By David Futrelle
The Daily Mail is famous for its uniquely British mixture of judgy prurience and good old-fashioned xenophobia. So naturally the comments section of its online edition is home to some of the worst takes the internet has to offer.
The other day I was introduced to a Twitter account that catalogs the worst of these terrible takes. Specifically, to this tweet, which I obviously needed to share with you all:
Bad science and racism, two terrible tastes that taste extra terrible together! And the misspelling of “testosterone” as “tostesterone” is … chef’s kiss!
Also, I’m pretty sure most French people aren’t vegan.
But this tweet is only the top of the iceberg. Here are some other, well, illuminating insights on assorted gender-related issues that The DM Reporter has plucked from the vast wasteland of the Daily Mail comments.
This final tweet really doesn’t have anything to do with gender but I feel sort of bad for the Daily Mail’s Russian Misery correspondent
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Apologies for the double post. I’ve decided to be a bit kinder and explain why I keep harping on things you’ve said in the past, John.
See, the reason why I want to know why you think they call it “hen-pecked” is you left it deliberately unsaid, as if it were just generally understood what you were referring to, and actually pointing it out would be superfluous. And, you know, I actually think this this true. I believe the reason you are alluding to but not actually saying is as follows:
Women are really annoying, always gabbering on about things that are important in their little heads, but not important in the Real World, the World of Men. It would be really nice if I could just hit them to shut them up once in a while, but that is frowned upon, so I don’t.
Now, that would be universally agreed with in many circles, but I think you know it wouldn’t play well in a feminist space. So you just leave it out there unsaid, letting people draw the conclusion, but not actually owning it so that you can be called out for it. You’ve left yourself a little window of plausible deniability.
Or, alternatively, that’s not the reason that you meant. I mean, it is, obviously. But maybe it isn’t. If not, I’d like to know the real reason so that I can stop misjudging you for that, and I can go back to just judging you for comparing a man not getting to keep all marital assets to rape.
No parent puts their child on a boat and sends them into the sea unless the land is more dangerous than the water
@Anonymous – I’ve read your responses to me several times. I can’t really parse the first one, but to the second one, my actual point was that I’m not as sanguine as you are about the alt-right being too stupid to operate firearms. Modern firearms aren’t difficult to operate at all. Many of them are developed by (or at least with the input of) military organizations which REQUIRE them to be kind of ridiculously easy to use.
I also should have noted that alt-right types aren’t necessarily unintelligent, either. What they are is nasty, bigoted, and often willfully ignorant as to how reality in general works. I think this frequently makes them seem rather more stupid than they probably are.
We underestimate our enemies at our own peril.
@John re: grip strength – I and many people I know have worked in jobs that have left us with repetitive motion injuries. I have carpal tunnel in both hands (among other things) and my grip strength is for crap. Am I soft? Heck, I’m positively squishy! But don’t make the mistake of thinking I’m physically weak because of my lack of grip strength.
Just food for thought. (Not just for John, but for the folks who did the study if they didn’t take repetitive motion injuries into consideration.)
@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
Don’t be ridiculous! Sometimes he talks about his degrees and money too.
@Viscaria
I regret using “hen pecked” and apologize for it. It was tone deaf as fuck and entirely inappropriate for this space.
There was only one time in my life, with one woman, where I had to physically remove myself for fear of further escalation. I was provoked by her well beyond the level where violence between men would have been inevitable. And that doesn’t make it OK.
I do not condone hitting women. I do not yearn for a time where it’s OK to hit women. I absolutely condone men walking away from drama, though. These days, if a man has allowed himself to be provoked into violence, it’s his own damned fault and he should pay the price.
I never have liked “divorce rape” and am happy to scrub it from my lexicon. Forcible sexual assault is far different from a marriage ending.
I still believe in the old saying, “his side, her side, and the truth.” I do think it is good for men to take care of themselves and “game” their wives to help maintain attraction. We are not monogamous critters, neither men nor women.
I know I’m in the wrong place for what I write to be taken in the best vs. worst possible light. I get it. But I do react a bit more than I should, I will admit that.
@John
your still framing that shit as the woman brings it on herself if she’s hit. She provokes him. I’ve had a guy beat me for wearing my hair down. How was that provoking him. Because he didn’t like it of course so obviously it was my fault. -_-
Really john go fuck yourself.
FUCKING
THIS.
