Category: antifeminism

Categories
antifeminism evil women further reading lying liars MGTOW MRA Uncategorized

Factchecking a list of “Hateful Quotes From Feminists”

 

Making a list, checking it twice.

Periodically, in the comments here, someone will post a dubious list of “evil feminist quotes” they have found on some Men’s Rights or antifeminist website. These lists are always faintly ridiculous, filled with decades-old quotes from a handful of radical feminists (most notably, Andrea Dworkin), most of whom have been soundly criticized by other feminists and whose ideas have been rejected by the majority of feminists today. The lists also tend to be very sloppily put together. When I’ve gone to check the accuracy of these lists, I’ve invariably run into problems — one quote may have come from a character in a novel, another may be a quote that doesn’t reflect the author’s own point of view, and so on.

Recently, one of the antifeminists who regularly comments here (Cold) posted a link to one such list, helpfully titled “Hateful Quotes From Feminists.” It’s fairly typical of these sorts of lists: many of the quotes are decades old, there are ten quotes from a single radical feminist — yes, Andrea Dworkin — and the list is sloppily put together.

I decided to give this list a fairly thorough fact-checking. And the results were, well, more or less what I expected, which is to say that the list was a sloppy mixture of truth, half-truth and outright falsehood.

The story, in brief: Some of the quotes I checked were indeed accurate — or mostly accurate. But several quotes were simply imaginary, or uttered by fictional characters; one was a complete misrepresentation of what the author was saying; two were paraphrased, which is to say, words put in the mouths of feminist authors by feminist critics; some were from obscure or anonymous sources, and in a few cases it wasn’t clear if those quoted were feminists at all; several were improperly sourced. There were a number of quotes that didn’t specify where they were from, and which turned out to be impossible to check. And then there were a couple of quotes which were not actually hateful at all.

I didn’t check everything in the list, but –if you have the patience for it — let’s go through what I did check, as a sort of case study in the shoddiness of much antifeminist propaganda.

Let’s start off with the very first quote:

“In a patriarchal society all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent.” Catherine MacKinnon in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women’s Studies, p. 129.

We’re off to a bad start here. This is not a quote from MacKinnon. The words were in fact written by Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, the actual authors of “Professing Feminism,” a polemical book critical of feminism. They purport to summarize the views of MacKinnon and Dworkin, though, as Snopes points out in its debunking of the false quote, both M and D have specifically stated that they don’t believe intercourse is rape. Apparently the quote was attributed to MacKinnon in a column by right-wing columnist Cal Thomas, which is evidently how it entered the land of antifeminist mythology. Somewhere along the line, Catharine had her name changed to Catherine.

Then there’s this alleged quote from Andrea Dworkin:

“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”

According to Wikiquote, this quote is quite literally fictional:

The first appearance of this quote is from P: A Novel (2003) by Andrew Lewis Conn as a quote from the fictional feminist “Corinne Dwarfkin”. The original reads “In capsule form, my thesis is that heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled expression of men’s contempt for women.” In the slightly altered form given above, the quote is attributed in several books to Andrea Dworkin. Neil Boyd, in Big Sister (2004) attributes the quote to Letters from a War Zone, however, this quote, nor any one with similar phrasing, appears in that work.

Indeed, our listmaker seem to have a lot of trouble quoting Dworkin correctly. A bunch of the quotes are taken from her book Letters From a War Zone, which I happen to own. The first quote I checked was this one:

“The newest variations on this distressingly ancient theme center on hormones and DNA: men are biologically aggressive; their fetal brains were awash in androgen; their DNA, in order to perpetuate itself, hurls them into murder and rape.” Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone, p. 114.

It’s a weird quote, which sounds a lot like it’s coming from the the middle of a complicated argument. That’s because it is. And when you read what precedes it, it becomes clear that  it’s NOT a statement of Dworkin’s own beliefs. She was in fact summarizing (in her own words) the beliefs of “male supremacist” sociobiologists like Edward O. Wilson. It may or may not be a fair summary of their views, but that’s not the point: it’s NOT what she thought. Later in the paragraph, in fact, she compared these views to Hitler’s.

The other quotes from the book are more or less accurate. Words are missing, moved from one sentence to another, verb tenses are changed; they’re very sloppy transcriptions, but at least they aren’t complete and utter misrepresentations of what Dworkin wrote.

There’s also quote from Andrea Dworkin that’s listed as being from “Liberty, p. 58.” Dworkin never wrote a book called Liberty. But I found the quote in what seems to be a scholarly work; it’s evidently from Dworkin’s book Our Blood.

Finally, there are a few other alleged quotes from Dworkin; they don’t have sources listed for them. I found the quotes elsewhere online — but only on dubious “quote pages” and other iterations of “evil feminist” lists. They sound Dworkin-ish, but given the listmaker’s track record I have no faith that they are actually real, correctly transcribed Dworkin.

It’s bizarre. How hard is it to find hair-raising quotes from Andrea Dworkin? Dworkin was so radical that most feminists disagree with her, sometimes violently. You could practically pick a sentence at random from almost any of her books and chances are good it would offend somebody — including me. A number of her writings are available online. How lazy and sloppy do you have to be to fuck up your Dworkin quotes like this?

Let’s now turn to Marilyn French’s famously fictional quote:

“All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” Marilyn French in People, February 20, 1983

Oh, the quote is real — she wrote it — but it is not a statement of French’s beliefs. Nor did it originate in People magazine. It is a line of dialogue from her book The Woman’s Room. Wikipedia, take it away:

Following the rape of Val’s daughter Chris, Val states (over Mira’s protests), “Whatever they may be in public life, whatever their relationships with men, in their relationships with women, all men are rapists, and that’s all they are. They rape us with their eyes, their laws, and their codes” (p. 433). Critics have sometimes quoted Val’s dialogue as evidence of French’s misandry without noting that the passage is only spoken by one of many characters in the novel.

Now, it’s true that this sentence was quoted in People magazine — in the issue of Feb 20 1979, not Feb 20, 1983 as claimed. It’s not clear from the rather sloppy People article that this is a line from the book, but it is.

In the article, French notes that the book is partly based on her experience — drawing on the emotions she herself felt after her own daughter was raped.

“Sometimes I felt so violent about it and how the courts treated her,” French admits, “that there seemed no recourse but to go out, buy a gun and shoot the kid who did it, and the lawyers too. I couldn’t help my own child.” Plenty of that rage made its way into The Women’s Room. “I’m less angry now. Being too deep in anger corrodes your interior.”

So, again, it is very clear that the “all men are rapists” quote is meant to reflect a character awash in rage and pain; it is not an ideological statement of misandry.

The “Hateful Quotes” list also contains a bunch of quotes from people I’ve never heard of; they’re obviously not major feminist figures, and may not even be feminists. Gordon Fitch? Never heard of the guy, and can’t find anything about him online.

Hodee Edwards? Never heard of her either, and I can only find a handful of mentions of her online, but she’s mentioned in the footnotes of a Catharine MacKinnon book, and it looks as though she is, or at least was, a feminist with Marxist leanings. But there is no way to even find out what the source of the quote is — a book, an essay, a quotation in a news story? — much less actually find the source and confirm that the quote is real.

EDITED TO ADD: I’ve been contacted by Hodee Edwards’ granddaughter, who tells me that her grandmother never said or wrote the quote attributed to her; while Edwards was indeed a Marxist and a feminist, she was not anti-sex. (The faux quote in question claims that all sex is rape.) Edwards has recently passed away, and her family members have been, the granddaughter tells me, “very distressed to learn that this quote has somehow been linked to my grandmother’s name on the Internet.”

Then there’s Pat Poole:

Melbourne City Councilwoman Pat Poole announced her opposition to renaming a street for Martin Luther King: “I wonder if he really accomplished things, or if he just stirred people up and caused a lot of riots.”

Who the hell is Pat Poole? I looked her up, and yes, she was a city councilwoman in Melbourne, Florida, but I was unable to find out much beyond that. Is the quote accurate? I don’t know. There’s no source given, and I can’t find the original quote online. Is she actually a feminist, or is the author of the list simply assuming she is one because she’s a woman?

And then of course there is the anonymous “Liberated Woman” whose quote ends the list. She definitely sounds like a feminist. We just don’t know for sure if she or the quote are real.

Moving on, I can’t help but notice that a number of the allegedly hateful quotes are in fact not hateful at all. Take, for example, Barbara Ehrenreich’s quote about the family, which is in fact part of a sharply written essay on “family values.” You can find it here.

Here’s another distinctly non-hateful quote:

“Women take their roles of caretakers very seriously and when they hear of someone who’s taken advantage of a child, they react more strongly than men do.” – Kathleen C. Faller, professor of social work at the University of Michigan

Faller, if she did indeed say this, may or may not be correct, but it’s hard to see how this is “hateful.” Women on average spend much more time caring for children than men do and it may well be that, on average, they react more strongly than men. I couldn’t find the quote in question — again, this is because the listmaker didn’t actually provide the source — but her faculty web page is here.

Then there’s this “hateful” quote on religion:

“God is going to change. We women… will change the world so much that He won’t fit anymore.” Naomi Goldenberg, Changing of the Gods: Feminism and the End of Traditional Religions.

