Category Archives: grandiosity
Ferdinand Bardamu Caught Monologuing Again
“You don’t know the power of the dark side!”
Is there something about being an MRA that makes you want to monologue like a cartoon supervillain?
Over on In Mala Fide, our dear friend Ferdinand Bardamu has responded in an amusingly monologuey manner to Arthur Goldwag’s followup to his earlier article for the Southern Poverty Law Center on the Men’s Rights movement. Bardamu whips himself into a bit of a lather, describing “Snerdling and his compadres” – for some reason he’s decided to call Goldwag “Snerdling” – as the
vanguards of a dying institution, desperately jamming their thumbs in the dike to keep the truth from drowning them. They’re on the losing side of history. Their shrieks are the shrieks of the dying and damned.
Their shrieks?
Oh, but there’s more. This earlier comment in Bardamu’s post is sort of a classic in the “implied threat” genre so beloved by MRAs like Paul Elam and his gang:
You’ve bitten off far more than you can chew here. You’ve antagonized the fastest-growing and most relevant movement/entity in America and the Western world. With every sling and arrow, the manosphere swells in size, a voice for the most powerful and deadliest force on Earth — the disenfranchised young man.
Emphasis mine.
Amazingly, in the very next paragraph, Bardamu waxes indignant that Goldwag had the gall to refer to “threat[s], overt or implicit, of violence” from MRAs. Bardamu responds with a big, insincere “who, me?”
I’ve made threats of violence? Leftists always pull this game — they never give specific examples … .
You want a specific example? LOOK AT WHAT YOU JUST WROTE IN YOUR LAST FUCKING PARAGRAPH. That bit about Goldwag allegedly antagonizing “the most powerful and deadliest force on Earth — the disenfranchised young man?” That is an implicit threat of violence. It’s kind of hard to miss.
You want to see more specific examples of threats from MRAs? I’ve got post after post full of them.
Heck, he doesn’t even need to look at Man Boobz. All he needs to do is to look at the comments on his own post, starting with the very first one:
SPLC: Thanks for kicking the sleeping dog,that dog needed to learn to bite rather than sleep.
Then he can scroll down the page for this more explicit threat from Brigadon:
I prefer practicing real, unmistakable violence.
Further down the page, in response to a feminist who has stopped by to call the IMF regulars on some of their bullshit, Brigadon elaborates further:
I have called it a ‘war’ before, and I will again. It is not a cold war, it is a hot war, with constant and socially-approved violence against men. The only way to fight a hot war is with violence. …
So, maybe it sounds like a call for violence, but at this point any woman that calls herself a ‘feminist’, regardless of their protests that they are ‘not like those other ones’ Is a criminal, a traitor to their species, their culture, their honor, their family, their nation, their gender, and their world. There is only one punishment that fits a traitor.
How dare Goldwag suggest that MRAs ever threaten violence!
Apollo, meanwhile, somehow manages to overlook the threatening language in Bardamu’s post and suggests that the real threatmongers are … you and me:
[T]he Internet is full of people making violent threats. … Yet in the Manosphere, where I think real injustices are being brought to light, and people surely have a right to anger, you will NOT see the threats of violence that are so very common in so many other places of the Internet. When such a violent comment does pop up in the Manosphere, it is usually very quickly squashed by mods. And any such comments stand out simply because of how rare they are.
Yet one visit to Manboob, or any other Feminist site, and you will be able to quickly be able to find threats of violence. The blatant hypocrisy here is just sickening
[Citation Needed]
Also, though this is a whole other kettle of beans, the fact that Goldwag is Jewish seems to have inspired a number of the anti-Semites in the In Mala Fide crowd to crawl out from under their rocks – one of them being our old pal JeremiahMRA, who weighs in with a comment calling Goldwag a “creepy Jew,” in two words combining anti-Semitism with “creep shaming,” which in the weird world of the manosphere is the most hateful kind of hate ever perpetrated upon any mortal soul. (Goldwag offers a brief but pointed response to Bardamu’s post, and to the anti-Semitism, on his own blog.)
Is any of this really surprising on a blog whose name means “In Bad Faith?”
Someone posted this in the comments a while ago, and I couldn’t help but think of it as I wrote this post:
Yes, MRAs, you ARE the baddies.
Seen one feminist, seen them all.
Feminists are all exactly the same.
So our dear friend Fidelbogen, self-declared Counter-Feminist Agent of Change and the wannabe philosopher-king of the Men’s Rights movement, has written an exceedingly dull and verbose post for A Voice for Men rehashing the whole Agent-Orange-RadFemHub-thing. Now, it’s a lovely, slightly too-hot Sunday afternoon here at Man Boobz headquarters, so naturally I didn’t do much more than lightly skim the whole thing. But I did notice this interesting little “argument” part way through.
Apparently Fidelbogen has concluded that it’s perfectly fine for critics of feminism to completely ignore the ideas of most feminists and focus only on the dogmas of the most radical of RadFems:
We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only “fringe radicals” or “extremists”, and that we mustn’t judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn’t we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the moderate feminists really add up to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by mellowness and grooviness — by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?
That weird choice of alternatives at the end is pretty much a textbook example of a “false dichotomy.” You would think that someone with a brain as big as Fidelbogen’s would be able to recognize and avoid such an elementary logical fallacy.
Fidelbogen continues:
Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don’t make history. And which is more, I’ve got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: “Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem.”
Dude, “projection” ain’t just a river in Egypt.
Ferdinand Bardamu to fat chicks: don’t make me want you!
Syndrome, the king of monologuing.
As you may be aware, Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide has taken a brave and bold stance against “fat chicks.” That in itself is not very surprising, or interesting, really. But in a recent post he offers a take on the fat acceptance movement that betrays an strange bit of … paranoia, maybe?
After a few uninspired swipes at “fat-assed she-beasts and big-titted blubberboys” and the “femilosers” on Tumblr who recently batted around an anti-“fat chick” post from his blog, he makes this strange pronouncement:
These histrionic little girls are full of it. They don’t want fat acceptance — they want to FORCE men to be attracted to their endless rolls of fat and their cheesy crotch creases. Fortunately, their emotional delicateness will ensure that they will fail. We are the Patriarchs, and we’re coming to take back what’s ours. Beware.
Ferdy, don’t worry. The fat chicks of the world aren’t going to FORCE you to lust after them, and wouldn’t even if they could. I haven’t conducted a poll or anything, but I’m fairly certain that the fat women of the world are just fine with you not being attracted to them. Heck, I’m pretty sure most skinny women would prefer that you not be attracted to them either. They really don’t want your lucky charms.
Also, the weird little bit at the end there, the thing about “coming to take back what’s ours?” In The Incredibles, they called that “monologuing.” I don’t know quite what motivates so many manopshereians to want to talk like comic book supervillains. But it is sort of adorable.
Elam: Take My Male Privilege, Please!
Paul Elam, head ranter at A Voice for Men, has a new video out called “You want privilege? You got it!” The thesis: if women really did have the so-called privileges that men have, they’d hate it and want men to take them all back. Because all of these so-called privileges are really giant burdens. Or, as Elam puts it, somewhat more melodramatically, these privileges have “begun to more resemble an anchor around your neck than the helm of a great ship that everyone tells you that you are captaining.”
Here’s the video.
Well, all right, that’s not really Paul Elam. But that little clip does capture pretty well the tone of his latest post, which is indeed about how male privilege is really a terrible burden.
I mean, this is his opener:
I swear by everything holy that the next time I hear some fembot caterwaul about “male privilege,” I am going to find something to break, turn it into shards, and drag the broken pieces across my chest just to distract me from the pain of their increasing stupidity. Just picture me like Martin Sheen, collapsed in a heap of bloody, tearful insanity on the floor of a cheap hotel in Saigon.
Heck, compared to that, Mr. McDuck’s reaction to the news about his “ice cream” was, if anything, rather restrained.
The rest of Elam’s post is, as is typical for him, a rather trite recitation of a number of standard Men’s Rights talking points about male “disposability” written in some of the most ridiculously overblown prose ever seen outside of an Ayn Rand novel.
