About these ads

JohnTheOther: the Aurora heroes aren’t heroes. KEYWORDS: calculus of death, vagina, drug addled slut

Children: Not worth saving, apparently.

JohnTheOther, blabby videoblogger and Number Two at A Voice for Men, has now weighed in with his own, slightly tardy, manifesto on the Aurora shooting and the evils of supposed male “disposability.” I didn’t read the whole thing – seriously, dude, OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS – but a few things stood out when I skimmed it. For example, this lovely passage, which seems to be a longer and fouler version of that ill-advised tweet from the Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto that I mentioned in my last post.

Our mainstream, which is to say, our corporate media – that which bends and fawns for access to the corrupt elected officials and modern robber barons of corporate statehood – is telling you, young man, that in order to be worthwhile, a real man, you’d better be prepared to die without complaint for the child, or the little old lady, or the drug addled slut in the next seat.

But Mr. TheOther is having none of it:

The instinct – expressing itself variously as chivalry or as fatal self sacrifice — is just one more that no longer has any discernable benefit. It is an encumbrance to any real pursuit of a civilized society in which one class of humans is not legally and socially elevated over another.

Sorry, kids; sorry, old ladies; sorry “drug addled sluts” — you’re on your own. Apparently, in a truly civilized society, no one ever looks out for anyone else. Altruism is for barbarians and Bill Bennett!

Here’s JtO’s stirring conclusion:

Those three men are not heroes, they’re just dead. The calculus of death, where one life is traded in celebration for another by preference of a vagina, is pathological and regressive. It must be recognized as the sickness it is. Those who lionized these men, whose fatal and unexamined instinct led to self-destruction; those who held them up as a heroic example to follow, are cordially invited to go first — or to go fuck themselves.

Charming as always, Mr. TheOther.

In the discussion of Mr. TheOther’s post in the Men’s Rights Subreddit, AVFM’s Paul Elam expands on the whole they aren’t heroes” theme, arguing that we need to retroactively strip away the hero status of the three men who died protecting their girlfriends — because they died protecting women.

About these ads

Posted on July 27, 2012, in a voice for men, chivalry, douchebaggery, evil women, grandiosity, I'm totally being sarcastic, johntheother, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, sluts, vaginas, white knights, worst writing in the history of the universe. Bookmark the permalink. 281 Comments.

  1. This is why I do not consider myself to be an MRA. However, I *think* how this sometimes gets put is that men should not do anything, make any sacrifices, for women in the current culture because women are behaving very madly towards men. Note this is not my personal idea; I’m just pointing it out.

    Hey, thanx for stopping by and warning us, in that passive-aggressive manner that so becomes you, that we’d better change our “evil ways” and repent…. or else…..

    Do CL and 7man know that you’ve returned here to consort with the evil feminists?

  2. thebewilderness

    People who are disabled enough that it interferes with their chance of escaping generally don’t contribute as much to society (yes, I know, they might be the next Stephen Hawking, but how likely is that?)

    They don’t contribute as much of what to society?
    What contributions, of what kind, do you consider the bare minimum one must have on offer to “society” to deserve to live?
    Do you have any idea how creepy you sound?

  3. Because he’s lying in a pool of blood, mortally wounded and it’s too late for him BUT YOU CAN STILL SAVE YOURSELF! Run while there’s still time!!!!

    LOL!!! I guess I wasn’t the only one who thought maybe they were reading the script of some really bad B-flick. owlyslave stars in DEMONSLAYER!

  4. Although Slavey’s desire to save Mary from this evil place is touching, I’m a bit confused, since in general he thinks chivalry is terrible.

    But……but….Mary’s one of the GOOOOOOOOD ONES!!!! She’d NEVER say “Jesus Tapdancing Christ”!!

  5. Jesus Murphy H. Tapdancing Christ on a stick dipped in chocolate.

  6. Oh, I was hoping that would bring Slavey back so that I could have a laugh before I went to bed.

  7. No, he is the Slave who walks by himself, and all places are alike to him. He comes when he wants to, and he goes when he wants to, and he arrives precisely when he means to, and no man is his master. You can tell by the way he hasn’t been arrested and interned in a FEMA concentration camp in the Rockies.

  8. Ok, so he’s a slavewizard, got it.

  9. Speaking as someone who’s lived and worked with people with a wide range of diabilities, counter troll go fuck yourself.

    Some of the people I’ve worked with have disabilities that can’t be seen. Some of the people I’ve worked with have been completely wheelchair bound and unable to even feed themselves. I’ve learned more about life, compassion and true perserverance from being part of their lives than I ever learned anywhere else. I’d shave tens years off my life if it eased some of their struggles. Everyone of the people I worked with had family and friends who considered them one of the brightest lights in their life and who (in the case of disabilities with short lifespans) were devastated when they died. Every life is valuable and every person has a gift to contribute should they choose to do so. Many of the people I worked with would leave no great achievements in scholarship or monuments behind, but they left the the world and lives they touched better just by being.

    In devaluing people with disabilities, you’ve just devalued every human being on this planet. How great is a great achievement if another group are nothing?

    And people like me who do shit jobs haven’t much value? LOL! You wouldn’t survive a week without countless unknown people like me taking care of all those details and tasks you don’t even realize exist!

  10. I’m not ableist (probably not, anyway), I’m insensitive to everyone equally.

    You can’t be “insensitive” to two groups in equal measure when one of the groups is already an easy target for institutionalized oppression. Being a jerk to the non-targets is just you being a jerk. Being a jerk to the targets is enforcing and encouraging an entire cultural narrative about how “those people” deserve to be treated as less than human.

    We have words for this. “Bigoted” and “oppressive” are nice all-purpose ones, but when you do it to disabled people specifically, it’s called “ableism,” and when you doing it you are being ableist. You’re doing it.

  11. *when you do it. Whoops.

  12. I’m not able to imagine the horrific scene where there is a shooter in a public place mowing people down, and then someone consciously or unconsciously basing their action on someone’s contribution to society. I know that people indeed have those views, and more than we think, but I doubt most people’s actions at that point are anything but protective in a general sense and emotional about their loved one, or someone that can’t help themselves. My son is disabled and without thinking “I” (nod to the free will issue that I can’t come to any conclusion on) would likely launch my body in front of him even though I’m the one he needs to survive, I’m the one he wants around, and I’m sure others could take over, but he would be devastated.

    My grandparents had that “contribute to society” bug something fierce. I have something slightly wrong with my fingers, that I don’t even think about but once every few years because I’m so used to it, and it’s not much of an impediment, basically cosmetic, and my grandmother asked me when I told her I was pregnant if due to that I should be having children. There are about a thousand reasons I should not have had children at that time and I don’t want to confuse the issue, but that one just was so… weird to me. I was thinking, really? I should not have been born? Thanks gma! I realize I’ve changed the subject a bit, because I’m capable of contributing to society, but my grandparents were definitely assessing people’s value in that manner, right down to genetics.

    I was thinking that it’s pretty hard to tally up value or worth even according to monetary standards, because if you make less of a footprint, I’m starting to think that’s more valuable than people realize. So a capitalist can do a lot of exploitation of folks, wreak havoc on the economic system and the planet and be viewed as someone contributing, but leave a huge footprint, carbon and otherwise. Of course people that see the big picture don’t have those views in the first place.

  13. (yes, I know, they might be the next Stephen Hawking, but how likely is that?)

    Yes, because that’s absolutely the only way for a disabled person to be useful, to be one of the greatest living scientists.

  14. creativewritingstudent

    Even if someone doesn’t currently contribute to society, they still have worth. I care about my dad, even if his motor function is limited to ‘watch Grand Prix’, ‘play card games on computer’ and ‘listen to audiobooks’. Pre-accident, he worked as an engineer, developing parts for personal and commercial vehicles, military hardware, and scientific equipment. Some of his work was in the LHC (unless you can prove otherwise, they functioned perfectly.)
    Compared to my friends’ dads, mine did a pretty good job. On the other hand, my friends all had able-bodied parents and therefore had an automatic advantage in this comparison.
    Also, he’s useful to ask questions (for my writing) that might get me into trouble otherwise. He has a vast knowledge of engineering, construction, and military hardware.

