Manosphere dudes: Let’s set up fake feminist blogs to take down feminism!
On the internet, no one knows you're a dog disguised as a cat.
Over on the always repugnant In Mala Fide, a guest blogger by the name of What is To Be Done recently offered his comrades in the “anti-establishment / man/ biorealist / HBD/ reactionary / racist / patriarch / tradcon / whatever blogosphere” what he evidently sees as a revolutionary suggestion: instead of trying to fight the evil feminists with “well-reasoned arguments,” why not simply set up fake feminist blogs, and post shit on them to make feminists looks bad?
WITBD explained:
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a saboteur. We are naturally smarter than the feminists (in fact, objectively better in every conceivable way), and in addition, we are well-trained in deception by our studies of game. In other words, it’ll be a piece of cake for us to mimic their arguments and appear to them as really smart girls who really know their shit.
Really? Because no one I’ve ever run across in the manosphere has managed to pull off a particularly convincing impersonation of a really smart anything. And in order to effectively parody something, you have to actually understand it first. Given some of the truly odd things MRAs and manospherians believe about feminism and feminists – see my post on Operation Alimony yesterday for one recent example — I’m somehow thinking that the only people dumb enough to be fooled by these “false-flag-feminist” blogs will be other, yep, MRAs and manosphereians.
Nonetheless, WITBD claimed that’s he’s already started putting his little plan into action:
I have already begun false flag blogging myself. At this stage, giving the link would ruin the whole thing. But it’s out there. And “false flag blogging” returned only 87 results, of which only a few actually seemed to discuss what I’m talking about, so for the time being it seems nobody is watching out for it. Not that they’d be able to tell anyway.
His fantasies got more and more extravagant:
Think long term. The endgame is to build a big enough presence that coming out as a fake feminist generates buzz in and of itself. Imagine if it came out that the founder of Feministing was actually a men’s rights activist.
And that he could fly, and shoot lasers from his eyes! Imagination is fun!
(Note: The founder of Feministing is not actually an MRA, or a man. Nor can she fly or shoot lasers from her eyes.)
WITBD continued fantasizing:
Eventually, our false flag bloggers will coordinate with our legitimate bloggers and have “debates” where both sides are controlled by us.
And where the only people paying attention are you guys.
If you feel you are getting really good at this, attack some prominent feminists for not being feminist enough. I don’t even know what that would mean, but, hey, this is feminism. Nonsense is our bread and butter.
Wheels within wheels!
Some on In Mala Fide thought this was a dandy idea. Frost wrote:
Fuck yeah. Awesome post. …
[W]e need to get bold and creative with how we fight the war for the best minds in the western world. False flag blogging is a wide-open front. Especially if you’re new to writing and aren’t yet confident in your voice – and unless you have written many thousands of words already, the truth is your writing is probably going to suck – a false-flag blog would be a great way to hone your skills while only having to actually write at the level of typical mid-twenties gender studies grad student.
Here’s a post of mine that sadly didn’t get a lot of attention, but it’s one of my own personal favourites:
http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2011/08/an-open-letter-to-the-manginas-of-the-internet/
I submitted it to The Good Men project, Manboobz, and a few other Mangina sites as a guest post, but sadly no one bit. These people are just so easy to parody, it’s ridiculous.
Regular Man Boobz readers may have a rather different assessment of how effective his parody was.
Others on In Mala Fide were a bit more skeptical of the “false-flag” idea. As out-and-proud racist thwak put it:
It sounds like a good idea, but it won’t work. Its been tried by white people on counter racism forums and they always got busted. We used to call it the “nigger impersonation syndrome”.
A white person would sign up with a name like “Jamal” and speak ebonics… but they always got busted cause at some point they hafta come out of “nigger cloak” to practice racism; i.e, say and/or do something a black person would not say/do.
Sure, they have the option of coming on the discussion board and pretending to be a full time nigger, but how does that advance the racist agenda? …
The “black White Supremacist” stuck out like a nun in a whore house everytime.
And got busted everytime.
Gosh, it’s almost as if black people are actual human beings and not just racist caricatures. And that real black people can somehow magically spot the difference between other real black people and racist assholes posting in “ebonics.”
Huh. Could the same happen with feminists?
In a followup post, WITBD dismissed the critics as uncreative cowards. And it turns out that fake blogs are only the starting point in his grand plan.
The fact is we are not the alt-right. We are the new left. We are the oppressed proles … They are the establishment. We lost “our” country. They control it all now. We have blogs. And a handful of churches and seasteading. Sucks.
Now it’s time to move on. We have to take these pieces of shit down and that means we must use leftist tactics. This kind of blogging operation is the beginning of a long march to infiltrate and undermine their institutions.
Sounds like someone has been reading Mao’s Little Red Book!
Playing around? Real men fight to win, period. We fight feminism specifically because it’s the weak point of liberalism. Read your Sun Tzu. Attacking the entire rainbow coalition at once is madness. You always attack the enemy where he is weakest.
And the weakest links are the ladies, naturally.
[N]ot all women actually benefit from feminism. They may think they win at first, but we know full well that feminist sex and the city-type women lose big time: no kids, no committed alpha, no nothing. Most women don’t benefit, and many women are recognizing this.
Right now among women, feminism is high status and actually being feminine is low status. But all women instinctively want to actually be feminine, and they have better life results when they do. We all know about how to manipulate women’s idea of status. This should be easy to work out.
If we take out or marginally disrupt feminism, and pull lots of white women out of the coalition, it crumbles in short order.
Oh no! Not the white women! Don’t take the white women!
