By David Futrelle
Well, this little joke went over well on Twitter so I thought I’d post it here too.
Here’s one that didn’t go over quite as well. But it might just come to haunt your dreams.
I saw this so now you have to see it too pic.twitter.com/mSHcWXj6ou
— David Futrelle (@DavidFutrelle) August 15, 2018
Some good-ass tweets by people who aren’t me:
https://twitter.com/maddc8/status/1029184821329833986
https://twitter.com/BoringEnormous/status/1028321380213907458
Somebody waited their whole life to write this serial number pic.twitter.com/WxnKJwVbHw
— WendigoPBFox (@tmaxxnc) August 14, 2018
Accidentally shitting yourself vs. Defiantly shitting yourself to own the libs. pic.twitter.com/HIGCYuP1dJ
— Sir Woofingtons (@Sir_Woofingtons) August 15, 2018
@Richard Ford
“He simply observed what is obvious to all honest minded persons- that having angry disenfrancised men is not a recipe for peace.”
Rather disingenuous of you. He went beyond mere observation and encouraged a society form of action to “encourage” if you prefer women into relationships with men a propensity to violence.
So women are the sacrificial lambs instead of working to rid these men of their sense of violent entitlement.
@ jblackfyre
Because I’m engaging in diversionary behaviour from doing actual work and I’ve run out of capybara videos.
Witches live in swamps.
In all the fairy tales and movies I’ve seen, the overwhelming majority of witches live in forests. Maybe he was thinking of Minecraft?
That’s besides the fact that he insisted to the NYT that witches, and dragons, exist in the first place. “But he meant archetypes“, I can hear you saying. Okay, then why didn’t he follow his own Rule Ten, ‘Be precise in your speech’ and just say what he meant in the first place?
All of his pronouncements on gender relations are wrong as well: how women secretly love brutal men, how women aren’t ambitious, how men can’t work side by side with women for eight hours a day, how male anger would be reduced if only everybody had a partner, which completely flies in tue face of all the evidence about domestic violence. There is no evidence to support any of this. Only his gut feeling.
(Laurie Penny)*
You’re saying almost the same thing. The difference is that Penny (and others like myself) don’t think that it’s women’s responsibility to fix this anger, or pain. Leave us out of it, thanks.
*Apologies to Mammotheers, because I’ve referred to this article multiple times now 🙂
@buttercup Q
If the prof genuinely did claim that witches and dragons were real I would be greatly surprised and would have to change my view of him. Unfortunately this claim comes from a notorious Leftist paper with little credibility.
There is no doubt that SOME women crave brutal men or why would serial killers get so many marriage offers? One problem I have with the Left is that it thinks in groups and overlooks individuals. (ALL men are bastards ext ext ext). It is quite possible for a thing to be true of one person and false for another.
The remainder of his assertions are uncontroversial and supported by all available evidence.
@Alan Robertshaw.
100 years ago we had enforced monogamy without a secret police force to enforce it or people even knowing it was enforced.
Monogamy was simply the way things were. So you see.. there is nothing sinister or authoritarian about it at all. We just need to get back to what works and most people will soon forget about being lesbian squirrels or transgender donkeys or whatever the latest gender fad is.
They will not miss it at all.
@RichardFord
Get back to the way things “were” how exactly? When women were forced into relationships with men they rather wouldn’t due to societal stigma and financial necessity?
What about what women want? If they aren’t selecting these men of their own free will why coerce them into doing so? What not get the men to change their behaviour instead of the women?
Incidentally we still have monogamy. Polyamory is still not the norm?
Anyway Richard Ford seems like he got lost on his way to RoK / Breitbart…
Ah, yes, 100 years ago, when women couldn’t vote, when marital rape was legal, when women were barred from most professions.
No, no, nothing sinister or authoritarian at all.
@Scildfeja
There is something I genuinely do not understand. Why are the feminists who post here so often angry about things? You are the establishment now and have been for 60 years. You have the media, acedema ext ext on your side. Most of you seem to be wealthy or have government jobs.
Why not simply enjoy your good fortune?
@Steph
RoK banned me for using the word ‘love’. I am a romantic above all.
Men have far more social pressure to ‘man up and get married’ not least on this site. A MGTOW is assumed to hate women when more often they do not wish to support one.
On an evolutionary level this is justified but why not treat men and women the same?
2 anti-feminists for the price of one!
Anyway conservatives seem confused. I thought everybody hated and rejected feminists and now they’re the “establishment”?
Surely if they were the corridors of power would look rather different?
As for the “angry feminist” stereotype – please try and be a little more interesting. Next you’ll be talking about “fat feminists” and alluding to spinsters with cats.
All just so boring!
(And I still don’t get the first joke. Somebody please help!)
@steph
Back to the days when men and women (especially women) reported being far happier than they do now.
Back to the days when men and women wrote love poems.
@London Pilgrim
Wait. I thought we were all 14 years old girls taking useless women’s studies diplomas at ivy league universities. (But only after each of us personally took the spots of at least 1000 men each, preventing those men from studying STEM fields, which in turn prevented these men from going on to build buildings that would hunt the mammoths for us.)
?
Hey London, do you know what else there was back in the Good Old Days? No internet. No computers! No cell phones! If you reaaaaally want to go back there, you’d better get off your flashing devilbox pronto.
@London Pilgrim
Wait. I thought we were all 14 years old girls taking useless women’s studies diplomas at ivy league universities. (But only after each of us personally took the spots of at least 1000 men each, preventing those men from studying STEM fields, which in turn prevented these men from going on to build buildings that would hunt the mammoths for us.)
?
@London Pilgrim.
Oh please! Men can be single forever and get the “bachelor” label which is seen as cool. An unmarried man is viewed as “lucky” and avoided a trap. Especially if he still finds lots of young women to date.
An unmarried woman is a “spinster”, an “unfortunate old maid”. Note there are no male equivalents of those terms.
MGTOW’s aren’t assumed to hate women. They actually do. It’s why they spend so much time spewing misogyny online instead of quietly going their own way.
@London Pilgrim.
Correlation does not equal causation. You need to determine “why” women report lower levels of happiness now before determining it’s because they miss the days of having no autonomy.
Besides how would MGTOW cope if we returned to a time when women were their financial dependents?!
Most of the violent men he discusses are white and middle class. How are these men disenfranchised?
White men can vote and own property, they’ve always had the basic rights, they’re the wealthiest demographic, the most represented in government and corporate boards and in the media. When white men commit crimes, the conversation in the media tends to be about how troubled they were and anxiety over their lives being ruined.
Citation needed. You need to read your history.
Love and marriage were never one constant thing. They’ve constantly evolved with the culture. The good old days in which women stayed virgins until marriage, every man got a good woman and there was no divorce or polyamory simply never existed.
Also, LGBTQ people always existed. Again, read up on actual history, don’t just read what right wing “thinkers” say history was.
We are far from the establishment. In the US, there are literally hundreds of anti-choice bills passed every year. Powerful men who get caught sexually harassing women get rehabbed in the public mind almost immediately. Etc. Etc.
There’s a saying; “when you’re used to privilege, equality looks like oppression.” Your comments epitomize this saying. Men are not oppressed and women are not dominant. You and men like you are just upset that we’re inching closer to equality. Deal with it.
…for white men.
FTFY.
Why is the solution always to take freedom and rights away from women, instead of asking men to meet the *ridiculously* low bar of not being violent murderers?
Why is it always about protecting men’s “right” to dominate other people, at the expense of personhood for everybody else?
You’re forgetting that male violence against women has always existed, even (especially even) back in those “good old monogamous days”. Women in general were not happier then. Even if they were fortunate enough to be married to kind, loving husbands and had a solid marriage, they weren’t allowed to live their lives to the fullest. They were confined to the home, restricted by laws, barred from most jobs, not allowed to buy property, start businesses, get a secondary education, or develop their minds. (If you’re wondering where all the great female inventors in history are, there’s your answer. They were suppressed at birth.) Female artists, poets, and authors were comparatively rare. Many had to hide behind male pen names.
At least nowadays, women have options for speaking up and escaping hellish relationships. They don’t have to depend entirely on a man for their existence. They don’t have to stay in an abusive relationship because the alternative is starvation and social exile. They can marry who they choose. Please explain why this is a bad thing.
Oh, and on the reporting lower levels of happiness thing, compared to when?
Widespread scientific surveying of the population was not a thing until fairly recently. There’s no way to make a claim that women were happier in the earlier 1800’s or whatever.
There’s also problems with how happiness is defined. It’s often assumed to be this pretty static thing. Either a person is happy or they aren’t. That’s not true. Tiny tweaks in experimental settings can have a big effect on people’s reported happiness levels.
And like Steph said, correlation is not causation. If you’re going to blame feminism, you need to make sure you rule out things like increasing income inequality, stagnant wages and higher cost of living. Considering that “socialist” countries like Denmark frequently top lists of happiest countries, the return to gilded era capitalism in many countries (US, UK) seems like it could be the main culprit here. This hypothesis is supported by the epidemics of melancholia and “hysteria” during the gilded age when we last had such unregulated capitalism and high income inequality.
Jordan Peterson knows very well what words mean.
He has chosen to be a professional bullshitter for personal gain.
Nothing sells better than the tired old saw of throwing women under the bus for men’s sake. Grumpy old farts with lots of money pay their mouthpieces well.
Sure! if women can CHOOSE who they want to be with, then they might not CHOOSE to be with the men who want to go back to the good old days when women didn’t have a choice. And then those men won’t have wives and will be sad and will go around killing people and it will all be the fault of those selfish women! So you see, for the good of society, we must force women into relationships with men who are predisposed towards killing people./sarcasm
@buttercupQ.
Unfortunately you are mind reading. This is a common feminist problem.
It is probably impossible to tell is someone is happy or not with perfect certainty. All we can do is ask them which is why I said reported happiness. Women, in particular get less happy under feminism unless we are to assume they are all lying.
You also assume that if a woman chooses to be a mother and so on it is because she has been dragged into it. In fact the evidence points to this being a natural instinct. Look at the cats and dogs. Who is coercing them?
@London Pilgrim
Buttercup didn’t say a single damn thing about choosing to be a mother. Now who’s doing the mind reading?