Category Archives: oppressed men
MRA: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?”
Women campaigning for suffrage for no real reason, because not voting was just what women did back then.
I swear, sometimes I wonder if the entire Men’s Rights Movement is an elaborate hoax. Our old friend Fidelbogen weighs in today with a typically pompous post on the cutting-edge issue of women’s suffrage, posted with the almost-too-good-to-be-true headline: Women Couldn’t Vote.That Was “Oppression?” If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to dismiss it as half-baked satire – except that FB is serious, deadly serious. (And deadly dull, too, most of the time, but I’ll try to keep this snappy.)
Fidelbogen’s thesis:
It annoys me to hear the feminists say that women were “oppressed” because they didn’t have the voting franchise in olden days. Excuse me. . . oppressed? I would take exception to the semantics in this case, for is not a bit clear to me that what was happening ought to be called by such a heinous name.
While most people are either for or against women having the right to vote – though I’ve never met any of the latter group outside of MRA blogs – FB bravely declares himself “a third way thinker upon this subject.”
Hold on to your hats, ladies and gentlemen, because Fidelbogen is going to get all philosophical on us:
I would submit that women’s historical lack of voting rights was neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Rather, it was a morally indifferent state of affairs, based on a cultural consensus that was shared by men and women alike in the past.
Hey, it was the olden days. People wore silly hats and watched silent movies and no one had iPhones.
Our ancestors lived in a very, very different world than we do, and their cultural norms were very, very different from ours, yet undoubtedly befitting to their world — a world mysterious and unknown to us nowadays. Who are we to judge?
I mean, really, how dare we offer any sort of moral judgment of anything that happened in the past. The Holocaust? Stalin’s purges? Hey, it was the mid-twentieth century – people were just into that shit back then.
Well, FB doesn’t mention either Hitler or Stalin, but he definitely considers women’s former lack of voting rights to be just one of those things that, hey, people were into back then:
[W]as it really, inherently, such a horrible thing after all, that women could not vote? … Why should it even matter? Did the average woman in those days honestly feel that voting was “all that”? Seriously. . . who are we to judge the men and women of past times for their very different way of life which we can no longer entirely fathom?
And besides, most men had been denied the vote earlier, so even if it matters and it totally doesn’t, what’s the big deal if the dudes in charge decided to deny the vote to the ladies for a while longer? As FB puts it:
[W]as it really such an unspeakable crime that the female population couldn’t always go to the polls during that comparatively trifling span of years?
Or is that entire concept nothing but feminist historiography, meant to wring pathos out of history for present-day political purposes by the device of retrojection? That would certainly conform to standard feminist tricknology, wouldn’t it?
Seriously. Those feminologicalnists are totally retrojecting the fuck out of the pastological period using their standard sneakyfulogicalnistic tricknology.
And besides, even though we’re not supposed to judge the past, and even thought that whole denying-the-ladies-the-vote thing was totally a “morally indifferent thing which ought to concern us very little,” FB thinks that maybe it was actually sort of, you know, cool.
I believe a case might be constructed that it was a positive good in the context of those times.
FB decides to leave that case unmade, and returns to the whole “who the fuck cares” argument.
Once upon a time, women didn’t have the voting franchise because societal norms found nothing amiss about such an arrangement. Then times changed, norms changed, and women were admitted to the franchise. That’s all. And women were never, at any point along that general story-line, “oppressed.”
Besides, the whole idea of “rights” is, well, just like, an opinion, man.
Furthermore, women were never at any time deprived of any rights. You see, women’s “right” to vote simply did not exist in the first place — or not during the period when the so-called deprivation occurred. I mean that “rights” are only a figment. Only a mentation. Only a notion. Only a construct. Rights do not exist in their own right. They are not some mystical pure essence which hangs in the air all by itself — they must be conjured into existence by a strictly human will-to-power, and fixed by law or custom.
And so, if the dudes of the world denied the ladies these “rights,” well, uh, it was “morally indifferent” yet also probably good for some reason.
In conclusion, shut your pie holes, ladies:
So in conclusion, I wish that second and third-wave feminists would shut the hell up with their dishonest, self-laudatory rhetoric about “the vote”. They need to quit tooting on that rusty old horn. It is getting really, really old.
Well, unless they’re this lady. She’s actually pretty good at tooting a horn.
The Spearhead on Occupy Wall Street: It’s just a bunch of man-hating single moms
Ladies are icky.
You might assume that those Occupy Wall Street protests (and their various offshoots) you’ve seen so much little of on the news lately are all about, you know, Wall Street, and the economy, and the fact that the very people who got our economy into the mess it’s in are somehow all still richer (a lot richer) than you or me. But apparently that’s not it at all. Nope! Apparently it’s all about hating on the menz.
How so? Let us turn to the good fellows at The Spearhead for guidance. In a recent post titled Occupy Wall Street Is Just Another Vehicle For Misandry, the blogger known only as Pro Male/Anti-Feminist Tech (PMAFT for short) argues that the movement is overrun by dastardly “single mothers and other women demonstrating high levels of entitlement.” His proof: one lady he found posting her story on the We Are the 99 Percent blog who noted that she had “no job, 3 kids and cannot see a med … let the dudes pay my bills.”
You might assume that by “the dudes” the lady in question is referring to extremely rich dudes – you know, the 1 percent that the “we are the 99 percent” movement is focusing its attention on. But apparently PMAFT knows better than we do, declaring that
she is demanding men subsidize her, not rich men or billionaires (which would be questionable enough) but men in general.
