MGTOW Redditor wages tireless struggle against Women’s Rights by using the word “WHAMYN,” like, a lot

The gospel according to @Raul:

No one is going to consider this ‘non serious’. You need to stop trying to minimize their impact.This website amply documents people like Moleneux so ignorance cannot be the answer, this willfull minimizing and immature mocking of other commentators suggests you are not here for good faith discussion.

Kinda clumsy wording there: “You need to stop trying to minimize their impact.” Um. I’d say the regulars here are pretty dedicated to minimizing the impact of the doofusheads David documents. I assume you meant to tell us that we need to not underestimate their impact. Already done, Raul, especially because many of us are or have been targets of this kind of thinking, and those who haven’t been targeted have enough empathy to understand that doofusheads like to hurt other people and that’s not nice.

Social change can be managed via the potluck approach: protests in the streets, op-eds, blogging, private conversations, etc. Pointing and laughing, or even shouting “Riddikulus!” can be effective. Laughter is empowering because it undercuts the powerful and can lift the spirits of the powerless.

For some reason, I didn’t notice this one before

The Islamic empires had fallen in under 100 years

Really, dude? Have you ever heard of the Ottomans? You know, the Islamic empire that ruled for about 700 years?

@Anonymous

This person probably doesn’t feel powerless either.

@ Raul,

I guarantee you, everyone on here thinks incels/MRAs/MGTOWs and their ilk are a serious problem. We also all think that violence committed in the name of incel/MRA/MGTOW ideology is a serious problem. We also agree that “terrorism”, as that word is used, is unfairly applied only to certain groups.

Did you somehow miss this? Just. Because. We. Mock. Doesn’t. Mean. We’re. Not. Concerned.

It’s weird…you seem to agree with the folks on here, while still misunderstanding us utterly.

@victoreus parasol @bookworm in hijab

None of my comments take a position against this website, other commentators or mockery. They are mainly linking hate to violence, identifying a dissonance and suggesting a more robust response, something I am presuming everyone here is for.

For instance outreach to schools, teachers and parents will help so children and teenagers who come across this material online have context and can process it appropriately, for instance without thinking their lack of success or awkwardness with others which is perfectly normal at that age is a conspiracy against them. Is anyone here against this because that has worked for other types of extremism and what the bulk of my comments are suggesting.

@anonymous, what is with all this strawmanning? Not a single comment you made is related to anything I have said, where did I say anyone here is encouraging incels? This is really absurd. Please respect the basic standards of discourse and point this out before making another wild assertion.

The only one here diminishing the connection between these groups, hate and violence in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary is you. Why would that be?

This inability to engage respectfully, diminishing the connection between hate and violence and making wild assertions is characteristic of the alt right who get nervous when the connections between their ideology and violence is made. If you are unable to respond and engage respectfully why bother?

@Raul, you have made a couple of significant faux pas (in both the literal and the metaphorical sense).

Firstly you have waltzed in without stopping to consider that many people here (who live in a large number of different countries and have hugely differing backgrounds and professions) are already engaging with extremism in all sorts of different ways away from this site – in education, at workplaces, in politics etc. And also, that for some people here this shit is not only a matter of principle, it’s a matter of extreme and present danger in their everyday life.

You assumed, you did not ask.

Secondly you failed to consider that this place is where many of us come to replenish our batteries and exchange jokes and links and notions, while also having a good laugh at the manurespherians; tracking and mocking misogyny – it’s right there at the top of the page.

You may not have intended to give this impression, but you certainly appear to be implying that you’re bringing Vry Srs enlightenment to a bunch of ineffectual ninnies who would never otherwise have had the wit to think of anything you mention.

That is not what I’d call engaging respectfully.

@opposablethumbs

Is it any surprise that he hasn’t been engaged respectfully when he has done nothing to deserve respect from anybody here?

We provide all the context that anyone needs to come to a reasonable conclusion about these hate groups, and only the most willfully ignorant or antisocial of people will think otherwise.

What Raul wants is nothing short of planting a giant banner saying “MISOGYNY IS BAD, DON’T BE A MISOGYNIST” over every article as if the reader was incapable of reaching that conclusion without “schools, parents, and teachers” pointing out something that they ought to have already learned. Oh, and there’s a world of difference between teenage awkwardness and incel bitterness, which he doesn’t seem to have picked up.

He may as well suggest that children and teenagers are too stupid to realize that fire is hot unless they have Mommy and Daddy explain the exact chemical reactions behind combustion. Here, on the other hand we have some degree of trust in their ability to figure out what should be clear to even the most cursory of readings. Or has he never looked at any of the posts here which explicitly link incel ideology and violence?

@Raul

The basic standards of discourse also entail not barging into a discussion, telling Dave that he’s not taking the subject matter he’s spent years reporting on seriously, and declaring everyone but you to be an ignorant enabler of incels because blogging about incel asshattery is Serious Business to be discussed only by Very Serious People™ like you. So what are your qualifications for knowing better than him besides being able to use Google and produce red herrings on command?

If what I’m saying makes me a member of the alt-right, then that must make you Attila the fucking Hun. Now take your own advice before trying to justify yourself further.

Well, at least IntrovertedMagma isn’t referring to women as “females”. I seriously hate when people just brush it off, because at least with open slurs and insults there is some acknowlegement of the target’s humanity, but with “females” they’re litterally referring to women the same way one does with unthinking animals.

@Raul

Random dude shows up on a site full of highly informed women and starts ‘splaining them how they are doing feminism wrong, news at 11…

Seriously, guys do this all. the. time. You are not remotely the first dude to try that here, and you won’t fare any better than the last twenty. Your opinions are not magically correct and helpful just because you’re a dude.

@Bookworm OMG no need to apologize!! That was a really relevant and useful contribution. (And for me at least, educational!)

@Cyborgette

And not even in a way that would superficially make sense, either. That guy was the first I’ve seen suggesting that the problem was that we weren’t taking the opponents of feminism seriously enough,
none of the others have gotten that creative before.

. Who are you to demand such a thing? How did your head get so big, that you literally think you could possibly have the magical effect of saying

Well he’s a man so obviously he has the power over the week minded women folk and he’s always right. -_-

Seriously, men with a bug up their ass coming in to tell women their doing feminism wrong annoy me to know end.

Hi ho, long time lurker here. Also a lurker that happens to have a master’s degree in Islamic studies that specialized particularly in the writing from the later periods of the “Gunpowder Empires” (Ottomans, Mughals, and Safavids, though mainly the first two) so I kind of had to jump in on the “Islamic empires collapsing in a hundred years because of women” thing. People have already pointed out how stupid the comment is by a literally reading but I also had two stupidly charitable alternate interpretations by which the comment is…also super dumb. (Apologies for wall of text, I’m super into this topic and couldn’t help myself even though I have not earned living national treasure Scildfreya’s informal info-drop privileges)

The first “option” is that it’s meant to present Ibn Khaldun’s cyclical theory of dynasties (and not that really it’s “dynasties,” ruling families, not necessarily empires or civilizations per se that Ibn Khaldun suggests will have natural “lifespans”), but Khaldun gives dynasties way more than a century, closer to 150-200 years and the “decadence” is purely material and circumstantial: living in a palace in a city is more “softening” than living in a tent in the desert regardless of women. Ibn Khaldun also describes influence of women as an effect not a cause of decline (not to say he’s not super-sexist, it’s just that the sexist element is that he thinks women wouldn’t end up with any power or influence unless things have already gone south with the men for other reasons).

The other is the idea that everything in the Middle East collapsed in a century or so and colonial powers took over. Leaving aside that the Ottomans hung on until the 20th century, and the Safavids and Mughals collapsed in the 1700s (Mughals had some nominal authority into the early 1800s but were pretty much out of commission by the 1750s and 60s), the idea that women led to this and not, you know, colonialism is utterly nuts. However, many writers from those empires made a big deal about female influence undermining empires. The Ottomans especially, in part because policy critics used Ibn Khaldun’s theories to deflect suspicion of sedition or to flatter the Sultan into thinking he could prevent decline with a bit of personal vigor, constantly described the period after Suleiman’s death, known as the “Sultanate of Women” due to the influence of wives and mothers of the Sultan as a governmental dark age, and Orientalists absolutely took this at face value (and also used it to create the orientalist image of the harem, but anyway). The funny thing is, the “Sultanate of Women” period, though the palace intrigue was absolutely Game of Thrones-level, was actually one of the MOST politically stable and economically prosperous periods in Ottoman history, and the subsequent “restoration” of good government under the Koprulu viziers actually correlates with the Ottomans’ first big political and military reverses.

So yeah TLDR: Sultans being too into women leading to the collapse of Islamic empires actually gets dumber when you look into it.

Informally, some bibliography:

Cornell Fleischer, “Royal Authority, Dynastic Cyclism, and ‘Ibn Khaldunism’ in Sixteenth Century Ottoman Letters”

Rifa’at ‘Ali Abou-el-Haj, Formation of the Modern State: The Ottoman Empire, Sixteenth to Eighteenth Century

Virginia Aksan, “Ottoman Political Writing, 1768-1808”

Ibn Khaldun, Muqaddimah