About these ads

Category Archives: evil women

If you’re an Alpha male, shouldn’t you be allowed to just punch people who annoy you at work?

Sometimes Alpha cab drivers want to punch their customers too.

Every day, it seems, I learn a little bit more about the oppression of men. Recently, for example, I learned that men who are working customer service jobs are oppressed because they are prohibited from punching their customers, even when these customers are really, really annoying, and possibly even ladies. At least that’s the lesson I took from a recent Facebook posting by MRA and frequent Spearhead contributor Jack Donovan.  Here’s Jack:

 Men want to carry their own weight, but to do so, they may have to take a job which requires them to choose “flight” over “fight” as part of their regular duties. All customer service oriented jobs, for instance, require men to take abuse from … someone who is angrily issuing insults and challenge cues … and reply submissively.

Even worse is when some of these poor men, like Jack, are natural “alphas” forced to take these beta-ass jobs because for some reason the people in charge of hiring haven’t recognized their awesome alphaness:

It would be interesting to see someone do a study tracking the testosterone levels of “alpha” type men who would not choose a customer service job, but who were forced to take a position where they had to apologize and beg forgiveness from abusive women and “betas” all day.

It’s almost like you have to act as if the customer is always right!

As a man who had blood in his face for *several hours* after having to hold my tongue while I was screamed at by a neurotic old female customer this week, the physical effects were pretty noticeable in the short term. I was murderously furious for hours and then emotionally exhausted and kind of depressed through the next day.

Wouldn’t it have been better for everyone – with the possible exception of the old lady, of course, and the rest of the customers, and maybe the firm employing Mr. Donovan – if he could have chosen “fight” instead of “flight,” and just popped that old bat in the nose? Problem fucking solved!

Let’s just shut down the economy and the judicial system for a day or two while we work out a way that Mr. Donovan can just punch people without any consequences. Because he’s an alpha, damn it, and he really shouldn’t be hemmed in by petty “laws” and “social conventions” and “moral codes” clearly meant for betas and ladies and other losers.

EDITED TO ADD: Donovan has responded to this post in the comments here. He says he’s not an MRA, so I’ve edited out that part.  (I did find his Facebook post through a link on the MR subreddit, FWIW.)

I should clarify that Donovan did not talk directly about punching people; he talked about the “fight or flight” instinct.

About these ads

Spearheadonomics: How the ladies caused our economic malaise

These are the awkwardly posed businessladies who wrecked our economy

These are the awkwardly posed businessladies who wrecked our economy

Like a lot of people, when I’m looking for insights on the current economic mess, I turn first to random dudes posting on The Spearhead. Here’s some guy called Poiuyt explaining how ladies and the men who don’t hate them are the source of all our troubles:

Because this god damned genderist society has become so amoral, so degenerate and so bankrupted on account of its genderist pervervions and femaleist subversions, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to grow itself out of the mess it finds itself in. The proverbial golden geese and their precious eggs in male produktivity have been either been killed, eaten, over-exploited, over worked, abused, dis-incentivised, harrased and are now increasingly extinct.

Well, I can’t argue with that, though the whole goose metaphor isn’t working 100% for me, given that I’m pretty sure it’s not the man goose that lays the eggs, but the lady goose. But that’s nitpicking. Poiuyt is on a roll:

You simply cannot get any further male inspired ekonomic growth out of hugely indebted and morally bankrupted societies as ours following genderist statism today, … … because the primary sources of growth potential in male inspired productivity and male entrepreneurship has been cannibalised to the bone. Cannibalised to the point where there is nothing left to base any further ekonomic growth on, consequent of the vicious sexist state ideology of womanism at all costs.

49 upvotes for this bit of wisdom.

Ladies: He’s Going Galt — and it’s all your fault

Screw you, sister! I'm Going Galt!

Ladies! Better move fast if you want to sink your talons into some hard-working, high-earning beta man-wallet! Men’s Rights Redditor ShinShinGogetsuko is on to you ladies and your devious ways, and he’s taking his video games and going home. By which I mean: he’s GOING GALT!

