So when I was poking around on Roosh’s Return of Kings blog the other day I ran across a guest post from someone calling himself Samseau accusing feminists of using racism to exploit men – that is, of expertly manipulating men of different races to fight one another instead of standing firm against the evil feminists and their evil agenda.
The post, while purporting to be somehow “above” the issue of race, is a muddled mess full of “white men have it worst” nonsense like this:
[R]acial infighting between American men wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the political consequences.
Women, if you haven’t noticed, do not fight with each other over racial conflicts. They might get angry over the past, but they are able to resolve all issues by agreeing on a scapegoat: the white man. Colored women will gladly forgive their white sisters, since, after all, it was the white man who oppressed women and minorities.
White men are the big, bad, evil masters, and as such, all females of different colors can agree to put aside their differences in order to bring the white man down.
Yes, he did indeed use the term “colored women.” Oh, but there’s more.
The election results show that decades of brainwashing young American boys has been an unqualified success. Rather than have boys be loyal to their gender, boys have instead been trained to be loyal to their race.
Little non-white boys at the tender age of 9 years are fed lies about how white male oppressors created their poor living conditions, while white boys are taught that they need to correct the injustices of their forefathers lest they be guilty with the indelible sin of white privilege. Female teachers use the appropriate shaming tactics on these young minds to imprint the intended desire for conflict.
All according to plan.
And more:
Men are pawns in the race game. Thus while American women feed themselves government largesse, jobs, university degrees, their husband’s money, and child support money, American men fight each other over table scraps.
But my favorite thing about this article is the little graph that Mr. Samseau made up to illustrate the REAL issues men face today.
Yep. Race is the least important issue, while “getting laid” is number one.
It’s a pretty revealing little chart, huh?
The comment section for the article – wade into this swamp at your own peril – is (predictably enough) filled with angry racists trying to explain why race really does matter. Others, meanwhile, seem upset that all this racism is getting in the way of the regular woman-bashing. Still others suggest that men of all races needed to understand the “root cause” of all our “multicultural problems.” That being … teh Jews.
My favorite comment of the bunch, though, has to be this, from Caliente, combining an astounding ignorance of history with some half-digested evo psych:
Btw the reason why there are practically no racist women is simple.
Males of mammals are territorial.
They naturally base they identity from bottom up: family,tribe,nation,race.And naturally react negative to males of different “tribe”.
Females at the same time are receptive to have sex with any males as long as they are alpha enough.
In 19 century whites fucked all the black women because they were alpha and they had recourses,just look at Brasil.Nowadays a feminist will be cheating on her white beta herbling with some black fitness coach because that is how her brain assumes alphaness.
Wow.
Glad we got that all settled!
1. Become a feminist.
2. Capture an autistic man.
3. ???
4. Profit!
No, see, if you don’t want to capture him that proves that feminists are eeevil.
Wait, if you do NOT want to capture him?
So trolls have become “gotta catch ’em all” critters?
If you do not want to capture the autistic man that proves that you’re prejudiced against autistic men and that’s the reason you call men creepy. If you do want to capture him then that proves that you want to send him to jail for being “creepy”, which is ladycode for “autistic”. So basically whatever you do it’s because women are evil prejudiced bitches who persecute poor innocent men.
“So basically whatever you do it’s because women are evil prejudiced bitches who persecute poor innocent men.”
Given what these “poor innocent men” are like, I think I win! 😀
But all that persecuting interferes with my time devoted to eating bon bons. 🙁
UGGGGGGHHHHH… Really thats all I have.
Though I have found I tend to have more in common with queer men of colour ( here mostly Maori and Pasifika) than straight white women. But thats yet more intersectionalities!
Should’ve known it was a no win situation and not anything as amusing as pokemon.
Kitteh’s right, in that case, I’m going to go ahead and persecute away (funny thing just now, if you miss the p in persecute, auto correct makes it into else cute)
@kiwigirl
I find the deposits the “nice guys” gave me weren’t things that I wanted. And even if they were (things I wanted) it doesn’t mean I have to have sex with them.
I’m always shocked when I’m in a group of people and guys say things that imply that they think their date/a girl they know is obligated to have sex with them for all the favors.
Our culture needs to change. And soon.
If I’m helping persecute those poor ickle NiceGuys etc, it’s not ‘cos I’m an entitled princess, it’s ‘cos I’m a QUEEN and they’re peasants, and shouting “Help, help, I’m being repressed!” isn’t going to work. 😛
He shoved me, did you see that?! He shoved me!
Okay, that was from memory and probably fudged, but I’m tired (of being repressed 🙂 )
G’night guys!
Niters Argenti! 😀
This is just making me tired.
Y’know, I’ve been to a decent amount of anime cons and run into my share of creeper behaviors. I usually either avoid (easy enough when you travel in a pack as I tend to, due to cosplay), or ask the person politely to stop whatever they’re doing – standing too close, staring, whatever. The few times it’s happened with people I suspect of being on the autism spectrum, they’ve apologized profusely and STOPPED DOING THE BEHAVIOR.
One such gentleman has actually become a good friends since then. What I’d interpreted as him staring at my boobs had actually been him trying to figure out how I’d done a part of my costume. He apologized and explained that was what he’d been doing, apologized again and admitted he tended to get focused on costume details and not realize where on a person he was staring. Nice fellow. And he was very good about not doing it again.
And that, my friends, is how to avoid being creepy, even if you’re on the spectrum and prone to things that might be interpreted as creepy. Be willing to apologize, and DON’T CONTINUE THE BEHAVIOR.
Fatrelle makes no sense. I have a problem with people being assholes. I’ve not noticed that being an asshole makes a distinction between gender, color, etc. Ignorance/stupidity/being an asshole doesn’t discriminate.
I’m so in over my head with this..stuff. It’s not “feminism”, or at least not feminism alone. Much of this, to me, seems to be just human. “we white men will rise up and then you’ll be sorry” is nothing but a vengence fantasy cooked up by someone who feels powerless. When are these men/women/whoever going to learn that the only person that they control is themselves? There’s your power. Stop worrying so much about what other people are doing and get a life of your own.
@Cassandra:
This bit in particular is what set my alarm bells a-ringing:
Om Nom had expressed that (extremely selfish) sentiment about autistic women before, and that’s the only place I’ve ever heard. But, okay, I’ll stop speculating for reals now.
Hey Demarcq, did it occur to you that women on the spectrum are capable of fighting different ways that they are oppressed, all at the same time? As well as the unique ways that their oppressions influence (intersect with) each other? Of course it did. You don’t think that they’re incapable of fighting for their rights as women and as autistic people simultaneously, you just don’t want anyone fighting for their rights as women at all.
…the only place I’ve ever heard it, not the only place I’ve ever heard.
In my defense, it is not quite 6:00 in the morning yet. Also I am super behind my morning schedule and should probably get off Manboobz and into the shower now.
LBT: 5/5, multi, first strike, banding. Tap: Kick arse, draw comics.
(It’s pretty obvious I’m not getting that nerd card back any time soon. Soon we will have to ask: Does he even want it?)
@lowquacks: I LOL’d. It took me a moment to parse your syllables, though.
It’s a whole different level of “issue” (about the norms of the beauty industry in general and not a race issue), but the comment about difficulty finding more than one or two shades of dark foundation brought to mind just how specific type of white skin most foundations and powders are made for. All of the shades most commonly offered are just somewhere between “not too pale” and “not too dark”. You need to have a bit of a tan at least to use them. A super-milky white Scandinavian skin like mine is not an option except in brands specifically made for Scandinavian women (like Lumene). And I’m pretty sure it didn’t use to be like this. I’ve used cosmetics almost 20 years and as a teen I was able to buy foundation from the major brands. But back then the use of self-tanners wasn’t as prevalent and expected as it is now. I think that has affected the sort of shades offered. They’re all orangey, too, to match the selftan colour. More expensive professional brands are the exception, and offer shades for dark and light skins and everything between. But the most popular brands L’oreal, Max Factor, Maybelline, what have you… they’re all selftanner shades.
Squeezing women into one-size-fits-all model. Not only do you need to be white to be pretty in the conventional way, you need to be certain kind of white. And if you happen to be darker we’ll sell you some skin-lighteners to fit in, whilst selling self-tanners for the white folks!
Regarding nice guys, and what makes a guy nice vs Nice TM…
Okay, so I watched the movie Scott Pilgrim vs the World some time ago. I thought it was hilarious and super-entertaining. It still annoyed me a bit, in the back of my head, that it fell into this ancient pattern of not-Hollywood-attractive guy gets Hollywood-attractive girl, only in Scott’s case there were even several of them whom all wanted him. But whatever.
Much later I realised the movie has a way worse problem than that. Scott’s girlfriend Ramona says he’s the nicest guy she’s ever dated, and they add that this is kind of sad. Now, “nicest” is relative, so if all her previous boyfriends had, say, physically and sexually abused her, then I could buy that a) Scott was nicer than all of them, and b) that’s really sad. But the thing is… with most of Ramona’s exes, we don’t learn ANYTHING about them than “they used to date, they used to party a lot, then Ramona got tired of him and dumped him”.
Scott, on the other hand, falls in love with Ramona solely because she’s hot, nags her into dating him while he’s still dating a high school girl whom he isn’t even seriously interested in but strings along anyway while she’s super in love with him, lies to Ramona about high school girl and to high school girl about Ramona. So throughout the movie he acts like a complete arsehole. Going on the information the movie gives us, Scott would be one of the douchiest people she’s dated, not the nicest one.
I THINK we’re supposed to infer though, from the facts that Scott is a) not Hollywood-attractive, and b) geeky, that he’s also nice. That being a non-Hollywood-attractive geek sort of ENTAILS niceness, regardless of your actual actions. And the “that’s sad” just means that it’s sad that Ramona had to wait for so long before she finally met a “nice” guy like Scott.
If I’m correctly interpreting the movie… that’s pretty disturbing. But I sort of get the feeling that it’s not uncommon to have the idea that niceness doesn’t depend on what you actually do; being non-Hollywood-attractive and geeky simply equals nice.
Alright, I think it’s time I come clean: Yes, I am the same person as Monsieur sans Nom. And I have more sox than Imelda Marcos has shoes! 😛
But really people, while I am indeed a troll, just because some poster here expresses views that you don’t agree with does not make them a troll or even an MRA.
On topic-ish (for minimising the experiences of women who suffer creeps and further abusing them), here’s a letter from the New York Times published in 1906, of a woman responding to a man’s claims that men NEVER creepily hit on women on public transport, but if they do, it’s because those women are sluts. It’s a kickass rebuttal, but seriously this shit is over 100 years old. Stop it.
Worst. Reveal. Ever.
“Yep. Race is the least important issue, while “getting laid” is number one”
Indeed it is, for MRA’s. Who would want to fuck an MRA? Nobody, that’s who. That is why getting laid is their number one problem. This graph makes perfect sense.
I thought that it was easy to make locks if you have afro hair, but that white people who want that hair-do has to put all kinds of shit (not necessarily in the literal sense) in their hair? For that reason I’m a bit repelled by people who do locks despite not having afro-hair… I think their locks look filthy, but maybe that’s just me projecting? Any non-afro-hair person here who’s done locks and knows how it works?