Arthur Goldwag, the author of the SPLC’s recent report on hatred in the Men’s Rights movement, has now responded to some of the hysteria his article provoked amongst MRAs. As Goldwag notes, contrary to what most MRAs seemed to conclude from the report,
the SPLC did not label MRAs as members of a hate movement; nor did our article claim that the grievances they air on their websites – false rape accusations, ruinous divorce settlements and the like – are all without merit. But we didcall out specific examples of misogyny and the threat, overt or implicit, of violence.
Thomas James Ball, for example, who was hailed as a martyr on so many men’s rights forums, called for arson attacks on courthouses and police stations. The Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik wrote extensively about the evils of feminism. We included as much as we did about Register-Her.com because it is so intimidating to its targets, not all of whom are criminals. When Elam accused Vliet Tiptree, a pseudonymous contributor to RadFem Hub, of “calling for extermination of half the human race; the male half, that is,” he offered a cash reward for her real identity. The names and locations of several candidates were publically aired.
Goldwag also takes a look at some of the radical feminists that have become boogeywomen for so many MRAs, and deals with other MRA complaints.
Obviously Elam and other MRAs will respond to Goldwag’s latest as well. Post links in the comments below as you find them, and I’ll add them to this post.
EDITED TO ADD: And, right on schedule, AVfM responds to Goldwag’s response. It’s a John the Other post, so be prepared to read a lot of words saying not very much.
One widespread belief of the manosphere crowd is that “Western women” – that is, white women in developed countries – are a bunch of stuck-up, demanding, divorce-initiating feminism-infected harridans. So the proper course of action for the almost-all-white dudes of the manosphere is to seek a woman with darker skin and a (supposedly) more pliable nature. Even better: beleaguered white dudes should move to one of the countries where these feminism-free gals live, because when you bring them to the United States they too have a tendency to become infected with evil feminism and to become as stuck-up and evil as their lighter-skinned sisters.
This belief isn’t universal amongst manospehreians by any stretch of the imagination. White nationalist manosphreians (like those who populate the blog In Mala Fide) get testy when their women are considered inferior to non-whites; others think that all women are equally evil. Still others think that moving to a whole other country is too much of a hassle. Rarely do you find a manospherian willing to state the obvious: that the “white women suck” mantra is as offensive to non-white women as it is to white women.
If one thinks about it, the misandry and divorce problem are problems that occur in countries where the women are light-skinned–mostly Northern Hemisphere Western Contries, and where the governments are atheist or were atheist.
Problem countries are Sweden, Germany, Czech Republic, Poland, Russia, United States, France, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand, etc. In short–the West. Light skinned women are by nature more dominant and controlling. If you combine that with a culture that encourages bad behavior, you as a man are doomed.
So far, this is standard-issue western-women-suck-ism. But then Hell starts talking about genes.
So the misandry problem is problem of genetics and culture. We can see the genetic differences in the United States. Asian Women divorce their husbands at a much lower rate then the other racial groups. The exception in America is the American Black Women (But isn’t she exceptional, after all)? I mean native African Women have very little resemblance to American Black Women).
Ironically, it’s fairly typical for the white-women-suck crowd to hate black women even more; in this case the only non-typical thing about Hell’s screed is that he’s willing to cut African women some slack.
Now Hell sets forth his basic thesis:
My point is this: I maintain the best wife for a white man is someone darker skinned then he is. I maintain that the best culture for the white man and his wife is a man-friendly culture. For example, a white man and Mexican woman living in Mexico; a white man and Thai Woman living in Thailand; a white man and a Morracan Woman, living in Morraco; a white man and Turkish Woman, living in Turkey. This strategy neutralizes the light-skinned genes, and at the same time neutralizes the cultural influences.
Note: If you plan to move to Morocco to escape the tyranny of white women, you should probably learn to spell the name of the country correctly first.
Naturally, Hell can’t bring himself to suggest that white men should marry black women. And he thinks that even black men should give African-American women a pass:
For a black man, possibly the best plan is to emigrate to Africa in order to have a family. I had a friend who did this. Most African divorce laws keep the man firmly in charge with sole custody automatically going to the man.
While some Western-women-hating manospherians have something of a fetish for Eastern European women, Hell warns his fellow men to avoid these sneaky deceitful harridans as well:
Whatever you do, never bring an Eastern European, Russian, or Ukrainian Girl to the Unites States.
