About these ads

>Shakespeare before hoes

>

A female friend of mine asked me the other day how Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) handle the question of sex — as in, how can these guys deal with their desire to have sex with women if they swear off women? It’s a good question, and one I still don’t have a comprehensive answer to. Some pine for sexbots, some masturbate, some seek salvation in supposedly more pliable non-Western women.

And then there’s Christopher in Oregon. He’s got his own plan, which involves motorcycles, Beethoven, and Robert Frost. Here’s how he spelled it out in a mini-manifesto he posted as a comment on Marky Mark’s blog.

First, Christopher defines the problem, as he sees it:

Women are whores. They are far more likely to have STD’s than men. Be aware of this. Handle with extreme care. Women are filthy, and they will lie about their infections. Condoms will NOT protect you.

So what can a poor boy do?

The simplest and wisest choice is to be as I am- a gender separatist. I have no social dealings with women (with the exception of my two lesbo neighbors).

LEAVE THEM ALONE, fellows!  

But some of them are kind of, like, all sexy and shit.

Women are walking cesspools of filth! Most of them have or will have a permanent STD infection. It is unavoidable. These are FACTS, and not the rantings of an unstable misogynist.

(I’m a very STABLE misogynist, thank you kindly)

Women are DIRTY creatures, pure and simple. Be dignified, and don’t lower yourself to engaging in any filthy behavior with them. You WILL be infected with the diseases they are carrying. A moral, dignified man does NOT rut like an animal with one of these creatures. Sexual intercourse and oral sex are filthy, disgusting activities, and ruin a man morally. They spread disease. 

Ok, ok. But what if you still want to rut like an animal with filthy women? Sublimate, sublimate, sublimate. And pull out some of the books you picked up in that one English-for-non-majors class you took in college.

Elevate yourself above such filth of the flesh.

Listen to classical music. Read Shakespeare and Frost. Meditate. Take long walks. Ride a motorcycle or bicycle. Think good thoughts. Purify yourself from the evil in our society.

And avoid any unnecessary stimulation:

I very recently tossed what little pornography I had left. Amazing the effect on my mind and soul. Do not lust after women in your mind. Masturbate only as a last result to relieve tension. Do not lust after women sexually. It weakens you.

Remember, women aren’t just filthy whores, they’re Satan’s representatives on earth:

God made man in His image, and women was made in the image of Satan. Squeal all you want, but history proves me right. A woman is a test; a stumbling block for man. Our life is an adventure. A journey. A pursuit of our creator, and a pursuit of excellence in our personal lives. A woman and her filth is part of the obstacle course set before us. If we are wise, and avoid them, we will grow stronger as a result. We will finish the race successfully.

Women was not put here to support us as such, and we will only grow stronger if we AVOID her snares.

Christopher, I support you in your quest. Please do not have sex with any women. The thought of you reproducing, even accidentally, is truly scary.

Posted on November 18, 2010, in discussion of the day, evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, MGTOW paradox, misogyny, reactionary bullshit, women are.... Bookmark the permalink. 55 Comments.

  1. >This is why I am an advocate for moderated forums. In the MRM, there's this idea that it is a universal good to tolerate the expression of a wide variety of views no matter how unusual, on the pretext that the ensuing subsequent debate against the wackiest statements will somehow squash the legitimacy of them. "It should all get hashed out in the comments, so don't censor! That's what feminists do!" is the typical battle cry. Personally I think that this is a politically stupid approach that forum admins on MRA and MGTOW forums should reconsider, to whatever degree that permissiveness is practiced there to a fault. When I was an admin for Antimisandry.com a few years ago, for example, I banned a notorious misogynist known online as "Bob" (he's fond of signing his rants with the phrase "Blessings, Bob"). Over time, Bob had made a series of violent statements in the comments section of various posts, culminating in one comment which attempted to justify the murder of Nicole Brown-Simpson, the former wife of O.J. Simpson. Although some of the other registrants on that forum disagreed with the idea that any user should ever be banned, the owner of AntiMisandry.com stood behind my decision. Other similar crazies that were banned from A.M. included MikeeUSA.Expel the wackos from within your midst, lest your entire forum and all of its users be unfairly maligned by your opponents. If you're trying to get the laws or cultural attitudes changed, then you're not going to get very far by giving succor to the small minority of lunatics who would sully the legitimacy of your cause.

  2. >Oh, for pity's sake, at least some of these guys'd be a lot happier if they just get the hell out of the closet, don't you think?

