>
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.
>percyprune: So your judgement does come out as an attempt to turn the blame on a victim who may well have been making rational and measured assessments of risk.You seem to be very good at making this risk-assessment for her. However, I somehow doubt that is how she assessed the risk. On the whole, women tend not to choose boyfriends who represent a threat to them. What you are telling is nonsense or you are grossly misinformed.Do you not know that this women was filing lawsuits against her ex-boyfriend for serious violence against her? And also has reported violence issues with her present boyfriend?It's everywhere out in the news. She filed lawsuits and you are telling me she is not aware of it? In April, Flores-Narvaez won a $250,000 civil judgment against McGee, whom she accused of beating her, according to court records. Court records do not indicate that she has received any money from the judgment.Flores-Narvaez filed a lawsuit against McGee in August 2009. According to court documents, Flores-Narvaez alleged she suffered scarring as a result of a June 2009 assault by McGee in which he kicked her stomach, dragged her from her car and held her "hostage in his apartment while continuing to beat (her)."Damages were awarded to Flores-Narvaez because the scars cost her modeling jobs, leaving her with only a steady income of $40,000 per year from dancing part-time in a local show, according to court documents. Anyway, if you are living with violent men and you are a stripper you cannot be surprised that something is going wrong. Either you will become a thug or you will become a victim of thugs. Not the first time. We are all responsible to choose our own life-style. Even women. You cannot blame ordinary men without criminal record, if women choose to go with thugs….
>@percypruneYohan did not "build a case that she deserved it". Yohan clearly pointed out that HER decisions and HER life choices led HER to where SHE was and placed HER in harm's way. Suggesting that somebody be responsible for their life choices is very different from blaming the victim (if she is in fact a victim).You then go on to use shaming language on Yohan. What makes you think he doesn't get laid and what makes you think that he finds a skanky stripper hot? Women like her are the very bottom of the barrel and just looking at her picture makes me feel like I need a shower.
>witman: mugged in Cuba and I understand that I was very provocative wearing a gold necklace in a country with so many poor people. I'm still pretty angry with myself for being in that situation.That's exactly I explained to this stupid person called percyprune.Nobody has the right to mug you or beat you up, but such legal talk will not help you much in your real life.The solution is CRIME PREVENTION, easy, don't carry the gold necklace around in a country with poor people. It could be still yours.—–http://www.lvrj.com/news/lake-mead-visitors-find-body-near-kingman-wash-112402284.htmlSame with this woman: She was filing lawsuits against a violent thug – her former boyfriend, had a new boyfriend who is also violent and still continues her questionable job as a stripper and still is meeting these guys in the SAME CITY. Can you believe that?CRIME PREVENTION means in her case to RUN, far away, never come back, and this advice is not only the best for a woman, but also for a man in the same situation in every crime-city worldwide.You blame yourself for the missing gold necklace, that's fine.But in case of this woman, percyprune is blaming ALL straight men, MRAs and me personally, who have nothing to do with these thugs at all, for victim-blaming.It was HER choice to work as a stripper, to live with violent boyfriends, to file lawsuits against her violent former boyfriend and still continue to live and work with them.A very very bad and very DANGEROUS choice!It's impossible with legal BS-talk to prevent a crime. Especially in such a situation.Police cannot protect every stripper in the USA against violence. What an unrealistic dreamer is this percyprune.Crime prevention = Victim blamingOK, percyprune, up to you, but keep in mind it's NOT my problem if your property is stolen, or you are in a hospital or even in a coffin.
>'Do you not know that this women was filing lawsuits against her ex-boyfriend for serious violence against her? And also has reported violence issues with her present boyfriend?'Yohan, read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I was talking about the assessments women make when they choose boyfriends, not what those partners turn out into later.Clearly, Flores-Narvaez dumped her ex-boyfriend after he had become violent, which is why he became an 'ex-'. Kindly follow the chain of causality. I very much doubt that she chose to hook up with him because he was manifestly violent towards his girlfriends. I would be surprised if that turns out to be the case.I would put it to you that it is uncommon for women to start dating men who have a known history of violence towards women. It happens, but it is rare.There is a separate issue of women who find themselves living with a violent man who might not be willing or able to extricate themselves, but that's another thread for another time.So Yohan, give me your honest view: how many women who date or marry violent men know of that man's violence before dating/marrying? And do you think they would enter into a relationship with them if they did know?A finger-in-the-air estimate would do fine.
>'You then go on to use shaming language on Yohan. What makes you think he doesn't get laid and what makes you think that he finds a skanky stripper hot? Women like her are the very bottom of the barrel and just looking at her picture makes me feel like I need a shower.Yohan writes about rejection by women employing the same shameful, whiny tone that other MRAs use when complaining about their treatment at the hands of women. Tied up in this bundle of angst are the assumptions that the MRAs attentions deserve to be reciprocated (newsflash: they do not) and that it is because women are drawn only to the successful and rich and violent (this is manifest nonsense on so many levels it would take an entire post to debunk).So yes, I use shaming language. Yohan should be ashamed, in my view.And while we are about it, way to go on the judgmentalism, Witman. 'Skanky stripper?' and 'bottom of the barrel'? Yes, what a vile way to speak about a woman in peril. And you wonder why folks like me come out and tell you that you are blaming the victim?
