By David Futrelle
Not all heroes wear capes. In the case of the Reddit user called IntrovertedMagma, I’m going to assume, it’s more like a stained Rick and Morty t-shirt, some cargo shorts, maybe a MAGA hat? I’m just guessing, really. And for all I know he does actually wear a cape.
In any case, IntrovertedMagma is a Man Going His Own Way who has been waging a brave and tireless struggle for Men’s Rights on Reddit, up until about six months ago anyway, when he evidently left to concentrate on what I assume were even more heroic pursuits. His weapon of choice in the struggle for men and against women?
The word “WAHMYN.”
You may be saying to yourself, “that’s not actually a word.” True, but that is the brilliance of InvertedMagma’s strategy. “WAHMYN” (he always puts it in all caps) is a variation on the 40-year-old joke of sarcastically calling women “womyn” to make fun of radical feminists. But then it’s got that “WAH” at the start, to suggest that the womyn in question are also crying like babies! Obviously that makes it twice as funny. And twice as powerful.
Just watch him at work here, as he muses on the impending collapse of civilization because women won’t have sex with him, sorry, I mean, with the 90 percent of men who aren’t Chads.
![IntrovertedMagma[S] 5 points 11 months ago
at some point, society will reach a state of complete degeneracy.. WAHMYN sleeping exclusively with top 10% (don't forget about the 13 year old WAHMYN seeing all this degeneracy, they will be 10x worse than current WAHMYN).. single motherhood in turn will prevail.. and your average beta male will literally face two choices: raise chad's kids or no sex at all.. why would the new generation of WAHMYN sleep with any guy uner 90th percentile?
of course, betas are still paying all the taxes which will go to single mothers who are the majority.. How long can you sustain a civilization like this? not long. they will speak up.. no body will listen to them. they will stop working, then the cunty government will make laws to force them to work.. then the beta males will fight the government at this point.. break it down and build it with patriarchal laws (the only way any successful civilization can thrive!)
and this is what I meant with force. I give it 50 years max. The islamic empires had fallen in under 100 years because their princes stopped ruling and focused on pussy and drinks and WAHMYN made the decisions behind the stage and of course degeneracy took over.
So I would say since feminism started in the 60s, another 50s from now would be the last years of this gynocentric civilization.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/2019-05-31_16-18-14.png?fit=520%2C1024)
In this thread, he thoughtfully suggests that women — sorry, WAHMYN — shouldn’t be allowed to vote. Or work. Or remain single and/or childless after the age of 25 without paying a penalty.
Here he weighs in on the critically important Men’s Rights issue of some random woman who flashed her tits at a hockey game, thus proving that all women are “complete trash.”
69 upvotes, nice!
But for all his vitriol, IntrovertedMagma is willing to admit that while men are stronger than women WAHMYN, they can be, if not smart exactly, then at least cunning. And they stick together, like bees.
Now, I should note that IntrovertedSmegmaMagma is not the only, or even the first, MGTOW to have embraced the brilliant strategy of calling women WAHMYN — there are plenty of others who have gone the WAHMYN route, sometimes impressively so, like this fellow, who has some very interesting thoughts on how wahmyn shouldn’t have any rights at all because
Wahmyn’s rights are the worst thing in human history. Wahmyn should not be allowed to have “rights.” Wahmyn’s rights my ass. They don’t deserve rights. Wahmyn are THE MOST PRIVILEGED CREATURES ON EARTH AND THEY ARE EXTREMELY PRIVILEGED IN EVERY SINGLE ASPECTS OF LIFE. Every. Single. Aspects. No exception. Women are garbage, the most useless, worthless, incompetent and unproductive thing in the universe.
But IntrovertedMagma has been the most enthusiastic. And he’s the only one who remembers to do it in all-caps.
Truly a hero for our times.
PS: Did I mention that this guy is a fan of Stefan Molyneux? Because of course he is.
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!
@Shadowplay, Alan
Ta. Alan: I’m reminded of Neil Gaiman’s Anansi Boys, and how Charles Nancy, American boy dragged off to England in his youth,
OT, but since we’re talking about England, can we take a moment to appreciate the Queen and the subtlety of her insults? Wearing gloves to shake hands with Trump, when she normally never keeps them on for that. Gorgeous. Admittedly, it was less a handshake than a fist bump, but still. I wonder if Philip suggested it.
Actually, Trump makes me wish Philip hadn’t retired. As the original Nation’s Embarrassing Uncle, they’re perfectly matched, and I’d love to know what he’d say. I wouldn’t put it past him to mock Trump’s hair to his face and with microphones around, or make comments about Melania coming from a shithole country. (Given a choice between Philip and Trump as a dinner guest, I’d take Philip any day. Sure, they’re both primal racists, but at least Philip’s genuinely thinks he’s funny and is sometimes hilarious, as opposed to being mean for the sake of it.)
Now to see if Harry points out that he never claimed to have bone spurs, and that he knows several ways to kill people with his bare hands if Trump makes any comments about either his wife or his mother.
@Frederic Christie
Nice Emma Goldman reference
Thanks guys. I’ll try my best but I’m hopeful that it’s over now. Pray for me though, I know some of those type of guys just can’t let go.
I made three points in my original comment.
1. This type of extreme festering hate will lead to more and more violence.
2. There is a dissonance and contrast in out response Islamic extremism and this hate and dehumanization though both are leading to violence and death with links to show this.
3. There needs to be a more robust response.
There was NO attack on this website, its commentators or the idea of mockery. Suggesting there is a dissonance and lack of response does not mean an attack on this site, its commentators or mockery of incels. These things can happen simultaneously so why this hostile and uncharitable reading of my comment?
Commentators are not responding to the what I actually wrote but second guessing my motives, presuming I am against mockery and this site and accusing me of ‘waltzing’ in and ‘breezing’ in. Presumably other commentators make simple comments, but I do not do that, I ‘waltz in’, ‘breeze in’ and talk down to others. Why this rush to personalize everything and personal attacks?
We have a commentator here making wild assertions and transparently making things up about what I said in my comment for anyone reading the thread and when called out whole explicitly denying the link between hate and violence as his comment below shows.
.
No one sees the dissonance separating Islamic and incest/supremacist violence in the comment? And explicit attempt to disconnect hate and violence? or the pattern of wild assertions and bad faith discussion? The only people who engage in discussion like @anonymous are alt right trolls making wild assertions and not backing up what they said when called out to make more assertions and getting nervous when anyone makes a connection between hate and violence.
And my response specifically to this one person with evidence to the contrary.
And this reply to anonymous is interpreted by a third commentator as an attack on this website and all other commentators? This is just incredible.
@catalpa
Why have you taken my reply to anonymous as something I am saying about the site and commentators? There is just a pattern of bad faith here and personal attacks with no reference to what I actually wrote.
@Raul
How to put this politely?
Your writing is so dense in saying absolutely nothing, people’s eyes probably glazed over and attached themselves to random words they noticed (I know mine did).
Let’s get to brass tax:
What do you want to say with this? That the reaction to “Islamic extremism” is overblown? That it’s appropriate, but should be also applied to the Manosphereians? That it’s hypocritical?
Furthermore: Who is “our”? The US? They really, REALLY, like Saudi Arabia. The general public? Those don’t just hate the extremist Wahabists. The people on this site? Because believe me, I can’t think of anyone here who would excuse anyone who attempts to play patriarchy.
So maybe it’s not so much “bad faith” and more you needing to rethink and restructure your arguments.
Am I right in interpreting Raul as having meant, in his original statement, to say “the mainstream media, etc., aren’t taking incels and mras seriously enough,” but accidentally worded it so it sounded like “you people on this particular website aren’t taking incels and mras seriously enough,” and that he’s been doubling down and arguing in circles ever since?
I’ve been watching this for a while, and it’s not just the only sort-of charitable interpretation I can come up with, it’s the only way I can remotely make sense of the conversation, unless he’s really* trying to put words in everyone else’s mouth.
Does my suggestion make sense?
*(Like, “Bugs Bunny switching pronouns from “me” to “you” mid argument to trick Daffy into demanding Elmer shoot him now” trying to put words in other people’s mouths.)
@Raul
Exactly! That’s why I quoted you like 4 times, because I didn’t care about what you actually wrote! Checkmate, Me!
Also checkmate Victorious Parasol and anyone who might have quoted Raul without using the block quote function.
Um, because of what you actually said. To wit:
While I agree that you need to have a significant background in gender studies to appreciate what happens on WHTM, and while I agree that this means that WHTM isn’t the ideal place to FORM “a more sophisticated and deeper understanding”, it’s a great place to make use of one’s sophisticated and deeper understanding.
That concession made, asserting that WHTM runs the risk of encouraging “some kind of acceptance of vile and toxic ideals” is in fact a criticism of this website and its commenters. And don’t tell me you’re relying on some subtle distinction between an “attack” on WHTM and its commenters and a “critique” of same, because I’m perfectly happy with my level of pushback whether you would rather characterize your remarks as criticism or attack. it really doesn’t matter at all to the substance of what I said since, you know, I was only responding to the exact words you wrote, as I made plain by, like, using a special function to set off the specific quotes to which I was responding.
If you’d like to move forward with all of us agreeing you never critiqued WHTM or its commenters, may I recommend a technology consultation with CJ Walker?
Ah! A bit of self-awareness. That’s refreshing.
Maybe because when anonymous asked:
anonymous was… how do I phrase this? Oh, yes! “Responding to what [you] actually wrote”.
Though it may be difficult for you to understand, it is possible to respond to the actual statements you make with both reasonable opinion and reasoned argument opposed to your conclusions AND to believe you have a giant metaphor stuck up your humongous other metaphor.
In fact, we had quite a lot of evidence to believe that you could understand this and were happy to have conversations on two levels at once – both arguing against specific assertions, premises, and/or conclusions and also speculating on primitive anal specula. Where, in all the universe, could we have gotten such an idea?
Well, one possible source might have been the (obscure, I know) comments of a person going by the internet name “Raul”:
And thus, on the basis of this “Raul” person’s actions, the “commentators” of this website responded in kind. Almost literally. The KND actually appeared to read your links and respond purely with substantial responses to at least one of your points, such as they were. Meanwhile, others took note of your “immature mocking” comment furthering your earlier assertion that mocking on WHTM runs the risk of normalizing (and thus creating sympathy for, or something?) violent incels.
We frequent commenters on WHTM almost universally consider our mocking of others to be quite, quite mature. Thus it is of no surprise that those who took note of this denigration of our superb mockery, made subtle with skill and deep with experience, made some effort to supply you with examples that you might better appreciate its brilliance.
“But!” you begin,
Uhm, because anonymous is a commenter on this site? Maybe that’s a bit too illogical for you, but with my ladybrainz it makes a lot of sense to me.
Finally, as to this:
1. Nope. No dissonance. This website doesn’t attempt to directly address forms of terrorism other than misogynistic terrorism. Asking what Islamic fundamentalism has to do with anything here is simply asking if you’ve noticed that on the internet it’s a normal, non-problematic thing for different websites to have specific favored topics and that this website, WHTM, has specific favored topics that do not include the fundamentalism of any religion except on infrequent occasion in its most specifically and blatantly misogynist incarnations. Religious fundamentalism in the ecumenical sense or even as narrowed to a particular sect is simply not the topic of discussion here, and as it turns out, that’s actually acceptable behavior on the internet where there are easily OVER A DOZEN blogs that do not regularly address the serious issues raised by religious fundamentalism.
[2]Uh, yeah. There was no effort to divorce hatred from violence in anonymous’ statement.
[3]Um, if you have a problem with wild assertions, why are you asserting that anonymous made an effort to distance hatred from violence? Could it be because you’re discussing things in bad faith? I’m just asking questions here.
[4]Yeah, there’s nothing alt-right about anonymous’ comments. Questioning whether or not you’ve noticed websites exist that don’t focus on islamic extremism and whether or not you’ve managed to figure out that the existence of such sites is actually okay is not a defense of Wahhabism or a statement that criticism of Wahhabism is not allowed. Instead it’s a simple statement that if someone spends an hour a day checking in with a website that doesn’t critique Wahhabism, that’s okay. This is a complicated, nuanced position that may be hard to grasp at first, but asserting that one can spend some small amount of time not criticizing Wahhabism without being evil is not actually the same thing as asserting that spending some small amount of time criticizing Wahhabism is evil. If this is presenting you with some difficulty for having been presented without the logical trappings, try this:
Allow p = spending some time not criticizing Wahhabism.
Allow q = socially acceptable.
You are asserting that if p = q, then ~p = ~q.
We are asserting that if p = q does not tell you that ~p = ~q.
Got it now?
[5] I could make some more detailed comments, but for the benefit of your understanding, I’ll just say, where p = Raul, If p, then lol.
@Moon Custafer:
With the addition of Raul’s latest, I think this is very possibly true. But as we all know, intent isn’t magic. There are many people who show up and later say we terribly, terribly misinterpreted their comments. But if people are actually bewildered by why others are interpreting them to have said X, the normal thing would be to re-read their own comments to find the portion of what they said that could be interpreted to mean X, then ask, “Is this why you think I mean X, because I thought it was clear in context that I meant Y.”
That’s the kind of thing that would actually move the conversation forward if one were actually interested in resolving such a discrepancy. But for the idea to occur to someone that they should review their own work, that person first must have the idea that they might possibly have contributed to any miscommunication. It’s only the truly arrogantly ignorant that can’t bring themselves to that admission.
So, sure, maybe Raul only ever intended to say something reasonable. But Raul’s refusal to actually interrogate their own position shows them to be just as worthy of mockery as if they really meant the obvious and surface meaning of their words when they typed:
For me, the crossing of the rubicon was Raul’s description of our collective mockery as “superficial”. Ending a sentence with a preposition and deriding WHTM mockery as superficial are two things up with which I shall not put!
It does. I don’t think it’s easily proved since that would require Raul to perform some self-reflection, but it’s plausible. And it speaks well of you that you would take the time to consider such a suggestion.
@Crip Dyke:
Yeah, once you went back and found that bit, any other spin pretty much fell apart.
Thanks for saying so, but I suspect it’s really just my own self-doubt asking me if there’s some way I could have misheard/misread the conversation.
@Raul
Because nothing that Anonymous said was outside of the general sentiment held by this community. None of what Anonymous said diminished the connection between hate and violence. What Anonymous said was something that any of us could have said, so I extrapolated from that as well as from your comment about how:
To mean that you intended to criticize this site and the community as a whole.
If that was not your intention, I recommend that you improve your communication skills, because you are either a terrible elocutor or being incredibly disingenuous. (Personally, I’m betting on door #2, but I could be wrong.)
It’s especially funny to insinuate that this site and its commenters aren’t properly analyzing manosphere extremism and its connection to culture as a whole because um, this site and its commenters were pretty much at the forefront of doing that. Sometimes David just mocks a ridiculous comment he dug up or had sent to him. But he’s written more substantial pieces too. And there’s been plenty of serious and informative conversations in the comments in between jokes, recipes and cat pics too.
@ WWTH
Don’t forget the pics of dogs and other cute critters. Some of us may prefer cats, but as a whole we’re pretty inclusive when it comes to animal appreciation!
(My cats are now eyeing me suspiciously, so in closing, cats rule and dogs drool.)
Aww shucks, he picked his hill to die on. I guess I should never question if a feller is very, very, very certain he is not part of the problem.
From Raul’s first comment:
That seems a bit…dehumanizing to me. Did anyone else notice this?
@Cheesynougats:
the longer quote for fuller context, for those following along at home, was this:
It struck me as a bit odd, but b/c Raul was criticizing the incels here, I took it to mean that the incels were
Now, I’ve added in “generally” and “specifically” and the second “real”, but if you read that, you wouldn’t have a problem (I would imagine).
It’s like if you say, “Please pick up some fresh fruit and vegetables,” you don’t mean “please pick up some fresh fruit and non-fresh vegetables”. The way of phrasing “real people and women” definitely sounds off, but with so much else to criticize I wasn’t stuck on that. It’s just too easily explained as writing-off-the-cuff, which in an internet comment is completely reasonable and understandable. I’m sure I commit all sorts of grammar and phrasing mistakes to the electronic ether every day.
So, yeah. It’s a bad phrase, but I’m not at all sure that the bad phrase wasn’t just an accident, especially in a context where Raul’s criticizing the misogynists.
The much less ambiguous bits for me are where Raul condemns the use of mockery for running the risk of “normalizing” violent incels. In that case Raul obviously isn’t criticizing the incels, but the people talking about the incels. While theoretically that could be people other than David & the commenters, the way it was written makes that interpretation seem untenable, and Raul’s recent disavowal of that interpretation – without specifically citing the phrase – comes off more as ignorance of what Raul’s own comments actually contained than a specific rebuttal of a specific interpretation of specific words specifically written by Raul.
But, as Moon Custafer pointed out, we don’t really know what’s going on in Raul’s head, and it’s possible that terrible writing is being combined with an arrogant refusal to honestly consider why people here have criticized Raul.
In any case, although intent isn’t magic, I think there’s enough here for us to conclude that the likeliest explanation isn’t that for Raul women aren’t “real people” but instead that the tools of rhetoric and oratory don’t fit comfortably into Raul’s hands.
@ John From Denver in Peace
I think your questions got lost in the flurry of Raul discussion posts, sorry. Let’s take a look at what you asked about:
I’m not sure the incels are organized enough to have a coherent ideology. Have you seen the ContraPoints video where Natalie discusses the incel movement?
As to how it differs from mainstream manosphere thinking, I see a lot of overlap, largely having to do with a hatred/fear of women and of intimacy.
I can’t speak definitively as to why plenty of these guys could be redeemable, but my own sense is that it’s better to hope these guys can get out of the incel/manosphere mindset, because the alternatives include some truly horrifying possibilities.
Please don’t do this. That’s not how totem poles work.
A day late, as usual.
@ Crip Dyke: Your rhetoric is flawless, also as usual.
@ Cat Mara: Re: (M)uppet (R)ights (A)ctivists, they prefer the term “Fabricated Americans”.
@Raul: My main question upon reading your comment was — What’s your point?
It sounds like you are telling us that a bunch of chicks blathering on the internet, rather than getting off of our butts and DOING SOMETHING USEFUL, is a waste of time and we should stop.
1. This is a very common response to women talking in general. It’s a strategy to minimize impact and silence people. That’s why you’re getting the response that we’ve all heard it before.
2. This is assuming that this is ALL we are doing. That’s presumptuous and insulting.
3. This is telling us that our conversation has no value (so shut up).
So, dude, if you roundly receive two-middle-fingers-up because of how you come across, doubling down on tone policing is likely to be received poorly.
You’ll notice I didn’t address your “points”. Please note that you haven’t addressed any of the points made in responses you received. Many of them can be summed up as, “We can’t hear you because we’re too annoyed that you keep rhetorically kicking us. Please reevaluate and rephrase.”
Re: your points.
Yes, there is a difference in response of authority and media to religious terrorism than there is to white supremacist/ incel terrorism. Astutely observed. No one here likes that and we are working to raise awareness. Please note that religious terrorism is, for the most part off topic. Your continuing to bring it up looks like an attempt to divert the conversation to a topic you’d prefer to discuss. Stop that. There are better places to have the conversation you are looking for.
No, using humor, sarcasm, and mockery does not, as a rule, minimize or normalize hate. That is simply false.
No, the conversation on this site does not uncouple hatred and violence. The articles here hold up examples of violence and point to the underlying hate that caused them. They also point out examples of hatred and point out the potential for violence resulting from hate.
If you would like the conversation here to go in a different way, make useful contributions ABOUT THE TOPIC, not the tone. If you want to say, “We need to take the relationship between hate and violence more seriously!”, say that. If you want to say, “We need to take action! We should [do this specific thing]”, that’s cool. Your comments, however, come across as a condescendingly telling us to go sit down and let the grown ups talk.
@ John from Denver: You don’t have to self-deprecate to ask a question. As long as you are polite, you’re welcome!
This is just my understanding and not an academic definition, but…
MRA = men who think that they are losing their deserved place in society and family life to women who have everything better than them.
Incel = In(voluntarily) cel(ibate) = MRAs, usually young, who believe that they are unjustly denied access to sex due to factors beyond their control. They argue that they should be assigned or be otherwise given access to a woman (or young girl) for exclusive sexual use, through no effort on their part.
So basically, incels are really lazy MRAs.
Also, additional information is available here: https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wtf-is-a-mgtow-a-glossary/
on this very site.
@Raul
Allow me to counter each of your points; for the sake of generosity, I shall overlook your continued speculations about my political leanings.
1. You are preaching to the choir here, but the thing is that 99% of those people are either unable or unwilling to be de-radicalized for reasons that this website simply is not equipped to handle. What you’re asking for would require an entirely different, purpose-made website that would not be able to accommodate the functions of this one. Besides, how can a connection that’s self-evident to everyone here be minimized.
2. WHTM has never focused on Islamic fundamentalism save for when it directly related to incels or the manosphere, so the dissonance you speak of does not exist. We don’t go over to sites that painstakingly document Wahhabism and tell them that they ought to be focusing more on incel violence.
If your problem is with the media coverage of incels relative to Islamic fundamentalists, consider that the Wahhabists are by definition considered outsiders and so are much easier to denounce and attack directly than a group which is for the most part indistinguishable from the average WASP citizen until you ask the right questions.
It helps that only one of those groups so far has launched a massive terrorist attack that has been shaping the last two decades of our history and carved out a small empire in the Middle East. Not to mention that the mass media itself has a considerable hand in promoting incel beliefs to begin with, even if you haven’t noticed yet.
3. And why is the burden on WHTM specifically to be the vanguard of this “robust response” you speak of, and incidentally have yet to define beyond one program in the UK that arguably did more harm than good? Not all of us have to treat what we do here as a solemn duty to humanity and the world, and I know I for one would burn out if I tried.
Tell me what you have done to promote this robust response if it means so much to you, and cease your hypocritical complaining about other people’s assumptions regarding your behavior.
@Crip Dyke
Not necessarily, although it does help with appreciating the finer details of it. For what it’s worth I don’t have any qualifications in gender studies but just by looking at the lunatics exhibited by Dave and letting their brand of bile speak for itself I can be pleased that there are people willing to denounce them as selfish control freaks working on an ideology that is divorced from reality.
I’m really enjoying the discussion here, I didn’t know quite how to respond to Raul’s “this is serious business, only serious pants serious people can comment on it” besides sharing this link –
(if it doesn’t embed, it’s Lindsay Ellis’ video essay on ‘Mel Brooks, The Producers and the Ethics of Satire about N@zis’. It’s long! I’m sorry. But really good!! If you haven’t watched any of her video essays, a+ recommended. Watch ‘The Whole Plate’ series!)
Part of her point is that serious pants portrayals can be co-opted by the movements they are portraying, but you know what never is?
(Springtime for Hitler – the producers)
Re- Anonymous – Careful of calling the assholes featured here ‘lunatics’. They are assholes. Mind the comments policy <3.
Also, I have no background in gender studies… But I have read a lot, and talked a lot about this. I’m giving myself a life experience grade of B. Still work and learning to be done!
@Rhuu- apparently an illiterati
My mistake, I’ll be more careful next time. Looks like I too am a work in progress.
Oh wow, I miss a day and come back to so many wonderful comments! Alan, sorry it took me so long; thank you, government reports ARE in fact one of my favourite forms of reading. Or well, one of the things I read a lot. ?
I think I’m just going to sit back and massively enjoy these eloquent take-downs and detailed critiques for a bit… ?