>
 |
| From NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum. |
Once upon a time one of the guys over at NiceGuy’s MGTOW forum set up a little poll asking his fellow “nice guys” whether or not they actually consider themselves to be misogynists; it’s been up there for years, and the site’s resident MGTOWers have been adding votes and comments all along. The wording of the poll is sufficiently, ah, flexible enough to give respondents a lot of ways to wiggle out of saying explicitly that they really were misogynists:
* I despise the entire female sex. Period.* I hate only “western” women.* I only hate feminists and women who take advantage of sexism.* I just blame feminists.* I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.* I have no animosity towards women of any group. I’m only here to learn more about MRAs.
Still, given the amount of angry and explicit and completely straightforward misogyny you can find in the forms there, which after all are an outgrowth of a site devoted to the notion that “American women suck,” I’m a little bit surprised by how many of the regulars claim not to hate women – as you can see from the graphic above, the most popular answer is the one about “feminists and women who take advantage of sexism,” whatever that means.
Conveniently, though, many of those who voted in the poll also posted comments explaining their, er, reasoning. And it’s pretty clear that they have a radically different definition of hate than, you know, the dictionary, and/or what everyone else in the world means when they use the word hate.
Here are some of the comments from guys there who say that they aren’t misogynist. Again, just to make myself clear: these are entirely NON-HATEFUL comments from those who say they DON’T hate women.
Let’s start with the completely non-hateful non-hater who calls himself Alpha:
I’m not one who hates … I find that I don’t enjoy the company of women very much, as they tend to talk about things I really don’t give a crap about. Besides, they really wouldn’t like to hear what comes out of my mouth since, if I were to really say what I thought around them without restraint, they would go into knee-jerk, defensive mode. They’ve been so conditioned to fight and argue with what is simply, to me, a male point of view on things. It’s like being around children. ..I will say this, I love ladies, the female equivalent of a gentleman, a gentlewoman. Unfortunately, that’s a rare breed these days. What we have are a bunch of emotionally immature, emotionally unrestrained, emotionally violent, toxic, unappreciative, self-centered, self-absorbed, self-serving, unempathetic, exploitive, arrested adolescents with vaginas, bad attitudes, and an incredible amount of contempt.Now, I don’t mind holding my tongue around ladies. But the moment women declared themselves equal to men, they opened the door to being talked to as men.
And here is committed non-misogynist Zaku:
I voted: “I don’t hate women; I just don’t like being around them.”Mostly because they have nothing to offer other than whining usually. …
When women talk they make me “ZZZ”.
 |
| Tiny kitties are honest about their hatreds. |
In a followup comment Zaku offered this, well, revealing take on sex with women:
Maybe it’s because I’ve only done american chicks but to be blunt having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn’t join in and you can hardly tell the difference.
There is something I would dearly like to tell young Zaku at this point but I really can’t think of a delicate way to put it. Hmm. I’ll do it the Dear Abby way.
CONFIDENTIAL TO Z— on N—G—‘sM—- F—- : You may be doing it wrong.
Our friend MarkyMark popped in to offer his two cents:
I don’t hate women, but, after working with a bunch of them and seeing their true colors, I don’t care to be around them. I don’t hate sewers, either; I just don’t care to spend time in them..
Now if this were anyone but our friend MarkyMark making this comment, I would assume he was making a little joke here. But as far as I have been able to determine, MarkyMark does not actually have a sense of humor. This is, after all, a guy who once devoted a blog post to rebutting, point by point, an article in The Onion. Joke or no, I think we can all agree it’s 1) not actually, you know, funny and 2) kind of a douchey thing to say.
Djc added this utterly non-misogynistic comment to the pile:
I can’t stand to be around them for too long. It’s not hatred. I just can’t stand stupid people. Male, or female. And there is no question most American females are dripping with delusions, which in my book makes them stupid. And I’m at a point where women have nothing I really need. So it’s a complete waste of my time to even talk to one
And then there is this, from strigoi:
i merely hate feminists, those women who latch onto sexism and how it has infected most of society. I aim for the cancer at the heart of the problem, they are the ones that need to be hanged.
I guess technically, that’s not misogyny. But I don’t think I’ll be inviting this guy over for dinner any time soon.
—
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.
>Yes women are more likely to be sexually harrassed, because they dress up to attract the attention of men.Seriously, I never knew I could avoid sexual harassment just by dressing properly!!! Holy shit, someone alert the media, NWOAsshole has solved the sexual harassment problem–just make women wear burqas!!!!I mean, it's not like any women in the Middle East ever get sexually harassed, EVER.
