Some threads on The Spearhead are virtual gold mines of crackpot misogyny. Today, from the same thread I drew upon for a post the other day, I present to you yet another long-winded antifeminist manifesto from a dude who doesn’t know shit about feminism. This time the dude in question is someone calling himself Darryl X.
Here’s his little screed:
There is only one kind of feminism. There is no first- or second-wave feminism. There is no ecofeminism or radical feminism or socialist feminism. There is no left and right. No conservative or liberal. (With which many feminists would hope to rationalize their egregious misconduct and criminal behavior – “Oh, but I’m not THAT kind of feminist.”) …
Feminism = the Borg
There is only feminism and it is evil and civilization depends upon its complete and utter elimination. Feminism is the product of false constructs and straw men and false flags and lies and fraud and is a political campaign of hate against men and children. Period.
And apparently Darryl loves the word “and.”
It has coopted our financial and legal and political and social institutions to affect the enslavement
[citation needed]
and murder
[citation needed]
and imprisonment and exile
[citation needed]
of men and the forcible separation of children from their fathers. It is responsible for the collapse of our economies worldwide and the fall of civilization.
[citation … oh, forget it. Every single thing he says needs a citation.
Feminists are comprised of mostly women but there are some men (manginas and white knights and other descriptions).
Manginas represent!
Feminists are psychopaths and malignant narcissists, without conscience and driven to do evil. They are solipsistic, manipulative, opportunistic, parasitic and predatory. They are compulsive pathological liars and deceptive and manipulative. They have no empathy, remorse, shame or guilt. They have no analytical skills and cannot plan ahead and are short-sighted. They are shallow of affect and are remorseless and are insincere and disingenuous. They are faithless and in the absence of any analytical skills, they do not have faith in the analytical skills of others, no matter how much evidence there is of its benefits. They are career and life-long con-artists.
Huh. Are you perhaps familiar with the psychological concept of “projection,” a defense mechanism whereby you project some of your own characteristics – particularly your most unsavory ones – onto someone else, or perhaps a group of people?
Just curious.
No matter how we define or relate to one another as men in the MRM, understanding the distinction between men in the MRM and feminists is more important. That is the enemy which must be destroyed. The other men in the MRM from which each of us are different are our brothers and the only important difference is that between men in the MRM and feminists. That’s the difference which defines us and on which civilization depends.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the future of civilization doesn’t actually depend on a bunch of bitter, hateful dickwads grousing on the internet about how much ladies suck.
@ Morkais –
I didn’t say I like it LOL. Nothing “rather” about it. It IS nihilistic. But I think it is an accurate portrayal.
@Darryl X:
You aren’t wrong. But… you’re wrong.
Government socialism as a puppet tool of the corporations is A) not really socialism and B) everything you describe.
Yeah.
“Government of the people, by the people, FOR the people.”
They own it, yes they do. Obama is a corporatist.
And when the people stand up together, they are more than any corporation, more than any government. When they stand together they are more than can be resisted.
You can listen to those who want you to despair, those who want you to lie down and stop resisting so they can easily use you as a serf.
Or you can fight.
I have been the tool of the oppressor, and I have been the person who lay there and didn’t resist.
And I’ll be damned if I’ll do either again.
@ Shade –
I think it depends upon degree. Once any kind of government becomes too big, it devolves into fascism or one of those other “isms”. Since the US has a large military-industrial complex, any attempts at socialism or capitalism or any combination thereof (or some other type of government for that matter) pretty much becomes an expression of fascism.
@ Howard –
“I have been the tool of the oppressor, and I have been the person who lay there and didn’t resist.
And I’ll be damned if I’ll do either again.”
I heard that. Don’t need to tell me twice.
And the solution? Ron Paul.
I don’t really have enough of a coherent political philosophy to call myself much of anything beyond “whatever works and makes people happy,” but my political opinions are more-or-less in line with the current platform of the Socialist Party of the USA, so I call myself a socialist.
My personal attitude towards labels:
“Nae President! Nae Congressman! Nae Caucus! Nae Party! We willnae get fooled again!”
Apologies to Pterry.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Start with wiki and pay attention to —
Darryl: I’m not sure when it was first used but it appears in text going back at least four-thousand years.
Citation needed.
I don;t identify with anything anymore.
Yes you do. The MRM.
Capitalism as it is practiced today amounts to fascism. At the same time, socialism amounts to fascism too.
No. Not to either.
But that nihilism is a convenient looking cover for what appears (apart from the hating on women being equal part) a whole lot of apathy.
And Darryl… what war did Thomas Ball fight in to protect my liberties? Why do you praise him for taking part in the oppressive military industrial machine you are now decrying?
The word “spearhead” seems damned recent — 1893 recent. Latin does have a similar concept though — “hastatus -a -um [armed with a spear]; m. pl. as subst. , hastati -orum, [the front rank of the Roman army when drawn up for battle].” — Not knowing any ancient(er) languages, I can’t help any with >3,000 years.
And let me end this Latin lesson with a joke — ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum! (you can pop that into google translate, I checked).
(Yeah I realize you weren’t asking me, but did you really think I’d resist a Latin question? 🙂 )
Oh and the only 4,000 year old written languages (that’s been deciphered), afaik, are Sumerian and Egyptian. Ancient Greek (Crete) is about 3,500~ years old (and not really Greek at that point, but another hieroglyphic based language).
So Latin having a similar concept really doesn’t help his “at least 4,000 years” claim.
Argenti: Oh and the only 4,000 year old written languages (that’s been deciphered), afaik, are Sumerian and Egyptian. Ancient Greek (Crete) is about 3,500~ years old (and not really Greek at that point
I knew that when I asked.
I also knew that the primary arm (the “units of decision”) in both those armies weren’t armed with spears, ergo such a locution isn’t likely to have existed.
Pecunium — yeah I figured you probably did, that was more for everyone else. Also, see “Yeah I realize you weren’t asking me, but did you really think I’d resist a Latin question?”
I’m guessing you also know the hastati didn’t exist for very long, making it one hell of a stretch to say “spearhead” has been around even since then (and even if it were, that’d still be only half of his 4,000 year claim).
And partly, I’m just amused by the idea of a particular word being that old — a concept sure, but the word itself? All the examples of “didn’t change that much” words that I can think of are religious in some form or fashion — Isis is that old for example, but I have to count her as a concept and not her name as a word considering the writing system in question (she’s at least 5,000 years old actually, she seems to predate writing…unlike “spearhead”…)
Question – why do so many MRAs show up here (and on other feminist-leaning blogs) and claim not to actively support the MRM, and then immediately follow up with points that make it clear that they support the MRM? I can’t figure out if they think this is a brilliant tactic that will advance their agenda because it’s MRAs as people that feminists tend to dislike rather than the MRM the movement and its core values, or if they’re just too apathetic and cowardly to actively advocate anything to the extent of admitting that yes, they are part of a movement. Or if they’re just too in love with the idea of themselves as special snowflakes to admit that their belief system actually can be pretty neatly summarised and is not all that unique.
@Cassandra
Because MRAs are starting to get a bad name. It’s like when people say “I’m not racist but…” They still want to espouse their misogynistic beliefs without being associated with a hate movement. They think they’re keeping their hands clean. Plausible denialability.
Argenti: The Hastati were the primary arm of the Roman Legions in the days before the Marian Reforms. The more interesting idea was that, as a unit of decision they weren’t well thought of, being the least experienced members of the Republican Legions. The triarii (older soldiers, in the rear ranks) were the one’s referred to in aphorism: “to go to the triarii” was a phrase equivalent to “going to the bitter end” (which is a phrase we get from the Royal Navy ca. 1800, and relates part of a rope).
Pecunium — you forgot “and the most likely to die”, though I guess that would aid his highly jumbled point about the word “spearhead”. Did not realize that “going to the bitter end” involved nautical terms though, kind of figured “bitter end” was just the logical “oh great, we’re all going to die”.
Wtf is “to go to the triarii” in Latin, that’s got to be an idiom, but gero or eo? (eo declines hilariously weirdly, makes sum look normal)
Argenti: At sea one often needed long “ropes” (most of what a landsman would call “rope” wasn’t actually rope, it was cable, or halyard. On tall ships there’s actually a joke about there being “only one rope on board” because the only lines which are rope, in the technical sense are those which are used to hoist flags and signals, and there is only one of those in the running rigging, but I digress).
Those ropes were attached to “bitts”,and so the terminus was, “the bitter end”.
As to the Latin, I don’t know. I’ve seen it referenced, but never quoted directly. Given the ways in which, “to go” is used in english, I can imagine a few verbs to use.
Wait
Endure until
Send for
Use
And for all I know, the references could have been extrapolative. We don’t have the best dictionaries of Latin Slang and Aphorism.
“We don’t have the best dictionaries of Latin Slang and Aphorism.” — no, but we do have Cicero, who sure loved to use slang (and some very creative insults). Gero is to carry, but it’s the verb used in “to wage war”, and “to carry (on) war” sort of makes sense. I doubt it would be wait, though it could be (the more common verbs for “to wait” are the roots of expectation and minister, not really the “we’re all going to die” sense). Send for would carry a sense of bringing them into battle, not having to fall back on them, ditto for to use, well, for habeo (to have or use) anyways…could be usurpo. To endure would be one of the many fero verbs, that could be it…Can you tell this is going to bug me now? I do hope I can answer this one without having to read Cicero, goodness do I hate his overly formal style.
Wtf is the difference between cable and rope? I’d thought a halyard was a type of rope.
No Cicero required!
“Ad triarios redisse (LA): ‘to fall back on the triarii (LA)’; to have reached a desperate situation.”
Of course it’s a participle of an irregular verb…that’s redigo, I think (I hate irregular verbs, so I may well be wrong here).
redigo -igere -egi -actum [to drive back , bring back]; of money, etc. [to draw in, call in]; in gen. [to bring or reduce to a condition; to reduce in number, value, etc.; to lessen, bring down].
…now, between the roommate and I we once owned 3 copies of Wheelocks…are any of them in the apt?
I have better than Wheelock’s, though copyright 63 🙂 (this is a better reference than the modern one, less filler)
It’s the perfect active infinitive of redeo -ire -ii (-ivi) -itum (1) [to go back , come back, return]; ‘ad se’, [to come to one’s senses]; redit, [the matter comes up again]. (2) of revenue, income, etc. [to come in]. (3) [to fall back upon, be reduced or brought to].
(What’s really hilarious? I barely passed Latin, I can’t be pedantic enough without a reference book)
Argh, ignore the “better than”, that was me being a dolt about it not being the Wheelock’s I spent so many hours cursing at.
Argenti and Pecunium have done yeoman’s service in stomping the last claim you made into the ground, but I’d like to address the penultimate one. The greatest number of wartime deaths up to and including the First World War did not occur due to combat itself but to disease or famine. (Remember the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? It’s a list of everything that happens to you during a war: War, Famine, Pestilence, Death.) These hardships are borne equally by women and men, and fall heaviest upon children and the very old.
Moreover, in some parts of the period I study, actual battle was somewhat of a last resort–not only would many commanders forego giving battle as long as they could, since their armies represented a huge investment of time and capital, but one recognized strategy was to invade an enemy’s territory simply to despoil the region; since an army represented such a great burden upon the area forced to provide food for it, it’s easy to cause a lot of trouble for an enemy without fighting at all.
Finally, until relatively recently women and children travelled along with men in armies, and they were exposed to many of the same dangers such as starving to death, getting sick, or getting shot at.
It is simply not the case that the heaviest burdens of early modern warfare were borne by Manly Men.
Awesome information! I always love a good conversation on sayings/expressions and where they come from, it’s really interesting stuff.