Category Archives: misogyny
Warren Farrell on Unemployment, Salesmanship, and Other Things That Are Like Rape, Supposedly
Warren Farrell: “We are still requiring men to be the sexual salespersons but now defining them as rapists when they do it well.”
Warren Farrell, as a sort of “elder statesman” of the Men’s Rights movement, may have gained a sort of weird respectability simply by being around as long as he has, and because he’s published books with major publishers. But the myth of Farrell’s intellectual respectability shatters pretty quickly once one takes a good, honest, and unbiased look at what he has actually written, in The Myth of Male Power and elsewhere.
We’ve already taken a look at some of the strange and troubling things he wrote about rape in that book. Farrell is also fond of rape as a metaphor, and regularly compares things that men endure to rape, as a way of bolstering his overall thesis that it is men, not women, who are the “disposable sex,” and who truly suffer.
Christopher in Oregon: “Nature makes women BUTT UGLY fairly early in life to prevent them from breeding.”
Apparently this is what Christopher of Oregon thinks happens to women when they hit the age of 40.
Time for another visit into the mind of Christopher in Oregon, a confirmed bachelor best known for posting long screeds on his friend MarkyMark’s blog about how ugly and smelly and disgusting women and their various orifices are. Today, his topic is old women, by which he seems to mean all women above the age of 35 or so.
I’m not even going to bother to comment on this one except to say: if you’re a heterosexual man, with an interest in sex, and you actually believe that all women over the age of 40 are icky and ugly and smelly and wear dentures, you’re not only delusional, you’re probably going to have a very sad second half of your life. (And I’m guessing the first half probably won’t be so great either.)
Here’s Chris:
Face it: Nature doesn’t want CRUSTY OLD WOMEN having children! Basic biology, folks, and I’m no expert on biology. It’s just common sense! …
Old women are supposed to be…..old women. Crabby old women. Ugly old women. Nasssssty old tobacco-chewin’ women. …
A woman should be done spewing out babies by the time she is thirty, and no later. By forty, a woman is OLD! Look around you. Look at the forty-year-old women you see every day. See any of them you want to screw? Any of them? Didn’t think so. (Blow-jobs aren’t good either- their dentures might lock up on your weinie! Imagine THAT 911 call!)
Nature makes women BUTT UGLY fairly early in life to prevent them from breeding. Kind of hard to get pregnant if you’re so gruesome no man in his right mind can get a boner over your appearance. But, women, in their arrogance, fail to realize that men are stimulated VISUALLY!
If you look like an old hag, then the penis just naturally will NOT stand to attention. You’ve got to have some sort of good looks to get our motors running, ladies, and if you look like a bag of wrinkly cellulite, then you had better face it- no one wants you! Contrary to the lie feminists have been telling you, fifty is NOT the new thirty! A fifty-year-old woman has less sex appeal than a sheep. (Ask anyone in Montana.)
I am constantly amazed at the post-forty women that have come on to me lately. Give me a break! Do they think I’m blind?
Ick! …
A woman of forty is not sexual in any sense of the word. She is useless for breeding, and her sex appeal is GONE! Why have women fallen for the lie that they remain sexual into their sixties and seventies? They are NOT! They are putrid, smelly shells of their former selves! Nothing more! By that age, a woman looks like the package her body once came in. All sagging, wrinkly and disgusting! …
If you just have to get laid, and you can close your eyes, and hold your breath (pew!), there is no easier lay than an old woman. They are so desperate. So pathetic. So easy.
So gross.
There’s more where this came from over at MarkyMark’s.
Is the “Bang Some Chicks” blog any better than the Pickup Artists it parodies?
I’ve been reading through the archives of Bang Some Chicks, a PUA parody blog featuring the imaginary exploits of the incredibly stupid chick-bangers F-Close Frank and DTF Dave and a couple of other faux PUAs.
What drew me to it was a post with the worrisome title “how to bang a native american chick” which I spotted via the Manosphere agglomerater blog Vive la Manosphere.
Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape: Not any more defensible in context than out of it
Warren Farrell, possibly pondering the mysteries of consent.
NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”
Men’s Human Rights Movement fights oppression with new oppression-fighting term “Rapetard.”
The Men’s Human Rights Movement: Heading towards inevitable victory.
Our dear friends over at A Voice for Men, the thought-leaders of the Glorious New Men’s Human Rights of The 21st Century Human Rights Movement With Girl Writes What (GNMHROT21CHRMWGWW) have been trying to introduce a new word into the vernacular, as part of their broad-based campaign for the betterment of human rights. That word? Rapetard.
While the portmanteau word has been floating around for some time, with assorted definitions, it took on its modern, human-rightsy definition in mid-April in a little-seen YouTube video by a fellow calling himself “Dick Magnum,” who defined it thusly:
An individual who, for reasons related to intellectual, emotional or moral deficits, cannot distinguish between questioning [the idea of] “rape culture” and supporting rape.
It was picked up in an AVFM post titled “Beware the Rapetard Society” about a week after that. Soon other AFVM writers seemed to forget Mr. Magnum’s careful definition, adopting it as their go-to epithet for feminists they don’t like. Which is pretty much all of them.
In a post having nothing to do with rape or rape culture, Paul Elam talked about “dumbing things down so that even a rapetard could understand.” In the comments to that post, AVFM contributor Dan Perrins joked about “rapetarded quote mining expedition[s].” And in a post yesterday, AVFM’s “Andy Bob” attacked Australian comedian Catherine Deveny for an assortment of alleged offenses against decency — including using the term “retard” – in a post that referred to her as a “rapetard” four times, including once in the title.
You might think that combining the word “rape” with an ableist slur –“tard” – and applying it liberally to feminist women would be a step backwards in the campaign for human rights, but apparently that’s old-fashioned twentieth century thinking on my part.
The Myth of Warren Farrell: Farrell on Rape, Part One
No book has had more influence over the Men’s Rights movement than Warren Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power. Published in 1993, in the heyday of the early 90s antifeminist backlash, it set the agenda for the Men’s Rights movement as it’s developed over the last two decades. He’s the one who came up with the notions of “male disposability” and the “death professions.” He’s the one who got MRAs fixated on the issue of draft registration.
Roosh’s Return of Kings blog: Tamerlan Tsarnaev had an American wife, therefore American women want to be beaten
Leave it to Roosh V’s Return of Kings blog to publish the most reprehensible thing I’ve yet seen related to the Boston Marathon bombing.
In a post with the lovely title “The American Woman Has Hit An All-Time Low,” guest blogger Samseau offers some thoughts – that is to say, wild, unsupported speculation – about the widow of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev, and uses that as evidence in a case against American women as a whole, declaring her “a profound marker in the decline of the American woman.”
Funny Men’s Rights Video Time!
Don’t worry, it’s not a video BY an MRA. It’s a video ABOUT MRAs. A little cartoon, to be specific, by Scott Benson, who has this to say about it on his Vimeo page:
A quick editorial cartoon about the intersection of self-pity, entitlement, rape, territoriality, misogyny and fear of women. You see it all over the place online in the form of Men’s Rights Activists (of whom there are a few reasonable non-misogynists), Men Going Their Own Way, Pick Up Artists, and dudes touting the “Red Pill”, because The Matrix is a good movie. Look any of these up if you have the stomach for it. These are extreme examples, but watered-down forms of these ideas are everywhere.
In lurking their blogs and youtube channels for a while, I’ve noticed that beyond the standard patriarchal chauvinism there is this deep fear of women – what they will do to me, how they will reject me, how they will use me, how they are changing society in a way that does not favor me, how they are making men into something I don’t like, how they are making themselves into something I don’t like, that they won’t give me what I want, and that they won’t give me what I think is rightfully mine. This goes beyond fear of feminism- this is fear of women at its purest. And that, to quote a puppet, leads to anger and hate. It’s sad.
Naturally, Benson had to close the comments to the video because of, you know, too much MRA.
He wrote more about it all on his Tumblr.
I was alerted to the video by various people, including Cloudiah, which reminds me to remind you all to go look at Cloudiah’s excellent Artistry for Feminism And Kittens blog.
How bad ideas get started: The “Apex Fallacy,” the “Frontman Fallacy,” and the murderer Marc Lepine
Would MRAs still be into the Apex Fallacy if boards of directors looked like this?
So some Men’s Rightsers are up in arms because the powers that be at Wikipedia just deleted a page devoted to a phony “logical fallacy” invented by a friend of Paul Elam. According to the now-deleted Wikipedia page, “the apex fallacy refers to judging groups primarily by the success or failure at those at the top rungs (the apex, such as the 1%) of society, rather than collective success of a group.”
Signal Boost: Official Georgetown statement on false accusations against Arianna Pattek
I‘ve written several times about the campaign of false accusations and harassment directed at Georgetown University alum Arianna Pattek by Men’s Rights activists, white supremacists, and assorted internet trolls. While some of Pattek’s false accusers have retracted their claims, others continue to peddle false information about her and still others, including some of those who’ve retracted their claims about Pattek, continue to make vague accusations against Georgetown.
And so I would like to draw attention to the following official statement from Georgetown University spokesperson Rachel Pugh.
In response to inquiries regarding Georgetown University alumna Arianna Pattek and the Admissions Office at Georgetown University:
Georgetown University confirms that Arianna Pattek graduated magna cum laude from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service with a bachelor’s degree in 2012. On April 18, 2013 she was mistakenly identified as the author of an anonymous blog, and as a result became the target of threats on several Internet discussion boards. Out of concern for the safety and well-being of our alumna, the university removed information about Ms. Pattek from the university’s website. Georgetown University further confirms that Ms. Pattek is not now, nor has she ever been, employed by any of the admissions offices at Georgetown University. The unethical admissions practices described in the anonymous blog post do not reflect the careful and comprehensive admissions procedures at Georgetown University. Ms. Pattek has confirmed that she is not the author of the blog in question. Further, the blog in question does not reference Georgetown University.
You can find the statement online here, and can direct any questions about Georgetown’s handling of this whole surreal incident to them directly.
Though I really have to wonder at anyone who pretends to be shocked or surprised or mystified that university officials might remove information about a recent graduate after receiving word that this person is being harassed by white supremacists.
You can find more details about all this in my earlier posts on the subject.