  15. Rank hypocrisy here as always from feminists…feminists despise chivalry, yet attack the views of men who are calling for an end to it. When a man acts to help anyone in a selfless manner & it meets with feminist approval ( ie. a man dies so that a precious womwn may live ) he’s “altruistic”, when a man holds a door open ( a similarly altruistic act ) for a woman, he’s upholding the patriarchal values of chivalry.

  16. NWO, please take your own advice and leave this wretched place. If it’s so awful, you don’t need to be here, unless you dig the abuse you deserve.

    Also, NWO, this:

    Ya know what? I think I’ll go out there as well and toss in the many rapes I’ve committed as well. I wonder if they’ll believe it. This’ll be quite fun. Dontcha think?

    I would believe you. You make my fucking flesh crawl as it is, this would be the cherry on your particular shit sundae.

    Deranged Counter Troll: fuck you and the abelist horse you rode in on.

  17. @Deranged Counter-Troll -Even without knowing the douche you are personally, I’m certain my disabled husband can drum circles around you, fuck circles around you, and has had a fuller and more interesting life experience. I say that because it’s applicable to most other people I’ve met. I’d say “fuck you” but I’ve obviously done a lot better. However, I see a splintery flagpole right up the block…

  18. All I can say is, sometimes I hate people.

  19. Um, since when is holding a door open for someone else, a door that the person holding it is most likely to be passing through as well, an act of altruism?

    Altruism, in my understanding is generally percieved as either nobly sacrificing your life ( or certain aspects of it) for another or giving to another what you yourself needed.

    In my estimation, holding a door is a very small act of kindness or civilty.

    Seriously, are men still dropping everything and racing to get to the door anywhere in the world? Because that is what feminists were originally objecting to, not that the man passing through the door paused to let others go first.

  20. In my experience, people just hold doors for each other, regardless of gender. I don’t see anyone complaining about it unless someone holds the door for someone else who is still far away from the door, but even then it’s not so much complaining as an awkward brisk walk to not make the other person hold the door for too long.

  21. Seriously, are men still dropping everything and racing to get to the door anywhere in the world? Because that is what feminists were originally objecting to, not that the man passing through the door paused to let others go first.

    Reading that made me think about one of my first boyfriends (that would have been QUITE a few years ago), who was a little put out, I guess, because I would go ahead and open a door myself. He remarked to me one time, after I opened the car door and got seated, “Won’t you EVER let me open a door for you?” Now, I wasn’t making a point or taking a stand or anything of the sort…. it just never occurred to me to stand by the door, like a helpless waif, and wait for him to open it for me.

  22. How do MRA’s mix up “chivalry” for “basic human compassion”. FFS. How is this really so hard to understand for the supreme beings of LOGIK? As everyone has pointed out COUNTESS FUCKING TIMES in the past few threads the men who sacrificed their lives are heros because they acted selflessly to save someone they loved. They would all been heros equally had the person they saved been a son, uncle, father, mother, sisters or best friend of either sex. Also holding doors for people is BASIC FUCKING COURTESTY. It is good manners. I hold doors open if anyone is walking close behind me. Because it is polite. How is this fucking difficult to understand?

  23. ShadetheDruid

    *Files the rushing-to-open-a-door thing under “shit that’s never made sense to me”*

    I mean i’ve always just made sure that, if there’s someone (anyone, regardless of who they are) directly behind me, that I make sure the door is going to be open for them. That way, all they have to do is take over control of an already open door when they get there (rather than making them open the entire thing themself).

    Or, if they’re someone who will have trouble with the door (for either physical reasons, or they just have their hands full), i’ll stop and hold the door for them before I go through myself.

    Those are the mechanics of door holding that have always made sense to me.

    Side note: I don’t get how holding doors would be altruistic either. Altruism is helping someone at personal cost, whether that’s your own safety/life, or giving up something you need (as in, something vital to your well-being) because someone else needs it.

    Unless you’re holding a door for people running from zombies or something.

  24. Around my way people go well out of their to open doors for others, regardless of age or gender. It can get kind annoying sometimes, actually.

