By David Futrelle
Seems I wasn’t the only person to take note of the Daily Stormer’s growing excitement over sexbots and artificial wombs, which the Stormers think will render real human women obsolete and help to solve “our white reproduction problem.”
Over on Incels.co, one prolific commenter called Sparrow’s Song posted a link to the Stormer article about sexbots I wrote about yesterday, declaring that “the Daily Stormer is on our side.”
“It seems like this time around, the Nazis are trying to save the untermensch instead of dispose of them like femasites [women] want,” he wrote.
This is ideal, I cannot love a foid and a foid cannot love me, a waifubot is more human and worthy than a fembeast unclean animal.
Somehow I suspect that those “waifubots” would get pretty unclean pretty quickly, but never mind.
Add ectogenesis to fun, or as I like to call them, Uberwombs, and not only will every man have a reason to live and finally have their reproductive human rights recognized, but men would also never have to breed with genetically subhuman landwhales who produce deformed incel sons who rope.
English translation: Add artificial wombs to the mix and men will be able to pass their genes onto the next generation without having to have procreative sex with “genetically subhuman” fat women who would give birth to ugly male children destined to become incels and kill themselves.
Foids have nothing to complain about, they can turn their chad harems into physical dwelling places and have their animalistic, heartless, barbaric, and hateful blood orgies of death and bullying among themselves and their chads.
How do you change a “harem” of Chads into a building? What is this dude even talking about?
Ugly and fat foids can get chadbots and artificial creampie procedures, they have nothing to complain about it. This technology isn’t misogynistic, this technology is MERCIFUL GRACE.
Now, there are certainly many commenters on Incels.co who are sympathetic to white nationalism and the rabid antisemitism that comes along with it, but most of those in the comments took issue with Sparrow’s Song’s new enthusiasm for the Daily Stormer. For some, the Nazis are simply normie “cucks” who worship white women (though this is clearly not the case with the highly misogynistic Daily Stormer crew). Other incels, many of them not themselves white, are less than thrilled by Nazi racism.
But one commenter called turbocuckcel_7000, another prolific poster who, like Sparrow’s Song, has more than 12,000 comments to his name, sees some sort of alliance with the Stormer crew as both inevitable and good. While he dismisses the “older patriotic types” in the far-right milieu who are “very proud of their achievements in finding a wife and … lionize their daughters,” he’s enthusiastic about the
men on the younger side like those staffing the Dailystormer who are actually in touch with the new generation and the magnitude of the incel problem.
they see how having females in power everywhere simultaneously fucks up everything for rightwing purposes while accelerating the incel problem.
they also don’t lionize women like boomers, thinking of their wife as some kind of super-discerning judge of male worth, and their daughter as some kind of demi-god that’s better than most men.
they just see women as something to be controlled, much like the founders of all functioning civilizations see them.
this isn’t even an alliance by necessity, it just couldn’t even go any other way. both win when the other wins.
Misogynists of a feather flock together, and it seems likely that the incels’ and the Stormers’ shared hatred of women will bring them closer together over time, regardless of whether their weird pipe dreams about sexbots and artificial wombs ever come true.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
@Naglfar
When you all-caps TERF you’re using it as an acronym, and the meaning of the term doesn’t apply to every transphobe. Yes, a lot of people do apply it to every transphobe, but my point is that if I’m the target of a TERF label, and I know I’m not radical feminist, I can laugh at you and point out that I’m not a TERF and completely shrug it off. Using it for every transphobe not only dilutes the term, it also makes it simple for the targets to continue their transphobic ways while telling themselves, “I’m not a TERF so I don’t have to care what you call me.”
She’s a transphobe, so I don’t know why she needs a TERF label instead of just being called (more accurately) a transphobe. If you want to say that TERF does not have to be accurate, and you can use it for every transphobe regardless of whether it fits, then you’re playing into the TERF narrative that TERF is just a slur. It’s not a slur, it’s an accurate label, but only if you use it accurately.
@PoM
I am aware it is an acronym. I did not apply it to every transphobe, as I mentioned it is generally used to mean someone who uses pseudo feminist language to justify transphobia. Many archetypal people for whom the term is used; like Posie Parker, Graham Linehan, or Jonathan Ross; do not associate with radical feminism other than to justify transphobia. What you are suggesting would mean the vast majority of people that have been labeled as TERFs no longer fit the term. This is a term used because it’s useful to be able to classify bigots, for example there is a difference between MRAs and incels, or how neo Nazis are a subset of white supremacists. The term would be much less useful if it were more limited in scope. We could use a term they created like “gender critical” to describe the rest, but that’s using their lexicon and downplays their bigotry.
JK claims to be a feminist. She is transphobic. Therefore, she is a TERF. Whether she actually is or ever was a feminist is up for debate, but by her own self-identification she fits the term.
But she’s not (to the best of my reckoning) a radical feminist. She’s a liberal feminist from what I can see, to whatever extent she may be a feminist at all. So she might be called a TELF, accurately, but not a TERF.
In fact, TELF is a great label for a whole lot of transphobes, so maybe I’ll start using that a lot.
@PoM
I feel like saying she’s a liberal feminist still does ignore a lot of antifeminist stuff in her work, but it is more accurate than calling her radical. I’ve also seen the acronym rendered as TER for “trans-exclusionary reactionary,” which would describe her adequately. Or TEF, without the “radical.”
Given that the average layperson seems unlikely to know the exact definition of a radical feminist compared to a liberal feminist or other type, I’m not sure if it’s useful to limit our usage of the term TERF to only people who meet the dictionary definition of a radical feminist. I think that TERF is also a useful term that can be used to identify people who advocate for transphobic bigotry and actions while using the language and trappings of supposed ‘progressiveness’, even if it’s not strictly the ‘correct’ term.
In terms of the ‘well the transphobes will blow off the term by saying that it doesn’t apply to them” argument, I don’t know that it holds water. It is exceedingly rare for bigots to not dismiss even exactly correct terms for their behaviour. How many racists will proclaim that they aren’t racist, and misogynists will proclaim that they’re not sexist, etc?
@Catalpa
This is how I generally use it, as their tactics and arguments are different than other kinds of transphobes.
That’s the biggest issue with the term, is that it associates radical feminism with transphobia and makes them interchangeable. It makes it hard for someone to say “I’m a radical feminist” without a bunch of people jumping down on them on the grounds that if you’re are radical, you must be a TERF. Because obviously nobody is transphobic unless they are radical! It’s right there in the term!
Language matters, and splash damage is not okay, especially when it’s unnecessary and easy to avoid.
@PoM:
This is the exact same argument as given by rightwingers who melt down over the phrase “toxic masculinity”. Not all masculinity is toxic and not all radical feminists are trans-exclusionary. Either the term TERF isn’t problematic, or the phrase “toxic masculinity” is.
I don’t know that I buy this. The term Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist has, y’know, modifiers added to it. It is not synonymous with Radical Feminist, any more than toxic masculinity is synonymous with masculinity. If we can assume that “trans exclusionary” is presumed to be inextricable from “radical feminist”, why can we not assume that “radical” is also inextricable from the term? Does TERF make people think all feminists are transphobes as well? Why not?
I think generally radical feminism gets a bad rap because people are conditioned to believe that radical = bad/dangerous. See: radical Muslim, etc. I don’t believe that the term TERF makes it harder to identify as a radical feminist, because if it wasn’t ‘oh so you’re a transphobe’ it would be ‘oh so you hate all men’ or ‘oh so you think bi women should only date women’, etc.
Exactly. You’re making my point for me.
The term TERF is only problematic when applied to people who are not actually radical feminists. If you equate “transphobe” with “radical feminist,” as you do when you call non-radical feminists TERFs, then you are arguing against what you just said and which I quoted above. You’re saying all transphobes and radical feminists are identical, which is exactly the same as saying all masculinity is toxic.
@PoM
I recognize that issue, but the term does have a use and is established as such for about the last decade. There are other proposed terms I’ve heard like Feminism-Appropriating Reactionary Transphobe (FART) or fauxminist or phlegmanist, but none of those have the same established currency and use.
No, the term does not say others aren’t transphobic or that all radical feminists are transphobic. It was created by a trans* inclusive radical feminist specifically to show that not all radical feminists are transphobes. As mentioned, it has shifted in use.
But the term “TERF” specifically specifies its targets (the trans-exclusionary ones). It doesn’t affect trans* inclusive radfems. Now if I just said “radfems” to imply transphobia, that would have splash damage, but I didn’t say that.
Should we stop using the term National Socialism because it might make people think all socialists are Nazis?
@Catalpa
I recall a similar argument a while ago with a commenter called Scanisaurus.
The word “cr-zy” has a whooooooooooole lot more cultural cachet than “TERF” does. Does that make it an OK term to throw around willy-nilly? Don’t we think we’re better than that on this site? Don’t we recognize that the splash damage done by it is unacceptable, despite it being widely used elsewhere?
I’m not even saying “never use TERF.” Go ahead when the person to whom you’re referring is actually a radical feminist. There are plenty of them around; it’s actually quite controversial in radical feminist spaces to say you’re NOT trans-exclusionary. You should have no shortage of people on which to use it, if you like the term that much. What I’m saying is that using it for someone like Rowling, who is not a radfem and who is only questionably feminist at all, equates the two groups in an illegitimate way.
“Transphobe” has a good bit of cachet. Why not use it?
When someone says something transphobic, and you apply the TERF term automatically despite that person not being a radical feminist, you are conveying that it is impossible for someone to be transphobic without being radical, that someone is radical simply by virtue of being transphobic. That elides the non-radical transphobes, and it certainly elides the non-transphobic radicals. It lumps transphobes and radicals together as one and the same.
Again: the problem is with applying this term to people who are not radical.
And it’s misapplied when it targets non-radicals or non-feminists. Doing that pushes non-radicals and non-feminists into the radfem club by saying they are transphobes and transphobes are radical definitionally.
The Nazis weren’t socialist at all, and in fact killed socialists in death camps. Is that really the analogy you want to make?
TERFs and assorted transphobes seem more than happy to see trans women (and trans men, but especially trans women) dead, and I’m sure plenty of trans folks identify as feminist, so I’m not sure the analogy is entirely off the mark there.
@PoM
Are you seriously trying to claim TERF is a slur? Because it seem like you’re equating the two words.
Because a TERF is a specific kind of transphobe. That’s why the term exists in the first place.
No it doesn’t. It specifically refers to trans* exclusionary radical feminists. Does calling people who have blonde hair as “blonde haired people” imply that all people have blonde hair?
I know they weren’t, my point is that we still refer to them as National Socialists despite them not being socialists. Similarly, we can use the term TERF to refer to people who aren’t radical feminists as a descriptor of a type of transphobe. Most people who use the term know what it means, same as we know the Nazis weren’t socialists.
Language changes. Word definitions change.
@Catalpa
IIRC trans* people of all kinds are more likely to self identify as feminists than their cis counterparts. Although that wasn’t the intent of my analogy, I see how it fits.
And of course TERFs are often quite happy to work hand in hand with Nazis when it suits them.
Did I say “cr-zy” is a slur? I apply it to myself all the time. I’m -‘ing it because I don’t want my posts caught in an autofilter, not because I think it’s a slur.
But as long as we’re on that topic, if you apply TERF indiscriminately, you’re using it like a slur and playing directly into the TERF argument that the term is a slur.
So let’s restrict its use to that specific kind. We’re in agreement now!
Again, we’re in agreement!
Damn, and I thought we were making progress when you agreed that the term actually means (as it says on the can) radical feminists. What’s with the back and forth? Please explain to me how you can say that you understand that TERF means radical feminists and then say it means non-radical feminists sometimes.
Language matters. Cr-zy has a meaning that has changed over time. That doesn’t make it okay to use it indiscriminately. And I’m standing here disagreeing with you that TERF has an indiscriminate meaning, so not everyone agrees with you that it’s okay to spray it out of a shotgun.
You obviously think it’s fine, because you’re making no effort to change the language by using FART or whatever other acronym would be more appropriate. I’m sure a lot of your friends think it’s fine. I’m saying it’s not fine because it has splash damage on me, it gives liberal feminists who are transphobes a free pass like they don’t exist and can’t possibly be transphobes, it allows transphobes to laugh you off because they’re not radical feminists and know it, and it elides transphobes with radicals like they are the same.
And it would cost you exactly nothing to only use the term when it applies to a radical feminist. It costs you nothing to choose some other term for people like Rowling. So I don’t understand the huge blowback I’m getting here. It would cost you. nothing.
@PoM
I’m not applying it indiscriminately. I don’t think Mike Pence is a TERF, for instance, because he is a transphobe but doesn’t use any feminist language to justify it. I am applying it to mean what the vast majority of people accept it to mean. As Wikipedia puts it, “The meaning has since expanded to refer more broadly to people with trans-exclusive views who may have no involvement with radical feminism.” I don’t think that definition is perfect, but it shows the accepted meaning, what people will interpret it as, has changed. It is now generally read to mean transphobes who use pseudo feminist or progressive language to justify their transphobia. That’s how I use it, that’s how David uses it, that’s how the majority of people who use this term use it.
Does this mean that every time we want to call someone out we have to assess whether they are a radical feminist or not in order to apply the correct term? That makes it a lot less useful.
What I am trying to say is that it originally was limited to radical feminists but in contemporary usage is used to mean a specific type of transphobe that uses feminist sounding or otherwise progressive language to promote transphobia and other associated ideas. Language is typically descriptive, not prescriptive. Words often start out meaning one thing but broaden in scope to mean another.
I think it’s fine because it’s useful to have a term to describe a certain kind of transphobe that is different than other kinds. Like how it’s useful to be able to distinguish a Toyota from a Ford at the repair shop even though they are both cars. I don’t think it makes sense to come up with a new term when we have this term already in our lexicon. If we come up with a new term, I will constantly have to explain what I mean by a FART or a fauxminist or whatever, and it will be harder to get my point across.
I’m not sure how this has splash damage on you, unless you are trans-exclusionary it doesn’t apply to you. You also said above that you are not a radical feminist.
Well, if we accept the way I was using it, it includes liberal feminists who use the language of feminism to justify transphobia. I’ve heard Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, and Camille Paglia referred to as TERFs despite the fact that they are self-identified liberal feminists.
I’ve never heard this type of transphobe laugh anyone off by saying they aren’t feminists. Generally they laugh people off by saying they’re not transphobic or mocking other people.
It would make it harder to describe many people. It means instead of saying “JK Rowling is a TERF” I’d have to say “JK Rowling is transphobic and uses pseudo feminist language to justify it” to mean the same thing. That’s longer and leaves more room for misinterpretation.
I wonder how people will enforce the “no emotional attachments to sexbots” thing. I mean, people get emotionally attached to their Roombas, for God’s sake.
I like how the daily stormer gang and incels just cant comprehend like…. anything involving logistics and science, if (and thats a big if) we somehow make artificial human wombs and sex bots possible within a decade, they arnt gonna instantly become a thing you can pick up in a dollar store, robotics as it is is very niche outside of situations where you dont wanna risk a human life (bomb disposal, fire fighting, combat situations) and like… toys, and human wombs would only be sold to you know, hospitals and reproductive clinics, i doubt the average incel or daily stormer dork could shell out the thousands, perhaps millions, needed to get a robot and womb made, and pay dedicated roboticists and reproductive health specialists to somehow splice them together
Policy of Madness:
Rolling back the “sexual revolution” would be a good start. Male-female pair bonding has served our species well for millions of years, and every aspect of the “sexual revolution” was aimed at undermining that.
“Unlimited mating choices with no consequences and no reproduction” is an agenda pushed by powerful, high-value men for their own personal convenience. It does not benefit women and in fact hurts them almost as much as it hurts low-value men.
Nobody needs to be punished or coerced. We just need to roll back the social indulgence granted to the promiscious and the perverted. Social disapproval is a powerful but gentle tool for social change.
But at this point I suspect western society is simply doomed. We’re addicted to pleasure and gratification. The real “force and violence” will come when Mother Nature puts things right, as she inevitably will, inevitably must. You can’t win against biology. I am genuinely regretful that so many western women will suffer when this happens.
I am not surprised you won’t let my post through moderation. A polite factual incel doesn’t fit the narrative, does it?
@FNI
Uh, most animals, humans included, have engaged in same sex activity for millions of years. You clearly don’t know much about biology or anthropology.
What? I much prefer being able to choose my partners over being a sex slave to some random guy. How does it hurt women that we are considered people and not property?
Ah, the Janice Raymond approach. So you do want to oppress people.
Oddly, biology does not specify that women should be sex slaves. Patriarchy does. Seeing as most of the people who claim to be “saving Western civilization” want me dead, I can’t imagine I would suffer if their repressive norms were repealed. In fact, I think my life would be better if Nazis and incels stayed away from me.
It’s anything but gentle. There are so many ways that stigma kills.
So, you failed to find a way that we can get you a date without resorting to violence.
Also, people did have sex outside of marriage before the 1960’s. People were just less open about it. Plus, even if you got your wish a sex outside of marriage was stigmatized again, that doesn’t mean anyone would marry you. Wouldn’t women just marry a Chad instead?
If you want a nice, healthy relationship, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to make an effort.
@WWTH
I get the feeling he wants to go back further than the ‘60s. He wants arranged marriage so all men have sex slaves.
B-b-but, that’s too much! Just for being born with a penis, he deserves a fully submissive virgin with the body of a supermodel. Asking for decency is too much. /s
I find it hilarious that the incel’s answer is “roll back the sexual revolution” which let me specify was mostly a revolution for women. Men could always be promiscuous with little to no consequence. It was only when women were able to behave as men have behaved for thousands of years that it became a problem.
You want to go back to women being “disappeared” when they got pregnant out of wedlock. Yes, that’s a thing that happened on the regular – women, especially young women, who got pregnant out of wedlock would be shipped off to hell houses where they would give birth, their children were sometimes murdered, and they were also sometimes murdered, and were definitely abused and tortured for the crime of having sex. This occurred in some areas all the way up to the 1980s. That is what you want. That is your “gentle tool.”
You, sir, are the tool here, and not a very gentle one.
You act like this is not a thing anymore, but most men pair bond. Most men get married eventually. This hasn’t been abolished.
You’re, what, like 15? That’s when I grew out of my “biofacts” stage of life. Believe me, little incel, you’ll probably find a mate and get married one day, if you get rid of your toxic attitudes. As they say in the stock market, past performance is not a predictor of future performance.
…. What do you think that coercion is? Do you think that social stigmatization is not a form of coercion?