Category Archives: misogyny
Calling women names = human rights advocacy: A visit to A Voice for Men.
So the other day I was perusing the front page of the angry dude blog – sorry, “human rights organization” – A Voice for Men, looking for something inspiring to read. My eyes hit on a promo for a recent AVFM radio show. It was on the topic of feminism, and, apparently, women in general:
Flatworms, eh? You know, those “relatively simple bilaterian, unsegmented, soft-bodied invertebrate animals” without brains, with primitive eye spots that allow them to sense light?
As you know, human rights organizations are widely known for comparing large categories of humanity to primitive worms.
I am reminded of the inspiring words of Martin Luther King:
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. And by the fact that they’re not slimy, dirt-eating worms, like all those damn white kids.
This is, of course, from King’s famous “I had a dream – a really weird dream, where all the white people were worms” speech.
Oh, perhaps JohnTheOther and GirlWritesWhat have some highly clever explanation for that whole “flatworm” thing, but in order to find out I would have to listen to their “radio” show. But life is short, it is a lovely, if a bit chilly, Saturday in April, and I would rather have ferrets chew the flesh off my bones while I am still alive than listen to an hour or more of those two, so I guess I will never know.
But no matter, because there was another post on A Voice for Men that caught my eye:
Yes, I said to myself, I will have to find out what Cooter Bee thinks about the differences between intellect and emotionalism. In the course of my day to day life, I often find myself pondering the deeper philosophical questions of human existence, and when I do, I always wonder: What does Cooter Bee think of that? It is rare that I actually get to learn what Cooter Bee thinks on a particular matter of philosophical import. So naturally I clicked on the link.
Here’s what I learned from the esteemed Professor Cooter Bee:
Endless citation, refutation of fallacy and Socratic pursuit of truth are the tools of reason. Men tend to understand them. Women, generally speaking, don’t because indignation, outrage and gut level distaste are rooted in emotionalism. Women do understand base emotionalism and do respond to it in a more predictable way than they could ever respond to reason. They are also more likely to respond appropriately because the message is more clearly understood. Emotionalism is their language.
So, really, there’s no point in actually arguing anything with those flighty ladies.
No need to waste words or knock yourself out reasoning with feminists or even your wife, for that matter, when a short and visceral pronouncement from on high will do and is more effective.
For example, you can just call them sluts:
Sluts are against slut shaming because sluttiness is, indeed, shameful. Say so. Your position would be unassailable because they too believe it. They invoke moral relativism and slut pride marches as a means to escape the inescapable.
Actually, it’s better if you call the ladies sluts over and over and over again:
Slut Walks, “Sex in the City” and the self esteem cult are all attempts to reassure women that even when they behave abominably that the bad behavior has the sanction of the collective and they face no risk of expulsion if they engage in it. To modify the behavior of women, reimpose that risk. The good news is that it can be done in relatively short order. … A stark and unvarnished remonstration from someone in closer proximity will undo the propaganda swiftly. Declarations of “that is disgusting” accumulate. Hearing it once may not overcome Cosmo and she can dismiss it as an isolated raving of a lunatic. If she were to hear it more often, however, she begins to doubt herself and wonder about her status within her more immediate collective.
You can also modify chick behavior by praising them when they act the way you like them to. It’s really quite simple:
Chick language provides us with a construct that we can use. To women something is “nice” or it is “mean”. They use that simple, emotionally based dichotomy because that is what chicks understand. They use it with us and they use it with each other. That is how they evaluate the world. Use it. …
Most women want to be good so tell them what good is in a way they can grasp easily.
What if they disagree with your assessment of what is good? Doesn’t matter, because you are a man, and therefore right:
Who is to decide what is good and what is evil? Simple. You are. Some men might think it arrogant to anoint themselves as the final arbiter of all moral issues. Not true. As a man, nature equipped you to make decisions based on merit alone without respect to consensus. … You know right and wrong when you see it.
