Another day, another threat – sorry, prediction – of impending violence towards women from someone on The Spearhead. This time from a fellow called James, in his twenties:
The OLDER MEN simply do not understand what it is like to be a young man today.
I will say one thing though- a very big percent of young men of my generation do not believe in this feminism or white knight bullshit, and they have very little tolerance towards it.
Older men will allow themselves to get ass raped in divorce courts, but the younger men of my generation have no such tolerance.
So if the younger women think they are going to treat the younger men with the same level of hatred that the older women do to the older men, they have a big surprise waiting for them.
1. Either the men will just entirely boycott the younger women
or
2. They will actively fight for their rights, even with force, if it requires it
What I mean by that is, the younger generation of men are much more violent than the older generation. So in plain English, if women think they are going to treat the younger generation of men like shit, then we are going to see a huge increase in violence against women.
In short, the men of my generation are not as willing to tolerate the abuse from man hating women as the older men are. Young women would be very wise to take note of this.
Unfair quote-mining on my part? Not exactly. James got 72 upvotes for this bit of wisdom on The Spearhead, and only 8 downvotes.
Meanwhile, our old friend at the Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog highlighted James’ comment in a post of his own, quoting the whole thing, and adding his own spin:
The younger you go on average you will find less tolerance for anything pro-female. This is not surprising. Even looking at my own life, I have been dealing with feminism since I was in elementary school especially if we define feminism correctly as feminine-ism. I remember (female) teachers being pro-female and anti-male going back to first grade. As bad as I had it, it is worse for men younger than me. They’re not going to listen to lies about how women are oppressed because all they have seen with their own eyes are the opposite. …
By 2020 the balance between men who are currently old vs. men who are currently young will have shifted. There will be less old men who remember life pre-feminism. There will be more young men who have spent their entire lives under the feminist jack boot. There will be more men who are completely fed up with women. Around 2020 there will be a lot more men willing to take radical direct action against feminism.
“Radical direct action against feminism?” What does this mean? Generalized violence against women, as James seems to suggest? Firebombing police stations and courthouses, as MRA “martyr” Tom Ball urged in his manifesto? Like most of those in the Men’s Rights movement who like to talk ominously about what they hope will be a massive anti-feminist backlash, the PMAFT blogger is vague about what exactly this might entail. But it’s not hard to connect the dots here.
Protip: MRAs, if you don’t want people to see the Men’s Rights movement as a hate movement — you need to stop posting, stop upvoting, stop even tolerating this kind of hateful shit.
Also–why think “humor” is something entirely different than “sociological” or “feminist”–is it becuz omg, feminists have no sense of humor!
Once I became a feminist, I immediately started hating jokes. And fun. And puppies!
Is it just me, or does Caution very long name make NWO’s prose, in retrospect, seems coherent and even readable????????????????????
Totally! MRAs are always complaining about how tough they have it — try being a feminist! Never laughing, never smiling, always shaking your head disapprovingly with pursed lips, always hanging out in the emergency room waiting for your false-rape kit, always stealing men’s used condoms and running out the door laughing … Wait a minute. That part’s pretty fun.
Dave: Solanas is on record as saying that SCUM was dead serious. Was that statement in itself a joke? Eh- maybe, maybe not.</i
I think you are missing the nuance in her explanation of SCUM. She was as serious as Swift in "A Modest Proposal". That is she had a serious intent in writing it, not that it was meant to be taken as a serious solution for the problem it addressed.
But again, she tried to kill a man, so you know. I seriously doubt you’d be rationalizing this away if the genders were reversed.
So now you can read my mind as well as Solanas’? Where have I said her shooting Warhol was justified? Find it, I’ll wait.
No luck? Wonder why? Could it be I think she wasn’t? BecauseI don’t, and I’ve not been, “rationalising it away”, I’ve been saying the reason you are positing isn’t substantiable. There is a difference. I’m not saying what she did was in any way acceptable.
I’m saying your argument is shit.
And Kendra- I’m not trying to play any game.
Compare and contrast to :And you’re right- this is just speculation. I think it makes sense, but nonetheless you’re also right- it wouldn’t hold up in a court. Good thing this isn’t one!
Looks like you are playing a game to me.
It’s actually a bad thing, for you, that this isn’t a court case. In court we’d just register an objection (any one of at least three, assumes facts not in evidence, speculation, calls for a conclusion on the part of the witness) and the judge would tell you to shut up.
Here you are able to dig a larger hole as you try to explain why the objections to your, “just so story” aren’t shooting holes in it; large enough to lead an elephant through.
Then again, you can’t even be consistent in one sentence:
Finally, of course I agree that ’60s feminism should be viewed through a ’60s lens. But, um, this license does not extend to attempted murder. Not that I think you’re suggesting it does, but just… to be clear.
You don’t think the context of the times should be used to judge an attempted murder (which no one here has tried to do) but you do think the attempted murderer should be judged on a work which was part of the lens that 60’s feminism should be judged by.
So which is it? Evidence in the reasons for her shooting Warhol, or not? You can’t have it both ways. You sure as hell don’t get to beat people up for demanding it be viewed in context, and then say the context of it is essential in understanding what she did.
i HATE being on the other side of the world sometimes. I miss out on the arguing about homelessness with trolls. but mostly i like the good weather and the beaches.
Holly you are wrong again like you if you’d like to help veterans who served this country at risk to their own lives please donate to the following sites, if you actually give a damn about these men
http://www.helpusa.org/Programs/veterans_services actually
http://www.military.com/benefits/content/veteran-benefits/homeless-veterans-programs.html
Unless one donate to this cause, zie is a man-hater?
Holly: As a veteran (disabled to boot), I am happy with the things you are doing for me, men in general; and think the subset of men in general, who are veterans, are done well thereby.
Keep on keeping on.
abeegoesbuzz: I KNOW!! I totally stopped laughing at Eddie Izzard when I became a feminist. And we rescued and hand-raised our kitten for the express purpose of being cruel to her when she grew up – feminism means hating kittens, right? My copy of the Manifesto seems a bit out of date.
I’m not a nationalist (though I am a statist, anyone who wants an explanation of that distinction can ask me more if you like), and I am staunchly opposed to war, except in genuine self defense. And I mean genuine self defense. None of this preemptive invasion of poor countries nonsense.
Counter-recruiting and anti-war activism, doing our part to reduce the number of veterans and disabled veterans since forever.
@Holly,
One thing that needs to be answered. Hypergamy is not a problem until it IS a problem. If people your own league make you vomit, people above your attractiveness don’t want to date you, and being alone for the rest of your life is not an option for you, then hypergamy is directly causing you emotional pain. You can fix it in three ways:
a) Wait for a person above your league, who will still like you, despite being less hot than they are. That’s fine, you can try to make up for physical plainness with a great personality, but there are better looking people with the same great personality out there, so I wouldn’t recommend it. You might end up waiting for a long time without anything happening.
b) Make yourself as attractive as possible. That could definitely work, unless you have an unsexy skeletal structure.
c) If you can’t make yourself attractive enough for the type of people you’re attracted to, try to find beauty in people like yourself. If you have a cashier job, are people who have that same job really below you? If you’re average, why not give average people a chance?
That was the main idea behind my hypergamy post and not that low self esteem is a virtue, or that you should knock yourself down/sacrifice yourself in order to make some niceguy happy.
RE: Emma
Hypergamy is not a problem until it IS a problem.
Statements are not tautological until they are tautological!
If people your own league make you vomit, people above your attractiveness don’t want to date you,
Everyone has different ideas of attractiveness. I personally think my husband is the most gorgeous man alive. If there is someone in his league, I have yet to notice. I believe myself NOT to be the most gorgeous man alive, but HE pursued ME. I believe I can safely say he doesn’t walk around thinking I’m less attractive than he is. That or my personality is fucking ATOMIC.
and being alone for the rest of your life is not an option for you,
I don’t understand this statement. It’s like saying, “being poor isn’t an option for you.” You sometimes don’t get to CHOOSE stuff like that. Also single doesn’t equal alone.
try to find beauty in people like yourself.
I believe this is good policy regardless of dating practice.
I still don’t understand why this hypergamy idea seems so gendered. There are men who pine for women completely unsuitable for them as well. We all learn who the right people are for us in the end and learn what standards we have that are unnecessarily strict.
@Emma
Even if someone buys into the notion that there is one single standard of physical attractiveness (i.e. a “league”), if people “their own league” make someone vomit, then that person probably has low self-esteem.
And what you’re saying is: women trying to have sex with physically attractive men is hypergamy and causes men to be hurt, but men trying to have sex with physically attractive women is somehow not hypergamy and is not hurting women? I mean, if women should be having sex men they find physically unattractive because otherwise those men would feel hurt, shouldn’t men also be having sex with women they find unattractive? That’s a big double standard you have there.
Emma: One thing that needs to be answered. Hypergamy is not a problem until it IS a problem.
Tautology.
Being poor isn’t a problem until being poor is a problem.
Being dead isn’t a problem if you aren’t dead.
Etc.
What is a problem is the attempt to make an artifact of actively patriarchal systems, and generalising it to an innate truth about all human interaction.
Because that’s bullshit.
Extending it, to say that women need to be treated as less than equal of men, that’s more than bullshit. It’s morally wrong, and evil.
What the shit? Will you idiots get your stories straight? Here I had a thing all about how Hypergamy is an artifact of economic discrimination against women, and you’re trying to talk about attractiveness. Which unlike the social status thing has little to no evidence behind it existing *at all*, much less as an actual problem. Fucking lackwits.