Categories
misogyny MRA oppressed men the spearhead violence against men/women

>On The Spearhead, demanding child support is a “provocation,” and beating a woman’s face in is “justice.”

>

A little over a week ago, a Florida man in the midst of a divorce hearing, apparently upset that he would have to pay child support, reportedly snapped and brutally attacked his wife, leaving her, as one account of the incident notes, “with two black eyes, broken facial bones and split lips.” (You can see the extent of her injuries here.) He’s now being held on felony battery charges. The woman had previously tried to get a restraining order against her husband, but apparently couldn’t convince the court he was dangerous enough to warrant it.

On The Spearhead, sadly but unsurprisingly, it’s the alleged attacker, Paul Gonzalez, who is getting the sympathy. W.F. Price, the site’s head honcho, weighed in on the subject yesterday. In his mind, apparently, the demand that Gonzalez actually provide some financial support for his two children was a provocation of sorts, which led him, as a Marine veteran, to “react … as warriors sometimes do in response to provocation — violently.”

At this point, we know very few details about the case. But that didn’t stop Price from opining confidently on what he imagines are injustices perpetrated against the poor alleged attacker:
What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft. … We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual), and the visitation quite meager. Add to that the fact that his wife was already living with another man, despite having so recently given birth to Mr. Gonzalez’s daughter, and the situation must have seemed absolutely upside-down to the former marine. It was upside down. His wife is obviously a little tramp who has no problem swinging from one dick to another even while raising two babies, and there she was about to get rewarded with an upgrade in lifestyle while the chump father loses his kids and wallet. That’s why Mr. Gonzalez lost it. 
Price does acknowledge, in a cursory way, that “beating your wife is always a bad idea” — though he seems less bothered by the beating than by the fact that in this case the divorcing wife “gets to go on camera making herself out to be a poor, innocent little victim. I highly doubt this woman is innocent.”

The commenters to Price’s article rallied around the alleged attacker. In a comment that got three times as many upvotes as downvotes from Spearhead readers, Greyghost celebrated Gonzalez as something of a hero:

I need to send that guy a prison christmas package. He was getting screwed and struck out. To bad he never heard of the spearhead. If about 10 to 15 percent of crapped on fathers did this kind of thing with some murders mixed in there the talk about fathers would sound a lot like the talk when the subject is islam.

 Piercedhead offered this take:

Gonzalez may well have been overwhelmed by the realization that being innocent of all his wife’s false accusations made little difference to this fate – he still got treated as if he was worthless. In that case, might as well match the penalty with the appropriate deed… 
If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature.


That’s right: bashing a woman’s face in is a kind of “justice.” Naturally enough, this being The Spearhead, this comment garnered (at last count) 56 upvotes from readers, and only 2 downvotes. 
Mananon, meanwhile, suggested that the alleged attack had:
something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?


DCM, even more bluntly, described Gonzalez as:


a brave man and a hero. 
There will be more and more of these incidents and it will be a long time before women are seen as responsible for them — which they are. …
It will be men who can’t take it any more who will ignite change.


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) — yes, that’s how he writes his name — took it a step further, saying that: 
the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM.
Every one of these quotes, with the exception of Nolan’s, garnered at least a dozen upvotes from Spearhead readers. (Nolan’s comment so far has gotten no upvotes or downvotes.)
What sort of comment on this case will get you downvoted by the Spearheaders? One like this:

Wow! Nothing justifies violence. I wonder who will care for the baby while the mother recovers. Or doesn’t that matter? 
What a coward. Mad at the judge, goes after a woman. 
Actually advocating murder, no sweat. Suggesting that violence is wrong and worrying about the welfare of the children, outrageous!

If you liked 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.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

310 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
*THASF*
10 years ago

>"Consider that the next time you want to try and feel special by asking 'provocative questions,' and consider that you might not in fact be a brilliant philosopher, but just an annoying ass."Ahh, to be so young. So annoying! I love it! 😀 Let me revel in it for a moment. Okay, I'm good.Wait, you said something very interesting. You said I wanted to try and feel special. I think you're on to something there. I mean, isn't that what these two individuals wanted when they got married? To each feel special in their own way?I think that wanting to feel special or unique is just another part of human nature. In fact, that's one of the drawbacks of the gene therapy program I delineated. If everybody's so special, then nobody is special. That's sure to create some unwanted tension!As an aspiring author, these themes interest me greatly. However, I didn't want to write a book if the result was just going to be some kind of heavy-handed and didactic treatise on "the utopia I think suits us best". That would just be so much bile. I think that it's difficult to be as self-absorbed as I am and yet have a balanced point of view, so I came in here and started acting like an annoying brat so everyone could knock me down a peg. I did it so that I could see precisely where I was wrong, and integrate that knowledge into my work.In a way, we are similar. We both enjoy a little bit of bantering because it keeps our wits sharp.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Ginmar-you are lashing out. You are making assumptions about people and their intentions in what they are writing and following up those assumptions by making comments that are, quite frankly, out of line.It is one thing to disagree with a person, it is another to do what you are doing which is snarling at anyone who is not instantly in compliance with your views.David has stated he is very open with his comment policy and you are taking full advantage of it to insult, denigrate and "bite back" at people who merely disagree with you.Since I know that you know that Lady V, David, Amused and myself are not anti-feminists or misogynists, I cannot fathom why you attack those who agree with you 95% of the time.

