MRAs and MGTOWers are, as you might have guessed, some pretty acronym-happy people. And one of their favorite acronyms — besides those two – is NAWALT, which stands for “Not All Women Are Like That.” This is a phrase often uttered by people who are not misogynist assholes in response to things said about women by people who are misogynist assholes. Apparently many MRAs and MGTOWers hear this so often that they’ve turned it into a running gag, the “joke” being that in their minds all women really ARE like that.
Now W.F. Price of The Spearhead has caused a tempest in the teapot that is the manosphere by admitting that, in fact, not all women are like that:
We all know that there are good women out there, including some who comment here, in our families, at work and in neighborhoods all over the land, so why shouldn’t we listen to women who tell us this is the case?
Now, Price has not suddenly become a feminist or anything. Indeed he went on to argue that even if not all women are horrible monsters,
a lot of them are, and we have no assurance that the nice girl who is smiling and saying she loves you won’t at some point destroy your life. …
If somebody handed you a revolver with three loaded chambers and three empty ones and said, “go ahead and aim this at your head and pull the trigger — not all the chambers are loaded,” would you go along with the suggestion? Of course not. It would be sheer folly.
And, oh, it goes on. Blah blah blah, men, don’t get married. Blah blah blah, and you good ladies out there better give up some of your rights – sorry, advantages — because the bad ladies abuse them and pretty soon no man will want to marry any of you:
[T]hose women who really “aren’t like that”… are less likely to find a man willing to marry them, and more likely to be used and abandoned at the first hint of commitment. Society at large is increasingly skeptical about the virtues of women, and the word is bubbling up from the grass roots that women are a risky proposition. …
Until the laws are reformed and some balance is restored to relationships, men who care at all about their lives will have no choice but to regard any woman he becomes involved with as a loaded gun pointed straight at him.
So, yeah, this is the same old W.F. Price we know and don’t love.
On The Spearhead itself, the dissenters were at least generally polite. “Nah, sorry Mr Price,” wrote oddsock. “Your well written post cuts no ice with me. All women are like that.” Herbal Essence also challenged Price’s math:
The argument needs to be rejected because nearly all women are enabling the behavior of the worst of them. And nearly all women stand, arms akimbo, as a bloc to preserve female superiority. ..
[I]t’s time that men take off their rose-colored glasses and realize that nearly all women are waging a war against us. For god sakes, our own mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters support the female hive mind over their own flesh and blood. (us.)
Over on MGTOWforums.com, the judgment was a little harsher. The commenter calling himself fairi5fair reacted as though Price had lopped off his own dick and announced his engagement to the ghost of Andrea Dworkin.
W. F. Price is just a daisy-picking mangina with a chip on his shoulder imo. Even the woman MRA I knew was probably just using it as a slick way to trap a nesting male.
Bottom line: if words are coming out of a woman’s mouth, she’s a lying cunt. Mr. Price probably wants to believe in some romantic fairytale because he just got divorced and wants pussy again, and doesn’t want to face the reality of his options.
Yes, Mr. Price, you’re going to get your sorry ass handed to you again if you keep thinking with your dick and your heart. Use the brain, moron. Next!
Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.
Anit –
I asked a question to you yesterday and I presume that you have been off in the real world doing real world things, which is why you haven’t responded…but I now have another quesiton to add to my first. You just mentioned in your previous post that when you were talking about the self-sacrifice of men, people wrongly jumped to the conclusion that you were referring to dangerous jobs or other forms of voluntary sacrifice. I’m not a man (as I think you can guess from my name), and I have to admit, based on my experience in the world, my assumption was that the sacrifice you were referring to had to do with the jobs and other forms of volutary sacrifice (like the expectation that a man will run into a burning building, etc.). Now that I know my assumption was wrong, I am curious what sacrifices you were referring to. Please don’t take this the wrong way, I know people make sacrifices every day for a variety of reasons, but you seem to be talking about specifically male sacrifices, and I would like to know what they are.
Thank you!
anit: I’m going to sum up, because detail it failing.
1: It wasn’t a mistake. You were wrong, and you don’t like it.
2: I get that you don’t like it. It sucks to be caught in public with your pants down. It’s even worse when people point it out.
3: Your protestations that I am wrong still fail to correct your systematic failures.
4: That you don’t like how debate works isn’t my problem. You made mistakes. You not only refused to admit them (even when the nature of the mistakes were pointed out, with direct quotations, and links to the comments in question so anyone who wanted could check to see the context, and make their own assessments of the fairness, or lack thereof, in my critique).
5: You still haven’t responded to the questions asked of you; nor supported the claims you’ve made.
6: You seem to think it was personal. Get over yourself. I’d have done it for anyone.
the expectation of self sacrifice of men and, unlike people were falsely jumping to conclude, I was NOT referring to dangerous jobs or any other form of voluntary sacrifice
Ok, this may be more of a semantic question than anything, but if the sacrifice ISN’T voluntary, how is that SELF-sacrifice? Isn’t that sacrifice by an outside force/person/agency? I think we “jumped to conclude” in a way that really wasn’t much of a “jump”. As in, I’m not thinking of anything else we could possibly conclude. Please explain?
addendum: The “I didn’t see that” was an apology for saying you hadn’t responded to me. I missed that post.
You can think I am lying, but that’s neither here nor there to me.
I am not saying I missed some aspect of your arguments, and apologising for that. I said what I said, and I meant it. Anyone who cares to read it, can. They can then judge my arguments on the merits.
That’s what intellectual honesty means. It’s not about “being correct”, per se. It’s about being honest in debate, and saying what you mean.
You don’t think I did the first, and you seem to be accusing me of being false in the latter. That is also neither here nor there. What you think isn’t, when all is said and done, relevant to what I did. I was fair, or I wasn’t.
I was structurally sound, or I wasn’t.
You have a stake in this. You keep trying to defend the most recent things you say, while discarding the questions about the previous (I see you felt it more important to castigate me than to answer Dave’s comment about your accusation of his cherry-picking. Ignoring it, instead of providing proof of your claim, or admission of your error; esp when it’s been asked of you several times, doesn’t do your claims of personal honesty in this debate much good). I’d say that calls your good faith into question.
Ultimately that’s not for me to decide. The record speaks for itself, for both our sets of arguments.
“Man up” and own your words. Fly your freak-flag proudly(Pecunium)
I see how you like to respond to someone you dont agree with. Great way to debate, I think I will teach it to my kids.
@Anit: okay, this is “Lovelace” here. The fact that I didn’t give you a thorough run-down of the uses of the word “privilege” in feminist theory is not some kind of blot on my character.
I don’t owe you an education, and I don’t think heated internet debates are likely to convince anyone of anything. I also have a life outside this board.
But for what it’s worth, I actually wrote a lengthy comment explaining my understanding of male privilege, after you (falsely, I believe), accused me of patronizing you.
I also included links to a couple of interesting, well-researched columns which clarified my position.
Plymouth and I had a several-comment interchange about one of the columns, so it’s not like my response was hard to see or anything.
I know these boards move fast, but do scroll up at take a look at my comment before you misrepresent me in your synopsis of this thread.
T4T, again with the passive-aggressive shtick. You seem to think this is some form of clever response, but it’s not.
titfortat: What’s wrong with saying what one means, meaning what one says.
Are you unwilling to stand behind your words?
From the wording of you original comment about “sacrifice,” the most direct and obvious conclusion was that you were talking about voluntary self-sacrifice, as Plymouth explained.
The only example I can think of that might qualify as “forced” self-sacrifice would be the draft.
And you know what? As a woman and a feminist, I believe women should be drafted, and physically qualified women should serve in combat. That’s what equality is all about.
I also believe that the all-male draft is part of the system of male privilege.
As I explained in my earlier comment, male privilege does not mean that things are always better for men than for women–although privilege does often stack the deck in men’s favor. Male privilege is, at heart, the assumption that men are the default human beings, and that women are deviations from the norm.
This leads to a belief that men are, and should be, the ones who act, who have power, who take charge. This does not mean that it’s always better to be a man than to be a woman. It does mean that public spaces tend to center male experiences. And that’s why it’s important to have spaces–like, say, most of the feminist movement–which actually center women for a change.
I know I said I wasn’t going to engage with you, but since I’m just repeating the same arguments over and over in the hopes that you’ll actually read them, maybe this doesn’t count?
@ katz
Cry me a river.
What’s with that shaming tactic whenever somebody points out something they consider inappropriate? Are we all to accept everything that’s said and done in the world or risk getting the “cry me a river” treatment?
”I said you were responsible for all misunderstandings.”
Sure. Whenever somebody lies about what I said, it’s my responsibility when people think I said something that I never said. At least you don’t make a secret of your lack of intellectual honesty.
”We talked to MRAL for days when he called us cunts in practically every post.”
And now I’m also responsible for what some other person did who I’ve never heard of. This is just getting better and better. Oh wait, you didn’t say that. That sentence just “accidentally” typed itself between the “shut up and take it” demands.
”You don’t have a right to be understood and treated fairly.”
Never said I did (am I allowed to say that?). But you attacked me for pointing out when I’m being mischaracterized. I suppose you also deny me the right to point out mistakes in other people’s quoting of me? Katz and Pecunium – the dynamic duo. The one misquotes the opponent and the other shames them when they point it out.
I have nothing more to say to you
@ everybody
Interesting that nobody disapproves of what katz said. This is the group I’m mostly talking to: There are some who are just plain insulting, others are very biased and won’t admit it to themselves or others, and some who at least seem to genuinely want to talk honestly. NONE, however, have spoken out against katz’s attempt to shame me into silence. None have spoken out against the insults and repeated name calling. If I’d lowered myself to that standard, you’d have been all over me for it. At least be honest enough to admit that. Oh, who am I kidding.
My conclusion of this debate:
I see the same pattern here as I see among mainstream feminists. Exceptions granted, the “good” feminists who genuinely think they want equality or say they do will only condemn the sexist, bigoted radicals when asked (if at all). They will not openly confront them or voluntarily try to stop them from spreading their hatred. Quietly and perhaps unconsciously, these “good” feminists actually appreciate the radicals doing the dirty work for them so they can continue to tell themselves and others that feminism is only about equality. A cosy little arrangement.
My apologies to the possible exceptions who might be reading this.
Simone Lovelace: We are now in the Dead cat school of debate in which one is arguing not with any hope of persuading one’s interlocutor, but the audience at large.
Which means you should keep it up until you feel you can’t really benefit the people who are on the fence.
I was indeed saying that fgm is rare in the US, mostly because of the fact that it is illegal. here is an article discussing the prevelance of male circumcision by country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
Also I totally agree with what lyn said.
Well, I think that I have said everything I can think of that is (I hope!!) somewhat relevant and interesting at this point, and I’m mostly interested in seeing what other people have to say.
But it really gets my goat when people dramatically misrepresent me, deliberately or otherwise. I know it shouldn’t, especially when it’s someone like Anit, but wevs. Sigh…
I do enjoy your rules of debate. Do you mind if I share them with a friend or two on the facebooks?
Guess I must be “on the rag”, eh? Hur hur hur!!
Never heard that one before!
After quite a few years of having all but shiny, happy thoughts, concerns, contributions, etc., easily dismissed with a menses “joke”, they tend to lose their humorous lustre for a lot of women.
But maybe you don’t understand my sense of humour, as I thought my comment to your joke was fairly amusing, and so, apparently, did at least one other contributor here.
Pecunium and Johnny P.
Call me passive aggressive all you want, but just because I dont agree with you and decide to not partake in name calling does not mean you are correct. I have found through the years that when people get frustrated they usually resort to several tactics. People that have a wide grasp of language are more prone to using that as their weapon of choice. People that are not quite as verbal may be more prone to using their fists. Same shit different stink. The MRA’s tend to think they are always right when they are in the same company too. Go figure.
Pam I found something for you!
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1384
This might be funnier to me because I am a mathematician, but yeah.
@Simone,
Now that has me LMAO, even though I’m not a mathematician, because……. yeah……..exactly.
Thanx for that!!
titfortat: I didn’t call you passive aggressive. I called you a coward, there is a difference.
Simone: Feel free, I write in a public forum, so I expect it to be read. I just ask that you include a link, so that people can see the entire thing, and gain any context that might be lost in the explanation.
“Whenever I run across something this idiotic, I have to remind myself that Not All MGTOWers Are That Astoundingly Stupid. NAMGTOWATAS, for short.”
Then why is it that I can’t find a single MRA that doesn’t resort to blaming feminism/women and/or insulting them? Seriously, I read comments from self-proclaimed MRAs a lot, but I cannot recall even one time that one wasn’t a misogynist. MRAs all have the “hive mind” of bashing women while at the same time complaining about everyone bashing men (women, girls, the media, the government- you name it). And don’t get me started on the insane conspiracy theories, such as the “feminization” of government and education. They literally think the entire world is against them, even though girls and women are oppressed in many countries.
And that’s why I can’t trust MRAs.
Yuppers. That’s now being an adult works: Even if it was totally not your fault, nobody is responsible to deal with your problems except you. When Sarah Palin says that Barack Obama wants to kill handicapped children, Obama responds by explaining that’s not what he’s doing at all. He doesn’t just wank about how she’s not being fair.
You have every right to point out if someone misunderstands you. I’ll repeat that the key thing you’re failing to do is to then explain what you actually did say (or were trying to say). You would do this if you cared about the point you were trying to get across, but you don’t. You only care about proving that feminists hate you.
Nope. I was explaining that we’ve been called names and still managed to hold long, sane, often painfully polite conversations with the people doing the name-calling. You could, too, if you wanted to. You just don’t want to because you don’t really care about communicating.
I call film rights. You can have merch and the comic book.
Major premise: I told anit to stop wanking.
Minor premise: Anit thinks I’m shaming him into silence.
Conclusion: Anit knows that he’s just wanking.
Of course I’m not telling you to be quiet, Anit; quite the opposite. I’m telling you to communicate. That is, make verbal statements with content that you are trying to convey to the other person. Instead, you’ve shown up and wanked. That’s all. Get a room.
This. Is. Not. A. Debate. You are not trying to argue for anything. Pick an actual topic and then we can have an actual debate.
Can anyone here tell me which of these two statements are sexist?
“Also, it tends to be men who cause war not women.”(Poster)
“If women were the world leaders there would never be any war, just intense negotiations every 28 days.”(TitforTat)
@brigit, it depends on what counts as FGM in regards to legality. The border between FGM and IGM is not clear, however, one of the more common intersexed conditions that results in genital mutilation involves an infant with an enlarged clitoris/mircopenis and otherwise expected “female” genitalia and gonads. The question of “will an infant’s clitoris be largely or wholely removed (or compressed, which is painful and damaging as well)” can and often does rest on the question “how big is it”. So, we do have approx. one in a thousand infants receiving severe and often permanantly disabling genital surgeries in the US and a significant majority of these infants will be assigned female.
But look, my original point with MGM was to use it as an example of a legitimate problem, worthy of discussion, but one that should not be used (as it so very often is) to derail conversations about FGM or IGM, which cause much more severe physical damage. Conflating removal of the foreskin (the common meaning of the term “male circumcision”) with removal of the clitoris, sewing up of the vagina, etc. is ridiculous, but male circumcison does not have to be as bad as clitorectomy to be an issue worth discussing-it just means that it should not be a derail of FGM discussions-which was my exact point.
@plymoth, it is not disingenuous, because you responded to my original disagreement with nothing more than “read my huffpo source”. A statement with a non-credible source is not better than an uncredited statement. It would have been hypocritical had I expected sources of you but not of myself, but that is not what I did, what I did was point out that your source was not credible and therefore did not give you higher standing in an argument where no other source had been cited.
T4T: Ooh!! I know this one!! The second one is sexist.
Simone: Prima facie, yes. It depends, of course on what one means by “cause”. It could be sexist to attribute the just actions of men, in response to women, as being purely their own doing.
E.g. If Helen had just kept her legs together, and not run off with Paris, then the Trojan War would never have happened. QED, The Woman started the war, and blaming it on the men is sexist.
I hope that helped.