Elam complains that he hasn’t seen much benefit from his privileges:
Mind you I still don’t know what that privilege is. One time when I was young and very poor I was late on my light bill. I showed the electric company my balls, but they cut my power off anyway. …
Yeah, as someone who’s also had his power cut off, I’m pretty sure they do that with everyone. I’m also pretty sure that no feminist has ever or will ever argue that male privilege means you won’t get your power cut off for nonpayment.
Here’s Elam addressing women as if they’ve traded place with men:
With your privilege comes the right to work on crab boats, drive trucks, work on electric lines, walk into burning buildings and sink into the bowels of the earth digging out coal and other things people find useful.
Apparently having greater occupational choices is scary and bad.
When a ship goes down, or any other life threatening disaster strikes, you have two choices. Be a real woman and die, or treat your life like it has value and have the world shit on you as a coward who refused to perish on cue. There is also the possibility of third option, either die from the disaster so that men can live, or have another woman blow a fucking hole in your face with a pistol because you tried to save yourself.
Yeah, I believe we may have addressed this earlier. Oh, but there’s more:
Like noticing the emperor has no clothes, it may hit you one day when you decide not to offer your seat to a man; when the stares at you from all around seem to come down people’s noses. …
You must learn not to say a word. Not to anyone else, not even to yourself. You must learn to see flames, coal dust, icy saltwater, death and sacrifice for the trappings of power that the world around you thinks them to be.
Says a dude typing out his manifestos on an expensive laptop he conned nagged his followers into buying for him.
And you must be willing to hang your head in shame over that power, even as the world chews you up, spits you out, and gets ready to take its turn with your daughter.
Elam’s rousing conclusion:
So, that is it, ladies. You want my privilege, it is yours. I will gladly hand it over to you this very minute. I am just waiting for you to meet the pre-requisites of disposibilty and an utter lack of self-value. I am waiting for you to woman up to the job, take off your fucking make up and be ready to bleed, blah blah blah look at me I’m mad!
I paraphrased a little at the end there. But, yes, the world champion at seeing male “disposability” everywhere did in fact misspell the word “disposability.” That was all him. And so, believe it or not, is the following:
I, like a Jew gone weary of being called a chosen one, am completely ready for anyone else, and in particular, you, to be chosen.
Personally, I have had about all the privilege I can stand.
Yep. He went there.
Also, I don’t know if you all knew this, but when women serve in the military these days it’s “like a day care camp for them.”
Also, not to pat myself on the back or anything, but my headline is much better than his. Maybe he should get me to write all the headlines on A Voice for Angry Duck Plutocrats Men.
Discuss.
Civilization and its Discontented Ladies
If it weren't for us men, we'd all still be living like this.
Oh, you ladies! Apparently, if you were left to your own devices, we’d all still be living in caves. The dude at The Black Pill, the blog formerly known as Omega Virgin Revolt, explains the grave danger that uncontrolled ladieness poses to civilization. (The thing, not the computer game.)
What is civilization? There are many definitions of “civilization”, but IMO the most important definition of civilization is controlling female behavior, all of which acts against civilization. Civilization was created as soon as ways of controlling female behavior were developed. Before civilization men had to constantly deal with female behavior so they never had the time to develop science, technology, etc. When female behavior was put under control, then men didn’t have to spend so much time worry about women. Men could spend time inventing agriculture and later other forms of science and technology. Keeping women and their destructive behavior under control is the key to civilization.
Seriously. If we dudes hadn’t clamped down on your lady behavior, we’d be fucked. Dudes like Mr. Black Pill would be out there trying their best to build up civilization by posting lady-hating screeds on the internet and not having sex with anyone, and you gals would be undermining all their hard work by doing terrible lady things like, say, working in government, doing scientific research, teaching filmmaking, writing books, making interesting jewelry, working as EMTs, being Secretary of State, and writing Supernatural fanfic. Wait, that’s already happening. Uh oh. Civilization is in danger!
And of course evil feminists are at the heart of the Lady Plot Against Civilization.
