Mammoth FAQ

A mammoth, hunted. By leocigale
A mammoth, hunted. By leocigale

We Hunted the Mammoth: The FAQ-ening

Q) A mammoth, huh? What’s this blog about?

A) Misogyny, not mammoths.

Specifically, this blog focuses on what I call the “New Misogyny,” an angry antifeminist backlash that has emerged like a boil on the ass of the internet over the last decade or so. These aren’t your traditional misogynists – the social conservatives and religious fundamentalists who make up much of the far right.

These are guys, mostly, who range in age from their teens to their fifties, who have embraced misogyny as an ideology, as a sort of symbolic solution to the frustrations in their lives – whether financial, social, or sexual.

Some of them identify as Men’s Rights Activists, trying to cast their peculiar struggle against what they see as the excess of feminism and the advantages of women as a civil rights issue of sorts. Alongside those who explicitly label themselves MRAs we find a great number of antifeminist and antiwomen activists we might call Men’s Rights-adjacent – like those in the Skeptic and Atheist subcultures who still haven’t gotten over an offhand remark Skepchick founder Rebecca Watson made about a dude in an elevator a couple of years ago.

Others proclaim themselves Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW), declaring a sort of independence from women – while spending much of their time on message boards talking endlessly about them.

Still others see themselves as Pickup Artists (PUA), or masters of “Game,” espousing elaborate “scientific” theories of male superiority while trading tips on how best to pressure or manipulate drunk women into bed. This misogynistic wing of the PUA subculture has a considerable overlap with a subset of traditionalist and far-right blogs. Many of those in what has come to be called “the manosphere” — hey, don’t blame me, I didn’t come up with that name — don’t simply embrace misogyny; they also proudly embrace “scientific” racism and other bigotries.

Still, while some of the New Misogynists see themselves as conservatives, even “neo-reactionaries,” many identify themselves as libertarians or even as liberals. Theirs is a backlash that frames itself as a step forward.

That said, there are numerous posts here that don’t have anything to do with MRAs or MGTOWers or PUAs or any of their ilk. Sometimes I like to post cat pics.

Q) Ok, but you still haven’t explained the mammoth thing.

A) This is a reference to a quote I once posted from a dude who felt women weren’t sufficiently appreciative of what men had supposedly done for them over the ages. Here’s the quote, in all of its weird glory:

We men built a nice safe world for you all the the coal-mines of death, roads, railroads, bridges and tall office buildings. Its $1,000,000 spent per death of a man on a large dangerous project on average now you can just 9-5 it and call it a day in air-conditioned and heated safety. Forget about the wars we died in and the sacrifices made just ignore history or is it now hersorty? You are accruing the benefits without ever having to pay the price you still don’t have to sign up for the draft and who will protect you? The Sex and the City girls will fight off the North Koreans with their Manolo Blahniks?

Men gave you this modern world now you take it for granted we hunted the mammoth to feed you we died in burning buildings and were gassed in the trenches but that was just for fun right?

How quick and conveniently you forget who made this possible.

We gave you Leonardo da Vinci, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy not to mention countless others, Jonas Salk saved half the world from death and you just piss on it all.

This quote is such an amazing clusterfuck of misogyny, entitlement and unwarranted self-importance – not to mention historical ignorance – that the bit about mammoths became a catchphrase around here, neatly conveying pretty much everything this blog is against. And so I decided to make it the name of the blog.

Q) And who exactly are you?

A) David Futrelle. I’m a freelance writer and blogger living in Evanston, IL, and the guy behind the Confused Cats Against Feminism blog. For more on my illustrious career, see the David Futrelle FAQ.

Q) You’re against the Men’s Rights movement. Are you against men having rights?

A) Of course not. As hundreds of posts on this site show pretty clearly, the so-called Men’s Rights Movement is a hateful, reactionary movement driven largely by misogyny and hatred of feminism. It doesn’t help men. It encourages them to scapegoat women and stew in their own bitterness.

Q) Are you secretly funded by the international feminist conspiracy?

A) No. I’m not funded by any organization. Some readers have very kindly given me donations. You can too, if you wish.

Q) What’s with all the cat pictures?

A) I like cats.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

639 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
maistrechat
5 years ago

I don’t understand how it’s possible to separate “morality” from “society”, or how it’s possible to identify anything as representing humanity at its “most primal” since forming societies is a major part of what makes humans humans.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Donald Trump went to a top business school. Just saying.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

I bet Donald Trump cites Wikipedia all the time, but his handlers keep him from doing it in front of other people because they know how utterly unserious it reveals a person to be.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

Donald Trump should be a corollary to Godwin’s Law.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Some early tribes do that too: Yanomami are known for murdering children who aren’t their own.

Technically true, but wildly inaccurate in the context used. While there are instances of Yanomami killing children, these instances specifically take place with regards to warring communities. There is no indication that it has anything to do with reproductive strategy (except in the sense that PUAs view everything as reproductive strategy).

Had trollpan done even a modicum of research, they might have discovered that polyandry and polygamy are quite common among the Yanomami, meaning that for any given male, the likelihood of a woman caring for a child that isn’t his is fairly high.

shonpan
5 years ago

I don’t understand how it’s possible to separate “morality” from “society”, or how it’s possible to identify anything as representing humanity at its “most primal” since forming societies is a major part of what makes humans humans.

Worth addressing because its the only one that unfortunately, doesn’t trapped in self-mockery.

Its actually a very good question, and I appreciate that.