The quote is real; Goldenberg is indeed a feminist theologian. But here’s a little newsflash: There are lots of people in the world, feminist and non-feminist, who do not believe in traditional notions of God. Or in God at all. Nietzsche famously said “God is Dead,” Richard Dawkins says God is “a delusion,” and about 80 zillion internet athiests (many of them not feminists in the slightest) regularly compare belief in God to belief in unicorns, fairies, and Santa Claus.

I checked out a few other quotes on the list. The Hillary Clinton quote is accurate; the source is here.  The Barbara Jordan quote appears in a Texas Monthly article here.

The quote from Catherine Comins — a favorite “evil feminist quote” amongst MRAs — has its origins in a Time magazine article, but it is not actually a quote from her; it is someone else’s summary of what she told Time in the article in question. Nor do we know the full context in which she spoke.

I don’t have the time or patience to fact-check the rest of the list. If anyone out there happens to have time and/or patience, or happens to own any of the books that are cited as sources, feel free to fact check it yourself and post your findings. (EDITED TO ADD: triplanetary has risen to the challenge, and has factchecked the rest of the list, as well as offering some excellent commentary on the alleged “hatefulness” of many of the quotes. You can find the post here.)

The numerous errors in this list — some minor, some huge — say something not only about the creator of this list but about all those who’ve distributed this list without, clearly, bothering to check anything in it .  (Or, in the case of Cold, to contine to distribute a list he’s pretty sure is less than reliable.) Is this the result of laziness, or dishonesty? A bit of both, I imagine.

But I think this list is also a symptom of the tendency of many in the Men’s Rights movement to inflate the evils of their opponents. So many MRAs are so determined to prove that their supposed oppression is worse than that of women, and so determined to blame it all on feminism, that they need to make their opponents larger than life and twice as nasty. Given that the feminism they fight is largely a paranoid fantasy, bearing very little resemblance to feminism as it actually exists in the world today, it’s hardly shocking that a number of the quotes on this little list are fictional — and that none of the MRAs posting this list here and there on the internet seem to have even noticed (or, if they have noticed, to care, or at least to care enough to stop distributing the list). When you’re fighting phantoms in your own mind, the truth doesn’t really matter, does it?

Given how poorly this list held up to my fack-checking attempts, from now on I will consider this list and others like it spam, and delete any comments that  link to them.

If any of you antifeminists still feel the desire to post “evil feminist quotes” in the comments here, you may do so, but only if you (or the list that you link to) provides clickable links to the original sources of the quotes in question.  If you can’t provide a link to the source, I’ll delete it.

When I quote from MRAs and MGTOW-ites and other misogynists on this blog, I provide links to the sources. What’s so hard about that?

EDIT: Fixed links, and a few verb tenses.
—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism misogyny vaginas western women suck

American Women: They use too much birth control and it’s messing up their vaginas

 

This is what aspartame and birth control will do to you.

I‘ve been disappointed so far with the BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN blog. Most of the posts so far have been pretty straightforward and, frankly, boring, with none of that inventive, over-the-top loopiness that I associate with misogynists of real quality. But this post from yesterday more than makes up for lost time:

American women are drugged-out zombies

American women are constantly in chemicals. Chewing bubble gum constantly (aspartame, which causes temporary retardation). The makeup. They are always doing diet things for extra doses of aspartame. They use too much birth control and it’s fucking up their vagina. They have periods for 2 weeks out of the month. They flirt with other men when married. They have a few steps up on the ladder in the courts. They have a feminist movement where they actually think they were born superior to men. They have a pair of shoes for every day of the month, which third world slaves made. Their makeup is made out of animal fat by product. They are in their own world and not reality from popping too many anti depressants for minor mood swings. lol they’re nuts!

LOL indeed, my good sir. LOL indeed.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism misogyny reactionary bullshit the spearhead Uncategorized violence against men/women

>The uprising in Egypt: Not all about the menz

>

Leon Trotsky — you know, THE Trotsky — once said disdainfully of writer Dwight Macdonald, who’d had the temerity to actually question him about something-or-other, “everyone has the right to be stupid, but comrade Macdonald abuses the privilege.”

Now, Trotsky was sort of a shit, and probably would have been a worse dictator than Stalin, and Dwight Macdonald was awesome, but I’ve always loved this little put-down, and I’d like to update it for the internet age.  So here goes:

Everyone has the right to pontificate about shit they know nothing about on the internet, but our comrades at The Spearhead abuse the privilege.

The latest example: A short piece about the Egyptian protests from Spearhead head cheese W.F. Price. Noting that footage of the protests show a lot of angry men out on the streets, Price opines:

Governments that consistently neglect or antagonize their male populations never last too long.