Oh, but she’s not the only entitled princess on display on the 99 Percent blog. Here are two other women — chosen from hundreds of examples from the blog — that to PMAFT seem to epitomize the evils of female entitlement and man-hatred:
Imagine, women actually having the chutzpah to want medical insurance for young children! Blatant misandry at its worst!
The commenters whooped it up in typical Spearhead fashion. “Single mums want to fuck with John and expect Harry to support her and her kids,” complained Nico. “New-age gov-mediated cuckoldry.”
To the redoubtable Uncle Elmer, these women’s pleas were
symptomatic of the feminized educational system and media. Without a manly Patriarchy to call BS on a lot of these entitlement notions, we have several generations of women now sailing into the hard rock of reality. … nobody cares.
Finndistan, meanwhile, wrote a screed nearly as long as the OP, laying out his case against shoe-wearing single mothers. A condensed version:
So, single mom? Should’ve kept your legs closed… should’ve chosen a better man….
I am not in America, but my single friends who get laid by one of your friends once every blue moon are already paying for you and your friends shoes and bastards by the insane amount of taxes imposed on them with threat of imprisonment.
If these guys are the 1%; that makes you, the 99%, parasites….
You, found a dipsh%t welfare boy, made a baby, and we, the 1% as defined by you, who actually want to work and create something useful, not bastards, are getting screwed by the real 1% who steal from us to give to you, so you can buy shoes and create bastards.
As a man … more than one third of my earning … go[es] to feed your shoes and your bastards …
Single mom with shoes and bastards, bought and being payed for by my money.
Occupy Wallstreet just shows that the western man is the pinata of the western world. And then he dies.
This comment got 63 upvotes from the locals, but no shoes or bastards.
AfOR, not quite as longwinded, noted that he found the women’s pictures “hilarious,” adding:
Suck it down bitches.
If you blow me PROPERLY I’ll buy you a 99 cent burger.
This got 58 upvotes from the totally non-hateful readers of The Totally Non-Hateful Spearhead.
EDITED TO ADD:
Speaking of hateful, here’s a comment I somehow missed, from evilwhitemaleempire. Readers of the comments here will recognize him as a dickish dude who posts dickish comments here from time to time. But in this comment he really lets his misogynist flag fly. (TRIGGER WARNING FOR VIOLENT MISOGYNY) Referring to one of the women cited as “entitled” by PMAFT, who had noted that she has “no money to hire a lawyer so I can divorce my abusive husband,” evilshitemaleempire offered this advice:
Heh. If she’s telling the absolute truth about her life on that paper (questionable) then she needs to go back to that abusive husband and start doing some serious dick sucking.
And if he wants anal sex she’d better give it to ‘em.
At last count this comment had 16 upvotes and one downvote. Stay classy, Spearhead.
Spearheadonomics: How the ladies caused our economic malaise
These are the awkwardly posed businessladies who wrecked our economy
Like a lot of people, when I’m looking for insights on the current economic mess, I turn first to random dudes posting on The Spearhead. Here’s some guy called Poiuyt explaining how ladies and the men who don’t hate them are the source of all our troubles:
Because this god damned genderist society has become so amoral, so degenerate and so bankrupted on account of its genderist pervervions and femaleist subversions, it is going to be exceedingly difficult to grow itself out of the mess it finds itself in. The proverbial golden geese and their precious eggs in male produktivity have been either been killed, eaten, over-exploited, over worked, abused, dis-incentivised, harrased and are now increasingly extinct.
Well, I can’t argue with that, though the whole goose metaphor isn’t working 100% for me, given that I’m pretty sure it’s not the man goose that lays the eggs, but the lady goose. But that’s nitpicking. Poiuyt is on a roll:
You simply cannot get any further male inspired ekonomic growth out of hugely indebted and morally bankrupted societies as ours following genderist statism today, … … because the primary sources of growth potential in male inspired productivity and male entrepreneurship has been cannibalised to the bone. Cannibalised to the point where there is nothing left to base any further ekonomic growth on, consequent of the vicious sexist state ideology of womanism at all costs.
49 upvotes for this bit of wisdom.
Quotations from Chairman Alcuin
Dude, you should totally read this shit!
Like Chairman Mao, the MRA blogger Alcuin is a massive douchebag with intellectual pretensions far outstripping his limited brainpower. Also like Mao, Alcuin is perhaps best appreciated in tiny doses. Most of his posts are rambling, pretentious messes; yet many of them contain wonderful little nuggets of anti-wisdom that I feel compelled to share with you all.
Mao had his Little Red Book. Here’s part one of Alcuin’s Little Red-Faced Book. Click on the titles for the full posts.
[A] woman only thinks of her next meal, and which man can provide the best one for her. … Allow them to run organizations and society, and they will destroy everything. … Women are too emotional and self-centered to build civilization.
All Feminists are Doctor’s Daughters:
Feminism, the domain of doctor’s daughters, is for snobs. Men with dirty fingernails are haughtily ignored and dismissed. … Ironic, ain’t it, that feminists can be both perpetual victims and upper-class snobs at the same time, with the same remark and arrogant flick of the hair, as she puts her nose in the air and walks past. … Uppity cunts.
Dare to Struggle, Dare to Backlash:
Because feminism has attacked humans so viciously, injecting its hate-filled venom so deeply into both men and women, the “reaction” will not be a mere rainstorm. Deep, psychotic imbalance such as the type wrought by feminism and by liberals in general will necessitate a fucking shitstorm the likes of which we’ve hardly seen.
Constant rape accusations are ridiculous, given the sexless marriage epidemic. How many bored, asexual women stuck in a sexless marriage would love to be taken?
Modern miseduated western women fear their femininity, fear their natural beauty, and run away from it. … The hags we currently see in western countries resemble a clear-cut, eroded mountain. A contemporary western woman reminds one of the landscape created by the orcs in The Lord of the Rings, ugly and unnatural, a place of evil and sadness.
More to come; Alcuin’s idiocy is a renewable resource.
Women wearing makeup, nutshots, toilet seats in the down position, and other signs of male oppression
In my last post, I referred (albeit obliquely) to a discussion taking place in the comments section over on The Frisky about an article called How to Teach Boys to be Feminists. With a title like that, it’s hardly surprising that the topic drew MRAs like, well, I was going to say like flies on shit, but it was more like the other way around. (Even our friend NWOslave made an appearance.)
Reading through the comments, I noticed a couple from a commenter calling himself “Really?” — with a question mark – that laid out point by point why he thinks men are getting the short end of the stick. His points were an equal mixture of wrong and silly. So I decided I would offer point-by-point responses to them all.
If any of you want to fill in more detailed responses to any of his points (or to challenge or correct my points), please do so.
So let’s give the floor to Really?
If you ever think women have it harder in modern society, just think of this:
Why is it that women complain when men leave the toilet seat up, but men don’t complain when women leave it down?
Really, Really? You’re going to lead with this? This, to you, is the most salient example of female privilege? My answer: I don’t know because this literally never happens in my life. I put the seat and the lid down because I don’t want things to fall into the toilet.
Why do women complain about men that only want one thing, but men don’t complain about women that want everything?
Huh? Men complain about women who “want everything” all the time.
Why do women have the choice between abortion, adoption, dropping an unwanted baby off at a hospital, raising the child with a father, or raising the child without a father, but the only choice men have is to agree?
Because these are rights that are reserved only for those who can make babies inside their body. (Women who are infertile, post-menopausal, or transwomen don’t have these rights either.) When (cis) men develop this ability, they can have the same rights. Remember that pregnant (trans) man? He had the same rights as a pregnant women.
Why do women dress in makeup, short skirts, bare midriffs, and low-cut blouses but complain about men that stare at them?
You actually think that heterosexual men are oppressed by women wearing makeup, showing cleavage and wearing short skirts? Most heterosexual men manage to steal glances at women they find attractive without being a creeper about it. And for the most part, women don’t get upset if a guy looks at them; what’s upsetting is when guys pull up in a car and ask “can you give me directions to Pussy Avenue?”
Why do we pretend that men are the ones that abuse children when it is a well-known fact that women abuse children more than men?
Who pretends that? Feminists acknowledge that women abuse children. And yes, women do abuse children more than men — because women, on average, spend much more time caring for children than men. If you adjust for the amount of time spent caring for children, men are more likely to abuse. But it’s not some sort of gender competition here. Abuse is a horrible thing, regardless of the gender of the abuser.
If single mothers have it so bad, why do women initiate about eighty percent of divorces and routinely commit perjury to win custody?
I’m guessing for the same reason men initiate divorces: because their marriages are terrible, and they’re miserable. [Citation Needed] for the claim about perjury.
Why do we have a Violence Against Women Act but nothing for men when women cause domestic violence just as often as men?
At the time the bill was passed, people were only just beginning to understand the prevalence of domestic violence towards women. Nonetheless, despite the name of the bill, VAWA is gender neutral, designed to protect male victims as well as female ones.
Why is it funny when a woman kicks a man in the groin but terrible if a man did the same to a woman – won’t the man be in more pain?
I don’t know why it’s funny. You’ll have to ask any of the sixteen gazillion guys posting videos on YouTube of themselves getting hit in the nuts, often on purpose.
Why is it terrible for a woman to be raped once but funny when male prisoners get raped over and over?
No feminist I know thinks this is funny. Here is more information on the subject.
Why is a man a wimp if he lets his wife beat up on him but a criminal if he defends himself?
I know of no feminists who would consider him a wimp; they would consider him to be what he is, a victim of domestic abuse. No one is a criminal for defending themselves; they can be a criminal if they respond with disproportionate violence, responding to a slap by beating their partner unconscious.
Why does women’s health get much more attention when men die about seven years younger than women?
Many of these issues are related to (cis) women’s reproductive health. Men have a smaller number of issues specific to their gender. If men want to help increase awareness of men’s health issues, they are free to organize awareness campaigns just as women have done over the years.
Why do we complain about legislators being mostly male when they always promote women’s rights and never promote men’s rights?
[Citation needed]
Why is it sexist to have clubs for only men but empowering to have them for only women?
Depends on the club.
If women only make 72 cents for the same work where a man earns a dollar, why don’t companies hire only women and put the competition out of business?
Women do get paid less. That’s simply a fact. The question is why, and that’s complicated. Sexism plays a part. See here.
How do police know who to arrest when there is a domestic disturbance involving lesbians?
The same way they know who to arrest in cases of domestic violence involving heterosexuals: by determining who is primarily responsible for the violence. This may involve collecting witness statements (if there are witnesses), by looking for visible signs of injury and other evidence of violence, and so on. Women – heterosexual women and lesbians alike – are regularly arrested for DV. Sometimes both partners are arrested.
