>
 |
| Note to MGTOW: Not actually how it works. |
Oh Men Going Their Own Way, why must you be so confusing? MRAs and MGTOWers complain all the time about how unfair it is for women who somehow magically get preggers after having sex with them to decide to actually keep the kids and saddle them with — gasp! — some of the cost of raising said kids. So you’d think manosphere dudes would all be fervently in favor of easy access to abortion or, at the very least, birth control.
Not so much. Because apparently for quite a few of these dudes, the desire to gloat over the misfortunes of women actually outweighs their desire to protect themselves from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy.
Or so I am forced to conclude after reading this thread on MGTOWforums.com dealing with the recent passage in the House of a bill blocking funding of Planned Parenthood — an event that strikes many of the commenters as hi-larious.
Apeiron offers this nugget:
Yes i saw the femms frothing at the mouth on their boards.
Well you know what bitch, we have to make cuts, lots of cuts …
Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly.
The appropriately named womanhater presents his own analysis of the sexual politics of abortion:
Well – the twats replaced the husband and father with the state. Now they’ve bled that hubby and father dry. Of course, there’s no replacement cock/sucker for the state. Have fun girls!
Rock adds:
[F]eminism cannot be defeated without cutting out funding. … The neverending supply of manginas and white knights will keep it going unless these same people run out of money. And that is what’s happening. Who would’ve thought the bad economy could have a good side effect. 🙂
Forum moderator hasmat concurs:
Want an abortion cuz you couldn’t keep your legs shut? Fine, kill your baby, whore. But, I ain’t paying for it. Not a penny.
But it is intp who offers the most, er, original take on the issue:
Question. What percentage of women would give their daughters up for sacrifice if they could remain young-looking/beautiful in return? I’m guessing a considerable percentage would take the Devil up on that deal. The rationalization hamster in women is strong. They would probably tell themselves I’ll just have another baby later. Or “What about my needs? I have a right to be beautiful!” I ask this because per statistics most abortions occur due to non-health threatening reasons. The woman simply does not want to have a kid yet. She wants to keep screwing like a man (riding the carousel) until the last possible minute.
Ignoring the rest of intp’s, ah, speculation, I have to wonder: what exactly is wrong with “screwing like a man?”
—
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.
>YOU'RE[sic] VAGINA IS NOT THE CENTER OF THIS GALAXYObviously not. Your mother’s vagina is the center of this galaxy, whoever “you” are, at least as far as you are concerned. (Explanation: in a universe that is, as far as we know, infinite, the "center" is anywhere you want it to be. Your personal point of origin makes as much sense as any other point.)
>Ooooh, translation: "I'm cool and stuff because I employ words like socionormative from my overpriced (and utterly useless) undergrad classes from the Liberal Arts Division!" Further translation: it bugs me that you might be more educated and smarter than me so I'm going to put you down for using words I don't understand.
>[I]n a universe that is, as far as we know, infinite, the "center" is anywhere you want it to be. Your personal point of origin makes as much sense as any other point.)Personally, I believe we're all the center of our own universe. I (and my vagina) are the center of my own universe, as are you the center of yours and Wytch the center of his. It gets a little cosmic, but I find it a much more uplifting belief than the idea that we're all fucked because our ancestors ate the wrong piece of fruit.
>I'm not into piggies, hence the DO NOT DATE red flag that comes up every time you post.I suppose there's a reason that I should care, but I can't think of a single one.As far as female game is concerned, you've got the anti-game repellent down to a frickin' science. Bravo.Hey, if it keeps Men's Rights Supremacists at bay, it's a skill well worth honing.
>Bee said:"I've always wondered why women would sign up for inclusion in a movement that calls women sluts and twats. Perhaps you could explain the appeal?"Because you are the only person who has bothered to ask (rather than assume I am a man, lol), I'll answer you. First, I'll tell you why I'm not a feminist. My historical experience with feminism has been positive–I enjoy being able to work, vote, hold property and marry whom I choose. I also enjoy being able to obtain birth control and get an education that goes beyond home ec. I like those things. And I am able to thank feminism for it without sarcasm or caveats. There are things that I MUST accept that I would rather NOT as well. I would rather earn my place – whether it be in an educational program, a promotion, a career etc — than have it handed to me for the SINGULAR fact that I have tits and having those tits fills some quota. I believe in promotion through merit only…if my work doesn't warrant getting a raise, don't give me one just because I'm in possession of a uterus ffs. I'm not a feminist because I have experienced FIRST hand how discriminating against men it can be; I've experienced how actively hateful it can be. Before you jump to conclusions, I come from a family where I am the only child, my dad worked and my mother stayed home until I was about 14 then started her own business and paid for me to go to an extremely competitive, east coast college. I have a fantastic relationship with my father — who never molested, raped, or ogled me or my friends; wasn't a drunk, didn't hit my mom, didn't hit me, paid me lots of appropriate attention and encouraged me to be daring and to go for what I wanted. I had a great, probably privileged upbringing. Back to why Im not a feminist. I have had a thesis rejected because it studied boys, "whose time has come and gone" and not girls. I was told to change the genders and present the results of boys as having come from girls, because "boys get enough attention". I am a D/V survivor and told by a therapist that all men were the same, that all men would endeavor to hurt me, and advised that I even stay away from my own father for 6 months because his very presence would somehow re-traumatize me. I have, in my field, seen boys continuously get passed over for services because there was a girl who needed them and it 'looked better' to help girls. The fact is, I have seen more discrimination towards men in the name of feminism than I have ever seen toward women. There is no right or wrong here, it is simply my experience.This was too long, so Im posting my second half separately–
>My response to Bee, cont. –Now, why am I an MRA? First off, it has nothing at all to do with hating my own gender, an act which I am often accused of. I am often attacked, by feminists, who say the following to me when they find out I am NOT a feminist:You must be uglyYou must be a manYou must be a whoreYou must like being the pet of all the MRA menYou must like getting a certain kind of attention from MRA menYou must hate womenYou must hate yourselfYou must have been molested by daddyYou must have been abused by your motherYou must have been brainwashed by your boyfriendYou're too stupid to understand feminismYou're a feminist, you just don't know it yetYou must be a feminist, you're a womanYou're a traitorDon't believe me? Go back and look at all the things you all have said to me in this thread. At least 5 are there. I advocate for rights for men. Men should have viable birth control options beyond condoms and vasectomies. I think it's crap that often the mother is the default custodial parent when the better parent is the father. I think divorce court has a long way to go re men receiving equal treatment. I think it's crap when a man and woman committ the same crime and she gets less time because shes a woman. I think gender roles are shit and need to be done away with, in an EQUAL manner…which, IME, most women don't really want unless it benefits them, but most men are happy to committ to.And Bee, none of the men I post with at MRA sites has EVER called me a slut or a twat…I have only had that experience posting with feminists.
>Supporting equal rights for men in custodial, divorce, birth control, criminal sentencing are worthy goals.However-much of what is posted on the MRA sites is hateful and nasty towards women. So why are you excusing it? You do not defend it, but you do excuse it.
>There are some sites out there that are just hateful, plain and simple…both mra sites and feminist sites. To say otherwise is just sheer lunacy. I can't see in my post where I made any excuses for any one side being hateful and nasty toward women. When I come across a poster – regardless of the kind of site Im at, be it feminist or mra – being hateful or attacking toward all men or all women, I either say something or I ignore it. If I say something, it's usually to chalk them up as an idiot who is hiding behind whichever ideology the site supports (mens rights or feminism) just so they can express hate, not because they necessarily believe in the cause. A few true woman haters will come to mra sites because they DO think that that's what mens rights is about….they either get quickly educated, banned, or, some places will allow for it citing the lack of public spaces which allow men to express their anger….the last of which I think is a ridiculous move that harms the site and is a detrement to the mens rights movement as a whole…but I don't make the rules at these sites. These same types of people show up at feminist sites…full of hate and anger at men because of what one man did to them (these types of men do the same, blame all of woman kind for what one did to him). This man hating woman is similarly treated by the other members of the site…educated, banned or allowed to 'feel her pain' and be supported in her anger.See how that feels and reads differently though?Idk…mostly, I base it all off personal experience, and mine has led me to the conclusion that I am not a feminist, not necessarily and anti-feminist, but rather, an mra.
>Natasha: Thanks for the answer. I can definitely agree with parts of what you've said. I've done some advocating myself in male prisons, and I think it's crap, too, when women who commit crimes get lighter sentences, to take one of your examples. I actually think that many of the complaints raised on MRA sites are valid; it's just when they're combined with the hateful rhetoric that Paul Elam and his like use that I know I am not welcome in their ranks. So I advocate for an end to prison rape and circumcision from a feminist position.when you say that MRAs don't call you names, I think (and perhaps I'm misunderstanding) you mean that they've never called you, personally, a name. When I look at Apeiron's analysis ("Good news is if the sluts see the cuts they might keep their legs shut and act accordingly"), I have to take that personally. I'm not a slut, but that's not important. I am a person who has used Planned Parenthood (whose life as been saved by PP, in fact), so Apeiron sees me as a slut. Why would I associate with a group that sees me like that?It looks like you've had bad experiences with feminism. I'm sorry for that. I've had mostly good experiences with feminism and feminists. And my experiences (online, mostly) with MRAs and MGTOWs are wholly negative. I won't change your mind about feminism, and I won't try, but I appreciate anyone who advocates for people's rights, so thank you.
>I have had a thesis rejected because it studied boys, "whose time has come and gone" and not girls. I was told to change the genders and present the results of boys as having come from girls, because "boys get enough attention".If this is true, that's appalling. My experience with feminist academics (I was ABD in history) was that they were as interested in studies of boys/men as in girls/women; my (unfinished) dissertation was in part about adolescence and my (feminist) advisors never pushed me to only study girls. As for your list, well, whoever called you those things was wrong. But the MRAs/MGTOWers say far worse of feminists, and have said far worse of me. For example: You must be uglyYou must be a womanYou must be a faggotYou must like being the pet of all the feministsYou must like getting a certain kind of attention from feminist womenYou must hate menYou must hate yourselfYou must have been abused by your motherYou're too stupid to understand You're a traitorYou're a manginaYou're a "fleshcreeping mangina." You're an advocate of violent pedarasty. (!??)You're "supplicating [yourself]before the feminist vagina."You're a nitwit, assclown, twerp. You're a "a dancing jackass for the matriarchy." You're "another typical Western Male Fucktard, thinking that even on-line sucking up to fembots will slather his withering pole."You're "kinda like a zit that won't pop or respond to Clearasil."You're a "Chickenshit Feminist Quisling." You're "covered in pin feathers and clucking." You're "a fucking moron."This is a very incomplete list. Oh, the last 4 were from Paul Elam, the guy you recommended as "bright" and "articulate."
>A few true woman haters will come to mra sites because they DO think that that's what mens rights is about….they either get quickly educated, banned, or, some places will allow for it citing the lack of public spaces which allow men to express their anger….the last of which I think is a ridiculous move that harms the site and is a detrement to the mens rights movement as a whole…but I don't make the rules at these sites. This is an outright lie. It's the same sort of claim as the one about Paul Elam being bright and articulate. It's just a simple piece of complete unreality.The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm.And you're full of shit. I don't believe for a second that a significant number of feminists have called you a whore or said any of the other things you listed. I don't believe for a second that your characterization of the reason for your dissertation's rejection is accurate. I'm not entirely sold on the notion that you're capable of writing a coherent dissertation.
>@Bee –Thanks for your response, this is an actual conversation, and I'm glad to have it. Good for you for advocating, thank you.As to your assumption that I meant I, personally, have never been called names on the mra sites….that's correct. I haven't. The first site I went on is fairly well established and run by a man I know from other forums. I lurked there about a week and then made a few tentative posts. I kept in mind that this was a men's site, dealing with men's issues and not women's issues. I kept in mind that I would more than likely be initially suspected of trolling or the like. I made thoughtful posts and asked questions rather than ranting and assuming. What I got back were thoughtful answers and more often than not, thanks for being inquisitive and for listening. That's my individual experience.I see people get called names…I see members of sites make posts like the one by Apeiron, and yes it's probably offensive. I say probably because I don't let it offend me. ANYONE, regardless of gender or political affiliation, who refers to women OR men in such hateful terms is NOT to be taken seriously. Why would you? Their words only have as much power over me as I allow them to have. You can call me a cunt all day long and it's not going to bother me because, well, for one, Im not one and secondly…big fucking deal if you think I am one, I really don't care. It does not offend me that this ass hat calls all women sluts…I am intelligent enough to know better and secure enough to dismiss him as an idiot. Why waste time fuming over someone whose only real power lies in name calling and trolling the internet? being called a slut by a stranger on the internet isn't real concerning for me.You're right, Bee, that we probably won't agree on too much in re to feminism vs. men's rights, but at least we've demonstrated that there is common ground, and that we can have intelligent and respectful conversation about relevent issues and NOT devolve into name callilng and ranting. Thanks 😉
>@David–You're right, it IS appalling. And it's not as uncommon as you may think. Mine was about identity achievement and reciprocity of social interaction with an emphasis on boys. I didn't have self identified (or at least publicly identified)feminist profs, but most academics are libs and IME, feminism seems to follow…so who knows?About your additions to my list — so we can agree that the name callers ON BOTH SIDES are infantile. That's progress. I tend to dismiss people whose only recourse to an intellectual challenge is name calling. We have most of us succumbed to it now and again when frustrated or angry (I know I have), but when it's the only drum that poster is banging, it becomes foolish.To me, and now that you've added to it from your side of the fence, hopefully to you as well, one side seems no better than the other when it comes to name calling and I think we can call this a wash. Some MRA's call names, some feminists call names..we've just proven that. Neither side can now point to the other (with any credibility at least) and say "But they call names! They are inferior!"No, they are simply human.
>David: “kratch: More on non-working women in 1834. “I said “didn't GENERALLY work”… Which leaves room for exceptions. In addition, I was talking about the difficulty in a woman’s ability to support herself, let alone a child as well, making a need for maintenance at that time. A need that is no longer as applicable given the ease of access to birth control and employment opportunities. As such, an ability for a man who does not wish to be a father, akin to options the mother already has, is not unreasonable based on the failure of a similar option attempted 180 years ago. It’s annoying that so many here choose to quibble over the minor details (which were accounted for with an acknowledgement that it was a generalization, a generalization that feminism itself has hinged off of) in order to dodge my point.Trip: “And that would still be the case for women who can't afford an abortion.”Those women should then take the same advice feminists give to men who can’t afford child support. Keep “your pants on”. If men must be responsible for their actions, so too must women. If they choose to ignore that advice, they can suffer the consequences like any man has to (except they still don’t, even without abortion (which is still available), they still have options to opt out of parenthood).Trip: “Funding sexual health services helps people, fights child poverty, and makes good economic sense. Even if you don't give a shit about women you should support that.”I live in Canada. I don’t need to worry about that. And I do support all that, but I think that 1: There still remains a LAW in the US regarding funding abortions, 2: Men require a means to opt out of parenthood in order to enforce their reproductive rights, and I don’t think that will come until women/feminists get a dose of the consequences of their actions that they have been taking for granted.DSCat: “federal funds already cannot be spent to pay for abortion”To my understanding, that’s why funding has been withdrawn from PP, because the federal tax dollars provided go to pay for PP’s operational budget, a budget that includes abortion services. They may claim those dollars go to other expenses, but presuming it is a single operational budget, it can not be so easily be differentiated. If PP’s regular services and it’s abortion services were funded and budgeted entirely separately, with no flow of money between the two, I highly doubt their funding would have been cut, and abortion would not have been affected (as it didn’t require the federal funding). Additionally, you would not have anybody agreeing with this cut, as those services (with the exception of abortion) are for both genders. It is the inclusion of abortion that garners the disdain of pro-lifers, as well as loses the sympathy from those seeking men’s reproductive rights.
>Natasha: “There are some sites out there that are just hateful, plain and simple…both mra sites and feminist sites. To say otherwise is just sheer lunacy. “Agreed. My experiences tend to coincide with your own. I suspect the general hate on for MRA’s on this site comes largely from the very nature of this site, IE, picking out the worst of the worst and shinning a bright light on them. This gives a particularly skewed interpretation of MRA’s, one David even has a disclaimer on the side near the top to claim otherwise. Between the hate he picks out, and his choice of sites to regularly link to, it makes it easy for someone who wants to hate MRA’s to do so. David himself has said that sites that post links to articles about the hateful acts of women do no good, yet, that is precisely the thing he’s doingDavid: "and have said far worse of me" this very site does the same to MRA's by allowing it's readers to think, despite your disclaimer otherwise, that all MRA's are like this. And as you go out of your way to antagonize MRA's with this site, you have likely earned a great deal more scorn and animosity then your average feminist. This doesn't make it right, but you can't claim innocence in this regards. All Natasha has done has speak up for men, hardly on the same level as what you do.
>@triplanetary –Part of your response to me was to tell me that my experience and my observation was…. "…an outright lie. It's the same sort of claim as the one about Paul Elam being bright and articulate. It's just a simple piece of complete unreality." It's utterly illogical to call someone's opinion or personal experience a lie, but really that's neither here nor there, just a funny little aside.You also said:"The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm."I could turn your words back on you and say that this is "an outright lie" but I wont because clearly you feel this is your experience. Unlike you, I will afford you the courtesy of allowing you to have your experience and expressing it without calling into question your integrity as a human being. It's simply unbecoming.you also said:"And you're full of shit. I don't believe for a second that a significant number of feminists have called you a whore or said any of the other things you listed."you don't have to…the validity of my experience is not dependent upon your opinion of it, and does not need your approval.You also said:"I don't believe for a second that your characterization of the reason for your dissertation's rejection is accurate."Again, you don't have to. I'm not actually asking you to, never mind attempting to compel you to. You weren't there, and technically, have no reason to, other than I am claiming it to be true. believe it or don't, my experience remains the same.And finally, you said:"I'm not entirely sold on the notion that you're capable of writing a coherent dissertation."Why don't you take a look back at the things I posted to Bee and David about name calling and the power of words? You might find something there to reflect on. You have no idea about my intellect, my education, what degrees I hold, or what I do for a living; you're angry and irritated with me and you've resorted to insults to express it rather than ask me or discuss with me rationally the reasons for my opinions. It's alright, we've all been there once or twice. When you're done with swearing at me and trying to insult me, and can read and understand what I'm actually saying in my posts, I'd be more than happy to have a conversation about why your assumptions are false.
>Arrrrghhh! Kratch you totally stole my next post! I was going to point out the same things! Ah well…Thanks for saying it better than I probably could
>Kratch-it is very easy to keep that money separate for PP. Have two bank accounts-money from everyone else, money from government. In my job we currently have three funds and they each fund different sections of our overall budget because certain fees collected have specific purposes written into them.The reason the funds were cut had very little to do with actual abortions and more to do with punishing women for engaging in consequence free sex. I once read a very detailed analysis of anti-abortion laws and their actual aims. In it, the author was trying to determine if it was anti-women or anti-abortion by seeing if states with harsh or very restrictive laws for seeking an abortion also had equally harsh penalties for harming a pregnant woman or harming a fetus while in utero as well as having strong support for women who are expecting. The conclusions were incredibly disappointing and at the same time, not surprising. When it comes to women's access to sex, it is morally repugnant to a great many men (and women) that she not suffer a consequence for her accessing it outside a certain parameter. Cutting off PP's federal funding to ensure that men and women have access to things like STI testing and treatment means that those women are punished for having sex outside those parameters. If it means harming males too, oh well, they should not be having sex with such sluts anyway.If PP tomorrow said "we will now end our abortion and other sex related services and only give women testing to prevent cervical cancers and the like…" perhaps they would not be persecuted. (I am dubious for other reasons on that though.) I really need to go reread David Eddings' Polgara's comment on women sexuality-it is very illuminating regarding the control men feel they need to have and sums up why we still have this fight, more than a hundred years after it started.
>"Further translation: it bugs me that you might be more educated and smarter than me so I'm going to put you down for using words I don't understand."—(She Wolf of the)SSYou're a sucker for overpaying for an education in hate, not me. And is that a self-projection I here, bon bon girl?
>"The MRA and MGTOW forums (both) are filled with hatred for women, hatred at women, and hatred for men who don't hate women. I've seen those forums myself. The kinds of stuff David posts on this blog are not exceptions. They're the norm."—trianythingTri is hatin' on the haters! Can you say hypocrite? I knew you could . . .
>Julie Canny said… "You know, Wytch, seems to me like you compulsively attack women you haven't even met on issues like fat and appearance. Do you imagine this scores points or make you look bigger?"—Julie UncannyI'm not the one who is "big" if you know what I mean, jelliebean. And it appears that overweight sore losers like SS and her ilk have zero problems with attacking others they don't know, either. Which makes you feminists look like annoying hypocrites and whinning imperial jackasses.
>"you're angry and irritated with me and you've resorted to insults to express it rather than ask me or discuss with me rationally the reasons for my opinions."—NatashaMy dear Natasha, don't you realize that feminists are the epitome of high intellect, turning the other cheek, and would never resort to slagging anyone?(Denote heavy sarcasm there. Love ya, N, but you are dealing with a fat monstrous crowd expunging their hate for men on MRAs because they are weak and foppish without each other. Hmm . .. they are weak and insecure with each other, too).
> Unlike you, I will afford you the courtesy of allowing you to have your experience and expressing it without calling into question your integrity as a human being.While that's very magnanimous of you, I'm not really interested in being courteous to privileged assholes. When you come into a public forum and promote rape apologists and patriarchal mansplainers, I'm going to call your integrity as a human being into question. To paraphrase another of your (entirely correct) points, your actual integrity is completely unaffected by my opinion of it. But my opinion nonetheless remains that you are a privileged asshole.So I mean, you can claim that you're interested in having an intellectually honest conversation, but given that most of your points are lies, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. What am I supposed to do with lies? Pretend that they're true so I can waste my time debating them? Or just dismiss them as lies and move on? The former may be more "courteous," but oh well.
>@tri –So, evidently, the real issue is that you appear to be a classic Marxist lib and are having the shits because you perceive me as being more privileged than you….you're probably right and I probably am.I've never gone hungry, been abused by my parents, or lived in poverty. I went to good schools and grew up in the 'burbs. I had great friends in school and wasn't socially crippled by outside influences. I have been extremely fortunate in my life and I am grateful every day to have had the opportunities and advantages Ive had. But you use privilege like a dirty word. My guess is that you have not been as fortunate, and for that, I am sorry. However, the fact remains that your insecurities aren't my problem, and I don;t feel a shred of guilt for not making them my problem. You've decided I'm a liar, a rape apologist, and a privileged asshole simply because my opinion is different from yours.You have called me names, insulted me, called my intelligence, integrity and credibility into question….and you wonder why I say my experience with feminists has not been pleasant?You have done two things for me though… 1)you have proven everything I have said to David about what fems have called me, the way a female mra gets treated (which you said you didnt believe happened) to be true and done it yourself. And 2) you have shown yourself to be quite irrational in your hatred, you're like a rabid little yappy dog just waiting in the sidelines to get a vicious little bite in thinking it's going to impact someone in some monumental way….it doesn't, but you'd look cute in my purse
>Natasha, Tri said you had PROMOTED rape apologists, not that you were one — which is pretty clearly a reference to Paul Elam, who you were promoting earlier as a sensible, clearheaded MRA> Also, if you call someone a "rabid little yappy dog" immediately after complaining about being insulted, that sort of makes you a little bit of a hypocrite.