>@percyprune,Why do a lot of abused women pick one abuser after another? How is it possible that she can be so unlucky as to pick one loser after another without any warning signs whatsoever? Isn't it odd how rare a one-off abusive relationship is?I used to know an abused woman and was very attracted to her. My Dad warned me about dating said woman because she had a very provocative nature. I doubt I would have hit her like her ex or her subsequent boyfriends, but I'm quite certain I would have been in a bad situation. I'm glad I had my father's advice on her because a lot of lesser men do not have the filter weed out this type of woman and steer clear.I know the type and I stay away from them. She does not deserve to be abused, but she will invariably be abused by any man she dates.
>CRIME PREVENTION means in her case to RUN, far away, never come back, and this advice is not only the best for a woman, but also for a man in the same situation in every crime-city worldwide.Except that it's not as simple as that, is it Yohan? I've lived in violent cities. I've lived in cities that were regularly being bombed. To up sticks and move is not easy nor even desirable. There are many reasons why people will stay rather than go, some rational and some not. I'm sure you could make a list of your own if you put your mind to it.For a young women to get up and flee a place, leaving her friends and social circles behind, might not be practical or desirable. Flores-Narvaez clearly had a sense of self-preservation strong enough to dump a violent man, sue him and win. Seems to me she was making rational choices in managing this one threat.Furthermore, I get the impression she felt she was preventing a further crime through her actions.
>I'm just curious, if people who are murdered have irritating personalities…What does that say about the infants killed? children? Men or women who get involved with sociopaths who have reams of people testifying to their genial nature and good will?That study is such bullshit and you know it. Quoting it like that is absolutely propogating stupidity and your sociology professor should be taken out and shown exactly how ridiculous that assumption is.
>Yohan:I've never been punched by a woman. I was punched by a bully on the bus in middle school, by a bully friend in high school, then by a bully in the parking lot of the mall when I was nineteen, and then I was "rolled" by a group of drunk guys walking home from a friend's house when I was 22 or so.I have to ask, because the experience of having a conversation with you guys is so unusual… have any of you ever been told you have a social development disorder? I don't ask this to belittle or mock anyone, but there's only one other place I've ever read comment threads like these and it was a support website for social development problems.
>Why do a lot of abused women pick one abuser after another? How is it possible that she can be so unlucky as to pick one loser after another without any warning signs whatsoever? Isn't it odd how rare a one-off abusive relationship is?Is it that rare? Erin Pizzey in Prone to Violence estimated that some two-thirds of women in her refuge system were disposed to seek abusive relationships. Now this figure has been disputed by some as being on the high side. But even if we took it at face value it suggests that one-third of the refuge women did not seek out abusive relationships. That is not 'rare' in my book.One psychological theory that also applies to other forms of abuse is that some abused can be caught in the grip of repetition compulsion. They repeat patterns of behaviour in order to try and master it or cope with the trauma.Then for some women it can be low self-esteem, a demand for attention, that leads them into relationships where they are controlled by an abuser.There are lots of other pathologies I am sure. We know that many women return to an abusive relationship many times before they finally decide to leave. There are many ways an abuser can manipulate a person and the lack of support for the victim can be a big factor in them staying in such a relationship. Many of these same rationales may also apply to those in serial abusive relationships.But whatever the causes, women who fall into repeat patterns of behaviour with abusers really deserve our sympathy and help, not sneering from the MRA peanut gallery.
>You all are just..ridiculous.Why is it that a woman rejecting you is cause for all women to be condemned? Witman you speak of your marriage..so why are you so mad at women? You're 'banging' the eligible women….so where's the problem for you?why such vitriol and resentment? Is it because your privilege is being threatened?Here's the kick, the gender police? holds us accountable too Lads. We can't wear short skirts, we can't drink too much, we must watch every aspect of everything and everyone that comes near us. If the rape wasn't violent enough? we didn't fight hard or it wasn't rape. If we wore something that was 'provocative' which is at best a HUGE divide of opinions on what constitutes provocative or not, we were asking for it.We are sluts who are after nothing but money, but if we go after jobs we're hard ball busting bitches who don't know our places. We're supposed to be mothers and house cleaners and domestic duty minded, but we're not supposed to want to have money for our self or any say in our family's fiances. We're supposed to look good! But we can't say no to anyone who approaches us, or be angry or irritated, we must always be grateful that anyone wants us because that is our purpose in this world.To be wanted. The biggest insult is to be fat and ugly, to be unfuckable, to have someone say that no one in their right mind would want to rape us. Because we are here solely for that purpose, to excite and entice and if we do not fulfill that grateful, pretty, quiet, demure, mold that you all want us inWe are ball busting feminazi bitches who are out to take your money and cut off your cocks.Do you all even -read the shit you're putting out there-?! You know what's really amazing? is that you guys are just fucking outraged and shocked. SHOCKED I SAY that someone wants to hold you to the same standards you have held us to for the near -entirity- of recorded history. That we refuse to sit in those roles and demand you to give up your privilege and start treating us as you demand to be treated.So you all have to congregate and bitch about how you are being thwarted, how you are being treated unjustly, how terrible we are for daring to stand up.Gentlemen? You are not victims. You are not being victimized. You are not being oppressed. You are being forced to stop oppressing.I don't think you are all racists. But I think that each one of you who have posted your shit here today are victim blaming patriarchal privileged misogynists. Start internally looking at why it is you are so angry and what it is you are truly loosing.
