>
There’s something inherently ridiculous about being lambasted for using “shaming tactics” — by someone who has just called you a “mangina.”
A few posts back, as you may recall, I took on an odd little rant on The Spearhead which seemed to suggest that Tea Party nutbag Christine O’Donnell’s 14-year-old comments about the evils of masturbation offered proof of sorts that an evil “pussy cartel” was trying to keep American men from taking matters into their own hands, so to speak. The biggest threat to this diabolical female conspiracy, the author wrote, was “men realizing that their hand will do more for them than a woman will.”
The problem, of course, is that this is completely ridiculous. I myself have had sex on a number of occasions over the years — I mean, with other people — and I have to say that my hand, despite its obvious convenience and considerable dexterity, really cannot compete with, you know, an actual naked lady.
And so I suggested that any man who thought so little of women might have a hard time getting a date. This evidently sent the author of the piece, the man behind the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, into such a tailspin of shame that he wrote not one but two blog posts about me. In the first, after calling me a mangina, he insisted that he did in fact have a girlfriend. In a comment, I told him I felt sorry for her. And I do. What kind of woman would want to date a man who prefers the company of Susie Palmer and her five friends? So he wrote yet another post, this one spelling out in detail the evil forms of “shaming language” I had used.
Men’s Rights Activists are obsessed with so-called “shaming language.” Or at least they have been since a document called The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics started making its way around the manosphere; it’s been linked to or posted on virtually every MRA blog or forum at least once.
The Catalogue is basically a list of allegedly unfair debating tactics used by those who think that MRAs are full of shit:
The list spells out 16 different types of “shaming tactics,” from the “Charge of Irascibility” (“You’re bitter!”), to the “Charge of Fanaticism” and the “Charge of Misogyny.”
And it’s true. People do charge MRAs with all of these things. And a lot of the time, they’re guilty as charged. Some MRAs are bitter. Some MRAs are fanatics. Some MRAs are misogynists.
My most grievous crime? I had used the “Threat of Withheld Affection … The Pink Whip,” in which “the target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.” I’ll have to plead guilty on that one, since that’s exactly what I did.
In his second blog post, Pro-Male/Anti-Fem added two more counts to the charges against me: that I had accused him of “Preying On Weak/Damaged/Insecure Women” and “Non-Specific ‘Shameful Behavior.'” I’ll plead guilty on the first count, Your Honor, but innocent on the second: I was pretty specific about what I saw as shameful — his idiotic ideas about the “pussy cartel” and the whole hand-better-than-woman nonsense.
The funny thing about the Catalogue is how deadly seriously so many MRAs take it, and how angry they get whenever one of their opponents, tired of fighting a battle of wits against half-wits, pulls one of the “shaming tactics” out of her or his bag in an effort to bring the fruitless discussion to a close.
The irony, of course (and please forgive me if I shout), is that MRAs USE SHAMING TACTICS THEMSELVES ALL THE FUCKING TIME. Just look at the comments on the post of mine that started this whole kerfuffle, posted, presumably, by MRAs who followed the link from Pro-Male/Anti-Fem’s first post. The bravely anonymous first poster starts off the insult parade by saying “just because you’ve let them cut YOUR dick off doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy ours.” (This is a classic example of what the Catalogue calls the “Charge of Invirility.”) After a few more insult-laden comments, we come to this, from another brave Mr. Anonymous:
But my favorite? This one:
a dickless wonder’s blog, right here. You’re such a girl, with the nonsensical shaming language.
Yep, the Charge of Invirility again. But even better, and I’m afraid I’m going to have to shout again: HE USES SHAMING LANGUAGE AGAINST ME IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE IN WHICH HE COMPLAINS ABOUT SHAMING LANGUAGE.
Sadly, our anonymous friend is hardly the first MRA to do exactly this. Take a look at this fine fellow over at (irony alert!) Antimisandry.com:
Can anyone really be this un-self-aware?
In all my travels around the angry-manosphere — Charge of Irascibility FTW! — I have run across exactly one intelligent response to the Catalogue from an actual MRA: an essay on The Spearhead by the mysterious Zed, a sort of MRM elder statesman. Rather than simply lament the use of shaming language by the evil fems, Zed urges men to respond in kind, and not just with the standard anti-woman cliches.
The solution? MRA’s need to “start honing our rhetoric of ridicule so we can sting our opponents as deeply as they are trying to sting us.”
I second his emotion. “Dickless wonder?” “Mangina?” “Cunt?” You can do better than that. The “Little Ms. David” guy shows some promise, but he lacks finesse. Study the masters of insult: Oscar Wilde. Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. Andrea Dworkin.
And quit whining about “shaming language” like a bunch of damn babies.
That’s The Charge of Hypersensitivity, by the way.
I like how he listed two men and one website as prime examples of ‘manginas’, yet one man most feminists hate because he tried to kill his ex-girlfriend (and compared it to killing a dog) and refuses to see the problem, and the other is a rape-apologist. The website has about one contributor I can tolerate (Ozy) but I generally refuse to read because of it being, you know, a hotbed of whiny ‘Nice Guy’ MRAs.
Keep fucking that chicken.
I didn’t mean I can only just tolerate Ozy, I meant zie could make the website tolerable. I like Ozy.
curry flavoured women, yum
Is that a curried chicken he’s fucking?
Attention pompous wannabe-intellectual trolls, this is what’s known as a run-on sentence, it makes you look like a fucking idiot, try using a full point every now and then, kthxbye
Pathetic. Talk about a hive mind. Over zealous conspicuous conformity to groupthink is the greatest form of cowardice, the desperate approval seeking is so obvious. I am not a wannabe-intellectual, I’m the real deal, unlike you insecure adolescents and it’s not me who comes off like a fucking idiot. I usually edit and format comments for brevity and clarity but was so astounded at the levels of bullshit here that I skipped my usual practice of doing so because of the urgent need to tell the truth and stir you up a bit.
I concede the distinction regarding slang,etc (see what I just did there? I admitted something, it’s not that hard but it requires character and maturity, something lacking here) but mark my words, “mangina” will be common parlance soon enough, just wait and see. I’ll also admit my original comment was a bit verbose, see, I did it again, I conceded something in a manner uncannily resembling that of an adult.
I used to lecture on the topic of groupthink at a university, that’s hardly a wannabe-intellectual is it, but I digress. One aspect of groupthink is failing to question each other, none of you interjected and corrected each other in the interests of integrity of fairness, something that actually happens at MRA websites. Where did I say “pompous twit” is verboten? or that mangina is okay? I merely pointed out that it generally has some basis in the behaviour of the person so accused which I’ve already explained.
My point is that shaming tactics are used irrespective of having a basis in reality or not, it doesn’t make any difference to their being used, saying someone has a small dick or whatever is generally irrelevant or unquantified. The classic leftist tactic of piling one delusion and projection on top of another so it becomes exhausting and futile to attempt to reason with is more than evident here so I won’t get caught up in any of this hair splitting. You’re all doing a great job of that. Calling you fat is not shaming language, neither is pointing out this is an old post and as to which colour it is, it’s a pleasant shade of kalahari brown with a hint of mauve, rather pleasant actually. Notice how I haven’t sunk to a juvenile level? Continue with the childishness, it amuses me no end. Truth hurts, it really does.
*tries to finish Keevo’s post and passes out from boredom*
Attention Kiki, I’m pretty sure that technically this is a comma splice, I think run-on sentences don’t even have commas, Ithiliana can probably set us straight.
When a real intellectual realizes that they’ve been verbose to the point of boring people they don’t immediately repeat the same mistake.
Somebody remind me to make an AVFM poster of Keevo’s latest comment rendered in the Wingdings font.
Ooooh, a university lecturer! We always have such educated trolls who can never seem to write worth a damn.
This whole discussion of shaming tactics has me second guessing what “shaming” really is, though. I’ve always understood, contextually, that shaming is basically taking some aspect of a person (including aspects that are legal and don’t have moral value) and turning it into a normative judgement against them. This is true, no?
Keevo comes to a site devoted to mockery. Skeevo wonders why the discourse isn’t sufficiently intellectual. Pervo is outraged that people here mock him, rather than taking him seriously.
Rest of us: “It does what it says on the label.”
Keevo:
I haven’t, funnily enough. Largely because your latest wall of text is riddled with unsupporting boasting, snidely passive-aggressive digs and foul-mouthed insults.
Which is why it’s being treated with the contempt it deserves.
Still, with your massive intellect (hmm, where have I seen that before?), I’m sure you can rise above it all (ditto).
Keevo asserts we don’t question each other
when any fool sees that we do.
Keevo suggests that he’s quite educated —
his writing suggests that’s not true.
Keevo says that he won’t sink to our level
from his vantage point far below
Keevo declares that he understands shaming
then demonstrates that it ain’t so
“So many words, how could it not be so?”
Asks the delusional, sad little Keevo.
I think Keevo is Pell, the pomposity and appeals to authority are very similar.
Keevo: Is there an actual thought here?
Pathetic. Talk about a hive mind. Over zealous conspicuous conformity to groupthink is the greatest form of cowardice, the desperate approval seeking is so obvious.
From whom, and why, are we seeking this approval? What are the inviolable tenets which make us a hive mind (and, for extra credit, how does your slavish devotion to the talking points of the MRM deviate from hive-mindedness?).
Can you string together an argument which is more than tendentious talking points and overused insult (come on… surely a “real deal” intellectual could find some line of attack which hasn’t been used before. At the very least you could try to got for one which wasn’t in the top five for frequency).
Good luck with that.
Lets give it a rundown. You, “usually edit and format for clarity and brevity”.
This topic however was so pressing that you couldn’t do that.
I suppose it’s because the arguments were coming so fast and thick your replies might have become confused and muddled; since you aren’t dealing with the other genii of the Manoshpere, but rather with the foolish sorts of ladybrainz and manginas who critisize it?
Seems a bit odd, what with the thread being more than two years old, a tad moribund and only one page of comments, but if it was moving to fast for you, I understand.
I used to lecture on the topic of groupthink at a university,
You don’t say.
Onward.
that’s hardly a wannabe-intellectual is it
I don’t know what to call this… argument from specious authority, I think. Non-sequitur, to be sure.
Not really. 1: You didn’t really concede anything. You allowed as you’d made an error in term, without addressing the attacks on your argument (that “mangina” has an, “objective definition”), and doubled-down on it’s utility by arguing it will be in “common parlance” any minute now.
As to the admission of verbosity: it’s not news to us. Since we have to assume you are no longer in the paroxysm of ecstasy which prompted your first post, it follows this one was edited for the aforementioned clarity and brevity, for which we can only thank you/†.
Where did I say “pompous twit” is verboten? or that mangina is okay?
Ah… we come to the meat of the matter Where did I say “pompous twit” is verboten? or that mangina is okay?
You said it here: Calling me a pompous twit is exactly the kind of presonalising I expected, it’s an admission of not having an argument
When you claimed that calling you a pompous twit was admitting to having no argument you were ruling it out of bounds. On the basis that you are logically consistent, we must assume you wouldn’t to that (I know it’s a little hard to accept, but bear with me here), and so your use of “mangina” is in some way trenchant, where Dave’s calling you a pompous twit isn’t. It’s basic rhetoric.
I merely pointed out that it generally has some basis in the behaviour of the person so accused which I’ve already explained.
That needs some fleshing out. A predicate would be nice. An explication of how calling you a pompous twist (so far not a refutable presumption, but I suspect all the evidence isn’t in. It’s possible Dave was wrong; erring on the side of kindness) is different in substance from your (so far unsupported§) allegation of manginadom.
Instead you will make the claim in a backhanded aside, and not need to defend it; while spending 401 words to do the very thing you decry.
† I’m a tolerant man, I’ll settle for paragraph breaks
§ A working definition would be a step in this direction. So we can all agree with what it is we are arguing. It’s a classic tactic of the goal-post shifter to pretend “Everyone knows” what a term means.
Myoo: It’s possible…. I alluded to that in my comment above. If it is, he’s getting a little better, learning to mix it up some, engage in some intro/understatement.
Weak tea, but better.
@Katz and Kivi:
’m pretty sure that technically this is a comma splice, I think run-on sentences don’t even have commas,.
Run-on sentences are two or more independent clauses (meaning each could stand on its own as a sentence) that are joined by conjunctions which need a comma before them, OR to be replaced with a semi-colon); commas splices are two or more independent clauses that are joined by commas which need a conjunction after them, OR to be replaced by a semi-colon.
Or, in either case, to have one or more of the independent clauses made into a dependent clause, or, as Kivi says, to have a period used (instead of conjunction or comma).
But both share the same problem–and are sometimes seen as more of an error instead of stylistic choice in US standard English (not true of all World Englishes).
he classic leftist tactic of piling one delusion and projection on top of another so it becomes exhausting and futile to attempt to reason with is more than evident here so I won’t get caught up in any of this hair splitting.
Leftist classic tactic?
*looks at your posts*
**collapses in snarky laffter in my plate of carrots*
Good one, dude.
ithiliana: It could be worse… keevo could be in a class you were teaching.
You might learn something. Like how to present an actual reasoned argument.
The picture is obviously Michael Moore by the way, a world famous male misandrist, which brings us back to the point. A point you continue to avoid. Pathetic really. .
Holy shit, did you just necro a thread that hasn’t been commented on in almost three years so you could make THAT your comeback? Seriously?
You need to let it go, bruh.
Pro tip: “Male misandrists” aren’t a thing, unless you’re referring to MRAs, who are the most man-hating men around.
‘Pathetic’, really, would be circulating back to the same thread every two and a half years to make the same vacuous whining sound.
See you here again in late 2017!
It took you two and a half years to come up with that witty three-liner?
Props for determination, but a slow riposte is no riposte, especially when it’s kind of… a sad one, which is also completely lacking in good sentence structure.
Like, a really, really sad one.
This is just adorably sad.
See you in 2017. Try to give us more than 3 lines and a sad two dot ellipsis?