>Boycott? Make that a MANcott!

>Speaking of fetishes, David… From my perspective, your affinity for actively seeking out what you consider to be misogynistic filth — while ostensibly intended to combat misogyny by exposing it — seems itself to be a fetish of yours, like you're fascinated by it, even attracted to it. I know you've expressed disgust against some of the posts that you've criticized, for example saying that you need to wash your brain with mind bleach. But you keep coming back and seeking it out. Then you project judgment onto others, associating their political beliefs with the misogyny that has so thoroughly transfixed and captivated you. Captivated… what an appropriate word.Are you really on a mission to rid the blogosphere of misogyny, or are you slowly becoming more infected by it?

>I like the long hair comment. It reveals his mind set that the only wants are his wants, and any woman who does something against his wants does so in deliberate defiance of his wants.

>The thing about "BAW" is that it sounds no different from real comments I've seen on MRA sites over the years. I mean maybe it's a feminist farce, as they've been promoting the site on comments on feminist blogs, but maybe they're just trying to get attention and think they're brave and never-heard-before stance will just automatically enrage feminists. Most of the responses I've seen to it on feminist blogs have been laughter and variations of "thank you, boycotters, one less douche in the dating poo!" with a smattering of mentions that is this attitude is about "importing" spouses from poor countries it can pose a real danger for the "imported" in that the entire relationship begins on a massive power imbalance both legally and culturally. The idea that someone ("Mark") would want a partner they can't even communicate with is just too childish for words. If you find hetero relationships so fantastically difficult that you would rather marry someone you can't communicate with, the problem is *absolutely* on your end. I mean…really?

>Scarecrow: You know, I saw a few comments to that effect somewhere. The fact is that everything posted on that site is pretty much identical to things being said on MGTOW sites every day. If anything, the comments are LESS crazy than much of the stuff I find on MGTOW sites. The names aren't really a red flag to me; I assume that he just gave them fake names to protect anonymity. (Somehow I doubt you're really named Scarecrow either.) But I do wonder where exactly he's getting these statements, which is why I put the word "allegedly" in my post. They may be fake. He may be writing them. Though they aren't all written in the same style, which makes me think there's a good chance they're real.That said, I think there's precisely zero chance the site is being put up by feminists to make MGTOWs etc look bad. There would be no reason for it. As anyone reading my blog knows already, there's stuff that is much much worse on many MGTOW sites, much of it written by people with such long track records of comments and posts that they couldn't possibly be feminist shills.

>Marine! Not Marina! Yeegad I am going to have another coffee before I comment again.

>Most people only fake it at hating. I mean, just look at me. I built a whole internet machine to house my hatred.

>1)MRA or feminist agent provocateur is a false dichotomy. He might simply be an attention-starved moron with a sock-fetish2)Sorry to inform you scarecrow, but there's already gays in the Marines. They're called Marines.

>@David Futrelle:"You can be interested in something without wanting to become that something. Some people spend their lives studying slime molds. That doesn't mean they want to become slime molds."But an idea is far different from a physical substance. For example, a fungus that you were studying could be harmful if it escaped its petri dish and entered your lungs. But an idea can leap right off the page of a book or a Web site and travel straight into your mind — infecting it instantly but undetectably.Recently I watched a video on National Geographic about a psychological experiment that was designed to study the effects of prison confinement. It was known as the Zimbardo experiment (see video or Wikipedia article). The test subjects consisted of volunteers who allowed themselves to be incarcerated, and volunteers to acted as guards. During the experiment the "guards" became abusive toward the "inmates," and the inmates became aggressive and disrespectful toward the guards. Even the director of the study found himself strolling through the jail with his hands folded behind his back as he walked, which he later realized was his own unconscious way of projecting authority. His curiosity and thirst for knowledge had become eclipsed by his own psychological vulnerability, and the experiment had sucked in even him.You too can be infected by all of these Web sites and blog comments that you are seeking out. Your own mind can be more vulnerable to the power of a corrosive idea compared to a corrosive substance, precisely because you think that the idea is harmless to you.You being infected by an idea is bad enough. But the worst part of it all is that you might take the infestation that you invited into your own mind, and turn it around in the form of an accusation against others as though they somehow personify the filth that became your fetish. How could you have sufficient perspective to know for sure that this hasn't already happened to you?

>Speaking as a Marine, we generally just call gay Marines, you know, gay. The "less tolerant" redneck types use more colorful terms. I'm sure your imagination can provide them.

>Hmmm I also wonder why you focus on specific people and comments and not the message of Men's and Father's Rights itself. Your blog is entertaining but I get the distinct impression that you are trying to discredit the issues and concerns that men and boys face. Is this true? I would like to see you engage these issues directly.

>I've broadened the focus of this blog to misogyny in general. That's what I'm interested in writing about, and so that's what I write about. Sometimes the people I write about are MRAs, sometimes they aren't — or at least I have no way of knowing whether they consider themselves MRAs or not. That's the case with the guy I'm writing about here, and because of that you'll notice that I don't refer to him as an MRA and there is no MRA tag at the end of the post.I have taken on MR issues directly in the past, and will continue to do so, on my own schedule. But, you know, it's my blog, and I write about what I want to write about, not what MRAs want me to write about. You are free to ignore the blog if you. If you look in the "further reading" list in the sidebar, you will see some guides to some major MR issues and links to people who have written about them in more detail.

>I said nothing about America being a country in which all people are rich, nor did I imply that all American women are white. The two websites had similar language. You seem to be a master at drawing baseless conclusions from comments–it's actually almost impressive!My comments about foreign spouses and power iniquity were specifically about the phenomenon of men seeking spouses from *relatively* disadvantaged regions, spouses who are seeking to find greater opportunity in the *relatively* advantaged West, and I thought that was pretty clear. I am not talking about all instances of people marrying across nationality, obviously.

>Somehow I think that someone hating every natural born woman in his country and in the whole English speaking world still counts as misogyny.