>
 |
| Woman Oppressing Men |
The oppression of men by mean, evil, surly women continues apace. Today: the verbal and psychological abuse heaped upon men by — brace yourself — female sales clerks. We turn to The Spearhead forums for evidence of this perfidy.
Kinetic opened up the discussion with a tale of a recent shopping excursion. It started out innocently enough with a trip to a tobacconist. Expecting to see men behind the counter at such a manly business, kinetic was horrified to find a pair of women instead. I’m sorry: C*nts. (That’s how they spell the word on The Spearhead.)
I ask for some good tobacco, and straight away one of the women give me attitude. So I say I want something thats not perfumed, something ‘male’, she says “you want what??!”, I say “forget it”. Im not put money in this c*nts pocket.
Im so sick of women. This tobacconist is a little shop thats meant to specialize, and this bitch first points me to the over the counter stuff which is available anywhere, then gives me attitude. It f*cking annoys me.
But this was not the end of the oppression inflicted on our poor hero by these dastardly women.
I then went to buy some new clothes from a major retailer, got to the counter, another woman there, I didnt say a word. She bags the stuff up, says “thanks”. I say nothing, take the clothes and walk off.
Can you imagine! She does her job, then says “thanks.” What an outrage!
As far as Im concerned they can all bollocks. Im not buying anything from a small female run business, and when I have to buy from the big department stores, Im not even going to say please or thankyou. They can simply f*ck off.
I’m sure they will dearly miss your business.
Clearly moved by Kinetic’s sad tale, Nurb piped up with words of support:
I know how you feel. I came to that same conclusion a few years back. When I go to the shops I act as if women don’t exist. I avoid eye contact as well, I can’t even stand to look at them because I know they’re just going to start me off with their cowshit. A woman who run’s their mouth just pisses me off to the point where I’d want to deck the fucker right there.
A woman talking in a store? Clearly deserving a punch in the head. Also: Note that Nurb has used the correct term in this context: “cowshit.” Women are, as we all know, incapable of “bullshit.” They can only manage the clearly inferior “cowshit.”
But are all female clerks equally evil? misterb suggested his comrades adopt a somewhat more nuanced view.
Personally I can tolerate a female attitude from a white woman and even a white male to female transsexual, never from a black woman or a latino woman. … I am not going give her my hard earn cents. …
If it’s an Asian woman or a Muslim woman I would classify her as a supremacist and a narcissistic asshat
A few commenters raised their eyebrows at this suggestion. “Why tolerate it from any female?” asked trent13.
Is there any solution to this kind of oppression? Several commenters suggested a kind of uncivil disobedience. Zebert suggested not buying anything from female sales clerks or sales representatives of any kind. ‘Women are the reason our species may exterminate itself,” he added later, in response to a commenter who was insufficiently outraged by the behavior of the sales clerks in question. “All human conflict exists due to women.”
But it was J. Durden who suggested an even more effective kind of incivility.
I remember when I was the assistant manager of a watch sales / repair shop, I had a policy to treat attractive women terrible. It was my way of balancing out the world (for myself), since I was sure their good looks got them tons of perks – drinks, getting out of tickets, etc.
It is from small gestures of defiance like this that revolutions begin.
J. Durden, I would call you the Rosa Parks of the Men’s Rights Movement, but I suspect that wouldn’t go over very well, given that Rosa Parks was, you know, a woman.
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to Miranda for passing along a link to this lovely conversation.
Also, just so everyone knows: I’m totally being sarcastic in this post. (Except right now.) Indeed, I’d like to take this opportunity to introduce everyone to the “I’m totally being sarcastic” tag (see below), which will hopefully clear up any potential confusion in the future.
>Christine,Thanks for the info. Yeah, I posted the link 🙂
>"David, all criticism aside, I'm disappointed in you." I laugh when I read his comments. Talk about "shaming language". lol. The MRA's spouting off on this blog have mastered the art.
>"How often do you read books for leisure which are penned by men?" Kind of a crazy question. Most of the books I read for leisure are penned by men. I've never stopped to think "Oh, wait, written by a man, can't read it." Who does that?Maybe he thinks if women are against the MRM, then they hate men. I haven't run across anyone on this blog who hates men. Some don't like MRA's, yes, but not men. The MRA doesn't represent all men – not by a long shot. It only represents a small percentage of men of a particular belief system. Most men I know wouldn't touch the MRM with a 10 foot pole. Maybe the question of choosing books by gender makes sense to an MRA who can't even stand to be served by a woman in a retail checkout line. To me, though, it was a silly question.
>@Miranda"Now that I've cleared that up, could you possibly, JUST ONCE, address sickness such as displayed in the thread I've linked to?"It takes a clinical, unemotional look at what could motivate a man to do such a thing. It never said that murder was right, and I find a look into his psyche more refreshing than, "he was crazy from the beginning." It's just another perspective – everything from another perspective is not automatically evil. It certainly did not justify that little tantrum you had.The second poster made reference to going on a rampage. This was a bit more disturbing, but then every movement has its fringe elements. I assume the asterisk after his name means he was banned, but I'm not familiar with the forum coding.@David -Funny you picked out something that was written by a woman who supports the MRM. I have a pretty lax definition of objectionable, I'll admit – it's not the standard feminist notion of "anyone who disagrees with me." Rather, it's anything that encourages violence or hatred against people for things they can't help. That being said, a majority of the posts aren't the way you paint them out to be – most of them focus on men's issues or the way society allows women to treat men.@Christina -It's being called the "abuser's lobby" by feminists and only feminists, oddly enough. You forgot to specify that. Additionally, there's women in the MRM such as Christina Hoff Sommers. I suppose those ladies are just sadists.The reality is, there are books – hard literature on the MRM written by women and even notable ex-feminists like Warren Farrell. In fact, many MRAs admit to being indoctrinated from the beginning with feminist propaganda – you're losing a boxing match armed with a machete! Imagine what will happen as the MRM gains more publicity and people start questioning feminist theory even more? Either way, there sure aren't any ex-MRAs marching over to join your cause. However, it seems that MRAs tend to remain MRAs, and new ones keep joining. I'll let you judge the direction your organization is taking from that.
>"Most men I know wouldn't touch the MRM with a 10 foot pole."Do they know about it from you or are they self-loathing? I mean, most people will at least try to understand something before they judge it. At least that's what real men do. You might be surrounding yourself with apologetic, cowardly simpletons who can't stand up for themselves. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I called them honorary women, seeing how much they loathe their own sex. I mean, they won't even stop to think about their own rights, they're so desperate to lackey up to their peers.
>@IR,I expected exactly that response from you. Thank you for your opinion.
>@ChrissyDon't bother explaining that. I'm sure it's a lot like your feminist studies which are important enough to inject into politics but too complicated to break down into honest, cold numbers – or even to expose the methodology. Similar tactics were used to fabricate the "1 in 4 rape" myth.
>Actually, IR, I was really talking about the comments further along in that discussion, like this:http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1031#p12679http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=1031#p12683
>IR, I like how quickly you move from:"David, all criticism aside, I'm really disappointed in you. I really thought you could actually provide some constructive criticism about our movement, if only to provide a catalyst for improvement." … to categorizing men who reject the MRM as:"apologetic, cowardly simpletons who can't stand up for themselves. I'm sure they wouldn't mind if I called them honorary women, seeing how much they loathe their own sex. I mean, they won't even stop to think about their own rights, they're so desperate to lackey up to their peers."
>@DavidYes, nice, a few men acting obnoxious. Now, what do these groups – not discussions, but groups say about women? (NSFW)Gynarchy – group dedicated to "lesbian supremacy" and "male servitude." The forum regularly supports feminist ideology."Now that the Feminist movement has down real and hard work in progressing towards some form of equality, men are using these same techniques, language, and examples as poor attempts to defend bad positions. Genuine cases of discrimination against males can be and are heard under law the same as for anyone else. The difference between an underdog and a loser is the platform they start from. Women were the underdogs in society. Losers are also left with nothing left to do but complain, and its pretty typical that they will look to what defeated them as an example for their last resort complaining."- Gynarchists attacking the MRM.Biting Beaver (removed by feminists, archived online and partially here) – believes that because her teenage son looks at pornography, he will inevitably become a rapist and should have been aborted. Patriarchy Slam – an anti-male gathering which joked about castration and labeled women who do not share their views as "traitors to women." Given permission and support to demonstrate on university property.Shakespearsister – Labels anyone who disagrees with their views as "privileged." Additionally protects their echo chamber with claims that it is a "safe space" and hence nobody who disagrees with their ideology can post. Namely straight males who are unapologetic for their sexuality.
>@David -It's not men who "reject" the MRM I have a problem with. It is men who won't "touch it with a 10 foot pole." If they knew what it was actually about or weren't too cowardly to question their feminist indoctrination, they'd have a right to reject it. However, just doing so to appease a woman is just cowardly and pathetic.I've learned enough about feminist theory all the way through high school and still have to take courses in college which cram that tripe down my throat. I have earned the right to reject feminist theory – I'm not exactly hearing what one feminist has to say about it and then talking about how "it, like, sucks" without an ounce of foreknowledge.
>Shucks. I wasn't offensive enough to make the enemies list, yet.
>"Now, what do these groups – not discussions, but groups say about women?" (Why do you specify women and not just feminists? i thought you were against feminism, not women in general.) Anyway, to answer your question link by link: 1) That some women join groups I and the overwhelming majority of feminists don't agree with? (And if you're really offended that someone in that forum called MRAs "losers," well, guess what, MRAs call feminists (and women in general) far worse every damn day. See, for example, every post of mine for the past week for examples.) 2) That you sent me to a page that seemed to have something vaguely to do with someone who was once targeted by 4chan, and I'm not going to bother to figure out what actually went on because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything I write about here. 3) That 5 years ago some antiporn college feminists held an event. Yes, there are antiporn feminists. I've argued against them since the early 90s. 4) That Shakesville has a much more restrictive comments policy than I do. One much closer in spirit to Paul Elam's comment policy, actually. If you think I'm unfairly picking on fringe elements, tell me where to find an MRM site or two that is largely free of misogyny.
>@David -"Women" was supposed to be "feminists."Either way, what about Paul Elam's site or The Spearhead articles? For that matter, why do you fixate on the 1/10 comments or articles which can be construed as anti-women (and even then, they mainly attack western female culture), and then generalize them to represent all MRAs? I certainly do not hate women, and I consider myself very much a Men's Rights Advocate in practice and in definition.Additionally, if you want to see what a MRA looks like, look no further than my blog, Ideologue Review. You'll find the feminist ideology reviewed right below the pedophiles'.
>@David Futrelle:"If you think I'm unfairly picking on fringe elements, tell me where to find an MRM site or two that is largely free of misogyny."You already tried that tactic with your post entitled "Hit me with your best shot." First of all, as I pointed out in that thread, the very act of naming a more nuanced voice that articulates or acts upon issues that the MRM supports would only put a target on them. You would certainly then devote all of your energy into finding something about them to criticize, in order to slow their momentum in the legislatures and in the appellate courts.What is it that you want, David? To discredit legitimate issues by associating them with fringe elements (which is what I suspect)? Or is it to get the owners of MRM blogs and forums to exercise greater control over their least palatable commenters in order to more effectively advance the MRM agenda?By MRM agenda, I mean the following (at least in part):1. Challenging misandry: More positive cultural conceptions and depictions of men in popular culture, rather than the current paradigm that constrains conceptions of men to a spectrum that ranges between [a] potent-but-menacing, and [b] harmless-but-spineless.2. More substantial parenting time in child custody: The father's provider role prior to divorce is laudable, but it is used against him in family court to minimize his parenting time post-divorce. Just because Dad spent the majority of his time earning in order to support his family (prior to the divorce) that doesn't justify punishing him or his kids for that by minimizing his parenting time.3. Fairer laws on domestic violence. Prosecute violent women instead of excusing their violence by calling it self-defense. Hold female abusers accountable rather than using the current Duluth model which attempts to justify female perpetration.4. Fairer laws on rape. Give juries all of the information about the accuser; let them decide what is or isn't relevant.5. Eliminate sentencing disparities. Females get sentenced to less severe criminal penalties compared to males who committed the exact same crime.6. Challenge the climate of anti-male suspicion. This is especially true on college campuses, which attribute any violence perpetrated by perpetrators to men as a whole ("only men [in general] can stop rape"). But a climate of anti-male suspicion also exists in airline seating policies, the teaching and child care professions, the workplace (arbitrarily applied sexual harassment laws) and any venue where child or female vulnerability exists in proximity to men.7. Reach out to and assist male victims. This includes male victims of female-perpetrated domestic violence, male victims of female-perpetrated statutory rape, male victims of false criminal allegations.8. Acknowledge and empower homeless men. At least 75 percent of homeless are men.9. Eliminate female privilege in military conscription.10. Devote more resources to men's health.Many of the above items are summarized in this video:
>@ DavidDavid said: "So, RB, you're saying that NAMRAALT?"Sure, why not, it seesm that's the excuse feminists always to defend their leaders screwed up posts.
>@John Dias -David does maliciously associate legitimate blogs and grievances with radical fringe elements. However, I doubt he'll ever be any more a threat than any other feminist with their false representations and flawed logic. I understand your concern for the destructive effects of slander and libel. However, it's my opinion that we should debate feminism unabashed and prove we have nothing to hide. David may mislead and misconstrue, but even by spreading information to him and on his blog the truth will inevitably shine through.I believe that when it comes to promoting blogs and sites worthy of the Men's Rights title, any publicity is good publicity.
>What's NAMRAALT? I've never heard this term before and google isn't helping…
>@ TECDave's trying to be clever and spin MRA's NAWALT (Not All Women Are Like That) something we MRA'S hear from women all the time and make it (Not All Men's Right's Activists Are Like That).Random Brother
>IR: Either way, it's safe to say that feminism has begun to wane while the MRM continues to grow. The question is WHY has feminism begun to wane?The answer is, just my opinion, because feminism is very expensive, it is non-productive.Nowadays most Western governments have no money anymore to finance feminist activity. No public funds, no sponsorship from companies…No money, no feminism.What do you think?
>NAWALT = "not all woman are like that," a term used by MRAs to ridicule people who say, quite reasonably, that very few women are actually like what they think women are like.NAMRAALT = "not all men's rights activists are like that," term I made up to ridicule peopole who use the term NAWALT.
>@Dave:I would really like to see you take apart that female-hating prick at the men-factor.Dang, I really hate that guy.Hmmm – funny Dave:I remember seeing NAMRAALT on this blog:notanmra.blogspot.comThat guy posted on your blog quite a while ago.Are you two the same person?
>No. I'm not surprised someone else thought of NAMRAALT too, as it's kind of an obvious rejoinder to NAWALT.
>You know that in the 1970s there were groups of very aggressive feminists going around with placards saying "All men are bastards" and "All men are rapists" and so on in the UK, feminist rhetoric has tone down a lot since but the belief in patriarchal dominance remains.. which is misandrist and inaccurate too.Men, stuck in a certain aspect of gender role will go along or not say anything about that sort of thing, these days many men are freeing them selves from the idea that there is a morally superiour, victimized sex and the gender roles that are associated with the belief and will quite freely stand up for themselves and give as good, well better it seems, than they get.David, what happened to my post in which I linked Richard Dawkins talking about feminist anti intellectualism and superstition in academia?I laughed out loud at the feminist quote, "you believe in DNA??"
>Your post is up in the thread you posted it in.