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 Darksidecat’s lead, I have started plugging the writings of some of my favorite manosphere misogynists into the magical regendering machine. The results are, well, instructive. And frequently hilarious. As DSC noted, Roissy and MarkyMark are perfect for this sort of treatment. As is, I discovered, MarkyMark’s longtime pal Christopher in Oregon. Here’s 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. …
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. …
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 “just as bad” as the guys I quote. Well, if they were, the posts on their blogs would look a lot like this regendered post. I ask all of you: have you ever seen something so grotesquely misandrist on any feminist web site? I thought not.
Here’s a challenge for all of you: See if you can come up with a regendered post that tops this one from “Christine in Oregon.” 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. I’ll highlight the best in a future post.
WE’RE NOT MAKING VAST CLAIMS ABOUT CARBON-FIBER COMPOSITE STRING INSTRUMENTS HERE DEVELOPERS3
WE’RE SAYING THAT PEOPLE WHO MAKE LUDICROUS MISOGYNISTIC COMMENTS ARE BOTH LUDICROUS AND MISOGYNISTIC
IT’S MORE LIKE GETTING ANNOYED THAT THE KNITTERS ARE TALKING ABOUT YARN
SORRY I’M BACK TO YELLING
DUMBASS HAS A POINT
I DON’T REALLY WANT TO CALL MYSELF AN MRA BECAUSE THE MRAS SEEM TO THINK THAT BEING A MASCULIST MEANS BEING OPPOSED TO FEMINISM EVEN THOUGH THAT IS MADE OF STUPID AND FAIL
@Developers!x3
How on earth could you ask for something better than self identification? I mean, are you looking for MRAs or are you looking for men’s rights activists? Ozy is a perfect example of the latter, and I’m sure a bunch of people on this blog, and feminists in general, think that men should have the same rights as women. (its basically what equality means)
@ozymandias42
Young lady, I’ll have you know that I play the cello, not the bass. However, I will freely admit to being rather dumb.
The thing point I’m trying to get at is opposing feminism is not the same thing as misogamy. I like traditional gender roles. I feel it is my duty to sacrifice for my (hypothetical, future) wife and family. To say that this idea is misogamy is like saying that volunteering at a animal shelter is a sign of a hatred of cats and dogs.
AND PERHAPS I’M MISTAKEN BUT
Well, I’ll say it in not yelling voice. Perhaps I’m mistaken but I think David often uses examples from MRM sites like the Spearhead because they’re obvious, extreme, and funny, but he’s not exclusively focusing on the MRM. Scott Adams is a moronic narcissistic asshole, but not, I don’t think, and MRA. Tire ads from the 1970s and joke books from the ’50s are misogynistic and give the lie to MRM claims that feminism has no purpose. To be clear, I’ve never seen an MRM, MGTOW, or PUA site where either women are referenced as people, or women are barely referenced at all — but that’s a separate issue. If David quoted an MRA who didn’t say misogynistic things, I don’t think we’d be calling hir a misogynist. Likewise, we don’t hate all men. We don’t think that a call for men’s rights, per se, is ridiculous — it’s the woman-hatred that (nearly) always accompanies it that is worthy of ridicule. Etc.
Also, to be clear, most of the people who post here aren’t all pro-marriage. I don’t know what your obsession is with misogamy. And sacrificing for your hypothetical wife — indeed, willingly planning on having a spouse — is kind of the opposite as misogamy. Look it up! One to grow on!
*rainbow explosion*
That’s all well and good, Dev, but would you hunt the mammoth for them?
[quote]I like traditional gender roles. I feel it is my duty to sacrifice for my (hypothetical, future) wife and family.[/quote]
This is why gender roles are sexist, and bad. By implying that this is the role of the husband, you erase the sacrifices a wife makes. Even within the traditional gender constructs, a wife has to work hard, and make sacrifices.
@Rutee it’s (blockquote) (/blockquote) but w/ angle brackets instead > < those ones…
Man, I missed another party! The whole time I was reading that I was thinking:
SHOUT! SHOUT! LET IT ALL OUT! THESE ARE THE THINGS WE CAN DO WITH OUT! COME ON! I’M TALKING TO YOU! COME ON!
http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/shout-lyrics-tears-for-fears/8f59187642d12c68482568b100107a29
Developers: The ACLU, the EFF, and the Heritage Foundation aren’t Men’s Rights’ organisations, and while they do have interest in issues which affect people’s rights, they don’t meet the criteria I asked about, nor even the problem you complained of, you complaint that Dave is not looking in the right places was in response to this statement (I say this, because you quoted it:
Gerep… Lessee:
There are times when I feel I have truly fallen through the rabbit hole. Now is such a time. Women apparently feel that the new frontier of empowerment hinges on their ability to dress like brothel workers and demand others respect them for their bad taste and attention whoring. For this women are marching: to look like the best lay a gold-mining saloon could offer; as in, not obviously diseased.
This is your idea of reasonable? Just because it was written by a woman doesn’t mean it’s not hateful of women who step outside of the roles (largely gender defined) she thinks they ought to inhabit.
She does this sort of thinking in a general way on other subjects. I’m also not seeing her writing about Men’s Rights’ qua men’s rights’. She is by and large writing about things she thinks are places/ways in which the overall culture is, “failing” and much of that is related to issues which she sees feminism as driving, (e.g. Mother’s don’t rely on police to do the job of a father)
Her Mission statements are:
The Lost Art of Self-Preservation (for Women)
If you were born female in the mid-1960’s or later, you were probably fed all sorts of erroneous information about how life works, what women deserve, what men want, and what the future will be like. Here’s some actually useful advice to help you survive in this increasingly chaotic post-Sexual Revolution world.
and:
The Truth
Life isn’t fair. Being alive doesn’t entitle you to anything. Women are ensuring their own downfall with their selfish behavior and short-term outlook. Men are bigger than women, stronger than women, and more violent than women. For the past half century our legal system has acted outside their interests, and men have taken the vast share of economic hits in this most recent “recession.” A backlash is coming. The pendulum is starting to swing back. What are you going to do to prepare for it?
She says her target audience is her 9-year old niece
So I don’t really think she counts as an MRA either; hostile to feminism, and somewhat misogynistic, but not relevant to your specific complaint.
Dalrock is in the same sort of boat. He’s a traditionalist who is blaming feminism for what he sees as the downfall of society. He has a view of what things should be, and some less than equitable ideas about the sexes: This insight doesn’t come from a manosphere related blog, but straight from downtown hamsterville. , isn’t really impressing me that he sees men and women as being equal.
That he is willing to append this to one of his entries *I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the story. Either way the basic lesson is true whether the parable itself is.
He is appending that to a piece in which he purports to be explaining fundamental differences between the sexes; a piece in which he says, The attitude this story represents is part of what I think defines being a man. Since feminism has taught us to not see men as different than women, most men have probably internalized this as what it means to be an adult. However, while men are being taught that it is essential to finish what they started and accept the consequences of their own choices (and boasts), women are often taught to be frivolous so as to never be unhappy, and to reject adulthood. One of the more frustrating parts of feminism for men is finding out that most women never really intended for men to take them seriously on it, at least on the hard parts.
So, I commend you for being willing to offer up examples, and will grant they are not as horrid, in their wording, as the entries Dave mocks (which may be why he doesn’t mock them), but I don’t agree that they are 1: actually advocating for men (they are advocating for a social model, in which men and women aren’t actually equal), nor that they aren’t actually misogynistic.
Being actually on-topic for a moment… I tried to regender my livejournal but as it is almost entirely friendslocked posts it didn’t work all that well. As far as I can tell there isn’t a single gendered term in the 5 public posts. (partly this is because I believe gender is evil and avoid it as much as possible. of course I have to live in the real world so it is frequently not possible.)
Developers: The thing point I’m trying to get at is opposing feminism is not the same thing as misogamy. I like traditional gender roles. I feel it is my duty to sacrifice for my (hypothetical, future) wife and family. To say that this idea is misogamy is like saying that volunteering at a animal shelter is a sign of a hatred of cats and dogs.
And you are allowed to like that. I have no problem with your wanting to do those things. I hope you find a partner who meets your needs, and whose needs you meet as well.
I don’t care that you have those beliefs. I don’t care if the dolts on the Spearhead think all women are stinky-pants bitches whom they would be glad to dance on the graves of. I don’t even care that NWO is six-kinds of obsessive idiot.
So long as they don’t go around making pronouncements about how the world ought to cater to those beliefs. If, and when (which is pretty damned often) I reserve the right to point and laugh.
I will add that I, personally, don’t want to see such traditional gender roles in my life. I, therefore, (in the interests of equality) work to see to it they are not enforced as legal, or cultural norms.
If someone wants to live that way, fine, but as with any other relationship with an unequal power-dynamic, it should be opt-in, not opt-out.
DeveloperX3, Bee sort of already said this, but this site focuses (mostly) on misogyny, not the MRM per se. A lot of the people I write about are not MRAs at all. But the misogyny in the MRM tends to be fairly entertaining and/or horrific, as misogyny goes, so I tend to write about it a lot.
It’s useful to observe a distinction between MRAs and antifeminists, because they are two different groups, though with a lot of overlap. What distinguishes MRAs in particular is, as their name states, that they believe men are entitled to certain rights. When you strip away the obfuscatory language they use to describe these rights, they turn out to be:
– The right of fathers to avoid providing financial support for their children.
– The right of fathers to have unfettered access to their children, no matter how much of a threat they might pose to those children.
– The right of husbands to prevent their wives from divorcing them.
– The right of ex-husbands to maintain control over their ex-wives.
– The right of men to prevent women from terminating pregnancies that they have donated sperm to.
– The right of men to rape women with impunity by creating an impossibly high burden of proof for rape victims who file charges against their attackers.
And I think that’s pretty much it, though I may have missed one or two.
Too bad NWO has gone to bed, because I just watched a vampire movie (Thirst, 2009), in which the lady vampire was a lot more evil than the man vampire. And the least sympathetic character in the movie was another woman. And yet I loved the movie!
@Pecunium
The way I see it, advocating for inequality (or, perhaps more accurately, a recognition that gender heterogeneity as being perfectly normal and good) is not necessarily misogyny (or misandry for that matter). Perhaps people in this culture are more suited to their traditional roles? Perhaps that’s part of the reason they are, well, traditional? I think it’s incorrect to say that either of these ideas is necessarily a sign of hatred of one gender or another.
Moreover, that would mean by your operating definition of “MRA” or ‘men’s rights activist’, the traditionalists don’t count. Then, I agree with almost everything the feminists say about them (in this context). And, I would throw in my own criticism that they are generally opposed to marriage and the social structures around that institution.
So, I’m allowed to what whatever I want, so long as I don’t acctually get it? Like it or not, the feminists, the PUAs, the (misogynist) MRAs, and even the egalitarian ‘Men’s Rights Activists’ are all making it harder for me to find a partner “who meets your needs, and whose needs you meet as well”. The effect might rather small, considering all the other negative cultural influences out there, but it’s hardly nonexistent. Sure, that’s not there intent. As much as I disagree with them, I don’t think that (most) feminists hate men. They are not evil, merely misguided.
By spreading your ideas, you are actively attempting to change reality to suit your desires for what you see is a better world. I think that I’m doing the same. I do not assume any sort of ill-will or hatred from the other side, and I can assure you that’s not my motivation either.
Fair enough. So, to confirm that I have this right, not everyone in the ‘Boobroll’ is an MRA or part of the MRM, so therefore I have to cast a narrower net if I want to find a significant number of these folks who reject misogyny? I the Traditionalist Conservatives are not included? If so, fair enough.
One of the things that racists can’t seem to figure out is that there is already no such thing as a “pure” race. Shit, in the US, estimates are that 15-30% of white identified people are of African descent and some 60+% of black people in the US are of European descent. A person has to engage in some fundamental denials of history to pretend that interbreeding of “races” has not occured, or that these identities are clear cut based on genes. Things like rape by colonialists, passing, one drop rules, etc. are a pretty big factor (the black slave that Thomas Jefferson had a half a dozen black children with was his white wife’s half sister). In addition, there is no clear boundary line between races and between who is and is not white. Traditionally, in the US, Arabs and Persians have been counted as white on Census and demographics data. Irish and Italians were not white in the mid-1800s, but they are now. Most US people consider European Jews white. People from Spain were considered distinct from northern europeans for much of the Renaisance. What about Slavic people? They are not always considered white, historically.
Let me give you an example. This guy. Is he white? He’s a member of the white race, right? Or is he not, and having only people like him would mean not having any white people left? Oh, or is he black? Or is he asian? Or native american? Because he carries genes from all of those groups. These lines of seperation and fear of loss of whiteness are predicated on an old racist notion (among many other old racist notions) that people who are not exclusively of European descent are properly grouped with the non-white ancestors, rather than being considered descendants of their European ancestors as well. It is this notion that gives us old racist terms like “octaroon” and “quadroon”. These terms were used in the segregated south as designations of degrees of known black ancestors vs known white ancestors. The plaintiff in Plessy v Ferguson did actually put forth the argument that, as an octaroon (7/8ths white ancestry, 1/8th black), he was properly a white guy. But, if Plessy is properly black (as the court decided), then why isn’t Tiger Woods, who is 1/8th Dutch, properly white? These classifications are far more about social heirarchies than about actual genetic ancestries, that’s why.
I can’t get onto NiceGuy’s forums since most of the boards are members-only, but let’s try a little piece from the main site, shall we?
Eventually, our heroine moves to Japan where she soon discovers that Japanese men are wonderful and inherently superior to their vile counterparts in the West! Not content to just hate American Men by herself, she talks about it for hours on a date with a random guy:
Or shall we see what the proprietor of the “Anglobitch” site had to say about the Royal Wedding?
Devoloper, you should mention that traditionalists are a fringe group that are rejected bu the majority of the mrm… ot perhaps you are a sick puppy idk.
Kirby
“Kirby
“When you strip away the obfuscatory language they use to describe these rights, they turn out to be:
– The right of fathers to avoid providing financial support for their children.
– The right of fathers to have unfettered access to their children, no matter how much of a threat they might pose to those children.
– The right of husbands to prevent their wives from divorcing them.
– The right of ex-husbands to maintain control over their ex-wives.
– The right of men to prevent women from terminating pregnancies that they have donated sperm to.
– The right of men to rape women with impunity by creating an impossibly high burden of proof for rape victims who file charges against their attackers.”
Then you wonder why people think the average feminists are assholes and lying liars. Feminist like you teach them
So, your opposition to equality of the sexes is not based on misogyny, it’s based on your belief that women are inferior to men.
Good to know.
I should damn well hope so. I should hope the number of women who fall into ‘traditional’ gender roles drops once they stop being enforced so heavily.
Yeah, we’re both trying to change the world to suit what we consider as ‘more correct’, but what you consider correct is apparently for women to be stuck with no choice. If you accept that humans should have choices in what they do, and that women are humans, your system’s worse, period. And if you don’t, I don’t give a shit about your opinion.
@Ami: Thank you kindly.
Ross Douthat: