Categories
links masculinity oppressed men patriarchy racism terrorism victimhood

Links: Michael Kimmel and Amanda Marcotte on masculinity, misogyny and Anders Breivik

The world doesn't need any more macho Nazis

A couple excellent pieces on Anders Breivik and misogyny.

First: The other day I posted a link to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Breivik and the sexual politics of far-right thought. It turned out that the article was a draft that got published prematurely.

Now the final version of the post is officially up at Sociological Images:  A tale of two terrorists redux. Kimmel argues that what we know about Breivik thus far

indicate[s] that … it will be impossible to fully understand this horrific act without understanding how gender operates as a rhetorical and political device for domestic terrorists.

These members of the far right consider themselves Christian Crusaders for Aryan Manhood, vowing its rescue from a feminizing welfare state. Theirs is the militarized manhood of the heroic John Rambo – a manhood that celebrates their God-sanctioned right to band together in armed militias if anyone, or any governmental agency, tries to take it away from them. If the state and capital emasculate them, and if the masculinity of the “others” is problematic, then only “real” white men can rescue the American Eden or the bucolic Norwegian countryside from a feminized, multicultural, androgynous immigrant-inspired melting pot.

Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon offers some thoughts on Misogyny and Terrorism:

[T]here’s definitely a strong link between misogyny and violence that can’t be denied.  Misogynists are far likelier to be violent people than non-misogynists, which is why rape and wife-beating are such common crimes.  (Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury for women 15-44.)  All bigotry provokes violence at its ends, of course.  This isn’t the Oppression Olympics.  But misogyny and violence go hand in hand so often because misogynists really buy deeply into the idea that women are weak and men are “strong”, by which they mean aggressive.  A steady drumbeat of misogynist thought couldn’t be better designed to reach the unhinged and cause them to lash out violently, all while imagining themselves to be big, tough men who claim they were forced—with “why did you make me do this?” being the battle cry of wife beaters—into violence.

Discuss.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

344 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Johnny Pez
9 years ago

Also, using cattle as a metaphor for women is more revealing than you think.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

You don’t need to force women to go back to the domestic sphere at all. You just need to force them to compete with men on equal terms by dismantling affirmative action, and then they will willingly flee back to the kitchen in droves.

My own opinions about the negatives of affirmative action type policies/legislation aside, dismantling affirmative action probably will not guarantee that competition will be on equal terms, as it certainly wasn’t prior to affirmative action. Nepotism, for example, was a long-standing practice, as was favouring hiring men over women due to the centuries old (and still ongoing) male-head-of-household-and-breadwinner paradigm.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

If women are so naturally inclined to favor the domestic sphere, why do you need to force them to go back to it?

John Stuart Mill (another in the MRA’s list of Manginas) had some interesting thoughts about that back in 1869:
“One thing we may be certain of — that what is contrary to women’s nature to do, they never will be made to do by simply giving their nature free play. The anxiety of mankind to interfere in behalf of nature, for fear lest nature should not succeed in effecting its purpose, is an altogether unnecessary solicitude. What women by nature cannot do, it is quite superfluous to forbid them from doing…
The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts — from the whole of the present constitution of society — one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else — if any other means of living or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them — there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject) “It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless they are compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them.” The merits of the case would then be clearly defined.”

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

@cynickal:
Ah, the old “I used to be a Democrat” argument. Strangely when the friends of these “former feminists” are ever found, they never substantiate that the “former feminists” were every feminists.

And I always have to hear this old “Only because you took some freshman courses in X you don’t …” argument (the last time from sharculese).

X was already Philosophy, Math, Physics, Chemistry and Biology until now.

And when I complain about that, I just hear something like “Maybe because it’s true!”.

So…. maybe because it’s true!

Is it so difficult to imagine that people don’t people start to dislike feminism when they start to know it better?

When even people who think MRAs are nutjobs don’t like feminism, maybe there’s really something wrong with it?