  3. >For better or worse, I think the vast overwhelming majority of those in the MRM/MGTOW community are completely straight. No one sexually uninterested in women would spend so much of their time obsessing over them, or get so angry at them.

  4. >Hey David, now you have an example of MRAs being accused of being gay in your own comments section.

  5. >Oh yeah, and someone sexually uninterested in women could get pretty damn angry with them after being falsely accused of rape/sexual harassment or after getting passed over for a job or promotion because he didn't have a vagina.

  6. >To be honest, if it's retreating from all thoughts of women he's wanting, he's not going to do himself any favors by reading the Bard. Love and sex are some of the most highly recurring themes in his work, and the innuendo gets positively scorching at times.Frost is maybe less overtly sexual but still extremely sensual in his own way. See: Putting In The Seed.

  7. >@David Futrelle:"No one sexually uninterested in women would spend so much of their time obsessing over them, or get so angry at them."This is my take on what motivated George Sodini to commit mass homicide against the women in his gym. His problem was an obsessive preoccupation with women. If he had been celibate, he would never have committed those murders.So mock celibate men if you like, but remember that if they don't care enough to hate the opposite sex then they probably won't be inclined to hurt them either.

  8. >@Christopher:Go donate to a sperm-bank.If for no other reason – just to piss David off.:)P.S. all that said, YOU SMELL.

  9. >Graze on my lips; and if those hills be dry, stray lower, where the pleasant fountains lie. – William ShakespeareYeah….Shake is totally non-sexual lol

  10. >Cold: … And here's an example of MGTOWs talking about how much life would be easier if they were gay:http://mgtow.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=4120Also: why would getting falsely accused of rape make you angry at women in general, rather than at the particular false accuser? There are evil women; there are evil men. Doesn't mean all women or all men are evil. John: I'm not mocking this guy's celibacy in itself; I'm mocking the whole toxic cocktail of anger and hatred and weird rationalizations. It's one thing to be celibate because you're asexual. There's no shame there, and no real issue; these aren't the sort of people who are obsessing about evil women on MGTOW message boards. It's another to have strong sexual desires for women but to avoid them because you think women are stuck-up, or evil, or all the laws are unfair, etc etc. That's what leads to unhealthy obsession and anger.

  11. >Yeah, the key word is IF; there is nothing in that thread to substantiate the feminist fantasy that MRAs are closet gays, not that there should be anything wrong with that if we are to believe that said feminists are not homophobic.I said that being falsely accused of rape COULD make a man angry with women in general, I never said it WOULD.

  12. >I don't know what MGTOW is, apart from the obvious men going their own way. So I cant really comment on it, from whats been c/p'ed onto this post it looks a little like a mirror image of feminism circa 1970s. I notice more and more this mirroring of feminism in the mrm, Im not saying that its deliberate mirroring.. its just that men are in the same position that women were in in the 70s and seem to be responding in a similar way.I completely agree with you John, I think allowing a minority to generate rhetoric like that is bad for the whole movement as it will be cherry picked and used to suppress more legitimate issues. Looks like that guys consciousness is growing, its a shame about the misogyny.

  13. >Oh was that guy falsely accused of rape?

  14. >I have no idea if Christopher in Oregon was ever falsely accused of rape; I was speaking of a hypothetical man who is sexually uninterested in women.Unfortunately, banning people like Bob and MikeeUSA from forums doesn't make them disappear; they can always find a place to air their ideas and people like David will find them and cherry-pick them. All you accomplish by banning them from a specific site is preventing that specific site from being associated with them. It's worth doing, of course, but it's not going to put any kind of stop to the constant smearing of the MRM.

  15. >"I said that being falsely accused of rape COULD make a man angry with women in general, I never said it WOULD. "Oh my god, Cold, do you see how little sense that makes? Because it makes no sense.What are you trying to say? That it COULD make them hate women, but in fact does not? What is your point?Hating an entire group because a member of that group wrongs you is called forming a prejudiced belief. Yes, people can and do form prejudiced beliefs, that doesn't make it right or justified.

  16. >@ Eoghan, on the issue of censorship, I think even designating moderators hand having them encourage people to not post comments that do not contribute to the discussion can help reset the tone, without the need to actually remove the comments. Also establishes and official stance against the offending comment.

