Today, a rather alarming, but also quite revealing, little screed by Darryl X, a regular commenter over on A Voice for Men.
It’s from the discussion of the AVFM post by Aimee McGee that got the fellas at MGTOWforums so worked up the other day. But Darryl has a somewhat different take than the fiercely woman-hating MGTOWers.
He takes aim not at women as a whole, but at certain vaguely specified “monsters,” by which he apparently means anyone who stands in the way of angry dudes getting their way, particularly feminists. The only examples he gives are women, but it’s pretty clear he hates feminist men with equal fervor.
In what follows, I have cut out a few sections that addressed McGee personally so as to make Darryl’s “argument” a little more streamlined and clear.
Meet the enemy, according to Darryl:
What we’re dealing with is not human. These things, these monsters, I’ve studied them inside and out for decades.
They must be disposed of without mercy and with extreme prejudice. One is enough to take down a nation if not the world.
Darryl claims not to be advocating violence. But this sort of dehumanization of one’s enemy is one of the oldest and nastiest tricks in the book, used by those trying to excuse or justify or simply smooth the way for violence by tamping down any feelings of moral queasiness those asked to commit violence against other human beings might feel.
The fitch bases and the Mary Kelletts and the Lori Jacksons and all the others are here for one reason: destroy men and children and civilization.
“Fitch base” is a play on “bitch face,” and is the nickname that McGee and her husband have come up with for his supposedly vengeful ex. Mary Kellett and Lori Jackson are, respectively, a prosecutor and a judge that have run afoul of the AVFM crowd. Naturally, in the melodramatic and grandiose world view of the AVFMenners, opposition to the Men’s Rights movement is equated with destroying civilization itself.
I am here for one purpose: stop them. It’s them or us. When I encounter one, my palms itch, my skin crawls and my gums bleed spontaneously.
Might want to see a doctor about that.
Then I proceed to completely anihilate it. Sometimes the process takes more than a decade. (Evil is very resilient and persistent.)
Again, Darryl X claims that he’s not talking about violence here. But whatever he envisions doing to these “monsters” is not pretty.
There’s nothing hateful about destroying that which threatens the survival of yourself and others upon whom you depend.
This is a war. These things want more than anyone else and they don’t care how they get it, who they destroy. They are addicted to power and control and they will do anything to satisfy that addiction.
This is, I think, a good example of what is called, in psychological circles, projection.
These things don’t just want more than everyone else but they want to deny men and children what they need.
“These things?” Still going strong with the dehumanization.
These things cannot be eqated to children. Children grow up. They learn. They aren’t particularly dangerous. But these are creatures with minds arrested at three years of age and with the weapons of adults.
If the opponents of the Men’s Rights movement are overgrown three year olds, then the MRAs have yet to emerge from the terrible twos.
I do not pity them. I and others do not have that luxury. They want you to pity them. They manipulate with the public spectacle of their chronic victimhood.
Projection again. There are few people in the world more eager to slip into the victim role than MRAs, or more willing to distort facts in an attempt to convince the world (or, at least, themselves) that men are the most oppressed creatures on planet earth.
I often think that in order for someone to be a member of the MRM, he should be impoverished enough and unable to afford the luxury of sympathy for the devil.
Or rather, unable to feel sympathy, or empathy, for anyone but themselves and their erstwhile allies.
Again, Darryl claims that he’s not advocating violence here. And that may be true. But he is certainly preaching hate.
—
A few more examples of turn-of-the-twentieth century posters designed to dehumanize the suffragettes; these pictures were too good — i.e., too awful — not to share.
This sounds like an episode of Supernatural.
This guy is really worrisome. I think that of all of the dangerously angry commenters, Darryl seems the most likely to actualize.
And by children he obviously means boys, because as non-humans, he can’t possibly be talking about little girls. Or, wait. Maybe….at what age do girls lose their humanity? Menarche, I’m guessing.
Also, “must be disposed of without mercy” equals violence. Period.
Reminds me of those Justiciar Execution Orders I keep getting.
I’ve given up trying to figure out how MRAs get from “agitates for equal pay and accessible birth control” to “wants to destroy men, children, and civilization.” But I still wonder how they get there? Anyone have any ideas at all?
Anyone have a non-AVFM, non-MRA source for what’s going on with this Joel Kirk divorce that has them freaking out about Judge Lori Jackson? I refuse to read their bullshit spin.
Sounds like scapegoating in early 20th century Tsarist Russia. Except that feminist Alexander III let women work in state of the art factories and kept men from voting. He should have known his empire would crumble from that obvious mistake.
Seriously, this guy is a joke. I get the “violence” part, but I wouldn’t spend my worries on a tin foil hat wearing, cereal box eschatologist.
Because if women have equal pay and birth control it means that men can no longer control women and they cannot inflict babies on them to keep them under control.
Via an underground river of rage.
I think he got feminists confused with the Terminator.
They must be disposed of without mercy and with extreme prejudice.
That’s not non-violent. It’s eliminationist rhetoric. Maybe he won’t get his own hands dirty, but killing people is what he’s advocating.
It kind of does, doesn’t it? And hey, they both involve killing off large numbers of women for no particularly good reason! (I love Supernatural, I do, but that show has such a women-in-refrigerators problem.)