But it isn’t only the Eastern European women who are spoiled by the evil feminism of the west.
In fact don’t bring any woman to the United States. Remember: even the healthiest fish becomes sick when the lake is poisoned. Some fish will become sicker than others depending on their genetic makeup. For example, that nice girl you brought over from Asia might not divorce you when she comes to the USA, but she is likely to become a much different (difficult and unpredictable) person.
So who is the best man for the white woman living in the West? Quite simply, no man; or another woman. Very few men in the West will be able to satify Western White Women.
And this, naturally, leads to what what we might call Hell’s Final Solution to the problem:
These women need to be bred out of existence.
We as men can speed the extinction of Western White Women by encouraging them to pursue the single life or to pursue another woman as a spouse (lesbianism). We can do this actively and passively. Actively by outright encouragement, and passively by never giving a Western Woman access to our sperm, money, or time.
Despite its, er, problematic content, Hell’s comment managed to draw 21 upvotes from fellow Spearheaders, more than twice the number of downvotes it received.
I eagerly await A Voice for Men’s campaign to uncover and expose the identities of Hell and his upvoters – as well as against The Spearhead itself for providing a safe harbor for such thinking. I mean, AVfM literally offered a $1000 award for the personal information of a feminist who made similarly troubling remarks about men, and a separate $1000 reward for the identities of those involved in a theatrical production about a feminist who wrote a famous manifesto about the evils of men. Surely the A Voice for Men crowd will be equally offended by these remarks from their comrades on The Spearhead.
Here on Man Boobz we content ourselves with highlighting bad ideas, not harassing or threatening or exposing the personal information of those who promulgate them. The “war of ideas” isn’t an actual war. The bad ideas we highlight here are as silly as they are reprehensible; they will ultimately vanish from the world on their own — though hopefully our mockery of them will help to speed that process a little bit.
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks to scarlettpipistrelle for pointing me to this lovely comment.
Over on A Voice for Men, our dear friend Paul Elam has come up with an interesting new way to celebrate Mother’s Day – with what is essentially the longest, least funny, and most rage-filled “Yo Mama” joke ever. (Indeed, it’s so rage-filled I should probably put a Trigger Warning right about here.)
Elam starts off by addressing the mothers of the world, suggesting he’s got a “a socially conscious twist” on the traditional Mother’s Day celebrations. Mothers, he argues, should gather together the flowers they’ve been given by their loved ones and:
Place a bunch of daffodils at a dumpster near you, perhaps one in which one of you, or one of your kind, has tossed an unwanted baby, leaving it there to slowly die alone in a pile of trash.
Perhaps you could lay a single rose at the base of a bridge that has been used by a mother to throw her baby into an icy river. Perhaps you can lay it there with hands that have beaten or shaken a baby to death.
You probably didn’t see that coming, did you? He goes on.
Now perhaps some of you could place large, colorful arrangements at the abortion centers where women go to have children cut out and laid to rest in those colorful and attractive biohazard containers that are all the rage in the clinics. …
Maybe you can lay virtual flowers at your computers to honor all the children that you and your sisters have pimped out to pedophiles, or perhaps the blossoms could be placed in your child’s room, which also doubles as your preferred place to abuse your own.
Oh, but you say you haven’t done any of these things, and that abortion isn’t actually the same as infanticide? No matter. Elam has an answer for that:
This is not a request for some mothers, or a percentage of them, but all of you. In fact, you don’t even have to be a mother. If you have a vagina, the blood of all those children, who are abused far more at the hands of women than men, has stained your skin and caked around the cuticles of your fingers.
If you are a mother, particularly one of the many abusers, or just one that has remained silent as your sisters have beaten, choked, stabbed, burned, drowned, abused, neglected, dumped, tortured and otherwise done the unspeakable to the most defenseless among us, then I hope to see those flowers in your murderous hands, paying homage to those that have been unfortunate enough to be placed in your path. …
In Daffodils for Dumpsters the gash gets you in, and you don’t really have a choice.
You see, Elam has decided that we live in an era of “collective guilt,” and that the evil (straw) feminists who go around blaming all men for the actions of a few – through such dastardly things like rape awareness seminars – deserve to find themselves collectively blamed as well.