You might get something out of reading ‘Why does he do that‘, John.
I’m sure you’re going to go “It was one time! And I removed myself!”
Truth.
But let’s look at what you said here…
Cuz women just like to needle you, right? They just like to provoke? Pick pick pick. Jeesus, the harpy, if only she would shut up!
This does happen, there are toxic relationships. But there are also a LOT of abusive relationships, and with your word choice of ‘provoke’, *you* give *cover* to the assholes who *beat women*. (and other minorities, but I’m focusing on one right now)
‘Cuz if women weren’t so shrill and provoking, who would be driven past the edge of tolerance into hitting them, amirite boyos? HEY-OHHHHHHHH!
And the frustrating thing?
WE ALREADY SAID ALL THIS SHIT.
Soeak for yourself. Some of us are, some of us aren’t. There’s no universal truth when it comes to humans and sexual or romantic relationships and attraction.
@ Viscaria
“Hen pecked” (as far as i can tell from various Internet sources) comes from groups of chickens establishing dominance by repeatedly pecking each other. The lowest-ranking chicken can get more and more weakened, injured, bedraggled and eventually pecked to death. It is death by repeated low-level bullying.
There doesn’t seem to be much indication of why it applies specifically to a woman exerting dominance, except for the obvious that it is only female chickens that do this
@Not Edward
Thank you, kind man, for explaining the concept to us feeble womenfolk. We truly appreciate.
I said it’s not OK, and I said he should be punished. I put all of the onus on the man. All of it.
In the case you mentioned, I would be happy to be on a jury and convict his ass. It doesn’t matter how provoked he was, it’s never OK go hit a woman.
It’s never OK to hit a woman, regardless of how provoked you are. For wearing hair down? Jesus, that’s pretty scummy.
But even actual provocations on weighty matters. Infidelity. Whatever. It’s never OK to hit a woman.
It’s never OK to hit a woman. Not even when she hits you. Not even when she hits you.
Never.
How much more do you want?
@John
how about not fucking saying a man is provoked into hitting a woman. As if she brings it on herself. She doesn’t provoke him. It isn’t her fault you sleaze bag full of shit.
@John
Thanks for the response. I appreciate that you’re at least willing to examine some of the underlying biases that come through when you’re speaking off the cuff.
I don’t think we’re going to be, like, friends, and I think you’ve said a lot of pretty crappy things beyond the ones I pointed out. I think the people here who are really frustrated have good reason to be. But thanks for being open to listening.
@Not Edward
I think you may have missed my point.
@John
and yes for wearing my hair down because he didn’t like when other guys looked at me. I wore it down after months of wearing it up in public because I got a headache and another guy told me I looked pretty with it down so he got pissed. I should have know the “rules” I wasn’t “allowed” to wear my hair down to obviously I brought that beating on myself. If I just wouldn’t PROVOKE him, he wouldn’t have to hit me.
I’ve heard all of this shit before John. If you don’t want to be an asshole, think before you speak.
That’s not true. You said she *provoked* him. That’s putting at least some of the blame on her. And the way it was used? Nearly all of the blame for the situation goes to her. She caused this situation where he wants to lash out at her physically. That’s what you are saying with the words you chose.
Do you see a pattern yet? The words you use matter. They convey a lot more information than the surface level, because complex meanings get encoded into simpler phrases (although in this case, the surface level meaning literally puts at least some of the blame on her). Whether it’s your use of “soy” or calling men “soft” for not performing masculinity or calling a man “henpecked” when his wife “provoked” him, words mean things.
@ Kupo:
🙂
John, please, there is hardly anything left of your foot! Stop shooting it and putting the pieces in your mouth!
@theKND
If I wasn’t a giant ball of stress I would have laughed.
@Lainy
How about framing violence as a choice a person makes independently and not something they were provoked to do? Violence is not inevitable, it’s not something people are provoked into, it’s something a person actively chooses to do. It’s not okay for a man to hit another man out of frustration and anger either, BTW. Or for anyone to hit anyone besides out of self defense.
Forgot to add. This
is super gross. If you feel the need to manipulate your partner to convince them into having sex with you, there’s a serious issue. There are a lot of reasons someone might not be as into sex anymore and none of them are because their partner isn’t as good at running game. If you’re in a serious relationship with someone, you should be able to talk about these things. Treat your partner as a person with agency and feelings, not a malfunctioning sex vending machine.
@Kupo
Thank you but I’m okay. Just got my feathers a little ruffled is all.
full disclosure, this is gonna be white-cis-het-xian-middle class-MAN… splaining. As such, it’s really not aimed at most Mammotheers (though I’m always open to teaching and correction, especially from you). It’s for John, and for me.
In Angry White Men, Kimmell tells of a stint moderating a support group for men who are intimate violence perpetrators. He explains in detail how the abusers use the LANGUAGE of abuse (e.g. “provoke” “just ‘lost it’ “, “nagging”) to allow themselves to explain their actions in a way that makes it seem that their partner had FORCED them to batter. Unpacking the stories, Kimmell explained how the existence and use of the language allowed them to completely leave out their role, and to sincerely (well, maybe…) argue that they had NO CHOICE but violence. And in many cases, planned to do it before they even got home.
The language has to change. I’m not saying Lainy, or Kupo, Moggie, or wwth have to change the language. I’m saying MEN have to change the language.
Across the board, white-cis-het-xian-middle class-MEN have to change the language. Sure, everyone else must, as well, but that’s been happening for decades. Men, on the other hand, still insist on ‘splaining why it’s ok the way it is. The language of an intimate partner relationship from the man’s point of view IS the language of violence, of ownership, of command.
It’s not always that way, because we’re not all assholes (no tall men…?). And because some of us have MADE a concerted effort to form a different vocabulary (and thank, Kupo, Moggie, Dalillama, wwth and others for explaining that I needed to change).
No, it’s NOT “NOT ALL MEN”!! It IS ALL MEN. Even me. If I use language of oppression, whether due to obstinance, intimidation, ignorance, or just plain laziness, then I perpetuate the language of oppression.
“I was provoked by her well past the level where violence between men would have been inevitable.”
I interpret that as meaning that, if a man had ‘provoked’ you to that degree, you would not have removed yourself. You would have escalated to physical violence, because you had been intolerably provoked. And that, in your view, would have been entirely appropriate.
Please let me know if this is correct or not.
Now, I think it’s possible that John is trying to detox from all that conditioning, as we are socially and conditioned creatures by definition, you can see how those go deep.
I was trying to understand him more by asking if he believed in the 80/20 rule, the carousel, the wall, soyboys, etc.
I think he was to an extend satirizing their language and the anti jew parethesis were part of that. Now of course the legit “the wall” subreddit claims it being satire, but it isn’t, like 4 chan wasn’t and Kekistani wasn’t, but in this case it seems different.
He meant what in their tortured “logic” justified genital mutilation, the usual variation of thinking they can’t compete with Chad. To even think about that mutilation can be a solution to level up, requires a build up of already accumulated bitterness and dehumanization, the tip of a deep iceberg. Seeing women as disposable resources.
But John admitted and agreed with me that it boiled down to him being more confident, without the toxic shit around it and he was probably ironic when he was talking about performative masculinity.
“Softer” was maybe a leftover of that language.
We know it’s all about trying to distill any possible fallacy and stereotype in the “popular wisdom”, acting like those annoying pc warriors are attacking it and posing as the defenders, validating feelings of frustration and make them untrusting and suspicious toward people pointing up the error and how something is problematic and make them target it out as elite and hence impervious to it, saying they put feelings first, etc.
Now about the beating of women he may have phrased it badly, but it could be like this woman was abusive and making him really angry, purposefully, if we are to believe him. It’s clear, in the Lainy case, he was the violently abusive and controlling one. We don’t have enough details in John’s case. He meant to say it was not justified even in those case of abusiveness, maybe, but the wording “provoking” was unhappy, as often used by victim blamers indeed, while abusiveness, abusive behaviour would have been maybe more appropriate, if this was the case, possibly.
I know the last message, what more would you want, might sound trollish like “see, these sjw’s are never happy and it’s evident they don’t hold women at the same standard, never held accountable and men should always endure and never react no matter how abusive she is or how “provoked” the poor guy or even defend himself if she’s the violent one”, which of course would be a strawman of the feminist or “sjw” position. But maybe it’s possible that doing that would me strawmanning his position due to poor wording and he just meant beating a woman, and I’d say anyone especially someone smaller is never justified or proportional, except in the act of defending oneself, but you are justified to rebel an abusive relationship in any other way and mean, which of course we know it’s not always simple.
Sorry for the length.