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.
David, is Emma Alphalady? I honestly got them confused.
Also, two-spirits: Neat! I’d never heard of those before.
Katz, that image is beautiful.
sorry that should be do children sleep with their parents
I know, disgusting analogy but its true. In the past and even still in other places in the world, wives are the only ones who trade sex for shelter, food and “allowance” and it’s regarded as normal.
“I welcome any explanations on what exactly it is that I don’t understand, and how pressure to do something makes your choice unfree. I will listen.”
Well, to start with, there is this whole bit where you seem to think being pressured to do something and being free to do something are the same thing. We might be here a while…
And it’s from the clearly excellent blog “Hitler Getting Punched.”
Taft punk ftw!
“Hitler Getting Punched.”
I have yet to see this blog, but it has already won a special place in my heart.
I’m thinking that we may find many uses for the Freedom Pigeon’s special skills.
Emma: Let’s see, where to start…OK, here’s a scene from Misery. The pertinent bit starts at 2:10.
As you can see, Paul burns the manuscript himself. Would you say that he is choosing freely? After all, Annie doesn’t force him to burn it–she merely pressures him. By dousing him in lighter fluid.
Ashley, is that you???
Holy cow! SHE REALLY IS REAL! :O
random6x7,
That is true. I know I must have sounded mean when I indirectly said that people who can’t make free choices are weak. It wasn’t supposed to be an insult, it was supposed to be an encouragement to be more responsible about your life and capable of making your own decisions. Because in general, you won’t be protected against yourself, nor should you be, unless you want a situation where you aren’t even taken seriously anymore, since nothing you do is of free will anyway. Precisely the patronizing situation you don’t want.
My point was that if you decide to marry and we all decide to scrutinize you, try to decide whether your choice was really free or not, and then try to decide (based on your unfreedom) whether the husband should pay alimony after you divorce him and leave on your own accord, then we put responsibility for YOU onto another adult person, and we can’t have that. Purely academically, it’s true that our choices are not truly free. But how you handle that is something we can decide on. And I just happen to think that people should have responsibility for their decisions, instead of displacing them on other people (who are not any more free).
Plus if you argue no one makes free choices, then we might as well let everyone out of prison.
So where do you draw the line for responsibility?
Ashley, is that you???
I was halfway wondering something along those lines. Emma the Emo seems to have a certain similarity in outlook to Brandon the Bozo.
Jill, you’re brilliant.
“And just a note on this women wanting to be men garbage. Women realized that masculine traits were the key to economic and social freedom, and that they are considered more important.”
And also, yes, some women* want to be men**. So?
* Or, female-assigned-at-birth.
** And/or something that would round to “men” in the eyes of people who are very attached to rigid gender roles.
“As you can see, Paul burns the manuscript himself. Would you say that he is choosing freely? After all, Annie doesn’t force him to burn it–she merely pressures him. By dousing him in lighter fluid”
Of course he is forced! That’s a threat of death or severe maiming. Didn’t you read what I said? I define free choices as those that are made when you have all the needed legal rights, aren’t subjected to violence and aren’t subjected to threats.
Gee, that’s simple! I can’t believe no one has ever thought of that before!
Jill, you’ve made my night.
Jesus, that’s not pressure. Does the typical husband douse his future wife with lighter fluid and thus makes her marry him? I thought you guys had an objection of women feeling pressured into being homemakers by culture and society, not threats of being set on fire.
Okay, then… how DO you define “pressure”? Anything short of maiming?
@Molly: If only she hadn’t doused him with lighter fluid…that was absolutely the only threat on him.
Emma, it’s not necessarily just the husband who would put pressure onto a woman to stay at home. Alimony is not about punishing him for that. Women do face pressures from the society as a whole to be the homemaker, and there is still a persistent idea that women who work instead of taking care of their families are selfish. It’s all very well and good to say that people need to take responsibility for their choices, but I personally think that’s used to deflect criticism of the status quo more often than not.
You ask how far I would take the fact that people cannot make truly free choices: judging an individual and understanding a phenomenon are two separate things. We’re talking about why women as a whole may choose to stay at home and how alimony is or is not fair. Individual decisions have to be understood within the context of a society that retains a certain amount of the old “women belong in the home” idea, but that context does not make every woman’s choice inevitable. It’s like with shaving. I wouldn’t shave my legs if I lived in the vast majority of human history. That I do now is a personal choice, sure, but it’s one made in a society where shaved legs were a) a possibility and b) more desirable in women.