  25. *out of their way

  26. People who are disabled enough that it interferes with their chance of escaping generally don’t contribute as much to society

    Others have already called you out for being a ridiculously ableist idiot here, but I just want to highlight one particular point – what the hell sort of calculation of “contribution to society” is based primarily on one’s ability to exit buildings quickly? Even if we use your stupid employment-based scale for “contribution to society,” are you seriously claiming that, say, teachers do not contribute to society because their jobs generally do not require a great deal of physical agility? Because…dude, that may be the stupidest thing I’ve seen today, and I’ve seen posts by NWO today, so that’s saying something.

  27. Bad Dog said- “How do MRA’s mix up “chivalry” for “basic human compassion”. FFS”…Firstly, I’m not an “MRA”, I’m a critic of feminism. MRA’s are the flipside to feminists & they are just as guilty of hypocrisy & double standards in their judgments.
    It’s feminists who have decided that a man giving up his seat, opening a door, etc. are guilty of “chivalry” & therefore are “insulting” them, not MRA’s.
    Opening a door & giving up your seat ARE acts of altruism…altruism is “a concern for the welfare of others”. It’s precisely because men acting in this way are dismissed as “chauvinistic” in a broad sense ( and directly because of feminists…few other women are hostile to the idea of a man opening a door for them ) that causes MRA’s & other men acting in good faith to become hostile to feminism & unfortunately to women per se.
    I’m not suggesting that these MRA’s are correct, I’m suggesting that their distorted views are a product of feminism. Ie. feminism created the MRA movement, just as racism created the civil rights movement.

  28. dgm, so glad you came by to share what the strawfeminists in your head are saying today.

  29. So, um, where exactly are all these angry feminists hissing and spitting over open doors or seats on the bus being given up? Did we hire a couple women to travel the world and do this just to keep men in line?

    Also, concern for the welfare of others is the definition of kindness, which generally is a factor in displaying altruism. I don’t think that opening a door is going to get medals pinned on your chest. Your definition sets a remarkable low bar for the word. A child of one could leap over it.

  30. ShadetheDruid said- “*Files the rushing-to-open-a-door thing under “shit that’s never made sense to me”*”…I’m talking about holding a door open under normal circumstances, or offering a seat to a woman on a bus. These are acts of common courtesy & yes, they are rooted in altruistism ( altruism defined as “concern for the welfare of others” ) & not a feeling of “I may aswell hold the door open as I’m passing through it anyway”. If we weren’t interested in the next person, we wouldn’t care if the door slammed in their face.

    If feminists define these human ( they are not solely performed by men for women ) acts of kindness as “chauvinistic” ( which they do ), then the signal is for men to STOP DOING THEM. The view of the MRA commentators that these men in Aurora were “suckers” for protecting women merely echoes feminist sentiments.
    Feminists are happy to encourage any behaviour that could lead to men becoming more misogynistic…whither feminism without misogyny?

  31. @dgm
    If someone is only opening doors and/or offering their seat on the bus to women, then they’re being chauvinistic, because they’re treating women like they’re less capable than men.
    The guys on the theatre shooting on the other hand, gave their lives to protect their girlfriends, who are not just any woman, they’re someone they love. I am quite confident that people this brave would have done the same if instead of their girlfriends they were there with a family member or a friend, even if they were male. They were heroes, and you are trying to deny that fact and attributing that denial to feminism, but it’s not feminism that’s calling these men “suckers”, it’s the MRAs.

  32. Dgm. There is more than one correct possible action here. Instead of saying “let doors slam in peoples faces, let them struggle on their own should they be too burdened or weak to open it”, society took the position of “let the person who arrives first open the door, unless they are too burdened or otherwise unable to do so”. And “there’s no reason to be concerned by what’s between the legs when it simply a materr of opening the door”

  33. Wherever I have lived, let the person who is first open the door is always what happens. No hissing or spitting has ever taken place in my presence.

  34. Hellkell…don’t worry, I won’t upset the smug little clique you’ve got going here & feel free to ignore my comments if they conflict with the ideas in your head if you’re not interested in a mature counter argument to what I’ve said.

