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?
@ngz3120:
“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.”
Consider a fight picked. Well, that is, if you decide to make any actual claims.. Fighting about how not mean and not marginalizing we are seems rather like convincing slavey that the Rothschilds [sic] don’t control the world.
How about this though; have you seen the help we’ve tried to give MRAL? Sure he’s been an asshole, and we’ve been assholes back, but we’ve also tried to give him good advice, and tried to assure him that his “problems” weren’t what he thought they were. Is that us just marginalizing abuse victims?
@titfortat:
Erm, I wasn’t talking to you? So…
@Others:
Is this “colluding trolls” day? This is the first time I’ve actually se
@Holly,
I think Washington state has it perfect!
On birth control, estrogen in the water I, like Nobinayamu, had also read was more due to plastics (there are plastic “islands” in the ocean) then birth control, and I am in favour of reducing plastics.
Hrm.. Thought I deleted that last bit. Should read “Is this ‘colluding trolls’ day?”
@Alex:
That’s good to hear actually. I know a couple girls from college who didn’t want to take birth control because they were afraid of what it would do to the environment, even though it would have helped them with their cycles. Glad to know that contraception isn’t actually killing things. 😛
Oi… NGZ: I looked at that site… But I have to wonder what it is they are keeping under wraps.
This site is currently for MRA Members, Men, and Masculists ONLY!.
So… I can’t (honestly) join them. What are they hiding? Given what’s on the front page (A guy translating from, Slutese to English, How to Crazy Proof Your Life [i.e. so far as I can tell, keep the women from getting uppity], Paul Elam, Angry Harry, The “False Rape Epidemic”, etc.) I have to wonder what it is they think needs to be kept to just “The Movement”.
Because the stuff they are public about is pretty much the same as The Spearhead, which you say they are different from.
Sigh… talking about the site NGZ linked to got a comment moderated. Short version, I looked at it… it’s as bad as the spearhead, and is “members only” so one wonders what too extreme/top secret for non-MRAs to read.
It also uses shaming language (Mangina, Slut, etc.).
In short, NGZ doesn’t seem to know any better MRA places than the one’s on the sidebar.
I notice, of course, that NGO/ngz didn’t go to the piece (nor the article it links to) on the problem with sexual offender registries (which are predominately lists of men) and that I think they need a lot of work, or to be abolished (certainly in their present form).
But I’m a misandrist.
Erm, I wasn’t talking to you? So…(Kirby)
Lol, thats why its called “picking a fight”
@titfortat:
Taking offense at something that was supposed to be offensive to someone else? I.. I wish I could say this was a surprising tactic… -_-
Seriously though, I get the feeling that ngz3120 takes comments from the heat of troll-baiting and highlights those as examples of how nasty we all are, forgetting that the anger is directed at something substantial, and ignoring the similar temper fluctations on the other side. Either that or, as someone else pointed out, just being a feminist is being a misandrist, so anything we say or do in the name of feminism must equally be bad. Never mind that we’ve said over and over that men’s rights isn’t the problem, its MRAs.
Kirby: Don’t forget, they don’t hate women, just Feminists; but disliking MRAs can’t be possible without hating men.
@Pecunium:
Them’s just weasling words. Don’t you know that ALL women are feminists? Unless they form a submissive wife group or something…
it’s as bad as the spearhead, and is “members only” so one wonders what too extreme/top secret for non-MRAs to read.
Hey, I think we may have discovered the location of the top-top seekrit non-misogynistic MRM website that MRA’s keep talking about but no one else ever sees!
I just think it’s really fitting that the main image on ngz’s website is a screaming baby.
@theLaplaceDemon
“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]
Here the UN on women, (law)
http://search.un.org/search?ie=utf8&site=un_org&output=xml_no_dtd&client=UN_Website_en&num=10&lr=lang_en&proxystylesheet=UN_Website_en&oe=utf8&q=women
The Rockefeller foundation on women, (corporations)
http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/search/?q=women
Roundtable: Weiner Under Fire, Watch intellectual women call men shit and be praised for it. Such courage. (media)
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/weiner-scandal-victory-women-leaders/story?id=13822969
@ngz3120…You see? All the links in the world don’t matter. You’ve given links, I give links, it means nothing. You don’t match what they see in the mirror. I think in Australia there trying to pass a “law” about justifiable homicide for “oppressed” women. As if it’s not already an unspoken rule. But they want it enshrined in “law.” They want to be able to kill a man and be backed by the State. The proof of their oppression will be whatever they “feel” is true. Of course they’ll scream for a citation, but why bother. Women have gotten off for murdering their hubby’s before on their word.
When it comes to men’s suffering or death, or unfair treatment at the hands of women, these acedemia giants are suddenly ignorant of any such law. I mean if you can steal, cheat, lie and even kill with virtual impugnity, do you really think they want to give that up? What courage does it take to do anything if you’ll be praised no matter what? They love the status quo. When anything you do is praised or forgiven by the State, media and corporations, it’s not likely women will give all that up. And no matter how much men suffer daily, theres a strawwoman somewhere in the ficticious past, who suffered more.
@NWO:
What exactly are those links showing? The first two are search results, and the second is on a political scandal involving a stalker… Perhaps you could explain your rationale before we immediately dismiss your links in a misandric fashion?
Just glancing at the responses.
Conflating me and what I’m saying with NWO slave claims about the Rothschild? That not really an argument.
Someone asked me to provide evidence that the men’s movement and advocacy against gender apartheid in compassion, law and services is not defined and invalidated by the comments section of the Spearhead comments section. That’s not really a serious question at all. Go find the answer yourself.
There is a circular nature to the question you should consider
man has abusive second wave feminist mother, marries another abusive woman, calls the police because of her abuse, they arrest him, she files for divorce, makes a false allegation of abuse, takes his children his house and breaks the business that he runs,he ends up nearly homeless, cant afford C/S and the courts want to put him in prison for it…. he nearly loses him mind and finds one of the only places where he can go, the Spearhead and he vents against women, against the system against feminism. The feminism picks up his comments, which break the taboo of speaking ill of women or their bad behaviour, the culture that excuses and facilitates it and feminism…. and uses them and his pain to argue against his advocates and for entertainment while blatantly ignoring the circumstances, abuses and inequalities that lead to him losing his mind in the first place. Compassion apartheid. Men that need help are to be mocked, especially on Manboobz. What about teh mens lol!
Someone said I’m doing what I’m accusing manboobz regulars of doing. I don’t believe that I gather on a site specifically designed to mock people that need help and negatively stereotype advocacy and awareness for the inequalities that are causing their problems, this is the only site I know of where that happens and I dont agree with it.
Someone else said that seeing the misogyny is personal, “seeing hate for women because they are women”. That works both ways, try being an abuse victim who is excluded by the feminist system because of their gender, and laughed at because they are the wrong gender, or have to see 1000s of feminist laughing “what about teh menz” all over the net. Man hating is much more common than woman hating, its seen as fun. Your comment reminds me of what Dr T said
““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.”
Someone else asked for Dr Ts piece, here it is – http://shrink4men.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/men-have-emotions-women-dont-listen/
Kirby: Don’t forget, they don’t hate women, just Feminists; but disliking MRAs can’t be possible without hating men.(Pecunium)
Hate is a pretty strong word. I reserve that for a very select few. Now, as far as disliking several thought patterns expressed here…………well you know.
@ngz3120:
“man has abusive second wave feminist mother, marries another abusive woman, calls the police because of her abuse, they arrest him, she files for divorce, makes a false allegation of abuse, takes his children his house and breaks the business that he runs,he ends up nearly homeless, cant afford C/S and the courts want to put him in prison for it…. he nearly loses him mind and finds one of the only places where he can go, the Spearhead and he vents against women, against the system against feminism. The feminism picks up his comments, which break the taboo of speaking ill of women or their bad behaviour, the culture that excuses and facilitates it and feminism…. and uses them and his pain to argue against his advocates and for entertainment while blatantly ignoring the circumstances, abuses and inequalities that lead to him losing his mind in the first place. Compassion apartheid. Men that need help are to be mocked, especially on Manboobz. What about teh mens lol!” [citation needed]
Seriously, do you know of any cases where this actually happens? Its fine to make hypotheticals to prove a rhetorical point. Its quite another to make hypotheticals and use it as evidence of what the world is like.
ngz: It was a serious question. Here’s the problem. You say such a place exists.
I’ve tried to find such places. I’ve failed.
You say you want to show us all how wrong we are (just look at all the work you’ve done, sacrificing your time to deal with bullies) .
Ok, show us. We’ve failed. We are not wise enough in the ways of the internet, and have failed.
You could solve this. You know where these websites. I’ve followed your link. I’ll look at the next one. But if you say a place exists… you have to show your hand.
Otherwise… you are are talking nonsense (like the offstage strawman of arguments you say I’ve made,without quoting them).
Be a grown up, own your words and show your work.
kirbywarp
Of course you’ll dismiss links that show Law, Media and Corporate favoritism, privilege and praise of women. Misandry is all pervasive, accepted and endorsed in our daily lives. Which is why I really don’t bother with links anymore. They’ll be dismissed as meaningless.
Looks like somebody’s been taking Peter Andrew Norton (c) at his word again.
T4T: Found that statement you said I made about my “endowment” yet?
Didn’t think so.
NWO, thank you for the links.
Link #1: Yes, more search hits come up for “women” than “men.” However, that could be for several reasons. It could be that the UN doesn’t like men. Or it could be that the UN hold the position that there are more systematic abuses of human rights against women than men. Ditto for Link #2.
Please explain more clearly how you think this evidence supports your argument.
As for Link #3…I am really confused about how this fits the description you gave it. Despite using Weiner as a headline and hook, the article (which I should add is a brief ABC news write-up–hardly empirical data) is a bunch of women saying “gee, wouldn’t it be nice if our leaders actually represented the diversity of our population?” …which I fail to see a problem with.
ngz – interesting piece. I agree that many of the stereotypes about men the author lists are indeed harmful to men. However, she fails to back up any of her assertions (with the exception of the”who uses more words per day” debate, hardly the central focus of her argument).
@NWO:
So.. the fact that there are more hits for women then for men show favoritism in Law, Media, and the Corporate world? Couldn’t you have said that in the first place?
And honestly? Not very compelling. A lot of the issues that come up (violence against women, illiteracy, and so forth) are legitimate issues in the world. I don’t find it surprising that there are more hits in that sense. I don’t see how how this is misandry. You are operating under the assumption that problems for women don’t exist, and therefore these two organizations are focusing on nothing. But here’s a hyptothetical: lets pretend (for fun!) that there is actually a gender disparity, and that women are actually opressed. Would you expect more organizations dedicated to helping women, or less? Would you expect more focus by international groups on women, or less?
These links don’t show what you want them to show.
I’m going to reverse the standard manboobz question that I was asked.
Provide proof that the manboobz spearhead comments section/angry marginalized abuse victim fallacy invalidates all creating awareness and advocacy for gender apartheid is compassion, law and services?
For example, how does the manboobz spearhead comments section/angry marginalized abuse victim fallacy invalidate, fathers rights, advocacy for victims of female pedophiles, creating awareness of the false accusation epidemic (1 in 10 report being falsely accused http://www.saveservices.org/false-allegations-awareness-month/survey-results/ ), changing the feminist abuse system to something that’s inclusive and non discriminatory or campaigning for equality in compassion and an end to mocking men that need help?
Show me how the manboobz spearhead comments section/angry marginalized abuse victim fallacy invalidates a campaigning against the feminist/state system that is leading to many suicides and now self immolation?
Because that’s the whole sites premise.