Men are choosing to reject the culture that is being forced upon them which tells them to be anything but MEN. What they want us to be is slaves, to throw away our souls and toil away while women get to do whatever they want in the name of “female empowerment” and with a court system that will side with them. Equality is the ideal, but it’s not about equality–it’s about control. Men are going Galt.

When society takes a stand against the destruction of men’s character, then men will return to being men. Until then, Xbox 720.

See, I wasn’t kidding about the video games bit.

LINK and SCREENSHOT.

Thanks to tim-buckles on ShitRedditSays for the link (and the screenshot).

 

 

 

Lady Killers 2: Electric Boogaloo

Well, here’s a new twist on the whole “women love assholes” thing. According to the blogger known as Vox Day – a sort of right-wing/PUA hybrid – the best way for a fella to capture the attention of a comely lass is to rape and murder another comely lass. Yep. He seems to have confused “Game” — that is, pick-up artist trickery — with The Most Dangerous Game. Oh, Vox stops short of recommending that his readers actually go out and murder women, but he argues this women-love-killers argument in all seriousness:

I don’t believe I could recommend this as a strategy for most men, but it is surely educational to learn that raping and killing a woman is demonstrably more attractive to women than behaving like a gentleman. And women, before all the inevitable snowflaking commences, please note that there is absolutely nothing to argue about here. It is an established empirical fact.

His empirical “proof” of this assertion? The fact that some Japanese women have set up online fan clubs for Tatsuya Ichihashi, an accused murderer.

From this one data point, Vox seems to have made a somewhat hasty generalization based on the notion that all women are the same person – that is, if one woman thinks or does something, all women think or do that same thing.

Yes, there are  women — and men — who find themselves attracted to vile human beings. Some women idolize murderers. Some men think Ann Coulter is hot.  That doesn’t mean that all women idolize murderers or that all men want to get it on with Ms. Coulter. It just means that some people have really, really, really appalling taste.

But let’s just assume for a moment that Vox’s basic premise is true: all women love violent psycopaths,. If you’ want to get with the ladies, but aren’t so hard up for a date that you’re actually willing to resort to homicide, is there some other way you convey what a violent psychopath you are to the ladies of the world? Yep, says Vox:

[I]f you are being introduced to a woman you find attractive, she will be more attracted to you if you slap her in the face without warning and walk away without explanation than if you smile and tell her that you are very pleased to meet her. Now this, being a mere hypothesis, can be argued. And tested, if you’re feeling especially scientific this weekend.

I really hope none of his readers take him up on this.

Is Vox being altogether serious about this? Yes and no. About the idea that women love killers? Absolutely serious. About actually assaulting women? He’s a bit more cagey. On his blog Alpha Game, Vox elaborates:

Women find it sexier for you to rape and kill a woman than putting them on pedestals and being a nice guy. I’m not saying that you should rape and kill anyone, but I would recommend, at the very least, dropping the nice guy routine and pushing over the pedestals.

Women have plenty of positive attributes. But they’re not angels, and when it comes to what sexually attracts them, even the nice, well-bred ones are more insanely twisted, from the male perspective, than the average serial killer.

So apparently the only truly happy couples in the world are those in which both partners think like serial killers.

What a romantic!

Baby denial is not just a baby river in Egypt

Screw you lady, no babies for you!

Hey, fellas! Do you hate feminists but also hate doing things? Our good friend over at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog has an idea for you: strike at the heart of the feminazi matriarchy by “denying marriage and denying children to women.” This, PMAFT (for short) argues, will effectively transfer “the costs of misandry … back on to women.” And all you have to do is: nothing!

Apparently, feminist ladies have an insatiable need to marry and make babies with men who hate them. All you need to do to thwart this evil plan is to not have sex with them. But wait a minute, you say, don’t ladies make the babies themselves, in their bellies? Well, yes they do. But unfortunately for them they also need a little something from you as well. No, not  your money – that comes later. You know that white stuff that comes out of your penis when you masturbate? Ladies actually need that in order to make babies. And you control the supply! Cut them off! Embargo that shit.

