There are many, many, many reasons why the Men’s Rights movement is not now, and I suspect never will be, ready for prime time. One of these reasons is that even when MRAs are doing their best to wax eloquent, in the fanciest language they can muster, about the urgent need for men to save civilization from the degradations of feminism and cultural Marxism and whatever by saying even more bad things about women, they just can’t keep themselves from using phrases like “pussy pass.”
Case in point, this little mini-manifesto, taken from a recent post by “BC Dad” on The Spearhead with the almost Maoist title “On The Urgent Necessity of Criticizing Women.” (As usual, I have edited out some of the redundancies because, holy crap, these guys are long-winded.) Take it away, Daddy-o:
Accurate, pointed and realistic public criticism of female behavior is thus long overdue; co-operation with the pussy pass, cultural Marxism and the politically correct goal of equal outcomes renders the female of our species free to continue and escalate her destructive, irrational and abusive behavior without hindrance.
Well, even aside from “pussy pass,” THAT was quite an exhausting sentence now, wasn’t it. Let’s catch our breath for a moment before continuing.
Rather than obligating women to raise their intellectual, ethical and behavioral standards, society has chosen instead to embrace, with all the religious fervor of an Inquisition, a false image of reality – shiny happy victims holding hands with government – which in the long term can benefit no one. This allegiance to the false idols of feminism has led directly, since the 1970’s in particular, to the loss of basic human rights and freedoms … a loss which impacts men most profoundly.
Are you sitting down? Good. Because Dad here is about to use the phrase “evolutionary value of the pussy pass.” No, really:
Looking past the obvious evolutionary value of the pussy pass, there is little purpose in cooperating with and maintaining the fraud, and to do so will lead inexorably, in this era of virtually omnipotent governance and bureaucracy (the ‘new patriarchy,’ created, just like the old one, for women at their own behest), to the ever-escalating abuse of men and children, up to and including the potential for societal collapse.
Yes, he did just say that the “old patriarchy” was set up by women and for the benefit of women. And that there’s a new woman-centric-patriarchy that’s been set up in the same way. Apparently on The Spearhead, these delusions are so widely shared that BC Dad feels comfortable referring to them in a parenthetical aside, assuming that none of his readers will stop short and say,”woah, daddy-o, what the hell are you talking about there? I mean, I hate the ladies too but I’m pretty sure they’re not the ones making sure all the popes are dudes.”
This path will undoubtedly see the regression of society into a quasi-Victorian state, one in which the bulk of men are so heavily constrained and alienated that they lose all desire to participate in the social venture. Signs of such a zeitgeist can be seen in many countries already.
Absolutely. Take a look at this photolithograph of some quasi-Victorian ruffians in contemporary, er, Switzerland, clearly alienated from society and taking refuge in silly hats and walking sticks and the growing of oversized sideburns.
BC Dad continues:
As well, if the escalation of destructive female behavior continues, blowback from young men in particular will be increasingly prevalent, whereby outright disdain for females becomes both a descriptor of and a motivator for the new generation of men: there are numerous blogs out there which speak clearly to this possibility, as many people are aware.
And now we come to the predictable “you ladies better watch out before you get what’s coming to you” portion of the manifesto.
The obvious contempt towards women displayed by certain commentators would seem to be well-earned, and it does not bode well for females.
Humanity will undoubtedly survive, though with much unnecessary suffering, but it is incumbent upon rational men (and women) to speak truth, to expose the great gender lie. In addition to refusing compliance with a false reality, this most definitely includes pointing the accusatory fingers of reason and culpability directly at women, a task which can no longer be shirked.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the accusatory fingers of blaminess have been pointed directly at women pretty much since cave dudes figured out how to point their fingers in the first place.
Naturally, the Spearhead’s commenters lapped this all up happily — and took the argument a few steps further.
“IMO, ensuring the extinction of this warped and rotting society is THE most mature and responsible action today’s western male can take,” GT66 argued.
TFH, for his part, seemed to suggest that some sort of authoritarian “solution” was the inevitable next step:
Extreme feminism is inseparable from democracy.
