Categories
antifeminism beta males creepy misogyny MRA oppressed men PUA rapey reactionary bullshit sex sluts statutory rape apologists the spearhead video

“Even if the teen showed you a fake ID, you are still a criminal,” and other grave injustices.

Here’s a little video that takes a look at some PUAs and MRAs who share a great love for underage girls … and a hatred of the word “pedophile.” If some of the quotes in the video look familiar, that’s because they’re from a creepy mini-manifesto called “Age of Consent is Misandry,” which we examined here not too long ago. The rest are from a thread on Roissy’s Citizen Renegade blog that really has to be read to be believed.  You’ll notice one, er, interesting comment from a guy calling himself “Welmer.” That’s our good friend W.F. Price from The Spearhead.

Enjoy?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

312 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ion
Ion
9 years ago

So, can I ask, where is the proof? When feminists discuss sexism and other wrongdoings, they usually provide proof to back up what they’re saying. If they don’t offer proof, they’re discounted.

How can one trust you here?

I don’t remember the name or website, but I’m not asking you to ‘trust me’. It was a personal anecdote, nothing more. Do you find it so implausible, though, that you must conclude I’m lying?

But people in the comments have been doing exactly that. People like me may be irritated while we’re critiquing him, but that’s because he is constantly wrong and on top of it all really hostile. Yet, the facts (or lack thereof) are the core reasons behind any critique of him when he displays this behavior.

Hey, as long as everyone is held to the same standard it’s fine with me.

redlocker
9 years ago

“I don’t remember the name or website, but I’m not asking you to ‘trust me’. It was a personal anecdote, nothing more. Do you find it so implausible, though, that you must conclude I’m lying?”

When one offers an anecdote just to “Play Devil’s Advocate”, especially in a debate that requires sound arguments and references, eyebrows will be raised, no matter how much the anecdote affects.

To paraphrase a youtube user named QualiaSoup: If someone I knew were to disappear into thin air, I would understand how difficult, if not impossible, it would be for someone to believe what I have to say about that situation, however frustrated I may feel.

Next time, offer evidence, not just hearsay.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

Pardon me, I didn’t realize every discussion on the internet should be a serious scientific debate backed by facts and documents. I’ll have a bibliography next time.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

It would indeed be unfair to demand links and scientific proof for every claim made in an internet discussion, and personal anecdotes do serve a limited function of illustrating a point. That said, however, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. We often have situations here when calm, reasoned arguments by feminists get dubbed wholesale as “man-hating” and hysterical. That is why David still has that challenge, that calls on MRA’s to come up with real, verifiable quotes by feminists that can reasonably be interpreted as hateful. Curiously, months ago one of our then-resident misogynists attempted to quote me as proof that hateful quotes by feminists exist. Of course, he had to truncate my text and in fact only quoted a fragment of a sentence in order to make it seem like I was saying something that was actually the opposite of what I was really saying. So in short, yes, when someone claims that feminists say deranged, hateful things about men all the time just like MRA’s say about women — yeah, I’d like to see some proof beyond personal anecdotes.

Andrea Vaughn
9 years ago

Ion, in general, when someone comes on a feminist blog and starts making the same sophomoric points that two hundred other dudes have already come onto the blog to make (“what about the menz?” is a good example), the commenters there usually have little patience with them. On many blogs, they are informed that they need to at least read and understand sites like Feminism 101 if they expect to discuss issues in the community without being laughed at. You may have thought you were making particularly trenchant points, but in all likelihood, they were the basic concern troll points that we’ve all seen a million times and at this point we’re just exhausted trying to explain the basics to someone again and again and again.

Regarding the woman who mutilated her husband, this feminist wasn’t laughing. I was horrified. There is never a justification to do physical damage to another person. It’s not funny and it’s not something to make jokes about. But then again, I’m a “humorless feminist.”

FactFinder
9 years ago

@Amused – Here. All the feminist nonsense you can stomach. Please don’t pull the “hate makes other hate okay” card, we all know one’s faith shows its true colors under pressure (or a few articles on the internet).

FactFinder
9 years ago

Ion, in general, when someone comes on a feminist blog and starts making the same sophomoric points that two hundred other dudes have already come onto the blog to make (“what about the menz?” is a good example), the commenters there usually have little patience with them.
It’s never okay to lash out at anyone. To say otherwise would be blaming others for your hormones and emotions which is a cowardly and childlike act.
Additionally, the fact that these points are continuously raised may be due to their legitimacy and feminists’ tendency to evade, ignore, or orally assault the inquirer. If feminists could just answer a simple question in a rational and thoughtful manner, or at least hold up to the same inquiry they dish out, the general public would think far higher of them.

titfortat
9 years ago

Regarding the woman who mutilated her husband, this feminist wasn’t laughing. I was horrified. There is never a justification to do physical damage to another person. It’s not funny and it’s not something to make jokes about. But then again, I’m a “humorless feminist.”(Andrea Vaughn)

I am not sure if you have seen the clip taken from the show ‘The Talk’ but I wonder how many of those women would classify themselves as ‘Feminists’

Start watching around 4:40 to see what all the ‘fun’ is about.

Spearhafoc
9 years ago

Really? Wasn’t feminism “reactionary bullshit” when it first came out?

“Reactionary: of, pertaining to, marked by, or favoring reaction, especially extreme conservatism or rightism in politics; opposing political or social change.”

By definition, no, it wasn’t.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

I saw that clip, and was glad to see that most feminists I know of didn’t condone that show or the hosts’ behavior. To be honest I was expecting someone to start theorizing about why ‘he deserved it’, or make jokes about it, or twist the whole thing into an anti-male rant. But everyone was more sympathetic than I expected.

Someone earlier did make a good point, though, that if it’d been a group of men joking and laughing in this manner about a woman, it probably would’ve never made it onto the air, or if did, there would’ve been such an uproar that they would’ve lost their jobs and been forced to publicly apologize. But these ladies are probably safe, because (white) males are acceptable targets. Meh, the whole thing left a bad taste for me.

Nobby
9 years ago

“I am not sure if you have seen the clip taken from the show ‘The Talk’ but I wonder how many of those women would classify themselves as ‘Feminists’”

None of them, as far as I know. And every feminist I’ve talked to has been horrified at this, and a few I’ve seen have rightly been calling out the victim blaming occurring (see No Seriously for a good example).

And, yet again, we’re not a damned monolith. Sometimes some members mess up. But unlike the MRM, when someone does something horrible like saying “I wonder what he did to deserve that!” lots of others jump on them, and rightly so.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Everyone I know -feminist or not- is appalled, because this shit is appalling. I’d never even heard of this show before now, I’m completely disgusted, and I’ve already used the feedback form to let the producers know how unacceptable this is. My preliminary research indicates that this show is not only deeply stupid but has other incidents -though not as offensive- of being, at the very least, absurdly insensitive. And maybe that’s its schtick. I don’t know.

I’m trying to figure out what the best method of directly contacting the appropriate production office would be. I don’t know enough about daytime television to know who the show’s primary sponsors are.

Are any MRA sites organizing a boycott?

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

As always, everyone of you as a monolithic block has failed miserably in explaining your acceptance at the rampant hatred of men. Is there any talk show, advert, sitcom, ect, where the hatred, denigration, degradation or fear of men isn’t endorsed or at the very least accepted? Modern day society is literally saturated with this mentality.

In the video all the women in the audience found this quite amusing. If you would watch the entire show you would representation of what can only be considered every possible demographic of all women. We know the female hosts are indeed feminists. The one who posed the question if it would be as funny if it happened to a woman, first apologized for being a “buzzkill.” This was an apology for putting the laughter at the hatred of men on hold for a moment.

Heres a video about the male pill on the MSM.
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2010/01/13/joy.behar.male.pill.cnn?iref=allsearch

This woman, along with her guest speaker, a former call-girl call men liars who continually need their ego’s stroked, ect, ect. It’s just the constant stream of hatred and denigration of men.

This particular article on manboobz is about underage girls. Now the wisdom from the Ivory Tower will always come down to sexual agency this or sexual agency that. The thought being, all women reguarless of are have sexual agency. I’ll use a 15 year old girl as an example. She has sexual agency. She decides to use her sexual agency to have sex with a 15 year old boy and no problem everyone agree’s. Now say she initiates having sex with a 25 or 35 year old man. Depending on the State it is now statuatory rape even though she, in full control of her sexual agency initiated the act.

The prevailing thought being, “he” should have known better. Known better than what though? Should he have known better than to think he also has sexual agency? How does her ownership of sexual agency mean a man loses his ownership of sexual agency? Since she intitiated the act, she was in control the entire time and maintained her sexual agency. If a man is arrested and incarcerated in this situation what has actually happened is the woman has handed her sexual agency over to the State. The State, now in control of her sexual agency say’s the mans sexual agency is forfeit, he has no sexual agency. He is wrong to even presume to believe he has any sexual agency to accept her sexual agency.

Now the show with women laughing at a mans mutilation is obviously hatred of man. The video I provide here is also the accpeted degradation and hatred of man. The statuatory rape law can be debated till the cows come home, yet in the end a man is incarcerated for accepting a womans sexual agency.

We can try to blame the media, adverts, ect for clothing lines such as, “boys are stupid throw rocks at them.” However none of that addresses the inherent problem. The insatiable desire to hate men. The reason I say that is because if there was no market for the hatred of men none of these products or shows could ever turn a profit. If I tried to sell dirt sandwiches I wouldn’t get very far, there isn’t a market for them. However, the market for the hatred of men flourishes. The very need to hate men drives the economy to produce shows, magazines, adverts, clothing, laws, charities that exclude men. The lust to hate men is everywhere, otherwise none of these things would sell.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

FactFinder: The “examples” you linked to come from a rabidly misogynist website. Given misogynists’ well-documented history of misquoting feminists and inventing “quotes” out of thin air, your link lacks trustworthiness. So again, furnish proof. The following will qualify as valid proof, as far as I am concerned:

1. Actual, real quotes from people who self-identify as feminists,

2. In addition to being real, the quotes may not be truncated, manipulated or altered in any way so as to distort the author’s intent. And they may not be taken out of context (by, for example, submitting the comment of a fictional character as indicative of the author’s point of view).

3. The quote must come from either a feminist or a neutral source. MRA websites have earned themselves a reputation of being untrustworthy. Don’t worry: most feminist websites I know of do not require that you register in order to read their content.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

Ion: people who are members of the dominant group are always acceptable targets. Unless you live in a society where those with less power and less agency are always acceptable targets.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Amused…The quotes from feminists are on the video, they are all proud true blue feminists. Their mocking laughter at a man being drugged and mutilated is the quote.

The unbelievable statement you make about MRA site having untrustworthy stats is astonishing considering the “facts” coming from feminist acedemia. Lets be honest here shall we? If we’re to believe feminists “facts” you have never met a man who isn’t a rapist, DV kung fu expert, child abuser, ect. and no woman has ever been anything but a perfect victim.

ozymandias42
9 years ago

NWO, honey, love, darling, you really shouldn’t get your “feminists are evil!” videos from a feminist/masculist website.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

Well Ozzy, is CNN biased? Had I known that any video obtain from any site not deemed feminist friendly discounts that video I would have discounted it myself. I also obtained the video of big laughs at the mutilated man from an MRA site. I guess it never really happened. In the future maybe you might tell me which articles you deem acceptable. I’d hate to cause an unseemly sound in the echo chamber.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Tit for Tat, thanks for the link.

Ozymandias, I appreciate the blog providing practical resources to protest the offensiveness of that clip.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

With respect to the video, I have no reason to believe these women are feminists. In fact, it is traditionalist women who, while exhibiting outward piety towards masculinity, are most likely in private to laugh and mock a man whose penis was cut off. This is the downside of patriarchy promoting the myth that men are mindless, insatiable sexual beasts. I won’t argue that the privileges of patriarchy have their downsides, though those downsides don’t justify them. Men in a patriarchal society don’t have to do any childcare, so even a married man with kids can live pretty much like a bachelor, albeit with a live-in maid; the downside is that in the event of a divorce, courts privilege the primary care-taker, so no custody. The patriarchal idea that men only care about sex and can’t think straight when they see a pair of boobs is used to saddle women with the responsibility to curtail their own behavior to avert rape and/or disgrace; the downside of this perception of men as animals is that dehumanization spreads to all situations, including ones where it isn’t used to excuse bad behavior by men.

“If we’re to believe feminists “facts” you have never met a man who isn’t a rapist, DV kung fu expert, child abuser, ect. and no woman has ever been anything but a perfect victim.”

First of all, it is misogynists who promote the idea of a “perfect victim” — that is, that a woman who is raped, beaten or otherwise victimized by a man must meet a dizzyingly high standard for morality and behavior in order to be considered a victim at all. Second, it’s misogynists that promote the idea that rape is “natural” (and that means every man is a rapist). Third, I’ve never heard a feminist say that every man is a DV kung fu expert and child abuser.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Nobinayamu…Protesting the clip means nothing. As long as society demands the hatred of men, products, shows, adverts, laws, charities that exclude men, ect. will continue to thrive, expand and profit from the hatred on man.

It’s simple economics, supply and demand. The demand for the fear, hatred and degrading of man is the societal desire for that hatred. The demand is frimly established, Governments, media, charities and industry are simply reacting and competing to supply that demand.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Amused, well please frogive my sarcasm. None the less feminist stats on DV are a tad skewed. As with all their supposed facts.

None of that really matters, neither does which feminist camp you profess allegiance.

If the conservative feminist camp says X behavior is acceptable, and the liberal feminist camp says Y behavior is acceptable, and the moderate feminist camp says Z behavior is acceptable and the radical feminist camp say XX behavior is acceptable. They all sit in the same camp dictating laws on mens behavior. Does it really matter to the man which group “wins” the arguement?

titfortat
9 years ago

With respect to the video, I have no reason to believe these women are feminists. In fact, it is traditionalist women who, (Amused)

Im hard pressed to call Sharon Osbourne a traditional woman. Hateful maybe, traditional, not so much.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

NWOaf-it sounds like you are blaming feminists for things they are actively trying to fight as well as for things they have nothing to do with. If you are annoyed that something like treating men with disdain happens in the media, the target of your ire should not be feminists, who, in the one truly feminist show had men treated as people and not buffoons, but the (generally) male writers.

The women on this show that is under discussion were wrong. This man was assaulted and that is never the right thing to do. Despite the feminists on this very blog that you can read with your own eyes stating they disagreed with it, you assume we do.

So you do little advance your cause because you refuse to accept someone does in fact not hate men.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

@PosterFormerlyKnownAsElizabeth This goes back to my “are we lying or naive?” question w/e ppl tell us what we’re REALLY thinking xD Are we just too stupid to know our own thoughts? Or are we actively lying and hiding our true thoughts? o_O

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

NWO, organized protest and targeted advertising boycotts are effective methods of fostering awareness and change.

Are they imperfect methods? Of course they are. Nothing is perfect. Do they require time and perseverance? Of course they do. Do they fail? Everything fails before it succeeds. It almost embarrasses me to use such a trite cliche but in this case it is true: anything worth having is worth fighting for. What’s the alternative? More to the point, what’s your alternative?

If my participating in these nascent forms of protest “…means nothing” then what do your off topic rants directed toward a bunch of people who clearly and vocally disapprove of this incident mean?

What do they accomplish?

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

“Im hard pressed to call Sharon Osbourne a traditional woman. Hateful maybe, traditional, not so much.”

She’s far closer to being traditional than feminist. Although I will concede I’ve never seen her wearing a proper poodle skirt and a sweater set.

titfortat
9 years ago

@Amused

I would give you odds that Sharon Osbourne would more closely align herself as feminist than she would traditional. Though I completely understand why you would not want her to use that title.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Depends on what you mean by traditional? Swearing profusely and being opinionated may seem “untraditional” for a woman but only by the most shallow of measures.

When I look at Sharon Osbourne I see a woman who subsumed her career and identity to her husband’s, making her entire existence about him and her family. She has undergone both gastric bypass and extensive plastic surgery in attempts to improve and -I suppose- maintain her appearance. She is a wife of decades as well as mother. Whether or not I find her personality grating, bordering on repellant, has very little to do with whether or not she is “traditional”.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

No Seriously’s blog post got picked up by the Washington Post 😀

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Ami, that’s an excellent start.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I am watching the Joy Behar clip and while some of the assumptions are rude “no man wants to wear a condom, always will try to get out of it,” it was not “MEN SUCK ALL THE TIME.”

For examples of misandry, not that great.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

What Nobinayamu said. Subsuming one’s career into one’s husband’s? “Entertainment” is focuses on motherhood? These are the hallmarks of fulfilling a traditional female role. Saying that she is a feminist because she isn’t outwardly mincing or simpering is superficial to say the least. Although the idea that saying the word “fuck” out loud makes a woman a feminist isn’t surprising coming from T4T.

titfortat
9 years ago

When I look at Sharon Osbourne I see a woman who subsumed her career and identity to her husband’s, making her entire existence about him and her family.(Nobinayamu)

Make no mistake, Ozzy may be the artistic director, Sharon clearly is the one who runs the show. In fact, no Sharon and Ozzy is either dead or broke and out on the street.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

Entertainment that focuses on motherhood, that is. Sorry, didn’t reread before posting.

Amused
Amused
9 years ago

Well, I guess by that standard, Michele Bachmann is a feminist, too.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Amused, I’ll use your example of “patriarchy” to show you what I mean about the various factions of feminism dictating mens actions and how all women benifit from those actions reguardless of left, right, moderate or radical.

Conservative feminist say a man provides while she is the primary caretaker.
Liberal feminists say a woman can work as well is she wants and the man can be the primary caretaker.
When divorce happens, the State gives custody to the woman reguardless of who works or doesn’t work. The man will be the ATM provider. The only time the man gets primary custody is if the woman allows it. Her word dictates the outcome. Men have to fight for custody which is the womans by default.

The woman maintains custodial rights as per the conservative feminists.
The also maintains the working status as per the liberal feminists.
The woman now works, maintains custody of the family and collects child support from the man who is excluded from the family.

You see. all the feminist camps work in tandum.

So I ask again, does it really matter which camp wins the arguement? In the end, I lose.

The “patriarchy” you claim we live in has been built brick by brick, law by law, by women from every faction and ideology. Women have spent the last hundred years building “your” patriarchy. You whine and complain about the “patriarchy” as you lobby for more laws from the left, right and middle to build it ever further. Make no mistakes, this is your patriarchy, women have built it.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Tit for Tat, you are, once again, splitting ridiculously fine hairs. The tradition of husbands and wives working side by side is a long and well documented one. From family farms to small businesses, women have often worked along side their husbands. Very little could be more traditional.

Your speculative quibbling about precisely how their duties and responsibilities break down is utterly beside the point. By any real standards, Sharon Osbourne is very traditional, and no amount of dropping the “f-bomb” changes that.

titfortat
9 years ago

How’s that saying go……….feminism isnt a monolith?

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

I have yet to meet a conservative feminist.

titfortat
9 years ago

Nobinayamu

I have not made any reference to Sharon’s profanity. Amused brought that up as a way to attack me. Surprise, surprise.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Most couples with children work out custody and financial arrangements without the interference of the court. And more and more states are making joint custody the default when they do have to become involved.

As a direct result of men -and women too, I imagine- working to promote effective change, the system itself is changing from the default position of mothers receiving primary custody. Did it happen immediately? No. Is it happening? Yes.

Every year, the statistics about shared custody improve and become more equitable. What will you rant about, NWO, when the are nearly 50/50?

Holly Pervocracy
Holly Pervocracy
9 years ago

NWO is the kind of guy who can make working while raising kids some sort of giant privilege.

I notice he’s also the kind of guy who can make custody all about the child support payments, and not about, you know, the children. If I were a judge, I wouldn’t award custody to someone who asked for it on grounds of “Your Honor, if they don’t live with me, I’ll have to pay child support!”

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
9 years ago

Tit for Tat, I brought up Sharon Osbourne’s profanity too; possibly first. The use of profanity is often pointed to as an example of woman not being feminine, demure, or “traditional.” Maybe it’s not an example that you’ve given. Fair enough. But since you’ve provided no real counter argument to Sharon Osbourne being anything other than a fairly traditional wife and mother, I stand by my statements.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

Again I ask, could the selling of products, adverts, charities that exclude men/boys, laws, sitcoms, ect. that actively promote the fear, hatred and degradation of men be profitable unless there was an endemic societal wide desire for those products, services, laws, books ect.?

No business, charity, ect. can stay profitable unless the desire for that product or service exists. How can it be otherwise?

ozymandias42
9 years ago

NWO, dear, I’m pretty sure you got the clip from NSWATM. If I am mistaken, do tell me.

Also, sure there’s a desire for misandric products. That’s because we live in a sexist society! Welcome to gender egalitarianism, how may we help you? 🙂

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

NWOaf, which is why we tell you to go forth and try to get people to stop being such.

And stop blaming feminists since we have nothing to do with it.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

Ozzy, gender egalitarianism created the hatred. Before womens studies and gender egalitarianism there was no endemic hatred of man.

Welcome to the world of gender egalitarianism has created.

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth, I try to tell you to stop be hateful. It hasn’t helped so far.