Category Archives: misogyny
Angry Harry: Violence is justified, but don’t blame us for it.
Anyone who has spent much time at all on MRA message boards knows that they tend to be littered with vague and ominous “predictions” of an inevitable violent backlash of men driven to fury by our supposed feminist overlords; some of these predictions are delivered with such obvious relish that they seem little more than justifications in advance for future murderous rampages on the part of people not too far distant in their ideology from Anders Breivik.
Of course, most of those making such predictions-cum-threats don’t want to actually face any culpability when their bullshit gets real. Fear not, MRA prognosticators, for one prominent British MRA has come up with what he sees as a brilliant way for MRAs to avoid getting implicated in future terrorists attacks. According to longtime MRA blogger Angry Harry we shouldn’t blame violence on the beliefs of right-wing terrorists – we should instead blame it on the people they’re mad at.
Angry Harry uses this bit of sophistry to explain away any culpability the right seems to have in the Norway massacre:
The recent massacre by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway is being portrayed by the left-wing media (such as the BBC) as being motivated by extreme right-wing groups – the idea, as ever, being to demonise and, hence, to intimidate, as much as possible, anybody who does not support their malicious self-serving agenda.
But if you look more closely at the evidence, it is quite clear that, if anything, it was the various machinations and rhetoric engaged in by the deceitful LEFT that infuriated this man. …
Quite simply, it is the Left, not the Right, who are the more to blame for this incident.
Ingenious. Of course, this logic only really works if you agree with the extremist ideology of the terrorist or murderer in question. Let’s apply Angry Harry’s approach to a historical example that also involved extremism and murder on a large scale:
Hitler hated Jews. Hitler killed Jews. Therefore, according to Angry Harry’s logic, we should blame the Jews for getting him so mad in the first place.
Is that unfair? Given that Breivik is a mass murderer with many ideas strikingly similar to those of Hitler, I think not. The logic is the same, whatever the body count.
Apparently Harry thinks his bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand will absolve MRAs when, not if, the violence comes:
MRAs need to get to grips with this type of situation because it won’t be long before they are being blamed for something or other – perhaps a family court judge being murdered.
Why might this be a particularly sensitive issue for Harry? Perhaps because in another posting of his, he offered a justification for doing just that — murdering family court justices and those involved in enforcing their decisions.
In a post with the blunt title “Why Violence Is Often Justified,” Harry put it this way:
[A]nybody who takes away a man’s children and/or his home deserves little sympathy if they suffer significant retribution.
I suppose that for some men, arguing their case in court is a reasonable option, but for many men – particularly the less intelligent, the less wealthy, the less articulate and/or the less able they are to deal with officialdom – such an option is going to get them nowhere. And so, in my view, violence is not only understandable and predictable, but also morally quite justifiable.
To put it bluntly: If someone is taking away your home and your children then I think that you are quite justified in behaving violently towards them.
In his recent posting on Breivik, Harry offered an obligatory comment suggesting that, if course, he wasn’t actually justifying the Norwegian’s actions – oh, no! – even though the logic of his argument seems designed to do just that. Then he went on to make some predictions about what the future holds for his leftist and feminist enemies:
I think that it is fairly obvious to my most excellent readers that the war against the Left is hotting up. …
In fact, what I can never seem to understand is why it is taking so long for people – particularly for men – to rise up against the Left, given its appalling attitude and behaviour over the past two decades.
In combination with the feminists, the leftists have done their very best – with much success over here in Europe – to break up our countries, our cultures and our families, while at the same time heaping hatred upon hatred on to their very own people!
I just cannot understand how they have gotten away with this for so long.
You cannot go round continuing to display rigid intolerance and horrendous injustice against millions of men in your very own country and not expect some kind of violent backlash from them.
And matters are definitely going to get much worse.
He ends with a weasel-worded half-endorsement of this “violent backlash.”
The war against the Left will just continue escalating and, at some stage, with any luck, the leftists and the feminists will be defeated without too much carnage.
Well, that’s reassuring. Harry doesn’t want there to be “too much carnage.”
Which naturally leads to the question: just what does Harry regard as the right amount of carnage?
I hope we never have to find out.
