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.
1000th post! Did I get it?
No kirby I wil mwahaha.
crap
NOPE MINE!
ONE THOUSAND GET
hey 999th isn’t bad
Awwww…damn it. lol
Jumbofish, NOOoooooooo!
Frick.
Didn’t NWO say back in the thread where Sarah shared her story (*big hugs to her again*) that he thought rape was a vile crime and rapists were terrible monsters and should be punished huge and big and he cares more about rape and victims than any of us and to catch them and punish them? o_O
*snicker* ROMANCE not romane (though I make an exception for paranormal romance these days).
It’s not nice to get raped but still if you don’t get permanent damage (psychological damage doesn’t count) I cannot consider that a serious crime.
This is what Marc believes right? :] (just want to be sure :3 so we have a fixed point of reference xD )
But he also tried to give “advice” to women to avoid rape, which is why Sarah hates him (I think?).
Just jumping in on a very long thread to add one Shakespeare-nerd comment. None of Shakespeare’s plays (or almost any plays from that era) feature female leads for a very good reason: the female parts were played by teenage boys, and teenage boys frankly weren’t very good actors. If you look at the plays with prominent female characters, like Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth, it’s very impressive how Shakespeare managed to pack a lot of character development into the minimum number of lines, so the boys playing the women’s roles wouldn’t have to push themselves too hard to create great characters.
Also, he wrote a lot of brilliant romantic scenes that didn’t require the leads to physically touch, the balcony scene in Romeo and Juliet being the most obvious example.
I live every meal in terror of paranormal romaine!
It’s going to be interesting to see how fast NWO’s mind is changed by Marc on what he said on the previous thread, when he won’t even admit he was wrong about Pecunium pointing out he was incorrect about the UPS thing xD
@ami
…really? I can’t imagine him saying something like that. Was it in one of the two lgtb posts? (I didn’t read those)
I suppose I should apologize (for the third time in a week) for de-lurking, and hopefully this will be the last time in a while, but here are a few critiques of both Marc’s position and Professor Ruse’s.
1: From an MRA perspective, if our revulsion to rape is “irrational” and “based on nothing more than evolutionary biology,” so too are many of the concerns MRAs have. It’s entirely possible Andromedans would see nothing wrong with paternity fraud, false rape accusations, or drafting men to fight and die. Remember, men are concerned about paternity fraud because we evolved to be so (jealous men were better at passing on their genes), in an Andromedan society where rape wasn’t a serious crime a false accusation of it would be meaningless, and a different species may have evolved in such a way that males were entirely expendable, as certain arthropod species have. Ruse’s essay can just as easily undermine MRA positions as it does feminist positions.
2: But fine, you may say, I’m not an MRA, so I don’t care about that! More importantly, paternity fraud, FRAs, and the draft have actual physical (as opposed to psychological) consequences! First off, I’ve been unable to find a text of Prof. Ruse’s essay online (you provided a title, not a link; Google has thus far been uncooperative), but from what I’ve gathered he doesn’t make this argument, which means his essay is, ironically enough, even less convincing than the arguments you’ve propounded here rather than the “slam-dunk” refutation of “primitive morality” that you seem to think it is.
More importantly, however, is that rape *can* have serious physical consequences, namely pregnancy and STDs. You mention this once but don’t really acknowledge it again after that. I presume you consider it a serious crime if the victim is impregnated and/or diseased? Even if you wish to argue that the victim can just get an abortion/antibiotics (except in the case of certain STDs such as AIDs, for which there are yet no cures *at all*), abortions still cost what, a couple hundred dollars? Same for some types of antibiotics. It’s the equivalent at least of stealing a few hundred dollars from someone, which can indeed be punished by a lengthy sentence.
The “beaten with a stick” analogy is also flawed, simply because there are many, many instances IRL where people do “want,” or at least accept, physical damage being done to them. Boxing is one obvious example–if I give someone a black eye in the ring, there is no way I can be charged with assault, but if I were to accost my opponent after the match and give him a black eye, he would legitimately be able to press charges against me. Under your reasoning, “well, he accepted getting beat up in the ring, he should accept it outside as well!” Obviously, this isn’t very convincing.
The example you gave about a “father forcing his daughter to eat something” can also be used to illustrate the above point about the physical damage of rape (even disregarding entirely the psychological damage). If a father forces his child to eat peas, then no, nobody can punish him because he’s not really hurting the child physically, potentially or not. If he fed her arsenic, however, he would be undoubtedly arrested for child abuse.
By the same token, a father force-feeding his child peas causes her no physical harm (including no potential harm). However, a father forcing his penis into his child’s vagina, even if it causes no immediate physical harm, is still very capable of producing potential harm, since, after all, if he was only a little less careful or lucky, he could have torn her vagina, impregnated her (with all the problems that entails), and so on. It’s the exact same rationale as the stringent drunken-driving punishment we have in the US, and I assume you have wherever you’re from. A drunk driver gets pulled over, and even if he’s totally alone on the road and hasn’t crashed into anything and has caused no damage at all, he’s still going to get punished very harshly because he could have *potentially* caused an immense amount of damage. If he had been just a little less lucky or a little less careful, he could have crashed, killed himself and others, and so on. By the same token, even if a rapist causes no serious physical damage, if he had been a little less careful, a little less lucky, or whatever, he would have torn his victim’s vagina, gave her an STD or picked one up from her, or whatever. Therefore, even if rape doesn’t necessarily result in physical damage, we punish it harshly for the same reason we punish a “harmless” drunk driver harshly–the potential for physical damage is too great.
That said, Marc, you’re probably not going to convince anyone that “psychological pain doesn’t matter”–I would wager I’m one of the few, aside from maybe NWOSlave, MRAL, other assorted MRAs, and so on–who would be even remotely amenable to that argument. While it’s not my place to lecture you, in my view your attempts at discussion with (most of) the blog residents here is futile. It’s also the reason I’ve been lurking for the last few months rather than posting–aside from this long screed, written against my better judgment, the only times I’ve popped out of obscurity have been to pimp out a YTMND and ask our host about a picture. Now, attempting to refine your ideas is one thing, but I hope you don’t intend to win any converts.
Wanderer,
No need to apologize. Why not just keep posting?
@Jumbofish I can’t remember the thread : There were several going on at the time xD The one w/ Sarah was where he said rapists were sick fucks, but he didn’t say it was a terrible crime… (maybe I’m wrong and he never said/believed that o_o perhaps he should clarify? xD (perhaps you should, NWO :] )
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/11/blogger-slutwalkers-deserve-to-be-raped/comment-page-5/#comments
this is also where he mutated into a concern troll xD He’s like Megabyte xD
I am still the first person to post the one thousandth post. *is smug*
Does that mean you’re pregnant?
No, fairly sure that 13 is not that interested.
Clearly a Theta Male.
luke123: Here is some more from Praxis, directly: Excerpt from Making Social Change: Reflections on Individual and Institutional Advocacy with Women Arrested for Domestic Violence
Martha McMahon and Ellen Pence, Violence Against Women, Vol. 9, No. 1, January 2003<.
Yeah, that looks to be really in favor of women beating men. What with them being on conditional probation, being told what the legally accepted definitions of self-defense are (hint, it’s a lot more restrictive than most people think), challenging abusive women they way they would if they were dealing with abusive men.
Really unfair they are.