And I don’t know if anyone’s addressed this, but you had said that room and board were adequate pay for housespouses, and that the working person wouldn’t support a nanny or a cook. Actually, the working person, if they hired a nanny or a cook, would in fact support them. If they hired their support staff legally, they would be expected to pay at least minimum wage, and, for highly qualified help, it would certainly be at least a living wage. Room, board, and occasional pocket money is not usually considered adequate pay for people who are past the interning stage of their careers.
I think I’ve missed something. I’d heard of the “My Strength”/”Men Can Stop Rape” campaign before, but I haven’t looked into it super-closely. I’m not sure why people think Grinner is a failed-undercover-MRA for suggesting it? What’s the issue with it? When I checked it out briefly I thought it was quite refreshing to see a rape-prevention program focusing on potential perpetrators instead of the potential victims. What’d I miss? D:
Didn’t really wanna go there, but Emma also claims to be Eivind Berge’s girlfriend. I feel like ignoring is a really great, possibly underexplored policy.
“Why are you here Emma? I do not get the trolls that come here and on other feminists websites. We are NOT going to see eye to eye. I don’t troll MRA/PUA websites telling them why they’re wrong and idiots. They’ll tear you apart with some of the most degrading insults out there (at least people here try to engage in proper debate first) Just go away already.”
Actually, I’m not a troll. I went here because I thought it was possible to talk to feminist-minded people and see if I can find something I can agree with. I’m not a troll and never intended to be one. I’m not here to insult anyone, and I don’t believe I called anyone names yet. I haven’t tried to “tear anyone apart”. I even asked one commenter what exactly he/she experienced that was so pressuring in their life. Because I really want to know new points of view. But if a point of view doesn’t make logical sense, I will ask more questions or point that out. Is it ok to do that here? And I know people on Roissy can be really mean and insulted me greatly with a wide variety of words before (I just wasn’t very insulted, that’s all. Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you). But still, I managed to have some great conversations there and even learned a lot. I’m sorry about this “weak” comment, perhaps I shouldn’t have used that. But if we decide that people have responsibility for their actions, we gotta draw the line somewhere.
“Do wives sleep with their husbands for some money AND shelter? yes. It’s DEGRADING”
Yes, if they really don’t like him and they are only doing it for survival. Wouldn’t argue with you there. But if they had other options, then choosing this one out of all the others means they take the consequences of their actions.
@Bee: Well, there’s a Google search I wish I’d never made.
“Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you.”
This is the most idiotic phrase humanity has ever concocted.
You know, funny as this blog thingy is with its article about “women who want to be men” and the absolute hilarity of…
“Look at yourself in the mirror, think of how your male equal would be like, and think really hard if you deserve a high status man. If not, then realize that wanting someone better than you is arrogant and entitled, and at the same time selfish, as you think it’s ok that this high status person should be stuck with someone lowly like you.”
(Depending on how you invert gender characteristics, and aside from the answer “return this”, the conclusion that I would have to make from this suggestion is that I need to be dating up a fair bit as far as the usual metrics of “status” go.)
… I do have to note that this is a topic about *fake blogs*.
Nah. There’s still “Women faint at the sight of blood”.
Yeah, someone really didn’t think that one through . . .
“It’s all very well to say ‘you fool! it’s now or never!’
I could be choosing…no choices whatsoever…”
In short, I see pressure as anything less than threats and physical harm. I certainly don’t count “society expecting women to be homemakers” to be threats or physical harm. I certainly feel no such pressure. Neither did mom, or even my granma as far as I know. It seems there is as much pressure to have a big career (a pressure I HAVE felt, by the way) as much as to be a homemaker.
“This is the most idiotic phrase humanity has ever concocted.”
I suppose I should add “on the internet” to the end of that phrase. Words can hurt, but not when they are coming from perfect strangers.
“And I don’t know if anyone’s addressed this, but you had said that room and board were adequate pay for housespouses, and that the working person wouldn’t support a nanny or a cook. Actually, the working person, if they hired a nanny or a cook, would in fact support them. If they hired their support staff legally, they would be expected to pay at least minimum wage, and, for highly qualified help, it would certainly be at least a living wage. Room, board, and occasional pocket money is not usually considered adequate pay for people who are past the interning stage of their careers”
Not a bad point there. You might even be right, that keeping a wife is cheaper that way. However, she can still inherit your stuff, while those workers can’t. But thanks :)
Gah, by the time I got all caught up, it’s bed time. Have fun nomming on the new chewtoy ya’ll!
Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words will never hurt you
Sounds like someone’s never been bullied in her life. Lucky you. However, that is some serious bullshit on Planet Reality.
You know what, Emma? The conversation about marriage as a bargain has been had before, many times, so I have no interest in rehashing that again. What I would be interested in is seeing you attempt to defend your post about “hypergamy”. Why do you believe that women are “hypergamous”, and why do you think this is a bad thing? If being that way is working out fine for the woman in question in the sense that she’s able to have relationships that she’s happy about and it’s not affecting her life in a negative way, why should she try to change it? What’s her motivation?
“I suppose I should add “on the internet” to the end of that phrase. Words can hurt, but not when they are coming from perfect strangers.”
No.
Emma, this is a misogyny mocking community. We make fun of misogynists here; it’s a lot of snark, not really a lot of education. You may be looking for a feminism 101 blog such as Finally A Feminism 101 Blog, where they will be happy to take your questions.
NWO, I think little girls and little boys should play with trucks and dolls. Why is that so difficult to understand? o.O
Judging by your blog posts, I highly doubt you’ll agree with anyone here. You believe in hypergamy for fucks sake. Yes because society is just overflowing with women who are only dating and marrying CEOs, athletes and movie stars. Tell me, do you ever speak out against the ugly slobs who demand a woman look like Megan Fox? because plenty of men do when they’ve got absolutely nothing to offer in the looks or personality department. In fact in my experience, the men who shout the loudest about ugly women below them tend to be pretty ugly themselves, inside and out. This is why most people date within their socioeconomic level. And hey, you wanna know why women were pushed to marry up in the past? because it was not acceptable for them to get an education and work in order to take care of themselves. If from day one women were expected to work and support themselves like men, this hypergamy bullshit would never have existed. But how about blaming the powerful MEN (patriarchy) who enforced these systems and left us all to deal with the leftover bullshit today which ironically MRAs try to blame feminists for. How does that make logical sense when it was feminists and women who WANTED and DO to work and support themselves or aid in supporting their families money-wise?
And yeah, words do hurt. Once or twice or even ten times maybe not, but if they are hurled at you every single day? I’m sure you’d really enjoy being called a filthy cunt everyday, maybe you ought to hang out on his blog more often then come back to me with the sticks and stones thing.
Yes. And most women do choose other options like working. MRAs have a name for those women- lawyercunts and career bitches. Job thieves from their rightful white male overlords.
Stay at home moms who choose that lifestyle with their husbands need to be compensated for the work they do if alimony is to be scrapped altogether because it’s not fair for a woman to just be rendered homeless if a divorce occurred and she now has a gap in her resume and little to no money.
Oh, I see it now! Being a housewife is great as long as your husband dies first! It all balances out! :P
Yo, Emma. I am going to try being charitable to you, here. If you are genuinely interested in learning stuff about feminism, here is a good place to start:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/
It has a lot of questions that people who are not used to feminist stuff ask as beginners. You should ping around there for a while. This is their list of frequently asked questions:
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/the-faqs/faq-roundup/
I am not sure you will look at any of this, but it takes me like one minute to type this up, so why the hell not.
one of the most obnoxious and contradicting MRA arguments ever:
Hypergamous sluts! all they wants is men’s alpha FUCKmoney. Hey look at that so called “empowered” lawyer cunt career bitch! I bet she only got that job through affirmative action, a woman’s place is in the home making me a sammich, amiright fellas?
Its probably been covered on MRA Marmoset already.
Niki,
“Sounds like someone’s never been bullied in her life.”
Of course i have been :) Especially by adults when I was a kid. Words can sure hurt, but when I grew up, strangers’ opinions on me no longer matter to me.
Btw, I don’t really believe in the law of attraction, it was a joke. The post about toning down hypergamy was created because some girls I know really wanted to tone down theirs, so I wrote it. I didn’t say anywere that I think all women are hypergamous. Some are (they admitted it), and had trouble finding someone who is good enough for them. If you happen to be hypergamous and it’s working fine for you, then you have no motivation to change it. But if men your league make you puke for being boring or not hot enough, but you still want a family, then you might want to lower your standards a little bit and fall in love with a guy who is kind, but not up to your former standards. For your own sake, by your own choice. I don’t know if my advice is any good (might be unusable, if people’s tendencies are so strong), but you don’t have to use it and I warned about its potential ill effects.
