In this episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, new hosts Little Girl and Manbot Woman Hater 5000 discuss the views of an MRA who thinks all men should live on one side of the Mississippi and all women on the other.
Yes, those of you who regularly read the comments here know which MRA I’m talking about here: regular Man Boobz commenter and antagonist “Anthony Zarat,” who spelled out his simple solution to the whole man-woman thing in the comments here. Full text, and a link to the original comment, below.
Here’s what Manbot quoted from Anthony’s comment, which you can read in its entirety here.
[T]he separation of our species will liberate men and women from FEAR.
Women will be free from fear of INDIVIDUAL VIOLENCE.
Men will be free from fear of COLLECTIVE VIOLENCE.
Said another way:
Women will no longer fear the faceless man in the darkness.
Men will no longer fear the police officer of civil judge in the daylight.
See, better for everyone.
In my dreams, we divide this continent along the Mississippi. Men on one side, women on the other. Never to meet again. Free at last, free at last, free at last.
Made with Muvizu animation software.
Mythago: I was the kid who did the chores to afford it. In retrospect, that explains a lot. 🙂
I think it’s screamingly obvious why AntZ doesn’t just start a Man Commune in Montana:
1) He doesn’t take any of this stuff seriously. He’s like a more sinister version of a little kid designing their dream pony ranch–it’s self-evident to any adult that the kid would be completely lost and kind of terrified (and there’d be a lot of dead ponies) if they had the chance to actually execute their plan, but they have fun with it because they know they won’t have to.
2) Then he might miss on his chance to make women say “oh no, please don’t go, we’ll be good now and give you all the cookies and blowjobs you want and never ask for anything again,” which was the real plan all along.
My boyfriend and I already life on opposite sides of the Mississippi, except he lives on the west side and I live on the east. We totally beat everyone to that idea. :-p Unfortunately, the gas for visits starts to add up, which is annoying. We’ve been doing this for a little over 4 years now. It’s going to be probably at least 5 years more before either I or he can move to be in the same area (about 5k more in long-distance relationship expenses just on my side alone, and I’m assuming his is about the same). I can’t imagine how much it would cost if we lived more than 4 hours away from each other.
If the sexes were divided by the river, due to the cost of visiting, I could see all the impoverished people living right on the river’s edge so that it’s easy to go see their significant others, and then the rich would occupy the coast lines and fly. Either that or the poor would just say “the hell with this” and move back in with each other.
A benefit to this is that there would be a market for new industries to deal with the issue of men and women being separated. That could maybe create some new jobs. The whole marriage/bridal industry doesn’t have to go away. Just get married and live on your own side. I’m seeing some money-making potential out of this…now just how to implement this disaster.
I wonder if you mostly only saw the same sex in your day-to-day life if there would be greater acceptance of homosexuality? That could be a plus to this arrangement as well. Guys wouldn’t have to live without femininity in their lives, because they’d still have feminine guys, and on the women’s side, there would still be some masculine girls to add those masculine touches to our side of the Mississippi.
Ok, yes, I’ve put too much thought already into real logistics of how this would work.
Its like these guys forget that the Mississippi doesnt flow all the way from the Arctic ocean or even Like. Hudson bay. How do we divide things north of the US?
Its not a bad idea, actually. But a better one is to ship off the entire manosphere to an isolated island and let them make their own way.
I doubt the MRM (or even Antz, deep down) really wants a world segregated from women. They don’t want to be away from women, they want to force women into their ideas of how the gender should behave and then stand around and gloat about their superiority.
But, much like with the segregation idea, they lack the actual initiative to do anything to advance these goals, so instead they whine on the Internet.
I like the “give the manosphere an island” idea. I recommend… Tasmania. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B8omCWBl8s
Any day now, amiright ladies?
There’s a bloke at the Melbourne markets who sells tablecloths and t-shirts with detailed maps of Australia on them. The idea is you can show where you come from, or mark where you’ve been. The t-shirts have the eastern states on the front, and WA on the back. The ladies shirts were a bit small to fit the whole map, so he prints Tasmania on matching undies 🙂
VoiP, your romanian orphanage story was brilliant. It made me cry 🙁
More thoughtfulness in a throwaway paragraph than AntZ has in all his posts put together.
An Arab MRA asks, “who says all men are ferocious wolves?”
Magpie,
Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcoreV10hI8&ob=av3e
Orion: lol. great song – and they DO play that song on the radio. 🙂
Does anyone wonder why this article turned out so uninspiring and dull?
A polished video to laugh at …
A straw man to burn …
A prophet to exalt the faithful …
All the parts were in place for a really fun ladies night out.
So, how did it all go so wrong?
I guess poking fun at a minority who are being oppressed near to the breaking point just is not as much fun as it used to be. Also, it is difficult to label a 100% fair and equitable solution “misogynistic”.
I suppose that, in the twisted evil mind of a feminist, when the slaves rebel it is “woman hate.”
Listen up, bigots. We will have our freedom. Do you think that VR technology will not continue to improve?
Once men and women have access to virtual relationships that completely fill our need for love, compassion, encouragement, friendship, etc, nobody of either gender will have any interest in the risks of real relationships.
Men will be free from collective (feminist) violence.
Women will be free from individual (random) violence.
The downside is you feminists will lose your peasant army of serfs.
The days of feminist hatred are numbered. How many years do you have left? Ten? Fifteen? Soon, women and men will be free of feminist hate.
Antz- I don’t want a pretend dolly-sweetie to always do whatever I want. I don’t want to play make believe games with an imaginary ‘person’ without free will. I want what I have right now, a loving decades long relationship with an actual person.
Part of what makes being loved matter is *being loved*. Being chosen, being special, mattering to another person- those are not things your holodeck BS will ever be able to give people. Anyone with the emotional intelligence of a toddler knows the difference.
Hell, YOU know the difference.
“Once men and women have access to virtual relationships that completely fill our need for love, compassion, encouragement, friendship, etc, nobody of either gender will have any interest in the risks of real relationships.”
Virtual VS real. Your own words.
Yes, yes, yes, your VR sweetie can never leave you. And what exactly is that worth? It’s got nothing to do with you, it’s the way it’s made. It could be turned off just like any other appliance.
Your wife, your actual real human breathing living wife, is there by choice. She chooses you, and you choose her. And your pipe dream for your sons is to deny them that wonder, that gift of choosing and being chosen and in its place you offer them… an appliance. A gadget with no free will is your hope for your children?
What the hell is wrong with you?
Yes a real human being might leave. They might stop loving you. They might rob a bank or otherwise commit some crime you could not ignore. Hell, they might get sick or get hit by a bus. So might you.
That’s called real life. You should try it.
‘Joanna, Jeannine, and Janet have arrived in Jael’s world which is experiencing a 40-year old war between male and female societies. Jael explains that she works for the Bureau of Comparative Ethnology, an organization that concentrates on people’s various counterparts in different parallel worlds. She reveals that she is the one who brought all of them together because they are essentially “four versions of the same woman” (p. 162). Jael takes all of them with her into enemy territory because she appears to be negotiating a deal with one of the male leaders. At first, the male leader appears to be promoting equality, but Jael quickly realizes that he still believes in the inferiority of women. Jael reveals herself as a ruthless assassin, kills the man, and shuttles all of the women back to her house. Jael finally tells the other women why she has assembled all of them. She wants to create bases in the other women’s worlds without the male society knowing and eventually empower women to overthrow oppressive men and their gender roles for women.’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Female_Man
🙂 Feminist sci-fi is good.
Zarat, TL;DR
Anthony, a virtual relationship could never replace a real one precisely because there is no risk. The virtual partner could never challenge you, could never cause you to strive to better yourself, nor better itself. You would never be surprised by your partner, never be amused by it. You could never help your virtual partner, and it could never teach you.
Would you feel encouraged by agreement or adoration that you had programed? I know that I would not. It seems like in order for virtual relationship to have meaning they would have to be with true artificial intelligences, and if they were with true artificial intelligences, they would no longer free of the risk of rejection, as the AI could break up with you.
I suppose what I am getting at is this: why would you want to be in a romantic relationship with someone or something that was compelled to be in that relationship? What could you possibly get out of it?
Zarat, so go dump your wife and marry a furby, nobody’s stopping you. Also, wtf do you mean by “collective violence”? Being held legally accountable as the perp of a violent crime? (Even then, male on male crime results in more convictions per year) And how individualized is the societal violent system against women de facto? You seem to be conflating interpersonal and individualized there, even giving you the most generous reading.
Nah. Largely because it’s not. I can see why the person whose stupid words are being mocked would want to frame it that way, though.
And by “minority,” you mean the crackpots who agree with you and want to be sequestered away from the ladies in your eastern land, a ferry ride or a bridge-crossing away from all the vaginas? Nah, it’s always fun to poke fun at the deeply stupid.
Unless of course it entails finding women so abhorrent that you would bid all men secede from their company, hating being in the company of free women, etc. Then it’s shockingly easy.
Ant, see this: “Women will be free from individual (random) violence.”
Now, see this: http://www.theherald.com.au/news/national/national/general/mystery-as-mum-daughter-die-in-peakhour-horror/2286960.aspx
(News story about a teenage girl apparently murdered by her mother)
I always thought a bicoastal marriage would be swell. There’s almost nothing (maybe nothing) I find positive about marriage. Especially having to live with another person. Sharing a bedroom would be right out the window–I don’t sleep at all when I have to sleep in the same bed as someone else. Same room is similarly difficult. I have enough trouble falling asleep by myself. Other people outside, in the house I live in, driving by, they all make too much damn noise.
*lightbulb*
Say … how about you all go live on one side of the Mississippi and I’ll just live on the other. I think that might work out.
“Does anyone wonder why this article turned out so uninspiring and dull?”
Everyone’s having fun here instead of you. Really, if you can’t laugh at yourself then why are you even here?
Does anyone wonder why this article turned out so uninspiring and dull?
No, I’m wondering if Futrelle can be persuaded to put you on probation until you answer me and Nobinamayu.
‘Joanna, Jeannine, and Janet have arrived in Jael’s world which is experiencing a 40-year old war between male and female societies. Jael explains that she works for the Bureau of Comparative Ethnology, an organization that concentrates on people’s various counterparts in different parallel worlds. She reveals that she is the one who brought all of them together because they are essentially “four versions of the same woman”
Sci-fi from the 70s must be full of the “different versions of the same person” trope. It’s like a feminist Eternal Champion story.
Considering that, as we discussed on a previous thread, the vast majority of violence committed against men is committed by other men, you will not be free from fear if you all ostracize yourselves from women. In fact, we already have all-male environments that we can look at to confirm that violence and sexual predation will not disappear if you remove women. They’re called prisons.