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.
@ darksidecat
“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. ”
Several fallacies here. 1) I wasn’t talking about women’s forums but feminist forums. And feminists are or claim to be the authority on gender issues. Feminists claim to want true equality. If so then they MUST be open to issues of both genders or they have no credibility in that claim. Your demand to keep men’s issues away from feminists is evidence for an attempt to silence and ultimately oppress them. The other fallacy is that it reveals yet again the us vs them mentality that I pointed out above.
“Try not trolling, not pretending the privileged group is the oppressed group,”
Again, you’re turning it into a competition for sympathy. And who’s more oppressed, like I said above, depends less on gender and more on how you fit your gender role. That you think women are more oppressed across the whole spectrum is just your subjective opinion or a function of your own experience perhaps or it’s just a means to win the upper hand in the sympathy competition.
@Laura
““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.”
Ad hominam nr.4
@ Kribywarp
“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…”
Ad hominem nr5.
I’m not obligated to reply within a certain time am I? Perhaps I live in a different time zone to you. Terribly sorry for that.
How exactly does one respond to someone’s anger that you have the choice not to be their house servant/fuck toy?
I wonder if this individual goes to MRA sites to complain about the feminist basing.Somehow I doubt it. Also, why is it feminist’s job to try make some headway with MRA’s when most of what I’ve seen about them is saying feminism should end or was never needed.
They seem literally like the KKK to the black civil rights movement. Ask the NAACP to work with the KKK, don’t see it happening. A good number of MRA positions on women’s rights are the exactly opposite of feminists.
You are not likely to see an article on an mra site that doesn’t disparage feminism. Why exactly are feminists expected to give them respect they obviously do not give to women in general nor feminists(men or women).
That’s all very well, anit, but irrelevant. If mens’ lives are to change for the better, then men have to do it. It is not within the power of feminists to change the lives of men if they don’t want that change.
And MRA’s don’t. They’re about reinforcing the existing power imbalance between genders… not only that, but they want to take away the few advantages that women do have in our male-dominated society. And MRA’s take no responsibility for improving the lives of men; rather, they blame all of mens’ problems on women (or feminists). So… no. There is no reason to treat their concerns as legitimate until they accept responsibility for their own lives.
“I wonder if this individual goes to MRA sites to complain about the feminist basing.”
No. I complain about misogyny at MRA sites. But this point was about someone else’s claim to not care what my position is, not about any claim that I made.
I agree that MRAs tend to go pretty nuts about feminists and certainly overrate their importance. But that doesn’t mean they’re all wrong about feminists.
The biggest opposition to men’s rights comes from patriarchs really but unlike what most people think, those patriarchs often call themselves feminists. You can spot them when they deny that men could need any kind of sympathy or lobby as a gender. Why? Because they obviously like the arrangement of men protecting women and seeing them collectively as helpless victims – i.e. patriarchy. In other words, they refuse to see women as their equals.
Typically both sides tend to see me as a member of the other (radical) side. To me, that means I’m probably on the right track.
Anit also seems unclear on the concept of Ad Hominem For example, I don’t believe Laura’s response would be an Ad Hominem fallacy because she actually accepted the validity of Ion’s argument (that one can advocate men’s rights without being a misogynist). Her reference was to Ion’s past behavior and whether he would be a good candidate for being this sort of MRA based on his behavior. There may be problems with this argument (i.e., whether an analysis on Ion’s past behaviors really proves this or not), but Ad Hominem is not one of them.
“If mens’ lives are to change for the better, then men have to do it. It is not within the power of feminists to change the lives of men if they don’t want that change.”
That is true. The problem is that feminists often hinder men’s rights activists. Try setting up a men’s group in a university and you’ll have feminists attacking you for under mining women’s rights.
“They’re [MRAs] about reinforcing the existing power imbalance between genders”
This is definitely not true. Why do you think they’re so hostile if they think the existing power imbalance was ok?
“… not only that, but they want to take away the few advantages that women do have in our male-dominated society.”
Why should women have advantages? If we’re equal and just as capable, then nobody needs any advantages. So you might say, women have fewer advantages than men, but that is again only a subjective view and it does not justify keeping imbalance when we see it. Otherwise we have an arms race of advantages – and the same old gender war continues.
Ah, I see that Laura was addressing Anit, not Ion. That muddies the waters a bit.
@ Captain Bathrobe
It was I who asked if one can imagine an MRA who is genuingely for equality. When Laura quoted MY question and responded to it, I naturally assumed the response was directed towards me and thought the word “lon” was just a typo. If so, then that was definitely an ad hominem but perhaps Laura can clear that up for us.
Ok my last comment was answered before I finished typing it. Sorry for cloggin up.
@anit:
You aren’t required to respond in time. I posted less than 10 minutes after you, so I figured you would have stuck around. Pay no mind to my yammerings.
Pay attention to this; you are annoying at best, and tone/concern trolling at worst. You are coming here with a straight face and claiming you know exactly what us feminists feel, think, and how we act. And then you say that we are the ones not interested in evidence or in equality. While you make some statements that I (and perhaps others) agree with, you cover it in a big heap of conceit and bull.
And so I’m gonna pull a fast one here: you claim feminists often make the mistake of pitting one gender over the other. I ask, where’s your evidence? You claim that feminist forums simply will not hear about men’s rights issues. Where is your evidence? (Yes, you can derail a feminist topic thread by mentioning men’s rights. Not every science thread should talk about evolution, so not every feminist thread should talk about men) If you’re just gonna sit here and wax philosophic about how all us feminists are just as bad as MRAs, and how feminism is about putting women above men because you say so, don’t be suprised if you get ignored rather quickly.
(Side note: saying that feminist men are not actually here to empower women, and you really are so you should know.. Urk, the self-importance… its blinding!)
“Ah, the phenomenon that many feminists are men. My experience is that many of them are not really interested in genuinely empowering women.”
I beg your pardon?
“Since I am, I easily spot the frauds.”
You are what? A fraud? No argument there.
“In fact, they have shifted feminism away from women’s empowerment and towards a new version of patriarchy – a kind of political chivalry.”
Uh huh. No.
“That imbalance is probably just an expression of the imbalance in sexual selection.”
Now this just doesn’t make any sense, were you just trying to get some big words in there at the end?
anit: I appreciate that you’re trying to strike a sort of balance here, but “everyone is unreasonable” is not a balance. From personal experience, we know to be wary of anyone who claims “I don’t agree with anyone’s position.”
Especially when you say things like this:
Coming onto a feminist site and telling us what feminists think is a great way to convince us you don’t know what you’re talking about. Especially when you’re saying “feminists only want equality when it benefits them! They like the patriarchy if it helps them!”
We’ve heard it all–“feminists support the men-only draft!” “Feminists want women to always get custody of the children!” “Feminists want to be able to hit men and not get hit back!” or whatever. Pro tip: Ask us. We’re real, honest-to-goodness feminists, and we’re happy to share our actual opinions.
anit, she’s not saying that we won’t or don’t discuss male circumcision (just as an example of an issue). What she is saying is that every time we try to discuss FGM (continuing with the example) someone comes in and starts complaining that we are discussing FGM instead of discussing male circumcision. It’s not that we don’t talk about male circumcision, but a post discussing FGM is neither the time nor the place for it. We have a word for that behavior, it’s called derailing.
anit: Wow… that’s clever, you responded to my pointing out that you tu quoqued the board by… accusing me of tu quoqueing you. I’ll give you points for brass.
But my comments were substantive replies. I said you were engaging in logical fallacies. At that point I have replied. I have said you arguments are unsound in form, that as a result of the structural failings they were without support.
You are saying, “You need to be more accepting of what MRA groups say, because the way you talk hurts their feelings and reduces the odds of meaningful dialogue”. That’s the concern trolling.
And it’s nonsense. When someone goes to them, and talks reasonably, they get shouted down, insulted, even threatened. So saying the mockery in places like this is only hindering the free flow of bonhomie which ought to exist between two groups with the same avowed ends… is ludicrous.
The definitions in play may have the same “words” but they don’t have the same meanings. When a feminist says they support equal rights they actually have some support for their claim. Title IX is gender neutral. Equal pay for equal work is gender neutral. Advocating that gender disparity in the workplace be rectified isn’t, “gender neutral” but it is dealing with a systemic inequity.
Mens Rights Activists saying women need to realise they aren’t as capable as men, or that only when women stop insisting they are every bit as entitled to things as men will their be peace between the genders… that’s not about equality.
Calling it a movement meant to restore equality doesn’t make it so. First they’d have to show the inequality, then they’d have to actually be arguing for equality. They haven’t, and they aren’t.
So the concern trolling/tone argument is just that, trolling. As such the claims dependent on it fail.
And “tu quoque” is fail again. Not only that, but the claim you are trying to make (that places like this are as bad as an MRA site) are nonsensical. No one here is saying that the MRA sorts are trying to do things they aren’t. MRA sites are shaming people who make the slightest argument that women aren’t evil; in the least little bit. That’s what this post shows. Go look at the upvote/downvote ratios on the comments at Spearhead. The ones which say all women are evil… huge upvotes, minimal downvotes.
Look at the, “evil feminist sites”. Eyeball the commenters. Look at how many men are there. Look at the actual discussions. Note that when something really egregious gets said, in a top post, there are regulars who will disagree with parts of it. Note that it’s both male and female. Note that they aren’t pilloried in the same way.
Note that in those places there are regular commenters who are in active dissent. So long as they aren’t foaming at the mouth with incoherent rages (a la NWOslave) they get tolerably decent treatment. I’d like to them to get better treatment, but even in cases like MRAL, where I think there is a fair bit of unwarranted insult, the reactions aren’t 1: monolithic, and 2: aren’t consistent. People who have been rude to him, have also (in later posts) been not rude, even compassionate.
I don’t see that in the MRA sites. It might be confirmation bias, but I don’t think so. I’ve got a lot of practice in coping wth my own biases, and with sifting data. MRA sites are, so far as I can tell, toxic swamps of women hating people, engaged in echo-chamber reinforcement of all the wrongs which have been done to them, and the least evidence of any “harm” to a man is touted as 1: proof there is a conspiracy, and 2: proof that the thing they are bitching about was part of that conspiracy. No husband is ever shown as being wrong.
Some, whom one might expect to be shown as the “rare” case of a man losing it without reason (murder suicides) are held up as examples of “What women drive men to do”. Sorry. I’m a man. I have more control than that. I am not some robotic automaton, incapable of making my own decisions, driven by nothing more than mix of hormones and rage; stimulated by the existence of pretty women to irresistible lusts, and then to unquenchable rage.
Is it possible to advocate for, “men’s rights” and not be a misogynist. Yes. That, however, doesn’t mean that just saying one is advocating for “men’s rights” makes one such a person. That depends on the idea of rights, and what the ideas of equity being argued are. The same is true for women’s rights. It’s quite possible for a person arguing for women’s rights to be in favor of conditions which aren’t equal.
In those cases the people involved aren’t actually arguing for what they claim to be arguing.
Please be specific as to what the arguments which caused “the hate” are. You are using value-neutral words, but that doesn’t mean you are talking about value neutral arguments.
And, you did move the goalposts. When someone answers your question, and you respond that a different question wasn’t answered, that’s moving the goalposts.
Ah, I see. So feminists are OK to bash but not MRA’s. Why not just bash supposed misandry then and not MRA bashing, since feminist bashing is an A-OK activity not worthy of your complaint.
And feminists are “all wrong” about Mra’S by your assertion.
anit, Feminists don’t have to hinder Men’s Rights Activists. MRAs seem to be hindering themselves just fine without our help.
anit: This one demanded to be separate, because it’s 1: so common, and 2: you made a point of how you didn’t do it.
On Moving Goalposts:
Picking out individual venting-comments and displaying them here as representative of MRAs.
Interesting strategy to get approval from feminists but not the strategy of a truth seeker. (btw, that’s a form of ad hominem. Hard to say if it’s personal attack, bor circumstantial)
Asked what you thought ought to be representative of that group (thus answering the only question you posed)
Show us a mra website, thread, forum which you would imagine the mra should be.
Your response was: 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, you are always going to find a lot who are just venting. They’ve been hurt and they found a place where they can let that anger run free.
1: You said it was unfair to judge the MRA’s based on those groups Dave points out.
2: Kave gave you the benefit of the doubt, and said, “OK, show us the groups which don’t do that.”
3: You replied, “Oh, well those groups that do it are justified.
That’s Moving the goalposts.
CPT Bathrobe: Correct. Saying a person is wrong isn’t, per se, ad hominem. In this case the answer can’tbe ad hominem, because it was directly to the question asked.
Had Laura said, “It can’t be you Ion, because you think N’ synch is a lousy band” that would be ad hominem, since the attributed failing (dislike of a band) isn’t germane to the question.
Had Ion said the response lacked evidence; that it was mere assertion, then the claim of fallacy would be correct.
Lack of support is a weak fallacy, in that it’s not proof a position is wrong, just that it’s vagrant (i.e. it has no visible means of support)
I was afraid of that. I have a comment with too many links. Anit: should Dave have better things to do that spend his Saturday moderating this discussion (a situation devoutly to be wished) be aware I have a comment pending on the way you move goalposts.
Ok, first of all please try to read what I write properly before trying to refute something I perhaps didn’t even say.
@ kirbywarp
“You are coming here with a straight face and claiming you know exactly what us feminists feel, think, and how we act.”
Where do I claim to know what feminists feel?
“And then you say that we are the ones not interested in evidence or in equality.”
Who is “we”? Feminists? Or just you kirby?
“you claim feminists often make the mistake of pitting one gender over the other. I ask, where’s your evidence?”
I gave one example above for how feminists often perceive any call for attention to men’s rights as an attack on women’s rights. Another example is how any mention of men’s issues is very often met with a “well they did it to themselves” response. Fortunately we haven’t had hat here yet, but it is typical nonetheless, not to mention outright hateful.
“You claim that feminist forums simply will not hear about men’s rights issues. Where is your evidence?
I suggested twice already that you find out for yourself. After all, your own experience you surely trust more than my word, don’t you?
“Side note: saying that feminist men are not actually here to empower women, and you really are so you should know.. Urk, the self-importance… its blinding!”
I didn’t say that. I was referring specifically to those who are fraud feminists. You may say of me that I exaggerated the size of that subset but not that I ever claimed that it included every male feminist. As soon as you start distorting somebody’s statements to make them more ‘attackable’, then you should start to ask yourself why.
@ Snowy
“You are what? A fraud? No argument there.”
Ad hominem nr.6
In what way am I a fraud? Don’t quote me out of context and pretend to not know what I was really saying. Terrible manners. You know exactly that “I am” was describing myself as someone genuinely seeking the empowerment of women. Even if you didn’t know then, now you do.
@ katz
“From personal experience, we know to be wary of anyone who claims “I don’t agree with anyone’s position.””
Don’t misquote me please. What’s with all the sudden straw man arguments flooding in everybody? Just because I don’t agree with feminists or MRAs doesn’t mean I share nobody’s position. And who’s “we” in that sentence above anyway?
“Coming onto a feminist site and telling us what feminists think is a great way to convince us you don’t know what you’re talking about. ”
Again, I never said that.
“Especially when you’re saying “feminists only want equality when it benefits them! They like the patriarchy if it helps them!””
I should start numbering the misquotes and straw man attacks too. Let’s call this misquote nr. 3 and straw man nr. 3
@ briget
“What she is saying is that every time we try to discuss FGM (continuing with the example) someone comes in and starts complaining that we are discussing FGM instead of discussing male circumcision. It’s not that we don’t talk about male circumcision, but a post discussing FGM is neither the time nor the place for it. We have a word for that behavior, it’s called derailing.”
Don’t know who “she” is here but doesn’t matter. Well, in all fairness, why can’t we just discuss GM as a problem that affects both genders? Even if one is affected far more than the other, singling one out and excluding the other is creating an us-vs-them battle for sympathy again. I agree that it’s kind of stupid to try to disrupt a discussion about FGM with MGM, but it leads to the question as to why they weren’t included in the first place? If we try to get rid of one, then why not the other along with it? Are MGM not bad enough? If so, then when is GM bad enough to justify being included?
My position: Any form of mutilation is the absolute pits – especially when done to someone who cannot consent. There is no “not bad enough” case. We have to get rid of that wretched practice no matter who it’s done to and no matter how small the procedure supposedly is. If I had to choose which gender should be helped first, then I would have to say girls, but not being a sexist, I just don’t see the need to choose.
Besides, judging on how much one gender suffers from something like that is kind of difficult and absurd really. How could a man know how severe FGM is and likewise, how could a woman understand the extent of harm done by MGM? Why anyone would even start thinking in those terms is beyond me.
“@ kirbywarp
“You are coming here with a straight face and claiming you know exactly what us feminists feel, think, and how we act.”
Where do I claim to know what feminists feel?”
Heh. I guess you don’t have a problem with saying the other two then?
“Who is “we”? Feminists? Or just you kirby? ”
Oh snap, what a ferocious comeback, totally answering my query. I don’t know how ever I shall manage. For someone obsessed with ad hominems, well, do I need to finish?
You have touted your experience on other blogs as an example of how feminists react to mens rights. So whats the problem in asking for your experience? I have no interest in going to another blog for the sole purpose of acting like a dick.
Also, since I have not once seen a comment here, nor elsewhere, approaching a “they did it to themselves” attitude, forgive me if I treat your assertion that its “typical” with half a grain of salt.
Finally, with the fraud thing. Yeah, you haven’t said every male feminist is a fraud (note that I didn’t say “every” either). Is there one example of a fraud here? If not, why bring it up except in a vain attempt to make you look superior? Its like MRAL touting his IQ all over again.
Ahahaha yes you are a sexist, anit. You reveal more of that every time you post.
I see that a whole load more comments have appeared before I finished typing the last one. Please understand that, when for every coment I make, a handfull of others come addressing me, that I cannot deal with all of them. If I miss one, or if you feel I haven’t answered something sufficiently, then let me know but please remind me exactly what it was you wanted answered since I can’t always remember who said what when arguing with ten people at the same time, most of whom are determined to label me with some discrediting name.
“How could a man know how severe FGM is and likewise, how could a woman understand the extent of harm done by MGM?”
anit, by that logic, how could anyone understand the severity of FGM or MGM that hasn’t had it done to them?
But really, the answer to the question is simple: We can try to understand the severity of FGM or MGM by listening to the experiences of people who have dealt with it.