High-IQ thundercunts are major war engines of the regime, and especially the childless ones. They actually run the agencies, corporations, HR departments, universities, etc. Without them, the enemy has a harder time operating. As well, white women are blatantly used as bait to recruit minority men into liberal groups.
Anti-feminism is something that we know well … and it is something that the other elements of the liberal coalition actually somewhat agree with us on because its not like the blacks, Mexicans, Arabs etc. are keen on empowering their women. All men of all races have common ground in dealing with the unique female brand of bullshit and thus are potential sympathizers on this issue.
So this is his grand plan: for racist white dudes like him (and much of In Mala Fide’s readership) to build a sort of antifeminist rainbow coalition with “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc” … in order to take down feminism … in order to weaken liberalism … in order to screw over the “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc.”
Yeah, that’s totally gonna work.
Posted on January 3, 2012, in $MONEY$, antifeminism, antifeminst women, douchebaggery, hypocrisy, lying liars, manginas, misogyny, MRA, oppressed white men, PUA, racism. Bookmark the permalink. 1,130 Comments.
oh is that what he was doing? I thought he was just being an idiot like usual xD
hahaha Viscaria…I see what you did there!
Only if you 1) think of sex as an object a woman gives a man as opposed to an activity two people share/experience together, and/or 2) conflates rape and consensual sex.
Why? Is it a class project?
You actually don’t have to communicate with us. You know what’s a really great way to learn? Listening. Shutting up and listening. If you have questions, or something seems weird or wonky, write it down and see if it resolves itself over time, or with more research. But the truth is, you’re not interested in being a feminist. You’re interested in knowing more about feminists so that you can talk to your boyfriend about it and he’ll think more highly of you because you have thusly distinguished yourself from all lines of feminist thought. So, that’s cool, if that’s what you want to do. I wish you well in it, but I also think you need to do your research somewhere else, ‘kay? You hold some deeply wrong and troubling ideas; we’re never going to agree with them; and talking about it further actually isn’t even amusing.
@Emma
No, because basketball is an activity that a number of individuals choose to engage in, not something finite like available jobs. But, okay, ignore the bit about affirmative action if you’d like. Is basketball something other people own or control? Are people who play basketball with others who–in my estimation–are above their station, cheating me in some way?
I worry that you have very negative attitudes towards sex that are harming you. I worry that you think you are a sex dispenser, not an agent who can choose to have sex (or go on a walk, or dance, or chat about your favourite bands) with other willing partners. You’re not a sex toy, you’re a person.
/Viscaria’s preach time.
Emma Troll: I guess I can say that feminism started out good, gave women rights they didn’t have before, but some directions of it are too crazy for me.
Nonsense. Women are either human beings with human rights (that are not recognized or granted by the kyriarchal nations controlled by elite males), or they’re not. Nobody “gives” anybody rights.
And if the MEN that an MRA is concerned with is white men, then they’re racist (whether in the American definition or some other definition). I don’t know about Norway, but you know jackshit about the U.S.
You can actually name a few feminists, which is more than any other troll has done, but I think that you’re right in that your ideas are all about what individuals may or may not do, which is fairly closely aligned to liberal feminism (which is in the US quite racist — Betty Friedan’s famous FEMININE MYSTIQUE advised (white) women to hire someone to look after their children so the white women could go to college–and racist, i.e. some white women from the middle class have benefitted from class and skin privilege while doing nothing to change the oppression exercised against women who members of marginalized ethnic groups and/or poor). Adidtionally, if you conceive of all women as heterosexual/and or married, then it’s not too surprising a lot of work is too “crazy” for you. I’m a queer woman, age 56, never married, in a lifetime partnership with a woman–so this crazy fat queer has only one response to your crap: you’re a troll, you’re boring, and as far as I’m concerned you can take a long walk off a short dock.
@Molly Ren
Unfortunately, there aren’t as many english articles about this phenomenon (there’s a fanmade “hetalia comic about it, though :D It seems pretty accurate).
I think this one puts it quite nicely (the last three paragraphs). Nutella doesn’t have an official gender in German, but that doesn’t keep people from arguing about the correct one. A friend also told me that the gender of Nutella may depend on the context in which it is used.
Yeah, I don’t know either.
(Personally, I’m firmly in the fraction that genders Nutella female. Everything else just sounds wrong :( )
/”What gender is Nutella” derail
@Kollege Messerschmitt
Please, nutella is clearly gendered male. It’s the Luther Vandross of spreads! :d
The ancient persians castrated boys from peasant families and used them as sex slaves. The greeks adopted this practice, most famously with Iskandar who had persian eunuch named Bagoas whom he sodomized on a regular basis. In fact, Iskandar preferred boys to women when it came to sex. The whole idea of castration in Persian, Greek, and medieval european culture was emasculation. A castrato was viewed as the equivalent of a woman and those choirboys of renaissance Italy were used by priests and monks as sex toys since they weren’t allowed to sleep with women.
@NWO: yes, you’re right, all the aid goes to women! And we keep it all to buy bon-bons and never help anybody else!
Except, NOT:
http://50.usaid.gov/infographic-why-invest-in-women/usaid-women/
Well, it looks as though NWO has scored yet another stunning victory over imaginary feminism. All hail NWO’s imaginary victory!
Meanwhile, real feminism continues on unperturbed.
MSN,
You left out the part where women giggled while boys were being castrated.
@Emma
So, you acknowledge that there is racism (and ageism) – discrimination based on things that are entirely beyond one’s control. Why are you against affirmative action? If employers are free to discriminate against marginalized groups, isn’t that benefiting the privileged?
