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.
Paul is full of shit if he thinks many stay at home moms can afford spa trips, maids, nannies, and eating out at fancy restaurants. He must base his ideas off of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. The reality is that to make ends meet on one income, a family will probably just eek by living from paycheck to paycheck.
I cut my own hair and all of my family’s hair. We get clothes at garage sales and Goodwill. We usually get groceries at Aldi’s and sometimes Walmart. Our main fun expenses are the Internet and a used x-box. Vacation means going to Silver Dollar City for a day or taking a float trip, and only once a year. My husband and I celebrated our ten year anniversary by watching The Avengers at the theater, and that was a big splurge. If we had more money, we would live fancier and there’s nothing wrong with that either.
The only part of Paul’s essay I agreed with is that the diamond market is a scam. Not only does DeBeers artificially inflate the price of diamonds, they also use child labor and torture to mine them. He then generalizes all straight women who marry as being Bridezillas that demand lavish weddings and exotic honeymoons. Once again, he must be basing his ideas of women from TV shows, because I don’t anyone who does that in real life.
His other blog posts are also full of fail. One of his, What to do before the restraining order comes is full of victim blaming and abuse apologism. He gives advice like “DON’T GET BAITED INTO BAD BEHAVIOR”, “DON’T EVER let her or anyone else provoke you into violence.” and “DON’T ADMIT TO BAD BEHAVIOR OR IMPLY YOU’VE DONE WRONG.” Yeah, that’s good advice for abusers to use to avoid getting into trouble for their actions. Yuck.
@DSC: I’ve always found it fascinating how right-wingers use Stalinist purges as evidence that Nazis can still be socialists/communists even if they killed Marxists, instead of taking the opposite stance that Stalinist purges of Marxists might be evidence that Stalinism fundamentally isn’t Marxist.
The rise of National Stalinism/National Bolshevism as the new far right in Russia and its old satellites should also be an indicator of that fundamental divide.
Whoa team, hold up. Darryl X’s point of view is backed up by Phyllis Schafly. THE Phyllis Schafly, that paragon of bipartisan truth and justice, who has never in her entire life told a lie for personal gain.
I mean, remember that time that Schafly said that women hate the men they work with because women are jealous that they have wives, and all women secretly want wives? How about that time she said that Rick Perry was a tool of Satan sent to destroy traditional marriage?
That’s the kind of intellectual titan backing up Darryl’s points here people. Best proceed with caution.
Thebionicmommy – Wow, what a steaming pile of “don’t let her hit your fist with her face!”
With a weird side-order of “well, you can’t just leave.” But that’s a necessary part of all abuser how-to guides. The emotional recipe for abuse is thinking that your victim is terrible, but that you must continually involve yourself in your victim’s terribleness and show them the path of righteousness. If you could say “you’re terrible, therefore I never want to see you again,” and leave it at that, you wouldn’t make a very good abuser at all!
It’s the same thing that makes the MGTOWs so creepy. “I hate you, so I won’t deal with you” is unpleasant, but “I hate you, so I have to keep coming back to you to tell you that I hate you” is fucking horrible.
I want a wife, in the sense of “a person who will clean my house and cook my meals and raise my children at-cost or maybe even while contributing money, and will ask no effort of me except that I keep working at the job I already had.” That seems like a good deal.
Although I don’t think I could live with myself if I made someone actually do that.
I’ll have Things That Are Not Things for $500, Alex.
Cliff, I know, it’s pretty bad. Here is some more advice from Paul.
Yeah, trapping a woman and holding her against her will is not minor. It’s threatening.
No kidding, people feel threatened when someone punches a whole in the wall. Who cares whose property it is? It’s still a menacing action. I also want to know why someone would break something just out of curiosity, right in the middle of a domestic dispute?
Here’s the scariest thing. He said
This guy is a lawyer in family courts. Now I know even abusers have the right to an attorney, but I’d hate to think of what an abused woman would deal with having him represent an abusive ex.
But it gets so much better! Darryl states that 95% of homeless people are men, giving as his sources:
“Department of Census” Not actually a government body, but you know, let’s charitably say that he meant to say the Census Bureau. According to the latest data, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2010/table4.pdf,
the majority of the poor are children in families. However, when it comes to adults, there are about 25% more single women in poverty than single men. So there goes the “More men than women live in poverty” part of your argument right there.
“Department of Public Health and Human Services” Also not a real government body, but let’s call the “public” part of that a typo. The Department of Health and Human Services does not report on homelessness or poverty, but good show in making up a similarly-named government body.
The Heritage Foundation is a think tank, meaning they don’t actually collect any of their own data, but rather write opinion pieces on other data. It’s not even a primary source.
Here’s some actual data: http://nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/who.html
The study shows that 51.3 % of homeless people are male, +/- 2%. If only it was +/- 45% Darryl here might have an arguement.
I wonder if Darryl understands that a citation has to actually back up your point, rather than just being a made-up name for a governing body that sounds authoritative.
He’s quoting a speech by a woman who’s a lawyer. Goddamn scary that she’s out there, though.
Also, the focus on MY PROPERTY all over the website–women will spend YOUR MONEY, they won’t let you throw YOUR PROPERTY at them–is scary. It feels like this weird kind of libertarian extremism where if you own a thing, absolutely no ethics can ever apply to how you use it, because ownership is the most sacred principle of all. If a woman’s given you her love and tons of free labor and years of her life, but she hasn’t given you PROPERTY, then you have to write her off as a total loss.
So yeah. Patricia Pearson is my aunt.
Have you actually READ When She Was Bad? Because I do not think it says what you think it says.
It’s a book about how we need more feminism in the justice system, because it can let (mostly white) women off the hook because we see them as less responsible people then men. Maybe this is too complex a thought for you. If you see a woman as a child, you are less likely to hold her responsible. Pearson is arguing that this is a problem having to do with misogyny. This is not misandry (which is TOTALLY REAL YOU GUYS).
It’s also about how we are more likely to believe that women murderers and such are under the thumb of a man. Again, not misandry, you dumbass. It’s an inability to see a woman criminal as a person wholly responsible for her actions.
And again, this is mostly WHITE women.
And it’s not mostly women judges who are making these decisions. It’s male cops and male judges.
Also srsly? at the Thomas Ball reference.
“Thomas Ball who died for our children”
Let’s be honest now.
“Thomas Ball, who assaulted his infant child. Then he lost custody, because the judge was aware that he had assaulted his infant child. Then, instead of contributing meaningfully to his children’s well-being, he publicly killed himself in an attempt to guilt trip his ex-wife and inspire terrorism, thus giving his children a whole lot of shit to work through in therapy in 20 years. For our children.”
I hope you realize that someone who can’t even act in the interests of his own children sure as hell can’t act in the interests of all children.
Also, When She was Bad has ONE chapter on female perpetrators of domestic violence.
And it still doesn’t say what you are pretending it says. Me thinks you have not read it.
Unfortunately, there are no good data concerning men and poverty or homelessness because men are not included in those databases. For instance, if a man earns $70,000 per year and pays $30,000 in child support and $ 30,000 in taxes, he lives on the street on $10,000 a year but is NOT considered impoverished and is ineligible for any public assistance.
If he lives on the street… while holding down a 70,000USD a year job he’s amazing.
Then again, even if the court has ordered a 50 percent gross for child support, that’s (in Calif., said to have one of the higher state income tax rates). 70,000-17,500 (federal taxes) – 6,850 (state taxes) for a total of 15,815. Me,I was living, in Calif. on an income of 17,000. I wasn’t in the lap of luxury, but I wasn’t “on the street”.
But that 30,000 number, is bullshit.
First, women aren’t the only recipients of child support: In spring 1992, about one-half (6.2 million) of the 11.5 million custodial parents were awarded child support; award rates were higher for mothers than for fathers (56 percent compared with 41 percent). (See chart, below.)
So, with only 1/6th of custodial parents being the fathers, although the ratio of mothers with custody is higher (9.9 million women with custody, 1.6 million men with custody).
Men aren’t doing do badly in the issue of who gets support.
That’s one of the misleading aspects of that little rant of Darryl’s.
Women who received child support in 1991 were paid an average of $3,011 that year, about one-third more than their male counterparts ($2,292). On average, these support payments constituted 17 percent of 1991 money income for the women, but only 7 percent for the men.
That difference (17 percent vs. 7 percent) implies the men who were given support awards also had a higher baseline salary than the women. Because the difference in the two average amounts received is almost 33 percent, and the difference in share of income is only 10 percent.
