>Family planning: Not a Dude Issue
>
 |
| Note to MGTOW: Not actually how it works. |
Oh Men Going Their Own Way, why must you be so confusing? MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids. So you’d think manosphere dudes would all be fervently in favor of easy access to abortion or, at the very least, birth control.
Not so much. Because apparently for quite a few of these dudes, the desire to gloat over the misfortunes of women actually outweighs their desire to protect themselves from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Or so I am forced to conclude after reading this thread on MGTOWforums.com dealing with the recent passage in the House of a bill blocking funding of Planned Parenthood — an event that strikes many of the commenters as hi-larious.
Apeiron offers this nugget:
Yes i saw the femms frothing at the mouth on their boards.
Well you know what bitch, we have to make cuts, lots of cuts …
Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly.
The appropriately named womanhater presents his own analysis of the sexual politics of abortion:
Well – the twats replaced the husband and father with the state. Now they’ve bled that hubby and father dry. Of course, there’s no replacement cock/sucker for the state. Have fun girls!
Rock adds:
[F]eminism cannot be defeated without cutting out funding. … The neverending supply of manginas and white knights will keep it going unless these same people run out of money. And that is what’s happening. Who would’ve thought the bad economy could have a good side effect. :)
Forum moderator hasmat concurs:
Want an abortion cuz you couldn’t keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain’t paying for it. Not a penny.
But it is intp who offers the most, er, original take on the issue:
Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I’m guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal. The rationalization hamster in women is strong. They would probably tell themselves I’ll just have another baby later. Or “What about my needs? I have a right to be beautiful!” I ask this because per statistics most abortions occur due to non-health threatening reasons. The woman simply does not want to have a kid yet. She wants to keep screwing like a man (riding the carousel) until the last possible minute.
Ignoring the rest of intp’s, ah, speculation, I have to wonder: what exactly is wrong with “screwing like a man?”
–
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
Posted on February 22, 2011, in MRA. Bookmark the permalink. 162 Comments.
>And what is a rationalization hamster?
>Oh, the irony. Yes indeedy – "screwing like a man" is wrong, wrong, wrong. Except when men do it. ***Want an abortion cuz you couldn't keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain't paying for it. Not a penny.***Hmmmm. I'm forced to conclude from this (and comments like it) that these guys must not know how women get pregnant. She couldn't keep her legs shut, huh? Well sir, who do you think was in between them????
>@jupiterThat was my next question. LOL
>So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women, but not have to pay for abortion OR child support should pregnancy occur, because that's what those women get for having vaginas.So the MRAs aren't really fighting a noble fight against misandry and anti-male bias, but are just old-fashioned sexists who condemn sexually empowered women as sluts? Well color me shocked.
>I did see a "What about teh Menz" post from one of the guys on there.Yeah, the lady tweeting about it forgot to include men getting medical treatment from PP (in fact, I paid for one of my male friends to get treatment when he was out of a job. That is what friends do.) So obviously we should destroy PP.
>The fact that PP benefits both men and women is demonstrative of the scorched earth policy conservatives and misogynists are willing to employ. It's the same deal with healthcare reform. Sure, it would benefit them, too, but if it ALSO benefits a group they think of as undeserving, they'd rather see it destroyed.
>what part of the fact that planned parenthood is not allowed to use federal funds for abortions don't these people understand? or the fact that for every $1 we give to pp we save $4? Do they not realize that if babies happen because women don't have access to bc that they are going to have to pay child support for that kid? You can't tell me that they all stay away from all women (I'm not suggesting that all of MRA's/MGTOW go out and have sex with women, but with the PUA's in those movements and their success you can't deny the fact that there are indeed people having sex in those movements) and since their lack of maturity is evident in everything they say I doubt that they provide the condoms for said sex, so if women can't get bc and the guys they are sleeping with won't use fucking protection there is an 85% chance that pregnancy is going to happen. Which means that they are going to be stuck paying child support, something which they don't want to have to do. How does any of this make sense?
