As a regular chronicler of the Manosphere, I’m used to reading a lot of truly horrifying shit. But even by Manosphere standards, the following stood out. It’s from our good pal Ferdinand Bardamu of In Mala Fide, who felt the need to end a recent post by putting this image in my brain:
Among my friends, all of us are splashing in the pussy fountain. Some are sipping, others are gulping, but none of us are thirsty or dehydrated.
So now it’s in your brain, too!
In case you’re wondering, this came from a post in which our intrepid pussy fountain splasher argued that men
shouldn’t trust men who can’t get laid — they are opportunists who will betray you for the slimmest chance of scoring some pussy. … I wouldn’t be friends with a man who was perennially hopeless with the ladies. I might empathize with him, but I wouldn’t want to be near him. So you should live your life as well.
After reading this, I instantly developed a similar policy of my own. I don’t want to have anything to do with guys who refer to sex as “splashing in the pussy fountain.” In fact, I’d really prefer that there were no such guys.
Best:
#2: Glenn Sacks
#1: Warren Farrell
“Best”:
#6: Ferdinand Bardamu
#5: Trogdor005
#4: MarkyMark
#3: AntiFeministMedia
#2: Paul Elam
#1: Zero Tolerance Man
Paul Elam isn’t as nutso crazy as the rest of those guys, but I just find him fascinatingly hilarious. He’s like 45, runs a pretty sophisticated site, positions himself as the leader of a burgeoning civil rights movement… and yet he acts like an overblown, psuedointellectual high school sophomore. He sort of reminds me of Michael Scott, if Michael Scott were a total douche instead of a well-meaning buffoon.
So basically it’s an instinct that many humans still have even though in strictly evolutionary terms it’s harmful to the individual – maybe useful to us as a species and that’s why we still have it?
I’m not really sure and it probably varies among species, but I think it can confer a a familial benefit. And in non-lethal cases can cement social bonds, or perhaps be a result of having better social skills.
The animal that stops to shriek the warning cry saves the group but puts itself at risk. First, there’s nothing indicating that this animal didn’t already reproduce- maybe it did (though I don’t have studies to back that up. It’s just that I don’t know if having offspring affects this behavior and if so to what degree and in what species.) Second, the animal may be protecting kin which does essentially confer an evolutionary benefit.
Leni, it works in an evolutionary way because it doesn’t necessarily have to be YOUR genes that are perpetuated for you to have an evolutionary advantage. Say you’re a gopher acting as lookout and sounding the alarm when a predator comes along. Yeah, you’re probably lunch, but you may have already procreated. And even if you haven’t, you live in an extended family grouping that includes your siblings and their offspring. Your sacrifice allows your nieces and nephews to live, thus propagating your genes.
That’s the theory, anyway. And there are a lot of species where this type of altruistic behaviour happens frequently (despite being obviously counterproductive to the altruistic individual). And they tend to be species that live in extended family kinship groups rather than alone or in a nuclear family unit.
That wouldn’t be hard, coz I keep saying it every chance I get. That would be Mister Fidelbogen. The guy has scoured several hundred feminist books, thousands of books on gender, and does a ton of research behind the scene. The guy’s a powerhouse. His archive is impressive… I went back and read everything he wrote since day one on his counter-feminist website.
Followed Forweg’s link to here. My involvement with this part of the internet (mra, gender, etc) is pretty much restricted to the 2 blogs I open every day (and AVfM). Sometimes they link to a place like this, and sometimes I’m dumb enough to click the link and waste 10 minutes of my life.
I honestly don’t care what you guys think about MRA and how much you hate it, as long as you get your labels right, I don’t mind.
Ferdinand has never ever called himself an MRA and he even likes bashing MRAs. Neither has any of the other insane nutcases some of you try to put in the “mra camp”.
Again, if you call JtO crazy, Elam Crazy, Barbarossa crazy (etc) Crazy – whatever, everyone has a right to an opinion. As long as you don’t mislabel, who am I to infringe on your opinion? Just get your labels right…
Yep, the dude who says that “fucking women’s shit up” gives him erections isn’t crazy at all. Nope, perfectly sane and reasonable person, Paul Elam – don’t all sane and reasonable people discuss their more unusual and uniquely disturbed sexual proclivities in public?
As far as I can tell the mainstream MRA movement’s main thesis is as follows.
1. In some mythical time in the past, possibly the 1950, if women pissed men off men were more or less allowed to do anything they wanted to the women in question in retaliation. (Also most women were OK with this.)
2. Then feminism happened, and made “fucking women’s shit up” illegal. It also made women object to men doing bad things to them, which never happened before feminism made the women all uppity.
3. Waaaaaaahhhh! That’s not fair! Now we’re going to fuck their shit up in revenge.
There are a few MRAs who (although I completely disagree with them on the political issues) are not like that, and who actually sound like sane, rational (though misguided) human beings (Farrell would be an example – don’t agree with him, but he’s not batshit insane). Sadly, MRAs like him are very much in the minority.
Correction, he says “Fucking feminists’ shit up”
Again, I don’t mind if you guys have opinions and deem us crazy, as long as you get the facts straight. If we say and do ABC, and you think that doing ABC is crazy, that’s fine, you have a right to an opinion.
But if you say we’re crazy coz we say xyz (which we never said), or that MRAs are crazy because Ferdinand or Roissy (non-mra nutcases) said something -> that’s not just having an opinion, that is a form of lying.
Re. altruism in a disaster, it may not even be so much evolutionary as it is instilled, learned, and rewarded behavior. For an interesting example, see:
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/144184623/mumbai-terror-attacks-the-heroes-of-the-taj-hotel
Now, that’s a really clear, broad example, but we all pretty much get pats on the back for sharing, helping, and being nice, and we see others get lauded for their selflessness too. I don’t know why altruism wouldn’t have a learned component as well.
So it’s OK to want to fuck people’s shit up if they happen to be members of a specific political movement?
If you actually for real believe that and intend to act on it, that essentially makes you a terrorist organization. Just FYI.
Alex, you seem reasonable and all, but crying about Manboobz’ mocking of MRA extremists is HEEELARIOUS when AVfM is the #1 site for cherry picking radical feminists!
Big, fat, hairy, LOL.
Go tell JtO and Paul Lame to and take down their Sorority Burn Book (register-her) and Ball’s Olde-Timey Molotov Cookbook if you want us to stop calling them extremists. Thanks.
Errmm, I prefer experienced women, thanks very much.
Then again, I’m not one of the nutcases you keep having to pretend is representative of the men’s movement, like the conspiracy theorists and racists you love to link to us.
Feel free to start linking to posts that you consider examples of MRAs being reasonable any time now, Alex.
Reading-comprehension much?
I have no problem with you mocking MRAs. I said I support your right to mock us, to call us crazy etc – it’s part of living in a democracy.
I don’t support doing it based on lies though. There’s plenty of the shit we DO say and DO that you can mock us, without having to invent shit.
AlekNovy: The guy has scoured several hundred feminist books, thousands of books on gender, and does a ton of research behind the scene. The guy’s a powerhouse. His archive is impressive… I went back and read everything he wrote since day one on his counter-feminist website.
So, you being such an expert, and him being such a well-read expert, no doubt you could link to to say three posts where he addresses issues raised in actual books by actual feminists (preferably not Solanis, but hey, I’ll accept Dworkin, MacKinnon, or Daly) and actually shows textual evidence that he read and understood them.
Only three, that’s not so many, right?
(Keeping in mind I have also read thousands of books by women, many of them feminist, in multiple genres, and by gender scholars, men and women, because I teach this stuff among othr stuff for a living, and have been doing so for about 20 years now).
TLDR: “citation needed”
Even more points if he’s read any of the hundreds and hundreds of works by womanists and feminists of color critiquing the racism in the white feminist movement.
Strawman.
I never said you will find MRAs to be reasonable. I simply said you mock us for things we never said.
I do know you ALSO find the things we do say and do unreasonable. But please stick to mocking us for for things we actually say, thanks…
Actually I was asking for links to posts that YOU consider reasonable. I’m curious to see what reasonable looks like to you.
Re. altruism in a disaster, it may not even be so much evolutionary as it is instilled, learned, and rewarded behavior. For an interesting example, see:
http://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/144184623/mumbai-terror-attacks-the-heroes-of-the-taj-hotel
Now, that’s a really clear, broad example, but we all pretty much get pats on the back for sharing, helping, and being nice, and we see others get lauded for their selflessness too. I don’t know why altruism wouldn’t have a learned component as well.
Bee, that’s entirely possible. And thanks for the link to the very interesting article. My withered, cunty feminist heart of darkness might have sniffled a little bit reading it. But shush, don’t tell the MRA’s.
strawman
Again, I don’t mind you hating and declaring MRAs crazy for things they do say. If you believe that “fucking feminists shit up” makes me crazy, that’s fine. I support your right to declare me crazy on things I say and believe
But please don’t make shit up. We say enough things for you to declare us crazy on things we DO say, no need to invent stuff. If we’re crazy coz we love FFSU that’s fine, but don’t say we “FWSU”, because that is slander.
Not a strawman, Alex, a statement of fact based on Elam’s actual words. You’re really not very good at this debating thing.
Someone asked for Fidelbogen’s thoughts on Dworkin:
http://counterfem.blogspot.com/search?q=dworkin
Here’s a link, you can do the research and reading, I’m off.
“Actually I was asking for links to posts that YOU consider reasonable. I’m curious to see what reasonable looks like to you.”
I’;m seconding this.
Let’s see a reasonable post, Alek.
Me and MRA go back a long way, btw… To when there actually were reasonable people involved in it. Now, no, not so much I’d say to put it mildly. But I’d love to know what passes for reasonable in what’s left of it.
Everyone enjoying this game of “make a leading statement and then claim rational and moral superiority when someone draws a conclusion based on it?” Can I play?
Your selective blindness is kind of amazing. When we make fun of some guy you don’t consider a MRA*, it’s “LIES! We’re not all like that!”
.
When AVfM does it, it’s “STOPPING THE S.C.U.M. FEMINISTS FROM TAKING OVER SWEDEN! THIS IS A CALL 2 ACTION!!! YOUR COMPUTER CHAIR’S GONNA HATE YOU TONIGHT!”
*I just call any non-PUA misogynist with a hateboner for feminists a MRA, sooo sorry if that’s not how you define it in the Alex Dictionovy.
One problem, I’m not debating you, I am declaring my support for your right to declare me crazy for things I do say and do as an MRA, not things I’ve never said nor done.
Again, I make no comment on you calling Elam crazy for that statement. As long as you quote him right, feel free to declare him anything you want, I fully support your democratic right to do so. My only issue is with mis-quoting people.
Considering the fact that:
A) I find 100% of Fidelbogen’s posts ever written to be reasonable
B) You are unlikely to find any of them reasonable
I just answered your challenge. I linked to posts I find reasonable. In a democratic world you have a right to find them unreasonable. People have fought and died for your right to have that opinion.
Next thing you know Alex is going to sic his internet lawyers on us. Internet slander is a crime! But publishing manifestos that advocate domestic terrorism on your website is all good.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for people being able to say whatever they want on the internet, but the hypocrisy is kind of funny.