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!
Oh and Feministe Indigines.
“Feministe Indigines”?
Maybe you’re trying to talk about “les indigènes de la République”?
Although I like how in about two days there’s been one troll who left and complained because when he came back people were still talking about what he said and one troll who complained because people weren’t still talking about what he said. Women* never can win in an MRA’s eyes, can they?
Brz’s boring little ramblings just sum up the stuff he was talking about earlier – the only correct way to be is to be male and heterosexual, everyone else should try to be like that or they’re wrong.
Because he’s an arsehole.
He also doesn’t seem to understand that him saying ‘these women are the only feminists in France’ is like me saying ‘Hollande is the only socialist in France’. That’s blatantly not true, but he’s the only party member I can think of off the top of my head, so by Brz logic, he is. I mean, Brz, did you even think to google ‘Feminist organisations France’?
Nope, I didn’t mean them, although they have the same roots as far as I can tell.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T PERSONALLY HEARD OF SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN IT DOESN’T EXIST.
“these women are the only feminists in France”
Nope. I’ve just talked about the most famous. Never said that they’re the only ones.
“Brz, did you even think to google ‘Feminist organisations France’”
Why should I do that? I quoted the most famous “les chiennes de garde” and “osez le féminisme”, or when we speak about feminism we should always quote absolutely all the feminist organizations or we are not credible?
I don’t know, but if I was going to take it upon myself comment on the status of any particular political organisations in a country I would think it would help to have heard of more than two of them.
It’s like me trying to tell everyone about the concerns and organisation of agricultural workers in the UK despite having only heard of the National Farmer’s Union.
If you don’t know anything about a subject, how can you pass judgement, you fucking idiot?
“JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVEN’T PERSONALLY HEARD OF SOMETHING DOESN’T MEAN IT DOESN’T EXIST.”
Hey easy, keep it cool… You’ve just spelled it wrongly that’s “les féministes indigènes” and yes they are related with the MIR.
That wasn’t to denote shouting, it was to denote speaking clearly and slowly because you’re too much of an ignorant fool to understand anything else.
“don’t know, but if I was going to take it upon myself comment on the status of any particular political organisations in a country I would think it would help to have heard of more than two of them.”
Who say that I only know these two? I’ve just spoken about these two…
“If you don’t know anything about a subject, how can you pass judgement, you fucking idiot?”
Yeah, yeah, I know the story “you’re not a student in women’s studies, you haven’t learned all the different gospels of feminism, so you can’t speak about feminism”
If it’s not a fucking religious attitude, I don’t know anything.
You are speaking as if you know something about a subject. You don’t know anything about the subject. You are incredibly dim. It’s not about ‘gospel’ or ‘believing’, it’s about doing some research before you take a position on something.
You idiotic, pretentious, disingenuous little fucking trollstain.
I think if i would talk about the “front national” or in more general way talking about the far right, everybody will allow me to do this without knowing ALL the far right parties, or ALL the program of the organization, just by talking about the few important measures they propose, the important things they talk about.
But I can’t talk about feminism in France by quoting the two feminism organizations who had gained famed the last 20 years and talk about the few important points they tried to make, no, I have to talk about ALL the feminism organizations, even the minuscule “féministes indigènes” which is part of the minuscule “parti des indigènes de la République”, which is not even a normal French feminist group, but a feminist group which addresses to the people from the immigration, especially muslim people and which praises a kind of “muslim feminism”.
Yeah, by not speaking about this group, I’m really SO dim.
I was going to use the far right as an example of an ideology I disagree with and so research to make my counter-arguments. But you weren’t doing that. You claimed there are hardly any feminists in France, because you haven’t done any research. Which is like me claiming, for example, that there are no far-right groups in England when they clearly are. That’s the problem, for fuck’s sake.
“You claimed there are hardly any feminists in France”
I haven’t claimed that.
Before saying that I haven’t done any research, try to read me, use your brain a little and memorize.
You’d begun by giving name of three organizations I had supposedly not talked about when… In fact, I had talked about “osez le féminisme”, I didn’t talked about “Femen” because they wasn’t part of the feminism I wanted to talk about and I didn’t talked about “femmes indigènes” because they’re unknown.
For fuck’s sake, if you want to contradict and insult me, at least, do it correctly : read me.
“I was going to use the far right as an example of an ideology I disagree with and so research to make my counter-arguments. But you weren’t doing that.”
And who said that I was trying to write a piece to counter feminism?
I wrote a comment to talk a little bit, just like that, about the feminists who marked my childhood, we gained in famed and a effect they had in the constitution of the soft dictatorship in my country.
Didn’t wrote an god damn fucking essay on The Feminism, you troll.
Damn, you trolled me. You bad faith and negligence have made me angry.
I spend an hour wishing Reid wasn’t a character because he clearly needs a hug, and come back to this! (Season 3 episode 16, the baddie of the week is a bullied high schooler which has Reid identifying with the kid and explaining why and yeah, been there)
Brz — yep, cats and chocolate, try the other active thread if you’d prefer dogs, fish and other assorted critters.
“Virginie Despentes is a crazy neurotic lesbian bitch but she’s a punk writer with a damn good writing style. She wrote lately a long well written rant-article addressed to heterosexuals in general, There is a lack of literary ranting in France these days.”
Oh, never mind, my crazy bi/pan/whatever-I-don’t-care-wtf-your-dangly-bits-are genderqueer ass clearly doesn’t have a voice in this conversation.
Hmm? Yeah, guess who’s the n00b here Brz? That’d be you! So then, wtf is with praising a rant addressed to heterosexuals, presumably about homophobia, given the context, while using homophobic slurs?
Actually, seriously, go see the other thread, and read the previous page or two. We already did “why not to use ‘crazy’ as a slur because of wtf that means for mentally ill people” (psych drugs are crunchy and good with ketchup, if by ketchup I actually mean vitamin water)
“…a hilarious campaign for “affirming that women sexualities are various, are lived outside of procreation and are not necessarily complementary of the male gender”, yeah! Death to the heterosexual order”
*sigh* this again? We already established that my sexuality doesn’t require a dick, so there’s that half of this BS. As for the other half, oh hey all you heterosexually partnered commenters, I apparently want you dead, or something. Try using your senses, starting with vision, both on and offline; then work in some logic, non-heterosexuals generally don’t give two shits about the existance of heterosexuals, we’d just like y’all to give us the same benign disinterest, thank you very much.
“hallucinated dumb chipmunk”
Aww, more slurs against the mentally ill? U MAD?
“But to five anti-racist organizations (mostly Jew anti-racist organizations)”
And anti-Semitism to finish off this hate laced case of TL;DR
“Damn, you trolled me. You bad faith and negligence have made me angry.”
Ableism, sexist slurs, homophobia, anti-semitism and ALL THE IRONY. Well aren’t you just a bastion of good will!
That Criminal Mds I just finished? The serial killer had more reason and honesty than you do — killing your high school bullies is most certainly wrong, but the trigger is understandable enough (and I’m with Reid, I can sympathize with the kid) — you? You spew hate upon people you don’t actually know, who’ve done nothing whatsoever to you, and for no apparent reason at all.
I realize the other thread is the one with fish, but y’all might be amused to know that I’ve got 6 cories and a tiny clown loach playing in the corner nearest me (and plec eating breakfast and thus the danios freaking out) — busy in the 55g currently!
What is it about anti-feminism and “baww I have to follow laws” anti-statism that makes them so likely to spew from the same person? If I had a nickel for every libertarian on r/mensrights or AVFM who thinks feminism and “big government” are the same problem, I’d be able to join the elitist corporatocracy.
Can we get an IP check actually? The likely fake errors, the particular grammar fails, the increased failure once it was mentioned, the various -isms, and this “You are wasting your time here” — this one smells of a particularly creepy sock.
Wait, I thought deliberately making people angry was going to make society better and happier?
Yeah, I’m the troll for answering someone else who pointed out you hadn’t mentioned many contemporary feminist groups but instead just named some public figures with feminist leanings and called them ‘dumb’ and other names without actually engaging with them. You know, after you turned up in a space purely to piss off regular members of the site by going on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how much of a massive racist, sexist, homophobic asshole you are like it was praiseworthy.
Brz: TL;DR, fuck off.
Why do our trolls read like a poorly translated appliance manual?
Even if that’s just a coincidental ‘vile,’ I loled.
(for those wondering why, because that well is poisoned, that’s why–you can’t use the word vile without laughing, I bet. Try saying it in real life, see how it sounds!)
Gooses, ganders, all that? Like everything else, even the hint that he might get treated the way he’s treated others has him calling foul. Which is the basis for the whole MRA thing in the first place, right?