>After seeing the hamster bit, I read the rest of the passage in the voice of Darth Vader. "The rationalization hamster is strong in this one!"
>Please allow Captain Awkward to lay down the fucking law:1. Are you a man who has sex with ladies?2. Do you want to make a baby every single time you do that? Every single time? (That's a LOT of child support).3. If the answers to the above are yes and no, respectively, vote for pro-choice candidates and for NOT defunding Planned Parenthood and vote against religious zealots who are overly concerned with making sexually active women "bear consequences" for their "slutty" actions. It's not a fringe women's issue! Quit being crazypants and evil!
>So MRAs want to be able to have sex with womenBut not all MRAs are like that! but not have to pay for abortion OR child support should pregnancy occurBut not all MRAs are like that! So the MRAs… are just old-fashioned sexistsBut not all MRAs are like that! who condemn sexually empowered women as sluts?But not all MRAs are like that!However, when you take everything that the entire movement says as a whole……..
>Quit being crazypants and evil! Well, fine, if your going to take all the fun out of it…
>Truly, the only consistency here is the hate. And, as we know from teh internets, haters gonna hate.(Cue the obligatory "but, but…feminists" response from our MRA friends.)
>@Captain Bathrobe, I was as shocked as you to find a level of short-sightedness and stupidity so bad that I could no longer joke about it. BIRTH CONTROL IS AWESOME. It's just…awesome! We want everyone who wants it to have it all the time!
>There is so much of this "well then they should just keep their legs shut!" and "paying for their mistakes!" and blah blah, but really, who is having sex with them?? And won't decreased funding for birth control make "white knights" (which I am thinking is actually translated to "guy who didn't try to disappear to avoid child support, possibly with a relationship with the mother") MORE necessary?Wait, I get it, they want a return to forcing children into orphanages or letting them starve to teach women a lesson on… having sex… with men ever…So, more lesbianism for me? :D
>Well, at least their anti-PP position is somewhat consistent with other MGTOW goals. If one wants to have sex, then perhaps one wishes to have available birth control and access to affordable health care (for themselves and their partners). If one has decided that one isn't going to have sex, then perhaps one doesn't care so much if that's available. Here's where it gets tricky: If one has decided to be a bitter little bastard about everything that has to do with women, sex, and people who have sex with women, then you get responses like the ones reposted above. So yeah. On the one hand, I get it. MGTOWs don't like women. Check. On the other hand, I can't help feeling like everything will be so much cooler–for everyone–once they start actually going their own way.Oh, also: INTPs are logical and rational! In case you couldn't figure that out from what intp there said, I mean.
>"MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids"Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David? If I came here and posted about Dworkin and then ranted about how ALL feminists hate All men ALL the time and they ALL thought sex was ALWAYS an act of rape, your fucking head would explode and you'd not be able to get to the damn delete button fast enough Then you'd spend a good 20 minutes churning out the most PC user friendly gynocentric bullshit that your turgid little mind could manage and the boobz groupie girls would be singing your praises and raving about how it's your blog and you can post what you want…truth be damnedGreat journalism there David, please continue
>> Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David?Yes. He could have written "What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal."
>"MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids"@ Natasha: But … MRAs do say that all the time. David's found PLENTY of evidence that they say this all the time. Even a cursory glance at a Spearhead article about the evils of child support and going through literally hundreds of upvoted comments agreeing makes me believe that, yes, it is safe to make the generalization that MRAs think child support is unfair.
>@Natasha, now I'm really confused, because I thought that a good portion of the "rights" in Men's Rights Activist was advocacy around child support and divorce laws. As in they think that women get too much control over whether to have kids in the first place (trapping men into paying child support for unwanted children, or in some cases ruthlessly aborting babies without consulting the fathers) and too much sway in custody hearings. Is this incorrect? Can you explain?Also, putting aside whether the comments David quoted widely reflect MGTOW or MRAs, can we at least agree that specific statements such as:"Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I'm guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal." are pretty asinine? Where do you stand on the claim that a considerable percentage of women would support human sacrifice of their children in exchange for youth/beauty? I'm sort of kidding, in that you are an individual, and I don't expect you to answer for "Random Internet Commenter Named INTP" or agree with him, just like how I would hope you would assume that I am an individual who has not somehow mind-melded with Andrew Dworkin.
>Good Lord….no where did I say I agreed with MGTOW…I dont post there or frequent the place. Most of what I see there makes my eyes twitch. I never said they were correct or incorrect ….I never made a comment whatsoever about the content of their posts…..I was commenting on David's words only, get a grip, your hero still reins supreme….here. Now I'll comment on MGTOW and what they said. It all pretty much idiotic. That's the place that angry men go to be angry. Most of them see the light and move on to better, more established groups and blogs that have more intellectually stimulating content. MGTOW is in no way representative, contrary to David's best efforts, of all, or even most, or even a good majority of MRA's and/or men in the MRM. Depicting them as such is ridiculous
>"Great journalism there David, please continue . . ." NatashaDave lost his edge in mad journalism skillz ages ago. But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too. And unlike the feminist fodder that feeds on floundering falsehoods with fickleness. "So MRAs want to be able to have sex with women."—Unlady-like Victoria Non SeriousNo, ace, just not with *you*.
>Natasha, this post was mostly about MGTOW. And I made clear in various ways that the guys I'm quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW. That said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that? Here are 190 discussions of the subject from reddit's Men's Rights subreddit alone:http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/search?q=child+support&restrict_sr=on
>Unlady-like VictoriaOoooh, he just accused you of failing to conform to socionormative standards of femininity. Ice burn!Incidentally, Natasha, the differentiation between MRAs and MGTOWs is entirely semantic. They're all the same hateful assholes. The only arguable difference is that MGTOWs use MRA arguments in an attempt to justify their inability to get laid.
>No, ace, just not with *you*Woot!
> But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too. And unlike the feminist fodder that feeds on floundering falsehoods with fickleness.ROTFLMAO!! I hope you didn't bust open your piggy bank, wytch, to pay for some lessons to increase your mad PUA skillz, yo!!
>"But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too."so wytche is like a…reverse-'white-knight'! o lady who happens to agree with me, you must be so much more sexy than those 'feminist' ladies with their fucking…beards or whatever.of course you're supposed take it as a COMPLIMENT when these guys say you're 'not like other women'. i remember reading a comment before where someone pointed out that it's like a training seminar for insurance salesmen where they are told 'insurance salesmen are the scum of the earth, they control the government and steal our money. except you guys, you guys are GREAT!'no one's allowed to actually be happy about being a woman. heaven forbid.
>Women have to learn that sex and conception is a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility. You can't just abort responsibility without allowing men the same choice. Men are simply deciding to abort from an unplanned pregnancy. Women reserve the right to do likewise. Women need to understand that sex and conception is not something a man does to a woman.
>Men have every right to abortion that women do.
>Now I'll comment on MGTOW and what they said. It all pretty much idiotic. That's the place that angry men go to be angry. Most of them see the light and move on to better, more established groups and blogs that have more intellectually stimulating content. MGTOW is in no way representative, contrary to David's best efforts, of all, or even most, or even a good majority of MRA's and/or men in the MRM. Depicting them as such is ridiculous ~natashabecause the spearhead would never ever say such awful things and no one there is angry or irrational.
>Women have to learn that sex and conception is a mutual act requiring mutual responsibility. You can't just abort responsibility without allowing men the same choice. Men are simply deciding to abort from an unplanned pregnancy. Women reserve the right to do likewise. Women need to understand that sex and conception is not something a man does to a woman.Le sigh. Why is it so hard for MRAs to grasp this concept?If a woman chooses to abort, she is opting out of parenthood because there is not a baby that needs parenting. If she chooses to keep her child, there is a human being now in the world. A man opting out of parenthood is a man abandoning a human being. It is not equivalent to an abortion. Men also need to understand that, if they don't want to have children, there are many, many things they can do to avoid that. For starters, abortion is the most common surgical procedure in the country, and something like 95% of straight women will use some form of birth control in their lives. Guys who don't want children should date those women.
>@Natasha::: Oh ffs could you have made any MORE inaccurate generalizations David? If I came here and posted about Dworkin and then ranted about how ALL feminists hate All men ALL the time and they ALL thought sex was ALWAYS an act of rape, , your fucking head would explode and you'd not be able to get to the damn delete button fast enough… :::Pardon me – but I've done plenty of reading over at the Spearhead and various other MRA blogs and that's the gist of what a rather surprising number (to me) of men say. And many of the ones that come here say precisely that as well (especially about Dworkin and feminists) – so I guess David isn't as trigger happy with the delete button as you contend. Nor, I guess, has his head exploded from reading such drivel.
>@David–"Natasha, this post was mostly about MGTOW. And I made clear in various ways that the guys I'm quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW. That said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that?"David…I know this post was mostly about MGTOW…that's why I POSTED about MGTOW. Feel free to go back and READ my post as many times as it takes until you grasp that.Moving onAnd no, you don't make it "…clear in various ways that the guys [you're] quoting don't represent ALL MGTOW". You lump all MRA's in with the most reprehensible, laughable, disorganized fringe men's groups as you can, then you do what you're doing right now and backtrack and whinge about how you never do it. It's pathalogical and old at this point.In fact, you did it again RIGHT HERE IN THE POST WHERE YOU SAY YOU NEVER DO IT!!!!!!"That said, MRAs complain about child support ALL THE TIME. They really do. Do you seriously doubt that?"You don't sway some or most or a good portion of even….you just say MRA's. Are you illiterate or just willfully obtuse?@triplanetary–yes, in much the same way all femionists are the same right love? ;)@laura-magic–Actually, I'm fkn THRILLED to be a woman, but thanks!@Bwec–Yep@briget–ok, show me where I mentioned the Spearhead in this thread? Thought not. I have NEVER asserted that the men's movement isn't without flaws…maybe if feminism conceded that PERHAPS it isn't the end-all be-all saviour of fkn humanity, men and women could actually have a conversation about the issues.I'm not holding my breath on that one@lady von whatever the hell–MRA'S DO grasp this…..we're waiting for feminism to catch up. Bwec, I believe, is referring to the proposal LC4M, where the child isn't, in fact, born yet. Look it up.And "le sigh"??? Really?
>Natasha, you complained about a statement from me saying that MRAs and MGTOW complain about child support all the time. You said I shouldn't lump MRAs and MGTOW together on this issue, which suggests that you think MRAs don't complain about this issue. I pointed out that MRAs do in fact complain about this issue. I did not intend to suggest that each and every MRA on this earth complains about it, and I don't think that anyone besides you or someone else fundamentally hostile to me would read it in that extremely literal way; I suppose I should have said that "lots of MRAs" or "the overwhelming majority of MRAs I've encountered online" complain about it. Of course, you missed the qualifying remarks I used in the OP here ("apparently for quite a few of these dudes") and managed to conclude that I was smearing all MRAs; I guess I'm damned if I carefully qualify me words (which is what I generally try to do) and damned if I don't.
>maybe if feminism conceded that PERHAPS it isn't the end-all be-all saviour of fkn humanity, men and women could actually have a conversation about the issues.Men and women don't need to have a conversation about the issues. If you frame it in terms of men and women from the start, any intellectually honest person knows who's going to come out on top in that conversation. The privileged ones who have a vested interest in the status quo and the power to maintain the status quo, obviously.The answer is to stop framing men and women as separate, ideologically opposed groups. Feminists, especially third-wave feminists, understand that. MRAs don't. Their misogyny is actually pretty old-fashioned, standard-issue stuff, based on gender essentialism and a lot of other funny notions that adults eventually grow out of. Their fantasies of a Western world caught in the grip of tyrannical, man-hating feminism are based on a complete lack of perspective that arises from that same misogyny. They claim not to be old-fashioned, obviously, but the only real difference between them and the old-school patriarchs is that they're detached from reality.
>you said mainstream MRA natasha. the spearhead, by admission of MRA's on this site, is as mainstream as they get. In david's about me section he says specifically that concerning every single post he knows that not all MRA's agree with one another. Although if you were to ask an MRA what the top five talking points are of their movement you know just as well as I do that the top 2 would be unfair court laws concerning divorce and child support.
>Natasha, and about the delete button: as carswell notes, antifeminists do say precisely those sorts of things you talk about in the comments here all the fucking time and I don't delete them. I delete spam. Once in a long while I will delete a comment that is a really vicious personal attack, or that uses really abusive language. I banned one poster here who was consistently disruptive. Feel free to read through the comments on this and past posts; there nave been nearly 10000 of them so far, and my best guess is that at least half of them are from antifeminists.
>@David –Ok, willfully obtuse it is…color me surprisedDavid, it's really hard to miss all your 'qualifying remarks' because that's what the bulk of your posts are – backpedalling paragraphs like these trying to explain how anyone who points out how you use your runaway feminist paintbrush from hell to describe MRA's is misreading you or not being fair to you or is aww shucks just not patient enough to read through 190 fucking links 'proving' how fair and open minded you are.I'm not going through 190 links…Im not going to go through 9 links….If you have to constantly point people back to things then you really arent that memorable are you? If you had some consistency of character, you wouldn't need to constantly remind us of it darling ;)@brigetnone of the mens rightsd sites are mainstream, but yes, some are more fringe than others, MGTOW being one of them. Spearhead is not the most mainstream….check out Pelle Billing, Paul Elam (David prolly wont tell you about him tho), Christina Hoff-Sommers, Dr. Tara Palmers, Toysoldier etc etc etc. These people are bright, articulate and don't wear tinfoil hats. As to your point about the top two issues being unfair laws concerning divorce and child support….so what? Are you honestly going to presume to tell another movement what it's ALLOWED to concern itself with? Feminism is presently concerning itself with the horrible and oppressive fact that contributors to Wikipedia are teh evil evil menz!
>Hahaha, runaway paint brush from hell.Hee.Also, hahaha, the 190 links are from an MRA board, not David. They are 190 references to child support being awful. They directly disprove your point.Man I love the crazy trolls who can't read and mix metaphors. The comedy is increased by at least five fold.
>Natasha, I assume the phrase "willfully obtuse it is" refers to you, as your comment really is astonishingly obtuse. You don't have to read 190 links. You merely have to note that this is a lot of discussions about child support. Hence my conclusion that MRAs often discuss child support. As for the rest, your comments offer yet more proof that some people are going to project their own assumptions on me regardless of what I actually write. I make myself pretty clear. If people hostile to me and to feminism misread what I write, perhaps "willfully," well, there's not much I can do about that. Given the ignorant and addled state of your comments (I "prolly won't tell" people about Paul Elam?!) there's not much point in arguing with you any more. Oh, and Elam's post today is called "The Scourge of Rape. Yeah, whatever." Very "bright" and "articulate," that. You can find a link to it in my sidebar.
>Natasha::: …Paul Elam (David prolly wont tell you about him tho) … :::Wrong. I learned about Paul Elam right here – and then went on to read some of his stuff elsewhere. Articulate I'll give you. He can write a coherent sentence.Bright – that's probably a matter of opinion. If one agrees with him, perhaps – but David links to a long attempted discussion with the man and he can't play fair by the rules of debate so I'd not describe him that way.No tin foil hat? He believes in a lot of the same ridiculous anti-feminist nonsense that most MRAs buy into. I'd say his tin hat is pretty firmly ensconced on his head.
>David you forgot to add a flirtatious wink. I'm sorry but this is your last infraction. Please hand over your "passive aggressive fucktard" license.
>"But I dig your style, Natasha. Bet you're a babe, too"LMAO! Okay, 10 bucks says Natasha isn't actually a woman. If Natasha IS a woman, I bet she does love it when misogynists hit on her. Maybe you can date him Natasha! Oh, but don't have sex with him. You might get knocked up and then it'll be all your fault you slutty, slutty hobag. And I'm sure you're not the type of woman to have him pay child support, no, you're way too cool for that. But – still going with the idea that you might actually be female, I truly don't understand spineless women like you who don't identify with the feminist cause. "Are you honestly going to presume to tell another movement what it's ALLOWED to concern itself with? Feminism is presently concerning itself with the horrible and oppressive fact that contributors to Wikipedia are teh evil evil menz!"Yea no. That's not the main concern of feminism right now. If you knew anything about feminism, which you obviously don't, then you'd know. Actually we're more concerned with atrocities going on in the U.S military and oh, our government trying to take away our right to choose. But you can believe whatever you want. Ignore all problems facing women and I'm sure they'll go away. Misogynists and Republicans are totally fighting for women like you. These "gentle" Beta lads who are forcing you back into the kitchen and calling you worthless once you reach your 30s or gain 5 lbs are TOTALLY thinking in your best interests.
>@Natasha, thanks for your clarification.A current thread with 24 pages (and counting!) on a site called MGTOW saying "Stupid Planned Parenthood! Stupid women!" vs. Andrea Dworkin quotes from decades ago that nobody actually refers to or quotes anymore (except for people trying to prove that feminism is bad)? I would love to see an argument where Feminists and the best of the Men's Rights Movement argue in good faith without once mentioning Andrea Dworkin or making fun of the other side for not being able to get laid, but…Paul Elam? This Paul Elam?? THIS Paul Elam? THAT'S your example of one of the good guys? Gibberish Assumption Theater?
>@David -No, David, what's astonishing is your penchant for making these huge, sweeping remarks then over the course of the discussion you water them down to what you want to be characterized as some kind of off the cuff observation. You didnt just remark that they have a lot of conversations about child support. You essentially characterized all MRA's as beingn a part of or at least supporters of the MGTOW statements. I'm simply calling bullshit on it.As far as projecting about what you 'actually write'…no projection, I quoted you. "MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids"Those are your words, not my projection. I'm not addled David, I just took a shot at you using Elam. See? I can be honest about what I write.@carswellas far as the debate goes…have a look here–http://linearthinker.wordpress.com/2010/10/26/weighing-in-on-the-domestic-violence-debate-a-response-to-david-manboobz-futrelle/if nothing else its an interesting read.@sandy -Just because I know you'll pout until you get it –;)
>Thanks Natasha. At this point you have accumulated enough passive aggressive winks for a life time, irrevocable "passive aggressive fucktard" license. Use it thoughtlessly.
>Actually, Paul is now bringing in guest posters on his blog, and those are both guest posts. Amazingly, his guest posters often manage to be even more ridiculous than he is. But yeah, Paul Elam has posted lots of obnoxious shit. His stalker-ish attacks on Josh Jasper, for one. His posting of the contact information of Julian Assange's accusers. And this shit:women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m.. Sometimes both of these women end up being the "victims" of rape.But are these women asking to get raped?In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.They are freaking begging for it.http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/11/14/challenging-the-etiology-of-rape/And "Beat a Violent Bitch Month," and many many more. If this is your idea of sensible men's rights advocacy, that says a lot about you and about the MRM.
>To clarify, the first part of my last comment was referring to Capt. Awkward's comment. And the last remark was addressed to NAtasha.Also, I misspoke about Mr. Elam. It wasn't "Beat a Violent Bitch Month." It was "BASH a Violent Bitch month." As in:In the name of equality and fairness, I am proclaiming October to be Bash a Violent Bitch Month.I’d like to make it the objective for the remainder of this month, and all the Octobers that follow, for men who are being attacked and physically abused by women – to beat the living shit out of them. I don’t mean subdue them, or deliver an open handed pop on the face to get them to settle down. I mean literally to grab them by the hair and smack their face against the wall till the smugness of beating on someone because you know they won’t fight back drains from their nose with a few million red corpuscles.And then make them clean up the mess.http://www.avoiceformen.com/2010/10/22/if-you-see-jezebel-in-the-road-run-the-bitch-down/
>keiko you snuck in there while I was posting.Actually I am a woman. And spineless? Spineless because I'm not a feminist? Do you think all women should be feminists? Jeez i'm all kinds of sorry that I don't need to cling to the sisterhood to get a sense of identity. Because I'm not a feminist you doubt my gender? Would you really want someone to be a feminist just because they have tits? Would you not want them to actually think for themselves and have their own voice rather than just sheeple-ing along drinking the kool-aid?Oh wait….yeah you probably wouldnt want that
>@David, oopsie! It is the law of stupid internet arguments that you will make stupid mistakes when trying to self-righteously point out the stupidity of others. :blush:Thanks for the reminder about the women-are-begging-for-rape Paul Elam, truly a man to stake one's credibility on.
>OMG Captain. That second link is priceless. The "Core Values of Feminism" indeed.I particularly liked the projection evident in this little gem:::: Resentment and misandry- Feminists are hypersensitive. They see female victimhood everywhere because their perceptions are colored by an overabundance of emotion. They are on a constant lookout for any perceivable slight against women and take everything personally. Feminists do not hold women responsible for anything and blame men for everything. They believe men are the demonic source of female agony. This resentment gives way to a hatred called misandry. :::LOLOLOL If those guys could ever get past thinking in caricatures it would truly be a serious advancement in their development.
>just sheeple-ing along drinking the kool-aidAnother possible t-shirt slogan! I gotta get working on that again.
>@NatashaI'm afraid your idea of what constitutes an interesting read is somewhat different from mine. My standards of what constitute factual argument are definitely different.That was nothing but wankery.
>run away feminist paintbrush from hell. I think I have a new t-shirt idea
>I'm waiting for the "bad boy cock carousel" t-shirt myself.
>I think you should commission Ampersand to do illustrations for these. I can't be the only one who thinks a fleeing paintbrush with flames painted on the side could be pretty amusing.
>I would hope all women would be feminists. Because I would hope all women like doing things like voting, getting an education, being allowed to work outside of the home, or being allowed to choose if an to whom they will be married. These are all very basic feminist ideas. When a woman says that she isn't a feminist, she's saying she doesn't agree with women voting, working, owning their own lives, or being educated. If that's really what you want for your own life, then hey. Whatever sinks your submarine. But if not, then you might have to come to terms with the fact that you believe the same things as feminists do.
>While I disagree with Natasha on, well, pretty much everything else, attacking her gender identity is out of line. While there are less misogynistic women than misogynistic men, they do exist. Attacking Natasha's gender and suggesting that she " does love it when misogynists hit on her" is an unecessary personal attack. There is plenty to disagree with in what she has said. Shoot, even go ahead and call her a misogynist. But let's not go down the road of accusing someone of being a fake woman, okay.
>Test the gender characteristics of writing samples: http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php*Spoiler: GenderGenie also thinks Natasha is a man. The outcome is, of course, not definitive.*
>@DarkSideCat:I think you're right, generally, but there are female MRA supporters who comment here pretty often who do not get called out as men. It's seems what several people have picked up on a disconnect between who Natasha is representing herself to be and other signals in her presentation, probably word choice, syntax, voice, whatever. I agree that it doesn't matter, to the argument, whether Natasha is male or female, but it is interesting that more than one reader has had the same thought.
>I'm with Cat here. Challenge Natasha's arguments; I have. But there's no reason to call her gender into question or to even make that an issue. Besides, I think most of the time when people challenge the gender of someone in the middle of some argument online, they're wrong. There are MRAs out there who are convinced I'm a woman because I do this blog, even though I'm, you know, a real person blogging under his real name.
>> I guess I'm damned if I carefully qualify me words (which is what I generally try to do) and damned if I don't.I just fed this comment into pirate genie and it flagged the phrase "me words".David is a pirate!!!
>Gender Genie always thinks I'm a man, as do most people I talk to over the internet. And Sandy isn't that common of a man's name.Also I third or fourth or whatever not questioning people's given genders because:1. Who cares?; and2. It's rude.
>And spineless? Spineless because I'm not a feminist? Do you think all women should be feminists?Well, you benefit daily from the social advances made by feminism. You benefit from the actual, boots-on-the-ground, ass-risking activism and work of more than a century of feminists. So those particular individuals certainly have more spine than you.Let me assume something for a moment – I assume you support women's right to vote, own property, and sign a legally binding contract. It has nothing to do with your gender; most contemporary Western men support these things too. MRAs often don't, but they're batshit. Anyway, if I'm wrong, and you don't support these things, just let me know and I'll recant this paragraph.But to support those things while denouncing the people and the ideology that brought them into existence is, yes, spineless. It's like the people – numerous at the time but still present today believe it or not – who say they totally support black civil rights but they don't agree with Martin Luther Kings's methods. It's basically a veiled way of saying he was a bit uppity, and black civil rights aren't as important to them as feeling secure against the threat they perceive in what an empowered, enfranchised black population can accomplish.Voting rights and equal legal standing were not generously given to women by benevolent men. Women, specifically feminist women, had to hit the streets and demand these things, and stir shit up until they got those things, and at the time the men in power thought they were uppity, too.
>I have actually, literally, laughed out loud about 12 times during this entire thread. This is awesome, guys, girls … whatever. (I'm also drinking.)I'd much rather make fun of someone for being deadass wrong about everything they say and think, than because they've possibly (probably) misrepresented themselves on the internet. So seriously, since we (may) have a real live woman-MRA in our midst, let me ask this: I've always wondered why women would sign up for inclusion in a movement that calls women sluts and twats. Perhaps you could explain the appeal?
>"The comedy is increased by at least five fold."—SandyYour posting is comedy.
>Oriental menNot cool, Pam.
>For funsies, I tried the "gender genie" on a couple of posts from feminist blogs. Apparantly, Venessa over at feministing is solidly a guy, as is Jill over at feministe. I also tried the headline stories on the Yahoo page. Mindy, writing about Glee, gets male, as does Rachel writing about Rush Limbaugh, as does Les writing about home pricing. The MRA comments exerpted in the post on Muslims end up with two as female and one as male. Accuracy is not this tool's strong point.
>triplanetary, a lot of people don't actually understand why that isn't an acceptable term to use, so some clarification is necessary there. Pam, the reason that the term oriental shouldn't be used is because it is generally referenced in the same breath as turning those of an asian decent into something foreign and exotic. The acceptable term there is asian just FYI
>incidently david I have a friend who is an artist and also a feminist who would like to do the graphic designs for you. If you are interested let me know and I'll have him get in touch with you
>"Pam, the reason that the term oriental shouldn't be used is because it is generally referenced in the same breath as turning those of an asian decent into something foreign and exotic. The acceptable term there is asian just FYI"The hilarity/incomprehensibility of the phrase "fluent in the Oriental language," is another pretty good reason not to say things like that.