Category Archives: patriarchy
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.
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.
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.
Gödwindämmerung: Women who won’t date nerds are like Pol Pot
Note to angry dudes: Women not wanting to date you is not the equivalent of this.
There needs to be a Manboobz Addendum to Godwin’s Law to cover those who compare their lack of dating success to, you know, genocide. You may recall the charming Tumblr dude who equated dateless “nice guys” with persecuted Jews in Nazi Germany.
And now we have “white and nerdy,” the blogger behind Omega Virgin Revolt taking the datelessness=genocide thing a step or two further. As you might guess from the title of his blog, WAN doesn’t exactly have women beating a path to his door. Not even golddiggers, even though he is, he says, “a widly successful owner of my own business.” Women don’t even want to use him for his money? Why is that? Because he is not a — wait for it – “alpha” man.
Yep, it’s the same old dopey logic we’ve seen so, so many times before: Women won’t date me => therefore I’m not an alpha => therefore women won’t date anyone but alphas. WAN has added one more step to this illogical logic chaim: this makes them the equivalent of genocidal monstere:
The ideology that women act on is the ideology of Pol Pot, of the Killing Fields. Women want non-alpha men purged and intelligence is considered by women to be a lack of alphaness in a man. This is similar to the ideology that led to the killing fields. Many of the millions who were murdered by the Khmer Rouge in the Killing Fields were murdered for showing signs of intelligence. That included everything from education to the possesion of wristwatches and/or glasses. If modern geeky hobbies had existed in Cambodia in the 70s, I’m sure that would have been included along with wristwatches and glasses as evidence of intelligence, and anyone interested in geeky hobbies would have been murdered too.
He’s making a could-not-possibly-be-more-strained reference to the whole Alyssa Bereznak/Jon Finkel kerfuffle. Bereznak, as most of you probably already know, wrote a sort of snarky, sort of stupid piece for Gizmodo about her date with Finkel, a champion Magic the Gathering player, and said some mean things about him and his geeky hobby. Pol Pot engineered the deaths of roughly 2 million people, many of them urban dwellers and intellectuals forced to relocate to collective farms in the countryside. Many died of starvation; others were shot – or beaten to death, in order to save on bullets.
So, yeah, Bereznak and Pol Pot are pretty much identical.
WAN continues:
[T] ideology of what women are doing now and what Pol Pot did are very similar. The Killing Fields needed to be opposed for both moral and practical reasons and so must what women are doing now. Rebel at The Spearhead said that women are engaged in a “holy crusade” against men. … The Khmer Rouge was also on a “holy crusade”. As Rebel also said what is at stake is nothing less than civilization itself and your existence and freedom just as it was with the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
In an earlier post pretty much making the identical, er, “argument,” WAN takes aim at comedian Julie Klausner, who recently published a memoir called I Don’t Care About Your Band: What I Learned from Indie Rockers, Trust Funders, Pornographers, Faux Sensitive Hipsters, Felons and Others. In her book, and in some interviews about the book, Klausner made some unflattering comments about “beta males” and “immature” men. This sends WAN into a rage:
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot would be proud of this cunt. She all but calls for concentration camps for her “useless beta inferior men” who secretly run the world. …
Ah, classic weasel words: “All but calls for.” In other words, she doesn’t actually call for concentration camps, or even rock ‘n’ roll fantasy camps, for men in any way shape or form. Never mind. WAN continues:
Somehow these “straight angry nerds” who are “useless and inferior” took over the world when no one was looking and this cunt says “something needs to be done” about this “epidemic”.
This type of thinking is widespread among women. …
[I]t’s no surprise that a lot of men are saying they think they would be better off with the Taliban running things. While I’m not sure that isn’t just trading one set of problems for another … I understand what these men are thinking. Anything has got to be better than this.
So: Nerdy men are “oppressed” by women who won’t date them. The solution to this imaginary oppression: oppress women for real.
I couldn’t make this shit up.
Alcuin in Wonderland
The Intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy: One big sandwich joke.
At first glance, Alcuin’s blog would seem to be some sort of parody. The blog’s slogan – “Promoting the Intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy” – seems so over-the-top pretentious that even the smuggest of would-be intellectuals wouldn’t be able to post it with a straight face.
But if Alcuin is a troll, he’s a dedicated one, and one (at least based on my less-than-exhaustive survey of his blog) who never seems to break character. So I’m assuming he’s real. Which makes him a pompous ass with a lot of irritating ideas he’s somehow convinced himself are new and interesting. Take (please!) his recent post “Back Where They Belong.” And yes, “they” mean who you think, and “where they belong” means where you think.
Men should run the government, business, education, and religion. Women should stay at home. Young unmarried women can briefly work as kindergarten and elementary teachers, but there are no reasons why men can’t usually do this as well.
I’m not sure if Alcuin understands that women actually hold most of the jobs that currently exist, and that removing virtually all of them from the workplace would cause the economy to implode like, well, Alcuin, if you suddenly removed all of his idiocy. Also, how many kindergarten teachers do we really need?
As long as women run things, men will continue to be sidelined and slandered because feminism is a zero-sum movement.
Women … run things?
There can be no peace between the sexes until women are back where they belong. The sexes are meant to complement each other rather than compete and put one another down.
Yes, and the best way to show how the sexes “are meant to complement each other rather than … put one another down” is for one of the sexes to, er, put the other down by sending them back into the home.
Women have no business being lawyers, judges, educators, doctors, bureaucrats, writers, or religious leaders. Their attempted leadership in these areas, an illegitimate coup d’etat, is destroying our society.
I agree. Lady Pope is doing a terrible job of dealing with all those abuse cases!
Sadly, they prefer to enjoy their present situation, and let society rot, than go back where they belong and participate in building things again. Much like enjoying the concert on the sinking Titanic – though in this case, don’t expect chivalrous men to jump into the cold water so the ladies can have space on the lifeboats.
A little Titanic humor always enlivens a dull rant, eh?
Knock knock!
Who’s there!
An iceberg!
Damn, I guess we shouldn’t have kept going in zero visibility in a part of the ocean where icebergs had been recently sighted, in our ship that doesn’t have enough lifeboats for everyone!
I crack myself up sometimes. Back to Alcuin:
Feminism is a hate movement that brings out the worst in women.
Unlike the Men’s Rights movement, a hate movement that brings out the best in men!
It hates women because it hates femininity and motherhood, the chief characteristics of what it means to be a genuine woman. It brings out the worst in women by turning them into men, or trying to masculate them.
Damn you, feminism! Don’t go masculating those ladies! First they want to wear pants, and the next thing you know they’re growing ironic mustaches and using Axe Detailers instead of loofahs and subscribing to Bass Fishing Monthly.
It hates men because it blames everything on men, and regards masculinity in men to be evil. It emasculates men at the same time. Gays and, much more secondarily, manginas, are somewhat acceptable to the gynocracy, especially when the furniture needs moving or some bitch can’t pay her own bills.
Because when you need furniture moved, or some money, you call … the gays? Is this some new gay stereotype I’m not aware of? I mean, manginas, sure, manginas are furniture-movers and money-to-bitches conduits extraordinaire. That’s how they get access to pussy, after all.
But what’s the incentive for the gays? They don’t need pussy; they’d, presumably, prefer to spend their money on tiny dogs and gym memberships than on some bitch’s bills; and while gays may have strong opinions about where the furniture should go, are they really interested in carrying it there themselves?
Women generally use men, and feminism continues this grand tradition. A man’s value is defined according to his use to women. Deeper than that, feminism regards men in the same way that the Nazis regarded Jews – men are Untermensch and cannot be granted the same rights and privileges that women are.
And … now we’ve got Nazis.
Feminism aims to bring men down, as it is a zero-sum movement. It doesn’t simply aim to improve the lot of women through, for instance, education, but seeks to exclude men from education.
It does? Last I heard, colleges were actually lowering their standards in order to enroll more guys.
Thus the current propaganda about campus rape, and the attempt to make it easier to accuse a university male of rape in the USA. Thanks, government. You are, once again, the handmaiden of misandry.
And handmaidens are bad. Not like Shieldmaidens.
Feminist hate will never be satisfied, so men can’t keep avoiding the issue. We must avoid feminism as much as we can, and educate each other about it and about alternatives.
Generally it is advisable to actually know something about something before trying to “educating” other people about it.
This intellectual Renaissance of Western Patriarchy business is a lot trickier than you might think.
Dudes’ Republic of China
The inhabitants of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit seem to have developed a sudden crush on the authoritarian Chinese government. Why? Well, it seems that the lovable tyrants have decided to crack down on evil golddigger bitches. According to an article in The Telegraph, linked to in the subreddit,
In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China’s Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.
“Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much,” said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.
The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment.
Never mind that the lopsided demographics in China today — where young men greatly outnumber young women, making it harder for young men to find wives — are not the result of excess feminism, but the result of a toxic mixture of cultural misogyny and the authoritarian regime’s “one child” program. As William Saletan explains the logic in Slate:
Girls are culturally and economically devalued; the government uses powerful financial levers to prevent you from having another child; therefore, to make sure you can have a boy, you abort the girl you’re carrying.
The result? 16 million “missing girls” in China. Ironically, the skewed ratio of men to women gives young women considerable leverage in chosing whom to marry – and that’s what the Men’s Rightser’s seem to see as the real injustice here.
As Evil Pundit wrote, evidently speaking for many (given the numerous upvotes he got):
Wow. I’ve always disliked the authoritarian Chinese government, but for once, it’s done something good.
I may need to reconsider my attitude.
IncrediblyFatMan added:
China wants to become the next superpower and world leader. They aren’t going to do it by allowing the kinds of social decay that rot away at the competing nations.
Revorob joked:
If they brought that in over here, most women in Australia would be living on the street.
“Or,” Fondueguy quipped in response, “they could learn to work.”
At the moment, all the comments in the thread praising the Chinese government for this move (and there are many more) have net upvotes; the only comment in the negative? One suggesting that the Telegraph isn’t exactly a reliable source.
Speaking of which, here’s a more balanced look at the issue on China.org.cn that examines some of the consequences of the new ruling for Chinese women.
Let’s look at some of those. According to one Beijing lawyer quoted in the piece:
“[H]ousewives, especially those in the rural areas who have no job and are responsible for taking care of their families, will be affected most by this new change,” she said. “If their husbands want a divorce, they are likely to be kicked out of the house with nothing.”
Luo Huilan, a professor of women’s studies at China Women’s University in Beijing, agreed.
In rural areas, she said, men have the final say in family matters. All essential family assets, such as home, car and bank deposits, are registered in the men’s names, and women fill the roles of only wife, mother and farmworker.
“Their labor, though substantial, hardly gets recognition. Without a good education, they have to rely heavily on their husbands,” Luo said. “In case of divorce, a woman is driven out of her husband’s life, home and family, and finds herself an alien even in her parents’ home. No wonder the new interpretation of the Marriage Law has aroused concern among women.”
And no wonder it’s drawn cheers on the Men’s Rights subreddit.
AntiFeministMedia 2: Women should be replaced by better technology.
Our glorious future
The other day we took a look at a Redditor who calls himself AntiFeministMedia. He does not seem to like the ladies very much. Indeed, in some of the posts of his I quoted, he went so far as to say that women are animals, not humans, and suggested that men should pretty much have the final say in anything involving reproduction (as clearly the women have been doing a terrible job of it).
So one might wonder: why have ladies at all? This is a thought that has crossed the mind of AntiFeministMedia more than a few times. And he’s got some ideas about how it could be done.
As he points out in this comment, men have known all along that ladies is trouble. But now, thanks to superior male brains, we finally have the technology to do something about it. Today, fleshlights! Tomorrow, the womb!
Men have known women are the problem right throughout history, and to deny it just goes to show how ignorant and stupid you are.
Religion’s, culture’s, all have there warnings about women.
And all these things will be known again. The dots will be joined, and its my hope that after this current fuck up of allowing feminism to take root, men will never allow it again.
I actually think its time men went foreward alone. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women in almost every way, except for the animal nature…
Women should be replaced by better technology.
Consider the many fine benefits of this plan:
If men didnt have to live in this human-female environment, but instead was guaranteed in having his sexual needs met, and his genes live on into the future, there would be a lot less conflict of all kinds.
This two-party system of male and female has served its purpose (in the most brutal way), we are rapidly approaching a time where things could be radically different.
Tell me more about this brave new world of which you speak, in which men can live their lives free of bitches:
Cloning science and female androids may just solve that woman problem for us.
I wouldnt advocate killing women, certainly not, but a gradual fade-out, allow women to live out their natural lives, while we transition to the new technology.
No need for anything as unpleasant as killing, no. Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies. Nothing objectionable about this, not at all.
If you’ve followed any of these links back to the original comments, you’ll see that AntiFeministMedia, like most truly original thinkers, has gotten some resistance to his ideas — even from the normally forward-looking thinkers of the Men’s Rights subreddit. And a few downvotes!
But some of his comments are so clearly and obviously correct, so pithy and wise, that they get upvotes. Like this one, suggesting that female demand for iPads and mobile phones is one of the central driving forces behind war:
Well its nice to hear her comment that western women themselves have been complicit in foreign wars and the rape of native women by soldiers, so that companies can obtain gold and other precious metals for Ipads and moble phones which women seem to like so much.
Oh you evil women with your iPads and mobile phones! We men are of course immune to the devilish allure of computer technology. Indeed, I’m typing this blog post on an old Smith-Corona Galaxie Portable Typewriter.
AntiFeministMedia: “Do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ women for no reason?”
Shouldn't they all be?
My favorite Redditor these days is an angry little fella named AntiFeministMedia. How much of a douche is he? So much of one that sometimes he actually manages to get downvoted in the Men’s Rights subreddit for his excessive douchebaggery.
You may recall him as the author of the “the female gravy train of victimhood” quote I highlighted the other day. But I’ve been going through his comment history and have unearthed a number of other wonders.
It’s going to take more than one post to truly convey his charms. We’ll start today with some of his comments on women, and their vaginas, and why both need to be kept in check.
Women, you see, just aren’t made for freedom:
what happnes when you give women economic and sexual freedom, is that you get major social problems.
It simply doesnt work, because women are incapable of behaving themselves, men see their society disintegrating, their children suffering, and then decide to ‘put women in their place’.
If women wernt so irresponsible when they got their freedom, men would not have to step in and take it away from them. Seriously, do you really believe men have ‘oppressed’ (read: restrained) women for no reason?
It’s almost as if these ladies aren’t even human:
people are scared of women. Thats the truth about it. Women can be such nasty pieces of work that no one wants to get on their bad side for fear of them becoming hysterical … The female world is an animal world which a lot of men, being human, simply dont understand).
True, they do have vaginas, but that isn’t enough to make up for that whole not-being-human thing:
You may or may not believe this, but I am quite happy alone.
The only thing I’d want you from is a vagina, the rest of the time I’d despise you. You see I dont like who you are. I am a human being, while women are from the animal world. They think like animals, and that is not something I would want to pair with. While women are thinking about survival, Im thinking about god.
And, at least some of the time, about vaginas.
Speaking of which: Since ladies are such herd animals, they clearly shouldn’t be allowed to be in charge of anything, including the things that come out of their vaginas. You know, babies:
You seem to think in groups, not as individuals. Thats why I believe women shouldnt be given a choice. Children should automatically be the property of the male (again). If women cannot understand simple situations like those I’ve outlined, or even the fact that men should be consulted first before a child is created … then they are not the best people to be in control of reproduction.
After all, contrary to all that nonsense you might have heard in your high school sex ed classes, it only takes one person to get pregnant:
It takes two to tango, and one to get pregnant. The one that gets pregnant bears the ultimate responsibilty, particularly since she has full control over reproduction in the modern west. …
It is up to women to screen out bad men, and to choose a man capable of being a good father. That is the responsibilty of women. If a woman opens her legs to any sob, without spending the time and energy to assess wether he would make a good father, and then he runs off, then thats the womans fault. But again, we go back to women not being able to take personal responsibilty.
Exactly. When a man deserts his children, it is obviously the woman, not him, who is being irresponsible.
Given how badly women are doing at this whole reproduction thing, wouldn’t it be great if we could just remove women from the equation entirely?
AntiFeministMedia has some thoughts on this as well, which we will examine in a future post. Stay tuned.
Links: Michael Kimmel and Amanda Marcotte on masculinity, misogyny and Anders Breivik
The world doesn't need any more macho Nazis
A couple excellent pieces on Anders Breivik and misogyny.
First: The other day I posted a link to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Breivik and the sexual politics of far-right thought. It turned out that the article was a draft that got published prematurely.
Now the final version of the post is officially up at Sociological Images: A tale of two terrorists redux. Kimmel argues that what we know about Breivik thus far
indicate[s] that … it will be impossible to fully understand this horrific act without understanding how gender operates as a rhetorical and political device for domestic terrorists.
These members of the far right consider themselves Christian Crusaders for Aryan Manhood, vowing its rescue from a feminizing welfare state. Theirs is the militarized manhood of the heroic John Rambo – a manhood that celebrates their God-sanctioned right to band together in armed militias if anyone, or any governmental agency, tries to take it away from them. If the state and capital emasculate them, and if the masculinity of the “others” is problematic, then only “real” white men can rescue the American Eden or the bucolic Norwegian countryside from a feminized, multicultural, androgynous immigrant-inspired melting pot.
Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon offers some thoughts on Misogyny and Terrorism:
[T]here’s definitely a strong link between misogyny and violence that can’t be denied. Misogynists are far likelier to be violent people than non-misogynists, which is why rape and wife-beating are such common crimes. (Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury for women 15-44.) All bigotry provokes violence at its ends, of course. This isn’t the Oppression Olympics. But misogyny and violence go hand in hand so often because misogynists really buy deeply into the idea that women are weak and men are “strong”, by which they mean aggressive. A steady drumbeat of misogynist thought couldn’t be better designed to reach the unhinged and cause them to lash out violently, all while imagining themselves to be big, tough men who claim they were forced—with “why did you make me do this?” being the battle cry of wife beaters—into violence.
Discuss.
Two atheists get in an elevator
So here’s a hilarious atheist joke for you all:
Two atheists at a conference get into an elevator at 4 AM. The dude atheist, apropos of nothing, invites the chick atheist to go to his room with him. The chick atheist, who’s never even spoken to the dude before, is creeped out by this. (She says no.) She mentions the incident in a YouTube video. A shitstorm erupts in the atheist-o-sphere because, like, how could she possibly call an atheist dude a creep and aren’t women treated worse in Islamist Theocracies?
Then Richard Dawkins says,
Dear Muslima
Stop whining, will you. Yes, yes, I know you had your genitals mutilated with a razor blade, and . . . yawn . . . don’t tell me yet again, I know you aren’t allowed to drive a car, and you can’t leave the house without a male relative, and your husband is allowed to beat you, and you’ll be stoned to death if you commit adultery. But stop whining, will you. Think of the suffering your poor American sisters have to put up with.
Only this week I heard of one, she calls herself Skep”chick”, and do you know what happened to her? A man in a hotel elevator invited her back to his room for coffee. I am not exaggerating. He really did. He invited her back to his room for coffee. Of course she said no, and of course he didn’t lay a finger on her, but even so . . .
And you, Muslima, think you have misogyny to complain about! For goodness sake grow up, or at least grow a thicker skin.
Richard
In a followup comment, Dawkins tops that bit of hilarity with this:
Rebecca’s feeling that the man’s proposition was ‘creepy’ was her own interpretation of his behaviour, presumably not his. She was probably offended to about the same extent as I am offended if a man gets into an elevator with me chewing gum. But he does me no physical damage and I simply grin and bear it until either I or he gets out of the elevator. It would be different if he physically attacked me.
Damn. That joke didn’t turn out to be really very hilarious at all. Maybe I told it wrong?
In any case, as you might already know (or have gathered), this whole thing actually happened over the past weekend. The atheist chick in question is Rebecca Watson, a popular blogger who calls herself Skepchick. The conference in question was the Center for Inquiry’s Student Leadership Conference. The part of Richard Dawkins was played by, well, Richard Dawkins. (You can find both of his comments quoted here.)
The incident has been hashed and rehashed endlessly in the atheist-o-sphere (and even out of it), but I think it deserves a tiny bit more re-rehashing. Mainly because it illustrates that some really creepy, backwards attitudes can lurk deep in the hearts of dudes who think of themselves as enlightened, rational dudes fighting the evils of superstition and, yes, religious misogyny.
The strangest thing about the whole incident is how supremely mild Watson’s comments on the creepy elevator dude were. Here is literally all she said about him, in passing, in her video (transcribed here):
So I walk to the elevator, and a man got on the elevator with me and said, ‘Don’t take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?’
Um, just a word to wise here, guys, uh, don’t do that. You know, I don’t really know how else to explain how this makes me incredibly uncomfortable, but I’ll just sort of lay it out that I was a single woman, you know, in a foreign country, at 4:00 am, in a hotel elevator, with you, just you, and–don’t invite me back to your hotel room right after I finish talking about how it creeps me out and makes me uncomfortable when men sexualize me in that manner.
That’s it. That’s the whole thing. You would think that most guys would be well aware that accosting a woman you’ve never met before in an elevator at 4 AM is, you know, kind of a no-no. But, no, Watson’s comments suddenly became an attack on male sexuality and men in general. One critic put up a video lambasting Watson, ending it with the question:
What effect do you think it has on men to be constantly told how sexist and destructive they are?
Never mind that she didn’t, you know, actually do that at all. Nor did she even remotely suggest, despite Dawkins’ weird screed, that creepy dudes on elevators were somehow equivalent to genital mutilation or the general denial of women’s rights in Islamist theocracies. She merely suggested that guys might want to think twice before hitting on women who are alone with them in an elevator at four in the morning. Pointing out the creepy behavior of one particular dude is not the same as calling all men creepy.
Now, the atheist movement tends to be a bit of a sausagefest, pervaded by some fairly backwards notions about women. (Prominent atheist pontificator Christopher Hitchens, you may recall, seems to sincerely believe that women just aren’t funny. Not that he’s exactly a barrel of monkeys himself.) But some of the most vociferous critics of Watson have been other atheist women – including the one I quoted above.
Watson responded to this in the first of several posts she wrote about the whole weird controversy:
I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?”
In a followup post, she noted:
When I started this site, I didn’t call myself a feminist. I had a hazy idea that feminism was a good thing, but it was something that other people worried about, not me. I was living in a time and culture that had transcended the need for feminism, because in my world we were all rational atheists who had thrown off our religious indoctrination so that I could freely make rape jokes without fear of hurting someone who had been raped.
And then I would make a comment about how there could really be more women in the community, and the responses from my fellow skeptics and atheists ranged from “No, they’re not logical like us,” to “Yes, so we can fuck them!” That seemed weird.
Watson began hearing from other women in the skeptic/atheist community who’d met far too many of that second sort of male atheist.
They told me about how they were hit on constantly and it drove them away. I didn’t fully get it at the time, because I didn’t mind getting hit on. But I acknowledged their right to feel that way and I started suggesting to the men that maybe they relax a little and not try to get in the pants of every woman who walks through the door.
And then, as her blog garnered more attention, she faced a virtual invasion of creepy dudes being creepy:
I’ve had more and more messages from men who tell me what they’d like to do to me, sexually. More and more men touching me without permission at conferences. More and more threats of rape from those who don’t agree with me, even from those who consider themselves skeptics and atheists. More and more people telling me to shut up and go back to talking about Bigfoot and other topics that really matter.
She didn’t shut up.
So here we are today. I am a feminist, because skeptics and atheists made me one. Every time I mention, however delicately, a possible issue of misogyny or objectification in our community, the response I get shows me that the problem is much worse than I thought, and so I grow angrier. I knew that eventually I would reach a sort of feminist singularity where I would explode and in my place would rise some kind of Captain Planet-type superhero but for feminists. I believe that day has nearly arrived.
Go read the rest of her post. Despite the creepy dudes and the misogyny and Richard Fucking Dawkins’ patronizing little screed – which led Watson to a moment of despair much like that of virtually every movie hero(ine) at the end of act two in the story arc – Watson ends it fairly hopeful. It’s kind of inspiring, really.
