MRAs at The Spearhead Blame Women, Feminism for Cleveland Abductions
So The Spearhead has weighed in on the Cleveland abduction cases, and has not failed to disappoint.
Spearhead head boy WF Price uses the terrible unfolding drama as an opportunity to attack the notion of patriarchy. His logic: the alleged abductors weren’t rich dudes, so therefore patriarchy is a lie. No, really, that’s his argument:
Gullible Men’s Rights Redditors fooled by fake Jezebel article arguing that paternity fraud is “one way to break the rule of fathers.”
Some people are easily fooled.
This just in: Men’s Rights Activists are some of the most gullible nincompoops in the history of ever.
The latest evidence of this? The regulars on the Men’s Rights subreddit were fooled by an obviously fake “screenshot” of an article from Jezebel that had been altered to make it look like a Jezebel staff writer thinks that paternity fraud is justifiable as a way to fight patriarchy.
Open Thread for Personal Stuff
Hugs for everyone who wants them.
I know a lot of Man Boobz regulars have been dealing with a lot of rough stuff lately, so I’m opening this thread up to provide a (relatively) safe space to discuss them. No trolls allowed; any trolls who post here will be put on moderation and possibly banned. (Please notify me by email (my last name at well dot com) if there are inaproppriate comments; I get behind in reading comments here.)
Warren Farrell’s Funny Footnote, and Where it Led Me
Please don’t check my footnotes!
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell is fond of mentioning his academic past — he has taught at a number of colleges — and is not exactly shy about mentioning his Ph.D. (Check the covers of his books if you don’t believe me.) But the books he’s written are for the most part polemical “pop psychology” and “pop sociology” rather than academic works, and most don’t meet academic standards by a long shot.
How far they fall short of academic standards I didn’t fully realize until I started investigating a suspicious footnote in The Myth of Male Power.
Warren Farrell on Unemployment, Salesmanship, and Other Things That Are Like Rape, Supposedly
Warren Farrell: “We are still requiring men to be the sexual salespersons but now defining them as rapists when they do it well.”
Warren Farrell, as a sort of “elder statesman” of the Men’s Rights movement, may have gained a sort of weird respectability simply by being around as long as he has, and because he’s published books with major publishers. But the myth of Farrell’s intellectual respectability shatters pretty quickly once one takes a good, honest, and unbiased look at what he has actually written, in The Myth of Male Power and elsewhere.
We’ve already taken a look at some of the strange and troubling things he wrote about rape in that book. Farrell is also fond of rape as a metaphor, and regularly compares things that men endure to rape, as a way of bolstering his overall thesis that it is men, not women, who are the “disposable sex,” and who truly suffer.
Christopher in Oregon: “Nature makes women BUTT UGLY fairly early in life to prevent them from breeding.”
Apparently this is what Christopher of Oregon thinks happens to women when they hit the age of 40.
Time for another visit into the mind of Christopher in Oregon, a confirmed bachelor best known for posting long screeds on his friend MarkyMark’s blog about how ugly and smelly and disgusting women and their various orifices are. Today, his topic is old women, by which he seems to mean all women above the age of 35 or so.
I’m not even going to bother to comment on this one except to say: if you’re a heterosexual man, with an interest in sex, and you actually believe that all women over the age of 40 are icky and ugly and smelly and wear dentures, you’re not only delusional, you’re probably going to have a very sad second half of your life. (And I’m guessing the first half probably won’t be so great either.)
Here’s Chris:
Face it: Nature doesn’t want CRUSTY OLD WOMEN having children! Basic biology, folks, and I’m no expert on biology. It’s just common sense! …
Old women are supposed to be…..old women. Crabby old women. Ugly old women. Nasssssty old tobacco-chewin’ women. …
A woman should be done spewing out babies by the time she is thirty, and no later. By forty, a woman is OLD! Look around you. Look at the forty-year-old women you see every day. See any of them you want to screw? Any of them? Didn’t think so. (Blow-jobs aren’t good either- their dentures might lock up on your weinie! Imagine THAT 911 call!)
Nature makes women BUTT UGLY fairly early in life to prevent them from breeding. Kind of hard to get pregnant if you’re so gruesome no man in his right mind can get a boner over your appearance. But, women, in their arrogance, fail to realize that men are stimulated VISUALLY!
If you look like an old hag, then the penis just naturally will NOT stand to attention. You’ve got to have some sort of good looks to get our motors running, ladies, and if you look like a bag of wrinkly cellulite, then you had better face it- no one wants you! Contrary to the lie feminists have been telling you, fifty is NOT the new thirty! A fifty-year-old woman has less sex appeal than a sheep. (Ask anyone in Montana.)
I am constantly amazed at the post-forty women that have come on to me lately. Give me a break! Do they think I’m blind?
Ick! …
A woman of forty is not sexual in any sense of the word. She is useless for breeding, and her sex appeal is GONE! Why have women fallen for the lie that they remain sexual into their sixties and seventies? They are NOT! They are putrid, smelly shells of their former selves! Nothing more! By that age, a woman looks like the package her body once came in. All sagging, wrinkly and disgusting! …
If you just have to get laid, and you can close your eyes, and hold your breath (pew!), there is no easier lay than an old woman. They are so desperate. So pathetic. So easy.
So gross.
There’s more where this came from over at MarkyMark’s.
Thread for Hostile Visitors to Endlessly Rehash the Issues They Have With Feminist Research or Whatever
Hey, hostile visitors! Do you have an opinion about, for example, Mary Koss’ rape research? Do you want to discuss it even though the topic has not actually come up by itself in any of the threads and none of my recent posts really have much to do with the specifics of anyone’s rape research? Well, from now on you can discuss it here with anyone who wishes to follow you to this thread.
Added bonus: If you continue to try to discuss it in other threads you’ll be banned!
This also applies to future derailers riding hobbyhorses of their own having nothing to do with Koss.
Happy discussing!
Note: If you wish to discuss the topics at hand, you know, topics directly related to my posts and/or to what other people are discussing and that aren’t, you know, personal hobbyhorses of yours that involve long screeds and various things that you’ve probably already cut and pasted into the comments sections of various other websites until you were banned from them for endless derailing and general asswipery, feel free to remain in the original threads.
Is the “Bang Some Chicks” blog any better than the Pickup Artists it parodies?
I’ve been reading through the archives of Bang Some Chicks, a PUA parody blog featuring the imaginary exploits of the incredibly stupid chick-bangers F-Close Frank and DTF Dave and a couple of other faux PUAs.
What drew me to it was a post with the worrisome title “how to bang a native american chick” which I spotted via the Manosphere agglomerater blog Vive la Manosphere.
Warren Farrell’s notorious comments on date rape: Not any more defensible in context than out of it
Warren Farrell, possibly pondering the mysteries of consent.
NOTE: This is the second installment of The Myth of Warren Farrell, a continuing series examining Farrell’s The Myth of Male Power, the most influential book in the Men’s Rights canon. You can see the first post here.
Men’s Rights elder Warren Farrell has been accused of being a “rape apologist,” largely because of one now-notorious sentence he wrote in The Myth of Male Power:
We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.
This sentence is at least as puzzling as it is disturbing. Calling date rape “exciting” is pretty foul. But what on earth is “date fraud?”
Men’s Human Rights Movement fights oppression with new oppression-fighting term “Rapetard.”
The Men’s Human Rights Movement: Heading towards inevitable victory.
Our dear friends over at A Voice for Men, the thought-leaders of the Glorious New Men’s Human Rights of The 21st Century Human Rights Movement With Girl Writes What (GNMHROT21CHRMWGWW) have been trying to introduce a new word into the vernacular, as part of their broad-based campaign for the betterment of human rights. That word? Rapetard.
While the portmanteau word has been floating around for some time, with assorted definitions, it took on its modern, human-rightsy definition in mid-April in a little-seen YouTube video by a fellow calling himself “Dick Magnum,” who defined it thusly:
An individual who, for reasons related to intellectual, emotional or moral deficits, cannot distinguish between questioning [the idea of] “rape culture” and supporting rape.
It was picked up in an AVFM post titled “Beware the Rapetard Society” about a week after that. Soon other AFVM writers seemed to forget Mr. Magnum’s careful definition, adopting it as their go-to epithet for feminists they don’t like. Which is pretty much all of them.
In a post having nothing to do with rape or rape culture, Paul Elam talked about “dumbing things down so that even a rapetard could understand.” In the comments to that post, AVFM contributor Dan Perrins joked about “rapetarded quote mining expedition[s].” And in a post yesterday, AVFM’s “Andy Bob” attacked Australian comedian Catherine Deveny for an assortment of alleged offenses against decency — including using the term “retard” – in a post that referred to her as a “rapetard” four times, including once in the title.
You might think that combining the word “rape” with an ableist slur –“tard” – and applying it liberally to feminist women would be a step backwards in the campaign for human rights, but apparently that’s old-fashioned twentieth century thinking on my part.
