>
Note: This post is about a blog post on the Men-Factor blog that has already inspired some discussions in the comments here.
One of the most disturbing pieces of writing I’ve seen in the manosphere in recent days was actually written by someone who regularly posts comments here — an engineer in Reno who calls himself Scarecrow, and who runs a blog called Men-Factor. (You may have noticed it in my “Enemies List” in the sidebar.) His blog posts are typically puerile “humor” pieces — deliberately crude, and festooned with “wacky” pictures — directed at feminists and the like: here’s one example, a puzzling bit of japery entitled “Woman Purposely does Crossword Wrong; Hailed as Big Step for Women’s Rights!”
But earlier this week, he posted something that left me simply appalled, a weird and angry attack on what he called in the post’s title a “Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who ‘Puts Out’ for Physically Abusive Men” — and who “is Missing and Probably Dead.” Unlike the fictional crossword-puzzle bungler, the women in this post is a real person, a Las Vegas dancer named Deborah Flores-Narvaez, who in fact has been missing since December 12 and who may well have been murdered.
This post comes complete with wacky pictures and all, but it’s essentially a rant celebrating the probable murder of Flores-Narvaez and the murder of “skanks” generally. Why? Because Flores-Narvaez was hot, was dating a man who may well have abused her, and because
she reminds me of those women who would brutally reject men … when being approached. You know – the woman who makes a total scene and makes heads turn – but not at me of course.
Scarecrow puts these words in the mouth of a fictional commenter, but it is clear this is his feeling towards her as well.
Then, rehashing the tired mansophere myth that women only like dating thugs, he writes:
Most American woman are now happy that another psychotic man has once again joined the singles scene and could make them a potential mate and possibly as an extra bonus – a murderer too!
He ends the piece with the phrase “live and let SKANKS die” in big red letters, a twisted reference to the Paul McCartney song with a similar title.
There is of course no possible justification for any of this, but Scarecrow, having been told by some of his friends he’d shown the post to that he’d gone too far, tries to offer one anyway:
I was raised to have respect for all life. … Perhaps I am turning into a sour old fart – but – I have seen crap like this way too often in my life – and it has actually bled over into my life on a few occasions …
I have met too many women like this – and – yes – been treated with hostility by them (or seen them treat other men like me with hostility) when no hostility was called for. Later of course – I hear stories about them getting beaten or killed by some psychotic dick-weed.
Do I still care?
NOPE.
 |
| From Men-Factor, Scarecrow’s blog. |
For the rest of this part of his rant, see the graphic on the right here, taken from his post.
Scarecrow then links to three blog posts relating events from his life that he says justify his attitude towards Flores-Narvaez and other so-called “skanks.”
The first link recounts what he rightly calls a “whale of a tale.” In brief: One late night about a decade ago, Scarecrow was waiting in line at a grocery store when he noticed that the “incredibly beautiful … busty brunette” in front of him in the line was buying the same odd assortment of items that he was. He made a remark to her about this, and, instead of laughing, as he had hoped, she snapped, and yelled at him. Which is, yes, one of the more likely outcomes you’ll get when you try chatting up a young woman who likely gets hit on all the time when she is shopping by herself late at night.
All of which would be an unremarkable tale had it not been for what happened next: the woman was murdered, her head bashed in with a cinder block, later that night. The police, having heard from a witness who happened to know Scarecrow that he had been “arguing” with her in the grocery store shortly before she was killed, questioned Scarecrow about the incident. Naturally, this freaked him the fuck out, as it would anyone who found themselves facing questioning from cops in a murder case. Having heard his story, they assured him he wasn’t the real suspect — her boyfriend was — and moved on.
Remarkably, instead of feeling sympathy for the murdered woman, Scarecrow instead blamed her, and all women like her, for making his life more difficult:
Why is it that a guy like me gets yelled and barked at by an incredibly beautiful woman like this – and a guy that ends up bashing her face in with a cinder block gets laid – lord only knows how many times – or what kind of fun and exciting sex acts she performed on him? …
This incident was a crucial turning point in my life. Not only was I not getting laid by these “mega-hottie” women, but they would go to extremes to be rude to me. And now, their f*cked up lives were seeping over into my own life. This pissed me off to no end. …
Clearly, something is wrong with some modern western females. SERIOUSLY WRONG!
That’s the conclusion he draws from all this?
The other stories Scarecrow cites as reasons for his rage against “skanks” are equally puzzling. One involves a male co-worker who sort-of-accused him of murdering a young woman named Brianna Denison. Though the “accuser” here was male (as was, it turns out, the actual murderer), Scarecrow directs much of the anger in his post at, again, the murdered woman, whom he describes as a “f*cked up b*tch, who was too good to talk to any ‘nice-guys.'” He also manages to work in a shot at the “heavy-set women” he saw in the TV coverage of a candle-light vigil for Denison:
Funny – since when do fat women care if a tiny woman drops off the face of the planet?
Oh wait – that’s right – silly me. There’s an awful lot of male-hatred that can be spread at such a thing, and of course – lots of money money money to be made. You can show everybody how much you cared about Brianna by donating money to various charities (CHA-CHING!), and remind everybody how ALL men are just beasts that want to rape and kill young women. HIP HIP HOORAY!
The other story involves — long story short — two Nazi skinheads he’d never even met who tried to blame him for drugs and weapons violations they’d committed. Seeing the skinheads for the first time at a pre-trial hearing, he directs his ire not at them but at their girlfriends:
The thing that pissed me off:
They [the skinheads] had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. … I wondered: Why do … losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and “square” do not get the time of day from such women?
Once again: men commit a crime, and Scarecrow directs his anger at women, random women he doesn’t know — for being, in his mind, the type of women who would probably turn him down.
To restate an obvious point I’ve made in other posts: no one (male or female) has the right to sex and/or a relationship with the hottie of their choice, and anyone who walks around hating not only those women who’ve rejected them, but also all the other women who remind him of these women, is going to have that hate curdle inside of him. Everyone gets rejected. Some more than others, but that’s life. Life’s unfair. Yeah, some women go for assholes over “nice guys.” That’s their business, not yours.
But let’s pause for a moment on the issue of the “nice guy” — as in, for example, the “nice guys” who Scarecrow imagines were being cruelly rejected by the murdered Brianna Denison. How “nice,” exactly, is a guy who seethes with hatred of women because a relative handful of said women have responded negatively to his advances? If you blame and resent murdered women for inconveniencing your life, and celebrate the death of “skanks,” here’s the thing, and I shouldn’t really need to say this: you are not actually “nice.” You’re a creepy, angry, misogynistic asshole. And most women can sense that a mile away.
NOTE: I have not decided what I should ultimately do about the issue of Scarecrow posting comments here. Anyone — male or female, MRA or feminist — who posts comments celebrating the death of innocent people will have these comments deleted and will likely be quickly banned. But Scarecrow has not posted any comments like that here, and I am inclined, at least for now, to allow him to continue to comment here and, in particular, to respond to this post.
>The truth is; if it was a male who went missing, Scarecrow and most people who are aware of this case would most probably not hear about Joe Blow who disappeared off the face of the planet.Just because she's a woman with good looks, it gets loads of attention. So much for the so called under privileged gender *cough*Are you familiar with the phrase "Missing white woman syndrome", David?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome
>Don't apologize for keeping him around. I blogged about this when I saw Christine's comment yesterday, my first mra blog post, inspired by this blog. I'll be back later…to interject in the comments, there was so much to say about this guy's stupid post and sociopath reasoning, that I was overwhelmed. The bottom line is, he says his anger is based on the fact that he's a "nice guy"? Er, whut? Fail.
>Nick I found out about this from that dude's blog. But seriously how is that the point of this? Also do you have any links to stats of the missing and murdered men versus women in Nevada? Can you back up any implied claims here? It's very important that we have violence against sex workers on our national consciousness. It teaches us loads of lessons if thought about on any deep level, mainly how objectifying that type of work is, not to excuse male sociopath violence, but these women are susceptible to sociopath crime.
>The truth is; if it was a male who went missing, Scarecrow and most people who are aware of this case would most probably not hear about Joe Blow who disappeared off the face of the planet.This doesn't really justify celebrating a pretty white woman's death. Blame the media for their morbid, sensational fascination with these kinds of cases, sure–I would agree with you. But don't blame the women themselves, especially in the case of Ms. Denison, who, as it turned out, was murdered by someone NOT her boyfriend, putting something of a chink in Mr. Scarecrow's worldview, it seems.
>It seems clear to me that if women are avoiding him, this is evidence against his theory that women seek abusive men. On the contrary, the hate and violence in his post is a big red flag, and I imagine women avoid him out of a desire for self-preservation.
>Just because she's a woman with good looks, it gets loads of attention. So much for the so called under privileged gender *cough*So under-privileged, in fact, that she's DEAD. Remember? I'm fairly certain that all of the money donated by whomever isn't doing her any good.
>….so the thought that maybe she snapped at him because her boyfriend was a psycho and her life might not have been in a good place and she was just…wound fucking tight and he had nothing to do with her reaction or her death -never occurred to him?-Right. Let me let you all in on a little secret boys. Those of you who find the fact that a woman died and you had to deal with it in any way shape or form resentful, or rant worthy, or make up posts like this when women are missing..or any of the other creepy and flat out disgusting things that you say..Those are the reason women don't want you.Beyond that fact? No one is required to want you back. No one is required to take your proposal graciously, no one is required to be kind to you. You are not a special snowflake.There have been times, reading this blog that I am struck by the realization that these men…all these angry and pissy and stuck up asshole men..are furious at women, at -anyone- treating them like they treat others.Beautiful women turn them down. What about overweight? how about homely? I hazard a guess that you guys would be derisive if a fat woman hit on you. Bitches and Nags too much…but there are blogs..groups, forums..pages and -pages- bitching and ranting and gossiping about women and what they need to change.I seriously suspect, that if any of these men sat down and thought 'why does this -seriously- bother me' they would find at the root of it, an expectation of privilege unfulfilled.Too fucking bad.Just because you're a man white or not doesn't mean you are entitled to anything. Just like you are so quick to point out in others, you hold the same expectations and bad traits.You do not get a free pass. Grow up.
>But April! the fact that she picked someone who would kill her over the creepy guy who writes scathing woman hating posts on the internet about those skanky whores who need to die…means she's privileged!wait….huh?
>I used to walk in the woods a lot where Chandra Levy was eventually found. I probably passed within just a few dozen yards of her body at one point. I imagine if I had dropped a receipt or something, the police likely would have questioned me. This would have been awful, and potentially damaging to me. Worse still would have been the fact that, completely by coincidence, my wife was in preschool with her years ago, and completely by coincidence, I lived about two blocks from her gym, one of the last places she was seen alive. If police had found this stuff out, and concluded I was possibly involved, it would have been horrible, and wrong, and potentially could have led to a great injustice against me.But for me to have any animus toward Chandra Levy as a result of any of that would have been really, really bizarre. Wouldn't it?
>….so two wrongs make a right? Only in Math Eoghan.You are only responsible for yourself. Just like each of us. We are the only people we have to answer to ultimately.I personally like having ethics and principles and not crowing at the misfortune and degradation of others. Perhaps it is your enjoyment.
>Eoghan (who keeps posting here): What about "you have been banned on this blog" do you not get? I even gave you yet another chance the other day and you abused it. Every comment you post here will be deleted as soon as I see it. Everyone else: Please ignore Eoghan.
>Eoghan, I don't think you're so bad as MRAs go, but seriously, you're making yourself look bad by continuing to post here. I personally wouldn't have banned you, but this is David's blog, not ours. If some MRA place banned me, I wouldn't keep hanging around like some sort of stalker. Just leave, man. I mean, it's not like David's gonna listen to you, right? Spend your time someplace else where it'll be more productive, seriously. There are better things you could be doing.
>For those who haven't been posting here for awhile: Eoghan was banned here for repeatedly lying/misrepresenting what others had said, for endlessly posting the same things over and over (spamming), for derailing discussions with off-topic stuff, and generally disrupting discussions. Because I really don't like banning comments or people, I let him get away with this stuff for a long time. Before he was banned here he made literally hundreds of comments, more than any other commenter here in fact, even more than pretty prolific commenters like Yohan. Those comments still remain, if you want to go back and look at them in virtually any topic in the first couple of months of this blog. In other words, he's had plenty of opportunities to express himself on this blog.After seeing too many topics derailed by his antics, and after warning him several times that unless he shaped up he would be banned altogether, I banned him. Since Blogger doesn't allow blog owners to actually ban individual commenters, I simply delete his posts as I see them. Yet he continues to post here. I actually gave him another chance a little while ago, but he abused it, posting a really nasty attack, and so he is banned again. Please do not respond to his comments.
>nicko81m, you realize that only a tiny percentage of women are young, beautiful, rich, and white enough for the media to salaciously report on (such a privilege) when they disappear, right?It seems like MRAs are absolutely obsessed with hot women and their supposed cruelty towards ordinary men. Do regular, everyday women (i.e. most women) even exist to these guys? Or do they just not count, since they're deemed insufficiently fuckable?
>I will never understand the complete lack of understanding of basic human nature that leads some guys to think women being short with them as a response to being hit on is some assholish, entitled, hateful behavior. If you find a woman attractive enough to hit on her while she's just going about her business at a laundromat or a grocery store or any of the places where *the business of life* gets done, imagine how often she is approached and how often this encroaches on her personal business, her personal time, her internal thoughts, her just going about her day. If you can't imagine what that feels like, imagine if every time you stopped for gas or popped into the grocery store or took your dirty underwear to the laundromat somebody nosily intruded on your life to demand things of you. The rest of this guy's post is just heinous and sickening. Nick, I hope you aren't attributing "missing white woman syndrome" to feminism because that would be the nuttiest thing I've read yet on this blog. That is the *opposite* of what feminists want to see in this world.
>OK, look, no righteous minded MRA will ever say that woman deserved to die at the hands of anybody. Some might state (and rightly so) that she may have had some hand in her undoing and that there may have been things she said (in the heat of the moment) that likely should have been phoned in but she did not deserve to die.
>People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities. This does not mean they deserve to die, but it is a message to those with personality traits that might get them killed (by anyone including the PO lice)
>People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities.[citation needed]
>One thing I hope this forum/community can accomplish is prizing apart the MRA/PUA guys who really do have fundamental unresolved anger toward women for their own reasons, and other guys who see a certain very simplistic approach to male/female relationships as having the power to save them from a world of awkwardness that has started to wear them down and make them think they will never have a fulfilling sex life.It would be fun to see a feminist man (PUAmangina.blogspot.com, anyone?) work out his own PUA system based on compassion and respect for women as people. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with lots of different women. Sounds like a bit of a timesuck to me, honestly, but if that's your thing you should go for it! Women are great. Lots of them are really sexy. The problem is, if your approach assumes that women are silly and venal and easily manipulated, you will wind up with a lot of silly, venal, easy manipulated women. They exist! Human beings have their problems. But if you assume women are self-possessed and compassionate and interesting, those women are out there too. When you find one, you'll want to make your life intertwine with hers. It's a great journey! But you have to choose to begin that journey. No dream girl is going to suddenly appear and fulfill your fantasies. That's your job.
>Any person who has been punched in the face for saying the wrong thing (me) knows that you can be harmed at any moment for saying or doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.
>@iodineshuffle I apologize as I do not have the reference. I was told this by my sociology professor at the University of Western Ontario. I do not remember his name at this time but he told the class that it was his research and that he conducted it on men who were convicted of spousal homicide. He also told us that his findings were very controversial because they were perceived to find the victim at fault.Believe it or not, but I was actually there.
>@Raul,I got me one of those "self-possessed and compassionate and interesting" women. She's a PhD and a professor at a major Canadian University.So what say you now?? Am I wrong for being pro men's rights? Is my wife wrong for supporting me in these reflections on "feminism"?This woman did not deserve to die if she did (she may just be off enjoying a tryst!). I do not condone domestic violence of any sort!
>One study you vaguely remember hearing about from one professor on one type of murderer? I'm sorry, Witman, but that is pretty poor evidence. However, this is getting off-track from the posting, so believe what you like.
>http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawcom.gov.uk%2Fdocs%2Fcp173.pdf&ei=xQcgTa6XGsWAlAe78v3dDA&usg=AFQjCNFeAtAyDlRHVf-upbIYwrMwl5HxHwAssociate Professor Dale E Ives, University of Western Ontario, Canada ….. there had to have been provocative conduct by the deceasedI think this is the study. I cannot be 100% sure as it has been many years since my University tour.One of his studies(as I remember) involve a man many years married whose wife was knowingly unfaithful. He stayed in the marriage for some time due to his devotion to his daughter. One day he came home, hugged/kissed his daughter to be met with his vehement wife who hissed "Why do you even bother, she's not your daughter anyway" (or something like that). The next thing he remembered was being in a police car and his wife was dead at his hand.I do not agree that she should have died at his hand, but the paternity of his daughter (whom he lived for) should have been phoned in … really! You can be dead and right or you can be alive and right … which do you think you should be?
>And this is nowhere off topic. Feminism nor "male privilege" does not excuse you from the consequences of your ill conduct. You may be right but you may also be dead!I will state again that I do not condone domestic violence in any form. I also do not provoke brutes (for my own safety).