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.
Ah, Ballgame has arrived with accusations of onesidedness and cherry picking. Ballgame, see what it says on th eheader of this site? Yeah, that.
And please, for the love of little green apples, find some other radfems to bring up. Dworkin and Daly are zombies at this point.*
*No offense to our resident zombie, ZRM.
Share your examples, ballgame! I am all agog!
Hah! You can’t get rid of me that easily, amandajane5! :))
Sometimes I just type very slowly.
(But seriously, Holly asked an interesting question, and I’m working on a thoughtful response.)
ballgame: Horowitz spoke, regularly, at schools where he was reviled. Controversial speakers are common at schools. Do I think she was reviled, no. But I also don’t think (as Rutee pointed out) that her entire body of work is entirely comprised of one single theme. If it were, then she’d not have been invited to speak so often.
And there is a big difference in rhetorical affect between, “Spoke at more than 10 percent of ‘Universities and colleges’ (your allegation), and “I don’t think it matters if it was 1 in 10 versus 1 in 15. If you can’t be arsed to look up how many colleges and univesities there are (per the US DoE it’s, 4861, and so are presenting what is both a false piece of information, and a fallacious impression of the actual number of invitations she has accepted.
That, absent actually checking, you chose to use the turn of phrase, “more than” vs. something like, “about/roughly/approximately” implies a certainty of knowledge you didn’t actually attempt to attain.
It’s not good faith argument, and is (for me) prejudicial to your other claims of fact, which is a direct result of your actions, not the positions you take.
That she had a large body of work, much of which is discounted out of hand by people who want to use a small portion of her writing to discount all of her other work, and use her as the straw-feminist that all the rest are supposed to worship, because of that narrow aspect of her career.
Which, I confess, I suspect you of doing; the moreso because of your, at best, sloppy work in your attack on her/feminists.
The thing is, the body of her work, as compared to the body of the work of the MRAs being discussed here, is quite different from the specific statements MRAs like to trot out (see again, sloppy work, with less than completely honest results).
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
Assuming you mean somebody who reads nothing but Man Boobz and has no knowledge of MRAs or Feminism outside of that, even then, if that was it, they’d prolly end up confused cuz there are TONS of ppl here constantly talking about how good the MRAs are (just look at Samuel) and how evil feminism is (just look at NWO), so if they had no other ideas, and MBZ was the only blog they read about gender issues, I dun think you have to worry that they’d come to that conclusion xD
Well, strictly speaking, Holly, what I said was “there are also MRAs who say thoughtful, insightful things,” which is a little bit different than saying there are MRAs who “don’t say hateful, bigoted things.” It’s a lot harder to ‘prove a negative’ and assert that someone has ‘never’ done something, particularly when we might not agree 100% on the terms we’re using.
However, to take a shot at your question, I’ll say that I haven’t seen Glenn Sacks, Francis Baumli, or John Franklin say (or write) something that I thought was hateful and bigoted (though I’ve certainly disagreed with them at times). Now a big caveat here is that I don’t honestly read them very often. In the case of Sacks and Franklin, I was reading them frequently a couple of years ago, and I still glance in on them once in a while, but it’s certainly possible they’ve written something ‘beyond the pale’ that I just haven’t seen. (It would surprise me, though, especially in the case of Glenn.) With Baumli, it was just the one book.
Now, I could go on, but there’s a big underlying issue with your comments: namely, who’s an MRA? Someone who self-identifies as an MRA, or someone that, say, the majority of people here view as MRAs? For example, I don’t identify as an MRA, I identify as a feminist. I went back to an old post at FC where we raised this question with our commenters, and most of them (who I think could fairly be characterized as ‘feminist critical’) did not identify as MRAs. However, I suspect in many cases people here would view them as MRAs (though I may very well be wrong about that).
Really, Holly?? I can assure you that there are men who find Amanda Marcotte and Twisty Faster to be, at times, a lot more than “slightly” offensive. I hesitate to say that Amanda crosses the line into ‘hateful and bigoted’, but I find some things she writes to be really toxic, and I say that while acknowledging that she’s an intelligent and extraordinarily talented blogger who I agree with at least 85% of the time when it comes to non-gender issues (and probably agree with her more than half the time even on gender issues).
You know, for how much Twisty FAster ‘offends’ men, Jill says very little that actually strengthens or calls for discrimination against them, to my knowledge. I think holly chose an unfortunate set of words with ‘offends’, because the majority is frequently offended by the minority’s calls for equality. Gandhi was offensive. MLK Jr. was offensive. The suffragettes were offensive. Fuck ‘offensive’.
I don’t read Marcotte; it’s a thing that doesn’t happen when people repeatedly racefail. What’s so toxic to men, exactly?
I do think it implausible to believe that she was invited to speak at places where she was universally reviled.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1899332/posts
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_fc98efce-28b3-5e74-9300-37a707648ec9.html
I don’t read Marcotte; it’s a thing that doesn’t happen when people repeatedly racefail. What’s so toxic to men, exactly?
Inb4 Duke rape scandal, because reminding people that one of the players sent this email
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_lacrosse_case#McFadyen_e-mail
hurts his feelings.
VoiP, Ahmadinejad is a head of state. And I don’t think he has been (or will be) invited to speak at 300 universities. (Has his total even reached double digits yet?)
As for Coulter, it greatly pains me to say this, because I think she’s vile, but there is a significant minority of students who actually like her.
First Clarence, now ballgame is here! And doing the stuff he does so well: avoiding the actual topic, obscuring the truth, moving the goalposts and pretending he is very very logical and noble.
ballgame: the subject under discussion is “an anti-feminist suggests that women should be replaced by technology”. Not “once Mary Daly went on a lecture tour.” Neither is it “have two feminist bloggers ever said anything you don’t like?” You’ve got FC to talk about that stuff, and you can misrepresent information to your heart’s content there. (Of course, you know that: you do it all the time!)
Thanks for the link, though: Daran explaining the difference between the MRM and anti-feminism brought back the memories of that golden day you confessed that at your site, you believe all feminism is gynocentric. I’m going to go have a look how all the fellas and Schala like NSWATM.
Pecunium pointed out that ballgame hasn’t been very honest in his presentation of his views. When discussing Feminism, ballgame starts at the premise that Women are Wrong, and then provides evidence to support that. Here is a post of mine from FC, pointing out he has treated an article by Jessica Valenti in the very same manner.
[quote]eilish says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm
ballgame: Valenti’s article is about getting rid of cultural myths that can alienate men from their children’s lives. You are misrepresenting her words and intent, suggesting she is complaining about men being given positive feedback.
Glen Sack’s movement is about enabling father’s to have extended contact with their ex-spouses and children after divorce. Valenti’s article is about the way parents can share parenting during an existing relationship. Two different issues.
Again, you predicate your piece on the assumption that women are privileged in society, and that feminism is not concerned with changing social roles for men. This is denial, not criticism.
These are probably the reasons the comments in reply to this piece seem confused as to the point they should address.
ETA on the moderation question?
[Daran will likely be having some interaction with you, eilish, but RL has prevented him from putting much energy into the blog of late. —ballgame][/quote]
VoiP, Ahmadinejad is a head of state.
Those are offlimits now? Why didn’t you tell me?
Like, could you give me your criteria for what makes a university appearance “relevant” before we start talking, or would that defeat your purpose? I’m going with Option 2, myself, but am open to refutation.
@Kendra, the bionic mommy
“Joanna, how could we women have human rights? We’re actually animals, a totally different species than men.”
We’re the same species we just have different laws. Women have the laws of the patriarchy they’ve built with the State. Men have the laws women and the State have built for them.
——————————–
@Holly Pervocracy
“I know there’s no approaching this rationally, but it makes me wonder just how much evil he thinks is on that second X chromosome.”
Men and women are most definitely born with different abilities and thought patterns. The misandry however is indoctrinated from birth. TV, movies, the MSM, the education system and politicians all join the party. By the time boys and girls are 15 years old they’ve already been thoroughly indoctrinated that girls are good and boys are bad. By that age every boy and girl also knows a woman can wield the violence of the State against men. Surely you can’t expect the State, MSM and education system, along with womens approval, silence and endorsement of laws that pile mountains of hatred on men/boys and not have those same men/boys percieve women as evil.
———————————
@cynickal
“I’m pretty sure that “even feminists” (or is it FYMYNYSTS) can agree the exploitation of the African contenent by developed nations is an ongoing blemish on humanity.”
And women could end the deaths of loads of black men by refusing to demand/purchase precious stone jewelry. But those sparkly rocks are worth more than a mans life.
———————————
@Tabby Lavalamp
“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”
A few years ago feminists told us 90% of the worlds food and 80% of all work was done by women. Really ladies, I must protest. How can you expect men to eternally oppress you as we’ve all become so accustomed to if you continue with your shameful slacking?
———————————-
@Comet
“I sometimes wonder if women should hold a worldwide stay-in-bed day just to prove that we do actually contribute to society.”
We should try that sometime, why not have a womans strike day. It’d be real interesting to see if the lights went out and transportation stopped. It’d be a real shocker if nothing really changed.
—————————
@Pecunium
“And there is a big difference in rhetorical affect between, “Spoke at more than 10 percent of ‘Universities and colleges’ (your allegation), and “I don’t think it matters if it was 1 in 10 versus 1 in 15.”
Yea but isn’t the real difference she spoke at a whole bunch of universities and was no doubt applauded for her views on killing 90% of men, as opposed to a backwater blog. I don’t see any man going to universities and preaching her rhetoric regendered and recieving a such warm welcome, do you? Equality, it cuts both ways.
—————————-
@Holly Pervocracy
“Seriously, if you have examples of MRAs who don’t say hateful, bigoted things, we’re all ears.”
That’d be me Holly. A bigot is someone intolerantly devoted to their own opinions. Which is what you are. And just because you don’t want to hear anything negative things that women/feminists do doesn’t make me hateful.
—————————-
@Ami Angelwings
“and how evil feminism is (just look at NWO), ”
Well it is evil. I mean c’mon, men recently tried for the teeniest bit of common decency when asking for anonymity for rape accusations. Feminists/women ran to the patriarchy they created and demanded Big Daddy allow any woman to slander a man while she remains anonymous. Her word, backed by the violence of Big Daddy prevailed.
And women could end the deaths of loads of black men by refusing to demand/purchase precious stone jewelry. But those sparkly rocks are worth more than a mans life.
OMG he cares about black people now. About time. So now you know why your recurrent mentions of life “in the ghetto” were incorrectly attributing bad conditions to individual depravity rather than systemic structural factors that work against minorities and the poor, right?
I thought Ballgame’s hatred of Marcotte sounded familiar xD
@Bostonian
“NWO, you are hateful in part because you want to rape children, as you have repeatedly said on this very site.”
This is just one more clear example of the hatred and outright lies feminists regurgitate regularly with impunity. Dave has moderated me a few times but never for wanting to rape children.
My guess is if I had done that Dave would’ve most certainly put me on moderation or more than likely banned me, Lets ask. Hey Dave, would me repeatedly stating I want to rape children get me banned?
@VoiP
“OMG he cares about black people now. About time. So now you know why your recurrent mentions of life “in the ghetto” were incorrectly attributing bad conditions to individual depravity rather than systemic structural factors that work against minorities and the poor, right?”
Being I was for many years, both growing up and into young adulthood, one of those poor people living in the ghetto I have always cared. Which is why I so strenuously abhor feminism for being the major systemic structural factor of the economic situation blacks face today.
NWOslave do you believe you (and all adults) should have the right to sleep with a 15 year old?
Bostonian, I think that was a bit over the line; I deleted the comment.
What NWOslave said in the comment you were indirectly referring to was creepy as fuck, but in most jurisdictions it wouldn’t be rape (that is, his stuff about wanting to have sex with 17-year-olds) . Here’s what he said:
http://manboobz.com/2011/06/18/men%E2%80%99s-rights-classix-the-age-of-consent-is-misandry/comment-page-4/#comment-28759
I’m glad you’re open to refutation, VoiP! I was merely pointing out that the example of Ahmadinejad was not really relevant. The fact that a) the leader of an important (oil-rich) foreign country b) was invited to speak at one? two? universities despite c) being (presumably) universally reviled, does not rebut the notion that in general, 1) people who are primarily known for the content of their ideas, and 2) are universally reviled for those ideas, 3) do not usually get invited to significant numbers of college speaking engagements to expound on those ideas.
So, in order to rebut that notion, I would expect you to post examples of people who:
1) Are known primarily for the content of their ideas; and
2) Are universally reviled for those ideas; and
3) Nevertheless received significant numbers of invitations to speak at American colleges and universities (“significant” = double digits, say 30+).
Is that specific enough for you?
FTR, there are all sorts of other points one could make about Daly that I might even agree with. My only point here is that Daly was a significant feminist (i.e. she was not universally reviled) who ultimately expressed some hateful, bigoted views that mirror the ones that AFM is (justifiably) being mocked for.
I don’t hate Amanda Marcotte, Ami, nor do I understand the significance of your ‘familiarity’ allusion.
Fair enough David, but I still think describing 14 year olds as pros crosses the line, and also his repeated fawning over 15 year olds is indicative of a desire to, at the very least, take base advantage of someone who is less able to defend themselves.
For the record, I am against adults of any gender sleeping with children of any gender. If you are in love with someone who is too young, you can wait until they are old enough to consent.
Sorry, ballgame, but that’s ridiculous. If Ahmadinejad somehow doesn’t count as an example of someone who was invited to speak despite his unpopular ideas this whole exercise is really rather silly.
Also, I’ll make a deal with you. If you can convince one popular MRA to agree to mention AntiFeministMedia every time he mentions Mary Daly, I will mention Daly every time I mention AntiFeministMedia.
This shouldn’t be hard. I mean, since you’ve already criticized me for mentioning AntiFeministMedia without mentioning Daly, I assume that in the interests of fairness you’ve been going to MRA blogs and criticizing them for mentioning Daly without mentioning AntiFeministMedia.
caseymordred, is that you?
ballgame: I already mentioned Horowitz. I am willing to bet that a significant portion of the student population at every school Daly went to would have been against her (esp. had they only been told, “she thinks all men are irredeemably evil”).
I do know that Horowitz pretty much never spoke at a school without some people protesting it, and often more protesters than those who attended the speech.
And, as you have already mentioned, there is Coulter, and Meg Whitman.
So, yeah, I think your example is a bit of less than honest.