Over on The Spearhead, W.F. Price celebrates the harassment directed at Anita Sarkeesian’s Tropes Against Women video project as a sign of a powerful new backlash against the evils of feminism, a backlash he’s proud to be a part of. Dudes being obnoxious to a woman on the internet: Men’s Rights at its finest.
Oh, sure, Price acknowledges, some of the attacks on her were “juvenile” – and thus not as effective as they might otherwise have been — and the controversy did enable Sarkeesian to raise more than $130,000 for her project, but Price even sees this as a victory of sorts:
As for Sarkeesian’s success, we should be happy about it, because I can’t think of a more worthless way to spend over a hundred thousand dollars than in finger-wagging over video games. For one thing, it’s sure to piss even more guys off, and the game industry is very competitive, so her documentary (now expanded to 12 parts!) will likely have zero effect on production and consumption of this form of entertainment. The feminists are simply pissing all the money away, and that’s fine, because this time they’re paying for it themselves.
No question about it: those grapes were definitely sour.
Naturally, the Spearhead regulars were overjoyed by these new signs of, er, progress. Here are some highlights from the discussion that followed; lest I be accused once again of cherry-picking outliers, each and every one of the comments I quote below got literally dozens of net upvotes. This is what these guys really think.
Mojo offers a sort of backlash manifesto:
Feminists will never understand that it is -they- who are the oppressors. They cling to their delusion that they are the ‘underdog’ against the system, even as they control the system.
Revolution requires an enemy class to attack … this is seen as justified when the enemy class controls the system. But feminism is perpetual revolution. So what happens when they gain control over the system? They continue to attack the enemy class, i.e. men, thinking they are striking the next blow against the patriarchy, when what they are doing is more like a pogrom.
Yep, he went there.
Now -they- are the system, they are able and more than willing to intimidate, humiliate, expropriate. It will get indefinitely worse if they have their way. Liberal feminism leads -necessarily- to radical feminism.
Still, we don’t need feminists to ‘understand’ that they are the persecutors (I imagine some of them know this full well and are just misandrist sadists, little Eichmanns). It doesn’t matter what they think or know or understand. What matters is what -we- think, know and understand, and how we are going to act on it.
So … like the swivel-eyed feminist lunatics progressing from attempted assassinations to laying the foundations for institutional and legal abuse … I ask you – what are we going to DO with this knowledge and awareness beyond changing online discourse? …
Thinking like a leftist, though: why not attach ourselves to the GOP in order to subvert its gender politics and radicalize it in the MRA direction? That kind of approach has worked wonders for leftists and their infiltrations into public institutions …
Huh. Reactionary anti-feminists attaching themselves to the Republican Party? No one’s ever thought of that before.
Keyster offers some equally, er, innovative thinking:
Feminism has failed because women as a group adopted the notion of “equality” with men, while stubbornly clinging to their sexual/reproductive power over men. Had feminism truly helped women “realize their greatness”, there’d be far more great women. Instead there’s just more feminists. It’s run it’s course over 3 generations and it’s out of time to prove itself righteous.
The original “male chauvanist pigs” of the early 70′s, were right all along. Women are biologically and chemically ill-equipped to be men. If the Creator had meant women to be more like men, he wouldn’t have given them the ability to bring forth life from their bodies.
Ryu not only embraces the backlash, but seems perfectly fine with the notion that the Men’s Rights movement is a hate movement:
Good. Hatred and anger are power. Whenever you hear someone say “stop the hate”, it is a call to throw down your greatest weapons.
Young Guy purports to speak for all young guys (manginas presumably excepted):
If feminists think men, especially young men, are angry, they don’t know the half of it. As a 26 year-old male, I have seen this society bend over backwards to accommodate women all the time.
The school curriculums are geared toward female success. Schools have countless women’s programs. Female teachers can be as hateful as they want towards male students without facing consequences. People cheer when girls succeed in school, but jeer when boys succeed in school. Even though females have every advantage in the education system, they somehow still have the audacity to complain. They take fluff majors but don’t realize anyone with less than half a brain could pass classes in the humanities and social sciences.
What makes so many MRAs such proud yahoos?.
Oh, and just look at the workplace. Sexual harassment laws give women freedom to dress slutty and still have the nerve to complain when men sneak a peek. If you are a man who has a female co-worker, you have to walk on eggshells everyday or else you can get fired because the twat in the other room got her panties in a bunch over something minor you said. You can be a man who has busted his ass everyday to succeed in your chosen profession, only to see it mean nothing because some woman who was nothing more than an affirmative action hire. If this isn’t bad enough, you get these useless women who are subpar, yet they still never shut up about breaking through the mythical glass-ceiling that they didn’t break and didn’t exist in the first place.
Working men, forever cursed by subpar women.
Also, I have really had enough of women dragging this country down with their dead-weight. Female soldiers, police officers, and firefighters are liabilities. No, all you ladies in these jobs, you aren’t heroes. I am going to go insane if I hear one more female soldier, police officer, or firefighter cry about not getting the respect she thinks she deserves. She doesn’t get respect because she doesn’t deserve respect. The military, law enforcement, and firefighters would be A LOT better off if women stopped lowering the bar to astronomical proportions.
“Lowering the bar to astronomical proportions?” Young Guy here has clearly not yet mastered the fine art of metaphor.
He blabs on a bit longer before wrapping up with:
The backlash is not only real, but it is well-deserved. Apologies won’t erase the damage which has been done. Acting like what happened because of feminism either didn’t happen or was minor is a slap in the face. Saying women have suffered from feminism just as much as men is like spitting in the faces of all the men who have suffered ten lifetimes of pain because of feminism.
Not one, not two, not five, but ten lifetimes of pain? MRAs really are the world’s greatest drama kings.
Andrew S., meanwhile, seems a little confused as to what feminists would like to see happening in the video game industry:
It will be interesting to see if feminists can ruin the gaming industry like they ruin pretty much everything else. There is a lot of money being made off “gamers,” and even guys like me who play the occasional game but aren’t hardcore contribute a lot of money to the industry.
I doubt there are a lot of young guys and men out there who are going to want to play games that involve a bunch of screaming feminists, and where the object of the game is to destroy the “evil patriarchy.” The truth is guys who play games want their female characters to be either hot, large breasted, ass kicking types, or sexy non-feminist types that you save. If the gaming industry changes this dynamic to much due to Feminist/liberal pressure they will destroy a cash cow. And feminism will have yet another “victory.”
Unrestricted and uncriticized access to giant tittied video game ladies: a sacred men’s right!
Kevin evidently speaks for many when he says he wants video games to remain a boys club:
Video games are pretty much the only place that feminism can’t invade unless the principle consumers of them want it. You don’t have to play with girls, or listen to girls, or do other pansy shit. You probably can’t leave a football team and join a different one that has no women, you sure as hell can do that online. Don’t like all the teamwork talk? Play by yourself.
Feminists don’t like video games because; they can’t make them, they can’t force you to buy them or play them even if they did, they couldn’t ruin the experience for you unless you wanted them to.
You can do anything feminists don’t want you to do, and best of all you’re rewarded for it.
Anonymous Age 70 doesn’t even play video games, but he was pleased to learn that you can shoot ladies in them:
Speaking of video games, I am reminded of my son 8 or 10 years ago. I visited him, and he had some kind of shoot-em-up video game. He was partnered with a dearie, and the instant the game started, he always put a bullet in the middle of her forehead. Then, he’d laugh as if it were the funniest thing ever.
I told him he was a sick man, but I was also laughing as if it were the funniest thing ever.
Seriously, he told me he performed better with her dead than needing to be protected.
A great analogy for marriage 2.0, yes?
