By David Futrelle
Maybe it’s time to change the name of this blog.
As many of you know, the current name is an ironic reference to a rant by one MRA type who was angry that women weren’t showing the proper gratitude for all that men had allegedly done for them over the centuries, and who at one point in his rant blurted out “we hunted the mammoth to feed you,” as if he himself were some sort of manly mammoth slayer instead of just some dude ranting on the internet. (Never mind that our ancient ancestors mostly ate plants and smaller game as opposed to these giant monsters with sharp tusks who could easily kill them.)
“We Hunted the Mammoth” has served ably as the name of this blog for years. But now I’m wondering if I should rename it “We Invented Your Fucking Tampoons [sic], for Fucks Sake,” in homage to this exceedingly angry rant from the Incels.co forums.
![[RageFuel] How dare women disrespect men when we gave them everything they have now?
Uglyme
Incel lives matter
★★
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Posts
4,663
Online
47d 16h 6m
Yesterday at 4:30 PM
#1
Bitch, we built the fucking society you're benefiting from so much. We allow you to work, vote, we gave you rights, we created the medicines and technology you use every day. We gave you education to learn to bitch about how misogynistic (ugly) men are. We invented your fucking tampoons, for fucks sake. You're so stupid that you wouldn't be able to survive a week without being a whore on OnlyFans. And you dare to tell me on my face I'm too ugly to date you're used up ass? Fuck you whore, I hope you get raped on a empty alley](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-29_13-44-10USE.png?resize=580%2C1598&ssl=1)
Who’s this “we,” dude? You haven’t built or invented anything. You can’t claim credit for all the achievements of men throughout the centuries any more than a woman can claim credit for everything women have done to keep civilization running. Wishing rape on someone — real or imaginary, I can’t tell — who turned you down for a date is not an accomplishment. Nor, it goes without saying, are attitudes like this particularly conducive to getting dates in the future.
On the Incels.co forums, of course, almost all the commenters agreed with Uglyme. “Amen. A fucking men,” wrote a commenter called TheLastSorrow, declaring women to be “[t]he most ungrateful gender hands down. They deserve to get abused.”
VinventVanCock agreed, praising Uglyme’s rant as “[p]oetry, hoes should be beaten and enslaved to learn manners.”
Meanwhile, someone called Copexodius_Maximus suggested that Chads were as lazy and ungrateful as women.
Males have to do all that stuff cause we are inferior and have to make up for our ugliness in order to attract women. Chads don’t need to innovate or build, women throw themselves at them, and even take care of them like Jeremy Meeks. Women don’t need to build shit even if they could because they can mostly all attract mates without money or status.
Women love beta males for building society for them, so they can be safe and comfortable enough to fuck Chad more.
Mainlander complained that women aren’t giving out gratitude sex to men for allegedly building the world:
Women are not very good at gratitude and they are utterly incapable of even thinking about doing something sexual or romantic out of gratitude.
“Gratitude sex” is not a thing. It’s especially not a thing when the men demanding it 1) haven’t done anything worthy of gratitude and 2) are so steeped in misogynistic hate that it seeps out their pores.
PS: I’m not going to change the name of the blog.
H/T — ExpelIncels
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!
@LollyPop
I’d bet there’s also a more personal side: how many incels have sent dick pics to random women on OF and got blocked? They’re probably angry that the women on the site aren’t completely subservient to them.
@Lenona
I literally don’t read your long quotes of other people. If you can’t make an argument in your own words, but have to borrow the words of others, you’re not worth my time.
@ penny
You could probably add dragoon, as in the mounted troops, to that list.
They were named from the shortened blunderbusses they initially carried; which were called dragons.
Some even had dragon representations on them. (Less than accurate) replica here:
Something that sort-of counts is the doubloon, the name of which comes from the Spanish doblón.
@lollypop : for them, onlyFan == prostitution, and making money off prostitution is immoral and being a leech. Women clearly should give that for free. I mean, to their husbands that they didn’t choose who barely bring a third of the income of the house.
I dont want to defend lenora becuase their quots never make any sense but there are many times when actually, other peoples words are very useful. There is so many times when someone else said it better that to quote them is more clear or can give good evidence for something.
If Lenona were quoting for that reason, the quotes would be shorter and there would be like 1 or 2 of them total in all her comments, instead of frequent as fuck and taking up 3/4ths of her wordcount.
Quoting someone for truth and quoting someone because you’re borrowing their authority has a fine line between them, one that Lenona has crossed every single time. But even quoting for truth is a delicate game, because you didn’t sign up to debate my textbook. Quoting my textbook in response to everything you say is lazy af.
Ah yes men, inventors of both tampoons and the idea that women can hold the blood in if they just weren’t so fucking lazy.
What? If all men get credit for inventing tampoons, all men get credit for being completely ignorant about how menstruation works as well.
@Lenona
This thread too?
Ok, I have trouble with the buttons as well. So I just bracket the “code” of whatever I want in, (blockquote, italics, whatever), as if I was using html. (Don’t worry, it’ll make more sense with an example. Also, there’s plenty about using html on the web).
The bits of “code” that you are using to blockquote, italicize, whatever, are called tags. You have an opening tag, which will be just the command inside of 2 brackets, and a closing tag, which will be the same but with a slash in front of the command. The opening tag says, hey browser, do *command* to whatever I write after you. The closing tag says “hey browser, stop doing *command* to whatever I write after you.
ETA, nevermind, no examples, don’t have time to get them to work. Just go look it up.
@PoM
Another thing is that she never links the source, and they’re all quotes from obscure material I’ve never seen with nothing to show whether the source is a peer-reviewed paper or a diary entry.
@Valentin
Haven’t seen you in a while. How are you?
I took a gender studies class where we learned about misogyny. But it didn’t limit the curriculum to just the misogynistic men, it included misogyny from all genders!
Re: blockquote here are the instructions again.
If you have javascript enabled
Method 1:
1. Copy the text that you want to quote.
2. Paste it into the reply field.
3. Highlight the text.
4. Click the ‘quote’ button.
Method 2:
1. Copy the text that you want to quote.
2. Click the ‘quote’ button; it will insert the opening tag.
3. Paste the text after the tag that was inserted.
4. Click the ‘quote’ button again; it will insert the closing tag.
If you have javascript disabled
1. Copy the text that you want to quote.
2. Type <blockquote>
3. Paste the text after the tag.
4. Type </blockquote>
@POM
I think, very simply, it should be that you make the arguement and then supply evidence. The quote can be like evidence. I understand that lenora is using it in a bad way, but I dont generally think using quotes is a bad thing.
@naglfar
Thanks I’m fine))) on board a ship.
@Valentin
It’s also good when someone can interpret the evidence and explain why it supports their argument. Lenona doesn’t do this, she just gives quotes and expects us to know exactly what she means (as evidenced by regular statements like “you know very well what I mean” and the like).
@Valentin
It’s only evidence that someone said that. It provides no evidence for the truth value of the statement inside the quote. If you want to claim something is true because X famous and reputable person said it is true, then you’re borrowing that person’s authority and that’s, like, the most basic logical fallacy.
Life is too short for me to engage with that.
I think maybe I’m not being clear- using quotes is not always about the authority of who wrote the quote. Essay is a good example, if you are writing about a poem you may use another poem, and quoted, to help show something about the one you are analysing. You will use the quote to support your point like evidence. To say, poet uses imagery here in this way, then contrast it with another poem, which makes your point more clear. So if in an argument, you may make a point about communism for example, you can use quotes from Lenin and Marx about the same topic, and then compare, to see differences and similarities. Then use this to support your argument. Or use a quote from some author on the topic you discuss, and compare what they say to what you argue about the topic, to make your argument more clear.
Word.
Figure there is space for it when you’re using the quote as a stepping off point for your own argument/interpretation, but certainly not using it instead of your own arguments!
Of course, there’s the whole “famous and reputable” bit in this case too – there hasn’t been a single quote she’s used (that I’ve noticed, anyways, I tend to skim walls o’ text) that hasn’t made me go “Who dat?”
Edit: And ninja’d by Valentin 🙂
Naglfar, somehow, I didn’t think some of the more hotheaded members here would WANT a link to a very long, smug, MRA article.
But here it is (note the link, at the top, to the 2020 update):
https://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html
(For the record, Khan is not from Pakistan, despite their having the same name!)
No, I never bothered to read all of it, despite the author’s claim that in the last ten years, it’s been read by a million people, many of whom have thanked him. However, “Population Displacement,” the part I quoted from, is about 1/3 down the page, just a few paragraphs above the small gray map of the world, so it’s easy enough to spot. (That’s actually in the second half of the article, since the comments make up about half of the page.)
And the reactions came from the Bratfree site. Yes, it’s a heavily profane and flawed site; I’d say at least one or two members think that MOST parents are an inferior race who aren’t even entitled to common courtesy. But at least it’s a healthful, refreshing dose of online antisentimentality and a demand for more self-discipline and civilized behavior, whether the members really care about overpopulation and environmentalism or not. In that sense, it reminds me of the classic collection: The Portable Curmudgeon, by Jon Winokur, which includes interviews, such as one titled “A Liberal’s Conservative and Vice Versa.”
Not to mention that Bratfree members are quick to go on the attack against any neglectful adults responsible for, say, a child’s injuries. Plus, they’re usually VERY kind and helpful whenever you ask for advice on anything. (Provided you don’t post as a parent or stepparent; that’s not allowed.)
On top of that, you can pretty much count on them to be anti-MRA, since MRAs will always be leery of women who truly don’t WANT children and are free to do whatever they please. (They’re also anti-stereotyping.)
@Valentin
If you’re trying to make the point that different poets use the same types of imagery, then quoting different poets using the same imagery is valid, because your argument is literally “other people said X” and then you quote them saying X. The same goes if your point is that different poets use contrasting imagery. Again, your point is that some people say X, other people say Y, and then you quote them saying X and Y and that’s fine.
This is different, because Lenin and/or Marx might be wrong! That’s the problem with using Famous Person Quotes to make your point for you. Lenin and Marx weren’t writing about controlled experiments that anyone can replicate; they, like many political philosophers, were just writing off the authority of their own intelligence, which means they can be wrong. If you want to quote an Important Point and then say, “This is interesting food for thought,” and then expand on what you actually think yourself about the Important Point, that’s a valid way to write an essay. If you just quote Important Point and punctuate it with, “That’s why X is true – Marx said it’s true,” then you’re making an argument from authority and that’s invalid.
But even if you’re using a quote correctly in an essay, that doesn’t really translate well to a living dialogue between people. Nobody here on WHTM wants to listen to/read a 500 word essay on What Marx Said And What I Think About It. And nobody wants to do that every time I write a response to someone else. One needs to know one’s audience, and the audience here is not made up of 9th Grade history teachers.
On the -on/-oon change, I’ll chime in with “poltroon” as another possible example of the phenomenon.
David in OP:
Now now, let’s be fair. We don’t know that this guy has never built or invented anything. I’m sure he put together some interesting Lego constructions once upon a time. (And then hopefully stepped on them, in an act of pre-emptive karma.) And he’s certainly invented an “interesting” new variation on an old rant.
Language-wise: bassoon, buffoon (though in French the word almost only ever means “court jester” these days), cocoon, doubloon, monsoon (though in French the first syllable is different too, it’s “mousson”), pontoon, typhoon, pantaloon, rigadoon. Not that I own a rhyming dictionary for some weird reason or anything.
@Lenona
Why is that a good thing again?
And anyway, we’d much rather you link articles than post giant chunks of text. If it’s linked, we can choose if we want to read it, rather than being forced to.
Re: bratfree
I’m not familiar with that particular site, but I am a bit suspicious of anyone who calls all children “brats.” I have no problem with people not wanting children of their own, but I feel like it’s a bridge too far when they start harassing other people for having children or even harassing children.
Pom- regarding Marx and Lenin, yes that’s what I mean, you can use their work critically and talk about how other people think on the topic you’re discussing and even say why you think think they are wrong.
Although, some people also argue that Marxism or Marxist-Leninism is a kind of science, social science, and supported by evidence and the theory of materialism, material conditions which can be shown/prove. But that is another discussion.
@Naglfar
Dang is Mabel possessed by Bill Cipher or something, because that seems really out of character for her.
@Naglfar
I, unfortunately, am. And … there’s my benefit of the doubt tank suddenly and explosively emptied.
Anyone who favours Bratfree, or uses them as “evidence,” can fuck right off.
Naglfar, WHERE did I or anyone say “all children”? Talk about jumping to conclusions…
As I said, the members are in favor of civilized behavior. Plus parental accountability. The latter results in the former, for both parents and children, when done right.
In fact, the members there have special terms – and praise – for parents who actually make their children behave, and some will extend that praise to well-behaved kids as well.
But when parents INCREASINGLY try to justify their kids’ bad behavior, to the point where more and more of the better restaurants and cafes have to start posting signs insisting on “indoor voices” and such, and parents take offense at that, even though such signs are hardly any different from those insisting on shirts and shoes, is it any surprise that complaints about neglectful parents – and demands for adults’ rights – are on the rise as well?
(Many parents actually sympathize; I’ve seen plenty of parents complaining online about how they paid for a babysitter and went to an expensive restaurant only to have the evening ruined by a parent who didn’t get a sitter.)
When you think about it, kids shouldn’t be allowed to run and scream even at McDonald’s, despite the lack of waiters carrying hot coffee or soup. Why? Because you never know when some elderly customer might get knocked over and break a hip, and anyone might be having the beginning of a migraine, including the parent. If kids can sit quietly at home but not at a restaurant, then they can’t go there, for everyone’s safety.
And I find it incredible that anyone would ask why antisentimentality is a good thing. Since when is it NOT a good thing, as a rule? (I certainly have never heard anyone refer to it as a bad thing.) If all of Shakespeare’s plays were like Romeo and Juliet, wouldn’t most patrons and critics feel pretty ill after a while? Sentimentality is like sugar; yes, it tastes good, but you can’t live on it, despite the howls of protest from the addicts and the sellers. Or, as Jon Winokur, whom I mentioned above, said, in effect, sentimentality devalues genuine sentiment. Plus, curmudgeons “don’t hate mankind, just mankind’s excesses.”
@An Autistic Giraffe
You’re familiar with that person? The account seems to have only started a few days ago.
@Lenona
You literally cited a site called “Bratfree” that’s about not having children. The wording implies children = brats.
You said above they don’t think parents deserve respect. Those two stances are incompatible.
Ah, so as long as children fall into societally defined boundaries of what’s acceptable you’re fine with them? Ableist and cisheteronormative much?
There’s a difference between being annoyed that some parents act entitled or some children behave poorly and calling all children brats. There’s a hell of a lot of ableism inherent to this.
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said.
Are you one of those alt-right trolls who goes around telling people “facts don’t care about your feelings”? Emotions exist for a reason and are often quite useful. Antisentimentality also often has strong undertones of misogyny (i.e. calling women “hysterical”) and ableism.
Pray tell, who are these “addicts” and “sellers”?
Do you also talk about how “Western culture” is “too decadent”? That’s basically what you seem to be saying.