The millions of women who marched yesterday don’t really hate Donald Trump, at least according to Andrew Anglin of the neo-Nazi tip sheet The Daily Stormer. No, they’re actually really into him.
Anglin, who apparently knows all the secrets lurking in the hearts of women, tells his readers in a post today (archived here) that women “generally say they opposite of what they want, especially when it comes to issues relating to sex.”
When marchers chant “this pussy grabs back,” or carry signs with mocking slogans like “we shall overcomb,” they’re just trying to cover up the fact that they want Trump to grab their own personal pussies.
“Hating on a man and talking about how awful he is is generally a sign that a woman wants to have sex with that man,” Anglin explains. The marchers wearing pink “pussy” hats were actually
demanding they be sexually assaulted by President Donald Trump.
Seriously, you don’t have to be a psychoanalyst to pick up on this. Every single one of these women is sexually fixated on Donald Trump. …
[T]his is what happens when you give women “freedoms.” They become outrageous – and dangerous.
So what is it about Trump that is allegedly so irresistible to so many women? Professor Anglin has an explanation.
To understand why all of these women want to have sex with a single man who is 70-years-old and slightly overweight, and wasn’t even explicitly handsome when he was young, one must understand the concept of hypergamy.
If you’re thinking that this sounds awfully familiar, it’s because Men’s Rights Activists and assorted other Manosphere types have a bit of an obsession with this pseudoscientific explanation of female psychology, which originally came from white nationalist F. Roger Devlin.
While the term itself means nothing more than “marrying up” as Anglin notes, in the minds of the internet’s misogynists it’s become the favorite explanation as to why women would rather sleep with dudes other than them. “Hypergamy” is the reason that women allegedly ignore perfectly decent hard-working beta males, hungering instead for the hottest, sexxxxxiest, most alpha dudes out there. And right now the world’s biggest alpha dog is none other than Donald Trump.
“[E]very woman on the planet is seeking the perfect male,” Anglin explains. And so, regardless of their politics, they find themselves secretly longing for an elderly man with artificially orange skin and the world’s most ludicrous hairstyle.
Donald Trump is the ultimate alpha male. He is an aggressive, hostile conqueror who became ruler of the world through force of will. As such, he is the object of sexual fixation of all women on the planet.
Hence, hundreds of thousands of women across the globe marching with the demand to have sex with him.
It’s just SCIENCE, Anglin insists. A woman
only has one womb, and it takes an extremely long time to produce and raise a child. Why would she not want that child to be the best possible child?
Apparently the women of the world look on the American-Psycho-looking Eric and Don Jr. and think to themselves: if only I could have sons just like that!
While Anglin himself has a giant man-crush on Trump, he think’s all this alleged Trump-lust amongst women is a sign that the sexual revolution that kicked off in the 1960s is ruining just about everything. In a “sexually liberated society,” Anglin writes,
where there is no obligation to marriage and monogamy, all women will seek sex with the highest-ranking males, and the other 90% of males will be left without sex partners, or at least without the prospect of a permanent partner. …
This is not conducive to civilization. At all. It creates an army of sexually frustrated men incapable of landing a partner, as average women seek out one-night stands with above average men that they believe they can somehow swoon, manipulate or otherwise trick into being with them forever.
Yep, Anglin is rehashing the same tired arguments made a thousand times before by MRAs and MGTOWs and assorted other lady haters.
As Anglin — and countless other internet misogynists — see it, the only solution here is some form of mandatory monogamy that can put “these dirty sluts in check.” Specifically, Anglin wants to ban abortion, get rid of child support, and end “affirmative action for women, making it impossible for women to support themselves (no, they can’t compete in the workplace without affirmative action).”
As Anglin sees it, the future of Western Civilization is at stake!
Only by restricting the deranged sex practices of women can we save our civilization. And a vow to fix this problem is a sure way to get young men on board with a war against the Jews.
I hereby vow that any system that I help to install will ensure that you all get wives. As long as you aren’t a complete weirdo and do spend some time in the gym.
Apparently the whole point of the alt-right is to find some nice ladies for the world’s lonely Nazis. Who knew?
@SFHC
While I didn’t take much pleasure in the punch itself, it did make me feel happy that Spencer said in a statement he no longer feels safe in public places without body guards.
Yeah! Nazis don’t deserve to feel safe in public. I could accept that they should BE as safe as other people (although I honestly wouldn’t care if they got routinely run over by trams), but they sure as fuck should not FEEL safe. Like, ever. They terrorize every minority group in the world, and women, so they should expect to be punched in the face whenever a non-Nazi figures out who they are. Such is life.
