Men’s Rights Redditor: “I advocate the removal of judges, politicians, and other government agents who violate the Constitution by any means necessary.” [UPDATED]
Men’s Rights subreddit regular Demonspawn (remember him?) is back again with some deliberately vague but definitely threatening talk about judges and politicians:
Not a lot of “plausible deniability” here, though I am sure various MRAs will try to excuse this as not being what it obviously is: a threat of violence against judges, politicians and others who work for the government.
He’s done this before; I wrote about it here.
And while we’re on the topic of Demonspawn, here’s a little followup comment of his from the thread we discussed the other day. It’s a giant wall of text, I know, but it contains gems like: “When women mouth off to men and get their faces bashed in, they’ll know equality.” At least this comment of his got as many downvotes as upvotes.
I’m banned from the Men’s Rights subreddit, of course, but Demonspawn, despite repeatedly violating the subreddit’s rules about posting comments advocating violence, continues to post away. See his comment history for more lovely thoughts on, among other things, why women are parasites who don’t deserve the vote.
Posted on August 5, 2012, in antifeminism, evil women, misogyny, MRA, reddit, terrorism, threats, woman's suffrage, your time will come. Bookmark the permalink. 680 Comments.
Is anyone surprised? These people advocate rape after all.
Reprint MRA quotes to a less-sympathetic audience: ZOMG EVIL, BAN!
Advocate assassinations: Mixed votes, general consensus that hey, the guy has a right to his opinions.
It probably should be reported to the relevant authorities.
pretty sure ben franklin never advocated the targeted assassination of judges, but i could be wrong…
Slightly OT, but how do you get to see the details on the upvotes and downvotes in Reddit?
also, the continental army wasnt really fighting for their constitutional rights (not that demonspawn has a clear idea of what constitutional rights are) because of that whole ‘not existing yet’ thing
Wtf?
so how long until mikey shows up to unilaterally excommunicate demonspawn from ‘the Movement’
Yes, men NEVER change their minds.
Also, when men decide to take a lot of time off for their pregnancies, they risk their careers and everyone knows that this is right and just.
Tooooooootally true things that actually happened.
i love how, ‘everyone gets new parent leave’ is just completely not an option in demonspawns mind. no, we have to punish women for getting pregnant. that’s equality.
file footage of demonspawn found
Women shouldn’t be free to choose their mates because society will collapse:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/xpddu/psychologist_believes_james_holmes_actions_were/c5oeynw
@cloudiah
There’s an info bar at the top of any reddit post or comment tat has any relevant data.
Sorry, I meant on the comments. I just see a number, not the details. I’m too lazy on a Sunday morning to figure this out. :-)
So women are useless parasites for getting help from men and competing with them for jobs, are valuable only for producing children, and should all be SAHMs supported by their man? Unless their big manly provider man sees fit to piss off somewhere and doesn’t want to pay anymore. Then I suppose she needs to do…what? Eat the children and live feral in the woods? I have so many questions!
I see the MRAs have a very clear and coherent vision of the future.
Women have a special olympics? I did not know this.
The revolutionaries tended to offer civil servants the chance to leave on pain of death, in practice. The Sons/Daughters of Liberty were the first terrorists I’m familiar with in the future USA.
@cloudiah
Gosh, these guys need to make up their minds. I mean, obviously they don’t think women are capable of love, but in that case, do they think women should marry for money or personality?
Cause he’s arguing that women don’t marry good providers like they used to, which implies that we should be most concerned about money/status. However, others complain about women caring too much for that stuff, being ‘hypergamous’ and all that, so those guys would prefer us going for personality. If we point out that their particular personalities suck, on the other hand, we’re vilified for not being nice enough and not ‘giving them a chance.’
In conclusion, women should just shut up and let the first guy that shows interest in her drag her back to his cave.
No, wait! That means women have the advantage of not having to do anything to get a relationship. How dare we put such a burden on the poor menz! We should read their minds and follow them the moment they start to think about screwing us. It’s only fair.
This isn’t just double standards. This is the mobius loop of standards.
So women only have value because they possess wombs? What if men and women were different species instead of different genders, and we all procreated asexually? Interesting thought experiment.
