Category: shaming tactics

Categories
$MONEY$ actual activism antifeminism crackpottery evil women grandiosity I'm totally being sarcastic irony alert it's science! men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA oppressed men patriarchy reactionary bullshit shaming tactics Tom Martin TROOOLLLL!! whores

Highlights of Tom Martin’s recent visit to Man Boobz. KEYWORDS: London School of Economics, Lawsuit, Tossed Out, Whore.

In fact, the correct figure is 97 percent.

The other day we met an MRA named Tom Martin, who filed an “anti-male discrimination” suit against the London School of Economics, only to have his case thrown out of court by a deeply unimpressed judge.

After I blogged about this, Mr. Martin showed up here to offer some commentary on his case, and on matters of wider import. As a public service of sorts, I would like to present to you all some selected highlights from his comments here, in case you didn’t have the time to read through the entire 1000+ comment thread that ensued. And even those who did make it through the comments will no doubt be pleased to be reminded of some of their favorite Tom Martin bon mots.

In case anyone suffers from the delusion that Mr. Martin actually is some sort of egalitarian, these comments should clarify matters for you.

And yes, it has been confirmed via email that this is the real Tom Martin commenting. Accept no substitutes!

The word of the day is: whore.

Are you sitting comfortably? Then let’s begin. These are in chronological order; each title links to the full comment in context.

The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy:

One year prior to joining the university, when visiting its library, I did complain, that the seating being hard created a greater disadvantage for men than for women, as men have considerably smaller weight-bearing buttock pads than women, and men are heavier too – so for men, on average heavier than women, have more weight bearing down onto a pad which is approximately four times smaller than women’s on average – according to a BBC documentary on the subject.

The Misandrist Chair Conspiracy 2: Misandrist Boogaloo

The EHRC actually agreed with me, that hard chairs are inappropriate for a library, as they impact men more. When we consider that only 2 out of 5 degrees go to men, the gender gap widening, then anything we can do to make men more comfortable taking the academic route, the better.

Given that higher educational attainment increases life expectancy for men, and given that increased educational attainment in men also decreases their violence against women among other things.

Too bad, ladies – he’s taken!

Anti-male shaming tactics are always used at the point of losing an argument, Hellkell.

When someone asks me “What sort of woman would go out with a men’s rights activist?” I reply “the sort of woman who isn’t a whore.”

Tom Martin’s 14 Point Anti-Prostitute Program:

Some of you want to know why I think prostitution is bad.

1. Sex is only ever any good when it is based on mutual attraction.

2. Charging for sex excludes men who cannot afford it, thus heightening male-on-male competition for money, which generates the conditions for war.

3. Prostitutes spend so long being pounded on, without orgasm, that it causes a condition akin to ‘blue balls’ in men – I think it’s referred to as ‘pelvic block’ in women, but has other names too, where veins in the female pelvic region become over-pressurized, causing pain and swelling. In some cases, an operation is required to release the pressure. You will see it in some porn stars. Their rectum will look swollen, and the tissue either side of the vaginal area too.

4. Prostitutes spend so long on the job, it stops them making better use of their lives. It hinders their emotional and intellectual development.

5. Prostitutes express more misandry than the average woman. Being a prostitute is misandry-inducing, or perhaps misandrists are more likely to choose prostitution, but either way, prostitution correlates with misandry – and misandry is bad, as it perpetuates fear or mistrust of men, which perpetuates sex segregation, which perpetuates male-on-male competition, which increases brain capacity for aggression (in both sexes), whilst decreasing brain capacity for empathy and higher thought.

6. Prostitution is an aggregate sex segregation, as prostitutes take themselves out of the free association and free sex zone, and wait for paying customers – and though paying customers and prostitutes are not sex-segregating whilst having sex, she quickly has to get him out to do the next customer, so there is less organic natural association between the sexes throughout the course of the day – and the association which does take place is fake or bought, rather than free association.

7. Prostitutes are boring.

8. There is no Nobel Prize for services to prostitution for a reason.

9. Gold-diggers are more stupid than average women.

10. Housewives are more fascistic than average women.

11. Economically inactive female model societies are more fascistic than normal societies.

12. Men associating with prostitutes or economically inactive gold-digger housewhores etc are more fascistic than average men.

13. Prostitution was the historic norm, and civilizations have less prostitution as they advance, so less prostitution probably related to advancement.

14. Less prostitutional sex-segregated societies produce better more balanced ratio of women to men (more women), causing men to make more sensible, less rash or flashy spending decisions.

I’m sure there are many more related reasons I could go into, about why prostitution is bad.

I think it should be fully legalized, but that these women should pay the highest rate of tax, and be first draft in any military conscription.

He’s writing a book!

I do have a book, on the way, based on some experimental psychology I’m conducting. As soon as I put this gender studies industry out of its misery, I’ll let you know.