  17. >@Eoghan:"I don't know what MGTOW is, apart from the obvious men going their own way. So I cant really comment on it, from whats been c/p'ed onto this post it looks a little like a mirror image of feminism circa 1970s."The MGTOW concept was conceived sometime during the last decade by two men who we only know through their online aliases. One is named Ragnar, and the other is named Meikyo. Of these two, Meikyo is the more prolific writer, and if you want an idea of the true concepts behind the MGTOW "theme" (don't call it a "movement") then here is Meikyo's blog, which has been inactive for two years now:Mirror of the Soulhttp://mirrorofthesoul.blogspot.com/You'll find a lot more information about what MGTOW is about on the above co-founder's blog than you will from commenters on MGTOW blogs. I will agree that a substantial number of embittered men gravitate to MGTOW blogs, but most probably don't have a true grasp of what MGTOW means.

  18. >"Oh was that guy rightly accused of rape?" @DavidLove the kitty and caption btwMy first response to the post was fuck this guy must be joking because no human being could possibly move through life with such vile and be well, surviving. But then my second response after reading John Dias' its wiminz faultz (TM) version George Sodini, yeah this guy is a rageaholic and a ticking time bomb and I wouldn't be surprised if he was/will be a murderer, but of course, I wouldn't excuse it. "Also: why would getting falsely accused of rape make you angry at women in general, rather than at the particular false accuser? There are evil women; there are evil men. Doesn't mean all women or all men are evil. "This is what always baffles me. It was brought up by another poster here: http://jimhines.livejournal.com/519379.html?page=1#comments"I said it elsewhere, but I'll mention it here, too. Why if a guy gets falsely accused of rape—if it's one of the cases where it actually happened—and he gets to hate women for ever, but nobody else gets the same dispensation? I got mugged by a black guy and my best beloved coworker asked me an amazing question: "Do you feel differently about black men now?" Well, no, duh, because the guy who attacked me wasn't a black guy, he was a black mugger, and so he's a mugger, period. And I didn't have a good opinion of them to begin with. People who say they distrust and fear women after a false rape charge are basically revealing that they believe all women are liars, if not worse and more."And she's right. If you're attacked by someone who's a mugger/liar/etc. then you hate muggers/liars/etc., not the incidental group that they happen to be apart of. Unless of course you already hate that group and are looking for an excuse to be racist/misogynist/etc.-ist. Even if that incidental group is proven more often to be the culprit in such situations, that doesn't justify it. Otherwise, if societal problems wrt rape mean that rapists are more likely to be men, and false rape accusers are more likely to be women, then generalizing that all women are liars necessitates you generalize that all men are rapists and vv. Which is exactly the question I posed to Yohan and other MRAs previously: how come women who are raped/abused don't get to hate all men if men who are falsely accused get to hate all women? It's bullshit and nothing more than a doublestandard.

  19. >@Cold"Yeah, the key word is IF; there is nothing in that thread to substantiate the feminist fantasy that MRAs are closet gays, not that there should be anything wrong with that if we are to believe that said feminists are not homophobic."It's a common belief that hard-core homophobes are really homosexual. IMO, feminists are just incredulous that anyone who hates women so much could simultaneously be attracted to women and let's face it, it's easier to think they're gay then to assume you're not going to have to be worry about dating a secret MRA/rapist/misogynist/etc. I mean, look at the misogynistic Ancient Greeks, who practised pedophilia/pedastry – sex with young tween boys and had prostitution and complete control over their wives.

  20. >@Tec:"Which is exactly the question I posed to Yohan and other MRAs previously: how come women who are raped/abused don't get to hate all men if men who are falsely accused get to hate all women?"First of all, there's a difference between justification and explanation. Just because there's an explanation for a victim's hatred at an entire group it doesn't mean that the victim's bigotry is justified.Secondly, when anyone has been abused then they don't have a right to get into positions of authority and/or psychological influence and then use the leverage that they have attained to project their bigotry against their abuser onto distinctly different individuals. MRAs want the bigots to get out of the psychological profession, off the bench in the courtroom, out of law enforcement, out of the classroom, and especially out of public office. A lot of damaged people take their pain into such positions of influence and authority and then use their harrowing experiences to make assumptions about people who don't necessarily confirm the victim's pre-determined template.For example, female victims of domestic violence may go on to become intake personnel at a battered woman's shelter. Imagine if you were a man whose wife had just threatened to pour boiling water on you as soon as she found you asleep. If you had no recorded evidence that she had said this, and your report to the police didn't result in an emergency protective order against your wife, then how credible would you be perceived by such an intake worker? The first thing on her mind may in fact be that you are the abuser, because her abuser was male just like you are. These people need to get therapy and be professionally assessed to guard against any possible bias that arises due to their victimization. Unfortunately, it's often considered extremely insensitive for victims to be expected to take such assessments. In fact, DV training that is given to law enforcement, and funded by taxpayer money through VAWA grants, presents just such a gender-polarized viewpoint (i.e. "men are perpetrators, women are victims, end of story").

  21. >I'm made in the image of SATAN! Kick ass! Fear me! LMAOI think maybe he got herpes from sleeping around. Spreading your seed doesn't sound so good when you got that crazy itch that just won't go away. LOL. David, honestly, I don't know how you read through it all and post so much. It's good for a laugh but I'd go mental after a time. Good on you!

  22. >Thanks for that John, I like the idea, I can relate and consider myself disengaged from the system by choice in some ways.

  23. >Oh, wow.So the MRAs are agreeing with the feminist separatists? Awesome.To all MRAs: Uh… NO. PLEASE! Don't stop having sex with us! We neeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed your precious man-juices/penis/whatever to survive. We won't be able to heartlessly and bitchily dominate you without it – uh, I mean, LIVE WITHOUT IT. YEAH.xoxoxoxo

  24. >John Dias seems reasonable until you get to the part where he doesn't understand domestic violence shelters or the difference between "one perpetrator abuses you" and "one perpetrator abuses you, and then almost everyone else continuously supports him, minimizes the abuse, and puts you on trial instead."Abuse is widespread and also heavily ignored by our society, no matter what combination of identities you have there. Minimizing the fact that, when men abuse their partners, they do it worse? Not okay. Minimizing the fact that men commit the vast, vast, vast majority of all rapes? Not okay. Ditto for men committing the vast majority of all child molestation? NOT. OKAY.That and Sherrod was persecuted on similar terms, and equally falsely.Also, with pretty much every woman I've ever known being abused, how exactly are we going to keep abuse victims out of power? Are we going to then put the abusers INTO power? And point of fact, WHY IS KEEPING ABUSERS! ERS! OUT OF POWER NOT FUCKING IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO TALK ABOUT ON THE INTERNET?

  25. >@DelianthAwesome posts! My fav is when MRAs go off on feminists who talk about rape – who are by and large rape survivors. Oh yes, rape victims are so in support of false allegations! Yup, nothing they support more than having real rape victims minimized as liars and real rapists running free to rape! Asshats…@John – there is quite a big difference between justification and explanation, yet MRAs like you consistently do both quite often. George Sodini killed women because he was an anti-social violent misogynist. Same goes for Mark Lepine. Having serious psychological problems and targeting a specific group isn't going to be solved by avoiding that group. It's like saying, "Oh we can solve homophobia by having those homophobes avoid homosexuals!" You're understanding is, at best, childish, and at worst, delibrately malicious.

  26. >TEC: Which is exactly the question I posed to Yohan and other MRAs previously: how come women who are raped/abused don't get to hate all men if men who are falsely accused get to hate all women? I am not aware of such a question to me up to now. – Your question is highly suggestive.It is wrong to claim that men falsely accused for sex-crimes are hating all women after their nightmare, but they are very mistrusting, sad, shy, introvert, disappointed. Even sometimes into suicide.It depends how long time it takes from the accusation up to being cleared. Some malicious accusations are uncovered within hours, and on the other side, some men spent many years in prison until their release.It depends also on the family/relatives of the accused man: did they stay on his side? supporting him? or not? and other circumstances.It is plainly wrong and feminist malicious strategy to suggest that all men falsely accused by a woman will hate all women in future because of that.I never heard of a man who was hating ALL women because he was accused falsely of a sex-crime by a malicious woman.

