The other day we took a look at a Redditor who calls himself AntiFeministMedia. He does not seem to like the ladies very much. Indeed, in some of the posts of his I quoted, he went so far as to say that women are animals, not humans, and suggested that men should pretty much have the final say in anything involving reproduction (as clearly the women have been doing a terrible job of it).
So one might wonder: why have ladies at all? This is a thought that has crossed the mind of AntiFeministMedia more than a few times. And he’s got some ideas about how it could be done.
As he points out in this comment, men have known all along that ladies is trouble. But now, thanks to superior male brains, we finally have the technology to do something about it. Today, fleshlights! Tomorrow, the womb!
Men have known women are the problem right throughout history, and to deny it just goes to show how ignorant and stupid you are.
Religion’s, culture’s, all have there warnings about women.
And all these things will be known again. The dots will be joined, and its my hope that after this current fuck up of allowing feminism to take root, men will never allow it again.
I actually think its time men went foreward alone. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women in almost every way, except for the animal nature…
Women should be replaced by better technology.
Consider the many fine benefits of this plan:
If men didnt have to live in this human-female environment, but instead was guaranteed in having his sexual needs met, and his genes live on into the future, there would be a lot less conflict of all kinds.
This two-party system of male and female has served its purpose (in the most brutal way), we are rapidly approaching a time where things could be radically different.
Tell me more about this brave new world of which you speak, in which men can live their lives free of bitches:
Cloning science and female androids may just solve that woman problem for us.
I wouldnt advocate killing women, certainly not, but a gradual fade-out, allow women to live out their natural lives, while we transition to the new technology.
No need for anything as unpleasant as killing, no. Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies. Nothing objectionable about this, not at all.
If you’ve followed any of these links back to the original comments, you’ll see that AntiFeministMedia, like most truly original thinkers, has gotten some resistance to his ideas — even from the normally forward-looking thinkers of the Men’s Rights subreddit. And a few downvotes!
But some of his comments are so clearly and obviously correct, so pithy and wise, that they get upvotes. Like this one, suggesting that female demand for iPads and mobile phones is one of the central driving forces behind war:
Well its nice to hear her comment that western women themselves have been complicit in foreign wars and the rape of native women by soldiers, so that companies can obtain gold and other precious metals for Ipads and moble phones which women seem to like so much.
Oh you evil women with your iPads and mobile phones! We men are of course immune to the devilish allure of computer technology. Indeed, I’m typing this blog post on an old Smith-Corona Galaxie Portable Typewriter.
I think he really did expect at least some of us to agree that “men” are so inherently bad that the world would be better off without them.
More from him…
Again with this crap. I wonder how many of the men who make this claim even know farmers? I would bet the rent that he isn’t one himself. I’d also like to know how much of the food he eats comes from the developing world where often the majority of farm work (at least 70% in Africa – http://youthink.worldbank.org/issues/gender ) is done by women.
Frankly most people in the developed world would have a tough time feeding ourselves without supermarkets, regardless of sex, because we lack the knowledge that there is currently no need for us to possess. Personally I know it’s important to rotate your crops, but I’ve never even planted a garden. And I would bet he’s never done as much either.
Normally I would let something like this slide, but I’ve read a few of his comments now and someone should get a grip on his apostrophe problem before he starts calling other people “ignorant and stupid”.
Not to mention his you’re/your problem.
Come the Zombie Apocalypse, this is my biggest fear. Trying to figure out how to harness a plow horse and figure out which crops to rotate.
Gibbon’s Decline and Fall (Tepper’s version, not the doorstop actually written by Gibbon) is not supposed to be a manual, folks!
If all the men in the world vanished, I imagine civilisation as we know it would fall apart to some extent. But you know what? The same would happen without the women.
I sometimes wonder if women should hold a worldwide stay-in-bed day just to prove that we do actually contribute to society. Other than shoring up the bonbon industry.
Unless all the libraries of the world vanished with men, I think we could figure out how to farm using the vast array of manuals to help us.
Plus, a lot of women already garden so they know how to grow food now.
Yeah, I don’t know how it is in the US but here in the UK farming is a difficult way to make a living (with cheaper produce coming in from the 3rd world), and farming is generally a family enterprise, not just the man’s career.
What I was saying is, obv. any civilisation would suffer if half of its population suddenly wasn’t there anymore.
This may be the belief behind the dreaded Double Period (or Truncated Ellipses). They remind MRAs of the Golden Age to come.
I am somewhat encouraged that even other Mens’ Right reddit guys found AntiFeministMedia to be too extreme. He probably would do better spouting his garbage at The Spearhead where he could get 100 upvotes with his nonsensical rants about “the female problem”.
While I can enjoy the occasional mocking of sexist bigots as much as anyone, I think in fairness one should point out that at least AntiFeministMedia has not (as far as we know) been invited to speak at over 10% of North America’s colleges and universities … unlike a certain feminist whose views about men mirrored AFM’s views about women in some important ways.
Dworkin and Daly continue to haunt people who never agreed with them in the first place from beyond the grave…
ballgame: Even if we just limit that to private schools, you are alleging that something on the order of 500 school have invited her to speak.
Then you are backdooring the idea they did it because they agree with her.
I know for a fact that UCLA has invited David Horowitz to speak there, and his opinions on UCLA, and the general nature of post-secondary education mean that he was there not because he was someone the college supported, but because he was someone notable.
There’s a lovely Science Fiction novel by Lois McMaster Bujold called Ethan of Athos, about an obstetrician on an all-male planet.
Uterine replicators had been invented 200 years before, and a group of women-hating pioneers take a bunch and populate a planet. No Girls Allowed. The story takes place when the planet’s stock of viable ovarian tissue is becoming dangerously unviable.
I loved the story, I love everything Bujold writes. I really think that her vision of this Male-Only Paradise isn’t quite what the MRAs are envisioning. The part that really sticks in my memory: almost all of the planet’s resources are consumed by the process of continuing humanity. Turns out, when women’s work isn’t done for free, and you have to calculate it into your GDP, it’s big.
This is a little incoherent, sorry about that.
And yes, I know invited isn’t the same as accepted, but I also know that most schools don’t announce people they asked who declined, so the implication is those are schools which she actually did speak to.
@Holly does that mean I’m one of the few naturally “good” women in the world? xD
Ami – I know that was kind of reductive, but I’m following along with his own reductive reasoning and augh.
God only knows what happens when he finds out that you can clone XY babies and still end up with women in your perfect society.
@Comet
Here it’s a business. Mostly dominated by Monsanto. We use up a significant amount of fuel to pull water from out deep aquifers and make fertilizers so we can undercut most 3rd world markets and force them to buy Monsanto seed grain.
Then we use illegal immigrants to harvest the non-grain crops at pennies on the dollar.
Most of this is subsidized by the US governement to further reduce proces.
“unlike a certain feminist whose views about men mirrored AFM’s views about women in some important ways.”
ATTENTION MRA NINJA ASSASSINS. BALLGAME HAS MET HIS FALSE EQUIVALENCE QUOTA FOR THE DAY. PLEASE SPARE HIM.
Mary Daly actually got some pretty important shit correct. That her conclusions afterwards were harmful does not change that she at least had some useful academic insight before that. I’d agree that she shouldn’t be invited because of those harmful conclusions, but it doesn’t actually make these idiots equivalent.
@Holly: Yeah, I know he’s really just mada bout Dworkin and Daly’s horrible conclusions about men, not their academic contributions. But the false equivalence to begin with is hilarious and stupid.
Pecunium, Daly’s website claimed she spoke at 300 colleges and universities. According to Hugh, “To get some perspective, the wikipedia College article cites information claiming that there are 2,474 colleges in the U.S., which presumably includes universities, and Canada has 92 accredited universities according to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.”
Perhaps that isn’t right somehow, but I don’t really think it’s all that significant whether she spoke at 1 out of every 10 North American college or 1 out of 15. The fact is, she spoke at a helluva lot of them.
If by “they,” you mean “the institution itself,” then, no, I’m not pushing that idea at all. I do think it implausible to believe that she was invited to speak at places where she was universally reviled. At a minimum, her speaking invitations suggested that she was considered worthy of listening to and very likely that she had at least a coterie of fans (i.e. not unlike Horowitz).
Holly, I’m not sure I quite grasp the relevance of your observation here, but FTR I’m not “haunted” by Mary Daly (nor — as I hope is clear — am I defending the noxious views of AntiFeministMedia).
I am, however, bothered by the one-sided vilification of groups of people. I think it’s inarguable that there are MRAs who say hateful, bigoted things, as this website has clearly demonstrated. However, a reader of Man Boobz would never know that there are also MRAs who say thoughtful, insightful things, and feminists who say hateful, bigoted things … sometimes things that mirror the hateful, bigoted things that some MRAs say (as shown by the Mary Daly example). And I think that’s an important thing to keep in mind.
Okay, which MRAs are those? We have kind of a challenge going…
Seriously, if you have examples of MRAs who don’t say hateful, bigoted things, we’re all ears.
Oh, and the relevance of my observation is that most of the people quoted as “evil feminists” are dead. The number of feminists who are even slightly offensive to men is so low that you’re reduced to going through the feminist back catalogue for the same couple of suspects, while David finds a new–as in, just posted–MRA offense every day.
They always just disappear when we ask for examples of the rational ones. Funny that.
test