America: Land of Soulless Hamster Wusses
Street harassment: The engine of civilization
Here’s a little screed, originally from happierabroad.com, that’s been making the rounds of the manosphere lately. The author, anonymous, describes himself as “an Arab, who has lived and travelled all over the world and is a keen observer of society and people.” The aim of his writing? To let those of us in the West know just how disappointed he is with all of us. Especially the wussies and bitches.
Meeting Westerners, one of the things I noticed was how insecure and de-masculinized they seemed to me; compared to myself and the male-dominated, testosterone-driven culture of my land.
Using my own keen sense of observation, I have noticed just an eensy weensy bit of misogyny in his writings. You may notice it as well.
On the internet, most Americans seemed to act like little bitches, little girls brought up in a Feminist perversion of nature.
Well, I don’t know about that whole “perversion of nature” thing, but I have to say the first half of that sentence is pretty spot-on.
It was only after coming to the U.S. and studying here that all the pieces came together – a fascinating look at a dysfunctional man-hating civilization that is the polar opposite of my own culture, and will eventually lead to the collapse of Western civilization.
Uh oh.
Where I come from, men walk proud and rule the streets and testosterone runs in the air; and strong patriarchal foundations of family and the father as ruler of the household. Men harass and aggressively follow women – it is unapologetically a man’s world.
That’s what makes a civilization great: the harassment of women.
Just remember this, men, when you lean out of your car window to yell “Nice ass………WHORE!!!!!!!!!” at passing joggers of the female persuasion, you’re doing your bit to uphold our most noble traditions and help to fend off the forces of darkness.
In the U.S., Feminism has so corrupted the society to it’s core, damaged the very concept of family and the family unit and the father’s role, that society as a whole is like some bizarre alien planet – where men are bland, lack personality, are anti-social, gossipy, soul-less. Men are weak and insecure deep inside … women have all the power and American men seem clueless as to how bizarre the male-female dynamic has become.
In the workplace, Americans are Automatons, like soul-less hamsters on a wheel. Fake conversations, no intellectualism, no interest in other countries, peoples, or history.
Do soul-less hamsters act differently than soulful ones? How can you tell the difference? Do the ones without souls poop more?
Also, terrible social and people skills – at least in California. Most people communicate via twitter and Facebook, even though most of the people on their Facebook live in the same city and a phone call away.
Really? You’re complaining about Facebook? Sorry, that’s just lazy and trite. You’re like the Dane Cook of reactionary misogynist cultural critics.
People are vacuous, shallow, superficial, suggestible. Men raised here are fake, insecure, lack personality, they seem to have “issues.” Women are confused and messed up ..
Wait, what’s that? Is that the dreaded MRA two-period punctuation mark? NOT AGAIN!
Oops. He’s still talking:
You let your women take control, and your society will unravel- it will make your men weak, and destroy your society to it’s core. The patriarchy is a male conceived and enforced institution that was imposed on females, because men, and only men understand well the long-term impacts of civilization and harnessing male energies into productive family units and a stable society …. civilization itself is a result of patriarchy.
You know, if you’re really into harnessing your male energies, you can buy the necessary equipment right here!
To sum if up, it seems to be that the whole country is phitzoprhenic [sic], like a Jekyll and Hyde monstrosity. There is no community, no camaredie, no soul, men and women are willing servants to their corporate masters and slaves to materialism and superficiality; and incredibly conformist, reserved, and politically correct to the point of totalitinarism.
“Conformist?” So now he’s turned into a high school goth?
Come on, dude, if you want to be a social critic, you’re going to need to work a little harder than that. Take a tip or two from this, er, duck:
Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party 3: In God’s Hand
It’s time once again for another episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Party Time Video. Today, the tiny bunny and small dog present a little something taken from the blog Traditionalist Christianity. It’s taken from a discussion of how hard it is to find a good woman in this world, since all women are whores. (I’m paraphrasing.) You will find the full quote below.
The whole thing is just an excuse for a masturbation joke. (Or is it a joke?)
Also, I’m aware of the typo in the video. It would cost a couple of bucks to re-edit and fix this. I would rather have that money for myself.
The quote (from here):
There aren’t enough quality women to go around, even outside of this country.
When I was seeking a wife, I’d already decided that if I didn’t find a decent woman, I’d just live a celibate life, and put it in God’s hand.