The advice that you look at yourself in the mirror might not work for everyone, but it’s a good rule of thumb.
random6x7,
your thoughts on how free our choices are are pretty good. I guess I kinda make a distinction between true freedom of choice and responsibility. The last one we have to have for society to work, but the former can be said to be 100% unfree or any other percentage except zero, since we’re all fundamentally governed by hormoned and chemicals, even if you remove culture somehow. I only have a problem with the idea that people have no responsibility for their decisions when there is “pressure”.
“Have fun nomming on the new chewtoy”
Thanks
Ah here we go: http://memegenerator.net/cache/instances/400x/11/11415/11689026.jpg
Poor marmoset. To be associated with creatures as disgusting as MRAs. No animal deserves that.
Well, god, if only we thought of growing up.
Did we ever find an animal loathesome enough to be a symbol for MRAs?
I really hate worms, so that would be my suggestion. Either that or maggots.
I don’t even know where to start with this except maybe if all the people you know make you want to “puke” with boredom… get new friends?
The entire hypergamy concept seems to have been created to both describe and mollify people who’re about 14.
@Cassandra: Botflies?
I wanna give that marmoset a good snorgle. Poor dearie.
I’d say maggots. Worms are kinda cute in their own gross way. But even maggots have an actual useful purpose. Eating away at corpses :D
How to live a happy life Emma style?
1) Have really low self-esteem in youth and feel really ugly and sexually worthless to everyone, which might in turn make you identify with betas and omegas
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
@Lauralot
:”Well, god, if only we thought of growing up.”
Bite your tongue!
@Quackers and Cassandra
There are certain bastardous varieties of lizards in Sri Lanka that like to live in houses, land on people and scare the shit out of them and shit on people’s favorite tshirts. I fully believe that these are MRAs in their former births!
But worms are cool!
*were MRAs in their former births
That’s the problem, all the creatures that I find kind of disgusting are still too fundamentally useful or cool to be MRAs. Dung beetles? They’re pretty cool looking. Roaches? Complex social organization, cooperative. Sharks? Again, much too cool looking, and integral to the marine ecosystem.
See, Emma, that sounds like almost reasonable advice there. But you don’t need the concepts of “hypergamy” or any of this MRA nonsense to talk about that. It’s just a general dating advice thing. If your standards are so high that you are not getting what you want, and are dissatisfied, maybe you should examine your priorities. Maybe you will realize that it is more important to you that a guy is a good father than is over 6 feet tall, for example. But that advice is also useful for anyone– a straight man might realize that he is not having success going after “hot blondes” and decides to go for women he gets along with. Or a woman looking for women might realize that she doesn’t need an androgynous Shane lookalike to be happy, or a man looking for a man might realize abs don’t matter that much, etc.
It has nothing to do with women in particular, and certainly not with women being stuck-up bitches who think they are too good for the nice guy down the street. It has nothing to do with women having to get rid of their standards so the guy down the street (who the woman isn’t that attracted to anyway) can get laid. It is just a fact about dating people in general.
“There are certain bastardous varieties of lizards in Sri Lanka that like to live in houses, land on people and scare the shit out of them and shit on people’s favorite tshirts.”
That’s very specific. You wouldn’t happen to be speaking from personal experience there?
My most unpleasant childhood animal encounters were with a sea urchin and a camel (not at the same time, obviously). The sea urchin surged out at me and stung me when I was snorkelling, and the camel kissed me. Which I suppose is cute, but it was awfully slobbery, and they don’t smell very nice.
@Emma
I don’t care who agrees with you, Emma. The fact that someone with a vagina subscribes to these notions doesn’t mean they are accurate or well-thought-out. Since both parties get the benefits of marriage (the husband may inherit his wife’s stuff, in case you didn’t realize*), but only one loses employability, the loss of employability cannot be considered a fair trade.
*Incidentally, you are only entitled to inherit about 1/3, at least in the United States. The husband can still disinherit his wife for 2/3 of his property. Hell, if most of his property is the marital residence, he can even have her turned out of her home in her old age. Some “benefit”, indeed. Have these women, who agree with you and want this arrangement, spoken with a lawyer?