    Pillow…You may not see any people sleeping rough on the streets of your town, does that mean there are no homeless people in your town sleeping on sofas & in shelters? Feminists don’t need to be seen to “hiss & spit”…they’ve defined “chivalry” in these terms, not me.
    If opening a door for a woman is seen as an act of chivalry by feminists, then I just have to take their word for it that THAT’S WHAT THEY BELIEVE. I appreciate that when you enter the feminist universe, you enter a World where the accepted view on things like opening a door suddenly morphs into something quite different…maybe you’re just not hip to rad feminism?

    The “low bar” you speak of was set by feminists, not me. When I hold a door open, I don’t EXPECT anything…that’s the point. Least of all do I expect to be considered chauvinistic, but that’s exactly what feminists believe I am. Do you think I’d be wasting my time over this inane argument if it WASN’T an issue?

  35. ShadetheDruid

    It’s not about just opening a door for someone, it’s about going out of your way to open a door for someone when they’re quite capable of doing it themselves. Which if you’re doing just because someone is a women, is chauvinistic.

    If you don’t do this, then fine. But stop pretending feminists are yelling at every man who opens a door for another person who happens to be a woman.

  36. “Do you think I’d be wasting my time over this inane argument if it WASN’T an issue?”

    From what I have seen of the “totally not an MRA people” who have commented here yes, yes, I do think you would waste your time over it.

  37. Pillowbell wrote…. “And “there’s no reason to be concerned by what’s between the legs when it simply a materr of opening the door””

    EXACTLY. Except what gender a person is of no concern to me when I open a door…the concerned party are feminists who believe that A MAN holding a door for A WOMAN is an act of “chivalry”.
    Now if feminists could just be humble enough to accept that men per se are not preoccupied with offending, demeaning or marginalising women in the course of their daily lives, we could move on.

  38. Your homeless argument fails, DGM, becauise there are a great many homeless folk where I live, I know many of them on a first name basis. I’m also the sper for a low income building and routinely watch tenants cram two and three times the number of occupants into very tiny apartments.

    How can this be an inane topic yet also a serious issue? Also, its been many, many years since feminists considered opening doors to be a hot topic, if it ever really registered with the majority, who were working class and would not encounter the issue in day to day settings. Perhaps you’re not so hip to what modern feminists consider to be relavant topics or the range of views?

    Most feminists aren’t radical. And we didn’t set the bar low so much as you are trying to redefine words to obfusticate the issue.

  39. No one here said that men were preoccupied with opening doors. If men would quit deliberately offending, demeaning and marginalizing women, we would have already moved on.

  40. “pillowbell”

    you can we run pellcheck on this one?

  41. Seriously, who is holding doors open for whom doesn’t even register on the top one hundred things I consider to be relevant issues to me. I suspect the same on a great many other peoples parts.

    Dgm, can you point me to a recent feminist article where this has been pointed out as a serious topic in need of discussion or activism?

  42. Sharculese, if that misspelling was deliberate, he’s going to have to try harder.

    As for me, gawd my typing sucks today!!

  43. Argenti Aertheri

    “you can we run pellcheck on this one?”

    Idk, it isn’t Pell’s usual writing style, and hell becoming bell could just be a misreading (h does look a bit like b). On the other hand, my magic 8-ball says “outlook good”.

    I really can’t work out dgm’s point here, apparently feminists refuse to let men hold doors for them and this is…what exactly? How does “I can get it” affect you in any way? Seriously, let’s pretend that feminists always insist on getting the door for themselves — so the fuck what?

    (And how does any of that related to the OP?!)

  44. “It’s not about just opening a door for someone, it’s about going out of your way to open a door for someone when they’re quite capable of doing it themselves. Which if you’re doing just because someone is a women, is chauvinistic.

    If you don’t do this, then fine. But stop pretending feminists are yelling at every man who opens a door for another person who happens to be a woman.”

    Yes, feminists are well known for making those kind of distinctions aren’t they?
    Sorry, but in the feminist universe, the rules regarding men’s behaviour towards women are not subject to your interpretation of what feminism is, they’re simply subject to the person holding the door being male.
    How would you describe a woman “going out of her way” to open a door for another woman? “Helpful”, “kind” or possibly “overly polite”, but nothing as hostile as “chauvinist” or “sexist”. Why assume a man’s motivations for holding a door open or giving up his seat or any other “sucker” act are different from those of a woman?
    It’s the assumption of the feminist that is at fault, not the actions of the man. If you assume that a man “going out of his way” to open a door IMPLIES something about the woman he’s holding the door open for, you’re setting a parameter for the man…so the act of opening the door is merely one of many subtle ways that a feminist can judge a man’s ( by “man’s” we’re talking about ALL MEN of course ) behaviour toward her…always negatively, since any “positive” action by a man is a non issue.

    If the aim of feminism is to achieve an “equal” society, then they need to question their outdated assumptions regarding men’s motivations.

  45. As opposed to your entirely correct assumptions about feminists. And its only correct provided you strip away all context, history and relevant cultural practices Dgm.

    And once again, it was the MRA calling the men suckers, not feminists. Nor do we tend to think of one man being all men. So again, nice try getting us to fall in line with your assumptions and viewpoints.

  46. I haven’t seen someone so upset about holding doors open and giving up seats on the bus since that other not-a-MRA-just-a-critic-of-feminism, B_____n, but he thought men should never do it, even for people with temporary or permanent disabilities. Weird.

  47. Sorry, but in the feminist universe, the rules regarding men’s behaviour towards women are not subject to your interpretation of what feminism is, they’re simply subject to the person holding the door being male.

    Filing this, like every door opening story that isn’t “I opened the door for someone else and nothing happened”, under “Shit that never happened”.

    How would you describe a woman “going out of her way” to open a door for another woman? “Helpful”, “kind” or possibly “overly polite”, but nothing as hostile as “chauvinist” or “sexist”.

    Were you asking a question, or telling me what I thought?

    It’s the assumption of the feminist that is at fault, not the actions of the man.

    If a dude only opens doors for women, then no, it’s not.

    to open a door IMPLIES something about the woman he’s holding the door open for, you’re setting a parameter for the man

    Go to the board and diagram that sentence. Hint: Parameter doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    so the act of opening the door is merely one of many subtle ways that a feminist can judge a man’s ( by “man’s” we’re talking about ALL MEN of course ) behaviour toward her…

    …because judging people by their actions is solely a feminist trait? What?

    If the aim of feminism is to achieve an “equal” society, then they need to question their outdated assumptions regarding men’s motivations.

    ‘outdated’? Did that much change in a year?

  48. Argenti said- “I really can’t work out dgm’s point here, apparently feminists refuse to let men hold doors for them and this is…what exactly? How does “I can get it” affect you in any way? Seriously, let’s pretend that feminists always insist on getting the door for themselves — so the fuck what?

    (And how does any of that related to the OP?!)”

    That’s not what I said. I said that feminists regard SOME everyday acts of courtesy ( opening doors, giving up seats on buses, etc. ) by men TOWARD WOMEN ONLY as instances of “chivalry”, which they regard as sexist & patriarchal.
    Therefore, the argument that the actions of the men in Aurora…protecting WOMEN from danger, is, in the eyes of some “MRA’s” on a messageboard, the actions of a “sucker” is a response to the aggressive “we don’t need you looking out for us, we can look after ourselves thanks” feminist mindset.
    Somewhere down the road, these men went from “fuck you if you think I’m sexist, when I’m only trying to be nice” to “fuck all women & fuck the men who go out of their way to look after them”.
    It’s an extreme mindset that is a product of another extreme mindset.
    This blog is all about how stupid men are. What it isn’t interested in exploring is how men got there, it just assumes that MRA’s & others hold these views and they’re boobz for doing so.
    No context, no examination…let’s all just laugh at men & link our blog to feminist blogs so that they can say “I told you so, this is what we’re fighting against”.
    I’ve yet to come across a feminist blog that even tries to enter into a dialogue with men, let alone MRA’s.

  49. Argenti Aertheri

    dgm, you were doing so well with “maybe has half a point here, flesh it out more” right up until “This blog is all about how stupid men are.” — nope! This blog is about how stupid the MRM is (and PUA, and sometimes even women! Ruby and GirlWritesWhat sure as shit don’t get free passes)

    Oh fun, that last sentence, would you even think of phrasing that as “I’ve yet to see a Jewish blog that dialogues with neo-nazis” or “I’ve yet to see an anti-racism blog that dialogues with the KKK”? No? The MRM really isn’t much better.