Sometimes this shit just writes itself.
Batmen’s Rights
I didn't know they carried books like that in the library.
There are many things that are annoying, obviously, about Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit. One thing that isn’t: a relatively new commenter there by the name of BatmensBegins, a fellow who knows how to get right to the heart of any argument. Provided that heart is him, Batman.
A few of his recent comments will give you an idea of his perspicacity.
In a discussion of a New Zealand business lobbyist sacked for saying that women get paid less because they menstruate:
This is why the best form of labor is me, Batman. Batman don’t menstruate. Batman is driven by a psychopathic desire for vengeance and unresolved Oedipal feelings. Batman’s the perfect man. Batman men-struates.
Batman.
In a discussion of an article about prominent men recently accused of rape:
[T]here’s one blind spot in the article: what of the billionaire playboys who have lost their fathers and now fight crime dressed as a bat? Not that I’m one myself, mind you. But if you think about it, they’re the real victims here.
In a discussion of women being, you know, evil goldigging whores:
As Batman, I have many hysterical biddies seeking to con me out of my hard-earned money. Women such as Grass Girl, Girl Joker and Latex Ass. Thankfully, I’ve built up a resistance to their feminine wiles and devious behavior. I can’t even get an erection anymore.
I would just like to salute BatmensBegins for his single-minded devotion to bringing up the important topic of Batman whenever and wherever he posts.
Also, if you’re a Redditor, I highly recommend that you check out a fledgling subreddit called r/againstmensrights. It’s not actually against men’s rights, per se, just the army of douchebags who make up the Men’s Rights Movement as we know it today. It hasn’t quite hit critical mass yet in terms of comments or subscribers, but it’s a handy place to find out about the latest bits of egregious misogyny being upvoted elsewhere on Reddit.
All the Spinster Ladies
How spinster ladies try to distract themselves from their deep loneliness
Oh, you ladies. Getting jobs! Hiring other ladies! Demanding to be paid the same as men! You don’t realize just how short-sighted these strategies really are.
Luckily, you’ve got Sgt_Sweetness on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit to explain just where you went wrong.
[W]omen are slowly but surely becoming in charge of the work place. They dominate the HR Department of almost all companies. Especially large corporations. I’ve have never met a male HR person before and I am no young person anymore. This allows for women to decide who gets hired and fired. Do you know what pattern I see though? More and more women being chosen over men simply because women like to hire women over men. …
So this creates a shift in society towards women having more jobs than men. Better paying jobs too.
Ladies! With jobs! Oh noes! Damn those HR ladies, who totally and completely run the workplace, and never, say, just handle the paperwork when some dude higher up on the corporate ladder decides to hire someone!
But these ladies will get their comeuppance, for sure. For, you see:
Women while keeping their thin veneer of Feminist ideals, still want the ideal American family. They yearn to quit their jobs and marry a man who is handsome, funny, and makes more money than she does. …
So what we have hear is a situation: Women are taking more jobs than men and are starting to make more than men. But they want to have a partner who earns more than they do.
Uh oh.
What we have hear is a ticking time bomb. I’ve seen its effects first hand too. I know of 10 different women who are college graduates and have decent jobs. They are also desperately single. Like talks to their cats lonely.
Huh. I’m not sure where he’s going with this whole “talks to cats” thing. I mean, I talk to my cat. I think it’s only when the cat starts talking back to you you’ve got to worry, because then either you’ve just swallowed a handful of peyote buttons, or cats, who could speak all along, have just launched their secret plans to take over the world.
That aside, back to that ticking timebomb and those lonely, lonely women:
Nothing wrong with them: they are in shape, look good, nice personality, and make good money. But they won’t date down, as it were. I tried to set them up on some dates, but they would rather die inside from loneliness than date someone who they view is beneath them.
Just wait until this little problem becomes widespread. Because this is going to cause a lot of spinsters.
Bad news for the ladies, I guess. Good news for cats, though. Their supply of spinsters is going to go through the roof!
MRA Peter Nolan on Anders Breivik: “In different times … he would be called a hero.”
The work of a "hero?"
Some in the manosphere have been quick to label mass murderer Anders Breivik a “madman,” trying their best to pretend that his noxious misogynist ideology bears no resemblance to their own. Others, while endorsing at least some of his ideas, have distanced themselves from his actions.
