Categories
antifeminism feminism misogyny sex Uncategorized

>OkCupid can read your mind

>

From OkCupid
Antifeminists regularly charge feminists like me with assuming men and women are the same. Which is a bit silly. I don’t know any feminist who assumes men and women are the same, whether the differences are due to biology (I can’t grow a baby in my belly) or culture (women are far more likely to while away their evenings reading or writing fanfic about Sam and Dean). I think the confusion amongst the antifeminists on this point stems from the fact that the specific things they think are different between men and women are often nothing more than sexist nonsense, and feminists can’t help but point this out.
No, if you want to see the ways men and women really are different, it helps to start with actual data rather than a bunch of retrograde sexist assumptions you pull out of your ass. The folks behind the OkCupid dating site have lots of data – users of the site fill out detailed profiles and answer countless questions about themselves in order to find others like them – and they know how to crunch it. Which means they can tell you with a great deal of precision what the men and women who use their site think about all sorts of things. Which is why OkCupid’s blog is so often a source of wonderment.
Take the latest post – thanks to Feministe for alerting me to it – which presents an assortment of creative charts — like the one above, depicting some of the actual differences between men and women on the site.
Who knew that men who mention “poetry” in their profiles were more likely to be into rough sex than dudes who talk about “boating?”
And what about guys who are into both poetry and boating? There must be some. I mean, many of my favorite poems involve Nantucket, a small island reachable only by boat.
Most of the rest of the charts in the latest post don’t specifically contrast men and women, but are interesting in all sorts of other ways. (You may have to change some of your assumptions about vegetarians.) If you want more on gender differences (not to mention intersting stuff on race), I’d suggest looking back through the OkCupid blog’s back catalogue. Here’s an interesting post on The Mathematics of Beauty. And then there’s this classic, which is probably a big part of why the fortysomething women I know who’ve used the site have gotten so, so many messages from horny guys half their age.
Roses are red
Violets are blue
I love the OkCupid blog
And so, I think, will you

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
feminism MRA reactionary bullshit the spearhead Uncategorized

>Do feminists secretly want to be Betty Draper?

>

Uh, shouldn’t he have a desk or something?
It’s no secret that lots of women love Mad Men, and not just because Don Draper is such a handsome devil. Sure, the show focuses mostly on the swaggering Don. But it also depicts the struggles of numerous female characters as they bump up against the obstacles and issues faced by women at the time, most notably those of secretary-turned-copywriter Peggy Olson as she tries to make it in the boys club that was the advertising world of the 50s and 60s. Meanwhile, the show’s happy homemaker, Betty Draper (now Betty Francis), is about as far from happy as you can get, her life a perfect illustration of Betty Friedan’s critique of the emptiness at the heart of the lives of many middle-class stay-at-home moms of the time. 
It’s no wonder that historian Stephanie Coontz  has described Mad Men as “TV’s most feminist show,” and no wonder why the show is so popular with the feminist women in my life.(Not to mention with me.)

Just don’t tell any of this to Uncle Elmer, a regular commenter over on The Spearhead. He’s evidently never seen the show, but feels confident he knows why feminists love it so much: 
Feminists … have a huge forbidden woodie for the “50s”. They simply cannot get enough 50s imagery and its thinly veiled implication that women should stay at home, know how to run a household, and lavishly support their man so he can go out and bring back the bacon.
I’m betting a lot of lez-couples have a secret “50s room” in their McMansion (or remodeled Brownstone) where they can act out these suppressed urges. The props must be breathtaking.

Uh, yeah. As Amanda Marcotte recently observed,“[w]hen you believe that we live in a female-dominated world where straight men are the most oppressed class, it tends to make you wrong about pretty much everything.”