Also, if you ever find yourself in a chapel with one of these ladies, and some religious looking dude starts asking you all sorts of questions, do not – I repeat, do not – answer any of them with the phrase “I do.” That’s how they get you.

The great thing about denying ladies your babies is that it also helps you to strike back at your parents – by denying them grandchildren! Ha HA! As PMAFT helpfully explains:

Our parents’ generation had one foot in the old system and one foot in the feminist system.  This meant that many of them have completely avoided the consequences of supporting feminism.  I see this with my own parents who don’t particularly think of themselves as “feminists” but have effectively supported feminism all the same.  They have experienced absolutely no consequences from their support of feminism.  This goes for both my mom and my dad.  …

Most of our parents want grandchildren so denying them grandchildren really forces the cost of misandry back on to them.  This is particularly effective when done by only children or by men who have only brothers.  Even for men who have sisters, this can still be effective if it prevents the “family name” from being passed on.

In your face! No babies for you!

Quotations from Chairman Alcuin

Dude, you should totally read this shit!

Like Chairman Mao, the MRA blogger Alcuin is a massive douchebag with intellectual pretensions far outstripping his limited brainpower. Also like Mao, Alcuin is perhaps best appreciated in tiny doses. Most of his posts are rambling, pretentious messes; yet many of them contain wonderful little nuggets of anti-wisdom that I feel compelled to share with you all.

Mao had his Little Red Book. Here’s part one of Alcuin’s Little Red-Faced Book. Click on the titles for the full posts.

On the Nature of the Female:

[A] woman only thinks of her next meal, and which man can provide the best one for her. …  Allow them to run organizations and society, and they will destroy everything. … Women are too emotional and self-centered to build civilization.

All Feminists are Doctor’s Daughters:

Feminism, the domain of doctor’s daughters, is for snobs. Men with dirty fingernails are haughtily ignored and dismissed. … Ironic, ain’t it, that feminists can be both perpetual victims and upper-class snobs at the same time, with the same remark and arrogant flick of the hair, as she puts her nose in the air and walks past. … Uppity cunts.

Dare to Struggle, Dare to Backlash:

Because feminism has attacked humans so viciously, injecting its hate-filled venom so deeply into both men and women, the “reaction” will not be a mere rainstorm. Deep, psychotic imbalance such as the type wrought by feminism and by liberals in general will necessitate a fucking shitstorm the likes of which we’ve hardly seen.

On Rape:

Constant rape accusations are ridiculous, given the sexless marriage epidemic. How many bored, asexual women stuck in a sexless marriage would love to be taken?

On Beauty:

Modern miseduated western women fear their femininity, fear their natural beauty, and run away from it. … The hags we currently see in western countries resemble a clear-cut, eroded mountain. A contemporary western woman reminds one of the landscape created by the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, ugly and unnatural, a place of evil and sadness.  

More to come; Alcuin’s idiocy is a renewable resource.

Women wearing makeup, nutshots, toilet seats in the down position, and other signs of male oppression

In my last post, I referred (albeit obliquely) to a discussion taking place in the comments section over on The Frisky about an article called How to Teach Boys to be Feminists. With a title like that, it’s hardly surprising that the topic drew MRAs like, well, I was going to say like flies on shit, but it was more like the other way around. (Even our friend NWOslave made an appearance.)

Reading through the comments, I noticed a couple from a commenter calling himself “Really?” — with a question mark – that laid out point by point why he thinks men are getting the short end of the stick. His points were an equal mixture of wrong and silly. So I decided I would offer point-by-point responses to them all.

If any of you want to fill in more detailed responses to any of his points (or to challenge or correct my points), please do so.

So let’s give the floor to Really?

If you ever think women have it harder in modern society, just think of this:

Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?

