Author Archives: David Futrelle
Man Boobz is now We Hunted the Mammoth.
Don’t worry: nothing you knew and/or loved about the old Man Boobz, except the name, is going away. The blog will continue on much as it has. The old comments won’t vanish, and you won’t have to sign up again to post new ones. Your old links to manboobz.com should still work fine. (The new URL may take a little while to make its way around the world; let me know in the comments if you have trouble accessing the site.)
It’s just that, well, I got tired of the old name. I came up with it on the spur of the moment when I first started this blog. But it was kind of a dopey name. It was easily misunderstood, and gave people an easy excuse to dismiss the blog when it reported things that made them uncomfortable. I probably should have gotten rid of it a while ago.
But better late than never, huh?
I’ve given it a name that fits this blog (and its community of commenters) much better. The phrase “we hunted the mammoth” is a shortened version of “we hunted the mammoth to feed you,” which has become a catchphrase around these parts to describe a certain sort of self-important, self-deluding misogyny common amongst the people featured on this blog.
It comes from a quote I once posted from a dude who felt women weren’t sufficiently appreciative of what men had supposedly done for them over the ages. Here’s the full quote, in all of its glory:
We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?
Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?
How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.
We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.
“We Hunted the Mammoth” is such a wonderful distillation of this entire clusterfuck of misogyny, entitlement and unwarranted self-importance – not to mention historical ignorance – that when I decided to rename the blog it was the obvious choice.
Even though it means a long URL and a bit of an explanation.
Ok, you may wonder, but what is this “New Misogyny” you mention in the banner? Isn’t the misogyny you write about just a bunch of tired old ideas lightly reheated?
Much of it is. But I’m using the phrase “New Misogyny” to refer specifically to the angry antifeminist backlash that has emerged like a boil on the ass of the internet over the last decade or so. These aren’t your traditional misogynists – the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists who make up much of the far right (and whom I’ve always ignored on this blog).
So let me give a basic definition — which will no doubt seem overly basic to anyone who’s been reading this blog for any length of time.
These are guys, mostly, who range in age from their teens to their fifties, who have embraced misogyny as an ideology, as a sort of symbolic solution to the frustrations in their lives – whether financial, social, or sexual.
Some of them identify as Men’s Rights Activists, trying to cast their peculiar struggle against what they see as the excesses of feminism and the advantages of women as a civil rights issue of sorts. Alongside those who explicitly label themselves MRAs we find a great number of antifeminist and antiwomen activists we might call Men’s Rights-adjacent – like those in the Skeptic and Atheist subcultures who still haven’t gotten over an offhand remark Skepchick founder Rebecca Watson made about a dude in an elevator a couple of years ago.
Others proclaim themselves Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), declaring a sort of independence from women – while spending much of their time on message boards talking endlessly about them.
Still others see themselves as Pickup Artists (PUA), or masters of “Game,” espousing elaborate “scientific” theories of male superiority while trading tips on how best to pressure or manipulate drunk women into bed.
This misogynistic wing of the PUA subculture has a considerable overlap with a subset of traditionalist and far-right blogs. Many of those in what has become known as “the manosphere” don’t simply embrace misogyny; they also proudly embrace “scientific” racism and other bigotries.
Still, while some of the New Misogynists see themselves as conservatives, even “neo-reactionaries,” many identify themselves as libertarians or even as liberals. Theirs is a backlash that frames itself as a step forward.
So that’s the New Misogyny.
Like I said, none of this is going to sound altogether new to longtime readers of this site. But I think this helps to make a little bit clearer why I focus on the particular sorts of douchebags that I do.
And now, back to work.
We have a winner in the We Hunted the Mammoth Banner Contest!
Well, two winners, actually. And they are:
Dani, who designed several variations of a banner which will soon become the banner of We Hunted the Mammoth. I actually haven’t quite decided which of these to use, but I like them all, and it will be one of them! (Tell me which one you like best in the comments.)
Leocigale, who did the awesome cartoon below. Even though it’s not, technically speaking, a banner, I plan to use it on We Hunted the Mammoth as well. So Leocigale is also the winner!
Well, we all are, really.
Dani and Leocigale will split the cash prize of $100.
Well, actually, it might be a bit more than that: a few people made donations during the contest and didn’t leave a note specifying whether they were for the contest or not. If you were one of them, and you want your money to go to the contest winners, email me and I’ll add it to the prize. Once I get that sorted out, I’ll post an updated number here, and a breakdown of the donations in the comments below (I will break them down anonymously, of course).
Thanks to everyone who submitted entries! There was a lot of awesome artwork to choose from.
Yesterday, we looked at 6 memes from A Voice for Men’s “meme team” and decoded what they really meant. Today, some memes from AVFM’s Pinterest page that are a bit harder to decode, because they really make no sense at all. I’ll do my best to try to sort them out.
1) TALK TO THE HAND
What might it mean? “Ha ha girls talk too much, well joke’s on you because I’m GOING MY OWN WAY and later I’ll go home and make a poster about how
I imagined I might I totally really did put that bitch in her place.”
I mean, that is what this poster is saying, right? It’s illustrating the notion that men and women should listen to one another by depicting a dude just up and leaving because he’s tired of listening?