Women, can’t live them, can’t shoot them in the head. Except in video games!
Criticizing video games is misandry!
“Yeah. No one who has a gun is ever killed.
Excellent logic.”
That’s bullshit. Contrary to what you believe, I’m not stupid. I realize that all a gun represents is a CHANCE. Right now, there is NO CHANCE, because there is NO GUN. You’re not allowed to carry one in this country.
Will you bloody-well stop being so damned thick?
Yes, women have always worked, sewing, in laundries, in factories, as maids, cooks, farm hands, teachers, nurses, nannies, etc. And yes, those jobs were very low paying.
I don’t think it’s a bad thing that a woman has the option to work. Being dependent on a man your whole life for a roof over your head and food doesn’t sound very pleasant. I think it’s kind of silly that your wife blames feminism for forcing her into the workforce. If she knew she wanted to be a SAHW she should have married a man who could afford to give her that lifestyle. I say that kind of facetiously, because really in life we don’t always get our dream vision of what we want. In fact, we almost never get it, but we have to make do with the cards we are dealt. I don’t know your wife, but I do know that people who tend to blame their problems on -isms are intellectually lazy.
ACLAF — you said earlier you were born in the 80s right? So Beauvoir’s been dead for most or all of your life? Try someone remotely modern for a citation about what feminists think currently.
I’ll accept anything for a time period with internet, to give you a decade+ to work with.
“*points to the kitchen* I’ve got a few knives that’ll have you tasting your cardioid in no time flat.”
Is that a threat?
I like the idea of being a stay at home mom. In fact, I’m pretty cool with the idea of doing it with really young kids. My mom stayed at home because my dad had a job and benefits to afford it, and I’m really good at self-motivation so I’d run a tight ship, if ya know what I mean.
But I just do NOT have that choice.
My husband could not complete his degree because he has depression problems. He works in specialized retail but could never pull down the primary income and insurance benefits that are needed to support a family. He also is subject to breakdowns and depressive episodes under intense stress so he can’t have a job that involves a lot of that kind of thing (as most high-paid jobs are).
So it’s up to me, the person with two degrees and the social schmoozing skills to get a fairly well paid job with benefits. And I’m ok with that. The problem is that I also want to breastfeed my children until they want to wean. I want to spend time with them, teach them how to be good citizens. And that’s hard to do when I’m working 40 hours a week. At least my job ends at 5PM, has few if any extreme requirements, and generally is enjoyable.
But I do know that I love my husband. I care for him, regardless of his health problems or his mental health issues. I want to be with him for the rest of my life.
So I work hard for my family. And I try and save, even though every couple months some unexpected expense seems to come out of nowhere and blow out our “oh shit” fund. I balance our budget- I keep us out of debt. And I hope that one day my children can look back and tell me that they love me even though I can’t always be with them.
It breaks my heart. But I have no real choice. If I want my family to flourish, I need to work.
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” – Simone de Beauvoir.
One quote by one woman is not enough to refute a movement.
Someone who has a great deal of experience with guns has already explained to you why that’s bullshit. So I ask you, who’s really being thick here?
“That’s bullshit. Contrary to what you believe, I’m not stupid. I realize that all a gun represents is a CHANCE. Right now, there is NO CHANCE, because there is NO GUN. You’re not allowed to carry one in this country.”
So anyone who doesn’t have a gun will end up dead because they have no chance? Really, you should take a look at my knives, they’re cheap too (dude, ikea carries deadly weapons galore if you know wtf you are doing, those are a cheapo $10 set of ikea kitchen knives)
“Will you bloody-well stop being so damned thick?”
Would you? You’ve ignored citations at such a rate that I’m beginning to wonder if you’re our Swedish troll (please say no, I’m hoping he’s gone…)
No were pointing out to you that there are plenty of lethal weapons out there. You can carry knives for instance. Blades can go from elbow to finger tip. You just have to wear them openly. And be prepared to get stopped regulary by cops.
How about throwing knives?
PS: I’m a feminist. I love to work but I would like staying home at well. I just feel that it ought to be a true *CHOICE* and not simply something that you’re forced into without any true introspection into whether or not it truly fulfills you where it is most important.
“Is that a threat?”
Statement of fact that knives are quite effective. You’ll note that was reworded in my more recent comment to be “you should look at” — I should’ve said “that could make someone” instead of you, I always forget English has trouble with the general you >.<
Look, I’m not Simone de Beauvoir. Simone de Beauvoir has been dead since I was a child. I appreciate her contributions to feminist theory and all but her opinions have absolutely no bearing on whether or not I think women should be able to be stay at home wives and mothers. Because I am a feminist and I believe that women who can afford to, would like to, and have a partner who supports their choice should be stay at home mothers.
Women who are feminists have, on this very thread, identified themselves as stay at home wives and mothers. What the fuck are you on about?
Your wife didn’t want to work and she blames feminism? That’s as stupid as you blaming feminism for you bad sex life.
Take some personal responsibility dude.
“Funny, coming from a man who is telling women that they don’t want what they’ve clearly said they’ve wanted. Last I checked, feminists could very easily be women, so if they’re saying they want something and they happen to be a women, then women are saying they want something.
And yes, sometimes feminism is about earning equality in undesirable things, like boring work and the military. Those things need to be shared among humanity as much as anything else. I will gladly sign up for the draft if it will get whiny-ass bigots to shut the F up. It’s my duty as the human being I want to be treated as.
Also, your wife (if she exists or is even remotely how you say she is) does not = all women. That’s sort of the point of feminism. We’re not all alike or want the same things.”
So, if I see a trend among female desires, and I say something about it I must be wrong?
Tell me, then. Pickup artists. Why are they successful at what they do? If women are JUST SO UNIQUE that each and every single one likes an explicitly different thing, why do these guys pick up at all?
See, I have this CRAZY THEORY that they’ve figured out what most average women want in a man, and then OFFERING them that. Combine that with just playing the odds, and they get women to sleep with them. If you’re all correct, and of course you are, then why does it work?
Or, am I simply accepting of a shared-human history which provokes certain trends in female desires? Could it really be just that simple?
PPS: A “choice” that is made because of intense social stigma and pressure is *NOT* a “true” choice. I think that’s what Simone de Beauvoir was getting at. It’s like the Iraqui women who refused to vote even if they had a right to do so because of the intense social and threat of violence that they often encountered. Most men say they don’t wear dresses or skirts because they don’t want to, but the men who would prefer to do so are shamed and threatened with violence if they DID choose, therefore they refrain.
When a person is free to make a true choice without any pressure or fear of retribution from everyone they love, THAT is a true choice.
And honestly? I think that true free choice is something that anyone can get behind.
Feminists are not the ones trying to take staying at home off the table for women. The vast majority of feminists support women having the choice and opportunity to work (sure there are some who think staying at home is the wrong choice but that’s a different issue). Want to know what really took the option off the table? The 1950s ended.
In the western world most women other than the wealthy have always worked, but for a brief time after WWII middle class women found themselves not having to work (and previously low paid manufacturing jobs suddenly became middle class thanks to the unions and demand for products so the middle class also became much larger). For most of history the middle class didn’t really exist but if we only look at when they have existed you see that the middle class was for most of it’s history filled with small business people and wives worked alongside their husbands in these businesses or worked as seamstresses or other jobs considered to be “proper” for a woman. Poor women always worked because otherwise they starved.
You mean conning lonely chumps out their money by indoctrinating them into their bullshit little cult?
And I have a much more reasonable theory that no one ever went broke telling idiots what they want to hear.
No, I’m sorry. You’re either incredibly stupid or you’re acting like you’re incredibly stupid. What you’re not doing is making any fucking sense.
You realize that Canada’s rate of violent crime, specifically homicide is way, way below that of the U.S., right? I mean, I live in the U.S. I’ve lived my entire life in mid-Atlantic cities – two of which vied for “Murder Capital” of the country for years. The vast majority of the people who died from gun violence were also carrying guns or had, at some point, carried guns.
You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
Sorry, dude. One quote from one feminist spoken over 30 years ago does not equal “a trend among feminists” – most particularly because she was making that argument to an even more famous feminist who completely disagreed. Once again we come back to “individuals are individuals.” Beauvoir’s position that social acceptance for stay-at-home moms would inevitably cause too much pressure on women who did not want to be stay-at-home moms was extremely controversial at the time and is still extremely controversial – declaring that to be a position of “feminists” is as incredibly disingenuous as if I claimed that “God is dead” was a quote from “philosophers.”
On PUAs: Ooh ooh! I know this one!
a) PUAs lie.
b) Sometimes it works, on some women. Because some women go for that sort of thing.
c) Combine a) and b) and you get PUAs lying about the extent of their conquests, and exaggeration about the occasional time it works, and a bunch of gullible fools believing that Formula X or the Mystery Method or Cocky/Funny or whatever the fuck is the PUA ego-massaging flavour of the week, will actually work on all women.
Protip: It doesn’t. But it will work on some. Because women are not a monolith – a lesson you would do well to learn if you don’t want to bust your foo-foo valve in anger at all the uppity women who refuse to fit your mould.
“Tell me, then. Pickup artists.”
Uh, they fail *often* and only try to pick up *certain types* of women. And they’re douchebags for not treating women like human beings either. Bam. There. Explained.
Why does it feel like I’m telling a young child there is no Santa Claus or that magic isn’t real? Get a clue, man.
“Tell me, then. Pickup artists. Why are they successful at what they do? If women are JUST SO UNIQUE that each and every single one likes an explicitly different thing, why do these guys pick up at all?”
Oh. My. Gods. I am not doing PUA again, it’s someone else’s turn (go read the glossary, start on page 2, we’ve refuted PUA ad nauseam already)
“Could it really be just that simple?”
The simple answer is usually correct.
The simple answer, in this case, being that women have, throughout history, had to behave certain ways or be shamed, or worse. While men have had to behave certain ways, but not been subject to nearly the same level of shaming. (Go to a library, read the scarlet letter, report back)
They aren’t. It’s a scam to sucker guys into shelling out money for a secret that doesn’t exist. Plenty of people buy into it, but then plenty of people buy into multi level marketing too.
“No were pointing out to you that there are plenty of lethal weapons out there. You can carry knives for instance. Blades can go from elbow to finger tip. You just have to wear them openly. And be prepared to get stopped regulary by cops.
How about throwing knives?”
Fair question. Throwing knives are a very situational weapon. You normally have to be standing to use one effectively, and it’s more or less, only as strong as you can throw it. Sure, on a good day, you could hit someone in something vital enough to stop an attack.
But I don’t think they’re a match for a firearm in disciplined hands. And yes, I’m ASSUMING that the wielder of a pistol gets the proper PRACTICE. I know that, despite the collective insistence that I don’t. There’s two things at work here: LAW, which concerns availability, and mindset/skill/practice. I KNOW that. What concerns me is LAW. LAW which is linked to feminist manipulation in this country.
And I DO carry a good pocket knife, since I’m allowed to do that, at least.
Pick up artists are not particularly sucessful. They hit on literally hundreds of women and hone their skills to find women who have a high tolerance for abusive tactics and mindgames.
Their sucess is sheerly from dedicating their lives to do nothing but try to pickup women.
Whassisname, Sabre gave some info on pickup, including the ratio of pickup attampts to actual sucess. I’m not arsed to find it though.
It’s pretty hilarious that your main argument is all women are alike, because you have this hunch that they are. And for some reason, that validates all your hate for feminism.