  27. >@Delianth:"John Dias seems reasonable until you get to the part where he doesn't understand domestic violence shelters or the difference between 'one perpetrator abuses you' and 'one perpetrator abuses you, and then almost everyone else continuously supports him, minimizes the abuse, and puts you on trial instead.'"Here's another feminist who conflates my disagreement with her views with ignorance. Somehow I don't understand DV shelters because I disagree with the feminist ideology that suppresses the needs or the pervasiveness of male victims. And I will now demonstrate, as I have numerous times here on this blog, that when accused of not understanding something I in fact understand it quite thoroughly and can back it up with evidence.Read the following article, written by the director of a domestic violence shelter who concedes quite plainly that her organization has in its past glaringly compromised its mission to serve male victims precisely because it placed gender advocates in key positions that should have been occupied instead by qualified professionals. If you have the shelter directors themselves making such a concession, then you can bet that it's probably true that ideologues were indeed running the show as they themselves point out. And if it happened at WEAVE Sacramento, then it most certainly happens at many other shelter providers around the United States as well."The Evolution of Services for Male Domestic Violence Victims at WEAVE"by Margaux Rooney, M.Ed., MFTPublished in Partner Abuse, Volume 1, Issue 1, January 2010http://www.cafcusa.org/docs/Rooney.WEAVE.pdfHere's an excerpt:"When I first started working at WEAVE in 2003, it was apparent from the peer counselor training model that domestic violence was a societal and political issue exclusively based on gender power differentials. The crisis intervention approach was presented as a one size fits all response. The curriculum was taught through a single lens of 1) women being victims; 2) men being perpetrators; and 3) little hope of perpetrator rehabilitation or family reunification."

  28. >@Delianth (continued):There, do you see now? It was just like I wrote. An ideology governed their crisis intervention approach, and that ideology hampered their effectiveness at serving victims effectively because it failed to recognize the complexities about male victimization and female perpetration. But let's read some more:"In order to address safety concerns and staywithin funding stipulations, we were forced to create a first come, first served policy that resulted in the first 'victim' in a couple who received counseling would need to complete services prior to the second 'victim' receiving his or her services. There were too many variables to have the simple theories set forth in the peer training to be clinically useful for the diversity in our clients’ experiences."Get that? In order to stay within funding stipulations, they had to discriminate against some victims and in favor of others. That means stipulations of the grants that they receive, funneled to the them from the federal government through the state government, with strings attached along the way. Until 2007 the state of California, where WEAVE operates, actually defined domestic violence in its Health and Safety Code as a crime specifically against women, and all public funds were allowed to be used solely for the benefit of female victims while excluding male victims. MRAs led a successful court battle in one of the state's appellate courts to overturn that statute. I was in the courtroom when the case was argued before the justices. I also happen to personally know the attorney who argued against the discriminatory policy that was then in place, and he wrote to me just a few days ago that feminists are actually trying in the courts now, in 2010, to reverse the gains that were won for male victims in the 2007 Woods case so that the discrimination against male victims can resume. This is the anti-equality movement that you're a part of, the movement known as feminism.

  29. >@Delianth (continued):In fact, Rooney does acknowledge that central issue in her paper, in which she asks the key question:"The underlying question which must be asked is 'Does serving male victims exclude feminist theory?'"She goes on to say that in the name of equality, and out of her devotion to the equalist ideals of feminism, she has devoted her organization's focus in less gender polarized directions and instead toward a more professionally qualified approach. This is admirable, but it's actually where I disagree with her idea that feminism is compatible with serving male victims. Feminism is the ideology that impeded her organization's response to male victims in the first place. To approach a more just outcome, that ideology must be abandoned and supplanted with a more gender-neutral approach that serves both male and female victims alike, with the same level of intensity. Even now, with Rooney's paper having been published, WEAVE continues to discriminate against male victims in their domestic violence safehouse, an approach which is clearly illustrated as financially unnecessary (not to mention morally indefensible) based on the success of the co-ed shelter Valley Oasis in Lancaster, California. I have also personally met the director of that shelter, Carol Crabsen. Valley Oasis is a domestic violence shelter that proves that it is not true that a particular domestic violence safe house necessarily exclude male victims. WEAVE's current alternative to admitting male victims to a shelter currently involves issuing hotel vouchers instead.Now Rooney does rightly point out that female victims do have some unique needs, since they are more likely than male victims to be injured or killed by their abusers. Nevertheless, this does not justify turning male victims away from admittance to a shelter, nor to other services, simply because male victims don't fit the feminist ideology that exclusively defines the victims needing assistance as female victims.Although WEAVE still does not admit male victims to its safehouses, Rooney does concede that the old gender ideology that ignored male victims, and the unique needs of female victims, are no justification to completely turn male victims away from assistance:"These factors should not invalidate the need for domestic violence services for men who are victimized by their partners; who are at risk of injuries; and who need assistance in creating a safe, violence free life for themselves and their children."

