>
My new favorite commenter on the Happy Bachelors Forum is a fellow calling himself trogdor005, who pretty much lives up to his name, offering blunt misogynist rants with all the subtlety of a caveman. A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts. So here is the first in a new series, “The Wit and Wisdom of Trogdor005.”
Today’s topic: “Going ghost.” For those not conversant with the latest in angry-man slang, this is a term adopted by the manosphere that’s basically a variant on Men Going Their Own Way — that is, disengaging from women and as much as possible from society itself. A man who goes ghost is, of course, a ghost. Here’s how you use it in a sentence:
That creepy douchebag who lives alone in the basement apartment and scowls every time a women walks by is a ghost.
Recently, one of the Happy Bachelors ran across a blog post by a woman who mocked the whole “ghost” notion:
I admit it, every time I read about some guy in the manosphere declaring that he or other men are going to go ghost, I laugh. I laugh real hard. When I have nothing else to laugh about because it feels as if nothing is going my way I think of those men, I laugh, and I am instantaneously cheered up.
The bulk of men are not willing to go ghost–no matter how bad things in the sexual and economic marketplace skew in favor of women–and even if large numbers of them did, most of those men would not be missed and eventually they would return to society, chastened by their transgression at acting on such a foolish endeavor.
This post MAKE TROGDOR MAD! So he banged out a response. He began by showing off his hard-won font-size-modification and smiley skills:
Then he moved into the meat of his argument:
The bottom line is men can avoid women entirely and there is NO FORCE on Earth that can force us into “marriage” or even a “relationship” with a woman minus a gun to the head. Even if the Guv’ment succeeds in somehow “forcing” men to get married, we as ghosts know what makes you bitches tick and can simply become unemployed intentionally, become fat stinky slobs, treat you very nicely/well, or more devastatingly effective, say the words “I love you” and cause you to instantly lose ALL attraction for us and be miserable in your Guv’ment arranged “marriages” ;D … The icing on the cake is that, when you inevitably file for “divorce” after years of unhappiness/New Cock Urge it is YOU who will pay US men “alimony” and “child support” since we were unemployed during the “marriage” hahahahhahaha ;D
Yes, you heard it right ladies, even if the government gives in to your dastardly desires and actually forces men to marry you, they can defeat you without lifting a finger, literally, except when their fingers are needed to shove food into their mouths.
Trogdoor005 then rallied the troops with some stirring rhetoric:
Men are winning the “gender war” and there is NOTHING the wimminz can do about it … The matriarchy needs a steady supply of manginas/husbands to feed the system and keep it running, a ghost is the anti-thesis of the mangina/husband and therefore MUST be discredited, silenced, and destroyed.
Many of us men will go on to lead happy, fulfilling lives, meanwhile many of these same Femini-nazi bitches will end up with cats and vibrators in their old age.
Here’s where Trogdor005 went wrong: plenty of non-elderly women have cats and vibrators already.
>rebekah said:". . .and my guy would find the mangina comment insulting, mostly because it mocks vaginas which according to him is the altar at which he worships (his words not mine)."If your guy actually said this then he is the biggest pussy ever. No wonder you need vibrators. Random Brother
>@ DavidDavid asked: "wytch, could you point me to some MGTOW online who are neither bitter nor misogynist? I have yet to find any. This is a serious question. URLs? "Men have a right to be bitter when they're treated poorly. Just because slave mistress central declares any male right a privilege doesn't make it so. Women don't worry about misandrist statements when they discuss something that upsets them, so why should men give a shit if someone hateful feminazi thinks men are bitter?Random Brother
>"A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts."Better a caveman with limited computer skills than a runt male git who thinks he can get laid by throwing pro-fem/anti-male grenades at better men. Oblivious/indifferent to the fact that the blast radius of such bombs far exceeds the throw radius.
>For all your name-calling, Witman, I didn't grow up middle-class in a liberal Western democracy. I grew up in dire poverty in a totalitarian state — and I didn't marry into money, either. Rather, I graduated at the top of my (very large) class, beating people who never had to contend with poverty or the language barrier. So, your tale of supposedly overcoming adversity just isn't impressive to someone like me. You, unlike me, grew up in an environment where you had free education, free healthcare, easy access to books, and basically all opportunities at your fingertips. From what I can tell, you've done precious little with them, but I suppose it's easy to just blame your mediocrity on the "feminist bias".Also, twist my words all you want, I said nothing that would be offensive to blue-collar people. Rather, my comment was addressed to your preposterous claim that civilization itself hinges on your continued willingness to participate in it. Let's be frank here — it's not like you are designing space ships, inventing a cure for cancer, developing new agricultural methods that will solve poverty and hunger, or creating masterpieces of art or literature. This is not to say that your job isn't valuable, or that it doesn't require competence — it's just that you aren't exactly the irreplaceable genius you claim to be. Neither am I; but then, I'm not the one here claiming that civilization will come to a grinding halt if I quit my job and become a hermit. Let's see: your job entails operating machinery that you did not invent, performing processes that were designed by others (who, incidentally, made your job necessary in the first place). Even when you make something of your own, most likely you just copy what others have invented, from its appearance right down to manufacturing methods. You don't create civilization — you only consume its fruits. Civilization doesn't exist because of people like you — it exists in spite of you and your admittedly pedestrian ways. You are not the Atlas supporting the world on your shoulders — you stand on the shoulders of others and support no one. Many of those others have penises, but that alone doesn't make you qualified to speak for them or to claim credit for their accomplishments. This is not a disparagement of blue-collar or middle-class people; it's a statement of facts that are self-evident. It goes without saying, of course, that most people are consumers of civilization. But civilization needs a lot fewer consumers to sustain itself than there are in existence, and if you, embittered sexless dunces, remove yourselves from it, this won't make a dent. You won't be missed, I guarantee you. You WILL be forgotten, and the world will go on just fine.As for your assumption that your opinion of my ass or my lack of fitness to enter your "man cave" should actually matter to me — that too, is an example of entitlement that is in no way, shape or form justified by reality. Along with your claim that you have a right to act like a pig.
>"You have to admit David that the biggest recruiter for the MRA is divorce courts."You mean it's not the ads above urinals?
>Wow, you certainly read a lot that I didn't write! That's some good deductions that you made there!Everyone works with machines they didn't create. That's including you Rich Girl. We travel in cars, on trains, in planes. We work in buildings that we didn't create and we use all sorts of communications equipment that we didn't create.I don't cure cancer but I work in the free market doing things that people willingly pay money for. The work that I do caters to mass consumerism which brings down the cost of the "machines" people use. Because of work like mine, the graphics cards the cancer centers use in their computers cost $500 instead of $1M. The government could take the $1M at gunpoint but I prefer that people willingly pay for what they use thus driving the prices down. The equipment that saves lives is a fraction of the cost because our customers are the R&D of the real world. My company is a knowledge based company.It appears as though our experiences are very similar except for your disadvantage of being born a woman. A woman mind you, who snubs her nose at the plebs. That's why you're not allowed in the man cave, because you are not nice. Some fat chicks are allowed in here.
>If you post a piece of writing whose basic thesis is that women are children and preface it with "listen and learn, grasshopper," I think you pretty much count as a misogynist.Again, by the dictionary definition of misogyny, it has to be HATRED of women. Legitimate observations are not hatred, nor are faulty observations if it was an honest error, perhaps because for that specific observer the pattern held true. Speaking the truth or what one honestly thinks is the truth in descriptive language should never be regarded as hatred.I love dogs, but that hasn't stopped me from noticing numerous negative things about them. Some people, noticing those same things, make a different evaluation and decide that they never want to be around dogs, yet we don't call them dog-haters. Indeed, hating anyone for their biological programming is quite petty.
>Sam's comment was really funny. Just wanted to point that out.Witman-basically it sounds like the job you have is not something women cannot do, just that they choose not to. You also assert that you have the right to ogle anyone you choose to-where is that in the classical tradition of rights?
>@ richard,the vibrators are there because he has to travel for his job. A job which does not qualify him as a pussy. You know those fast cars that you idiots like to drool over all day? Yeah he designs those.
>Cold: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Misogyny
>Well if you want to use such a broad definition of misogyny then you are yourself a misogynist for calling some anti-feminist women morons because they don't fall into your acceptable category. That's the problem with broad definitions; they make a word apply to just about everything to the point that it becomes trite and meaningless. This is why I prefer the dictionary definition.
>Saying "women are children" = misogyny.Saying that a particular woman is a moron because she said something moronic = not misogyny. I really suggest you reread what I linked to if this is not clear to you.
>Not by the dictionary definition; one can observe a tendency among women to behave like children without hating them for it. Perhaps they only behave that way because our society allows them to do so even after reaching physical adulthood. It's pretty rare for children to start acting like adults without being subject to any external discipline.The ridiculously broad definition to which you linked says:Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply hold all women under suspicion, or may hate women who don't fall into one or more acceptable categories.Not being a moron would be an "acceptable category" would it not? You put her in your enemies list for not falling into it, ergo you are a misogynist by that extremely broad definition.
>"Men have a right to be bitter when they're treated poorly. Just because slave mistress central declares any male right a privilege doesn't make it so."I would argue that bitterness is not a productive or adult reaction to being "treated poorly." And I would counter that the poor treatment you guys are pointing to is one corner of the social system that you cannot focus on exclusively with any intellectual honesty. If you want to change the status quo you have to examine more than just a handful of things–you have to examine the system as a whole, and the system as a whole does not exclusively favor women while disfavoring men. This is why I find most MRAs to have a very weak argument. If they are for gender equity, why is their focus so narrow? There is a *lot* to be done on gender equity, and yet again and again I hear complaints about this very small collection of grievances, often taken out of context or argued disingenuously. I actually think there are areas in which MRAs have a point but their entire approach, and their recruitment of aggrieved people who can't get outside of themselves in order to examine things on a systemic level, just devalues anything they might have to say. No one but MRAs themselves are making the whole movement a joke.Cold, "hatred of women" is not even the strict dictionary definition; you can't say words only mean what their roots indicate or we're going to have to radically reinvent our language, starting with excising all "philosophy" that isn't literally about loving wisdom.
>The meanings of words are determined by social convention, and the purpose of a dictionary is to observe those meanings through the use of usage panels and then report them. So, while "misogyny" doesn't HAVE to mean hatred of women, that IS the currently accepted meaning. You can stipulate an extended definition written by a single person like David tried to do, but I don't have to accept it and I'm not about to accept a definition that is so ridiculously broad that it applies to just about everyone. A definition has to be reasonably narrow in order to be useful.You have a point that bitterness isn't a productive reaction to being treated poorly, but it is nonetheless a perfectly understandable reaction and one that should be expected. Same with hatred; it's unproductive to hate someone because their biological programming isn't what one wished it to be but it's still understandable. I find it highly amusing when women claim to be the more empathetic gender but are unable to grasp how the way they treat men fosters bitterness and hatred.The system as a whole generally favors women to the extent that men kill themselves about four times as often as women. The focus of MRAs is broad and covers many issues; if you think otherwise then you haven't spent enough time reading our arguments.
>Wait how is suicide the ultimate indicator of systemic bias? You can't throw social sciences completely out the window and argue only according to what favors your arguments and your personal experiences. There is not one measure that determines how a system works. Also, I'm just going from memory here but don't more women *attempt* suicide and more men actually *succeed*? I have read about this in the past in psychology contexts (because that's where such a thing belongs, not in an argument about who has it worst in the world) and the issue is much more complex than you would like it to be. The system as a whole does *not* generally favor women. This is not an oppression olympics in which we all have to list all the ways *our* side has it worse. There is more complexity and give and take to the world. And on misogyny: the very first *dictionary* result I get in a web search for the word defines it more broadly than as the literal sum of its roots. You can argue all you want but that does not erase hundreds of years of scholarship or make words only mean what you want them to mean. As far as bitterness and hatred go: no one can *foster* bitterness and hatred in another person without that person being complicit. A movement built on bitterness and hatred cannot survive and will never be taken seriously because it is not an intellectual enterprise. And this "biological programming" argument is daft.
>@Elizabeth,"You also assert that you have the right to ogle anyone you choose to-where is that in the classical tradition of rights?"I don't mind being ogled. It's not touching or assaulting. It's quite flattering also. Or do you mean that women only want to be ogled (legitimized) by handsome men? If so, I think I qualify for that. I've been ogled by some ugly women and homosexual men. Although I am not attracted to them, I don't feel like passing laws stopping or criminalizing such behavior. You're putting some pretty strict rules on a natural mating ritual that is many thousands of year older than feminism or even the patriarchy.@M"And I would counter that the poor treatment you guys are pointing to is one corner of the social system that you cannot focus on exclusively with any intellectual honesty. "Really? We just need to suck it up so others can be granted privileges over our human and constitutional rights? I ain't sucking up shit sister and it don't matter if you tell me it's maple syrup. It smells like shit and it tastes like shit so I ain't sucking PC pipe no more. NB: The hillbilly grammar was intended although we like to be referred to as Appalachian Americans for political correctness. :)You cannot make me drink your Misandric Kool-Aid!
>Yeah, Witman, I'm an "Appalachian American" too, and yet I don't feel the need to reinforce the idiotic redneck stereotypes. However, your tendency to prefer assertions over evidence doesn't really help our case either. Note to world: not all Southerns are sexist hicks.
>It might not be the ultimate indicator but it's a pretty good one; why would an advantaged group kill themselves four times more often than a disadvantaged one? As for attempts, suicide is kind of difficult to screw up so it's reasonable to conclude that attempts are cries for attention, not serious efforts to die. As someone who has actually been suicidal I know that a serious effort involves the use of a quick method that is unlikely to fail, such as a gunshot to the head, a 100 meter fall, or the ingestion of a lethal dose of potassium cyanide. Standing on a bridge holding up traffic for a few hours or popping some pills after advertising the fact on Facebook are not serious suicide attempts, even though the latter one did end up resulting in a likely unintentional death. Also, 100 successful suicides always means 100 unique individuals while 100 suicide attempts could only involve 20 or 30 unique individuals, some of whom attempted multiple times.The system as a whole *does* generally favor women; the only way that one could look at all the evidence and not reach this conclusion is if one is willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.Try using a real dictionary; the good ones are all available online. The Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage dictionaries all concur with me.Scholarship is not always intellectually honest, and even honest scholarship often relies on stipulative definitions that are explicitly acknowledged as having a different meaning in that field of study then they do in general conversation. For example, in mathematics the word "proof" means something that establishes the truth of a proposition with absolute certainty, which is different from the generally accepted meaning of the word.Arguing that nobody can foster bitterness or hatred without the other person being complicit is incredibly daft and conflicts with much of modern law. For example, if sued for causing emotional distress the defendant cannot win the case by arguing that the plaintiff was complicit in that distress simply because he/she felt it as a result of the defandant's conduct, but according to your argument this should be a valid defense.Ignoring all the evidence of biological programming is even more daft.
>"No one but MRAs themselves are making the whole movement a joke."—MApparently, you don't really believe that, since you are so vociferous about arguing semantics here (among other things, including MRA issues that you think have little weight). Not to mention certain posters who somehow believe there are MRAs that constitute a threat.
>Cold, if I recall correctly the general psychology-world take on suicide and gender is that men have more social pressure to "suck it up" and not reach out for help. Men generally are more likely to suffer silently and then end it all. This is not to say that all men experience depression in this way, of course, but the reading I did about this subject, from psychology sources, talked quite a bit about how gender roles play into suicide rates. Suicide is absolutely *not* a good indicator of who has it best and worst in this society. Depression can be genetic as much as it can be experiential. Depression and suicidal ideation are tremendously complex subjects and you are doing a disservice to pretty much *everybody* to co-opt the matter so simplistically and for your own ideological purposes. There are no answers to be found by boiling things down to simple talking points in order to prove that your prejudices are justified. Also aggressively oversimplified: your arguments about word meanings. Invoking an argument about modern law with regard to what you were saying before about bitterness is so fantastically silly I have no idea what to say. There is a reason no one takes your "movement" seriously.Witman, I maintain that focusing selfishly on one small corner of a complex issue because it's something you personally experience while ignoring the whole of social interactions and the complexity of the issues at hand are the opposite of seriousness and are why this grievance-driven fringe fantasy you guys have going is not working. Serious people are already working on the issues you keep bringing up in simplistic and narrow fashion; when they are resolved, and I certainly hope that the legitimate issues I agree with you on to some extent *are* resolved, it will not be thanks to a reactionary fringe with a microscopic focus and a refusal to examine the world in full.
>Wytch, no, I actually have the same SIWOTI Syndrome several other commenters have said they have. I absolutely believe that MRAs themselves are responsible for their movement being a joke.
>Witman-I did not say it does not happen, I said there is no history of it being a right. So you are asserting a right that does not in fact exist.Or if you do want to insist it exists-the right to call you a sexist pig for doing so equally exists.
>Cold, I think you're being much too literal minded about the definition of misogyny. I also think that guys who are constantly making derogatory remarks about women (or "western women"), and who basically organize their lives to avoid women, and spend a lot of time online discussing this, do in fact hate women. This hatred may be tinged with ambivalence, as hatred often is, but it is still hatred. You, for example, found out about this blog on a forum linked to a site premised on putting American women down — Nice Guy's American Women Suck site — and you've posted thousands of comments on the forum. Many of those posting there are in fact rabid misogynists. I hate to break it to you, but you may just sort of kind of be a little bit of a misogynist yourself.
>"I absolutely believe that MRAs themselves are responsible for their movement being a joke."–MMRAs take many of their issues seriously. Perhaps if you had read more forums and blogs you would realize that instead of making a superficial judgment value.I could state that feminists are responsible for their movement for being a joke, but I know better. They have more power and impact than the MRM at this time, and even deny this power and clout despite of all of this. Many feminists make absurdist commments and strawmen, but I would not say the that feminism is a joke considering the damage that it has caused.