Are there any good women out there? Yes, Cooter Bee tells us. Indeed, there are several women who contribute to AVFM, so there’s them. Beyond that, Dr. Bee, tells us,
I am of the belief that most women are good, if somewhat misled. They only resist righteousness because they think that any behavior that the collective endorses IS righteous. The rare woman who is capable of moral judgment will select good herself and would not be on the receiving end of harsh moral criticism.
Then again, you still might have to yell at the good women from time to time. Really, it’s your duty – it’s for her own good.
Good women are human too. Even in the seldom occurring event of a temporary moral lapse by a decent woman, your diatribe will be no more severe than the one she administers to herself. Would you do less in the case of a man whose judgment falters?
Thank you, Cooter Bee, for your insights!
I had no idea that going around telling women that they’re sluts was a form of human rights advocacy, but apparently it is. The next time I see a woman standing on the streetcorner trying to get me to sign a petition for Amnesty International, I will simply tell her what a dirty whore she is. I will accomplish more with these words than she will in a day of collecting signatures and donations!
NOTE: Since you bring it up all the time, fellas, you might try to remember that the name of the show is Sex AND the City. Also, it ceased production eight years ago.
–
This post contained some
All Women Are Whores, Part XIV: Cat on a Roomba Edition
Cats and Roombas unite in service to the forces of whoredom.
Men of America! You face a grave threat today: Evil feminist slutwalkers are working tirelessly to enslave men by conning them into marrying secret porn-star whores! Over on The Spearhead, an unnamed “Featured Guest” explains the whole dastardly scheme in a post with the intriguing title “Whore is just a label.”
With slutwalkers working hard to remove the stigma of sex for women, you see,
young women in porn face far less stigma than they ever have. So much so that for that young women the leap from wanton behavior at a drunken college party to getting double teamed followed by a full facial in a porn shoot may not be a far leap at all.
Exactly. Because if you’re going to be having sex anyway, why not do it on camera with strangers?
The dollars and cents is that you have a huge growth porn industry demanding a huge number of sex workers who blend invisibly into the population because there is no longer any stigma attached to the world’s oldest profession.
Wait, I thought that prostitution was the world’s oldest profession. I guess porn and prostitution are the same thing now?
Not that it matters, because if you’re a man the evil ladies will keep their sordid whoring from you:
Unlike men women know how to keep a secret. Women don’t brag to their girlfriends, in fact they’ll lie even to themselves. You really have NO IDEA where even that conservative and very virginal girl you’ve proposed to has been until the night she thought she forgot shows up on Youtube.com. Where does that leave an increasing number of American men?
So YouTube is a porn distribution hub now? Or is he suggesting that any woman who has sex is by definition a whore?
Evidently he is, as Mr. Featured Guest then goes on to warn of the dangers of those who are:
Trying to turn a whore into a housewife.
Yes, there are terrific women out there. But single women are angling for a man to pay for their lives, and given that incentive there’s a huge temptation for a woman to present herself falsely, to tell a lot of lies and to make a lot of “stay at home, cook and raise kids” promises she has no intention of keeping. Under US and ESPECIALLY Canadian divorce laws, women are almost never accountable for bad behavior or broken promises. For all the men who thought their betrothed was only slutty the night she met you and who are steaming mad that you’ve been sold a bill of goods, does the marriage contract needs a “false advertisement” clause?
Or do women who have sex with men other than their betrothed – possibly on video, possibly on YouTube — simply need to have the word “whore” tattooed on their foreheads?
The regulars at The Spearhead respond to this sophisticated analysis of contemporary marriage with their usual good sense.
Quentin, in a comment that got 50 upvotes, notes with some alarm that
A lot of women don’t feel bad abut their sexual escapades. In fact, they take pride in them. “Ladies” are an endangered species, and are on the verge of going extinct. All this slutty behavior has really made me lose interest in women. I don’t want to be with a woman who has had sex with a lot of men. If she is easy to get into the sack, then she is a liability in a relationship. I have lost a lot of respect for women over the past several years. Sex, along with marriage, is something most women view as a get-rich-quick scheme. It is disheartening to think I live in a world where being a whore is considered empowering, while being a supportive wife is frowned upon. This world is upside down. … If you act like a whore, then you are going to get treated like a whore. If women were pleasant to be around and were loyal, more men would probably stick around. You reap what you sow, women.
Napoleon (24 upvotes) urges his fellow men to be cautious when dealing with the wily female:
Women these days are increasingly trying to have the best of both worlds and present themselves as wholesome nice girls to the public while hiding a lot of whoring that goes on behind the scenes. There is really no way to know whether a woman is a part-time prostitute or not but a good rule of thumb is to assume that she is until proven otherwise due to the prevalence of such antics.
Silent warns men to be especially suspicious of any woman who seems to know what she’s doing in bed:
Just be careful about the super-sweet girlfriend who knows a little too much about how to do that thing you like, without you having taught her. She may have had a mouthful. But hey, maybe it’s all “in the past”.
YoungMan shares his tale of woe:
Back in my plugged in days I dated a girl for over a year before I found out she used to play with herself on camera for money. I was incensed I had been taken advantage of like that.
Keyster, a bastion of morality who once boasted about dating a 14-year-old (when he was 25), warns men to stay away with women who don’t keep silent about their sexual pasts:
Any woman who feels compelled to reveal her debaucherous past has no intention of having a serious relationship with you.
It’s not a shit test.
It’s meant to show a certian amount of disdain and disrespect for you as a man who doesn’t quite measure up to her standards. Don’t ever forget that.
Yes, because if a woman has had sex with anyone other than you, it’s all about disrespecting you.
And then he adds:
If she says she can’t even remember how many guys she’s f*cked in a rather “matter-of-fact” tone, you’ve entered the Futrelle Zone. Go home and video tape your cat on a Roomba and post it on YouTube. It would be time better spent.
I guess I should be flattered? But alas it was not my cat on the Roomba. I wish I had a Roomba. (Also, I wish I had my cat back, but that’s a whole other and much sadder story.)
Alan Vaughn writes an impassioned defense of pedophiles – sorry, “pedophiles,” in scare quotes – that I’m frankly too tired to bother to cut and paste in here. Check it out yourself if you dare.
Eric has a sad about the poor quality of American women:
Women are presumed to ‘have all the power in relationships’. Really, it’s her choices alone that matter. Women choose to be with thugs and idiots when there are numerous better and more responsible options open to them. The fact that women overwhelmingly terminate relationships with good men and pursue worthless ones is proof in itself that the responsibility lies with them and not with us.
Men, on the other hand, are very limited in their field of choices (unless they expat out). The abysmal quality of American women; women’s complete lack of interest in responsible men; and the ever-impending consequences of acting contrary to misandryist legal and social norms considerably constrict men’s options. Most men, if they were honest about it, would admit that their choices are pretty much limited to the least objectionable—not the most desirable—of available women.
Life is apparently very tough for American men who hate the very idea of women ever having sex with anyone but them. And doubly tough for those who don’t see the inherent hilariousness of cats on Roombas.
Reddit quote of the day: “I lost a really good friend because he didn’t want to believe his wife was a [six expletives deleted].”
On AskReddit, lostabro33 tells the sad story of how he, er, lost a bro. The tl;dr version:
I lost a really good friend because he didn’t want to believe his wife was a fucking whore bitch slut cunt lying piece of shit.
Here’s the full quote. As you’ll notice, it has 1314 upvotes.
Yeah, that totally happened.
Is Reddit officially the worst place on earth?
(Sadly, I know the answer to that is no. But, damn, Reddit, you really to seem to want to take that number one slot.)
(Thanks to ShitRedditSays for finding this, er, gem.)
EDITED TO ADD: [TW: Child porn]
Speaking of shitty things on Reddit: There was more child porn up on Reddit, this time a post in r/videos with more than 900 upvotes and numerous positive comments, with a link to a video that showed the sexual abuse of a six-year-old boy. The folks in SRS have been talking about it; after numerous complaints from SRSers to the r/videos mods, Reddit admins, YouTube, and the FBI, the video has apparently been removed from YouTube. More details, and a link to the original r/videos thread, in the SRS thread devoted to it. There’s also a lot of discussion of it in the comments to this post here.
Vaginamoney is the root of all evil
Women receive regular vaginamoney checks from the government.
Is it wrong that I love the perpetually incoherent Christian J. – the self-proclaimed Male Renaissance Agitator behind What Men Are Saying About Women – as much as I do? If it’s wrong, I don’t want him to be right! Fortunately, he’s never right about anything.
Here, to celebrate today not being tax day, are some tasty quotes from some of his most recent posts. (He really churns those suckers out.)
Vaginamoney is the root of all evil:
You have to wonder how the opposite sex can easily make the claim about how “Strong” and “Independent” they are when in actual fact the majority of those making that claim are either receiving child support, vaginamoney as well as copious handouts from the state, their very own standby sugar daddy is on call 24/7. One who has been trained to behave like a defacto ATM, specifically trained to drip feed cash when required, without asking too many inappropriate questions and to hide when anyone or anything approaches..
Come on and take a free orifice ride:
[W]hat do women actually bring to the table besides their genitals and reproductive ability. Why do they now increase and expand their value as human being rather than relying on the state for enforcement of their will and they free ride their orifice affords them..
(That one was so incoherent, even by Christian J. standards, that I’m thinking there must be a typo in there somewhere. Maybe “now” should be “not?” Obviously the “they” near the end should be a “the.”)
[W]hile the slut feminist hoards continue with their manufactured bastardry, the response will be tailored to nullify it..
Too many slut feminists spoil the broth:
How many times have you heard those slut feminists and their cowtowing (sic) white knights and manginas claim that all the MM and men in general want to do is put women back into the kitchen. …
They make that claim whenever any mention is made regarding all those anti male laws and sexist actions that governments have introduced to nobble men, take away our fundamental human rights and turn us into third class citizens, whose sole activity is to be forced to act subserviently, like a slave, to the opposite sex. …
Now just think for a moment about the fact that women can’t even cook anymore, they are totally useless in the kitchen … They have problems even making a sandwich, even that task is beyond their capability, a proven inability. So why would any man want to “Put women back into the kitchen”, it just doesn’t make any sense. It’s just stupid..
“Nobble?”
The worst “nice guy” rage comic in the history of the universe
[TW: Rape]
Have you ever said to yourself, “my life won’t be complete until I see a reprehensible rage comic in which a ‘nice guy’ decides to solve his ‘friendzone’ problem by violently raping women?”
If so, it’s your lucky day! I found this lovely comic on the Tumblrverse; the dude who put it up has since taken it, and his Tumblr, down. Be warned: this really is the worst rage comic I’ve ever seen. Click here to see it. Or don’t click; that might be the better choice.
This is why “nice guys” can’t have nice things. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT REALLY NICE.
Below, something of a palate cleanser. No trigger warning for this one. Just some lovely schadenfreude. (Thanks to blitzgal for posting this in the comments.)
EDITED TO ADD: I just noticed this lovely discussion in the Men’s Rights subreddit about my post. You may notice that many statements in the discussion are not what you might call “true.” Also, they deliberately misspell my name in a most hilarious manner! (If you are 5 years old.)
The Hatred of Women: A new terrible anthem for the Men’s Rights Movement!
Look out, Jade Michael and the Fuck Their Shit Up Crew! Sure, your Men’s Rights theme song “Go My Own Way” was hailed by MRAs around the internet as a work of genius, and, in the words of one eminent critic angry misogynist dude,
a veritable anthem for the red pill crowd … replete with a great, purist rock sound, a touch of humor, attitude, and a ton of gut level, red pill honesty.