How exactly does this advance any “men’s rights” other than the right of men to act like petulant children?
Let’s take another visit to the CreepyPM subreddit, where innocent souls post screenshots of the perfectly horrendous private messages they’ve gotten, sometimes on dating sites, sometimes not.
In this case, the recipient is a young black woman on OkCupid, the sender a white man more than twenty years her senior and 13 years out of her specified age range. He decides that the best way to overcome this age gap is to … mansplain and whitesplain to her about the history of Planned Parenthood.
And then there is perhaps the most awkward segue in the history of internet dating.
In the screenshot below, he’s red, she’s blue.
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan!
According to the recipient — no screenshot, alas — he followed this up with a classic bit of passive-aggressive sex nagging:
Take a chance, Ms. Free Love.
SPOILER ALERT: She didn’t.
You can read the original thread in CreepyPMs here.
Professional antifeminist Phyllis Schlafly – perhaps best known for her fervent opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment – seems to have been channeling the manosphere in a column she published yesterday on the issue of “paycheck fairness.” Turns out she thinks such fairness is actually a bad idea, because ladies love marrying rich guys more than they love earning money.
According to Schlafly, equal pay messes with the fundamental female desire for “hypergamy” – that favorite manosphere buzzword – and undermines marriage:
[H]ypergamy … means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don’t have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.
While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.
Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.
Indeed, Schlafly argues, women love marrying men who earn more than them so much that when the pay gap is eliminated some of them just won’t marry at all. Which is apparently the end of the world, or something.
The pay gap between men and women is not all bad because it helps to promote and sustain marriages. …
In two segments of our population, the pay gap has virtually ceased to exist. In the African-American community and in the millennial generation (ages 18 to 32), women earn about the same as men, if not more.
It just so happens that those are the two segments of our population in which the rate of marriage has fallen the most. Fifty years ago, about 80 percent of Americans were married by age 30; today, less than 50 percent are.
So it’s not enough that most people end up getting married; civilization will crumble if more than half of them don’t marry before the age of 30!
And so, she suggests, if American women knew what was good for them they would be begging for employers pay them even less, relative to men.
The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.
Hmm. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that Schlafly – a best-selling author and popular speaker on the right – didn’t send back any of her royalties or speaking fees so that she would feel more like a woman and her late husband would feel like more of a man, and I doubt she’s doing so now, as a widow. She’s also been unmarried for more than twenty years. Coincidence?
NOTE TO MEN’S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS: When you find yourself agreeing with Phyllis Schlafly on pretty much anything (beyond, say, the existence of gravity, the need for human beings to breathe air, and other widely accepted beliefs of this sort), this is an indication that perhaps your movement isn’t the progressive, egalitarian movement that you like to pretend that it is, and that in fact it is sort of the opposite.
That said, I should also note that Schlafly’s notion of “hypergamy,” while sexist and silly, is decidedly less obnoxious than the version peddled by PUAs and websites like A Voice for Men — congrats, Men’s Human Rights Activists, you’re actually worse than Phyllis Schlafly!
She just uses the term to indicate a desire to marry up. For many manospherians, by contrast, “hypergamy” doesn’t just mean marrying up; it means that women are fickle, unfaithful monsters who love nothing better than cuckolding beta males in order to jump into bed with whatever alpha male wanders into their field of vision. (I’m guessing Schlafly hasn’t actually been going through the archives at AVFM or Chateau Heartiste looking for column ideas.) While many MRAs love to complain about hypergamy, many of them also seem to think that it’s unfair that “beta” males with good jobs aren’t automatically entitled to hot wives.
In case anyone is wondering, the actual definition of the word “hypergamy” involves none of that. According to Random House Kernerman Webster’s College Dictionary, the word means “marriage to a person of a social status higher than one’s own; orig., esp. in India, the custom of allowing a woman to marry only into her own or a higher social group.”
That’s it. It refers to the fact of marrying up, not to the desire to marry up, much less to the alleged desire of all twentysomething women to ride the Alpha Asshole Cock Carousel. The manosphere’s new and not-so-improved definition came from a white nationalist named F. Roger Devlin.
ANOTHER NOTE: Big thanks to the people who emailed me about this story. If you ever see something you think would make for a good Man Boobz post, send me an email at futrelle [at] manboobz.com. I get a lot of ideas from tips!
Hey, everyone, just a quick update on the still-ongoing We Hunted the Mammoth banner contest (the details of which are here).
First, I want to thank all those who’ve contributed so far. Some great stuff!
Second, I want to announce that due to the generosity of some Man Boobz — soon to be We Hunted the Mammoth — readers, the contest now has a cash prize of $100.
Thanks very much for those who’ve donated, and if you want to add more to the prize, use the regular Man Boobz donation button, but include a note saying you want the money earmarked for the prize. (Also include a little codeword or phrase; I want to be transparent with this, so I will list the donations later according to these code phrases so you know your money went to the prize.)
Also, a question: I’m wondering what you folks think should happen if I want to use more than one of the designs? Split the prize money?
The contest will run through Sunday. So submit if you haven’t already!
Here are some of the submissions so far. Anyone is free to use the artwork in a banner design of their own (and if it wins you’ll split the prize with the artist).