Except that Elam’s post goes well beyond an ill-conceived and ill-intentioned attempt at “turnabout is fair play.” This isn’t a piece of Swiftian satire. He actually believes all this hateful nonsense, and says as much:
Now, do I really mean all this? Yes. It is not that women deserve to be collectively regarded as child abusers and killers. Most aren’t. Most are actually very good to their children and can even be trusted with the children of others. But that truth is not what is important here.
What is important is the children, or the principle, or whatever other bullshit we make up to convince ourselves it is not about demonizing women when that is exactly what we are doing.
I have to confess I have no idea what he’s trying to say in the second paragraph here. Did he mean to say “men” instead of “women?” If so, this is an interesting little slip.
He continues:
The fact is that mothers are more dangerous than fathers where it concerns children. They always have been. It is only a few percentage points in that direction, but of course in a White Ribbon way, it is more than enough to justify pointing a finger at your entire sex and feeling superior as we watch you atone for the unspeakable acts of a minority.
So, suck it up ladies. If you knew about White Ribbon and said nothing to object to it; if in general you have remained silent or actively participated as the image of the male half of the population has been reduced to that of a depraved threat, the step up and get your flowers. You deserve every last petal, stem and thorn.
I imagine Elam chuckling a bit as he typed that final word.
And a happy Mother’s Day to you, too!
Oh, and if you found yourself wondering about that “White Ribbon” thing, Elam is evidently (as best I can figure it) referring either to the women who, during World War I, handed out white ribbons to men who didn’t enlist in the army. Or he’s referring to this contemporary campaign to fight violence against women. But I don’t live inside Elam’s head, so I’m not sure what he meant, or why he seems to think that all women would know about either campaign, much less have any responsibility for them.
You may notice that Elam presents no actual evidence to back up his claims. There is no such evidence, because Elam’s accusations are utterly and completely untrue.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with r/beatingwomen. Nothing. I don’t know anything about who created it, or what their aim was beyond laughing at pictures and videos of violence against women. As I’ve said before, it’s a vile place. I think Reddit should shut it down.
This was posted to the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day, with the headline: “Saw this today and I suppose that’s where we’re headed.” It’s gotten 556 upvotes, last I checked. (Those are net upvotes: it got 848 upvotes, 292 downvotes.) This is the world that a lot of MRAs, and Redditors in general, think they live in.
Amazingly, one of the few voices of reason to emerge in the whole discussion (besides that downvoted commenter and serveral others) turned out to be none other than Pierce Harlan of the False Rape Society (now called Community of the Wrongly Accused). While not averse to spreading misinformation about rape and false rape accusations himself, he argued in a comment (and in a similarly worded blog post) that this kind of raving hysteria wasn’t helpful, concluding:
The delicate balance that commands us to punish rapists while not punishing the innocent is extremely serious business. We need more sober, more adult, more serious voices to be part of the public discourse. The last thing we need is more Chicken Little hysteria, no matter which side it’s coming from.
I’m guessing the upvotes he got for his comment must have come from visitors from his blog, because up until he posted that comment the few dissenters were mostly being dismissed.
The Men’s Rights subreddit: Waxing hysterical about imaginary oppressions since March 2008.
Over on The Counter-Feminist, the self-proclaimed Counter-Feminist Agent of Change (CFAC) known as Fidelbogen has written a very strange fan letter to Justin Bieber. The teen heartthrob and lesbian-doppleganger, you see, has written a song about the woman who falsely accused him of fathering a child, which makes Bieber practically an MRA.
Poor Fidelbogen is clearly having a hard time dealing with his conflicted feelings about Bieber. He’s overjoyed that Bieber is taking on an evil paternity fraudress, but he’s clearly afraid that expressing too much enthusiasm about the Beebs will make him look, I don’t know, sort of girly? What else could explain all the hemming and hawing in his account of the Beebs’ new song?
Mind you, not that I give two spits about the young pop singer Justin Bieber, but the significance of certain events does not escape me. The lad is quite popular among people of a certain generational subculture, and he was recently the target of attempted paternity fraud. The attempt failed, and Justin memorialized the experience in a song … .
