Categories
a voice for men antifeminism armageddon ghosts I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy your time will come

High on a hill was a lonely fem-herd

Over on A Voice for Men, the paramount meeting place for the brave warriors of the Leading Human Rights Movement of the 21st Century, a commenter calling himself Laddition has some uncharacteristically kind words to say about feminists (in this thread). Well, “kind” may not be the right word for it. But Laddition tells us that as awful as the awful feminists are, they’re not quite as bad as are … the rest of the world’s women. Sorry, the “rest of the fem-herd.” He explains:

 

 

 

Naturally, the readers of A Voice for Men greeted these pearls of wisdom with upvotes.

Oh, and while we’re on the topic, can someone explain GirlWritesWhat and TyphonBlue and the rest of AVFM’s little FemMRA, er, herd to me again? What exactly draws women to hang out with, and make 45 minute-long videos on the behalf of, dudes who not only hate women but who offer new proof of this hatred on a daily basis?

 

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

303 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

BTW I’m not sniping at a preference for people you consider intelligent in general – people are entitled to have whatever sexual preferences they please. It’s the specific way that “sapiosexual” as an identity is being constructed that I think is sketchy.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
7 years ago

Okay, I had a brain fart. I read ‘sapiosexual’ and started thinking of being attracted to sapient pearwood, which would be dangerous to say the least.

hrovitnir
hrovitnir
7 years ago

The “sapiosexual” discussion is interesting. I like labels, I have given myself a bunch that I mostly hold close to myself because they are important to me, but so irrelevant most of the time. But sapiosexual seemed… wrong… to me too.

But sapiophillic (or something denoting intellectualism/simple passion for critical thinking rather than just sapience) is awesome. I am horribly attracted to such things – when I was in the Naval Reserve I had a guy in the Airforce tell me at a pub, embarrassed, that his thesis had been on mating habits of sea cucumbers. I was sooo turned on. Obviously he communicated well as well but a higher education in obscure topics in biology? *swoon*

Kakanian
Kakanian
7 years ago

@CassandraSays

I can understand that and I am more careful to always cut away from my body when peeling oranges and such. But I think it’s a calculable risk with onions and other vegetables, granted that you’re guiding the knife along the back of your fingers like you’d do with a nakiri or any other wide knife. I just sort of like the additional weight they bring to the chopping board. Makes cutting a bit more effortelessly.

Creative Writing Student
Creative Writing Student
7 years ago

@hrovitnr

You’re not the only one. I get very aroused and swoon-y around my boyfriend when he does complicated mental arithmatic. (Also, god help him if he ever gets a postgraduate degree because for some reason that would be very, very hot.)

I don’t immediately go “brains! *swoon*” but if that person is someone I like and am attracted to already, then “brains? mmm, sexy…”

I have a similar relationship with long hair on men.

OTOH, I’ve never thought of it as an inherant part of my sexuality, just an interest and preference. ‘Sapiosexual’ just sounds pretentious.

inurashii
inurashii
7 years ago

I think part of what tweaked me about the ‘sapiosexual’ thing is that, well, I live in the Boston area. There’s a lot of casual racism and classism committed by liberal intellectuals here, and I’ve become hypersensitive to anything that smells of it. ‘Sapiosexual’ is such an example, for reasons that CassandraSaid very well.

burgundy
burgundy
7 years ago

This discussion of ‘sapiosexuality’ is really interesting to me, because the only person I’ve known who uses the word regularly is someone who explicitly identifies as not sapiosexual. For her, pants feelings are based on physical hotness, and while she can be impressed by how smart someone is, it doesn’t do anything for how sexy she thinks they are. (Which is not to say that the people she dates are stupid. Just that intelligence in and of itself does not produce the cartoon eyes-popping, jaw-dropping response that physical stuff does.)

