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.
For what it’s worth, while I emphatically disagree with Ballgame on many things, he does often seem worth talking to. I mean, I think he holds positions that are sexist, but as far as I can tell… I’m trying to figure out how to say this. Sometimes when talking to MRAs or anti-feminists or whatever, I get the sense that they’re always a bit icked or irked or whatever at the whole idea of ladies and the blech involved with currently talking to one and things like that.
I think ballgame is wrong about what the current state of events is, and what equality would or should look like. But I think he would actually like equality to happen, which is to say, I think he would genuinely like gender oppression, in whatever form it takes, to stop.
One’s mileage inevitably varies on these things… Personally, I find Amanda Marcotte a much more reasonable feminist than Melissa McEwan. But I wanted to say.
And hey, maybe Ballgame disagrees with my summary of his position… I don’t think so, but it’s always possible I’ve been reading him incorrectly.
For me… and again, one’s mileage varies on these things… one metric for whether someone is sincere is what happens when you find common ground that is genuinely common ground. Are you both able to go “yay, common ground!” and use that as a way to see each other’s humanity? Or does the existence of the common ground itself get used as a discursive tool to try to hurt the other person?
For instance, I get the impression that ballgame appreciates that the stance of most feminists at Alas is that routine infant male circumcision is morally wrong. (I think our conversations at this point are trying to feel out the edges of whether harm reduction is more legally important than philosophy [I’m a harm reduction fan] and where the line of bodily autonomy for infants should be set.) The first responses I ever got from anti-feminists when I posted on Alas about the wrongness of routine infant male circumcision was that I was either lying or somehow coopting a male issue (one that we’d been called on to talk about, but apparently actually talking about it was bad…?). Those orthagonal reactions–lying, coopting–meant that we weren’t actually talking about the issue before; the issue became less important than whatever anger or disdain or whatever the poster was feeling toward me, either personally or as a member of a group. And it can be hard to distinguish antipathy aimed toward a group–and I’m sure there have been examples of both–but when there’s a systematic, routine response from group of individuals A that professes to care about issue B, but when issue B is brought up by a member of group C, drops issue B in order to impugn group C…
Well, anyway. It seems to me ballgame argues in good faith and demonstrates through his actions that he does not bear antipathy toward female commenters for being female commenters.
He’s not an MRA, but I guess you could say that I’m sort of submitting him as the reasonable feminist critic. Which is not to say he’s never said anything hateful–I haven’t read/don’t remember everything he’s written, and hey, if you write a lot, periodically some of it’s probably going to sound shittier than you intended–but I trust him to come honestly to the table.
FWIW, my read of Schala is that she is sincere as well, just hard to have a linear conversation with.
Ballgame, sure, I’ll accept that those 3 are MRAs. But again, you’ve got two guys associated with Fathers and Families, one of whom has behaved questionably in the past in that DV shelter incident, and another guy whom I’ve never heard of, who is never ever mentioned by MRAs online today, and whose claims to fame (such as they are) come from stuff he did in the 80s.
No, I can’t blame him directly for the crazy shit on the NCFM website, but I also can’t see why a “moderate” MRA would want to associate himself with that shit.
I’m not demanding that you give me a giant long list or anything, but three dudes? Really?
The other guy that always gets mentioned is Pele Billing. I haven’t read enough of his stuff to judge him. He’s also sort of marginal to the online MRA, rarely gets linked.
Proving a negative is impossible if it’s about proving that there’s no god, for instance. Or proving that you’ve never ever taken steroids. xD
But showing a non-hateful MRA isn’t quite the same. (you can use “non-hateful” if you want :3 ) :]
She’s not asking for verbal or private communication. :] If she was, that would be “proving a negative” she is just asking for an MRA whose public writings do not contain hatred against women (or, presumably trans ppl, PoCs, disabled ppl, etc) :3
and I don’t think nebody here has responded to you with “well maybe there are writings we haven’t seen that are hateful!”
That’d be the proving a negative fallacy xD
Excuse me, in editing I lost part of a sentence:
” And it can be hard to distinguish antipathy aimed toward a group–and I’m sure there have been examples of both”
It can be heard to distinguish antipathy aimed toward a group from antipathy aimed toward an individual–and I’m sure I’ve experienced examples of both, since I am not sugar and spice and everything nice–
and after that, I meant to go on to talk about antipathy toward groups.
No, that doesn’t work quite that way, ballgame. If Holly was asking for those that don’t think hateful things, that would be impossible. But it’s just asking for one that doesn’t say hateful things. Holly also usually only checks as far as the first page or two if it’s a blog for said hateful things, as well. If you propose something, and she doesn’t find hateful stuff on it, you’re good!
Also, the first thing that comes up for Google when i search for Francis Baumli is a link to his bio on NCFM, which also says “Francis Baumli, Ph.D., is one of the longest standing members of NCFM”. And it only takes until the fourth listing to hit something entirely unrelated (a grave marking for Leo Francis Baumli). I can’t at all speak for David or Holly on this, but from where I’m speaking that seems to be most of what he’s associated with. And one would hope that someone who is so concerned for equality and rights would not wish to associate so strongly with an organization that endorses opinions such as those linked by David.
I am crazy late. My apologies for mucking the thread up with my lack of refreshing.
I think, at this point, we can agree that there are people who call themselves MRAs who are not asshats. However, the online “manosphere” seems to be a hotbed of anal millinery. I think we might declare the Original Manboobz Challenge passed, and create a Revised Manboobz Challenge (i.e. find a manosphere blogger who is not a nutjob)– given that the manosphere is what David usually covers anyway.
And I’d like to second Mandolin’s opinion of ballgame. I have a soft spot for Feminist Critics, partially because they like NSWATM so I’m biased, and partially because they’re vaguely thoughtful and cite their sources. Basically, they get the Ozymandias Award For Not Being NWOSlave. 🙂
@Holly (from waaaayyyy back) I DO wonder how he would react about trans women/girls, since they would still crop up even w/ his XY cloning idea xD
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.
o_O
“Allowing” o_O How does he think feminism should have been dealt w/? xD
(I realized I hadn’t actually responded to the OP, so trying to drag things back on topic :3 )
@NWO do you think I get invited to speak at colleges? 😀
Oh, and there’s always the corrolary to the “are there reasonable MRAs” that comes up, which is “are there unreasosnable feminists”…
I still <3 I Blame the Patriarchy because… I think Jill is amazing at getting at truth orthagonally, and I still read some of her entries as thought experiments rather than literal dialogues… essentially, I think if we're trying to find reasonable position B, but society is currently at unreasonable position A, then I think sometimes Jill writes up position C. Not as a suggestion "let's go do c" but as a way for showing some of the weird assumptions inherent in position A, in a way that's more effective than just describing them. She's–in my opinion–an extremely powerful writer (on the prose level, I mean, she's amazingly sharp) which is what makes this possible. And I think she conveys her subtleties by using humor and metafictional devices. Her blog has a bit of performance art in it.
Anyway. I only read comments there intermittently, and often I only hit the really HIGH CONTROVERSY threads where people are being jackasses about trans people. But I've been perusing some recent threads and the comments have been… um. They lack the zesty, crazy cock carousel imagery, but they don't lack the periodic eliminationist rhetoric. And it's skeeving me out. I don't know if the threads have always been like that, or if I'm thinking about eliminationist rhetoric differently after seeing it pulled out of context here, but it strikes me as gross and not okay.
Is IBTP central to the feminism? Manifestly no–most of their ideas are being pulled from the edges of previous movements.
Do other feminists criticize the foul bits of those ideas? Yes. I just wrote some rather long rants about Sheri Tepper.
But I think people looking for obnoxious feminist quotes are better off pulling from comments there than they are picking up stuff from nuanced-and-sometimes-bizarre thinkers like Dworkin. Pulling Dworkin quotes out of context changes their meaning. RandomCommenter saying "the world would be better without men" is unambiguous. Or the recent comment thread where a biologist dropped in to correct some facts about insects and people told her to bugger off because science was patriarchal.
I'm sure they'd say they're joking? I hope they would? Some of them…?
Anyway, it's not funny. And I do see it, in practice, used (by heart & crew mostly) to bully male feminists.
Of course those women are peripheral, and to steal a quote, jaundiced eyes are cast upon them. So I'm not sure I'm really making an *argument* here. Maybe sharing a frustration.
Holly wrote :Also, he’s not accounting for the fact that unless you do commit some sort of atrocity, women are still going to have access to reproductive technology (and plain old-fashioned reproduction), and that might put a bit of a monkey wrench in your “the next generation will only be men” plan:
Holly good point, Nowadays women do not need men I have remarked about this before. As a result of feminism “women do not need men!”. Generally speaking, women now can be independent and support themselves without a man, Moreover, Technology has made it where a woman does not even have to have relations with a man to be pregnant.
One MGTOW guy that recently emailed me stated for years he was very very shy with women. He felt that in our society the onus is on the man asking the woman out, risking rejection. What about the onus being on the women. Even feminist women while they are call for gender equality they still traditionally want the man to take the risk and pursue. I mean have any feminists on this board asked a man out?
Basically, this guy was writing to me he felt that since he my be handsome on the outside,he is introverted and shy. So with Fembots men will not ever have to risk rejection again. They can just get a fembot.
I guess with fembots in the near future Men will not need a woman. If a male is horny he could just get a female robot. Even if a man desires romance and companionship and love -he could still use the robot in his fantasy. Men will not need women anymore. I am not saaying it will eliminate relationships and marriage.Of course not, there will always be people who desire relations with the opposite gender. It will just remove a large percentage of available single men to date, I am talking primarily about The USA and The Wester countries. I realize in China it is a different story. But in America in a few years with the rise of the fembot, this will lead to the shortage of available men in America.
Furthermore, With with less men in colleges, some men(not all) making less money these
days, the fact that more men than women are in prisons, and the increasing number of gay men (It is “chic” to be a gay man these days”, I am not criticizing, I am just observing. Hence the “Fag Hag” label, there could be a severe man shortage in America. I just read an article that in the New York City there is already a slight man shortage.I hope it does not happen but there will be a marriage crisis less available men=,less marriages in this country.
Fembots are part of this decline in available single men.
. Even feminist women while they are call for gender equality they still traditionally want the man to take the risk and pursue. I mean have any feminists on this board asked a man out?
XD
How do you know what feminists want? xD Do they email you too?
You do know that women are attracted to people too? And standing around looking cute will not get ppl you want to ask you out xD
As for feminists on this board asking a man out. I’m fairly certain I’m not the only one xD (I was even asking ppl advice on asking out a guy I liked a bunch of weeks ago xD I must have forgotten to email you that. )
Also, just b/c women do not ask that particular guy out does not mean that we don’t ask guys out xD
and the increasing number of gay men (It is “chic” to be a gay man these days”, I am not criticizing, I am just observing. Hence the “Fag Hag” label, there could be a severe man shortage in America.
Wait, are you saying that straight guys are becoming gay b/c it’s cool? xD
Ozy42: that’s a very low bar you’re setting.
I can’t give ballgame and his site any tick of approval. They look alright when you just glance over them, but I visited FC regularly for a few months early in the year, and I can tell you, their hearts are not in the right place. I was puzzled by their “feminism is doing it wrong” slogan, and entered into discussion to clarify their position for myself. I came to the conclusion that the site was deeply misogynistic and irrational. They don’t welcome discussion with feminists as they claim. After failing to either get pissed off and leave, or lose my temper and make untoward remarks, I was placed on moderation “not as a punishment, but until we figure out what to do with her”.
Mandolin: your complaint is that you don’t like the things radical feminists say. Guess what? Lots of people don’t like the things radical feminists say. Radical feminists are in the business of saying stuff that challenges accepted thinking. When on the InterNet, they are having a conversation between themselves. Why is it important that you are a part of the discussion?
What qualifies as a radical feminist?
Samuel,
Yes, this feminist has asked men out before.
Did you really just state that men are choosing to become gay? There’s so much wrong there I’m not sure where to begin.
And why is marriage always the be-all-end-all in your scenarios?
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1039060–teen-sexually-assaulted-in-checkout-line-police-say?bn=1
Apparently trying to help a girl clean up after an accident is considered rape.now. No wonder so many men are going their own way. At the rate feminists keep moving the bar, putting a ring on a woman’s finger is going to be considered sexual assault.
You feminists claim to care so much about men, what are you doing about that?
Hellkell wrote Yes, this feminist has asked men out before.
Did you really just state that men are choosing to become gay? There’s so much wrong there I’m not sure where to begin.
And why is marriage always the be-all-end-all in your scenarios?
I did not mean to imply all men are choosing to gay gay. I am saying know just a few mra men who have become gay because of their bitterness at being hurt (repeatedly by woman after woman-not just hurt by 1 woman). Some of these mra guys that have become gay are not stereotypically effeminate gay men.
These guys are generally masculine Alpha guys that have been hurt by woman. I guess Hellkell it is like the Feminist who became a Lesbian since women have been hurt by men. It is interesting- all of a sudden it is “chic” for a guy to be gay
Look at the “fag hag” popularity, shows like “queer eye fro the straight guy”, the metrosexual movement. Plus the gay male population is increasing in the last few years( I believe Lesbianism is increasing too), From some of the stuff mgtow guys have emailed me ,some of these guys are so angry with women they go to gay clubs just to be around all men.I know a guy who fell in love with a guy from Argentina and moved to Buenos Aires. This MRA guy is a regular guy, he is an Attorney(educated not a dufus MRA guy as some feminists claim we are)
I have a question for you what do you mean when you said”
” And why is marriage always the be-all-end-all in your scenarios? Explain from a womans perspective.
http://persephonemagazine.com/2011/08/the-20-year-old-rich-girl-who-enraged-chinese-netizens/
This is a completely different country and culture, and oh look! Women only want to have sex with rich men with cars and money! Will you women admit your hypergamous nature yet?
Men starve and die if they can’t get a job while women have the option to live in luxury all because of a difference in genitals, and you claim that women aren’t the privileged gender.
Buh, what? No, I’m asking you. You’ve been telling us to be nice to MGTOW, saying we’re missing out on husband material and that these alphas who’re becoming gay are going to cause a husband shortage. So what? Why is marriage so important to you?
Hellkel Marriage is important because many women out there have complained that all the available good men are either gay, or married. If an increasing number of men remain bachelors such as mgtow, Happy Bachelors, and Marriage strike movements-means less marriages which could impact our society
. Also , since many women complain about the lack of available men and man shortage, even now, in a few years it will be even a more severe man shortage. If some feminists reached out to these Good Alpha caring Wealthy cultured educated mgtow bachelor guys maybe it will change their minds.
Who Knows? I am not sure if I am making sense hellkel but there will be a severe man shortage soon in The USA,This is a serious problem affecting our societies infrastructure and many womenwho are nice human beings may be lonely without a companion. I do not see that as a good thing.
“I am saying know just a few mra men who have become gay because of their bitterness at being hurt (repeatedly by woman after woman-not just hurt by 1 woman).”
Samuel, being gay doesn’t work that way. People get hurt by the people they’re in relationships with and sometimes they get bitter about it. If these guys are going out with women and having their feelings hurt do you really think this will change if they start going out with men? Because men have never hurt anyone before?
Also, still waiting for you to show me the feminists who call men gay wimps. You’re actually the only one I’ve seen doing that here.
After reading this thread, I’m more confident than ever in my conviction that marriage is a patriarchal institution that I want nothing to do with. How could a person, with a straight face, talk about how women need to go back to their “proper role”, which includes having none of their own money and being forced to rely completely on a husband and his patriline, while at the same time decrying the way women are acting like materialistic parasites on men? Dudes, this isn’t difficult: if you deny people the right to make their own money/subsistence, their money/subsistence is going to have to come from somewhere. If you really hate women draining your funds, you should be thanking feminists for discouraging women from getting married…
The references to the mythological Feminist who turned lesbian because men are mean are classic, though.
eilish: I didn’t know that! That’s troubling…
I think the point of the Manboobz Challenge is that it is an extremely low bar, and the manosphere still can’t pass it. We’re not asking for “feminist”, we’re asking for “does not hate women, has ideas that vaguely resemble Earth-One reality.”