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.
I copyrighted “you are fucking hypocrites,” so caution now owes me a trillion Troy ounces of gold.
Hmm… whether Solonas herself meant SCUM as a satire is IMO very debatable. The fact that she attempted to kill a man indicates to me that at some level it was not. After all, if Jonathan Swift had actually tried to eat a baby, we might be looking at his Modest Proposal in a somewhat different light.
Of course, it doesn’t really matter because she is totally irrelevant today.
Um, she tried to kill Andy Warhol because she thought he, specifically, stole her work. Evidence of violence against a class, that is not.
Oh man, remember that post David made about “Andrea Yates: A Hero Among Women” and that other post about “Vallerrriee Solllanaus: The Only Feminist In The Entire World Ever”?
Great posts, man. I stand by every word in ’em.
But she didn’t try to kill him for being a man, she tried to kill him because she thought he stole her work. It has nothing to do with the contents of the SCUM manifesto
Also, I have sort of a self-centered questions for all the guys who say they’re standing up against massively unspecified “female abuse”:
Would you come after me?
See, I’m a feminist, a pretty outspoken one, with a feminist blog and tons of posts here on Manboobz, and I’ve done things like participate in feminist protests and do fundraising for a women’s shelter and a rape crisis center.
But I’ve never hurt a man. Never raised my hand to one, never got one sent to jail, never taken any money from one. (Except my dad, I guess? But not more than kids usually do and I took money from my mom too.) I’ve never abused a man and I’ve never ruined a man’s life. I’ve certainly never been physically violent to any man.
Do you think that unspecified “female abuse” justifies physical violence against me?
Unfortunately I’m not fluent in stupidevenforanMRA-ese. But I’ll give it a shot.
OK, so … the hypocrisy is, I guess, that most of us thought it was dangerous and bullshit for AVFM to doxx Vliet Tiptree and the other radfems who supported her point of view and the Swedish acting group that produced the SCUM Manifesto, and then suggest that some people might resort to violence in retaliation. And yet here we are making fun of someone who used his words on an MRM site to threaten women, in much the same way that Vliet Tiptree et al threatened men!!!!
In other words, making fun of someone is exactly the same as searching for their actual identity, tracking down their contact and work information, and then publicizing it while suggesting that it would be pretty nice if there were some real-world repercussions for their words. Trufax!
You know how David banned any mention of a certain politician whose initials are R.P. and whose name rhymes with Dawn Tall? Maybe we should do that with the totally irrelevant zombie feminists who no one here agrees with… 🙂
Well, we can’t lose all our trolls, cloudiah. They’d lose half their material if they couldn’t call us on the fact that Valerie Solanas is the only feminist in the history of ever and feminism is literally the worship of Valerie Solanas (and Her prophet Andrea Dworkin).
That’s true. This place would still be fun without the trolls, but not nearly as much fun.
Well, yeah, obviously Solanas didn’t just go out and randomly kill a man. But I don’t completely buy that excuse. Motives are complicated, people are weird. If someone writes a long, semi-amusing essay concerning itself with her hatred for a certain group of people, and then later attempts to kill a member of said group of people… well.
Do I think that she shot Warhol specifically because he was a man? No. But do I think that her views on men made it easier for her to shoot him? Yeah, I do.
Dave: Conflation.
1: She wrote the SCUM Manifesto.
2: She never published it.
3: She shot Andy Warhol with a specific motive, which had nothing to do with his being “A Man”.
So what it indicates to you, and what it indicates to people who actually know something about it, are two different things.
Caution, your handle tells me you don’t know what you are talking about, that, or you are a deliberate liar.
That you bring up Solanas, in defense of modern claims that feminism; for existing, justifies random attacks on women, makes me think it’s agitprop, and intentional. This doesn’t, however, preclude the former conclusion; which seems quite likely.
Do I think you’re going more or less out of your way to engage in rectal imagery? Yepperoni, I do.
Dave: Well, yeah, obviously Solanas didn’t just go out and randomly kill a man. But I don’t completely buy that excuse. Motives are complicated, people are weird. If someone writes a long, semi-amusing essay concerning itself with her hatred for a certain group of people, and then later attempts to kill a member of said group of people… well.
Do I think that she shot Warhol specifically because he was a man? No. But do I think that her views on men made it easier for her to shoot him? Yeah, I do.
Sweet suffering jesus.
Cause, and effect: they aren’t that cut and dried.
1: She gave a motive. It had nothing to do with the Manifesto. If that Manifesto was part of her motive, she would; in the interests of increasing the odds of someone else picking up the gauntlet, have said something (see, Ball Thomas; for an idea of how this works, or perhaps, Breivik, Anders).
