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.

73 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Johnny
13 years ago

>"A feminist to come up with a straight forward example to their argument instead of just passing links of long reading of feminist literature that are supposed to derail the actual question instead of getting straight to the point."Translation:"What I want is evidence but if you link me to evidence I'll ignore it."

shaenon
13 years ago

>I don't bother to reply 99 percent of the time when its just a long read of feminist literature garbage. Yeah, in the last thread you angrily demanded examples of feminist literature, so I can see where it would bug you that people responded by giving you examples of feminist literature. Man, life is hard.How the flying fuck is it patriarchy when a man wants to do everything for a woman?That's patriarchy. That's what we're against. We don't want men to have to do everything. That's why women have jobs and stuff now, so men don't have to do everything.

nicko81m
13 years ago

>So I guess a woman doing everything for a man is matriarchy.Wow the stupidity

nicko81m
13 years ago

>What about double standards?

girlscientist
13 years ago

>This is absolutely, totally, and completely laughable. How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?It's enslave, you idiot. Or would using the proper vocabulary be giving in to the matriarchy, too?

Deviant One
13 years ago

>This is absolutely, totally, and completely laughable. How can a man be all about power when he wants to slave himself for a woman?Nick, nick, nick. Do you *really* mean (en)slave(ment)? Really?Because if a man actually wants to "slave himself for a woman" (sic), that would mean that he chooses to give up any and all autonomy, decisions and say over his own life and body and affairs and grants it to the person he's becoming enslaved to, with no way to back out of that agreement, although obviously there would be no legal way to enforce such a gross violation of human rights legally if the enslaved wished to get out of the agreement or change the terms.Slavery is, in fact, an international customary and treaty crime seen as so heinous that any country at all can have jurisdiction over any alleged offender perpetrating slavery from any country – international jurisdiction.Slavery is, in fact, what women have been subject to until very, very recently. Is that REALLY what you meant, nick? Because if you did, I'd really, really like a motivation of why you say men are enslaving themselves to women.Or did you mean "commitment", which is something that can theoretically be continually negotiated or instantly negated by any of the parties involved? Because these two things, nick, they are not the same.Many women (and men!) are trapped in relationships where they are not allowed to negotiate their commitment or terminate it, out of fear of death or physical retribution – that may morph into a kind of slavery to a certain degree, it can be debated, but it does happen, and often.That is a huge problem, as I'm sure you'll agree, so I'm sure you completely support any and all legislation and institution that supports and protects victims of IPV (intimate partner violence) so that that kind of enslavement can be curtailed? Right, Nick?

Joe
Joe
13 years ago

>Care to respond to the OP, nicko?Or do you want to follow your MO, which is to wait until someone makes a comment that irritates you, then bang out a Tu Quoque to get the crazy train rolling?You can't win by running the same play over and over again, especially when it doesn't work.

Hide and Seek
13 years ago

>"So in a feminist world, when a woman volunteers to be a house wife, she is not being submissive."Yes. In a feminist world, when a woman volunteers to be a house wife, she is not (necessarily) being submissive.There is nothing inherently submissive about doing housework.

Joe
Joe
13 years ago

>Just realized I'm being sort of disingenuous by not responding to the OP myself.The disaster has brought out ideologues all over the political spectrum. We've seen religious types blaming the victims (including the governor of Tokyo), racist nationalists claiming the disaster is payback for Pearl Harbor, and pro- and anti-nuclear advocates making outrageously speculative claims about the outcome of the nuclear crisis. And Rush Limbaugh claiming the tsunami is payback for inventing the Prius.Kicking people when they're down appears to be a sport of ideologues. I claim it's one way to sort ideological rhetoric from substantive discussion.

Sam
Sam
13 years ago

>"It's because there is no culture on earth capable of adequately preparing for a 10m wall of water."The Dutch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_Wall

Hide and Seek
13 years ago

>"Kicking people when they're down appears to be a sport of ideologues. I claim it's one way to sort ideological rhetoric from substantive discussion."I think it's also about maintaining the illusion of control. If bad things happen to "bad" people, and you're a good person, then you're safe. So, when something bad happens it's very important to figure out why it happened (even if that reason is hokum) and why they could not possibly ever happen to you.

SallyStrange
13 years ago

>Yup, if there's one thing that characterizes a matriarchy, it's roving rape gangs. Oy.

pwlsax
13 years ago

>One other way to sort out ideologues never fails: ideas matter more than people. This could manifest itself in many ways:- archetypes matter more than individuals- roles matter more than relationships- rules matter more than discourse- reality is "all one thing," not diverse and unpredictable, but "hard" (acts like a rule)

nicko81m
13 years ago

>Deviant OneBlah blah blah, the simple fact is that a man is submitting himself to a woman.If he pays the way for everything and all and the burdens in the outside world is on him, that is submission.You are a fucking idiot if you think otherwise.This example can’t be anymore clearer

Hide and Seek
13 years ago

>nick:Isn't "why" he's making those choices important? Aren't there other choices he could make? For example, he could go his own way.

Deviant One
13 years ago

>Blah blah blah, the simple fact is that a man is submitting himself to a woman.There's your answer, in your own words. He's submitting HIMSELF. His choice, to commit or stop committing. He chooses, for himself, when the commitment starts and when he wants it to stop.That, nick, is NOT slavery. Not even within shouting distance.

Amused
13 years ago

>Thank you, nicko, for making me realize that my car is the boss of me. I find myself in a situation where I have to WORK in order to take care of my car, making sure it looks and feels great. To that end, whenever my car wants something, like gas, or oil, or antifreeze or windshield washing fluid, I open my wallet and take out MY hard-earned money that I earned with MY sweat and blood, while the car was just sort of just hanging out there, doing nothing in the parking lot (aside from looking pretty). I even give up my money to a car-spa, where its tires get rotated and its perfect-princess insides get all checked out, so that it doesn't start coughing, god forbid, while I'm driving it on a highway at 100 mph.And if you think THAT's unfair, consider that if I don't give my car what it wants, it gets all bitchy on me. Oh, sure, it starts with just these irritating noises that I really don't want to hear, and if I don't budge, then it's stalling, stopping, crashing. All because I didn't give it more of my money. I WORK because of my car — me!! I could just sit on my ass all day, playing WoW, but instead, I'm slaving away in a cubicle, all for the good of my car, which is just sitting there in the parking lot and totally not doing the heavy lifting. You'd think my car would do something for me once in a while, change MY oil, but noooooooooooooooooooo, it doesn't even have to figure out where to go, leaving me with the onerous burden of making all the decisions.Of course, my car can't vote. And my car can't leave me. And my car can't do anything if I decide to beat it, abuse it, drive it recklessly, paint it in ridiculous colors, drive it into a ditch, sell it to someone else, give it to my 17-year-old idiot nephew, cannibalize it for parts or take it to a junk yard. And I don't ever ask my car for its opinion concerning what I plan to do with it. But none of that matters, because based on me working to pay for my car's stuff, it's clear I'm a slave and my car is my master, and anyone who says my car is a piece of property without rights or privileges is a total idiot with an agenda.Also, these laws that say I can't even set my car on fire or abandon it whenever I want? It's a fucking conspiracy by pro-car fanatics who just want all this special treatment for cars, while making the lives of drivers — as if they weren't hard enough already — even more hellish. It's a fucking conspiracy, is what it is. I am submissive to my car! My car does not submit to me, it doesn't do anything! I am the VICTIM here!

Elizabeth
13 years ago

>Nick is never going to change his mind. He has decided (regardless of facts to the contrary) that his view of feminism is the accurate one. And we are all dumb for not agreeing with him. Sure we can spout the truth all day long but truth does not matter to him.For those in the US-it is like dealing with the teabaggers. They have no interest in the truth either.

triplanetary
13 years ago

>Nick's Revisionist History, Lesson #457: Prior to the US Civil War, Southern whites were enslaved by blacks. The whites had to provide food, shelter, and clothing to the blacks who worked their plantation. They were financially enslaving themselves to the blacks. Fortunately Abraham Lincoln invaded the blackocracy and freed the oppressed whites.

triplanetary
13 years ago

>One other way to sort out ideologues never fails: ideas matter more than people. This could manifest itself in many ways:- archetypes matter more than individuals- roles matter more than relationships- rules matter more than discourse- reality is "all one thing," not diverse and unpredictable, but "hard" (acts like a rule)I would also add "institutions matter more than individuals." But good points all around.

ScareCrow
13 years ago

>Well, that is pretty negative stuff.However; you'll be delighted to know that I just did a very positive story about the crisis that Japan is now facing:http://men-factor.blogspot.com/2011/03/japans-nuclear-threat-no-pretty-white.html

ScareCrow
13 years ago

>P.S. I heard that the earthquakes are causing massive outbreaks of diarrhea. I do blame the feminists for that.HA!

Elizabeth
13 years ago

>Your blog is not as nasty as it has been, are you in love ScareCrow? (Yes that is a rhetorical question as it is none of my business.)

Captain Bathrobe
13 years ago

>Yep, I think the part about "financial slavery" is a recent update to the Nickbot 2000's program. It's good that someone is updating the software, otherwise the comments might become tiresome.Oh, wait…

SallyStrange
13 years ago

>You'd think MRAs oughta be grateful to feminists for encouraging women to get jobs, become financially self-supporting, and release men from their terrible financial slavery. But then, that's require consistency and logic. And if they had that they wouldn't be MRAs.