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.
I can’t imagine mras could be that stupid to try to parody in this thread about mras parodying feminists…right?
This is dog fort. Trolls have been detected. Red team prepare to lift legs.
I’ve actually had my suspicions that MRAs on the internet are actually feminists trolling to make the real MRAs look totally unhinged… Poe’s law and all that. So this post is really meta for me, lol.
My head just exploded.
Anyway, as Roissy ever posted here, to check his IP against roissa’s?
Sorry, “has Roissy ever”.
Wow, Emma really is the female B_don. That’s frightening.
Now, now, we don’t know how she feels about videotaping sex without your partner’s consent yet.
I just wanted to say that I’ve never heard of that MRA Marmoset before and oh my god is that adorable.
NWO: @Lauralot
There’s only 2 genders. Ya can’t just make up new ones on a whim. Boy/girl.
Unless you speak Russian, or German, where there are three genders.
Masculine, Feminine, and Neuter.
In the Pacific NW, there are lots of social relationships which aren’t what you would think of. A man might not be available for marriage because of who his mother’s cousin’s sister is, in relation to the person he wanted to marry.
Or the ways in which the Navajo explain people (born to, born for) and which family that means one, “belongs” to, as opposed to whom one happens to live with.
Nope… none of that for you.
But the world ain’t all about you.
Zhinxy: Pecunium – Interesting! Which seasteaders are these, or are there not multiple cadres anymore? I know there were some splits, but when I was paying any attention (Round 04?) they seemed much more happy-utopian, even anarcho- syndicalist.
Patri Friedman, et al. “The Seasteading Institute”, which was (until recently) being strongly backed by the founder of eBay. Patri is an interesting character, but not really much of a thinker. His greatest asset is that he’s rich enough to not need a job, and so can look into building a, “Libertarian Utopia”. He’s not rich enough to bankroll it entire (thank goodness), but he can afford to spend his time looking for backers and doing, “research”.
The get about half a dozen “interns” every summer; mostly European (from what I’ve seen) grad students. I’ve yet to see any of those interns get serious about the project, mostly because 1: They are daft, and 2: it’s really all about Patri.
Emma, you’re falling into another typical MRA trap, which is asking other people to do your research for you.
Because women have worked throughout history without exception, there are stacks on stacks of books – both in the primary and secondary record – that document women’s labor. Yet there is a cultural perception in contemporary times that women hardly worked at all until – BAM – feminism.
My answer to you as far as what books might be, “well, just about any history survey textbook.” Early Modern Europe by Merry Wiesener has all sorts of interesting tidbits.
See, the common mistake MRAs make with their completely false canard about how women have never worked is that they assume that “women = upper class white western women”. That is, a negligible portion of women historically, and even then, some of those women worked. However, it’s another classic case of looking at only the surface. The single worker household was a flash of dawn in human history.
Taking agrarian societies in general, which I’m loathe to do, but since I don’t have time to dredge up specifics, you would have to be a fool to think that women didn’t work. Agriculture, especially up to the mid 20th century, is incredibly labor intensive. I mean, do you think that women were basically sitting around performing no labor on these farms? So that’s a place for you start, researching women’s work in agriculture, which has historically been a substantial part of agricultural work (somewhere around half of the global population are still agrarian).
Let’s not forget historical professions such as midwife, schoolteacher, spinners, and so forth. But of course you never hear about them, because “they never made anything.”
Likewise, with the dawn of manufacturing in Europe, women were sought out for manufacturing jobs. Women were sought out of course because it was socially acceptable to pay them less, oh and they were considered “more dextrous.” Look up Richard Arkwright’s factory. Women have always been present even in manufacturing. MRAs just have a skewed view of manufacturing, they think “manufacturing = late 20th century American and Western European manufacturing”. Rather myopic, no?
Lora Jo Foo notes that, at least in the tech sector, women dominate manufacturing. But of course, because they are white women who generally live outside the United States and western Europe their labor tends to be erased or ignored.
Foo writes in “Asian American Women”, of Silicon Valley’s manufacturing firms:
“Fabrication workers, who work in the ‘clean rooms’ and wear the white bubble suits, are primarily Filipina women, who, as a result of the US colonization of the Philippines, have the English language skills to program and operate the computerized machines that make microchips. By contrast, the semi-skilled and unskilled assembly line workers, those who solder wire and transistors onto circuit boards, are non-English speaking Vietnamese, Korean and Chinese women. Seventy percent of the approximately 50,000 to 70,000 assembly line workers are Asian and Latina women who do not get health benefits. In the subcontracting shops, the percentage is higher – 75% to 100% of the assembly labor force is Asian and Latina women.”
Indeed, sweatshop labor often falls upon women in disproportionate numbers. And as far the frequent MRA lament that only men work dangerous jobs, I suggest looking into the long term health affects of sweatshop labor and particularly circuitboard and tech assembly.
You should watch the film “The Global Assembly Line”. It’s a bit old, but that will actually assist your historical perspective I suppose.
I’m not going to write a research paper for you and cull sources. I mostly pulled this from the top of my head. You now have google, access to your local library, and the myriad of threads to begin with.
Dear Emma: you are a troll and nothing but a troll. Your contributions to this thread at least (not worth backtracking to see your other droppings) fit perfectly the rhetorical patterns of other trolls.
Why is is to hard for you all to come up with something ORIGINAL to troll with?
You, as have a number of others, have:
Come into thread claiming to want to engage in rational discussion with/or learn more from feminists/feminist thinking people.
Claim to have already read about feminism even though you like other never name names, or summarize main feminist thought (let alone various critiques of feminist thoughts from critical race feminists or womanists etc. etc. etc.)
Claim to see “both sides” as “equal”: i.e. both have some good ideas, but there are extremists on both sides (i.e. it’s usually men who advocate the right to rape women are declared equal to radical feminists who claim that all men want to rape women.).
Despite claims, show much more sympathy toward the poor men’s rights movement who are HURT, hurt, by feminists/women.
Quibble extensively over exact dictionary/thesaurus meaning of words.
Claim that the vile quotes that MBZers can cite are not the “intent” or “real personality” of the lovely lovely MRAs who are being hurt HURT by feminists/women (here, emma you asshole, read Intent, it’s fucking magic.
Exhibit racism: i.e. the only men the MRA are ever concerned about are straight white men. Your loathesome boyfriend’s claim about affirmative action shows that he is completely unaware that in the US at least affirmative action has benefitted men who are in ethnic minority groups as well as white women (the group least affected are women of color which shows how much structural inequality is still in the system).
Defend men (including rape apologists) because apparently they are so abused by women/feminists.
Your rhetoric is old, it’s stale, it shows no originality, and any claim that you or your boyfriend are entirely different if we get to know you (as opposed to making judgements based on what you choose to put forth on a public forum) shows a complete inability to understand how people community.
You add an extra trollish flavor to the mix with your “what is the RIGHT history” crap.
The fact that trolls with extensive MRA ties do not seem to understand that people will check on their blogs (which they link to) and thus DA DUM read more of what they’ve written supports the idea that you all need to learn to: 1, sockpuppet (some handy dandy tips have been given on this very blog), and 2. TROLL BETTER.
Because, really, you’re pathetic at it.
@Johnny BB: Good point–the MRA’s are always asking for sources and demanding others do the work for them. And you’re very good to give our Emma Troll some information.
Since she’s just a garden variety troll, I refuse to do any real work (I live with a medieval historian, who studies peasants, which means both men and women–her focus in social history is that large group in the 14th century who were NOT the elites!), but you know, Google is one’s friend.
Here’s the Google search results for “history of women’s labor” limited to site:edu (American universities) (and even then Google gives me a bunch of fucking ADS):
http://search.sweetim.com/search.asp?src=6&q=history+of+women's+labor+site%3Aedu&barid={87B4B3F2-4F7E-4853-A04B-76D7CE69BBC3}
So, Emma go to town. Edumacate yourself.
But I’d bet real money you won’t.
Oops: “how people community” above should be, of course, how people communicate!
Emma: Where did you blame the victim? Right here,
If you happen to be so weak you can’t decide for yourself, but let social shame and your boyfriend decide things for you, then I’m sorry, but you only have yourself to blame. Society is not there to protect you from yourself.
The way that’s phrased, anyone who doesn’t leave an abusive situation is, “weak” and has only themself to blame.
Read that again, your words, “you have only yourself to blame.”
Emma: You weasel. That’s not an comparative insult, it’s a description of what you do (and yes, it’s both a slur and you ought to feel the sens of insult that stems of being shamed; but I am not trying to disparage stoats, polecats, etc.).
When shown what you did, in re blaming the victims you said it was justified, but you didn’t even own your words.
That is true. I know I must have sounded mean when I indirectly said that people who can’t make free choices are weak.
It didn’t, “sound mean” it was heartless, cruel, and (though tangential to my point) false. Telling people they are, “weak” and so deserve the abuse they are getting isn’t encouragement. It’s kicking them when they are down. It’s stepping on their neck.
And you are, with that bobbing and weaving, praising yourself for being that sort of unfeeling person.
Didn’t you read what I said? I define free choices as those that are made when you have all the needed legal rights, aren’t subjected to violence and aren’t subjected to threats.
I did, and you are equivocating. You want to make it harder for women to do that very thing, while saying they are in that position.
She gets married. She is, by whatever means, convinced to be a stay at home parent (it isn’t always her husband… it may be her job doesn’t promote her; because she’s married and, “will leave to have kids, so her career stagnates; and her husband is making better money [because, “he has a family to support], and so she is convinced that the benefits of work aren’t worth it). Skip ahead. The marriage has gone to hell. She’s not being paid for her labor (save in room and board; which has strings), and when she leaves you will consign her to the “bare necessities” while she is, late in life, being trained to some job which will provide, those same bare necessities.
This, you think, is a set of choices that person has… stay in the marriage, or face penury on the street. It’s your form of, “encouragement”. It’s not a free choice, and you think the spouse isn’t worth paying what the labor they provided to the marriage is worth.
But you call that reasonable and just. It’s neither. It’s also interesting the one-way street of your, “freely made choice”. The working partner knows that the stay at home spouse is giving up employability, and working for less than the going rate; s/he also knows that remuneration for the consideration given in that arrangement may be demanded on the termination of that agreement.
It’s not, “punishment” (as you so tritely, and perjoratively term it), it’s payment of a debt held in forbearance.
Just went to Emma’s blog after reading some of the stuff here.
Wow, yeah.
Here’s a gem.
“They told me that being submissive is being doting, caring, serving and putting out on demand. None of these things ever seemed like a sign of submissiveness to me, just a sign of being nice and caring about the guy.”
Emphasis mine. So, a person making the argument that women don’t face social pressures to behave a certain way, has also made the argument that women aren’t servile and don’t put out “on demand” that they’re not being nice and caring.
Lovely.
Emma: Actually, he is against rape fundamentally, and his arguments don’t justify it. I know what his thoughts are, and I found no real evil in him (same for people who actually know him personally, unlike you)
All of which is irrelevant.
Really, it is. Because whatever his personal beliefs (and you will have forgive me if I doubt they are as you think them; color me cynical, but I don’t think he is an honest person), his written words; the ones he writes to persuade others not only condone and justfy rape, they encourage it.
No, I don’t know him personally. I don’t care to, because his public persona is evil. Since he does evil, he is evil. He may be charming, and may have convinced those of weak mind, with that charm, that he is not evil, but that’s immaterial. He is doing evil. That makes him evil. That you apologise for him means you are condoning that evil, and encouraging it.
Which… makes you complicit.
It may even make you evil as well. Not that you care, because, “words will never hurt you.”
Which is also a base canard; if words didn’t hurt, we’d not need a nursery rhyme to try and keep self-esteem from being destroyed by them.
@Quackers
“and men do not lose from affirmative action. This was discussed earlier on holy fuck.”
Yes they do. I already debunked that load of crap. Two feminists yammering citing nothing but their own yammerings. The proof was words falling from their mouths.
———–
@Anti-Moron’s-Rights
“What’s changed is how learning is measured. Classrooms are overcrowded. The student-to-teacher ratio is higher than ever before,”
Here liar.
http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?data_set_group_id=1377
22.3 students per teacher ratio in 1970, 16.2 students per teacher in 2002. And that rate has dropped further since that time. Since boys didn’t lose intelligence since 1970, but their grades have dropped across the board. And the only thing to change has been the method of teaching. The new method of teaching is detrimental to the way boys learn.
———–
“Vote for your local school board. Vote for funding for education at all levels.”
And the feminist solution is more government. Do we need more stumbling blocs for boys? And you want me to pay for more?
———–
@Kyrie
“MESSAGE TO MRAs: there is no need to create fake extreme feminists.”
You’re right about that. Just point any man to any feminist site, (manboobz included) to see the seething hatred of boys/men.
———–
@Amused
“Also, how the fact that I work in a male-dominated profession means men should go out and rape women.”
So much hatred in just one sentence. Is a male dominated profession bad? How does one make the leap from male dominated profession to rape women in one sentence? You express only hatred of boys/men.
————
@Pecunium
” NWO, you lying sack: There’s difference between civilian deaths and military deaths. Civilians deaths are unintended. Military deaths are men either forced to kill and die, or do so to protect the civilians, (women and children).”
How is this a lie? Military men if drafted are forced to kill/die. Military men who choose to fight do so to in order to protect civilians. Civilians by contrast are protected by the military. Citing Dresden doesn’t change the fact they were civilians who goal was to protect only themselves and were not required to kill/die.
————
“(Jessica Lynch… who; whatever may have been done to propagandise her situation, was in combat)..”
Jessica Lynch admitted she passed out and was carried to safety by men. Her “combat experience” consisted of feinting and being carried to safety.
————
There’s a difference between being “in combat” and being in a “combat zone.” I can be 200 miles behind enemy lines and be in a combat zone.
The average man was given the right to vote because he could be drafted. After 99 years women’s vote they still can’t be drafted. A coupla million laws privileging women above men yet the gals haven’t managed to get their duty to selective service? I don’t really think they’re trying all that hard.
———–
Here manboobz gang, Sign this for equality. It gives men equal custody in NY state. The present law in NY state is… ” In New York State if the parties cannot agree on custody or communicate effectively the mother is given sole custody.”
http://www.change.org/petitions/the-governor-of-ny-equality-for-fathers-in-the-family-court-system
Default female custody. How nice! The only reason for this is profit. The best part is women get to keep up the false stats of women being the primary caretaker while denying men their children. What possible excuse could any of you give for not signing. If it’s the childs welfare that concerns you, women commit the vast majority of child abuse and the safest place for a child is with the biological father.
Also: All the MRA assholes who blather on about affirmative action only being tied to women: here is a Timeline (yes it’s at NOW, but it has lots of links to other sites showing the historical timeline/origins of affirmative action which didn’t even mention sex/gender in its earliest iterations.
Oooooh, an online petition. NWO, why don’t you get off your dead ass, get off the computer, and do work?
NWO: Explain two-spirits, if gender defines culture.
NWO: How is this a lie
Because you said something which wasn’t true. You said civilian deaths are unintended. That’s not true. Not in the past, and not now.
That’s how it was a lie.
Also… there are three genders in Russian. So it must be true in Spanish as well, right?
“Vote for your local school board. Vote for funding for education at all levels.”
And the feminist solution is more government. Do we need more stumbling blocs for boys? And you want me to pay for more?
………………
NWO,. I suggested fighting for self-directed learning measures and ending state schooling, but you told me it was the same old thing. So, you aren’t in favor of the current system getting more funding, or with opposing state education. In that case what the hell should we do? 😉