Roosh fan: Black and White Unite to Fight … the evil feminist white-male bashers! (Also: a terrible chart.)
I think we men can all agree that the REAL problem is those damn women’s libbers
So when I was poking around on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog the other day I ran across a guest post from someone calling himself Samseau accusing feminists of using racism to exploit men – that is, of expertly manipulating men of different races to fight one another instead of standing firm against the evil feminists and their evil agenda.
The post, while purporting to be somehow “above” the issue of race, is a muddled mess full of “white men have it worst” nonsense like this:
[R]acial infighting between American men wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the political consequences.
Women, if you haven’t noticed, do not fight with each other over racial conflicts. They might get angry over the past, but they are able to resolve all issues by agreeing on a scapegoat: the white man. Colored women will gladly forgive their white sisters, since, after all, it was the white man who oppressed women and minorities.
White men are the big, bad, evil masters, and as such, all females of different colors can agree to put aside their differences in order to bring the white man down.
Yes, he did indeed use the term “colored women.” Oh, but there’s more.
The election results show that decades of brainwashing young American boys has been an unqualified success. Rather than have boys be loyal to their gender, boys have instead been trained to be loyal to their race.
Little non-white boys at the tender age of 9 years are fed lies about how white male oppressors created their poor living conditions, while white boys are taught that they need to correct the injustices of their forefathers lest they be guilty with the indelible sin of white privilege. Female teachers use the appropriate shaming tactics on these young minds to imprint the intended desire for conflict.
All according to plan.
And more:
Men are pawns in the race game. Thus while American women feed themselves government largesse, jobs, university degrees, their husband’s money, and child support money, American men fight each other over table scraps.
But my favorite thing about this article is the little graph that Mr. Samseau made up to illustrate the REAL issues men face today.
Yep. Race is the least important issue, while “getting laid” is number one.
It’s a pretty revealing little chart, huh?
The comment section for the article – wade into this swamp at your own peril – is (predictably enough) filled with angry racists trying to explain why race really does matter. Others, meanwhile, seem upset that all this racism is getting in the way of the regular woman-bashing. Still others suggest that men of all races needed to understand the “root cause” of all our “multicultural problems.” That being … teh Jews.
My favorite comment of the bunch, though, has to be this, from Caliente, combining an astounding ignorance of history with some half-digested evo psych:
Btw the reason why there are practically no racist women is simple.
Males of mammals are territorial.
They naturally base they identity from bottom up: family,tribe,nation,race.And naturally react negative to males of different “tribe”.
Females at the same time are receptive to have sex with any males as long as they are alpha enough.
In 19 century whites fucked all the black women because they were alpha and they had recourses,just look at Brasil.Nowadays a feminist will be cheating on her white beta herbling with some black fitness coach because that is how her brain assumes alphaness.
Wow.
Glad we got that all settled!
Posted on January 24, 2013, in alpha males, antifeminism, beta males, chartbusting, evo psych fairy tales, hypocrisy, irony alert, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, oppressed men, oppressed white men, playing the victim, racism, rape jokes, rapey, reactionary bullshit, rhymes with roosh, shit that never happened and tagged antifeminism, misogyny, pickup artists, racism. Bookmark the permalink. 902 Comments.
Is it time for the Oppression Olympics already? It’s only January!
Demarcq, the oppression you experience as a person with autism neither erases nor trumps racism and sexism, and attacking women and/or people of color will not insulate you from ableism. You can’t liberate yourself at our expense, and it’s shitty of you to try.
Welcome, Dagrabbit! Comment was awesome, and Socky’s response which made it clear he had utterly failed to comprehend it was hilarious.
Teach me to go off and take a nap and miss all the fun.
Fatrelle is definitely a returning troll, though he seems to have only made sporadic comments. He’s the guy who once left this charming comment here:
http://manboobz.com/2012/06/28/he-blogs-just-like-a-woman/comment-page-2/#comment-168027
I’ve got him on moderation.
It’s like the Feministe article points out – having autism, Asperger’s or any other non neurotypical condition doesn’t mean you can’t be an asshole, and it isn’t a free pass if you act like one.
I was just perusing NOW’s back file of press releases opposing autism research and favoring the jailing or institutionalization of people on the autism spectrum, and … No wait, none of that is real.
I thought that nym looked familiar, thanks David!
Right, I’m off shoe shopping … later, y’all!
Dagrabbit, you win everything with that comment.
That last quote just horrified me, (from caliente). I don’t know how someone could think that. Even with the most basic knowledge of american history, the fact that slavery not only allowed, but encouraged masters to abuse their slaves should be obvious. “Receptive” to sex? They had no fucking choice. Even reading diaries and letters of the time, which usually shied away from sex, makes it obvious. They knew.
“Alphas”? Sure, in that white masters had all the power, given to them by the law, to treat other human beings like play toys. But a decent person would realize that’s something horrifying, not something ideal or natural.
That chart really does say it all. I weep for MRM’s unloved love bones.
Urrrraaaaagh. That’s all I feel like saying about the racism and crap.
Also, markdown, you realize there are autistic folks among the crowd here, right? And other neuroatypical folks, like yours truly?
I ain’t going to do jack shit with you just because we’re both neuroatypical men. Because you’re a douche. I know plenty of other neuroatypical people to band together with who are not douches.
Did demarcq fuck off yet? ‘Cause the hits keep on comming:
“I love it how you people try to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with your feminist agenda and then get butthurt when the same standard is applied to you.”
“You people”? Huh. Why come here to mix it up with us?
“…perhaps you should attend to your motherly duties instead of prattling on the internets.”
Oh, you prick.
“The 2nd wave of feminism tried to divide minority groups, particularly black Americans, by trying to recruit women of color into the womens lib movement; which would result in them turning against men of color making said men even more oppressed.”
Where are the citations on this? It’s hateful and ignorant for you to suggests non-white women who identify as feminists results in them turning against men who belong to their own ethnic group.
You’re a little shit stain, demarcq. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
Have you noticed that no one here likes you much? How does that feel?
Poor traitorous Daveeeeed, so oppressed by the men he has betrayed.
It’s kinda telling that all of our trolls are so original, we mistake the new kids for the old ones.
Not only is Demarcq nearly indistinguishable from other trolls, he’s actually pretty weaksauce compared to them. I give him 0/10 points for creativity, 3/10 for slightly annoying. He could have gotten a 1/10 for creativity until he pulled out the tired old “but teh autistic menz!” thing.
I missed his earlier comment about being an autism activist. From his behaviour here, he’s either (1) an actual activist, but the type that the others are trying to manoeuvre into stamp licking or membership sub checking, basically anything that doesn’t involve people or (2) he’s lying (using the MRA definition of activism would also put him into the activism category). Belligerent activists only achieve their objectives when they have something the other party desperately wants. That’s why Big Oil can be belligerent. Autism support groups, not so much.
I don’t think these things because he says he’s autistic, I think these things because he is a horrible person.
*would also put him into the lying category.
Oh, and I made a pie chart: http://cheezburger.com/7001504000
I second that he is most likely a terrible person.
1. Dagrabbit is awesome.
2. My money for Demarcq’s identity is MRAL. I would do a stylometric analysis myself (with software, of course; I don’t know how to do that shit!) but I suspect that might involve actual work.
3. brd
Does anybody ever point out how feminism threatens or oppresses white dudes, or is it just assumed to be obvious?
WANT to flash your cash in a uniquely feminine way? Don’t want to rock the diamond-encrusted chains the boys do? Need your ICE to bring out your EYES? Try HERBLING!
HERBLING: it’s bling – for HER!
LOLWUT? I am not trying to liberate myself at anyone’s expense. However, it is pretty clear that other groups are doing precisely that by repeatedly mocking autistic men(without using the “autism” tag of course) for being socially inept and “creeeeepy”.
Intersectionalism is a great idea. If only people would actually go along with it instead of one group trying to get ahead at the expense of another. FYI, autistic people are the new blacks.
Lowquacks: Well done. Now we just need a poster of it.
Thanks for clearing up just how much of a shitweasle you are.
Demarcq, it’s called “intersectionality” and it’s you who is assuming we mean “autistic folks” when we talk about “creepy entitled fucks” or what have you. Autism does not cause you to be a misogynistic knob. There are both neurotypical and neuroatypical misogynistic knobs.
Imagine you’re very socially adept, for whatever reason, and you freak someone out by overstepping boundaries. When you learn about this, you could do a few things. One would be to accept the validity of the other person’s feelings, apologise if necessary, and endeavour not to do that again. Another is to complain that somehow people are discriminating against you for telling you when you’re being creepy and take to the internet to argue about it.
Iowquacks: If a guy is initiating an interaction with a woman or such an interaction is already underway and he oversteps the boundaries, then yes he *is* creepy.
That doesn’t change the fact that there really are women who label guys “creepy” simply because he is in her presence and his abnormal mannerisms make her uncomfortable.
@Katz
Thanks. That’s my old-timey radio advert madlib/formula.
The template is:
[rhetorical question with vaguely creepy wording emphasised] [another rhetorical question that outlines the niche of the product] [rhetorical question with a bad but self-satisfied pun] Try [PRODUCT NAME, where the first half of the name describes the market and the second the product]!
[PRODUCT NAME]: It’s [PRODUCT] for [MARKET]!
My kitty cats probably hear it the most, when I feed them in the mornings:
Are you an individual of the feline persuasion? D you love to eat, but the chow on the human table ain’t up to scratch? Do you want food for PAWS and TAILS, not FORKS and TABLES? Try CAT FOOD!
CAT FOOD: It’s food – for CATS!
I think you’re looking for an objective standard of “creepy” that doesn’t exist, dude.
“FYI, autistic people are the new blacks.”
To you sir, I offer a hearty dose of Fuck You — one of my cousins has two preteen boys, the older one is autistic, the latest example of being socially inept? He lectured his mother for a good twenty minutes about how lying to him about Santa is lying and thus wrong…and then realized that meant she’d bought his presents and told her she was very generous.
Note the vast difference between the hard and fast “lying is always wrong” and “I can overstep boundaries because I don’t know better”.
Also, seriously, go reread some of the comments people of color have made on this very thread — review the stories ranging from trouble finding foundation that matches, to systemic slave rape, to lynching. Get back to us when the killing of ASD people is seen as something to make a picnic and postcards out of.
Actually, don’t get back to us, just go.
For the rest of you @Anony_mmis has spent the night trying (and to some degree succeeding) to get #OpThunderbird trending — epically short version: indigenous and native women are raped and murdered at rates far surpassing rates for whites (not news to y’all, I’m sure) and anon is fed up. I’m sure Demarcq will find a way to spin this, but I really don’t care.
FFS I am 100% positive the diagnostic criteria for any autism type disorder (including autism) isn’t “Have you made any woman, at any time, feel creeped out”.
There are loads of people with autism who aren’t creepy at all. There are loads of guys without [insert whatever autism-linked mannerism here] who creep women out. Because being creepy isn’t fucking determined by whether the guy has autism or not.
I am only referring to cis-men for posting history reasons here.
The constant theme in the MRM seems to be that these men are owed sex. And that makes me want to scream.
I still think this is Om Nom, since the idea that women call men creepy because of prejudice against autistic people rather than because of anything the guys are actually doing was his hobbyhorse.
That’s a bit too coincidental, isn’t it? I haven’t seen that one trotted out here before, though I think Slavey was fond of the “you’re calling an innocent man sitting on the bus creepy for existing” line on occasion. I haven’t read many of the threads where Om Nom gets going, he was boring and pretentious without having the frothing tinfoil-hat wingnuttery of Slavey’s efforts.
Yeah, that’s really the only characteristic of his that I remember other than a love of big butts which he wouldn’t shut up about. He was basically what would happen if Diogenes tried to be funny after being raised in an isolation tank as part of of some sort of cruel experiment.
NWO’s obsession with creepy was more that it’s shaming language against men (similar to Steele) — he insisted that if you ask a random person to fill in the blank, they’d all say “man”. Said fill in the blank —
“There was this creepy [blank] at the bar” or something like that
I got answers like non-Euclidean geometry, because I have weird friends.
Afaik, NWO never took up the banner of ASD people are called creepy. It was very gendered to him.
In other things, is om nom short for something? Or a repeat sock I might recognize by another nym? I haven’t a clue who y’all are talking about!
Monsieur Sans Nom.
@melody:it reminds me of years ago when I was a peon in the insurance industry. One of the claims adjusters got very annoyed at someone complaining about the replacement value of their lost item vs. the original cost and the cost of their premiums. Quoth the adjuster: “This isn’t a bank, you know!”
I would suggest that the same theme is going around the head of MRAs, but I Do Not Want To Know anything about the deposits they think are contributing to their sex claim.
Argenti—Om Nom is short for the troll known as Monsieur Sans Nom.
Yes, I didn’t clarify that about Slavey – he didn’t bring non-neurotypical into it much, it was all Horrible Women Making Poor Men Die of Shame stuff.
“… if Diogenes tried to be funny after being raised in an isolation tank as part of of some sort of cruel experiment.”
… you mean he wasn’t?
Oh, Mister No Name, yep, om nom is funnier!
Compared to Om Nom Diogenes really has his finger on the pulse of pop culture. (Don’t get too excited, kid – consider how boring the person you’re being compared to is.)
Just wait, he’ll incorporate this into his next rant about eeevil feminists being out to get autistic men.
1. Become a feminist.
2. Capture an autistic man.
3. ???
4. Profit!
No, see, if you don’t want to capture him that proves that feminists are eeevil.
Wait, if you do NOT want to capture him?
So trolls have become “gotta catch ‘em all” critters?
If you do not want to capture the autistic man that proves that you’re prejudiced against autistic men and that’s the reason you call men creepy. If you do want to capture him then that proves that you want to send him to jail for being “creepy”, which is ladycode for “autistic”. So basically whatever you do it’s because women are evil prejudiced bitches who persecute poor innocent men.
“So basically whatever you do it’s because women are evil prejudiced bitches who persecute poor innocent men.”
Given what these “poor innocent men” are like, I think I win! :D
But all that persecuting interferes with my time devoted to eating bon bons. :(
UGGGGGGHHHHH… Really thats all I have.
Though I have found I tend to have more in common with queer men of colour ( here mostly Maori and Pasifika) than straight white women. But thats yet more intersectionalities!
Should’ve known it was a no win situation and not anything as amusing as pokemon.
Kitteh’s right, in that case, I’m going to go ahead and persecute away (funny thing just now, if you miss the p in persecute, auto correct makes it into else cute)
@kiwigirl
I find the deposits the “nice guys” gave me weren’t things that I wanted. And even if they were (things I wanted) it doesn’t mean I have to have sex with them.
I’m always shocked when I’m in a group of people and guys say things that imply that they think their date/a girl they know is obligated to have sex with them for all the favors.
Our culture needs to change. And soon.
If I’m helping persecute those poor ickle NiceGuys etc, it’s not ‘cos I’m an entitled princess, it’s ‘cos I’m a QUEEN and they’re peasants, and shouting “Help, help, I’m being repressed!” isn’t going to work. :P
He shoved me, did you see that?! He shoved me!
Okay, that was from memory and probably fudged, but I’m tired (of being repressed :) )
G’night guys!
Niters Argenti! :D
This is just making me tired.
