>
 |
| Me, apparently. |
Apparently hungering for some attention, the blog No Ma’am has decided to launch a carefully reasoned, albeit un-spellchecked, attack on me:
David is another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole. A true SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy) in every dimension.
Reality is not so, Mr. Futrelle, it is not so.
You are anethema to female vaginal lubrication.
Hope you feel proud! You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets! Who needs such a thing when the West produces poofs like you?
Oh, there’s more. Rob, the guy behind the blog, is apparently upset that I haven’t written about him yet:
Pleeeease debate me on… something!?! Please Dave, you are picking on commenters in the MRM only… wtf? Are you Chicken? Why don’t you set your sights higher up and pick on me for a while?
Honestly, Rob, I haven’t really found anything on your site that’s coherent enough to argue against. But I’ll keep looking.
You can read the whole thing here.
>"Apparently hungering for some attention…"Projecting much, David? Or was that meant to be ironic projection, from the point of view of some other troll blogger who is desperate for attention and doesn't care whether it comes from feminists, MRAs, or 4chan /b/tards?
>David's just afraid his mistress will turn him into a jack-in-the-box.
>I just found your blog today, and I didn't even know there was a Men's Rights movement- I'd seen some stirrings on Reddit, but like many things I'm uninterested in, I didn't check it out. As a lady on Reddit, I've gotta say, there's a LOT of hate speech happening- both woman and gay centric. This blog is a total breath of fresh air, and I intend on reading back. I just wanted to say thanks; your writing is thoughtful, centered, and proof focused, and I'm sure you get a lot of crap for it. Your intelligent readers appreciate it.
>"You are the reason panties are starting to be modelled without the protective cotten-lined-gussets!"What a freak! Even women dont even know what the hell that is! What kind of freak even keeps up on 'panty changes?' The nation also knows thanks to Sodini and Roy Den Hollander (who had a russian mail order bride-and even she left him) that it's the MRA's that no women would want to be around. That's why they have to go to third world countries and exploit their circumstances in order to get a woman to even look at them.
>Don't they have any male fucktards in the eastern hemisphere?
>Well, you have to admit, the guy does have a point. But, I just assumed you were gay, anyway.
>Hi David, first time commenter here. I've read various feminist blogs for about five years or so, and of course have seen lots of MRA comments. The thing that really jumps out is the consistent immaturity… evidenced not only by their reliance on childish taunts, but also by their inability to understand why those taunts will never work on anyone whose emotional age is greater than eleven.
>You know, a favorite blogger of mine once suggested that the difference between the left and the right was that the right has no understanding of irony. Trying to insult you by saying you are trying to suck up to have sex with women while calling you gay…because nothing motivates a gay man like the potential of having sex with women, I guess. Wow, that totally makes sense, my whole worldview has changed (<- for those of you with no irony meter, this is called sarcasm).
>"The thing that really jumps out is the consistent immaturity… evidenced not only by their reliance on childish taunts,…."The thing that I find really jumps out is their reliance on childish taunts while accusing people who aren't in accordance with their views of being the ones that have to resort to using shaming language because they know they can't win the argument. It boggles the mind…..
>"You know, a favorite blogger of mine once suggested that the difference between the left and the right was that the right has no understanding of irony"The difference between the people who believe that something as complex as political ideology can be represented in any meaningful way using a single axis and the people who recognize that that political ideology is actually much more complex is that the former are naive simpletons.
>For the benefit of those with less than half a brain, the extra "that" in the above comment is an ironic typo from the POV of someone who doesn't bother to proofread, and is not an actual error on my part.
>OMG, No Ma'am? Like Married With Children? Seriously?
>"Honestly, Rob, I haven't really found anything on your site that's coherent enough to argue against. But I'll keep looking."David has this response saved in a hotkey file. Just change whatever name is inserted for a less formish appearance. It's a necessary device when you can't find anything coherent enough to argue against and when you have no intention of doing any such thing.Futrelle is just a troll. He won't debate anyone in the MRM. Nor is he capable of it.But it is fun to drop in from time to time and point out that his "promise" to debunk the stats and assertions of the MRM, as promised in his very first post, remains a complete fail.
>So says the guy whose idea of a brilliant debating tactic is to call me "Davy." Also, Paul — Paulie? — just read that post I quote above. The guy can barely string a sentence together, much less a whole argument. Are you really so desperate to appear cool to younger MRAS that you're willing to align yourself with his puerile nonsense?Oh, right. You're the guy who thinks calling me "Davy" is an argument, and won't let critics debate him on his own website except on a special little page, where a chorus of dittoheads will downvote critical comments so you won't even have to look at them. Never mind.
>For those of us who aren't exactly buddy-buddy with the MRM either, though, it would probably be more helpful for us if your posts had more substance to them than simple mockery. It's been nearly a month now and substantial refutation of the "stats and assertions" of the MRM has been pretty light. As a result, this blog is good for at most a chuckle every now and then, but not much use for those of us looking for a more heavy-duty deconstruction of the MRAs.
>LOL! David, there is debate aplenty in my comments. Anyone can debate there, and is welcome to as long as they are actually engaging in debate. You can verify that in my comments right now. At this point, that would exclude you since all you have managed to do is hurl personal invective at any critic. I can't speak to the man you quoted above, nor would I be compelled to since you are pulling your material out of comment threads and not OP's.You need to start attacking what is actually in MRM literature, if you want to attack the tenets of MM philosophy (rather than just flame individuals). What you are doing here is just chicken shit, and a clear back peddle from what you claimed you would do in your first post, which was to debunk the stats and assertions of the MRM. It was the same when you went back several months in my work (claiming it was only a week old) and grabbed a couple of examples of what you thought was bad writing. And that was the sum total of your critique- writing style.You are clearly avoiding substance, while charging others with that very thing.You ever want to debate, with intellectual honesty, and without the reliance on gags and diversion, just let me know.Consider it a public challenge, right now. We can run the exchange on both our blogs, and I will agree to ground rules that give us both a fair shake.Time to ante up, David, and follow through with your personal word on what you were going to do on this blog. If you don't feel up to debating me, I understand. But you at least ought to write a few articles measure up to your promise in order to maintain some public integrity.
>You know, Paul, in my opening post I also said: "I'll round up assorted examples of misogyny, mendacity and just plain stupidity from MRA's online and off."I have done a bang-up job of this, if I say so myself. Though, to be fair, it is rather easy. And on the "comments" thing: if you actually bothered to read my blog before spouting off the same tired complaints, the post above, and most of my posts deal with things said on MRA/Antifeminist blogs, not in comments. But comments are fair game. Many of the blog comments I have highlighted were upvoted, sometimes by dozens of readers. Others agreed with them. They were generally not challenged. They are all "mainstream" comments in the MRM, at least online. In other words, these are your people. Are you not embarrassed by them sometimes? By their crude, often obscene namecalling? By their blatant misogyny? By the fact that they so very rarely provide any evidence of any kind that any of their assertions are true? The fact is that virtually every non-MRA who visits this blog can plainly see the hateful illogic behind so much of the MRM. If you can't see it, well, maybe you're living in a bubble. When people raise actual interesting substantive points in comments here, I am happy to debate the, When people spew incoherent tirades calling me a "magina" or a "troll" or worse, well, there's nothing of substance to debate. As for the rest, as I've told you before, I'm doing this blog on my schedule, not yours. Unlike so many MRMs (and so many feminists, to be honest), I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go "ha! I'm right!" Actual honest research takes more time than simply rehashing half-digested propaganda. Over the next several months — months, not weeks — I will indeed post detailed critiques of various Men's Rights Myths, going through them one by one. They will go up when they go up. You coming back every few days and saying "you lied because you haven't yet done everything you said your blog would do" is really rather infantile. As for the debate, yes, if we can work out the details in a way that works for us both, I will certainly agree to that. I will look over your blog posts again and think about what makes most sense to debate about.
>Still a lame approach. I could easily pick up examples of misandry from the comments sections of both feminist and MRA blogs, indeed you provide some real material yourself, but I can't claim with any certainty or credibility to call feminism misandric from such isolated, cherry picked anecdotes. The points of view I have embraced on gender politics are a product of thirty years of interest, the first ten of which was on the other side of the fence.All movements attract fringe elements. I just got through blocking someone from my youtube channel for posting "All women must die."Do you want me to send a copy of that to you so you can write an article about it for your blog, painting it as representative of the MRM? Oh, and this "Unlike so many MRMs (and so many feminists, to be honest), I'm not simply going to throw up a bunch of stats from studies I haven't read and go "ha! I'm right!""One has to wonder, if you are so unread, and really don't know enough to assert points of fact, even now, then how could you have proclaimed that you would do said debunking in the future?You just tipped your hand.I look forward to seeing your critiques when they show up, but am not holding my breath. People generally put their most genuine foot forward, and it is my guess that you already have done what you can do.But you can prove me wrong. I look forward to the debate, and my first request is that we work out terms here, in public, on your blog. I think you will find I am open to anything sound.
>Find a single example of misandry in anything I've written here.
>Hahaha, Coldfire just predictably demonstrated a failure to understand the meaning of the word irony."For the benefit of those with less than half a brain, the extra "that" in the above comment is an ironic typo from the POV of someone who doesn't bother to proofread, and is not an actual error on my part. " It is not ironic to have a typo when writing from the POV of someone who does not bother to proofread. It would be ironic if you had no typos writing from the POV of the person who does not proofread.http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/ironyterm.htm
>Paul. Another point: generally speaking, when people write serious pieces, even about topics they know a good deal about, they reread key texts and do additional research before they actually try to write something. Apparently you yourself are in the "write whatever pops into my head" school, and it shows in your articles. Let's look, for example, at your most recent 10 posts on The Spearhead:Shrugging Misandry: No footnotes for any of your (generally pretty vague) assertions. You spend a long time talking about a single post on a blog, and you dig up an old quote from Marilyn French. The rest is you talking out of your ass. Death Row and the Pussy Pass: In this one, you cite a few stats, and draw some details from news accounts. You do not give any specific sources, though in this case the stats would be fairly easy for anyone to track down, so no harm, no foul. Still, most of the post is you talking out of your ass. When is it OK to Punch Your Wife: You offer anecdotal evidence based on a couple of news accounts. Most of the post is, once again, you talking out of your ass. Nothing Makes a Gina Tingle Like a Killa: Instead of citing an actual comment on reddit that might illustrate your point, you simply invent a fictional one. The rest is a combination of you rehashing someone else's research and talking out your ass.Zeta Game — Hypergamy Crossroads: 100% you talking out of your ass. The Problem With Gay Rights: 90% talking out of your ass. You refer to one news item but don't bother to check it — you simply recount what you vaguely remember about it, and that you wrote a letter which wasn't published. You mention the number of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and the gender breakdown. You provide no source. Zeta Game — Hypergamy: A Chris Rock quote, followed by you talking out of your ass. Does This Dress Make My Ass Look Fat? Three links to YouTube videos, an overlong joke, and you talking out of your ass. Women’s Sexual Peak Rests Atop a Pile of Lies: 100% you talking out of your ass, based on a weird misunderstanding of what the term "sexual peak" actually means. You add a little note pointing people to a similar essay by someone else that apparently actually refers to actual research. On Jury Nullification and Rape: OMG! A piece that actually refers to actual facts in the real world, with sources and links and everything. Still, a big chunk of the thing is you talking out of your ass. So let's recap: in the last two and a half months, you've written 10 pieces for The Spearhead. 9 of the 10 consist almost entirely of you talking out of your ass. You rely on unsourced stats, some news accounts, and several YouTube videos. Instead of engaging with the specific arguments of opponents, you invent a fictional comment and mock it. One article is actually researched, with links to sources and everything; still, about 50% of it is you talking out of your ass.
>Paul said"You need to start attacking what is actually in MRM literature, if you want to attack the tenets of MM philosophy (rather than just flame individuals)."Exactly my thoughts. This is what makes Gavid's blog a ultimate fail.He nitpicks random comments from nobodies. Anyone can easily do this with feminist blogs/forums when it comes to picking out the lunatics.A way stronger attack than Gavid's would be to point out actual icons of a movement. Such as pointing out people like Andrea Dworkin.Gavid needs to come up with a REAL attack instead of his usual lame pansy pettiness.He has totally failed to ridicule the literature and philosophy behind the whole MRM.You need to up your game, Gavid.
>"Find a single example of misandry in anything I've written here."How about your entire blog? Jesus, are you really this obtuse? Even some hard core feminists acknowledge that there are some serious areas of unaddressed concern in the lives of men and boys.Your entire existence is predicated on the idea that men. monolithically speaking, should just shut up and support feminism. Granted, you do a really, really inadequate job of even demonstrating why you think this way, which adds to the impression of misandry.The very first words you wrote on this blog were:I've been watching the Men's Rights movement, such as it is, for some time, with a mixture of amusement, horror and disgust. It's a movement that's bad for everyone — for men, for women, for children, and probably even for my cat, though I haven't yet quite worked out how.It is amazing to me that you can make such a blanket statement about the MRM, covering every complaint in the movement as unworthy of attention without so much as examination, or even by our own admission, an understanding of the research. (remember, you have not even read the stuff) You don't really know what modern research points to (another way to say you have no idea what you are talking about), but you are sure that MRA's are all wrong, even worthy of your ridicule. It's contempt prior to investigation, a sure sign of chosen ignorance, the foundation of bigotry. And it is written all over almost everything you write.It's misandry, David. And your are practicing it here in grand fashion.Also, as to your continued cherry picking of my work, it is not helping you make a case, except in your own mind.First, like most other writers, I use research when and where I think it is necessary. As many of the early pieces that formed the foundation for my website dealt directly with core issues of the MRM, e.g. false accusation, DV, phony wage gap, family courts, etc. you will see that all of those core pieces cite research and multiple sources. When I set out from the beginning to make a case on these issues, I made it, and backed it up. That freed me up to do two things. One, assume my readers in the future were familiar enough with material that they did not need me to repeat research every time I say something like "The gender wage gap is feminist myth."And two, it freed me up to write opinion pieces having already established that I understood the subjects that I was writing about. If you think all opinion pieces are supposed to be researched and sourced, please check any newspaper op ed for an example.The fact that you look at my recent work and keep relying on statements that claim I am "talking out of my ass" simply for writing informed opinions, keep revealing your hypocrisy. I am talking out my ass? Compared to what? The fucking entirety of everything you have ever written on the subject of gender politics? You think that you, the guy whose most empirical effort has been to snatch comments from other blogs and try to pawn it off as representative of an entire movement, is to be taken seriously as an arbiter of who is talking out there ass?I don't have time for much more of this. Just lay out your terms for a debate and let's get on with it. It is already starting to look like you are stalling.
>David,Another lame attempt to reduce this to a pissing match is a waste of time. If you have any real intent on debate, start naming your terms.
>A way stronger attack than Gavid's would be to point out actual icons of a movement. Such as pointing out people like Andrea Dworkin.It's interesting you mention that, our host has, I believe, written what (in my opinion, at least) is a fairly thoughtful critique of Andrea Dworkin specifically:http://articles.latimes.com/1997-03-16/books/bk-38664_1_andrea-dworkinAssuming this is the same David Futrelle as the one I've been talking to (if not, I apologize for the confusion), he is capable of at least relatively thoughtful, cogent criticism. That's why I've been saying it would be nice if he provided more of it 'round here. Still, he's the proprietor of this blog, not me…I learned the hard way a little while ago not to be a gratuitous guest. I suppose I ought to start my own blog if I really want to complain about what I read. Who knows, maybe one of these days I will.