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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.”
@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).
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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?
Nobinayamu
Here you go.
http://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/cbs-we-are-not-amused/
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.
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.
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.
@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.
NWO, honey, love, darling, you really shouldn’t get your “feminists are evil!” videos from a feminist/masculist website.
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.
Tit for Tat, thanks for the link.
Ozymandias, I appreciate the blog providing practical resources to protest the offensiveness of that clip.
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.
@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.
@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?
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.
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.