>people accusing each other of being the peanut gallery in a comment thread is always funny
>'Is this a joke or a serious question?'It is serious. And your answer was telling.You characterize things as a one-way street in which the women (in particular the demon feminists) have complete control. I view that as bearing little relationship to the way the real world works. But it says a lot about you that you earnestly believe this.
>You are a dreamer, percyprune, and I cannot even be angry with you for so much ignorance. You really do not know it better.It seems you have no idea about criminality in the USA.Again:If you are a stripper, 30+, working for a cheap sex-show (entrance fee USD 39,-), you can be sure in USA, that various *boyfriends* will show up and will talk to you.You must be pretty naive, if you presume, such low-life *boyfriends* are not violent.Such guys will not listen, if percyprune or Debbie Flores are telling them, you cannot do this or that because it is against the law, and police cannot protect every stripper who has trouble with her boyfriend.For a young women to get up and flee a place, leaving her friends and social circles behind, might not be practical or desirable. As you see yourself, your advice is worthless.Do you still not understand this?Young woman or whoever, this is irrelevant. It's better to disappear (like a coward, but who cares) by your own decision than to be reported as missing. No question about it.—–I am convinced, with a different life-style, with different people around her and a different job, this woman would not be missing.Her questionable life-style however is her decision and I, the MRAs, or otherwise straight men are not responsible for what she is doing or what happened to her.Finally, let me say, USA is a very wide country, with many opportunities and it is definitely possible for a 31 y.o. woman to start a new life away from sex and criminals.
>percyprune said… You characterize things as a one-way street in which the women (in particular the demon feminists) have complete control. I said, in Western countries money is moving from the men to the women, and you cannot deny that.Therefore this is a one-way route. In general it is the Western woman who is financially ripping off the man during divorce procedures. The reason for that situation are various laws offering legal loopholes and biased law execution.It is therefore very important for young men before signing a marriage contract to study the laws to avoid a bad surprise.
>Raul Groom: I have to ask, because the experience of having a conversation with you guys is so unusual… have any of you ever been told you have a social development disorder? Unusual conversation sound interesting, what's wrong with that, if other people do not share your opinion? What's so unusual with that?About myself, no, I have no health problems so far, and no financial problems, no problems with my job and no problems with my family. About getting psycho you might ask male feminists for further advice. There is one male feminist out on the internet who openly admits, that he was kept for a while in a closed mental ward. Another one sold his feminist webpages to a pornographer because he was out of money. He has no family life.Another male feminist I heard was convicted for rape and another one takes heavy medication for ADHD, he is a poor guy and has various serious medical problems.About David Futrelle, I do not consider him as a male feminist, so far I have no idea what is the purpose of this blog.
>Ted Bundy was the epitome of the "Nice Guy Next Door". He lured his victims by pretending to be injured and needing help — in other words, he appealed to their decency and sense of compassion. Many self-described "nice guys" in the manosphere display the same lack of empathy and a relentless drive for dehumanization of women that makes the thrill-killing of women possible. They may not actually kill themselves — not willing to take the risk of getting in trouble with the law, so thoroughly dominated by evil feminists, you can't even murder a stripper without going to jail anymore — but they certainly experience a vicarious thrill from the brutalization of women, and high-five the murderers after half-hearted disclaimers to the effect that "it's wrong to kill, BUT".To say that if a woman is kidnapped and murdered, there must be something about her lifestyle that justifies it — because, had she been a "nice girl", then there is no way something like that could happen to her — is a prime example of casual misogyny. A couple of years ago, several women in New York City were kidnapped and tortured to death by a bar tender (or bouncer, I don't remember). I suppose according to MRA's, those women's lifestyles were "wrong" in that they went to a bar to have a drink and maybe had a conversation with a male not their relative. Last year, a female Yale graduate student was beaten to death by a lab technician; I suppose HER great moral wrong was pursuing a career in science. And all those victims of Ted Bundy are, of course, guilty of moral turpitude for being outside their homes, where serial killers are known to roam. Right, Yohan? Anytime a woman is brutalized or murdered, we get this sanctimonious nonsense about how she is to blame for what happened to her, that if only she hadn't gone out / gone to school / worked late / been outside/ worn a short skirt/ lived this wouldn't have happened to her. Take heed, ladies: put on a burqua, board up the windows and stay indoors — otherwise you will be blamed for whatever happens to you.So, Yohan, no, MRA's and "otherwise straight men" who didn't murder the victim aren't legally responsible for her murder — but you ARE responsible for fostering a culture that celebrates such murders and emboldens the perpetrators to go on. As for why women attach themselves to abusive men — there are multiple reasons. One scenario that's been known to happen is an abuser telling his new girlfriend that all those women he's been with before were nasty, evil feminist bitches who had it coming to them — but it's different with HER.