Still, Darryl’s stupid comment is much easier to endure when I imagine Dean Winchester saying it in his Dramatic Angsty Voice, so thanks for that. 🙂
Honestly, I miss our trolls. Where is the usual mansplanation of our inability to understand “satire”?
I am once again thinking “Gawd, I wish feminists had half as much power as this delusional asshole thinks we do.”
My exact thoughts when I first read a screed of his a few months ago.
But we’re not supposed to creep-shame him, right? I mean, when you spout of scary, eliminationist rhetoric and dehumanize people, it doesn’t *necessarily* mean that you’re a bad person, so we shouldn’t judge him for it, right? /sarcasm.
Most MRAs I find to be laughable, pathetic, and a bit tragic. This is the one guy that really scares me and makes me glad that we’re likely very far apart.
Anyone have a non-AVFM, non-MRA source for what’s going on with this Joel Kirk divorce that has them freaking out about Judge Lori Jackson? I refuse to read their bullshit spin.
Hell, they’ve been stalking Mary Kellett for years, and I have no idea why. I’ve asked MRAs. I’ve looked it up on MRA sites. No clue.
Anyway, after some digging, it looks like Lori Jackson is the judge in a custody case involving an MRA named Joel Kirk. Kirk has been posting about the case at length on A Voice For Men, and either he or someone else on AVFM started an online petition to get Jackson disbarred. (Kirk claims that his ex-wife is abusive and is being awarded custody because she has connections in the courts, but I only have his word on this.)
Recently, the children’s temporary guardian filed a gag order to make AVFM pull Kirk’s posts (http://wvrecord.com/news/254508-proposed-gag-order-in-harrison-family-law-case-put-on-hold) on the grounds that he was sharing private information that could be harmful to his kids. Naturally, the MRA community got riled up over this shocking violation of their First Amendment rights. Also, they’re blaming Judge Jackson for the gag order, because they are easily confused.
Short answer: MRA “activism” means Internet-harassing lawyers and judges who don’t let them have their way, especially if said lawyers and judges have vaginas. Sadly, people who work in family law are probably used to putting up with this shit.
Ah Darryl X, you so crazee! And man does he have it out for amy mcgee or whatever. She suggests a safe space for men to talk and he’s all like ‘Yeah, well isn’t that the stupidest idea that even a kid could have thought of and I don’t have emotions so it totally doesn’t apply to me’. hey, at least there was a poster who immediately replied to Darryl’s maniacal rant with ‘chill on the violence, dude, it’s totally not ok’. To which Darryl replied ‘Violence? Who, me? Why, who could think I would ever suggest such a dreadful thing’. Then he was mean to amy mcgee some more.
“One is enough to take down a nation if not the world”? Really, like ONE feminist? I did not realize that we were goddesses and gods! Wow, these guys really inhabit an alternate reality. I mean, i don’t like certain political attitudes, but it would never occur to me to say that ONE of the holders of such attitudes could take down a nation if not the world. Glad I don’t have to wake up every day to the world this dude lives in.
“Then I proceed to completely anihilate it. Sometimes the process takes more than a decade. (Evil is very resilient and persistent.)”
I know it’s not what he meant, but his poor writing makes it sound like he’s calling himself evil. Not that that’s the worst thing about this rant or anything, it just stuck out to me.
I don’t get it. If only one feminist is enough to bring down an entire nation, then wouldn’t that mean that the MRM is essentially doomed? Wouldn’t that mean that it’s impossible for the MRM to succeed unless they managed to convince every woman in every country that feminism was evil and/or managed to kill everyone who might even potentially be a feminist? Because if even so much as one feminist remained, that feminist could still “bring down” the nation they lived in, and maybe even the entire world. There’s no way that anyone could possibly find a way to get rid of all the proponents on any particular ideology. You can’t tell whether or not someone is a feminist simply by looking at them. Darryl X has imagined an enemy that is so powerful that the MRM cannot possibly beat it.
I also wonder why oppressive misogynistic regimes still exist, according to Darryl X’s logic. Does he honestly think that there isn’t so much as a single feminist in all of Saudi Arabia?
My gums bleed spontaneously – bad oral hygiene – or scurvy.
That guy talks like a video game. Might as well be describing the reapers from mass effect.
I actually looked for the case that they are referring to with Judge Jackson being removed and I am not seeing it on the West Virgina’s Supreme Court opinion/order list.
estraven: “One is enough to take down a nation if not the world”? Really, like ONE feminist?
This is probably true… if you have the worldview of Darryl (and his compadres).
1: Women should be considered subhuman.
2: Women who think they aren’t subhuman are problems.
3: A woman who acts as if she isn’t subhuman will give the other women ideas.
Like yeast those ideas will spread. Some men might even start to think women are people and it gets even harder to stop.
Which is why he has eliminationist ideas; He needs to wage a genocidal campaign against feminism if his views are to prevail.
If feminists had the goddesslike powers these morons attribute to us, there would not only be no MRM, there would be no MRAs – just little smoking piles of ash from well-aimed thunderbolts.
But seriously – this bloke is just one of many advocating not only violvence, but genocide (because after all any woman can be infected by Teh Feminism and none is trustworthy).
Totally not a hate movement, though. Nooooo, never say such a nasty thing.