About these ads

Category Archives: oppressed men

A Voice for Men doubles down: how dishwashers, TV dinners, and marital rape laws are rendering women obsolete. Also, the apocalypse.

Not the apology that Clint Carpentier is looking for.

Not the apology that Clint Carpentier is looking for.

We met new A Voice for Men writer Clint Carpentier earlier this week, when we took a look at a recent post of his waxing nostalgic about the good old days before marital rape laws, when wives couldn’t say “no” to their husbands and expect the law to take this no any more seriously than a husband intent on rape.

In a second posting, he’s doubled down on the whole marital rape thing and incorporated into a vast and fantastical vision of the past and future of humankind that bears so little resemblance to reality that it’s worth quoting in detail as a sort of case study in Men Going Their Own Way delusions.

Read the rest of this entry

About these ads

Men’s Rights Redditor remembers the victims of Marc Lepine by complaining “we’re all supposed to cry about how hard it is to be female. “

A vigil to honor the victims of the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique.

A vigil to honor the victims of the massacre at the Ecole Polytechnique.

Today is the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women in Canada, an annual event to honor the victims of mass murderer Marc Lépine, who gunned down fourteen women at the  École Polytechnique in Montreal in 1989. Lepine, driven by a poisonous misogynist ideology, specifically targeted women, yelling “I hate feminists” before opening fire on one classroom of female students.

Reading over his suicide-note-cum-manifesto today, I was struck again by how, well, familiar it all sounded. While only a few MRAs have explicitly celebrated Lepine as a hero, his views on women and feminism would not be out of place on most Men’s Rights forums. Here’s Lepine, in his own words. (I’ve broken the wall of text into shorter paragraphs.)

[T]he feminists always have a talent for enraging me.

They want to retain the advantages of being women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventive leave) while trying to grab those of the men. … They are so opportunistic that they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men throughout the ages. …

Thus, the other day, people were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontlines during the world wars. How does this sit with the fact that women were not authorized to go to the frontline at the time??? Will we hear of Caesar’s female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50 per cent of history’s ranks, although they never existed?

I’ve seen complaints virtually identical to these — I hesitate to call them arguments — reiterated many times over on places like A Voice for Men and the Men’s Rights subreddit.

Speaking of the Men’s Rights subreddit, here’s how the regulars there honored the victims of the massacre today: someone posted a message that today was the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women (this is actually a different day, in November), and, well, this is some of what ensued.

MRB2012 gave us the quote in my headline:

MRB2012 8 points 6 hours ago (12|4)      Her explanation included how it all started with how a bunch of people who were labeled feminist were shot.  This is a reference to the mass shooting committed by Mark Lepine. Most murder victims are actually male, but because of this one guy who targeted women we're all supposed to cry about how hard it is to be female.      permalink     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]enzikio 2 points 3 hours ago (2|0)  I didn't know about Marc Lepine until your post, but it looks like his page was updated with a feminist slant with this great quote      A few men's rights activists seek to rehabilitate Lépine as hero of the anti-feminist cause.  A look at the sources are a joke. They all appear to reference a single person who apparently made some comments that agreed with what Marc Lepine did. No where do their sources rise to the evidence of the quote above.      permalink     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]muttmonster 1 point 6 hours ago (2|1)  Isn't that also the guy who yelled, "I hate feminists"?      permalink     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]darklycan51 -3 points 4 hours ago (5|8)  To be fair there's some times i've considered doing that to feminists... lol

7Vega worried that awareness about violence against women was taking up too much of everyone’s time.

7Vega 11 points 6 hours ago (14|3)  How many fucking days do we have for violence against women?      permalink     source     save     give gold     hide child comments  [–]muttmonster 6 points 6 hours ago (7|1)  Yeah, I swear we just had one, and that's why google had a black ribbon on it's page. And they also use a white ribbon for the same thing?      permalink     source     save     parent     give gold  [–]7Vega 4 points 6 hours ago (7|3)  Soon all colors will be associated with violence against women.

And JohnKimble suggested that violence against women is really all their fault anyway.

JohnKimble111 3 points 4 hours ago (3|0)  Given that most domestic violence is initiated by women and a lot of domestic violence is mutual, then the best way to stop violence against women is for them to stop assaulting their male partners.

The greatest human rights movement of the 21st century, folks.

 

Men’s Rights: the Video Game

It's a woman! Shoot her!

It’s a woman! Shoot her!

So I was watching a little video roundup of some of the worst video games ever the other day and I came across some footage from a justifiably obscure little first-person-shooter called Operation Matriarchy.

The premise of this 2005 PC game, made in Russia, may as well have emerged from the fevered imagination of some Men’s Rights activist. Here’s how the promo blurb at MobyGames explains it, with the especially MRA-ish bits in bold:

Read the rest of this entry

Roosh V, trolling for page views with deliberately offensive posts, finds some supporters in the Men’s Rights subreddit

The glamorous life of an internet king

The glamorous life of an internet king

So our old friend Roosh Valizadeh seems to have fully embraced the Matt Forney school of misogynist internet celebrity, posting over-the-top offensive posts in a transparent attempt to gin up controversy and blog traffic. And it’s working: he’s brought an avalanche of well-deserved hate down upon himself. But don’t worry: he’s still got some supporters — not only on his own blog but in the Men’s Rights subreddit.

The post that’s been keeping the servers hosting Roosh’s Return of Kings blog busy lately is a guest post by Tuthmosis with the title “5 Reasons To Date A Girl With An Eating Disorder.”

Read the rest of this entry

A Voice for Men’s Honey Badgers ask: Why hasn’t Anita Sarkeesian been harassed MORE?

A Voice for Men’s so-called “Honey Badgers” — its little super-team of female MRAs, led by blabby Canadian videoblogger Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan — have a new theory about Anita Sarkeesian. And it’s a doozy.

Sarkeesian, you may recall, is a feminist cultural critic who’s faced pretty much nonstop harassment from misogynistic internet assholes since she launched a project to dissect sexist tropes in video games. AVFM has contributed, in its own special way, to this wave of harassment, with articles describing Sarkeesian as, among other things, a “moneygrubbing liar” and a “queen bee … girl interloper” in the world of video games; AVFM’s Dean Esmay also held her partially responsible, along with an assortment of other internet feminists, for the suicide of one Canadian Men’s Rights Activist.

The principals at AVFM have blamed her for — either inadvertently or deliberately – bringing this harassment on herself by going to 4chan and posting about her project. (As I noted in a previous post, there’s no actual evidence she ever did this.)

The Honey Badgers, for their part, are certain that getting harassed by 4chaners was  part of her devious plan all along.

In a teaser for their internet “radio” show tonight, the “Honey Badger” known as TyphonBlue writes:

Like all professional damsels in distress, Anita Sarkeesian had to choose a good dragon. Just the right looming shadow to fall over her delicate and fragile sensibilities; just the right cackling stage-villain to inspire her cries of helpless horror.

She chose 4-chan. An internet forum known for it’s underbelly of foul-tempered and hair-triggered trolls.

Then, after accusing Sarkeesian of inviting countless rape and death threats upon herself (and only a portion of it from 4channers, I should add), the Badgers take their weird conspiracy theory one step further:

But we at Honey Badger Radio have noticed something… odd. The wave of so-called hate that Anita received from her carefully chosen dragon, wasn’t really all that bad.

Yeah. A year and a half (so far) of pretty much unending harassment and baseless criticism, complete with violent threats directed not only at her but at other women who have defended her — that’s nothing.

Compared to 4-chan’s usual scorched earth strategy–raizing [sic] everything to the ground and pissing on the ashes, Anita got a little singed, like she sat too close to a campfire.

So we have to ask… Did 4-chan white knight Anita? I mean, come on. Was that the best 4 chan could do?

Yes, that’s right. The Honey Badgers are accusing those who sent rape and death threats to Anita Sarkeesian … of “white knighting” her.

I can’t even.

A quick factchecking of yet another list of “misandrist” quotes reveals the same old MRA sloppiness and dishonesty

He's making a list, but not checking it once.

He’s making a list, but not checking it once.

The MRAs have a new list! A list of evil, man-hating quotations, that is. This list, put together by A Voice for Male Students, has a rather pretentious title: “The language of misandry in academia: a collection of quotes by faculty members, students, and administrators.”

Read the rest of this entry

Amanda Marcotte takes down Sunshine Mary; Mary digs her hole deeper

sunshine

So Amanda Marcotte has some thoughts on Sunshine Mary’s post about feminism allegedly reducing women to nothing more than sex objects:

Why should women want the attention of men who see them as nothing more than unpaid servants and semen toilets? …

The alternative to having a hateful misogynist around who expects you to clean up after him, accept his ranting about how women are a repulsive subhuman class whose only purpose is service to men, and to masturbate him without any hope of sexual pleasure yourself is simple: Not being with such a man. As many feminists can tell you, there’s a really pleasant alternative: Men who like women and like to hang out with us and aren’t just tolerating us in exchange for sex and housework.

But what if, as manosphere men (and antifeminist women like Sunshine Mary) like to gloat, you can’t find a man?

Being alone is better than being with a man who thinks you’re part of a degraded class put here to serve him. No matter how much misogynists may rant, they can’t get around this inherent problem in their philosophy, which is that “alone” is always a superior alternative to their company.

Sunshine Mary has responded with a post that basically argues, well, but men don’t like you, you fat slutty feminists — take that!

One of the core pillars of feminism seems to be trying to control how men think about women.  We want to be seen as smart, so by fiat order we’ll command men to see us as equally intelligent.  We want to be seen as having the ability to be sexually promiscuous, so we’ll command men to hold a positive opinion of sluttery.  We want to be seen as beautiful at 200 pounds, so we’ll command men to find us hot despite our obesity.

But it doesn’t work.  Men don’t like slutty women for anything other than sex, as the last comment thread here rather conclusively proved.  Men don’t find fat women attractive.  Men don’t like bitchy, loud-mouthed mannish feminists.  Men don’t care about women’s supposed careers.  All the commands in the world will only cause men to keep their opinions quiet, but it does not change those opinions.  All the attempts in the world at resocializing men to like what feminism has turned women into will always fail because it works against the natural order of things.

Now this is just nonsensical and, you know, not true for all but a backwards and rather assholish subset of men. But it’s what follows that’s really chilling — not chilling because it reflects reality, but chilling because it suggests how punitive and self-hating Sunshine Mary’s philosophy really is.

She argues that feminists find the Manosphere “scary” because manosphere misogynists won’t do what feminists want them to do.

It is scary to imagine that men will stop doing what they are told by women to do.  It is scary to feminists in particular because, instead of being dependent on one man like I am, they are dependent on men as a group to fund them.

Men pay the majority of taxes in the United States.  Without men’s taxes, student financial aid for Women’s Studies degrees will dry up.  Without men’s taxes, baby mamas will starve.  Without men financing it, women who are being placed into corporate leadership simply as a response to affirmative action and who then quit these jobs after a year to write tear-filled articles in the Atlantic about work-life balance, demanding even more subsidies from men to ensure that women never need to suffer the consequences for their stupid choices, will cease.  I only have to manage my husband’s opinion of me in order to secure his provisioning; feminists have to control all men’s opinions of them in order to secure their provisioning.

Yep, that’s right. Sunshine Mary believes that women are incapable of taking care of themselves and so must depend, essentially, on appeasing men in order to survive. She thinks she’s lucky because she only has to appease one man, while women who actually, you know, earn a living have to appease all men. Because they’re not really earning a living. They’re just playing at earning a living because the men of the world are nice enough to humor them.

But don’t make the men mad, Sunshine Mary warns, because then you’re screwed!

And she seems rather pleased that she can make this threat from what she percieves as her position of relative security.

How fucked up is that?

Ladies! What are your favorite Unchecked Feeemale Privileges?

feeemaleprivilege

So a fella on the Men’s Rights subreddit made this poster, which he’s planning to post in the vicinity of the Women’s Studies Department at his school, assuming he can find it.

Since I know that a lot of females read this blog, I thought I’d ask you all just which of these Unchecked Female Privileges (There’s Nothing “Benevolent” About Them) are your favorites. You can pick more than one! (I know how inherently greedy you feemales are.)

Has he missed any important ones?

Non-women are allowed to post in this thread as well, but only if they preface their comments with “If it may please the feemales, might I humbly suggest that … .”

Men’s Rights Jeopardy: I’ll take “Kill the B*tch” for two dozen upvotes, Alex.

MRAs: Perpetually furious

MRAs: Perpetually furious

So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, a fella named dzogen came by to vent about his unfair divorce.

Seems his “freeloader and loser” of an ex-wife — a former drug addict — sits around the house eating bon bons while happily collecting $2500 a month in child support for the five year old kid they had together. Also, she treats him with disrespect. “Meanwhile,” the poor fella wrote, for an added dose of pathos, “I have to survive on PB&J.”

*cough*shitthatneverhappened*cough*

Read the rest of this entry

Red Pill Redditor on Women: “I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources.”

Some thoughts on divorce from a delightful, and recently divorced, Red Pill Redditor by the name of vengefully_yours. (Divorced? Yes, that’s right, ladies: he’s available!)

vengefully_yours 36 points 1 day ago (57|21)  I have been divorced a month now, and I timed buying some land for about a month after it would be final so I could close on it today and her name is nowhere on it. Its mine. No trollop nor cheating whore will be able to wrest it from me by taking off to fuck some other guy.  I will never again marry, and most likely never tell a woman I am not blood related to that I love her. This is my life, and I am living it how I see fit. I do what I want, when I want to do it, and no female has any say in how I go about it. Its not as if my ex wives had any say what I did anyway, but now I dont have to listen to them bitch that I am spending more money on cars than I am on them.  Fuck yes I am free, and you're damn right I dont need some self warming fleshlight sapping up my hard earned resources.  That might sound like I hate women, I dont. I love and adore them, but damn you just cant trust them.      permalink     source     give gold     save     hide child comments  [–]Cyralea 24 points 1 day ago (38|14)  This is RP shining true. Don't hate women. They are what they are.  Trusting them makes you the idiot, not them.

I’m glad he clarified that he doesn’t hate women, because some people (you know, manginas and feminazis) might have jumped to conclusions based on, you know, reading his comment and understanding his words.

Thanks to maniacalnewworld in the Blue Pill subreddit for finding this golden nugget in the shitheap.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,495 other followers

%d bloggers like this: