>
 |
| A “Wacky Package by Tom Bunk. |
We have spoken here before about the imminent threat to civilization posed by misogynistic douchebags “going Galt,” shrugging like Atlas and depriving society of their hard work and staggering genius. Indeed, in the comments of this very blog, one of our own resident MGTOWers, Cold, explained how he was sticking it to The Man — er, The Woman — by not paying taxes on some of his earnings, thus becoming what economists call a “free rider”on government services, and what the rest of us taxpayers call a “tax cheat.”
He’s not the only manosphere dude who has concluded that the best way to screw over all those evil wimminz who are leeching off the government tit is to, er, leech off the government tit themselves. The guy calling himself AfOR — a prolific commenter and one-time contributor to the False Rape Society blog — explained his similar strategy in a comment on angry-dude megasite The Spearhead:
The wimminz are always directly dependent upon “no questions asked” money, usually from the public purse, and even those in industry only get away with it because the way is lead by the public purse.
Starve them of cash and you starve them of oxygen, they will literally die of starvation, and raise blue murder screaming to their last breath.
The only way to starve them of cash is to starve the State of cash, fuck the State, it can’t be fixed any other way and is now the enemy.
So how does one go about starving the state (metaphorically) and hopefully some actual women (literally)? With some slackery and/or tax fraud!
The only way to starve the State of cash is either live off welfare or work self employed and keep two sets of books, run the black / cash economy for what you can, and good accounting for what you can’t where everything is a deductible expense.
If you pay into the State, you are paying into the wimminz defence fund.
Since AfOR only rarely gets to see his kids, he figures it doesn’t matter if his brand of slacktivism destroys the economy — and possibly leads to them getting killed.
I couldn’t have less contact with my kids if we had had TOTAL economic meltdown and they had died in the ensuing chaos, so frankly speaking total economic meltdown holds nothing very scary for me, I have a set of skills that will always be in demand (a brain, two hands and a mechanical aptitude)
Nope! He’s footloose and fancy free!
Freed from needing to cater to the ex bitch and freed (prevented by force of Law actually) from any obligation towards my kids I can go live in my fucking car, it provides 12 VDC to power my laptop and charge my smartphone, and I can tether my smartphone to my laptop and get internet access anywhere I can get a phone signal.
In siding with the wimminz the State has made me the very thing it fears the most, the worker who can go anywhere on a whim, the worker who can work in the black (cash) economy, the worker who is very hard to track and profile … the worker who has no interest in taking on a debt burden or otherwise “boosting” the economy, the worker who can’t be bribed to vote appropriately because he doesn’t have a McMansion, corporate job, mortgage, etc etc. …
I guess Ayn Rand would be … proud?
—
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.
>Elizabeth — whoops! I missed your comment quoting the same bit from him.
>@ Missy,You're right, I kind of fell into the trap of assumptions there.
>Dave-you were way more polite then I was.
>The law forbids physical abuse. If a wife physically assaults her husband then she'll go to jail.(Missy)Really?My question for you is: why do you assume that men can only express themselves physically while women are only able to do it emotionally. Isn't it more likely that people are either more prone to physical or emotional outbursts based on their own individual backgrounds instead of their gender?(Missy)Answers:1. I dont.2. Partially, Hormones play a big role in our behaviours. To overlook this fact is naive. I would agree men are more physically abusive on average. I would agree men cause more physical damage when they abuse, on average. I would say that women are emotional abusive as much if not more than men are. As a society how are we to measure this? As we now know, emotional abuse can be just as damaging as physical in many instances. There does seem to be a disconnect in regards to equality. Wouldnt you agree?
>In re: #2:So if a man can blame his hormones for making him hit someone, I should be totally free to be a cranky bitch when I'm PMSing. Or maybe I can realize that even though I *feel* like a cranky bitch, acting like one is not going to help anything. And Hypothetical Dude can realize that even though he really, really wants to hit someone, it's not going to help anything and is wrong.
>T4T, I think your distinction between emotional and physical abuse is a false dichotomy. Both type of abuse can be EMOTIONALLY damaging and even debilitating. However, emotional abuse does not do any PHYSICAL damage, by definition. And if you think that physical abuse often comes without emotional abuse then you not thinking very hard. Emotionally abusive relationships are awful for anyone who's in one, but what would you propose the law should do about that? I propose that education would be a better tactic, as suggested by Elizabeth. I notice that you attribute the gender difference in expression of emotion to hormones but not socialization. I think you are probably overestimating the effect of biological differences, which are real, but generally slight, when it comes to mental attributes.
>SallystrangeThanks for being civil this time. I have boys and girls, before any major socialization the differences were obvious(at least in their case, there are exceptions).I have been on the receiving end of both physical and emotional abuse. Let me tell you this, the physical was a breeze compared to the emotional. I am trying education from a certain perspective. It may not be the school you want to learn from.However, emotional abuse does not do any PHYSICAL damage, by definition.(Sally)This statement is so out of touch its hard to discuss. I work in the health field, most of our physical damage, health wise, is born of emotional distress. Can you say STRESS. Thanks for your response.
>I should be totally free to be a cranky bitch when I'm PMSing.(Lady Vic)Many are, and then proceed to be emotionally abusive. You know that though.I concur about the WRONG part of abuse. I am wondering how we equalize the accountability part?
>Physical abuse is easy – prosecute, and if the DA doesn't want to prosecute, sue. Emotional abuse is a bit trickier – you can't file a lawsuit because someone doesn't love you. Nor, I think, should you be able to file that kind of a suit. I think it mostly boils down to being more willing to be alone than to be with an abuser. You also need to know how to recognize the signs of abuse – like I said, it took me five years after a breakup to realize that the relationship wasn't just "bad," it was actually abusive. It was very hard for me to come to terms with the idea that someone I cared for, and someone who said they cared for me, could still treat me so poorly. And then it was hard to admit to myself (and to others) that I had been one of "those" people. I *am* one of those people, and it doesn't make me weak or a bad person to have been in abusive relationship. I realize now that there was no way for my ex to reform. The only thing I could do was leave. So I did, and maybe he learned that it's not okay to treat your girlfriend like shit – or at least, that she will dump you if you do. Sometimes that's the best thing you can do for yourself, and the only way to drive the point home to the other person. Leave.
>Also, I have another complicated response to the inherent/socialization part. I think it's been proven that, on a biological level, cismale bodies are different from cisfemale bodies. People who are transsexual prove to me that there is something inherent about having an identity as a female or having an identity as a male, and that they are not interchangeable. But now the question becomes, how is society going to teach us to express or perform our gender? If a woman is taught that a good woman is demure, chaste and nurturing, you'll find women who strive to embody those qualities. If a man is taught that manhood is stoic, resilient and emotionless, you will find men who aspire to those values. A genderless example: someone can be born into a culture who has a naturally gregarious personality, but the culture is reserved and quiet. Amongst that culture, this person will be perceived as gregarious and outgoing – but if that person takes a trip to a culture which tends to the gregarious, they might still come across as shy and reserved. The quality of personality has still expressed itself, but within a wider cultural context. So, yes, women have more estrogen and men have more testosterone. Each gender has certain things they are better at – but even if a man reads a map better, that still means that there will be some men who are terrible at reading maps and any given individual woman might be quite capable with a map. The goal, then, is finding ways to teach people to express their gender identity in ways which are non-destructive, of benefit to the individual and of benefit to society at large. Teaching women that they should not be angry, and teaching men that anger is one of their only legitimate reactions to being hurt, does none of these things.
>@T4TFuck civility. You know what's uncivil? A culture in which an 11-year-old is blamed for getting gang-raped, and the richest country in the world drops $3 trillion on an unprovoked war that kills hundreds of thousands of innocents. Using the word "fuck" a few times, or making fun of you for not bothering to google the definition of a couple of words that are absolutely key to a discussion you're trying to participate in, that's just part of civil society. WRT physical vs. emotional abuse. It's great that your experience with physical abuse was "a breeze." What is it that leads to act as if your experience is universal to all people who experience physical abuse? That's insulting, that is. One might even say uncivil. Obviously, prolonged emotional abuse can lead to physical manifestations of stress. But as I said before, do you really think that prolonged physical abuse is going to be unaccompanied by emotional abuse? That it is not going to have the same effect on stress hormone levels, blood pressure, etc., as prolonged emotional abuse?Frankly it sounds like you're trying to minimize the severity of physical abuse, just because you experienced it as a "breeze". That's really fucking uncivil, you know? Probably you're just trying to draw attention to the potential severity of emotional abuse. If my supposition is right, and you're not trying to minimize physical abuse, then you need to do a better job communicating.
>Also, WRT to socializing young children and babies – you don't actually think babies aren't socialized from the moment they take a breath, do you? I mean, just because they don't yet have language doesn't mean that everything they hear, see, touch, taste, and smell isn't making an impression.
>SallyI like the fact that if I flip your ideas around we pretty much end up with the same outcomes. As we know, men and women are pretty much the same when it comes to mental abilities, so technically we are just as violent. How it is expressed is where the difference shows up. Reading your words tells me you have a somewhat violent aspect to your personality. In my case I remember words of violence much more frequently than the actual physical blows. In fact reading your words triggers many feelings of threat that I had and have around certain individuals. I can imagine this is exactly what goes on in most abused people's brain(women included). You may not physically hit them but you are without a doubt being violent with individuals when you come across in the manner that you do. For many, your actions would have physical affects on their health. Increased blood pressure, anxiety, sense of dread……….and so on.
>The goal, then, is finding ways to teach people to express their gender identity in ways which are non-destructive, of benefit to the individual and of benefit to society at large. Teaching women that they should not be angry, and teaching men that anger is one of their only legitimate reactions to being hurt, does none of these things.(Lady Vic)Exactly, very well said. My issue is not that we shouldnt prosecute and educate men on the fact that they physically assault people more frequently, that is a given. My issue is that we dont look closely enough at the violence that women perpetrate. The issue is if we are to be equal we need to be equally accountable for our violent tendency. These are the things I try to teach my son and daughter.I have always wondered is the violence we do to each other a human thing or a gender thing. From my experience were pretty equal in that department however differently we express it.
>If my supposition is right, and you're not trying to minimize physical abuse, then you need to do a better job communicating.(Sally)I think you miss my point. Were supposed to minimize ABUSE however it is expressed. You on the other hand seem to be a little one dimensional(biased).
>No, you misunderstood my objection. My impression of you is that you are attempting to minimize THE SEVERITY OF THE EFFECTS of physical abuse. Not the abuse itself. I presume this is not your goal, hence my admonition to communicate better. What about my communication seems violent to you? I used the word "fuck," yes. And I've been a bit brusque. I've mocked you for being intellectually lazy. But I have also based my mocking of you on FACTUAL things you yourself have said. I haven't offered any personal insults. I have nowhere issued any threats, physical or otherwise, or expressed any interest in seeing you suffer. I sincerely apologize if you genuinely feel threatened because of something I said, but I also cannot for the life of me understand why you're having that response to my words. This blog is, unlike Shakesville and other feminist forums on the web, not a "Safe Space." When people talk about their personal experiences, sometimes other people say horrible, awful things in response to that, and we just deal with it. It kind of has to be that way, otherwise there'd be very little input from actual self-proclaimed MRAs. Personal insults are about the only thing that are off limits, and that's not enforced with any sort of iron fist. If you find this sort of communication style too rough-and-tumble for your taste then perhaps you should seek out one of those Safe Spaces.
>You can't equate emotional abuse with battering, though. Women are battered and emotionally abused to the point where they fear for lives (and sometimes, sadly, that fear is entirely justified, as too many murdered women die at the hands of an intimate partner). You can't say 'just as bad,' because they're not. Even though emotional abuse *is* bad, you won't win any points by comparing it with battering. Emotional abuse is it's own separate issue, and should be treated that way. And if you can't handle someone being snarky at you, perhaps you ought to avoid the Internet for awhile.
>To add to what Sally says above about "safe spaces." Yes, this is not a "safe space." My inclination is to have a very hands-off approach to moderation and to let people say what they want to say however they want to say it. Within reason: really nasty personal attacks will be deleted, as will some nasty slurs. Generally speaking it is the MRAs/MGTOWers and the like who tend to make the most obnoxious comments here, but I almost never censor. Were I to try to make this a "safe space" I would have to moderate all comments, which would really put a damper on discussion; I would also have to delete a very large number of MRA/MGTOW comments, and a smaller but still significant number of feminist comments. What this means is that anyone commenting here needs to be ready to hear some pretty impolite stuff from other commenters. I know a number of feminists who won't comment here because of that, and there may be MRAs who also don't comment becuase of that. That's unfortunate, but there's no way to have the sort of freewheeling discussion I encourage here without this happening. All this said, while Sally has been blunt, she has NOT been threatening; her comments are well within my comment guidelines. This is what truly threatening comments look like:http://www.manboobz.com/2011/03/if-you-dont-agree-with-me-angry-dudes.htmlTit for Tat, if Sally's comments are triggering for you, I'm not sure you should be reading the comments here. That's what I would tell anyone of any ideological persuasion who is triggered by blunt talk in comments. Or the posts either; they're full of pretty harsh language — mostly in the comments from misogynists that I quote.I should probably put a trigger warning on this whole blog.
>Although I cannot dispute someone's personal experience of physical abuse being a "breeze", I must point out that the distinction between physical and emotional abuse is generally a false one. Physical abuse has an undeniable emotional component. The deliberate infliction of physical pain by someone who is supposed to be your friend and partner has devastating emotional consequences. Physical abuse generates feelings of fear, helplessness and humiliation. It is a breach of one's bodily autonomy — something that's valued so highly in our culture, that violating it in this manner is one of the most intense forms of dehumanization. Moreover, physical abuse is almost always a part of a much larger pattern of abusive behavior, and begins to be manifested after a lengthy period of verbal and social mistreatment. In other words, physical abuse is emotional abuse, too.What irks people, I think, is that this distinction is often made in defense of a wife-beater. Any wife-beater you ask will validate his actions by claiming that his wife "provoked" him by hurting his feelings in one way or another. Most likely, he will also claim that his hurt feelings hurt more than her busted face, so HE is the real victim here. The problem with treating emotional abuse as an alternative to physical abuse is that its definition is extremely vague. Arguably, anything that hurts your emotions can be characterized as emotional abuse. But is it? Can you fairly say that your spouse is "abusing" you every time he or she says ANYTHING that you perceive as erroneous, misguided or unfair? Any time he or she says something you don't like? Some degree of disagreement is inevitable in the happiest of marriages, and many otherwise solid marriages go through periods of conflict. Is it always abuse just because there IS conflict? If there is a disagreement and an argument between spouses (without any physical violence), who is abusing whom? Since they both feel emotionally hurt or vulnerable, are they both simultaneously the abuser and the victim? I like to ask those questions as a way of cutting through all the bullshit that's lurking under the surface of most physical vs. emotional abuse discussions. I am not denying that one spouse can demolish the other's self-esteem and feeling of safety without getting physically violent, and that this is properly termed abuse, but alas, too often these discussions lead us to a place where a woman who doesn't submit to her husband, do as she's told and meet his every demand and desire without ever making any of her own, deserves to be treated like a punching bag.
>Thanks, Amused. That was elucidating. I was also trying to get at the false dichotomy between emotional and physical abuse that T4T was trying to set up. Is it even possible to have physical abuse, that is, an ongoing and persistent pattern of physical assaults, without also having an emotional and mental component to the pattern? In fact, isn't the fact that it is ongoing and accompanied by mental and emotional abuse a major factor in distinguishing an isolated physical assault from what we would call physical abuse?I am trying to imagine creating a situation where physical abuse is occurring without a mental/emotional component and I can't do it. Maybe T4T can elaborate, but it seems to me that physical abuse wouldn't even be possible without concurrent emotional/mental abuse; unless the person being assaulted is already broken down mentally and emotionally, convinced by the words and actions of hir partner that ze is worthless and deserves to be beaten, ze simply won't stick around for the 2nd/3rd instance of assault.
>You can't equate emotional abuse with battering, though.(Lady Vic)Of course you can, people kill themselves from being emotionally bullied. You dont think that is violent?
>DavidIm ok. Harsh language is a form of violence. Its meant to intimidate. You dont think its violent when someone is in your face telling you to "FUCK OFF", come on, youre not suggesting that are ya?
>Sally You keep suggesting that I dont think that physical abuse has an emotional component to it. That is patently false, I have never made that statement. That is just you reading into my comments what you see, not what I say. You obviously are biased.
>You claim that women are not more depressed then men because there is "no evidence" despite there being evidence and then say when "I had something bad happen to me…feminists were mean! Be nice to me because I was hurting!"An article which simply states X is not evidence of X being true. Evidence of X being true would be an independently verified study with sound methodology, some kind of photo/videographic evidence, etc. That an engineer has to explain simple concepts of evidence to someone who who claims to work in the judicial system ought to be a reality check to anyone who still has faith in said system.Expressing skepticism of the amount of female depression due to a lack of evidence is not the same as belittling depressed women, and you only demonstrate your foolishness or deliberate intellectual dishonesty by making such an argument. My own experience with feminists while I was depressed predates my becoming an MRA(although it certainly played a contributing role) and so is really of no relevance to your libelous assertion.*cue claims of strawman, logical fallacy and whatever other claims you make to satisfy your need to always be right and never be wrong.*Oh so now your ignorance of logic is part of my scheme to always be right, rather than a personal failing on your part? Typical feminist.But that does not give you the right to claim women are not depressed in greater numbers then men when it is shown that women are more likely to be depressed then men are (and my link shows that it is probably more due to hormonal fluctuations that men simply do not have.)I never said women were definitely not depressed in greater numbers, just that I have been shown no evidence that this is the case. Once again you commit the strawman fallacy but oh wait, that's not your fault for being ignorant, I somehow forced you to do it as part of my nefarious scheme to always be right and never be wrong. Mwahahahaha!
>The threat(emotional) of violence is much more powerful than the actual act. This is why torturers rotate the times that they physically beat their captives. They need to break them psychologically(emotional) first. Captives can learn to take the beatdown physically if it is consistent, but have much harder time with the mental aspect(the not knowing). Do you think its possible for a woman to break a man psychologically(emotional) without ever having to hit him?