Categories
antifeminism cock blockade crackpottery men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW MGTOW paradox misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex vaginas

Bla bla pussy cartel bla bla cock blockade

Don't put the pussy on a pedestal. Unless it's this pussy.

The blogger Fidelbogen likes to think of himself as some sort of grand theoretician of “counter-feminist” thinking. Which means that his posts are usually far too long and ponderous to read, much less to write about. His ideas – at least judging from the few posts of his I’ve had the patience to wade through — are really not much more advanced than your typical MRA; he’s just much more pretentious (and long-winded) about it.

He is, in other words, the sort of guy who could take 3000 words to explain the rather basic MRA notion that women control men with their vaginas.

I mean that quite literally. Our excitable MGTOWer friend MarkyMark recently drew his readers’ attention to a 5-year-old post by Fidelbogen with the enigmatic title “Ideas Which Go Against the Grain,” which offers, yep, a 3000-word précis of the evils of pussy power. Perhaps against my better judgement, I’ve decided to give it a detailed look. Strap in!

I’ll give him credit for one thing: despite his vague title, Fidelbogen states his thesis quite plainly at the start:

Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew.

Well, ok, not the very start. Right about here:

This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women’s power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism’s leverage in the realm of gender politics.

In other words: vagina=power.

I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, blabbity blabbity bloo.

Ok, those last three words are my paraphrase of his argument. Focus, Fidelbogen, focus!

The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller’s market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men’s favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.

And this leads to, yep, the dreaded Pussy Cartel:

Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. …

Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism’s driving ambition, it makes sense that the women’s movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.

Normally, I would assume this last bit was some kind of sniggering reference to blowjobs. As Fidelbogen seems to be utterly without a sense of humor, I have to assume it’s merely a belabored metaphor.

So how do the evil feminists siphon away male power? By driving along some sort of road:

Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism’s route to power.

So after siphoning their way down this road, we (and the evil feminists) arrive at what I’ll call (to keep Fidelbogen’s metaphor going) “Courtship Lane.”

The word “courtship” is revealing. Men are the “courtiers”, which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their “lord”. In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women’s greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.

After a bit of empty rhetoric, Prof. F continues:

Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.

Fidelbogen, alas, does not take the opportunity to name this dastardly “hybrid entity.” Let’s just call it THE FEMIGINA!! (In all caps, with two exclamation points.)

At this point, Prof. F loses what little steam his argument has, and begins prattling about this and that and the evils of feminism. I will attempt to convey the gist of it with the following excerpts. In order to truly capture the flavor of it, I will replace the traditional ellipses – used to indicate excised material – with the phrase “blabbity blabbity.”

Blabbity blabbity to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band. Blabbity blabbity [f]eminism has blabbity blabbity secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. Blabbity moral corona of the ideology blabbity female noosphere blabbity blabbity feminist-tinted spectacles blabbity blabbity the path lies clear before us.

And then he comes to his point:

Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.

Yep. That’s right. He’s talking about what we here on Man Boobz know as the Cock Blockade.

Blabbity blabbity it would go against nature blabbity blabbity laborious gritting of teeth. Blabbity blabbity supremely human accomplishment. Blabbity blabbity we are more than simply animals.

And he comes to another point:

Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life.

Go your own way!

Blabbity blabbity men would need to cut each other some slack blabbity blabbity stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. Blabbity blabbity. The question “are ya getting any?”, along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.

And this would put the ladies in their place – standing lonely in their vagina stalls, gamely trying to interest men in their now worthless vaginas.

Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women.

So now I have the image of lady boa-constrictors with head wounds standing in a line, displaying their boa-constrictor vaginas with a sort of desperate hopefulness to the wholly uninterested men who pass by.

After a good deal of blathering so tedious it’s not even worth quoting in part, Fidelbogen begins to ponder the power of “no.”

[M]en must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.

Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default.

I feel a bit of a breeze myself, but I think that’s just because Prof. F is talking a lot of wind.

Let’s move from breezes to earthquakes:

The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal.

The old way of doing things, Prof. F tells us,

I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!

Ironically, the common touch is something hetero dudes will have to become masters at if they swear off the ladies. Prof. F continues:

So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism’s arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it.

They threw a harness around a paradigm?

The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.

So what does Prof. F call his pussy-optional way of doing things? The “optionality paradigm.” That is, dudes can have sex with women or not, whatever they want, and shouldn’t pressure one another to score with the ladies.  (I’m not quite sure how, in Professor F’s economic model, the price of pussy can be reduced to zero if some dudes are still interested in it, but I confess that I only sort of skimmed that bit of his post. Life is short, and Fidelbogen’s posts are long.)

More blabbity blabbity:

The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.

After reading this turgid turd of a paragraph , I decided to cut my losses and skip directly to Professor F’s grand conclusion. Which turns out to be neither grand nor much of a conclusion:

My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.

Even better, put them in a small bag, weigh it down with rocks, and toss it into the nearest large body of water.

Jesus, this turned into a long post. Still, it’s only about half the length of Prof. F’s original.

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

482 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lauralot
Lauralot
10 years ago

And yes, those links also gave the discussions she posted in, so they weren’t out of context. Just godawful.

Hershele Ostropoler
10 years ago

PFKAelizabeth, I’m familiar with her oeuvre, I just don’t believe in the 11th Commandment in feminism.

ozymandias42
10 years ago

*ignores the whole Ginmar business*

NWO, honey, darling, sweetheart, “having had thirty sex partners” does not mean you use men as sex toys, any more than playing music with thirty people means you use other people as synthesizers. There are virgins who objectify people and sluts who treat everyone as a human being.

And Molly has never said she accepted anything from her sex partners. Even if she did, I’m pretty sure that as a grown-up person in grown-up relationships, she gives things to her partners too. In normal person relationships, you don’t trade sex for shinies; it’s more like “hey, want to come over and fuck and borrow my comics?” “Sure, I’ll bring the pizza.”

I’m interested to learn that “loyal” apparently means not devotion or sticking with your partner through any troubles or helping your partner achieve their best or being fully willing to rip into shreds anyone who hurts them, but simply not sticking your tongue in the mouth of anyone else. There are a lot of people who can manage the latter but fail utterly at the first.

Also, some women are sexually faithful because they are monogamous, for fuck’s sake. If you date cheating bastards, that’s your own business, but don’t hold it against an entire gender.

Eurosabra
Eurosabra
10 years ago

I do see a lot of gold-digging when it comes to initiating relationships, which is kind of irritating. It seems to me that a lot of the time, male sexuality is about sex (which is why it is objectifying) and female sexuality is about fringe benefits (which is why it is mercenary). And of course MGTOW won’t work because men are disposable and fungible, meaning a man who qualifies will always be available to fill a gap left by the unqualified. PUAs are right that only by GETTING sex, changing a “No” to a “Yes”, can the shortfall between the innate desires of the two sexes (in aggregate) be dealt with. Men who are chased are at the very top (Princes William and Harry) and very bottom (corner crack dealer) of the scale, sometimes a particular subculture can confer special status on one man (club owners and promoters) but the vast majority have to learn to initiate and seduce with no material, positional, or physical-appearance-based advantages. (They may, however, have behavioral advantages.) And nerd harems do not necessarily lead to a valid generalization, as I am sure my Ivy League gold-diggers data point will be equally decried.

I really do have a problem in that all my relationships have been heavily male-initiated and -led, meaning my partners have never let me relax and NOT perform as a workhorse, initiator of all touching and intimacy, etc, and I have a bit of a grumpy view. And I can vouch that Holly is not going to be getting with me, or even find me appealing, anytime soon.

Pecunium
10 years ago

Ozy: I don’t even want to know what NWO would say about my sexual history.

Pecunium
10 years ago

I also can’t really take any critique of another’s sexual morals from NWO seriously. This is a man who says 14 year olds come on to him, and they deserve to have someone fuck them because of it.

If I didn’t know other Christians, I’d be tempted to despair of the religion entirely.

Molly Ren
10 years ago

NWOslave wrote, “My recent ‘moderation’ is proof of the duplicity of this site and your behavior. I’m banned for being “mean” to Molly Ren. She openly admits to sleeping with at least 30 men and you praise her for it. So she not only uses men for sex, but profit as well. I find it highly unlikely she has never ‘accepted’ drinks, dinners, vacations, some type of monetary gain.”

Wow, how did I miss this last night?

I’m kind of amazed that NWO sees me as living a glamorous life because I *so* do not. The only free food I’ve gotten on a regular basis was from food stamps (though I guess to NWOslave that might amount to the same thing.) Most “vacations” have been when I’ve saved up enough money to take the Chinatown bus to NYC for a couple of days, not because someone I was sleeping with decided to shower me with their expendable income. No wonder he’s bitter if he imagines my life is one constant shower of free stuff, instead of the near-constant state of horny it usually is. 😛

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

But I thought all we had to as women according to NWO was cry and we’d get food and all sorts of stuff. Now we gotta put out, too?

Molly Ren
10 years ago

“But I thought all we had to as women according to NWO was cry and we’d get food and all sorts of stuff. Now we gotta put out, too?”

What’s even more interesting was that if I *did* charge, or at least star in porn, I’d have an even bigger online presence than I already *do*. I’d be taking model shots and hobnobbing with Jiz Lee and Buck Angel and trying to win AVN awards.

I don’t think NWOslave has ever actually considered how hard it is to make money just from sex, what with it being illegal most places and the physical standards you have to meet being so high. Dinner and a movie ain’t enough when you gotta pay the rent!

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Because the rent is too damn high!

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

My recent “moderation” is proof of the duplicity of this site and your behavior. I’m banned for being “mean” to Molly Ren. She openly admits to sleeping with at least 30 men and you praise her for it. So she not only uses men for sex, but profit as well. I find it highly unlikely she has never “accepted” drinks, dinners, vacations, some type of monetary gain.

Okay, NWO, you know what? We’re both about to be on moderation, because I’m going to call you on this bullshit right now and I’m pretty sure I’m going to break several of David’s rules in the process. So here goes: (David, do what you feel is right)

This assertion of yours –what I’ve quoted above- is complete and total bullshit; utter, utter fuckery. You are a liar who couldn’t manage to maintain intellectual consistency or basic coherence if there was a gun pointed at your head. And what is up with the scare quotes and your pathetic dancing around the mulberry bush of what you actually said? You called a poster a whore; you referred to her as a “fuckhole with a pulse.” Own that shit you spineless hypocrite. Are you afraid? I bet you are. I bet you are terrified of being banned from one of the last places online that will let you spout your impotent, idiotic diatribes.
You have zero evidence –ZERO fucking evidence- that she has ever used men for monetary gain. None. Zilch. You made it up. She never said anything about using men for money, or monetary benefits. She never referred to the men she’s had sex with as less than human.

My “crime,” which brought about my moderation was supposedly not considering her “human.” Yet she uses men as sex toys with monetary benefits. Apparently, she see’s men as “human” sex toys with money. Oh glorious day.

See, again, right here? This is you spewing the repugnant bile of your soul all over the rest of us. This is what is meant by projection. This is what happens when your life is reduced to a bitter, miserable, sham of an existence and rather than face up to it, you choose to point fingers and accuse others of taking what you think you’re entitled to.

You know why you called her a whore? Because you only have sex with prostitutes* and you cannot conceive of any woman having sex for any reason other than money or coercion. I’d bet my next consulting fee that you can’t remember the last time a woman touched you without going through the rates up front. You’re also a narcisstic gas bag, impervious to both logic and reality. Naturally, the fact that other men have sex without paying for it cannot penetrate the dung and mud made adobe shield that houses that shriveled up mushroom you call a brain.

Nothing, I mean nothing, chaps my ass like some dude who decides that because he only has sex with prostitutes, every woman who has sex he disapproves of (like somebody died and made you king shit of fuck mountain and we should give a rat’s ass crack what you approve of) is a “whore.” And you are one of the most egregious examples of this type of thinking I have ever seen.

* I feel that it’s important to state that, while my ideas about sex work are a bit complicated, I do not intend to impugn nor be dismissive of sex workers. The term “sex work” encompasses a wide variety of occupations and practices and levels of agency. But it’s a discussion for an appropriate thread or the forums.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

I’ve told you that if a 15 year old girl offered to have sex with me I’d say yes. And I stand by that with good reason

Of course you do. You’re dumb as a bag of hair, NWO but even you recognize that the only kind of woman who would stay with you would be one who couldn’t earn a living or drive a car. You want a child because you think you’d be able to tell her what to do, control whether or not she has access to birth control and that she would have a “guaranteed virtue” the better to placate your raging insecurity. You want a child because you think you’d have a wife that you could father, essentially fulfilling both of the roles you feel are missing in your life. The mother/child that feminism –not, heaven’s no, your own human failures- have kept from you.

Let me tell you something true as snow and crocus: Even if you could manage to get some Eastern European to sell you his 14 year old daughter, she’d leave you. She’d leave you as soon as she could.

I’ve been in several relationships, and I’ve wanted children as I’ve told you before. The answer was “no.” I don’t have a right to reproduce, no man does. For all I know one of these women might have had an abortion. I don’t even have the right to know that for a short time span I was a father. I don’t have that right.

No one owes you a child you fucking titty baby. It has nothing to do with your rights, or lack thereof, as a man. No one has a “right to reproduce” you pug-ignorant half-wit. If a woman cannot conceive and carry a child then she has no rights to children either. Even people who do have biological children can lose their parental rights. You cannot conceive a carry a child. And, no, I’m not even remotely sorry that you can’t force a woman to do it for you. And yes, some woman you dated, way back in the 80s (long before you let delusion take over your life) may have terminated a pregnancy. That could’ve happened. But since you can’t carry a baby in your nonexistant womb, if that was her decision then it was also her right. And you know what, a woman could’ve chosen to terminate her pregnancy back in the 40s or 50s, as well.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you’d been different maybe a woman would’ve loved you enough to want to start a family with you? That if you’d had the courage to seek out a woman who agreed with you on the nature of family and marriage your life might have turned out differently? That if you’d had the “juice” you might have attracted a woman who could at least pretend. Or did you just head directly towards this series of hypothetical and increasingly melodramatic suppositions?

“Feminism! Stole! My!! Children!!!!”

Christ, I cannot imagine the adrenaline and relief induced shakes that must have overcome the women who told you “no”. What a bullet they dodged. You have almost none of the traits that can make a man a good father but, whoa nelly, do you have a surplus of the bad ones.

Yeah. Feminism is the reason, you don’t have children. Sure, you’re a miserable, vile, bigot who hasn’t accomplished much of anything except cobbling together a view of the world based on the rantings of a handful of crackpots, and posting lies about the stolen accomplishments of your manly-man brain. But feminism is why you don’t have the wife and children you feel you deserve.

Feminism. And communism, and the Rothschilds, and affirmative action and Title IX, and VAWA, and lizard people, and the illuminati and any and every other crutch you use to keep from looking at yourself in the mirror.

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

Wow, I actually came here for the funny MRA quotes but this place has gotten pretty nasty with the personal attacks lately. Or is it always like this in the comments?

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

Yeah, well, call a poster a “whore” and a “fucktoy with a pulse” and then whine about being put on moderation, some people are bound to get their dander up.

Also, block quote fail.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

Bravo, Nobinayamu.

Can I borrow you next time I have a difficult asshole on my hands at work?

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

Sure. I also do bar/bat mitzvahs. And I kill at funerals.

Pecunium
10 years ago

Hengist: There’s a dichotomy between, “gotten pretty nasty with the personal attacks lately”, and the question, “Has it always been like this.”

So, what’s your actual point.

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

Why so defensive? My point was to say that it looks like the comments section has gotten nasty lately, unless it’s always been like this. I’m not sure how else to say that.

For the record, whatever NWO may have said, I can’t personally condone the nastiness of nobinayamu’s posts. Maybe if telling men that they’re losers no woman would ever want wasn’t such a common tactic used to silence and shame men, but even then… it’s one thing to stand up to a bully, but if you keep kicking him after he’s down while your friends cheer you on, it gets a little nauseating, sorry.

katz
10 years ago

VOIP, he asked me if I WERE that woman.

So many levels of fail.

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

NWO more than had coming. He has said, and said recently, some truly vile things to others.

jumbofish
jumbofish
10 years ago

INTERNET RAGE isn’t acceptable behavior, but it doesn’t imply that the person is emotionally abusive.

funny it sure sounds emotionally abusive….

@nobinayamu
*jawdrop* *Sighs*
You stepped to far Nobinayamu but I know why you are pissed. >_> You might want to cool off a bit.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

Maybe if telling men that they’re losers no woman would ever want wasn’t such a common tactic used to silence and shame men…

Hengist, I’m not telling “men” that they’re losers no woman would want. I’m telling NWO that he’s a loser no woman would want. It’s part of an ongoing dialogue between me and him. And while I can understand that it bothers you, I don’t really care.

I don’t like seeing a poster lied about and called a “whore.” I don’t like being told that women are whorish by our natures. I don’t like being told that women bring sexual assault upon ourselves by having the temerity to be out in public dressed in less than a gunny sack. I don’t like having links to pre-pubescent girls in swimsuits at the beach, posted as an example of women’s immodesty.

I don’t like being told that the differences between men and women amount to a biological inferiority in the brains of women and the the problems between the sexes would disappear if women would just accept their place in the home. And I don’t much care for women who do choose to be stay-at-home wives and mothers being told that there’s nothing hard about what they do because they can do it “in their pajamas”.

I could post dozens and dozens of even more repulsive things that NWO has said, lo these many months. But I’m not interested, right now, in going back through the archives and linking to them all. And since you didn’t read them, feel free to cast me as the villainess feminist using “shaming language.” Not a fuck is given.

Fuck MRAs
Fuck MRAs
10 years ago

Oh yay. First Hengist mansplained to us all, at least twice, that the reason for the dudebro assholery being decried over in the “ugliness on reddit” post was not actually “nothing” but in fact, the zombie makeup issue. A point which certainly no one else had already covered, and certainly not the owner of this very blog, and certainly not in the very post Hengist was commenting on.

And now he wants to concern troll.

What you did there, Hengist…I see it.

NWO deserved everything he got and then some and frankly I would be pretty surprised if anyone around here cares what you think is right.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

jumbofish, I acknowledged at the start of my comment(s) that I fully expected to be put on moderation for breaking the rules. I’m aware of every rule I’ve broken. I’m not sorry.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

And, for the record, I’m not enraged. I’m tired.

ozymandias42
10 years ago

Once you call someone a fuckhole with a pulse*, your right to civil discourse has been revoked. Other people’s respect is not an inalienable right. If you treat people without respect, you will be treated without respect. That is the way of the world.

*without their consent

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

Fuck MRAs: gee, from your nickname I can already tell you’re a reasonable and unbiased person. I mentioned the zombie makeup thing as well as a previous incident of somebody lying about cancer, as a response to people here claiming “they doubted her for no reason at all”. That’s it. And what does ‘mansplain’ mean? is that like feminist-speak for “man saying something is automatically wrong”? Seriously, you’re a pretty hostile bunch, and if saying that means I’m trolling, so be it.

Fuck MRAs
Fuck MRAs
10 years ago

I knew it xD

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

ozymandias: You know what? A day or two ago I would have agreed with you, but after what I’ve seen lately, I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t NWO who first started the personal name-calling.

Fuck MRAs
Fuck MRAs
10 years ago

The fact that someone dressed up once for Halloween is not a reason to doubt their assault claim, therefore it was indeed for “for no reason.”

DO try to keep up.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

What are you basing that on, Hengist?

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Hengist, what makes you think anyone buys this concern troll at all? Scarper off to your MRA site, please.

Seriously, I’m going to give you a tip, because this deserve a better class of troll:
Do not directly quote one of your side’s talking points when concern trolling the other side. The latter only works based on a perception of being on the same side. If you actually quote one of your points, you tend to show your true form.

At any rate, “No X will ever want you” is not a ‘shaming tactic’ reserved exclusively for use on men. It’s frequently invoked on anyone considered sad and pathetic. If you’re confusing it for an anti-male trope, you probably just don’t ever observe the shit the other gender goes through. In fact, that probably holds true if you think only women hear it too. I hate this parody of civil rights movements you Men’s Rights Assholes do. It’s plain old embarrassing to see you guys reach for shit.

Lauralot
Lauralot
10 years ago

Sure, innocent NWO came in here just to have a nice, peaceful discourse and we evil, evil feminists just abused him until he had no choice but to call us inferior and whores and fuck toys with pulses! That poor innocent man!

Only, no, he’s the scum of the earth and he deserves each and every insult he’s received in these comments.

Hengist
Hengist
10 years ago

Nobinayamu: On the defensiveness and hostility with which I’ve seen regulars here react to myself and others’ fairly neutral comments.

Rutee: Sorry, are you the owner of this blog? If not, please keep the backseat moderating to yourself, thanks.

Hershele Ostropoler
10 years ago

Henigst:

Seriously, you’re a pretty hostile bunch

Well … yeah. There was some question about this?

The hostility is almost always directed at the deserving, as in this case. You see, what makes you a troll is claiming to believe hostility is inherently bad. I have a feeling you only believe that when deployed in the service of certain viewpoints, but in any case, that’s the tone argument, a classic troll maneuver — so classic, in fact, that we all know it when we see it.

Also, are you the owner of this blog?

hellkell
hellkell
10 years ago

We only get “hostile and defensive” when some MRA comes in a shits all over the rug. You know, by mansplaining and concern trolling. Sound familiar?

katz
10 years ago

Rutee’s a community member here. She knows our policies and conventions, official and unofficial, and she’s earned our respect. You haven’t, Hengist.

Pecunium
10 years ago

Why so defensive? My point was to say that it looks like the comments section has gotten nasty lately, unless it’s always been like this. I’m not sure how else to say that.

I’m not defensive. I am curious. You said two things, which contradicted each other… you either read the comments, or you don’t, and if you don’t you really aren’t in a position to judge.

If you do, it sounds like concern trolling.

For the record, whatever NWO may have said, I can’t personally condone the nastiness of nobinayamu’s posts. Maybe if telling men that they’re losers no woman would ever want wasn’t such a common tactic used to silence and shame men, but even then… it’s one thing to stand up to a bully, but if you keep kicking him after he’s down while your friends cheer you on, it gets a little nauseating, sorry.

For the record, NWO deserves a lot more harsh language than he ever gets, and Nobinayamu didn’t address, “men”, she addressed NWO.

I am not sure I agree with all of her conclusions, but he’s a shitheel. He lies, ignores evidence, pretends people don’t respond to him, slut-shames, abuses people, says evil things about women as a class, engages in veiled anti-semitism and says that women are the cause of all his personal problems.

I have, once, engaged in telling him just what I thought of his behavior. Dave removed it. I still think I was 1: justified, and 2: just this side of improper.

Dave, and CB disagreed. Some others saw it and said nothing, so I don’t know what they thought. I would be happy if he were banned; which is not something I say lightly; in the main I figure anyone ought to be allowed to speak. The truth will out.

NWO is a miserable excuse for a human being. He is, so far as I can tell, not worth much more than his value as compost.

PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

ozymandias: You know what? A day or two ago I would have agreed with you, but after what I’ve seen lately, I’m willing to bet that it wasn’t NWO who first started the personal name-calling.

You are walking into a conversation well after it has begun and proceeded to tell the people having that conversation that they should be respectful of the other persons in the conversation without having any idea why someone might be disrespectful.

NWOaf is slime. He is nothing but a lying, rude, vicious weasel of a person. Despite many many many attempts of treating him with the respect he never earned or deserved, he continued to insult, lie and act in a manner that was absolutely reprehensible. After a while being civil is not an option.

By your own admission you have not read the archives so you have no clue why someone is being treated this way and yet have the firm belief that the treatment is unwarranted. Make an effort to see why someone does something before rushing to that asshole’s defense. He does not deserve it.

Rutee Katreya
10 years ago

Rutee: Sorry, are you the owner of this blog? If not, please keep the backseat moderating to yourself, thanks.

Did I say you should be moderated? Or did I say nobody was going to fall for your blatantly poor attempt at a concern troll? Protip, it was the latter.

Nobinayamu: On the defensiveness and hostility with which I’ve seen regulars here react to myself and others’ fairly neutral comments.

That’s just worded poorly. If this shit keeps up I’m going to offer my services as an editor to AVFM; this shit is clearly seeping into your movement’s writing habits. I mean, good writing and clean editting won’t make your stupid points true, but it’ll make them less unbearable to read.

“I was pointing out the defensiveness and hostility with which I’ve seen regulars react to neutral comments”, for instance. There are dozens of ways you could have written this clearly and concisely.

Nobinayamu
Nobinayamu
10 years ago

Hengist, if that’s what you want to believe, fine. I mean the entire purpose of the blog is mock misogyny and it can be hilariously funny. I’ve also seen threads/discussions spin off into some truly fascinating and illuminating topics. There are a bunch of smart people here; it’s rarely a boring read.

And yet people who want to offer misogynistic opinions, or full-out misogynists like NWO, come here, call women whores, and then act shocked, SHOCKED I SAY when they’re insulted right back. Hengist, it’s insulting to have someone say, over and over again, that women are whores by our very natures.

Do you understand that?

It’s insulting. You have no idea how this started, or what I was referencing but you enter the fray with this mealy-mouthed, “well I’m not sure what he said but, um harump”. He called one of the posters a “whore”. He called her a “fuckhole with a pulse”. That’s not me being a defensive, hostile feminist who’s paraphrasing him with hyperbolic rhetoric.

That’s a direct quote. There was nothing neutral about it. And he’s said other things, just as bad, and been put on moderation before.

It’s the audacity of him daring to complain about being put on moderation, whining about how unfair David is with his own friggin’ blog, that was a bridge too far for me today. It’s okay for NWO to lie and hurl insults at us because we’re defensive hostile feminists and probably started it?

But it’s not okay for me to insult him? Why, because I’m better at it?

Fuck MRAs
Fuck MRAs
10 years ago

“Why, because I’m better at it?”

XD

Pecunium
10 years ago

Hengist: Rutee: Sorry, are you the owner of this blog? If not, please keep the backseat moderating to yourself, thanks.

Beams, motes.

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

I’m torn between wanting to find cover and making some popcorn.

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

Hengist: You’re not exactly making a good first impression, here. fyi.

Pecunium
10 years ago

What amuses me is the way Hengist has managed to get a number of people who have been refraining from sharing their personal opinions of NWO to actually do it.

Pecunium
10 years ago

KathleenB: First rule of firefights, move to cover.

Second Rule: Shoot back if 1: Safe. 1a: Shooting back will remove the status of safe.

Third Rule: If Safe is not an option, Shooting Back is the same as not shooting back.

I’d say, Find Cover, Make Popcorn, Snipe as amuses you.

Bostonian
Bostonian
10 years ago

I have been moderated for addressing my opinion of NWO, when he was dancing around the idea of raping 14 year old teen girls. As always, moderation is David’s exclusive call, and he errs mostly on the side of freedom of speech.

NWO is a vile person, as evidenced by his own words.

KathleenB
KathleenB
10 years ago

PecuniumL Good point. /me goes looking for chest high walls equipped with microwaves

1 4 5 6 7 8 10