Common Nonsense
10 years ago

>Y'know, my dad is more than happy to pay child support and has done so for the last three years or so. I'm guessing it's because he actually likes his kids. Kind of a crazy notion, I know. It's not as if the money goes straight to our mother–it's funneled right back out into groceries and other necessities. I can't imagine my dad's the only one like this, so I'm trying to figure out why some MRAs believe that people like my dad are in such an extreme minority.

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

>*THASF* said: I think that it's difficult to be as self-absorbed as I am and yet have a balanced point of view, so I came in here and started acting like an annoying brat so everyone could knock me down a peg. I did it so that I could see precisely where I was wrong, and integrate that knowledge into my work.Jesus Christ, who are you? Scott Adams?

cboye
10 years ago

>Whether you think it's ethical or not, science will advance until mankind feels it necessary to use its technology to engineer a "perfect" human. It's not a question of if, only when. When they do that, who's to say that they won't mandate that everyone uses such technology to improve their own offspring?Aaand this is why nothing good happens when you stay home and learn all your philosophy from the Internet.

cboye
10 years ago

>And ginmar is, IMO, acting way out of line. The "all groups of men are misogynists" comment was uncalled for and the subsequent lashing out at everyone who disagreed has been completely unreasonable.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>"Jesus Christ, who are you? Scott Adams?"Nope. Heck, to be honest, I never really "got" Dilbert. I only ever found a couple of those to actually be funny."Aaand this is why nothing good happens when you stay home and learn all your philosophy from the Internet."People will delude themselves of just about anything. Some people think that an invisible dude in the sky created everyone and everything. Some people think that an alien warlord shuttled a bunch of alien folks on spaceplanes (that incidentally looked like engine-less Douglas DC-8s) to Earth and murdered them by stickin' em in the tops of volcanoes and dropping nukes on their heads, and that their ghosts haunt us to this day, forcing us to "audit" them out with a fake lie detector.I think that science and technology will one day cure humanity of all its ills, once computers are powerful enough and smart enough to improve themselves at an exponential rate.And I'm the weirdo? Wonderful.

Ymata
10 years ago

>Delurking for a sec to say that THASF said he thinks that society will eventually become one where eugenics is commonplace, a la Gattaca. He did not say that he thinks eugenics should be commonplace.He is clearly pretty ignorant about feminism and ableism etc, and is probably unaware of the impact that what he says may have on readers. That doesn't make it okay for him to say those things, but I don't think it's appropriate to rebut him as you would someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

Avicenna
10 years ago

>Ymata – Eugenics of a sort is commonplace. A lot of modern eugenic theory is about birth control and abortion of defective foetuses with screened IVF and adoption taking the place of diseases we think should be reduced in frequency. I have a friend with PKD (polycystic kidney disease) who won't have children since there is a 50% chance of them getting the disease. It's called "laissez faire" eugenics and is part of the feminist arsenal under the name of "reproductive rights". The correct eugenic model encourages race mixing since "the ideal human race consists of genetic variation since variation is strength". Ginmar…I think you would be the reason for my "I want women to have equal rights but I am not a feminist" line. Being associated with your lashing out would be detrimental to some of the work I do. Oh I work on women who have suffered far worse than most western women today. Like having your face melted off because you got raped kind of mistreatment or being set on fire because you didn't pay a dowry.Combat PTSD is treated by the VA mainly because "they are the ones with access to Veterans". Women tended to not suffer from combat PTSD until recently since most didn't have combat roles and most originally came from the medical corps. It's hard to get PTSD as a radar operator or as a logistics officer and all the other traditional jobs women tended to do in the army. The current war changed all that with more and more women taking up combat roles. Women also tend to not seek help for it as much as men becoming reclusive and "misanthropic" making it hard to do any work on their condition because they lash out at everyone else. In which world do you think Army training does not produce violent people? If your CO tells you to salute squirrels you salute the goddamn squirrels till he tells you to stop and if he tells you to shoot "that guy over there" you do it. That is how armies work. Are you seriously suggesting that a trend of abuse in PTSD suffering individuals from the army is due to all of them being arseholes or frustration driven? Normally nice humans suddenly become reclusive and verbally/physically abusive after a post in a war zone. It's the PTSD's fault. And as I keep telling you. No person with Combat PTSD accepts PTSD as a reason for abusing someone. Most are horrified that they have done it and try and spend inordinate amounts of time working on stopping it. They show more angst than the collective audience of a Fall Out Boy concert.

