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!
…There’s no posts on this blog about anyone named MasculistMan.
What the fuck is going on here?
“Hellkell mentioned straw MRA’s, well, keep building them.”
Maybe you can help us out and explain to us why YOU are such a moderate MRA, and not one of those ‘women shouldn’t vote, communize the cunt, all women are like that’ assholes.
After all, you are in our clubhouse, here.
Feminism does not equal women. WOMEN like physically strong men. Feminists generally do not as such men are almost always objects of ridicule and scorn. Or is there no difference between feminism, and women?
So feminists aren’t women? Arnie is an object of ridicule and scorn?
Bruce Willis?
Jean Claude Van Damme?
Rutger Hauer?
Bruce Willis?
Mark Wahlberg?
John Travolta?
Those objects of ridicule and scorn? So ridiculed, so scorned, they get millions of dollars to bear the shame of being in hit movies about being manly.
But most [women] like tall, relatively slender men.
Citation fucking needed.
Because I am in that camp, and lots of women aren’t interested.
The Montreal Massacre would not have been prevented by anything that the Liberals or the Progressive Conservatives did afterward
Tautology is tautologic.
But another one might be prevented.
And none of that actually addresses how the gun laws work, but about why they were passed, so that’s one red herring.
In another example, Ian Thompson of Port Colborne Ontario was asleep when three or four thugs began throwing molotov cocktails at his house. He quickly loaded his revolver, and showing remarkable self-restraint, fired warning shots at them, scared them off, and put the fire out. Getting the police involved was a mistake however: he’s still on trial for unsafe storage, and those charges are criminal, which means he could do time in prison. For defending himself. Against a credible and serious threat on his life. And this being Ontario, he’s being prosecuted by a Liberal government, which we firearms owners see as no accident.
And our laws are pretty damned draconian. For example: in one circumstance a woman was raped and beaten to death in Toronto while on the phone with 911. The police arrived too late. If she’d been allowed to own a firearm, then I submit that she might still be alive.
You can submit all you like. Support is a trifle thin in that example. Armed with what? A baseball bat might have been enough. It might have been mindset, more than available weaponry.
In another example, Ian Thompson of Port Colborne Ontario was asleep when three or four thugs began throwing molotov cocktails at his house. He quickly loaded his revolver, and showing remarkable self-restraint, fired warning shots at them, scared them off, and put the fire out. Getting the police involved was a mistake however: he’s still on trial for unsafe storage, and those charges are criminal, which means he could do time in prison. For defending himself. Against a credible and serious threat on his life. And this being Ontario, he’s being prosecuted by a Liberal government, which we firearms owners see as no accident.
I hope the prosecution isn’t an accident; he’s daft, as well as armed. What you call restraint I call (as a person who is a professional user of weapons) reckless disregard for the safety of others. He shot without a target, with the intent of “scaring them”.
That’s stupid. Where did those bullets go? He had no idea. What if they’d been armed… suddenly he’s got a fusilade of bullets incoming.
What if the fire had gotten out of control while he was shooting? What if they’d been armed, and while being poor shots, that exchange allowed the fire to get out of control?
It’s easy to play what if. Your what ifs are cute, but pointless.
Well, I gave up television years ago,
And yet you lecture us on what television is like. Pretty neat trick that.
Hellkell mentioned straw MRA’s, well, keep building them.
We don’t need to, we have the real deal (in the form of people like yourself) to deal with.
“What the fuck is going on here?”
megalomania? give me a moment to google-fu this one
Rutger Hauer. Yum.
I’m really curious about this secret other blog David’s been keeping that’s all about Darryl.
“I hope the prosecution isn’t an accident; he’s daft, as well as armed. What you call restraint I call (as a person who is a professional user of weapons) reckless disregard for the safety of others. He shot without a target, with the intent of “scaring them”.
That’s stupid. Where did those bullets go? He had no idea. What if they’d been armed… suddenly he’s got a fusilade of bullets incoming.”
Yeah let me add that to my googling, because I’m sure one of those “fired into the air” folks shot an infant at one point, I’ll find that too while I’m googling…
I don’t know why sometimes my posts say Fembot and others Rage… I’m sorry if it annoys anyone. I’m really not trying to sockpuppet here.
Whoa. Mixed up my trolls. I meant:
I’m really curious about this secret other blog David’s been keeping that’s all about ACLAF.
And I really am.
AFLAC, you realize that more than a weapon is needed to defend yourself right? That in order to defend yourself you have to be able to potentially maim or kill another human being? And that you’ve already lost that game when an aggressor has planned to hurt someone, prepared the weapons, the area they intend to use as stalking grounds and chosen you as their target. Most people are not prepared to kill, they freeze or go into shock or need time to get angry. You could have given that poor woman a handgrenade and it wouldn’t have changed a thing.
And the guy was a fucking idiot. Bullets go places and those bullets could easily have hit passerby or neighbors. That reality is why he’s being prosecuted. He prevents his house from being set fire to, but ends up killing his next door neighbors son. All well that ends well right?
“A few days ago, David posted a long, incredibly run on post by MasculistMan, concerning militancy. Guess what? The intended target of that post was ME. He did it to bother ME. Check out his other blog why don’t you – the one with my name in the tittle.”
Yet a-fucking-gain the MRM needs to clarify their antecedents. He here is MasculistMan, who does seem to have a (dead) anti-ACLAF blog (why we care is a mystery). Nothing coming up for posts here quoting MasculistMan (which is kind of odd considering I’m sure he commented here recently, I’ll keep looking).
And this is why you do not fire into the air. Also, this and this.
A few days ago, David posted a long, incredibly run on post by MasculistMan, concerning militancy. Guess what? The intended target of that post was ME. He did it to bother ME. Check out his other blog why don’t you – the one with my name in the tittle.
What The Fuck?
Are you Masculist Man? If you are, why not respond to that post, and use that name? Why come to this one, and hide who you are? Doesn’t seem to be the epitome of the “manly man” you say you’ve become to hide who you are.
Oh, okay. Now I get it. ACLAF is talking about this post on Manboobz, then:
http://manboobz.com/2012/06/13/how-many-breaths-does-it-take-you-to-destroy-the-feminsit-monster/
I guess those two do have some pissy little intra-MRM feud? Wow I care about that so much I can’t even be bothered to give this sentence a proper ending
Cliff — yeah that’s it, I got distracted by my other googling and failed to google “Masculinist Man” with the space (and quotes, as without the quotes was getting me basically everything ever)
It’s probably spelled out further back somewhere, but is ACLAF an acronym for something?
Against Creepy Lesbians And Feminists?
Aww, Cute Little Angry Females?
Always Converse Like A Ferengi?
American Company Life Assurance Family?
All Cunts Like Ass Fondling
ACLAF: I see… so because Dave was talking about someone who has it in for you, we are supposed to what… ignore the puling idiocy of the things you say here?
It doesn’t work that way. Each post is independent. Each comment is independent. Some people (Ruby, Meller, Brandon) have managed to earn the (extremely dubious) honor of having something they’ve said be so stupid, so offensive, that it trumps the presumption of good faith we try to extend in each new conversation.
You… you seem to want some sort of get out of jail free card for something that happened on another blog.
Grow up. Get over yourself. You aren’t that special.
WTF are you talking about? What “other blog” with your name in the title? Dude, I have no idea who you are beyond what you’ve said in the comments here in the last day or couple of days or however long it’s been.
I did run a post quoting a guy calling himself “masculist man.” But you weren’t the “intended target.” Indeed, it had nothing whatsoever to do with you, because, again, I don’t know who the fuck you are and I don’t have another blog with your name in it. (Is that your real name or your alias here? If the former, I don’t even know your real name.)
http://manboobz.com/2012/06/13/how-many-breaths-does-it-take-you-to-destroy-the-feminsit-monster/
“What the SHIT are you accusing David of?”
Sorry, I should have specified. NOT David. MasculistMan’s rant? I was the target of that rant. Mostly.
“…There’s no posts on this blog about anyone named MasculistMan.
What the fuck is going on here?”
THIS: http://manboobz.com/2012/06/13/how-many-breaths-does-it-take-you-to-destroy-the-feminsit-monster/. Not what David wrote. The guy who David QUOTES is making a dig at me.
“Maybe you can help us out and explain to us why YOU are such a moderate MRA, and not one of those ‘women shouldn’t vote, communize the cunt, all women are like that’ assholes.”
I used to be pretty foul-mouthed yeah. But I don’t know if I’d consider myself moderate, I’m against feminism.
I don’t have any issues with women, I respect women, I understand and appreciate their choices, their rights under the law, the right to self-determination, reproductive rights etc. Feminists PURPORT to speak for women, and I have a problem with that. Simon de Beauvoir famously said that women shouldn’t be allowed to choose the life of house-wife, or stay-at-home-mom because too many women would make that choice, but because she’s “in the club” it’s not considered misogynist to limit women’s right to self-determination.
Gun control in Canada is considered a women’s issue, but for my money, I would want my wife and daughters to be able to carry pistols for personal protection. I would hope they never have to use them of course, and the chances are small. But if it should ever happen, well, I want my loved ones to be alive. Thanks to feminists who have taken up the call to gun control, that isn’t even an option for them, at least, not lawfully.
Take sex. I internalized a message that what women really wanted was a nice long rose-petal scented bath, with chocolates and, candles, followed by two-hours of cunnilingus, and then maybe, if she’s in the mood, she’ll put out. I BELIEVED that, and I had to learn, much later in life, that sometimes, women just want a good hard roll in the hay. Thinking the former, and not the latter almost cost me my marriage once or twice. So who lied here? I’m pretty sure I picked up the former message from popular culture. If I had known then what I know now, we’ll I could have been so much greater then than I am now. Partially my fault, yes. But someone lied to me, and I feel pretty betrayed by it.
“But another one might be prevented.”
False. Dawson College shooting. Legally owned restricted firearm. Only reason we didn’t get a bigger body-count? Pistol caliber rounds, fired by a poor marksman. Nice try though.
“It might have been mindset, more than available weaponry.”
False again. She managed to get to her phone WHILE being raped and beaten. If she’d been allowed to reach for a pistol instead of her phone, she’d be alive.
“I hope the prosecution isn’t an accident; he’s daft, as well as armed. What you call restraint I call (as a person who is a professional user of weapons) reckless disregard for the safety of others. He shot without a target, with the intent of “scaring them”.
And you accuse me of poor fact-checking? He ISN’T being charged with Careless use of a firearm. He’s being charged with UNSAFE STORAGE!
Damn, that’s one hot mess of a sentence. Feminists = all women, but some women can be feminists. Right now, you’re saying women are no longer women when they become feminists.
If you wanna tell us about how no one like chubby geeky guys, you are SERIOUSLY in the wrong crowd.
I was ninja-ed by a couple of commenters there.
David — the “he” there isn’t you, see my comment here (and enjoy your vacation!)
Stray bullets are not something to take lightly. A teenage girl from the town I used to live in was killed in her own backyard by a hunter who fired without identifying his target (he fired at a bush that was moving which is extremely stupid and less than 500 feet from a house which is illegal and since there was no deer in the bush to hit the bullet kept going and hit her). I can’t remember the exact charges against him but he pleaded guilty and has to live with having killed a kid. I totally support people owning guns, I come from a family where hunting is a big deal, but I also totally support gun control laws that make sure people have had the proper training in handling a firearm before they are allowed to have one especially if they want to carry a concealed weapon.
“Take sex. I internalized a message that what women really wanted was a nice long rose-petal scented bath, with chocolates and, candles, followed by two-hours of cunnilingus, and then maybe, if she’s in the mood, she’ll put out. I BELIEVED that, and I had to learn, much later in life, that sometimes, women just want a good hard roll in the hay.”
Maybe someday you’ll learn that women want different things, and you can learn by asking them. Don’t blame this “turns out I should have made a DIFFERENT sweeping assumption” crap on feminism.
Gee that’s funny…Beloved is a short chubby geeky guy. And I wouldn’t trade him in for Jack Harkness.
Yes, he should be charged for unsafe storage because the gun and the ammo are supposed to be kept in locked,seperate areas. He broke the law.