Really, Really? You’re going to lead with this? This, to you, is the most salient example of female privilege? My answer: I don’t know because this literally never happens in my life. I put the seat and the lid down because I don’t want things to fall into the toilet.

Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?

Huh? Men complain about women who “want everything” all the time.

Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?

Because these are rights that are reserved only for those who can make babies inside their body. (Women who are infertile, post-menopausal, or transwomen don’t have these rights either.)  When (cis) men develop this ability, they can have the same rights. Remember that pregnant (trans) man? He had the same rights as a pregnant women.

Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?

You actually think that heterosexual men are oppressed by women wearing makeup, showing cleavage and wearing short skirts? Most heterosexual men manage to steal glances at women they find attractive without being a creeper about it. And for the most part, women don’t get upset if a guy looks at them; what’s upsetting is when guys pull up in a car and ask “can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?”

Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?

Who pretends that? Feminists acknowledge that women abuse children. And yes, women do abuse children more than men —  because women, on average, spend much more time caring for children than men. If you adjust for the amount of time spent caring for children, men are more likely to abuse. But it’s not some sort of gender competition here. Abuse is a horrible thing, regardless of the gender of the abuser.

If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?

I’m guessing for the same reason men initiate divorces: because their marriages are terrible, and they’re miserable. [Citation Needed] for the claim about perjury.

Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?

At the time the bill was passed, people were only just beginning to understand the prevalence of domestic violence towards women. Nonetheless, despite the name of the bill, VAWA is gender neutral, designed to protect male victims as well as female ones.

Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman – won’t the man be in more pain?

I don’t know why it’s funny. You’ll have to ask any of the sixteen gazillion guys posting videos on YouTube of themselves getting hit in the nuts, often on purpose.

Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?

No feminist I know thinks this is funny. Here is more information on the subject.

Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?

I know of no feminists who would consider him a wimp; they would consider him to be what he is, a victim of domestic abuse. No one is a criminal for defending themselves; they can be a criminal if they respond with disproportionate violence, responding to a slap by beating their partner unconscious.

Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?

Many of these issues are related to (cis) women’s reproductive health. Men have a smaller number of issues specific to their gender. If men want to help increase awareness of men’s health issues, they are free to organize awareness campaigns just as women have done over the years.

Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?

[Citation needed]

Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?

Depends on the club.

If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?

Women do get paid less. That’s simply a fact. The question is why, and that’s complicated. Sexism plays a part. See here.

How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?

The same way they know who to arrest in cases of domestic violence involving heterosexuals: by determining who is primarily responsible for the violence. This may involve collecting witness statements (if there are witnesses), by looking for visible signs of injury and other evidence of violence, and so on. Women – heterosexual women and lesbians alike – are regularly arrested for DV. Sometimes both partners are arrested.

Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?

I’m having a hard time seeing the contradiction here. If a married man doesn’t regularly care for his children, he is less likely to be awarded custody.

Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?

Women cannot unilaterally decide to cut off visitation. This is something determined by the courts. If a man is denied visitation, there’s generally a good reason for this – he may, for example, be an abuser.

If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?

Feminists don’t actually run the military. Generally, feminists support women’s right to serve in the armed forces, and NOW has petitioned to include women in draft registration. But most feminists I’ve ever met are opposed to the draft for anyone, male or female.

Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else.

Because the ratio of women to men in the sciences is seriously skewed against women; STEM professions are heavily male-dominated. And this is no coincidence: girls and women are often told that women are “naturally” worse at math and science. There is no similar prejudice against men in, say, the liberal arts.

Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?

Child support is intended to help support, er, the children. Women tend to be the primary caregivers, so they are more likely to win custody. When men win custody, child support payments go to them.

Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?

This is a difficult situation, with no easy answers. Courts put the interests of the children first, as they should.

Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?

Do they? I don’t think aid recipients should have to prove what they spent the money on.

Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?

That’s not how Title IX works. It’s intended to give female athletes the same opportunity as male athletes, not to “cut men’s sports.”

Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five – isn’t that equal pay for less work?

Again: Really, Really? You’ll have to take that up with the people handing out the prize money. The amount of money athletes make is pretty arbitrary, largely determined by how popular their sport is, how good their agent is, and what sorts of endorsement deals they get. Female gymnasts work pretty hard. How many of them earn big bucks? There are far more millionaire male athletes than there are women.

Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?

It’s cheating either way, unless you’re talking about people in open or polyamorous relationships. Who exactly is lionizing female cheaters? Not the show Cheaters, in any case.

Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?

Outside of a few cases in which women who murdered their children were indeed suffering from postpartum psychoses, this is simply not true. Lawyers defending murderers often press for their clients – male or female — to be considered not guilty by reason of insanity, but they rarely win.

Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?

Are there? I doubt it. And if so, what difference does it make? There are various feminist organizations that deal with issues related to motherhood (and parenthood in general) like parental leave. What on earth is your point?

Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?

The fact that there are social problems attributed to fatherlessness does not mean that all fathers should get unfettered access to their children. Divorce is messy, and generally there are good reasons why certain fathers are prohibited from seeing their children. Giving a father who is a child abuser access to his children will not solve any social problems.

Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?

Uh, yeah, that’s not how that works. Many divorced men (and some women) pay child support, with the amount determined by the needs of the children and of the non-custodial parent’s ability to pay. This support is meant for the children. Alimony is only awarded in about 15 percent of divorces; roughly 4 percent of alimony recipients are men.

If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?

[Citation needed]

Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorces?

Because the person who initiates the divorce is not necessarily the person who has “walked out” of the relationship.

Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?

There are a number of networks aimed mostly at men. While sexist shows are often criticized for being sexist, the idea of appealing to a specific demographic isn’t terribly controversial.

Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?

Are they? The wife on King of Queens is a bit of a shrew, isn’t she? And Kevin James is the star of the show, isn’t he? (Newsflash: comedians often portray buffoons.) In any case, feminists generally aren’t big fans of shows that reinforce old stereotypes about the genders – including the buffoon dad and the humorless mom.  Every feminist I know is appalled by the new sitcom Whitney, which reinforces a lot of old stereotypes, many of them misandrist.

Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?

Huh? Comedians say misogynistic things all the time.

Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?

These are getting weirder and weirder.  I can only assume you’re talking about women who choose to be stat-at-home moms (or whose husbands choose this for them). Women who do this are more likely to be traditionalist than feminist. Every feminist I know wants men to have the same option to be a stay-at-home dad. That’s why feminists push for better parental leave, not simply better maternal leave.

Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?

Feminists want women to have the same employment opportunities as men. Women have in fact fought to get into dirty, dangerous fields heavily dominated by men, like mining, for example. (Darksidecat could give you more on this.)

In a second post, Really? asked a bunch more questions. As you’ll see, they got sillier and sillier as he continued:

Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?

You don’t “have” to say anything. You can say whatever you want, though people might look at you funny if you were to call a female chairperson a “chairman.” As for “bad guy,” well, men make up the overwhelming majority of criminals (in real life) and villains (in movies, TV, and fiction generally), so it’s not altogether shocking that the term used to refer to the baddies is gendered in this way. You don’t have to use the phrase if you don’t want.

Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?

Huh? Could you give examples of this (that don’t involve the Titanic)? When talking about wars, people generally use the phrase “innocent civilians.”

Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?

[Citation needed]

Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?

The issue of shared parenting is complicated, and it’s often not the best option for the children. Generally speaking, the person who was the primary caregiver gets primary custody, and this makes sense to me. If more men were stay-at-home-dads, men would get primary custody more often. Every feminist l know is supportive of stay-at-home dads.

Why does the term “angry mother” sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father” sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?

Huh? Could you give an example? I think it largely depends not on gender but what the parent in question is angry about – whether they were angry because of cutbacks at their kids’ school, or because they’re an asshole  with a giant sense of entitlement. Angry asshole mothers need anger management classes as much as their male counterparts.

Why is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?