Lady Victoria von Syrus

>so I came in here and started acting like an annoying brat so everyone could knock me down a peg.One day, I hope you grow up enough to realize why that was something wrong to do.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>Ginmar, the reason I made that crack about you claiming to speak for all women is that you said my comment policy was the reason “why women are reluctant to come here and more reluctant to hit any of those 'like' buttons."” Which sounded to me like you were presuming to tell me how “women” – that is, all of them — thought on this issue. Which would be presumptuous on your part, and also not true. As for the rest, disagree with me if you want about my comment policy, or about “men in groups” being inherently misogynistic or not, but don’t just make shit up about what I’ve said, like: “So your argument is that women never face harassment ever online, at all, and that all groups of men are hunky dory and wonderful?”What part of “I have a blog criticizing misogyny” do you not get? What part of me saying that women online “do get harassed, all the time, much more often than men do. There are a lot of hateful misogynist assholes online” do you not get? What part of “there are many male-dominated groups that are. as you say, "swamps of misogyny”” do you not get? Beyond that, I agree wholeheartedly with the latest comments from Elizabeth and cboye. I’m not sure why you’re doing this.

flewellyn
10 years ago

>Since I know that you know that Lady V, David, Amused and myself are not anti-feminists or misogynists, I cannot fathom why you attack those who agree with you 95% of the time. I can't speak for Ginmar, but perhaps this will help: Ginmar's objections on this thread (aside from those directed at THASF, which seem shared by everyone) are aimed at the notion that Gonzalez's behavior can be excused, or explained, by him being a combat veteran with PTSD.Ginmar is a combat veteran with PTSD.*Does that make her objections fathomable?*I betray no confidence in saying this, she's quite open about the fact.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>"Delurking for a sec to say that THASF said he thinks that society will eventually become one where eugenics is commonplace, a la Gattaca. He did not say that he thinks eugenics should be commonplace."Exactly. I was not talking about what should be done, only about what might be done. After all, it's only one of many possible courses that humanity could take."He is clearly pretty ignorant about feminism and ableism etc, and is probably unaware of the impact that what he says may have on readers. That doesn't make it okay for him to say those things, but I don't think it's appropriate to rebut him as you would someone who actually knows what they're talking about."Ignorant? No, not exactly. Insensitive? Perhaps.Believe me, I've very, very deeply contemplated what it's like to be a woman. I've had autogynephilia since I was twelve. No joke. When I walk out on the streets, I think to myself "gee, I sure feel safe because of these big huge muscles". I'm 228 pounds and built like a heavyweight boxer. I have the luxury of walking around and not worrying about being victimized.When I pictured what it's like to be a woman, the first thing I noticed was that there is always a constant, subtle threat of violence, rape and intimidation projected from the male side. As a thought experiment, I pictured myself in a conversation with a male as a woman, and I realized that I was careful to choose words that sounded inoffensive, like I was dealing with a grizzly bear that could pound my ass flat into the ground in about two seconds. The constant, subtle threat of violence – whether real or imaginary – shaped every aspect of my psyche. I wanted to be more accommodating to others. I wanted to comply, lest I be harmed. I realized that this affected every single role that a woman could possibly take in society. As a politician, as a team leader, or as a member of the military. I was horrified to picture myself in a woman's shoes, because I realized just how hard it is to fill those shoes!That is exactly what MRAs are so afraid of. They're afraid of being made to feel like that. They have what Karen Horney described in her Neo-Freudian critiques as the "male fear of the feminine". By projecting their own views onto others, they fear that women wish to dominate and enslave them, just as they desire to dominate and enslave women.So, yes. I understand feminism. Feminism is a reasonable attempt to bring this sorry state of affairs into check. To bring men to account for their intimidation tactics, and to give women an equal standing in society where they can be free to express their views and adopt new societal roles without fear of persecution. Feminism is about women realizing their full, unrestricted potential as human beings.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>And THASF: If you're being a douchebag on purpose, please stop. And if you're being a douchebag by accident, also please stop. Before you click that "post comment" link, read back through what you wrote, and if it seems douchey, either rewrite it or just don't click "post comment" at all.