    On topic points — men dying for women (not on topic points — anything involving holding doors). So feminists said “men really don’t need to go dying for women” and instead of men going “cool, we didn’t like that dying thing anyways” the MRM goes “men who die for women are suckers, see?!”

  50. Well, there are blogs that do cater to mixed company.

  51. Argenti Aertheri

    everyone else —

    “Somewhere down the road, these men went from “fuck you if you think I’m sexist, when I’m only trying to be nice” to “fuck all women & fuck the men who go out of their way to look after them”.”

    That’s nearly exactly wtf Mr. Al said about why reddit hates women.

  52. I personally fail to see the point of dialogue with groups of people who see me as “a waste of skin surrounding a vagina” a “drug addled whore” a person utterly lacking in human traits such as empathy or compassion or intelligence, who already view my character as “vile” and “utterly rehensible”. Do you think that men who think this way are going to listen to anything I have to say?

  53. Argenti Aertheri

    “Well, there are blogs that do cater to mixed company.”

    With men in general? Sure, but I was taking that as a point about the MRM. Since they seem unwilling not to make it all about them, yeah, small wonder they aren’t welcome in many feminist spaces.

  54. Rutee….”parameter”- “any constant or limiting factor”. You’re unaware that I’m aware what the word means in the context I used it.

    “because judging people by their actions is solely a feminist trait?”…Context is something you seem not to be aware of.

    “Were you asking a question, or telling me what I thought?”…neither, I just don’t enjoy using “one” instead of “you” when speaking hypothetically.

    That’s what I love about message boards…people will go out of their way in an attempt to understand your viewpoint. No masturbatory point scoring here.

  55. Aw crap, I used a banned word.

    Anyways, I fail to see the point in trying to discuss issues with people who paint women as disgusting, vile, drug ridden, lacking in intelligent thought or critical thinking skills.

    Not exactly conduicive to a free exchange of thoughts where each side attempts to see the others POV.

  56. @dgm
    dude, do you realize that the men who died were not protecting just “any woman”, they were protecting their GIRLFRIENDS? That, in this case, the reasons are way deeper than chivalry, because they were protecting people they cared for?

  57. (Formerly enelke)

    Ok, actually starting to read the thread and seeing dgm’s attitude. My contribution was useless.
    *Retreats in shame*

  58. Summarizing is fun. Did I get it right you guys?

    Dgb: “you feminists freak out when I hold doors open for women! This is a very serious issue!”

    Manboobz: “no we don’t and no it’s not”

    Dgb: “no but really feminists freak the fuck out about the door thing. Haven’t you heard of radfems?”

    Manboobz: “by ‘feminists’, do you mean yourself? Because you’re the only one freaking out.”

    Dgb: “Why won’t you feminists just stop freaking out about door-opening protocol? It’s not even a big deal you guys STOP FREAKING OUT SERIOUSLY OMG”

    Manboobz: “dude no one cares”

    Dgb: “why won’t you admit that my version of reality is more real than yours, despite lack of evidence for my assertions?”

    Manboobz: “oh FFS”

  59. Hellkell…don’t worry, I won’t upset the smug little clique you’ve got going here & feel free to ignore my comments if they conflict with the ideas in your head if you’re not interested in a mature counter argument to what I’ve said.

    Dude, I wasn’t aware there was a mature counter argument to your inane whining and bizarre door tantrum other than “go to your room, you sound like you need a nap.”

  60. oh, blockquotes…

  61. What a showing today: the BIGGEST FARKING ISSUES men face is the nasty feminists’ expectations that men PAY for dinner on dates, and being mean or expecting to have doors opened for them.

    THESE, my dudely dudes, are the issues of our times!

    THESE, oh manly men, are the injusticest against which you must rise up (or, up you must rise?)!

    THESE, oh gentlemanly chowderheads, are THE UNKNOWN AND UNNAMED CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES OF the 21st century……and the way you’re going about it, will continue to be unmarked until the 22nd.