So much of feminism is a screed against civilization, science, and technology. Feminists have called Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica a rape manual. Feminists hate the technology industry and have attacked technology in general as male rape of the natural world and/or the enforcement of patriarchy over nature. Feminists know unconciously that civilization is the greatest threat to the power of women. Civilization was developed by men, not women. Women are only along for the ride because sex and babies can’t happen without them (for now). Every advancement in science and technology is a threat to women. Every advancement in science and technology brings up a step closer to freeing men from needing women.
So watch it, ladies. As soon as we work out this whole having babies without ladies thing, your days are numbered! Then all we’ll need to do is to figure out how to get all the dudes in the world who actually like and respect women and think of them as fellow human beings to abandon them for sex robots. Piece of cake.
Get in mah belly, Heartiste!
Apparently the Heartiste Formerly Known as Roissy has discovered our little blog:
Why do normal people feel a natural disgust for feminists and manginas? Make no mistake, normal women are as repulsed as normal men are by shrieking feminists and wimpy manboy pudgeballs. In public, well-adjusted people may mouth the PC platitudes that feminists and doughboys relentlessly cudgel into squishy groupthink minds, but in private the cool people generally shun the orc hordes and leave them to mingle with their own emotionally and often physically disfigured kind. This social outcast status is what fuels their eternal hatred for truth and beauty.
Uh oh! I guess he’s not a fan.
The 800 pound bulldyke in the room that “””progressives””” of all stripes don’t want you to notice is that a lot of their radical regressivist shock troopers are comprised of biologically faulty men and women who are at the extremes of effeminacy and masculinization respectively. If it came to be widely understood and socially acceptable to acknowledge that, due to hormonal imbalance, genetic glitches, or gross environmental insult, 90% of radical femcunts are lesbians or manjawed atrocities, and 90% of manboobs are closet cases or soft, pillowy micropeens, the general population would be less likely to seriously entertain their insipid drivel.
U mad, bro?
Think about the revulsion you feel when you see a grossly obese person. It’s instinctive, like the way you would recoil from a pile of dog shit.
Dude, I don’t know if you know this, but most Americans are, you know, fat. WE ARE LEGION!
Your typical outrage feminist and limp-wristed manboob flirts dangerously close to the monster threshold. Humans recoil from manjawed, mustachioed, beady-eyed, actively aggressive women and chipmunk-cheeked, bitch tittied, curvaceously plush, passive-aggressive men as if they were the human equivalent of dog shit.
This has got to be the most ridiculously verbose version of “yeah, well, you’re a fatty” I’ve ever seen.
Oh, but it seems like we’re all about to get our big comeuppance:
The reflexive indulgence granted the monsters among us has lost its justification. Too many bleeding wounds from too many overzealous bites has rattled the slumber of the sleepers. A greater force than any sophistic monster in the world is about to bite back, viciously, lethally. Truth, as it always does, will claim ultimate victory.
Yeah, except that I’m pretty sure that “I hate you, you fat fatty” isn’t a Truth that matters a lot to anyone but you and your maladjusted fanboys.
Also, dude, you call yourself “Heartiste.” There is literally nothing more dopey than that.
Men’s Rights: There’s an app for that?
I’m sorry, but this is just hilarious:
That’s right, guys. That’s what you need. An app. Now you’ll be able to stop in the middle of a conversation and say, excuse me, but my phone has some crucial information that will prove to you my contention that men are the most oppressed creatures on planet earth. Excuse me while I fetch some random dubious factoid about false rape accusations that some dude found on some other dude’s blog and posted on Reddit. Wait, where are you going?
Yeah, it’s not that you guys are wrong about pretty much everything. It’s not that the vast majority of the tiny number of people who’ve even heard of your movement think you’re a joke. The only thing holding back the inevitable victory of the Men’s Rights movement is that you don’t have an app yet! Quick, someone, get on it! As soon as you recover from that Million MRA March on Washington you had last Sunday to protest the sinking of the Titanic. Oh, wait. That didn’t happen.
