About these ads

Blog Archives

John the Other: Feminists who oppose rape memes on Facebook are violence-promoting fascists, and you are too! Probably.

Typical feminazis! Oh, wait.

Typical feminazis! Oh, wait.

The MRA hissy fit over Facebook continues. Over on A Voice for (Human) Men, our old friend John “The Other” Hembling offers up his take on the whole controversy, which has roused the usually torpid MRAs to “activism,” and somehow manages to be even more overheated and incoherent than even Paul Elam before him — and at times nearly as ponderous as the legendarily ponderous Fidelbogen as well.

Read the rest of this entry

About these ads

Homophobia totally the fault of straight women, according to Men’s Rights Redditors

Men forced into macho straightjacked by straight women's expectations, out cruising for chicks.

Men forced into hypermasculine role by straight women, out cruising for chicks.

So we learned the other day from that Man Going His Own Way that male violence was, like, totally the fault of evil sexy ladies. Now, from this Men’s Rights Redditor, we learn that homophobia — or at least homophobia directed at gay men — is all the fault of straight women and their desire for macho dudes. Because straight men don’t ever express any sort of hostility towards gay or effeminate men — it’s just those darn ladies!

I've said this many times in different circumstances, but I fully believe the push for hyper-masculinity is not caused by a desire to prove masculinity to ones peers or caused by some latent homophobia. The cause of hyper-masculinity and its associated homophobic undertones is caused by straight women and what they as a group have deemed "totally unacceptable" in a mate.  Appearing gay (I'm gay) has never really caused me any heartache within a group of men. Even if those men don't know I'm gay and just think I'm an effeminate weirdo. In mixed groups of men and women, it has. I think it stems from female judgement of men who aren't "masculine enough" to be inferior for relationships, men pick up on it and boost up the masculinity and inter-male aggression/intolerance of behaviors not considered normal.  It also comes from widespread female intolerance of any sort of homosexual or "appearing homosexual" behavior in potential mates, an intolerance which isn't found among men. Ask any straight man you know if he would dump his girlfriend/wife if he found out she had lesbian sex before they were dating. Now ask any straight woman you know if she would dump her boyfriend/husband if she found out he had gay sex before they were dating. I have asked these questions to many people. The answers have always backed up my position. I actually had a couple women tell me that they would leave their husbands if they found out that he had fooled around with a guy as young as highschool.
But, huh, what about all those straight dudes who are always calling other dudes “gay” and, you know, that other word that starts with an “f?”

Well, apparently that’s just playful joshing. No harm, no foul! If anything, it shows how wonderfully tolerant of gayness these guys are. I mean, come on, if you can’t see this, you must be stupid, or something. Or so says this other Men’s Rights Redditor:

It takes some advanced cognitive ability to comprehend why most men tease one another for being gay. It has little to do with homosexuality, real or perceived. It is about acceptance. It is also about challenging perception. When one man calls his friend "gay", he is playfully asserting his own dominance over his friend. He is also insinuating not only that he would still accept and love his friend, but also that he recognizes that everyone's at least a little gay, and that they have both grown out of any childish notions of homosexuality being bad and thereby being hurt by being called "gay". They are sharing a bonding experience of mutual acceptance, playfulness, and even affection through this social ritual. One could even suggest that faux male gay shaming is a method of expressing homosexuality in a manner that rates low enough on the kinsey scale to suit their comfort.  Or we could just take it at face value and refuse to explore the psychodynamic behind the process. It seems more convenient when obtuseness is a preferred weapon.

They’re just having a little fun. You’re not against fun, are you?

Thanks to the AgainstMen’sRights subreddit for pointing me to these quotes.

Man-O-Philosopher Fidelbogen: Feminists want to ban Facebook rape memes because “feminists do not allow the right to exist of people who are not feminist.”

Feminist grinding men into dirt on the Internet.

Feminist grinding men into dirt on the Internet.

While we’re talking about this whole Facebook thing (see here and here if you don’t know what I’m referring to), I figured some of you might be wondering: What does the eminent Man-O-Philosopher and self-described “Counter-Feminist Agent of Change” Fidelbogen think of all this?

Read the rest of this entry

A Voice for Men activates its activists to make asses of themselves over this Facebook thing

For MRAs, driving in circles IS the plan.

For MRAs, driving in circles IS the plan.

So if you’ve ever wondered what sort of activism that Men’s Rights, er, Activists do when they do do activism, take a look at this little ACTION ALERT from A Voice for Men.

You may recall Paul Elam getting all worked up the other day because Facebook, responding to a campaign launched by a coalition of feminist activists and groups, announced it was going to try to do a better job removing “gender-based” hate speech from its site. You know, like this [TRIGGER WARNING] sort of thing.

Naturally, Elam and other MRAs interpreted Facebook’s announcement as the first step in the End of Male Speech on the Internet, or something.

Anyway, now the MRAs are ACTIVATING! AVFM has announced that it’s going after the groups that signed onto the feminist Facebook protest. Because, well, I’m not sure I get why exactly.

Here’s their explanation:

It’s time for action. The AVFM community has scrambled to look beyond the fine print of WAM!’s ultimatum to Facebook and into the signatories. We are finding that some of them are tax-exempt, and even government funded. We now know that government funded institutions have endorsed a harmful double standard that results in the censorship of men.

But, if we discover that even one cent of government money touched WAM!’s campaign, we will be exposing a whole new dimension of hypocrisy.

Uh, ok. I’m just really having a hard time finding the hypocrisy here. If you look at the names of the groups that signed onto the open letter, you’ll find a number of general feminist groups, groups concerned with the representation of women/gender in the media, and groups organized against sexual assault and other forms of violence.

They didn’t sign a petition demanding that all men posting on the internet be banned or, I dunno, kicked in the balls. They signed onto an open letter demanding that Facebook remove

groups, pages and images that explicitly condone or encourage rape or domestic violence or suggest that they are something to laugh or boast about.

That doesn’t seem hypocritical to me. It seems rather in line with what these groups promote.

And the only men who will be censored will be men posting this sort of hateful shit. If women post this sort of shit, they’ll be banned too.

Apparently, AVFM and its “activist” fans are so divorced from reality that they think they’re going to be able to publicly embarrass rape survivor support groups … for standing up against crude, hateful rape jokes on Facebook featuring images of brutalized victims.

Still, at least this sort of surreal, self-defeating activism is better than firebombing courthouses and police stations, as that infamous manifesto posted in AVFM’s activism section so enthusiastically recommends.

EDIT: I forgot the link to the AVFM alert; added it inthe first graf.

JudgyBitch: Wives with low libido are man-hating bigots

Dudes: If your wife isn't horny for yoy, she's probably into misandry and witchcraft and maybe Pinterest.

Dudes: If your wife isn’t horny for you, she’s probably into misandry and witchcraft and possibly even Pinterest.

In a post ostensibly about the imminent arrival of female Viagra, our dear friend JudgyBitch weighs in on yet another subject about which she knows shit: the reasons that women who are not her might not want to have sex with their husbands:

Loss of libido in women, excepting rare medical conditions, in my opinion, is a direct result of not seeing men as emotionally complex beings. If you’re married, at some point, your husband probably stood in front of you and promised to love you forever. Rejecting him physically is a very wounding thing to do. It hurts. Sex is one of the most important, intimate ways married couples show that they love one another. Refusing to have sex with your husband is telling him, in a very painful way, that you don’t love him. That you don’t care for him or about him.

Huh. If I hadn’t seen her on video, thus confirming her status as an adult human female, I would have a hard time believing that it was an actual woman saying this and not some horny, creepy teenage boy in the process of trying to manipulate his girlfriend into “going all the way.”

Oh, but she’s got more:

I guess the only way to justify that is to think of men as emotionless. It doesn’t hurt men to be rejected because they don’t feel anything to begin with.

Really? The only way to justify saying “no” to your husband when you don’t want to have sex with him is if you convince yourself he’s emotionless? But women should just force themselves to say “yes” to sex when they don’t want to and simply endure what follows?

That’s the ugly little reality behind female viagara. Will it actually boost women’s libido? Who knows. What difference will it make, though, if women are going to continue to see men as less than completely human? That’s the real problem.

Does anyone know where to get irony meters at a reasonable price? Mine just leapt off the table, ran around the room screaming, and exploded.

 

The Facebook/Feminist Plot to Destroy Free Speech, Male Liberty, and 10-13% of A Voice for Men’s Traffic

Evil feminist banning male thought from the Internet

Evil feminist removing male ideas from the Internet

Men’s Rights, er, activists are waving their arms frantically in the air over what they see as a dire new threat to men and manhood: Facebook’s recent annoucement that it was going to try to do a better job of taking down violent images mocking victims of rape and domestic violence, and other kinds of misogynistic hate speech.

Read the rest of this entry

Ever-gullible Men’s Rights Redditors throw yet another tantrum over a phony “feminist” screencap [UPDATE: w/ Men's Rights response]

madflower

This  flower seems angry.

The top post on the Men’s Rights subreddit at the moment, with more than 300 600 700 net upvotes, is a link to this screenshot, posted as an example of radical feminism gone wild:

Read the rest of this entry

Red Pill Theorist alarmed by the prospect of women freezing their eggs, having sex in their 40s

Dirty scheming bird women!

Dirty scheming bird women!

So the manosphere blogger who calls himself The Red Pill Theorist has managed to work himself into a tizzy over a Wall Street Journal piece by a woman who — gasp! — froze some of her eggs in her 30s in order to give her more time in which to find the right guy with whom to have kids.

Read the rest of this entry

Tom “Female Penguins are Whores ” Martin, banned from A Voice for Men for excessive feminism?

Tom Martin would be right at home in Second Life, apparently.

Tom Martin would be right at home in Second Life, apparently.

I realize that I may be the only one who’s really all that interested in sectarian infighting amongst the MRAs, but an old friend of ours has weighed in on the recent battles over the A Voice for Men satellite group MRA London, and I’ve learned some interesting things as a result.

Read the rest of this entry

Evil Seven Step Plan to Destroy Men uncovered by Men’s Rights Redditor

This is Step Eight

Step 8: Release the Monkeys

After yesterday’s horribleness, here’s a bit of MRA pontificating that’s mostly just absurd. In the Men’s Rights subreddit, our dear old friend OuiCrudites spells out the Seven Step Plan that is destroying men today. He doesn’t explain 1) who exactly is taking these steps, or 2) why exactly they want to destroy men, but, you know, I think we can just assume 1) the evil feminist gynomatriarchy/women in general and 2) EEEEEEVIL.

Step 1: Tell boys that they are disruptive and inferior to the girls in their classes.  Step 2: Once boy reaches puberty, assume that he is a potential rapist and woman batterer. Also assume his female contemporaries can do no wrong.  Step 3: Tell pubescent male that he must be a perfect gentleman and repress anything that makes him masculine if he wants females to like him. Shame him when he happens to notice that females throw themselves at his most aggressive male classmates. Tell the females they can do no wrong.  Step 4: Throw zillions of female-only scholarships and hiring quotas at young adult females. Tell her that she is a helpless victim that can do no wrong. Assume the young adult man is a rapist woman oppressor looking for victims.  Step 5: Smile and nod while some females mate with the roughest thugs they can find, and give them welfare. Browbeat all males for not "manning up."  Step 6: Allow some wives to ruthlessly tear apart their families for non-dire reasons. Withhold children from loving fathers. But of course, continue to demand child support.  Step 7: Ignore and shame men who fall on hard times. Act surprised when they hold a gun to their head and pull the trigger.

Interesting that two whole steps out of the seven here involve complaints about “females” dating thuggy alpha bad boys instead of decent, hard-working nice guys like those you might find posting thoughtful comments on gender relations in helpful list form on Reddit.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,503 other followers

%d bloggers like this: