Category Archives: rape
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.
Links: False rape accusations, misogynist Men’s Rightsers, and internet pervs
Some interesting links, the first two from Man Boobz regulars:
Holly Pervocracy on Ten Shades of False Rape Accusations
[S]ometimes it’s easier for a survivor to live with the knowledge that their rapist is free than it is for them to go through years of being under constant suspicion of being an evil false accuser. It ends with misogyny justifying and reinforcing itself, as the concept “women lie about rape” becomes both proof of and proven by “women are untrustworthy, manipulative, and malicious.” It ends with rapists who tell their victims “no one will ever believe you” being right, with society standing behind them.
Every time we reinforce the common wisdom that “women lie about rape all the time,” rape gets a little easier to commit.
Ozymandias on No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz: Take My Social Movement– Please!
All too often, the mainstream men’s rights movement is not gender egalitarian at all. All too often, those of us who support equal rights for everyone– no matter what our differences in opinion– have found our voices drowned out by misogynistic, rape-apologist and frankly stupid asshats. That has to change.
Gawker’s Adrian Chen on How a 14-Year-Old Girl Became an Unwilling Internet Pin-Up
Reddit is home to a whole network of proud pervs, and through Jailbait I came across another board dedicated to creeping on someone named Angie Verona. … Three years ago, when she was 14, Angie took some photos for her boyfriend and stored them in a private Photobucket account. The account was hacked and the photos leaked. Pictures of 14-year-old Angie posing provocatively in a bikini and lingerie were thrown all over the internet, showing up on message boards like Reddit and 4chan, and posted on porn sites. …
[E]very teen with a Facebook account has pictures like Angie’s. What’s fucked up is this trafficking of pictures of random underage girls that falls just this side of child porn, with no regard for the real life that might be ruined in the process.
Like a Surgeon: The battle for World’s Creepiest Redditor heats up
Also not a real surgeon.
Currently, the skeezy ephebophile rape-enthusiast violentacrez is the reigning champion of Reddit creepiness. But he’s got a new rival nipping at his heels: a porn-and-sex-obsessed fella who calls himself mroglolblo. Though he’s had his account for less than two weeks, he’s already taking creepy comments to a new level. Here’s what’s probably the creepiest of the lot, posted (as you’ll notice) in a thread about Nintendo.
Oh, by the way, TRIGGER WARNING for all of his comments, which tend to be sexually explicit and often pretty rapey.
The only thing that allows me to retain my faith in humanity (and the medical profession) is my almost complete certainty that he is not really a surgeon and that this bit of celebrity bladder fondling never happened outside of mroglolblo’s fevered imagination.
But what an imagination it is! Here he offers some thoughts on quantum physics and the Large Hadron Collider. (Or should that be the Large Hardon Collider?)
I’d love to have gotten a rare inside visit to the Cern supercollider and jerked off right into the tubes as they were starting a run and everyone freaks out until they discover my sperm travelled 25 times the speed of light and scientists shit themselves when they see the results, and to confirm the results they have me whack off into the supercollider in front of a team of top physicists and dignitaries live on tv and the results are reproduced and it turns out my sperm has unique properties and they have the Spanish girl from My name is earl lay spread eagle in the collider that I whack off into again and she gives birth to a baby with the powers of superman and he turns out to be crazy and by force makes Felicia Day and Olivia Munn submit to a 1500 man gangbang at the next comicon.
Needless to say, mroglolblo has an extensive knowledge of pornography. Really, really, really extensive. Charmingly, he’s rather modest about his accomplishments:
I wouldn’t say I know all that much about porn. More than the average guy for sure but there is a whole other level of porn aficianado out there that dwarfs mine. It’s the guys who have been following porn for 20+ years and have tens of thousands of posts on sites like Adultdvdtalk and planetsuzy.com and run blogs about porn who are the real experts who have helped educate me. It’s kind of like what Newton said about standing on the shoulders of giants.
What if for some reason you’re temporarily unable to access your porn? Well, mroglolblo has an answer to that, which involves collecting the pubic hair of one of his sister’s friends. I can’t bring myself to post it. Or to post his detailed fantasies about Scarlett Johanssen and her anus.
Naturally, Reddit loves the guy. Indeed, one of his skeeziest comments, involving some almost-certainly-imaginary incest with his aunt, garnered him nearly 400 upvotes.
Props to fxexular in ShitRedditSays for bringing him to my attention.
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.
New Men’s Rights subreddit moderator thinks violence against women is just hilarious
Recently Kloo2yoo, the founder and longtime moderator of Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, stepped down. The remaining moderator, IgnatiusLoyola, has just announced his successor, a long-time commenter in the subreddit who calls himself AnnArchist. (Despite the female-sounding name, he’s a guy.)
This is an, er, interesting choice, as AnnArchist is a misogynist asshole who thinks that violence against women is hilarious. Indeed, he’s posted in the BeatingWomen subreddit, a thoroughly vile little forum devoted to posting pictures and videos of women being violently assaulted. He says he enjoys this particular subreddit because “I have a sense of humor so I can laugh at it.” Here’s one recent post of his, and another. I don’t know exactly what was in either video, since they’ve both been removed my YouTube, the first for violating the site’s rules against hate speech, the second for its “shocking and disgusting content.” If you look through the comments on these submissions, you may also note that the r/beatingwomen regulars, in addition to being misogynist assholes, are also racist as fuck.
“Welcome AnnArchist,” the_real_misogynist wrote in response to one of these postings, “with posts like that you’ll fit right in here.”
Needless to say, AnnArchist doesn’t find violence by women against men quite so risible.
AnnArchist has also advocated murder (many, many, many times), endorsed vigilantism against a specific young woman, and suggested that false rape accusers should be stoned and/or jailed with the word “liar” tattooed on their faces.
He refers to women as “whores” and “cum dumpsters.” He’s boasted about “persuading” girls to have sex with him after they’ve said “no.” (Meanwhile, he’s said that if he woke up next to a trans woman after being drunkenly “tricked” into sex he would violently assault her.)
Oh, and there’s this bit of wisdom:
If you hyphenate your child’s last name, well its just pathetic. It means the mother was an uncompromising shrew.
I’m sure there are many other vile comments in AnnArchist’s past; these are simply the ones I uncovered with a couple of Reddit searches and by going through his most controversial comments. Indeed, as he himself acknowledges, “there is no limit to the amount of screwed up shit that I’ve posted.”
So why exactly was he picked as a moderator? Is he truly the best that r/mensrights can offer?
Apparently a lot of the r/mensrights regulars think so; most of those who’ve commented so far have praised IgnatiusLoyola’s choice, and have dismissed the critics as “trolls.” (EDITED TO ADD: The tide seems to have turned; there are now more comments up critical of AnnArchist’s promotion to mod, and posts defending Iggy’s decision aee getting some downvotes.)
EDITED TO ADD: Just wanted to highlight one of his comments on the false accuser he was targeting:
I hope she was harassed. Fuck I hope her house was firebombed. Lets be clear, I really will applaud anyone who does anything to her, be it slash her tires or slash her throat.
Here’s the full quote in context. (EDIT: AnnArchist has edited this comment to remove the violent bits. Luckily, someone got a screenshot.)
And here is a comment of his on a specific female judge:
I hope someone kills her.
The recent ugliness on Reddit
From time to time, something will happen on the Internet or in real life that I know I should write about for Man Boobz, but it’s so infuriating or depressing that I can’t bring myself to write about it. The recent bullshit on Reddit involving a young woman whose story of a sexual assault was met with angry disbelief until she provided video proof that her injuries were real is a perfect case in point.
Briefly, what happened is this:
A young woman posted about a sexual assault she’d endured a day or so earlier – a man had tried to rape her, pushing her to the ground and scraping her face on the pavement. In a separate topic she posted a picture of her injuries, most notably a giant scrape on her cheek. You can see it at right; click on the picture to see it full size.
Then another Redditor noticed that some time back, the same woman had posted a picture of herself in zombie makeup. This, he said, made him skeptical that her injuries were real — it was probably just a good makeup job.
That was all it took to send Reddit into a full internet lynch mob frenzy: obviously this woman was a liar and an attention whore and, even worse, possibly a feminist anti-rape activist! Redditors suddenly became both medical and makeup experts, and declared that the giant scrape on her face was obviously phony. (Not to me; I tried arguing with several of them to no avail.) It got ugly, very ugly, very quickly.
The woman at the heart of the storm asked if she needed to post an actual video of her cleaning the wound on her face to show that it was real; a redditor demanded that she do just that.
So she did. (Here it is.) Long story short: the scrape is real. The woman also posted a picture of the business card given to her by the police detective she’s spoken to when reporting the incident. It’s now pretty clear that there is no reason to doubt that her story is true. Even the Redditor who originally challenged her story realized that she was almost certainly telling the truth.
Here’s her post offering proof to back up her story.
At this point the lynch mob lost its steam; some people even apologized to her.
But the evidence of the ugliness remains in a host of different threads and different subforums on Reddit. I honestly don’t have the energy or the patience to sift through all of the ugliness; luckily, Jezebel has given a decent account of the whole spectacle; you can go there to get some more of the details.
You might also want to look in to the main thread where most of the ugliness occurred — though at this point many of the vile accusatory comments that got upvoted when everyone seemed to assume she was lying have been retroactively voted down. (The screenshot I posted above gives a better idea of what it looked like at the time; here’s another screenshot with some of the choicer comments.)
Naturally, Men’s Rightsers contributed to the ugliness – though most of the worst comments appeared outside of the Men’s Rights subreddit, and a surprising number of r/mr regulars refused to jump on the original “she’s a liar” bandwagon.
While many Men’s Rightsters are now apologetic, others still think she may be lying.
Here’s a good discussion of the whole thing in ShitRedditSays, and a followup.
MRA blog suggests a cooling-off period would make statutory rape ok
From Human Stupidity, an MRA blog rather obsessed with underage girls and the alleged evil of age of consent laws:
[I]f a 15 year old … can decide to have sex with a 16 year old … [h]ow come she cannot have sex with a 35 year old? Age discrimination by law?
Are you worried about manipulation of the tender 15 year old? I have a solution:
what about legalizing sex with underage adolescents, if they first undergo an hour of mandatory counselling and a 2 day cool off period? That should take care of this issue. This would guarantee safety for the 15 year old against being conned or manipulated. More safety that is offered to 21 year old tipsy Friday night party girls who may feel sorry for what they did yesterday
I think he might actually be serious here. Though it’s pretty clear he’d be happy with any excuse to make it legal for 35 year-old men to have sex with 15 year-old girls.
If at first you don’t succeed, grope her
This might work, actually.
Say what you will about the dedicated PUAs (Pick-Up Artists) of the world: at least they sometimes actually talk to real human women. The guys in Reddit’s Seduction subreddit, I’m not so sure about.
It’s kind of sad, sometimes, to read the plaintive requests for advice on Seddit (as it’s known) from college guys who’ve fixated on some girl in some class of theirs, and want desperately to learn the secret formula to get into her pants. These aren’t guys who’ve mastered the art of “negging” women with clever little mini-insults (a favorite PUA technique); these are guys who haven’t quite grasped that you have to actually talk to a woman in order to ask her out.
Take this query, recently posted there:
My suggestion?
Write “coffee?” on your forehead, and stand in front of her. Point at your forehead if necessary.
So, yeah, I’ve been banned from Seddit.
Look, I feel for the guy. I’ve been that guy.
But just think of it from the point of view of the girl. Some guy you’ve never spoken to, some guy who doesn’t know a thing about you other than you make him feel funny in his pants, approaches you out of the blue and … slips you a note?
But really, the problem there isn’t the note. Well, part of the problem is the note, But the main problem is that college dude has never spoken to her before. As anyone who has watched Seinfeld knows well, “coffee” means “sex.” Going up to a woman you’ve never spoken to before and asking her out is a bit like saying “hi, you make me feel funny in my pants. I would like to put my penis in you. Perhaps we could chat a bit first. Though, clearly, I don’t care what’s in your actual brain, because here I am asking you out based on nothing more than the fact that you cause that aforementioned feeling in my pants.”
Pro-tip for lonely guys: remember that women are actual human beings also.
Now, this poor Sedditor got some good basic advice from the crowd there, basically boiling down to: figure out an excuse to talk to her before class, and see how it goes.
Now, Seddit may be mildly useful in giving this sort of basic advice to the truly hapless. But it doesn’t seem to be very good at getting across the notion that women are human.
Indeed, there was a strikingly similar question posted in Seddit a couple of days ago: a guy who wanted to ask out the only girl in his engineering class. His post, in stark contrast with the note guy, was bristling with PUA acronyms and lingo: the girl was an “HB8” (Hot Babe that he rated an 8 of 10 on the hotness scale); he was on the lookout for IOSs (Indications of Interest) from her, and so on and so on.
But his strategy was strikingly similar to that of the AFC (Average Frustrated Chump) with the note: he was going to walk up to her after class and ask her out for dinner. But he was planning to add one more “technique” to his approach: “kino.” In PUA-speak, kino means touch.
So, yeah, that’s what he learned from all his study of advanced PUA-oloogy: just start touching her! Women are eager to jump into bed with guys who come up to them out of the blue and start groping them. (The post itself was deleted after it got linked to in the ShitRedditSays subreddit, so no link.)
Trouble is, this guy is not the only one getting the message that Pick-up artistry is all about invading a woman’s personal space and “escalating” until she literally fights you off or given is. This is, in fact, the basic message of the PUA who calls himself Gunwich – a man who not that long ago (allegedly) shot a woman I the face after she refused his advances.
And, yes, pressuring a woman until she gives in, or up, is one way of getting in her pants. It’s also, you know, rape.
In recent days a number of Sedditers have posted advice that is little more than a how-to of date rape. A number of instances were pointed out in ShitRedditSays, and were deleted by the Seddit moderators. It’s clear this is damage control; a number of regulars on ShitRedditSays have been banned from posting in Seddit – many of whom had actually never posted there in the first place.
Here’s a discussion of one copy-and pasted date rape guide that got deleted before anyone made a screencap.
The Seddit mods say this is “fringe” stuff that doesn’t reflect how most Sedditors think. Then how is it that some of the creepiest comments get dozens of upvotes? Take this Sedditor’s advice on how to get inside a woman’s house (and then her pants) that I managed to screencap before it was deleted:
Now, there is plenty of PUA material that is not rapey. Manipulative, sure. Dopey, absolutely. But not rapey. A good Pick-Up Artist, in theory at least, should be able to tell when a woman is interested and when she isn’t, and move on when she isn’t.
But it’s clear that many Sedditors aren’t learning that whole “if she’s not interested, move on” thing. They’re learning: “if she’s not interested, pressure her and manipulate her, and wear her down. And be sure to touch her. Sorry, “kino escalate.”
They’re not learning empathy. They’re learning stupid human tricks. And, worse, they’re learning to ignore a woman’s “no,” to treat it as what PUAs call LMR – that is, Last Minute Resistance. And that’s pretty much a formula for date rape.
Life Before Feminism: The future inspiration for Austin Powers records the worst song in history.
Peter Wyngarde will not make you horny, baby.
Sorry, folks, no regular post until tomorrow. But to tide you over, might I draw your attention to possibly the most offensively misogynist song in history? (Trigger Warning: I’m about to describe what is possibly the most offensively misogynist song in history.) It’s a song recorded in 1970 by British actor Peter Wyngarde – star of several 60s spy dramas and allegedly an inspiration for Austin Powers.
The music itself is not the problem – it’s peppy and punchy, and sounds like a lot of crime/spy soundtracks from the 60s and 70s. No, the problem comes from, well, it comes from Wyngarde. The star, as Bret at Egg City Radio points out,
chose not to go the easy listening/pop route, instead bizarrely delving into lurid and sometimes flat-out stupid spoken word interludes.
Not just stupid, but offensive. Really offensive. Case in point:
a little three-minute ditty entitled “Rape”, in which Wyngarde not only seems to extolling the virtues of rape, but also executes a handful of wheedling barf-bag racial stereotypes that would make even Jerry Lewis blush. It must be heard to be believed … .
Well, yes and no. The idea that back in 1970 some dude might think it hilarious to do a song that was basically one big rape joke? Not that shocking. That he might add some horrifyingly “funny” racism into the mix? Also not completely shocking. That the record is mixed in such a way that it is nearly impossible to tell what Wyngarde – an actor who presumably knows how to enunciate – is saying? Now that’s a little shocking. I would have thought the record executives behind this cash-in project would have hired a more competent producer.
You can download the whole album at Egg City Radio.
Did I mention that it’s titled “When Sex Leers its Inquisitive Head?”
EDITED TO ADD: Woah, the song is up on YouTube. I didn’t even bother to check, because I assume it violates pretty much all of YouTube’s rules, but here it is. Thanks to Donsie in the comments for the link.
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.