A Voice for Men takes the last gravy train to Clicheville
Over on A Voice for Men, Paul Elam is knocking the clichés out of the park! In a post about … oh, something about feminists being about to get their big comeuppance, who the fuck cares, all his posts are pretty much the same at this point, he explains how the mean feminists’
gravy train is about to derail, and that right quickly. One set of wheels is already off the track. … the choo choo is hittin’ poo poo.
That’s right, the metaphorical feminist gravy train is metaphorically derailing into a metaphorical mountain of metaphorical poop.
After a few more paragraphs of this poopery, Elam offers up a bit of inspiration for his troops:
[T]he times they are a changing. The worm is turning and lies are burning. Their whole house of cards is about to go up in a puff. What you are seeing is just the desperation that comes with them waking up to it.
Believe me, it does my heart good. Just to see their frantic scrambling to point the finger at me and my brothers, while they comically pretend our sisters aren’t standing right next to us, every time one more their lies bites the dust, is an absolute highlight in my day.
Must be time to crank up the action around here.
And then he really kicks it into high gear:
Keep your eye on the ball, boys. Put the pedal to the metal. Wake up and smell the coffee, feminists, because the shoe is on the other foot now! We’re burning the candle at both ends — because when the going gets tough the tough get going. What goes around comes around. Feminists and manginas, you made your bed, now you’re going to have to lie in it. The tide’s beginning to turn, all you gender ideologues and your lackeys at the SPLC, and it looks like there’s a new sheriff in town! Remember, nice guys finish last. And it ain’t over till the fat lady sings!
Ok, that’s not really Elam any more. That’s just a bunch of random clichés borrowed from Steve’s Cliché List, with some references to feminists and manginas and the Southern Poverty Law Center shoved in here and there.
Huh. I think I just figured out how Elam writes his posts.
EDITED TO ADD: For whatever reason, this post is no longer up at AVFM; here’s the Google cache version. Read the comments there too; quite a little shitstorm going on there.
All you need is love. Also, misogyny, and a side order of homophobia.
Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
Revver started things off with this lovely thought:
Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.
How easily they make themselves look like fools.
Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:
Women judge men by pre-selection.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
Men’s Rights Redditors Indignant That World Notices They Are Assholes
Run, condom, run! Don't let her catch you!
Oh, boy. So that almost certainly imaginary “dude punching his spermjacking girlfriend” story in the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day? The one that inspired all those Men’s Rights Redditors to totally defend the (alleged) puncher?
Well, now Jezebel has weighed in on the subject as well. Erin Gloria Ryan raises a few questions about ineedhelpnow1234’s implausible tale, and about the dudes who not only believed it but got all enraged at the imaginary punched girlfriend:
Where does this legend of the sperm swiping madwoman come from? And why won’t it die? Why are men’s rights activists so willing to believe that in a world practically dripping with sperm, women specifically want theirs so they can be pregnant and possibly farty for 9 months, stretch their skin out, and go through childbirth in order to control the men in their lives?
Apparently, at least one Men’s Rights Redditor is a reader of Jezebel, because he went and posted a link, explaining that
I normally try to stay neutral as best I can in matters relating to the men’s rights/feminism debate, but this has me grinding my teeth.
So this is what feminists think about one of our most pressing issues.
Presumably he is referring to the extremely pressing issue of girlfriends who flee the bedroom after sex, clutching used condoms and shouting that “I’m finally going to get the baby I deserve,” and how they totally deserve to be punched in the stomach so hard it leaves a bruise.
The discussion inspired this exchange:
Oh, and this one, too:
YadaYadaYada2 certainly has a flair for the dramatic, doesn’t he?
Men’s Rights Activists, so emotional!
EDITED TO ADD: I sort of started arguing with the regulars in the comments there, and Glarfugus set me straight on the nature of my sins against the Men’s Rights subreddit:
You quoted accurately, the problem lies where you quote perfectly sound posts and talk about them like they’re ridiculous. You address punching a woman in the stomach as though it’s something of high crime. I’m not saying it’s something that’s right, but punching someone in the stomach in a panicked situation where you have a risk of being fucked by the court system for the next 18 years? Reasonable action.
I put my favorite part in bold. The stuff about punching women is pretty special too.
