ableist grounds and issues facing destitute men.
Would you still be saying that if the genders were reversed on these issues? I highly doubt that, but then I guess that’s “different” to you isn’t it.
You are attempting to change the terms of debate, but I am not fool enough to miss something as 101-level as that.
The “men’s rights” movement is predicated on the notion that ALL men are in need of liberation, and your post slides past that.
Also, your sub-groups are not being oppressed by women: the reasons for disproportionate male inclusion are typically economic in nature.
Finally, you are yelling at me over things I never even said.
This does not make you a credible debater, so I’ll be ignoring you henceforth. Happy hating!
On the contrary, I was first of all responding to the fact that your entire attack on this individual was devoid of the a basic understanding of the way the criminal justice system in the western world works. The fact is that your statement is legally classed as libelous until such time as he is proven guilty.
As to the second part of my post. At no time did I say that women were specifically to blame for those issues being entrenched. In fact men and women are equally culpable in this regard, just as they are in the paternalisation of women.
Furthermore your own words were:
“here is no need for a “men’s rights” anything. We males own most of the world’s wealth, control most of its governments, and are in charge of nearly all of its law-enforcement. Really, who is oppressing us? Answer: no-f***ing-body is oppressing us.
The only people who think we need such a “movement” are pathetic, useless, violent, stupid, hateful, misogynistic people who can’t even be called “motherf***ers”, because no woman in the world would willingly f*** them. They take their psychotic attitudes and try to pretend they are somehow “victims” of all those big, bad, evil wimminfolk and their global conspiracy to cut off our penises (really, one of their posts actually mentions the need to protect our junk from the feministas).”
The fact is that every single one of those issues I outlined is a men’s rights issue. Yet your blanket response to all men’s rights issues, and therefore those issues I raised, is the above.
Yes you did not specifically refer to those issues by name, however you made sweeping generalisations in the above quote which by nature of the blanket response you made, includes those issues.
Furthermore, you fail to grasp that the vast majority of men out there gain no benefit from the system (in fact the only ones who truly benfit are the “1%ers” of this world- including both men and women) and that most men in this world and throughout history, have been nothing more than fodder for war and for heavy industry projects (eg 28,000 men dying in the construction of the Panama Canal) whilst being valued solely in terms of their ability to provide for women, their ability to protect women, and their sexual prowess. If you truly believe that the system has benefited the vast majority of men to any significant degree throughout history then you have a flawed understanding of the gender-based construction of society.
In fact the above statement wilfully conflated the marginalised groups of men I mentioned with those at the top, ironically, completely missing the fact that it is the men on the bottom of the heap, the destitute, the abused, the vulnerable and the marginalised which the men’s rights movement is primarily concerned about.
You can choose to dismiss me as a poor debater, however I have taken note of every post I have made here so far and posted them elsewhere. You may be able to bury it here, but it will be blatantly apparent to those aware of this blog post that that is exactly what you have done.
Roy T Dye and his “organization” appear to be totally fictional. Three apparent MRAs all of whom have the middle initial T, and none of whom any real MRAs have heard of. Mr. Blunt and Cranky appears to be an idiot.
Had you clicked the first hyperlink in the post, you would have seen an entry for the Men’s Rights Initiative, Inc; with Roy T. Dye listed thereupon.
I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, boyo, but I do, at least, know how to recognize hyperlinks on a web page and click on ’em. I suggest you also learn this valuable skill,
[…] “Roy T. Dye, ‘men’s rights activist‘ . . . has to pay women to have sex with him . . . [then] beats them” […]