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?
Someone wasn’t paying attention during the 2008 presidential primaries.
And he also isn’t paying attention now to how Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are piled on much more than their intellectual equals such as Rick Perry or Rick Santorum (though Santorum has been made suitably giggle-worthy) or any number of Tea Partyin’ men.
@NWO:
Alright, back to familiar territory here. Nothing new to see here, move along.
Though, since we’re going off topic anyway… You cited one example of what you think is proof that life is only 5000 years old. I’ve taken this to mean many things; you are religious (fits with your stance on abortion, though you never explicitely said you believe in a soul), and you are a YEC. So tell me, NWO, is this true? If so, tell me about it. I love discussing these things. If not, feel free to correct me on what you believe. I’d hate to continue to misrepresent you, especially since you never confirm or deny my accusations.
@Pecunium
“I can’t look at it that way… it’s not true.”
Than name me any area, Social, State, Education, Reproduction, Divorce, MSM, ect. where men have parity.
Please don’t say wage gap, that myth is way busted. Also women CEOs as those jobs are earned, (except for quota’s, AA, ect.). Unless you can show me the eqivilant for quota’s for men.
@Tabby Lavalamp, Women voted for the Big 0 since they make up the vast majority of Dems. It’s your Guv, your MSM. It’s all about you.
@Pecunium:
Its amazing that NWO never understands the irony behind his “hatred in, hatred out” thing.
I’m gonna try this again. Maybe it was all the extra sarcasm letters that put my comment in purgatory.
Yeah, Pecunium, look at it this way: Everything that is true is not true. The sky is tangerine. Water is dry. Heat is cold. Jeff Dunham is funny. The U.S. voting public is thoughtful.
See? Get it now?
This is adding to my theory that MRAs spend all their time yelling at feminists online, and not protesting/volunteering/etc b/c they rly do believe the feminarchy controls the entire world, and that the conspiracy stops them from doing nething productive for men’s rights. So the only way to get change is to get us (as members of the feminarchy, and some of us being their “leaders” apparently xD ) to get our mistresses (and gay male state allies) to change things XD
kirbywarp, you discount science when it doesn’t fit your ideology. I don’t. Science flat our proves incontravertibly that everyone came from 4 couples 5000 years ago. You can’t accept this, your ideology prevents you. Just as science proves men and women think differently and the reason why men invent and build pretty much everything is because they’re very good at it. You ideology says it was oppression, so thats what you must accept.
Theres really nothing I can say. Your ideology trumps scientific fact.
NWO: There is no point… you won’t believe me but…
Flag Ranks. Women are far below men, even in proportion to career members of their respective services.
CEO: The number of women in the upper management of companies is far less than that of men, even at the Assistant/Junior Vice President Level.
School administration. Women are the vast majority of instructors (at all levels), but men run departments, and are the deans/presidents/principles of schools.
Punditry. Ann Coulter gets shit for being a woman, not just for being an asshat. Rush Limbaugh/Michael Savage/Glen Beck pretty much get a pass on the way they look, act, dress, talk. She’s abused for being female. It’s despicable, esp. because a lot of the people who do it would get upset if the same were done to someone like Rachel Maddow.
The wage gap (see above about rigged dice, in Vegas, etc. Just because you don’t want to believe it don’t make it so).
Men who are half-assed fathers get praise. Women who aren’t perfect parent get scorn. Men who have families, and careers are seen as devoted, women who have families an careers are seen as heartless. Men who have families get promoted. Women are held back, “because they will quit to take care of their kids.
As to the election… don’t be so intentionally obtuse. She was talking about the way the press treated Clinton. She shed some tears and it was all about the “weak woman”, OMG… what if SOMETHING SERIOUS happens while she’s in office, she’ll just cry and the world will end”.
When Boehner started crying it was all about who manly it was that he was able to cry in public.
Once again, you are wrong, utterly.
@NWO:
Really? My ideology trumps scientific fact? I’ve rather prided myself on being able to accept something when presented with the evidence. Could you link to the thing that incontravertibly that everyone came from 4 couples 5000 years ago? Cause I could provide a bunch of evidence that holds the exact contrary. Like this one showing that the species Homo Sapiens had fossils dating back 154,000 to 160,000 years ago (much more than 5,000).
Also, where did those 4 couples come from, even if what you say is true? Did they just appear? Evolution doesn’t pop things into existance, God does. Humans evolved from previous populations of species, in a fuzzy way rather than direct.
@NWO:
I have to leave now, but I’ll be back later to discuss this with you more. You’ll have plenty of time to make your case.
NWO (Slave to ignorance). I’ve studied a lot of biology… and archeology, and geology, etc.
So… the mitochondrial bottleneck I’ve seen papers on, is a lot older than 5,000 years (more like 200,000 years ago, and that marks the divergence of the lineage which became H. sap. sap (and some are sappier than others).
Care to share with us the authors, journals, and articles which support your “4 couples, 5,000 years ago” contention.
@Kirby
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4011/4697091332_5255fdc77a.jpg
Well how do you evolutionazis explain THAT!?
My comment didn’t cross any line, the others were likely moderated because of personal attacks or blatant false allegations of rape or abuse.
It reversed your logic and the genders and the groups and exposed the flaws in your other argument, “because spearhead comments”.
I still believe that you are assholes that pretty much respond to everything with “because spearhead comments” and/or some false allegation of rape or abuse that have made a game out of mocking marginalized abuse victims (what about teh menz) with the intention of trying to invalidate all MRAs and all advocacy on behalf of men by the men’s movement…. that deliberately don’t think or look further than manboobz wants you to.
Ive never seen in all my dealing with feminist, this much blatant and persistent contempt for men that need help.
You will oppose us all including the drive that get health care support for divorcing men and then point to comments left by the men that need it as the reason we should be opposed.
@Pecunium
As I knew there was nothing you could show me.
CEOs, women are manditorily given those jobs out of gernder.
Women Rule the school. Men get fired for disagreeing with feminist doctrine. You know it’s true.
Being a woman, you “care” about your looks. So when men don’t dress and act like a woman you consider it a perk. You like be objectified by men thats why women care about their looks.
Even the White House paper stated women work less than men. Women are catered to with quota’s, AA, ect. in employment. If ya don’t Big Daddy shuts you down. Your law, you like it.
Shit, fathers are reviled at every turn when they’re allowed to part of a womans family. A woman can do no wrong.
I asked for proof and what did I get, nothing as usual.
NWO: I was right.. there was no point. Your mind is made up.
Wait… the fact that the vast majority of senior executives are men is proof that women are favored?
Men get to be the heads of depts, and deans, and principles and presidents of univesities, while women are stuck teaching classes because “women rule the school.”?
Being a man your comments about how I feel about my looks is a bit of stretch. I do care about them, but not because I’m a woman, rather because I look to not have my hair be a tangled mess when I get off the bike and go into work. That, and it feels good.
Link to this white house paper.
ngz: My comment didn’t cross any line, the others were likely moderated because of personal attacks or blatant false allegations of rape or abuse.
So you were making blatantly false allegations of rape, and engaging in personal attacks. Got it.
Nice flounce by the way. Gonna link to the non-hateful MRA sites now that you’re back?
I don’t know what a “gernder” is so I can’t really comment on that.
But let me ask you something: Is it possible for a woman to actually be qualified for a job (besides childcare, nursing, secretary, etc.)?
No, I don’t know that. It’s simply not true.
So the only reason a woman would ever like to dress up is to impress men? Are there no such thing as femme lesbians in your world? Are there no such thing as heterosexual men who care about the way they dress? Hint: I am one of those men. I’ve probably worn more suits this month than you have in your life.
Once again, you position is that women are inherently incompetent at everything? There’s no way a woman could possibly succeed without these alleged perks?
Que? Could you phrase that in English? Me no speaky the gibberish.
Not true. Sarah Palin has done plenty of wrong.
*your position, also, too.
Keep pouring on the hatred. I wonder what you’ll get in return? Oh yea. Hatred in. Hatred out.
Science, differences in brain structure between men and women. Discounted, runs contrary to ideology, therefore false.
http://www.boysadrift.com/2007Giedd.pdf
VAWA, (law) Power and control wheel. A woman can do no wrong. Now thats science you can believe in!
http://theduluthmodel.org/pdf/PhyVio.pdf
This all gonna work out soooooo well.
NWO: Gonna link to the paper on mtDNA?
I don’t hate you. I think you’re hilarious. You’re General Ripper without the authority to actually do any real damage.
Keep fucking that chicken, NWOslave.
Hell, NWO…. I’m easy going… I’ll take the White House Paper you talked instead. But one of the papers you said supported the claims you made that were challenged is in order.
NWO keeps saying “Hatred in, hatred out” like it’s the biggest revelation of the 21st century. I’m not sure entirely what he means by it, but I’m guessing something like “if feminists hate me, then I hate them.” Or possibly (I am working with very little evidence here, so it’s all guessology) “feminists’ hatred of men causes them to hate men.”
But what about the corollary? “Respect in, respect out.” Maybe if you put respect into us (note that respect is NOT agreement, but it is explaining your views cooly, in good faith, and with willingness to discuss and explain rather than debate and defend), you’d get more respect out.
It’s worth a try, right? Respect in, respect out.
I’ll try and respect your views once I figure out what the hell they even are. The sarcasm, argument-by-implication, and argument-by-foreboding-but-unexplained-link are hard to suss.
Does anyone else think this might end up being our second 1000+ comment thread?
I’ve been trying not to jinx it xD