>
 |
| Spearhead readers: Not actually as cool as Fonzie. |
When sites enable users to upvote and downvote comments and posts, the rationale is generally that it improves discussion and filters out trolls. In practice, this is almost never the case; instead, the up and down arrows offer the majority a way to reward those who simply rehash the party line and punish those who dare suggest anything even remotely challenging. This punishment is accentuated on sites on which dissenters who are downvoted beyond a certain threshold see their comments literally vanish, unless readers click a special link to make them visible again.
We’ve seen in the past the sorts of things that get massively upvoted on The Spearhead. A comment suggesting that “a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset” got, at last count, 58 upvotes and only 4 downvotes. Comments suggesting that women are “parasites,” “dumb as bricks,” incapable of logic or empathy each got dozens of upvotes and only a handful of downvotes, as did comments suggesting that women should never have been given the right to vote. Heck, one recent comment suggesting that Daniel Hernandez was “a traitor to men” for helping to save Gabrielle Giffords’ life got twice as many upvotes as downvotes. (As I pointed out in a recent post, there were actually a number of comments in that vein; they all got more upvotes than downvotes)
So if these sorts of comments get upvoted, the question arises: what sort of horrible, beyond-the-pale nuttiness actually invites downvotes on the site? Well, in a recent guest posting there, someone calling himself Big Daddy From Cincinnati offered some (not really very good) internet dating advice for the misogynist masses. Along the way he opined that “women are amoral creatures, flakes, and they will reject you for anything, everything, nothing, the phase of the moon, or who knows what. They will lead you on and waste your time … . ”
While most commenters seemed to agree with this characterization of the ladies, one anonymous gal suggested instead that:
Yep, you can practically hear the Spearhead guys furiously downvoting that bit of heresy. What an outlandish opinion, clearly the work of an evil, misandrist troll! Probably a lesbian, too. I mean, what kind of crazy man-hating monster would she have to be not to be utterly smitten by the Spearhead men?
—
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.
>Ahem: "allegedly" she's talking about her own personal experience dealing with guys. That is no proof she is an actual woman.Could be troll – and who knows if it is then a man or a woman.
>@nicko81m"Many women these days believe just owning a pussy and having a nice set of legs makes them this instant winning prize. While on the contrary, they complain about being objectified and only liked because of their looks."Are you basing this on emprical evidence? Have you ever actually spoken to a woman?
>Yes, expecting a male to have a job is just a rampant sense of entitlement. Expecting a male who has asked a woman out on a date to pay for the date is a sense of entitlement. Expecting a man to put some effort into looking presentable like she has is a sense of entitlement.Instead, she should be grateful for his deigning to let her earn an income that pays for his dinner while maintaining a perfect 36-24-36 body to his five two 250lb wheezy frame.
>@nicko81m"The biggest offenders of having poisoned senses of entitlement are women"HAH! As if you don't go around demanding a woman cook you dinner, clean your house, have your babies, be thin and gorgeous all the time (even if you're out-of-shape and don't put any effort into your appearance), do whatever sexual thing you want, and devote herself to you. Yea some women are demanding princesses. Just like some men are misogynists. I don't think either is the majority that you claim it to be. Get a grip dude, you'll be happier if you stop blaming women for all your problems.
>Scarecrow, how do I know you're a man? Or even human at all?The point of my post is that *someone* — it doesn't matter if they are male or female or a trained chimpanzee — posted a comment that suggested merely that women sometimes have good reasons to "flake," and this mild and, er, true statement encouraged dozens of Spearhead users to downvote her/him/whoever.
>It's common for these guys to accuse people that disagree with them to be troll. Citizen Renegade do it constantly. Commentators of Lady Raines's blog (including me) have been accused of being trolls by guys from the manosphere. As an example, there is blog called hookingupsmart (http://www.hookingupsmart.com/) that is supposed to be about dating but in fact is full of angry guys from the manosphere. I commented there a few times and I was accused of being a troll and a woman.I think David should add hookingupsmart to his boobroll
>I *love* Heartless Bitches! They helped me really grok what a Nice Guy is, and taught me how to take pride in a life lived for myself.
>The idea that men are entitled to women is widespread in the manosphere. Inmalafide said that George Sodini was right to feel entitled to have a woman : http://www.inmalafide.com/2009/08/06/george-sodini-and-the-contract-between-the-sexes/It's because of their sense of entitlement that these guys harass female bloggers.
>Arrr you femitwits crack me up. Feminists always totally ignore female entitlement or pretend it doesn't exist.switchintoglide said:"Are you basing this on emprical evidence?"Asking many women what they look for is enough evidence. And it's fairly common to hear a woman say "its hard to find a decent single man" while they are just simply average women themselves who are most probably no better than the next woman I walk past on the street. Many women do truly believe they are an instant winning prize as they usually only want a man above the norm.keiko44 said:"As if you don't go around demanding a woman cook you dinner, clean your house, have your babies, be thin and gorgeous all the time (even if you're out-of-shape and don't put any effort into your appearance), do whatever sexual thing you want, and devote herself to you."The only men at this day and age in western society who expect women to cook dinner, clean the house etc are the women who sit around and watch Oprah shows and have tea parties while spending the hard earned dollars the husband worked his butt off for. Fair is fair. If a woman doesn't like that lifestyle, stop whining and get a bloody job! That way the man will be willing to do half the work around the house. It’s really that simple."you'll be happier if you stop blaming women for all your problems." I find it impossible to blame myself when comparing myself to these certain women who simply want someone who is offering more than her as a person. The only way to impress many women these days is if you are offering better than her.It is a trend that women these days truly believe they are above men. Its obvious chauvinism and the fact that its chauvinism gets pulled under the rug for poor sensitive women who can't handle the truth. That's political correctness for you.Most of the time, women expressing that they are not easy is usually a mutated mentality of thinking they are worth more than most of the male population. Not being easy is one thing and its perfectly fine to be that way. But to think you are better than most of the male population and believe you are an instant winning prize is another thing altogether.Ya think I am a misogynist? Lolz The accusation of misogyny gets thrown around so very easy.A large number of women are doing something unfair – a man complains about that, and that equals misogyny in a political correct view.There is no doubt in my mind that women are the favoured gender in 2011 as the political correct argument is that its taboo to express the true colours of a large percentage of women. While on the other hand, men can be bashed 24/7 such as having a feminist movement. It's ironically funny when feminist claim women to be the second class citizens heh
>Here's an example of the princess culture these days. Women are raised to expect high standardshttp://current.com/16o064c
>It would sound better coming from someone who is not the author of a book on getting one's husband's ahead.By the way, most little girls like to dress up as princesses. That does not make them feel entitled when they grow up to be princesses or act as if they are entitled to special treatment since Mom and Dad got them some kind of princess tiara as a kid.
>@David,"Joe, weirdly, Scarecrow now claims that he was trolling me with that post on Deborah Flores-Narvaez. (Though of course my post was also based on 3 other posts by him that were equally creepy.)"I noticed that post he wrote too. It was really bizarre.
>keiko44…you'll be happier if you stop blaming women for all your problems This is true also for women. Women would be happier, if they stop blaming men for all their problems and their own shortcomings.Women are claiming to be so unhappy because men have so many privileges. But no woman could ever explain me what my privileges might be. Even to mention that my privileges might not exist makes me a misogynist… waahhhh….
>Elizabeth, exactly. I am wearing my tiara right now and I don't think it makes me stuck up at all.
>keiko44…you'll be happier if you stop blaming women for all your problems Heh ironic coming from a feminist when talking about blaming someone else for your problemsFeminism needs to stop blaming men for why women are not in high status careers. Feminists commonly use men as a scapegoat to hold blame for women's failures.
>"Many women these days believe just owning a pussy and having a nice set of legs makes them this instant winning prize."AHEM. I'm pretty sure it's my culinary and blow job skills that make me a prize.How fucking weird is it to talk about "owning" a pussy? As if it were alienable.
>nicko81m:Heavy women with average looks need love, too. Why do you put yourself above them?
>I always pick the comment threads that get supra derailed to snipe in. Damn that having a real life shit!
>Ah, DeeZee with evopsych bullshit that does not even fit with anthropology or history. At least one of my ancestrial lines for certain was matrilineal pre-European colonization. Women owned almost all property and controlled almost all wealth. Passivity was not expected, at least not from the women who were the family heads. Men were expected to take part in the caretaking of children. Marriages were not temporary and easily disolved, polygamy was not unheard of, and birth of children outside of these marriages was not considered bad. Your entire example does nothing but pretend like social standards from modern, western, Christian patriarchies are 'natural' due to some sort of biological determinism, even when it flies in the face of the actual diversity of human cultures and even the histories of the cultures from which the modern ones sprung. For example, the notion of 'savages' is imperialist in and of itself (so say I, the descendent of peoples routinely called savages). There is no real evidence that an increase in technology reduces likelihood to violence. It is, in fact, well armed and organized groups who have historically done the largest amounts of slaughter. It isn't really 'random tiny bronze age level tribe over the hill' that is the really big threat, it is "Romans with years of fighting experience and training marching upon you in perfect phalanx". And, if you want to look at genetic lines, mitochondrial DNA lines (only inherited from the mother) cover larger areas of terrain, even though Y lines (male only) tend to have higher numbers. Which really doesn't mesh well with your 'men are the only explorers' line. So stop trying to just make up whatever bullshit fits your sexist stereotyping and pretending like it is fact.
>Edit "Marriages were not temporary" should be "marriages were temporary".
>"you'll be happier if you stop blaming women for all your problems." You know what? You're absolutely right.Blaming women for feminism, female entitlement, etc. is like blaming the rain for a leaky roof.We civilized, soft, sensitive men created that roof. And now we're paying the price for it.
>switchintoglide said… @nicko81m'Many women these days believe just owning a pussy and having a nice set of legs makes them this instant winning prize. While on the contrary, they complain about being objectified and only liked because of their looks.'Are you basing this on emprical evidence? Have you ever actually spoken to a woman? January 24, 2011 7:58 PM What should this nonsense talk, switchintoglide?For sure, a good-looking woman has a much easier life than any ordinary man. For this we need no empirical evidence. A pretty young woman is never lonely, never out of money, has no problem to find a considerable number of men, who will offer accomodation, car, travels and otherwise support. Of course men are looking after her all the time, but how can this disturb her? Your problem is obviously that you want both.Men should not look after women, but they should always pay and pay and pay with nothing in return….Well you cannot have it both… sorry. Any woman has the better life, as men are looking after her and you need not do anything about it as a female. Just waiting and see who is showing up.It's much harder for most ordinary men, believe me. Men cannot expect to be supported by females. No pretty female ever showed up in my life and told me hey, nice man, come with me, I have a house, car, good income, just stay with me…
>I have no idea if I speak for anyone else here. Probably not, as I am much too politically incorrect and libertarian to ever be considered a feminist male. I dislike earnestness in all its forms, consider affirmative action to be the work of the devil, and make no apologies whatsoever for finding Natalie Portman more attractive than Queen Latifah. I do not despise my natural male urges, desires and biology, and it will be a snowy day in hell before I sit down to piss as opposed to using a urinal. What I deeply despise are delusional cretins who – when God was handing out the basic self-knowledge – were queuing up for third helpings of whiny self-pitying bitterness. This particular demographic is represented in all sections of society without exception. But from everything I have read and seen, it is quite extraordinarily over-represented in the men’s rights movement. On the subject of nondescript women being ridiculously entitled in the dating sphere (and once more, I speak for nobody but myself here). I know perfectly well that there are many extremely plain and unexceptional women who mysteriously believe themselves entitled to a Simon Cowell or a George Clooney. However, this does not change the fact that there are also many extremely plain and unexceptional – also socially maladroit, obsessively misogynistic and blood-curdlingly disturbing – men who believe they are entitled to a Scarlett Johanssen. As so often, the Onion says it best. http://www.theonion.com/articles/man-woman-refuse-to-lower-standards-for-each-other,1492/And unlike the plain delusional women – who will generally seek solace in Haagen Dazs and ghastly Jennifer Aniston films when rebuffed – the plain delusional men will often become extremely vicious and disturbing when they fail to acquire their very own Playboy-worthy uberbabe.The MRA appear to believe that any man who disagrees with them is a cringing, brainwashed eunuch who naively thinks all women are perfect goddesses to be worshipped. I unambiguously do not believe this. In my experience of life, many women are delusional, unpleasant, entitled, unattractive fools. However, many men are also delusional, unpleasant, entitled, unattractive fools. Vanity, cruelty, amorality, stupidity, deceit, selfishness, arrogance and greed are, in my humble opinion, not gender-specific characteristics. This is why I dislike the MRA movement, the Spearhead, and the self-styled-guru likes of Roissy and Roosh. They think the women are always ‘the bad guys.’ They’re not.
>Yohan, can you find me one woman posting here – or, hey, anywhere – who thinks that 'Men should not look after women, but they should always pay and pay and pay with nothing in return'? There are some women who are shallow gold-diggers. (I've never met any personally, but I can believe they're out there.)There are some other women – many, many women, most women – who don't go into relationships to get money and cars. I've never heard a man say 'hey, nice woman, come with me, I have a house, car, good income, just stay with me…', and I'd find it a bit creepy and weird if he did – I have my own good income, and my own house, and if I wanted a decent car I'd go and buy one myself, thanks. That's not what I want in a relationship. That's not what most of us want in a relationship. (If you find this hard to believe, you might want to try listening to what women actually say, rather than what men tell you about what women say.)It's irrational to assume that if some women think A, and other women think B, then all women simultaneously think A and B and want it both ways. We're not the Borg, dude.
>citizenlemonade"In my experience of life, many women are delusional, unpleasant, entitled, unattractive fools. However, many men are also delusional, unpleasant, entitled, unattractive fools. Vanity, cruelty, amorality, stupidity, deceit, selfishness, arrogance and greed are, in my humble opinion, not gender-specific characteristics."All very true. But maybe that isn't really the point. Have you considered the possibility that it's not really about 'good' vs. 'evil' but instead their evil vs. our evil?