Fems: It’s time to renounce your whoredom!

I’m asking feminists in particular to renounce prostitution in all its forms. …

It is my estimation, that as little as 3% of women have actually made a conscious decision to treat men as equals, never expect any money from men, and actively promote more egalitarian gender roles (rather than begrudgingly suffer them), by celebrating the less worky roles afforded men. …

From a straight male perspective, the potential mate pool is quite full of hypergamous gold-diggers and prostitutes, the stand up egalitarian women few and far between, so yes, not only should women renounce prostitution in all its forms, but they should buy the T shirt or get the tattoo as well or something.

Just like it being polite to inform someone first if you have a social disease, you should inform someone first if you are a gold-digger/whore/housewife wannabe etc.

But then, there are a lot of women who swear blind they’re not whores who are – so some kind of renouncement on their part, where they’re putting a bit of heart into it, might be in order. Maybe an fMRI lie detecting brain scan certificate to show you’ve passed the test.

But if fems just want to go with “I can’t believe you think women are whores. How misogynistic” then its really falling well short of the mark – given women’s woeful track record in this department so far.

So come on then, who is going to be the first to renounce prostitution in all its forms?

At least Rosa Parks got a seat:

Be honest, you’re not sitting on a hard seat right now, so why should you when you’re in a library?

My position was vindicated by the authorities taking it seriously at the time. …

They also put a three piece couch and seats into the library after my successful complaint,

so I am actually very pleased about that, and you suck….

[I]n Saudi Arabia, two men have to vacate a bus seat for one woman. …

So, we all know who Rosa Parks was. The black person who didn’t want to sit at the back of the bus – and quite right too, but at least she got a seat.

But when it is men being forced out of their seats, and by economically inactive Saudi whores – professional whore feminists just laugh it off or make BS excuses.

Scum.

Saudi Arabia: A Whorish Matriarchy

In many ways, Saudi Arabian men are probably the most discriminated against men in the world.

Firstly, it costs more for a Saudi Arabian men to marry than for any for other men in the world on average (in relative to national average earnings).

Secondly, Saudi Arabian women are the laziest whores in the world, with just 22% of them in even a part-time job (and that 22% figure bolstered by the foreign women shipped in to do certain work).

Thirdly, Islamic law says what a man earns, he must share, but what his wife earns, she can keep. …

[O]n balance, given Saudi men are doing all the hard work, not only should Saudi women be giving up their seats to Saudi men if anything, victim-feminists should be ashamed of themselves for portraying Saudi women as the uniquely oppressed class. Far from it.

Saudi Arabia is an advanced country, where the female population is highly educated. Saudi scientists are among the best in the world. Saudi doctors successfully separated conjoined twins at the head – both twins living – but that same scientific community has so far been unable to separate Saudi Arabian women’s enormous asses from their couches. There is a way though. When Saudi men learn to stop giving women money and gifts, the women will have no choice but to rise up, get a job, demand driving licenses, etc.

Saudi women just laugh at patriarchy theory. They know they’re lazy whores pulling all strings. Saudi men on the other hand, have never had their issues addressed, and are very receptive to change.

Islamic states are whoriarchies – which neither men or women would want to be associated with, once they’ve had it properly explained.

Did I explain already that Muslim women are whores?

Muslim women are quids in the whores.

Their civilizations are down the pan, but as long as they’ve got one over on the men, they don’t seem to give a shit.

I would totally take my anti-Muslim-whore crusade to the streets, but Muslim women are too scary:

[I]f Muslim women want Muslim men to change the laws, then they can simply order their husbands or suitors to do this.

Similarly, they could order their husbands to vote for full female voting rights. …

I would be standing on a street corner in some Muslim land explaining it, but that would be too risky for my personal safety, or any man’s personal safety. It is easier for women to rise up without getting shot than for men, on gender politics issues.

Nevertheless, I will be translating my experiments’ findings and book into Arabic.

All those people who say I’m “whoring” by asking for donations to my legal fighting fund, are missing the point

Whore whore whore whore:

“Whoriarchy” is not a perfect term, but a more accurate description of the state of affairs on gender relations everywhere than “patriarchy” – and a lot less glamorous. …

Professional feminists are whores. This includes David Futrelle. His job is not to reflect accurately, but mock, so he is a delaying gatekeeper, attempting to exclude men’s equality debates, by making misleading representations about the men’s rights movement’s core values and goals.

We need a word for women who aren’t whores:

[C]urrently, to my knowledge, there is no word in the English language, for a woman who is not a whore. For a woman who has rejected all forms of prostitution.

“Independent” – okay, could mean “has a job”, but not specific enough. I mean Beyonce claims to be an “Independent” woman, but then she also wants men to pay her telephone bills, and put a ring on it – so, no. If Beyonce has a job, it’s as a prostitute.

“Egalitarian” – too general. Sounds like she’s weighing up whoring options equally.

“Feminist” – too much gold-digging of government resources, and sucking cocks for money, so no.

Women who have chosen to have nothing to do with prostitution in any of its forms should not even have to mention the word when describing their awesome credentials, and credo. Most women are prostitutes to some extent, so ‘woman’ doesn’t do it either for the time being.

We need a new word…

Ladies, make yourself useful!

Ladies, you have had expensive educations, surpassing men’s in duration. Your parents assisted you more with university fees than they did their sons. The jobs market is set up to positively discriminate in your favour if you’ll only put the effort in. Men are willing to do more childcare if you will only stop complaining about them not doing it right etc, and actually transfer the parental leave to them. Men have put men on the moon. All you need to do, is express some breast milk and get it into the fridge so you can return to your glorious careers and create or invent us all something useful. Please don’t invent us any more cupcakes though. …

The human race needs you to put down the crockery, and make a proper contribution to the advancement of civilization. Feminism’s “glass ceiling” story is the metaphorical glass ball and chain excuse for defeatism and inertia required for you never to have to leave the kitchen. We have microwave meals now – go and make yourselves a tad more useful.

March of the Penguin Whores:

Female penguins are whores

Not ALL women are whores:

For the record, I would never claim all women are whores. I’d put it at around the 97% mark in my estimation – so back off, haters.

What do we want! To inconvenience whores! When do we want it? Now!

Liberating men involves mildly inconveniencing whores. It’s a win/win.

Ladies! Stop being whores and invent something.

There is a limit to just how un-whorey you need to get. Once you’ve hit zero, then you’re at your target whoring level, of not being a whore. Move on. File a patent. Write a joke. Find a cure for something. Not being a whore isn’t a vocation in and of itself. “And the Nobel Prize for not being a whore goes to… .”

9 out of 10 patents are awarded to men, and yet in factual media, men are portrayed positively only 1 time out of 10. Don’t be one of those media douches pretending men aren’t anything other than freaking awesome.

Tom Martin: Boy Inventor

I have invented something, and am working on prototypes.

I have previously sought a patent application for another invention.

And I’ve built lots of things too.

I’ve also made daisy chains.

My cat made a hairball, but you don’t see her bragging about that.

Categories
antifeminism creepy disgusting women douchebaggery evil women girl germs men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny MRA shaming tactics that's not funny! vaginas

“It must be cotton pony rodeo time,” and other incredibly brilliant insults that will totally make the ladies cry.

This one is also hilarious.

In the war of ideas, it is important to be well-armed. And that’s why one brave antifeminist warrior named Roy Scott Movrich has supplied his fellow warriors with some potent verbal ammunition, a full clip of misogynist insults designed to reduce all women in the immediate area to blubbering tears.

As Roy explains:

Feminists have gotten away with shaming language for too long. Far too long.

Its time we got our own back.

And since women in general have not stood up to defend men, it stands that all women are tarred with the same brush. Therefore ALL women are to be denigrated equally.

Fair’s fair.

Here are a choice sampling of insults to deride women with.

Try them and see. I did. And watch their ordure (translation: s**t) hit the roof!

A few of Roy’s insults are borrowed from literature (mostly from Shakespeare), but most of them are originals. In a manner of speaking.

He starts out with a puzzler:

Your’s is even smaller than mine.

Presumably he is suggesting that cis women/feminists have some sort of symbolic penis, and that this symbolic penis of theirs is smaller than his non-symbolic penis

He continues on with several other comments in this vein:

It’ll be way bigger than anything you’ll ever have.

The one you try to have is even smaller than mine.

And of course this classic:

Mine isn’t too small, your cooch is too wide/large/loose.

Then we get some vibrator-shaming:

Oooh! Bad mood! Did you run out of batteries?

And some wildly unoriginal negs:

You sound really old.

You don’t look your age. [Pause] You look [longer pause] old.

You look good enough to be my great-great grandmother.

This one might not be terribly successful with total strangers:

You were/are a lousy lover.

And then it’s back to the vagina:

You must be having constant periods.

It must be cotton pony rodeo time huh?

Note to self: Find out if anyone in the history of the world has ever referred to a woman’s period as “cotton pony rodeo time.”

Then on to cats, spinster-shaming, and general unpleasantness:

Did one of your cats just die?

You must not be married yet.

Can’t have kids huh?

There’s nothing a woman can do for me that my right hand can’t do better.

Even dung beetles are higher than women and feminists.

And back to the vagina again:

You obviously have one of those super large and deep ginas a man has to strap a plank to his back to prevent him falling into.

Note to self: Find out if there is anyone who refers to vaginas as “ginas” who is not a misogynist asscrack.

If you need more, Roy suggests that you can basically go with

[a]nything that implies her plumbing isn’t clean, has diseases or a foul smell.

After delivering this list (and some Shakespeare quotes), Roy somewhat confusingly concludes that insulting women is actually a waste of time:

[A]t the end of the day, given that women are devoid of logic and wit, using such choice insults is wanton waste.

Better to ignore them completely.

And since modern women, with their over-inflated sense of entitlement cannot abide being ignored, this is just as dramatic and effective as any insult.

In other words, the chance that Roy has ever used any of these insults in a conversation with a woman is roughly zero.

Categories
antifeminism douchebaggery hypocrisy irony alert lying liars misogyny reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts

If Rush Limbaugh could draw cartoons …

Oy, Sorry for more Rush Limbaugh-related crap, but this cartoon, by Gary McCoy, was just too appalling not to post.

I’m not even going to get into the slut-shaming, or that the cartoonist is bizarrely trying to fat-shame someone who is not actually fat, but I would like to point out once again that WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDING FREE BIRTH CONTROL (even though that sounds like a nifty idea to me). We’re talking about INSURANCE COMPANIES COVERING BIRTH CONTROL LIKE THEY COVER OTHER MEDICAL EXPENSES. You know about insurance, right? That thing that people PAY FOR THEMSELVES, with THEIR OWN MONEY?

Are Rush and his fans really so ignorant and obtuse that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that this is about the government paying for birth control? Or are they deliberately misrepresenting the issue, knowing that most of their readers/listeners/whatever won’t bother to check the facts?

Categories
antifeminism creepy misogyny reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts vaginas whores

Attention feminists: Rush Limbaugh wants to watch you having sex.

Sometimes Rush gets a little overexcited

You may recall that  all-dude panel of “experts” at that recent congressional hearing on contraception. One of the reasons it was an all-dude panel was that congressional Republicans wouldn’t let Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testify on the costs of birth control. (She later testified at a separate hearing held by Nancy Pelosi.)

Apparently stating publicly how much contraception costs when it’s not covered by insurance is basically the equivalent of pooping on the flag to some misogynistic assholes, among them the always charming Rush Limbaugh, who has denounced Fluke as a “slut” and a whore, saying, at one point, that she

went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.

Actually, she didn’t testify about her own experience at all.

Also, does Limbaugh even know how contraception works? Yes, the number of condoms one buys depends on how often you have sex. (Or at the very least how often you hope to have sex. Who knows how many boxes of condoms, purchased in moments of optimism, have quietly expired on the shelf waiting for their purchasers to finally get their mojo working. )

But the costs of many other forms of contraception have no relation whatsoever to the frequency of sex. Women on “the pill” take a pill every day, regardless of whether they are having sex that day or not. Women using IUDs don’t run down to the health center to have one installed every time their vagina expects a visitor.

Birth control, in short, doesn’t work like Oxycontin or Viagra, the two pills about which Limbaugh seems most knowledgeable.

Sorry to belabor the obvious, which apparently isn’t so obvious if you’re a right-wing, woman-hating asshole.

Anyway, now Limbaugh seems to think he’s entitled to watch Fluke having sex:

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. … We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?

Here’s the excerpt from his radio show in which he makes this creepy demand.

Categories
creepy dawgies hypocrisy oppressed men pedophiles oh sorry ephebophiles reddit shaming tactics

Can Reddit handle the truth?

Shaming: Does not always work with dogs.

So the other day I got an interesting comment from a new fan. And by “fan,” I mean someone who hates my guts. “Casper” makes what he evidently thinks is a devastating indictment of my main modus operandi – that is, quoting misogynist dunderheads, and mocking them.

Clever. You encourage hatred towards men while using their own language to shame them. …

You’re just a hate-mongerer albeit an intelligent and creative one. Hitler would have just loved you

That’s right. I “encourage hatred towards men” by reporting what some dudes actually post on the internet, usually under a fake name that can’t be traced back to them. Pointing out when someone says something shitty evidently makes me as bad as Hitler.  (I should note that I mock specific men, not men in general, and that I also mock specific women with similar opinions.)

Casper also complains that “[e]ven the name of your site is an effort to shame men.” Again, I should point out that the dumb punny title of this blog isn’t directed at all men, merely those who act like misogynist boobs (or, if you prefer, boobz). “Boob” is pretty much the mildest insult I can think of, not to mention one that is a bit archaic; it’s a bit like calling someone a ruffian or a jackanape. Frankly, it’s far too nice a name for many of the people I write about here.

Of course, Casper isn’t the only one who feels that pointing out the offensive crap that people say is somehow equivalent of starting a death camp in your backyard. Take the many critics of ShitRedditSays.

For those who aren’t familiar with the ways of Reddit, ShitRedditSays (or SRS) is a user-created forum (subreddit) on Reddit devoted to pointing out some of the worst, most bigoted and awful crap posted on Reddit that nonetheless gets upvotes and acclaim from Reddit regulars.

The SRS modus operandi may seem a bit familiar to anyone who reads Man Boobz: SRSers find highly upvoted crap on Reddit and post it to their subreddit, where others react with horror and/or laugh about how hilariously awful it is. They don’t send out “downvote brigades” to downvote the crap they link to; they don’t try to track the bigots down in the real world and harass them. No, SRSers post what they find, and they mock.

On a couple of occasions, they’ve gone further. When they discovered that actual child porn was being circulated in Reddit’s “Jailbait” subreddit, a hangout for ephebophile creepers to creep on pictures of underage girls, SRSers spread the word beyond Reddit, and the resulting media attention led to Reddit finally deleting that subreddit.

Problem solved? Not exactly; the creepers merely moved on to any number of other subreddits devoted to the sexualization of underage girls. And so SRS struck again, alerting the media to the fact that Reddit still hosted a forum even creepier than r/jailbait – that is, r/preteen_girls, devoted to sexualized pictures of girls under the age of 13. This time, the Reddit admins moved more quickly, and banned all the subreddits that, in their words, “focus on sexualization of children.”

And apparently the Reddit admins are still pissed off about it. Recently, someone on Reddit leaked the log of a private chat between a Reddit moderator and one of the site’s administrators (that is, someone who actually works at Reddit). (See here and here for more details.)

The admin, known as hueypriest, described SRS’s attempts to get child porn and other material sexualizing children off of Reddit as “kind of like a forrest [sic]  fire,” and grumbled about SRSers and other opponents of child porn sending “frivolous tips” to the FBI:

the fbi is not interested in following up leads of 17 year olds who’s boyfriends post shit on the internet

And evidently neither was Reddit, until SRSers and others revealed what was going on in its sleaziest subreddits to the world.

Again, all SRS did was to point out what was there.

Ever since Reddit’s belated shutdown of what hueypriest euphemistically described as the “questionable” subreddits, there’s a lot of talk on Reddit about how SRS needs to be shut down.

A couple of comments in the SubredditDrama subreddit pretty much sum up the frustrations a lot of us feel towards Reddit’s admins and many of the site’s users. 1338h4x writes:

Subreddits sexualizing kids? Let that slide for 5 years until the public pressure and bad PR is finally too much. Subreddit calling out sexism, bigotry, etc? SHUT IT DOWN RIGHT NOW!

This would just be the ultimate validation of SRS’s message. I dare them to do it.

Matriarchy adds:

Making reddit look bad = the worst thing. Perhaps they should stay on the ball and actually get rid off the terrible shit in advance … you know, that way they don’t look bad by having a policy that tacitly allows child pornography to remain on the website for extended periods of time.

You would think this is a no-brainer. Apparently this is not the case~

Apparently.

Categories
antifeminism bad boys crackpottery evil women misogyny patriarchy precious bodily fluids reactionary bullshit sex shaming tactics sluts thug-lovers

100% Mathmatically Accurate! Manosphere blogger Dalrock on slut-shaming

"Kids Love it!" Another claim that is not 100% accurate.

The director of the first Human Centipede film – the one about a psychopathic doctor who sews three unwilling and unwitting captives together mouth-to-anus to make a sort of “centipede” — proudly declared that his film was “100% medically accurate.” That is, he found a  doctor who was willing to say that if one were indeed to create such a centipede, the second and third segments (i.e., people) would be able to survive, provided that you supplemented their rather dismal diet with IV drips to give them the nutrition they were lacking.

This dubious claim to 100% accuracy came to mind today as I perused a post by the blogger who calls himself Dalrock, a manospherian nitwit with a penchant for pseudoscientific defenses of old-fashioned misogyny. In a post with the whimsical title “We are trapped on Slut Island and Traditional Conservatives are our Gilligan,” Dalrock argues that the best “solution” to out-of-wedlock births is some good old-fashioned slut shaming.

Here’s how he breaks down the (imaginary) numbers in a post that is “100% mathematically accurate” – which is to say, not accurate at all:

Assume we are starting off with 100 sluts and 30 alphas/players.  The sluts are happily riding on the alpha carousel.  Now we introduce slut shaming.  It isn’t fully effective of course, but it manages to convince 15 of the would be sluts not to be sluts after all.  This means an additional 15 women are again potentially suitable for marriage.  This directly translates into fewer fatherless children.  This also makes the next round of slut shaming easier.  Instead of having 99 peers eagerly cheering her on her ride, each slut now has 15 happily married women shaming her and only 84 other sluts encouraging her.  After the next round this becomes 30 happily married women shaming the sluts, and only 69 other sluts cheering them on, and so on.  This process continues until all but the most die hard sluts are off the carousel.  You will never discourage them all, but you can do a world better than we are doing today.

Why not shame the fathers as well, while we’re at it? Dalrock explains that this just doesn’t make good mathematical sense:

Start with the same base assumption of 100 sluts and 30 players.  Now apply shame to the players.  Unfortunately shame is less effective on players than it is on sluts, so instead of discouraging 15% of them (4.5) in the first round, it only discourages three of them.  No problem!, says the Gilligan [the social conservative], at least there are now three fewer sluts now that three of the evil alphas have been shamed away, and all without creating any unhappy sluts!  But unfortunately it doesn’t work that way.  The remaining 27 players are more than happy to service the extra sluts.  They are quite maddeningly actually delighted with the new situation.  Even worse, the next round of player shaming is even less effective than the first.  This time only 2 players are discouraged, and one of the other 3 realizes that his player peers are picking up the slack anyway and reopens for business.  This means in net there are still 26 players, more than enough to handle all of the sluts you can throw at them.

Well, there’s no arguing with that!

Seriously, there’s no arguing with that, because it is an imaginary construct with only the most tenuous connection with how things work in the real world. “But … MATH!” doesn’t really work as an argument here, since human beings don’t actually behave according to simplistic mathematical formulas.

Film critic note: While the first Human Centipede film offered little more than a workmanlike treatment of a fantastical idea, the recently released sequel, which details the attempts of a deranged Human Centipede superfan to take human-centipeding to the next level, is actually sort of brilliant. If you like that sort of thing.

Categories
antifeminism creepy douchebaggery evil women homophobia hypocrisy men who should not ever be with women ever misandry misogyny MRA oppressed men racism rape rapey reactionary bullshit reddit shaming tactics sluts threats

Showdown: #MenCallMeThings versus The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

The most common “critique” of the #mencallmethings hashtag  that blew up on Twitter last week was that the women posting examples of misogynistic shit they got called online were making a big deal out of nothing. As the always-charming Ferdinand Bardamu so memorably put it:

It’s funny, then, that when MRAs find themselves described with less-than-flattering language they have a strange tendency to act like they’ve suddenly been struck with a case of the vapors. Witness the reaction of MRAs when someone calls them the “c-word.” No, not “cunt” – “creep.” As one outraged Men’s Rights Redditor recently put it, in a comment with 30+ net upvotes:

Creep shaming is probably one of the most insidious and anti-equality things you can do. The ability to label men as “creepy” is just one privilege that women enjoy, and a constant source of fear of ostracizing that all men must fear in our society.

When MRAs feel themselves being oppressed by such clearly man-hating language, they often refer to something called the Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics, which, well, catalogues their language grievances in detail. According to the author of the  Catalogue,

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions.  Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.

Such shaming tactics, the author of the Catalogue says, with no evident awareness of the irony, are often used by “histrionic …  female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic” and the male “gynocentrists” who ally with them.

Here are some of the awful “shaming” remarks that get directed at MRAs, according to the Catalogue of Shaming Tactics:

 “Stop whining!”

 “Suck it up like a man!”

“You need to get over your anger at women.”

“You’re afraid of a strong woman!”

“You are so immature!”

“You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”

“Are you gay?”

 “That’s a sexist stereotype!”

 “You need therapy.”

“You make me feel afraid.”

 “Weirdo!”

 “Loser!”

“You are so materialistic.”

 “No woman will marry you with that attitude.”

“You are insensitive to the plight of women.”

Did someone just use the word "creep?"

Is that last one even an insult? It’s a fairly accurate description of a lot of MRAs, who take a certain pride in being “insensitive to the plight of women.”

So now that we’ve seen the horrible abuse that MRAs have to put up with on a daily basis, let’s take a quick look at some of the things that women and feminists regularly get from their detractors, as posted to the #mencallmethings hashtag and sent to Sady Doyle, who originated the hashtag. (These are all taken from a great post she did in the aftermath of #mencallmethings’ big blowup.) I think you will find the comparison instructive.  Let’s start with the more straightforward slurs. (TRIGGER WARNING for, well, just about everything in the quotes that follow.)

Slut, cunt, bitch, whore, ugly, dyke, lesbo, unfuckable, crazy, delusional, liar, hysterical, autistic bitch child, feminazi,  ballbuster, humorless, heartless whore, man hater, misandrist, stupid little girl, shrieky hysterical moron, airhead, spoiled little princess, stupid bitch, stupid fucking cunt, stupid feminazi cunt, an ugly bitter little woman, cumm guzzling closet lesbian, a pseudo-intellectual Insane Oversensitive Humourless Female supremacist.

Now let’s move on to complete sentences:

 “You’re an ugly fucking cunt.”

“That sort of smirk is why God invented anal sex.”  

“you’re so ugly you look like you have downs syndrome, you’d be thankful to be raped.”

“hope you catch a sexually transmitted disease or vagina cancer, cuntwit.”

”Stick a dildo up your dry vagina.”

“the only time your mouth should be open is when i’m putting my d–k in it”

“Your just a gay cunt who deserves to be punished.”

“A firm backhand to her whore face would provide her with a much needed attitude adjustment.”  

“Fuck you bitch….ya need to get beat like ur pops use to do to u.”

“I hope you never have children, your daughters would be such sluts and end up murdered in a gutter by someone like me.”

 You’re “not worth the effort to murder.”  

“[The] only tragedy is that a bullet didn’t rip through ur brainstem after u were used 4 ur 1 & only purpose in this world.”

“what a long winded bitch. You certainly do need to be gagged.”

“You’re an annoying bitch with no friends.I’d love to run you over with my truck.”

“you stupid bitch, I should fuck the crazy right out of you.”

”i surely hope that one day you get raped.”

“[You] can’t be a female scientist, that phrase is an oxymoron,”

“it’s painfully obvious you’re a woman, get off the internet.”

“I will fuck your ass to death you filthy fucking whore. Your only worth on this planet is as a warm hole.”

“Do you need to file a hurt feelings report?”

As I noted before, despite my general unpopularity in the MRA world, I tend to get fewer of these things than, for example, most feminist bloggers with a similar degree of internet notoriety. But I get them. Here, for example, is the latest comment I’ve gotten from the guy who calls himself Nugganu, a sort of follow-up to a previous comment I quoted earlier in which he imagined me raped by ten black men:

He certainly does have a vivid imagination.

But, yeah, somehow it’s a little hard for me to feel a ton of sympathy for MRAs who so regularly work themselves into a lather over “shaming language” like “creep” and “loser” and “you are insensitive to the plight of women.”

 

Categories
idiocy misogyny MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit shaming tactics the spearhead

>Scott Adams to Men’s Rights Activists: You’ll never win an argument with a woman

>

Scott Adams: Sometimes dumber than Dilbert’s boss.

So Scott Adams — the Dilbert guy — has a blog. About a week and a half ago he made the mistake of asking his readers to give him a topic to write about. Well, some MRAs heard about this, and, being MRAs, decided that they would flood his site with comments urging him to write about Men’s Rights. And so he did.

What they got from him wasn’t quite what they hoped. Really, though, it wasn’t what anyone would have hoped. So much so that Adams decided to take his post down, saying that it had gotten “a bit too much attention from outside my normal reading circle.”

Luckily, through the voodoo of Google, we can still see the original post. Adams started out, depressingly enough, by more-or-less agreeing with MRAs on a wide assortment of their pet issues big and small  — from men paying more for car insurance to the alleged anti-male bias of the legal system.  Much of what he wrote made as little sense as many real MRA rants; even his little jokey asides fell completely flat.

We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.

After more or less agreeing that men are getting a raw deal, Adams dismissed the complaints of women upset that women earn less than men; to Adams, this is because they are naturally timid souls who don’t know how to ask for raises.

So far, so not-so-good. But then Adams pulled the old switcheroo on his MRA readers, who up until this point were presumably giddy with excitement.

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.

Uh oh! Shaming tactic! MRAs love directing vagina-based insults at others — mangina anyone? — but they hate hate hate it when anyone directs a vagina-based insult at them. To be fair, calling someone a pussy is not much of an argument.

But here’s where Adams pulled a sort of double switcheroo. After insulting Men’s Rights activists, he did them one better with a bizarre, brazen misogynistic argument that seemed to have been cribbed from some of the more idiotic comments on the various MGTOW message boards.  It turned out that the reason Adams thinks men should “get over it” is that … well, read it for yourself.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.

What what what?? This is the sort of shit you expect from some low-grade misogynist loser on The Spearhead.  But no, this is Scott Adams, internationally famous cartoonist and bestselling author. Instead of trying to explain just what the fuck he means by all this, Adams continued on with a very strange, and strangely sexual, chess metaphor:

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.

Apparently In Scott Adams’ world, chess players don’t get all their kicks above the waistline, Sunshine. 

After a few more paragraphs that, frankly, don’t make any more sense than what I’ve quoted so far, Adams seemed to realize that maybe he shouldn’t have really suggested that women were a bunch of retarded children. But instead of going back and removing that from his post, he dug himself further in with a weird and completely unconvincing denial:

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people.

As far as I can figure out his weird and convoluted argument, it is this: The world really is unfair to men. But you’ll never win this argument with a women — you know how they are. So keep quiet and maybe … you’ll get to fuck the queen? 

No wonder he deleted the post. 

Completely off-topic observation: Every time I hear the name Dilbert, the song Dilbar Dil Se Pyare, from the 1971 Bollywood hit Caravan, gets stuck in my head. So let’s see if I can get it stuck in your head:

—

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
feminism pics shaming tactics

>Neither saints nor whores, just women.

>

I recently ran across this picture online, which is evidently from a feminist protest in Mexico City in 1991; it was part of an exhibition of photos tracing the history of the feminist movement in Mexico City. (Here’s a link to a Google Translated version of a web page on the exhibition,.)

I think the slogan is a pretty good description of how most feminists would like women to be regarded: Not as saints, not as whores, but just as women.

Or, in language more understandable to a lot of the MRAs/MGTOWers out there: “Not as pretty princesses, not as Ameriskanks, but just as women.” 

—

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
masculinity shaming tactics

>Men’s Rights Activists: “Don’t tell me to ‘man up,’ you mangina!”

>If you’re ever looking for a pretty much sure-fire way to get a Men’s Rights Activist to blow his top — not that this is a particularly difficult feat — just tell him to “man up.” Indeed, the phrase is so infuriating to some MRAs that it causes them to spew typos like a mad man. “Few phrases in the world make an MRAs [sic] want to rip our [sic] their spines and beat people to a bloody pulp with them,” writes TheZetaMale on his Zeta blog. “‘Man Up’ has to be one of them.” Meanwhile, on the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit, a fellow calling himself olythoreau seconds this emotion:

I noticed that people using the phrase “man up” or “be a man” really fucking pisses me off. A trigger of sorts. Fuck everyone who has any expectation that I or any other man perform masculinity to their liking. Yes, I’m a man, but I’m a fucking individual… and I’ll perform masculinity any way I fucking please!

Thing is, I completely agree with this sentiment: telling a guy to “man up” is an obnoxious thing to do. Oh, sure, I sometimes agree with the message people are trying to send by using this phrase: stop whining about trivial shit and get on with your life.

Indeed, no group of people I’ve ever run across is so expert in turning molehills into Mt. Everest than the MRA crowd; they put the whiniest of “victim feminists” to shame. Do you really need to boycott half the companies in the Fortune 500* because they ran “misandrist” ads featuring doofus husbands failing in their doofusy attempts to cook dinner? Does the fact that some random hot chick finds you repellent really mean that evil women rule the world? Does the fact that some anti-MRA blogger calls a dumb old sexist cartoon a dumb old sexist cartoon really mean that “feminists and manginas .. would love to enforce a world where the very thought that men experience problems with women in relationships is taboo[?]”

So I can certainly understand the exasperation so many people feel towards the MRM, as the very existence of this blog attests. But the phrase “man up” is absolutely the wrong way to make these points, for precisely the reasons olythoreau outlines. And I’d add: the phrase is sexist as hell, suggesting implicitly that non-men and non-manly men are a bunch of, well, pussies. (It’s telling that the most common alternate way to tell someone to “man up” is to tell him to “stop being a pussy.”)

I’m hardly the only feminist-ish person to dislike the phrase “man up”: Jezebel ran a story called “Stop Telling Men to ‘Man Up'” the other day, noting the sudden ubiquity of the phrase in the political world, and making the point that the phrase implies “that the worst thing to be is not-a-man — weak, lacking in courage.” (Of course, there are some MRAs who have no problem with the phrase “man up” for exactly this reason.)

But there is an irony to MRAs’ distaste with the phrase. No, scratch that, a HUMONGOUS GIGANTIC FUCKING IRONY. While they complain about the phrase “man up” being applied to them, they are the first to question the masculinity of anyone who disagrees with them or who displays their masculinity in any other way than they do — hence their almost ritualistic use of the gender-bending term “mangina” (NSFW link) to indicate anyone not-them. (For ample proof of this, just scroll down to the comments on virtually any post on this blog.) As cat points out in a comment on this very subject on this very blog:

The thing about MRA patriarchy foot soldiers is that they can’t seem to get the old slogan of “the patriarchy hurts men too”. First, they complain about not being able to express emotions and variety, then they turn around the first chance they get to bash the guys that do. You know, if you stopped doing all this gay-bashing gender shaming, you would be able to express your emotions verbally, dress in different colors, admit you enjoy musicals and baking, etc. You’re slitting your own damned throats and blaming it on everyone but yourselves.

I’d only add one little caveat to this: the people attacking “manginas” aren’t always the exact same people in the MRM who are complaining about being told to “man up.” Indeed, TheZetaMale — the first guy I quoted above — actually took his fellow MRAs to task in an earlier post for using “shaming language like ‘Faggot’ and ‘Emasculated Mangina.'” Unfortunately, his attitude is rarer than rare in the MRM.

So here’s a challenge for any MRM who hates being told to “man up”: take a stand against the term “mangina” and all the other obnoxious gender-questioning slurs that litter every message board or comment section populated by MRAs. Post a denunciation of this shit right here, in the comments to this post. Just human up, and do it.

NOTE TO EXTREMELY LITERAL READERS: *I realize that they’re not literally advocating boycotting half the companies in the Fortune 500. Sometimes I keed.

EDIT: Amanda Marcotte posted an excellent piece on how “man up” fucks stuff up for everybody. Check it out.