I’m going to let Don Draper respond to this one for me.

Onward:

Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?

Gross generalizations about men and women are sexist no matter who says them. But anyone can criticize individual men or women – or groups of men and/or women who hold specific beliefs – without being considered sexist.

Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?

What on earth are you talking about?

Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?

Because our legal system works in the open, the names of accused criminals (regardless of gender, regardless of crime) are made public. In the case of rape, accusers are often demonized and shamed and threatened, so we protect their identities. Or try to: in many cases their names have been made public. Accused criminals who win acquittal can move on with their lives; in some cases where the jury’s verdict is controversial, like OJ Simpson’s not guilty verdict, they may be seen as guilty by many people. The law has no control over people’s opinions.

Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?

[Citation needed.]

Why is it that we’ve had forty years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change?

Uh, yeah. Very few MRAs suggest merely that we “consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change.” Instead, they write out long crazy lists like yours, attempting to portray men as horribly oppressed slaves at the hands of evil feminazi matriarchs. When MRAs set aside this nonsense and bring up specific issues that affect men disproportionally or exclusively, like circumcision, they generally are taken much more seriously.

If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?

Feminists don’t “always side with women,” whatever that means. They have raised a number of  issues that affect women disproportionately or exclusively, and tried to win some redress. Feminists also work on initiatives that help both men and women, like parental leave, as I mentioned earlier. Whatever political power feminists have stem from years and years of organizing and lobbying. Other groups – like Christian conservatives, who are generally antifeminist – have also won themselves a degree of power through organizing and lobbying. (Do you remember that whole debate about Planned Parenthood?) Men’s Rights Activists are free to do the same.

For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?

Dude, did you really just ask that?

Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?

Uh, maybe because they still are more privileged, a fact readily apparent to everyone who doesn’t live in MRAland.

MR Redditor: Unmarried women will have babies so the government will pick up their tab at restaurants

This comment didn’t get a ton of upvotes in r/mr, but it was just too idiotic to ignore:

Thanks, r/againstmensrights for pointing this one out!

Cosmetics: An evil plot to fool the men of the world into thinking that ladies are pretty

Evil female deceiver at work

Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:

Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).

That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.

Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!

 

Violence against women? Blame it on feminism, says W. F. Price

This slogan is apparently what CAUSES violence against women.

Another day, another apologia for male violence from the Men’s Rights crowd. This time the apologist is W. F. Price at The Spearhead, who uses several recent news stories involving violent men as an excuse to attack feminism.

Repeated provocations against men, systematic discrimination against men, and state-sanctioned debt slavery are starting to have the inevitable effect. In a triumph for the feminist movement, men are lashing out violently against women, fulfilling the feminist fantasy of a gender war.

In the old days, everything was (presumably) peachy keen between the sexes. Then along came the feminists, and all hell broke loose. Those “take back the night” marches feminists love so much? They’re just red flags to the bulls – that is, our society’s ample stock of “mentally unstable and out-of-luck men.” You don’t want to make these guys mad!

[W]omen were encouraged to be militant against all males, which can only have unfortunate results, given the hands-down male superiority in combat. …

In other words, the fact that there are violent men out there is why women shouldn’t complain about violent men. Presumably the only marches women should be organizing would be “No, Go Ahead, You Keep the Night” marches. Don’t want to offend those rapists –that’ll just make them even rapier than usual!

According to Price, though, feminists actually like violence against women — because it keeps them in business.

For feminism to exist as a valid movement, there must be violent conflict, so many of the efforts of feminists have sought to provoke just that. … You see, for a feminist to justify her job there must be some degree of brutality against women. … So, if you are a feminist, the hapless women murdered or assaulted by the damaged men feminists have created are necessary sacrifices for advancing the feminist agenda.

So not only do the feminists provoke these “damaged men” – they created them in the first place, by being so feministy.

Wouldn’t this whole provoke-the-men strategy make life more dangerous for feminist women as well? No, because feminists are all rich ladies, and everyone knows that rich ladies are never beaten or raped or murdered:

[W]e all know that feminism has never been about the typical woman who lives a humble life, but rather the ambitious elite who want to have access to the big boys and big money on Capitol Hill and Wall Street. … Disadvantaged women are truly the cannon fodder of feminists.

So what “proof” does Price offer for his claim that men are “lashing out” at women because of feminism? He cites three news stories: one dealing with a woman-hating trucker who’s accused of killing several prostitutes; another involving a man who went on a shooting rampage at a church, killing his wife and wounding two others; and finally, the case of James Ray Palmer, the Arkansas man who shot up the offices of the judge who’d handled his divorce and custody case more than a decade earlier. (I wrote about his case here.)

How do these cases relate to feminism? You’ll have to ask Price, because none of the news stories suggest any connection, and Price doesn’t explain why he thinks there is one. True, the trucker is said to be a misogynist, but misogyny is far more ancient than feminism.  Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the church shooter was angry at any women other than his wife.

In the case of Palmer, there may be an indirect connection, if it turns out that he was influenced by the angry, violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights movement. As I pointed out in my post on Palmer, many in the MRM have made a martyr out of Thomas Ball, who committed suicide on the steps of a courthouse, leaving behind an manifesto that urged men to literally burn down police stations — and courthouses. It is certainly conceivable that Palmer’s courthouse rampage was inspired by this sort of rhetoric.

But to blame feminism for any of this is ass-backwards. Feminism is a response to misogyny, not its cause. To blame feminism for violence against women is a bit like blaming Jews for provoking the Holocaust. (Forgive me, Godwin; it was the clearest analogy.)

Price ends his piece by urging women to, in effect, shut up and fix him a sandwich:

Women’s best bet for security is not in denouncing and fighting men, as feminists would have it, but in cooperating with them and taking on their proper role.

Then he ends with a weird coda suggesting that feminists should be locked up for having the temerity to speak up in the first place:

The United States will once again be a righteous society only when feminists are jailed for interfering with families, and their academic apologists are removed by security from their jobs in taxpayer-funded educational institutions. This would be the most humane course of action to take. Far more humane, in fact, than provoking men and women to physically attack one another, as feminists would have it today so that they can unleash state agents on confused and demoralized families.

I didn’t have the stomach to read all of the comments responding to Price’s argument, such as it is. But here are some highlights – lowlights, really – of the highly upvoted comments I did read.

The ironically named Anti Idiocy seconds Price’s basic argument:

Anger against feminism has been building for years. As the men’s rights movement has gained momentum, feminists and their lackeys have doubled down and become more virulent in their anti-male hatred and propaganda. Women today are becoming more and more nasty on an interpersonal basis, and they are doing so more frequently. A breakpoint will come. It will probably take a catalyst; another severe economic downturn might do it. But it will come. Feminists and their pet femboys will push things until it does.

Wait. If the Men’s Rights movement is, in effect, provoking feminists to get more feministy, then wouldn’t (by Price’s logic) the allegedly increased violence be the fault of the MRAs?

Rod worries that in the case of a real gender war, men might actually lose – all because of those darned “white knights” and their reluctance to beat up the ladies:

I’m afraid that if it ever came down to a real physical war between the sexes, men would unfortunately lose. There are too many men who can’t stand the sight of men harming women, and would immediately step in to save them. Perhaps nature instilled in us a visceral reaction to women’s suffering, making us want to step in and help, and at one time in the history of our species, that reaction was no doubt a salutary thing. Now it just works against us.

Antiphon, meanwhile, blames it all on the Jews. Or, more specifically, the Jewesses, who apparently control the feminist movement in the same way that their husbands control the banks.

Needless to say, this being The Spearhead, Antiphon’s comment has three times as many upvotes as downvotes. Apparently, the only thing worse than a feminist is a Jewish feminist.

I guess my Nazi analogy earlier in this post wasn’t so out of place after all.

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,503 other followers

%d bloggers like this: