Over on the always repugnant In Mala Fide, a guest blogger by the name of What is To Be Done recently offered his comrades in the “anti-establishment / man/ biorealist / HBD/ reactionary / racist / patriarch / tradcon / whatever blogosphere” what he evidently sees as a revolutionary suggestion: instead of trying to fight the evil feminists with “well-reasoned arguments,” why not simply set up fake feminist blogs, and post shit on them to make feminists looks bad?
WITBD explained:
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a saboteur. We are naturally smarter than the feminists (in fact, objectively better in every conceivable way), and in addition, we are well-trained in deception by our studies of game. In other words, it’ll be a piece of cake for us to mimic their arguments and appear to them as really smart girls who really know their shit.
Really? Because no one I’ve ever run across in the manosphere has managed to pull off a particularly convincing impersonation of a really smart anything. And in order to effectively parody something, you have to actually understand it first. Given some of the truly odd things MRAs and manospherians believe about feminism and feminists – see my post on Operation Alimony yesterday for one recent example — I’m somehow thinking that the only people dumb enough to be fooled by these “false-flag-feminist” blogs will be other, yep, MRAs and manosphereians.
Nonetheless, WITBD claimed that’s he’s already started putting his little plan into action:
I have already begun false flag blogging myself. At this stage, giving the link would ruin the whole thing. But it’s out there. And “false flag blogging” returned only 87 results, of which only a few actually seemed to discuss what I’m talking about, so for the time being it seems nobody is watching out for it. Not that they’d be able to tell anyway.
His fantasies got more and more extravagant:
Think long term. The endgame is to build a big enough presence that coming out as a fake feminist generates buzz in and of itself. Imagine if it came out that the founder of Feministing was actually a men’s rights activist.
And that he could fly, and shoot lasers from his eyes! Imagination is fun!
(Note: The founder of Feministing is not actually an MRA, or a man. Nor can she fly or shoot lasers from her eyes.)
WITBD continued fantasizing:
Eventually, our false flag bloggers will coordinate with our legitimate bloggers and have “debates” where both sides are controlled by us.
And where the only people paying attention are you guys.
If you feel you are getting really good at this, attack some prominent feminists for not being feminist enough. I don’t even know what that would mean, but, hey, this is feminism. Nonsense is our bread and butter.
Wheels within wheels!
Some on In Mala Fide thought this was a dandy idea. Frost wrote:
Fuck yeah. Awesome post. …
[W]e need to get bold and creative with how we fight the war for the best minds in the western world. False flag blogging is a wide-open front. Especially if you’re new to writing and aren’t yet confident in your voice – and unless you have written many thousands of words already, the truth is your writing is probably going to suck – a false-flag blog would be a great way to hone your skills while only having to actually write at the level of typical mid-twenties gender studies grad student.
Here’s a post of mine that sadly didn’t get a lot of attention, but it’s one of my own personal favourites:
http://www.freedomtwentyfive.com/2011/08/an-open-letter-to-the-manginas-of-the-internet/
I submitted it to The Good Men project, Manboobz, and a few other Mangina sites as a guest post, but sadly no one bit. These people are just so easy to parody, it’s ridiculous.
Regular Man Boobz readers may have a rather different assessment of how effective his parody was.
Others on In Mala Fide were a bit more skeptical of the “false-flag” idea. As out-and-proud racist thwak put it:
It sounds like a good idea, but it won’t work. Its been tried by white people on counter racism forums and they always got busted. We used to call it the “nigger impersonation syndrome”.
A white person would sign up with a name like “Jamal” and speak ebonics… but they always got busted cause at some point they hafta come out of “nigger cloak” to practice racism; i.e, say and/or do something a black person would not say/do.
Sure, they have the option of coming on the discussion board and pretending to be a full time nigger, but how does that advance the racist agenda? …
The “black White Supremacist” stuck out like a nun in a whore house everytime.
And got busted everytime.
Gosh, it’s almost as if black people are actual human beings and not just racist caricatures. And that real black people can somehow magically spot the difference between other real black people and racist assholes posting in “ebonics.”
Huh. Could the same happen with feminists?
In a followup post, WITBD dismissed the critics as uncreative cowards. And it turns out that fake blogs are only the starting point in his grand plan.
The fact is we are not the alt-right. We are the new left. We are the oppressed proles … They are the establishment. We lost “our” country. They control it all now. We have blogs. And a handful of churches and seasteading. Sucks.
Now it’s time to move on. We have to take these pieces of shit down and that means we must use leftist tactics. This kind of blogging operation is the beginning of a long march to infiltrate and undermine their institutions.
Sounds like someone has been reading Mao’s Little Red Book!
Playing around? Real men fight to win, period. We fight feminism specifically because it’s the weak point of liberalism. Read your Sun Tzu. Attacking the entire rainbow coalition at once is madness. You always attack the enemy where he is weakest.
And the weakest links are the ladies, naturally.
[N]ot all women actually benefit from feminism. They may think they win at first, but we know full well that feminist sex and the city-type women lose big time: no kids, no committed alpha, no nothing. Most women don’t benefit, and many women are recognizing this.
Right now among women, feminism is high status and actually being feminine is low status. But all women instinctively want to actually be feminine, and they have better life results when they do. We all know about how to manipulate women’s idea of status. This should be easy to work out.
If we take out or marginally disrupt feminism, and pull lots of white women out of the coalition, it crumbles in short order.
Oh no! Not the white women! Don’t take the white women!
High-IQ thundercunts are major war engines of the regime, and especially the childless ones. They actually run the agencies, corporations, HR departments, universities, etc. Without them, the enemy has a harder time operating. As well, white women are blatantly used as bait to recruit minority men into liberal groups.
Anti-feminism is something that we know well … and it is something that the other elements of the liberal coalition actually somewhat agree with us on because its not like the blacks, Mexicans, Arabs etc. are keen on empowering their women. All men of all races have common ground in dealing with the unique female brand of bullshit and thus are potential sympathizers on this issue.
So this is his grand plan: for racist white dudes like him (and much of In Mala Fide’s readership) to build a sort of antifeminist rainbow coalition with “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc” … in order to take down feminism … in order to weaken liberalism … in order to screw over the “blacks, Mexicans, Arabs, etc.”
Yeah, that’s totally gonna work.
How to live a happy life Emma style?
1) Have really low self-esteem in youth and feel really ugly and sexually worthless to everyone, which might in turn make you identify with betas and omegas
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!
@Lauralot
:”Well, god, if only we thought of growing up.”
Bite your tongue!
@Quackers and Cassandra
There are certain bastardous varieties of lizards in Sri Lanka that like to live in houses, land on people and scare the shit out of them and shit on people’s favorite tshirts. I fully believe that these are MRAs in their former births!
But worms are cool!
*were MRAs in their former births
That’s the problem, all the creatures that I find kind of disgusting are still too fundamentally useful or cool to be MRAs. Dung beetles? They’re pretty cool looking. Roaches? Complex social organization, cooperative. Sharks? Again, much too cool looking, and integral to the marine ecosystem.
See, Emma, that sounds like almost reasonable advice there. But you don’t need the concepts of “hypergamy” or any of this MRA nonsense to talk about that. It’s just a general dating advice thing. If your standards are so high that you are not getting what you want, and are dissatisfied, maybe you should examine your priorities. Maybe you will realize that it is more important to you that a guy is a good father than is over 6 feet tall, for example. But that advice is also useful for anyone– a straight man might realize that he is not having success going after “hot blondes” and decides to go for women he gets along with. Or a woman looking for women might realize that she doesn’t need an androgynous Shane lookalike to be happy, or a man looking for a man might realize abs don’t matter that much, etc.
It has nothing to do with women in particular, and certainly not with women being stuck-up bitches who think they are too good for the nice guy down the street. It has nothing to do with women having to get rid of their standards so the guy down the street (who the woman isn’t that attracted to anyway) can get laid. It is just a fact about dating people in general.
“There are certain bastardous varieties of lizards in Sri Lanka that like to live in houses, land on people and scare the shit out of them and shit on people’s favorite tshirts.”
That’s very specific. You wouldn’t happen to be speaking from personal experience there?
My most unpleasant childhood animal encounters were with a sea urchin and a camel (not at the same time, obviously). The sea urchin surged out at me and stung me when I was snorkelling, and the camel kissed me. Which I suppose is cute, but it was awfully slobbery, and they don’t smell very nice.
@Emma
I don’t care who agrees with you, Emma. The fact that someone with a vagina subscribes to these notions doesn’t mean they are accurate or well-thought-out. Since both parties get the benefits of marriage (the husband may inherit his wife’s stuff, in case you didn’t realize*), but only one loses employability, the loss of employability cannot be considered a fair trade.
*Incidentally, you are only entitled to inherit about 1/3, at least in the United States. The husband can still disinherit his wife for 2/3 of his property. Hell, if most of his property is the marital residence, he can even have her turned out of her home in her old age. Some “benefit”, indeed. Have these women, who agree with you and want this arrangement, spoken with a lawyer?
No, you are not. Think of alimony as back wages. Since home-making is a round-the-clock job with no weekends, holidays or vacations, most home-makers are actually paid less than the minimum wage, and certainly less than the prevailing wage for comparable services on the commercial market. Look at it this way: the husband gets a steep discount for the duration of the marriage. He is also free from the numerous obligations that hiring staff commercially would impose, such as providing paid leave (you are required to give your employees at least 1 day per week to rest), paying minimum wage, and paying payroll taxes. If the marriage ends, it’s his responsibility to repay what he would have owed a commercial nanny/secretary/household manager/incubator/cook/launderess. And in any event, men make the free choice to marry someone who doesn’t work outside the home — therefore, such men should take responsibility for their choices by paying alimony.
Social pressures are often strongest after you have invested time, money and effort into a relationship — such as when you are already married and you have small children. It’s not as simple as exercising your free legal rights to dump your husband of many years and the father of your kids because he said he “needs” you to help his business by quitting your job and taking care of his needs for a while; and with all of your social upbringing telling you that you are a worthless bitch with no values if you just throw your marriage away due to the possibility that you may one day find yourself utterly dependent on a husband who’s grown to treat you like shit. Let me guess: You’ve never been married, have you? Or, at least, not for any substantial period of time? And you don’t have kids?
Emma, my granma IS from Russia. What happened to her, happened in Russia. Moreover, contrary to what you are trying to insinuate, I made it quite clear that what happened to her was not a fluke, and it was not an exception. Millions of women were shafted the same way my grandmother was.
And that’s not the only way in which your statement about Russia is shockingly ignorant. You claim that “most people who die in wars are men”, and your example is … World War II Russia? Are you fucking serious?? Oh sure, that works if you ignore the fact that Russia was fucking INVADED, and you assume that deaths through disease and starvation somehow don’t count. And also, if you don’t count the military service of the millions of women who were drafted “improperly”. Incidentally, based on the stories I’ve heard growing up, if the war is being fought on the street where you live, you actually have better odds of survival if you are a soldier: soldiers are better clothed, better fed, have access to medical care, and possess weapons with which to defend themselves. Civilians enjoy none of those benefits.
On the other hand, the Lusitania is another example of how women are protected unless they aren’t.
I’ve heard that, because I’ve given birth. Have you? I also work in medical malpractice, and I deal with issues of medical ethics in my profession on a daily basis. Do you?
In any event, here is a nice summary of the “controversy”.
Safer from what? And how does the fact that some people would rather be at home make it justifiable to forcibly “protect” all women from civil and political rights, as well as educational and economic opportunities?
As for housewifery being an alternative to “working their asses off” — you are wrong again. Taking care of the house, the children and the husband (especially if he happens to be a man-child) often involves working your ass off, while working outside the home does not necessarily mean you are working your ass off. Similarly, can we stop with the “getting legs blown off” bullshit? How many men are realistically in danger of getting their legs blown off in war? Most men have not served in the military and never will, much less in capacities where they are likely to suffer such a grievous injury. The possibility is academic for most men, so the notion that women are “protected” from something that few men experience — at least involuntarily — exposes that protection as illusory.
And yes, I guess no one is formally without rights in a slave-holding system, but everyone has obligations (slave owners too), and often have to do stuff they don’t want to. Both slaves and slave owners have to do things that can be dehumanizing. I believe the suffering of both matters and should be minimized. For example, slave owners have an obligation to pay bills, something that slaves don’t have to worry about; slaves are in fact protected from the obligation to pay bills. Unlike slaves, slave owners often bolt up screaming in the middle of the night, because they’ve forgotten to pay the grocer — and that’s exactly the same as a slave losing sleep over the possibility of being beaten to death for sport. Also, slave owners have to go out and earn money to support their slaves, and slave owners have to serve in the military and get their legs blown off, whereas slaves are protected, and don’t have to go out onto the battlefield. Slaves, in many ways, have it much easier than slave owners. Therefore, it’s wrong to say that slaves are “oppressed” in a slave-holding economy. Slave owners are also oppressed, maybe even more than the slaves!
See what I mean about parallel narratives defending patriarchy on the one hand and slavery on the other?
Google still doesn’t recognize hypergamy as a word. Most Google results link to MRA and PUA websites, as well as Manboobz lol. I’d of said it’s a concept completely invented by MRA/PUA asshats, but it is in the dictionary. Although check out the entry:
hypergamy [haɪˈpɜːgəmɪ]
n.
The practice of marrying into an equal or more prestigious social group or caste.
1. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) Anthropol a custom that forbids a woman to marry a man of lower social status
2. (Social Science / Anthropology & Ethnology) any marriage with a partner of higher social status
so women were actually forbidden to marry a man of lower social status? how fair is that to deny women who they really want to marry?
Oh HELL yes. Botflies are the most disgusting creatures on earth, serve no purpose, and leave disgusting gaping hole in our dogs. Here is a picture of a human bot fly.
@CassandraSays
pffftt, I’m too alpha for that!!!
< . . >
I love camels!! Even moreso than cats they embody indifference to humanity!
My worst childhood animal encounter was again in Sri Lanka. We went on a family trip to the zoo and went to pose next to a swan pond. I was perched on the edge of the pool and this fucken swan comes up and bites my ass! To this day my uncle claims that I never managed to grow an ass since lol
I can beat the swan story with assistance from a very lovely cat who passed away last year. So picture the scene – 19 year old me is lying in bed with my boyfriend and he gets up to go to the bathroom. He doesn’t bother to turn on any lights, because it’s really late. I’m just drifting off to sleep when I hear a terrible shriek, then cursing, and then the boyfriend stomps back to bed in a huff muttering dire things about the cat.
Apparently the cat followed him into the bathroom, hid in a corner, and then right as he was peeing, lunged right at the family jewels.
I once went to an aviary and a large, probably endangered bird followed me around just so it could peck me in the back of my knees.
I’ve also been spit on by a llama.
I vote for mosquitos. Buzzy, itch-causing, disease ridden fuckers.
Emma, I’m really not saying anything revolutionary. This is all really basic social science stuff, but the greater cultural narrative about “personal responsibility” and “freedom of choice” is much less nuanced and, frankly, rather heartless. Most people don’t think very deeply about that stuff, though, for much the same reason that the positive thinking nonsense goes unexamined (to hearken back – to another thread? I don’t remember now). It’s comforting to believe that you are protected from the bad shit because you are in a good place now and you are a responsible, intelligent human being. If the feminist 101 website posted above doesn’t catch your interest, you may want to check out some social theorists.
More general social theorists, I mean. Feminists are social theorists, too.
Quackers I don’t know if you realize but it looks like you have some fans!
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/03/manosphere-dudes-lets-set-up-fake-feminist-blogs-to-take-down-feminism/comment-page-5/#comment-107097
http://manboobz.com/2012/01/03/manosphere-dudes-lets-set-up-fake-feminist-blogs-to-take-down-feminism/comment-page-5/#comment-107116
I miss the bra discussion in the other thread, I’m too late for the hockey discussion in this one…damn you, real world responsibilities!
Thanks, kladle. I already read some feminist books and got a lot of it, but new info about feminism is always welcome.
And yeah, I know this is a misogyny mocking site, but I read the commenting policy, and I believe there was something about attempting to create intelligent debate, too. Oh, and I did make a few comments on misogyny here as well. I resist mocking too much, because it’s not really in my nature, but I can point out things that sound stupid to me (no, no, I’m not just talking about feminisms, if that is what you think, some of which are truly batty, while others are good). Do I ever criticise stupid things manosphere guys say? Oh yeah. In fact, I talk exactly the same on Roissy’s site. Except I’m rougher with them, because they are rougher with me. A lot of MRAs are just whiny jerks, and a lot of guys on Roissy’s blog are mean and irrational, but I can agree with them if they make sense. Same with everyone else. I’m sure we can agree on many things. Feminism means equal rights, no? I believe in that, you see. I don’t necessarily believe in hypergamy. THAT is something I still have to figure out (if it’s true or not, and if it is, how much).
Botflies are like MRAs aren’t they? the way they burrow themselves into message boards they are not wanted on and annoy the fuck out of people.
Amused, thank you for mentioning the Lusitania, I didn’t even know about that. So it isn’t always women and children first. Its true that that policy is unfair to men, but because men are physically stronger they do have a better chance at getting a lifeboat over the average woman or a child so I understand why it was implemented, but it doesn’t make it fair. Also, MRAs like to use that argument because they think it somehow erases all the other inequalities women faced. Um no. That’s not how logic works guys. One can get perks in one area but get crapped on in another.
Here’s an article on it, read it and STFU MRAs. Be happy to know today it would most likely be a survival of the fittest thing so women will most likely die in slightly higher numbers. I know you’ll all enjoy that fact. http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/03/05/women-and-children-first-a-tale-of-two-ships/
I would love it if someone would conduct a study to determine what it is about being a very sexist man that renders the person in question unable to spell or use standard English grammar. Do MRAs outside the Anglosphere suffer from the same issue?
@Snowy
Hahahahahaha!!! oh man that is hilarious
Hey notice how Roissa is similar to Roissy
Sorry “madame” my ducky self refuses to join your “cause”. I like it here just fine thanks.
@CassandraSays
Playful pets and family jewels, oh the stories. I’ve always had the worst luck with dogs because I’m pretty tall and got my growth spurt really early, leaving my dangly bits at a very inconvenient height. It was particularly bad with my old dog because she liked to nip when she was feeling playful, and she was a very playful dog :D:(
@Molly Ren
Was the bird endangered before or after it started pecking at your knees?
@Snowy
Isn’t everyone a fan of Quackers?
I love the idea that because men serve in the military, they must be the only ones who suffer because of wars.
Yet, some researchers disagree. As a simple google search reflects.
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=453928
“Most combatants in armed conflict are men, so naturally men are the major direct victims of military operations. Yet armed conflicts have important indirect negative consequences on agriculture, infrastructure, public health provision, and social order. These indirect consequences are often overlooked and underappreciated. They also affect women—arguably more so than men. This article provides the first rigorous analysis of the impact of armed conflict on female life expectancy relative to male. We find that over the entire conflict period, interstate and civil wars on average affect women more adversely than men. In peacetime, women typically live longer than men. Hence, armed conflict tends to decrease the gap between female and male life expectancy. For civil wars, we also find that ethnic wars and wars in “failed” states are much more damaging to women than other civil wars. Our findings challenge policymakers as well as international and humanitarian organizations to develop policies that tackle the large indirect and long-term negative health impacts of armed conflicts.”
Wars, which are, of course generally started and declared by male political actors, tend to affect women more than men. So much for that whole “protection” thing.
@Shadow well obviously! Who wouldn’t be XD
Which brings me to bring up a subsidiary point for you Emma. If you have a good faith interest in wanting to understand feminism and why it is antithetical to a lot of the classic MRA canards, I suggest you look into researching the historical and cultural erasure of women’s labor.
Your comments here suggest you’ve fallen into the trap of recognizing only the labor that produces the direct result, and erasing the labor and work the allowed the result producing labor to happen. Specifically, your rather glib assertion that stay-at-home spouses get a free ride, as well as the assertion that women have been “more protected”, and of course your ideas about war.