It’s Friday. Why not welcome in the upcoming weekend with a picture of an anarchist cat and a completely unrelated, completely unhinged manifesto from the MensRants subreddit, the Men’s Rights subreddit’s unruly younger brother.
In a post with the somewhat roundabout title “Just posting this publicly gives me an ulcer. But I won’t let it stop me,” an angry fella who calls himself sizzletron set forth his opinions about, well, a lot of things having to do with women. It’s a piece that’s pretty much impossible to summarize, since sizzletron apparently finds it difficult to keep the thread of an argument going from one sentence to the next.
Let’s dig in:
I think most women are very unfamiliar with being challenged to be better adults. I also think I have a lot of honest opinions that are entirely merit-based, about women.
We’re off to a good start with two sentences that have no logical connection to one another aside from the fact that their author is really, really mad at women.
I think that collectively most women, in the West especially, don’t have an understanding of ANY motivation that doesn’t support women blindly.
Uh, what? Motivation? I’m beginning to get the impression that sizzletron chooses a lot of his words by flipping through books and pointing at random selections.
For example, chivalry should dead and gone by now. I know it. Most guys who aren’t trying to get laid dishonestly know it. So why do women persist with claiming some sort of implicit right to it? Because it obviously benefits them to have men do shit for them, protect them (often from themselves, which would be hilarious were the net result so often fatal, or judicial, again for men), provide for them, admire them, pedestalize them. Feminism isn’t helping women. It’s putting baby in a very stupid, very un-respectable corner.
What does this even mean? How is chivalry the same as “putting baby in the corner.” Also, since when are feminists the ones promoting chivalry/
But sizzletron quickly moves on to a new topic: women’s intelligence.
Women are getting stupider by the day. Not hyperbole. Intelligence isn’t getting book smart. Intelligence is problem solving on your own without the agency of a mob apparatus.
What? What agency? What mob? What apparatus? WHAT IS GOING ON?
Ask me how much I actually respect the advances, societally, of a mob of hairshirts-for-men feminists? Not even a bit.
Wait, feminists are making men wear hairshirts? Even as a weird metaphorical accusation that makes no sense. People in certain religious traditions wore hairshirts as a way to show repentance; they didn’t force other people to wear them.
Now how many of those same organizations and feminists are alluded to lamely in a debate-by-the-numbers exercise that regularly passes for a discourse on gender relations?
Ok, I give up. I have no idea what the hell he’s even trying to say here.
You know what I do everyday?
Smoke weed? Read the “Ziggy” cartoon in the newspaper? Have a bowel movement?
I read the fashion mags my GF’s sister bequeaths us. My respect for women has absolutely PLUMMETED since I started doing so. Vacuous, vagina-centric, vapid, vicarious, venereal-in-waiting. All the ‘V’ words.
Uh, vicarious? “Venereal-in-waiting?” If you were going for something that was even vaguely coherent, you probably should have stopped with “vapid.”
But Mike, what about the good women, they aren’t all self-interested limelight addicts expecting money for nothing and sex for free. No, you’re very correct about that.
Ooh, a Dire Straits reference. It doesn’t actually make much sense, but way to show you’re up to the minute with what the cool kids are listening to these days.
But they aren’t calling out the chickenshit manipulations of the modern feminist message, either: You can be a strong respectable female AND a major victim when it bloody well suits you to do so. You can identify with abused women even if you’ve never been abused.
Yeah, I think that’s called “empathy.”
Blindly protect women without ever asking how much of the modern women’s plight is due to or contributed to by stupid women. Let’s start IQ testing all the victims of abuse and see what the median average is.
You’re going to blame the victims of domestic violence because you think they’re “stupid?” Really?
Really. Let’s do it! We’ll never know if I’m right until we do.
You’re an even bigger asshole than I thought. And I already thought you were a huge asshole.
Let’s start statistically plotting women’s propensity for violence, for ignorance, for mindless sorority.
Yeah, I’d love to see THAT chart.
Let’s start calling women out for being shallow appearance-concerned adults with a blind eye to the very pretense of such. No one really cares about your fucking furniture, or your sense of style.
Wait. Now you’re mad at women for having nice furniture?
No one of ANY value gives a shit about that stuff. Blowhards do. Frauds do. People who can’t DO, do.
Backing away now.
It is high time women grew the fucking pair they keep insisting they have, or STFU about it already. You’re starting to look like fools. I can’t ignore it any longer.
STFU about what? What is “it?”
And to all the white knights out there, stow it. <===This last line is for the benefit of my FB ‘friends’.
What a treat it must be to have Mike/Sizzletron here in your Facebook feed.
All the Vs? Really? So:
Vibrant, Vital, Verified andVictorious
Okay, so…I’ll see if I can try making sense of that. Deducting from other commonly used complaints and insults made by other MRAs and misogynists, I think he’s trying to make the following points:
– Women try to fool themselves and each other into thinking they have any strength or independence, when really they need men (and the government) for everything.
– Women having lives of their own = abusing men.
– Treating women like human beings is special treatment, because it’s better than they deserve. As they’re actually less than human beings.
– Women who are victims are not actually victims. They deserve whatever abuse they get because they actually bring it upon themselves due to their own stupidity. And it’s unfair and wrong that other people actually care about them.
– Women, keep silent about your real problems because they make *my* life less convenient.
Blech. That was disgusting to type. I need a kitty:
Ah, that’s better.
That’s a good point Mklein. Is this d-bag trying to say that it’s OK to abuse people with a low IQ? As the sibling of someone with an intellectual disability and as a half decent person the thought leaves me sputtering with rage to the extent that I can’t even say anything articulate about it.
Yes, how dare women’s fashion magazines be all commercial and only caring about fashion. They should be running articles on modern issues, STEM fields, and atheism. You know, like men’s fashion magazines do.
Also, what’s really funny about the Dire Straits reference, not only does it show that he’s heard “dadrock” before, but the song itself is about making fun of people who think the life of a rockstar isn’t work by having two lowlives. So basically, by making that reference, he’s being said lowlife thinking that the life of a woman is not working at all.
@opium, I wasn’t criticizing those magazines; I just know they all give fashion, grooming, and dating advice just like the women’s mags do.
I would agree with this statement:
Because most women are (a) not adults or (b) not terribly awful people.
However, most adult women are have experience with the type of BS coming from misogynists like sizzleton. The misogynists may think this BS is “challenging” us to be “better adults” but no, its not. It’s just annoying, and in some cases harassing and depressing, noise.
And look what happens when the misogynists are challenged to be better people.
“Let’s start statistically plotting women’s propensity for violence, for ignorance, for mindless sorority.”
I’m thinking of a Quaker or Buddhist Greek establishment called The Mindful Sorority. Somebody ought to try to set something like that up. Obviously, though, Mr. Sizzletron is not the man for the task.
“No one really cares about your fucking furniture, or your sense of style.”
How strange. That’s what Simone de Beauvoir said, and she said it much better.
The amazing thing to me is how these guys don’t know how to cognitively handle meeting two different women who disagree about things.
He knows that feminists exist, and he also knows that women who like when people treat them chivalrously exist. He can’t figure out that these are two different groups of people. All women hold every view that he’s ever heard of any woman having.
You can be a strong respectable female AND a major victim when it bloody well suits you to do so.
Wait, wait, wait. This is really strange to me, because it seems to be implying this is some set in stone mutually-exclusive binary thing.
Even the best tough guy on the planet can suffer a horrible accident — they get hit by lightning, or charged for a crime they didn’t commit, or something else that’s completely not their fault. This wouldn’t negate their strength, nor would their strength mean they couldn’t be victimized. I thought this was something everyone understood?
RE: Dvarghundspossen
As you all know, not a native speaker, BUT shouldn’t there be a “not” in this sentence?
Congratulations. You know English better than this guy, because you’re totally right.
Does anyone know what happened to the 20/20 story on MRM? Did I miss it?
I found this clip of Elam, but that’s all:
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/marriage-unsafe-men-mens-rights-activist-20582309
Sorry I’m off topic, but I’ve been wondering about it.
It’s funny, they keeping say how stupid, incompetent and lazy women are, but somehow we are able to successfully create, maintain and enforce a conspiracy of keeping men down without a hitch.
I completely agree. Besides that fact, after someone has been through something like years of abuse, their cognitive abilities can diminish AS A RESULT OF THE ABUSE.
I would like to point out that even though many magazines marketed towards women are often sexist and insulting to women, they are one of the few sources of mass culture provided for women and only women. Women’s magazines have served as a way for women to create a culture for ourselves independently of men and distribute that culture to countless women across the country/world for as long as they have existed. I think MRA’s get mad about women’s magazines not because the content is so vapid, but because they give women a public voice (that cannot be ignored; it’s in every grocery store and gas station.) They also serve as proof that women can have desires and beliefs and hobbies and interests without men’s permission.
So yeah, as weird, awful and harmful as women’s mags often are, they have at least one function that sticks it to the patriarchy. And misogynists notice.
Kristine: Really? I thought their main purpose was to sell us shit we don’t need and make us feel vaguely shitty about ourselves.
@Guy Noir
I think it got pulled.
There’s a tag.
@hellkell: Well, yes, it is. I’m not saying that they aren’t horrible in far more ways than they’re good. I think maybe I didn’t do a very good job of wording my point, let me try again. What I was trying to say is that when a misogynist complains about the content of women’s magazines, it’s not because he thinks the content should be improved. It’s because he doesn’t think women should be allowed to talk at all. Does that make more sense?
I find it laughable how all these dudes are so focused on the “mindlessness” of female friendships. Basically there are two options here:
– They are enraged by the thought of any woman having relationships with people who are not men.
– They are so crushingly lonely that they’ve convinced themselves having close friends and valuing each other’s opinions is the mark of a brainless herd of sheep, while they of course are a Super Manly Lone Wolf. Friendship is for LOSERS.
When I say yes it is, I mean yes their purpose is to sell us shit. I am not communicating well today.
*snrk* Have you guys ever LOOKED at Maxim? It’s pretty fucking vapid too.
Also, zomg zomg guys, speaking of selling you shit… GUESS WHO FINALLY HAS A PROPER SHOP PAGE? 8D No more awful Paypal drop-down menus! No more shoddy 90s web design we have to do ourself! WE LOOK LEGIT NOW AHAHAHA
(Sorry for the incoherence, but me and my kid sibling have been hauling ass on this for DAYS.)
oooo ooooo oooo an Etsy shop 🙂 Gratz!
Did a woman introduce herself to him like V from V for Vendetta, or something?
Seeing how the correlation between handicaps, particularly mental ones, and being abused has been well covered, I’m going to offer an anecdote. Two rapist ex’s, a gaslighting narcissist ex, and an IQ in the mid 130s. It like you don’t have to have a low IQ to be abused! (But I’m nuts, so I fail under another category of “easy prey”, funny how that works)
I’d comment on the rest, but I’d have to make sense of it first.
RE: Argenti
*snrk* Yeah, and my family, is like, The Circle of Rape as far as how embedded abuse and molestation are. Lots of intelligent people in my family… and lots of abusers too. I’m the LUCKY one; I made it till sixteen!
Funny, my family has a pretty decent rate of mental illness and substance abuse too… it’s almost like that kind of abuse cycle really wrecks a family!
And there you have it…not just hatred of women, but a hatred & devaluing of whatever society deems feminine.
I’m a little uncomfortable about IQ being used as though it is the gold standard measure for intelligence. Besides the fact that there are various forms of IQ tests, which test different factors, there’s also the issues that:
– IQ tests are best used to predict performance at school, so they’re not a good marker for job potential/occupation
– what is measured in IQ tests and how it is measured is based on biases, plus formal education strongly influences test score on a number of variants of these tests. They’re culture- and context-specific. IQ is a theoretical construct which shouldn’t be moderated by formal education level/quality.
– they don’t have what I would consider to be a great test-retest reliability, part of which will relate to the fact that IQ is not accurate to within a couple of IQ points (so what’s the point about comparing exact IQ scores)?
They also have a negative history of “proving” blacks, females, and people from non-English speaking countries are inferior.