I feel kind of guilty for the pleasure I take in watching this, too – especially since sucker punches / king-hits / coward punches can and do kill.
I feel a bit better knowing more about the context:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-21/richard-spencer-national-policy-institute-punched-abc-interview/8200270?pfmredir=sm
So he was somewhat forewarned by the confrontation he’d already been having with the activists.
Also, I was pretty shat off at the ABC for giving this Nazi a platform – so it’s good to know that they hadn’t actually sought out this Nazi to hear his valuable Nazi opinions in general, they’d merely decided to interview him about an unfolding situation he seemed pretty blasé about.
@PI and Bina
Thank you for the extra reading, PI.
Meanwhile, I certainly don’t see Bryce clutching any pearls over this.
(That would be Kellyanne Cockwit punching a probable protestor, as per the nigh-illiterate first-hand account of a pro-Trump Fox News host.)
@SFHC
B-but hillary bu-bu-but we must be united and-
Wow I wonder why this isn’t reported nearly as hard?
In other news yet another reason not to use facebook
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/23/mark-zuckerberg-hawaii-land-lawsuits-kauai-estate
*I should say “Nigh-unintelligible” rather than “Nigh-illiterate;” apologies, I don’t words so good when I have a migraine. Going to bed now.
@SFHC
Have a nice night.
@SFHC
Feel better!
Kellyanne Conway allegedly punched man at inaugural ball
http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2953966.1485228735!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/usa-trump.jpg
Kellyanne Conway in her lovely, off-the-shoulder red number. She’s lectured us women about being feminine, not feminist. My late right-wing mother took second place to no one in her femininity. At the same time, she was a very capable nurse, not to mention tall and strong.
But she would definitely, definitely nix this lying liar’s pugilism. Kellyanne, calm down! Remember your manners.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/kellyanne-conway-allegedly-punched-man-inauguration-ball-article-1.2953968
Lazy appeal to a slippery slope. I can feel okay with people punching nazis and also not feel okay with people punching any given religious conservative. I’m not visibly part of a group that is threatened by nazis, but I get the impression that there’s a distinct difference in urgency and intensity caused by them compared to everyday religious conservatism. You see, when there are differences between two things, it is possible to tell them apart, and thus simultaneously hold different opinions about each one. Thus, we avoid the slippery slope.
@PoM
I do worry about normalization of violence, and to be clear I’m not at all *happy* about nazis getting punched. I’m not happy about *any* of it. But – as I said above – I’m not visibly part of any group threatened by nazis, so I’m going to leave that judgement call up to the people whose life literally hangs in the balance, and err on the side of nazi punching. And for what it’s worth, I’ll also do my best to be on the lookout for and call out lazy applications of this justification – in regular circumstances I’m highly anti-violence.
Warren Ellis’ take on the matter (linked above, but I felt it warranted quoting in case you missed it):
Oh boy, Kellyanne Conway is punching people? Can’t wait to see Kate McKinnon run with this!
@Unsinkable John In England for some reason it’s a cat basket, even though it’s not actually a basket.
Marsters apparently based his Spike accent on Anthony Head’s normal accent; the RP accent Head put on as Giles is also, well, put on.
Yes – (I’d forgotten Head’s name). Spike sounds so exactly like people next door it’s uncanny. (being a musician seems to have some overlap with being good at accents? (and to digress even further, is it true there’s a higher incidence of people with perfect pitch among populations who speak a tonal language?)).
My childhood cat loathed and despised the cat basket (which actually was a basket in this case); poor thing would yowl every minute inside it, but practically never otherwise.
Bina
Well said.
@ nel c & opposablethumbs
Yeah, that’s what I was finding familiar. It’s more like Anthony Head’s ‘normal’ accent like he uses in Inbetweeners. It also has a bit of that ‘drama school’ generic accent (did Head go to drama school?) so that’s why I was probably thinking I’d heard it in a few places (there also seems to be a bit of Paul McGann in there too)
Okay, here are my two cents on the Nazi-punching debacle. It is very little after how well Bina and PI and others already covered this thing, but I’m gonna chime in anyway. It is worth mentioning that I’m an extremely privileged person, so take everything I type with a grain of salt. At the same time, however, I feel that my privilege has played a part in me steadfastly rejecting a violent approach towards hateful ideologies in the past, contributing to a culture where said hateful ideologies now have an ideological monopoly on violence, so I may be a bit pissed at the moment, partly at myself for being so naive and idealistic as to allow this culture to be born. So if the things that follow seem disoriented or confused, there’s that.
I am, generally speaking, very anti-violence, so I do understand the argument that “acts of violence against anyone helps reinforce a social paradigm of violence as a way to solve your problems”, I really do. Hell, I’ve been one of its strongest proponents in the recent past. It’s been my go-to argument when arguing against violence committed by power structures, such as police brutality and the death penalty.
But the thing is, thanks to my privilege, I have been able to afford to make this a thought experiment about how a perfect society should work, and how we should strive in our daily lives to act like we’re building that society. How we should reject the bad lessons of the past to build a better future. How all the marginalized people suffering and dying right now at this moment and who would need an immediate change to survive are acceptable sacrifices in building this amazing, grand new future where no one is sad and everyone rides a rainbow-pooping unicorn on a marshmallow mountain. Everyone who is still alive at that moment, that is.
But this is all Saturday morning cartoon lessons from a society that has told us from childhood that real change can only ever come if we don’t upset the power structures. We don’t live in a perfect society, nor are we going to get there using the only way society tells us it is acceptable to fight for it: through not upsetting the status quo and not violently pushing back even those people who wish harm upon others and who have the social, political and economic power to make that happen. For many people, protecting one’s personal boundaries is already seen as an act of violence by our victimizing culture.
As for the normalization of violence, well, aren’t we kind of already there? We live in a society that glorifies violence, as long as it’s directed at the “deserving people”. But for too long now, the “deserving people” have been whoever the privileged and powerful see as such. Cishet people who want to hurt sexual minorities already find a justification for their violence. White cops already murder PoC for no justifiable reason. Men who want to physically abuse women already find a reason – any reason – to do so. There really is no “new era of violence” to be had from this. There is no tonal change for the worse.
In fact, an escalation in violence against marginalized groups have pretty much always happened following a political victory for hateful ideologies. Hate crimes in the US saw a sudden rise when Trump won the election, and in my country, race-based hate crimes became more open and hostile after our far-right political party received a place in the government. It is not opposition, violent or not, that sparks the escalation of violence; it is the result of racists and bigots being emboldened by a sense of being in the majority, of the people being on their side.
If anything, I see a violent retribution against violently oppressive, conservative ideologies as a shift in paradigm. It is basically saying: “no further.” The people advocating for – or indeed tolerating – discussions of genocide are so removed from the reality and ugliness of violence that they are unable to see themselves as potential victims. And in this way, the punch is more than just another punch in a long line of punches: it’s a punch upwards. It’s a punch to remind them that yes, they can be victims as well. They saw no nuance before, nor will they see any now, but they get the message: you can get hurt, too. You are not as above it all as you thought. Of course they will spin the story as they see fit, but that’s what they would do in any case. Again, they will not see the nuances and subtext of the act. But to anyone else not already too deep in cognitive bias, a fascist being punched by an anti-fascist is not subtext, it’s text. Very plain and overt text. It is a political act, not a justification for any and all violence at any time.
Plus, these speakers are not just bystanders who can be spun into victims and villains in stories, they are active storytellers themselves. We can read and hear their words. They are not faceless victims who can be used to further an agenda, we can actually judge the events unfolding in the context of their words and deeds. Their visibility is their problem.
Again, I hate violence. I get very little (if any at all) sadistic satisfaction from anyone getting punched, when what I really want is for them to listen and understand. But we are in this situation because we, the people who care about listening and understanding have listened and understood way too much, with no success. We have listened to fascists and their ‘concerns’. We have tried to see the pain behind the hate, when more often than not, there is none. A bully is not a bully because he was hurt, a bully is a bully because that’s the mindset he’s found works to get him what he wants. Because we’ve allowed it. A bully has reached a stage where he is immune to attempts to change him, since he sees change in itself as a weakness. As much as it pains me to accept it, for some of them, the only language they understand is the language of power, threats and violence. Only when the bully himself is faced with the threat of a violent reaction does he hesitate, because deep down, he’s a coward who only likes violence when it is directed at others.
And it’s absolutely the fault of the white liberal that Trump is now POTUS, and that more than half of Europe is at the very least toying with fascism at the moment, but it’s not because white liberals didn’t listen to the ‘concerns’ of the fascists: it’s because we did, and thus allowed fascism to be normalized in everyday discussions. If there is a way to take away the power they have gotten and send them back to the fringes where they belong using no violence at all, I’m all for that. But more than anything, fascists need to be shown in no unclear terms, in terms that they understand, that fascism is not welcome anywhere.
Now, it may seem that I’ve grown a bit angry at the white liberal (especially in recent times, when the far right has been given time and attention in liberal spaces, thus legitimizing it in public discourse) and you’d be right to think that. But I also suspect that for all the talk of love and understanding, many liberals seem to lack the empathy to see what really makes a fascist tick, and just assume that deep down, fascists really just want what’s best for everyone (just like the liberal, who, to their credit, really, really does, though in their ignorance, they rarely “get it”). To the liberal, the fascists are just confused and hurt, and they need love and care and attention to heal. They believe the narrative of the bully being the real victim.
The white liberal does not seem to understand – or care – that some people’s idea of heaven really is absolute hell for others. That’s what makes white liberals more dangerous in a social sense than many outright hate groups. Because they’re so numerous, and they serve whatever power structure is in place at the moment, no matter how unfair and oppressive, because protesting and fighting back against injustice makes you “just as bad as them.”
But when the person being punched is Richard Spencer, a person who celebrated Trump with overt Nazi symbolism and called for the “disposal” of all black people, it should not be hard to see who’s the bad guy: the person proposing such inhumane things, or the person punching the person proposing such inhumane things. Nazis are the last people who should be allowed to hide behind the nonviolence, civility and compassion of others, when they themselves show none of these things, and indeed reject them as concepts.
And I think one crucial difference is that we can talk about these things without dehumanizing the opposition, without referring to them as “the enemy”. Richard Spencer and his ilk are terrible, disgusting people who should not get the time and the attention they’re getting with their revolting views. They should be afraid to express their views in public. But they are still people. It’s their worldview that is harmful, not their identity in itself.
If any of that makes any sense.
…
Well yes. Was there a point you were trying to make?
I’m team Punch Every Nazi forever.
I’m having a crisis of pacifism here. Policy of Madness has laid out my original position so well, and then Paradoxy and others have countered it in ways that I can’t refute.
EJ,
Yeah. Me too. I’ve always, always been all about non violence but for the very worst of the far right, I think they need to live in fear. That’s the only way to keep them back. It’s interesting how things change. Before the election I was giving some soft support to the antifas who got into a brawl with some Nazis. I was in the minority then. Now I don’t think I would be.
@EJ:
If hearing one more perspective helps any, I subscribe to a sort of “pacifism lite” philosophy: I don’t disavow violence entirely, but view it as a last resort. Avoid it if at all possible, but be ready to use it once all other options have been exhausted.
As Anarchonist said, we’ve already tried listening to the fascists to see if maybe, just maybe we can find some tiny shred of decency under the heaps of garbage, or some semi-reasonable opinion to start a discussion on. It hasn’t worked. They don’t want a discussion, they just want to vomit their bile everywhere and get rid of everyone who dares speak up against them. They’ll never shut up and listen of their own volition.
We’ve hit that last resort, and it’s time to make them shut up.
QFT
I won’t comment about the aforementioned specific incident but I will throw into the mix some wider views on the use of violence generally.
Unless one is an absolute pacifist it’s usually considered that violence can be justified if it prevents unlawful harm to people. That the usual legal (if not moral) position anyway.
So the question becomes can violence be justified in order to inhibit speech? (Whether oral or written)
I was fortunate in that I once had the opportunity to do some work with the people who run the various ad hoc war crimes tribunals, specifically in relation to the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. This was an issue that cropped up there.
The guiding principle was that speech can cross a line when it results in immediate and proximate harm. So merely presenting an unpopular, or even hateful, view cannot be a ground for action; but when it encourages others to cause harm then it becomes actionable.
Generally the speech didn’t have to amount to an explicit ‘call to arms’; it was enough that it created an atmosphere of hate that might lead to action. For example by prejudical descriptions of a group.
So that was the justification for bringing war crimes proceedings against certain commentators in the Rwanda conflict and the bombing of Serbian broadcasting facilities.
For a fuller discourse about this here’s a link to some stuff from ICTYS (the Yugoslavia Tribunal)
http://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4
So the issue is that whilst violence may not be justified merely to suppress views we don’t approve of, it might be different if those views have concrete effects on real people.
Of course all that applies to state actors, it may be different for individuals in practice. However in theory the law is the same. Inter personal violence can be defended legally if it’s used to prevent harm. In both the UK and US there’s a ‘necessity’ element to the defence. It would have to be shown that there were really no other options. That might be difficult of course, but ultimately that would be down to a jury if you could get the case in front of one.
Slightly OT but hilarious: Finnish newspaper reporters interviewed some Trump supporters on Friday in Washington. Choice quote
(Yes, I know Swedes get this stuff all the time. Even here the speaker was probably generalizing their stereotypes from Sweden to another, more obscure Nordic country.)
@Trump Supporter Quoted by Arctic Ape:
StopBeingStereotypical