>I really love the wording of the last option, they're basically admitting that only a visitor/lurker can have no animosity towards women but a real MRA must.
>–You fuckass, it doesn't say that. Look directly on the press release: women make 75% of what men make. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/01/white-house-releases-first-comprehensive-federal-report-status-american—Uh, I've never been sexually harassed by Pitt or Clooney (not that I'd fuck them anyway), but I assure you, getting yelled at "nice ass! wanna fuck?" out of a car is terrifying regardless of the attractivenss of hte man in question.–But there's nothing wrong with sluthood. Having consensual, enjoyable, safe sex with a lot of people is a morally neutral hobby, like woodworking or writing poetry. "Being a dick" actually hurts people, so we shame it– for men or women.
>NWAsshole, you're another pathetic misogynist who can't even think clearly enough to come up with a series of statements that aren't self-contradictory. You, and guys like you, are the reason the MRA movement has no credibility.
>Also, I dress like a fourteen-year-old boy unless specifically trying to do something nice for my boyfriend (because I do that, actually) and I still got sexually harassed.
>As the White House report acknowledges further along in its 97 pages of text, tables, and charts, women aged 25 to 34 earn 89 cents on a man's dollar, even without accounting for different jobs and work experience.In addition, "on the days that they worked, employed married women age 25-54 spent less time in labor market work and work related activities than did employed married men in the same age group-7 hours and 40 minutes, compared to about 8 hours and 50 minutes." That's about 5 hours fewer per week, or, in a 40-hour week, 11 percent. So, just on the basis of hours worked, women should earn 89 percent of what men earn.
>So what you're telling me is that women don't dress up to garnish attention from men?I just want to make sure there's no hypocracy here. That women DO NOT dress to get attention from men ever. Of course that would naturally mean you put on make up, paint your nails, perfume, skirt, fancy shoes when your home alone. Is that the case?
>FYI, I will be deleting all further comments in this thread using the word "tranny." (I won't delete previous ones as they've already become part of the conversation here.)Also, I sort of like this as a slogan: "No room for free thinker here."
>First: * The participation of women in the workforce rose dramatically through the mid-1990s, but has been relatively constant since then. * Workforce participation among men has declined, but women are still less likely to work in the paid labor force than are men. When women do work, they are much more likely than men to work part-time. * Women continue to spend more of their time in household activities or caring for other family members; they also do more unpaid volunteer work than men. * Despite their gains in labor market experience and in education, women still earn less than men. * In part, this is because women and men work in different occupations, with women still concentrated in lower-paying and traditionally female occupations. * Because women earn less and because two-earner households have higher earnings, families headed by women have far less income than do married-couple families.The report does not seem to support NWAsshole's interpretation of it. Second: yes, women work fewer hours than men, on average. Do you think that's because there's something intrinsic about having a dick that makes you stay late? Something intrinsic about having a vagina that draws you homeward at the end of the day? Obviously not. If women are working less hours than men, then we need to ask why. I.e., is it by choice? And are men working those extra hours by choice? My impression is that women go home to do childcare more than men, because that is what is expected of both women and men. I am quite positive that there are men out there who'd prefer to spend more time with their families, and women who would like to be able to climb the corporate ladder. My proposed solution is to institute mandatory paid parental leave for both men and women, making it more socially acceptable for men to do child care, and evening the playing field between mothers and fathers. Of course, only a dirty socialist would support such nanny-state interference in our lives, but there you are. Common-sense solutions that have empirical evidence backing them up can't be tried in USA Land because they're "socialist."
>NWAsshole, are you really saying that if women want attention from men, period, then they must also accept being harassed and stalked by them?Do you really think so poorly of men?
>@SallyStrange…Yes women are more likely to be sexually harrassed, because they dress up to attract the attention of men. And when its a Bradd Pitt or a George Cloony who gives them attention their flattered, but if it's the garbageman who they deem they can do better than, thats when a woman say its harrassment. Tell me that isn't so. Don't be a hypocrite. This was the entire paragraph, please don't try to take it out of context. And I ask you If some super handsome, charming well dressed man with an accent came up to you and flirted, wouldn't you be flattered? No if some average menial laborer crawled out of the sewers and dirty and smelly and flirted would you be offended? Please be honest.
>Sally that type of shaming reverse logic is hardly going to work on me. "Do I think so poorly of men." Do I sound like I can be so easily fooled? Please give me a little more credit I'm no fool. I'm just pointing out certain thruths if you will. Perhaps if you would answer my previous post we'll see.
