>
 |
| Women in groups: Always trouble. |
One of the strangest places in the burly world of Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers is The Spearhead’s Shieldmaidens forum. And no, I am not making that name up. It’s a forum, essentially, for women interested in being a sort of Women’s Auxiliary to a bunch of guys who are all about hating women.
Given that such a role – trying to help dudes who don’t much like you or your whole gender — is a bit of a tricky one, the forum moderator Hestia has written a long introductory post explaining just what new gals should and shouldn’t do to support their menfolk. It’s kind of a masterpiece of doublespeak. Let’s look at some of its highlights.
Hestia starts out by warning the ladies that these rough men sometimes talk in a rough manner:
As this is a male environment, us girls can expect styles of communication that we might not use ourselves or readily relate to. For the purpose of this post, I will call all of this “locker room talk”. … Topics and expressions women may find crude are likely to occur and generalizations about women (or white, western, whatever) used to adequately get a point across. These differences, while bothersome to some women, are not wrong in and of themselves and are not reason to shame men into expressing themselves differently. As women in the locker room, we are the ones who need to look the other [way] and make accommodations; not the men for whom this website is for.
In other words: the guys here may call you sluts and whores and worse, but really, that’s your fault for being here in the first place, so don’t complain.
Welcome aboard!
Hestia continues:
We must also respect this place as one of the few politically incorrect sanctuaries that men have in today’s misandrist world. … We should not be bullying men into saying, “yes, indeed not all women are like that!” to appease our own egos. … This is sacred male friendly ground and should be treated as such. … We are but guests on this website and must know our place and respect certain boundaries for the sake of the men here and for the work towards gender peace.
Hard to be more abject than this. So how have the menfolk responded?
It appears that not too many men actually read the Shieldmaidens forum, but among those who do, the reaction has been a little less than enthusiastic. Our friend GlobalMan, one of the more excitable Spearhead regulars, basically tells her (and all women) to fuck off entirely:
I have voiced my opinion many times women should be banned all together from here. They are contributing nothing and they are taking up a lot of time and energy of the stupid young men who do not realise that women are just attention whores who won’t actually do anything at the end of the day. ….You women pretty much fuck up everything you stick your nose into. And you never, ever tire of fucking things up for men under the delusion you have ‘something to contribute’. You don’t. Get over it. You pop out babies. That is your one and only ‘claim to fame’ and it used to be enough for a man to love a woman for her whole life and to provide for her and the kids. Now it is not. So you women need to ‘act like men’ and suck it up.Indeed. If women had any class at all you would leave of your own accord and let the men sort out what you refused to. The only posts from women here should be ‘Men, please tell us what to do’.
A fellow calling himself Diogenes offers his two cents:
That Hestia has to write this thread proves that indeed women who come to this board do exactly that which she complains against. They have such a cozy and male-coddled life that they are shocked when some men rightly express their scorn and foul language towards their attitudes and manipulative behaviour. Women BREED misogyny because all they do is constantly manipulate and get the attention and protection of men by trying to look sexy all the time. Every time a man turns his head towards a pretty lady, she knows she is being looked after and will be rescued by a man if ever her poor little ass does something stupid. They are CHILDREN at heart. One female college student mentioned to me how according to her “every girl” has gone on dates just to get free dinners. How much more proof do we need that women are NO GOOD WHORES?
I guess that’s some of the “locker room talk” Hestia was warning the ladies about.
Granted, it’s been awhile since I’ve seen the inside of a locker room, but I don’t remember much of the talk in the locker rooms I’ve been in revolving around the no-good whorishness of all women. I think that might be because most men are not in fact hateful assholes who think all women are NO GOOD WHORES.That’s just a theory though.
—
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.
>Yup. Because I like it here. I don't like you, and I don't feel inclined to do you any favors. Trying to explain shit to you is worse that trying to explain algebra to a six year old. You just refuse to let anything sink in and argue in endless circles over trivial points in larger discussions. I believe offering you a critique would be a giant waste of my time. And even if David made the most brilliant post EVAR over the weekend – I still wouldn't read it or comment, because I will be blissfully away from anything more modern than a flashlight and propane stove this weekend.
>Yeah, because women don't work these days, you dumb sack of shit.And how stupid do you have to be to get that a shelter is where one goes WHEN THE MAN IS IN POSSESSION OF THE GODDAMNED HOUSE.Christ, he's so stupid it's painful.Ah, this must be another of those famed cases of ginmar "being a perfectly normal person standing up for herself". Tell me something, do you also "stand up for yourself" like this in real life, or are you only this brave on the internet, hiding behind a keyboard? Don't answer, rhetorical question.
>I don't like you, and I don't feel inclined to do you any favors. Trying to explain shit to you is worse that trying to explain algebra to a six year old.(Lady Vic)Tell me how you really feel, Lmao. Sometimes its the trivial that makes the context in the larger. But what do I know, being that I am like a six year old. 😉
>That's precisely what I mean. I didn't call you a six year old, I said that trying to explain something to you is worse than trying to explain algebra to a small child. The concepts just fly over their head, and they don't even realize that they're not getting it, or why it's so important in the first place. At least with the small child there's the hope that as they grow older, they'll be able to understand algebra. With you, I am not so sure.
>And Ion wonders why we called Tit an idiot.I don't wonder, I know. It's because insults and abuse are the only tools you have. And they're not even particularly refined.
>Lady VicI know you didnt call me a six year old, you inferred that.
>Really, you can make that leap that I dont have concern for a human because I point out an obvious double standard? The double standard you speak of springs from another double standard — the idea that a marital home is the MAN's territory, even if he is the abuser, and the woman is merely a tenant. Until you acknowledge that — the double standard that creates a much greater need for women's shelter space than for men's — I will treat your claims about there not being any shelters for men with about the same seriousness if you complained that there aren't any foodstamp programs for millionaires. Your claims do demonstrate that you aren't, in fact, concerned about a male abuse victim being stalked by his abuser at a co-ed shelter — and I suppose that's because in reality, you see no reason to be concerned about something like that. After all, the aim of the overwhelming majority of anti-feminists screaming about supposed gender bias in favor of the most impoverished and defenseless members of society isn't to fund men's shelters — but to defund women's.
>Wait a sec… wasn't there just a huge scandal about Scott Adams saying that dealing with women is like dealing with children? For which he was vilified and called all kinds of nasty names? But no, I guess that's totally different than referring to someone as a six-year old. Yep. Because a woman said it.
>Tell me something, do you also "stand up for yourself" like this in real life, or are you only this brave on the internet, hiding behind a keyboard? Don't answer, rhetorical question.(Ion)One thing I do find interesting about some of the posters on here is that they call me disingenuous or dishonest but none of them have a link to who they really are. I dont hide who I am or where I am(which makes me potentially vulnerable) but dishonest/disingenuous, hardly.
>Actually, Ion, I am saying that trying to explain things to Tit for Tat, an individual person, is like trying to explain things to a six year old. This is because he has demonstrably behaved like a six year old in terms of obtuseness – perhaps worse, because a six year old just doesn't know any better. Scott Adams said that all men everywhere should treat all women everywhere like children. The difference is between one individual person and characterizing a whole gender. Individual people, who have a gender, can be obtuse and childish. But I am not saying that just because Tit for Tat argues like a small child, all men deserve to be treated that way. Do you understand the difference, or do you need me to explain it again?
>AmusedI made no claims about there not being enough male shelters. Go back and read what I have been saying instead of putting words in my mouth.
>But I am not saying that just because Tit for Tat argues like a small child, all men deserve to be treated that way.(Lady Vic)This pretty much explains why I think shelters for either sex(which deny access to the opposite sex) are sexist. To protect the victims of abuse you have to deny access of the opposite sex which insinuates that they are ALL potential abusers rather than bonafide victims. Do you get that?
>One thing I do find interesting about some of the posters on here is that they call me disingenuous or dishonest but none of them have a link to who they really are. I dont hide who I am or where I am(which makes me potentially vulnerable) but dishonest/disingenuous, hardly.I'm willing to bet that if you looked into the personal histories of commenters here, you'd find a lot of social outcasts and people with emotional/psychological problems. In certain cases, I'd bet money on it.Vic: Come on, you were being patronizing and rude, and you know it. You could have ended the discussion but you kept going, getting more abusive as time went on. I mean that's fine, but at least be honest about it. The only difference between you and T4T is that you've got your forum buddies watching your back and you never get called on your BS.
>Seriously, Tit for Tat, eff you. I already covered that in my many wordy comments on this thread, and you are again choosing to either ignore what I said, or just couldn't be bothered to read it. I know, reading is hard, but it's kind of critical to having a discussion like this. I am not saying that men should be banned from women's shelters because they might abuse the women there. I am saying that having men around might disrupt the recovery process for women. I am saying that women might be less likely to go to a shelter if they know that they'll have to share space with strange men, and that could be a deadly choice for the woman. I am saying that abusive men could infiltrate a mixed gender shelter and either expose it or continue to abuse. So, seriously, I'm done trying to talk to you, until you can demonstrate that you have actually READ and UNDERSTOOD what I have written in this thread. You don't have to agree with it, just stop hashing the same fucking point to death when it's already been countered.
>I am certain, Ion, that you and Tit for Tat and Nicko would be thrilled to call me on my BS should you find the opportunity to do so.
>I am not saying that men should be banned from women's shelters because they might abuse the women there.(Lady Vic)I am saying that abusive men could infiltrate a mixed gender shelter and either expose it or continue to abuse(Lady Vic)Really, really? I may not 'get' everything you say but I do get the fact that you miss the subtle sexist/discriminatory nature that you own.
>Ion is ableist, too?Who else here is NOT surprised?
>Should men be banned from mixed gender shelters because they are abusive by nature? No. Are there certain individuals who are angry, misogynistic men who would infiltrate a shelter with the end goal of exposing the address or abusing the women there? Yes. This is based on fact, not ideology. You might as well say that building jails for men implies that men are criminals, when jails are built because certain men are indeed criminal. What is in the best interests of the clients of the shelter? Protecting them. Is risking exposure protecting these women? No. So should a shelter do everything they can to reduce their risk of exposure? Yes.
>We would, but you'd just counter with "OMG YOU DISAGREE WITH ME THEREFORE YOU ARE MISOGYNIST SWINE" and your buddies ginmar and sally would be like "Douchebag! Shit! fuck fuckity flounce flounce shit *BZZT FEMINIST INSULT #32 NOT FOUND*" and smoke would come out of their ears. And that wouldn't get us anywhere, would it.
>Amnesia: Ableist? You're that person who demanded Snow White's title be changed to "The Non-Race Specific White Person and the Vertically Challenged Seven", aren't you?
>Should men be banned from mixed gender shelters because they are abusive by nature? No. Are there certain individuals who are angry, misogynistic men who would infiltrate a shelter with the end goal of exposing the address or abusing the women there? YesThen that should be based on the actions of the individual not the gender, right?
>This pretty much explains why I think shelters for either sex(which deny access to the opposite sex) are sexist. To protect the victims of abuse you have to deny access of the opposite sex which insinuates that they are ALL potential abusers rather than bonafide victims. Do you get that? These points have been effectively countered several times now. Rather than respond to the responses, you just post the same thing again and again, as if nothing has been said. You have done this before. It appears to be your modus operandi. This is why you appear to be dense, not because of the content of your posts, but because you are either incapable of or unwilling to absorb true information that would force you to either modify your viewpoints, or provide an explanation as to why you think the response to what you said is not enough to get you to change your viewpoint.
>So, T4T, you think that it's sexist to have women-only shelters because why again?1. One gender is denied entry. That's discriminatory. Actually no, that's not discriminatory, as long as there is another shelter to go to. No denial of services = no discrimination. Unless you want to argue that having separate locker rooms and bathrooms constitutes discrimination too. 2. It implies that all men are abusers. Actually, no it doesn't. You THINK it does, but you thinking it doesn't make it true. It does imply that SOME men are abusers, and sometimes it's hard to tell them apart. Do you dispute that SOME men are abusers, and that it's not always obvious which is which? See, this is why you seem dense. Your points have been countered, over and over again, pretty effectively too. Right now, you should be responding to the responses, and explaining one of two things: a.) why the response caused you to modify your viewpoint or b.) why the response was not enough to make you change your viewpoint, and (most importantly) WHY. You don't do this, though, instead you just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and fucking over again. I mean, I know that quote from Goebbels about a lie repeated often enough becoming the truth, but I had never seen it put into action on an individual basis before, only on general terms–talking points and such. It would be impressive if you were able to better explain and support your opinions with data, as the rest of us have been doing. But you haven't, so instead you look dumb.
>SallyBut nobody is addressing what Im saying. I get lots of emotional stuff about how and why we need to protect the women, but nobody wants to address the inherent sexism of a single gender institution. If we want equality then shouldnt are actions be based on what we do not who we are. In other words if I am abused and I have no shelter to go to shouldnt I be able to go to a womens shelter, you know, considering were talking about helping victims?
>Then that should be based on the actions of the individual not the gender, right?Sure, but it's hard to tell who'll be disruptive or is an infiltrator until they actually do it, and then the damage is done. By your logic, no one should ever be protected from *likely* risks, only clear and present dangers. if I am abused and I have no shelter to go to shouldnt I be able to go to a womens shelter, you know, considering were talking about helping victims?What about the rights of the women who are already there, to safety and peace of mind and the space to recover?What about your right to a shelter that can meet your needs, which a women's shelter may not be able to do adequately?