The Fides goes on to deliver a standard-issue anti-feminist minirant:
What’s this got to do with feminism, you ask? Well, feminism has empowered women to do many, many things — especially things that would hurt or exploit males. Likewise, feminist propaganda and legal activism has generated a cultural climate in which the “deadbeat dad” trope has risen to special prominence — aye, to a point of moral hysteria! Finally, feminist complicity with the paternity fraud industry is written in blazing letters by anybody who cares to look.
And then it’s back to the glory of Bieber:
Justin Bieber’s song might just hammer home, in the minds of certain male youngsters, some of the cruel facts of male existence in today’s world. And that can only be to the political benefit of the non-feminist revolution. So, on with it!
I don’t know. When I feel the urge to listen to music about paternity fraud, I tend to go with the classics:
Hot on the heels of my recent discovery of Men’s Rights Bronies, a new controversy about My Little Pony has erupted in the Men’s Rights subreddit. Though, to be honest, I might have provoked most of the actual controversy there by wading into the muck and pointing out a few facts.
The discussion centers around a rather obtuse post by Kathleen Richter on the Ms. Blog from two years ago accusing the show’s creators of racism and homophobia, among other things. The post couldn’t be more wrong about everything, and, unsurprisingly, was torn apart by commenters on the site – and by Lauren Faust, then the show’s “creative steward” and executive producer, who was given the opportunity to write a rebuttal on the Ms. Blog.
So why are the dudes on the Men’s Rights subreddit getting worked up by this dead controversy today? Because an MRA who calls himself ThePigman – we took a look at one of his terrible, terrible comic strips here – decided to post Richter’s original post (but not Faust’s rebuttal) to r/mensrights under the title “My Little Pony FIM attacked by nuts at Ms Magazine Blog. NOT, repeat, NOT a satire.”
Perhaps inadvisedly, I posted a comment pointing out that the Richter’s blog post had not exactly been well-received. And this happened. (Click on the pic for a full-sized version.)
The whole discussion is rather surreal. Some highlights.
ThePigman responding to a rather straightforward and factual comment of mine with:
You are a disgusting animal. Go and talk to someone else, just having you on the same planet makes me want to puke.
As someone who speaks fluent Eoghan, let me translate: he is suggesting that the women discussing the issue of MLP on the Ms. Blog are all a bunch of layabouts living off of their hard-working husbands. He’s also making a snide reference to feminism as being an “astro-turf” movement (rather than a true grassroots movement) because, in his mind, feminism is all a big plot created and funded by the CIA and the evil elitists who run the world.
Eoghan aside, this whole episode suggests how difficult it is for a feminist to have any kind of discussion with MRAs even on the Men’s Rights subreddit, probably the most moderate MRA forum out there. (Several other people posted references to Faust’s rebuttal, but weren’t downvoted, because they aren’t the dreaded, more-evil-than-evil-itself “manboobz.”)
EDITED TO ADD: ThePigman has responded to this and my previous Brony post in his typically calm and reasonable manner on his blog. By which I mean he spewed forth a bunch of angry nonsense.
Typical woman at home. (Artist’s rendition.) YOU CAN BUY THIS! Click on the pic for its Etsy listing.
After hearing a misogynist make some rancid generalization about women based on the terrible behavior of one particular woman, it’s hard not to respond by saying “not all women are like that.” Misogynists hear this so often, and evidently see it as so hilarious, that they’ve invented their own little acronym for the phrase: NAWALT. You’ll find this all the time on MRA sites, along with its sister acronym NAFALT, with “feminists” in the place of “women.”
Many MRAs seem to believe that simply repeating one or another of these acronyms is an effective, and highly witty, rebuttal to their critics. Because to them it is self-evident: All women, all feminists, ARE like that.
So imagine the pleasure I felt when I finally ran across an MRA-ish fellow challenging this conventional wisdom. On his blog la prensa, the regular Spearhead commenter known as Boxer makes this controversial claim:
It is a popular misconception which men hold on to which suggests all women are the same. This is not the case.
Unfortunately, my pleasure lasted only as long as it took to read these two sentences. Because then Boxer went on to explain just what he meant by this:
For example: Some women are whores, and others are even trashier than whores. Some women live in houses where the litter boxes overflow and the pungent aroma of catshit lingers lovingly in the air. Other women are allergic to cats, and their houses carry the stench of human feces, rotting food and the cheap perfumes they douse themselves in.
Apparently Boxer has never been invited into any woman’s house, and bases most of his opinions of the fair sex on reruns of Hoarders.
Men will center themselves upon these notable differences, and mistakenly assume that the diversity of individual women points to differences in the way individual women behave. Such high-minded fools usually learn the hard way, when the woman decides to “cash out” with the help of the state and its family law courts, who are always eager to liquidate a lifetime of male planning and work, dividing it between themselves and the cunt which the fool so stupidly married.
See yesterday’s post for more on women and their apparently insatiable hunger for D-I-V-O-R-C-E.
The foolish man, confronted by a mountain of inescapable evidence that every woman, from his mother and sister down to the bitch who empties the trashcan in his office, is a trashy slut, will immediately construct an intricate conspiracy theory between his ears. ‘Yes,’ the dumbass tells himself, ‘all the women I have ever known were and are trashy skanks, but that’s just because western society has brainwashed all the women in my own vicinity with its toxic headpoison.”
I am actually pretty sure my mom is not a slut. (Though I have heard that Las Vegas is full of them.)
This mangina will be aided along in his misconception by other manginas and white knights, often falling in with a disgruntled lot on various loser’s hangouts, in real life or on the internet. Often these men get “yellow fever”, and fly off to some third world shitheap to marry (again) in an effort to find that one precious snowflake who is not a third rate whore among the billions and billions of cunts on planet earth who prove their utter worthlessness on a daily basis.
Oh dear. I think Boxer is about to add a heaping helping of racism on top of his misogyny sundae.
It is true that Asian bitches tend to be slimmer and more intelligent than those in the white and black camps, but that just means they are more cunning, and better able to exploit the chumps who delude themselves into thinking that marrying and serving an oriental master is somehow “better” than being the slave of a homegrown American cunt.
Huh. Honestly, that wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting. Though after nearly two years of intense study of the manosphere, I have some pretty high standards for offensiveness.
For all their variety, bitches’ behavior is uniformly lousy, and in that regard, all women are indeed like that. Yes, all of them, all around the world. This is not a war, it is something more analogous to an organized deer hunt, and you are the prey. For god’s fuck’n sake, quit marrying these slits already.
And so we circle back around to “all women ARE like that.”
Still, I have to say I agree with Boxer’s final sentence. Dudes, if you believe any of this crap, please do not marry women. Or, really, have any contact with them whatsoever. Frankly, I’d suggest that you find yourself a nice uninhabited island – like, say, this one – and move there posthaste. You’ll be much happier, and so will the rest of us.
What do feminists want? Equal work for equal pay? An end to sexual violence? A new album from Le Tigre? Nope. According to the dude behind the still-awkwardly named Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology blog, what they really want is to GET THE RING and get hitched up to some nice man they can happily exploit. Yep, feminists love marriage more than almost anything. Why? Because getting married is the necessary first step towards getting a nice, profitable divorce. Mr. PMAFT explains:
Anyone who tells you that getting married and having children fights feminism is wrong. Feminism is dependent on marriage and family. Without it, feminism would collapse. When socons and tradcons push for marriage, they are working to create more feminism.
But …
Some of you are thinking, “what about all those feminists who want to ‘destroy marriage’?” … [T]his represents a misunderstanding of what feminism is and how pervasive it is. A few lesbians who want to destroy marriage don’t really represent the totality of feminism. The most prominent strain of feminism currently in existence is hybrid feminism or cafeteria feminism, which combines anything from what is traditionally thought of as “feminism” to conservatism and traditionalism that benefits women.
Um, I’m pretty sure that the traditionalists are not eating in the same cafeteria as the “cafeteria feminists.” But PMAFT is on a roll:
The hybrid or cafeteria feminist does not want to “destroy marriage” as such. They have no interest in living in lesbian communes. They want to be able to cash out and destroy THEIR marriages via divorce whenever they feel like it, but they still want to get married when they want. If marriage was completely destroyed, then they wouldn’t be able to fleece men of their children and financial assets because they wouldn’t be able to get married in the first place to have a divorce. Without the use of marriage and divorce, it becomes nearly impossible for feminism to steal the wealth of men. … Feminism is now completely dependent on marriage and family.
Huh, because most of the feminists I know, oh, never mind.
This is the reason why the marriage strike is such a large threat to feminism. Without men getting married, the engine of feminism doesn’t have the fuel it needs to keep going, and it stalls.
I’m pretty sure most feminist women will get along just fine even if they can’t marry you.
Paul Elam, head ranter at A Voice for Men, has a new video out called “You want privilege? You got it!” The thesis: if women really did have the so-called privileges that men have, they’d hate it and want men to take them all back. Because all of these so-called privileges are really giant burdens. Or, as Elam puts it, somewhat more melodramatically, these privileges have “begun to more resemble an anchor around your neck than the helm of a great ship that everyone tells you that you are captaining.”
Here’s the video.
Well, all right, that’s not really Paul Elam. But that little clip does capture pretty well the tone of his latest post, which is indeed about how male privilege is really a terrible burden.
I mean, this is his opener:
I swear by everything holy that the next time I hear some fembot caterwaul about “male privilege,” I am going to find something to break, turn it into shards, and drag the broken pieces across my chest just to distract me from the pain of their increasing stupidity. Just picture me like Martin Sheen, collapsed in a heap of bloody, tearful insanity on the floor of a cheap hotel in Saigon.
Heck, compared to that, Mr. McDuck’s reaction to the news about his “ice cream” was, if anything, rather restrained.
The rest of Elam’s post is, as is typical for him, a rather trite recitation of a number of standard Men’s Rights talking points about male “disposability” written in some of the most ridiculously overblown prose ever seen outside of an Ayn Rand novel.
Elam complains that he hasn’t seen much benefit from his privileges:
Mind you I still don’t know what that privilege is. One time when I was young and very poor I was late on my light bill. I showed the electric company my balls, but they cut my power off anyway. …
Yeah, as someone who’s also had his power cut off, I’m pretty sure they do that with everyone. I’m also pretty sure that no feminist has ever or will ever argue that male privilege means you won’t get your power cut off for nonpayment.
Here’s Elam addressing women as if they’ve traded place with men:
With your privilege comes the right to work on crab boats, drive trucks, work on electric lines, walk into burning buildings and sink into the bowels of the earth digging out coal and other things people find useful.
Apparently having greater occupational choices is scary and bad.
When a ship goes down, or any other life threatening disaster strikes, you have two choices. Be a real woman and die, or treat your life like it has value and have the world shit on you as a coward who refused to perish on cue. There is also the possibility of third option, either die from the disaster so that men can live, or have another woman blow a fucking hole in your face with a pistol because you tried to save yourself.
Like noticing the emperor has no clothes, it may hit you one day when you decide not to offer your seat to a man; when the stares at you from all around seem to come down people’s noses. …
You must learn not to say a word. Not to anyone else, not even to yourself. You must learn to see flames, coal dust, icy saltwater, death and sacrifice for the trappings of power that the world around you thinks them to be.
Says a dude typing out his manifestos on an expensive laptop he conned nagged his followers into buying for him.
And you must be willing to hang your head in shame over that power, even as the world chews you up, spits you out, and gets ready to take its turn with your daughter.
Elam’s rousing conclusion:
So, that is it, ladies. You want my privilege, it is yours. I will gladly hand it over to you this very minute. I am just waiting for you to meet the pre-requisites of disposibilty and an utter lack of self-value. I am waiting for you to woman up to the job, take off your fucking make up and be ready to bleed, blah blah blah look at me I’m mad!
I paraphrased a little at the end there. But, yes, the world champion at seeing male “disposability” everywhere did in fact misspell the word “disposability.” That was all him. And so, believe it or not, is the following:
I, like a Jew gone weary of being called a chosen one, am completely ready for anyone else, and in particular, you, to be chosen.
Personally, I have had about all the privilege I can stand.
Yep. He went there.
Also, I don’t know if you all knew this, but when women serve in the military these days it’s “like a day care camp for them.”
Also, not to pat myself on the back or anything, but my headline is much better than his. Maybe he should get me to write all the headlines on A Voice for Angry Duck Plutocrats Men.
Susan Walsh, the slut-shaming, chart-making dating guru behind Hooking Up Smart, has made yet another chart! This time, it’s a flowchart attempting to diagram “the anatomy of a hookup.” While not quite as impressively incoherent as her infamous flowchart trying to explain the dire economic costs of sluttery, or as plainly incorrect as her diagram purporting to show that hot dudes get all the sex, this one is impressively daft nonetheless. I suggest you click here to see it full-size.
Well, I’ve followed all the various little arrows around on the chart, and as far as I can tell, her point is that if you have sex with someone, this may not result in true love for all time. There’s a shock. In other words, all these little boxes and arrows are intended to draw our attention to the fact that, as Cliff Pervocracy has put it, “every relationship does either end or continue. I salute your tautological genius.”
The other thing to notice about Walsh’s chart is that she apparently can’t conceive that people can remain friends, or even become friends, after sex. As Walsh loves to remind her female readers, having sex with someone doesn’t automatically make them fall in love with you. But it doesn’t make them automatically hate you or want to have nothing to do with you either.
So I present to you a somewhat more simplified hookup flow chart, which nonetheless manages to cover the possibility that people who hook up with one another can sometimes become friends afterwards.
Super Obvious Note: All friendships and relationships may at some point come to an end, or change into something else.
Despite the clear flaws of Walsh’s chart – it’s a strange mixture of obviousness and obliviousness — many of Walsh’s readers hailed it as a work of genius. One anonymous commenter wrote:
I don’t think there has ever been a better visual representation for the hookup that shows its futility from the woman’s point of view.
That diagram looks as pleasant as trying to cross a minefield.
And that, of course, is the real message Walsh is trying to get across with her (probably deliberately) muddled chart: hookups are scary!
As Walsh put it in a comment:
The point of the chart is really to highlight the odds of getting to dating via a hookup. Studies say 12% of the time. All those yellow and red boxes are just a visual representation of those odds.
Of course, in Wash’s vision, not “getting to dating” is apparently as bad for women as getting an STD, or finding out the guy you’re fucking is a feminist, or something.
Men are starting to learn their own value in the dating world. They’re beginning to learn Game and use women’s desire for a relationship as leverage. And that means that they’re raising their expectations (which sucks for feminists, who are constantly trying to lower women’s expectations of themselves while raising it for men) and getting a lot more canny about just who they want to spend their lives with.
Men are, indeed, the keepers of commitment. It’s the masculine equivalent of our “virtue”, our ability and willingness to ally ourselves with one woman (or just a few). Those fellas in the Puerarchy who are still hooking up like mad, y’all are the rest of that leverage. With Game-savvy PUAs pumpin’ & dumpin’ like it’s on sale, they provide a bleak alternative to pursuing commitment with a quality dude, which means his value as a high-status male goes up with his willingness to commit. But that also means his expectations of his future bride go up as well.
Guys, recognize your value to women, and use it to your advantage. Remember, a woman in a crappy relationship enjoys higher status in the Matrix than a woman without a relationship, all things being equal. They crave the validation they get from their female peers in the Matrix more than they even crave the romantic connection. That provides a tremendous amount of leverage for the dude who understands that.
Other dudes, nonetheless, still feel that women are too icky to deal with. Herb put it this way:
[I]f there is one lesson Game types and MRA should be pushing it is this:
“A man needs to be ridden by a woman as much as a bicycle needs to be ridden by a fish.”
And yes, I changed it from “have” to “ridden by” for a reason. In the combat dating era, especially in marriage 2.0, men are saddled and ridden too often.
You don’t need a woman in your life to be a man or be complete. …
If you physically need sexual contact there is no shame in deciding the way women have organized the current SMP is a losing game and just turn to the world’s oldest profession (which too many women let themselves become even if they don’t realize it)
You know, if you’re running a dating site ostensibly to provide useful information for young women, and your most enthusiastic commenters are either PUAs hoping to use that information to better exploit women, or MGTOWers looking for more excuses to denigrate and dismiss all women, maybe you’re doing something wrong.
Friend-of-Man-Boobz Ozymandias tried to inject some good sense into the discussion over there. Unfortunately, very little of it stuck.
Arthur Goldwag, the author of the SPLC’s recent report on hatred in the Men’s Rights movement, has now responded to some of the hysteria his article provoked amongst MRAs. As Goldwag notes, contrary to what most MRAs seemed to conclude from the report,
Over on The Counter-Feminist, the self-proclaimed Counter-Feminist Agent of Change (CFAC) known as Fidelbogen has written a 
