Categories
Uncategorized

“Hatred and anger are power,” and other thoughts on women and gaming from Spearheaders

Evil incarnate

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!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

670 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Nanasha — I’m all for the doctor who trick of replacing a gun with a banana myself, but that is a hilarious Monty Python skit.

The Doctor: [having secretly switched Jack’s Sonic Blaster with a banana, he now uses it to create a hole in the wall for their escape] Go, now, don’t drop the banana!
Captain Jack Harkness: Why not?
The Doctor: [as if vitally important] Good source of potassium!

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@Dracula- Add me to the list. I also like tall, fat, geeky men if they’re kind of shy and do that cute thing where they hide behind their glasses and blush when I say sexy outrageous things. Add a chinstrap beard and a deepish voice and I’m THERE WITH BELLS ON. ZOMG.

Now, excuse me, I need to go fangirl on my husband for awhile.

Shaenon
8 years ago

I. GET. THAT.

It doesn’t change the fact that psychology tells us that women generally want certain physical characteristics in men.

So you get that women are different people who like different things, but it doesn’t change the fact that women are the same and like the same things.

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
8 years ago

If “all women” liked the same thing, then wouldn’t there only be one guy in the world who had “all the women” and no other (cis? is that the right term?) men would have a partner. Seriously?

And I’m sure that if I saw another women jump off a cliff, I would jump off right after her too.

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

What is the “psychology in entirety” that he is speaking of? Is it also a monolithic hive-mind that he just pulled out of his ass? If all women are the same, then why does biodiversity exist? If all humans are interchangeable, then why are certain people better at certain things than others? We all have base needs (shelter, food, warmth, love, support from others, etc), but this does not make us the “same”- it makes us HUMAN.

So if you find out that people generally like cake, you can’t just shout, “A-HAH! I KNEW IT! All people are the SAME!”

We’re not clones/hiveminded creatures. When we share a culture, we generally tend to gravitate towards similar things, but these are generalizations, and can backfire immensely when you try and apply them to the individual.

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but to assume that everything is a nail is foolhardy to the extreme.

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@kiwi girl- “BUY NOW! It’s JUMPING OFF A CLIFF (TM)! The NEW line of products by Louis Vitton or whatever designer is hot Hot HOT right now! Give us your money and jump off the most EXCLUSIVE and EXPENSIVE cliff in the world! Be skinny, hot and eternally young! It’s JUMPING OFF A CLIFF (TM)- Available at most retail stores! See list for details.”*

*DISCLAIMER- Our company is not liable for broken bones, shattered pancreases, or death from JUMPING OFF A CLIFF (TM) or its related products- STAB YOURSELF IN THE FACE WITH BEES (TM), THE FAT GRENADE (TM), and BEAUTY BEAR TRAP SHOES (TM).

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

Well, I was asked to provide evidence for feminist meddling in the gun control laws. And I’ve been called stupid for not providing. If I do provide that evidence, will those who have leveled the accusation recant it? I doubt it very much. But I’ll play, because I’ve dug up those old articles.

http://diarmani.com/Articles/Birth%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Gun%20Registry.htm
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Cana-cerous.htm
http://www.saf.org/journal/15/abilliondollarslater.pdf
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Civitas.htm
http://libertypages.webs.com/Bill%20C-68.pdf

“No one missed the symbolic importance of the resolution of its sponsor: gun control was being flagged as a bona fide women’s issue for the Chrétien government.”

Feminists basically wrote Canada’s draconian gun laws.

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@ACLAF- So if any non-feminists wrote the gun laws, would you include them in your hatred? Also, what about those who wrote the gun laws who were monotheistic? Shall we blame organized religion for gun control laws?

Did your citizens vote on said laws? If so, one could extrapolate that these laws were passed by majority vote (I am not familiar with Canadian law, so excuse me if I am incorrect in my assumption here).

Also, as a feminist, I am personally very vocal on the right to bear arms in a responsible manner befitting a proper citizen. I do not think that leaving loaded guns out in your house is responsible, nor do I think that shooting willy-nilly at people is a good idea. This is not to even begin talking about the amount of maintenance and cleaning that guns require in order to operate efficiently. And remember, every time you conceal carry a weapon, you have the risk of having your gun used against you, or accidentally hitting someone else who was not an intended target. There are very few situations in which a gun is actually a good idea, even when you are being attacked, and in most of those situations, only people who are thoroughly trained in combat situations can truly perform well under pressure (marksman shooting is not the same as using a gun on a home invader). Your better bet is to use your body as a weapon- learning martial arts (especially things like Aikido), can help you disable and neutralize most attackers and the added bonus is that most of these actually TEACH you how to deal with attack situations in ways that owning a gun will not.

I am looking forward to the day when all guns are fitted with fingerprint recognition triggers that keep them from working on anyone but the owner. This will lessen the number of tragic deaths of children who find loaded guns and accidentally shoot themselves or others because of it. It will also prevent criminals from breaking into houses and stealing people’s guns and then using them in criminal acts. And finally, it will keep unhinged individuals from “borrowing” guns from their friends and using them to commit murders (which is pretty much how many domestic violence murders happen- someone lent an unhinged individual a gun and the person then goes and murders their estranged spouse/kids).

I see guns as a tool, much like a car. If you can use them responsibly, more power to you. There must also be more support in teaching people to properly care, maintain and store their weapons. But if you’re going to run around acting like an idiot and putting other people’s lives in danger, you don’t deserve to have it.

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

Having spend a god-damned hour finding that last chapter on C-68…

Why do men wear suits with shoulder-pads? It’s because broad shoulders subtly suggest strength and dominance, and is one of the traits that most women find attractive. Women generally like broad shoulders. It’s meant to be subtly suggestive, it’s made to make a man look good. To whom? To other men? Really?

See this, PLEASE: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6696/full/394884a0.html

You know, I should have quit earlier, because your constant denial and accusations of broad-brushing prove that feminists simply cannot deal with reality. It’s not a big screaming deal that women, on average, like broad shoulders in a man! Like tall men! Like athletic men! And yeah, I know, not all do!

But somehow, you collectively MUST see misogyny – I guess. It makes no god-damned sense.

Please. Stop lying you’re BAD at it.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

“Maybe people shouldn’t have guns without knowing how to use them and the government should know who has guns and which ones, and people should keep guns safely” – Draconian gun laws, as written by Canadian feminists.

VoIP
VoIP
8 years ago

ACLAF

OHMIGOD, I know that guns take PRACTICE.

REALIZE THAT I’M NOT ALLOWED to. I can OWN a gun, but I’m not exactly allowed to TRAIN. There are ways around that, yes, and I’m WORKING ON THAT. But as far as it goes, I’m not SPECIAL enough, according to the government, to warrant the kind of permission that would allow me to make USE of that training and practice. And neither are most people in this country. Thanks be to feminists.

dirtyhippiefeet:

dude, I’m Canadian. earning my hunting license was PART of my high school curriculum. granted I went to a small school in rural BC. but still. we were taught firearm safety and hunting skills IN SCHOOL. it is not hard to get to be able to hunt, it’s just a process to actually get a firearm, and then to follow hunting laws. most of my friends’ dads hunt, and also wish it was legal to shoot all the bears that eat from their fruit trees in the summer. I’ve lived in BC, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and *I* have always been an outlier for not being attracted to men who own/use firearms. I’ve been dumped for not wanting to go gopher hunting.

One of you’s lying and I think I know which one.

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@ACLAF- I find it funny that people like to use evo-psych for why women supposedly like this thing or that thing and to excuse what we consider masculine posturing, and yet I don’t see any MRAs arguing that pissing on stuff to own it is a great idea (common Alpha behavior in the wild) or that randomly humping stuff (including other males) to assert dominance is the height of masculinity. Picking and choosing what is “evolutionarily sexy” based off of dominant social tropes of masculinity and femininity is a prescriptive fallacy- it assumes that the “way things are” are like that because of nature or something, as opposed to seeing the way that our culture has constructed gender norms and then looking back at nature and trying to draw similarities.

In short, it’s like concluding that “everyone is a red head” and then only including red haired people in your study subjects. It’s bad science.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

Also @AFUCK

I’m pretty sure you told me to try being overweight and short and geeky earlier with the implication that I’d change my mind. I’ve spent the last few hours doing so (although I’m more technically overweight and still wear size 36 jackets and size 30 pants) and I’m pretty sure I still think the same. Did my Cuban heels throw me out by making me look tall? Any other things I should try?

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

@VoIP

Ooh, pick me! Is it the frothing Randroid?

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

Sounds like ACLAF needs to move in with the Montana Freemen. He sounds like a LMOE without the zombie apocalypse.

Or you could just declare yourself a sovereign nation…

Noadi
Noadi
8 years ago

AFLAC: In case you didn’t know this, most women’s suit jackets also have shoulder pads (though they are more subtle now than they were in the 80s). Are broad strong shoulders something men look for? Or is it just that in both men and women shoulder pads add structure that keep suit jackets from hanging unevenly?

Also try reading the abstract a little more closely next time:

As predicted, subjects preferred feminized to average shapes of a female face. This preference applied across UK and Japanese populations but was stronger for within-population judgements, which indicates that attractiveness cues are learned.

Note the key word there “learned”. Also, it’s evopsych which is a field full of bullshit studies like this one that make evolutionary assumptions from current cultural preferences.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

It’s meant to be subtly suggestive, it’s made to make a man look good. To whom? To other men? Really?

Uh, dude, suits are primarily worn by businessmen, to impress other businessmen with how together and important they are.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

Feminists will never understand that it is -they- who are the oppressors.

No, I totally get that you feel oppressed when your entitlements are threatened.
I totally get that.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

http://diarmani.com/Articles/Birth%20of%20the%20Canadian%20Gun%20Registry.htm = opinion piece
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Cana-cerous.htm = opinion piece
http://www.saf.org/journal/15/abilliondollarslater.pdf = opinion piece
http://www.garrybreitkreuz.com/publications/Civitas.htm = opinion piece
http://libertypages.webs.com/Bill%20C-68.pdf = opinion piece

So near as I can tell without reading 50+ pages, those all blame liberals in general — the last one even implies women in general supported the bill, are we doing the “all women are not feminists” thing again? The only exception to this is the longest pdf (link #3) blames radical feminists and “obsessed feminist lobbyists” — saying something over and over again doesn’t make it true.

Those are not citations, those are opinion pieces, try a legal journal or something (though, to prove that feminists, in general, actually support the bill, you’re going to need a psych study).

And who called you stupid? I implied your views on psychology are stupid, but one can have stupid views without being stupid.

Kiwi girl — “cis? is that the right term?” — for “not trans*”? yeah, cis is the right term.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

I hadn’t intended to erase the existence of women in business with my last comment, by the way. I was speaking in the context of the business world being male dominated.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

I think we should also note at this point that most casual jackets don’t have padded shoulders. Are men really trying to look sexually attractive to women (would this man’s head explode if he learnt about gay people?) only when going into the male-dominated sphere of business?

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

@Nanasha – You’ve been really decent, and patient. So I’mma try to take it easy. It’s REALLY late, and I really shouldn’t get dragged into this, but, I just happen to have a surgery tomorrow, and I will need to sleep through the aftermath, so this is helpful.

“So if any non-feminists wrote the gun laws, would you include them in your hatred? Also, what about those who wrote the gun laws who were monotheistic? Shall we blame organized religion for gun control laws?”

Organized religion had little to do with Canada’s gun-control laws. I bring it up because, after a lot of work, especially for that last chapter, it demonstrates how feminists have achieved a dominant position when it comes to the discourse on Canada’s gun-control laws. Gun control was reconstructed as a feminist issue, thanks to the Chrétein Liberals. And I’m angry, because if I step out of line, as a gun-owner, even in the slightest iota, hell, even if I don’t break the law, but do something that’s “frowned upon” the state can, and will, arbitrarily try to destroy me, and by consequence, my family. That bothers me.

“Did your citizens vote on said laws? If so, one could extrapolate that these laws were passed by majority vote (I am not familiar with Canadian law, so excuse me if I am incorrect in my assumption here).”

Enh… Sort of. The last article discusses how Allan Rock stacked the committee studying C-68, the Firearms act with hoplophobic lackeys. But yes, the law was democratically made, but it didn’t take long for a good number of people to realize that the law was a bad idea. And ever since then, feminists have fought tooth and nail to preserve a very symbolic, very useless firearms registry database. It took something like 18 years to finally get rid of it, after it cost the taxpayer more than 1 billion dollars. And it didn’t DO anything. If tangible results could have been obtained, that would be one thing… The thing is that the registry is just the tip of the iceberg. All the regulations carry with them criminal penalties. Solomon Friedman explains: http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/42/0/0000/1

“Also, as a feminist, I am personally very vocal on the right to bear arms in a responsible manner befitting a proper citizen. I do not think that leaving loaded guns out in your house is responsible, nor do I think that shooting willy-nilly at people is a good idea.”

Having small children in my home, my ammunition is kept under lock and key at all times. But. I shouldn’t have to risk jail-time if the case my guns are locked in isn’t deemed “good enough” for the government. But this HAPPENS. See Ian Thompson, where the crown actually argued that because he was able to access his guns TOO FAST, they were stored unsafely.

“And remember, every time you conceal carry a weapon, you have the risk of having your gun used against you, or accidentally hitting someone else who was not an intended target. There are very few situations in which a gun is actually a good idea, even when you are being attacked, and in most of those situations, only people who are thoroughly trained in combat situations can truly perform well under pressure (marksman shooting is not the same as using a gun on a home invader). Your better bet is to use your body as a weapon- learning martial arts (especially things like Aikido), can help you disable and neutralize most attackers and the added bonus is that most of these actually TEACH you how to deal with attack situations in ways that owning a gun will not.”

And a good conceal-carry instructor will encourage you to resolve any given bad situation WITHOUT drawing your firearm, if at all possible. But if necessary, an armed individual is always at a huge advantage over someone who is unarmed. As you may be aware, criminals don’t respect the law. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBTJkUgRDGU. At 3:49, gang members, from Toronto, begin flashing their guns. ALL OF THOSE, are restricted, or prohibited in Canada, meaning that they aren’t allowed to have them, or to be carrying them. Yet they are doing it. They’re criminals. They don’t follow the law. The law is for me, the law-abiding. The law gives the criminals a huge advantage if they decide to prey on me.

“I see guns as a tool, much like a car. If you can use them responsibly, more power to you. There must also be more support in teaching people to properly care, maintain and store their weapons. But if you’re going to run around acting like an idiot and putting other people’s lives in danger, you don’t deserve to have it.”

And that’s why we have mandatory training, or at least testing for Firearms owners. Becoming licensed to own a firearm in Canada is quite intensive. Concerning licensing, I’m opposed to the degree to which the process is invasive. I’m NOT however opposed to licensing as gun-control, in general. LICENSING is effective gun control, at least, to some degree. However, it shouldn’t mean that I go to jail because say, I’m not carrying a registration certificate while I’m out hunting, which could have been the case, until very recently.

Noadi
Noadi
8 years ago

Thank you Dracula, I forgot to put that bit into my rant. Business suits are absolutely about showing power, status, and professional acumen not about sex appeal. You have to pay good money to have a well fitting business suit (because that requires having it tailored to fit not buying it off the rack) and the sort of people you are trying to impress with a business suit can tell the difference. There are places you won’t even get an interview let alone be hired if you don’t show up in a suit that meets approval and the people making those decisions are more likely to be men.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“See this, PLEASE: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v394/n6696/full/394884a0.html

“This preference applied across UK and Japanese populations but was stronger for within-population judgements, which indicates that attractiveness cues are learned.”

You missed that part…and that they make 0 mention of anything besides face shape…

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@knives comments- just so you guys know, the incidence of death in any conflict involving knives increases by at least 75%. Unless you know what the fuck you are doing with your knife and know for certain that you are not going to get it taken from you or accidentally stab/cut yourself (which is surprisingly easy, especially if it slips up the hilt and you cut open your own hand), a knife fight is not going to end well.

I suggest that if you want a weapon that works well, consider a retractable baton or a kubaton. Both are generally non-lethal, easy to use and deliver concentrated blows that are both powerful and disarming.

And I live in a city that is fairly well known for having meth-heads and drugged out weirdos roaming the streets, so I know what I’m talking about when I say that this thing is useful. My coworker (a short, overweight lady) has fought off several street attackers with her kubotan and successfully avoided any harm to her body or possessions.

You don’t need a gun or a knife to be dangerous. Knowing how to protect and defend yourself, how to stand in defensive mode, and how to run the fuck away are all better than standing around and hoping to finish a fight against some attacker Batman-style.

It is better to be safe and alive than try to be “cool” and “win” against the blow to your ego at having been attacked and die trying.

Noadi
Noadi
8 years ago

Okay, between the sinus pressure keeping me awake and the cold meds trying to make me fall asleep I’m giving up on this thread due to lack of brain function. Thanks for keeping me distracted from my cold the past couple hours.

VoIP
VoIP
8 years ago

And I DO carry a good pocket knife, since I’m allowed to do that, at least.

The implication that this is the only kind of knife you’re allowed to carry is also a lie; another Canadian upthread said you can carry a knife from your fingertips to your elbow, which is about a yard long. You. Are. A. LIAR.

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

@Argenti Aertheri – So, because they’re opinions, they can’t be factual?

But never mind. Are Wendy Cukier and Heidi Rathjen feminists? Because if not, DAMN, I got fooled… Somehow, I don’t think so.

VoIP
VoIP
8 years ago

Well, not a yard, but pretty long. We’re talking machetes here.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

Solomon Friedman explains: http://www.edelsonlaw.ca/news/show/42/0/0000/1

Well fuck, you finally managed a citation that’s actually a citation and says what you claim! Sort of…no mention of feminists, or even liberals for that matter. But hey, making a point without resorting to blame games is a good start — argumentium ad youtube really isn’t though.

Could someone who isn’t an insurance duck remind me why we’re debating gun control on a post about gaming?

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

I suggest that if you want a weapon that works well, consider a retractable baton or a kubaton. Both are generally non-lethal, easy to use and deliver concentrated blows that are both powerful and disarming.

I like to carry a walking stick when I go out walking at night. Mostly in case I run into a rabid coyote or something, but also in case of other attackers. Not that it’s super dangerous where I live, but still.

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

“The implication that this is the only kind of knife you’re allowed to carry is also a lie; another Canadian upthread said you can carry a knife from your fingertips to your elbow, which is about a yard long. You. Are. A. LIAR.”

Excuse me? First of all, my comment is made in the sense that I desire to carry a gun over a knife, regardless of length. Do NOT presume to lecture me on Canadian law thanks.

Asshole.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

Wow!

Hey man-attracted individuals here, I’ve found the most attractive outfit ever!

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

re: kubotan — my FWB got arrested for something asinine while carrying one, CT decided it was a prohibited weapon. I still like the things, but you should probably check with local cops (it wasn’t on CT’s extensive weapon list, and yet…)

“So, because they’re opinions, they can’t be factual?”

An opinion could manage to be correct, but is not de facto correct, that’s wtf makes it an opinion. I mean, I think you’re a really annoying poopyhead, is this factual? (Seriously, you’re making me want to get back to b*gbr*nn*n’s stupidity, and wow does she take the cake [asterisks because she google’s herself and is way too annoying to have show up here])

Shaenon
8 years ago

You’ll still be stupid but at least you’ll have a firearm.

That’s America’s motto!

If “all women” liked the same thing, then wouldn’t there only be one guy in the world who had “all the women” and no other (cis? is that the right term?) men would have a partner. Seriously?

MRAs call that “hypergamy.” Yes, they will seriously argue that there are like five attractive guys on the planet, and all the women in the world want to join their harems. And if we say otherwise we’re lying.

To us lying feminists, it may look like the streets are full of couples, and the men in those couples are pretty normal-looking guys, but who are you going to believe, MRAs or your lying eyes?

VoIP
VoIP
8 years ago

Do NOT presume to lecture me on Canadian law thanks.

Asshole

Except dirtyhippiefeet already did, assclown. Or maybe you didn’t read it, you cracked out piece of survivalist rage? Here, I’ll copypaste it for you, so you don’t strain yourself or something.

dude, I’m Canadian. earning my hunting license was PART of my high school curriculum. granted I went to a small school in rural BC. but still. we were taught firearm safety and hunting skills IN SCHOOL. it is not hard to get to be able to hunt, it’s just a process to actually get a firearm, and then to follow hunting laws. most of my friends’ dads hunt, and also wish it was legal to shoot all the bears that eat from their fruit trees in the summer. I’ve lived in BC, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, and *I* have always been an outlier for not being attracted to men who own/use firearms. I’ve been dumped for not wanting to go gopher hunting.

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

@Argenti Aertheri – Damn, you really are ignorant.

Solomon Friedman, a criminal defense lawyer, was presenting that as part of his testimony to the Senate standing committee who were debating C-19, an Act to End the Long Gun Registry. I watched it live on ParlVU.

And it is purely his OPINION. And it was not posted with the intent of describing how feminists crafted Canada’s gun control laws. Rather, it was posted because of Solomon’s reference to the “sledgehammer” that is the criminal law power in Canada, and opinion, that is relatively uncontroversial, and not too far from the truth.

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@ACLAF- Here in California, the gun laws are similarly frustrating and complicated. But I don’t blame that on any group of people other than the law-makers who basically get paid to write up the bullshit. Seriously. These are douchebags who don’t even read the crap they’re supporting and then pass laws because it’s their jobs and make things harder and harder for the average citizen to be a good citizen.

This is why I am in favor of empirical rationalism in government. Only laws that are written thoroughly well, easily understood, with clear implications and proven results should be fully made into law, and should be subjected to rigorous testing and trials before being made official. There is so much efficiency that we could achieve as a culture or even as a species, if we were only willing to shift the way we do legislation. Some of this current system of corruption is being lauded by liberals and others by conservatives, but the bottom line is that sloppy governing, corruption and stupid politician bullshit is what is causing convoluted laws that trap citizens in Catch-22’s- and I wholeheartedly support concentrated efforts to fight the corruption and abuse of power in these areas.

I do not, however, think that it is constructive to start pointing fingers at “all feminists” and find it patently useless to make such accusations in the first place, as that won’t change the situation at all. The people with the power to change it feel like they can get away with anything, and laugh as you pour all your misplaced rage into the feminist “hivemind.”

Meanwhile, they pass idiotic laws by the second thinking they’ve gotten away scott-free.

I suppose that’s the question- are we really looking for solutions to bad governing and bad laws or are we looking for a scapegoat to grumble about to assuage our egos at feeling powerless?

PS: it is true that the criminal might have a weapon, but three people with guns > one person with a gun. If they want something from you, giving it to them and getting out of there is often a better tactic than simply trying to “High Noon” it. The strategies change based on your intended goal. Do you need to protect someone who is with you? Do you need to give them your wallet and continue on your way to be safe? Do you need to shoot them with a gun and hope their friends don’t mark you as a dead man or heaven-forbid target your family for a drive-by?

All of these things can be options. There is no more honorable option in a time of crisis. There is only the most optimal situation- being safe and unharmed as possible.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

lowquacks — omgs he looks like some sort of head on a stick or something, that suit is so badly sized it’s uncanny valley bad! (and reminds me a bit of the knights who say NE!)

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
8 years ago

“Solomon Friedman, a criminal defense lawyer, was presenting that as part of his testimony to the Senate standing committee who were debating C-19, an Act to End the Long Gun Registry. I watched it live on ParlVU. ”

Yes and I already said that that was the closest you’ve managed to a citation, an opinion can be a citation depending on context — the formal context of his opinion gives it more weight that some random person blogging.

And don’t call me ignorant, it really doesn’t look good on you.

Nanasha — “I suppose that’s the question- are we really looking for solutions to bad governing and bad laws or are we looking for a scapegoat to grumble about to assuage our egos at feeling powerless?”

The latter. Hence how he thinks my only accepting the in court opinion as a citation is ignorant >.<

TheCatFromOuterSpace
TheCatFromOuterSpace
8 years ago

Does anyone remember the ’80s? You know… when women wore shoulder pads.

Does this mean women at ’80s nights are more attractive to other women… or something…

Kiwi girl
Kiwi girl
8 years ago

@ Shaenon, and it took me to 5pm today to do my misandry act: put cat treats in the cat treat ball for my male cat who is intrigued by that toy. He rolled that ball around for ages. 🙂 Heh, I made him work for those treats!

See, I’m such a feminist I even take it out on my male cats!

ACLAF
ACLAF
8 years ago

“Except dirtyhippiefeet already did, assclown. Or maybe you didn’t read it, you cracked out piece of survivalist rage? Here, I’ll copypaste it for you, so you don’t strain yourself or something.”

Oh really? Well, first of all, dirtyhippiefeet MAY have gotten their firearms license as part of their high school curriculum. But then again, I don’t know dirtyhippiefeet’s age. They didn’t specify that particular fact.

They may well be ignorant of just how much times have changed in this country. I can assure you, that no highschool in my particular city offers the Canadian Firearms Safety course as part of its regular curriculum.

In point of fact, HERE is the actual license application forms from the RCMP: http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/5592EW.pdf

Dirtyhippiefeet may ALSO be an aboriginal person – i don’t know. If they are, then guess what chucklefuck? They’re subject to special dispensation! I won’t bother telling you who’s responsible for that little gem of injustice. For those who are not aboriginal, well, guess what asshole? No special dispensation for you!

So without more facts, it’s a real dick-move to accuse me of lying.

And it makes YOU look like a god-damned idiot when I can cite chapter and verse that getting a firearms license can be pretty-god damned difficult. You know, how you have to track down your previous sexual partners and basically ask their permission for you to have a gun? What section of the form is that? Oh yeah, it’s right here in sections D, E, and F.

How about your mental health and job history? Why that would be section C.

How about your character references? Mm.. Section H.

Nanasha
Nanasha
8 years ago

@Argenti- that sucks about your friend and the kubotan- It’s not prohibited here in CA, and my coworker (who I mentioned above) is actually the director of my department and she takes it to Board meetings with Sheriffs present and they don’t make a peep about it (she does get some looks, though). And if the item is not considered a weapon, your friend could not technically be charged with anything unless they were using it as an offensive weapon (as anything can technically be used as an offensive weapon and you can get arrested for assaulting people in that case).

Did your friend get charged or simply arrested? If the police had nothing on your friend, chances are that your friend was being profiled incorrectly and they needed an excuse. In any case with the police, I always say, it’s best to be compliant, silent and cordial. If you don’t say anything, except for base responses, you can’t have your words twisted. If you are cordial and compliant, you will not be attacked for “resisting.” And you can also ask if you are being charged with anything. If the police do not have any legal reason to hold you, they are legally required to let you go or suffer legal action for being unfairly imprisoned against your will. If you find yourself arrested, immediately ask if you will need a lawyer and if so, invoke your right to counsel.

I have found that, most of the time, cops are really decent and generally looking to do the right thing. But when you get stuck in a bad situation with a cop who seems iffy, it’s best to play it safe.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

@Argenti

That’s David Byrne of the band Talking Heads in his Big Suit, which he wore in concert in the ’80s because… reasons, I guess. Something about corporate soullessness probably.

indifferentsky
8 years ago

I ask, did women really want to enter the work-force and abandon motherhood as slavery? Or did feminists TELL women that this is what they wanted? I believe that it’s the latter, and Simone de Beauvoir is exhibit A.

So women were fooled? My grandmothers were traditional women, but they could see what was happening and explained it. My grandmother that married well to do went to college to do so because women went to college to get their MRS. She chose nursing as a major to hang with the doctors, married a dentist. She doesn’t tell me this in a sing song voice, she tells me as if she’s narrating a feminist documentary. You could be a teacher or a nurse.
I’m sure that’s an over simplification, but that was it.

When I was growing up Phil Donahue covered feminist topics, and typically, they would have a caller that was an older mom say, “but what if I want to stay home…” things along those lines, and Phil would ask the one question…. the ONE he asked to redirect, saw it many times,

“Do you want the same life for your daughters that you had?”

Long dramatic pauses… and then finally a small,

“…no…”

Every time.

Stop arguing for a world where alimony makes sense, because taking an entire gender and saying ‘you do this because you have a vagina, period, we don’t care how smart you are, and how qualified you are’ and setting this group up for sacrifice and dependency makes alimony MANDATORY for when these chattle get cheated on and tossed aside for a younger model later.

That was such a rampant dynamic when Steinem started her yapping that basically, she just solidified for many women what they already knew, she gave it a concrete model and a voice. Still, many women were scared of being rejected by men, and gave feminists shit themselves, but many of these young feminist women in the 70’s spent time living with, listening to and understanding where people like my grandmother were coming from.

If you were sitting on a park bench reading a news paper and a man came and sat down, it was expected that you surrender the paper to him, keeping the lifestyle section for yourself if you must. Job ads were separated, male and female, (because BTW women have ALWAYS worked you dumb pile of shit), if you had an office job you were also the maid and personal servant of any man in the office regardless of your position.

Prepare to train any incoming man to take a position above you, and then go pick up his clothes from the cleaners, because again women have ALWAYS worked you dumb pile of puss. Steinem got her degree in journalism, there were plenty of jobs she could do related to women’s magazines and sections for women that included recipes and fashion tips, whatever. That did not interest her, she applied for writing jobs at papers and was told, “we need a writer, not a woman”.

You mrm shit bags don’t even have an accurate view of history, there has always been a pink ghetto. It’s relative affluence that afforded a stay at home woman style, and that was wrought with problems for many reasons. Staying at home in modern times is no where NEAR the slavery it was when people said exactly what it was. When Steinem named the family dynamic for what it was, she was naming the family dynamic for what.it.was.

Working Girl used to mean prostitute. Not because women didn’t work, but because they were invisible and men were sexist shit bags. So there’s a profession I forgot, you could be a nurse, a teacher, or a “working girl” but we know the disdain the last category has always gotten in hyper-hypocritical patriarchy.

I could rant for hours, just stopping because this is long, etc.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

@TheCatFromOuterSpace

Additionally, men in highly-structure English suits should be more attractive than men in loose-shouldered Italian suits, unless the nipped-in waist makes them more femme somehow, and men in Italian suits should be more attractive than men in American sack suits.

Except actually it’s all personal preference and what suits the man in question, so…

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
8 years ago

Are you fucking kidding me? When I went to bed, there was 71 comments, now there’s 344.. o.o Could be here a while.

lowquacks
lowquacks
8 years ago

@ShadetheDruid

Yeah, we’ve got a live one. Canadian who isn’t much into gun control and thinks women are a monolith, except when they’re not.

Dracula
Dracula
8 years ago

Could someone who isn’t an insurance duck remind me why we’re debating gun control on a post about gaming?

Because that’s Insurance Duck’s pet issue, and trolls never give a fuck about derailing, because their shit is always more important.

1 5 6 7 8 9 14