In the fast-paced, perpetually busy world of today, we don’t all have time to read every post on A Voice for Men. So here is an edited version of Paul Elam’s latest post, on Rebecca Watson of Skepchick. And whores. And how he personally doesn’t spend all his time claiming to be a victim, even though he totally is one, in case you forgot since the last time he reminded you of that.
Here’s Paul:
Whores … typical whore … Main Street walking, garden variety anybody’s whore … honest whore. … corporate whore … corporate whores … whorish sexual symmetry … stupid whore … stupid whore … whore … lying whore … whore … lying whore … whore … lying whore … corporate whore … a lying whore can also be a corporate whore … whoring for the cause … whore … PZ Myers … stupid, lying whore … not just a lying whore who also happens to be a stupid whore … a different subspecies of whore altogether … stupid, lying whore … whore that rigorously abandons intellect, rationale, evidence, decency and compassion, and also fosters much deserved hostility toward themselves … stupid, lying whore … stupid, lying whore … .
“Men’s Studies” has existed as an academic discipline for several decades now. Not surprisingly, most of those involved in it identify themselves as feminists – as people interested in studying gender tend to do. But not all of them: A couple of years back, a group of mostly anti-feminist academics and popular writers with an interest in gender decided to try to do a sort of end run around the discipline of “Men’s Studies” by conjuring up a whole new, altogether un-feminist discipline called “Male Studies.”
Recently, The University of South Australia announced that it would start offering postgraduate courses in Male Studies sometime in 2014; our old friend Eoghan/Sigil1 brought this earthshattering news to the Men’s Rights subreddit the other day, where it was greeted with … suspicion and hostility.
YES, because the cure to bullshit is… MORE BULLSHIT! /s
That’s right: Men’s Rights Redditors hate Women’s Studies, and Gender Studies, and apparently every academic discipline with the word “Studies” in it so much that they’ve transferred this hatred to a new academic discipline that could well have been (and sort of was) designed just for them.
Paul Elam, head ranter at A Voice for Men, has a new video out called “You want privilege? You got it!” The thesis: if women really did have the so-called privileges that men have, they’d hate it and want men to take them all back. Because all of these so-called privileges are really giant burdens. Or, as Elam puts it, somewhat more melodramatically, these privileges have “begun to more resemble an anchor around your neck than the helm of a great ship that everyone tells you that you are captaining.”
Here’s the video.
Well, all right, that’s not really Paul Elam. But that little clip does capture pretty well the tone of his latest post, which is indeed about how male privilege is really a terrible burden.
I mean, this is his opener:
I swear by everything holy that the next time I hear some fembot caterwaul about “male privilege,” I am going to find something to break, turn it into shards, and drag the broken pieces across my chest just to distract me from the pain of their increasing stupidity. Just picture me like Martin Sheen, collapsed in a heap of bloody, tearful insanity on the floor of a cheap hotel in Saigon.
Heck, compared to that, Mr. McDuck’s reaction to the news about his “ice cream” was, if anything, rather restrained.
The rest of Elam’s post is, as is typical for him, a rather trite recitation of a number of standard Men’s Rights talking points about male “disposability” written in some of the most ridiculously overblown prose ever seen outside of an Ayn Rand novel.
Elam complains that he hasn’t seen much benefit from his privileges:
Mind you I still don’t know what that privilege is. One time when I was young and very poor I was late on my light bill. I showed the electric company my balls, but they cut my power off anyway. …
Yeah, as someone who’s also had his power cut off, I’m pretty sure they do that with everyone. I’m also pretty sure that no feminist has ever or will ever argue that male privilege means you won’t get your power cut off for nonpayment.
Here’s Elam addressing women as if they’ve traded place with men:
With your privilege comes the right to work on crab boats, drive trucks, work on electric lines, walk into burning buildings and sink into the bowels of the earth digging out coal and other things people find useful.
Apparently having greater occupational choices is scary and bad.
When a ship goes down, or any other life threatening disaster strikes, you have two choices. Be a real woman and die, or treat your life like it has value and have the world shit on you as a coward who refused to perish on cue. There is also the possibility of third option, either die from the disaster so that men can live, or have another woman blow a fucking hole in your face with a pistol because you tried to save yourself.