Women use the right to vote to warp entire societies to make everything secondary to the whims of women, and to divert all resources to women and all costs to men and children.
Democracy ends as a result, one way or the other.
Ulick McGee, meanwhile, delivered up a manifesto of his own, which included such highlights as:
The most basic problem is the sexual free market. Male Demand for casual sex is unlimited and women control Supply. ….
We can’t beat the current pro-female, anti-male system through logical argument or political action, just like Communists could not get the “exploited” worker to rise up in the West. Thirsty Simps will never stop pedestalings sluts. The Elites won’t stop the party. Young women won’t start lusting over nice guys. Human Nature in the absence of nuclear incentives to the contrary will continue the current trend of Dykeland Uber Alles.
There’s a bunch more to Mr. McGee’s manifesto. Most of it makes even less sense than that.
Darryl X, not to be outdone in the manifestoing department, delivered up a 29-point program, which included the following news updates from Planet MRA:
FEMINISM IS THE PRIMARY MECHANISM BY WHICH WORKING MEN ARE ENSLAVED, RESPONSIBLE MEN ARE IMPOVERISHED, INNOCENT MEN ARE IMPRISONED, INFIRM MEN ARE DENIED HEALTH CARE, POTENTIAL SCHOLARS ARE DENIED EDUCATIONS, PERSECUTED MEN ARE DENIED PASSPORTS AND FREE MEN ARE KILLED
1/29 States, family courts and their officers, representatives of the Divorce Industry, feminists and others encourage mothers and other women to make false allegations of domestic violence, rape and child abuse against men and then divorce them …
17/29 Because of child support and Title IX and other developments, men have no incentive to pursue and are precluded from educations and the ratio of men to women at university presently approximates 2:3 …
21/29 Women get paid more and consume approximately 85% of resources as concluded by many marketing and government studies and men are sent to die in endless wars to satisfy that excessive consumption
22/29 The government wants women fighting in combat because it knows they can be more easily manipulated than men to kill their own citizens and even men in their own ranks (just look at how good the government has been at destroying families and fathers and children by paying mothers, other women and feminists to do it) …
24/29 The feminist police state metastasizes, men are without incentive to work and are actually punished for it, women don’t work despite excessive entitlements, our infrastructure falls apart, and the economy collapses
25/29 Our government doesn’t just fail to compensate men for their labor but actively punishes them while it doesn’t just fail to punish women for egregious criminal behavior but actively rewards them
26/29 Any economic recovery is nothing but the involuntary sacrifice of the lives of men and the transfer of their wealth to women and feminists in exchange for absolute power and control which corrupts absolutely …
28/29 Women have always been the most privileged population in the US
29/29 Feminism is a hate movement which can be stopped only by force
Huh. So I guess some Spearheaders have a little trouble telling the difference between “criticizing” women and “threatening” them.
Maybe they think there isn’t enough of “accurate, pointed and realistic” criticism of female behaviour? I mean, I totally agree that most of the shaming of women going on, on the internet as well as irl, is NOT “accurate, pointed and realistic”, but rather inaccurate, sweeping and unrealistic. I have no problem with EITHER gender being criticized for things they do as long as it’s “accurate, pointed and realistic”.
(Sometimes it’s just fun to take an MRA quote out of context in order to make it seem reasonable.)
is it just my imagination / paranoia, or does it seem like there has been an uptick in the violence of their rhetoric? It seems like almost every post of this nature ends with advocating force to subdue women. Maybe I’m just starting to notice it more?
“cultural Marxism”
-________________-
It’s no surprise that an MRA dipshit used one of the dumbest terms coined by social conservatives.
IMO, they’ve always been violent assholes. They’re just more visible now.
La Strega, I’ve noticed that too, though I haven’t been following the ManBlogHumanRightsExceptForTheGirlsBecauseWeHateThemosphere for as long as some, it could just be that I’m more aware of it now than I was a year ago.
Recently someone who was a good friend (one of the groomsmen at my wedding, in fact), posted a bizarre screed on facebook about the evils of feminism and women in general. He was always a bit of an odd duck who was given to paranoia and conspiracy theories, but I think his wife leaving him (for OMG good reasons, it turns out) pushed him right off the deep end. Now he seems to be spending his time working out, hating Feminists, and plotting the day that only the Good Women (ones without university educations, his ex-wife is a highly educated scientist with a pair of PhDs) are left to serve the needs of Men. I realise that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with this post…I guess I’m just saying that I’m noticing the hate a whole lot more, and in places where I don’t really expect it.
Just yesterday I attempted to go out and hang out with some atheists at a meetup. One of the guys there was arguing against women’s suffrage because apparently government always gets bigger afterwards. He defined moral decay as a bigger government. Yes, the libertarian was arguing against suffrage.
My brother and I argued with him until we finally got tired of it. Same guy also seemed to believe he always had to prove how macho he was. Later he felt the need to punctuate a point by stabbing the table with his knife.
I was happy to show my brother proof such people really do exist.
It’s because feminism is female supremacy of amazonian lesbians. (Dun Dun Dun).
CriticalDragon – Chances are very much against it. None of them want to do the actual work involved with activism. I mean, look at the OP: his idea of activism is to criticize women more.
Every time they hold a rally, no one shows up. Every time someone points out some issue that really does affect men more than women and suggests something they could do about it, they find some reason not to (usually while whining “if feminists were really for equal rights, they’d take care of it for us). You can’t be a “movement” if you don’t want to move.
Another part of their problem is that they’re pathetic not just by our standards, but by those of the old-school patriarchy. There are a lot of people willing to join in a nice, rousing chant of “women suck”, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to agree with the MRA’s stated goals. Take child support payments: MRA’s consider them to be either a trap set by baby-hungry sperm-burgling women, or a particularly misandrist aspect of the misandrist divorce industry. They believe that if a man doesn’t want, or doesn’t have custody of, any children he may have sired, he shouldn’t have to pay for them. Of course, that still leaves a child to feed, and most mainstream right-wingers would rather that money came from the child’s father than the government.
Hi all, been a while since I popped in. Life got busy, you know how it is. And frankly, reading here gets a bit overwhelmingly depressing at times. Today’s post is no different, but I’m in a better frame of mind.
I see in this post that BC Dad knows nothing about the Victorians, who were not really as repressed as they seemed on the surface, nor had they lost “all desire to participate in the social venture”. I’m really not sure what BC Dad means by “social venture”, but I’ll guess he means men and women getting together to have sex and make babies. The Victorians managed that quite well, actually.
TFH clearly knows nothing about democracy or it’s history. Or, indeed, quite how democracy actually works. Or, indeed, how recent women’s right to vote actually is. In Ancient Rome, women could own property but could not vote or hold political office. In Ancient Greece, women in some areas could own property, but nowhere could women vote or hold political office. I seem to recall that Ancient Rome and Greece are the birthplace of what we currently call democracy, but hey. I’m just a woman, what do I know?
McGee derails back to the classic “Why doesn’t anyone want to fuck me?!” whining and of course, this is the fault of an entire half of the world’s population which, clearly, owes him sex. Clearly my choice to be currently celibate is depriving many deserving men of the sex they should be getting. Funny, my male co-workers haven’t been complaining and I can’t remember the last time someone actually hit on me. Oh no, wait…I am slightly overweight and therefore either don’t actually qualify as female or I’m letting down my entire gender by not striving to be either a Donna Reed-esque fucktoy or a supermodel-esque fucktoy. My bad.
DarrylX…I don’t know where he gets his figures and info, but I’m guessing he pulls them right out of his own overheated, paranoiac imagination.
On other, happier, subjects: Hey Kitteh, did you ever get those Hand-Eze gloves? Am I right in remembering that you were going to order a pair?
THIS is a pussy pass:
I just had to find that because the stupidity is almost painful.
@Aaliyah – I don’t know WTF their definition of cultural marxism is, but I find it hysterical that they can criticize it and then go ranting on about how the “sexual marketplace” is unfair because (supposedly) a few of the men get most of the women. So redistribution of money is bad but forcefully redistributing women would be good?
I know their ideas are crap, sometimes I just wish it was at least consistent crap.
That doesn’t surprise me at all. There seem to be a few strains of libertarianism which are highly authoritarian, and many seem to prefer a do-nothing dictator over any sort of collectivist or inclusive democracy.
Okay, wait, let me sum up.
1) Women shouldn’t vote!
2) We should take the right to vote back from them by force!
3) … feminism is so violent, and tramples our rights.
I’m all like, if you were writing a text-book example of Projection, would you make it this flimsy and paper-thin? Or would you try to make it more subtle?
G’day Ellex, how ya been (apart from busy)? 🙂
Yup, I got a Hand-Eze (just one, it’s only my left hand gives me gyp occasionally). I like it a lot. Might be wearing it today – between knitting and spending about four hours doing this pic last night, my hand’s a bit achey. If I were an MRA I’d probably blame 3.5 billion people for that, somehow. 😛
Speaking of whom, what the heck is “the SFM”? I read it and thought Slying Fpaghetti Monster.
I wonder if “BC Dad” is the (ex-)car dealership dude? Speculations.
oops, didn’t end my blockquote I guess (I thought I did).
It ends after the first paragraph, the rest is me (starting with “At last”)!
I am going to indulge in a fantasy where a giant (and I do mean GIANT) cheese wheel rolls over all of these whiners because after all, you eat cheese with whine right?
Because otherwise I would get really depressed at being so hated for having the nerve to do things like exist. And annoyed that there is this “escalation of destructive female behavior continues…” with zero proof other than Assfax.
I read it that way, too. But it’s actually a PUA acronym for “sexual free market”. It’s like mixing some Thomas Paine with Roosh, and getting total crap (but what would you expect, since anything + Roosh=crap).
This may be relevant to folks’ interests.
Why do men keep putting me in the girlfriend zone?
Holy fuck those comments are stupid. Apparently most people there think that someone pretending to be a friend in order to be in a relationship/have sex with another person is totally okay.
This is actually kind of refreshing. Everyone talks about the apocalypse like it’s going to be Mad Max, with leather fetish gear and motorcycles. BC Dad, on the other hand, has the vision to forecast a dandy fop apocalypse in which men are very concerned about their top hats and the Queen. It’s charming, really.
Anyways, I’ve noticed that, according to these guys, women are irrational and whimsical but are also adept at setting up massive and endurig social institutions. Maybe that’s why the MRM is so irrational and emotional: they’re just trying to copy what they see as the enormous success of women in the field of organizational management.
Something to think about while getting one’s top hat shined, old sport.
Filing “evolutionary value of the pussy pass” under “Potential Dissertation Subjects.”
“The most basic problem is the sexual free market. Male Demand for casual sex is unlimited and women control Supply.”
I don’t think I want to know how he intends to fix this >.<
And yes, some dudes not getting laid as much as they would like, is surely the most basic problem the world is facing today.
Also – am I the only one finding a contradiction between “obvious evolutionary value of the pussy pass” and “young women won’t start lusting over nice guys”?
(TW – rape)
One would assume that the pussy pass is possible because of “nice guys”. So if nice guys pussy passing young attractive women are at an advantage to pass on their genes, how the hell can that equate “young women won’t start lusting over nice guys”? Maybe they mean with a “nice, respectful and polite rape”? Seriously. I know (or hope, anyway) they don’t actually mean that, but cognitive dissonance is a f*cker.
The “women control supply” thing – it’s really telling of their mentality that they believe sex is a thing women have and men “buy”.
I was in a relationship where I wanted more sex that the guy did. What did I do to fuck up quantity demanded? I even reduced the price from “free” to “I cooked you a wonderful supper, would you like to have sex? No? Ok, I’m happy to eat this amazing food with you and love you.” And quantity demanded did not rise! He just kept the interest rate really low. Maybe a change in technology could have increased the sexual equilibrium. What about the nice-unemployment rate? Maybe I could have maximized my input factors?
What? The sex economics have nothing to do with real actual human interaction? Giddoutaheah!