I’ve had both reactions – some people are, physically, just amazingly hot. And some people are sexily smart. But my exposure to ‘sapiosexual’ as a term has been basically non-judgmental of other sexual approaches, and you all are bringing up really good points that are making me think about it in different ways.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

I have NEVER heard of sapiosexual before. Huh. Not a big fan, but that’s because I find the concept of ‘intelligence’ in general kinda useless. I wish it’d go away.

But this is beside the point. The IMPORTANT thing is David banned Thermos before I could find out whether JB returned the affections! I AM SO SADDENED BY THIS. 🙁

C’mon, Judgy, did you like Thermos? This is very important to me.

hrovitnir
hrovitnir
7 years ago

Creative Writing Student
You’re not the only one. I get very aroused and swoon-y around my boyfriend when he does complicated mental arithmatic. (Also, god help him if he ever gets a postgraduate degree because for some reason that would be very, very hot.)

I don’t immediately go “brains! *swoon*” but if that person is someone I like and am attracted to already, then “brains? mmm, sexy…”

I have a similar relationship with long hair on men.

OTOH, I’ve never thought of it as an inherant part of my sexuality, just an interest and preference. ‘Sapiosexual’ just sounds pretentious.

Precisely! On all points.

inurashii
I think part of what tweaked me about the ‘sapiosexual’ thing is that, well, I live in the Boston area. There’s a lot of casual racism and classism committed by liberal intellectuals here, and I’ve become hypersensitive to anything that smells of it. ‘Sapiosexual’ is such an example, for reasons that CassandraSaid very well.

Yeah, pretty much. Outside of any context it’s interesting, but based in reality I can’t see any way it’s not going to be classist as all hell.

judgybitch
7 years ago

@LBT

Sorry, I didn’t really notice Thermos. Warm and insulated, I assume? I’m married.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

I’m now amusing myself with the idea of calling myself long-haired-sexual. It makes more sense than “sapiosexual” in that at least it’s a clear and specific description that isn’t prone to all kinds of potential biases – someone’s hair is either long or it isn’t. Though we might then need a new category for people attracted only to men whose hair is sort of in between short and shoulder length.

LBT
LBT
7 years ago

RE: Judgy

Aw man, you know what this means? YOU SUNK MY BATTLESHIP! I’m so depressed.

Also congrats on your happy union.

RE: CassandraSays

*snrk* Hubby’s hair’s reaching shoulder length… I like it, but I dunno enough to append it to my (already clunky) orientation labels.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Also, can I call myself pretty-sexual? Because I’m pretty attracted to pretty people of all genders. The term “pretty” is kind of on a par with “intelligent” in terms of how subjective and influenced by biases it is.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

I know as feminists you’re all superhappy to pursue a policy of silencing / marginalising / ignoring men’s voices, and instead putting words into their mouths / assuming men’s motivations.

Oddly enough, I’ve gotten so used to it, I almost forgot. It’s just how it is. Meh.

And then – Futrelle goes and does the exact same thing to Girlwriteswhat and Typhonblue and my residual internal feminist (the blue pill wears off by degrees) was outraged!

“HOW DARE YOU MINIMISE AND SILENCE WOMEN’S VOICES!!”

Here’s an idea – if you want to know what Girlwriteswhat and Typhonblue’s motivation is – WHY DON’T YOU ASK THEM!?
or, even read / watch their output, where they have explained their motivations more than once (even I’ve come across it from my cursory intake of their stuff).

Oh wait, it was just a rhetorical set-up for more circle jerk snark. Hypocrites.

I also noticed that on this, oh, so PC blog, that NOT ONE OF YOU called out this gender-shaming BS!

[quote]Sweet Dreams 893 | November 16, 2012 at 7:54 am

Also…I’m not convinced that GWW is actually a girl.[/quote]

^Congrats, Manboobzers on showing your true colours.
i.e. petty dogmatic political tribalism.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

So what you’re saying, Joe, is that you can’t read when you’re in a snit, and that’s how you missed the comment in which someone did explicitly call Sweet Dreams out.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Joe, shut up, and take your faux outrage with you on your way out.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

Oh, ok, you did call Sweet Dreams out on that? Jolly good.
No, I certainly won’t go back and re-read pages and pages and pages of verbiage. I’ll just take your word for it.

The rest of my post still stands.

Hell, Futrelle, here’s an idea: why not EMAIL GWW and Typhonblue and ASK them.
It’s a radical suggestion I know.

Of course, that would assume you had ANY genuine interest at all in their motivations.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

I feel like GWWs response might be a bit like this, but with “MRA” subbing in for “Christian”.

katz
7 years ago

I know as feminists you’re all superhappy to pursue a policy of silencing / marginalising / ignoring men’s voices, and instead putting words into their mouths / assuming men’s motivations.

Yes, the horrific problem of the silencing of men. That’s why they are so underrepresented in print and on TV.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@katz – oh there’s lots of men *there* but they’re only permitted to put forward a very limited set of opinions, pre-approved by the Assholes In Charge and run through the PC filter.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Yeah, a blog run by a guy and that has quite a few male commentators is TOTALLY all about silencing the men.

princessbonbon
7 years ago

@katz – oh there’s lots of men *there* but they’re only permitted to put forward a very limited set of opinions, pre-approved by the Assholes In Charge and run through the PC filter.

So what you are saying is, you want to move to Athos.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@hellkell – You do struggle with the whole “irony” and “sarcasm” thing.

I expect you even sing along to that one song by Alanis Morrisette without cringing at all the non sequiteurs..

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Joe, you’ve just proven that you DON’T understand sarcasm.

princessbonbon
7 years ago

*takes Joe’s bottles of alcohol away*

Okay munchkin, you have had enough.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

But that’s OK, because our trolls are stupid fuckers, you fit right in.

katz
7 years ago

*pretentious voice* As a troll connoisseur, note the difference between Tom and Joe. Both have short, Caucasian male names, however their trolling styles vary widely. Tom uses a focused approach, posting many long comments in a single thread over the course of several days. Joe, however, favors the scattershot approach, filling every possible thread with a quick succession of short, stupid posts.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@hellkell – No, not at all. You’re just wrong.

You’re wrong because: you actually, sincerely believe that a blog run by a dedicated feminist along dogmatic lines – with an echo chamber audience of commenters – somehow encompasses legit expression of men’s voices.

You and the Flat Earthers. Together! In Wrongness!

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@Futrelle – so how about it?

Are you going to ASK GWW and Typhonblue what their motivations are?

Or are you going to admit it was all just a lame set-up for a circle-jerk snark?

Pick a door.

princessbonbon
7 years ago

You’re wrong because: you actually, sincerely believe that a blog run by a dedicated feminist along dogmatic lines – with an echo chamber audience of commenters – somehow encompasses legit expression of men’s voices.

In other words, unless these men adhere strictly to what you consider to be proper thoughts about men, they are not men and therefore have no right to speak of their beliefs and issues facing men.

Fuck you.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
7 years ago

Wow. I used to be able to get this drunk, but as I get older I find I get sleepy before I get incoherent. C’est la-vie.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@Princessbonbon –

Apparently you live in a paralell universe where unicorns fart rainbows and this blog somehow, magically involves serious, constructive discussion of “issues facing men”.

Meanwhile, in the real world, this entire blog exists to mock, stifle and silence any discussion of “issues facing men”.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
7 years ago

Me, too, Sir Bodsworth, me too. I can’t drunk-comment at people I hate like our friend Joe because by the time I get to that point in the evening I’m in cuddle up with friends and take a nap mode.

Actually I like my way better.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Meanwhile, in the real world, this entire blog exists to mock, stifle and silence any discussion of “issues facing men”.