It’s Red Pill-riffic! But now Jade and the one other guy who makes up his, er, “crew” now have competition in the Men’s Rights anthem business!
Without futher ado, here is Slumberwall, with a little song called “The Hatred of Women.”
Did any of you make it past the one minute mark? I couldn’t.
Happily, Slumberwall has transcribed the terrible lyrics to the song, so you don’t have to listen to the whole thing in order to appreciate its true Men’s Rightsy awfulness. Here are the best bits, by which I mean the bits most likely to make you want to puncture your eardrums with knitting needles.
Men have no doubt
Just what they’re for
We die at work
We die in war
We die at sea
As the lifeboats float ashore
Women & children,
all aboard
Never mind that, as I pointed out yesterday, “women and children first” isn’t really a thing.
Anyway, back to Slumberwall:
We take the strain
We bear the load
Build the bridges
Sweep the roads
Make the houses
That make the homes
Pay for others
But live alone
And the more that it happens
The more I see
The hatred of women
For men like me
Well, if by “men like me” you mean “men who write and sing the shittiest music that has ever been made by human beings,” I have to say that I kind of understand this hatred.
Nonetheless, on YouTube the Men’s Rightsers are cheering this song as a brilliant work of social criticism.
Wanderer5200 enthuses:
I haven’t had a favorite song in a very long time. But I think this is it.
TheAetherspeak declares
Awesome Song. The voice all purveyors of patriarchy theory remain ignorant of.
Gamenode explains:
Women have never been oppressed but through their reproductive monopoly have exploited men and seen us butchered and enslaved for their own privilege. Fuck ‘em all.
KellyJones00 adds,
Don’t fuck them at all. Just leave them alone. Don’t even donate sperm.
Time for a little bit of a musical palate cleanser.
Make sure to listen to all ten hours of that for the full palate-cleansing effect.
A Titanic mistake? New research sinks the “women and children first” myth.
Another manifestation of Sink Misandry
The Titanic sank 100 years ago today, and Men’s Rights Activists are still pissed off about it.
They’re not really pissed off that it sank. They’re pissed off that the men on board were more likely to go down with the ship than the women. You know, that whole “women and children first” thing.
Some MRAs were so pissed off about this that they were planning to march on Washington on this very day in an attempt, as they put it, to “Sink Misandry.”
You don’t know how much I would have loved to see this, a dozen angry dudes marching in circles on the National Mall carrying signs protesting the sinking of the Titanic and demanding that in all future sinkings of the Titanic that women and men be equally likely to drown in the cold waters of the North Atlantic. For that would be justice at last!
But, alas, due to unspecified logistical problems this march was cancelled some months back, and so misandry remains unsunk.
Or does it?
For you see, it turns out that the whole “women and children first” thing was not really a thing. Oh, on The Titanic it was. But women unfortunate enough to be passengers on sinking ships that weren’t the Titanic (or the HMS Birkenhead, which sunk off the coast of South Africa in 1852) weren’t able to push ahead to the front of the line. That, at least, is the conclusion of a new Swedish study (link is to a pdf of it).
The chivalrous code “women and children first” appears to have sunk with the Titanic 100 years ago.
Long believed to be the golden standard of conduct in a shipwreck, the noble edict is in fact “a myth that has been nourished by the Titanic disaster,” economist Mikael Elinder of Uppsala University, Sweden, told Discovery News.
Elinder and colleague Oscar Erixson analyzed a database of 18 peace-time shipwrecks over the period 1852–2011 in a new study into survival advantages at sea disasters.
Looking at the fate of over 15,000 people of more than 30 nationalities, the researchers found that more women and children die than men in maritime disasters, while captains and crew have a greater chance of survival than any passengers.
Being a woman was an advantage on only two ships: on the Birkenhead in 1852 and on the Titanic in 1912.
