Is MRA blogger Christian J. incoherent by accident — or on purpose?
Is Christian J., the blogger behind What Men Are Saying About Women and the inventor of the infamous MRA two-dot ellipses, the worst writer in the manosphere?
I submit to you this sentence from a recent post of his:
One cannot falter to flatter, condone and encourage women more than by recommending and suggesting that the recommended path they have to follow will eventually, somehow, within a particular length of time, will meet with their euphoric predictions.
It’s hard to even know where to start with this hot mess of a sentence. Strunk and White famously exhorted writers to “omit needless words.” Christian J’s writing seems to consist almost entirely of needless words, some merely redundant, others simply wrong: they don’t actually mean what he thinks they mean. Meanwhile, Christian J. manages to confuse even himself with his pointlessly convoluted sentence structure – hence that second “will” towards the end.
Does Christian J’s sentence make more sense in context? A tiny bit. Here’s the whole paragraph:
Feeding the endless lies to women is ofcourse a main passion for feminists, as they believe that they are the epicenter of all wisdom and sage advice. One cannot falter to flatter, condone and encourage women more than by recommending and suggesting that the recommended path they have to follow will eventually, somehow, within a particular length of time, will meet with their euphoric predictions. Meanwhile they have waited in vain for decades for it to eventuate but it never appears to arrive. Feminists and women generally, will ofcourse never admit that they are on the wrong road in trying to fulfill their “mommy track with the picket fence”, dream. They are of the opinion that regardless of what they do, how they behave or what they promote, everything will eventually come their way automatically..
As far as I can tell, the point of his post is merely this: feminists have been telling women they can “have it all” – a career and a family – but really most women want to have kids and work part-time at best. Also, dudes don’t like feminists:
What the feminasties do not tell, is that there is actually a preferential scale that men generally follow to find a partner of choice. One would hazard a guess that being attached to a feminist would be missing on that list altogether or be down amongst the crippled and lame as they suffer from the same..
That’s almost poetic at the end there, with the “lame” and the “same.”
This bit is simply baffling.
[F]eminists want women out in the workforce so they can continually keep changing the rules, knowing that they have a lot of women out there who would in most situations, condone their actions. They can also guarantee that some level of that income will come their way and also ensure that funding and privileges will keep flowing while they have politicians by the balls.
So feminists want women to work so that they can get money from the government?
In the end, Christian J. “argues,” more traditional-minded women suffer:
Meanwhile, and as we have seen time and time again, it’s those women who want to make a different life for themselves who are still marginalised and berated. They have to be seen to be doing the feminist’s bidding, even if it is at their own expense and that is what this is all about. As we have witnessed right from the beginning, the feminists have a standard FU response aimed at anyone who dares to think or act differently to their demands and it’s this girlthink that is basically causing all the problems. So the ball is in the girls court but they fail to pick it up and run with it, meanwhile feminists are screwing their lives even further into the ground..
What on earth does that last sentence even mean? Christian J., mixing metaphors with impunity, has substituted clichés for thought.
Does it really matter that Christian J. can’t write his way out of a paper bag? Well, yeah, it sort of does. The incoherence of his prose reflects the incoherence of his ideas. Christian rails against the allegedly evil influences of feminists, but he never makes clear what exactly they are doing that he finds so objectionable. Nor does he ever explain exactly how feminists are harming “those women who want to make a different life for themselves” by, apparently, being stay-at-home moms. And of course he provides no real evidence to back up any of his points.
In short, Christian J. merely repeats a number of MRA talking points, stitching them together with overblown, incoherent prose heavy on clichés. A lot of MRA writing is like this: long on rhetoric, short on specifics, covering up its lack of substance with with obfuscatory rhetoric. Is this a deliberate strategy to conceal the MRM’s lack of real grievances? In most cases, I don’t think so. MRAs, for the most part, don’t know that they’re saying nothing. They think they are making arguments, when in reality they are having tantrums.
The Burny Mike Show
All hail mikesteane, brave Reddit warrior and champion of the rights of men!
Found on the Men's Rights subreddit.
Uteruses Versus Duderuses
Apparently a lot of ladies have these things living in their lady regions.
Today, more insight into the enigma that is ladies. Our topic? The uterus and its discontents. The uterus, for those who have not heard of it, is a lady organ that ladies who were born ladies have down in their lady regions. It is used for two purposes: making babies, and oppressing men.
Some ladies, you see, like to trick men into giving up their sperm (or to steal it from them without their knowledge). The ladies somehow use this sperm to grow babies in their uteruses — I’m not sure on all the details here — which they then use to extract money from men. As is well known, it really doesn’t cost anything to raise a child, and the ladies use most of the so-called child-support they get from men to pay for bon bons and Cadillacs.
It gets worse. According to a dude called Joe Zamboni over on The Spearhead, some of these uterus-having ladies are at risk of developing something called Golden Uterus Syndrome, or GUS. First described by Dr. Tara J. Palmatier, Zamboni notes,
Golden Uterus Syndrome (GUS) occurs when a woman thinks she deserves special privileges just because she has given birth to a child. … Supposedly all sorts of things (like a mother not taking a job, and instead staying at home) are for the benefit of the child, when in reality they are simply a cover for the woman manipulating others to get her way. … So many of these mothers just take, take, take — like parasites.
Even worse, Zamboni explains, is that some women deliberately infect themselves with Golden Uterus Syndrome, thus guaranteeing them a life of ease as a stay-at-home or single mother:
[W]omen all over world are blatantly getting pregnant so that they don’t have to work at a job, so that they can be supported by a man. I’m not going to act like I approve of their behavior to ensnare and enslave a man, so that this man is then forced to pay eighteen years of child support at the very least.
GUS is rampant in the United States. And it’s time for an intervention.
Mothers now enjoy many unwarranted preferences, and it’s time to reestablish a new and more equitable balance.
Luckily, Zamboni explains, we can combat many of the evil effects of GUS simply by acting like assholes.
The fact is that other people, be they men or women, owe nothing to mothers. As the recent Italian ocean liner accident (Costa Concordia) dramatically revealed, chivalry is dead. I won’t give my seat on the bus to a mother who’s standing, and I certainly won’t give my sinking-ship lifeboat seat to a mother.
The social contract between men and women is dead, and feminist women are the ones who killed it. Mothers in general don’t do anything for me (although I appreciate my own, God rest her soul).
Men shouldn’t feel guilty for treating mothers badly. Because feminism.
Once upon a time, there may have been good reason to protect mothers, to support mothers, etc. (I don’t know, I wasn’t there). But that is one hundred or more years ago. Today’s American women claim to be the equals of men, if not better than men. At least in this instance, I am pleased to give them what they say they want (equal treatment).
Motherhood is, after all, a choice, and men really shouldn’t be burdened by any of the costs of human reproduction.
The fact is that modern mothers have a choice to have a child or not. When they have a child, it is their own personal burden that they are taking on — it is their decision to have that baby. I had no part in their past baby making decisions (unfortunately even if I was the contributor of DNA material), and I do not now agree to allow them to off-load the baby-related responsibilities and costs onto me. …
This is fundamentally a question of self-responsibility, and women in general seem loath to take on true self-responsibility. A friend of mine calls it “congenital female selfishness,” but I think it is more like an acculturated selfishness, and a “pussy pass” so that they can get out of trouble, so that they don’t need to grow-up. As long as we men keep playing the mangina and white knight roles, as long as we keep giving all sorts of special treatment to mothers, going out of our way to protect mothers, doing all sorts of special favors for mothers, we feed and perpetuate the GUS fantasy.
And really, why should men have to pay just because some lady wants to take up babymaking as a hobby?
The fact is: the world doesn’t need more children. … Women don’t need to have children. They want children. Having children is a preference, and men are supposed to endlessly indulge women in the fulfillment of this wish. It’s time that the women-having-babies conversation was brought into the realm of public conversation, and then dealt with rationally and responsibly.
It’s time that men got a backbone and refused to endlessly indulge women in their desire for, and rearing of children. In large measure, it is the continued willingness of men to indulge this selfish female desire that has led to our overpopulation problem.
Exactly! It has nothing to do with governments and religious institutions campaigning against birth control and abortion, or any of that stuff. It’s female selfishness, plain and simple.
It’s time for all men to say “no” to women that selfishly keep having babies. It’s time for third party men to say “no” to providing support and protection to mothers who have quite clearly rejected any sort of partnership with a man. It’s time for all men to say “no” to the exploitative demands of these GUS-infected self-serving mothers.
Stirring words indeed.
Naturally, Zamboni’s argument found receptive ears over at The Spearhead.
“Great article Joe,” wrote Pendelton.
The living hell a man goes through where the golden uterus lives on his back and shoulders 24/7, also using his children to dump on and chump off him has got to be comparably unbearable.
And it’s always to be remembered that this type of woman, being a natural mercenary and hostage maker, has the legal violence of the law to back up her nastiness.
Why do people put up with these nagging hoyhums ?
Stonelifter added:
woman have the golden everything syndrome. They think you owe them for life if you had sex with you once; sex which they also enjoyed as well as you.
They make you diner once, you owe them for life
Admittedly, if a woman builds you an entire diner, I think you probably do owe her for that.
Durandal worked in a bit of “we hunted the mammoth for you” as well:
Women’s value is defined by what they have. Which is a vagina, uterus, and babymaking capability. Hence the self-entitlement and the probable evolutionary adaptation of selfishness and reliance on emotional solipsism and manipulation.
Men’s value is defined by what they do. Which is build absolutely everything, provide everything and advance civilization through their effort, rationality, intelligence, courage and sacrifice.
When our fiat monetary system falls apart and our economy winds down (and it will, if it hasn’t already), watch as government mandated entitlements for women from education & employment quotas to divorce court payouts go up in smoke and an immediate desire to reinstate productivity and real wealth (brought to you by patriarchy) returns for good.
Orecret also predicted the end of the world as we know it (and he feels fine):
Sometimes I wonder how much of the tension between women and men and the consequent breakdown of the social contract between them are due to overpopulation on the planet.
A greater population is no longer needed. Babies and children thus have a lower social value… as do WOMEN… and the male-female bond generally.
Women have gained more power due to prosperity and technology. They are currently experiencing what to them seems like a moment of glory. Only they are poised for a great fall as the effects of overpopulation on the planet become more acutely felt.
As elbow room becomes significantly impinged, men will find themselves even less inclined to take on any sort of partnership with a woman, especially where children are concerned. This effectively frees up men to use their time as they see fit as they are not to be burdened with the expenses and responsibilities of marriage, etc.
Men will act less and less in the public sphere. Corporations will have a hard time hiring men to jobs that they neither need nor want having been freed from the burden of family. Armies will shrink due to the lack of will the everyman has in protecting a society where the social contract has broken down much to the detriment of men everywhere.
The society will crash around us. Women will find themselves without male partners in an increasingly harsh social and natural environment. Life will become increasingly difficult for them and they will be (evermore) unhappy.
The MEN will be free and feral. Returned once again to a natural state where the majority of them are the happiest.
It seems a collective Wile E. Coyote moment is about to take place on a global scale.
It’s a good thing that THIS roadrunner has already gone ghost.
Each of these comments got dozens of upvotes on The Spearhead. Spearheaders know good sense when they see it!
There is some here.
Can Reddit handle the truth?
Shaming: Does not always work with dogs.
So the other day I got an interesting comment from a new fan. And by “fan,” I mean someone who hates my guts. “Casper” makes what he evidently thinks is a devastating indictment of my main modus operandi – that is, quoting misogynist dunderheads, and mocking them.
Clever. You encourage hatred towards men while using their own language to shame them. …
You’re just a hate-mongerer albeit an intelligent and creative one. Hitler would have just loved you
That’s right. I “encourage hatred towards men” by reporting what some dudes actually post on the internet, usually under a fake name that can’t be traced back to them. Pointing out when someone says something shitty evidently makes me as bad as Hitler. (I should note that I mock specific men, not men in general, and that I also mock specific women with similar opinions.)
Casper also complains that “[e]ven the name of your site is an effort to shame men.” Again, I should point out that the dumb punny title of this blog isn’t directed at all men, merely those who act like misogynist boobs (or, if you prefer, boobz). “Boob” is pretty much the mildest insult I can think of, not to mention one that is a bit archaic; it’s a bit like calling someone a ruffian or a jackanape. Frankly, it’s far too nice a name for many of the people I write about here.
Of course, Casper isn’t the only one who feels that pointing out the offensive crap that people say is somehow equivalent of starting a death camp in your backyard. Take the many critics of ShitRedditSays.
For those who aren’t familiar with the ways of Reddit, ShitRedditSays (or SRS) is a user-created forum (subreddit) on Reddit devoted to pointing out some of the worst, most bigoted and awful crap posted on Reddit that nonetheless gets upvotes and acclaim from Reddit regulars.
The SRS modus operandi may seem a bit familiar to anyone who reads Man Boobz: SRSers find highly upvoted crap on Reddit and post it to their subreddit, where others react with horror and/or laugh about how hilariously awful it is. They don’t send out “downvote brigades” to downvote the crap they link to; they don’t try to track the bigots down in the real world and harass them. No, SRSers post what they find, and they mock.
On a couple of occasions, they’ve gone further. When they discovered that actual child porn was being circulated in Reddit’s “Jailbait” subreddit, a hangout for ephebophile creepers to creep on pictures of underage girls, SRSers spread the word beyond Reddit, and the resulting media attention led to Reddit finally deleting that subreddit.
Problem solved? Not exactly; the creepers merely moved on to any number of other subreddits devoted to the sexualization of underage girls. And so SRS struck again, alerting the media to the fact that Reddit still hosted a forum even creepier than r/jailbait – that is, r/preteen_girls, devoted to sexualized pictures of girls under the age of 13. This time, the Reddit admins moved more quickly, and banned all the subreddits that, in their words, “focus on sexualization of children.”
And apparently the Reddit admins are still pissed off about it. Recently, someone on Reddit leaked the log of a private chat between a Reddit moderator and one of the site’s administrators (that is, someone who actually works at Reddit). (See here and here for more details.)
The admin, known as hueypriest, described SRS’s attempts to get child porn and other material sexualizing children off of Reddit as “kind of like a forrest [sic] fire,” and grumbled about SRSers and other opponents of child porn sending “frivolous tips” to the FBI:
the fbi is not interested in following up leads of 17 year olds who’s boyfriends post shit on the internet
And evidently neither was Reddit, until SRSers and others revealed what was going on in its sleaziest subreddits to the world.
Again, all SRS did was to point out what was there.
Ever since Reddit’s belated shutdown of what hueypriest euphemistically described as the “questionable” subreddits, there’s a lot of talk on Reddit about how SRS needs to be shut down.
A couple of comments in the SubredditDrama subreddit pretty much sum up the frustrations a lot of us feel towards Reddit’s admins and many of the site’s users. 1338h4x writes:
Subreddits sexualizing kids? Let that slide for 5 years until the public pressure and bad PR is finally too much. Subreddit calling out sexism, bigotry, etc? SHUT IT DOWN RIGHT NOW!
This would just be the ultimate validation of SRS’s message. I dare them to do it.
Matriarchy adds:
Making reddit look bad = the worst thing. Perhaps they should stay on the ball and actually get rid off the terrible shit in advance … you know, that way they don’t look bad by having a policy that tacitly allows child pornography to remain on the website for extended periods of time.
You would think this is a no-brainer. Apparently this is not the case~
Apparently.
The hard life of the Alpha male. Get it? Get it? It’s a double entendre. Heh heh. Penis.
Now in pill form.
Life is tough for the beta male. During his twenties, as Manosphere dudes never tire of reminding us, women reject him, choosing instead to throw themselves wantonly at caddish alpha males.
Only after these cruel, callous women have squandered their youth and beauty – by the age of 30 if not earlier – do they turn at last to the betas, who’ve been patiently waiting in the “friend zone” the whole time. Those poor betas, nice guys and good providers all, are then lured into marriage with these now-ugly shrews, who are no longer interested in sex, and want only their money, often used to provide for kids sired by alpha males. (See here for Holly Pervocracy’s more detailed analysis of the “Greek system.”)
But life can be tough for the alpha male as well, driven to exhaustion by nearly constant sex with an incredible array of horny twentysomething women. The movie trailer below will give you some idea of just what the typical alpha male has to deal with on a daily basis.
MRA: Making women suffer is a highly ineffective way to put them in their place
Making women cry: Highly ineffective.
Given the enmity towards women in general, and feminists in particular, that’s omnipresent in the manosphere, it seems logical to assume that most of the dudes lingering around MRA, PUA and MGTOW sites online would take a certain secret pleasure in seeing women suffer.
As regular readers of this blog know all too well, oftentimes the desire to see women suffer is not so secret: some MRAs and others of their ilk literally laugh at women getting cancer, declare that rapists should be given medals, openly fantasize about “beat[ing] the living shit” out of women, and tell feminists who complain about this sort of shit that they’re “so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” (Those last two examples come from Paul Elam, one of the MRM’s most influential bloggers.) Still others send rape and death threats to outspoken women online.
But good news, folks! It turns out that not all manosphere misogynists want women to suffer. Why? Because suffering is an ineffective way to put women in their place. That, at least, is the argument of a fellow calling himself Höllenhund. In a comment on Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart blog, he offered this argument:
Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place.
So, basically, in his mind, women are dumber than dogs and thus harder to train. Even worse, the suffering women can sit down in the street and cry, and countless “white knights,” hoping to win their approval (and get in their pants) will rush to their aid:
Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.
So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition. …
And some of the ladies even seem to sort of like it:
Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.
Poor Höllenhund doesn’t have much hope that women will ever see how totally terrible they really are
[T]he notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly.
If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP [Sexual Marketplace], they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males …
Er, you’re lecturing us about empathy?
Sorry, on with the rest of the sentence:
plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless.
And lecturing us about morality too?
I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.
I’d rather see that than live in a world in which women were so self-hating that they actually believed they were guilty of whatever unnamed sins Höllenhund attributes to them.
NOTE: I found Höllenhund’s comment because the blogger at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology cited it as a prime example of the sort of brave “truth telling” that will get you banned “on feminist sites that supposedly support men.” And yes, it apparently did get poor Höllenhund banned from Hooking Up Smart. I’m not quite sure how Susan Walsh, a traditionalist devoted to slut shaming in a thousand different flavors, counts as feminist, but that’s not the point. The point is: I’m regularly accused of “cherry picking” comments from MRAs. In this case, Mr. PMAFT picked the comment for me.
Men’s Rights in the real world: “No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest.”
Come early to get a good seat!
Sometimes it’s worth reminding ourselves that despite all the noise they make online, the Men’s Rights movement has basically no presence in the real world. The picture above is an actual photo of a men’s rights symposium at Montana State University. Here’s how the local NBC affiliate described what went down – or, more accurately, what didn’t go down:
The MSU chapter of the National Coalition for Men organized a symposium to raise awareness of problems in men’s lives.
The group geared the event towards fraternity students at the college and invited speakers to talk about things like men’s rights when it comes to sexual misconduct investigations on-campus.
No one showed up to the event but organizers say the lack of attendance is not due to a lack of interest.
You just keep telling yourself that.
Man Boobz on Tumblr! It’s now a thing!
Reddit, in a nutshell. An example of the sort of hilarity you will find on the brand-new Man Boobz on Tumblr!
The Man Boobz Empire is expanding into new territory. Namely, Tumblr, with the grand opening of Man Boobz on Tumblr! I will be using the new platform to plug posts here, to blog and reblog about interesting stuff beyond what I write about here, and of course to post more pics. Like the one here, which is a fairly accurate summary of way too many discussions on Reddit and elsewhere on the internets. Will there also be pics of kitties? Yes, yes there will.
There’s a big social justice/feminist contingent on Tumblr, and this will help to reach them, and also to relay some of what they’re talking about to you all. It’ll also allow me to respond to stuff that’s going on a lot more quickly.
And kitties.
Also, while we’re talking about Tumblr: Alexander Ryking, that misogynist Tumblr dude we were talking about the other day? He’s been removed as a politics editor on Tumblr. Ta da!
Congress hears testimony on contraception: Once again, men have to do all the work!
Hard-working dudes, talkin bout contraception.
So there was a congressional hearing yesterday about contraception, and, once again, men had to do all the work. Not a single lady on the panel! They were probably all eating bon bons and riding the cock carousel, like ladies do. Misandry in action!
Well, to be fair, the chair of the committee blocked a woman who was going to testify on the panel, but, you know, she probably would have just started yammering about shoes and how hot Taylor Lautner is. You know how ladies are.
Just another day in the feminazi gynocracy!
Do you want semen on that? How Law & Order: SVU imperils innocent penises
That's a LOT of semen.
TV detectives pore over semen stains, and find evidence of crimes. Over on A Voice for Men, B.R. Merrick pores over TV detectives poring over semen stains, and finds evidence of “anti-man mentality.” On Law & Order: SVU, he says,
Every time I chanced upon seeing a bit of it, someone somewhere said “semen.”
You know the show focuses on sex crimes, right? When you’re investigating sex crimes, I’d say the chances are pretty good you’re going to run across some semen from time to time.
This is a show that has been on the air for more than a decade, a spin-off from another program more than two decades long, dedicated to entertaining millions of Americans every week using salacious, graphic language about terrible crimes. Semen. Semen stains. Semen samples. Semen on a dead body. Crime. Law, order, crime, and semen.
Spam, eggs, bacon, semen and spam. Spam, spam, bacon, semen, and spam. Semen, semen, spam eggs sausage and semen.
Sorry, I got distracted.
Semen is disgusting, if I am to conclude anything from watching this program. How is it that a show that continually mentions semen in connection with horrific crime can remain so popular for over a decade?
Christopher Melonimania? No, nothing so straightforward as that. Clearly what we’re dealing with is anti-semen propaganda of the sneakiest sort.
Millions watch, but virtually no one notices. It is as if the ejaculation of semen is something that the world puts up with but secretly detests. Since only men make semen; since it is usually voluntarily ejaculated except for certain cases of rape and nocturnal emissions; and since the voluntary giving of this life-giving substance is usually frequent; what are men supposed to think if the culture embraces mainstream entertainment that virtually equates semen with crime?
If semen is outlawed only outlaws will produce semen?
The conclusions we are supposed to draw seem pretty obvious to me: Women and sexless children are the victims of semen, the victims of men. Men are too quick to indulge their semen-connected desires. Pornography is directly connected to men, semen, and the oftentimes unavoidable crimes that result.
So jerking off into a sock has been criminalized?
Once you indulge a penis, all bets are off. Unless, of course, he’s been thoroughly trained.
Penises can be trained? Really? I’ve had very little luck training mine.
Men who are raised not to take their feelings seriously will probably feel a little tinge that is quickly ignored when semen is mentioned in a silly television program. Men who are used to being teased will grin along with the giggling girls who laugh at a man whose penis is not only severed, but shredded in a garbage disposal, so that he can spend the last several decades of his life without one.
So Law & Order: SVU is secretly preparing men for a dystopian future in which all untrained penises will all be shredded in garbage disposals?
Stay tuned, I guess.