No, you are not. Think of alimony as back wages. Since home-making is a round-the-clock job with no weekends, holidays or vacations, most home-makers are actually paid less than the minimum wage, and certainly less than the prevailing wage for comparable services on the commercial market. Look at it this way: the husband gets a steep discount for the duration of the marriage. He is also free from the numerous obligations that hiring staff commercially would impose, such as providing paid leave (you are required to give your employees at least 1 day per week to rest), paying minimum wage, and paying payroll taxes. If the marriage ends, it’s his responsibility to repay what he would have owed a commercial nanny/secretary/household manager/incubator/cook/launderess. And in any event, men make the free choice to marry someone who doesn’t work outside the home — therefore, such men should take responsibility for their choices by paying alimony.
Social pressures are often strongest after you have invested time, money and effort into a relationship — such as when you are already married and you have small children. It’s not as simple as exercising your free legal rights to dump your husband of many years and the father of your kids because he said he “needs” you to help his business by quitting your job and taking care of his needs for a while; and with all of your social upbringing telling you that you are a worthless bitch with no values if you just throw your marriage away due to the possibility that you may one day find yourself utterly dependent on a husband who’s grown to treat you like shit. Let me guess: You’ve never been married, have you? Or, at least, not for any substantial period of time? And you don’t have kids?
Emma, my granma IS from Russia. What happened to her, happened in Russia. Moreover, contrary to what you are trying to insinuate, I made it quite clear that what happened to her was not a fluke, and it was not an exception. Millions of women were shafted the same way my grandmother was.
And that’s not the only way in which your statement about Russia is shockingly ignorant. You claim that “most people who die in wars are men”, and your example is … World War II Russia? Are you fucking serious?? Oh sure, that works if you ignore the fact that Russia was fucking INVADED, and you assume that deaths through disease and starvation somehow don’t count. And also, if you don’t count the military service of the millions of women who were drafted “improperly”. Incidentally, based on the stories I’ve heard growing up, if the war is being fought on the street where you live, you actually have better odds of survival if you are a soldier: soldiers are better clothed, better fed, have access to medical care, and possess weapons with which to defend themselves. Civilians enjoy none of those benefits.
On the other hand, the Lusitania is another example of how women are protected unless they aren’t.
I’ve heard that, because I’ve given birth. Have you? I also work in medical malpractice, and I deal with issues of medical ethics in my profession on a daily basis. Do you?
In any event, here is a nice summary of the “controversy”.
Safer from what? And how does the fact that some people would rather be at home make it justifiable to forcibly “protect” all women from civil and political rights, as well as educational and economic opportunities?
As for housewifery being an alternative to “working their asses off” — you are wrong again. Taking care of the house, the children and the husband (especially if he happens to be a man-child) often involves working your ass off, while working outside the home does not necessarily mean you are working your ass off. Similarly, can we stop with the “getting legs blown off” bullshit? How many men are realistically in danger of getting their legs blown off in war? Most men have not served in the military and never will, much less in capacities where they are likely to suffer such a grievous injury. The possibility is academic for most men, so the notion that women are “protected” from something that few men experience — at least involuntarily — exposes that protection as illusory.
And yes, I guess no one is formally without rights in a slave-holding system, but everyone has obligations (slave owners too), and often have to do stuff they don’t want to. Both slaves and slave owners have to do things that can be dehumanizing. I believe the suffering of both matters and should be minimized. For example, slave owners have an obligation to pay bills, something that slaves don’t have to worry about; slaves are in fact protected from the obligation to pay bills. Unlike slaves, slave owners often bolt up screaming in the middle of the night, because they’ve forgotten to pay the grocer — and that’s exactly the same as a slave losing sleep over the possibility of being beaten to death for sport. Also, slave owners have to go out and earn money to support their slaves, and slave owners have to serve in the military and get their legs blown off, whereas slaves are protected, and don’t have to go out onto the battlefield. Slaves, in many ways, have it much easier than slave owners. Therefore, it’s wrong to say that slaves are “oppressed” in a slave-holding economy. Slave owners are also oppressed, maybe even more than the slaves!
See what I mean about parallel narratives defending patriarchy on the one hand and slavery on the other?
Google still doesn’t recognize hypergamy as a word. Most Google results link to MRA and PUA websites, as well as Manboobz lol. I’d of said it’s a concept completely invented by MRA/PUA asshats, but it is in the dictionary. Although check out the entry:
hypergamy [haɪˈpɜːgəmɪ]
n.
The practice of marrying into an equal or more prestigious social group or caste.
1. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) Anthropol a custom that forbids a woman to marry a man of lower social status
2. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) any marriage with a partner of higher social status
so women were actually forbidden to marry a man of lower social status? how fair is that to deny women who they really want to marry?
Oh HELL yes. Botflies are the most disgusting creatures on earth, serve no purpose, and leave disgusting gaping hole in our dogs. Here is a picture of a human bot fly.
@CassandraSays
pffftt, I’m too alpha for that!!!
< . . >
I love camels!! Even moreso than cats they embody indifference to humanity!
My worst childhood animal encounter was again in Sri Lanka. We went on a family trip to the zoo and went to pose next to a swan pond. I was perched on the edge of the pool and this fucken swan comes up and bites my ass! To this day my uncle claims that I never managed to grow an ass since lol
I can beat the swan story with assistance from a very lovely cat who passed away last year. So picture the scene – 19 year old me is lying in bed with my boyfriend and he gets up to go to the bathroom. He doesn’t bother to turn on any lights, because it’s really late. I’m just drifting off to sleep when I hear a terrible shriek, then cursing, and then the boyfriend stomps back to bed in a huff muttering dire things about the cat.
Apparently the cat followed him into the bathroom, hid in a corner, and then right as he was peeing, lunged right at the family jewels.
I once went to an aviary and a large, probably endangered bird followed me around just so it could peck me in the back of my knees.
I’ve also been spit on by a llama.
I vote for mosquitos. Buzzy, itch-causing, disease ridden fuckers.
Emma, I’m really not saying anything revolutionary. This is all really basic social science stuff, but the greater cultural narrative about “personal responsibility” and “freedom of choice” is much less nuanced and, frankly, rather heartless. Most people don’t think very deeply about that stuff, though, for much the same reason that the positive thinking nonsense goes unexamined (to hearken back – to another thread? I don’t remember now). It’s comforting to believe that you are protected from the bad shit because you are in a good place now and you are a responsible, intelligent human being. If the feminist 101 website posted above doesn’t catch your interest, you may want to check out some social theorists.
More general social theorists, I mean. Feminists are social theorists, too.
Quackers I don’t know if you realize but it looks like you have some fans!
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/03/manosphere-dudes-lets-set-up-fake-feminist-blogs-to-take-down-feminism/comment-page-5/#comment-107097
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/03/manosphere-dudes-lets-set-up-fake-feminist-blogs-to-take-down-feminism/comment-page-5/#comment-107116
I miss the bra discussion in the other thread, I’m too late for the hockey discussion in this one…damn you, real world responsibilities!
Thanks, kladle. I already read some feminist books and got a lot of it, but new info about feminism is always welcome.
And yeah, I know this is a misogyny mocking site, but I read the commenting policy, and I believe there was something about attempting to create intelligent debate, too. Oh, and I did make a few comments on misogyny here as well. I resist mocking too much, because it’s not really in my nature, but I can point out things that sound stupid to me (no, no, I’m not just talking about feminisms, if that is what you think, some of which are truly batty, while others are good). Do I ever criticise stupid things manosphere guys say? Oh yeah. In fact, I talk exactly the same on Roissy’s site. Except I’m rougher with them, because they are rougher with me. A lot of MRAs are just whiny jerks, and a lot of guys on Roissy’s blog are mean and irrational, but I can agree with them if they make sense. Same with everyone else. I’m sure we can agree on many things. Feminism means equal rights, no? I believe in that, you see. I don’t necessarily believe in hypergamy. THAT is something I still have to figure out (if it’s true or not, and if it is, how much).
Botflies are like MRAs aren’t they? the way they burrow themselves into message boards they are not wanted on and annoy the fuck out of people.
Amused, thank you for mentioning the Lusitania, I didn’t even know about that. So it isn’t always women and children first. Its true that that policy is unfair to men, but because men are physically stronger they do have a better chance at getting a lifeboat over the average woman or a child so I understand why it was implemented, but it doesn’t make it fair. Also, MRAs like to use that argument because they think it somehow erases all the other inequalities women faced. Um no. That’s not how logic works guys. One can get perks in one area but get crapped on in another.
Here’s an article on it, read it and STFU MRAs. Be happy to know today it would most likely be a survival of the fittest thing so women will most likely die in slightly higher numbers. I know you’ll all enjoy that fact. http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/05/women-and-children-first-a-tale-of-two-ships/
I would love it if someone would conduct a study to determine what it is about being a very sexist man that renders the person in question unable to spell or use standard English grammar. Do MRAs outside the Anglosphere suffer from the same issue?