Why do married women complain that their husbands don’t want to change a baby’s diaper but divorced women say their ex-husbands can’t take care of a child?
I’m having a hard time seeing the contradiction here. If a married man doesn’t regularly care for his children, he is less likely to be awarded custody.
Why do men that don’t pay child support go to prison but nothing ever happens to women that don’t allow visitation?
Women cannot unilaterally decide to cut off visitation. This is something determined by the courts. If a man is denied visitation, there’s generally a good reason for this – he may, for example, be an abuser.
If women-in-the-military is such a good thing, why don’t they have to register for the draft?
Feminists don’t actually run the military. Generally, feminists support women’s right to serve in the armed forces, and NOW has petitioned to include women in draft registration. But most feminists I’ve ever met are opposed to the draft for anyone, male or female.
Why are we so concerned about girls under-performing boys in math and science but not concerned about boys under-performing girls in everything else.
Because the ratio of women to men in the sciences is seriously skewed against women; STEM professions are heavily male-dominated. And this is no coincidence: girls and women are often told that women are “naturally” worse at math and science. There is no similar prejudice against men in, say, the liberal arts.
Why do fathers have to pay the mother to take his children away from him in divorce?
Child support is intended to help support, er, the children. Women tend to be the primary caregivers, so they are more likely to win custody. When men win custody, child support payments go to them.
Why is it legal for women to lie to men about who the father of a baby is to get child support, but a crime if she tells the same lie to the government to get Social Security or military benefits?
This is a difficult situation, with no easy answers. Courts put the interests of the children first, as they should.
Why do women have to prove they spent the money on the children when they collect welfare but don’t have to do the same when they collect child support?
Do they? I don’t think aid recipients should have to prove what they spent the money on.
Why do we have to cut men’s sports that have fans to create women’s sports that don’t?
That’s not how Title IX works. It’s intended to give female athletes the same opportunity as male athletes, not to “cut men’s sports.”
Why do women tennis players win the same prize money as men when they only play three sets and men play five – isn’t that equal pay for less work?
Again: Really, Really? You’ll have to take that up with the people handing out the prize money. The amount of money athletes make is pretty arbitrary, largely determined by how popular their sport is, how good their agent is, and what sorts of endorsement deals they get. Female gymnasts work pretty hard. How many of them earn big bucks? There are far more millionaire male athletes than there are women.
Why is it called sexual freedom when a married woman commits adultery but called cheating when a man does the same?
It’s cheating either way, unless you’re talking about people in open or polyamorous relationships. Who exactly is lionizing female cheaters? Not the show Cheaters, in any case.
Why are female murderers presumed to be mentally ill but male murderers presumed to be killers?
Outside of a few cases in which women who murdered their children were indeed suffering from postpartum psychoses, this is simply not true. Lawyers defending murderers often press for their clients – male or female — to be considered not guilty by reason of insanity, but they rarely win.
Why are there thousands of “father’s rights” groups but no “mother’s rights” groups?
Are there? I doubt it. And if so, what difference does it make? There are various feminist organizations that deal with issues related to motherhood (and parenthood in general) like parental leave. What on earth is your point?
Why do we have so many fathers groups fighting for more time with their children when there are so many social problems attributed to fatherlessness?
The fact that there are social problems attributed to fatherlessness does not mean that all fathers should get unfettered access to their children. Divorce is messy, and generally there are good reasons why certain fathers are prohibited from seeing their children. Giving a father who is a child abuser access to his children will not solve any social problems.
Why do men have to support women at the same standard of living following divorce when women don’t even have to cook and clean his new apartment?
Uh, yeah, that’s not how that works. Many divorced men (and some women) pay child support, with the amount determined by the needs of the children and of the non-custodial parent’s ability to pay. This support is meant for the children. Alimony is only awarded in about 15 percent of divorces; roughly 4 percent of alimony recipients are men.
If divorced women have it worse than divorced men, why do divorced men commit suicide eight or ten times as much as divorced women?
[Citation needed]
Why do we pretend that men walk out on their wives and children when women initiate about eighty percent of divorces?
Because the person who initiates the divorce is not necessarily the person who has “walked out” of the relationship.
Why is it considered sexist to have a couple of television shows geared towards men when there are several channels catering only to women?
There are a number of networks aimed mostly at men. While sexist shows are often criticized for being sexist, the idea of appealing to a specific demographic isn’t terribly controversial.
Why are television moms always portrayed as wonderful and loving and television dads always portrayed as inept buffoons?
Are they? The wife on King of Queens is a bit of a shrew, isn’t she? And Kevin James is the star of the show, isn’t he? (Newsflash: comedians often portray buffoons.) In any case, feminists generally aren’t big fans of shows that reinforce old stereotypes about the genders – including the buffoon dad and the humorless mom. Every feminist I know is appalled by the new sitcom Whitney, which reinforces a lot of old stereotypes, many of them misandrist.
Why is it politically incorrect to say anything negative about women but funny to put men down?
Huh? Comedians say misogynistic things all the time.
Why are women without a job considered to be exercising free choice but men without a job considered a bum?
These are getting weirder and weirder. I can only assume you’re talking about women who choose to be stat-at-home moms (or whose husbands choose this for them). Women who do this are more likely to be traditionalist than feminist. Every feminist I know wants men to have the same option to be a stay-at-home dad. That’s why feminists push for better parental leave, not simply better maternal leave.
Why do feminists demand that women be equally represented in high paying and powerful jobs but don’t complain when low-paying, dirty, and dangerous jobs remain mostly done by men?
Feminists want women to have the same employment opportunities as men. Women have in fact fought to get into dirty, dangerous fields heavily dominated by men, like mining, for example. (Darksidecat could give you more on this.)
In a second post, Really? asked a bunch more questions. As you’ll see, they got sillier and sillier as he continued:
Why do we have to say “Chairperson” and “Congressperson” but its ok to say “garbage man” and “bad guy”?
You don’t “have” to say anything. You can say whatever you want, though people might look at you funny if you were to call a female chairperson a “chairman.” As for “bad guy,” well, men make up the overwhelming majority of criminals (in real life) and villains (in movies, TV, and fiction generally), so it’s not altogether shocking that the term used to refer to the baddies is gendered in this way. You don’t have to use the phrase if you don’t want.
Why do we always hear the phrase “innocent women and children” but never hear about “innocent men” or “men and children”?
Huh? Could you give examples of this (that don’t involve the Titanic)? When talking about wars, people generally use the phrase “innocent civilians.”
Why do news headlines use the terms “student”, “spouse”, or “parent” when a girl or woman, or mother does something wrong but use the terms “boy”, “husband”, or “father” when a boy, man, or father does something wrong?
[Citation needed]
Why do feminists demand equal results for traditionally male roles but object to equal or shared parenting after divorce?
The issue of shared parenting is complicated, and it’s often not the best option for the children. Generally speaking, the person who was the primary caregiver gets primary custody, and this makes sense to me. If more men were stay-at-home-dads, men would get primary custody more often. Every feminist l know is supportive of stay-at-home dads.
Why does the term “angry mother” sound like someone that needs our help and support and the term “angry father” sound like someone that needs to be arrested and forced into anger management classes?
Huh? Could you give an example? I think it largely depends not on gender but what the parent in question is angry about – whether they were angry because of cutbacks at their kids’ school, or because they’re an asshole with a giant sense of entitlement. Angry asshole mothers need anger management classes as much as their male counterparts.
Why is it that when men are more successful than women it’s because women are oppressed, but when women are more successful than men it’s because men are lazy?
I’m going to let Don Draper respond to this one for me.
Onward:
Why are only women free to criticize other women without being labeled anti-women, but both men and women are free to criticize men?
Gross generalizations about men and women are sexist no matter who says them. But anyone can criticize individual men or women – or groups of men and/or women who hold specific beliefs – without being considered sexist.
Why are feminists pushing for laws that prevent new laws from being passed that protect men from women, such as with domestic violence against men, false allegations by women, or paternity fraud?
What on earth are you talking about?
Why is it that when a woman accuses a man of rape, the man’s name is made public and he is presumed guilty, but when he is proven innocent the woman remains anonymous and the man is still ruined?
Because our legal system works in the open, the names of accused criminals (regardless of gender, regardless of crime) are made public. In the case of rape, accusers are often demonized and shamed and threatened, so we protect their identities. Or try to: in many cases their names have been made public. Accused criminals who win acquittal can move on with their lives; in some cases where the jury’s verdict is controversial, like OJ Simpson’s not guilty verdict, they may be seen as guilty by many people. The law has no control over people’s opinions.
Why is it considered woman-hating or whining to point it out when women have something better than men, but we rush to pass new laws if men might have something better than women?
[Citation needed.]
Why is it that we’ve had forty years and billions of dollars going into women’s rights and men’s responsibilities, but it’s taboo in most circles to even suggest that maybe it’s time to consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change?
Uh, yeah. Very few MRAs suggest merely that we “consider men’s rights and women’s responsibilities a little bit for a change.” Instead, they write out long crazy lists like yours, attempting to portray men as horribly oppressed slaves at the hands of evil feminazi matriarchs. When MRAs set aside this nonsense and bring up specific issues that affect men disproportionally or exclusively, like circumcision, they generally are taken much more seriously.
If those who always side with women are feminists and those who always side with men are chauvinists, why don’t we have a wing of a political party and billions in funding going to chauvinists when we have that for feminists?
Feminists don’t “always side with women,” whatever that means. They have raised a number of issues that affect women disproportionately or exclusively, and tried to win some redress. Feminists also work on initiatives that help both men and women, like parental leave, as I mentioned earlier. Whatever political power feminists have stem from years and years of organizing and lobbying. Other groups – like Christian conservatives, who are generally antifeminist – have also won themselves a degree of power through organizing and lobbying. (Do you remember that whole debate about Planned Parenthood?) Men’s Rights Activists are free to do the same.
For those who believe men had it better than women in the past and believe now it’s time for women to have it better than men for a while, why don’t they advocate whites being forced into slavery to blacks?
Dude, did you really just ask that?
Why are men considered more privileged than women with so many double standards against men?
Uh, maybe because they still are more privileged, a fact readily apparent to everyone who doesn’t live in MRAland.
Cosmetics: An evil plot to fool the men of the world into thinking that ladies are pretty
Evil female deceiver at work
Ladies! You may think you’ve got the men of the world fooled, but the guys over on MGTOWforums.com can see right through you! As dontmarry puts it:
Everything that a woman does is deceitful. From makeup, push-up bras and high heels, to fibbing about her dick count or proclamations of ‘I don’t mind marrying a poor man’ (oh yes you do).
That’s right, ladies! We know those eyelashes aren’t real! We know your cheeks aren’t really that rosy! And your lips aren’t really that red! And your boobies aren’t really … um, what was I saying? I got distracted thinking about boobies. Anyway, you’re all a bunch of liars! I bet some of you even wear Spanx, which are a tool of Satan.
Also, that thing he said about the dick count. Stop the lies! We demand dick count accuracy!
Violence against women? Blame it on feminism, says W. F. Price
This slogan is apparently what CAUSES violence against women.
Another day, another apologia for male violence from the Men’s Rights crowd. This time the apologist is W. F. Price at The Spearhead, who uses several recent news stories involving violent men as an excuse to attack feminism.
Repeated provocations against men, systematic discrimination against men, and state-sanctioned debt slavery are starting to have the inevitable effect. In a triumph for the feminist movement, men are lashing out violently against women, fulfilling the feminist fantasy of a gender war.
In the old days, everything was (presumably) peachy keen between the sexes. Then along came the feminists, and all hell broke loose. Those “take back the night” marches feminists love so much? They’re just red flags to the bulls – that is, our society’s ample stock of “mentally unstable and out-of-luck men.” You don’t want to make these guys mad!
[W]omen were encouraged to be militant against all males, which can only have unfortunate results, given the hands-down male superiority in combat. …
In other words, the fact that there are violent men out there is why women shouldn’t complain about violent men. Presumably the only marches women should be organizing would be “No, Go Ahead, You Keep the Night” marches. Don’t want to offend those rapists –that’ll just make them even rapier than usual!
According to Price, though, feminists actually like violence against women — because it keeps them in business.
For feminism to exist as a valid movement, there must be violent conflict, so many of the efforts of feminists have sought to provoke just that. … You see, for a feminist to justify her job there must be some degree of brutality against women. … So, if you are a feminist, the hapless women murdered or assaulted by the damaged men feminists have created are necessary sacrifices for advancing the feminist agenda.
So not only do the feminists provoke these “damaged men” – they created them in the first place, by being so feministy.
Wouldn’t this whole provoke-the-men strategy make life more dangerous for feminist women as well? No, because feminists are all rich ladies, and everyone knows that rich ladies are never beaten or raped or murdered:
[W]e all know that feminism has never been about the typical woman who lives a humble life, but rather the ambitious elite who want to have access to the big boys and big money on Capitol Hill and Wall Street. … Disadvantaged women are truly the cannon fodder of feminists.
So what “proof” does Price offer for his claim that men are “lashing out” at women because of feminism? He cites three news stories: one dealing with a woman-hating trucker who’s accused of killing several prostitutes; another involving a man who went on a shooting rampage at a church, killing his wife and wounding two others; and finally, the case of James Ray Palmer, the Arkansas man who shot up the offices of the judge who’d handled his divorce and custody case more than a decade earlier. (I wrote about his case here.)
How do these cases relate to feminism? You’ll have to ask Price, because none of the news stories suggest any connection, and Price doesn’t explain why he thinks there is one. True, the trucker is said to be a misogynist, but misogyny is far more ancient than feminism. Meanwhile, we have no evidence that the church shooter was angry at any women other than his wife.
In the case of Palmer, there may be an indirect connection, if it turns out that he was influenced by the angry, violent rhetoric of the Men’s Rights movement. As I pointed out in my post on Palmer, many in the MRM have made a martyr out of Thomas Ball, who committed suicide on the steps of a courthouse, leaving behind an manifesto that urged men to literally burn down police stations — and courthouses. It is certainly conceivable that Palmer’s courthouse rampage was inspired by this sort of rhetoric.
But to blame feminism for any of this is ass-backwards. Feminism is a response to misogyny, not its cause. To blame feminism for violence against women is a bit like blaming Jews for provoking the Holocaust. (Forgive me, Godwin; it was the clearest analogy.)
Price ends his piece by urging women to, in effect, shut up and fix him a sandwich:
Women’s best bet for security is not in denouncing and fighting men, as feminists would have it, but in cooperating with them and taking on their proper role.
Then he ends with a weird coda suggesting that feminists should be locked up for having the temerity to speak up in the first place:
The United States will once again be a righteous society only when feminists are jailed for interfering with families, and their academic apologists are removed by security from their jobs in taxpayer-funded educational institutions. This would be the most humane course of action to take. Far more humane, in fact, than provoking men and women to physically attack one another, as feminists would have it today so that they can unleash state agents on confused and demoralized families.
I didn’t have the stomach to read all of the comments responding to Price’s argument, such as it is. But here are some highlights – lowlights, really – of the highly upvoted comments I did read.
The ironically named Anti Idiocy seconds Price’s basic argument:
Anger against feminism has been building for years. As the men’s rights movement has gained momentum, feminists and their lackeys have doubled down and become more virulent in their anti-male hatred and propaganda. Women today are becoming more and more nasty on an interpersonal basis, and they are doing so more frequently. A breakpoint will come. It will probably take a catalyst; another severe economic downturn might do it. But it will come. Feminists and their pet femboys will push things until it does.
Wait. If the Men’s Rights movement is, in effect, provoking feminists to get more feministy, then wouldn’t (by Price’s logic) the allegedly increased violence be the fault of the MRAs?
Rod worries that in the case of a real gender war, men might actually lose – all because of those darned “white knights” and their reluctance to beat up the ladies:
I’m afraid that if it ever came down to a real physical war between the sexes, men would unfortunately lose. There are too many men who can’t stand the sight of men harming women, and would immediately step in to save them. Perhaps nature instilled in us a visceral reaction to women’s suffering, making us want to step in and help, and at one time in the history of our species, that reaction was no doubt a salutary thing. Now it just works against us.
Antiphon, meanwhile, blames it all on the Jews. Or, more specifically, the Jewesses, who apparently control the feminist movement in the same way that their husbands control the banks.
Needless to say, this being The Spearhead, Antiphon’s comment has three times as many upvotes as downvotes. Apparently, the only thing worse than a feminist is a Jewish feminist.
I guess my Nazi analogy earlier in this post wasn’t so out of place after all.
Dude Antebellum
We need a Godwin’s Law expansion pack to deal with white dudes who compare their lives with that of slaves in the Antebellum south. Well, for those who compare their lives to slaves without concluding: “Wow, my life is really much, much better than that of a slave. For example, I am not enslaved!” That’s not, alas, the conclusion drawn by this spelling-challenged Men’s Rights Redditor:
Edited to add: BTW, I found this quote via ShitRedditSays, best subreddit EVAR!
Bla bla pussy cartel bla bla cock blockade
Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. Unless it's this pussy.
The blogger Fidelbogen likes to think of himself as some sort of grand theoretician of “counter-feminist” thinking. Which means that his posts are usually far too long and ponderous to read, much less to write about. His ideas – at least judging from the few posts of his I’ve had the patience to wade through — are really not much more advanced than your typical MRA; he’s just much more pretentious (and long-winded) about it.
He is, in other words, the sort of guy who could take 3000 words to explain the rather basic MRA notion that women control men with their vaginas.
I mean that quite literally. Our excitable MGTOWer friend MarkyMark recently drew his readers’ attention to a 5-year-old post by Fidelbogen with the enigmatic title “Ideas Which Go Against the Grain,” which offers, yep, a 3000-word précis of the evils of pussy power. Perhaps against my better judgement, I’ve decided to give it a detailed look. Strap in!
I’ll give him credit for one thing: despite his vague title, Fidelbogen states his thesis quite plainly at the start:
Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew.
Well, ok, not the very start. Right about here:
This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women’s power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism’s leverage in the realm of gender politics.
In other words: vagina=power.
I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, blabbity blabbity bloo.
Ok, those last three words are my paraphrase of his argument. Focus, Fidelbogen, focus!
The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller’s market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men’s favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.
And this leads to, yep, the dreaded Pussy Cartel:
Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. …
Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism’s driving ambition, it makes sense that the women’s movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.
Normally, I would assume this last bit was some kind of sniggering reference to blowjobs. As Fidelbogen seems to be utterly without a sense of humor, I have to assume it’s merely a belabored metaphor.
So how do the evil feminists siphon away male power? By driving along some sort of road:
Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism’s route to power.
So after siphoning their way down this road, we (and the evil feminists) arrive at what I’ll call (to keep Fidelbogen’s metaphor going) “Courtship Lane.”
The word “courtship” is revealing. Men are the “courtiers”, which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their “lord”. In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women’s greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.
After a bit of empty rhetoric, Prof. F continues:
Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.
Fidelbogen, alas, does not take the opportunity to name this dastardly “hybrid entity.” Let’s just call it THE FEMIGINA!! (In all caps, with two exclamation points.)
At this point, Prof. F loses what little steam his argument has, and begins prattling about this and that and the evils of feminism. I will attempt to convey the gist of it with the following excerpts. In order to truly capture the flavor of it, I will replace the traditional ellipses – used to indicate excised material – with the phrase “blabbity blabbity.”
Blabbity blabbity to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band. Blabbity blabbity [f]eminism has blabbity blabbity secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. Blabbity moral corona of the ideology blabbity female noosphere blabbity blabbity feminist-tinted spectacles blabbity blabbity the path lies clear before us.
And then he comes to his point:
Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.
Yep. That’s right. He’s talking about what we here on Man Boobz know as the Cock Blockade.
Blabbity blabbity it would go against nature blabbity blabbity laborious gritting of teeth. Blabbity blabbity supremely human accomplishment. Blabbity blabbity we are more than simply animals.
And he comes to another point:
Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life.
Blabbity blabbity men would need to cut each other some slack blabbity blabbity stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. Blabbity blabbity. The question “are ya getting any?”, along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.
And this would put the ladies in their place – standing lonely in their vagina stalls, gamely trying to interest men in their now worthless vaginas.
Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women.
So now I have the image of lady boa-constrictors with head wounds standing in a line, displaying their boa-constrictor vaginas with a sort of desperate hopefulness to the wholly uninterested men who pass by.
After a good deal of blathering so tedious it’s not even worth quoting in part, Fidelbogen begins to ponder the power of “no.”
[M]en must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.
Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default.
I feel a bit of a breeze myself, but I think that’s just because Prof. F is talking a lot of wind.
Let’s move from breezes to earthquakes:
The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal.
The old way of doing things, Prof. F tells us,
I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!
Ironically, the common touch is something hetero dudes will have to become masters at if they swear off the ladies. Prof. F continues:
So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism’s arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it.
They threw a harness around a paradigm?
The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.
So what does Prof. F call his pussy-optional way of doing things? The “optionality paradigm.” That is, dudes can have sex with women or not, whatever they want, and shouldn’t pressure one another to score with the ladies. (I’m not quite sure how, in Professor F’s economic model, the price of pussy can be reduced to zero if some dudes are still interested in it, but I confess that I only sort of skimmed that bit of his post. Life is short, and Fidelbogen’s posts are long.)
More blabbity blabbity:
The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.
After reading this turgid turd of a paragraph , I decided to cut my losses and skip directly to Professor F’s grand conclusion. Which turns out to be neither grand nor much of a conclusion:
My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.
Even better, put them in a small bag, weigh it down with rocks, and toss it into the nearest large body of water.
Jesus, this turned into a long post. Still, it’s only about half the length of Prof. F’s original.
Will the coming apocalypse put bitchy ladies in their place?
Men: We all know how to wrestle bears.
Angry manosphere dudes sure do love them some apocalyptic fantasies! Which totally makes sense, since they all seem to imagine the apocalypse as little more than an opportunity to deliver a big “told you so!” to women and “manginas” and probably their pet goldfish.
Over on MGTOWforums.com, our robogirl-obsessed friend avoidwomen has been reposting assorted comments he’s apparently found on The Spearhead, and which he just loves, loves, loves! Unfortunately, he hasn’t provided links or any other information about them, and Google didn’t much help, so I don’t know who exactly should get the credit for the following bit of postapocalyptic fiction.
It’s sort of long, but I think you’ll pick up the gist of it right away. (It also sounds really, really familiar – have I written about it before, or is it just that MRAs and MGTOWers are so predictably unoriginal?) Are you sitting comfortably? Good. Let’s begin:
An economic collapse will put women in their place. Virtually no women have the skills necessary to survive in the real world. They can survive in this artificial politically correct, multi-cultural, anything goes, “death to the West, death to the white male patriarch” system that we are presently in….
As the economy declines even further the government will be forced to make massive cuts. … The first things on the chopping block will be entitlements, the sort of entitlements that have enabled women to use big government as a substitution for a stable nuclear family, a family they would only be able to have by behaving themselves and conforming to acceptable standards of behavior as determined by their fathers and later their husbands.
And now we come to the payoff:
In the near future women will be given the choice of starving in the street, finding some way to hunt/fish/garden on their own, or conforming to the standards men set for them and being kept alive by men who actually place value upon their continued existence.
Let’s throw some Ayn Rand into the mix:
This dysgenic society favors the weak and indeed it subsidizes the weak at the expense of the strong and the fit. … We are ruled by thieves who steal from the productive and give to the idiotic masses to keep themselves in office at the expense of the intelligent, the creative, the productive, the true movers and shakers of society.
Can I have some “we hunted the mammoth” to go with that “Atlas Shrugged?”
We build civilizations yet we are penalized at every step of the way in every aspect of our lives. Instead of being allowed to innovate, invent, and create, we are made to subsidize the recklessness of unworthy women, tens of millions of illegal aliens, and any other group that some clique of weak and effeminate politicians decides to cave to.
Hmm. That’s pretty good. But still not quite melodramatic enough. Can we add some big blustery clichés to the mix? Some “we stand on the edge of a precipice” sort of shit?
We stand on the cusp of the precipice, gazing down into the abyss.
Oh, ok. I didn’t expect you to take me quite so literally. But never mind:
After our civilization is pushed over the edge a new one will emerge from the void left by the collapse of the old one. All we have to do is make sure it is to our benefit rather than to our detriment.
And now, back to all those mean bitches who were so mean to us:
The prospect of starvation, death by exposure to the elements, or being turned into a prostitute by a street gang that openly dominates some X number of city blocks in the absence of big government police, should be amply adequate to put most women in their place.
You can almost hear the writer jazzing in his pants as he writes this.
The question is not one of “will they come crawling back to us” but rather, “how do we respond when they do finally come crawling back.”
Yeah, ladies, maybe we don’t want you after all!
Most of them are bitter, selfish, self-absorbed, idiotic, brain-dead, used up whores, and I have no need for such creatures in my life. They don’t know how to cook, how to clean, how to butcher livestock, how to till a field, how to cultivate crops, how to hunt game, how to fish, how to defend themselves in hand-to-hand combat, how to zero a rifle, in short they have no practical useful skills for existence outside of an artificial globalist “post industrial” financial/retail services economic structure.
Ooh! In your face, ladies who can’t cultivate crops and take down bears in hand-to-hand combat!
Did your feminism prepare you for BEARS? I think not!
In addition they don’t even know how to treat people, especially men, in a right and proper fashion.
Um. What happened to hand-to-hand-combat and all that survival-of-the-fittest stuff? This seems a tad, er, petulant.
I personally have no use for a bunch of used up whores who “had their fun” and now expect men who know what is what and have their act together, to put their lives on the line to keep them safe.
Ah, now we’re rolling again.
Screw you, whores! It’s all fun and games until the economy collapses and the BEARS show up!
Hopefully in the new society, the one on the way, women will be treated as perpetual minors with no contractual capacity and no right to ownership of property. … what we cannot achieve politically will be achieved socially and physically by the nature of the coming collapse/implosion.
Yep, ladies. It’s our way … or the BEARway! (By which I mean, “the highway, except that the highway is covered with BEARS!”)
Never forget, that at some point back in time, EVERYTHING women have they obtained from MEN, either via big government initiated wealth/resource transfers, or because men were foolish enough to dote on them in some hope of obtaining sex/sexual access (or even just the affections/approval) from some creature that was doubtlessly a used up whore.
So there you have it. Our glorious future!
I’m not sure how the robogirls fit in all this exactly. If the economy collapses and we’re fighting the BEARS in the streets, won’t that put a little dent in production of robogirls?
Never mind. That’s a mere detail. The important things to remember are: Apocalypse soon, women screwed, men happy, BEARS.