    Sheesh–you really expect to sell anybody on a social justice movement that’s all about:

    1)waah she won’t have sex with me
    2)waaah she expects me to pay for dinner and won’t have sex with me
    3)waaaaaaah DOORS! Chivalry! She won’t have sex with me after I open the door for her.
    4) WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH, the TiTANIC!

  62. I particularly like the “you will engage my asinine childish ramblings or else you are petty and immature so HA!” line trolls like to throw out.

  63. I love how we have one troll in one thread arguing that feminists are evil because hate it when men open doors for them, and another in a different thread arguing that feminists are evil because they sometimes allow men to pay for dates.

    Imaginary feminists sure are a complicated lot.

  64. Also hilarious:

    I’ve yet to come across a feminist blog that even tries to enter into a dialogue with men

    The blog you’re commenting on enters into dialogue with men all the time. I’d imagine David calls it “proofreading my work,”

  65. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if your anti-oppression movement is mostly about getting laid, it’s possible that you are not actually all that oppressed.

  66. dgm: Hellkell…don’t worry, I won’t upset the smug little clique you’ve got going here & feel free to ignore my comments if they conflict with the ideas in your head if you’re not interested in a mature counter argument to what I’ve said.

    Nice little catch 22. If we disagree we aren’t interested in mature counter argument, and if we don’t say anything in disagreement it’s because we aren’t able to accept conflicting ideas.

    And dude… in something like 30 years of holding doors open, from coast to coast, I’ve never had anyone be rude about it. I’ve had lots of people thank me (and much of that door holding has been in places like SoHo, San Francisco, etc. Places chock full o’ feminists).

    So yeah, I’m willing to say that it’s not a thing.

    Because in those cities, and places like Knoxville, San Luis Obispo, Sepulveda, Canoga Park, Oklahoma City, Phoenix, etc. I’ve seen lots of people who were homeless (ignoring the time I spent working at a place which was a homeless shelter for 5 months of the year; which I did for 14 years; it was a City of Glendale Calif. owned building, and they ran a shelter out of it from Nov-Feb, with weather related openings in October and March).

    As to “dialogue with the MRM”, if you mean treating the foolish, nonsensical, sort of claims you and Tom Martin, and Varpole, and Brandon and MR.AL make, as if they were serious topics worthy of considered debate… we are guilty as charged.

    If by that you mean refuse to talk to them, and look at what they say and engage with it as it deserves, then you are out to lunch, because we do.

    It’s just that most of them don’t do any better than you do at actually proposing a subject of merit.

  67. howardbann1ster

    Two things.

    Firstly, on protecting others, and the ablist troll’s troll.

    I often do a very simple calculation before deciding whether to save a person’s life. It’s one that I have practiced, and will continue to practice.

    Can I save this person?

    If I can, I will. Because they’re a person. And whether they are a good person or a bad person, whether they contribute to society or drain from it, they are a person. A Christian would say ‘made in the image of God.’ There is something within them that makes them like me, sentience, a soul, whatever.

    Troll’s Troll, if you want to troll trolls then go right ahead and engage Steele and Owly. Otherwise you stand as simple a troll, and can safely remove ‘Counter’ from your name. Thank you.

    To dgm:

    I’ve yet to come across a feminist blog that even tries to enter into a dialogue with men

    …yet people talk to me all the time! Sometimes they agree with me, sometimes they disagree and correct me. (and so far whenever that’s happened I’ve ended up learning many very valuable things about the world… is this a good place to say how much I love everybody here? Well, maybe not the trolls. But you know what I mean.)

    So, thank you for erasing me. Thanks so much. Lovely. I’ll be sure to return the favor whenever possible.

  68. In what sense is “JohnTheOther” Number Two? Is it in the sense I learned as a child?

  69. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was either in a wheelchair or standing with the aid of braces and Secret Service men while he was saving the country from swastinkers like you.

  70. Okay, sacrificing yourself for others is a noble and heroic thing. So why is it only expected of men? I didn’t notice anyone crying ‘coward’ at the women who fled for their lives instead of stopping to save others.

    Not that there’s a sex-related difference in societal attitudes and expectations or anything. Heavens no. There must be some other reason.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 9,776 other followers

%d bloggers like this: