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.
@Rico:
Queen bees??? Is this some sort of new thing I haven’t heard about? Man, I must be really behind on my feminist terminology.. wait…
@anit:
Lets put aside for the moment that I hardly think you could present men’s issues in a polite manner (for long, anyway). We mock because the issues MRAs whine about either don’t exist, or exist in a very small way, or MRAs go way overboard with what you call “venting” and what we call hate speech. At least with domestic violence we can recognize a real problem.
If only MRAs and feminists were on the same side. Both organizations, the MRM and the Feminist Movement, are ostensibly about equality between the sexes, and go about it by trying to raise the status of one or the other gender. Trouble is, that puts them at odds. If you could somehow put both sexes on a single scale (an oversimplification), at this point we feminists would say that women are lower on the scale then men. We want to change this by raising women up. MRAs think feminists want to lower men down, and assert that it is actually MEN who are lower on the scale. Therefore their solution is to raise men up (and some of the more extreme want to bring women down).
Hence the problem, even more so if you take into account that the facts and history support the idea that women are lower on the scale at the moment. Thus, what you call “venting” to us looks like whining, delusional thinking, and the spread of misinformation (at best). This is why we mock.
Just log into a few feminist forums with a male avatar, and politely ask about mens issues and try to defend the need to address them.
Ah, mens issues like false rape accusations and sperm stealing and how men shouldn’t have to pay child support? Yeah, I can imagine how that went.
The real sad thing is that MRAs and feminists should have been the same organization from the start. Both have set the goal to achieve equality but both are fighting each other and turning men and women against each other.
MRAs do not want equality. They suffer from delusions of persecution for a variety of reasons, and they want to end this imaginary persecution by harrassing women.
And blogs like this only make it worse. I wish you’d realize it.
Why, it’s an MRA concern troll! I’ll have to add that one to my collection.
Also, what kirbywarp said.
Anit: That’s a combination of concern/tone trolling and tu quoque. Neither of them flies.
Add the goalpost moving (you started by saying this wasn’t a fair representation of MRAs, now it’s just a bunch of guys with manpain whining about how they don’t deserve the sort of butt-hurt they have. I don’t care which position you take, but you do have to stick with it, and either admit you were wrong [i.e. the comments being discussed here aren’t outliers] or defend it.)
As to the new argument that MRAs are talking about equality and equitable treatment for all I’d like to see how you square the tone and tenor of MRA boards with those ideas, and I’d like to see where you see congruence between feminism and MRA.
I’d also be interested in the concerns you say were met with hate and misandry.
As to the whining that blogs like this one only increase the divisive relationship between men and women… hard to credit, since the commenters here seem to be a mix of men and women. I don’t see, all things being equal that the attitude of MRAs can be made worse. Having made comments at a few of their boards, in an attempt to discuss the counter-arguments to their positions, and been met with abuse, villification, and the odd death threat (and I mean odd in the sense of ‘strange’. When I was doing journalism I got some pretty passionate ones, and when I was in the Army I got some fairly credible ones, but the stuff from the MRA boards was small beer compared to the former, and laughable compared to the latter; since there was nothing in them to make my specific ID, or location, apparent), I don’t see them as likely to get any better because of sincere engagement.
That leaves making other people aware of just how ridiculous they are; in much the same way it’s effective to stand up to a bully or to point at laugh at a flasher.
@Pecunium:
You forget yourself. Us men here are “manginas,” not “real men.” We’ve already bought into the feminist conspiracy and are now sad shells of our former selves, down on bended knee begging our women overlords for pussy. All the “real men” are going their own way.
@Pecunium:
Also, the tag fail invalidates your entire argument.
Fixed the tag fail! I am a full-service blogger.
Hrm.. Lets put this to the test then. >:)
@Johnny Pez:
Your reference to a nonexistant tag fail invalidates your entire argument.
kirbywarp: They can call me anything they like. I’m at least a beta, and maybe an alpha, so I can pour all the disdain them I like. I go my own way; that way happens to include women; women who have opinions, and attitude and like having sex with me.
As I said, I’ve been around the block a few times. I don’t care what they call me. Won’t make them any more attractive, nor any less ridiculous. If they had half a brain in their heads, and the courage God gave rabbits they’d be out there trying to figure out why it is they are unhappy, when so many other men are able to cope with the modern world’s women.
As Socrates said, “Know thyself, the unexamined life isn’t worth living”. I’ve examined mine and I’m happy with it.
That, IMO, makes me an adult. They are having playing a game of “no girlz allowed”. Fine, if they want to ape nine-year old boys, and talk about the nasty cooties girls have they can. So long as they keep the circle-jerk in the clubhouse I don’t care.
But they keep aiming it out the window of the tree house, and that’s just gross.
Thanks Dave. I hate it when that happens. I’ve been using my blog to proof things with links, but sometimes I’m lazy.
It’s a conspiracy! You’re all in on it! It’s because I’m short, isn’t it?
Johnny Pez: It’s actually because the Hive-mind is jealous of your basenji.
@Johnny Pez:
Yep. 😛
@Pecunium:
Hear hear (or is it “here here?”). I’ve read a bit about cults (in reference to Scientology) before, and one of the key parts of indoctrination is the creation of in-group lingo to separate themselves from others. Hence all the bizarre acronyms, like MGTOW, NAWALT, and insults like “mangina” or (apparently) “hampster.” It serves to alienate group members from the outside, while cementing bonds between members.
Its frustrating, because every aspect of their group becomes a further mental block in being able to deal with their problems rationally. Its probably why nearly all the MRAs who show up here sound like trolls; they are prevented from considering any sort of argument the way a troll could only dream.
It’s Hear! Hear! (from the habit in the British Parliament of calling out, from the back benches, “Hear him!, Hear him! [though in more modern times this is “Hear Her!, Hear Her! when it’s a female MP).
It calls on others to pay attention.
And well it/they should be. Bee is right; they are little cuties.
Hear hear (or is it “here here?”). I’ve read a bit about cults (in reference to Scientology) before, and one of the key parts of indoctrination is the creation of in-group lingo to separate themselves from others. Hence all the bizarre acronyms, like MGTOW, NAWALT, and insults like “mangina” or (apparently) “hampster.”
Yeah! Or, you know, “cis-gendered”, “ableism”, “bingo card”, “oppression olympics”, “mansplaining”, “douchecanoe”, “flounce” etc.
It serves to alienate group members from the outside, while cementing bonds between members.
Very true.
Lets put aside for the moment that I hardly think you could present men’s issues in a polite manner (for long, anyway). We mock because the issues MRAs whine about either don’t exist, or exist in a very small way, or MRAs go way overboard with what you call “venting” and what we call hate speech. At least with domestic violence we can recognize a real problem.
So when someone vents out of anger the proper response is to mock and insult them for it? You sound like a great friend… 😛
So when someone vents out of anger the proper response is to mock and insult them for it? You sound like a great friend…
MRAs are nobodies friends. Especially themselves.
You got it, Ion, any time anyone vents for any reason, you must mock them. That is exactly what that quote, as well as the rest of my post, was supposed to convey. -_-
Bingo card? Douchecanoe? Opression olympics? Haven’t heard these ones before. In any case, I will concede that there is a fine line between in-group lingo and jargon. The main difference between the words I cited and words like “cis-gendered”, “ablism”, and even “flounce” is that those are words meant to be used, and to be meaningful, outside of the group.
In any case, its most likely that the presence of jargon is a hint towards cultish behavior, but not sufficient for it. The MRA group, as I see it, has plenty more problems going with it than just the lingo.
@ Kirbywarp
“Lets put aside for the moment that I hardly think you could present men’s issues in a polite manner (for long, anyway). We mock because the issues MRAs whine about either don’t exist, or exist in a very small way”
This is just a subjective opinion of yours. Just because you haven’t encountered any issues or don’t see any doesn’t mean there aren’t any. There are also plenty of people who deny that jews were persecuted. Mocking them for it is only going to provoke more quarrels.
“Both organizations, the MRM and the Feminist Movement, are ostensibly about equality between the sexes, and go about it by trying to raise the status of one or the other gender.”
This is the sad mistake that both sides make: play genders against each other. What you, and most others need to learn is that neither gender will be able to emancipate without the other. Women will never be free of their gender roles until men are and vice versa. This is why the fighting over who has it worse or who’s more responsible is absurd and infantile. It’ll only make things worse, not better. But it has been my experience that both MRAs and feminists usually don’t really want things to improve. Of course they say they do, but their actions and words reveal a lust for blood rather than a desire for peace and harmony.
@ Johny Pez
“Ah, mens issues like false rape accusations and sperm stealing and how men shouldn’t have to pay child support?”
You can paint any group’s concerns as ridiculous using rhetoric like that. It’s certainly a good way to keep the quarrel going.
“MRAs do not want equality. They suffer from delusions of persecution for a variety of reasons, and they want to end this imaginary persecution by harrassing women.”
They say the same thing about feminists. I doubt both and so should anyone else who cares about the truth.
“Why, it’s an MRA concern troll!”
Sure. I’m clearly only here to cause trouble. You caught me and my secret’s out. All those vicious personal attacks must have tipped you off.
@ Pecunium
“That’s a combination of concern/tone trolling and tu quoque. Neither of them flies.”
Nice little attempt to discredit me without addressing anything I say. More subtle than most I must say.
“Add the goalpost moving”
No goalpost moving here. Conversations move across various topics at times. My position hasn’t changed. Why should it. I’ve read nothing remotely adequate to justify my changing my position.
“I don’t care which position you take”
Sure. If I’d come here applauding the MRA bashing then you’d have called me a troll nonetheless.
“As to the new argument that MRAs are talking about equality and equitable treatment for all I’d like to see how you square the tone and tenor of MRA boards with those ideas, and I’d like to see where you see congruence between feminism and MRA.”
I’ll ask a question as a response: Do you think it’s possible for somebody to advocate for men’s rights and not be a misogynist/sexist and genuinely seek equality? I’m not asking if you’ve encountered such a person yourself, just if it’s possible that they exist.
“I’d also be interested in the concerns you say were met with hate and misandry.”
The hate starts before you go into specifics. Try it. Just say you think men’s issues should be addressed too and see what happens. I’m not doing your homework for you. Experience it yourself. If you’re so right then all you risk finding is a confirmation of you being right. Win win.
“As to the whining that blogs like this one only increase the divisive relationship between men and women… hard to credit, since the commenters here seem to be a mix of men and women.”
Ah, the phenomenon that many feminists are men. My experience is that many of them are not really interested in genuinely empowering women. Since I am, I easily spot the frauds. In fact, they have shifted feminism away from women’s empowerment and towards a new version of patriarchy – a kind of political chivalry. That imbalance is probably just an expression of the imbalance in sexual selection.
Alrighty then, anit. Sure, you can find people who say Jews weren’t persecuted. But the evidence of history says otherwise. I have yet to see an MRA bring forth legitimate evidence showing that he is persecuted by some feminist conspiracy. The two sides are not equal, and trying to say they are is rather terrible form.
“This is the sad mistake that both sides make: play genders against each other.”
Trying to improve life for one gender does not automatically mean playing genders against each other, the mistake that you yourself are so loathe to make. Improving the standard of living for blacks did not reduce that of whites, and the increase of women’s rights in the past 100 years has not decreased that of men. (By the way, this is the product of the feminist movement, which you say is not trying to improve life for anyone)
Furthermore you make another equivication between the Men’s and Women’s rights movements, completely missing the point of my scale analogy. Or are you trying to suggest that both men and woman are equally oppressed by… each other? A third party?
The fact that their is wrong happening on “both sides” does not make each side equally at fault, and trying to insist such only clouds the real issues, preventing a solution from happening. Again, rather terrible form.
“Do you think it’s possible for somebody to advocate for men’s rights and not be a misogynist/sexist and genuinely seek equality?”
Yes, Ion, but that person ain’t you.
This hairy-legged queer feminazi is under the impression that while feminists would like to do away with gender roles, a good portion of MRAs and MGTOW think we should return to more traditional gender roles.
Hence their penchant for using feminizing insults towards feminist men. Clearly, women are lesser, and being a man means being not-a-woman. The idea that MRAs and MGTOW want to do away with all gender roles is pretty hard to support with evidence.
So while feminists want to free both men and women from various traditionalist constraints (like the idea that women are primarily child-caretakers and men are unsuited for caretaking, which definitely does tip the balance currently towards women getting custody) MRAs and MGTOW are not so excited about losing their role as manly men.
See, you can’t have it both ways. If we retain traditional gender roles, that emphasize aggression, strength, stoicism, and other “masculine” characteristics as important to men, and teach women to be caring, gentle, kind, subservient, then a lot of men’s issues will remain the same. Why has traditional law (NOT feminist law) believed that women should be primary caretakers? Because the “feminine” gender role seems much better suited to caretaking!
So when the MRAs give up using the feminine as an insult, embracing the possibility that we can all express various qualities of caring and strength as we choose, and embrace the idea of equal partnerships with non-subservient partners, and get on board with eliminating ALL gender roles … then MRAs and feminists can work together towards freeing people of all genders from the current kyriarchical constraints!
Nothing, anit? Have you gone already?
*sigh*
This is why arguing with trolls is ultimately useless, I guess. They couldn’t care less whether they are actually correct, and will be happy to vacate the premises as soon as they get their screed out.
I can’t get no.. satisfaction…
*ba da da dum*
I can’t get no.. satisfaction…
Douchecanoe? Must say that is a new one on me, but I like it! 😉
“Lets imagine for one moment that there was a systemic injustice towards a group of people. If some of them make a forum and try to point out and fight those injustices…”
We call those people “women” (and trans people) in this discussion, which makes your whinging in their spaces extra eggregious. Let us say that you have a good example of something shitty that happens mostly to cis men, such as infant circumcision. It is perfectly okay for you to discuss this on your own forums, or when the issue has already been raised. It is not okay for you to derail women’s forums not about the issue with it, nor is it okay for you to try and make discussions about more severe issues (such as FGM or IGM) about your less severe issue. Do you see how this works? It is sort of like how it is okay for cis heteros to discuss their relationship troubles, but not in the comment thread of a queer blog. Try not trolling, not pretending the privileged group is the oppressed group, not blowing the issue out of all proportion, and only addressing things which occur in this thing called “reality”-this will get you far better results.
@ Kirbywarp
“Sure, you can find people who say Jews weren’t persecuted. But the evidence of history says otherwise.”
Such people aren’t persuaded by evidence. Presenting it to them won’t convince them – just as with radical feminists.
“I have yet to see an MRA bring forth legitimate evidence showing that he is persecuted by some feminist conspiracy.”
There is no feminist conspiracy as such. This is one of the arguments I have with MRAs. The perceived oppression of men is more a result of collective lack of compassion rather than active intentional oppression. In other words, gender issues affecting men are more the result of people not caring enough to notice them. That doesn’t make the issues any less problematic though – perhaps more so.
“Trying to improve life for one gender does not automatically mean playing genders against each other”
Exactly. But this is one of the mistakes that feminists often make. Just even mentioning men’s issues typically results in protests by feminists who perceive it as an attack on women’s rights.
“Improving the standard of living for blacks did not reduce that of whites, and the increase of women’s rights in the past 100 years has not decreased that of men.”
Depends on what you look at. The actual liberation of women did not cause a decrease in male living standards. Liberation is good for both genders (like I said). But there are a number of feminist implemented policies that are directly pitching women against men and clearly attempt to advance women over men. Apart from being cynical, it is also stupid because it won’t solve the problem – only hide it at best and aggravate it at worst.
“Or are you trying to suggest that both men and woman are equally oppressed by… each other? A third party?”
This is a complicated one. Both are forced into gender roles. Where that comes from exactly, is hard to pinpoint. It is probably a combination of natural reproductive behavior and collective sexual selection as well as plain pragmatism. Men select women largely on the basis of looks. This forces women into the role of the carrot. Likewise women select men on the basis of performance and this forces them into the role of the work horse. It’s not conscious deliberate oppression but it is very real and it’s closely tied to the behavior of both genders. And because of that, only both genders can solve it together. This means, more than anything else, accepting that no side is solely responsible nor is any side solely the victim.
How much of a victim you are from gender oppression, interestingly, depends less on your gender and more on how badly you fit into your stereotypical gender role. For those men and women, who are happy with those gender roles, they are neither oppressed nor otherwise disadvantaged through their gender. In fact it works for them. For those who don’t fit naturally, it’s oppression – male or female doesn’t matter as much as you think. We’re far more similar than different.