Flewellyn
10 years ago

>David, I get why you were upset by what Gin said about "any overwhelmingly male group is a swamp of misogyny". I understand why that would rankle.That does not mean your feeling upset is justified. Because, uncomfortable though this truth is, as I've explained, it is still true.Yes, if you were to gather 20 explicitly non-misogynist, feminist allied men in a group together, the likelihood is very low that that particular group would express misogyny.But in our society today, you have to go out of your way to do that! It would have to be a deliberate, focused effort to find such men and bring them together for a specific purpose. For instance, the group "Men Can Stop Rape" qualifies, very much so.Outside of such extremely rare circumstances, though, let's be honest: that does not represent the vast, vast majority of overwhelmingly-male groups in society. You get a group of 20 average men together, randomly, and at least one or two is likely to be an overt, asshole misogynist. Many of the rest will harbor latent, unexamined misogynist ideas, or at least be blind to their male privilege. If you are lucky, you'll find one or two who are genuinely enlightened and understand the hows and whys of patriarchal society and its wrongs. They might even speak up if things started getting particularly "swampy". But group dynamics being what they are, how will that likely play out? You can probably imagine. Hell, you probably don't have to.You're taking exception to Ginmar's statement which applies probabilistically, as though it were a logical absolute. Reality is not an existence proof, alright? And this song ain't about you.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>What is it about this blog that attracts people who dominate comment threads and make them not worth reading? If it's not NWOslave it's Ion. And now if it's not either of them it's THASF.Why can't we have nice things?

*THASF*
10 years ago

>"And THASF: If you're being a douchebag on purpose, please stop. And if you're being a douchebag by accident, also please stop. Before you click that "post comment" link, read back through what you wrote, and if it seems douchey, either rewrite it or just don't click "post comment" at all."I've done my best to remain polite and respectful, and I get cussed out and ganged up on by virtually everyone, just because they don't like my tone. People call me names and wishy-washy descriptors like "puerile" and "douchebag" instead of actually examining the content of my arguments. I honestly just don't get it. I know that what I'm saying is controversial, but I believe that I'm raising awareness on these issues by bringing these matters to light in no uncertain terms.

Elizabeth
10 years ago

>Because there is not enough bacon Triplantary.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>"What is it about this blog that attracts people who dominate comment threads and make them not worth reading? If it's not NWOslave it's Ion. And now if it's not either of them it's THASF.Why can't we have nice things?"You're right. Ultimately, I suppose I was trying to over-intellectualize something that is pretty plain and straightforward. This guy beat up his ex. He was wrong, and the MRAs are wrong. Case closed.On second thought, what are we all expected to do? Mope about it? Go boo-hoo to our heart's content? See, I think there's a cancer in society that needs to be eradicated. My posts are like exploratory surgery; I'm peeling back the flesh to expose the tumors underneath. It's ugly to watch. It's putrid, to be sure. But, when you look under a microscope, there's a whole wealth of knowledge there that's just waiting to be internalized. To crystallize into a greater whole. Not necessarily my own, even. Heck, I don't even have to "know" anything at all. I can be totally ignorant of the topic at hand. It's like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle. You can't see what the whole picture is like until all the pieces are in place.Like I said, I take a stone soup approach to debates. I offer up a stone, and eventually, the village has got some soup. The stone is dumb. It's mildly offensive. But it unites people. It brings them together to celebrate a common purpose.And then I sit back and watch, and I learn. That's just how I operate.

ginmar
10 years ago

>Elizabeth, I'm "lashing out" because you're a condescending ass who made several wrong assumptions about me and then delivered lectures on top of it. Are you really going to try and pretend that asking a question in this format: "Are you seriously suggesting that—-? Do you really think that—-?" is honest, an attempt at communication and not just a really bitchy way of twisting somebody's words into a strawman? Come on. And now on top of that, you're lecturing me on life in the military for women. I'm a woman. I was a soldier. I was in combat. I was injured. I lived it. Don't presume to put words in my mouth again, you condescending poseur. I don't care what you call yourself, because you're an arrogant ass who puts words in peoples' mouths and assumes she knows all. Not a feminist? Is somebody supposed to care? Sounds like you think all feminists are alike and are eager to put a label on them. And you still haven't addressed the way you put words in my mouth. Sounds like you have your mind already made up. For somebody supposedly so high minded you sure don't listen to people, which to me indicates that your high horse is extremely vertiginous indeed. Drop the shit about 'Are you seriously suggesting that—?' Again, because you're eager to misunderstand everything I say: was I subtle? YOu keep asking me the sort of questions that are loaded, rephrased to contain huge strawmen that you can demolish, and serve just one purpose: not to find out what I said, which is very clear, but to make yourself look like a morally superior human being. You're almost as much of a wanker as THASF is. Women like you are exactly why feminism has so many problems with anybody who's not some arrogant, educated, isolated do gooder. Bravo. Underneath those do-gooder boasts, you're using strawmen and trying to reframe some really frickin' simple statements. Can you even communicate without using a strawman? "Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that….?" That's not a question, that's an accusation with your interpretation of my words built in. And it's not honest and it's not what I said. You'd think you were from Shakesville or something, you're so dishonest and yet so offended at getting any taste of your own back. And at stuff I didn't say. "Are you seriously suggesting that all PTSD Sufferers are fluffy bunnies who never hurt a fly? Are you really saying that all PTSD sufferers never get violent?? How ridiculous. Of course they're violent. They're in the Army and people in the Army are a monolith, as are feminists, whose cause you have totally damaged by not rolling over and accepting my superiority." If you keep doing that to me, you can scarcely complain when I object. I especially like how you made sure you used abused acid attack victims to justify your continued dishonest hyperbole and strawmen.