What if men and women were different species instead of different genders, and we all procreated asexually?
Then maybe women wouldn’t all be obsessed with marrying the richest man they could! /sarc
Cloudiah, it seems you need some sort of program or script or something. If you’re using Chrome, then the Reddit Reveal plug in works. I just downloaded it!
“When women mouth off to men and get their faces bashed in, they’ll know equality.”
Well…isn’t that…special.
That whole litany really scares me. Not only is it monumentally out of touch with reality (when in the fuck were there women-only Olympics? Or is he pissy about men’s and women’s categories?), but equating equality and bashing someone’s face in is really, really scary.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/03/belgium-film-street-harassment-sofie-peeters
Article about street harassment in Belgium.
So…hypothetical scenario: women suffers street harassment, is blamed when she doesn’t “fight back” (whatever that is supposed to mean), but she’s supposed to totally forget that there are misogynistic pricks out there who will “bash her face in” for “mouthing off.”
Oh goody.
It’s nice to know that “being a woman” = “living in a no win scenario” at times.
One of the things I always notice with these types is it must be their interpretation of the Constitution. Which oddly enough matches what Susan B. Anthony once said about God: “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”
Thanks, BlueBee. Bees rule!
@Elizabeth:
It isn’t just that, though. Somehow they lose sight of the fact that they live in a country where people vote and things happen. If there are judges and politicians in power who don’t support their version of the constitution, “Revolt! Revolution! Impeachment and trial by fire!” Not, you know, “let’s vote for the other guy.”
And never ever “Crap, looks like a bunch of people don’t agree with me. I guess I’ll have to live with the majority’s decision and just try to campaign more to change minds.” Nope. Straight up “society’s already fucked since I don’t agree with them, might as well bring on the apocalypse.” Freaking dangerous attitude right there.
Criminy! He’s practically a feminist. 300 years women have been trying to persuade men that they are people and not just wombs for men to use for the production of human resources.
He sorta kinda almost gets it. But not quite.
A couple other things. (1) Not all women have wombs. (2) Mr. Demonspawn seems to be using the world “value” in an odd way that has no relation to how we typically demonstrate that something is of value. It’s like, he’s redefining value to mean, “ONE TIME I SAW A NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT A GIRL THAT DIED AND PEOPLE WERE ALL SAD ABOUT IT. HOW COME THERE’S NO SAD ARTICLES WHEN MEN DIE??? BECUS WOMBS!!!!”
(It’s all in your head, dude.)
I was contemplating listing all the ways that wombage is used as an excuse to devalue women, but it just seems so obvious as to be pointless. Also, as a woman, “gaining value by doing rather than by simply just being” sounds really fucking awesome. I mean, I’m pretty fucking proud of what I’ve accomplished, so *shrug*. Do it.
Cloudiah, on Firefox I use the Reddit Enhancement Suite, which is a script that you can run with something called greasemonkey. (The Reddit Enhancement Suite page should explain how to get yourself set up.)
For some reason Kirby, this is what I think of when I think of these types of people only not funny like this is.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-16-2009/tea-party-tyranny
perhaps they think women having babies is just being lazy and they want to be able to be that lazy?
@Naira
I watched the video from the guardian and I don’t see the problem. If you noticed every man was wearing clothing from head to toe. She chose to dress like an animal in heat. Why the cleavage? Why the dress? Why the boots? Every part of her actions screamed I can’t control my sexuality, I am in heat.
Women seem to want to play a game of look at me, I’m in heat and I dare you to act on it. Instead of teaching women to control their sexuality, you teach women to flaunt their lack of control while demanding men control themselves. That’s just stupid. It must be womens logic.
@princessbonbon:
That… was actually spot on. Especially the last line:
“Well, it’s ‘Taxation without Representation’ because my view isn’t represented.”
No, your view is represented. It just isn’t policy.
Kirby: I know, they are like little children that way.
@NWO:
She chose to dress in a knee-length dress that exposed no cleavage. Is this “dressing like an animal in heat” to you? Because animals don’t wear clothes you silly person.
And how the fuck are boots “screaming” sexuality? They were practically hiking boots.
