You know those guys over on MGTOWforums.com, who spend so much of their time complaining about women and talking about how glad they are to not have anything to do with icky lady stuff? Well, it turns out they don’t hate women at all! They just think that women are all money-hungry narcissists who deserve to be punished for abusing their “rights.”
That may seem like a rather subtle distinction there, or possibly a giant heaping load of steaming bullshit. So I’ll let the eminently rational Spocksdisciple explain it all to you.
A Misogynist hates women because they’re women…
An MGHOW distrusts women for the powers they abuse…
Go on.
An MGHOW isn’t a misogynist and should never be, he’s a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life and doesn’t care what women think about him.
Evidently he means “a person who doesn’t allow women to impact his life except for the hours he spends every day complaining about them online.”
He’s also a person who doesn’t actively hate women, but hate the things women do with their gov’t granted powers. The abuses and legal atrocities women commit is the fault of the gov’t and judicial system allowing these abuses.
Yes, those evil feminazi judges that run the country, headed up by that evil Chief Justice Judy on the Supreme Court.
Women will be women just as men will be men, their ingrained nature is no more different then how other animals behave.
Well, perhaps a bit different than how some animals behave. I mean, flatworms have swordfights with their penises in order to determine who gets to be the dude flatworm when they have sex, and I don’t know many people who do that.
I personally think women are hardwired to be hypergamous and self centered, they have to be in order to survive.
We don’t hate women! It’s just that they’re HARDWIRED to be selfish moneygrubbing bitches. It’s SCIENCE!!!
Just as men are hardwired to be analytical problem solvers as well as highly aggressive creatures when the need arises.
Don’t hate us because we’re so smart, ladies!
The trouble is that society today lets women get away with anything and everything, from getting harassed by random dudes on streetcorners to getting paid less than men for the same work.
Sorry, those were bad examples. Back to Spocksdisciple:
Today’s women may not be worthy of trust as has been proven over and over again in the news but in the past women were granted privileges their predecessors earned for them in blood and pain, privileges which were then turned in “inalienable” rights without the ability to suffer the consequences of abusing these “rights”.
Exactly! Now that women have the right to (for example) own property, they should be roundly punished each and every time they abuse these rights! Like, if they buy too much shit, they should have to pay money to rent storage units to keep it in.
NO MORE FREE STORAGE UNITS FOR LADIES!!! We’re on to you!
I’m not sure Spockdisciple has thought of that example. I’ll have to mention it at the next meeting.
But anyway, even though Spocksdisciple thinks women should suffer some sort of consequences for “abusing” their rights –oddly, he doesn’t actually mention what rights women are abusing or how they should be punished – he wants to make it clear that this doesn’t mean he hates the ladies.
Hating women for their innate nature is like them hating men for ours, nothing will come of it, men and women won’t change their innermost nature so why bother wasting the energy in the first place.
A true MGHOW doesn’t hate women, he hates the system which enables such bad behavior in women without them suffering the consequences of such behavior, if women suffered the consequences of their misbehavior you can bet many of them wouldn’t be so eager to abuse their “rights” with impunity.
So, again, MGTOWers don’t hate women. They just think women are inherently a bunch of greedy hoebags who are completely untrustworthy and deserve to be punished.
What on earth is hateful about that?
Naturally, most of the totally non-woman-hating dudes over on MGTOWforums.com found Spocksdisciple’s argument to be logical as shit. As cdub noted:
I don’t hate women. I hate that they are not held accountable for their actions. There are too many blue pillers out there to ever see thru this shit. I think the only thing that will change any of this is if there is complete collapse of the Western world and all those strong, independent women will have to rely on men just like nature intended.
AussieSteve, though, thought Spocksdisciple was being a bit too lenient on the ladies.
I hate the system and I hate what women are. I can hate both because both have earned my hatred. The system hasn’t made women loathsome it has merely created an environment that has exposed their true natures. If somebody lets a poisonous snake out of its cage am I not allowed to kill that snake because it isn’t its fault that it got out? The person that opened the cage should be held accountable as well, sure – but a snake is still a snake and if I have to kill it to protect myself then that snake is going to die.
All the system has done is allow women to do abhorrent things, it hasn’t made them do it. It just removed the restraints that our forefathers, in their wisdom, put in place to keep them under control. Women are poisonous snakes and we have stupidly let them out of their cages.
Huh. Women represented by evil snakes. Haven’t ever heard that one before.
Ok, so I never commented here before, just the forum but…
And did not the white farmers hate their black masters when they were forced by the burgeoning feminist state to give housing, sustenance and women to them for simple labor?
Wait, what?
Really, did I miss like a whole year of history class or something?
I see that Meller is now pretending that his wife is posting. Funny how she writes exactly like he does. Or perhaps she is that robot that he’s been dreaming about?
I must have missed something in previous threads, because now the constant “flesh-covered” references just hit me. Meller’s pretending he has the robot he’s been dreaming about. Creepy.
So what exactly are they trying to achieve by going their own way do they want women to stop behaving in the manner that this person i the OP describes because according to their logic that’s not possible.
Also by doing this aren’t they betraying their own innate nature as cutting yourself off from half the population and refusing to have any contact with them until they change something that they have already claimed can’t be changed is going against that whole men think clearly and rationally thing.
Also also to punish women for doing things that they can’t help because it’s in there nature strikes me as being rather futile as the whole reason to use punishment in the first place (however misguided such tactic might be) is to try to get someone to change their ways which according to them isn’t going to happen.
EN:
” Men must accept only feminine women who like to be consistent with male sexuality.”
Who the hell are you to tell other people who they’re allowed to love? So now, not only are you trying to control us but our husbands and lovers as well. Mind your own godamned business!
Magpie said:
“AussieSteve isn’t allowed to kill the snake because it is a protected species. He should call the local snake catcher.”
I know this is off topic but it’s a cute story about a non-bitey reptile and a cute bunny. I just wish I had piccies.
We used to have a big blue tongue lizard living in our courtyard out the back of our house. I also kept a devastatingly cute cashmere rabbit. They were the best of friends. They were such good friends, in fact, that when Canberra winters got cold the rabbit used to sit on the lizard to keep him warm. She’d just sit there for hours and hours with the lizard’s head between her front paws and he’d just lie there snoozing under a nice warm rabbit!
Oh fer crying out loud: Just GO already.
Being a snake enthusiast, the bit about having to kill a snake because it’s venomous and “it’s its nature (to kill you)” is bullshit. You don’t have to kill snakes, even venomous ones, hardly ever. Attempting to do so will actually increase your likelihood of being bit.
It’s not a venomous snakes nature to kill things randomly. That’s human nature you’re thinking about. The snake’s nature is to kill things it thinks it can get its jaws around, and defend itself. They’re truly SGTOW.
The racists never think they’re racist. They just KNOW that black people are inherently less intelligent and more likely to commit crime.
The homophobes never think they’re homophobic. They just don’t want gay people to have the same rights as straight people. Love the sinner, hate the sin! Gays are converting our children!
The Misogynists don’t think they’re misogynists…see how this works?
I’m always confused when people imply that someone/some group is “abusing their rights”. I don’t think of rights as something that can be abused. Take freedom of speech – everyone has the right to say whatever fool-ass thing that they want (with a few rare exceptions) but that doesn’t mean anyone needs to take them seriously or even listen. The right of free speech does not mean “disagreement-free free speech“. I mean, how is it “abusing rights” when I walk into a voting a booth and vote for a candidate of my choice? The only way I’d be abusing anything is if I committed a crime – and even then, it wouldn’t be a “right” if I was engaged in criminal activity, because that’s not a right.
I just don’t get people sometimes.
The only way that people can “abuse” their rights is if you believe that they shouldn’t actually have any. So, in this case…
blitzgal: I think the consensus is that it’s not Meller writing under a false name. Irene doesn’t claim to be Meller’s wife but one of his “littles lovelies”. There is also Evan the rebel and Aurora the escaped one.
You missed this thread.
Re: snakes. I grew up in Idaho where in place there are rattlesnakes. We were taught basic precautions to avoid bothering the snakes on the theory that if you don’t bother a snake, the snake won’t bite you.
Worked wonders.
Never saw any rattlesnakes roaming around yearning to POISON someone.
I agree, you can’t “abuse” a right. When people say that what they really mean is that they don’t want you exercising your rights. It’s like the people who say moronic things like “protesting the war is an insult to the soldier who died to give you your right to protest”. Sure there are consequences to exercising your rights, if you say something stupid (like MRAs often do) then the consequence is that people will disagree and have no respect for you. If the consequences of being a feminist is that misogynists hate me then I am more than happy to live with that, there are plenty of men out there who will treat me as the independent, capable adult that I am.
Hmmm, I hate lima beans. I’ll avoid dishes that have them, won’t make them, etc. What I don’t do is write contradictory screeds about my hate of lima beans on the internet. I don’t even think about them 99% of the time.
See how that works, MGTOW? Go, already.
Yeah, the use of “abuse” is a clear signal that the writer doesn’t actually believe women have inalienable rights, just those “rights” allowed by men, and if they’re not nice little girls and follow the rules, those rights back be taken right away from them to show them, missie!
“rights” I do not think that word means what they think it means.
The snake catcher thing is terrifying.
At my school we had a cop come in to warn us about doing drugs (incidentally informing me of a hell of a lot more drugs than I’d heard of before), and generic Stranger Danger presentations, but if someone had shown up with a bag full of venemous snakes and said “Wanna pet them?”, I do not think it would have ended well.
And that a man could say to a woman that she is abusing her rights implies male superiority. Like a parent telling a kid they abused a privilege by, say, riding off on their bike for a whole afternoon without saying where they were going, then taking the bike away as punishment. You can only do that from a superior position – I can’t say to my friend Wendy that I’m taking her bike away because I saw her riding without a helmet the other day. I could totally do that to my kid.
So once again you have to accept inherent male supremacism in order for MRAs to make sense. Colour me shocked.
This entire concept just screams “Hate the sin, not the sinner!” It’s the odd doublethink of a person who doesn’t want to admit that one’s views are monstrous.
No, no, snakes totally makes sense. Eve consorted with snakes, ruining life for Adam, remember? Old school feminism!
In fact, easy syllogism:
Eve was evil.
Snakes are evil.
Therefore, Eve is a snake.
Wait a sec… Holy cow. MRA rhetoric is syllogism logic. Code broken!
Believe it or not, I actually had a guy I work with ask me seriously if I felt women were still trying “to catch up to men” because of having to “overcome the shame” of Eve. /facepalm
“Believe it or not, I actually had a guy I work with ask me seriously if I felt women were still trying “to catch up to men” because of having to “overcome the shame” of Eve. /facepalm”
Did you laugh? I would have.
Well yes if you go by “we do not like you do things we disagree with” standard of rights.
Of course this means I will quote from the glorious dissent for Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett by Justice Kagan:
This suit, in fact, may merit less attention than any challenge to a speech subsidy ever seen in this Court. In the usual First Amendment subsidy case, a person complains that the government declined to finance his speech,while bankrolling someone else’s; we must then decide whether the government differentiated between these speakers on a prohibited basis—because it preferred onespeaker’s ideas to another’s. See, e.g., id., at 577–578; Regan, 461 U. S., at 543–545. But the candidates bringingthis challenge do not make that claim—because they werenever denied a subsidy. Arizona, remember, offers to support any person running for state office. Petitioners here refused that assistance. So they are making a novel argument: that Arizona violated their First Amendment rights by disbursing funds to other speakers even though they could have received (but chose to spurn) the same financial assistance. Some people might call that chutzpah.
Indeed, what petitioners demand is essentially a right to quash others’ speech through the prohibition of a (universally available) subsidy program. Petitioners are able to convey their ideas without public financing—and they would prefer the field to themselves, so that they can speak free from response. To attain that goal, they ask this Court to prevent Arizona from funding electoral speech—even though that assistance is offered to every state candidate, on the same (entirely unobjectionable) basis. And this Court gladly obliges.
*laughs, then cries* Anyway, the thing is that women are abusing their rights by doing things like this-disagreeing with the menfolk who of course are more logical despite the majority opinion in this case being one of the more tortured logic decisions by the SCOTUS-not as bad as Bush v Gore though. Men can disagree with one another, after all, they are men but ladies are supposed to be there only to say “yes dear.”
Jesus. Why don’t these guys just come out and say it? They consider women subhuman. Full stop.
Seriously, why don’t these guys band together and go find an island some place? They can live without having to lay eyes on another woman for the rest of their lives. They can make spears and hunt wild boar, beat their chests, and dance the ‘Ancient Dance of the Mighty Penis’ around the bonfire.
MGTOWers, it’s obvious you’re miserable because some humans are born with ovaries and vaginas. For your own mental health, go. Go now.
Somehow, I can’t make this sound like anything other than “We don’t hate women, we hate what women do, because women are inherently hateful bitches whose every action is pervaded with their inherent hatefulness and therefore worthy of our hatey hatred.”
Also! During my public-defender years, the occasional self-righteous type would tell me that criminal rights were all well and good, but too many defendants “abused” them. What they meant were that the guilty ones “abused” them by exercising them, while the innocent ones were totally entitled to those same protections. It was a travesty for some people to have rights in the first place, and travesty for others to have those same rights ignored. Sounds awfully familiar….
Finally, why do none of my friends have penis swordfights that I know about? Clearly I need some new friends.
@Crumbelievable
WHO SAID THAT?