  30. >@Delianth (continued):WEAVE currently helps male victims outside of a safehouse setting. It's ironic that they claim that their safehouses cannot be modified to accept male victims, though. Not only does Valley Oasis exist several hundred miles down the California coast from WEAVE, but the next city over from WEAVE's Sacramento office, Roseville, has a domestic violence shelter known as Peace for Families which does admit male victims to their shelter as well. There is simply no justification — not financial, not moral — for discriminating against male victims.But let's also acknowledge the difference in professional training that Rooney points to, juxtaposing WEAVE's new approach versus its former ideology-driven approach to selecting its crisis response personnel:"Forty hours of peer counseling training is not sufficient to assess and address the level of trauma most clients have who access domestic violence victim services. In order to bridge the divide between the feminist based peer counseling approach and the gender inclusive psychotherapeutic model, services at WEAVE have evolved to include training at the peer level about the continuum of violence that defines a range of abuse from unilateral to mutual."The feminist model gives only 40 hours of training to first responders. It is known as a "peer counseling" approach. And those 40 hours are based on gender polarizing ideology, rather than WEAVE's current model which emphasizes psychotherapeutic credentials that are earned at a university over a period of several years (not 40 hours).It is fundamentally inadequate to serving the needs of victims in a clinical setting for a victim's personal experiences to eclipse the mandates of their professional responsibilities, just as I said earlier. You can't put gender advocates into positions of authority and influence — least of all those whose former victimization might affect their professional judgment — and expect to serve members of the public adequately. But that's the situation that we're still in across the United States, and it's not just. That is why the men's rights movement is truly gaining steam; despite what guys like David want to say about it, the MRM indeed has momentum precisely because it has MERIT. Rooney acknowledged this momentum herself:"The father’s and men’s rights movements are gaining momentum in response to concern over some men being abused not only by their partner, but also by the system that was created to protect women. They are advocating for men to have equal services and to be recognized as victims. The barriers to leaving an abusive relationship for men include fear of failure, fear for the children, few resources, shame, stigma and discrimination. Men are often reluctant to report abuse because of gender conditioning and the concern of being ridiculed (Cook, 1997; Hamel, 2007; Hines, Brown & Dunning, 2007.)"If the director of a major domestic violence shelter can admit these realities, then shouldn't you acknowledge the same?

  31. >Wow, who would have thought that posing a HYPOTHETICAL situation where a man is falsely accused of rape and comes to hate women in general because of it would cause such a stir among simple-minded feminists? With numerous feminists hating men in general because of what one or a few men did, I THOUGHT they could relate to that scenario, but it looks like once again I expected too much of the simple-minded.

  32. >Gosh, look at all those quotes from Dworkin. Not like feminists ever criticize her. Oh, wait.Gosh, it's a quote from Gloria Steinem's Revolution From Within. Surely no feminist would ever criticize that book. Oh, wait

  33. >Didn't feminism use projecting and cultivating the hatred of the actions of a minority of men onto all men and the culture as a whole as a main political platform? The capacity for double think and double standards knows no bounds.

  34. >David, what is it with you and red herrings lately? When I give an example of something, it's just that, an example. The fact that you wrote a piece criticizing Dworkin does nothing to negate the fact that she is an example of a woman who came to hate men in general because of the actions of a few. Even if she was roundly condemned by feminists the way MRAs condemn MikeeUSA, which she is not, that still wouldn't change the fact that she is a valid example of unjustifiable hatred.

  35. >"The fact that you wrote a piece criticizing Dworkin does nothing to negate the fact that she is an example of a woman who came to hate men in general because of the actions of a few."She wouldn't have described it that way at all, but I suppose you could make an argument at least that that was what was going on. I'm just sort of sick of the same list of evil feminist quotes (most of them decades old, a hefty portion of them coming from Dworkin and MacKinnon) that gets taken out again and again and again, as if a bunch of out-of-context quotes from writers who have all been heavily criticized by feminists (not all feminists, but a lot of them) somehow defines contemporary feminism. I mean — and this question goes out to all the MRAs and antifeminsits here — have you ever actually read any feminist books? I don't mean books that attack feminism, I mean actual books by actual feminists.

  36. >Yeah but David, even though those quotes are decades old, we have to live in a culture and legal system with a powerful political group that has been influenced by these people. Look at some of the views that feminists that post here have or the way victims services are structured.. the education system is manufacturing watered down little Dworkins and McKinnons.

