MRAs agree: Female humans deadlier, cuter than males

All right, so the situation seems to be more complicated than I initially thought in that the woman who is being doxxed made no attempts to hide her identity even though she’s claimed that she is hiding from her parents. Several people are pointing out that her parents, if they were trying hard to find her, could have easily look her up on her Facebook profile which until recently had her real name and location. I don’t think that itself proves that she’s making things up, but I just wanted to point that out. I’m not really sure what to believe. X_X I’m certainly not going to accuse her of lying about her abuse, but things seem kind of sketchy.

Do you deny that men get harsher sentencing for the same crimes?

Someone mentioned “the fake geek girl thing” and, hoo boy, Oneiorosgrip completely goes off the rails. I mean obviously Anita Sarkesien has to be referenced because they will die screaming her name, but this FeMRA casts female humans who dare tread in brainy Man’s domains as infernal agents of dire oppression.

This leads to a debate with a poster name Boderz which I would like to nominate as the most interminable thread in the history of Reddit. It’s brain-breakingly repetitive and human discourse is forever blackened by the unspeakable crimes committed against logic, reason and good faith within it.

I’ll quote a several stunning moments in Onesy’s endless, and I mean endless, posts.
[My notes are scattered throughout.-B]

oneiorosgrip 15 points 4 days ago
At what point in my above comment do I mention the fake geek girl thing? And not to put too fine of a point on it, but there are girls who do that – step into a nerd or geek community with no attachment to the community, the subject that binds the community (gaming, programming, science, journalism [or as I like to call it, man talk -B], computer technology, whatever) and use the appearance of being part of that community as social cred. Then they start using damseling to gain attention for themselves and control others within that population for their own purposes, doing damage to the entire group. [Girls ruin everything by complaining! -B]
Calling girls out for that behavior isn’t oppressive. Girls who exhibit that behavior are oppressive to those of us who were part of that population without being “girl” geeks. [Onsey relates to all other human females though scare quotes and denunciations. -B]
Regardless, my comment above is about the fact that it is women who are sniping at women over these things, not a denial of their existence; the fact this behavior isn’t an indication of oppression of women by men, but of conflict between women. [How is this an argument? Or a sentence? -B]

[She goes on about her favorite noun mutilated into a gerund, “damseling”, which I think refers to the terrible crime of standing up for yourself when faced an onslaught of abusive criticism. -B]
What’s really sick is that feminists have used the conditions created by “geek girls” – which have impacted on geeks and nerds who happen to be girls and women – as yet another excuse for their damseling. They’re damseling over damage that they, themselves did to the community, and the fact that said damage has made it harder for them to get away with damseling within the community. [Damaging damsels cause damseling damage via damseling. -B] The fact that those of us who have been involved in activities and interests that got us ridiculed in the 70s, 80s, and 90s suffer backlash from the awareness that there are now girls adopting geeky aspects of pop culture does not in the 21st century exempt those who are exploiting the popularity of those aspects from being called what they are. [What’s worse: the sentence structure, the nonsensical claims or the whining? -B] In fact, you can’t eliminate the backlash the exploiters of “geek culture’s” popularity without calling them out on that exploitation.[This theory was first explored in Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the 4Chan -B]

Clothing isn’t what makes a “geek girl” a “geek girl” instead of just a geek, but for the record, there are girls who use fake glasses as accentuating clothing. [Gasp! Burn them! – B] Adopting the look doesn’t make you part of the community. That’s not a misconception on my part [There’s a whole lot of misconceptions on your part though. -B] it’s years of experience with other girls, being the one at whom terms like nerd and geek were thrown when they were derogatory, and dealing with shit like I described above as girls who wouldn’t have previously given the guys I hung out with the time of day suddenly found reason to call themselves “gamer girls” and “geek girls” and “nerds.”
[Dear Alleged Adult, Boo Fucking Hoo. Your Pal, B]
The reality is that most citation of the “fake geek girl thing” is wrong. [Any citations for those wrong citations? -B] There are a lot of girls who blame getting called out as fakes on their sex, when in reality they’re fake as a 3 dollar bill. And those who aren’t don’t get mad at being questioned, because they don’t give a rat’s ass what you think of them. [They = only Onesy -B] They just want to do their thing and for you to do yours, and stay out of their business. [And that’s why they’re called communities! -B]

Whether or not I think Felicia Day is a fake geek girl is irrelevant to the original point – that the shaming behavior is largely female oriented, not male oriented. [All negative behavior by men is always irrelevant. -B] However, I can see where Perez was coming from [because you’re an asshole too -B] – Day’s career is based on combining her looks and femininity with the popularity of geek culture. [Day ignored the astral projection option. -B] And questioning her cred was career suicide for him, because he’s a man. [No doubt. -B] As a man, he’s not allowed to question the legitimacy of anything she does, and because he did, she was on the receiving end of all kinds of support. [Sure. -B] If that’s your example of fake geek shaming by a guy, it’s not worth much. [In Onsey’s parallel universe -B]
Regardless, it still doesn’t justify ignoring the predominance of female undercutting to blame men as feminists do, and it also doesn’t exempt girls who exploit whatever culture happens to be the thing at the moment for attention and status from being called out on their behavior. [And how is this an argument? This sentence made blood pour from my eyes. -B] Wanting women to be exempt from criticism is as sexist as attempting to impose stereotypes on us. [The False Equivalency Society made this sentence their God. – B]

Generally speaking, when you see a girl getting called out as the fake that she is, it’s not because she’s standing around in a costume. It’s because she has actively done something to disrupt others’ peaceful involvement in the area of interest with which she is faking association, like making herself their personal thought police and claiming that women can’t be involved in said area because of men. [When women expess opinions it disrupts all peaceful involvement and may cause actual wars. Fact. -B]
Anita Sarkeesian, for instance, has been called out for her fakery and her disruption. Adria Richards – same thing. [Yup, this analysis completely explains away the abuse they faced. Checkmate female humans with non-prescription glass! -B]

This is a counter to the validity of calling out posers. [This is the first sentence in a very long post in which she repeats all the arguments she made previously, sometimes word for word. It’s weird, I guess she thinks that’s a suitable substitute for engaging in conversation. -B]

You appear to be attempting to manipulate the discussion with those questions. [Stop manipulating the discussion by trying to discuss the subject at hand! -B] You could try being straightforward and asking for the definition or claim you want to get me to establish, instead. However, I will point out before you ask, whether there is or is not a definitive, standard, immutable, non-circumstantial line to draw between being a 100% certifiable geek, and being not at all a geek, as if such a find would have no relevance to the discussion. It would not validate falsely representing one’s associations with an area of interest which earns an individual the label “geek” and then trying to impose one’s social preferences upon those genuinely involved with it, nor would it invalidate the choice to call women out who do this. It also wouldn’t change the differences in bullying tactics exhibited by female humans as opposed to male humans. So you can continue on your line of questioning if you choose, but if you do make that choice, do it with full knowledge that I’m never going to give you what you’re trying to get with it.

Why can’t feminists see that only the stupid shit Onsey says is factually true? They’re so illogical and petty!

The blockquote monster got me at the end, the last paragraph is me, not Onesy.

Good lord, that grip-of-Morpheus woman is an even bigger idiot than I thought. Maybe the problem with all the stupid, bitchy females she’s kvetching about isn’t that females are inherently stupid and bitchy…it’s just HER. Projecting massively. Onto other women. In an effort to look Special.

Who’s the “damseler”, again?

“As with any species.”

I’ll take it these people have never heard of cattle. Or seals. Or cats. Or pretty much any mammal species besides elephants and canines.

Females tend to be stronger and more aggressive than males among arthropods, fish, and reptiles. Among birds its an even split, and for mammals its usually the male who is more physically aggressive.

Add zoology to the long list of subjects that these people fail miserably at.

Swingsalot, do you deny that your question has fuck-all to do with the topic at hand?

Funny, too, how MRAs all ignore the fact that evolution is about adaptation to one’s environment. The reason we’re seeing such a diverse array of human body types now is because no single specific one is required to survive in the environment(s) we currently live in. Our brains enable us to build homes to suit our varied climates, and protect them accordingly. So the old notions of survival of the biggest/meanest/smartest/whateverest are no longer valid. And that means even “inferior” specimens get a decent shot at surviving to pass their genes on.

(How else to explain how someone can be as clueless as an MRA and not die of it?)

t’s a simple yes or no question

No it isn’t, you disingenuous wanker. Nor has it nything to do with the topic in hand.

sir swingsalot

What is the point of that question exactly? If yes, what are the causes of the discrepancy? Do you think it is that feminists have lobbied the legal system so that women get less harsh penalties?

“Connect the dots. Women are more vicious because we trick each other into cutting hair, which is someone inextricably tied into our fertility, which in turn is our purpose in life, and so we are essentially ‘killing’ each other. There’s your woman-on-woman violence. Also, words and disloyalty are far more violent than actually punching people in the face, and we all know wimmin r catty, amirite? Bro-five!

And of course, there is the boner thing that dallasapple mentioned, for the woman-on-man violence. It’s a threefold thing: all the sex denied to men who ask nicely causes men to be violent. All the sex given given to alpha males rewards men for being violent. And any sex at all is denying the future-husband the virginity-taking that is his by right, and inciting violence.

In fact, if women were really concerned about world peace, we’d all lock ourselves into polygamous marriages at 15 and shower our Nice Guy husbands with BJs and sandwiches as soon as legally possible, and be nice to his mistresses because they’re fulfilling needs. Then all the violence will disappear as men start inventing things like circular saws and dishwashers and windshield-wipers and computer compilers for our comfort and we can all eat bonbons and be the special protected creatures we are. Provided we don’t get fat.”

Oh my god, it all makes sense!
I love you for this comment. xD

Not sure what our friend is trying to accomplish since feminists have never supported and in fact been continually fighting against the gender roles and stereotypes which paint women as gentler and weaker and therefore influence sentencing decisions (when it isn’t actually about racial disparity — compare white men and black women and you’ll see that “female advantage” go up in smoke).

@ cloudiah, you made me lol.

It’s a simple yes or no question. Is the Higgs boson an elementary particle or is the Standard Model too simplistic to explain the transformation of energy and gravitational forces into mass? YES OR NO?