The other day Darksidecat introduced me to what I now consider to be the Greatest Webpage Ever (this week): Regender, a handy tool that will take any web page and, well, regender it, turning male pronouns and references into female and vice versa. It even works with names.
Following Darksidecatās lead, I have started plugging the writings of some of my favorite manosphere misogynists into the magical regendering machine. The results are, well, instructive.Ā And frequently hilarious. As DSC noted, Roissy and MarkyMark are perfect for this sort of treatment. Ā As is, I discovered, MarkyMarkās longtime pal Christopher in Oregon. Ā Hereās what happens when Christopher of Oregon becomes Christine of Oregon with the help of regender, and all the horrible shit he wrote about women becomes the horrible shit she wrote about men:
Men are whores. They are far more likely to have STD’s than women. Be aware of this. Handle with extreme care. Men are filthy, and they will lie about their infections. Condoms will NOT protect you. ā¦
Men are walking cesspools of filth! Most of them have or will have a permanent STD infection. It is unavoidable. These are FACTS, and not the rantings of an unstable misandrist.
(I’m a very STABLE misandrist, thank you kindly)
Men are DIRTY creatures, pure and simple. Be dignified, and don’t lower yourself to engaging in any filthy behavior with them. You WILL be infected with the diseases they are carrying. A moral, dignified woman does NOT rut like an animal with one of these creatures. Sexual intercourse and oral sex are filthy, disgusting activities, and ruin a woman morally. They spread disease.
Elevate yourself above such filth of the flesh. ā¦
Do not lust after men in your mind. Masturbate only as a last result to relieve tension. Do not lust after men sexually. It weakens you.
Goddess made woman in Her image, and men was made in the image of Satan. Squeal all you want, but history proves me right. A man is a test; a stumbling block for woman. Our life is an adventure. A journey. A pursuit of our creator, and a pursuit of excellence in our personal lives. A man and his filth is part of the obstacle course set before us. If we are wise, and avoid them, we will grow stronger as a result. We will finish the race successfully.
Men was not put here to support us as such, and we will only grow stronger if we AVOID his snares. ..
Christine in Oregon
Woah. Critics of Man Boobz often say that feminists are ājust as badā as the guys I quote. Well, if they were, the posts on their blogs would look a lot like this regendered post. Ā I ask all of you: have you ever seen something so grotesquely misandrist on any feminist web site? I thought not.
Hereās a challenge for all of you: See if you can come up with a regendered post that tops this one from āChristine in Oregon.ā You can draw from old posts of mine, or go poking about in the manosphere yourself. Post your results in the thread below, along with a link to the regendered web page you got them from. Iāll highlight the best in a future post.
NWOSlave: I have no idea what “helping a starving straight man” and “not being a douche to trans people” have to do with each other. Lots of people manage to do BOTH.
OHSHIII: Ohmigod, abstinence-only. I love it. Were you told that girls don’t have a sex drive and just want love and emotions, and that we shouldn’t read romance novels because that’s girl porn?
@Ami,
Yeah, I guess he could have come up with something worse (don’t know what). I don’t know; there are just some words that strike a chord of violence with me. I literally flinch when people say them in person around me.
TRIGGER WARNING: I’m about to list them.
Cunt, nigger, tranny, negro, whore, paki, chink, kike, jap, squaw, and others I can’t call to mind at present. When people use them when speaking directly to me, I always ask them not to. Sometimes they’re receptive, sometimes they ignore me, and sometimes they pull the “PC” card.
Yeah, I figured that might be held in moderation…(contains some offensive words as examples).
I hate NWO-Manboobz debates. I think it’s over now? I posted under a different a few times today and I stick by what I said then- MRAs can be very hateful. So can radfems. But MRAs are grounded in a reasonable assertion- men’s rights. Radfems are grounded in a fantasy goal of uprooting all of society for- what? Femanarchy? Regular anarchy? I don’t know. It’s not realistic.
Here are some comments regarding the J. Crew ad of a boy with pink nail polish regendered:
“Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jeffrey, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kidāand maybe a little for others whoāll be affected by your āinnocentā pleasure.”
“The fallout is already being seen. Increasingly, boys show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with girls. That may be a good thing from the standpoint of gender equality, but it could be a bad thing since there is no longer the same typically āmasculineā brake on such behavior. Boys beat up other boys on YouTube. Young women primp and preen until their abdomens are washboards and their hair is perfect. And while that may seem like no big deal, it will be a very big deal if it turns out that neither gender is very comfortable anymore nurturing children above all else, and neither gender is motivated to rank creating a family above having great sex forever and neither gender is motivated to protect the nation by marching into combat against other women and risking their lives.”
“I co-signed!ļ»æ Im against the media trying to make us women into sissies! Im thinking these feminazis in U.S. Hates an hard-working established woman”
“Well, I’m an atheist and I don’t want to see feminized girls and emasculated women.
I find it disgusting that anyone would try to bring up their children in a way that girls or boys are “encouraged” to “explore their sexuality”. That is fucking insane and if anythingļ»æ constitutes “child abuse”, that would be it.
So, would you mind explaining this to me: what the hell does a lack of belief in Goddess (atheism) have to do with feminized girls or homosexuality or masculism or anarchism for that matter?”
another delightful jem:
“I am gay and I think women should be women… and be proud to be women… I don’t want to be with a flamer.
I think masculists encourage gay women to act like men so they can get the shit beat out of them and then masculists can feel like a wrong is righted on their behalf…. and none of them realize it.”
NWO,
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I consider you to be somewhere between a pig and the average intestinal parasite, depending on the parasite. So not all hope is lost.
Like I said, you come here and act like a dick, then you are shocked–shocked, I tell you–when people respond in kind. If you want people to stop treating you like a dick, then stop being a dick.
Frankly, I think you like it. Else, why would you keep coming back?
.
Hey! There can’t be another Alex! There can’t! I-I-I shake a fish at you!
Kirbywarp: Although I no longer define as a radical feminist, I did from soon after the time I first became a feminist (approx. 1981-2 upon reading Simone de Beauvoir and Betty Friedan). (The professor who got me started on feminisms was a male faculty member in my department who was a feminist and asked me one day in class if I’d ever read any feminist works, and I said no.) I defined myself that way until about the mid-90s when I began to study the critiques by feminists of color and womanists (Alice Walker coined the term “womanist” to emphasize that given the racism in feminism, there would be women of color who could not use the term/concept work with those groups). 1970s feminisms varied even then: this is overly simplified, but think of NOW as a reform group–of mostly white middle-class women who thought changing some laws and doing some educating would solve problems; there were radical feminists like Robin Morgan and others (not entirely white–Morgan worked with Florynce Kennedy), who argued that the whole foundation of the patriarchy was wrong and needed to be changed, not just reformed to let some white women in, and took non-violent methodologies from the civil rights protest movements. There were feminists like Valerie Solanis (SCUM) and others who were very much kill the men, or become a separatist (lesbian feminist), who were in a sense advocating violent revolution. I read Dworkin (ALL her work), and Mackinnon (and the 1980s sex wars showed how conflict can happen among feminists as anti-pornography and pro-sex groups were in major debate). In other words, I’ve read a whole lot of feminist works because I did my dissertation on it and teach this stuff, as well as try to live it (without in fact flunking every male student, or roaming campus beating up on male faculty and staff).
The vast majority of feminists never were or are about all men are rapists, or kill the men. The vast majority never were or are radical feminists (by any of multiple definitions). The vast majority never were or are lesbian separatists (though all those are used to attack women who say they are feminists-in fact NOW had a “violet purge” back in the day: Rita Mae Browne has written about it).
There is a feminist argument that is more or less “any man could be a rapist” — that reflects the fact that rapists are not in fact all thuggish strange men lurking in alleys outside bars waiting to rape women coming out (NWO’s, I think, lovely theory)–i.e. the theory discounts the idea that a ‘rapist’ can be recognized by his “rapist characteristics.” (The “rapists are all identifiable so how dare that woman not smile at me, a complete stranger on the street” theory is v. similar to idea that terrorists can be identified by physical appearance, so brown men are profiled, and white men who blow things up are never called terrorists.)
Since any man can be a rapist (including men a woman is related to, friends with, married to, or dating), that’s the world women live in. I do not see that statement that “any many COULD be a rapist, I just don’t know” as the same thing as “I KNOW every many is a rapist.” But it’s often oversimplified that way. All the women I know who were raped were raped by men they knew (one as young as ten–by her father).
@ithiliana,
That sounds fascinating! I’m hoping to take at least a course in Women’s Studies this fall, but I have to see if it will conflict with work (full-time job) or not.
@ Alex
Bwahhahahahaha! I’M STEALING YOUR IDENTITY! j/k
@ithiliana:
When I read “shrodinger’s rapist” for the first time, it really did sound like it was saying all men are rapists, because I was looking at it from a male perspective. But realizing it wasn’t about me, it was about women, gave me an epiphany. It too was emphasizing that rapists aren’t all thuggish guys waiting in an allyway, even people you know, who are nice to you and all, could be a rapist. (In fact, the “could be a rapist” wasn’t even the point, it was a “understand that we women have to be cautious around men because we can’t read minds” type of thing)
I did know already that “The vast majority of feminists never were or are about all men are rapists, or kill the men,” I figured it was the domain of “radfems.” But of course, even that is a generalization, and I was glad to find that out. Especially since the standard MRM fare seems to be radical…
Maybe he’s suggesting that world hunger could be alleviated if only straight men were allowed to eat trans people. Sounds like a modest proposal.
Cosmos: Did you ever leave a source for your regendering piece? Cause if it’s not attributed, I don’t buy it.
Lady Victoria: I was a radical feminist between about 1982 and 1995 or so, roughly, and I would totally agree with your core definition–though I learned it was patriarchal foundation that was so rotten it needed to be entirely changed — but kyriarchy is the better word.
I mean reform feminism has benefitted a lot of individual white middle class women in the US but has done very little to change the systems of oppression constructed along race, gender, sexuality, and class.
@Alex,
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There are too many of us. lol
was that not you? o_O
Man, if what Victoria and ithiliana are talking about is the definition I guess I’m a radical feminist… huh.
@Ithiliana I actually identified as a radical feminist briefly… when I first discovered more advanced anti-oppression stuff and intersectionality as a comic book feminist xD and I felt like it meant I wasn’t just some simple stereotype : but then my run ins w/ racist feminists and transphobic feminists made me drop the label š
@Ithiliana did you see what I said slightly below after Cosmos went thru moderation? xD
Alex–I will happy babble on about the topic–and would love to hear about the class.
I never took a women’s studies course–they didn’t exist in my day (I did get ONE women writer’s course in my undergrad curriculum, along with a Japanese literature in translation and a science fiction class –the women’s and Japanese lit in translation satisfied a “minority studies requirement”). When I stomped out of academia because of telling off the graduate director he was a sexist, I got a clerical job and spent all my extra $ buying women’s literature and feminist books and reading reading reading on my own. Good times, good times. Then when I want back for my doctorate, I did get some theory courses in the English (not women’s studies which is more interdisciplinary usually) department on the critiques of feminisms and gender theory in general.
Unfortunately, I seem to have missed all the meetings where feminists excuse me fymymymists were taking over the country and running things to suit ourselves. What I want to know is how do I get on the mailing list (were my kitties eating the secret feminist message pigeons maybe?)
Ami: I assume you’re spitting as well as trampling–I know that spitting is absolutely necessary.
One of the prejudices I had to work out of that came from my radical feminist reading was against transwomen, all the junk about “women born women” for the Michigan Women’s Music festival. It’s definitely in some strains of radical feminist thought, just as racism is.
The Facts:
Of overall chlamydia diagnoses reported in 2009, the rate of infection among women was almost three times higher than the rate among men: 592.2 cases per 100,000 population compared to a rate of 219.3 among men. This is thought to be due to the higher number of women screened for chlamydia. For gonorrhea, the rate among women was 105.5 (cases per 100,000 population) compared to a rate of 91.9 among men. The rate of primary and secondary stage syphilis was higher among men ā 7.8 cases (per 100,000) were reported for men in 2009, compared to 1.4 for women.
Ami: I had to drop the label too! Intersectionality is hard, and coalition politics is harder–but it’s worth doing.
I did see where you listed your sources–is that what you meant? But didn’t see any link or ref from Cosmos? Did you link theirs, and I just didn’t notice?
@AWS:
Dammit AWS, I thought you were going to have something interesting and on topic in the two places you posted this. Ah well, I’ll just repeat what I said in the other thread.
So?
The other thing about Cosmos’ unattributed post (the SCUM Manifesto? Which was from what I understand a very poorly done satire or not supposed to be serious) is that it is the only one. Others have posted multiple examples of MRAs advocating terrible things about or to be done to women and in Peter Nolan’s case, regular officers of the law.
So I think that the two cannot be conflated at all-an example is not a movement or widely held belief.
David can delete from other area.