Wrong, dipshit. This blog mocks misogyny. Last I checked, misogyny was not an issue facing men.

princessbonbon
7 years ago

Meanwhile, in the real world, this entire blog exists to mock, stifle and silence any discussion of “issues facing men”.

The hell it does.

It exists to make fun of people who hate women as mockery is all they deserve.

Those men who do comment here who do not slavishly adhere to what you think they should adhere to, you have said have no right to speak because they do not do so.

Who is silencing men now? David, who lets trolls like you blather far longer than any other site would countenance, or you, who demands that only men who agree with you may speak about issues men face.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
7 years ago

LOL Joe’s been to BoringSchtick’s school of This Blog Doesn’t Talk About What I Want It To!

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@Kitteh’s – Another non sequiteur.

Nah. This Blog Doesn’t Talk About What Hellkell and Princessbonbon believe it does in their magic garden of rainbow farting unicorns.

Do try to keep up.

@Princessbonbon – there are oodles of women out there all over the internet and TV etc. who hate men. Do you pour your mockery out on them too? Or are you a sexist?

princessbonbon
7 years ago

@Princessbonbon – there are oodles of women out there all over the internet and TV etc. who hate men. Do you pour your mockery out on them too? Or are you a sexist?

Actually I usually tell them to knock it off.

hellkell
hellkell
7 years ago

Joe, since you care so much about men’s issues (you posted on FACEBOOK, gawd, the level of caring and activism is off the charts)), why aren’t you at a men’s issues blog?

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
7 years ago

Joe, do sober up dear. Have a coffee or something. This site exists to mock misogyny. Look, it says so, right up there at the top of this page. “Misogyny. I mock it.” Surely that’s not too difficult for even you to understand. At least, it’d be nice to think so, but you’re as willfully obtuse as most of the wahh-talk-about-menz trolls we get here.

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@Princessbonbon – It will, no doubt, astonish you to know, that I often DISAGREE with stuff by many, many authors I’ve read on: AvFM, Spearhead and the Good Men Project*.

All of those^ sites sometimes carry legit discussion of issues affecting men, and even where the discussion wanders very, very, very far away from my POV** – there is at least this redeeming feature that most of those sites have in common:
on the whole discussion tends to start from the POV that men and men’s issues are actually WORTH talking about seriously! (shock!) and tends to follow the issue, and doesn’t too often get derailed into endless ad hominems, logical fallacies and non sequiteurs.
In stark contrast to Manboobzdom.

*Yes, I know it was started by feminists, and has feminist contributors, but I’ve still found there’s some worthwhile content there / linked from there
**Yes, there IS an awful lot of misogyny out there! Just as there is misandry, pretty much everywhere too!

katz
7 years ago

there are oodles of women out there all over the internet and TV etc. who hate men.

Oodles, I tell you! OODLES! Do you have any idea how many an oodle is?

princessbonbon
7 years ago

I would believe it Joe if you were over there telling them hey now stop talking about women, start talking about men’s issues and how do we fix them.

But that is not what you do.

What you do is come over here and complain that we mock them for being misogynistic assholes because you know they will not listen to you if you were in fact interested in stopping their never ending hate on for half the human race.

And apparently you also hate all the derails into kittens and food. Which means you are also tasteless.

katz
7 years ago

oodleoodleoodleoodle

katz
7 years ago

OK, I’m done.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
7 years ago

One Imperial oodle = 2.34 metric buttloads.
I’m not sure how US customary oddles fit into this; and then there are fluid oodles and troy oodles, but they’re specialised measures that need not concern us here.

The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
The Kittehs' Unpaid Help
7 years ago

Trying to convert oodles into metric?
VILE VILE VILE

The First Joe
The First Joe
7 years ago

@bonbon – except that’s not what I complained about at all. Now you’re just making shit up. Weakass.

I mean, the conversation is archived, all you have to do is scroll back a page or two.

Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III
7 years ago

Well, it’s been twenty minutes. Reckon he’s passed out yet?