David Futrelle
10 years ago

>ginmar, is it too much to ask that when you lash out at someone (and put words in their mouth) that you at least lash out at (and put words in the mouth of) the correct person?Elizabeth and Vicenna are not the same person, and neither one deserves all this shit from you. Amazingly, despite heavy competition, you've turned yourself into the biggest asshole in the thread, and I've had enough of it. Post any more shit like this, and I will delete it.

Ymata
10 years ago

>THASF:I meant that I don't think you understand how to take part in discussions in feminist spaces without saying inappropriate things. You've said a few things that many people find offensive, although that wasn't your intention, and it's probably worth your while to try and figure out why they're offensive and avoid using them here in future.You may find this helpful.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>@YmataHmm, that's very true. But, I take issue with #9. If nobody is willing to play Devil's Advocate, then what is there to argue against? How can we exercise our wits if all we do is sit around patting each other on the back all the time?

triplanetary
10 years ago

>If nobody is willing to play Devil's Advocate, then what is there to argue against? How can we exercise our wits if all we do is sit around patting each other on the back all the time?"Playing Devil's Advocate" is, 99% of the time, a polite term for trolling. It lets high school level pretentious jerkwads make incredibly stupid arguments, and then, when those arguments are torn to shreds, they can just say, "Oh ha ha, I don't actually believe that, I was just playing Devil's Advocate. LULZ!"It generally doesn't fool anyone. Please take Lady Victoria's advice and don't try to play Socrates.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>Actually, you know what? I've got an idea. Let's take apart the arguments of the MRAs quoted above, shall we?"What likely happened in that courtroom is that Gonzalez, representing himself, got the shaft."Mr. Gonzalez knew that when he impregnated her, he was going to be responsible for financially supporting their children. If he didn't want to pony up for them, he should have used contraceptives. Plain and simple."We don’t know what the child support order was, but it was probably pretty hefty (as usual)… (truncated)This Price individual uses some rather distasteful, sexist language, like "tramp". Guys can exhibit similar behavior, yet I don't see them being called tramps. Eugh.However, I must agree with the MRAs on one single point. You see, child support laws as they currently exist may potentially allow a woman to – with predatory intent – seek to become pregnant by a man in order get to his pocketbook while later abandoning all her obligations to him and to their marriage through divorce. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case, nor am I saying that that's what happens in the majority of cases. Not at all. No sir. Admittedly, I have many gaps in my knowledge about this subject. We should dig up some white papers and charts that demonstrate the economic and societal impacts of child support law and changing trends in this area.However, even taking all that into account, the possibility for abuse of the law is still there. That's the thing about game theory; you're always trying to exploit your opponent's weaknesses. It's not a thing specifically restricted to women; it's a human thing. If you create a potential for someone to abuse a given rule, they will. Humans have a tendency to take the path of least resistance, like flowing water or the shockwave from a bomb blast.But, I must disagree with the MRAs on all other counts. You know why? Because they're self-contradictory. They're a bunch of hypocrites. To an MRA, if a woman relies on a man for support, she's a "gold-digging parasite". If she joins the workforce, she's a "man-hating dyke". Honestly, what the hell? Do they expect women to be as inert as a sea sponge? There is simply no pleasing these people, so we shouldn't even try."If the courts won’t dispense justice, someone else will – it’s a law of nature."Hitting someone like that is never justified. Never ever."something to do with a warrior’s instinct for dignified self-reliance. … Strip a man of his dignity and what else is there left?"MRAs and feminists alike define marriage as though it strips women of their dignity. If that's how people think it is, then what's wrong with her getting a little of her own back?"the only bit I feel sorry about is that he did not arrange to have someone else kill her such that his chances of being caught were minimal. By doing this in the middle of the court he will be put in a cage for a long, long time. And he does not deserve to be there. HE is the VICTIM."Typical sociopathy and hate-mongering bullshit. Actually, I know real sociopaths that know better than to say crap like this.Also, as I said before, this Gonzalez does not deserve to be labeled a victim. When you take someone's hand in marriage, you're supposed to love and respect them. You're not supposed to give them a reason to want out of it. I'm going to assume that's what he did, and his violent outburst is proof of it.