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
douchebaggery funny hypocrisy misogyny Uncategorized

>Scott Adams’ Imaginary Friend

>

Scott Adams, meet Scott Adams.
Oh Scott Adams, why must you be so delightfully mockable? Regular readers may well remember the Dilbert dude writing a really douchey misogynistic blog post, and then defending that blog post in a highly patronizing and completely unconvincing way.
Now it turns out that everybody’s favorite misogynist cartoonist has apparently been posting pro-Scott-Adams comments on Metafilter and Reddit under the super seekret alias PlannedChaos. Today, on Metafilter, PlannedChaos fessed up to the sockpuppetry, admitting that he was Adams; according to Gawker, Adams has also confessed directly to MetaFilter founder Matt Haughey. 
In light of this revelation, I would encourage everyone to poke through PlannedChaos’ comment histories on both MetaFilter and Reddit. They are, of course, quite (unintentionally) hilarious.
On MetaFilter, Adams’ sockpuppet praises Adams (that is, himself) as someone with “a certified genius I.Q., and that’s hard to hide.” He also boasts that Adams (that is, himself): 
turned a failing comic into a household word by transforming it from a generic comic into a workplace comic. He wrote a number of best selling books. He was one of the top paid public speakers for a decade. His website has earned him millions while no other comic property has done the same. One of his two restaurants was solidly successful. And now he’s one of the most popular writers in the Wall Street Journal. 
Wait, what was that right before the Wall Street Journal bit? “One of his two restaurants?” Boy, now I want to find out the history of that second, non-successful restaurant.  What went wrong? Did people not hunger for Ratbert’s Ratburgers? Did it have a rotating floor like Hank’s Look-Around Café?
Also, in what can only be described as GIGANTIC FUCKING IRONY, PlannedChaos also mocked another commenter for allegedly having an “imaginary friend.”
On Reddit, PlannedChaos was similarly sycophantic towards, er, himself: 
If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has lots of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That’s how the idiot mind is wired.
It’s fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can’t rule out the hypothesis that you’re too dumb to understand what he’s saying.
And he’s a certified genius. Just sayin’.

Yeah, but apparently not enough of a genius — “certified” or no — to engage in sockpuppetry without totally giving himself away. Just sayin’.

If you have even the slightest doubt that PlannedChaos is indeed Adams himself, this comment on Reddit from a year ago should lay those doubts to rest immediately:

The people here who are objecting to Adams’ fiction about evolution clearly have some reading comprehension problems. A careful reading of the actual book will give you a different opinion.
By the way, Adams has said the book was designed using hypnotic methods (he’s a trained hypnotist) and it is intended to generate strong opinions, and even some weird amnesia about the content itself. You can see the amnesia and cognitive dissonance in full display in these comments.

Hmm. Reading comprehension problems. The people who disagree with Adams don’t understand him. Where on earth have I heard that before?

Oh yeah.

Oh, and in his final comment on Metafilter, Adams suggests that his sockpuppetry was all a bit of fun. In other words, like Pee-Wee Herman falling of his bike, he meant to do it. I think I may have heard that somewhere before, too.

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 feminism MGTOW MRA oppressed men Uncategorized

>Imaginary Feminism

>

An Imaginary Feminist in action.
There’s a great post up on The Pervocracy inspired by, well, some of the more lovable characters who frequent the comments section on this little blog – our resident antifeminists. As  Holly notes, the feminists posting here devote much of their time (naturally enough) to arguing for feminism, while the MRA types, by contrast, tend to argue against an imaginary enemy that only bears a vague passing resemblance to actual feminism. Holly sets forth the tenets of this imaginary feminism, or IF, as she’s managed to glean them from the comments by MRA types here.
IF, she notes, is monolithic:
Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF’s chests backward so they can read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson, Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Firefly. 
Imaginary Feminists have no real grievances, are eager to take rights away from men, love shaming men, and are simultaneously sex-hating puritans and sex-obsessed sluts.
In other words, they are dastardly creatures indeed. If they really existed, I would oppose them too.
The post is hilarious and spot-on in its critiques. Well worth reading.

EDIT: Link fixed. 


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
I'm totally being sarcastic MRA reactionary bullshit sex Uncategorized western women suck

>Body heat

>

Jayne Mansfield leaks sex onto Sophia Loren
Be careful, gals. With warmer weather coming, don’t be tempted to wear skimpier clothes. Because female sexuality works the same as body heat on a cold winter’s day: the more skin you show, the more heat – literal and figurative – leaks out. Eventually, you will run out. And that’s bad news, possibly for you, and definitely for your future husbands. (And really, they’re the only ones who count.) 
That, in any case, is the theory of one traditional-minded Men’s Rightser calling himself Alucin. In a blog post today he mused about the differences between traditional religious women and, you know, all those filthy “western” sluts wandering around exposing sexy bits like their legs and their … hair. (Not their leg hair, their head hair. We’ll get to leg hair in a minute.) Alucin writes: 

Orthodox Jewish [and]  Muslim women [cover] their hair and other parts when in public. The ideal is that they save their sexuality for their husband. Only their husband can see their hair, legs, cleavage, and experience their sexuality. 
All well and good, Alucin says. “Western women,” by contrast, 
fully display their sexuality, and tend not to value virginity or other traditional sexual morals. Then, when married, they turn into dowdy, asexual androids, gaining weight and wearing their man’s clothes. And forgetting to shave.

They give none of their sexuality to their husbands. It has already been used up. She says that she owns her sexuality, but in fact it was the zillion guys she’s been with who have owned her sexuality. Her sexuality has been farmed and mined.

A western woman’s sexuality is for everyone but her husband. 

  
Here’s one of those horrible hair-showing western harlots singing about hot cleavage in the summertime. (Just so you don’t get too confused by the lyrics, I’m pretty sure the song is from the point of view of a guy missing his girlfriend.)


— 
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
bullying feminism idiocy kitties Uncategorized

>I’m going off the rails on an [ableist slur redacted] train. Also: Cat poll!

>

Well, discussions about my second Scott Adams piece over on Feministe (which was basically identical to my post here) have now been completely derailed by a number of commenters who’ve decided I’m “ableist” because I used the word … “idiot.”  That word, they have decided, is offensive to the “cognitively impaired.” If you want to wade into the mess, here’s the comment that, while polite in itself, started the long slide down this particular rabbit hole. You can see my responses in blue further down in the comments.
I consider this kind of language policing to the EXTREME! to be bad for feminism (and frankly insulting to people with disabilities), and I’m glad a number of others have stood up against it in the comments there.  I don’t think that the language police are in the majority at Feministe, much less in feminism at large. But these debates are so frustrating that many feminists who disagree with the language police end up biting their tongues and/or just walking away. At some point I may post more about this fraught topic here.
In the meantime, I’m am conducting a little poll about cats. Please click the appropriate button in the graphic above. Clicking it won’t actually do anything, but I’m pretty sure what the results are going to be anyway. Go kitties!
— 
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
Uncategorized

>Out to Lunch

>

Just a note: I’m taking the weekend off; will return to the usual business on Monday.

In the meantime, here are some hairy dudes.

Categories
antifeminism funny I'm totally being sarcastic men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny oppressed men Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Heil Hitlary!

>

Hillary Clinton: A legless Nazi?

Some very, er, interesting observations on world politics from SingleDad on the angry-man internet hub known as The Spearhead. 

I think things will get much worse in ways we cannot imagine today. Why do you think our secretary of state has done nothing except meet with women all over the world non-stop.

I mean, we’re in two wars, North Africa is coming undone and where is Hitlary.

I’ll tell you. She is meeting with and creating a world feminist Cabal to be a non-elected shadow government.

What can we expect, more men in prison, less boys graduating high school, less and more dangerous jobs for men, more wars (to reduce the male population, a win/win for Hitlary), and world wide demonization and extermination of heterosexuality.

They hate men, women that like men, children and families.

Use your imagination … they are doing all this in secret as they know what they have in mind is unethical and could not tolerate the light of day.

Note: When he refers to “Hitlary,” SingleDad is, I believe, trying to draw a humorous parallel between our Secretary of State and the lead character in the 1980 Pakistani film Hitlar, in which the aforementioned Hitlar, son of Hitler, terrorizes a Punjabi village. In case you missed this film when it was in theaters, here’s a bit more on it from IMDb:

The movie starts with the premise that Hitler never died at the end of WWII, but that he escaped and started a family somewhere in the Punjabi heartland. The movie shows Hitlar, the son the world never knew about, sending his goons out to ravage the local villagers and terrify them into submission. Sultan Rahi witnesses the brutal murder of an innocent villager and vows to take revenge. and his quest for vengeance pits him against Hitlar, son of Hitler!

That might seem like sort of an obscure reference for SingleDad to make, but apparently The Spearheaders are huge fans of Pakistanti cinema. (I’m more of a Bollywood man myself.)

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 idiocy MGTOW MRA oppressed men reactionary bullshit Uncategorized

>Memo to angry dudes: Not all the women who hate you are feminists

>

Disdainful women: Not always feminists.

Given how much of their time they spend attacking feminism and feminists, manosphere dudes can be surprisingly incompetent at telling just who is and who isn’t an actual, bona-fide feminist; they’ve got terrible fem-dar.

Case in point: Last Saturday, annoying social conservative polemicist Kay Hymowitz published a piece in the Wall Street Journal taken from her new book “Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys,” in which she argues that young men today have degenerated into puerile pre-adults, led astray by an assortment of villains including, but not limited to, Maxim magazine, Comedy Central, Seth Rogan and, if the subtitle of her book is any indication, rising women. You may vaguely remember her first rehearsing this general argument in a similarly annoying City Journal piece a couple of years ago called “Child-Man in the Promised Land.”

To point out a simple fact that should be evident to all but the most hardened manosphere misogynists: not everyone who says critical things about men is therefore a feminist. Indeed, many of those who say the worst things about men aren’t feminist at all.

And in fact, as should be very clear to anyone who actually sits down to read her work, Hymowitz is no feminist. If the reference to “the rise of women” as a villain in her book’s subtitle isn’t enough of a clue, let me point you to several of the many articles she’s written attacking feminism — for example, accusing feminists of ignoring the precious wisdom of Evolutionary Psychology, going “AWOL on Islam,” and just generally being “obsolete.”

But the basic fact of Hymowitz’ antifeminism seems not to have penetrated the consciousness of many of her critics in the manosphere, where her latest WSJ has produced a flurry of angry denunciations from dudes who take her stale tranditionalist bromides as the latest in evil feminazi-ism.

On Happy Bachelors she’s derided as a “typical second-wave hag feminazi.” On The Spearhead, one commenter dismisses her as “yet another smug, AA-promoted female token who can’t grasp what she and her feminist sisters have done to men.” On MGTOWforums.com, yet another misguided commenter snidely asserts that  “Jewish feminists do not age well.”

Blogger Rex Patriarch, meanwhile, proclaims her op-ed to be a “a typical feminist rant about how wonderful women are and what disappointment men have become,” and accuses her of sour grapes:

That’s right ladies do us men a favor, go away and keep telling yourselves you don’t need any sour grapes.

You ladies are the ones that need to grow up and face reality. Wanting both the full benefits of feminism and marriage without any responsibilities is understandable. I would take that deal if I could get it too but since I can’t I exercise my natural right to not participate in the stacked deck you have to offer. That deal means jumping through the endless and ever increasing hoops of expectations it’s going to take to just get to the break even point in a sham marriage with an entitlement princess that western women have become.

Thanks but find some other sucker to be your jumping poodle, I will take video games instead.

As a fellow video gamer and something of an overgrown child-man myself,  I’ve got nothing against anyone offering a good sensible critique of Hymowitz’ basic thesis; unfortunately, so far all I’ve seen on the topic from MRAs and MGTOWers have been little more than crude misogynist (and sometimes anti-Semitic) insults, most far cruder than the remarks I’ve quoted here. 

But here’s a hint: you can’t really offer much of a critique if you start off assuming that she’s driven by an ideology she actually hates.

EDITED TO ADD: Speaking of good sensible critiques of Hymowitz, here are a couple from actual feminists. ECHIDNE of the snakes takes on Hymowitz’ “extreme definition of masculinity,” which seems to suggest that “Men can only be men if women remain girls.” Meanwhile, Jill at Feministe notes that life is not really much like Judd Apatow movies and makes the point that what Hymowitz derides as “extended adolescence” is in fact “an intelligent and fair reaction to a new economy and new gender models.”

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 I'm totally being sarcastic manginas MGTOW misogyny oppressed men sex Uncategorized

>Could it be … Muslims?

>

Secret Muslim operatives.

So who invented feminism? If we’re to believe the conventional historical accounts, it was invented by a bunch of ladies. But all good misogynists know that ladies can’t invent their way out of a paper bag, so obviously it was some dudes who did it. Some Men’s Rightsers with a conspiratorial mindset have suggested it was the evil Rockefellers, deviously using feminism as part of their plot to depopulate the world. (Presumably because feminism encourages lesbianism and abortion, not necessarily at the same time.)

Over on the brand new* mgtowforums.com, avoidwomen offers another possibility: Islam! Avoidwomen is essentially asking and answering the classic conspiracy theory question “Cui Bono?” — which, if I remember correctly, either means “who benefits?”or “where’s Bono?” (My Latin is a little rusty.) Let’s try to follow the logic here:

I have to wonder if the Muslims had a role in planning feminism in many countries around the world? No violence would be needed, simply outbreed the feminists! It’s no surprise that Islam is the least feminised and strongest patriarchal society and religion. It will become a world religion and a major society in as little as two decades! Women will be treated under Islam as men are under feminism. Frankly, I don’t care about women and neither do millions of oppressed men. It may sound unfair, but the reality is you can’t have “equality” without oppressing men and destroying society. It’s a fact that the strongest patriarchies are the ones that breed the most and become the dominant society. Matriarchies become weak and die out in a couple generations, as was the case in the past.

Makes sense to me. I just wonder how Bono fits into the equation.

Some commenters agreed; others didn’t. AussieSteve, for one, welcomes our future Muslim overlords:

I fully expect Australia to become Muslim in my lifetime. I don’t dread it. … I should be old enough by then that it shouldn’t affect me too much, I don’t drink a lot. I’m sure I’ll be able to cope without my daily glass of Bundy rum.

I say, bring it on. I want to sit on my porch quietly laughing at bitches in burkahs as they cry about how men didn’t come to their aid when the muslims rose to power and kicked their feminist pedestal out from under their big fat arses.

Dontmarry points out the inconvenient fact that avoidwomen’s main goal — avoidingwomen  — won’t exactly help fertility rates in the Western world either. But he still blames feminsts, manginas and overeducated women who are, er, riding the “bad boy cock carousel.” 

Men going their own way also contributed to the low fertility, but hey, it’s better to be unmarried and childless than to be raped financially and have the state attempt to break your spirit at every turn.

Moreover, we merely reacted. Feminists started the problem; women exacerbated it, cheered on by manginas. Women, too highly educated for their own good, prefer to delay marriage, chase their careers, and ride the bad boy cock carousel. Gradually, time catches up with them, and they wonder ‘why are there no good men left’?

Clearly, Islam is devious indeed.

* Just a little non-sarcastic note here: The newly formed mgtowforums.com is basically a replacement for the old MGTOW proboards forum, which was recently taken down by the proboards administrators, apparently because of complaints from a feminist blogger. (There’s more on what apparently happened here; the comment I’m linking to is apparently a cut-and-pasted comment from that blogger.) Obviously, I do not approve of people taking down sites they disagree with.

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.