  37. >As far as I'm concerned, all claims that something was taken "out-of-context" are bullshit unless the context itself is provided to demonstrate how the meaning of the quote changes in context.I very rarely see feminist criticism of Dworkin; it is much more common to see her revered among feminists and of course she was a leading figure in the movement while she was alive. You aren't going to handwave her away so easily.I read some, but not all, of Dworkin's "Right-wing Women". I found it to be stomach-churning and mind-numbing, but it wanted to see just how batshit insane she was. Now I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was a deranged lunatic, yet feminists embraced that deranged lunatic as a leading figure of their movement. Again, you will not be able to minimize that fact no matter how hard you try.

  38. >Oh yes, and of course Dworkin herself wouldn't describe it that way, but the fact is that anyone with at least an 8th grade reading comprehension can tell from her writing that she was a man-hater.

  39. >@John – TL;DR You know for someone who advocates staying away from women, you'd think you'd take your own advice instead of getting so worked up…@Yohan"I am not aware of such a question to me up to now. – Your question is highly suggestive.It is wrong to claim that men falsely accused for sex-crimes are hating all women after their nightmare, but they are very mistrusting, sad, shy, introvert, disappointed. Even sometimes into suicide."Really? You do don't remember this? You're comments at some misogynistic BS that men can be excused for hating women was the following:"This is true, there are some rants by some men who were badly treated by females in the past, but there is no organized all-female-hating literature existing from MRAS - big difference if you compare that with publications from feminists like Solanas, Hirshman and many others."My response?"Interestly, you're able to excuse these men. Do you not realize how many women in the feminist community have been raped, sexually abused as children, or been battered? Resorting to hatred isn't right in either case. But somehow it's a double standard in your mind. Which begs the question: how come in your mind said men get a free pass and excused but women who were seriously abused don't? What messed up thought process is behind that little jump around the truth?"You then responded:“Do you not realize how many men in the MRM-community have been victims of false rape and DV allegations, sexually abused as children, or been battered? Cheated by their wives at home while as soldiers in combat, victims of paternity fraud, financially bankrupt and have seen their house gone while living in a van?Taken their children away etc. etc. etc.?”SO YOU MUST HAVE READ IT. Liar, liar, liar. You're full of shit. So IOW, based on this reply, you think men are justified in hating women. Which is in direct contrast to what you say here. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite. After I directly say both are wrong, you accuse me to which my response is:"@YohanNice straw argument. Where did I say violence only happens to women?Please point that out to me.Oh wait, no I didn't. But good tactic to avoid: Why do men get a free pass and women don't?"You didn't answer my question at all then and STILL. More strawman subterfuge… Answer the question then. How come, in your mind, men get a free pass but then women don't? Saying not all men hate women afterwards has nothing to do with the question I asked and is more straw posturing.

  40. >Cold, I'm not going to get into that whole list. Here's a discussion of a similar list:http://www.xyonline.net/content/patriarchal-pity-party-mra-trolls-and-their-list-misandrist-quotesBut the context definitely can make a difference. There's one Marilyn French quote that's actually said by a character in her novel.And some MRA posted a quote here recently from feminist author Judith Levine that seemed to suggest she was a raging man-hater. She is nothing of the kind. In fact, it was a quote from a book she wrote ABOUT misandry, trying to understand it and get past it. It wasn't her opinion about men.

  41. >Tec keeps a cat handy whenever zie ventures into the comment section. The cat is going bald, but the hair they have left is very, very soft, and the cat is very, very happy. The doctor says he hasn't seen a blood pressure reading that healthy from anyone for years.

  42. >Cerien, WTF are you talking about? Start making sense, and stop saying weird things about other commenters here, or I'll have to delete your posts for excessive weirdness.

  43. >TEC: Liar, liar, liar. You're full of shit. So IOW, based on this reply, you think men are justified in hating women. Which is in direct contrast to what you say here. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite What we read here is a typical example of daily conversation coming out of the mouth of a radical feminist.I feel truly sorry for such unhappy people, who think, they are something better than they are in reality and who enjoy nitpicking and annoying other people with nasty comments.

  44. >David Futrelle said… Cerien, WTF are you talking about? Start making sense, and stop saying weird things about other commenters here, or I'll have to delete your posts for excessive weirdness. November 19, 2010 9:38 PM These are typical troll-postings, and I have to admit it is not so easy to create such comments, which are nothing but pure idiotism but are passing spam-filters.Up to David to decide what to do with that.

