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.
Ozymandais
Another arm chair expert.
Masculism like the mrm, and the two over lap greatly are opposed to some aspects of feminism, misandric, gynnocentric and feminist jurisprudence where its hostile to legal equality and are compatible with others, equity feminism for example.
You have so much to learn but you wont lean it here, assuming you are genuine, but your participation here draws that into question.
You should read some books about masculism and hang out with some MRAs.
All you will get here amounts to being brought to a football match and kept in an area of the stadium where there is a drunk and rowdy group and told that groups defines the whole sport.
Do mras and masculists tend to think that the majority of feminists are assholes and lying liars?
Yes.
Watch Kirby show us how feminists help people to come to that conclusion.
“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.”
Forgot links for mine!
NiceGuy #1: http://www.the-niceguy.com/
NiceGuy #2: http://www.the-niceguy.com/articles/RiekosPassionI.html
Anglobitch: http://kshatriya-anglobitch.blogspot.com/2011_05_01_archive.html
@Everyone – I read this page without reading the 100ish comments before it. Srsly lol.
@Darksidecat – If you go back far enough, we’re probably* all of African descent
(*as far as I can tell, the out-of-Africa theory has more going for it than any other, but it’s also not a debate I follow closely)
So, yeeeah. “Pure race” is BS. Genetically speaking, it’s a blip on the genome, not really much of a difference at all. Also, race has interestingly flexible categories, if you look cross-culturally and across history…people (where I am, anyway) tend to view it as essential and fixed, but where we draw racial lines is super arbitrary and actually has very little to do where someone’s ancestors are from.
@Developersx3 – Okay, here’s what bothers me about the traditionalist stuff. You’re view of what is “traditional” seems to be stuck in the last century. In the vast expanse of human history, I’m not sure there’s anything that traditional at all about, say, the 1950s.
Though gender roles of some kind are fairly ubiquitous across history, exactly what those were are how they are viewed has changed, and varied between groups of people.
Also, while I respect your opinion and desire for a particular type of marriage and lifestyle, it is directly oppositional to the lifestyle I want to have, should I ever get married. I don’t know that your views make you a misogynist (I certainly would not be comfortable calling you one) but it does give me this knee jerk reaction of, well, for lack of a more eloquent term, fuck that.
If gender roles become less strict, women still have every right to choose to have “traditional” (let’s call it modern-traditional) marriages. I don’t really have any problem with a woman choosing a modern-traditional marriage, if that’s what she wants. If you’re happy, good for you two.
But I have a really, really big problem with anyone trying to impose that on me. If I have to choose between a modern-traditional marriage and a life of being single (including single parenthood, should I get to a place where I feel I have the sufficient energy and resources to be a mother). Because I have no interest in a relationship with someone who just wants to sacrifice for me. I want a relationship that values equality and compromise. I want a partner who will take just as much time out of work as I do to raise our child.
You say that gender-equality feminism is making it harder for you to find the sort of woman you want. Maybe feminism brainwashed all the ladies into thinking they want equality and autonomy. Or maybe most women actually want equality and autonomy.
I do hope you find someone you are happy with. But I am uncomfortable with the implication that social rules should force more women to be the sort of people you want to marry.
You said: “The way I see it, advocating for inequality (or, perhaps more accurately, a recognition that gender heterogeneity as being perfectly normal and good)”
1. Define normal.
2. Explain why it is good.
3. Provide sources for any generalizations (“most women,” “most men,” etc).
Ooops. That should read “If I have to choose between a modern-traditional marriage and a life of being single (including single parenthood, should I get to a place where I feel I have the sufficient energy and resources to be a mother), I would choose to be single.”
624 comments — musta been a good night people!
Ami: Thanks–I did not realize that link was to the SCUM manifesto–skimming too fast and not clicking on links.
But I woke up this mornng thinking, wow, he had to go back to 1970 to find something he could regender to ‘prove’ how vile feminists are (well, he might know it was from 1970!). But still–apparently the spew David links to is posted regularly on MRA sites–not on current feminist blogs (tough I’m sure one could still find some major extremsts).
Ami: The BOOK! Awesome! I don’t think I know that book, though the editors’ name sounds familiar–will have to check it out, perhaps order for our library when the next budget gets approved (the way the Texas legislature is going, that may be in 2012, sigh). I am not in comics fandom but like reading meta on comics and gender and such!
1. BACON for breakfst was YUMMY!
2. Have now read the entire mumbledy hundred comments I missed by sleeping last night, and WOW. You all ROCK.
3. A+ to the lovely pervy kindergarten all caps orgy that pwned NWO — did you all notice in the excitement and in between nappy time that he actually changed his rhetoric slightly? It was bizarre. Small changes, still, but in his case, that’s huge.
4. Teacher Ami gets especial credit for her TEECHUR voice.
(p.s. Ami until you told me you were tall, I mentally pictures you as small and v. v. v. cuddly rowr)
5. This was one of the most entertaining threads EVAH.
@Pecunium, you say… “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.”
Feminists/women, in league with the State have already enshrined in law how the world ought to be. X marriage IS acceptable, X behavior IS acceptable. The MSM/corporations promote your agenda and endorse your “right” to point and laugh.
@Johnny Pez, you say… “- The right of fathers to avoid providing financial support for their children.”
Mothers get default custody, they can give children away for adoption, they can terminate a child. A childs state of custody hinges upon the mother’s choice.
“- The right of fathers to have unfettered access to their children, no matter how much of a threat they might pose to those children.”
Mothers have unfettered access, (custody) to children reguardless of being a threat.
“- The right of husbands to prevent their wives from divorcing them.”
Wives can divorce on a whim, they can commit adultery and will still “win” in court.
“- The right of ex-husbands to maintain control over their ex-wives.”
Wives control ex-husbands thru payments ordered by the State while providing nothing in return for the money garnished from them.
“- The right of men to prevent women from terminating pregnancies that they have donated sperm to.”
Women can terminate a mans child while donating nothing but an egg, if a man would terminate that same pregnancy it would be murder.
“- 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.”
Women can force themselves on a man/boy but the charge is merely sexual misconduct; they’ll serve no time. A womans word is all that is required as, “proof of rape.”
@theLaplaceDemon, you say… “But I have a really, really big problem with anyone trying to impose that on me.”
Yet you have no problem with women/feminists having already imposed a set of standards on me, backed by the State.
“If I have to choose between a modern-traditional marriage and a life of being single (including single parenthood, should I get to a place where I feel I have the sufficient energy and resources to be a mother).”
Your “choice,” is to deny a child their father backed by the State.
“Because I have no interest in a relationship with someone who just wants to sacrifice for me. I want a relationship that values equality and compromise. I want a partner who will take just as much time out of work as I do to raise our child.”
You want a “compromise” which is a sacrifice. What you’re asking for is a sacrifice which is dictated by your terms.
“Maybe feminism brainwashed all the ladies into thinking they want equality and autonomy. Or maybe most women actually want equality and autonomy.”
Men and women are not equal in ability, yet feminists/women have turned to the State to enforce equal ability laws. They have forced mandatory teaching of children that equality = equal ability. The autonomy/independence you claim to crave is obtained while wielding the guns of the State to force your dependence upon men while retaining a state of independence.
NWO –
“Yet you have no problem with women/feminists having already imposed a set of standards on me, backed by the State.”
Which are? Please be specific. We might not disagree as much as you think here.
“Your “choice,” is to deny a child their father backed by the State.”
Better than denying kids any parents at all. There are a lot of kids out there that need loving parents. Regardless of whether or not it’s better for a child to have two parents, you have to agree that one is better than none, no?
“You want a “compromise” which is a sacrifice. What you’re asking for is a sacrifice which is dictated by your terms.”
Can you be more specific in what you mean here? Do you mean that it’s wrong for me to expect my partner to take an equal amount of time off work to take care of our child as I do? If so, why?
“Men and women are not equal in ability,”
[citation needed]
“yet feminists/women have turned to the State to enforce equal ability laws. They have forced mandatory teaching of children that equality = equal ability.”
Individuals are not all equal. Equality means equal opportunities, not equal ability for any two given individuals. And equality of opportunity is tough to achieve. Whether or not the state has done a good job in promoting equality of opportunity is another discussion entirely.
“The autonomy/independence you claim to crave is obtained while wielding the guns of the State to force your dependence upon men while retaining a state of independence.”
I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say here. The state has forced me to be dependent on men while retaining a state of independence? Isn’t that a contradiction?
Though really, NWO, I’d love to hear you tell me how I, personally, am dependent on men?
Blah, blah, blah, feminism, the state, blah, blah, Rothchilds, Illuminati, blah, blah, my hard job, blah, hate in, hate out, blah.
Did I hit all the high notes?
Rather than rebut your claims one by one, Subby, I thought I’d just ask — you do realize that you only make yourself look stupid by misunderstanding the law (and biology! and facts!) so badly, don’t you? I know shame and humiliation (and lack of comprehension) is your “thing,” but listen. It really doesn’t have to be this way. Get yourself a dominatrix. Read a textbook about family law. Find a basic book about sexual reproduction so you can discover that mommies donate much more than an egg. (This book looks promising.) And … find out how rapes are prosecuted (if you want just kind of an easy, breezy look at it, I really recommend HBO’s documentary “Sex Crimes Unit.” In one scene, a prosecutor calls a rape victim to tell her that although the rape kit positively showed that the girl had been raped, the sample was aspermatic, and thus didn’t provide DNA evidence to link the suspect to the crime, so they would have to drop charges. Or fuck, pick up a newspaper. The New York cop who raped a drunk woman he brought home but was found not guilty despite her word — and a hell of a lot of evidence [including his own word] that he had had sex with a woman who was too drunk to consent.)
tl;dr Be less stupid.
Hellkell – you forgot the part where’s wrong if I expect the hypothetical father of our hypothetical child to take an equal amount of time off work to care for the kid…but in the case of a divorce, even if I was doing the majority of the hypothetical childcare, the state should make us have equal custody.
Other than that, spot on.
Also, NWO, just out of curiosity…why do you post here?
Developers!: I think you are making some conflations.
a recognition that gender heterogeneity as being perfectly normal and good Show me where the people here are saying the sexes are homogeneous? Show me where the people are saying they should be?
Perhaps people in this culture are more suited to their traditional roles? Perhaps that’s part of the reason they are, well, traditional?
Perhaps this admits that the roles are social constructs, and therefore neither immutable, nor intrinsically “good”, since good is a value judgement. As such they are only useful as models so long as the people who have to live in them are content to do so.
Moreover, there are lots of traditions which (from an ethical standpoint) aren’t “good” no matter how entrenched they may be in a culture. Take slavery (in all its guises, from the Hebraic form of transitional bondage [which wasn’t quite as benign as it might at first appear with it’s Sabbath year of release. The bondsman who couldn’t afford to leave was pretty much stuck, “accepting” permanent slavery. The one who couldn’t afford to buy his loved one’s out of slavery was faced with either becoming a permanent slave, or leaving them to such a fate while walking away] to the Greek/Roman forms [captives of war were one sort, people who sold themselves for debt were another, and any paterfamilias could sell his family members into slavery, should he feel like it] to the chattel slavery of the US, with it’s requisite othering, and dehumanising, of blacks).
Slavery, from the record, is appallingly traditional. Doesn’t make it right. More to the point, slavery is incompatible with the basic principles of the US. So it’s one tradition in conflict with another.
I also think you are playing a bit fast and loose; trying to say that because traditionalists aren’t “hateful” of one sex or the other, that the roles they advocate become somehow neutral in effect (I also disagree with the “hateful” part. The references to “hamsters” and accusations of infantile behavior, and the misrepresentation of things like Slutwalks don’t lead me to think the people you recommended aren’t hateful. They may say what they hate is the effect, but the language they use is blanket. Gerep says that feminists “cheer” for women committing abortions. Yes, we mock, “MRAs”, as class, but we point to examples of group behavior when we do it. Otherwise the mockery is of specific people [e.g. Scott Adams] doing specific things).
I am quite in favor of marriage. I also know that Dalrock would say I am a threat to it, because I don’t think feminism infantilises women. I also don’t think the social roles we press on men “makes them adults”. I think that partners should work for each other’s benefits; if that means they sacrifice, then they do (be they male or female), but not because they are socially obliged, but rather because they think it in their best interest in the pursuit of their relationship.
I also think that blind sacrifice (by which I mean one-sided, as a function of role) is corrosive to healthy relationships. It breeds resentments. It leads to the idea of, “look at all I’ve done for ‘x’, which causes (often subconsciously) the idea that because of ‘x’ sacrifice, there is ‘y’ obligation. If the other partner doesn’t feel that obligation, things start to go bad.
So, I’m allowed to what whatever I want, so long as I don’t acctually get it?
No, you are allowed to want it. You are allowed to have it. You aren’t allowed to force it on others. If you advocate for that, I will mock you, and hold you up to ridicule, and work against you achieving your ends.
In this regard I am a Kantian. The Categorial Imperatives are:
1: Do not do that which you cannot extend to be a rule for everybody.
2: Do not treat people as means to an end.
In short, “You aren’t special”.
When someone tells me that there are, “proper” roles for one group of people which limit their freedoms and choices, it violates the first imperative; because they aren’t willing to accept those limits on themselves.
Which is my response to your comment, 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 agree: we are pursuing what we see as the same thing. We happen to disagree on what that better world looks like. It doesn’t matter if there is no ill-will, nor hatred. That’s where the second imperative begins to function. In this example (Gerep and Dalrock) they are treating one group (women) as means to their ends. They want to make a world of socially mandated gender roles, because it makes them feel happier.
Not on.
As I said, if you can find someone who is happy living in a relationship with that sort of power dynamic, I wish you both the best of luck. But don’t try to make it the rule for everyone, unless you want me, and others, to argue against it, and (should it get ridiculous) to point and laugh.
hellkell, mostly. There is only one marriage allowed, the corporations want it that way, men are like Drone Bees, used and discarded…blah, blah blah.
Blyeahh.
here’s another interesting regender I discovered:
http://regender.com/swap/http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/04/16/porn-part-4-half-of-the-big-picture/
Developers! 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”.
On one level I feel for you. This is, though it’s probably not going to sit well with you, a place where the patriarchy hurts men too, and I blame it.
Again, though, you are conflating some things. The MRAs are not making it harder for you to find a partner because of what they believe. When boiled down, past the hateful rhetoric, they are in agreement with the Dalrocks and the Gereps of the world. Women have their place, and that place is depending on a man.
They are pissed off that it’s not being enforced by society. They are really pissed off that, for them, it’s just getting worse.
The PUAs aren’t hurting you either. So long as you don’t emulate them, you aren’t going to be dealing with the poisoned well they have made. Most women, even those who (God forfend) have had the misfortune of being screwed by a Roissy, don’t hate men as a result.
So feminism is the only one which really seems to be causing you grief, and that greif is that feminism is undermining the need need for women to adopt/live in that role.
Which implies that they don’t really want it.
@theLaplaceDemon
Aside from the myriad of morality laws which dictate my actions and always favor women above men, I’ll go with UPS. Years ago the weight for a standard package was up to 75lbs. Women/feminists lobbied for the State to lower the weight so women could get these jobs. The State was happy to comply, (more power). The weight I believe for a standard package is now 40lbs. This cost is of course transferred to everyone, (more packaging, delivery fee’s, trucking, ect), all the way down to the common folk for all products. Women gainfully employed in delivery services has at least doubled the price of that service. Equality laws cost a fortune. These laws extend into every industry.
As far as child care goes, you act as if not only is it a difficult chore but it is completely unenjoyable as well. It’s neither. Nobody wants to work, other than as a possible hobby. As always feminists point to the glass ceiling, well those jobs are 1 in 10,000, the glass floor is where the vast majority of men reside. Women used to be the teachers, caregivers, ect. in the home. Now it’s State run. Perhaps you like the feminist, Swedish model. Those folks are lucky to keep 25% of their pay after taxes. Your love of State is communism.
The pointless excercise of me giving you links to differences in both mental and physical between men and women and have you discount them has grown thin. Look it up for yourself. You’ll notice at the end of every study it’ll always say this doesn’t mean men are “better” at anything. Which shows the all pervasiveness of political correctness, (a communist ideology) over science.
Equal ability is enforced by the State and touted as equal opportunity. Women/feminist lobbied for and have been given this entitlement in education, social, economic and political power over men.
Your dependence on men for one is “taxes” which benefit women over men. You like PP, AA, Title IX, Quota’s, ect, ect, ect. There are over 60 million “laws” all of which give you a leg up, privilege, entitlement. social supeirority, financial bennies, longer life, better medical, medical leave, guarunteed placement in employment, education, welfare, lower sentences for the same crime, if any punishment at all. On and on it goes in all realms of modern day society.
You claim women/feminists aren’t a monolithic block, yet women can and do use the perks gained by all members of your communist faction at any whim or fancy while claiming NAWALT or NAFALT.
NWO: Why must you lie?
Careers at UPSUPS is hiring individuals to work as Part-Time Air Drivers. This position is typically loading and unloading packages Tuesday through Friday and driving every Saturday morning. This is a physical, fast-paced, position that involves lifting, lowering and carrying packages that typically weigh 1 – 35 lbs. and may weigh up to 70 lbs. It requires excellent customer contact and driving skills, including the ability to operate a vehicle equipped with a standard (manual) transmission.
UPS is hiring individuals to work as temporary, seasonal Driver Helpers. This is a physical, fast-paced, outdoor position that involves continual lifting, lowering and carrying packages that typically weigh 25 – 35 lbs. and may weigh up to 70 lbs. It requires excellent customer contact skills and a lot of walking.
As far as child care goes, you act as if not only is it a difficult chore but it is completely unenjoyable as well.
You know this because you’ve got kids, right? You were the primary care provider for those kids (i.e. you were the one who dressed them, fed them, changed them, took them to school, and the park, and the pediatrician, and the dentist, and did the shopping while they tagged along. You cleaned up after them (and tried to teach them to clean up behind themselves as they went along), you showed them how to cook, and to do the dishes, to tie their shoes. You held them while they were puking, and swabbed then when they were feverish, etc.).
Oh, you don’t. Then speak not of what you know not.
Tell me what the laws say about marriage roles. How they make women superior to men. This pointing out how clueless (and full of false witness) you are is wearing thin.
NWO, I have to go to work now, so I’m not going to respond to you point-by-point just yet. But I want to quickly point out two things.
1. You are attributing beliefs and opinions to me that I never expressed. Pleased stop doing that.
2. Links are not a pointless exercise. I have never dismissed a link you have given me out of hand. The problem with the vast majority of gender difference studies is that they do not make any attempt to figure out why the difference is there. I have looked at many studies examining gender difference, and many have methodological flaws, or, as I said above, fail to explain whether or not the difference is somehow fundamental or a social phenomenon. Do you have any sources that account for this?
3. The UPS example is very interesting, and based only on your description I think I agree that the change shouldn’t have been made. However, given the way you have misused sources before, I don’t entirely trust you and would very much like to know where you got your information from.
Oh, crap. I knew I missed a few of them.
Thank you Pecunium, for the UPS stats, I was just about to call bullshit on NWO’s garbage.
Bee
Mommies contribute nothing extra to conception, (one cell apiece, biology). The harship of pregnancy. Would that be taking better care of youself. Oh horrors. Or perhaps it’s the way your treated with kid gloves by society. Another hardship. It’s a bilogical function. There is no concious effort involved. If there was, a woman would need to stay awake 24/7 to continue this concious effort.
My knowlege of “law” is apparently far superior than yours.
Heres a link to discount.
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/rape-laws-no-due-process
Heres an excerpt.
“Unlike any other criminal charge, including murder, assault, even planning the World Trade Center attacks, a rape trial in federal court and in various states allows evidence of the defendant’s commission of prior offenses (specifically, his prior offenses of sexual assault) to show that he has a propensity for committing the crime at issue”
So even a supposed “terrorist” is exempt from this prosecutorial misconduct that the common man is not exempt from when facing a womans word in the court of the State.
Re: UPS. Thanks Pecunium. NWO, wtf?
Subby: Do you have a link supporting the claims you’re making about the UPS thing? The only thing I can find is that UPS has a maximum weight of 150 pounds, and any package over 70 pounds is charged a special overlimits fee. Here is my source.
And I like to work, depending on what the work is. Hell, I’d much rather have one of my former jobs than care for a child (or children) full-time or around the clock. Of course, some women and men enjoy childcare, which is cool too. But to some people it would be less than enjoyable, despite your ass-plucked assertion otherwise.
@Pecunium
Those heavy packages cost extra to ship, when it used to be the standard. The max weight limit was lowered to accomodate women. The cost is transferred to you. Extra packaging for 35lbs, extra handling, extra, extra, extra across the board. Are you intentionally dense?
And yes I have taken care of children, and it’s fun as all get up.