>
 |
| Future revolutionaries? |
On January 1, 2010, a day that will live in … calendars from last year, the blogger at The Futurist published a long-winded crackpot screed called The Misandry Bubble, which rehashed a bunch of standard-issue “manosphere” memes — doofus sitcom dads oppress men! beta man can’t get laid! marriage sucks! — in one exceedingly pretentious package. While rampant misandry and uppity women were destroying American civilization from within, he argued, the “Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation” would rescue us all and put those dirty feminists and White Knights in their place. One of the Horsemen? Virtual reality sex toys for men.
To say that Mr. Futurist was optimistic about his ability to predict the future popping of the “misandry bubble” is a wild understatement. His manifesto, he declared, was
a guide to the next decade of social, political, and sexual strife … As the months and years of this decade progress, this article will seem all the more prophetic.
Naturally, with so many in the manosphere being pretentious douches who like having their own crackpot notions repeated back to them in pretentious language, The Misandry Bubble was a smashing success, and became for a time the talk of angry-man town.
I’ve been meaning to write about it for awhile, but that would have required me to actually reread the damn thing.
But Mr. Futurist has beaten me to the punch. On January 1, 2011, “exactly 365 days after The Misandry Bubble was posted,” he posted his long-awaited followup. It starts off as portentiously (and pretentiously) as his original manifesto:
We have completed the first year of the decade of The Misandry Bubble, and I remain as convinced as ever that The Misandry Bubble will correct by 2020 no matter what due to the Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation. However, there is much to lose if the correction is turbulent, rather than orderly. Millions of innocent men and women can be saved from wrenching misfortune if we act now to fight the culture of misandry that is cancerously pervading the entire Western world.
So how does one fight such a hydra-headed menace as modern misandry? Mr. Futurist, borrowing a page from third-world revolutionaries, suggests that what is needed to save “millions … from wrenching misfortune” is a “a simple, low risk solution that enable this small civilian force [of MRAs] to wage asymmetrical warfare against misandry.”
This solution?
Urinal flyers.
Yep. His grand plan to save civilization from “misandry” is for a super seekret guerilla army of angry dudes to put up little posters above urinals in public restrooms suggesting that dudes taking a piss … go read The Spearhead, or some other manosphere site with “a professional appearance and clean format.” He calls this campaign “URLs @ Urinals.”
I shit you not. (Or perhaps that should be “I piss you not.”)
Here’s his explanation:
Male restrooms in public buildings have urinals. When a man is using a urinal, he has no choice but to see the blank wall that is directly in front of his face above the urinal at eye-level. Every man taller than 5’2″, whether young or old, rich or poor, is a captive audience for that brief passage of time. …
If a man sees a flyer that provokes a jolting thought where he leasts expects it, he will remember it for a long time to come. Those of us who have studied and practiced Neuro-Linguisting Programming (NLP) will recognize this as a very strong anchor, and thus ensure that he will remember the seed planted in his mind in many future instances of standing in front of a urinal. The periodic recollection will be unshakeable, due to such a strong anchor being planted. Whenever he hears of yet another such situation again, he will think back to the thought evoked by the flyer he saw on that day.
Mr. Futurist refers to this strategy, with utter seriousness, as “piercing the Matrix.” You know, like in The Matrix.
All that remains to be done, besides purchasing a roll of tape, is to come up with some appropriately “jolting” posters. Mr. Futurist has already come up with a bunch of them. They won’t win any awards for clever design, or clever wordplay, or even “World’s Greatest Grandpa,” but, hey, if they’re printed up on sheets of paper they can indeed be considered flyers. Here’s one:
And another one, perhaps my favorite:
Our good friend ReluctantNihilist from Reddit — who apparently is none other than Jay Hammers, whom you may remember from my The Worst of the Men’s Rights Movement post — has already come up with a few of his own slogans:
The Constitution no longer protects men and boys.What happened?
Chivalry is Dead And Women Killed It
Why do men die younger than women?It’s not just biological.The truth may surprise you.
Buying That Girl Drinks Will Get You Nowhere
All it will take to bring these sorts of messages to a million men, Mr. Futurist estimates, is a mere 1000 hours of collective action, printing up and posting these little flyers in the men’s restrooms of America. “Which could,” he explains,
plant a seed in the minds of hundreds of thousands of them.
Which could lead to tens of thousands of them reading the websites introduced in the flyers.
Which could result in several thousand more men becoming fully educated about the various dimensions of misandry that are silently enslaving them.
Now, Mt. Futurist realizes there will be naysayers amongst the evil misandrists of the world. As he explains, with typical understatement:
Already in a stupor of castrative bloodlust, ‘feminists’ will be tipped into hysteria by the thought of more men being sent information from outside the plantation. Their reactions will span the whole range of derangement, from demands for taxpayer-funded armed guards to apprehend flyer posters, to feminists barging into men’s rooms to inspect for evidence of ‘misogyny’, to calls for outright bans on urinals themselves as ‘male supremacist’ appliances, to increasingly bold statements regarding the need to reduce the male population to a fraction of what it currently is … .
Also, he observes, some people might actually tear down the flyers. But do not be daunted, good men, for
that action is futile as due to the viral nature of ‘URLs @ Urinals’ they have no idea where or when the next flyers will be posted. They will, as mentioned before, double down on their pedestalization of women. But they can only double down so many times, and this will accelerate the process of them cracking under the burdens of their ignorance.
So onward and upward, urinal-flyer-posting men! I guess I’ll have to check back in a year to see if the revolution has begun.
>"Angry, aggressive men do attract women. The real question is what are feminists doing about this in order to prevent it?"Nothing. Feminists – especially these days – contribute nothing noteworthy to anyone. Although they do an awesome job diverting funds to protect vulnerable women in inner cities, for example, in order to drum up rape hysteria on college campuses and secure moar funding for moar of their stupid bullshit.C'est la vie, right?
>Indeed.
>"Question: Did Haley then go on to date/marry another brute?" —witmanIt took her many years to get pattern out of her system. It was in her late 30s, actually.Some women learn the hard way. Or even don't learn at all."So would you say that aside from being a masochist, Haley was also emotionally and physically abusive?"I would say yes. She often started fights with him. Even by her own admission, btw.
>On the inside anyway.
>Nick, I removed your idiotic, pointless post. Back to the issues at hand:Some women are drawn to horrible men.Some men are drawn to horrible women.When the first thing happens, you guys blame the woman. When the second thing happens, you also blame the woman. It seems to me that while those men and women who are drawn to horrible people certainly make their lives worse because of it, it is the people who actually do the bad shit who are primarily, overwhemlingly to blame.
>Shit! Now my post doesn't have context!
>If feminists want feminism to be seen as a legitimate movement that's supposed to about GENDER EQUALITY, they need to start showing as much hostility towards female privilege as they do towards male privilege.Until then, it's validated to label feminists as a group of idiotic bigots. Equality means equal criticism. Start showing it instead of just blaming men for everything.
>nicko81m,I like the term Chauvinist Pigs. That's what they are and no amount of harping will change that fact. You even try to mention equality here and they'll jump down your throat like you said they should be obliged to give you a blowjob for a beer.Notice how it was the irrational Feminists here who brought up the she doesn't owe you anything argument and then harped on it until they believed that was what we were saying.Lie, repeat, repeat, REPEAT, REPEAT, Chauvanist, MISOGYNIST, RAAAAAAAPPPEEEEE!
>And then they lose their shit like a shit collector with amnesia!
>Witman, it's pretty much the social norm in western society for women to believe they are above men. We hear so often that women complain about having it hard to find a decent man. In other words, it either means that these women believe they are better than most of the male population or most men are evil.That's another facet of female chauvinism that seems so prevalent in today’s society. This type of attitude is acceptable and the norm. A woman can even express such things on national TV and not be looked down upon.Men are stereotyped in being domineering control freaks. I see a lot of irony in that as women seem to express so much these days that if you are not this or that or if you dare to criticise their shitty behaviour, you wont get the golden pussy. It pretty much means that if you don’t follow their rules and do as they say, no pussy for you. If that’s not domineering behaviour, what is?There is actually a book named female chauvinist pigs. One of these days I will pick it up
>Nick, I would think based on you other posts, you would prefer to have a prostitute since the issue of money is very straight forward rather then with the average woman at the bar.
>Why would I get a prostitute when I am not even willing to buy a female chauvinist ONE DRINK to begin with?
>"Female privilege"? Heh.A few days ago, I read about Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish justice on the Supreme Court. Naturally, when he was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1916, there was furious opposition to him from a bunch of people who claimed — are you ready for this — that he was only being nominated to the Supreme Court for his background. That is, simply for being a Jew. Now today, most of us see this is utterly ridiculous. Brandeis was an eminent jurist and scholar, and a man whose professional and personal reputation was above reproach. There had never been a Jew on the Supreme Court. Every member of the Supreme Court at that time was of English, Irish or Scottish descent AND Protestant. In fact, in all the history of the Supreme Court up to 1916, there had been only four Justices who weren't both (1) of English/Irish/Scottish descent and (2) Protestant. And all four of those met at least one of the two criteria. And yet, at a time when there had never been a Jewish Supreme Court Justice, and the President and the overwhelming majority of Congress were Anglo-Saxon Protestants, a lot of people believed that Brandeis' nomination represented Jewish encroachment on the government. And they felt that Protestants of English, Scottish and Irish descent were being oppressed, denied opportunities which were rightfully theirs, while Jews were being privileged over everyone else. It completely escaped them that at a time when one HAD to be "English" and Protestant to have any hope of holding political and judicial office, the people who served in government — they were being put in those positions for their background. In fact, if you were to go back in time and point this out to them, they would angrily argue that all those Justices who came before Brandeis were qualified to serve, and therefore could not possibly have been appointed because of their ethnicity or religion. Simply put, people who were the "default" race, the "default" ethnicity, and the "default" religion saw anything less than total control of everything as oppression and loss.And now it's the same thing with women's liberation. Men's rights are seen as women's privileges. Men's-righters speak of women being "allowed" to vote, work outside the home, go to school. Whenever a woman obtains a high-paying job or a high-ranking post, they deem her to have obtained it because of her gender, no matter how supremely qualified she is — because in their mind, that place by default goes to a man; but tell them that at a time when women could not vote, work or participate in government, male politicians, judges and college professors got ahead thanks to their gender — and they will vociferously deny any bias. And of course, they see any sharing by women in good things that traditionally belonged only to men as acts of oppression and subjugation against men.
>Who is they? Please don't presume to think what regular people are thinking. You may wish to step outside your mansion and have a look at how real people live. The plebs suffer from your delusions of oppression. Here's a hint, most of your "liberated" women are working in low paying service jobs. They aren't all aristocrats like yourself.Every law that passes to dethrone your patriarchy just makes life shittier for the average person. Laws about equality (protected in the Constitution) are passed by useful idiots to the detriment of the plebs. We all toil under this oligarchy run by rich people like you. You aren't just oppressing and subjugating men, you are providing a false feminist utopia to the plebeian.
>My apologies, I realize that you are not an aristocrat.
>"Most men don't end up like George Sodini. So you clearly have no idea what you are talking about."Most men aren't MRAs, either. Those of us who live in the real world tend to keep a sense of proportion about things.
>Nick, it appears to me that you view women as only going after men for money and using sex as this means.Going to a prostitute removes the ick factor of a woman using a male to obtain things she desires through subterfuge and instead makes the interaction straight forward-she provides sex, you provide the money. No messy involvement beyond the physical act.
>"I think that's a great idea, bringing in more men might move the MRAs out of their SCUM phase." "MRAs are in a Society (for) Cutting Up Men phase?Are you serious?" Yup. I think that Men's Rights activists have some valid complaints, but like Ms. Solanis you haven't moved beyond being angry and hating the way things are to joining together to deal with the systemic causes of your complaints.For example, the jailing of fathers who do not pay court ordered child support sets up a precedent which should be frightening to anyone who owes money, it should be changed. But instead of focusing on the legislators and people who have the power to change it, you focus on women and mothers. I'm very interested to see what y'all are going to accomplish once you get your shit together. I think, like feminism, it's going to make our society better across the board. Unless, of course, you just spend all of your energy yelling about skanks and bitches, that probably won't change anything.
>Hide and Seek -Don't hold your breath on seeing a (politically) organized Men's Rights movement.
>"You even try to mention equality here and they'll jump down your throat like you said they should be obliged to give you a blowjob for a beer."I like the way you continue saying things like this about everyone here after I engaged you and a bunch of other guys here at some length. If you insist on misrepresenting the other side entirely, no one is obligated to engage you because you will not engage in kind. When people stop bothering with your arguments it's because you're not making them in good faith, and I'd suggest your characterization above is a good example of how bad faith you have behaved here. I did not jump down your throat, and yet you keep on misrepresenting your opponents and their general beliefs. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and then insisting that those talking to you are being irrational.
>@M,I won't even address the number of times in this thread alone that I have been misquoted and paraphrased beyond belief. You don't understand that I do not hate women. I love women! I am a humanist and I think everyone should have equal rights. EQUAL RIGHTS under the God, The Constitution, The Law and everything!My biggest beef is with the system that puts a loaded gun in a woman's hand and then starts telling her that we are all bogeymen. If she fires of a couple rounds and kills or wings one of us we might get a little sour over it, but it's the system that is dehumanizing men to the point that women are afraid of us and legitimized in killing us in their systematic installed fear.Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!
>"My biggest beef is with the system that puts a loaded gun in a woman's hand and then starts telling her that we are all bogeymen." Women have loaded gun and "the system" is telling them that all men are boogeymen."If she fires of a couple rounds and kills or wings one of us we might get a little sour over it,"So this loaded gun is not a metaphor? "but it's the system that is dehumanizing men to the point that women are afraid of us and legitimized in killing us in their systematic installed fear."It is dehumanizing to men to be painted as being all rapists. But where is all this killing?"Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!"So, to recap: women have guns (not clear if they're metaphorical or literal), "the system" (presumably feminism, not the patriarchal culture that feminism was a response to) teaches women that all men are rapists, so women kill men, and soon there will be a genocide against men because of this. Witman, it sounds like you think women are terribly dangerous to men. That's really scary. Women are attacking men, or they are about to. They are dehumanizing men so much that it seems like a genocide against men is possible. Is there any non-violent way to head off this looming threat? Concentration camps for ladies, maybe. Other than that, though, things look pretty dire. According to your own reasoning, you'd be insane not to mount some sort of preemptive strike. You heard it here first, folks: the cold war between the sexes is about to go hot.
>@SallyStrange:The gun is both literal and figurative. And you darling have nothing to offer but satire and sarcasm which does not help the situation in any way. It just further dehumanizes legitimate people with legitimate grievances.Please be quiet while the adults are talking.
>How would you feel if you found an unjust law/belief and some man just patted you on the head and said "There, there, just go to sleep, it's all part of your imagination"?Just show me any man anywhere that got away with murder (or even assault) by claiming that his IP was abusive. Just one! I can show you several cases where women get away with MURDER on that claim. They can even shoot a man in the back of the head while he is walking away "How dare he walk away from her Highness?" How about shooting him in the groin and then killing him. Were all the jokes about John Wayne Bobbit some sort of nervous laughter? You sure put the laughter back in slaughter!
>"I won't even address the number of times in this thread alone that I have been misquoted and paraphrased beyond belief."You are doing the same thing to others but only see it being done to you. Sounds like…a pattern? And in response to it being done to you, you mischaracterize everyone who disagrees with you. Yet when a feminist does that it's something wholly different, something *more* unfair?I have engaged you honestly. You don't get to say that a mere mention of equality means all the feminists here will jump down your throat.I don't believe you hate women. I do, however, maintain that if you genuinely believe that you are a "second-class citizen" and that women have all the rights at your expense, you are not honestly engaging the world beyond your own personal biases and personal interests. The world is not that simple. "Name any event in history that started with the dehumanization of a group of people that did not end in at least an attempt at genocide! Just one!"Men are *not* being dehumanized by feminism or by feminist-informed structures. First of all, feminism is not the dominant ideology of the world any of us live in. But more importantly, we live under a system that attempts to dehumanize *everyone* in some ways, and accomplishes different feats of alienation with different classes of people due to how they are situated within a complex and often-oppressive system of socioeconomic relationships. To focus only on those aspects that impact the classes *you personally fall in* is not humanism. It is not even anti-oppressionist. It is simply misguided, because it cannot begin to dismantle the causes of our various oppressions and disadvantages.