It’s just as likely that her being of a mindset which was able to shoot Warhol made it easier for her to write the manifesto.
The thing is, you don’t know. Unless you can show some support for that (her writings, or things she said to others), you are making shit up.
Um, no, Pecunium, I’ve already stated that I think Solanas is a completely irrelevant figure, if you’d bothered to read my previous posts. I’m talking about her as an individual, and nothing more, because she doesn’t represent anything more.
Solanas is on record as saying that SCUM was dead serious. Was that statement in itself a joke? Eh- maybe, maybe not. 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.
Personally (and yes, this is just speculation), I think SCUM was a ha-ha-just-kidding-except-not-really type thing. I do think she pretty much hated men, but probably exaggerated it for comic effect.
I’m actually with Dave here: I think it’s entirely possible that Solanas really did hate men.
I don’t care, as modern feminism has shit-all to do with Solanas and bringing her up is a silly, uneducated, and incredibly tiresome diversion tactic. But I’m willing to believe she was really one of those rarely-spotted misandrists in the wild.
(Although I don’t think that was why she shot Warhol.)
Nobody tried to rationalize what she did. It was wrong for her to shoot Andy Warhol. Other people were just explaining her motives, since you didn’t know she believed he stole her work. Regardless of her motives, her actions were wrong. I also denounce what Andrea Yates did. I’m also sorry for Lizzy Borden, Aileen Wuornos, Elizabeth Bathory, and all other female murderers in the history of time. Now you in turn can apologize for Caligula, Ivan the Terrible, and John Wilkes Booth, since we’re playing that game.
I also think, by the way, that statements from feminists in the 60s need to be viewed through the lens of the 60s. It was a time when women had even more good reasons to be aggrieved than we do right now. There’s a pay gap now; women were explicitly shut out of tons of jobs then. We have a problem with domestic violence and partner rape now; it was all but legal then. Women had to have a man sign for them to get a credit card. Abortion was illegal and contraception hard to get.
So pulling up quotes from 60s feminists and going “gosh, they sound so angry“–damn skippy they’re angry!
I don’t mean this post to imply “but everything’s equal now,” of course. Only to put some perspective on why second-wave feminists can sound radical to modern ears.
Pecunium, I don’t think Solanas was interested in a revolution bay-bee ala Breivik or whoever Thomas Ball is.
I think she just hated men as a group- in a sort of immature sense- and dehumanized them in her mind, and so when the time came to shoot Warhol, she found it easier to do. Of course I don’t think Warhol’s penis was the driving motivation behind the shooting… I just think it probably contributed to it. That’s all I’m saying.
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!
And Kendra- I’m not trying to play any game. I just think Solanas was an interesting figure, and I noticed people were talking about her. Her actions are hers alone, and I’m not asking anyone to account for them. But what I was saying, was that were the genders to be reversed in some similar event today, his essay would most definitely be held up as an underlying psychological motive. Don’t see why it should be any different for Solanas.
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.
Solanas is irrelevant; the important thing is that Dave gets the last word on her.
Scum not taken seriously? that is pathetic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1XmW-6SVmY these women also performed this as a play for swedish school children. Also SCUM in australia has a massive press conference to destroy father’s rights http://allecto.wordpress.com/2011/07/24/scum-conference-draft-program/ but of course feminists don’t give two shits about fathers rights. If SCUM is supposed to be funny then why is it getting so much coverage as a call to arms with feminists. No offense but its seems MRA violence is more like self defense against gendericdal nut jobs
No offence but what you just said is total bullshit!
It’s cool how this ‘no offence’ thing works though.
@CNLTFAIATOV,
Your Swedish SCUM video is very scary. Guess what? I saw a guy named Freddy Krueger that killed a bunch of people in their sleep. I also saw a guy named Jason Voorhes that killed innocent campers at Crystal Lake. I even saw an invisible “predator” kill some commandos. Someone should stop those guys!
Finally someone logical, Valerie Solanas’s action was all on her, well then by that logic so is Jasons, but here you see a broad generalization. In all Jason is giving a warning about abusing men. Hit a dog enough times and its bites. I mean all the abusers in my life except for 1 were women, so shouldn’t I have the right to defend myself from abusive women? It seems only fair if a woman kills an abuser, a man should have the same right. As for the SCUM manifest the sad thing is its being used as a planned out solution in Australia and Sweden.
Uh oh, caution no longest name ever ever ever.
I took offense. :-O