Today, a trip down memory lane to revisit an until-recently lost classic of modern misogyny: Jay Hammers’ “The Age of Consent is Misandry.” The piece, originally published on Jay Hammers’Men’s Rights blog, inspired some heated discussions amongst MRAs online, with some harshly criticizing the piece as an apologia for pedophilia and others hailing it as a “politically incorrect” masterpiece. Stung by the criticism, Hammers ultimately took his blog down. But the piece has since been resurrected on the Human-Stupidity blog – another blog that seems rather unhealthily obsessed with the supposed injustice of men not being allowed to fuck underage girls.
Here are some of its highlights (that is, lowlights); the headlines are mine.
ALL ABOUT THE MENZ
The arbitrary age of consent is not about protecting women/girls. It is about valuing females and their virtue over males and their freedom. The intent of the laws is to stop older men from having sex with younger women and that is how it is enforced. It was never intended to stop younger men from having sex with older women.
MORE BETA BLUES
Age of consent laws are designed to punish beta males. A beta male in his 20s, unsuccessful with women his own age who are infused with a sense of feminist entitlement and deride all but the top alpha males who take interest in them, who seeks companionship with a younger, sexually mature female who desires him, should not go to prison for acting on that which is normal male sexuality.
FEMINISTS WHO SUPPORT AGE OF CONSENT LAWS ARE TREATING WOMEN LIKE CHILDREN
If we are to treat women as children then we should be consistent. Young women who have sex with older men are as much victims as women who have sex with a pick-up artist after meeting at a club. In both cases, feminists are angry because the woman has been “fooled” into having sex with a less than ideal mate in terms of value. …
This is what makes feminists angry and this is why age of consent exists still today, because it is assumed women are not mentally mature enough to give consent AND because older women want to limit men’s options to increase their own value in the sexual marketplace.
BUT WOMEN ARE CHILDREN, BASICALLY
Older women … are generally not of a much higher intelligence level than teenage girls. The big difference between the two is that older women are less attractive and that is what makes them so damn angry. …
Females generally do not significantly mature mentally past puberty so it should always be illegal for any woman to have sex or it should never be illegal for any woman to have sex. There is no arbitrary age where females suddenly become self-aware, realizing the consequences of their actions, and stop seeking out alpha males. Thus there must not be an arbitrary age of consent for sex.
A MODEST PROPOSAL
If anything, it should be illegal for women to have sex with men until men have been educated on the truths of women, Marriage 2.0, Game, feminism, and men’s rights.
Discuss?
Kave: With a caveat I agree with you. Those who take advantage of those who can’t meaningfully consent, are wrong.
The grey area is in that phrase, Meaningfully consent. I was a teen in Calif. I spent a lot of time in Arizona. Legally I was allowed to have sex in one place, but not another (and if someone who knew that had said, ‘gee, I really like you, let’s go to Arizona where it’s legal for you to consent… that violates the Mann Act, transportation of a minor across state lines for immoral purposes).
But somewhere shy of 18 I was able to give informed consent. The law (reasonably) doesn’t allow for case by case determination (because that would let pretty much everyone off the hook for all but the most egregious cases…. effectively moving the age of consent down to about 14, and letting NWO’s, “Pure Love” defense be used to allow adults to exploit people who didn’t know better).
Brett: I’ve been in lots of social interactions (conventions, working Renassaince Faires, church functions, clubs based on interest, etc.) where adults and non-adults were in regular contact.
I’m pretty sure I’ve been at the beach, park, mall, grocery store, and had passing interactions with 16-18 year olds; some of whom I might have mistaken for being a bit older than they were.
As a result of that I’ve had relationships (in both directions) which were outside the bounds of the SRC (at 18 I was dating a woman who was in her thirties, at 33 I was seeing someone who was 21). It’s a nice guide (the former was a fiasco, the latter was pretty good, it lasted a decade), but as with any mechanistic system has problems in application. Honestly, the worst relationships I’ve had were women close to my age.
Which isn’t that I think an age gap is a good thing. The difference in the really bad relationships was that those women thought had some objectification issues. They saw me as providing things to the relationship. So long as the things (emotional, spiritual, financial, what have you) were consonant to their needs, all was well. As soon as they weren’t (or the desired things changed) it was over.
I agree, it’s more common for people in one’s experiential range to be more likely to treat one as a person, than a provider of things, I don’t think there is a formula which neatly ties it all up.
ngz3120: The issue here (your rants) is that you have a litmus test. Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is misandrist. The least deviation = oppression of men; in a systemic way.
Call oneself a feminist, and boom… one is a misandrist because, “feminism requires it”.
So yes, no one can point you to a site/book/paper which is written by someone who identifies as feminist; which you won’t say is misandrist: because someone, somewhere, somewhen, will have said somehhing which gets your panties in a twist, and therefore any topic on which they agree with the basic premise of some laws/customs/cultural norms (i.e. the patriarchy hurts men too) is as nothing to you.
You want no fellow-travellers, only dedicated revolutionaries.
Which is what makes you a bigot. It’s also what makes you misogynist (which isn’t the same as your bigotry).
It’s also a huge part of the reason the MRA movement is unable to get anything done. They insist on an ideological purity to make Mao, or Stalin, blush. The leat idea that any woman, anywhere might have a legitimate right to think about something which might be seen to disadvantage some man, somewhere = Misandry!!!!!, and she must be shouted down, mocked, and otherwise abused.
If man doesn’t agree with you, or worse, sides with a feminist… he’s a traitor, less than a man, a snivelling worm, brainwashed by women. That, or he’s a slave to the pussy, pretending to think women are the equal of men, just to get laid. Those men are pathetic.
Anyone who doesn’t agree is… a misandrist too.
So places like Rossey, fools like Derbyshire, fora like the Spearhead are toxic swamps of bile and hatred. When someone who thinks there might be some aspects of things which could be better they take a look and they find fools like you, and Meller, and all the rest, and they go elsewhere.
Just look at how you say, Jill = feminist leader, but The top-posters at the Spearhead are just guys with opinions (that’s the argument you make when you say Dave is cherry-picking).
THat’s a double standard. It’s hypocritic practice. It makes you look foolish (or mendacious). It hurts your cause.
DKM (with his call to kill/enslave women) is as much a leader of the MRM as Jezebel/Jill/Amanda Marcotte. Accept it, and deal with the schemndricks in your midst. Then you might have some success.
Perhaps those who identify with Humbert Humbert’s “blame the victim” mentality view his subjective narration as objective truth.
Pecunium
MOST feminists support gender apartheid in services, compassion and law for abuse victims on the basis of gender, so most feminists are misandrists, most are blissfully unaware that their bigotry is what it is, because it has been labeled good and justified through lies. And that’s the reason why such a buring hatred for feminism is growing, and you guys compound it by mocking the backlash and the abuse victims you seek to keep marginalized.
I’m not stretching the definition of misandry at all. This site is personified by misandry and misandry apologism.
Your argument against the push for equal rights, awareness and compassion for abuse victims of female abusers, the falsely accused, fathers, husbands and male students is based entirely on pretending the misogynist and angry commentary by abuse victims on a few websites is what its all about while excusing equal, opposite, and often worse attitudes on most feminist websites, oppression of male victims and protection of female abusers and support for gender apartheid in law and services is the norm, on feminist sites.
Here is a challenge for you, David or any of the rest of the peanut gallery here at the Colosseum.
Construct ONE argument against men’s rights that does not depend on fallacious argument I mentioned above or a similar fallacy.
And for the entertainment of the manboobz and the peanut gallery – two men self immolate in protest of the feminist system. ROTFL!
http://www.articlesaboutmen.com/2010/06/man-who-set-himself-on-fire-dies-another-family-law-victim-911/
http://www.avoiceformen.com/2011/06/18/the-indifference-to-male-pain/
There are likely angry comments in the comments sections from men, which of course means that any sort of advocacy for this man or others trapped in similar situations or criticism of governance feminisms family law is invalid, like totally.
I picked up this quote from Dr. Tara Palmatier
“Once society sees men as human, the feminist ideologues will begin to have an uphill ride. This is why they resist acknowledging the fact that men are just as human as women and have feelings that are just as capable of being hurt.”
That’s all its going to take. And this site, the biggest feminist feminist site on the net, is based on mocking and oppressing abuse victims on the basis that they are male, is an indelible look into the misandric heart of feminism.
I’m not actually debating with you here, so I might not even respond to whatever strawman and false allegations of abuse that you come back with. I know the minds here are closed by ideology and politically correct hate. I’m publicly stating what you are and what you stand for and how you will be viewed in the future.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what is meant by “begging the question.”
I’m off to garden. But this should be great.
“Here is a challenge for you, David or any of the rest of the peanut gallery here at the Colosseum.
Construct ONE argument against men’s rights that does not depend on fallacious argument I mentioned above or a similar fallacy.”
The only problem with you little challenge ngz3120 is that no one here is actually arguing against men’s rights in any way shape or form, except perhaps in your mind.
*your
ngz3120:Your argument against the push for equal rights, awareness and compassion for abuse victims of female abusers, the falsely accused, fathers, husbands and male students
My what? Please show me what you think I’ve said that is an argument against those things. Because you’ve just created a strawman (and in a very clever move have put it offstage… you don’t show what I’ve said, you just say I’ve made such an argument, no citiation, no quotation… nothing to actually rebut.. just the imputation that I said some terrible thing).
Construct ONE argument against men’s rights that does not depend on fallacious argument I mentioned above or a similar fallacy. What fallacies have you mentioned? Not what things you believe to be false, but actual errors in logic?
But I won’t pick up that gauntlet. Your subsequent comment† (and previous argument) make it plain you have a religious belief in the oppression of men. You quotation (from
The bit about the man who killed himself in Australia is tragic. It’s awful. It’s also not quite the thing you think it is. Are you arguing that he was killed by “feminism”. If you want to go there, you won’t like the comparison. Since you linked to it I have to ask if you agree with this quotation from it,”Heffernon claims that Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon, a longtime misandrist with vocal sexist ideologies against men, needs to accept that the Federal government should be doing more to prevent so many of our young men committing suicide. “With Australia experiencing gender genocide unparalelled in our history” he says, “we need real genuine leadership in mens health and a parity in health spending in order to reverse this alarming but often ignored tragedy.”
Because really.. Gender Genocide: An organised campaign to kill men… that’s what Heffernon accused the Australian Government of doing. I particularly like, the, “unparalleled in our history”, which is true, I suppose, if you figure the actually organised killing of Aboriginal People in Australia was gender neutral, and that (somehow) all Australian males who die by suicide are 1: doing so as a result of “the feminist agenda” and 2: it is being actively sponsored by the Gov’t. (that, by the way is actually full of actual fallacies in logic, in addition to it’s patent nonsense).
But any group which seriously makes such claims… is going to have a hard time being taken seriously.
Your quotation from Dr. Palmatier is amusing… in that sad sort of way one is amused when someone attempts something known to be beyond them, in that it’s a paraphrase of a feminist truism, and is contains a logical fallacy (the fallacy of many questions). It presumes that feminists (some of whom are men) don’t see men as human. This is patently false. It also assumes feminists are in favor of equality, but desire dominance.
This is also false. That equality of the sexes removes men from being in charge is true. That this reduces the superiority of men is true. That some (perhaps even most) men will dislike this a lot is true. That many of those men will whine and stamp their feet and say it isn’t fair that Jane gets to do everything they used to be able to do, and sometimes they don’t get to do it at all… well that’s the MRM in a nutshell.
†I’m not actually debating with you here, so I might not even respond to whatever strawman and false allegations of abuse that you come back with.
ngz3129: I’m not actually debating with you here, so I might not even respond to whatever strawman and false allegations of abuse that you come back with.
In English that means… if you respond with something I can’t refute, I’ll just sit here and home and pretend it’s all strawmen and lies… later I’ll be able to just say I didn’t bother with it, because it was wrong.
Oops…. that was, of course, to ngz 3120… I made a typo.
@Pecunium,
Yeah, that does seem to be an MRA thing: make a bunch of bald assertions, then claim “I’m not here to debate with you.” Someone on Ozymandias’ blog said the same thing, then made a lame attempt to argue before flouncing.
Say what you want about NWOslave, but at least he sticks around to try to argue before flouncing. In his case, I’m not sure if that’s a good or a bad thing.
“In English that means… if you respond with something I can’t refute, I’ll just sit here and home and pretend it’s all strawmen and lies… later I’ll be able to just say I didn’t bother with it, because it was wrong.”
No it just means that I know that manboobz reader have roughly two responses.
Deferring to the Spearhead comments section fallacy, angry abuse victim fallacy, and/or some false insinuation or allegation about rape or abuse of some kind.
And there is little point in refuting a group of what amounts to internet bullies, all making variations of the same fallacious arguments, you just hang around hoping some marginalized abuse victim who is sick of the lies and false allegations here will turn up so that you mock them and use the spearhead comments section fallacy to dismiss them and justify the apartheid in compassion, law and services that they are angry about in the first place.
That pretty much defines this publications and its regulars arguments against the entire men’s movement, fathers rights, abuse victims inclusion and everything else it stands for, which they in reality know nothing about except what they are told by manboobz and thats all they want to hear. That and the cultural norm of mocking and marginalization of men that need help, that feminism claims to stand against but in practice has made a widespread internet game out if it,.
“what about teh mens”
As I said before, this site is just a modern day Colosseum where people gather to laugh at the pain of others and then you scoff when people express their contempt for you because of the way you behave.
Here’s the read of that Dr. T quote.
“Two years ago, I published an article titled, “Men Have Emotions, Women Don’t Listen.” It’s one of my most trafficked posts, in large part due to the number of women who disagreed with the fact that men have emotions and women who wanted to point out why women’s feelings are more important than men’s.”
Long story short, you’re assholes.
@ngz3120
So wait, we’re all evil bullies sitting around waiting for trolls… sorry, I meant “some marginalized abuse victim…” to wander by so we can all attack them like the big meanies we are? I dunno, we generally don’t have to wait for them to drop by, they seem drawn to us like moths to a flame. And they tend to leave in a metaphorically similar fashion.
I’ve just walked by, so what exactly is your point, ngz? That we’re just big bullies? Why bother coming here then? You don’t seem keen on dropping by the spear head to tell them how wrong and mean they are. Do you have an issue you’re discuss? Or are you just here to pick a fight?
“You and your followers jump up and down with glee every time you find a marginalized abuse victim that is losing it and venting so you can say “look, this is why we should marginalize the advocates for marginalize abuse victims”.”
noogz, no one has to marginalize the MRM, or the MRAs who comprise it. They do a fine job of marginalizing themselves with their own wacky brand of paranoia, hatred, and denial of easily observable truth.
There are good, important men’s issues that the MRM could give voice to and try to effect change in, if they hadn’t done such a fine job of marginalizing themselves. Shame.
@ngz3120
You’re asking something they’re not capable of. Women don’t think like men. They’ve equated equality before the law into being mentally, intellectually, emotionally and morally equal in ability to men.
Imagine if a woman had done this, (I know, never gonna happen. Women’s love of self is far too great, self sacrifice is anethema to them). But just for the sake of arguement say it did happen. Women the world over would be screaming about oppression, yadda, yadda. You are not like them, that’s as far as their thought process goes. A woman’s solipsism is fed on a daily basis.
When we look back at the suffragettes, (the name implying suffering). They were the same pampered princesses we have today. They were so bored with the nothingness of their lives, their lack of ability, they decided to call it oppression. With their all consuming narcissisism ruling their emotions they deduced the reason women accomplish nothing is because of oppression.
They all proclaim to be these great science believers, yet if you mention their nature they scream sexist or the ever faithful oppression. On the off chance any of them adhere to any faith what do we see? Well they dress up in their little barbie dresses, power on the beauty aids, and preach about the greatness of women. The “faith” they claim to believe in is just a vehicle to preach about their own greatness. God is like an afterthought, (if even mentioned) in their pro-woman sermons.
Women love the State and the State loves women. They just can’t have enough saftey nets and you can never praise them enough. This man dying means zilch to them. Worse, they’ll try to connect it to some form of make believe woman’s suffering, (Now you know what women have faced in the past), or some other such nonsense.
Someone up there mentioned MRAs being ineffective. Which of course isn’t true, they just can’t stand that men as individuals accomplish what they as an entire gender along with State laws, media endorsement and corporate money achieved. It mortifies them, when men, thru suffering and death, achieve equality before the law which was handed to them.
You can never convince them that women aren’t eternal victims. You can’t feed them victimology enough. And no matter what you, as a man suffers it will never matter. You are not like them. Their thinking revolves around themselves. When they look in the mirror then look at someone else; if you don’t match what they see, (gender), you don’t matter. Women think inwardly, (circular). Men think outwardly, (linear).
They could of course prove me wrong. The State loves them, the media loves them, corporations love them. One shrill word by any womans group will have the entire world scrambling to meet their needs and hush their cries. So will that happen? Not a chance. They love the privilege, entitlements and praise lavished upon they with unending regularity. They will not give that up and the State, media and corporations will support their every whim because they gain money and power by doing so. Every man IS an island.
NWO, if I gave you a whole stack of bondage porn mags, would you actually GO to an island? With no Internet access? And stay there?
Hey, Subby, learn something.
suffrage: late 14c., “prayers or pleas on behalf of another,” from O.Fr. suffrage (13c.), from M.L. suffragium, from L. suffragium “support, vote, right of voting,” from suffragari “lend support, vote for someone,” from sub “under” (see sub-) + fragor “crash, din, shouts (as of approval),” related to frangere “to break” (see fraction). The meaning “right to vote” is first found in the U.S. Constitution, 1787.
“…yet if you mention their nature…”
[citation needed]
“This man dying means zilch to them.”
[citation needed]
“Someone up there mentioned MRAs being ineffective. Which of course isn’t true, they just can’t stand that men as individuals accomplish what they as an entire gender along with State laws, media endorsement and corporate money achieved. It mortifies them, when men, thru suffering and death, achieve equality before the law which was handed to them.”
[citation needed][citation needed][citation needed]
“Women think inwardly, (circular). Men think outwardly, (linear).”
[citation needed]
You don’t seem keen on dropping by the spear head to tell them how wrong and mean they are. (Kirby)
Funny thing, I got banned from a voiceformen the first day.
Or are you just here to pick a fight?(Kirby)
Some days I do, I guess that is part of my dysfunction. Not to different than laughing at other people’s dysfunction though. Birds of a feather I guess.
Hi Kirby
“So wait, we’re all evil bullies sitting around waiting for trolls… sorry, I meant “some marginalized abuse victim…” to wander by so we can all attack them like the big meanies we are? I dunno, we generally don’t have to wait for them to drop by, they seem drawn to us like moths to a flame. And they tend to leave in a metaphorically similar fashion.”
Yes this is what the site is about.
“I’ve just walked by, so what exactly is your point, ngz? That we’re just big bullies? Why bother coming here then? You don’t seem keen on dropping by the spear head to tell them how wrong and mean they are. Do you have an issue you’re discuss? Or are you just here to pick a fight?”
The point is that you’re assholes. I’ve already published what I think of what you do for entertainment. Why bother coming here? to publish out straight ,what you are about which is laughing at abuse victims and misogynists created by abuse and using them to negatively stereotype all awareness and activism on behalf of men, fathers, abuse victims, legal and compassionate inequalities etc…. feminists confirming their own stereotypes.
Why should I drop round to tell the damaged individuals in the comments section of the spearhead to tell them how wrong they are? I don’t hang around there too much. Why don’t you police misandry in your movement, if that’s the thing to do?
No I don’t come here to pick a fight, I just come to remind you of what you are and what you are about – oppressing mens rights and marginalized abuse victims with the manboobz spearhead comments section and angry abuse victim fallacy, for entertainment. When I’m being an asshole, I expect to get called on it, don’t be so surprised that someone might come here and call you on it.
Here, if you ever change your minds about the willful ignorance and the manboobz spearhead comments section and /or angry marginalized abuse victim fallacies,you can get an understanding of what it is exactly that you are opposing here.
http://masculism.ca/
ngz: care to actually link to that piece?
Care to actually make an argument?
Because you are doing what you accuse us of doing. I’ve asked some specific questions. I’ve addressed exactly the evidence you presented. Care to defend it?
You are making insulting comment,and then saying all we are is bullies. If the Spearhead (with it’s handy metric of up/down voting) is such a poor representation of the MRM, please, show me someplace which isn’t full of whiny twits who can’t keep themselves from being appalling examples of my sex. I’d like to find more places which talk about the difficulties of making a fair and equitable society.
But the only one’s that seem to actually try… you say are intrinsically unfair, “misandrist” to use your words.
Then people like MRAL (with his PUA/Greek System), and NWO, and EWME, and Meller,and T4T, and Annit, and you come in here and say, “you are all Man Hating Apologists, and believe everything St. Dworkin said: all men are rapists (which is more a Brownmiller sort of thing, but hey… what’s a pesky thing like a fact, you all believe it, so what’s it matter if I’m wrong about who said it?) and you want to see Women Rule The World While MEN SUFFER!@!!!!.
Then you say, “I’m not here to debate you, because you are all wrong, and hate men and don’t look at the facts”.
And then you wonder why no one listens to to you.
So, please, show us these reasonable people. Show us the blogs which aren’t like the ones on the sidebar (there is a much longer list than just the Spearhead,
The Pigman Cometh tells a whopper in his present toppost… alleging that a woman scheduled to be released as part of a systematic (i.e. with no choice on the part of the State of Texas) will be the first US serial killer to be released.
This is a lie. Not that she won’t be the first (if it happens; it hasn’t yet) but because the system was supposed to release a man a few years ago, and the same sort of exception people are trying to get done now, was done then.
In short, she is being treated just the same as the man. No Pussy-Pass involved. Then there’s this thing of his which is indescribable.
Or, “Boycott American Women” (the short version, “American Women Suck, they want to be treated like people”.
Or… well the entire list is right there. All it would take is one… just one, which wasn’t full of misogynistic crap, to take a lot of the sting out of our claims… but I defy you to find one. Maybe you are better at this than I am, but I’ve tried (I know; you don’t believe me… I’m a feminist, so I wouldn’t know a non-misogynist from a hole in the ground, anyone who says, “men deserve equal rights” gets a swift kick in the goolies while I laugh, knowing I just have to tell the cops he insulted a woman’s right to dominate men, which gets me a mangina pass).
But go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me a site which isn’t inhabited by people who talk in ways that lead one to believe they hate women. I dare you.
NWO: English, is it your mother tongue? A dictionary… can you use one?
Suffrage (not Sufferage) is the right to vote. A Suffragette was a woman seeing that right.
Wow… just wow. It’s homophonic, but do you really think that when someone says, “That was dearly bought”, the object in question was paid for with a dead animal? It sounds the same, right?
noogz: You know what, though? You think this is entertainment for us. And in some cases — and for some people who come here — of course it is. But for women, the shit that David posts here is deeply personal. These are people who HATE US for being women. If you can’t understand why it would interest women to know the types of stereotypes, misconceptions, hatred, and bullshit ideas that are entrenched in a certain misogynistic mindset — or why it’s helpful to poke holes in “logic” that purports to set out “manly, logical reasons” why you, a woman, are less than a person — then you’re even more stupid than you look.
You’re an asshole regardless.
NWO: They could of course prove me wrong.
And we have, repeatedly (often on the same subject, because you keep using the same bad logic, with the same bad examples).
But you don’t listen. If I were like you I’d say this was a flaw in your nature (being a man and all) but no, I think it’s just you.