candika
10 years ago

>It seems to me that if anyone is so violent, unpredictable, out of control and downright stupid as to beat their former spouse in court, in front of a judge and before who knows how many witnesses, how could you trust them with access to children? I also love the way the MRAs are making up all sorts of little stories to justify his behaviour: "He had PTSD", "She wanted too much child support", "She was emasculating him", "this is what happens when you push a marine too far", "She was just a tramp or she wouldn't have shown up with a new partner" etc, etc. All of this is speculation, they're just looking to excuse his behaviour, when there is no excuse.

cboye
10 years ago

>THASF:Okay, I'm going to examine your (previous) post in great detail, line by line. Pay close attention, because I'm only going to do this once. (Everyone else, I apologize in advance for what will inevitably be a serial post.)Your first mistake is complaining that people aren't reading your posts carefully enough or responding the way you want. No one is beholden to read or reply to anything you say.

cboye
10 years ago

>You're right. Ultimately, I suppose I was trying to over-intellectualize something that is pretty plain and straightforward.You're not over-intellectualizing anything and I really don't think that's something you need to worry about. Your philosophical detours are annoying everyone for two reasons:1. They're off topic. This is a topical blog. There are loads of general-interest message boards and blogs out there where changing the subject is tolerated or even encouraged; this is not one of them. If you want people to listen to you, respect the rules of their communities.2. You're not saying anything interesting. I happen to love philosophy, but I've actually studied it and am not interested in rehashing the weaknesses of utilitarianism or explaining that eugenics got a big PR hit in the late 30s and has been on the decline ever since. I doubt anyone else is, either.

cboye
10 years ago

>This guy beat up his ex. He was wrong, and the MRAs are wrong. Case closed.On second thought, what are we all expected to do? Mope about it? Go boo-hoo to our heart's content? See, I think there's a cancer in society that needs to be eradicated.Your problem here is that you're not good at communicating in either direction: Incoming, because the OP was talking about the MRA reaction to the event and the commenters were mostly talking about the possible causes; thus the conversation was dealing with the circumstances surrounding the event and how we think they should be addressed, not just saying that the thing that happened was terrible. And outgoing, because in the remainder of your post, you never bother to tell us what the "cancer" you mention refers to.

cboye
10 years ago

>My posts are like exploratory surgery; I'm peeling back the flesh to expose the tumors underneath. It's ugly to watch. It's putrid, to be sure.But, when you look under a microscope, there's a whole wealth of knowledge there that's just waiting to be internalized. To crystallize into a greater whole. Not necessarily my own, even. Heck, I don't even have to "know" anything at all. I can be totally ignorant of the topic at hand. It's like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle. You can't see what the whole picture is like until all the pieces are in place.And this is why David said you sound like a douchebag (David, sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth). This part is all about you and nobody, a priori, cares about you (or any other random internet denizen). And even worse, it's about the brilliance of your analytical skills.

cboye
10 years ago

>(cont'd)You seem to be claiming that you can draw amazing conclusions even if you don't know anything about the topic. This is never true. If you (or anyone) doesn't know anything about a topic, your conclusion will be ignorant, every time. (True story: In my callow youth, I once protested that nothing counts as sexism if it's against men. Why? Because I didn't know any better.)You're acting like you're making some kind of unique contribution. You aren't. (Well, I guess your particular flavor of ignorant narcissim is unique, but it hardly qualifies as a contribution.) We don't need you to crystallize our ideas into a brilliant conclusion and we don't need you to play devil's advocate–we've got plenty of MRAs who do that naturally. It should be obvious, but we have lots of great discussions here without you being present.

cboye
10 years ago

>(cont'd)So far, other than the non sequiturs, you haven't made any points or drawn any conclusions that other people didn't think of already (they may not have been stated, either because we thought they were obvious or because we knew they were wrong).Like I said, I take a stone soup approach to debates. I offer up a stone, and eventually, the village has got some soup. The stone is dumb. It's mildly offensive. But it unites people. It brings them together to celebrate a common purpose.First of all, this is a terrible metaphor and I can't abide bad metaphors. Second of all, if the common purpose you refer to is making you shut up and go away, you're doing a fantastic job; otherwise, you're failing utterly. Remember that we are not beholden to give you an audience. You have to earn the right to be listened to by being respectful, interesting, and not always focused on yourself.

cboye
10 years ago

>And then I sit back and watch, and I learn. That's just how I operate.No. You do not learn. That's the problem. You are unable to learn even very simple things. We've told you repeatedly not to post stories about yourself, and you keep doing it (which, by the way, is also not "sitting back." You can't sit back while simultaneously trying to keep yourself in the center of attention). And never say "That's just how I operate"–that's just excusing yourself from having to change your behavior.

cboye
10 years ago

>Conclusion: You don't know enough to know how little you know. That's why I called your arguments puerile: because they sound like they were made by a child. Try listening for real, not just, as counselors love to say, waiting your turn to talk. Lurk a while; some of the best comments start with "De-lurking to say…" because those posters have been paying attention. Stop acting like your contribution is really important. Instead, try assuming that everyone else is smarter than you and that it's a privilege to be allowed to comment, and act accordingly. Otherwise, I hope that David will wield the post-deleting-hammer mightily.

cboye
10 years ago

>I hereby swear on my honor as a blogger that I will never make a serial post like that again.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>"You seem to be claiming that you can draw amazing conclusions even if you don't know anything about the topic. This is never true. If you (or anyone) doesn't know anything about a topic, your conclusion will be ignorant, every time. (True story: In my callow youth, I once protested that nothing counts as sexism if it's against men. Why? Because I didn't know any better.)"No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm not saying I have super-analytical powers or that I can draw conclusions out of thin air. Hardly. Rather, what I'm saying is that I'm the one who gets the ball rolling and then lets everyone else draw the conclusions. I don't have all the pieces of the aforementioned jigsaw puzzle. I bring about five or ten pieces to the debate out of a couple hundred, and I let everyone else bring the rest so we can put the puzzle together."First of all, this is a terrible metaphor and I can't abide bad metaphors. Second of all, if the common purpose you refer to is making you shut up and go away, you're doing a fantastic job; otherwise, you're failing utterly. Remember that we are not beholden to give you an audience. You have to earn the right to be listened to by being respectful, interesting, and not always focused on yourself."I don't want an audience. I want to be the audience. Nevertheless, how can I hear what I want to hear if I don't say something provocative? "Instead, try assuming that everyone else is smarter than you and that it's a privilege to be allowed to comment, and act accordingly."You may not realize it, but this back-and-forth is filling in the gaps for me. If you're all as smart as you say, then surely I'm being bathed in a lovely smorgasbord of wisdom here?Heh, that's the one thing about the parable of stone soup that I've always found rather interesting. Some people say that it symbolizes cooperation and getting everyone to work together to realize common goals. I say it symbolizes something different; something infinitely more sinister. The dude with the stone had nothing to offer. Zilch! Nada! Zip!So what did he do? He got everyone else to pitch in. And he prospered for it, like I'm doing now.Heck, it's such a messed-up story that I'm surprised they still tell it to kids.

triplanetary
10 years ago

>I'm so close to writing a Firefox extension that blocks the display of THASF's comments.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>You guys wouldn't believe how much of a sexist my dad is. When he's not talking about how awesome John Norman's Gor books are, he's going on about how "women are smaller, weaker… blah blah blah" or "something with a vagina shouldn't be in charge" or "god made women for the pleasure of men" or "if women didn't have vaginas, there would be a bounty on them".When he's not using all that crap as an excuse for his own misbehavior, he's lashing out against "unqualified women" at his place of employment, claiming that "a twenty-something woman fresh out of college shouldn't be bossing around a bunch of fifty-year old men who are veterans of the maritime industry".I have to put up with that bullshit in my ear every time I'm around him. And do you know why? It's because I respect women. I believe that women are people. He doesn't like it very much. He wants desperately to change that about me, and I refuse to be changed.I stand against everything that makes women out to be the inferior sex, and that includes crap that makes women out to be perpetual victims. I want women to stand up. I want them to fight, and I want them to win.I'm willing to listen.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>Ahh, in the comments to that one Shakesville post, I found something that describes precisely why my debating style is rude and inappropriate. Interesting. Now I wanna read that book. The Stuff of Thought by Steven Pinker. Hmm… well, I guess I got something useful out of all this.

Kirbywarp
10 years ago

>I've only just started reading the rest of this thread, and man has it blown up.THASF:There is an easy way to detect bias, and its called evidence. Ask yourself why you sympathize with one person or the other, and if you can come up with evidence, you've got yourself a solid foundation.Why presuppose that MRAs must always defend the men, and feminists must always defend the women? Who is the party that goes for the truth?The truth is, if the genders were reversed, I (for one, and I hope others as well) would come down hard against the woman. What you are looking at is this: a man is filing for divorce from his wife, and had tried before to file for a restraining order, but didn't get one. Now he has been attacked by surprise and beaten up in court.No one in their right mind would say the woman would be in the right then, nor should anyone say the man is in the right now. Only someone who's mind has been twisted to the point where they see evil in every body else would think this way.*breathe*Righto then.

Ion
Ion
10 years ago

>Y'know, my dad is more than happy to pay child support and has done so for the last three years or so. I'm guessing it's because he actually likes his kids. Kind of a crazy notion, I know. It's not as if the money goes straight to our mother–it's funneled right back out into groceries and other necessities.Maybe it's because a lot of them watch Two and A Half Men and imagine that the situation of Charlie's brother and his ex-wife is what happens in most child support cases. For those who haven't seen the show, he is basically a well-meaning sap too weak to stand up for himself, while she is a greedy amoral gold-digger who takes him for every penny and uses his money for plastic surgeries and expensive holidays. Might not be realistic, but it's the image that sticks with a lot of people.

*THASF*
10 years ago

>@KirbywarpI agree with you 100% on this. That's precisely what I mean. To find the truth, you have to look at the evidence.If you ask me, all the evidence points to this Gonzalez individual as being a complete and utter dick.You see, it's easy to argue from my position, because I've made a grave mistake. I've robbed the situation of its historical context.Domination. Subjugation. Hundreds, nay, thousands of years of oppression leveled directly at women. Men aren't oppressed. If we were historically oppressed to the same degree as women have been for many millennia, one might just have grounds to sympathize with this man, as shaky as those grounds would inevitably be. But I can't. Honestly, nobody should. Even if you're part of an oppressed underclass, attacking an unprepared person from behind like that makes one lower than a cockroach. That's not self-defense; that's just plain wrong.Those who would sympathize with him or make excuses for his behavior are lower still. The term "pond scum" comes to mind. Actually, scratch that. Cockroaches and algae have a place in the ecosystem. What I meant to say was that they're lower than earwax.

Kirbywarp
10 years ago

>… Why do I feel like I'm having my hand shaken by a guy who isn't blinking, and whose every tooth I can see in his crazed grin?THASF, from what I gather, you can make your point in a couple sentences, without the dramatic flair. Otherwise, you sound exactly like the article you linked to earlier; like a douche.

Joe
Joe
10 years ago

>Love the Greta Christina post; thanks for passing that along THASF

Kirbywarp
10 years ago

>Actually, THASF, I've gotta agree with Joe. Greta is a great writer, very clear, and very honest. Thanks for posting that link. (Also to show I'm not trying to be your enemy)

Kirbywarp
10 years ago

>THASF:That's not… quite it. This post, for instance, is a perfect example of a good spiel that tells a story and makes your point, even if it is self-detrimental.The problem is that nobody wants to have to slog through four or five paragraphs in order to figure out what you're point is. Perhaps you should take David's earlier advice, sort of. Type out what you have to say to figure out what your point is, then edit away everything that isn't related. And perhaps, if it is still to long, some of the less important stuff that is. Try aiming for about two paragraphs at most.People may take much more kindly to you then.

Kirbywarp
10 years ago

>… By "this post" I meant yours, not mine… I should really try taking up proof reading…

Joe
Joe
10 years ago

>> Why do I do that?Maybe because you're a beginning writer and haven't learned about the critical importance of editing.

Amnesia
10 years ago

>@*THASF*You remind me of my ex-boyfriend. Specifically, you remind me of why I broke up with him.He was always so sure he was right, always trying to play 'Devil's Advocate' to get me to think, as if he thought I wasn't smart enough to think of alternatives on my own. The kind of guy you make out with just to shut him up.For all I know, you could be the smartest guy on earth, but that won't matter if nobody wants to listen to you. More words do not make a better argument.

Bee
Bee
10 years ago

>*THASF*: If the sexes were reversed, the MRAs would all be going "that filthy hag, how dare she do such a thing", and the feminists would be going "how do you like us now?"This is why you don't get to say you're aligned in any way, or sympathetic to (or however you put it 18 gazillion posts ago) feminist ideas. You clearly do not understand them. In the exact same situation, as we know it, reversed, I don't think many feminists actually would do as you say and cheer on the woman for her unwarranted act of violence against her ex. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the "unwarranted" descriptor is important. Feminists (at least the ones who write the blogs I read) generally don't laud violence qua violence. They may support a woman who defends herself physically, but I just don't see feminists taking this situation and using it as a Rorschach test of Universal Bad Male Traits. In fact, typically, as far as I've ever noticed, feminists are much less interested in discussing Universal Bad Male Traits than the kyriarchy, culture, etc.If you're really not Scott Adams, as you say, then might I suggest that you read his blog. I think you'd really dig his style–especially his loopy, uneducated philosophical theories and his unique way of defending himself against criticism. Might be a better place for you than here.