>@Amused:I think this is taking it a bit far. There are definitely guys on the MRA boards who seem like they might be dangerous, but serial killers are a rare and specific form of person; it's not really that there are tons of Ted Bundy's but most of them don't want to get in trouble. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if many of the MRA guys who comment here are perfectly nice IRL. I've known guys with these kinds of attitudes; hell, I used to share some of these attitudes myself once upon a time (along with confederate sympathies and a whole host of antisocial ideas common to young Southern guys.) Most people grow out of this immature conception of women and relationships. Some don't. I think it's best to show compassion to people and not smear others, no matter how disgusting their ideas seem.
>OK, now it is the posters who are innumerate. You are taking the small percentage of people who were killed at random or by sociopaths to dispute the claim that people who are murdered USUALLY have irritating and/or provocative personalities. I never blamed the victim and I hold that abuse of any sort is unacceptable. Why can't you just see that a survival skill learned long ago was that there are certain actions and words that can enrage another person. Certain things should be phoned in.@Amused,I am amused with your hyperbole. To you, if somebody says "don't get fall down drunk around people you're unfamiliar with and act like a drunken slut", that translates to "we are fostering a culture of abuse and you deserved what you got because you didn't wear a burqua." Why do we draw a line with burquas on one side and outright hedonism on the other?Likewise, holding people to account for their actions in NO WAY absolves the criminality of what occurred. If you fail to see causality then you are prone to repeated injustices.
>Raul: I specifically said that people like Scarecrow aren't necessarily serial killers themselves, primarily because they don't want to get in trouble with the law. Or maybe they don't have what it takes to actually kill in real life. Rather, they experience a thrill from killing done by others, something that is apparent from their comments. I was talking specifically about their mentality and culture. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. I will confess I have a hard time mustering compassion for men like Scarecrow; at the same time, I don't think anything I've said smears these men's reputations to nearly the same extent as their own words.Lastly, I have no doubt that some of these guys act like "nice guys" in real life. I wouldn't be surprised if they appreciate, to some extent, their mothers, female relatives, and girlfriends. It's very, very hard to adopt a violent attitude towards someone you know by name; it's hard to dehumanize a human being with whom one has had enough contact to make one FEEL that this is, actually, a human being who can suffer and experience pain. It's much easier to vilify and dehumanize faceless, anonymous "Western women" and to celebrate the murder of a stripper one didn't know in real life. There is very often this duality to people who carry around bottled up hatred, but who nevertheless feel a need for human interaction. Their "niceness" may be a result of simple cowardice, or this separation between the real world and the world of abstractions. Whatever the case, however, their real-life niceness does not negate the fact that they hate women, and their attitudes serve to normalize violence towards women.
>How does telling people to make wise choices in life and be safe translate to emboldening criminals?
>@Amused:" I will confess I have a hard time mustering compassion for men like Scarecrow"So would you say his personality is irritating and/or provocative? If you heard that his words enraged somebody to murderous intent, would that surprise you?Your attitude fosters a culture of Laissez-fair view of women's safety. You put no onus on the individual for their own safety. Mentioning random killings by psychopaths (minority) removes the burden of survival from life choices. Bringing to light unwise choices and lifestyles does not blame to victim so much as it makes other women safer by pointing out the elephant in the room.ScareCrow's message however poorly worded basically states that if you poke a gorilla with a sharp stick after seeing it rip somebody's arm off, I'm not going to feel badly for you.
>@Amused:I see what you're saying, I just think going to Ted Bundy to make that point is not likely to illuminate anything. The whole Scarecrow thing is hard for me to comment on as I think he may have a serious personality problem. Whatever the wider consequences of his words and actions, I'm staying out of it because I'm not interested in getting on his enemies list.
>Witman: because holding women who are murdered "accountable" for putting themselves in danger seems unique to this kind of violence. Women aren't the only ones who engage in hedonism or live their lives in a way that expose them to danger — yet if a man has his head bashed in and his valuables taken outside a seedy dive, there won't be this immediate reaction that the crime is "understandable" given his "hedonism".Furthermore, Yohan specifically argued that women who don't live dangerous lifestyles don't get murdered. That would support an inference that if a woman is murdered, then she must have lived a dangerous lifestyle. That's not hyperbole — that's what he actually argued. I don't know what YOU define as hedonism, but I certainly have seen violence against women being excused not solely on the ground that the woman in question was "easy" — rape and murder have been deemed just deserts for anything from her not being a virgin to walking alone on the street at night.
>One thing that's really amazing to me about these MRA dudes is how completely and amazingly blind they are to their own faults. If I, a lady, approach a guy and attempt to flirt with him and am rebuffed, I'll assume that I came on too strong, that I was too aggressive, that he just didn't like me, that he didn't find me attractive, that he had a lot on his mind, and lastly, maybe, I might entertain briefly that he might be a jerk. It's possible! But my first instinct is to consider what I did wrong, and to be embarrassed that I made somebody uncomfortable. It's so fucking sad that MRA dudes would rather invent insane theories and completely malign half the human race, rather than examine their own shortcomings. And here's the thing, MRA dudes, you have shortcomings. You are poorly socialized, you are rude, you hate women, and it's obvious to us and we avoid you like crazy because of that, not because we'd rather go find a bad boy on a motorcycle who ejaculates thousand dollar bills. We avoid you because you are creepy, you have a big chip on your shoulder, and it's obvious. I know people like you, in real life, and no matter how deeply invested you become in this PUA crap, you'll never reliably have sex/relationships with women, because your creepy, distorted worldview and hatred and anger of all women is a major ladyboner killer.
>@Witman:"So would you say his personality is irritating and/or provocative? If you heard that his words enraged somebody to murderous intent, would that surprise you?"As a matter of fact yes, it would surprise me. And, though I consider his views to be beneath contempt, I wouldn't celebrate his murder.Your attitude fosters a culture of Laissez-fair view of women's safety. You put no onus on the individual for their own safety. Mentioning random killings by psychopaths (minority) removes the burden of survival from life choices. Bringing to light unwise choices and lifestyles does not blame to victim so much as it makes other women safer by pointing out the elephant in the room.I don't adopt a "culture of laissez-faire" — rather, I hold women's safety to be a red herring in this particular instance. Men like Scarecrow don't give a rat's ass about women's safety — and I don't think they would like it one bit if the shoe was on the other foot.It goes without saying that women should avoid psychopaths, but alas, women get brutalized while simply going about their ordinary lives, not necessarily as strippers or partners of men who advertise their abusiveness. Stating that a woman's murder by a man is a consequence of her poor choices first and foremost, and of the perpetrator's brutality second doesn't express a concern for women's safety — it is an attempt at rationalization. ScareCrow's message however poorly worded basically states that if you poke a gorilla with a sharp stick after seeing it rip somebody's arm off, I'm not going to feel badly for you. I am certain that Scarecrow's message conveys precisely what he meant. It's not "poorly worded" — there isn't a shade of inadvertence in it. And it doesn't state that he doesn't feel bad for the victim; rather, it expresses joy and satisfaction about her probable fate. It this happened to a man, I somehow doubt Scarecrow would "poorly word" his message in these terms.
>The thing that I, as a woman, have learned, is that when a dude who I think is a creeper approaches me, to just rebuff him, and sternly. If I try to be polite, someone, somewhere will accuse me of "leading him on." If I am very curt, he thinks that I, and probably all women, are evil bitches, but hey, he was gonna think that anyway! I know it'd be crazy to hope for MRA dudes to actually have any sympathy for anyone who's not a sad dude who doesn't have a submissive "non-Western" ladygirl attached to his dick all the time, but as a woman who has been groped, harassed, and otherwise abused by more than one so-called "nice guy", I am afraid. I know that you think you are all nice guys, and it is amazing to me that you all think that celebrating the deaths of women who you deem too hot to want to fuck you is just something that nice guys do, but the truth is, you are really, really mean. You go around complaining all the time that there are no good women anywhere and than you are shocked that no women want to fuck you. No women want to fuck you because you are awful! The author of this blog is the most patient person in the history of people. That he has taken it upon himself to carefully and kindly attempt to set you insane fucks straight in his comments is startling and touching. He is providing a real public service. What I hope he is able to make clear to you guys is this: you are not unlike the guy who likely murdered this poor woman. His murder of his girlfriend is your ideology, taken to its natural conclusion.
>Amused: So, Yohan, no, MRA's and "otherwise straight men" who didn't murder the victim aren't legally responsible for her murder — but you ARE responsible for fostering a culture that celebrates such murders and emboldens the perpetrators to go on. What a lie! Are you not ashamed?It's the feminist who encourages women to do with their bodies whatever they want to do. It's the feminist, claiming female empowerment which is causing young women shameless to sign up as nude dancers for cheap sex-shows.MRAs advice all honest and straight men to stay away from such questionable entertainments, pornography businesses and similar places.We always recommend men not to socialize with sex-workers, as they are frequently controlled by gangsters.If women take the risk and sign up for sex-business and live together with thugs, then blame feminism for that. There is nothing, what MRAs can do against it.It's your own stupid decision as a 'strong independent woman' if you agree to live with thugs, as adult you are responsible for your own stupid decision if something goes wrong, don't blame others. MRAs do not foster a culture with whores and thugs.We encourage women to marry and to make us a sandwich, in our own homes, free of crime. LOLAs a feminist you should know that. That's exactly what you do not want to hear from us.
>Jenny,I am not poorly socialized, I do not hate women and I am an MRA. I believe that everyone should be accountable for their actions and everyone should be treated with respect. I am not going to walk through the ghetto with $100 bills falling out of my pocket asking the "homies" where a good place is to spend it.You talk about getting rebuffed yet you go on to use the words Creepy, rude and unsocialized. Have you been called creepy for trying to get a date? That male hatred you have is a total downer! You might even have the audacity to think you're marriageable.Think of the last guy you called creepy and ask yourself if he did anything different than a non-creepy male except have the audacity to talk to you when he should know he is well out of your league. Creepy, creepy men and their delusional ambitions of passing on their alleles to the next generation. What nerve! God! I just want to go out and beat up a creep for his nerve to even think he could mate with a human!
>@Amused:"And, though I consider his views to be beneath contempt, I wouldn't celebrate his murder."I didn't ask if you'd celebrate his murder, I asked if you'd be surprised if he got somebody's ire up and was murdered for saying what he said. Those are two completely different things.Thank you for taking the time to answer that you would indeed be surprised. This is that bubble that a lot of people live in. Feminism and the police do not follow people around and protect them. The police will only find the killer (maybe) but they will not prevent the death. Personal safety is a personal choice and if you fail to protect yourself then you just become another statistic for more funding.I am aware that women are killed when they are not being provocative. Men are actually more likely to be killed violently, mugged, raped, etc than women, but I still think we should take a holistic approach to violence without tagging one gender as perpetrator and one as victim.Before you get your dander up over the statement that more men are raped than women, you need to realize that rape statistics do not include male inmates in prison.
>The last dude who approached me in a manner I'd call "creepy" put his arms around my waist as I browsed the catalog in the juke box. He then started criticizing all of my selections. Other than that, I would describe all the men who yell at me from their cars as creepy. But oh no, I'm oppressing the poor men who slink their arms around the waist of a woman they do not know or yell about her "nice ass" from their speeding vehicles!
>Amused: Yohan specifically argued that women who don't live dangerous lifestyles don't get murdered. Where did I say that?Read back before putting words in my mouth I never used.That's my posting, the original text, copy/pasteI am convinced, with a different life-style, with different people around her and a different job, this woman would not be missing.I said, THIS woman, with a different life-style etc…, would not be missing.This is my original comment above, what's wrong with that?I also mentioned CRIME PREVENTION, and again I see nothing wrong with it. If you prefer to be beaten up by thugs, go ahead, live with them, but do not blame me or the MRAs.
>witman said… @Amused:Feminism and the police do not follow people around and protect them. The police will only find the killer (maybe) but they will not prevent the death. Personal safety is a personal choice and if you fail to protect yourself then you just become another statistic for more funding.It's about the same conclusion I have, it's about crime prevention.Everybody has to look about his/her own security.You cannot exclude a crime, but you can make it rather difficult for criminals to choose you, your family members and your property as their victim.That's something *Amused* seems not to understand. In case a woman is in trouble, for her it's always the fault of the men. That's feminism.
>Now Jenny,For clarity, are you saying the all MRAs approach women in this fashion and/or yell crude comments about their asses from moving cars? Even the sliest of PUAs couldn't pull that off.Most MRAs I know are decent hard working men who believe that every should have all rights AND RESPONSIBILITES deserving of humans. They believe in equal pay for equal work. Men's Rights Advocates do not advocate the right of a man to belittle, demean, harm or control another person. Men's Rights Advocates advocate rights for men. We do not want the preamble to the VAWA to say that men commit more violence against women and then have to fall back on tired old laws about assault when we are harmed by women. We do not want to be accused of fostering a culture of rape/violence because we tell our daughters to behave in a safe and secure manner.Men's Rights Advocates do not want the sexist airline policies that prohibit us from sitting next to unaccompanied minors, singling all men out as possible abusers of children. There has never been a case of on board abuse of a child let alone the fact that women harm children at a higher rate than men.Men's Rights Advocates want the ability to go to school and get a job based on our merit. We do not want to be excluded from a course or a job because AA says there are too many qualified males already working there.Men's Rights Advocates to not want to be held personally responsible for any injustice by our forefathers against OUR foremothers!
>Witman: What I take issue with isn't your statement that more men are killed than women (mostly by other men, incidentally), but rather this reflexive reaction that if a woman is murdered, it must be because she did not take proper precautions for her safety or didn't lead a sufficiently modest or self-effacing lifestyle. Prison rape is a huge problem, yet I have never seen anyone suggest that prison rape victims are to blame for being "provocative", and attitudes that prison rape is merely occupational hazard that comes with being a criminal are as rare as they are disgusting. And if you would find it disgusting, then why is it so easy to dismiss a murdered stripper as someone who brought it on herself by being a stripper?That women get killed "when they are not being provocative" — that's just it. Where do you draw the line between non-provocative conduct and conduct or appearance that's reasonably expected to provoke kidnapping and murder? Is having big boobs provocative enough? Is being young and attractive provocative enough? Is going on a date provocative enough? Most women are too keenly aware of how tenuous our safety is by virtue of our usually smaller size and weaker muscles, and certain social attitudes that makes our bodies fair game merely for being attractive and visible. But we try to balance our need for safety with a desire to live an active, interesting, fulfilling life without having it construed as asking to be put in our place. After all, the only way to be absolutely safe is to board up one's windows and doors and never venture out. And that very desire to live an active, interesting and fulfilling life — with (oh, the horror!) occasional fun in it — is deemed healthy and natural for men, yet somehow immoral when pursued by women.It's not that long ago that we had a discussion here about whether women have a moral right to reject certain men who come on to them for being "creepy". It was explained again and again — to no avail — that the word is used to describe a certain vibe that certain men give off; like this man might, MIGHT, be a violent psychopath trying to masquerade as a "nice guy". That feeling isn't always right — but BECAUSE of this concern for our own safety, our sensors for weird and possibly threatening behavior are finely tuned. After all, violent men who rape or murder women don't exactly advertise who they really are. But Heavens to Betsy, do MRA's get offended by this! It's noteworthy how in the manosphere, statements to the effect that women "provoke" their own rape and/or murder by not being careful enough as to who they associate with, alternate with complaints that women are being evil harpies by "assuming" that someone is a sex criminal without having any legally admissible proof, and not giving slightly weird guys a chance. Nevermind that from a woman's standpoint, the price for giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who might be a psychopath, may be her very life. And so, we have a fundamental contradiction here: on the one hand, a woman should give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who doesn't admit to being a violent criminal or who hasn't been convicted and welcome any man's advances against her better judgment; on the other, if she ends up dismembered in a ditch somewhere, it's her own fault for going out with the wrong man. That is the very contradiction that leads me to believe that for purposes of this particular discussion, the issue of women's need to be more vigilant is a red herring.
>Yohan: Most feminists abhor the sex industry, and you misstate the feminist position on doing "whatever you want with your body". Rather, the position of most feminists is that YOU have no right to do whatever you want with someone else's body. That position is about women having autonomy over their own bodies, as opposed to men having authority over them.
>Nobody said it was her fault. Nobody deserves to be the victim of a crime. I've said that several times now and I believe it.That vibe you're feeling off the guy, that's the beta vibe. That's the creeper beta vibe. You will not get that vibe from an alpha and that is why 80% of women will choose 20% of men to mate with. The rest of the men are just beta creepers.It is fully a woman's right to choose who she mates with and when. I have never and will never dispute that. What I say is that converse to 80% of men being left mateless (a bad thing in any society), the other 20% have no reason to be faithful or nice. They have no reason to value women.You can find nice guys in the alpha tier, but odds are that there will be many more nice guys in the beta tier. Some stragglers will be in the omega tier and I cry for them but they will never have babies.The beta tier has more than it's share of jilted men, but there is a large population that is highly marriageable except for the fact that they are creepers (betas) and make women feel icky.Personally, I like to date beta females and turn them into alphas with constant love and affection. The problem is that more and more women are looking to that top 20% thinking that they are even in the running.
>Amused, you know, we can't win. If we reject a guy as being creepy, we're man-haters. If we give the creepy guy a chance and end up dead, we were asking for it by being silly little girls. Nothing we do can be right. Every choice will be criticized. Girl who doesn't have sex is an uptight prude. Girl who does have sex is a slut. Just the other day I saw in the same forum one guy bitching about women wearing makeup to look better … and another man bitching that when women get married, they stop wearing makeup! You're either too skinny or too fat. You're too smart or you're too dumb. Be accomplished, but OH GOD, DON'T BE TOO ACCOMPLISHED OR MY BALLS WILL FALL OFF!
>Here's what's weird about you guys. Some of you seem basically reasonable. But the vast majority of depredations you claim you are fighting against are imaginary.The claim that "all airlines have rules prohibiting men from sitting next to UM's" is false. A cursory – VERY cursory – google search will reveal that the story behind this is that British Airways asked a man to move away from an unaccompanied minor because their policy was that adult men can't sit next to UM's.The man felt his rights were violated. A court agreed, awarding him modest monetary damages. The airline changed its policy. The system worked in the way you say you want it to work. Yet instead of noticing that and celebrating it, you rail against this imaginary repression.It's weird. There's no other word for it.
>Some comments here got caught in the spam filter, but I unfiltered them and they're up now. If you've been following the discussion up to this point I recommend scrolling up to see what you missed, because a number of the filtered comments were long and substantive.
>Raul,You seem rational so you can point out where I said "all airlines have rules prohibiting men from sitting next to UM's" FFS you even put quotes around it AND misquoted it. I said "Men's Rights Advocates do not want the sexist airline policies that prohibit us from sitting next to unaccompanied minors, singling all men out as possible abusers of children." It doesn't matter if they all do it. It is the fact that people like you think this is not something we should fight against. If just one company treats women poorly or as a potential threat, then is that OK? Maybe if just one guy punched out his wife. Is that OK? Where is the line that separates OK sexism from Bad sexism?Air New Zealand still has this rule. It is not this rule in particular that is offensive so much as the idea of being against such a rule leads people like you, Raul to think that we are irrational. People like you, Raul are what is fostering a culture of fear toward men. You are just sucking it up and going along with it like sexism can only happen toward women. What about the fact that the rule was allowed to be in place and not just that he was offended, won and they changed it?The system works every time a woman is raped and her assailant is jailed. The system works every time a wife beater is sent to prison. But still, there is a "Rape Culture" and "Abuse Culture" There are no laws and rules that prohibit women from partaking in society the same as a man but there is systemic discrimination yet a rule that specifically targets all men is not.
>@Magnolia,"Why is it that a woman rejecting you is cause for all women to be condemned? Witman you speak of your marriage..so why are you so mad at women? You're 'banging' the eligible women….so where's the problem for you?"I have a son and a daughter. I have a father and a brother. I am a man who has never oppressed or harmed another individual let alone a woman. I take the rights that I enjoy seriously and I will not see them stripped from me or my loved ones. We don't shit in the ocean because we want to leave a clean planet for our children. I am also concerned about the socio-political climate I am leaving for my children.I want my daughter to act and stay as safe as possible. I have to teach my son that there is such a thing as a false accusation and that he could wind up on the wrong side of a false accusation. I also have to teach my son how to not put himself in a situation that sexist laws and unfair family courts can treat him like a second class citizen that is forced to finance the destruction of his family and have his children stripped from him.I have to tell my son that he is SOL if he thinks he will ever be treated equally. That he will have to work harder than female candidates to pass a physical exam. That he has to do Male Pushups because for some reason it is important for him to be able to do them in a fitness exam but girls can do girl pushups because upper body strength becomes unimportant if your gender is different. What do I have to worry about? Nothing! I am privileged.