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/03/22/the-rite-of-faghood-and-fagly-feminists/

@Snowy:
A picture, your opinion of it, and what seems to be the beginning of some kind of sexual fantasy scenario. What does this have to do with anything again?

I’m sorry, that was just an example that society doesn’t care that much about if males are “objectified”, too… Don’t you think one could make this procedure a bit less embarrassing especially if you keep in mind that this is not voluntary? 😀

Uh, no, the gender pay gap is a proven thing. You must be thinking of something else.

Is it proven that women get paid less than men for the SAME work and when they have the same professional experience? I never saw a proof for that, do you have a link?

Rachel
Rachel
9 years ago

Chuckeedee “Maybe. But with a change in politics, with your affirmative action freebies removed and the AA gravy-train derailed, you’ll be fleeing back to the kitchen quicker than your SO can say ‘make me a samich bitch!’”

I always find this kind of statement so interesting. Apparently the only reason women go to school, get jobs, and are successful in life is because of AA? First off, affirmative action doesn’t have quotas. But, let’s just pretend that these magical quotas do exist and all women everywhere only get into school and get jobs because someone somewhere (your elected officials, actually, who tend to be mostly men…but that is not really the point) decided that women were a necessary addition to classrooms and workplaces throughout the country and to ensure that women were added, they decided to require a specific number of women be enrolled or hired. And so was born the dreaded “quota” MRAs complain about.

So, women are accepted into school only because of these quotas, but what MRAs know is that women can’t really hack the competition with men. But wait, then how is it possible that there are sometimes female valedictorians? And why isn’t it that the top 50% of the class is always composed of the male students while the bottom is always composed of the female students? I mean, the law can force schools to admit women, but once a woman is in, she still survives on her merit alone. You may be thinking, “Well, women take easier classes,” or “The schools give women better grades.” Again, I wholeheartedly disagree, but let’s pretend that in some circumstances this is actually true. This still doesn’t account for programs where all students take the same courses and are graded blindly; for instance, in law school. In the first year of law school all students take the same course schedule. At the end of the semester, students have one final exam per course that comprises their complete grade in that course (usually, though there are exceptions). Generally, students are forbidden from putting any identifying information on their exam and are instead given a test number. Their professors grade the exams without ever knowing which test belongs to which student. And in this scenario where women are in direct competition with men, with no help from any government program, women are still managing to be at the top of their class, some graduating with the highest honors. Obviously, not all women make it into the top of their class, but neither do all men. Interestingly enough, it tends to be about ½ and ½.

And then you get into the actual work place. Maybe affirmative action got me my job (although I tend to believe what got me my job was my GPA in undergrad, graduating in the top 15% in my law school, and doing good work in the 3 month internship I had with my law firm, but who knows), but affirmative action cannot help me win cases or write legal documents. And yet somehow, I do manage to win cases and write winning briefs…maybe it’s a fluke? Or maybe, men and women are more comparable than men like to believe?

The same holds for most every profession – no hospital would keep a female doctor because of AA if that doctor was killing her patients. And yet, every time I go to the hospital or a doctor’s office, I see a female doctor. No one would use an accountant who was incompetent, but female accountants certainly exist.

The point is that your assumption that women just cannot hack it without laws providing them with an advantage is erroneous even if we assume that the laws you rely on actually do exist. Your point is even more unpersuasive to those of us who know that the quotas you point to in order to prove your point simply don’t exist.

Pecunium
9 years ago

In a former life? These are reincarnated feminists? Who did their past lives regressions?

Pecunium
9 years ago

I see the real Marc is starting to come out. He’s not so neutral as he pretends.

Toysoldier
9 years ago

@Ami: “In favor of” means “more than” or “more often.” It is pretty easy to prove. For example, if you got to Feministe, Feministing, and Shakesville and type in church, Vatican, and Catholic into the search bar, virtually all the posts are about the Catholic Church’s position on women and gay people, not the sex abuse scandal. Shakesville fared a little better under “Catholic”, although the posts avoid mentioning the male victims.

Bostonian
Bostonian
9 years ago

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2011/06/fuck-all-yall-we-aint-paying-shit.html

In its continuing effort to alienate every last person with a shred of decency from its congregant ranks, the Catholic Church is contesting a jury verdict awarding $5 million to a former altar boy sexually abused by a priest on the basis that the verdict “exposes the citizens of Illinois to gross violations of their religious liberty.”

First result, first sentence of the post, mentioning a male victim and his fight for justice.

Shakesville.

Sharculese
9 years ago

feminist blogs focus on feminist issues? tell me ,more about your stunning expose.

Rachel
Rachel
9 years ago

Toysoldier – I understand your justified anger at the horrible things that have happened to entirely too many children by priests in the Catholic church. However, I would just say that there are many horrible things that happen in this world and it is impossible for one activist organization to fight them all. Is it so surprising that feminists as a group focus more on the misogyny that still exists within the Catholic church? There are many different groups of people who choose to fight various injustices they see in the world. Each group chooses their pet issue and focuses their energy on that issue. That doesn’t mean that they don’t see or care about the various other injustices or wrongs that exist, but you can’t really expect one group to take on everything. Also, just because you see feminists posting on a feminist website about issues that effect women does not necessarily mean that those feminists aren’t also on other sites (or better yet, out in the real world) fighting against various other wrongs. Coming to a forum dedicated to one issue and then arguing that those people aren’t talking about this other equally important issue is somewhat counterproductive, don’t you think?

Bostonian
Bostonian
9 years ago

My question is, what is the MRM doing to fight the Catholic Church on this issue? They do not seem to post on it at all.

For people who are supposedly fighting for the rights of men and boys, this should have come up at some point.

mediumdave
mediumdave
9 years ago

Ah, I see Toysoldier is doing a variation on the “women should take care of everyone’s problems before their own” argument… otherwise known as the “Mommy!” gambit.

ithiliana
9 years ago

I do not like bon bons!

Now , if you’re talking caramels…….we can talk!

redlocker
9 years ago

@Pecunium: “I see the real Marc is starting to come out. He’s not so neutral as he pretends.”

As if there was any doubt in the first place. 😀 MRA’s definitely go to great lengths to distort other people’s views like he has.

Pam
Pam
9 years ago

My question is, what is the MRM doing to fight the Catholic Church on this issue? They do not seem to post on it at all.

Chastising women in general and feminists in particular for seemingly NOT doing anything about the issue.

redlocker
9 years ago

Sorry for the double post, but this needs to be promoted.

@Rachel: “Coming to a forum dedicated to one issue and then arguing that those people aren’t talking about this other equally important issue is somewhat counterproductive, don’t you think?”

Right. If you’re so concerned about those issues that feminists are supposedly ignoring, why not tackle them yourself? Men’s Right’s issues are tackled even by NSWATM, a blog made by a feminist and having contributions from many men on various issues: https://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/

Screaming at other people does little to help your cause, Toysoldier.

chuckeedee
chuckeedee
9 years ago

Apparently the only reason women go to school, get jobs, and are successful in life is because of AA? First off, affirmative action doesn’t have quotas.

You don’t need explicit quotas. Implied quotas are fine, and are quite effective. For example, I worked in an office, and I was on their EEO board (curiosity got the better of me, and I needed a bit of entertainment), where if a man and woman were rated equally for a job, the policy was to give it to the woman. Now I ask you… in a culture of gyno-worship, can we really be satisfied as to the objectivity with which the equal standing between a man and a woman was arrived at? But I digress.

Statistics comparing men’s and women’s participation, promulgated around offices, are the carrot and the stick placing pressures on selection procedures to favor women. No explicit quotas required. Comments by politicians castigating male-dominated boardrooms for being boys-clubs place pressures for implied quotas… though we should add that boardrooms, as the engine-room for decision-making, will be most resistent to implied quotas. Still, they have an effect, as an arbitrary googling reveals. Apart from which, I’m not sure that explicit quotas have been ruled out – though it’s been some time since I last lurked on EEO committees. Surely it depends on what country we are talking about. Google the terms “equality” and “boardroom” (I won’t post the links as some sites have problems with their spam filters). The independent.co.uk site for The Independent, for example. You will find some European countries that have actually introduced quotas even in boardrooms, with some Scandinavian country proudly boasting a surge to 44% participation by women on account of them.

Or what about the trend to lowering standards in male-dominated environments, like for firemen, police and the military, to enable women’s participation? That may not be the setting of explicit quotas, but everyone knows what’s expected of their job selection panels.

Or what about implied pressures, implied methods of education? Girl-friendly participatory assessments in nurturing environments as opposed to all that nasty, brutish competitive stuff with exams that used to “favor” boys? Does it reflect poorly on the intelligence of boys that they find all that participatory, nurturing stuff boring and dull as dishwater? The indoctrination starts at school, along with the incentives and disencentives skewing gender-based participation, and the ear-bashing directed at boys castigating their entry into manhood for all those millennia of oppression of women. Who needs quotas? You just need a gynocentric culture obsessed with gyno-worship.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“You just need a gynocentric culture obsessed with gyno-worship.”

I know! I can’t walk three feet in DC without running into one of those little vagina temples! And those fat goddess tourist trinkets are *everywhere*!

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

I know! I can’t walk three feet in DC without running into one of those little vagina temples! And those fat goddess tourist trinkets are *everywhere*!

chuck, so how was it that the evil feminist conspiracy that runs the world allowed a raging misogynist like you on an EEO board?

Snark and specious reasoning. I see nothing changes around here. So you need “vagina temples” and “fat goddess trinkets” to prove there’s a gynocentric culture? Do you see a lot of “penis temples” and “man-power trinkets” then, which by your reasoning would need to exist if we lived in a patriarchal culture instead?

David, how is it that the evil patriarchy that runs the world is still allowing a man-hating mangina to have a blog? Life’s full of mysteries, ain’t it.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“Do you see a lot of “penis temples” and “man-power trinkets” then, which by your reasoning would need to exist if we lived in a patriarchal culture instead?”

I live in DC, remember?

chuckeedee
chuckeedee
9 years ago

chuck, so how was it that the evil feminist conspiracy that runs the world allowed a raging misogynist like you on an EEO board?

There was a time, in the 1990s, when one’s thoughts were being crystallized. It was a time when one focused on observing, and as the picture emerged, it became clear that they had to keep their thoughts to themselves. So no mystery David, it’s just a question of learning how the world works, and survival. Anti-feminism is not programed into one’s genes from birth, but evolves with observation and learning.

And as a side-note, anti-feminism is no more related to misogyny than feminism is related to women. If you understand this distinction, then you will understand that feminism is chivalry, and just another manifestation of a centuries-old “patriarchal” institution.

Molly Ren
9 years ago

“And as a side-note, anti-feminism is no more related to misogyny than feminism is related to women. If you understand this distinction, then you will understand that feminism is chivalry, and just another manifestation of a centuries-old “patriarchal” institution.”

Uh, what?

chuckeedee
chuckeedee
9 years ago

Uh, what?

… as in, duh? A bit deep for you perhaps? Out of your league? But what can we expect from feminists?

Molly Ren
9 years ago

Damn, didn’t take the bait. : /

I guess feminism = chivalry in that you think feminism treats women as delicate creatures that should be protected and provided for while they sit in their castles and embroider bonbons all day?

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

“Do you see a lot of “penis temples” and “man-power trinkets” then, which by your reasoning would need to exist if we lived in a patriarchal culture instead?”

I live in DC, remember?

If that was a joke, it’s too obvious. If it was serious, that’s just sad. 😛

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

Uh oh, watch out Molly, the scathingly passive-aggressive Ion strikes again!

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

What exactly was passive-aggressive about that? Or has that just become a blanket term you toss out in place of “person I don’t like” now?

Rachel
Rachel
9 years ago

Chuckadee – It seems like your major issue with quotas isn’t quotas per se, it is that western cultures these days tend to espouse the belief that women are just as qualified for their jobs as men, and as such, men should not be given preferential treatment.

To hit on a couple of other points you made, first you are correct in that whether or not specific quotas exist depends upon which country you are talking about. I live in the U.S.; therefore, my statement that no quotas exist per se is based upon U.S. laws. Some other cultures have imposed strict quotas in the workplace, and you are correct that this has lead to much higher involvement by women in the upper-management positions that were traditionally held by men. However, I would again point out that these women appear to be holding their own once they are put in those positions. And, keep in mind that the reason quotas exist is that equally qualified or more qualified women were being passed up in favor of men. Personally, I believe that neither gender should be preferred for jobs. The only way that can happen though is if people give up on their beliefs that men are necessarily better or that women are necessarily better, and actually judge candidates on an individual basis.

Along the same lines, I agree that women who choose to enter fields of work that require a certain level of physical ability should have to pass the same tests as the men in those fields. If the tests are created to ensure the safety of the workers, then everyone should have to pass the same test. But again, there are women who can and do pass these tests. And yet, you seem to be espousing a belief that women, because they are women, shouldn’t be allowed into these fields.

Finally, you talk about education and the lack of competition/the implementation of nurturing environments for children in schools. First, competition is very much alive. In fact, with the addition of equal opportunities for women (as well as other minorities), there is a lot more competition. It seems that you just don’t want boys to have to compete with girls. But if it is truly in the male nature to be competitive and aggressive, the addition of more competitors shouldn’t really be an issue. I wasn’t handed my grades, and neither were any of the women who I went to school with. We earned them. We competed for them. The men who happened to be behind us in the school rankings were apparently not ready for the competition. I refuse to feel bad about that.

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

Wow Ion, I really don’t know, I guess it must have been the emoticon!

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Ion’s back. Whoo! I guess we’re about to keep it real now.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

So… if I use emoticons I’m passive-aggressive now? Damn, what does that make someone like Ami? XD XD XD XD

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

She must be SUPER passive-aggressive then, along with VILE, CRUEL, and EVIL Yeah, that’s probably true. Not.

Ion
Ion
9 years ago

So she’s “not SUPER passive-aggressive” then. But I am, that seems to be your point.

Am I using too few of them? Maybe if I use enough emoticons I’ll break through the passive-aggressiveness zone and emerge on the other side? That’s just crazy enough to work!

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

@redlocker:
As if there was any doubt in the first place. 😀 MRA’s definitely go to great lengths to distort other people’s views like he has.

OK, I admit it, I’m so full of hate when I’m walking around and see these women (they’re incredibly common!), I’m always thinking “WTF they’re everywhere, oh, these fishes I hate them so much!!! For every woman there’s one handsome dude like Anders Breivik less on the earth!”

Right. If you’re so concerned about those issues that feminists are supposedly ignoring, why not tackle them yourself? Men’s Right’s issues are tackled even by NSWATM, a blog made by a feminist and having contributions from many men on various issues: https://noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz.wordpress.com/

That’s just the embrace, extend and extinguish tactics, copied from Microsoft…
Embrace: “We care for you men, don’t go to the MRAs!”
Extend: “I think we all agree that men can only be happy, when women are happy!”
Extinguish: “Sorry, men, we must care for women first, they have it so much worse… you must understand!”

or easier:
(Admiral Ackbar:) IT’S A TRAP!

@Sharculese:
feminist blogs focus on feminist issues? tell me ,more about your stunning expose.

Wasn’t feminism about EQUALITY? And now it’s just about women…!!! 🙁 🙁 🙁

@David Futrelle:
So you think this bizarre mixture of illogical thinking and homophobia should convince us that there’s something wrong with … feminism?

Damn… it failed!

(Protip: always look after “Foucault”, the blogs you find there… guaranteed fun!)

PS: Any volunteers for the MRA-Feminist-Swinger-Party?

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@Rachel
“Chuckadee – It seems like your major issue with quotas isn’t quotas per se, it is that western cultures these days tend to espouse the belief that women are just as qualified for their jobs as men, and as such, men should not be given preferential treatment.”

Science, history and biology clearly show as fact that women are not as qualified physically as well as in certain mental fields of science/math/spacial acuity. Feminist ideology has decreed men and women are mentally and physically interchangable as a fact. Ideology cannot trump fact. Just because feminist ideology says women are inherently equally qualified in all fields of every mental endeavor doesn’t make it true.

If women were equally qualified there would never have been a need for AA, Title IX, quota’s and an unlimited number of laws enacted as an equalizer. And yes there are quotas by the score in both education as well as employment. In order for any company to obtain a Government contract that company must play by the rules by having X number of women employed. That is a quota. If that company has no need of more employees they create jobs in human resources, quality control, ect. that are completely unneccesary. That cost is transferred to the consumer.

Your extremely pathetic attempt at implying men can’t compete against women on a level playing field in the rest of your comment typifies feminist distortion of reality and equality. Only feminist thinking could consider The vast resources of the State giving women a leg up in all realms of society and punishing individual men as well as any company/education system which doesn’t comply a level playing field. Feminism seems hell bent on proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that women need help in even the slightest task to achieve equality.

cynickal
cynickal
9 years ago

Is it so difficult to imagine that people don’t people start to dislike feminism when they start to know it better?

When the actual evidence says the exact opposite of your assertion? Yes, it is hadrd to believe. Because, evidence.

Fucking reading comprehension, how does it work?

redlocker
9 years ago

“That’s just the embrace, extend and extinguish tactics, copied from Microsoft…
Embrace: “We care for you men, don’t go to the MRAs!”
Extend: “I think we all agree that men can only be happy, when women are happy!”
Extinguish: “Sorry, men, we must care for women first, they have it so much worse… you must understand!””

Uh…what?

Did you even read the blog? Ozymandias clearly set up a blog that is clearly about Men’s Issues, but it doesn’t have the ugliness and bigotry that comes with the MRM. It tackles the issues at hand, without beating down half the world just to prove itself. Yet, a feminist set up that god damn blog and invited many intelligent men to create content for it.

Has the MRM created anything that is like that? Do MRAs have a place that discusses men’s issues in a genuine right, instead of obsessing about and hating half the world’s population?

NWOslave
NWOslave
9 years ago

@redlocker
“Did you even read the blog? Ozymandias clearly set up a blog that is clearly about Men’s Issues, but it doesn’t have the ugliness and bigotry that comes with the MRM. It tackles the issues at hand, without beating down half the world just to prove itself. Yet, a feminist set up that god damn blog and invited many intelligent men to create content for it.”

Ozzys blog is simply feminism for men. It’s feminist ideology. Thats all it is. The only commentors there are the manboobz gang and a few from the feminist good men project. Toss in a little Dr. mindbender and suddenly it’s all about teh menz, cause everybody else gets banned.

Ya might as well call it feministe light. Gee, the main concerns seem to be not shaming men for wearing dresses, make up and high heels, and being more supportive of a mans choice to bawl like a two year old in public. The rest of it is a cross between S&M porn and mocking Christians from the tolerant athiest Ozzy.

What a huge fucking joke.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

As I said…
1. Embrace.
2. Extend.
3. Extinguish.

We’re in phase 1.

Marc
Marc
9 years ago

Uh…what?

Did you even read the blog? Ozymandias clearly set up a blog that is clearly about Men’s Issues, but it doesn’t have the ugliness and bigotry that comes with the MRM. It tackles the issues at hand,

yes, like…
– rape culture
– to be ashamed to use fleshlights
– to be ashamed as a man to show your emotions
– the stereotype that the men biologically are prone to objectify women
– friendship between men and women
– intersex people

you get the idea…

without beating down half the world just to prove itself. Yet, a feminist set up that god damn blog and invited many intelligent men to create content for it.

Has the MRM created anything that is like that? Do MRAs have a place that discusses men’s issues in a genuine right, instead of obsessing about and hating half the world’s population?

I’m an amoralist and an anti-humanist (you can read the manifesto here). I don’t care how hateful or ugly your ideology is, I just care about internal consistency, true foundations and that you’re open to criticism. Feminism as MRA-ism is all of that NOT. You complain about that evo-psych isn’t testable… haha, what an irony, what about all your nonsense from rape culture to privilege that works in mysterious non-detectable ways?

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

xD

Hey Ion’s back! 😀 I guess he got over the angry xD Sorta… xD

Also XD at Molly and the penis monument XD (OF HORRIBLE JOKE DOOOOOM XDDD apparently xD )

So Chuckadee is the brave anti-feminist who broke the programming? o_O

And NWO is screaming about the Trojan Horse that is NSWATM xD Even tho there’s still plenty of MRA and anti-feminist commenters there (they seem to dominate the comment threads)… it’s just HE’S banned so it MUST mean that they ban ALL MRAs and dissenting commenters, not just that he’s banned cuz he doesn’t contribute and just derails xD

Embrace, and extinguish is what I’m all about! XD Who wants a hug? 😀 *hugs all*

xD

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

“Maybe if I use enough emoticons I’ll break through the passive-aggressiveness zone and emerge on the other side? That’s just crazy enough to work!”

Yeeeeah… I wouldn’t count on it Ion.

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

yes, like…
– rape culture
– to be ashamed to use fleshlights
– to be ashamed as a man to show your emotions
– the stereotype that the men biologically are prone to objectify women
– friendship between men and women
– intersex people

you get the idea…

You don’t like tackling those topics? o_O (there’s way more topics, including the abuse of boys and men being raped but you know this xD )

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

If you were running the blog, what topics do you believe they should talk about? :3

Ami Angelwings
9 years ago

If women were equally qualified there would never have been a need for AA, Title IX, quota’s and an unlimited number of laws enacted as an equalizer.

By that logic, the same thing applies to other groups benefited by AA.. like African Americans… so they are not equally biologically qualified? :3 (just curious what you believe :3 )

redlocker
9 years ago

“’m an amoralist and an anti-humanist (you can read the manifesto here). I don’t care how hateful or ugly your ideology is, I just care about internal consistency, true foundations and that you’re open to criticism. Feminism as MRA-ism is all of that NOT. You complain about that evo-psych isn’t testable… haha, what an irony, what about all your nonsense from rape culture to privilege that works in mysterious non-detectable ways?”

Internal consistency and foundations are related to Humanism. What you’re doing is trying to excise yourself from a particular field of thought and stating that you, yourself, are fit to judge what is right. In other words, you’re placing yourself on a pedestal and saying that no one is worthy of it.

Geez, the lengths that you will go.

redlocker
9 years ago

Also, from your link, Marc:

“Anti-Humanism is a belief system for those who think humans are not the entirety of what we should be considering. We want to live on as a species, and we realize that requires thinning the herd. Problem: conventional morality, aka humanism, is totally opposed to that. Answer: do away with the obsolete morality, and slaughter the 90% of our species who do nothing productive and never will. Breed better humans, and fewer of them, and then some humans live on instead of all of us facing certain death because of the stupidity of the humanists.”

…I’m starting to see why you sympathized with Brevik and Solanas. Granted, I’m still not sure if you’re serious or fucking with us, but…holy shit.