Good news, ladies and manginas: Apparently some MRAs don’t think it’s time to go out and start shooting people. At least not quite yet.
Some background: In recent days numerous MRAs have taken up the cause of a man named Thomas Ball – who burned himself to death outside a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court. Ferdinand Bardamu of In Male Fide has declared him “a martyr for the cause of men’s rights, a casualty of feminism’s stripping one half of the population of their humanity.”
Before killing himself, Ball wrote a long manifesto outlining his grievances and suggesting that the time had come for men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses,” describing the inhabitants of such buildings as “[c]ollaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War … So burn them out. “ (He offered specific advice on how best to do this, including tips on how to select the proper bottles to use for Molotov cocktails.)
All this has inspired some in the MRA to start talking ominously about violence. On The Spearhead, W.F. Price has responded to this talk with a piece suggesting that the time isn’t quite right for the MRAs of the world to take up armed struggle. Not just yet, anyway. As he puts it:
It is never a good idea to pick up a gun and start shooting to address some vaguely defined injustice — that is savagery. Before the American Revolution, for example, patriots took pains to spell out a long list of grievances that justified rebellion. …
We have to make our own lists, air our grievances, and give the state the opportunity to redress them. … Before anyone resorts to the same methods the state uses against us, we must put every reasonable effort into working with the law and the political system we have. Because this effort is still in its infancy, any calls for armed resistance are entirely premature and counterproductive, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Obviously, the flip side of this argument for delay is a justification for killing people if these “grievances” aren’t dealt with in the way that those in the MRA would like. Price’s reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one, because of course the central issue of that struggle was, you know, taxation without representation. The colonists couldn’t vote out the king if they didn’t like his policies. In case anyone has forgotten: we actually do have the vote now, which was kind of the whole point in the first place.
Of course, many of Price’s readers are a bit more impatient than he is. In a comment that drew (last I checked) more than 40 upvotes and only two dissenting downvote, Taqman took issue with Price’s call to delay the armed struggle:
Tell that to men who are facing imminent imprisonment for failure to pay child support.
They don’t have the luxury of time and can’t wait a couple of decades for the manginas of the world to wake up and decide that a gentlemanly form of armed resistance is now acceptable.
The ironically named Firepower, meanwhile, took a little swipe at Ball’s own actions, but didn’t challenge his advice for the rest of the men of the world:
What IS crazy is having to point out that setting YOURSELF on fire is a ridiculous way to “win” anything.
Set your enemies on fire. To even have to remind this questions the long term chances of victory for such a pathetic lot.
Jean Valjean suggested that political action was pointless — due to all those damned women who vote:
No amount of “stoic logic” will make politicians see our point of view.
Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected rather than the business of good governance. So long as women are the majority there will only be tyranny of the majority.
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) — you knew we were getting to him, right? — expressed his profound disappointment that more Spearheaders weren’t willing to embrace a violent solution:
Gee you guys are whimps and tiptoe around the ‘use of force’ like freaking ballet dancers. Are you so scared to speak about this when it is CLEAR the guvment LOVES using force against you and lots of other people too?
And he made the argument personal, explicitly denouncing, by name, the judge he claimed had “criminally abused” him with his rulings:
Judge [name redacted’s] life is now in my hands. He lives by my consent and my consent alone. …
And, like Ball, he declared judges to be essentially treasonous:
These judges pretended to be your servants. They are evil, evil people who deserve the kind of treatment reserved for those who commit treason.
There is more to Nolan’s comment(s) than that, but to get into it would require going down the rabbit-hole into his particular brand of crackpottery, which seems to involve him setting up his own courts to try judges he doesn’t like. (I frankly don’t understand his belief system and don’t care to.)
Now, it should be noted that a few Spearheaders actually objected to Nolan’s violent talk. But the last I checked, the comment I just quoted had more upvotes than downvotes. W.F. Price took more flak for suggesting men wait a little longer before taking up arms than Nolan did for, well, you saw what he wrote. That tells you a lot about The Spearhead, I think.
EDIT: Added quote from Ferdinand Bardamu; removed similar quote from The Spearhead.
i’ve been just observing – because talking about [reading about] child abuse sets me off…
BUT: i have to say
my problem with your presentation and reaction at the beginning, Crack, is that you pretty much described *my* childhood in reverse gender – my stepfather beat me whenever it suited him – his fists, his belt, a 2×4. then it got worse.
at NO TIME did i ever think “he’s doing this because he loves me”. he may have loved me, but he loved hurting me more.
and you insisting that being hit with boards isn’t abuse…
if we have no right to say that you *were* abused by the same sort of actions i was forced to endure – they YOU have no right to tell *US* that WE were NOT abused.
i was abused. in pretty much all senses of the word.
Ball’s *daughter* says she was abused.
now: none of us were there. i stated, MUCH earlier in this very thread, that it’s probably that the single instance of Ball hitting her [however many times he hit her on that occasion isn’t the point] that while it firmly meets the both the moral and legal definitions of abuse, it’s probable [i don’t know HOW probably, and there’s no way to know, now] that it was an abberation.
and, given that probablitiy, the judge overseeing the case was *VERY* nice, very helpful, and offered Ball the absolute MINIMAL way to PROVE that it was an abberation and wouldn’t be repeated. once he’d proven that – as he said the judge said, 2 or 3 counseling sessions – he’d have been allowed to have his daughter back.
as an adult who suffered abuse of all types from age 5 to age 16 [when A) my stepfather died and B) i finally got to live with my father, who HAS spanked me but NEVER abused me – and i do agree there is a difference between the 2, especially having lived thru both] and who has mentored teens for 13 years, i can tell you some things. i won’t – most of them aren’t *MY* things to tell – but i will tell you this ONE thing.
Children are NOT “property”. they are PEOPLE. and in case you missed this, people are no longer able to be owned [legally, in most of the world, at any rate – we’re still trying to make this axiomatic world-wide, but eventually we’ll prevail and all forms of slavery will be gone]. if ANYTHING, a good parent knows that their children, to an extent, own *them*. if one has children, their health and well-being [mental and physical!] come FIRST. if you can’t do that, don’t be a parent.
it’s EASY to abuse children. if you start young enough, those children won’t realize for YEARS that there’s any other way to live.
in this case, the child in question was 4 years old. you NEVER slap a child on the face [or anywhere on the head] for LOTS of good reasons, not least of which is the skull is still fragile, not being fully-developed and still being open in spots, and the possibility of brain damage. even a light “tap” can cause damage – a slap hard enough to split a lip is DEFINATELY hard enough to cause brain damage.
a split lip bleeds.
if you draw blood, you know you crossed the line from “punishment” to “abuse”. that’s basic – not just basic judgement, but basic law.
and child abuse laws aren’t aimed at MEN – they’re aimed at ADULTS who have contact with children.
the fact that you have decided that YOU weren’t abused only means that you don’t consider yourself a person who was abused by the people who are supposed to protect.
it does NOT give you any right, at all, to decide what is or is not abuse. that is what the LAW is for, and the law is as clear as it can be. had he restrained himself and not split her lip [better – had he not even touched her head, but smacked her butt once or twice] he wouldn’t have be arrested for child abuse. had he at any point realized how freaking NICE everyone was being about, giving him the minimum allowed “sentence” [2-3 counseling sessions! that’s not even a slap on the wrist!] had he cared more about his 4-year old daughter than his PRIDE, he would have “served” his counseling sessions and everything would have been sympicato.
i also mentioned my youngest sister, who has *never* hit either of her kids or otherwise abused them except in the sense of negligence. i mention *everything* she must do before she can even petition the courts for the right to PROVE that she is now a fit parent.
she hates it. she thinks the courts are being “mean” to her.
but her negligence has caused both of her children to be molested [at LEAST!]. she DESERVES the classes and work – like any other person, she has the right to a second chance; she just has to work for it.
Ball didn’t even have to work for it! he was handed a second chance a silver platter and refused it!
sigh. i seem to either write throw-away lines or long essays. sorry everyone.
Crack, yes, some cults incorporate yoga in their practices, and some use yoga as the gateway to get people into their cults. But yoga =/= cult. Most yogo practitioners/teachers have nothing to do with cults; most cults have nothing to do with yoga.
I’ve run across radical political organizations with culty elements, and others that frankly ARE cults. But that doesn’t mean that radical politics = cult.
@Denelian don’t be sry.. that was awesome.. and rly powerful *BIG BIG BIG SUPPORTIVE HUGS* I’m sry for all the stuff that happened to you again 🙁
@The Crack Emcee
I was over at your blog(s) and I am now chewing over some of the things you wrote there.
About your wife.
According to the following people they could have told you that there was going to be a problem based on her behaviour before you two got married.
http://www.hookingupsmart.com/
http://roissy.wordpress.com
And perhaps if you had read these blogs (I doubt it though) you would have kept her:
http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/
All the best.
Ami – i was apologizing for the sheer *length* of what i wrote – it definately can fall into tealdeer 🙂
thank you for the hugs – hugs are always nice XD [that’s a nifty way to do a smiley, i think i’m gonna adopt it. lol]
[as for all the stuff – it made me who i am. i have only to look at my selfish, self-centered younger sisters to see what i might have been if i hadn’t gone thru that. i may have scars on my soul, but i HAVE a soul. if that makes sense]
@Laplace Demon – no, he’s not really anything more than a historical footnote in psychology/psychiatry today. the first time i was i college [94] i was a psych major, and one of the required classes was “Early Psychiatry; myths and misnomers” or somethng very similar [it’s been a looooooong time!] and the whole point was to debunk all the early stuff that has since been proven incorrect [at best!] but that people STILL believe. *REALLY* eye-opening stuff – and of course, now you’re seeing the same debunked theories in “evolutionary psychology”, treat as truth and not the dross they. it makes me wonder, it truly does…
And they say we (gay agenda) are good at recruiting o_o
First Strike and Flanking indeed! xD
@Denelian it makes total sense *nods* *hug hug hug* I feel the same way about my traumatic exps too … but I still offer you big hugs 🙂 and I’m sry for the pain : but not for you 🙂 you are awesome 😀
@Ami – *huggles* back! thank you! i’m not sure i actual *am* awesome, but i’ll keep trying to live up to your standards! 🙂
you’re pretty damned awesome [and awe-inspiring!] yourself 😀
A New Hampshire neighbor of mine had the misfortune to attract the attention of federal prosecutors for one of those white-collar “crimes” no one can explain in English. The jury acquitted him in a couple of hours. Great news! The system worked! Not really. By then, the feds had spent a half-decade demolishing his life, exhausting his savings, wrecking his marriage, and driving him to attempt suicide. He’s not a big scary businessman like Conrad, just a small-town nobody. And he’ll never get his life back. Because, regardless of the verdict, the process is the punishment – which is the hallmark of unjust justice systems around the world.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270492/reincarceration-conrad-black-mark-steyn
“no, he’s not really anything more than a historical footnote in psychology/psychiatry today. the first time i was i college [94] i was a psych major, and one of the required classes was “Early Psychiatry; myths and misnomers” or somethng very similar [it’s been a looooooong time!] and the whole point was to debunk all the early stuff that has since been proven incorrect [at best!] but that people STILL believe. *REALLY* eye-opening stuff – and of course, now you’re seeing the same debunked theories in “evolutionary psychology”, treat as truth and not the dross they. it makes me wonder, it truly does…”
That’s what I thought, but it’s also a branch of psychology I never really touch, so I figured I’d ask.
It’s interesting though, because evo psych is also being fought tooth and nail both from within psychology/neuroscience and outside of it…(I really, really hope this is a passing fad.) But I suppose Jung had his critics as well in his day.
And in a sense that’s just what you get when you have humans doing science. People get excited about the next big theory, and a lot of the time in ends up debunked in a few decades. And hopefully as a collective group our knowledge base is becoming more and more accurate…
which do you is the passing fad? fight evo psych, or the way that evo psych is being used currently? [i really, REALLY wish evo psych was… how to phrase this? actually a scientific endevour, as opposed to a mouth piece created to ratify every current gender “norm” society holds dear. at some point, it might be – but right now, that’s all it is. sigh]
people are people, yes 🙂 and you *DO* have to wade thru all the crap to find the 1% of pure gold [real fact]. it’s separating the dross from the true, and it’s hard work, and sometimes really demoralizing, to discover this theory you’ve been working on your entire life is WRONG. like you’ve “wasted” your life – because proving negatives just isn’t as exciting. we’re sort of wired wrong for “pure” science.
but i hold your hope – someday, we’ll get their, as we continue to grow the collective knowledgte base 🙂
*which do you THINK. sigh
I mean, in theory, I think that the study of behavioral genetics and psychology through an evolutionary lens is a perfectly fine idea. A really, really challenging topic to undertake, but valid.
But I think the way evo psych typically operates now is 1. Psychologist finds difference between two populations. 2. Psychologist comes up with a story about how this makes sense via natural selection. 3. Psychologist publishes.
Even if Step 1 is executed in a rigorous scientific manner, Step 2 is just sloppy. And as you mentioned, often fits in suspiciously well with the status quo.
For me to take evo psych seriously, I need to see two things: Honest attempts to figure out whether something is an evolutionary adaptation vs. developmental trait (again, really hard to do in humans–but that doesn’t mean you can get away with not doing it) and an honest attempt to explain the neural pathways/mechanisms for that trait. I mean, it seems obvious, right? You have a evo psych theory, and a great way to support it would be to demonstrate that the brain actually works that way. If you can say “look, I have this theory about women having evolved Trait X, and here is the neural/hormonal Pathway Z for it, and here is the developmental pathway and how it’s different than the male developmental Pathway Z and these are some of the genes involved….” Then you have something. “I found a difference and it’s because women evolved Trait X for reason Y” is not good enough, is not rigorous, and is sloppy science. Just because you can come up with a good story for why something may have evolved doesn’t mean it actually happened that way.
Failure at brevity…sorry everyone, I get worked up over evo psych.
er, and the tl:dr version is “I hope the way evo psych is currently practiced is a passing fad”
the current practices of evo phych are a GOOD thing to get worked up about. it appears to be nothing more than a series of “just so” series justified with a pantina of supposedly scientific endevour. also, it’s LAZY.
yay we’re on the same page!
[also – that wasn’t all that long, and totally worth reading.]
yay! 🙂
@theLaplaceDemon
I suspect the reason Evo-Psych is being fought tooth and nail is because Pick Up Artists are employing it. Some of them apparently quite successfully.
This guy has a good summary:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/forums/viewthread/10578/
As a quick primer (so you don’t have to wade through someone else’s blog), I will try to summarize ‘game’.
1) The process of evolution has hard-wired the human brain differently for men and women at the subconscious level. (This is obviously a generalization, and it omits the ends of the bell curve). The majority of human evolution took place in a pre-agricultural hunter-gatherer environment, and it is this environment to which we are psychologically adapted.
2) The primary female socio-sexual tendency is towards hypergamy. That is, women want the best possible man, i.e. most healthy, most dominant over other males etc. We will call this male type, the Alpha (loaded I know, but a good analogy anyway). Another appropriate term would be ‘bad boy’.
3) The primary male preoccupation is with impregnating as many healthy, young women as possible, and competing with other males for dominance.
4) Game (for men) is simply learning how to trigger the underlying instinctive response in women through the use of techniques which allow a man to emulate an Alpha.
Now, I know this will all seem terribly sexist to some, it seems to be a radical oversimplification (among other things). With these few basic ‘axioms’, though, can be constructed a very effective strategy for initiating satisfying relationships, and if desired, maintaining them.
I broach the subject because it is currently one of the few, and most easily testable, applications of evolutionary psychology.
I’m completely confused now which one of those applies to me xD
@Ami Angelwings | June 26, 2011 at 9:41 pm
I’m completely confused now which one of those applies to me xD
You slay me. I nearly had to get a new keyboard (: lmao.
“I suspect the reason Evo-Psych is being fought tooth and nail is because Pick Up Artists are employing it. Some of them apparently quite successfully. ”
…no, Andrew. I don’t think the majority of the scientific community knows what a Pick Up Artist is. It’s attacked in the literature because it’s often shoddy science.
I appreciate your summary/copy paste – that was very considerate. People often post threads/whole blogs as sources and it drives me up the wall.
However, testing it via everyday use of Pick Up Artistry is not really good enough, because you have serious problems with confounding variables, reporting bias, and good controls. If you have any empirical sources supporting the claims you listed I would love to take a look at them.
And, as I stated in my earlier post, you still run in to the “just so” story problem. Give me neural and developmental pathways, give me gene networks, and rule out/explain the extent of environmental factors, and then we’re talking.
Of course, one could argue that this area of inquiry is too premature for things like developmental pathways. But if that’s the case…well, that’s making strong claims on weak/absent evidence. Conjecture is fine, but it’s important to acknowledge that it’s just that until we really understand what’s going on mechanistically.
@AndrewV why? o_O I am confused… which one would you say applies to me and why? :3
Andrew;
it’s a basic outline, and not a bad one.
except the premise you’re outlining is utter BS [i assume you know this] because one of the tenets of “Game” is that women somehow evolved to want the “Alpha” man with the most MONEY – and money is so freaking NEW, on an evolutionary scale, it hasn’t really impacted the species yet!
also… “Game” acts as if all women are exactly same. i’ve had PUAs try to game me – mostly with “negs”. if someone “negs me” [backhand compliments that are more insulting that true insults] i’m not going to want to continue TALKING to that person, let alone sleep with him.
*shrug* also, IME, most PUAs … massage the truth, shall we say? and they aren’t even after SEX, except as a means to “prove” that they’re now “alpha”. its… a cold thing. no passion. no want.
booooooooooooring…
@denelian I’ve had ppl try to game me too xD it amuses me a lot cuz they seem to think I’m not aware of it (this seems like a common narrative among my female friends too xD “do they think we can’t tell?” xD )
Of the various thoughts I had while following the various exchanges here, is that it is very difficult to get a clear and honest exchange of viewpoints.
I was also reminded of what happened to our host Dave Futrelle not to long ago, where he was unfairly attacked on another blog, by people he had every reason to believe were his allies for completely unfair reasons.
It was quite sad really. The people attacking him had an agenda and nothing he said was acceptable.
I bailed out before the end, but I do not recall a single person coming to his defence no matter how outlandish the attacks became.
Anyway, I find it best to not think in black and white. If I find myself reacting to something to something someone else claims, I try to think about it, examine why I am reacting and seek clarification before responding.
I have found myself making an apology from time to time, which is humbling but it does tend to get the discussion back on track.
Just saying.
Andrew,
I agree with pretty much all of that, though I’m a little unclear on how it relates to our discussion – which seemed pretty reasonable, IMO (maybe you are responding to something else, or starting a whole new topic, and I’m just missing it?)