Yep, no matter what happens anywhere in the world at any time, on The Spearhead it’s always all about the menz. Indeed, not only has the Egyptian government been insufficiently accommodating to men, Price suggests; it’s also started flirting with feminism, having “recently taken the lead in the Arab world in empowering women.” But such a transparent ploy to win over the wimmenz will invariably backfire, he argues (or, rather, asserts), further angering the angry men in the streets:

Female support matters little; women shift allegiance at the drop of a hat, so any government that counts on them to prop them up is making a mistake.

Those fickle, fickle women!

In the comments, someone called Antz took this absurdity a step or two further, asking his fellow Spearheaders to

note the alpha males in battle gear, ready at the drop of a hat to open fire on their freedom loving brothers with machine guns.

Alpha males have always been the wielders of the burning blade of feminist anti-male hatred.

Yes, that’s right. The Egyptian security police have suddenly gone feminist on us.

This isn’t the first time Price has attempted to cast an uprising in the Arab world as a manly reaction to the doings of evil women. He titled a recent piece on the Tunisian uprising “Arrogant Woman Slaps Young Man, Brings Down Her Regime.” The “arrogant woman” in question was a corrupt local official who slapped and thereby humiliated a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohammad Bouazizi; his very public suicide — he lit himself on fire in front of a government building as a form of protest –was what set off the Tunisian uprising. (I have no idea what Price means by referring to “her regime,” as the woman in question was  merely a local functionary and the regime in question was of course headed by a man.) Price wrote:

Authoritarian regimes in Muslim-majority states tend to favor women’s empowerment, seeing women as natural allies in keeping fundamentalist Islam at bay and willing participants in corrupt patronage systems. However, favoring women can only go so far, as men need a certain degree of appeasement as well, and it seems that young Tunisian men have had enough of being – quite literally in this case – slapped around.

Never mind that Tunisia’s historic adoption of women’s rights legislation — abolishing polygamy, and, horror of feminist horrors, requiring men to actually get consent from women before marrying them  — happened more than half a century ago. Never mind that the repressive Ben Ali government was actually moving backwards on women’s rights. A woman slapped a man, so the uprising was therefore all about the symbolic slapping of men by an evil regime that Price has bizarrely described as a “her.”

Back to Egypt, which is even less of a feminist paradise than Tunisia. Indeed, a 2010 report from the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights concluded that the country was getting worse, not better, when it came to its already dismal record on women’s rights. As thedailynewsegypt.com reports (link is to Google’s cached copy of the story):

The report, which is based on the findings of international human rights organizations, stated that Egypt was ranked 125th out of 134 countries regarding women’s rights, and was ranked 13th among countries in the Middle East/North Africa region. …

The state council’s refusal to appoint female judges in February was considered by the ECWR as a major setback to women’s rights in 2010. …  Women still suffer from inequality in the workplace … there’s been a rise in violence against women. …  71.4 percent of violent crimes in 2010 were against women. …

The ECWR also highlighted the increased use of two new alarming police practices against women: the practice of holding women hostage in order to force fugitives to surrender themselves to the police, as well as the sexual violation of women by police officers.

But that’s not the only thing that Price has gotten very, very wrong: As many observers far more knowledgeable than Price have pointed out — including, amazingly, one commenter on The Spearhead — the footage of male-dominated protests we see on TV is in many ways wildly misleading: Egyptian women have been involved in the current protests in unprecedented numbers.

As Jenna Krajeski noted on Slate’s XXFactor blog,

An unprecedented number of Egyptian women participated in Tuesday’s anti-government protests. Ghada Shahbandar, an activist with the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, estimated the crowd downtown to be 20 percent female. Other estimates were as high as 50 percent. In past protests, the female presence would rarely rise to 10 percent. Protests have a reputation for being dangerous for Egyptian women, whose common struggle as objects of sexual harassment is exacerbated in the congested, male-dominated crowd.

Max Strasser, a former associate editor at Al-Masry Al-Youm English Edition in Cairo, explains the dynamic:

It is no secret that Egypt is a conservative country when it comes to gender relations. Men and women generally, though not exclusively, adhere to traditional gender roles where women stay at home. As a result, many public spaces are heavily male dominated. Moreover, sexual harassment is frustratingly common … Big crowds, like soccer rallies, are usually the least hospitable for women.

Since this uprising began, the typical gender dynamic in Egypt’s public space seems to have been thrown out with the regime. Some have said that as many as half of the protesters are women. Moreover, as I have watched Al Jazeera it seems clear that women of all walks of life, from young girls in jeans to older women wearing niqab, are taking part.  All are chanting, pumping their fists and, at times, battling with the riot police.

As feminist human rights activist Nawal El Saadawi told Democracy Now!, “women and girls are beside boys in the streets.”

Do I have any idea what’s next in Egypt? Of course not. The crowds I’ve seen in the news coverage on CNN and elsewhere have been mostly men, and a lot of these men are fundamentalist fanatics. But I think the presence of women alongside the men in the protests is heartening, and gives us some reason for optimism.

—

If you appreciated this post, would you kindly use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I thank you in advance!

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery misogyny rape reactionary bullshit Uncategorized violence against men/women

>The Republicans take aim at pregnant rape victims.

>

He’s not crying for pregnant rape victims.

Let’s take a brief break from the man boobz on the internet to look at the man (and some women) boobz in Congress, specifically the Republicans (and a handful of Democrats) who are trying to push through a truly odious bill, The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, designed to make it harder for women who have been raped to get abortions. Here’s how the SF Chronicle sums it up:

Current law allows federal funds (usually for Medicaid) to be spent on abortions only for women who have been raped or are the victims of incest. We think those restrictions are bad enough, but the new class of House Republicans want more. The No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act would outlaw the use of federal funds for abortion except in the case of “forcible rape.” The incest exemption would only apply to minors.

“Forcible rape” doesn’t have a legal definition, but in general the idea is to exclude pregnancies that result from date rape, statutory rape or rapes that happen when women are physically incapacitated.

So if you’re drugged and raped, and you get pregnant, too bad. If your father rapes you, and you get pregnant, too bad. Those rapes apparently don’t count.

As Amanda Marcotte puts it, the bill’s sponsors apparently

believe the misogynist stereotype that all women, especially those who claim to be ill or victims of crimes, are lying whores until proven otherwise.  Or just lying whores, regardless of the evidence they produce.  And so, to make sure those lying whores don’t get their hands on those delicious, orgasm-inducing uterine scrapings, the bill has language in it that, in essence, assumes that 70% of rape victims weren’t really raped.  The exception is only for “forcible rape”, which is vaguely defined, but in practice tends to mean that anything short of getting your ass beat down means you weren’t “really” raped.  Even if you’re a 13-year-old who was impregnated by a 30-year-old.  Also, if you happen to get pregnant by your abusive, rape-y father on your 18th birthday, you will get no funding to make sure you don’t give birth to your own brother.

In Salon, Sady Doyle puts the Republican push for the bill in a larger context, noting that the bill’s reference to “forcible rape”

brings us back to an ancient, long-outdated standard of rape law: “Utmost resistance.” By this standard, a rape verdict depended not on whether the victim consented, but on whether outsiders thought she resisted as hard as humanly possible. Survivors rarely measured up.

Meanwhile, Time magazine’s Amy Sullivan tried to figure out if there really were a lot of “false rape claims” being by made by wily money-hungry young pregnant women in an attempt to bilk the government out of money.  The answer, of course, is no.

Eligibility rules … differ by state, but many states are like Tennessee, which requires a doctor to certify that “there is credible evidence to believe that the pregnancy is the result of rape” and to attach “documentation from a law enforcement agency indicating the patient has made a credible report as the victim of incest or rape” before Medicaid will consider issuing payment for an abortion procedure. …

So that scourge of false rape reports–or even, let’s say, “non-forcible” rapes? It doesn’t exist. I couldn’t find numbers more recent than 2001, but these shocked me. In that year, the total number of abortions covered by Medicaid was 56. That’s all abortions for cases in which the mother’s life was in danger, the pregnancy was a result of incest, or in the case of rape. Another 25 were covered by state Medicaid programs. Even assuming that every single one of those abortions was to end a pregnancy caused by rape, that’s 81 abortions paid for in part with taxpayer dollars. Nationwide. That’s roughly $32,000 total for first trimester procedures.

So, yeah, this is not exactly what is busting the budget. Indeed, I imagine there are many rape victims who choose to pay out of pocket for an abortion, even if they can’t really afford it, rather than going through the humiliation of trying to prove they’ve been raped to the satisfaction of government bureaucrats.

UPDATE: The Republicans have removed the “forcible rape” language from the bill. But there is still plenty about the bill to hate. 

If you’re American, and want to do something about this bill, here’s one practical suggestion: There are a number of Democrats who have signed on to co-sponsor the bill. I suggest you contact them and let them know how you feel. You can find info on how to contact them on Pandagon.

Or you can contact your representative by clicking on the banner below:


 
—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
antifeminism atlas shrugged I'm totally being sarcastic misogyny Uncategorized

>Screw you gals, I’m going home!

>

Atlas Tugged (Charles Atlas vs. the Rockettes.)

I guess it shouldn’t really be surprising how widespread the Atlas Shrugged fantasy is in the weird world of the mansophere. The fantasy, that is, that if the truly important people in society get fed up and simply stop working, the whole society will collapse in a heap. There are two things that are inherently funny when Men Going Their Own Way start spouting off on this particular subject. One, of course, is the fact that this fantasy was originally articulated by an, er, woman — a small, stern, Russian-born intellectual dominatrix and husband-cuckolder who went by the made-up name of Ayn Rand. Two, is the fact that the MGTOWs honestly think that they are the world’s Atlases rather than a bunch of insignificant internet whiners.

Still, the would-be Atlases of the manosphere do sometimes manage to fluff up this tired old fantasy with some inventive new ideas of their own. Consider the recent advice given by dad_savage  on the Antimisandry.com message boards. dad starts out with a fairly standard-issue articulation of the MGTOW Shrugs fantasy:

The Government calculates tax on a basis of expecting men to earn many times more than they need to simply live. Men only do this if there are incentives; the no.1 incentives are women and community respect; Feminism will take these away, and men will stop working hard to obtain them. Feminism, indeed all liberalism, will be starved of the revenue it must have. Women will no longer be subsidized to live fairy-tail lives benefiting from male largess whether directly through husbands, sugar daddies, Johns or indirectly through the state-as-husband. Women are financially, physically and emotionally dependant on men so all we need to do is cut them off.

Fairy-tail? I’m pretty sure fairies have wings, not tails. In any case, dad_savage contends that the jig will be up for the ladies sometimes in the next ten years. He hopes to speed up the process a little bit by offering some specific “tips for living a fun life and fighting feminism in the most effective way possible.” Here they are:

Get a Public Sector job, or do ‘Women’s Work’ – Try working as a Garbage Man, Mail Man, or some other Council or State position. … most Government employees are women so you’ll have a lot of chance to practise game, and antagonize them by refusing to be a mangina. … Working in the public sector or in a female-dominated industry ensures that your not feeding the beast, but in reality sucking its blood, and will benefit from sexist policies and tax-funnelling subsidies designed to improve the lot of the workers in these female-dominated areas.

Be Rich, Scrape By or Play Robin Hood – Either earn just enough money to enjoy the lifestyle you desire (and think about what it is you really need!) or be a somebody so that you can use clever accounting to maximize the amount of tax you dodge. …

He’s got some odder ideas as well:

Use cunning and intelligence to discern those forces truly destructive to feminism, and aid them. Islamic organizations for example do untold damage to feminist aspirations, Sharia courts in the UK are for example rebalancing some divorce-based iniquity, and Muslims can hide behind accusations of racism just as effectively as feminist’s can behind sexism.

MGTOW patron saint?

And when you tire of demonstrating for the imposition of Sharia law, buy some porn and hire a hooker:

A thing need not be ‘activism based,’ to have an activist effect; pornography, prostitution and other forms of sexual proxy are powerful kinds of activism available to men as they make going your own way more accessible especially to young libidinous men.

This next big of advice is a tad, well, convoluted, but seems rock-solid otherwise:

Tell The Truth, And Let Reason Guide – An example, you let a woman off the train before you holding the door for her, and she doesn’t thank you. Annoyed you stomp past her, and exiting the station you’re looked over by a rough looking youth with an air of being up to no good, but he leaves you alone. You’re sure he’s a mugger, and will probably go after the woman who is coming along behind you. Now let’s say you chose to help, would you do it for the opportunity to redress her for her rudeness earlier? ‘You didn’t even thank me for holding the door open, but had I not been that kind of man I wouldn’t have come back to help, can you not understand why you should appreciate such sentiment?’ seems fair to me. On the flipside you could chose not to help (the choice is of course your own once you’ve weighed the pros and cons in a way that seems wise to you) or you could help if you like on the basis that she’s attractive, and demand her phone number as payment (I see nothing wrong with this) the point is don’t help just because.

So to sum up:

1) Get a job at the DMV or somewhere else in the public sector, and pester the women who are working there.
2) Either earn nothing or become a rich tax dodger.
3) Support Sharia law
4) Buy porn and hire hookers
5) If a woman is rude to you when you’re getting off a train, and then she gets mugged, rescue her just so you can tell her off afterwards, or maybe get her number. Or don’t rescue her.

I don’t know about you, but to me this sounds like a foolproof plan.

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference. Oddly appropriate given the subject matter.

Categories
antifeminism feminism ghosts homophobia men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny racism reactionary bullshit

>Disorganized atheistic rectal sodomizing feminists of the world unite!

>

More from The Ghost Nation, a sort of MGTOW-ish site that hates MGTOW. And “rectal sodomites” and, well, a long list of others.

When novelist-turned-film-critic James Agee saw Bill and Coo, a feature-length 1948 film starring nothing but trained birds, he described it as “by conservative estimate, the God-damndest thing ever seen.” I believe that title may now belong to The Ghost Nation. Here’s a useful list from the site detailing The Personality Traits of Feminists:

If you are a feminist, you do not sincerely believe in God, you endorse Zionism, rectal sodomites, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, unjust, you share private information, are a misandrist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, you hate straight whitey, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, are a sexual deviant, sadistic, violent, manipulative, fake friendships, enthusiastically associate with criminals, Zionists, sociopaths and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-heterosexual, heterophobic, atheist, agnostic, engage in gang-stalking, promote ugliness and scatology, do not respect other’s privacy, and do not believe that all rectal sodomites are homosexuals.

Hmm. I’ll just go through the list item by item: Yes, not exactly, yes, depends, no, no, no, no, no, yes, yes, yes, sometimes, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, erratic or … erotic?, sometimes, yes, maybe a little, sometimes, not really, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, yes, no, ugliness not really but scatology sometimes, no, yes.

I hope I didn’t leave out any answers and inadvertently make myself out to be a blackmailing gang-stalking adulterous cybercriminal rather than a humble disorganized agnostic who is friendly towards rectal sodomites and, really, sodomites generally. 

So how many of the personality traits apply to you, dear readers?

Oh, and by the way, if you didn’t believe me about Bill and Coo, here is a clip of this exceedingly WTF film masterpiece:

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it. *Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism evil women homophobia I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny racism

>She’s so fine, there’s no tellin’ where the money went

>

The epitome of White Womanhood?

So recently I stumbled across a blog and forum called The Ghost Nation. It’s truly scary. I would describe it as “MGTOW meets lunatic racist right wing conspiracy theory,” except that the people (person?) behind it think that MGTOW are a bunch of “atheists, rectal sodomites, criminals, dirtbags, black supremacists, jewish supremacists, misogynists and zionists.”

The topics on The Ghost Nation forum are a bit more, er, varied than those on your typical MGTOW forum. MGTOW types are generally preoccupied with the topic of what dirty whores women are. The Ghost Nation regulars devote attention to that always important topic, but also manage to find time to discuss such things as evil Zionists, BMX biking, and popular music. For example, the head dude behind The Ghost Nation has some highly original notions about the video for Robert Palmer’s song Simply Irresistible:

Notice all the women are White with no tats and natural boobs. The end of the USA was 1986. MTV was bought by Viacom in 1986 and this video was the last promoting the White race done in 1988. Since then Aw [American women] have turned into fat, nasty, tat plastered fake boobed slobs. Simply Irresistible was such a hit that the Zionists panicked and started something called Yo MTV Raps in 1988. From that point on straight White males were bashed in the media. It’s been many years since I saw the video but I get it now. You see Zionists are so insecure that they have to destroy what is beautiful. They do this on purpose. There is nothing more beautiful then tall White women without tats or fake boobs. Members here know this but younger generations don’t. MTV promotes ugly female midgets these days like on Jersey Shore.

Are Robert Palmer’s dancers a better representation of White Womanhood than Snooki? How much makeup is too much makeup? Was Robert Palmer truly the world’s most debonair man? Watch the video and judge for yourself:

—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

Categories
antifeminism Jared Loughner misogyny Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Is Jared Loughner a misogynist? Does anyone care?

>

We’ll probably never know exactly what toxic mixture of emotions and beliefs led Jared Loughner to gun down Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others, killing six; there is obviously a lot going on in that shaved head of his. But did misogyny play a role in his choice of target?

It’s an important question. But it’s one the media has by and large chosen to ignore, despite a number of clues that seem pretty clearly to confirm that Loughner, the attempted assassin of a female politician, held deeply misogynist views.

As I pointed out in a previous post, Loughner made seemingly misogynist comments online, as the Wall Street Journal noted, and investigators reportedly found the phrase “Die Bitch” scrawled in Loughner’s handwriting on a letter Giffords’ office sent to him. Now, buried near the end of a long profile of Loughner in the New York Times, we hear about the impression Loughner made on the employees of a local bank:

At a small local branch of a major bank, for example, the tellers would have their fingers on the alarm button whenever they saw him approaching.

It was not just his appearance — the pale shaved head and eyebrows — that unnerved them. It was also the aggressive, often sexist things that he said, including asserting that women should not be allowed to hold positions of power or authority.

One individual with knowledge of the situation said Mr. Loughner once got into a dispute with a female branch employee after she told him that a request of his would violate bank policy. He brusquely challenged the woman, telling her that she should not have any power.

“He was considered to be short-tempered and made people at the bank very uncomfortable,” said the individual, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the person was not authorized to discuss the matter.

Emphasis added.

If this report is true, and Loughner really feels that women should not be in positions of power, it’s hard to see how these beliefs could not have influenced his seeming obsession with a female politician, an obsession which ended in mass murder.

So why is this issue not at the center of discussion of Loughner’s actions? So far, only a handful of commenters, most notably Amanda Marcotte, have even taken up the issue. (For more on this, see Jezebel’s discussion of the misogyny discussion.)

In Slate, Tom Scocca notes the evidence suggesting that Loughner is a misogynist, and asks, quite reasonably:

Suppose the story said that Loughner “grew contemptuous of Jews” and went around “asserting that Jews should not be allowed to hold positions of power or authority,” even blurting anti-Semitic remarks to strangers. And then he went out and shot Giffords, a Jewish congressperson. Would his motives have seemed quite so incomprehensible? …

Yet as it is, there are only glancing and scattered references to Loughner’s burning hatred of the kind of person he would allegedly choose to try to assassinate.

As I’ve said before, misogyny has consequences. Unfortunately, too few in the media seem to want to even admit it’s part of the story.

—

If you liked this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery Jared Loughner MRA the spearhead violence against men/women

>Misogynists attack Daniel Hernandez for saving Gabrielle Giffords’ life

>

Daniel Hernandez

I made the mistake of posting my previous post about the failure of empathy in the reaction of many misogynists to the Arizona shootings without first stopping by The Spearhead. There, below a post lauding the heroism of Daniel Hernandez, the gay congressional intern who ran towards the gunshots to assist the fallen Giffords and literally save her life, I found some comments even stranger and more vile than the others I have quoted in my last post. Instead of lauding Hernandez’ lifesaving act of heroism, they attacked him for helping a woman.

One commenter calling himself Traveller put it this way:

The “hero” saved a female politician, Democrat, probably some sort of feminist getting affirmative action at stellar level, and following some sort of feminist agenda. That “hero” probably until that day went around breaking the legs of working men who hesitated to pay 99% of their income to a feminist government.

Lower down in the thread, Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) went further, saying

When men STOP being stupid arseholes and STOP saving the lives of ‘women andchildren’ THEN the women might notice how much we do for them.

In some ways Hernandez is also a traitor to men. IF he had just stood by and let this woman bleed to death because he was ‘afraid that she might accuse him of sexual harassment for touching her when she was unconscious’ and then been willing to take the heat of the lies and hatred and bile that women would throw at him for doing so? THEN he would have contributed to remedying the situation. And we would have one less female politician passing hate legislation against men. A net GAIN for men. …

Hernandez did something akin to a Jew helping a Nazi SS officer who will gladly throw him into a gas chamber. How is this ‘heroic’?

A few comments down, anonous agreed that:

The best thing any man can do is NOT step up to the plate and act heroic, but simply shrug ones shoulders at a time of crisis and say, ‘not my problem’. Whilst walking off to the nearest strip joint.

Men coming to the aid (especially of women) only get demonized anyway (Titanic anyone?) and never get a given a break in feminazi countries like the us/uk/aus. …

When men start being indifferent to wimmin … will men be truly free.

On The Spearhead, readers can upvote comments they like and downvote those they don’t. All of these comments had multiple upvotes (the latter two getting a dozen or more each) and only a handful of downvotes. 

—

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Categories
antifeminism crackpottery I'm totally being sarcastic oppressed men pussy cartel Uncategorized

>Manwiches

>

So I’ve been trying my best to make sense of a strange, turgid, conspiratorial post over on Rebuking Feminism, a blog run by a fellow calling himself Bwec who sometimes comments here.

This doozy of a sentence, loaded down with strange quasi-Marxist jargon and missing a couple of commas, will give you an idea of what I’m up against:

When females are the primary means of resource production themselves, when they own the means to male production (and thus transference of male resources without a fair social contract between men and women in marriage and thus divorce) plus own the means of human production i.e. total control over reproduction and conception the Matriarchy and dream of female supremacy will be complete.

The gist of it seems to be that, uh, women are taking over the world.

But there’s one paragraph that suggests that women have an even more evil agenda than merely lording it over us men. If I’m reading it correctly, Bwec is suggesting that the ladies want to … eat us.

If males served no other purpose than as food after mating she would surely consume us. It is this aspect of female nature which has been obscured as of late but men have known it since the beginning of time.

Yes, instead of wanting to make us sandwiches, they want to make us into sandwiches!

If this is true I would like to assure all female readers of this blog that, while I have good taste, I do not taste good.