Like noticing the emperor has no clothes, it may hit you one day when you decide not to offer your seat to a man; when the stares at you from all around seem to come down people’s noses. …
You must learn not to say a word. Not to anyone else, not even to yourself. You must learn to see flames, coal dust, icy saltwater, death and sacrifice for the trappings of power that the world around you thinks them to be.
Says a dude typing out his manifestos on an expensive laptop he conned nagged his followers into buying for him.
And you must be willing to hang your head in shame over that power, even as the world chews you up, spits you out, and gets ready to take its turn with your daughter.
Elam’s rousing conclusion:
So, that is it, ladies. You want my privilege, it is yours. I will gladly hand it over to you this very minute. I am just waiting for you to meet the pre-requisites of disposibilty and an utter lack of self-value. I am waiting for you to woman up to the job, take off your fucking make up and be ready to bleed, blah blah blah look at me I’m mad!
I paraphrased a little at the end there. But, yes, the world champion at seeing male “disposability” everywhere did in fact misspell the word “disposability.” That was all him. And so, believe it or not, is the following:
I, like a Jew gone weary of being called a chosen one, am completely ready for anyone else, and in particular, you, to be chosen.
Personally, I have had about all the privilege I can stand.
Yep. He went there.
Also, I don’t know if you all knew this, but when women serve in the military these days it’s “like a day care camp for them.”
Also, not to pat myself on the back or anything, but my headline is much better than his. Maybe he should get me to write all the headlines on A Voice for Angry Duck Plutocrats Men.
Here’s unknowable woman, a frequent target of his cyber-wrath, with more details on his recent meltdown. (Read the post on her Tumblr blog for links to the evidence of his douchebaggery.)
Alexander Ryking, who has a history of attempting to silence women bloggers (he told Jess of STFUConservatives and the other “feminazis” to “go kill themselves” several months ago, and has also been rude to women of color but I haven’t been on Tumblr long enough to have personally witnessed that), defended The Amazing’s Atheist’s violent rape threats on Reddit by tagging his posts with “I support TAA.”
I and many, many other Tumblr users were disgusted by this, so we decided to tag our criticisms of Ryking that night with “Ryking’s banana republic”—a reference to his co-opting of [social justice] concepts, NOT a homophobic dig, and the person who coined it was a queer man anyway. Someone also wrote a few jokingly romantic lines about Ryking’s blind defense of TAA and new atheism, and Ryking interpreted this as homophobic and misandric…it wasn’t, but because I reblogged it, Ryking insists that I am now a homophobe, which is hilarious given my own sexual identity but whatever.
We also responded to some of his posts with pictures of extreme close-ups of our eyes.
Seriously. That is what this guy is calling “abuse.”
We did NOT threaten him, make personal attacks against his sexuality, tell him to go kill himself, send him rude messages, or commit any other acts that could reasonably be interpreted as the “cyberbullying” Ryking claims it is. I did temporarily change my URL to rykingsbananarepublic and I make no apologies for that. Why should I? Why shouldn’t a group of feminists and their allies be allowed to respond creatively to misogyny? The only actual cyberbullying that has taken place was TAA’s initial rape threats on Reddit; I wouldn’t even go so far as to claim Ryking’s tweets to me and other Twitter users are cyberbullying, though I leave it up to the other people who were insulted by him to label their experiences as bullying or not.
Anyway, a few nights later, I tweeted something in defense of Whitney Houston’s legacy, and suddenly there was Ryking going ballistic. He found me on Twitter, called me a cunt right off the bat, and insisted that I claimed Whitney Houston’s death was “more important than the death of 5,000 Syrians” (I didn’t! Here is what I actually said!). I had never exchanged tweets with this man before, and was confused about his sudden interest in my thoughts about Whitney Houston and Syria. Naturally, I responded, told him how wrong he was, and the next day I screencapped some of the things he said and posted them … I never expected that post to get the amount of notes it did, but I think that just goes to show how widespread the dislike for him is.
Ryking, for his part, has responded to the widespread criticism by striking the pose of a victim, and pretending that it is somehow all related to race. Apparently, the evil feminazis are impugning his white manhood, though he’s not white.
So-called feminists have subjected me to white-bashing comments (even though I’m Hispanic) and sexist attacks impugning my manhood (slash-fiction scenes featuring me and heterosexual men; being called faggot; being told to man-up; insults about my body;) by people who don’t realize I’m gay. After nearly two decades online, I learned early on that when you’re attacked, you defend yourself by attacking right back and just as viciously, if not more so. And that’s what exactly what I’ve done. …
What’s really at issue here is not my rude behavior but that you and others like you want to punish any man who refuses to conform to your rancid, misandrist orthodoxy by discounting everything he says and using his gender and race as the excuse for doing so. …
You don’t want me stripped of my editorial privilege based on my behavior but because I reject your sick, bigoted, misandrist (per)version of feminism.
Yep, apparently the dude who loves to call women “cunts” is the final arbiter of what is and what isn’t “true feminism.” Who knew?
Irony alert! The level of irony in this post is so extreme it might actually harm your computer.
So a couple of days ago, MGTOWer extraordinaire MarkyMark, continuing on with his post-retirement posting binge, shared with us an email he got from a fella who had skipped the country in order to avoid paying child support for his three kids.
I’m a deadbeat dad!!! (light your torches – gasoline in 89, 91, and 95 octane is available in your choice of containers). Yep, I’ve got three kids and I’m behind on my child kidnapping payments by probably 10 grand at present and considerably more behind on alimony and her lawyer fees. I skipped the country rather than be jailed for all of the above compounding my crimes. A runaway slave is the worst kind of slave – one that absolutely refuses to serve his massa.
Yep, that’s right. He compared the legal requirement that he provide financial assistance to his own children to … slavery.
In the rest of his letter, he encouraged other “slaves” to follow in his path.
My favorite bit is the quote I used as the headline:
Women from around the world look better than anything back in the states, cost less unless you’re totally stupid, and are much more easily disposed of.
Ooh. That last bit is rather unfortunately worded – unless he really is suggesting that outside the US it is easier to get rid of the bodies of murdered girlfriends and wives.
This tiny kitten actually has nothing to do with the post.
Did Tom Matlack of the Good Men Project – not to be confused with Ben Matlock, fictional defense lawyer beloved by the elderly – swallow one of those mysterious “red pills” I keep hearing about on Men’s Rights blogs? Whatever he swallowed, it’s apparently causing him to hallucinate.
How else to explain his recent post on the GMP site titled “Being a Dude Is a Good Thing.” Now, as a dude who spends a good deal of time every day being a dude, I’ve got nothing against anyone being a dude, provided that’s what they want to be. It’s just that the piece itself is full of some rather strange generalizations that don’t actually seem to be, you know, true, at least not in what’s commonly known as “the real world.”
Rather than try to rebut his argument, because he doesn’t seem to have much of one, let’s just look at some of his loopier pronouncements:
Back to Matlack, whose generalizations get more surreal by the sentence:
In the locker room, in the bathroom, on the walk out of the board room, in my conversations with men of all kinds, that’s what I hear more than anything. The resignation that to be a man is to be unacceptable at some level to the woman in your life.
Really? Who on earth are you hanging out with? And what women are they hanging out with? Are men other than Tom Matlack and his possibly apocryphal conversational partners actually having conversations like this on a regular basis? If the “woman in your life” basically hates men, what is she doing with you, and what are you doing with her?
One close friend jokes, “When speaking to my wife I always make sure to look at the ground in deference. And I make sure not to make any sudden movements.”
Um, what?
I’ve watched him. He loves his wife.
He’s a very competent human being. But with her he’s decided the only way to survive is to submit. The female view is the right view. The male view just gets you into trouble.
You see what I meant before about the hallucinations, right?
But Matlack suggests there is hope for the poor demure, never-before-heard-from men of the world. Apparently they are starting to open their mouths at last.
It seems that the blame game in the mainstream, whether through the minimization of male life in pop culture or on television or through the continued obsession with men behaving badly, has finally struck a chord with the average guy.
Let’s just pause a moment to reflect on this whole “minimization of male life in pop culture or on television.” Mr. Matlack, do you actually watch movies or television, or visit libraries or anything like that? Most movies revolve around men as the main characters, with women in many cases serving as little more than a love interest or simply as scenery. Have you ever heard of the Bechdel test? Read up on it, run the test on some of your favorite films, and then get back to us on the “minimization of male life in pop culture.”
Now back to Matlack’s manifesto:
We are no longer willing to be blamed for being men. We are no longer willing to avert our gazes and stay silent about our feelings. We are raising our voices and telling our stories in our own male vocabulary.
Yeah, because men have been so utterly silent about their feelings, their opinons, and pretty much everything, up until now.
To women, I assume the response is, “well, it’s about time.” But just remember when we talk it’s not going to sound like a women in a man’s body. It’s gonna be all dude. And you are just going to have to deal with that.
Ladies, prepare yourselves for a lot more Dudesplaining in the near future. Dudes will be ignored no longer! Dudes!!! DUUUUUDESSS!!!!!!
EDITED TO ADD: Matlack’s gotten some responses on Twitter to his dudely roar; he’s posted a bunch of them here. Guest appearances by Amanda Marcotte and (seriously) Roseanne Barr.
A couple excellent pieces on Anders Breivik and misogyny.
First: The other day I posted a link to a piece by Michael Kimmel on Breivik and the sexual politics of far-right thought. It turned out that the article was a draft that got published prematurely.
Now the final version of the post is officially up at Sociological Images: A tale of two terrorists redux. Kimmel argues that what we know about Breivik thus far
indicate[s] that … it will be impossible to fully understand this horrific act without understanding how gender operates as a rhetorical and political device for domestic terrorists.
These members of the far right consider themselves Christian Crusaders for Aryan Manhood, vowing its rescue from a feminizing welfare state. Theirs is the militarized manhood of the heroic John Rambo – a manhood that celebrates their God-sanctioned right to band together in armed militias if anyone, or any governmental agency, tries to take it away from them. If the state and capital emasculate them, and if the masculinity of the “others” is problematic, then only “real” white men can rescue the American Eden or the bucolic Norwegian countryside from a feminized, multicultural, androgynous immigrant-inspired melting pot.
[T]here’s definitely a strong link between misogyny and violence that can’t be denied. Misogynists are far likelier to be violent people than non-misogynists, which is why rape and wife-beating are such common crimes. (Domestic violence is the number one cause of injury for women 15-44.) All bigotry provokes violence at its ends, of course. This isn’t the Oppression Olympics. But misogyny and violence go hand in hand so often because misogynists really buy deeply into the idea that women are weak and men are “strong”, by which they mean aggressive. A steady drumbeat of misogynist thought couldn’t be better designed to reach the unhinged and cause them to lash out violently, all while imagining themselves to be big, tough men who claim they were forced—with “why did you make me do this?” being the battle cry of wife beaters—into violence.
“Oh those MRA’s just need to get laid” “They are a bunch of lonely neckbeards” “They are just bitter” “They are probably forever alone’s” “They hate women” “Misogynists” ect.
Basically they are trying to make our concerns appear illegitimate because we must be whiny losers. Or because we “hate” women since we don’t adhere to the feminist dogma.
Ok, you say, so far he’s just being sort of irritating. But here is where the “adorable” part comes in. You see, whenever feminist meanies suggest that MRAs are woman-hating losers, xavan512 proposes, MRAs should respond with “hard evidence” to counter this perception. No, not penis pictures. Something even better: pictures of themselves with actual, smiling girlfriends.
Xavan512 started by posting the picture in the top right. Yep, that’s xavan512 and his actual girlfriend, standing in a field, dressed to the nines (or at least the high sixes or sevens). He’s looking dapper in his suit, accented with a bold red tie, and she of course looks lovely in a totally cute dress with an utterly adorable tiny pink purse. I’m not sure if they’re on their way to a prom, or a wedding, of if they just like posing in outdoor settings.
By the way – I didn’t scribble over the faces on the picture. Xavan512 did that himself, because, he insists, “being publicly MRA is socially taboo.”
After posting this photo, which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that xavan512 thinks highly enough of at least one human female that he is willing to stand next to her long enough to get a picture taken, this newly self-appointed MR PR guru urged his fellow MRAs “to post a picture of yourself or mention if you have a girlfriend/wife.”
Alas, xavan512’s plan met a certain degree of resistance from fellow Reddit MRAs.
Why post a picture of ourselves with our girlfriends, we do not need the Validation of a Women to make our cause just, i’ll freely admit i’m single and looking for the right person because looking for non-crazy, non-privileged, non-annoyance is a genuine trouble these days, i don’t resent Women for that (Ok i slightly resent their position as sexual selectors for our species because it gives them so much power over men) but on the whole i’m an MRA because i want to defend my rights and the rights of all Men.
I’m sure you propose this with the best of intentions, but I’m with OThomson on this. Trying to engineer some kind of phoney boloney PR campaign with cherry picked images of smiling couples professionally photographed in semi-formal dress in pastoral settings seems like a pretty dramatic mischaracterization of many MRA’s experiences and subtly subverts the movement and concerns that drives many of us to be MRA’s in the first place.
Maybe it’s a separation or divorce situation, maybe we’ve been subject to a false rape or domestic violence accusation, maybe we’re sick of being stereotyped by the media as dim-witted psycho-violent timebombs just waiting to be tripped, or are just generally sick of being treated by second-class citizens by “empowered women” who can judge our sexuality, shame us, and even inflict physical violence on us almost entirely without consequence.
Someone woke up cranky today!
Here’s the thing: the adorableness of xavan512’s picture aside, if MRAs are tired of people calling them misogynists, there’s a much more direct way to challenge this perception – and that is to challenge the rampant misogyny in the MRM. You want examples? Check the archives here. I’m kind of a lazy bastard, and I don’t like doing any more research than I have to, yet over the relatively brief lifetime of this blog I’ve managed to post literally hundreds of pretty outrageous examples of misogyny from the mouths of (or, rather, the keyboards of) MRAs. And that’s only scratching the surface. I don’t read every MRA blog every day. And I only post a tiny, tiny fraction of the misogyny I run across. It is everywhere in the MRM.
If you’re an MRA, and you’re NOT a flaming misogynist, and you want your issues to be taken seriously, don’t post pictures of yourself with your smiling girlfriend. Challenge the misogyny that surrounds you. Get together with other MRAs, and drum the misogynists out of the movement. Build bridges with feminists working on men’s rights issues. Just say no to the douchebags.
Good news, ladies and manginas: Apparently some MRAs don’t think it’s time to go out and start shooting people. At least not quite yet.
Some background: In recent days numerous MRAs have taken up the cause of a man named Thomas Ball – who burned himself to death outside a courthouse in Keane, New Hampshire in a protest against what he saw as unfair treatment in family court. Ferdinand Bardamu of In Male Fide has declared him “a martyr for the cause of men’s rights, a casualty of feminism’s stripping one half of the population of their humanity.”
Before killing himself, Ball wrote a long manifesto outlining his grievances and suggesting that the time had come for men “to start burning down police stations and courthouses,” describing the inhabitants of such buildings as “[c]ollaborators who are no different than the Vichy of France or the Quislings of Norway during the Second World War … So burn them out. “ (He offered specific advice on how best to do this, including tips on how to select the proper bottles to use for Molotov cocktails.)
It is never a good idea to pick up a gun and start shooting to address some vaguely defined injustice — that is savagery. Before the American Revolution, for example, patriots took pains to spell out a long list of grievances that justified rebellion. …
We have to make our own lists, air our grievances, and give the state the opportunity to redress them. … Before anyone resorts to the same methods the state uses against us, we must put every reasonable effort into working with the law and the political system we have. Because this effort is still in its infancy, any calls for armed resistance are entirely premature and counterproductive, and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
Obviously, the flip side of this argument for delay is a justification for killing people if these “grievances” aren’t dealt with in the way that those in the MRA would like. Price’s reference to the American Revolution is an interesting one, because of course the central issue of that struggle was, you know, taxation without representation. The colonists couldn’t vote out the king if they didn’t like his policies. In case anyone has forgotten: we actually do have the vote now, which was kind of the whole point in the first place.
Of course, many of Price’s readers are a bit more impatient than he is. In a comment that drew (last I checked) more than 40 upvotes and only two dissenting downvote, Taqman took issue with Price’s call to delay the armed struggle:
Tell that to men who are facing imminent imprisonment for failure to pay child support.
They don’t have the luxury of time and can’t wait a couple of decades for the manginas of the world to wake up and decide that a gentlemanly form of armed resistance is now acceptable.
No amount of “stoic logic” will make politicians see our point of view.
Politicians are in the business of getting re-elected rather than the business of good governance. So long as women are the majority there will only be tyranny of the majority.
Gee you guys are whimps and tiptoe around the ‘use of force’ like freaking ballet dancers. Are you so scared to speak about this when it is CLEAR the guvment LOVES using force against you and lots of other people too?
And he made the argument personal, explicitly denouncing, by name, the judge he claimed had “criminally abused” him with his rulings:
Judge [name redacted’s] life is now in my hands. He lives by my consent and my consent alone. …
And, like Ball, he declared judges to be essentially treasonous:
These judges pretended to be your servants. They are evil, evil people who deserve the kind of treatment reserved for those who commit treason.
There is more to Nolan’s comment(s) than that, but to get into it would require going down the rabbit-hole into his particular brand of crackpottery, which seems to involve him setting up his own courts to try judges he doesn’t like. (I frankly don’t understand his belief system and don’t care to.)
Now, it should be noted that a few Spearheaders actually objected to Nolan’s violent talk. But the last I checked, the comment I just quoted had more upvotes than downvotes. W.F. Price took more flak for suggesting men wait a little longer before taking up arms than Nolan did for, well, you saw what he wrote. That tells you a lot about The Spearhead, I think.
EDIT: Added quote from Ferdinand Bardamu; removed similar quote from The Spearhead.
At least I assume it was a woman making the post; it may well have been, you know, an average-looking guy with a smallish penis. Whoever it was, in any case, gushed about these unhung heroes of the sex world (and no, I didn’t think that joke up myself):
I adore, admire, and salute you. You are the unsung heroes of the bedroom. You try so hard, care so much, and learn so fast. Hands-down the two very best male sex partners I’ve ever had were really average-looking guys on the small end of the spectrum. Not relying on dashing looks or a massive tool to win the interest of potential mates, the face-in-the-crowd four-and-a-half-incher really, really knows his way around a pussy. Ladies of Reddit and the world, appreciate these hard-working and extremely attentive soldiers of love. That is all.
Now, SouthSideShikse’s observations are not exactly scientific, based as they are on a small sample (as it were). But for the most part, the men of Reddit welcomed her sentiments with huzzahs, upvotes, and lots of dumb jokes.
There were, however, a few who didn’t join in the general merriment. A brand new class of oppressed men: dudes with giant wangs.
As one self-admitted well-endowed Redditor complained:
Is having a big penis something that predisposes you to not giving a fuck about the girl’s pleasure?…
There is no correlation between douchiness and penis size.
I have a large penis, and I’m a nerd, an average looking guy, and I make girls cum with my skills, not my cock.
Shut the fuck up.
Valour, meanwhile, asked this puzzling question, seeming to suggest that handsome guys with giant packages face some sort of discrimination:
What do you suppose would happen to you if you thought you were just an ordinary human being, but everyone else treated you like absolute shit because they thought you were good looking and/or sexually endowed?
Gloomdoom, presumably another big-dicker, responded to SouthSideShikse’s generalizations with some generalizations of his own, earning himself some downvotes from average-dickers with his sarcastic attack on the small-penised:
Yeah….average looking dudes with small penises really know their way around a pussy.
That’s like saying a kid with a BB gun makes a great sniper in war time.
Then there was this dude. I kind of feel bad for him:
So no appreciation for us average looking guys with average length but too much girth? Cant touch the bottom of a tuna can but it can wear out the sides. … they do it once and dont want to be that sore anymore. Im sorry ladies. Truly I am.
I guess we all have our crosses to bear. In the case of this dude, his cross is evidently the shape and size of a tuna can.
