debate douchebaggery drama MRA paul elam Uncategorized violence against men/women

>Paul Elam’s continuing childish and unethical behavior


When I agreed to debate Paul Elam on domestic violence on his web site, I clearly underestimated how childish, and unethical, he really is.

After I bowed out of the debate — see the details here — he decided to run the whole thing under a childish, gloating headline, and with an introduction labeling me a “fucking moron.” (EDIT: See here for my posts without Elam’s editorializing.)

Because of this behavior, I requested he either remove the headline and the obnoxious introduction, or remove my contributions to the debate from his web site entirely. After getting no response from him to this, I sent another email telling him to simply take down my writings from his web site.

Legally, he does not own any rights to my writings, and because of his behavior he no longer has my permission to run them. I may pursue legal action.

Paul, unfortunately, has chosen to escalate the situation, by running an even more childish post titled “David Futrelle- Covered in Pin Feathers and Clucking,” in which he writes:

let it be known now that any blogger in the sphere, MRA or otherwise, has my permission to repost this debate in full on their blog or website.

Obviously he has no more right to do this than I have the right to take his car on a joy ride.

He’s also apparently pitched the idea of reposting the whole debate on The Spearhead. While he doesn’t have the right to do this, and I’ve told The Spearhead that they do not have the right to reprint my writings, I might agree to the proposition provided that I’d be guaranteed in writing by The Spearhead that it would run with a neutral headline, that my latest response to Paul’s “final” post would be included, and a few other conditions.

And I would have no problem continuing the debate with Paul on The Spearhead until we each post 5 posts, as per our original agreement, were I to work out the necessary details with The Spearhead and get an agreement in writing. Or we could finish the debate right here.

I stand by everything I wrote in the debate, and have no problem continuing it, provided it be on a venue not controlled by Paul Elam and with some basic rules to guarantee fairness set forth in writing. (Paul would have to agree in writing to run the debate under a neutral headline on his site as well.)

Oh, and one final note: Paul has also removed the links back to here from the original debate, thus breaking still another condition I insisted on in order to participate in the debate in the first place. And he’s banned me from commenting in the comments section under the debate posts.

This is all very stupid and very petty.

Let me offer a challenge to anyone in the MRM whose ethics are more developed than Paul’s: Stand up and object to his illegal and unethical behavior. Were a feminist to pull this sort of thing on an MRA, I would certainly stand up and object to it.

douchebaggery hypocrisy quote of the day Uncategorized

>QuoteOTD: The Nerd Rage Virus


The last time we checked in with the Pro-Male/Ant-Feminist Technology blog — a blog which, you may recall, is ostensibly devoted to the notion that technology is going to kick feminism’s ass, and how this is a good thing — the resident anonymous blogger was complaining about feminists (including me) who engage in “shaming tactics” that are, like, totally unfair to MRAs, because all MRAs want to do is have an honest debate on the merits of their ideas. Today, however, he talks a bit about a new computer virus, Stuxnet, and fantasizes about a virus designed to take down feminist websites:

Imagine what an anti-feminist Stuxnet would do.  It would specifically target computers belonging to NOW (the National Organization of Women) and other women’s groups, child support agencies, family/divorce courts, women’s studies departments at universities, etc.  Perhaps it could target something as specific as feminist websites and blogs …  An anti-feminist Stuxnet would be [easy] to create. Unless it seriously wants to attack databases, an anti-feminist Stuxnet does not require even a minimum of specialized knowledge besides being able to identify its target systems. Creating an anti-feminist Stuxnet will be within the skills of at least a significant fraction of malware programmers (if not most or all).  This means that in the near future there probably will be an anti-feminist Stuxnet.

 Well, that’s one way to win the war of ideas.

douchebaggery drama homophobia paul elam Uncategorized

>Famous all over town

>Apparently, they can’t look away. A couple of days after Paul Elam — the MRA elder I am scheduled to debate on the topic of domestic violence later this week — launched a weird tirade against me on his blog, I’m now getting attention (and some traffic) from Ferdinand Bardamu at In Mala Fide, in a post urging MRAs to, er, stop paying attention to me.

As is generally the case with my MRA critics, it’s basically a bunch of empty insults. But as empty insults go, they’re not half bad. He calls me, among other things, a “twerp,” a “feminist quisling,” and “a miserable mediocrity who’s trying to get famous, an ant in our blog ecosphere.” He somehow manages to avoid the term “mangina” altogether.

There is one bit that’s actually obnoxious. In an attempt to explain something he said in a homophobic post of his I quoted last week, he says this:

radical gay activists, in their obnoxious way of shoving their lifestyles in the faces of the heterosexual majority and demonizing them, are poking and prodding an elephant. Elephants are big, heavy and have sharp tusks, and can gore or stomp you to death without breaking a sweat. If gays don’t clean up their act and stop treating straight people with contempt … they could inspire a violent homophobic backlash. Capisce?

Is it just me, or does anyone else suspect that the people given to “warning” gays about a “possible violent homophobic backlash” would be the first to get in line to stomp gays like an elephant in such a backlash?

EDIT: Oops! Speaking of attention, I forgot to add this actual screen capture. Hey, try it yourself.


QuoteOTD: Hark! A Huntress Approaches!

Watch out boys, she'll chew you up!
Watch out boys, she’ll chew you up!

Oh, lordy. I don’t think I’ve read anything this awfully, painfully, suckily overwritten since, well, ever. I present to you an excerpt from a book called Real Men Can Read Women Like a Book, by Corey Donaldson, some dude who fancies himself an expert on the whole lady-figuring-out thing:

For the beauty of the wrong woman, many men have let the song within them fade away as they meander among the living dead, having charred their soul and scorched the playful lyrics that once echoed through a vibrant smile.

I can only hope the book this guy is reading women like isn’t his own. Here’s more:

For these men, the memory that once energized them with the promise and childlike hope for a future filled with romantic glee now flickers weakly in the distance, in a time when innocence had not yet been corrected.

And more:

There are women who pride themselves on their ability go out and hunt for sex from any man they want regardless of who she or he is already committed to … These hunters are the shame of men, they are easy to identify and their future is predictably lonely as their faces literally crack like the bloody worn sole of a wrinkled old foot. They end up as old hags with sharply wounded faces of treachery spread out in the bitterness of their discontent.

Oh, ok, just one more:

These female hunters judge the short term results of their behavior as most desirable and delicious to the hell-bent bloodlust of their unquenchable taste for the chase of a man’s power.

Or for the taste of some ice cream. Everybody likes ice cream.

More excerpts here, on MarkyMark’s Mens Rightsy blog. The web page for the book, here. Please do not buy it, as that will only encourage him.


>QuoteOTD: Un-macho, Un-macho Men


Enemy of all things manly?

Sometimes women actually live up to Men’s Rights stereotypes. Consider Katherine Miller, a beta-male-taunting, Alpha-male idolizing, Vanderbilt-going, essay-writing gal who looks down her nose at all things wussy, from man-scarves to Joseph Gordon-Levitt: 

America’s elite has a problem. It’s skinny jeans and scarves, it’s Bama bangs and pants with tiny, tiny embroidered lobsters, it’s Michael Cera, it’s guys who compliment a girl’s dress by brand, it’s guys who don’t know who bats fourth for the Yankees. Between the hipsters and the fratstars, American intellectual men under the age of twenty-five have lost track of acting like Men—and these are our future leaders. We have no John Wayne, no Clint Eastwood. And girls? Girls hate it.

John Wayne? Clint Eastwood? Really? Couldn’t you be a little less, well, cliche about your manly idols? Think outside the box. Think inside the ring. How about this guy? He’s a snappy dresser with a hot retro style, he’s a hit with the ladies, he’s built like a fucking piledriver, and he could kick John Wayne’s ass with one hand tied behind his back. (Or both, really, considering that John Wayne is, you know, dead.) Hell, the word Macho is even part of his name — and plastered on his sunglasses to boot!