  45. >Feminists seem to have a hard time telling the difference between prediction and prescription and between explanation and justification. Either that or they are just being deliberately dishonest.

  46. >David,I've read that post by Julian Real before. He only finds ONE out-of-context quote, that being the one from a novel, and the fact that the quote is from a fictional character doesn't necessarily mean that the author doesn't agree with it. In Atlas Shrugged, for example, John Galt is basically Ayn Rand personified to the point where most of what he says can be regarded as Ayn Rand herself lecturing to the reader.That said, I agree that it is highly intellectually dishonest to quote from a novel and attribute it directly to the author as if it came from his/her own mouth, and for that reason I never use that quote myself. But that is the ONLY quote from the list that Julian Real was able to demonstrate as being out of context. The rest of his post all uses the red herring fallacy, trying to dig up positive quotes about men from those same feminist authors as if that somehow negates their hateful quotes. It doesn't, not anymore than digging up a positive quote from Hiter about Jews would negate what we wrote in Mein Kampf.

  47. >@DavidI'm just sort of sick of the same list of evil feminist quotes (most of them decades old, a hefty portion of them coming from Dworkin and MacKinnonThe problem is that feminists are refusing to remove their hateful literature from their book-shelfs. They refuse to stop teaching such hate-stuff in their universities considering them as a part of their 'Women Studies'. For example, why to adore a 'Valerie Solanas', who was a convicted criminal and prostitute, calling her 'the first outstanding champion of women's rights?Why to call her 'one of the most important spokeswomen of the feminist movement'?Calling for the execution in gas-chambers for all males, including boys of any age is not fun.What would a David say, if there is any book existing used for teaching 'Men's Rights', calling for killing all females?Are you really surprised why men are complaining and are considering feminism as a hate-movement against them?

  48. >"For example, why to adore a 'Valerie Solanas', who was a convicted criminal and prostitute, calling her 'the first outstanding champion of women's rights?" No serious feminist academic would ever make such a claim, particularly because to do so ignores the entire suffrage movement and the entire "first wave" of feminism. And, Dworkin was highly criticized, both by contemporaries, and, even more so, by current feminists. Dworkin was never uncontroversial and, with the rise of third wave feminism, her views are all but dead. On a related note, I don't like Julian Real. He honestly creeps me the fuck out. The shit he says about women's sexuality is demeaning and sexist. I have enough trouble with your average rad fem's reinforcing of the exact same sexist stereotypes that sexists push, but, when this bullshit comes out of the mouth of a man, it is intensely disturbing. That same gender-stereotyping condescending rad fem attitude coming out of the mouth of a man, directed towards (primarily) women is really fucking messed up.

  49. >@Yohan"What we read here is a typical example of daily conversation coming out of the mouth of a radical feminist."YOU still haven't answered the question. That's 4 times now I've asked, and you have failed to address it. Get that? 4-0"Interestly, you're able to excuse these men. Do you not realize how many women in the feminist community have been raped, sexually abused as children, or been battered? Resorting to hatred isn't right in either case. But somehow it's a double standard in your mind. Which begs the question: how come in your mind said men get a free pass and excused but women who were seriously abused don't? What messed up thought process is behind that little jump around the truth?"

  50. >TEC: Liar, liar, liar. You're full of shit. So IOW, based on this reply, you think men are justified in hating women. Which is in direct contrast to what you say here. Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite About what question to me are you talking all the time?

  51. >@Yohan5-0: still no answer."how come in your mind said men get a free pass and excused but women who were seriously abused don't?"

  52. >Maybe he rejects the premise of the question.

  53. >Condoms will NOT protect you. She'll give you HIV through those little holes in the condom (not really, kids).

  54. “God made man in His image, and women was made in the image of Satan.”

    Well, I have to agree with this…because Satan is so freakin cool and awesome. Like Eve, Satan had a mind of his(her?) own instead of merely listening to everything God said. God banished Satan for thinking for him(her?)self. Satanists know more about Satan than religions that identify Satan as a completely evil being. In truth, Satan is the epitome of a truly honorable being who we should all strive to be more like.

    Okay, I’m an atheist, but I still think the concept of Satan is cool. It shows that people chastise “bad” qualities (rebelliousness, curiosity, independence, etc.) in place of “good” ones (mostly obedience).

    Long live Satan!

  55. why did GOD make whores anyway?, such a waste.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,750 other followers

%d bloggers like this: