Categories
antifeminism crackpottery evil women MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy racism rape reactionary bullshit the spearhead violence against men/women

>Earthquakes and Ideologues

>

A scene in Haiti, after its earthquake.

Sometimes The Spearhead, probably the internet’s leading angry-man site, seems like a giant interactive game of “pin the blame on the feminists.” When uprisings broke out in Tunisia and then Egypt , you may recall, W. F. Price — head honcho at The Spearhead — suggested that the unrest in both countries was a male reaction to the excesses of feminism and female power.

Now he’s returned with an even stranger article, comparing  the current disaster in Japan with the very different outcome of last year’s earthquake in Haiti– and blaming women in general and feminists in particular for the far more lethal outcome in Haiti.

You might think that the staggering death toll in Haiti — estimates range from 92,000 to more than 300,000 —  might have something  to do with the fact that it’s the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, with a weak and corrupt government and almost nothing in the way of intrastructure.  And that Japan’s relative resiliance in the face of an even more powerful earthquake might have something to do with the fact that it’s a wealthy nation — the world’s third most powerful economy, with a GDP per capita about 30 times greater than Haiti’s — with a great deal of experience in handling earthquakes.

But Price has a rather different, and highly peculiar, explanation: Haiti suffered more because it’s a  “matriachal” country, unlike properly “patriarchal” Japan. Comparing  “matriarchal Haiti’s and patriarchal Japan’s respective responses to natural disaster,” Price writes that

in Haiti the women are still living in open encampments well over a year after the quake, [while] Japanese women are already sheltered, which is necessary, because it is still cold in northern Japan this time of year. …

Price goes on to argue that Japan is doing better by its men as well. While in Haiti in the aftermath of the quake, the UN and some relief organizations targeted aid towards women — who tend to literally get pushed aside in the mad scramble for food supplies otherwise — Price argues that

Japanese men … have it far better than their Haitian counterparts as well. There are no foreign troops pointing guns at them and denying them food, they are taken care of and respected if old, and given jobs and a place in society if young. Perhaps most importantly, They are given the opportunity to do what men often do best — they are allowed to take care of their families and communities.

Let’s set aside for a moment that it is a tad early to be declaring, er, “mission accomplished” in the Japan crisis, especially with the specter of a nuclear reactor meltdown looming. Price is a man with an agenda, and he moves fairly quickly to his grand conclusion: The two disasters, he argues,

give us an opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of a society we want to live in. Do we want, as the feminists would have it, to be helpless, disease infested, homeless and starving if we face hardship, or do we want to have the ability to come together and pull ourselves up from the rubble? For the sane people of the world, the choice is clear.

Yes, that’s right. Feminism is the party of helplessness, disease, homelessness and starvation. Anyone who’s just made the argument he made really shouldn’t be offering any opinions on the sanity of others.

Before we get into a critique of Price’s argument, such as it is, let’s pause for a moment to ask how his novel thesis was received by the Spearhead regulars. While a few commenters did take him to task for ignoring economics, others took his absurd argument and ran with it. (This is The Spearhead, after all.) Alucin declared,

Feminism is a crime against humanity. What happened in Haiti regarding food distribution will be repeated again and again as long as feminism prevails. Fighting feminism is something good people do on behalf of humanity. The men and women of Japan will get their lives back together again far more quickly than the matriarchal people of Haiti.

The future is patriarchal. It’s just a matter of which form it will take and when the West will re-masculate.

Epoetker took it a step further, adding a bit of racism to the misogynistic mix:

Haiti is a land of men who look like men but think like women. Japan is a land of men who look like women but think like men.

Rebel, meanwhile, found a grim humor in it all:

The Haitian case is proof positive that feminism is exactly like AIDS.
No matter how many die, feminism will be the last thing to die.
It was planned that way.

Whichever way you look at it, the answer is always the same: feminism is a religion of death.
Feminists are death worshippers.

That leaves very little hope for the future.
Life is so short and we worry too much. And it’s so futile.
One day we will all be Haitians. LOL!!

A note: These aren’t a couple of weird comments I’ve “cherry picked” to give a distorted picture of the discussion. In fact, these comments got anywhere from 20 to nearly 70 upvotes from Spearhead readers, and almost no downvotes. There were many other comments, also heavily upvoted, agreeing with these general premises. If you don’t believe me, go take a look yourself.

Numerous other commenters, I should also note, offered frankly racist interpretations of “the tale of two earthquakes,” blaming the greater scope of the disaster in Haiti on what one commenter called its “largely negro, largely indolent society.” While some objected to the racism, many clearly racist comments got numerous upvotes from the Spearhead crowd.  (The comment I just quoted got 60 upvotes and 20 downvotes.)

Getting back to Price’s argument, let’s try to unpack the various layers of bullshit here. First of all, Haiti is no matriarchy. Yes, women often head up households there. But they don’t run the country, by any measure.

Life in Haiti is no picnic for men, but women have it even worse; as one human rights group noted in a recent report, “Haitian women experience additional barriers to the full enjoyment of their basic rights due to predominant social beliefs that they are inferior to men and a historical pattern of discrimination and violence against them based on their sex. Discrimination against women is a structural feature in Haitian society and culture that has subsisted throughout its history, both in times of peace and unrest.”

Rape is a constant threat, and, as a recent article in the Los Angeles Times notes, it “wasn’t even considered a serious criminal offense in Haiti until five years ago. … Before 2005, rape was considered an offense against honor, or “crime of passion,” meaning it was a minor infraction in which the perpetrator would go free if he agreed to marry his victim.”

The earthquake only made the situation worse for women. Rapes are especially widespread in the camps that sprung up in the wake of last year’s earthquake. Instead of “tak[ing] care of their families and communities,” as Price would put it, many Haitian men have instead preyed on women and girls, sexually assaultng them and stealing their food and other supplies. This is not, to put it mildly, a country suffering from an excess of feminism or female authority.

No, Haiti is in dire straits mostly because of its extreme poverty. Anyone looking at the history of natural disasters can plainly see that they tend to cause far more chaos and misery and death in poor countries than they do in rich ones: In highly patriarchal, and poverty-stricken Pakistan, the 2005 Kashmir earthquake killed an estimated 75,000, though the quake there was an order of magnitude weaker than Japan’s.

I’m not sure why I feel the need to remind readers of these basic points; the absurdity of Price’s arguments should be immediately obvious to anyone not blinded by misogyny. Sometimes I wonder if Price even believes all of the shit he shovels. Stupidity would be easier to forgive than that level of cynicism.

If you appreciated 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. Thanks!

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>P.S. I heard that the earthquakes are causing massive outbreaks of diarrhea.I do blame the feminists for that.HA! Now THAT'S the Scarecrow we know and grudgingly tolerate.

ScareCrow
9 years ago

>@Captain Bathroom – SHADDDAAPPP!

Raul Groom
9 years ago

>I think the page Scarecrow linked above, complete with comments, is probably the most offensive thing I've ever seen on the Internet.All together now.That's.Saying.Something.But I'm saying it.RG

Captain Bathrobe
9 years ago

>So awesome.

Marissa
9 years ago

>According to Nick's logic, we live in a pedocracy, since adults do everything for children. Children are the ones who are in control of our society, enslaving adults to their will.

StarStorm
9 years ago

>I'm sorry, but "Pedocracy" does not bring to mind children ruling.

triplanetary
9 years ago

>Perhaps pedocracy would be rule by feet?

Marissa
9 years ago

>lol, you know what I'm saying, though.

Hide and Seek
9 years ago

>Or perhaps we are all ruled by our household pets. Sometimes when I am feeding or petting or opening a door for the cat, I will say in a little cat voice, "I rule you, human."

nicko81m
9 years ago

>"According to Nick's logic, we live in a pedocracy, since adults do everything for children. Children are the ones who are in control of our society, enslaving adults to their will."I wonder how or what evidence does the male treat a woman as a child when he does everything to make her life better?Explain in logical detail?I guess if a woman easily gives sex to any men, she is not being submissive.If Asian women want to be the stay at home wife and do the house chores, they are not submissive.

Elizabeth
9 years ago

>Why Nick-you never listen. So instead, here is a link to a pretty beach.

SallyStrange
9 years ago

>I wonder how or what evidence does the male treat a woman as a child when he does everything to make her life better?So, you're saying that in Nicko's world, adults do everything to make their children's lives worse?

Marissa
9 years ago

>@ nick…and parents do everything to make the lives of their children better. Having things done for you means you lack agency – you lack power. Parents do everything to support their children. But children lack power. Same thing with the model of happy family life that you're suggesting. If men are the ones who make all the money, they are the ones who have power, because women are dependent on them. Like children are dependent on their parents. This parallel is pretty self-evident. Especially considering the fact that in the West, until about 100 years ago women had pretty much the same legal status as children.

nicko81m
9 years ago

>You feminuts are screwy lol. You need actual evidence, meaning that there needs to be some type of scientific study that observes each household where the man is the bread winner.You can't just pull out of your ass that a man is automatically a controlling chauvinist because he wants to support the woman he loves.But of course, in a feminist world this is always the case. Feminists make any excuse really to make the man look like an evil oppressor and the woman the poor victim we must feel sympathy for.

SallyStrange
9 years ago

>So, Nicko, you're saying you require scientific evidence for the existence of the history of Western civilization? LOL indeed.

SallyStrange
9 years ago

>…the Russian judge awaits, with bated breath and score cards in hand, the performance of Nicko's next gymnastics routine.

Amused
9 years ago

>Nicko: We don't want your sympathy — we want civil rights, which would include the right to make our own lives better, without being beholden to some piece o'shit such as yourself. Hey, you are free, by your own argument, not enslaved by anyone. So what are you moaning about? You are free thanks to feminism, go ahead and celebrate.Also: we don't need to present evidence that people who lack agency actually do lack agency. Rather, it is you who has to present us with "some scientific study" that observes each household where the man is the bread winner and shows that every one of those men is a "slave" to the wife. You can't just pull it out of your ass that a man loves the woman he regards as inferior to him just because he has an income and she does not. I won't hold my breath, though.

Marissa
9 years ago

>@nickI never claimed that men who are primary earners are "automatically a controlling chauvinist".That's like saying all parents are child abusers. A guy can have respect for his wife, but that doesn't change the fact that he does have more power if he is the primary earner.

nicko81m
9 years ago

>"A guy can have respect for his wife, but that doesn't change the fact that he does have more power if he is the primary earner." No one can give an explanation on "how" he has more power? The femninists just simply make up a staw man and call it fact.When I have seen the man as the bread winner in couples, the woman has access to the family bank account as well. My brothers family for an example:He is the bread winner. His wife has access to the family bank account. She can go out when ever she wants such as eat out with friends etc. She doesn't have to ask permission or anything.In fact, when my brother goes out for drinks with friends, his wife tells him that he has to be home at a certain time.All in all, it’s really silly and ridiculous to say just because the man is the bread winner, he automatically has all this control over the woman.The woman can go out and get her own job and earn her own income. No one is stopping her. Only she chooses to be in the position she is in.A lot of you feminists are paranoid and delusional. It's quite funny.

kage
9 years ago

>Nicko, please look up the definition of strawman.Not a Strawman- A guy can have respect for his wife, but that doesn't change the fact that he does have more power if he is the primary earner.Strawman – All in all, it’s really silly and ridiculous to say just because the man is the bread winner, he automatically has all this control over the woman.Once you've figured that out, I'd recommend looking up disingenous.You're welcome.

SallyStrange
9 years ago

>6.5!The Russian judge is disappointed. The Russian judge was expected more unusual logical fallacies. The straw man routine was too obvious to be very well executed. The Russian judge is also bored with baseless accusations and projection.

Raoul
9 years ago

>We give people like Price too much respect when we say they believe everything feminist is evil. That assumes they have any interest in what feminism really means or is. In fact, their position is that everything evil is feminist.

Traitorfish
9 years ago

>When Nicko says that the average sole-breadwinning men become "financial slaves" to their homemaker wives, I wonder, does he think that the men would otherwise do all the household chores themselves? That they'd somehow save money by paying somebody else to do it? That they'd find staffed accommodation that was somehow cheaper? Because, if you look at it as a purely commercial transaction- as Nicko seems to do- it seems that the husband is at least going to break even on this deal. And if they're *saving* money, well, can you say "exploitation"?