You said that Norwegian people are kind of racist, yet you don’t think that there’s any need to level the playing field.
How is that not racist? Or discriminating?
You would, passively, be giving privileged people the benefit over marginalized people.
Do privileged people deserve jobs more, in your opinion?
Uhhh, why doesn’t the other partner have to be nice and caring, though? If you don’t feel like it, and they still demand sex from you, doesn’t it make THEM the opposite of caring? Why should only one partner be obliged to be nice and caring?
Wouldn’t it be better if both partners would be respectful and make EACH OTHER happy?
If your partner thinks that “refusing [sex] too often indeed means you are not nice and caring”, they obviously don’t give a shit about your feelings, and they don’t care about wanting to make YOU happy.
Why are the wants of one partner more important?
You say the right partner wouldn’t be a demanding jerk, yet you argue that refusing “too often” makes the refuser the bad person (how much is too often, btw? Is there an official number of times you can refuse sex, and after that, you are a mean and uncaring person? Does your niceness and carefulness decrease with every time you refuse to have sex with your partner? Inquiring minds want to know!)
Seriously, your views on sex and relationships are… problematic, to say the least :\
I didn’t see anyone answer this, so I will. The flags are many (and, don’t worry, none of them apply to you for supporting the campaign).
1. He pops up out of nowhere and says something off-topic. Trolls are impatient and have no interest in joining the actual conversation.
2. “My Strength” is a common MRA hot-button. Their best idea of how to act feminist is to take something they hate and pretend to like it.
3. He said it was a new campaign when the website is copyright 2005. MRAs often stumble upon old stuff and suddenly freak out, whereas someone actually interested in rape prevention would be familiar with it.
4. His support is vague and unreserved. I’m cautiously supportive of the campaign for the reasons you mention, but it’s also based on really gender-normative ideas that I’m skeptical about. Someone honest would say what they liked about it and what they didn’t like. The overenthusiasm and lack of reasons sounds like someone who doesn’t like it and doesn’t know why anyone would like it.
Look on the bright side, Emma! Norwegians are just protecting your mom from having an income. Quite chivalrous of them, actually.
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Emma Troll: I guess I can say that feminism started out good, gave women rights they didn’t have before, but some directions of it are too crazy for me.
Nonsense. Women are either human beings with human rights (that are not recognized or granted by the kyriarchal nations controlled by elite males), or they’re not. Nobody “gives” anybody rights.
….
I agree. Emma, I’m gong to put down any of the more angry things I might say to you, and I’m going to address you in good faith.
Emma, I hear this a lot as a libertarian, even from women who are making very well-intentioned attempts at libertarian feminism. The idea that feminism started out as being about equality, but then went mad, and became a great, big, statist, man-hating tyrannosaur. I leaned that way myself for a while. But it all dissolves in a puff of smoke when you look at the real history.
I’m not for forcing equality of outcome, whatever that means. I’m not really for the state doing anything. But if all the complaints are about small bandaids like affirmative action or welfare, which are really, indeed, only bandaids on state-corporate kyriarchal nation inflicted puncture wounds, the conversation is completely distracted from anything that might really do us any good. And away from those actually in power, to the imagined power of feminists. Classic divide and conquer. If all affirmative action and alimony were done away with today, we’d still live in a broken, rights denying system for both men and women. I suppose I am “against” those things in the larger sense, but not nearly as I’m about stopping the system of privelege – And here I mean not just privelege in the feminist sense, but good, old fashioned, naked power, that makes those things necessary.
I don’t think you’re evil. I don’t think you’re even badly intentioned. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with opposing taxes and alimony… But. Be. Careful.
Be careful of the men’s right’s movement. Be careful of traditionalism. Be careful of the misogyny around you. I started out, as a more conservative woman, very sympathetic to MRA in it’s early stages. Very sympathetic to father’s rights, child custody, unfair alimony, and (Along with the ACLU at the time, it really was an awful document, but it HAS been improved) against VAWA.
But the good in the movement was very soon swallowed up by the bad. And OH! The bad. And not just me, not just feminist women, but many women, many men left in horror.
I’m going to leave you this, written by a woman who is one of the prime examples of the “I love you as a libertarian, but why are you strawing the other feminists” types. Heck, the prime example. A woman who writes for Fox News, and who was VERY, very involved in the Men’s Rights Movement for a long, long time. And left, shaking the dust from her feet. Because it is nothing worth staying in, nothing worth fighting for, nothing worth appeasing.
Here is the queen of “Feminism Should Be Libertarianism Should Be Libertarianism Should Be Men’s Rights” herself, Wendy McElroy, washing her hands of the pit of hatred that Men’s Rights Is now.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.1381
Please reasd it.
If you want to be around women who hate alimony, taxes, and laws, and even stubbornly hate those “other feminists”, but away from the worst of the man hate, I can tell you just where to go, and I’ll happily send you there. I’m not joking.
But I am telling you, and I am not judging you, and it’s your choice always what you do, Eivind and his ilk are the baddest of bad news.
@Shadow
Here’s a question:
If my male partner spends more time on home-making and cooking (which he does because I suck at it) and I pull in 70% of the household income, and we’re focusing on my career in the relationship (also true), is it equally cool that I just toss him on the street and leave him to fend for himself if we should divorce?
Because personally, I don’t think it is, which is why we have a back-up alimony payment plan (I pay him alimony) to compensate him for the unpaid domestic labor he provides the household. And also because, you know, when someone’s career skills aren’t kept current, they can’t just run out and get any job after a divorce, especially not with a resume gap, especially not in America, and definitely not in a recession.
“but away from the worst of the man hate,” well, yeah, that too, but I meant the worst of the woman hate.
And I do mean it. You’re not evil and anti-woman for being anti-alimony, anti-taxes, etc. But how and why matters, and nothing in the MRA is really about doing any good for any of us. There’s other places to go and be a libertarian or conservative or father’s rightsy woman. You’ll be better off once you find them, or any place other than where you are.
I just looked it up, and 90 percent of divorces are settled out of court. Apparently, the divorces where the man is sucked dry of his income, dignity, and children by the courts, are a minority of divorces in America. Then, there’s the fact that an increasing number of women are opting out of motherhood altogether – so no custody, no child support to worry about. Then, there’s the fact that more and more women are becoming primary breadwinners, so the women in those relationships, earning the higher income, would pay the alimony if the case went to court.
Sure, I agree it’s not right to make ANYONE pay alimony when the other party has an alternative income source (like re-marriage to a wealthy person, or an inheritance), and that alimony and child support fraud going both ways should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, but it seems to me the tide is beginning to turn in divorce cases – and relationships in general – far more than the MRAs would let on.
It doesn’t seem like anyone who’s concerned about unfair alimony, child support, or custody settlements has an action plan to tackle the issue, aside from complaining on the Internet, though. This makes sense, because passing legislation to mitigate the outcome of highly individualized divorce cases is extremely problematic. (For the record, I don’t support equal pay acts, etc., either because I feel likewise that there are too many variables involved in compensation for government to be the solution.) And asking us taxpayers to foot the bill is not the answer either.
One service that is becoming increasingly popular, though, is divorce mediation. Promoting the use of guided legal counseling with both parties’ input to ensure a more equitable outcome in a divorce might just be a solution. Of course, it’s always more fun to just complain.
. You’re not evil and anti-woman for being anti-alimony, anti-taxes, etc.
…
And I mean that. THAT doesn’t make you evil. But why you oppose those things counts for something, and for most MRA’s it’s not about higher principle. And Eivind’s rape-thing IS misogyny ahoy. And that’s the MRA. A vile, misogynistic pit sane libertarians and conservatives and traditionalists ran from and are running from like their feet were set on fire. A movement that is still sort of peeling itself like an onion, as the outer layers nearest to reason slowly detach themselves. I was there. I was there at the start. I’m happy I’m out, I weep for the potential that was lost, and I’m watching to see what’s at the center of that onion. Try not to be there when the last layer falls off.
@Katz
According to this blog entry, the campaign has been discontinued in December 2011. One of the reasons is that, while it was groundbreaking when it was launched (according to the blog entry, the campaign has been around for more than a decade!), it’s not really up to date anymore (focus on “no means no” instead of “yes means yes”, barely taking bystander intervention into consideration).
I think it’s important to remember that. I thought it was a good campaign, but from a modern standpoint, it does have quite a lot of issues.
Not sure what to think about Grinner yet. Maybe they are just somewhat new to social justice stuff? You brought up some good points though, Katz! Let’s see if/what they reply.
katz: thanks, that’s very true. I hadn’t realized MRAs hate the my strength campaign, so I didn’t make that connection. Which is silly of me… of COURSE they hate it, it mentions MEN and RAPE in the same sentence! And even has the audacity to say that men actually might have something to do with it! :P But yeah, I’m with you on the cautiously-supportive-but-still-skeptical.
Ozymandias42,
No, you wouldn’t be justified in throwing a fit. You would be a demanding jerk then, precisely which people should avoid dating. My point was not whether you have the right to throw a fit, but whether putting out of demand is nice and caring or not. I do think it is. I also think it’s not nice and caring to ignore the sexual needs of your partner, unless you have a legitimate reason (illness, physical inability, depression, things like that). If the sex drives of the two partners are radically different, it’s best to simply find partners that are more compatible. In that case, no one is really to blame. But if the difference is not too large, then it’s nice and caring to have sex anyway, even if you don’t feel like it, to please your partner. I’m not sure this would work for men though (since they have to get an erection to have sex and might not be able to if they don’t feel like having sex), but for women (which is who my blogpost was about) it’s doable.
I understand your argument about equality of result, and it makes sense to me. Except women and men don’t fundamentally have same desires. I think they have very similar capabilities (last time I checked the info on that). But with desires, it’s different. Prenatal and post-natal hormones seem to play a role in what we want. There has been studies on this, how prenatal hormone exposure makes babies either go for girl toys (dolls) or boy toys (trucks). Like girls with CAH going for boy’s toys despite parental encouragement to do the opposite.
http://people.uncw.edu/hungerforda/Infancy/PDF/Prenatal%20hormones%20and%20postnatal%20socialization.pdf
Not sure if it counts, but I watched a few National Geographic programs on something similar a while ago, where they measure the time a newborn looks at either the face or a mechanical thing. There were gender differences there too.
Post-natal hormones also play a role. Transexuals who start taking testosterone often get an increased libido ( http://www.ftmguide.org/ttherapybasics.html ) , so there it’s no surprise that in general (as in, it doesn’t apply to everyone or more specifically, you), men’s sex drives are stronger. They are also less hung up about casual sex and are more likely to lower their standards for it, while women might increase theirs. I was once presented with an article by some women’s studies professor, and even that one admitted these differences:
http://wulv.uni-greifswald.de/2006_mw_forsch_gender/userdata/Hyde_2005.pdf
So the conclusion would be that if either desires or capabilities are not the same, then there is no reason for results to be the same. We have something we call the Norwegian paradox here. We’re one of the most gender equal countries in the world, with affirmative action, sexual harassment laws and welfare for those who are divorced or otherwise jobless and poor, but still, men go into “men’s jobs” (engineers) and women go into “women’s jobs” (nurses). Why force them to choose what they don’t choose in such a rich, woman-friendly country?