>NWO: Men have no reproductive rights, are you serious? I don't hear about conservative lawmakers passing laws limiting men's access to birth control and reproductive services on the pretext that men should be accountable for fucking by getting STDs and being unable to prevent pregnancy. Women's rights to birth control and sexual health services are increasingly being attacked, however. If you are talking about child support, then yeah: your reproductive rights don't extend to another person's body. Then again, women don't have rights to control other people's bodies either.Next: you lose all credibility when you claim that rape represents proper punishment for dressing in a way that's attractive to men. Once you admit that rape is a mechanism of social control over women, you can no longer claim that it isn't. You seriously argue that telling a man he's a dick for being a dick is the same kind of "accountability" as raping a woman for being attractive? Tell me, do you believe that men who look attractive to other men deserve to get raped? There is no justification for rape — none whatsoever. We have nothing to discuss on the subject of accountability until you are prepared to hold rapists accountable for rape, with no excuses, conditions or white-washing.Garbagemen: do come off it already. Garbagemen (or "sanitation workers", as they are more politically correctly called) enjoy good pay (taking into account their level of education and marketable skills), as well as good benefits and the power of unions (except in Wisconsin, but you can hardly blame feminists for this). For an unskilled laborer with no education beyond high school, it's a pretty good deal. Demanding that garbagemen have an additional entitlement to have their pick of women is rather unreasonable, IMHO.
>And now I'm NWAsshole? Excellent. I've still insulted no one yet I'm now an asshole.
>@amused, If a man and a woman consensually have sex and a child is concieved, do I, as a man, have the "right" to a living child?
>NWasshole, how do you then explain the fact that 85% of Egyptian women report experiencing sexual harassment in the streets? You know, Egypt, where women cover their heads, their arms, and their legs. Strange, huh, how sexual harassment doesn't correlate to amount of skin shown or anything else. Secondly, you keep conflating flirting with harassment. The two are not the same. The fact that you can't tell the difference says a lot about you. I don't need to answer all these intrusive and pointless hypothetical questions about how I'd respond in various situations. The point is that we are talking about HARASSMENT and you are talking about FLIRTING. If a woman dresses sexy because she wants to go out, flirt, and possibly get laid, that DOES NOT give street harassers any excuses. Dressing sexy is not an invitation to cross boundaries. Flirting does not involve crossing boundaries. Until you can understand this, you will continue to flail in useless rhetorical victim-blaming circles.
>And now I'm NWAsshole? Excellent. I've still insulted no one yet I'm now an asshole. Actually, you have. Your explicit denial of bodily autonomy to women is insulting. Your claim that women who dress in a way that's attractive to men deserve to get raped is insulting. Your claim that any man who cares about pleasing his lover in bed is a "subservient moron" is insulting.
>Ah, and now NWAsshole is back to treating children as objects. No, you don't have a right to any children. You have a responsibility to any children that share 50% of your DNA. Unless, of course, you go through the legal process of relinquishing all rights AND responsibilities.
>It's not my fault that you are too stupid, callous, and/or indifferent to realize that your hatred towards women is both obvious and insulting.
>Heres a link to the supposed pay gap. Please put this one to rest already.http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2011/03/03/white_house_womens_wages_myths_98895.html
>@amused, If a man and a woman consensually have sex and a child is concieved, do I, as a man, have the "right" to a living child?No. No one has a "right" to a child. You have a right to autonomy over your own body — your OWN body. Which means that, if you ever get a growth somewhere in your abdominal cavity, whatever it is, you have the right to keep it there or take it out, whatever you choose. If a person you've ejaculated into gets a growth in her body, whatever it is, you don't get to decide whether to leave it there or take it out — because it's not your body.
>No my question has been answered quite well. Men have no reproductive rights as established by the guns of the state.I harbor no hatred of women, only hypocracy. I also call out hypocracy on MRA sites as well.
>Sally that type of shaming reverse logic is hardly going to work on me. "Do I think so poorly of men." Do I sound like I can be so easily fooled? Please give me a little more credit I'm no fool. I'm just pointing out certain thruths if you will. Perhaps if you would answer my previous post we'll see. Shaming? You're the one who's bringing shame on men by asserting (falsely, obviously) that if women dress a certain way, in a way that attracts the attention of men, then men are somehow compelled to harass women. You're not pointing out certain truths, you're making excuses for harassers and trying to pretend that all men are like them.
>@SallyStrange…No sally I treat children as seperate living beings, abortion treats them as objects.
>If you claim you have no hatred of women then why do you believe that women who dress a certain way deserve to be harassed? That's pretty fucking hateful. Harassment is extremely unpleasant.