If you look carefully, you’ll see plenty of men wearing shorts or t-shirts or boots. You know what the problem is? You. You think that dresses are sexy. In fact, you think that anything a woman wears is sexy because you only think about women in sexual terms. That’s why you think the men are properly dressed, and the women are dressed to entice. It’s not them, it’s you.
@princessbonbon:
Speaking of children…
Oh that’s right. A video showing a woman wearing clothes in pubic = a woman having sex. Is that right? It’s been a while.
One would think slaveman would like the boots; they hide her legs.
It has nothing to do with what she is wearing. It is entirely about the fact that many men view a woman alone as prey. Even on a public street on a sunny day.
Nor can it realistically become policy. But at least they can rest assured that they have ceremonial representation from Tea Party extremist candidates while non-partisan, non-political, peer-reviewed public servants make policy.
@scrapemind:
Prolly would have been a little more clear to say “It just isn’t policy at the moment,” but my point that they don’t understand what representation actually means. To them, “representation” means that their views are being implemented.
It’s like people who think that “having a say” in a decision means having every decision go their way.
@thebewilderness
“It has nothing to do with what she is wearing. It is entirely about the fact that many men view a woman alone as prey. Even on a public street on a sunny day.”
Puuuuuuuulease. Stop making excuses. Every man was wearing loose fitting clothing, a shirt that was up to the neck. She wore a dress that made sure to enhance and exagerate her sexuality, a nice little swish, swish flowing action of the dress as she walked, thigh booties, neckline cleavage. Ladies, you aren’t fooling anyone.
Lets not forget, that in order for a man to have sex with a woman he has to approach, talk and ask for sex. Plus, we didn’t get to see all the times, little miss sexually independent did go home with a man of her choosing who approached her. Why not show us a video of all the men she deemed worthy to grant access to her most precious pussy? Ya wanna know why men know women are liars? Because you are liars?
She dressed like that to get attention from men. It’s only harrassment when a man she deems beneath her approaches and dares to speak to her. The right man approaches and she’ll be back at her flop playing fifty shades of grey. No one’s buying the act anymore ladies.
Puuuuuuuulease. Stop making excuses
says the dude who does nothing but blame other people for his inability to control himself
Slavey, you know what? When I see men walking around in shorts with a sleeveless shirt, I don’t immediately think “Oooh, he’s acting like an animal in heat. He totally wants me to sexually harass him.” I don’t even think that when I see guys walking around without a shirt. You know why? Because that would be completely messed up. No one is asking to be sexually harassed. Even if I think a guy is hot, that doesn’t send me into some uncontrollable rage where I can’t help but sexually harass him.
Do you really think that men are such slavering beasts that they honestly can’t help themselves here, Slavey?
@Sharculese
“says the dude who does nothing but blame other people for his inability to control himself”
Somebody should follow our chaste little victim and film her hopping in a car of a man who met her approval. Let’s be honest here. Little miss victimhood has probably fucked at least a dozen different men. She deemed those men worthy to talk to her. That’s the only difference. She’s flattered with the right man and harrassed with the wrong man.
“But why does the mainstream media ignore all the times that ‘how much do you cost, slag’ makes a woman swoon with lust?”
“Also, why is this woman not being sexually humiliated? I can’t really make that make sense, but, y’know, why pass up an opportunity.”
Anyway, NWO: what do you think of women who wear men’s clothes? Are they still “animals in heat?”
@Anathema
“Slavey, you know what? When I see men walking around in shorts with a sleeveless shirt, I don’t immediately think “Oooh, he’s acting like an animal in heat. He totally wants me to sexually harass him.”
Must we go over human sexuality again?
Y’know, not only are animals naked, but in many species, females in heat don’t actually look any different. I mean, a dog that’s in heat will have a little bit of bleeding, but other than that, not much. She’s not gonna start going out in a dog-miniskirt and eight-breasted bikini top.
Maybe this is NWO’s dog: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_d7JiYd5gS2Y/TJdjplNPg-I/AAAAAAAAAmM/-0FEwGhY_ao/s1600/human-female-dog.jpg
NWO, right now–this very minute–I’m wearing baggy men’s cargo shorts and a ratty t-shirt because I’m dying my hair. Am I in heat at the moment?
Must we go over human sexuality again?
Yes, let’s.
You don’t know anything about it. There, done.
Dude, please stop telling us your sexual fantasies it just makes everything so awkward.
NWO, yes, let’s go over human sexuality again, because you are utterly and hilariously wrong about it. Is it because your 1911 Britannica is silent on the subject?
But she didn’t fuck YOU (or a man like you, you are an infant who sees all these stories as about you somehow), and that’s really the issue here, isn’t it? All those women get to decide who they want to fuck, and none are choosing you. I wonder why.
that has nothing to do with the fact that you can’t control yourself, owlslave
No no I got it all.
Women wear tight silky clothes with microskirts and bikinis everywhere. This is bad because women don’t let all men fuck them which is bad because men can’t control themselves hence rape. Also some random crap about you being turned on by kids and homosexuality is taught by the government.
Did I miss something?
I’ve fucked at least a dozen different men and absolutely ZERO of them were guys who hooted at me in the street.
Maybe we do need to go over human sexuality again.
…I think NWO thinks that hooting at women in the street is honestly the only way two people ever get together.
:(
Actually I think the “none of them are choosing you” part angers Owly less than the “All those women get to decide who they want to fuck” part. He does not think that is fair, just like Demonspawn doesn’t think women should get to decide who (or whether) to marry. These decisions are WAY to important to be left up to women, after all.
The hooting at women in the street really makes me want to dust off my wave albatross mating ritual videos… Don’t make me do it, Owly!
@Cliff: I’m not sure exactly how many men I’ve fucked, but I’m completely certain that none of these men first initiated contact with me by hooting in the street. Has this EVER happened?
NWOslave wrote: “thigh booties”
No, they were not thigh booties. Thighs are the parts of legs between the knees and hips. They were boots, the tops coming about to the middle of her shins. The dress was sleeveless, scoop-necked, and came to just above her knees. It was neither tight nor loose. It did swing a bit when she walked, but as anyone who has ever worn a fairly full skirt or dress or a kilt can tell you, they will swing a bit when you walk at a normal pace; they’ll swing more as you walk faster. In fact, I think the only way they won’t swing is if you walk like a mummy or a zombie.
I don’t know if you confused shins or calves with thighs or if your views are so colored by your misogyny that you saw thigh boots when they weren’t.
This is a bit OT, but I just finished reading “Clarimonde/the dead leman” by French nineteenth century writer Theophile Gautier. It’s about a catholic priest with a vampire girlfriend. Their entire relationship is pretty disturbing, abusive and rapey (it’s suggested that she has some kind of mind control over him, and she puts drugs in his drink so she can steal blood from him while he’s sleeping). He just loves her so much that he thinks anything she does is okay (like, she didn’t take that much blood and his health was never really threatened, and besides he would have consented if she’d have asked him, so it’s allright.) The final moral of the story is that everything that happened was the priest’s fault, since their entire relationship started with him LOOKING at her in church. If he hadn’t LOOKED at her, but kept his eyes virtuosly down-cast at all times like a good priest should, then their entire relationship wouldn’t have happened. So – all his fault.
It’s really like an inverse version of MRA logic.
Well if men can’t control their behavior around women who are dressed like animals in heat (which somehow doesn’t mean nekkid), I have a solution! The men should stay home and take care of household duties for their wives and children, while women run the rest of the world with their clearly vastly superior self-control. That way the men wouldn’t be exposed to all the sexy sexy ladies, and their utter lack of self-control wouldn’t matter!
There’s the problem that women might not want to marry someone who can’t control himself when he’s around a woman wearing clothes, since she’d have to be around him while wearing clothes sometimes. In which case, we shall provide secure barracks for unmarried men to live in.
Of course, of NWO is wrong about men being uncontrollable beasts which must be kept locked up for the safety of everyone else, this is all very unnecessary.
What do you think, owly? Have I solved the problem? Do you have any suggestions?
Oh to heck with it. The hooting starts at about 1 minute in:
Okaaay… I’m trying to understand NWO slave’s “logic” here. It seems that men are controlling their sexuality when they’re not raping or harassing, and fail to control their sexuality when they ARE raping or harassing. Women, on the other hand, control their sexuality if they dress in burkas, and fail to control their sexuality when they dress otherwise.
You’d think that if a straight woman wasn’t controlling her sexuality, that would mean she’d harass and/or try to rape hot men. But apparently not. I guess… straight women aren’t really turned on by sex with men after all? Rather, they’re turned on by TEASING men and gloating in the POWER they wield over men.
Is that how it works in your world, NWO slave?
I think we should go over human sexuality, Mr. Slave. I would very much like to see what your understanding of it is.
Only if it involves debunking evolution by citing the fact that X Men and Heroes are pure fiction.
Haha, Demonspawn compares himself to Ben Franklin and Paul Revere. He has deluded himself into thinking he’s some sort of heroic martyr.
Demonspawn is obviously saying that
1) he believes that the consequence of various things e.g. contraception / abortion / eugenic efforts at population control – reduce women’s value to society over and above that of (the vast majority of) men. Men who are treated as interchangable & disposable subhumans.
For those of you who still don’t get male disposability*, see this: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-health/male-disposability-then-now-in-one-image/
(*Duh. It’s fuckin’ systemic!)
2) he believes this drop in value will lead to women receiving treatment equal to that which men recieve. e.g. a man who mouths off to another man does indeed risk getting his face bashed in… (Men being whatever it is ?8 times? as I recall more likely to suffer violent attack than women).
Actually, a man who mouths off risks anything from physical harm, through arrest and imprisonment, up to and including death. Plenty of men have been beaten / stabbed / shot for little more than speaking to some arsehole. Here’s an example from the UK. A bloke had a word with some dickhead (who was annoying his girlfriend by throwing chips at her on a bus – how chivalrous of him to stand up for her!) and he got stabbed to death for it, the poor bastard: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6639859.stm :(
Demonspawn is saying that he expects women’s experience of life to become a lot more like men’s experience of life. Of course he chooses to do so by getting all Nostradamus with his hyperbole and making careless “woooh!! Woe! IN tha FEWCHA!!”** predictions of various individual possible scenarios – thus allowing Futrelle et al to go “oooooh, he’s threatening to do violence to women!”
(**iLL WILL PRESS reference. Don’t read it. It’s great.)
Which is why MRA writers should always avoid this^ kind of writing.
When you have a vested opposition that is actively looking to twist anything said to make you look bad, you have to think:
“How would this sound as an isolated soundbite? What if my readers (wilfully or otherwise) fail to understand that I’m making a future prediction of likely widespread behaviour in society, rather than a ‘threat’?”
It’s basic politics. Never say anything that could be misconstrued out of context, and keep everything dumbed down to the level of the most restricted literalist reader (Futrelle). Never assume goodwill on the part of that reader either, better to assume active hostility (Futrelle).
I actually disagree with Demonspawn’s predictions in the short term – there’s no sign that women’s priveleges are about to be systemically rescinded, not as long as the corporatecronybankster system keeps on bankrolling Big Hubby Gov’t to beat / kill / jail men en masse for failure to be good little robots supporting women in general (taxation with disproportionate redistribution to women) and in particular (all the monys – alimony, palimony, chilimony, now with extended “childhood” – see ACTA, and parental healthcare obligations to children up to age 26).
To date, over the last 40 years or so most political changes have just doubled down over how screwed the average working man is, and politicos keep getting elected off the back of that – why would they change a winning formula?
In the medium to long term, with the collapse of the tower of lies and outright theft that is the global “economic system” (you should read Zero Hedge) and the shift in geopolitical hegemony away from the West… Well, it’s not going to be business as usual, but that might mean any number of things… Which I’ve already speculated on in earlier threads.
@whoever – you said something about “hey, what about aiming for equal paternity / maternity leave?” Sounds great in theory, but as the economy is going to hell in a hand basket double quick, and food / fuel prices are about to soar due to drought and upcoming embargoes & war? Don’t hold your breath on that.
yo joe, if you have to write all those words to even semi-justify this bullshit, maybe you should just admit that your movement is mostly cover for petulant wannabe terrorists