Kollege: That particular campaign has stopped running, but the group who run it, “Men Can Stop Rape”, and a related program, “Men of Strength”, are still going. They’re trying to work on the bystander intervention problem right now, actually, they’ve started up a new campaign
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Strength-Media-Portfolio/preview-of-new-bystander-intervention-campaign.html
I follow them casually on facebook, but I do have the reservations about it that katz mentioned… and still not 100% sure how I feel about this brand new “where do you stand” campaign of theirs.
@Bee: Good comment, and seeing the quote made me think, wow Emma Troll like some of our other Trolls does not see the internet as “real life.”
We aren’t real people, real women, or real feminists.
People, that’s SO 1990s. And troll like. Trolls presumably don’t go around their neighborhoods or work where they’re known and TROLL. They can only do it where it’s not ‘real.’
I shall add to my “rhetorics of Trolldum list.”
@ithiliana
“@NWO: yes, you’re right, all the aid goes to women! And we keep it all to buy bon-bons and never help anybody else!”
Hey vile swine I’m back for a sec. Nice link you gave although it’s all bullshit. So lets debunk the bullshit, shall we? The link you gave states
“A woman multiplies the impact of an investment made in her future by extending the benefits to the world around her, creating a better life for her family and building a strong community.”
Does it really? How about a man? Does investing in a man help only the man? Is it only “her” family? Not “his” as well? Investing in any woman is always good to everyone? Men are on their own?
————
“1 in 5 girls in developing countries who enroll in primary school never finish.”
What’s the percentage of boys in that situation? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
————
“Girls is stay in school for 7 years or more years marry 4 years later and have 2 fewer children.”
Is this a good thing? Who told you marrying later or having 2 fewer children was “good?” Why is it good?
————
“1 in 7 girls mill marry before the age of 15 in the developing world.”
What about boys? Is there an upside? Why is it bad? Do boys marry earlier as well?
———–
“Women make up 52% of the people with HIV.”
Isn’t that number comparable to women’s number in the general population? Why is it a trajedy for women yet men not so much?
———–
“Women produce 43% of the food in developing nation, however women are less likely to own land and own fewer amounts when they do.”
Should the owners of said land just give to women? Tons of women land owners in the good old US, no one is rushing to toss me a parcel. Why should anyone who owns land “give” it to a woman? Do men get land thrown at them?
———–
“When women have the same amount of land as men there is a 10% crop increase.”
What is this magical ability women have to increase crop yield? Why are women keeping this ability a secret? Teach us men how to achieve a 10% yield increase!
———–
This entire article you’ve given is a propaganda piece. Women are victims. Men are oppressors. Let’s all give more to women.
More telling of your hatred is what you said in a previous post. “And if the MEN that an MRA is concerned with is white men, then they’re racist”
Remember, if you help a white man, you’re a racist. The feminist ideology of hate.
————
Finally, all your giggling “on the bright side the prevelance of castrati in heroic opera roles lead to some delightful queer juxtapositions now that women play castrati roles.”
I’m thrilled by being castrated boys were able to further the queer play genre. I’ll be sure to applaud the next time I hear about female genital mutilation, maybe it’ll spark a few straight white men to be more creative with their playwriting.
ANSWER MY QUESTION, NWO.
I’m thrilled by being castrated boys were able to further the queer play genre. I’ll be sure to applaud the next time I hear about female genital mutilation, maybe it’ll spark a few straight white men to be more creative with their playwriting.
…
Ye-ah, that’s really what that was about. Good boy nwo, you found the giggling!
Also, asking a bunch of weird questions isn’t debunking anything.
Emma: Even in relationships where both partners have very similar levels of libido, sometimes one partner will want sex and the other will just not be up for it. Maybe they’re stressed out, maybe they’ve been having a bad day and are really just not in the mood, or maybe they’re not sure why, they just don’t want to. Those are all “legitimate” reasons — at least, to a partner who actually cares about having sex with someone only when it is something they BOTH want.
A partner is not required or — since you’ll probably argue that you never said they’re required — “not nice/caring” to fulfill their partner’s sexual desires. They’re not sexual “needs”. Partnered sex is not a NEED. If a partner is turned on and wants to do something about it, they can masturbate. Someone IS allowed to have WANTS about how often sex is had, etc, for a relationship — thus if those wants aren’t being fulfilled, they absolutely can choose a different partner and it’s a “legitimate” reason (what the fuck defines “legitimate” anyway). But the onus is not on the partner to fulfill those desires even if they’re not in the mood for it. It does not make them not “nice or caring”. It’s just a reality that happens in relationships. Sometimes, someone will be in the mood while the other person isn’t. It’s not a big deal and it doesn’t make you not nice if you don’t go and have sex with them anyway.
@zhinxy: You mean stupid questions?
I meant weird AND stupid. XD
BUT WE HAVE NO REBUTTALS TO HIS AMAZING DEBUNKING THAT DIDN’T BY DEFINITION DEBUNK ANYTHING, even if, for example, everything he was asking about was literally, absolutely false.
NWO WHAT IS DEBUNKING? (AND PROTEIN, AND LAW, AND TITLE IX, AND PRETEND ANARCHY, AND HISTORY OF POWERFUL WOMEN OF CHINA, AND GENDER IN LANGUAGE…)
Kollege,
I realize there is racism, sexism, ageism, but I think company owners (who bothered to start and run their own company) should decide whom to hire and who fits their company better. If they want to stay racist or sexist, they are free to do so. There is an option of creating your own, non-sexist company. And not all groups have the same interests, which might lead to shortage of people whom you are supposed to AA into your company, which might lead to taking employees which most definitely don’t fit your company or aren’t qualified. And I definitely do not want a job given to me through affirmative action. It just makes women look stupid and unqualified.
“If my male partner spends more time on home-making and cooking (which he does because I suck at it) and I pull in 70% of the household income, and we’re focusing on my career in the relationship (also true), is it equally cool that I just toss him on the street and leave him to fend for himself if we should divorce?
Because personally, I don’t think it is”
Me neither. I don’t think you should be able to turn him out for no reason without paying. But if he decided to leave without you being to blame for that in any way, then I don’t see why you should pay.
English has a non-gendered pronoun but that’s not enough to make English have gender, because in gendered languages gender is assigned to all nouns, and other words are inflected accordingly. Someone correct me if I’ve got that wrong, it’s been a while since linguistics class.
So e.g., in French you inflect adjectives according to the gender of the noun they modify: “bon jour” (“day” is masculine) vs. “bonne idée” (“idea” is feminine).
Bunny day.
KristinMH said:
“But before NWO steps in and accuses me of….something based on my appreciation of this bit of irony, let me confirm once and for all that I hate men and want them all to be castrated. Yep, I’m just like Katherine Heigl in that video about neutering pets.”
NWO said:
“I’m thrilled by being castrated boys were able to further the queer play genre. I’ll be sure to applaud the next time I hear about female genital mutilation, maybe it’ll spark a few straight white men to be more creative with their playwriting.”
I repeat, a fuckin parrot
Also, fun fact, Emma: You say men wouldn’t be able to do that because they need an erection to have sex.
1. awesome heteronormativity and also complete erasure of any sex other than PIV
2. this is the fun fact — for the majority of women, if they’re not at all aroused, PIV will hurt. So saying men need to be aroused to have sex but women don’t and therefore women should be totally cool with having sex when they don’t want to just to be “nice” to their partner is just… kind of batshit.
Look. We’re not saying you can’t do this yourself. Go ahead. I think it wouldn’t make for a very happy/fulfilling/COMFORTABLE sex life, but if it works for you, golden. Do it. I don’t care. I mean, seriously, it is your choice to do so. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that. What we are arguing, however, is to please please please not apply your strange values around sex to other people. Do what you won’t. But don’t go around saying other people “should” do it too because it’s a “nice” and “caring” thing to do.
do what you WANT**
Emma, if there’s a level playing field of free choice, and it ends up sorting out that there’s, say 70 percent male engineers and 70 percent female nurses, than, honestly, cool beans. But I don’t think we’re there yet, “even in Scandinavia.” And part of the reason is that even if it all is about desire and not ability, the belief PERSISTS that ability is lacking. Which, along with hormones, can effect the hell out of choice. If boys are still doing mostly “man things” and girls are still doing mostly “girl things” in the magic time after the revolution, that’s great. But let’s not distract ourselves from the question, not of women’s lack of ability, or men’s, but the social factors that deny acceptance of that equality of ability. I think hormones have a lot to do with how we turn out, in ways we dont’ even really begin to understand yet. I think there is a “maternal instinct” and etc. But these things are in the aggregate, are not observable in perfect laboratory non-socialized conditions, and should remain very suspect.
If ability is truly not the problem, then let’s join hands and get the idea of lack of ability out of the way, before we decide it’s all about desire.
@Emma
“I realize there is racism, sexism, ageism, but I think company owners (who bothered to start and run their own company) should decide whom to hire and who fits their company better. If they want to stay racist or sexist, they are free to do so. There is an option of creating your own, non-sexist company. And not all groups have the same interests, which might lead to shortage of people whom you are supposed to AA into your company, which might lead to taking employees which most definitely don’t fit your company or aren’t qualified. And I definitely do not want a job given to me through affirmative action. It just makes women look stupid and unqualified.”
This is all well and good, IF or WHEN we all start off on an even foot. You cannot have all the power in the hands of a few and then tell the disenfranchised that if they don’t like it they can start their own companies. With what?!! And again, there is no reason to hire an unqualified employee to satisfy affirmative action because THERE ARE PLENTY OF QUALIFIED MINORITY EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE FROM!!
@hotairgenerator
Thanks for the link! The first impression seems promising, but I will give it a closer look.
It will be interesting to see how the MRAs are gonna react to it.
@zhinxy
First off there wasn’t any proof, only words.
It went on and on about how any investment in a woman was an investment in a glorious future for all. Nothing about investing in men? A pointless endevour?
The entire article was a propaganda piece of womens eternal victimhood and if only the world would hand everything over to women it’d be all good.
Well we got the good old US to look at. How’s it lookin kiddies? Economy good? Society is healthy? Women get any law they want out here. Women have been runnin the show for quite some time. Remember, the 435 people at the top don’t mean shit to the average Joe. Look at all the women in positions of power making all kind of laws. Where’s this utopia?
You ladies fucked it up, you get to fix it.
@Kollege Messerschmitt
Simpsons, is there anything they can’t do? And I managed to create a craving for crepes that I can’t satisfy today, so I stand in solidarity with you my sibling from another mother!!!!
@NWO
“Look at all the women in positions of power making all kind of laws.”
I throw the question right back at you, where the fuck is THIS utopia?!!
Answer my question, you lying coward.
Shorter NWO: If you don’t mention men or boys in your article about women, you HATE ALL MEN EVIL FEMINIST BIGOTS!!!!!
Me neither. I don’t think you should be able to turn him out for no reason without paying. But if he decided to leave without you being to blame for that in any way, then I don’t see why you should pay.
And suppose the genders were reversed – do you also believe a man should not be able to turn a woman out for no reason without paying? I’m trying to get a clear picture of your view on this.
If you say yes, that neither party should be able to turn the other out for no reason without paying, regardless of gender, then I suppose we just have a philosophical disagreement about the function of alimony, and that’s fine. If (hopefully it never happens) it were to come to splitting, I’m still not going to turn my male partner out onto the street without paying if he needs the money, but what you decide if you should ever get divorced is totally up to you. That’s why I advocated an increased awareness of mediation as a legitimate option over taking the divorce to court upthread.
By the way, there is no feminist monolith. Each person has their own unique philosophies and viewpoints on any specific issue. As you read more about feminism and various rights movements, or even choose to stick around and read the comments on this blog, you’ll notice this more and more.
kollege: I’m imagining some guy at a computer, face going bright red, a vein pulsing on his temple, eyes bulging, the whole shebang. Then lots of capslock FEMINAZI!!!!! RAMPANT MISANDRY!!!!!!!!! rage.
So basically, I’m expecting the usual :P
@Lauralot: I’ve been trying to get him to answer some questions of my own for quite a while. I wouldn’t hold your breath.
@Crumbelievable: I don’t actually plan to get an answer. I just want to remind him of what a chickenshit liar he is every time he posts.
There is an option of creating your own, non-sexist company. And not all groups have the same interests, which might lead to shortage of people whom you are supposed to AA into your company, which might lead to taking employees which most definitely don’t fit your company or aren’t qualified. And I definitely do not want a job given to me through affirmative action. It just makes women look stupid and unqualified.”
In a real free market, yes. But ah, there’s the rub. Such a beast is not yet real, though I try with my ceremonies to hasten it’s coming to our plane. When people have the real opportunity to thrive, create, and make their own businesses bloom, then, ah then I become the shouter of YOU DON’T LIKE IT, MAKE YOUR OWN COMPANY!
But the current State /Corporate system is a nasty, nasty thing, and exactly where government and business begin can be very hard to sort out. As I said, much of affirmative action, social welfare, and etc is a bandaid on a puncture wound, and the people handing out jobs to a designed workforce are often there by things far different than merit.
See: http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
The Iron Fist Behind The Invisible Hand.
There’s a problem indeed, and I’m all for bootstraps, self-reliance and MARKET FIX ALL! MARKET YEY!… But it’s not so simple. Not at all.
There should just be an auto-response programmed to message NWO every time he posts, with a friendly “You’re a chickenshit liar”.
@Shadow
“I throw the question right back at you, where the fuck is THIS utopia?!!”
We’re living it sweetheart. You’re gonna remember 2011 as the good old days. Women fucked it up from the word go. You ain’t seen nothin yet princess.
—————–
@Lauralot
What question was that princess? Why are you an idiot who parrots what you’re told? Or how could women be so stupid to blindly follow the very people in power who don’t give a shit about them?
@zhinxy
Weren’t you in the armed forces? You got there because of AA. You didn’t earn it. Your standards, as a woman were lower but your pay was equal. Wasn’t it?
Or how could women be so stupid to blindly follow the very people in power who don’t give a shit about them?
…
I keep asking the same of you. All this griping about women, women, women, government government government, and yet every time I’ve mentioned any sort of stateless solution, you can’t stand that either. Believe me, title IX and VAWA, both of which, yes I do have SOME problems with, are virtually nothing in proportion to the crap we’re all getting from above. Yet on you scream and rage, like a good little divided, conquered, distracted, pawn of demagogues.
Any man who’s sincerely concerned about the dearth of labor jobs in America today, and wishes there were more economic opportunities for men that didn’t require an advanced education, can start by discontinuing their support for the Republican and Democratic parties, both of which enforce and uphold the “race to the bottom” outsourcing of labor while enabling megacorporations to dodge their tax obligations so that the American taxpayer foots the bill. If people were really concerned about the weakening power of labor in this country, and sincerely had an interest in the health/safety/earning rights of the American worker, there would be MUCH greater interest and mobilization toward a Labor Party, or at least unionization, than there is currently.
The coolest, most macho thing going right now here in America is to intertwine corporations and government so that they work together to strip American workers of their earning and bargaining power. Naked corporate aggression rules. In fact, you have fewer rights than a corporation – it can abuse you however it likes, or bulldoze your house to build a big-box store, because it’s legally a person, and now has more rights than you. You can thank your Senate, Congress, Supreme Court, and President (which are majority male and lean center-right, by the way).
Of course, many dudebros have already decided that government or activism of any sort = elevating women above men wholesale, so I’m wasting my words. Or typing, in this case. I dunno, though. From my view over here, it just looks like people are suffering, period.
Because men do not have fingers or mouths anymore, apparently. I do not agree at all with the idea that all partnered people must always put the sexual needs of their partner above everything else, but listen. If you’re going to pretend to be all for equality, Emma, fucking pretend it. The thing about there being some “legitimate” reasons for not having sex on demand, like depression or illness, doesn’t work, of course, because a person who truly buys into the idea that xir partner must give sex on demand will diminish xir partner’s needs and feelings and capacities. “You’re always depressed! You’re always sick! You’re just pretending!”
Oooh, you know what really makes someone look stupid and unqualified? Talking about shit they KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. Affirmative action (in the US, at least) doesn’t work like you think it does. Seriously, Emma. Learn about feminism elsewhere. Learn by reading, or listening. Or hell, don’t learn, since you seem unable to grasp even the simplest feminist ideas or ideas about equality. No one here agrees with anything you say, because everything you say is bad.
Fuck yeah to that. Throw in with as many wildcat unions as you can. I’m gonna be a Wobbly soon! Yey!
Don’t assume you can call me nicknames, asshole, or I’ll start a trend of having everyone here refer to you as “poopsy.”
As for the rest of the shit in your post, stop trying to deflect me with insults and answer my damn question:
You claim that gendered aspects influence a culture, hence why we have “boy things” (blue, trucks) and “girl things” (pink, dolls). So by that logic, you must believe that the Native American cultures which had two-spirits (people who did not identify as male or female, but took on mixed roles in the community) must have been influenced by a gendered aspect other than male or female. Yes or no?
@zhinxy
Where here’s a thought dearie. Try shutting up and listening to men. The steal all mens waelth and power and give to the State while placing women in authority over men solution didn’t work out so well.
What’s the collective minds of women got in mind now? More feminism?
The coolest, most macho thing going right now here in America is to intertwine corporations and government so that they work together to strip American workers of their earning and bargaining power. Naked corporate aggression rules. In fact, you have fewer rights than a corporation – it can abuse you however it likes, or bulldoze your house to build a big-box store, because it’s legally a person, and now has more rights than you. You can thank your Senate, Congress, Supreme Court, and President (which are majority male and lean center-right, by the way).
Of course, many dudebros have already decided that government or activism of any sort = elevating women above men wholesale, so I’m wasting my words. Or typing, in this case. I dunno, though. From my view over here, it just looks like people are suffering, period.
…
This is one of those areas where the real radical edge of the left, and even the best of the right, you could say, on that odd place where we become one that ISN’T a sad, murky centricism, be it anti-or pro state, free market or socialist, is finding it’s common cause, NWO. Things way, WAY more pressing and oppressive than anything “the feminists might do”
Stop licking the boots that kick you, already.
Let me go on record to say IDGAF what any alleged “relationship expert” thinks people should or shouldn’t do sexually in a relationship. Sex is an activity between two consenting adults (sometimes, two consenting adolescents), and it is up to them and them alone to define how the activity plays out. The analogy of pick-up basketball is a good one. Your philosophy of the game might not work for me and my friends, and vice versa.
(Quick correction to my post, sometimes sex is an activity between three, or four, or more consenting persons. CONSENTING being the key word there.)
@Lauralot
You’re boring me with your here’s my analogy crap. What have women in their collective genius written into history now? The two-spirit lifestyle. I’ll bet genderqueer wasn’t a big issue in the native american community. Or has that been rewritten as well? Was their other “spirit” genderqueer?
I’m so glad you were present to write all these things down as a fact.
I guess castrated men could be considered neuters. Didn’t they used to do that to boys back in ancient China? To protect the elite women? Kinda like playtoys for those elite women. Oh how they must have giggled!
It’s very kind of you to provide new entries for the Book, sweetie-pumpkin. But in the interests of accuracy, because I do try to run a tight ship here, my downy duckling, can you name these women? What positions of power did they hold?
Look at all the women in positions of power making all kind of laws.
Can you name these women, babydoll? Again, this is for the Book. Think of your legacy, my soft little baby princeling.
@NWO
I am neither a woman nor from the US, but I’m more than happy to do a little research. Your current president is a man, your current vice president is a man. Your former president was a man, your former vice president was a man. There are three female judges to the six male judges in the SCOTUS, and the chief justice is a man. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx). 17 of 100 senators currently serving are women. There have been 39 female senators throughout the history of the US (http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/women_senators.htm). Now, I totally agree that this constitutes a significant majority of law makers, but my feminist overlords are watching so I’ll support you in e-mail.
@zhinxy
Where here’s a thought dearie. Try shutting up and listening to men. The steal all mens waelth and power and give to the State while placing women in authority over men solution didn’t work out so well.
What’s the collective minds of women got in mind now? More feminism?
…
I do listen to Men. Men’s wealth and power, AND women’s wealth and power were stolen by the state, and business interests.
Here is how it happened – http://www.mutualist.org/id4.html
“Placing Women In Authority over Men” – Again, why do you parrot this crap?
To the extent that feminism was able to organize and use state power, it doesn’t begin to amount to a sliver of that used by a state that cared very little about any of us. If political statist feminism is so popular and powerful WHY DID THE ERA NOT PASS????
As you said. The ones in power don’t care about us. But they love it when we think we’re “stealing each other’s jobs”
Placing Women In Authority over Men – Again, why do you parrot this crap?
Listen to THIS man –
http://c4ss.org/content/8942
Stop. Licking. The. Boot. That. Kicks. You.
Now tell me what I really think XD
p.s.
Seeing as you calling me princess puts me in the same league of the other commenters here that argue constant circles around you, I’m happy to take that as a compliment little man
*league as the other commenters
Emma: “There is an option of creating your own, non-sexist company. ”
Is there? In a completely perfect and free market then perhaps there are. But there are also barriers to entry into many markets and many areas of business that can work to prevent people from just starting their own business.
And if people are free to operate their businesses in a discriminatory way, that could just erect even more barriers to entry into the market for those discriminated against.
Answer my question, you fucking coward.
Yes, it is true that the only way to know anything at all is to experience it personally. That’s why no one reads or writes books or articles or talks to anyone about their research or travels or anything. History began when I was born, Ohio doesn’t exist because I’ve never been there, etc. Good points all, milkslave.