>
One thing I am struck by again and again as I read the blogs and the message boards of the manosphere is how little basic human empathy I see there, towards women in general and towards feminists of both sexes. We see it in the routine references to women as “whores” and “cunts” and other terms that reduce them to their genitalia.
We see it in the profound lack of empathy for women injured or killed. You may recall my recent post about an MRA blog that basically celebrated the possible death of a missing Las Vegas dancer. The body of the murdered woman, Deborah Flores-Narvaez, has since been found. The news inspired a moderator of the Happy Bachelors Forum to start a topic entitled “Dirty skanky whore found dead.”
And of course we’ve seen similar reactions to the attempted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others. While many in the manosphere responded to the shootings like normal human beings (displaying honest shock and horror) and others responded like typical internet paranoids (wildly speculating on how this meant the government would take away all our rights), there were others who found ways to blame women for the shootings or to twist the issue into one of men’s putative oppression. On NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, one commenter found an ingenious way to blame women for the shooting:
He [was] probably dumped by a girl and that’s what started him on the road to crazy batshit loonery. I can’t think of any other factor that could more quickly drive a man to violence than women.
Others complained that the news coverage was slanted by evil feminism. From the MGTOW proboards forum:
it pisses me off when i see all this outrage on the news and from the public knowing that if it was a congressMAN who was shot, everyone would be wondering what he did to deserve it.
this really shows you how society values women over men. and she’s not even dead!
Over on NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum, one member complained that Giffords was getting most of the news coverage and that the six others who were murdered in the attack, most of whom were probably men, were being ignored:
This is yet another example of how Femerica values female lives more than male lives. In the eyes of most Americans, men are less human than women.
The male judge gets a mention because he is a lackey for the interests of the elite. Even though he is dead, since he is a male, his death is presented by the media as less of a tragedy than the non-lethal shooting of a female politician with a good chance for recovery.
The death of the young girl was portrayed as third in line in terms of level of tragedy. By American standards, it was a tragedy because she possessed a vagina, but since she was not grown enough to be a full-fledged feminazi, her death was less of a tragedy than the non-death of the female politician.
It wouldn’t be surprising if the four unnamed dead people were men. If they were men, they would be considered less human than the others. They are not even human enough for the media to investigate and name. Their death, by American standards, was a tragedy but less of a tragedy than the non-death of female politician.
This comment is jampacked with an assortment of bad assumptions. To correct the most obvious of them: Giffords has gotten most of the coverage because this was not a random murder, but an attempted political assassination. Gender has nothing to do with it. When people talk about the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, they rarely mention the three others who were also wounded that day. (Except for James Brady, and that’s because he has gone on to be an influential gun control advocate.)
The male judge has gotten a good deal of attention, but isn’t the main focus of the coverage because he was not the target of the assassination attempt. The girl has gotten attention because she was a child. The other victims were not named at first because authorities had not yet notified their next-of-kin. There were three men killed in the attacks, two women, and one girl.
Meanwhile, on this very blog, a regular antifeminist commenter who calls himself Random Brother has made clear that he doesn’t extend basic human sympathies to feminists. Asking whether or not Giffords is a feminist, he explains:
I want to know if she has spent her whole career passing laws that harm men. I want to know this before I commit any sympathy to her. If she was a great politician who tried hard to help her constituents, was fair and just then she has all of the sorrow in the world from me. …
If she was a typical politician, a bigot or a man hater, why should I care?
Setting aside for a moment the fact that there is precisely zero evidence that Giffords is any any way a “man hater”: Because she’s a human being?
Sadly, this failure of empathy isn’t confined to the manosphere, as Marianne Kirby notes on The Rotund:
Empathy is, in its simplest form, the ability to acknowledge the thoughts/reasoning/emotions of another person as valid. It is, so to speak, being able to see where they are coming from even if you do not agree. … Empathy is, I think, coming to the realization of our own humanity and the humanity of other people – we are all simply people. …
[W]hen politicians depend on hate and violent rhetoric to stir up their followers, no good can come of it. … It teaches them that these people who believe different things are “the enemy” – that they are a danger and must be eliminated.
Is it any wonder that some people reach a point where the literal elimination of those who are different becomes the end goal?
For a long time I labeled the MRA/MGTOW blogs I’ve put in my sidebar as my “Enemies List.” It was a partially tongue-in-cheek reference to Nixon’s famous “enemies list.” But many people took it literally, and some (even if they didn’t) worried that this kind of terminology could lead to precisely the sort of dehumanizing of the “enemy” I’ve been criticizing here. In the wake of the Arizona shootings, and after pondering several eloquent emails sent to me on the subject, I’ve decided to change my “Enemies List” to, well, a “Boob-roll.” The American Heritage Dictionary defines “boob” as “a stupid or foolish person; a dolt.” The people I write about may be — at least in my mind — wrong, and foolish, and sometimes hateful assholes, but they are people.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>DavidGive up on me all you want. Sometimes I just don't bother to reply from a response on here that I get as I just think feminists are too deluded with their bigoted agenda. Speaking of chivalry; let me point out the simple fact about chivalrous concepts such as the life boat situation.Society as a WHOLE created such ideas. It wasn't only men. It wasn't men holding a whip telling women that you have to have these privileges or else get punished. In fact, women DEMANDED AND STILL DO such ideas MORE SO than men. Why? Because it simply gives them privilege. Women had as much say over chivalry as men did and still do. So how can this be patriarchy when women simply demanded and had as much say over such privileges? Women are the first to shame men as for saying we are not real men etc etc if we won't give women chivalrous privileged treatment. On a sinking ship, do you truly think that these men want to give their own lives up more so or to the same degree as the women who want to be privileged to the lifeboat? I don’t think so. Put your self in a life and death situation and tell me how much fear you feel of dying such an awful death.To blame it all on the men just because men abided by such chivalrous ideas is just as insane as saying that objectification towards women is all the fault of women because many women encourage it to happen due to sense of female empowerment .
>This feminist notion of men being privileged as somehow being the "default sex," I really have to challenge you on that, David. Are you actually trying to justify the idea that men should be consigned to a position that is even lower than what you call a "default" status, whereas women should be elevated to "special" status in order to correct some sort of injustice of male-favoritism? I mean, when men risk their lives subduing a mass-killer, they get ignored whereas a woman who merely picks up the gun magazine eclipses them and becomes a celebrity hero. To you this means that women are somehow valued less. Less! Or if a woman becomes the first to compete in some sort of competition, this alone affords her enormous attention even though the competition measures ability and honors the winner.Here's a picture of a woman being "oppressed" at a marathon a couple years ago. She came in 70th place but still made the front page of the Washington Post. I guess if she had been "privileged enough to be invisible" then she would have been equal to men. Or something. Check it out; this picture defines feminism so perfectly in my opinion:http://standyourground.com/images/postmarathon10-09.jpgWe discussed this picture here on StandYourGround.com.
>I'm not sure why the two tacklers haven't gotten attention — maybe they wanted to avoid the media attention and have — but certainly Daniel Hernandez has gotten attention. As he should have. No, I don't think men should be consigned to whatever low position you somehow have convinced yourself that I think they should be consigned to — frankly, I don't understand what you're talking about. But somehow I don't feel horribly oppressed by a picture of the first woman to cross the finish line in a marathon. Do you get angry every time women's sports are shown on television, because, dammit, a man could easily beat Serena Williams? I mean, it's so unfair that men in sports are never shown in newspapers or on television. Oh, wait …
>nick: "Society as a WHOLE created such ideas. It wasn't only men."Huh. So perhaps you might want to ask this question about patriarchy:""Once we abandon the concept of women as historical victims, acted upon by violent men, inexplicable "forces," and societal institutions, we must explain the central puzzle- woman's participation in the construction of the system that subordinates her."Does that seem like a reasonable question to you?Well, guess what? That's the central question behind the book I recommended to you either.Feminists don't define patriarchy as "men lording it over women and having all the advantages." They define it as a complicated system that women have participated in and to some degree have shaped from the beginning. But since you don't bother to actually pay attention to what feminists actually say on the subject, you're forever arguing against straw men (or women, as the case may be)
>David, I have officially given up on you.(In this thread.)
>David"Does that seem like a reasonable question to you?"ROFL hell no. For one, NOT all women are historical victims as not all men are historical victims from such ills that have happened. Secondly, not all men are violent towards women. In fact, only a small minority may be just as a small minority of women are violent against men in the old days and present.You femitwits really need to let it go."Well, guess what? That's the central question behind the book I recommended to you either.""But since you don't bother to actually pay attention to what feminists actually say"Are you willing to listen to MRAs? Are you willing to read a book from Warren Farwell?I have no interest in feminist books as I already know its just another bigoted propaganda book about men are evil and men are the fault of everything thats wrong in the world.No thanks
>I would love to know how many positive things the feminist movement says about men.Could you provide this info, David?Not just one example or a few examples, but a solid balance of how evil men are compared to what good men are from feminism.I would love to see the proofCome on David, prove to us that feminism is not a sexist, hateful, bigoted movement.If you can’t answer this, what does this tell us all?
>Daniel Hernandez got attention because he is gay. He is therefore acceptable to the feminist movement. Straight men are not acceptable to the feminist movement unless they are basically neutered, groveling, and non threatening in any way. Random Brother
>Nick, his quote said exactly that, we give up on the victim notion and examine female participation in the system. (I personally feel that's a false dichotomy, but we might end up in a semantics discussion if we explore that paragraph. )So, Nick, you may have been tired when you read that paragraph.
>Also Nick, nobody is required to disprove a claim you make. If you make the claim you have to prove it. Also can you prove that MRA movement is not misogynist, what has the MRA movement done for women? Why don't they focus on the abuse of women? Why don't they care about what happens to women? Please explain this deficit in the movement. Also can you please prove to me that the bulk of MRAs do not consist of disgruntled abusers that are no longer propped up by the more enlightened segment of society and are now just bitter they can't lord it over the bitches? You need to disprove that MRAs are not DV abusers that are bitter. In fact there is evidence to the contrary, Many are convicted batterers. The fact is, that if I make the claim, I am the one that needs to provide evidence.
>Like I said Sandy, you'd need at least a high school level reading comprehension to understand why nobility/chivalry are just cultural artifacts which underlie the true reason why it's women and children first. Only someone who is insanely deluded would argue that a class of people who are sacrificed in life and death situations are the "privileged" class.Booboonation – Can you prove the feminist movement is not misandrist? Why don't they care about what happens to men? Please explain this deficit in the movement. Also can you please prove to me that the bulk of feminists do not consist of disgruntled abusers propped up by the more "enlightened" segment of society but who are really just bitter hags that want to be like men?You need to disprove that feminists are not DV abusers that are bitter. In fact there is evidence to the contrary, many are convicted batterers.
>Deezee, you might want to give that Gerda Lerner book a look too.And maybe read back a few comments to see why booboo asked all those questions in the first place. (Hint: it had something to do with a comment by nick.) richard: so the media is run by cabal of straight-male-hating feminists?
>Dave,I thought booboonation was more than capable of fighting her own battles?
>I answered this one on another thread here. WOW you are totally a pseudo intellectual chump if you think that people need to disprove other people's claims. OMG that is so funny. There is another post here with my answer to nick.Wait, OMG, no, this is hilarious. It's THIS THREAD. What's the first sentence of my post Dr. Deeze. ? I love this blog and both my fiancee and my boyfriend love it, too because I've been out of this other negative dynamic for awhile. I do sex industry and trafficking research. This is such a load off. Yeah, Dr. Deeze, can you just scroll up a bit? My post starts and ends saying that you don't DISPROVE other people's nutty claims. Egads. And what's this crap about fighting battles? What a cop out. Knock that off pronto. You just wanna slice of my time, I'm on to you.
>As David can't answer me Booboonation, can you? On the fact that what good things feminists say about men compared to the negative things? Not just one or a couple of things. I mean a whole handful of things compared to the handful of negative things about men.If such a movement can't provide this; can anyone say bigotry and sexism?
>Both your fiancée and your boyfriend? ;)It's called sarcasm, hun, with the point being (as it it usually is) that extremism exists on both sides of the fence. "Pseudo intellectual chump" is pretty funny coming from someone who has a barely comprehensible grasp on the English language. Half the shit you say is obfuscated by how you say it – for example, the sentence I picked out above implies that you have a fiancée AND another boyfriend.
>Never mind, of course, that many have gone to great lengths to prove how feminism is a hate movement – casual dismissal of things you disagree with doesn't "disprove" anything either, my dear "pseudo intellectual chump."
>Thanks, The Biscuit Queen, for the clarification. I've seen those headlines as well, and I agree that they were misleading. Thanks to John Dias as well; I hadn't seen an article that claimed what your linked article claimed. I'm more likely to agree with David, however, that early reports on big stories aren't edited and verified the way they should be. They're rushed out. Most of the early reports also said that Giffords had died. I just don't think that sloppy reporting equals a bias either way on the gender debate.
>I just want to comment for a minute on that whole "women and children first" controversy. Aside from the fact that this guideline was limited to Western civilization, it never had the force of law — so in every case where people needed to escape some disaster, it was always a choice on the part of those who were stronger and better armed, as to whether let women and children, or just children, or men and children escape first. True, according to traditional notions of "chivalry", a man who pushed a woman aside in order to escape first would be disgraced — but only if someone saw it and lived to tell about it. And that goes back to what I've always said about chivalry — that it's almost always about displays and token gestures, virtually never about substance. In the real world, grand displays of male gallantry usually persist only for so long as their costs are largely symbolic, but in situations where chivalry begins to entail real sacrifices and putting oneself in danger with no hope of a comparable gain, chivalric displays usually — not always, but usually — taper off sharply. In fact, in war, the idea that women's and children's deaths are to be especially avoided and are particularly tragic, is often a liability for women and children rather than an advantage — for as we've seen, using them as human shields and propaganda tools is too common a political tactic in warfare. In short, when push really comes to shove, being female is no guarantee of preferential treatment, and the idea that in any natural or man-made disaster, women just sit back and pop bonbons safe in the knowledge that they'll be rescued, is utterly ridiculous.As to the rationale — at the time when this idea was popular, women were safeguarded from harm for the same reason they were "safeguarded" from education, employment, and social and political freedoms and opportunities: to keep them available for reproduction and to service men. It wasn't so different from putting oneself in danger to protect an expensive piece of property, such as a house or livestock. And of course, the "rule" — to the extent it was a "rule" at all — benefited women only on condition that they lived up to contemporary expectations of female morality and behavior. So when MRA's declare that they won't "protect" (as if they've ever protected anyone in their lives) all those "skanks" who refuse to sleep with them or make them a sammich — they aren't saying anything that hasn't been said before, for hundreds of years.
>Amused – Are you trying to imply that this "chivalry" never had an effect? As this article points out, women had a 75% higher chance of survival (and children, hilariously enough, a 52% higher chance of survival) than men when it came to the Titanic disaster. (Women were so privileged that they out-survived children!) Your argument that men were protecting them to safeguard them for future servitude and reproduction doesn't make a whole lot of sense in a situation where men were generally trading their lives in order to save women.
>Dr. Deezee: That was one instance — one. As for more children than women dying, you are confusing a correlation with a cause. Children, by virtue of having a far smaller body mass and their biological immaturity, are more susceptible to hypothermia than adults. If having a body larger than a child's is a privilege, then men enjoy the exact same privilege.I never said that chivalry never had an effect — for godssake, read before you respond — only that its "effect" has been vastly exaggerated, and its less heroic displays (like not gratuitously calling women "bitches") have clearly been overpraised. To state that "chivalry" is exercised in each and every case and that women rely on chivalry to be completely safe from all harm in every conceivable set of circumstances is utterly absurd.Furthermore, what I was saying is that "chivalry" isn't "free" to women — women ARE expected to pay a price, and the price is entirely too high. Giving up educational and career opportunities, foregoing economic self-sufficiency, and being reduced to the status of a breeding vessel and a chamber maid — all because there is a chance, a very remote chance, you might be involved in something like the Titanic disaster, where a man may give up "his" seat for you — seems like a terribly bad deal to me. YOU wouldn't take it, would you? When adjusted for the rarity of an event like that happening at all, the comparative chances of men and women of being involved in it AND dying edge closer together. But if a woman pays the appropriate price for chivalry, her chance of being irrelevant, belittled and lacking agency are about 100%.And by the way — on 9/11, one of the secretaries in my firm was struck in the face and pushed aside as she was trying to get on the ferry and escape downtown Manhattan — by two men who ran up behind her. They were assaulting others as well, and generally using their fists to cut through the crowd. (And please, please don't regale me with speculation about how they only did it because they were angry with the "oppressive feminist regime". Judging by their appearance, they were Wall Street brokers, the most privileged group in this country, hands down.) No, this doesn't mean men are brutes, and I know I cannot prove it happened (although let's be realistic, if I made it up, I could have made it far more gruesome) — but it goes to show that for every example of "chivalrous" behavior, a counter-example can be invoked of a man whose thinking probably goes along the following lines: "Ahh, fuck it, my life isn't worth it. I hold the door for my mother, and that's good enough. Out of my way, bitch!" Or even something more simple: "Oh, no, we're all gonna die!! Nooooooooooo!! I don't care what anyone thinks about me tomorrow, I just want to live."
>@ DavidDavid said: "richard: so the media is run by cabal of straight-male-hating feminists?"You believe that there is a patriarchy of evil men who have been working together to harm women pretty much forever, but a couple of media outlets working in unison is too much for you? Random Brother
>"And by the way — on 9/11, one of the secretaries in my firm was struck in the face and pushed aside as she was trying to get on the ferry and escape downtown Manhattan — by two men who ran up behind her."Chivalry's been dead for a long time. What do you expect? That's "equality."
>richard: as someone who's actually worked in media as a writer and editor for many years I have to say that, no, it's not run by a feminist cabal. Deezee: And chivalry was not always all it was cracked up to be. At least when it comes to that whole "women and children first" aspect of it:http://www.cbmw.org/Blog/Posts/Women-and-Children-First-A-Tale-of-Two-Ships
>"it's not run by a feminist cabal"Political correctness is simply feminist influenced. As mainstream media is usually politically correct, I am sure there are plenty of feminist influenced people who pull the strings."Deezee: And chivalry was not always all it was cracked up to be. At least when it comes to that whole "women and children first" aspect of it:"Chivalry has nothing to do with patriarchy. Feminists just use this as a ridiculous ploy to simply yet again place all blame on the male.Women would be the first ones to shame a man for not giving her such treatment. Exactly like the chivalry that prevails today. If a man is not willing to buy the woman dinner, many women would quickly jump at him and call him a cheapass. To call this patriarchy is comical