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.
@Katz
According to this blog entry, the campaign has been discontinued in December 2011. One of the reasons is that, while it was groundbreaking when it was launched (according to the blog entry, the campaign has been around for more than a decade!), it’s not really up to date anymore (focus on “no means no” instead of “yes means yes”, barely taking bystander intervention into consideration).
I think it’s important to remember that. I thought it was a good campaign, but from a modern standpoint, it does have quite a lot of issues.
Not sure what to think about Grinner yet. Maybe they are just somewhat new to social justice stuff? You brought up some good points though, Katz! Let’s see if/what they reply.
katz: thanks, that’s very true. I hadn’t realized MRAs hate the my strength campaign, so I didn’t make that connection. Which is silly of me… of COURSE they hate it, it mentions MEN and RAPE in the same sentence! And even has the audacity to say that men actually might have something to do with it! 😛 But yeah, I’m with you on the cautiously-supportive-but-still-skeptical.
Ozymandias42,
No, you wouldn’t be justified in throwing a fit. You would be a demanding jerk then, precisely which people should avoid dating. My point was not whether you have the right to throw a fit, but whether putting out of demand is nice and caring or not. I do think it is. I also think it’s not nice and caring to ignore the sexual needs of your partner, unless you have a legitimate reason (illness, physical inability, depression, things like that). If the sex drives of the two partners are radically different, it’s best to simply find partners that are more compatible. In that case, no one is really to blame. But if the difference is not too large, then it’s nice and caring to have sex anyway, even if you don’t feel like it, to please your partner. I’m not sure this would work for men though (since they have to get an erection to have sex and might not be able to if they don’t feel like having sex), but for women (which is who my blogpost was about) it’s doable.
I understand your argument about equality of result, and it makes sense to me. Except women and men don’t fundamentally have same desires. I think they have very similar capabilities (last time I checked the info on that). But with desires, it’s different. Prenatal and post-natal hormones seem to play a role in what we want. There has been studies on this, how prenatal hormone exposure makes babies either go for girl toys (dolls) or boy toys (trucks). Like girls with CAH going for boy’s toys despite parental encouragement to do the opposite.
http://people.uncw.edu/hungerforda/Infancy/PDF/Prenatal%20hormones%20and%20postnatal%20socialization.pdf
Not sure if it counts, but I watched a few National Geographic programs on something similar a while ago, where they measure the time a newborn looks at either the face or a mechanical thing. There were gender differences there too.
Post-natal hormones also play a role. Transexuals who start taking testosterone often get an increased libido ( http://www.ftmguide.org/ttherapybasics.html ) , so there it’s no surprise that in general (as in, it doesn’t apply to everyone or more specifically, you), men’s sex drives are stronger. They are also less hung up about casual sex and are more likely to lower their standards for it, while women might increase theirs. I was once presented with an article by some women’s studies professor, and even that one admitted these differences:
http://wulv.uni-greifswald.de/2006_mw_forsch_gender/userdata/Hyde_2005.pdf
So the conclusion would be that if either desires or capabilities are not the same, then there is no reason for results to be the same. We have something we call the Norwegian paradox here. We’re one of the most gender equal countries in the world, with affirmative action, sexual harassment laws and welfare for those who are divorced or otherwise jobless and poor, but still, men go into “men’s jobs” (engineers) and women go into “women’s jobs” (nurses). Why force them to choose what they don’t choose in such a rich, woman-friendly country?
Kollege: That particular campaign has stopped running, but the group who run it, “Men Can Stop Rape”, and a related program, “Men of Strength”, are still going. They’re trying to work on the bystander intervention problem right now, actually, they’ve started up a new campaign
http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Strength-Media-Portfolio/preview-of-new-bystander-intervention-campaign.html
I follow them casually on facebook, but I do have the reservations about it that katz mentioned… and still not 100% sure how I feel about this brand new “where do you stand” campaign of theirs.
@Bee: Good comment, and seeing the quote made me think, wow Emma Troll like some of our other Trolls does not see the internet as “real life.”
We aren’t real people, real women, or real feminists.
People, that’s SO 1990s. And troll like. Trolls presumably don’t go around their neighborhoods or work where they’re known and TROLL. They can only do it where it’s not ‘real.’
I shall add to my “rhetorics of Trolldum list.”
@ithiliana
“@NWO: yes, you’re right, all the aid goes to women! And we keep it all to buy bon-bons and never help anybody else!”
Hey vile swine I’m back for a sec. Nice link you gave although it’s all bullshit. So lets debunk the bullshit, shall we? The link you gave states
“A woman multiplies the impact of an investment made in her future by extending the benefits to the world around her, creating a better life for her family and building a strong community.”
Does it really? How about a man? Does investing in a man help only the man? Is it only “her” family? Not “his” as well? Investing in any woman is always good to everyone? Men are on their own?
————
“1 in 5 girls in developing countries who enroll in primary school never finish.”
What’s the percentage of boys in that situation? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
————
“Girls is stay in school for 7 years or more years marry 4 years later and have 2 fewer children.”
Is this a good thing? Who told you marrying later or having 2 fewer children was “good?” Why is it good?
————
“1 in 7 girls mill marry before the age of 15 in the developing world.”
What about boys? Is there an upside? Why is it bad? Do boys marry earlier as well?
———–
“Women make up 52% of the people with HIV.”
Isn’t that number comparable to women’s number in the general population? Why is it a trajedy for women yet men not so much?
———–
“Women produce 43% of the food in developing nation, however women are less likely to own land and own fewer amounts when they do.”
Should the owners of said land just give to women? Tons of women land owners in the good old US, no one is rushing to toss me a parcel. Why should anyone who owns land “give” it to a woman? Do men get land thrown at them?
———–
“When women have the same amount of land as men there is a 10% crop increase.”
What is this magical ability women have to increase crop yield? Why are women keeping this ability a secret? Teach us men how to achieve a 10% yield increase!
———–
This entire article you’ve given is a propaganda piece. Women are victims. Men are oppressors. Let’s all give more to women.
More telling of your hatred is what you said in a previous post. “And if the MEN that an MRA is concerned with is white men, then they’re racist”
Remember, if you help a white man, you’re a racist. The feminist ideology of hate.
————
Finally, all your giggling “on the bright side the prevelance of castrati in heroic opera roles lead to some delightful queer juxtapositions now that women play castrati roles.”
I’m thrilled by being castrated boys were able to further the queer play genre. I’ll be sure to applaud the next time I hear about female genital mutilation, maybe it’ll spark a few straight white men to be more creative with their playwriting.
ANSWER MY QUESTION, NWO.
I’m thrilled by being castrated boys were able to further the queer play genre. I’ll be sure to applaud the next time I hear about female genital mutilation, maybe it’ll spark a few straight white men to be more creative with their playwriting.
…
Ye-ah, that’s really what that was about. Good boy nwo, you found the giggling!
Also, asking a bunch of weird questions isn’t debunking anything.
Emma: Even in relationships where both partners have very similar levels of libido, sometimes one partner will want sex and the other will just not be up for it. Maybe they’re stressed out, maybe they’ve been having a bad day and are really just not in the mood, or maybe they’re not sure why, they just don’t want to. Those are all “legitimate” reasons — at least, to a partner who actually cares about having sex with someone only when it is something they BOTH want.
A partner is not required or — since you’ll probably argue that you never said they’re required — “not nice/caring” to fulfill their partner’s sexual desires. They’re not sexual “needs”. Partnered sex is not a NEED. If a partner is turned on and wants to do something about it, they can masturbate. Someone IS allowed to have WANTS about how often sex is had, etc, for a relationship — thus if those wants aren’t being fulfilled, they absolutely can choose a different partner and it’s a “legitimate” reason (what the fuck defines “legitimate” anyway). But the onus is not on the partner to fulfill those desires even if they’re not in the mood for it. It does not make them not “nice or caring”. It’s just a reality that happens in relationships. Sometimes, someone will be in the mood while the other person isn’t. It’s not a big deal and it doesn’t make you not nice if you don’t go and have sex with them anyway.
@zhinxy: You mean stupid questions?
I meant weird AND stupid. XD
BUT WE HAVE NO REBUTTALS TO HIS AMAZING DEBUNKING THAT DIDN’T BY DEFINITION DEBUNK ANYTHING, even if, for example, everything he was asking about was literally, absolutely false.
NWO WHAT IS DEBUNKING? (AND PROTEIN, AND LAW, AND TITLE IX, AND PRETEND ANARCHY, AND HISTORY OF POWERFUL WOMEN OF CHINA, AND GENDER IN LANGUAGE…)
Kollege,
I realize there is racism, sexism, ageism, but I think company owners (who bothered to start and run their own company) should decide whom to hire and who fits their company better. If they want to stay racist or sexist, they are free to do so. There is an option of creating your own, non-sexist company. And not all groups have the same interests, which might lead to shortage of people whom you are supposed to AA into your company, which might lead to taking employees which most definitely don’t fit your company or aren’t qualified. And I definitely do not want a job given to me through affirmative action. It just makes women look stupid and unqualified.
“If my male partner spends more time on home-making and cooking (which he does because I suck at it) and I pull in 70% of the household income, and we’re focusing on my career in the relationship (also true), is it equally cool that I just toss him on the street and leave him to fend for himself if we should divorce?
Because personally, I don’t think it is”
Me neither. I don’t think you should be able to turn him out for no reason without paying. But if he decided to leave without you being to blame for that in any way, then I don’t see why you should pay.
English has a non-gendered pronoun but that’s not enough to make English have gender, because in gendered languages gender is assigned to all nouns, and other words are inflected accordingly. Someone correct me if I’ve got that wrong, it’s been a while since linguistics class.
So e.g., in French you inflect adjectives according to the gender of the noun they modify: “bon jour” (“day” is masculine) vs. “bonne idée” (“idea” is feminine).
Bunny day.
KristinMH said:
“But before NWO steps in and accuses me of….something based on my appreciation of this bit of irony, let me confirm once and for all that I hate men and want them all to be castrated. Yep, I’m just like Katherine Heigl in that video about neutering pets.”
NWO said:
“I’m thrilled by being castrated boys were able to further the queer play genre. I’ll be sure to applaud the next time I hear about female genital mutilation, maybe it’ll spark a few straight white men to be more creative with their playwriting.”
I repeat, a fuckin parrot
Also, fun fact, Emma: You say men wouldn’t be able to do that because they need an erection to have sex.
1. awesome heteronormativity and also complete erasure of any sex other than PIV
2. this is the fun fact — for the majority of women, if they’re not at all aroused, PIV will hurt. So saying men need to be aroused to have sex but women don’t and therefore women should be totally cool with having sex when they don’t want to just to be “nice” to their partner is just… kind of batshit.
Look. We’re not saying you can’t do this yourself. Go ahead. I think it wouldn’t make for a very happy/fulfilling/COMFORTABLE sex life, but if it works for you, golden. Do it. I don’t care. I mean, seriously, it is your choice to do so. I don’t think anyone’s arguing that. What we are arguing, however, is to please please please not apply your strange values around sex to other people. Do what you won’t. But don’t go around saying other people “should” do it too because it’s a “nice” and “caring” thing to do.
do what you WANT**
Emma, if there’s a level playing field of free choice, and it ends up sorting out that there’s, say 70 percent male engineers and 70 percent female nurses, than, honestly, cool beans. But I don’t think we’re there yet, “even in Scandinavia.” And part of the reason is that even if it all is about desire and not ability, the belief PERSISTS that ability is lacking. Which, along with hormones, can effect the hell out of choice. If boys are still doing mostly “man things” and girls are still doing mostly “girl things” in the magic time after the revolution, that’s great. But let’s not distract ourselves from the question, not of women’s lack of ability, or men’s, but the social factors that deny acceptance of that equality of ability. I think hormones have a lot to do with how we turn out, in ways we dont’ even really begin to understand yet. I think there is a “maternal instinct” and etc. But these things are in the aggregate, are not observable in perfect laboratory non-socialized conditions, and should remain very suspect.
If ability is truly not the problem, then let’s join hands and get the idea of lack of ability out of the way, before we decide it’s all about desire.
@Emma
“I realize there is racism, sexism, ageism, but I think company owners (who bothered to start and run their own company) should decide whom to hire and who fits their company better. If they want to stay racist or sexist, they are free to do so. There is an option of creating your own, non-sexist company. And not all groups have the same interests, which might lead to shortage of people whom you are supposed to AA into your company, which might lead to taking employees which most definitely don’t fit your company or aren’t qualified. And I definitely do not want a job given to me through affirmative action. It just makes women look stupid and unqualified.”
This is all well and good, IF or WHEN we all start off on an even foot. You cannot have all the power in the hands of a few and then tell the disenfranchised that if they don’t like it they can start their own companies. With what?!! And again, there is no reason to hire an unqualified employee to satisfy affirmative action because THERE ARE PLENTY OF QUALIFIED MINORITY EMPLOYEES TO CHOOSE FROM!!
@hotairgenerator
Thanks for the link! The first impression seems promising, but I will give it a closer look.
It will be interesting to see how the MRAs are gonna react to it.
@zhinxy
First off there wasn’t any proof, only words.
It went on and on about how any investment in a woman was an investment in a glorious future for all. Nothing about investing in men? A pointless endevour?
The entire article was a propaganda piece of womens eternal victimhood and if only the world would hand everything over to women it’d be all good.
Well we got the good old US to look at. How’s it lookin kiddies? Economy good? Society is healthy? Women get any law they want out here. Women have been runnin the show for quite some time. Remember, the 435 people at the top don’t mean shit to the average Joe. Look at all the women in positions of power making all kind of laws. Where’s this utopia?
You ladies fucked it up, you get to fix it.
@Kollege Messerschmitt
Simpsons, is there anything they can’t do? And I managed to create a craving for crepes that I can’t satisfy today, so I stand in solidarity with you my sibling from another mother!!!!
@NWO
“Look at all the women in positions of power making all kind of laws.”
I throw the question right back at you, where the fuck is THIS utopia?!!
Answer my question, you lying coward.
Shorter NWO: If you don’t mention men or boys in your article about women, you HATE ALL MEN EVIL FEMINIST BIGOTS!!!!!
Me neither. I don’t think you should be able to turn him out for no reason without paying. But if he decided to leave without you being to blame for that in any way, then I don’t see why you should pay.
And suppose the genders were reversed – do you also believe a man should not be able to turn a woman out for no reason without paying? I’m trying to get a clear picture of your view on this.
If you say yes, that neither party should be able to turn the other out for no reason without paying, regardless of gender, then I suppose we just have a philosophical disagreement about the function of alimony, and that’s fine. If (hopefully it never happens) it were to come to splitting, I’m still not going to turn my male partner out onto the street without paying if he needs the money, but what you decide if you should ever get divorced is totally up to you. That’s why I advocated an increased awareness of mediation as a legitimate option over taking the divorce to court upthread.
By the way, there is no feminist monolith. Each person has their own unique philosophies and viewpoints on any specific issue. As you read more about feminism and various rights movements, or even choose to stick around and read the comments on this blog, you’ll notice this more and more.