As for MRA loose cannon Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c), well, I’ll just let him explain himself. In a comment on The Spearhead, which naturally earned him multiple upvotes from the assembled mob, the man with the strangely punctuated name offered this take [LINK FIXED] on the killer:
Anders Breivik sees himself as a soldier who is fighting for a worthy cause. That cause being his country. Women and leftists then make him out to be “insane” and are looking for “who is to blame”. Well they might start looking in the mirror. The most pervasive element of western civilization today is its hatred of men and all things male. There is a particularly strong hatred of fathers and husbands. I know. I used to be a father and a husband. I have never experienced hatred in my life as vehement as by women in divorce.
And then the justifications began:
It is only natural and normal that some men decide to take matters into their own hands at all the hatred spewed at them and their marginalization. Men often see that some things are worth fighting for. Men often then take action to fight for what they believe in.
Anders Breivik is not crazy. He’s as rational as the next man. He sees that his country is being destroyed. He sees that the people responsible for that destruction are the left of politics. And he would be correct. He took action to stop what he believes is the destruction of his country.
Followed by a smug told-you-so:
I have been telling women for three years now that hatred of men in general and fathers in particular is going to see men killing a lot of women and children. Well? We just saw 76.
Of course, when Nolan refers to “telling women” that angry men will erupt in violence, what he means is “offering guys on The Spearhead specific tips on how exactly to kill innocent people.”
I’m not going to repost the vile suggestions he set forth in a now notorious Spearhead comment some months back, but I will note that they included handy tips on how to efficiently kill police officers, as well as specific advice on the best ways to take out large numbers of people in “malls … girls schools, police stations, guvment buildings. Full of women and manginas.” He ended the comment with a not-terribly-convincing attempt at plausible deniability:
Do any of you here realise just how easy it is to ANY of these things? I am not recommending them or even condining them. But if a man got into the frame of mind of Sodini and was actually SMART about it. There are PLENTY of ways he could attack women and manginas and their cop protectors with NO CHANCE AT ALL OF BEING CAUGHT as long as he kept his mouth shut.
Naturally, this comment got dozens of upvotes from the Spearhead regulars.
In a followup comment on The Spearhead last night, Nolan mocked another commenter for offering words of sympathy to the “innocent victims.” That last phrase seemed to send him into a fury:
Those who were killed were not “innocent victims” in the main. Anders Breivik is as sane as the next man. …
This was an act of war and he considers himself a soldier. In different times, as in WW II, he would be called a hero.
The people he killed were the children of those who had betrayed him and his fellow norwegians. I would put forward the opinion that the political leaders are responsible for the war on men and the destruction of the families of men. What could be more “an eye for an eye” than to kill the children of those who were so willing to destroy mens families and destroy the homeland of men?
In killing children of those who are betraying men? He is sending a very clear message.
“You may think you are protected by your police and your security…..but we can find your children…and you can not protect them except by locking them into a secure area.”
He then went on to make what I think can only be called a veiled threat towards Predident Obama’s daughters; I won’t repeat it here.
Then back to the “innocent children” remark:
These “innocent victims” of whom you speak are the children of those who are criminals. And since Anders Breivik could not get to the REAL criminals he went after the children. Is that such a bad idea? Are they not legitimate targets if the primary targets can not be reached?
This also received multiple upvotes from The Spearhead crowd, and a much smaller number of downvotes. [UPDATE: The post has now started attracting downvotes, but the upvotes still outnumber them considerably.]
Yes, it is truly strange that anyone could possibly associate the MRM with violence in any way.
Guest post for Shakesville
Just a note: I’ve got a guest post up on Shakesville today. It’s basically a condensed and polished version of my recent Breivik posts. (If you decide to comment there, be aware that their comments are much more heavily moderated than the comments here.)
And while I’m doing the link thing, here’s an excellent piece about Breivik’s misogyny: Michelle Goldberg’s Norway Killer’s Hatred of Women on TheDailyBeast. And here is a not-terribly-excellent discussion of the piece on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
NOTE: This post originally linked to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Sociological Images. That piece, it turns out, hasn’t been officially published there yet, so I removed the dead link and a link to a cached version in the comments here. I’ll post the official link when the piece goes up.
Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party 2: Take the Stairs
Today, in episode two of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, we present a brief monologue which we’ve entitled “Take the Stairs,” which was originally posted on Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit. It provides crucial information for men who don’t wish to face false accusations from some office floozy.
The full text of the original posting is below, for those who for some reason don’t appreciate little cartoon animals and/or text-to-speech.
Here’s the original posting:
I avoid interacting with the few female coworkers I have more than what is absolutely required. You never know when you’ll be accused of sexual harassment or even rape. It happens everywhere and I think if you don’t take your precautions it’s only a matter of a short amount of time before it happens to you. Whenever I get involved in a hiring situation I will most likely pick a man over a woman. While a woman may very well be the best candidate that doesn’t count for much when she’s disruptive as everyone has to tip-toe around her.
I used to take the elevator at work, but now I always take the stairs. That’s just a precaution I take against women who could potentially use the situation to make false accusations (you know like ripping her shirt open and running out of the elevator crying in front of a lot of witnesses and then start accusing me of attempting rape). That’s just one of the many things I’ve ended up doing in order to stay safe. All these safety measures add up and I’ve never been falsely accused of anything because they’ve just never had the opportunity to make an accusation that could stick. I’m sure a feminist will come along one day who will just completely pull something out of her ass despite of me having an alibi or witnesses, but that will be easily dismissed I’d hope.
Since a woman’s word trumps a man’s word whenever he doesn’t have an alibi a man just has to be very cautious. Don’t let a woman be around you on her own; better safe than sorry.
Even the Men’s Rights Redditors considered this a tad paranoid.
EDITED TO ADD: Props to this thread on Something Awful, which led me to the Reddit posting.
Do feminists hate mass murderer Anders Breivik … because he’s a white guy?
Another beleaguered white dude.
So here’s the strangest response I’ve seen so far to the massacre in Norway. On Sofiastry, an antifeminist blog that seems to be broadly sympathetic to the “alt” (that is, the “intellectually” racist) right, blogger Sofia complains that feminist bloggers – she cites me and Hugo Schwyzer – are talking about the blatant anti-feminism and misogyny of mass murderer Anders Breivik. “The mendacious corollary they are trying to construct,” she writes, falling into the purple prose Alt-Righters seem drawn to like flies on bullshit, “is that all those opposed to feminist principles must be in league with all sorts of unsavory radicals.”
As I’ve already noted, this is not actually true; Sofia is being, well, mendacious. Yes, I pointed out the similarities between Breivik’s noxious misogynistic beliefs and, well, the noxious misogynistic beliefs of an embarrassingly large number of antifeminists and MRAs. But at no point did I (or, for that matter, Hugo) suggest that these people supported his despicable actions.
After purporting to be shocked – shocked! – that anyone would connect Breivik with the antifeminists of the world, Sofia offers an appreciation of sorts for Breivik’s awful manifesto. Waxing pompous yet again, she writes:
[A]lthough his actions were cruel beyond belief, and committed by a delusional, psychopath driven by his delusions of political grandeur, there is lucidity and sense in much of what he writes. He never seemed to explicitly advocated for a genocide of Muslims within Europe, but superficially claimed that he just wanted to sustain European culture.
So, let’s weigh Breivik’s pros and cons here. CON: He murdered 76 people in cold blood, motivated by a hateful ideology. PRO: He didn’t explicitly call for actual genocide?
Here’s where it gets weird. Really weird.
I feel that Breivik is being tried for more than his cruelty within the feminist community. The fact that he belongs to the privileged group of the white male makes him hate-worthy along with every other privileged white male who might sympathize with his ideology, even if they don’t happen to be psychotic. Breivik exemplifies White Men, even though Osama Bin Laden to the very same liberal ideologues did not represent Every Muslim.
It’s another symptom of our culture that feels it is OK to hold white men to higher standards of political correctness, self-flagellation and martyrdom whilst simultaneously relentlessly berating and mocking them on a cultural level.
Yep, that’s right. We hate Breivik … because he’s a white dude.
She continues on in this vein:
The subtle manifestations of an anti-white male agenda could be expounded upon for some time, even in the sexual sphere. In porn, the genre of cuckolding usually involves black men fucking white women to the dismay of her white husband. Something tells me this wouldn’t be acceptable if a black man were to stand helplessly by while a white male was sexually coercive with a black female.
Somehow we started off talking about mass murder and ended up talking about … cuckolding porn?
What. The. Fuck?
Manosphere blogs: Hey, that Breivik guy has some good ideas!
The "thoughtful" Breivik in custody
Earlier today I wrote about some Men’s Rights Redditors who endorsed the views of Norwegian shooter Anders Breivik – without knowing that the views they were endorsing were his. But others in the manosphere have stepped up to defend Breivik’s manifesto (if not his actions) plainly and explicitly, in full knowledge of just whose ideas they are endorsing.
On In Mala Fide, blogger Ferdinand Bardamu praises Breivik’s “lucidity,” and blames his murderous actions on the evils of a too-liberal society:
[A]nother madman with a sensible manifesto. Another completely rational, intelligent man driven to murderous insanity. And once again, society has zero introspection in regards to its profound ability to turn thoughtful men into lunatic butchers. …
He’s not being sarcastic here. He continues:
That makes HOW many rage killers in the past five years alone? And not just transparent headcases like Jared Loughner or George Sodini, but ordinary men like Pekka-Eric Auvinen or Joe Stack who simply weren’t going to take it anymore. No one bothers to ask WHY all these men suddenly decide to pick up a gun and start shooting people – they’re all written off as crazies. Or the rage killings are blamed on overly permissive gun laws …
Here’s an idea – sick societies produce sick individuals who do sick things. Anders Breivin [sic] murdered nearly a hundred teens (not children, TEENS – they were at a summer camp for young adults) and must pay the price, but the blood of those teens is ultimately on the hands of the society that spat him forth. He is the bastard son of a masochistic, degenerate, rootless world that pisses on its traditions and heritage to elevate perversity, mindless consumerism and ethnic self-hatred to the highest of virtues.
(Bolded text in original.) That final reference to “ethnic self-hatred” seems to be Bardamu’s euphemistic way of complaining that not enough white people are white supremacists.
Then he adds this repulsive final thought on Breivik’s victims:
[S]top acting so fucking shocked that Breivin murdered “children.” As William Rome pointed out, it’s been de rigeur for all of human history for political revolutionaries to kill the heirs of their enemies alongside the enemies themselves, to ensure that the old system would stay dead and buried. … That doesn’t make what he did excusable, but it does make it understandable.
Meanwhile, Chuck of Gucci Little Piggy offers what appears to be a somewhat more restrained, if ultimately more puzzling, defense of Breivik’s manifesto – or at least that portion of the manifesto that Breivik borrowed from the writings of far-right blogger Fjordman.
Chuck complains that Hugo Schwyzer and I are “try[ing] to blame Breivik on MRAs” in our recent posts showing the similarities between Breivik’s ideas and those of many MRAs. Never mind that neither Hugo nor I referred to Breivik as an MRA. I described him as an antifeminist, which is an undeniable fact, whose views are “strikingly similar to many MRAs.” (Emphasis added.) Hugo stated explicitly that he didn’t blame the MRM directly for Breivik’s actions, noting that “[m]ost MRAs – perhaps almost all – reject violence and mass murder as a political tactic.”
Evidently Chuck feels that to even mention the MRM in conjunction with Breivik is some sort of egregious smear, especially since the shooter spent “only” 23 pages of his manifesto writing explicitly about feminism.
Weirdly, after trying to draw a sharp line between Breivik and the MRM, Chuck goes on to apparently endorse Breivik’s (and Fjordman’s) notions about the ways in which feminism “greased the wheels to allow Islam into his country.” The rest of Chuck’s post elaborates on, and seems to fully endorse, Breivik’s/Fjordman’s argument that feminism’s “emasculation of Western men has taken the organic policing mechanism out of the hands of men in society” and thus rendered Western society helpless before the Islamic cultural invaders.
I’ve asked Chuck to clarify if this is indeed what he means to convey in his post. If so, I can only say: If you’re trying to draw a distinction between your ideas and the ideas of a murderous terrorist, you don’t really advance your case by agreeing with the central thrust of these ideas pretty much wholeheartedly.