The fathers’ had an overall income of 33,500USD, to the mothers’ average of 18,144USD.
Accepting, arguendo, that there exists the occasional man who is paying half of his 70,000 income in child support, there is no way this is typical (even ignoring that 70,000 USD is almost twice the median income in the US.†
It’s bullshit, that Darryl is peddling here. With manufactured numbers, and the implication this poverty/homelessness because of child support is a widespread problem.
† all data from US Census
I used data from 1995, because it was easier to cut/paste, but the <a href =http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p60-240.pdf2011 report has similar numbers. From 1993-1999 the poverty rate of custodial parents was dropping, overall. In 2000 it started to rise again. More women (a lot, because they make up 5/6ths of custodial parents) are living in poverty, but the rate of increase on the part of fathers has whipsaws, and is now higher than it was in 1993; though it did reserse the trend in 2001-2005, while mother’s rate of poverty was steadily increasing.
Random nonsense ahoy, but am I supposed to be making a spearhead = penis connection here, or is it just my brain being rude?
I don’t really want to go there to see if the connection is intentional. 🙁
I think the spear thing comes from an old expression that calls women’s business “the distaff” (a tool for spinning thread) and men’s business “the spear” (because war is MANLY).
That might be crediting them with too much intellectualism. They might have just skipped straight to “war is manly and big pointy spears will scare those feminists!”
@Shade
hey now that you mention it lol….
I don’t know if that was intended by Price but I’m surprised I never caught it before since us feminists are supposedly the ones to see phallic imagery in everything. There is an actual graphic of a spearhead on the site banner, so its safe for work or whatever.
NOTE HOW THE SPEAR IS ERECT THOUGH!!!
XD
I think they meant it to be evocative of them being the tip of the MRM, the way one describes a military unit at the front of an advance being, “the spearhead”, or the way an innovative business if described as, “spearheading” something.
So it more megalomania, then it is erudition.
I can’t even mention the Spearhead to my husband because he won’t stop giggling.
That was my second thought actually, that it was supposed to be a spear tip/end-of-the-wedge sort of deal. But then my brain went back into “penis, penis, penis!” mode.
Now i’m off to learn about this old expression Cliff mentioned that i’ve never heard of, time for my new-learnt-thing-of-the-day. 😀
@Shaenon
My husband has the same reaction. I just tell him that he is a mangina 🙂
@pecunium
the irony in that being that the particular brand of misogyny on there is of the more hostile type that is both fluent and regurgitated throughout history. It’s like Schopenhauer but with a lot more vulgarity and bad grammar. They’ve argued against women’s right to vote on there, at least some MRAs profess to actually be for equality.
They’re the complete opposite of “spearheading” any new or different ideas.
I assumed my hurhurhur penis response was due to the fact I have an unusuaqlly juvenile sense of humour.
(cf. “hurhurhur stimulus” on another comment thread.)
I want to hear more about these men who make executive-level salaries but are homeless and living on the streets because of child support payments.
Incidentally, the average child support payment is about $300 a month. And the cost of actually raising a child in your home is about $850 a month.
The thing I never got about this child-support-outrage business is: if the child’s mother is such a horrible person, do you really want to leave your child with a horrible person who also is short of money? Is that going to work out better for your kid?
I can understand thinking “my child’s mother is a bad person; I should have custody.” I cannot understand thinking “my child’s mother is a bad person; she should have to raise the kid without any help.” Not if you’re still pretending to care about your child.
My ex when we were still together but she needed to live back in her hometown lived with ‘a friend’ (Platonic Ideal of the Nice Guy) that punched holes in drywall or cut himself whenever she did something he wasn’t happy with (mainly, still being with me and not jumping on his dick). Believe me, this whole ‘only hurting himself’ bullshit is just that, bullshit. She was terrified. It took forever for her to tell me about it because she was scared it would only escalate him. Even today he will occasionally contact her through Steam/FB/Second Life and be completely oblivious as to why she doesn’t want to stay in touch.
I have no sympathy for this sort of shit. You can be depressed and be abusive, just like you can be a rapist even though you have cancer. These things don’t come in package deals, and I don’t have to sympathize with your need to control or abuse others because you happen to also have a mental illness. To assume these things are linked is insulting to everyone who is mentally ill and doesn’t act like a douche because of it, and it is in itself ableist.