Y’know, I’ve been to a decent amount of anime cons and run into my share of creeper behaviors. I usually either avoid (easy enough when you travel in a pack as I tend to, due to cosplay), or ask the person politely to stop whatever they’re doing – standing too close, staring, whatever. The few times it’s happened with people I suspect of being on the autism spectrum, they’ve apologized profusely and STOPPED DOING THE BEHAVIOR.
One such gentleman has actually become a good friends since then. What I’d interpreted as him staring at my boobs had actually been him trying to figure out how I’d done a part of my costume. He apologized and explained that was what he’d been doing, apologized again and admitted he tended to get focused on costume details and not realize where on a person he was staring. Nice fellow. And he was very good about not doing it again.
And that, my friends, is how to avoid being creepy, even if you’re on the spectrum and prone to things that might be interpreted as creepy. Be willing to apologize, and DON’T CONTINUE THE BEHAVIOR.
Fatrelle makes no sense. I have a problem with people being assholes. I’ve not noticed that being an asshole makes a distinction between gender, color, etc. Ignorance/stupidity/being an asshole doesn’t discriminate.
I’m so in over my head with this..stuff. It’s not “feminism”, or at least not feminism alone. Much of this, to me, seems to be just human. “we white men will rise up and then you’ll be sorry” is nothing but a vengence fantasy cooked up by someone who feels powerless. When are these men/women/whoever going to learn that the only person that they control is themselves? There’s your power. Stop worrying so much about what other people are doing and get a life of your own.
@Cassandra:
This bit in particular is what set my alarm bells a-ringing:
Om Nom had expressed that (extremely selfish) sentiment about autistic women before, and that’s the only place I’ve ever heard. But, okay, I’ll stop speculating for reals now.
Hey Demarcq, did it occur to you that women on the spectrum are capable of fighting different ways that they are oppressed, all at the same time? As well as the unique ways that their oppressions influence (intersect with) each other? Of course it did. You don’t think that they’re incapable of fighting for their rights as women and as autistic people simultaneously, you just don’t want anyone fighting for their rights as women at all.
…the only place I’ve ever heard it, not the only place I’ve ever heard.
In my defense, it is not quite 6:00 in the morning yet. Also I am super behind my morning schedule and should probably get off Manboobz and into the shower now.
LBT: 5/5, multi, first strike, banding. Tap: Kick arse, draw comics.
(It’s pretty obvious I’m not getting that nerd card back any time soon. Soon we will have to ask: Does he even want it?)
@lowquacks: I LOL’d. It took me a moment to parse your syllables, though.
It’s a whole different level of “issue” (about the norms of the beauty industry in general and not a race issue), but the comment about difficulty finding more than one or two shades of dark foundation brought to mind just how specific type of white skin most foundations and powders are made for. All of the shades most commonly offered are just somewhere between “not too pale” and “not too dark”. You need to have a bit of a tan at least to use them. A super-milky white Scandinavian skin like mine is not an option except in brands specifically made for Scandinavian women (like Lumene). And I’m pretty sure it didn’t use to be like this. I’ve used cosmetics almost 20 years and as a teen I was able to buy foundation from the major brands. But back then the use of self-tanners wasn’t as prevalent and expected as it is now. I think that has affected the sort of shades offered. They’re all orangey, too, to match the selftan colour. More expensive professional brands are the exception, and offer shades for dark and light skins and everything between. But the most popular brands L’oreal, Max Factor, Maybelline, what have you… they’re all selftanner shades.
Squeezing women into one-size-fits-all model. Not only do you need to be white to be pretty in the conventional way, you need to be certain kind of white. And if you happen to be darker we’ll sell you some skin-lighteners to fit in, whilst selling self-tanners for the white folks!
Regarding nice guys, and what makes a guy nice vs Nice TM…
Okay, so I watched the movie Scott Pilgrim vs the World some time ago. I thought it was hilarious and super-entertaining. It still annoyed me a bit, in the back of my head, that it fell into this ancient pattern of not-Hollywood-attractive guy gets Hollywood-attractive girl, only in Scott’s case there were even several of them whom all wanted him. But whatever.
Much later I realised the movie has a way worse problem than that. Scott’s girlfriend Ramona says he’s the nicest guy she’s ever dated, and they add that this is kind of sad. Now, “nicest” is relative, so if all her previous boyfriends had, say, physically and sexually abused her, then I could buy that a) Scott was nicer than all of them, and b) that’s really sad. But the thing is… with most of Ramona’s exes, we don’t learn ANYTHING about them than “they used to date, they used to party a lot, then Ramona got tired of him and dumped him”.
Scott, on the other hand, falls in love with Ramona solely because she’s hot, nags her into dating him while he’s still dating a high school girl whom he isn’t even seriously interested in but strings along anyway while she’s super in love with him, lies to Ramona about high school girl and to high school girl about Ramona. So throughout the movie he acts like a complete arsehole. Going on the information the movie gives us, Scott would be one of the douchiest people she’s dated, not the nicest one.
I THINK we’re supposed to infer though, from the facts that Scott is a) not Hollywood-attractive, and b) geeky, that he’s also nice. That being a non-Hollywood-attractive geek sort of ENTAILS niceness, regardless of your actual actions. And the “that’s sad” just means that it’s sad that Ramona had to wait for so long before she finally met a “nice” guy like Scott.
If I’m correctly interpreting the movie… that’s pretty disturbing. But I sort of get the feeling that it’s not uncommon to have the idea that niceness doesn’t depend on what you actually do; being non-Hollywood-attractive and geeky simply equals nice.
Alright, I think it’s time I come clean: Yes, I am the same person as Monsieur sans Nom. And I have more sox than Imelda Marcos has shoes! :-P
But really people, while I am indeed a troll, just because some poster here expresses views that you don’t agree with does not make them a troll or even an MRA.
On topic-ish (for minimising the experiences of women who suffer creeps and further abusing them), here’s a letter from the New York Times published in 1906, of a woman responding to a man’s claims that men NEVER creepily hit on women on public transport, but if they do, it’s because those women are sluts. It’s a kickass rebuttal, but seriously this shit is over 100 years old. Stop it.
Worst. Reveal. Ever.
“Yep. Race is the least important issue, while “getting laid” is number one”
Indeed it is, for MRA’s. Who would want to fuck an MRA? Nobody, that’s who. That is why getting laid is their number one problem. This graph makes perfect sense.
I thought that it was easy to make locks if you have afro hair, but that white people who want that hair-do has to put all kinds of shit (not necessarily in the literal sense) in their hair? For that reason I’m a bit repelled by people who do locks despite not having afro-hair… I think their locks look filthy, but maybe that’s just me projecting? Any non-afro-hair person here who’s done locks and knows how it works?
Starting the clock now on how long it is before Sandra follows up that fairly innocuous comment with some ableist shit or rape endorsement.
@Dvarghundspossen I’ve just done some in a friend’s non-afro hair. You just backcomb it really tightly, and apply some wax, then wait. You need to re-do the roots every couple of weeks for a few months. But no, it’s not dirty.
But the wax… does it just stay there? Or do you wash it out and apply new wax time to time?
Oh, well I guess we’ve learned an important lesson, then.
It goes out by itself. You can still wash your hair.
@Dvärghundspossen, they were having this exact conversation on the recent Buzzfeed thread about “Nice Guys.” Apparently the comic book is much clearer that the Scott character is NOT nice and is in fact quite an asshole, which Ramona tells him at the end….but of course they leave that part out of the movie.
I couldn’t get over the ridiculous notion that in order to be with a girl you must defeat her previous boyfriends, as if she’s a trophy that gets handed from guy to guy. And then Scott is a Nice Guy on top of it….and the guy who plays him plays that exact same Nice Guy nerd character in every fucking movie he’s in. All kinds of gross. That movie sucks.