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.
(Addressed to MRA dude quoted by David, not David, I hasten to add)
And I suppose YOU can think of a better reason why I couldn’t get laid last weekend? 😛
Clearly the dude in the image is wearing a dress, thus David is wrong and a mangina.
Or something…
@bionicmommy
I loooooooooooooove Francis! Thanks for posting.
Isn’t it awful how feminists paint men with such a broad brush?
@HeatherN
“I think it just boils down to having a very special kind of narcissism. You’ve got to believe that you’re the only one smart enough/special enough to see the truth.”
I’ve always thought this was true. People who believe in apocalyptic fantasies are particulary prone to this. Religious fundamentalists, MRAs, birthers, 9/11 inside job folks, NWO conspiracy folks, white nationalists, etc. They think they have discovered some secret truth, and it becomes their mission to educate the masses. They are also super annoying to be around.
well, there really isn’t any such thing as conservative feminism, so he got that part right, i guess?!?
it’s ad hominem. and not the silly internet version of ad hominem that means ‘how dare you hurt my feelings’ but actual ad hom. ‘you only think women are oppressed because you arent as super-rational as i am, and if you could analyze things as clearly and objectively as i could it would become apparent that i’m right’
First para is classic Fidelbogen (my favourite MRA). I use the word “favourite” quite loosely here.
Libertarian feminism is conservative, and isn’t always quite as bluntly shitty as “poor people deserve to be poor” Internet Libertarianism. Plus there are people who are Republicans for non-social-issues reasons and feminists, and while I think they’ve made a terrible decision, I don’t think that gives me leeway to declare them not feminists.
So, Darryl, how’d the divorce go again? Oh, right.
At least he used “affect” properly. That’s more than most of them manage.
[blockquote]Anyway, I like how the only male feminists are not actually real men, just manginas or white knights… so it’s ok to hate them. [/blockquote]
This has always struck me as a weird attitude for “Men’s Rights Advocates” to have. Feminists (at least back in the good ol’ days of 2nd wave) put a lot of effort into consciousness raising of their non-feminist sisters, especially the ones that bought into the self-depreciating attitudes imposed on them by patriarchy. They certainly didn’t have a raging hate-on for them, but looked at them as women to be educated and converted to feminism. But the MRAs don’t seem to be interested in “converting” any of the gender-traitorous manginas and white knights, but just engaging in a self-reinforcing circle-jerk with men who already agree with them.
Funny that.
Oh, I totally fail at HTML markup too. I guess I’m just a sill mangina…
i’m not saying conservatives can’t be feminists, i’m just saying that feminism is inherently non-conservative, because at it’s heart conservatism says ‘things are fine the way they are, or things are better the way they used to be’ (see eg: our resident conservatroll, who in the past has claimed that patriarchy has essentially been dismantled)
that said, i think a conservative feminist is responsible for reconciling zir feminism with the conservative aspects of zir worldview, and that’s a task that more often than not is going to be difficult. like, i have a queer activist friend who used to also be a doctrinaire propertarian, and it always puzzled me that he could accept notions of gender as being socially constructed but not property.
Sharculese – Oh, okay, yeah. I think it’s the difference between “conservative feminist” (can be) and “conservative feminism” (cannot be).
Uh, we don’t. The MRM on the other hand thinks not only are all women basically the same, but that they’re not even people.
@cliff
yeah, my original post was about the latter, not the former
also, as to people who self-identify as republicans and feminists- you can’t go into the booth and say ‘im voting for this part of the platform but not this part’ and at this point, if the republican party has shied away from being explicitly anti-feminist, it is explicitly anti-pretty-much-every-feminist-goal and so my question for republican feminists is ‘what are you doing to change that?’
Cliff: How could a philosophy as individualist as libertarianism also be feminist? Libertarians fight for things like discrimination.
Katz, zhinxy is the only libertarian feminist I know of. She’s also the only libertarian I’ve met who I like.
OK, zhinxy gets a pass. But she is truly unique.
seriously, guys, let’s not forget that left libertarians exists, just because theyre not as loud and attention-seeking as cato fanboys
Not all libertarians are as dunderheadedly “liberty means being free to starve to death!” as our friend Ruby.
I think it’s possible to be a libertarian feminist in terms of being focused on women’s freedom from oppressive governing (i.e., abortion restrictions, legal presumption that mothers will be caregivers, government/police protection and coverup of predators) without buying wholesale into “but that man should be free to harass you!”
“Women would be better off if the government stayed out of their business” might be wrong or right, but it’s not necessarily as straight-up ludicrously wrong as people like Ruby make it sound.
@aceofsevens:
Dang, you were so close to being on topic, and to being snarky if you wanted to be. Just saying “Isn’t it terrible how MRAs paint women with such a broad brush” could be a true statement, and you could also use it to highlight our hypocrisy. It’s also an interesting statement because it paints MRAs with a broad brush, as opposed to the OP which really only attributes the quoted comments to the person who made them.
Your statement is not just dull, it’s a wasted opportunity to be clever.
Isn’t Ami a libertarian as well?
@hellkell
I think aceofsevens was being sarcastic
Note, I’m only basing that off a vague memory that zie’s made non-MRA posts here