>New Comments Policy: Don’t be a Massive Douchebag


Gandhi vs. Hogan

As anyone who has looked at the comments on this blog knows, I am averse to censoring comments, even when they are filled with profanity and insults. But in recent days there have been a couple of comments — literally two, out of a total of 439 on the site — that have crossed the line, and I’ve deleted them. There have been several others I have considered deleting as well. 

So I’m instituting a new comments policy, and here it is, in a nutshell: Don’t post shit that is so gratuitously nasty it would cause Gandhi himself to punch you in the head.

I’m not demanding that you refrain from salty language, or that you be politically correct or even that you try to be polite. What I am demanding is an end to gratuitously nasty personal attacks on other people who post comments here. Threatening people, also not good.

Calling someone an “idiot,” fine. Calling someone a “douchebag,” fine. Not so fine: calling someone a cunt, whore, “lezzo,” or cumbucket. That sort of thing. If you really cannot make an argument without calling your opponent one of these things, or something similar, you should probably read up a bit on the fine art of argument. I’m not going to debate why certain terms are acceptable and others aren’t. It’s my blog, my rules.

If you post something that isn’t gratuitously nasty and it doesn’t appear on this blog, it’s not because I have censored it. It’s Blogger’s less-than-perfect spam filter at work, and I will un-spam it as soon as I see it in the spam box. Sometimes this will take a while, because, you know, I don’t live in front of the computer.

Lest anyone get up in arms about how I am censoring free debate or “unpopular opinion,” I would like to point out again that up until this point I have deleted only two out of 439 non-spam comments for crossing the line. Neither one actually advanced an argument of any kind.

I would really like to never have to delete a comment again. But that’s really up to you guys.

Oh, and to everyone who posts interesting, funny, substantive comments here without resorting to the “c”-word: Thanks!


Thank you, Mario! But my blog is in another castle!

Specifically, the one you’ll find at

See you there!

men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA quote of the day reddit Uncategorized western women suck

>Quote of the Day: Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor, Your Easily Impressed Hot Chicks


A ringing endorsement of immigration from “mean0dean0” in the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit:

Date immigrants–especially girls from countries with really repressive regimes or abject poverty. Just the fact that you have possessions like a car or a video game system is enough to secure you a happy girlfriend.

Fuck American girls–like the rest of this cuntry (spelling intentional), they’re way overprivileged, overfed, and overhyped. For every Katy Perry, there are a thousand fat cows waiting to put their insecurities on you when you get home.


>Scary Man-sters and Super Creeps


Pablo Picasso had a way with the ladies.

“Well some people try to pick up girls, and get called assholes,” the song goes. “This never happened to Pablo Picasso. He could walk down your street, and girls could not resist his stare. … Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.” This is more or less true, even though, by almost every account, Picasso was pretty much a complete douchebag.

Life is unfair. Famous men can behave like utter boors and predators towards the opposite sex and get away with it, even win reputations as charming ladykillers. The rest of us, well, we make awkward passes and often get rejected; sometimes we even get called creeps. This makes some men bitter; a few even become Men’s Rights Activists.

In a recent article on AlterNet, feminist sex blogger Clarisse Thorn offers a defense, of sorts, of men unfairly labelled “creeps.” “Why Do We Demonize Men Who Are Honest About Their Sexual Needs?” the article’s title asks, and it’s not a bad question. Women are naturally, and quite justifiably, wary of the attention of strange men, who could easily turn out to be predators. “So it’s completely understandable that we’re all on high alert for predatory expressions of male sexuality,” she writes. What this means is that perfectly decent guys are sometimes seen as creeps until proven innocent.

The pressure put on men to be initiators, yet avoid seeming creepy or aggressive leads to an unpleasant double bind. After all, the same gross cultural pressures that make women into objects force men into instigators. … So how can a man express his sexual needs without being tarred as a creep?

Her solution? We need to “accept male desire” as natural and legitimate — not something “toxic,” or some kind of macho accomplishment:

Like everyone, men deserve to feel as though their sexuality is hot, awesome, delicious, valuable, and can be pleasurable for all parties in a consensual situation. Just as women shouldn’t have to feel exploited when they have consensual sex, men shouldn’t have to feel like they’re exploiting someone when they have consensual sex.

It’s hard to disagree with that. I worry, though, that many of the guys in Thorn’s intended audience will only notice the bit about male sexuality being “hot, awesome, delicious and valuable,” and miss her careful caveats about consent — which she repeats three times in two sentences in an attempt to drive home the point. Unfortunately, as Amanda Marcotte puts it in a response to Thorn’s piece: 

[O]ne thing creepy dudes all have in common is they only hear what they want to hear. So even though Clarisse actually writes, “It’s also incumbent upon us to honor each others’ boundaries,” creepy dudes are going to hear, “See, this lady agrees with me that it’s perfectly fine for me to use ‘pick-up artist’ techniques to put women that are 15 years younger than me and who don’t want to talk to me in situations where they have trouble finding a polite way to escape conversation with me. And I’m entitled to be such a miserable fuckhead, because men are so oppressed because they don’t get to have sex with whoever they want whenever they want.”

Looking through the comments Thorn’s article got on AlterNet, Marcotte finds ample evidence of this kind of creepiness — men with both a sense of entitlement and a massive amount of self-pity. That toxic attitude shows up as well in a comment from the perhaps aptly named “jackwripper” in a discussion of Thorn’s piece in the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit:

[W]hen the vast majority of men have to ask hundreds or thousands of women on dates, for sex, for a dance, to talk, just to get one positive response, then, as a man, you either go through life alone, or you proposition thousands of women.

Women as a group could fix this with one of two behavior changes. Women could initiate these encounters when they see a man they are attracted to… not REALLY hot, but attractive enough. … The other behavior change women could adopt, would be to stop rejecting out of hand every man and every approach that is not an absolute perfect match. Men learn not to be very picky, maybe women need to learn not to be picky too. This statement also includes the women who men have to be less picky about. It is very strange how a female “3” can reject the advances of a male “7” because she is convinced she is a “9” and expects a male “10”.

It’s a bizarre and insidious sort of argument: Women need to start having sex with men they don’t want to have sex with, because otherwise some men will have to go through life alone — or, I guess, with “2s” who aren’t too stuck up to go out with them. Why exactly is it women’s job to “fix this?” Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.

Jackwripper’s argument eerily echoes the logic of George Sodini, the bitter, dateless antifeminist asshole who shot 12 women in a health club last year because he felt young women had unfairly rejected him. And so it’s perhaps not surprising that Sodini had his defenders in the MRA/pickup artist crowd. As one fan of Sodini put it in a comment at the time on a PUA blog popular with MRAs: 

I think every man DOES deserve to get laid. … The problem is, our feminized society has given every woman the power to hold out for higher quality men than they deserve. This creates an imbalance that leads to tragedies like the one in PA. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. (Newton’s 3rd Law) If empowered women keep applying pressure, they will create an explosion.

So, women, the message is clear: Date some losers, or someone is going to get shot.

No one “deserves” to get laid. If you’re a creepy asshole who doesn’t understand that any woman is allowed to turn you down for sex, for whatever reason she wants, however stupid it might seem to you, then you don’t deserve shit.

antifeminst women quote of the day reactionary bullshit Uncategorized woman's suffrage

>Quote of the Day: Women’s Suffrage = Lost Faith in Manhood.


I had no idea that women’s suffrage was still so controversial. Apparently it is, at least to the guys at the Spearhead, and to the blog Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt. Without further ado, the quote:

Woman Totally Ruining Everything

Women’s suffrage may have been the first major event that said, “don’t trust men”. In other words, it was the beginning of the lost faith in manhood. It sent the message that men were inept to handle worldly affairs and when men gave women their vote, it kicked things up a notch by reinforcing the mindset that men were indeed inept little boys who can’t figure anything out or get anything done without a woman’s guidance. Had the men held their ground and the women held their faith, I believe any unsettling political/economic conditions would have improved.  It is similar to our faith in God.

I should point out that the author of this fine piece of analysis is a woman. Some women are idiots. Into the Enemies List she goes.