The notion of “women and children first” may have captured the popular imagination, but it’s never been an official policy for ship evacuations. It wouldn’t be fair, nor would it be an efficient way to get as many people as possible to safety.
Nor was “women and children” strictly enforced even on the Titanic. True, my great-grandfather, the mystery writer Jacques Futrelle, was one of those who went down with the ship, while his wife and my great-grandmother, writer Lily May Futrelle made it off safely (in the last lifeboat). But there were many men who survived, and many women who died.
If you want to get mad about the sinking of the Titanic all those years ago, get mad at the White Star Line for not bothering to equip the ship with lifeboats enough for everyone on it. Blame the captain, for ordering the ship to continue plowing ahead on a dark, foggy night into an area of the Atlantic where numerous icebergs had just been sighted by a number of other ships. Blame the crew for botching the evacuation – for the strange lack of urgency after the ship hit the iceberg, for the lifeboats leaving the sinking ship with half as many passengers as they could fit.
Much like the iceberg that sank the Titanic, Elinder and Erixson’s research has poked a giant hole in the “women and children first” myth. Of course, MRAs aren’t interested in historical accuracy. They’re looking for excuses to demonize women and feminists. So I imagine we’ll be hearing about the Titanic from them for years to come.
Here’s another tragic sinking, of yet another ship without a sufficient number of lifeboats:
EDIT: I added a couple of relevant links and fixed a somewhat egregious typo.
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:
Gamer asshole: “Sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it’s not the fighting game community.”
This may be old news to gamers, but a reader just brought it to my attention:
Capcom and IGN recently put on a little online gaming “reality” show called Capcom’s Cross Assault, based on the game Street Fighter x Tekken. The show, like the game, pits a team of Street Fighter players against a Tekken team.
During a live stream of the ongoing battle on day five of the tournament, Twitch.tv community manager Jared Rea made a few remarks criticizing the assholish, and often misogynistic, comments of some of the fighters.
Here’s how the Penny Arcade Report summarized what followed. (I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting several particularly egregious comments in bold.)
“This is Aris,” a voice said on the feed. “If you don’t like onions, you get your sandwich without onions on it, man. This is the fighting game community.” He then stated that sexual harassment and the fighting game community are “one and the same thing.”
The voice belonged to Aris Bakhtanians, the coach of the Tekken team.
“The sexual harassment is part of the culture. If you remove that from the fighting game community, it’s not the fighting game community… it doesn’t make sense to have that attitude. These things have been established for years,” Aris stated. He then noted that making sexual jokes at StarCraft players would be inappropriate, so it’s unfair for anyone to tell fighting game fans they can’t viciously mock women. …
“That’s what you’re trying to do to the fighting game community and it’s not right,” Aris continued. “It’s ethically wrong.” This may be the first time in the history of video games that someone had said that removing sexual harassment is ethically unjust.
Later in the, er, discussion, after someone brought up the harassment of a guy playing a female character (“someone yelling the world “bitch” over and over … and then scream[ing] for her rape when she lost”) Aris responded with this:
“What is unacceptable about that?” Aris asked. “There is nothing unacceptable about that. We’re in America! This isn’t North Korea! We can say what we want.”
You can listen to the whole discussion on this video; it starts, with Rea’s comments, at about one hour forty-five minutes in. (Aris starts commenting about two minutes later.)
Many more appalling details in the PA report post.
Oh, gaming community! Get it the fuck together.
Men’s Rights Redditors find “ebonics” hilarious
The regulars over on the Men’s Rights Subreddit are currently getting amused and/or outraged by the existence of a book titled “Girl, Get That Child Support,” a guide to help single mothers track down deadbeat dads and get the child support they are owed. A few of them were apparently so overstimulated by the book’s title, and a reference to “Baby Mamas” in the subtitle, that this little conversation ensued:
Note the upvotes and the (scarcity of) downvotes. And the complete lack of anyone saying “hey, you’re being racist assholes.”
The Men’s Rights Movement, the “most significant civil rights movement of the 3rd millennium.”