>And I am not angry with women. Women are only using the tools provided to them. You never hate the player. It's the game you have to worry about.
>"The sexist policy of commercial airlines prohibiting men, but not women, from sitting next to unaccompanied minors to prevent child abuse hurts both men and women."So when you wrote that, you were speaking of Air New Zealand? Because it seems like you were talking about airlines generally. Or, just a guess, did you actually have no idea how many airlines do or do not prohibit this, because you aren't really concerned about this issue at all except as a way of attacking feminism? Also, the idea that I think there is no sexism against men is very humorous to me as a Stay at Home Dad. I deal with sexism on a daily basis from people who are shocked that I can change a diaper, much less take care of my kids all day, every day. You know what, though? That sexism isn't really that big a deal. It's a natural consequence of cultural factors that are, thankfully, changing. If you had any perspective you would see that Air New Zealand's UM policy really isn't that big a deal either. You bring it up as if it's emblematic of some great repression. But it isn't! You've added all these imaginary repressions together to create, in your mind, a giant machine of anti-male repression. That machine does not exist. If it did, your response might be appropriate! But every time you make factual assertions about the repression of men, they are distorted or made up. When you find that out, you don't change your perspective. One day, you may, and you will be happier. Until then you will see the world as a terrible place for me. Too bad! The world I live in is actually pretty great. I'm living in a golden age. You're missing it.
>It's OK Raul. I still know that not only did you misquote me, you put quotes around it to make it look like I said it. Now you just brush it off like it is nothing.I was recently reading a story about a stay at home dad who's wife divorced him. Do you think he got the kids or alimony? Nope, the kids went to the mother and he was forced into the job market to pay child support. Your biggest problem Raul is that since you are not a wife beater or a rapist, you firmly believe that these laws cannot be used against you. I am trying to inform you that you are being willfully ignorant and you won't see it until it happens to somebody you love.How many legs does a sheep have if you call the tail a leg? The answer is four because the tail will not become a leg just because you called it one.
>@witman: "that is why 80% of women will choose 20% of men to mate with.""80% of men being left mateless"So you still believe this nonsense? Could you offer even a teensy shred of proof that 80% of men are "mateless?"Well, actually, I know you can't, because it's not true. How onearth do you manage to convince yourself of this stuff? Also, I think you made some remark earlier about men being the majority of rape victims, if you count prison rape. That's simply not true. Those I've seen making this argument typically compare the number of rapes ESTIMATED to have taken place in prison to the number of rapes REPORTED TO POLICE outside of prison. Since the overwhelming majority of rapes (both inside and outside of prison) are not reported, this is comparing apples and oranges. To accurately compare the figures you need to either compare estimates to estimates, or officially reported rapes to officially reported rapes. See here for a better comparison of estimates:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/further-reading-prison-rape.htmlAlso, the idea that we shouldn't consider violence through the lens of gender because both men and women commit violence and are victims of violence is ridiculous, and does a disservice to both women AND men:Men commit the vast majority (90%) of violent crimes and all but a tiny percentage of rapes. Women are victims of the overwhelming majority of rapes. Men are the victims of the overwhelming majority of violent crimes besides rape. If we ignore these realities we cannot understand violence or work effectively to try to reduce the violence. There is a lot more to respond to in these comments but these were a couple of things that stood out.
>I've very sorry I misquoted you. I actually thought that factoid was originally posted by Yohan, but it was a mistake as it doesn't seem that's the case. If I find where I first saw that assertion I will point it out. The quotes were meant as scare quotes, not to imply you had said that specific thing. It was a mistake, though. Sorry.Do you want to deal with the underlying assertion I made, though? That perhaps you should be more specific when you make sweeping allegations of anti-male bias, that you are talking about one airline in a tiny country?If, for example, it were the case that "developed countries prohibit women from wearing headscarves" that would be a very serious endemic case of anti-Muslim bias.Since in fact there is one country that prohibits this, and it's super-controversial, it would probably be really idiotic of me to assert that. Right?
>I obviously pulled those statistics out of my ass.
>Oh, and as I said of Yohan's example before, if the facts of your SAHD case are as you describe, that sounds like a real injustice.I had a friend whose husband came out of the closet and divorced her and she wound up with a much lower income and expenses far above the cost of raising her children. That was unjust! I had another friend whose husband cheated on her and left her for the other woman, and became a scientologist and she wound up with nothing while he is a wealthy scientology hustler in the American Southwest.This must be evidence of extreme pro-scientology, anti-straight bias!
>"It's the feminist, who is ripping off the honest man financially, is fabricating false accusations for a lucrative divorce, is demanding money for HER children despite paternity fraud etc. and not vice versa."For the last time, Yohan, this has nothing to do with feminism. You are so up the ass of ideology you are not even talking about real life anymore.