I believe it is important to separate that because morality is mutable depending on the society; the society itself changes based on circumstances. And this isn’t authoritative or anything; I’ll welcome another comment or observation on this, though it mostly seems focused on personal attacks which are amusing, but reveal much more about the person than anything else.

Where notions of gender are noted, I actually draw a lot of Sarah Hrdy’s “The Woman Who Never Evolved,” which I actually believe is noted as a feminist book in many circles.

1) The hunter-gathering band.

This is believed to the earliest stage of human culture and society; it is a kind of society. They are not universal but its notable for a few aspects – numbers are few, with relatively light gender differentiation in roles, and egalitarianism is common since there is no real way to build wealth.

You can’t gather ten thousand berries; it’ll just rot.

Your survival, then, also often depends on working with the people near you. So sharing is a huge value, and the concept of a “gift economy” is vast. You have to be very very social, and more or less get along with everyone; you’ll be with them for the rest of your life, and you will need them.

If there are too many children, you may have to commit infanticide. There’s a lot of hostility toward the “other”, but minimal internally. As it is, infant mortality is terrifyingly high – Sarah Hrdy didn’t provide numbers, but clearly indicated it was much lower than later.

Morality then will be highly focused on sharing, often justifying natural death; a great need for supernatural is present to explain the present dangers and the inevitable tragedies that may happen. Morality doesn’t focus on time management, personal property or work ethic – this is VERY notable sometimes; such concepts are not meaningful for such cultures.

2) The chiefdom/tribe

There should be allotments for pastoral tribes as well, but I think its well explored that once agriculture allows for the preservation of wealth, now was a genuine reason to work harder, get as much as possible, and protect what you have.

Now also begins the strong concept of ownership. Women who previously were lightly under gender roles now became heavily constrained: pregnancy was no longer seen as a magical event but was tied with conception. The Old Testament shows a lot of obsession with that and its pretty common worldwide(and this is heavily sourced from Sarah Hrdy’s book, fwiw).

Polygamy is common now, and humans surprisingly fecund. In a polygamous marriage, for example, she found that the first wife had an average of 4.7 children and even secondary wives would have 4.3 surviving children. Compared to “sustaining” growth, this is an incredible rate of growth.

Morality now changes. It has to justify property ownership; it has to justify constraining women; it justifies war and protection. Work ethic is a thing now, so is slavery. Morality has to include and justify all of those.

3) The state

Eventually you have something pretty complex from the above. You have specialists of all types, especially artisans, the traders, the fighters and probably a religious caste.

People are pretty widespread now, and there is enough mobility so that you can’t rely on having to share and get along with others. Your survival don’t depend on them and vice versa – people are allowed to become much more violent and selfish when reliance on one other is minimal.

Part of the solution then is to centralize violence. Violence is needed, but violence without control is chaos; the state offers a solution of a commonly accepted entity that monopolizes violence, in the form of an army or soldiers. Even if they are tyrannical, “one master” is better than a “dozen masters.” Gradually, such legitimacy comes at a rather of a negotiated power – the peasants accept, roughly, that they will be protected by the knights, and therefore must give up much of their work to them.

Morality now must justify the social stratification, and sometimes, oppression. Religion can provide an “escape” for those dissatisfied; in some other cultures, such as China, academics provides an “escape” for those who are lucky enough to pass merit tests. The system is such a thing now that it must be preserved, and the morality exists to support it.

So, as a genuine question, that’s a genuine answer.

Morality /is/ interesting. Morality is, however, also mutable. It serves to support whatever stability that creates it.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

Again, the troll discourses at length on statehood and the origins thereof, despite having no knowledge on this except for what maybe came out of one book one time, and again reveals that there is nothing here worth addressing.

it mostly seems focused on personal attacks which are amusing

Aww, the troll think it’s funny to shit himself on the Internet for everyone to see.

shonpan
5 years ago

Besides a formal education in Anthropology where I accumulated the initial concepts from – I admit they might be antiquated by now, I’ve also mentioned at least two other books which were major influences in my thinking.

Whereas, you and your “ilk” have just kept throwing insults. Its amusing and sad, but I’ve yet to hear you name a single source. For me, this is an interesting example of what is effectively fanaticism being exhibited here, but its still very sad from the concept of overall logic.

I welcome you to dispute the logic, and I may very well be wrong on anything. I’ll probably learn something from that. I’m always open to consideration.

Attack purely based on vitriol and passion, and I will merely sigh: I wish I could say it was different, but it is in essence, no different from the very people you claim to condemn.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

no different from the very people you claim to condemn.

I have a question, Mr Rational Man Arguing Rationally.

How is it possible to claim to condemn someone? What is the distinction between condemning something and merely claiming to condemn it? After all, one cannot fail at condemning something; therefore the implication of failure carried by the word “claim to” appears meaningless.

Or are you just word-salading to hide the fact that you’ve promised to flounce three times now, and still haven’t told us whether you’re a rapist or not?

shonpan
5 years ago

There’s no real difference. You can claim to condemn, or you can condemn; the implication from condemnation is that you would seek to distance yourself from the same behavior, and therefore is implies a failure to distinguish when one is engaged in the same foolishness as one purports to disdain, effectively a kind of hypocrisy.

Its beneath my dignity to reply to the latter.

EJ (The Other One)
EJ (The Other One)
5 years ago

You have dignity?
comment image

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Every time a man claims that rape is a valid “strategy” to obtain sexual gratification I wonder if he thinks murdering men who sound like rapists is a valid strategy for not getting raped.

It would sure go a long way toward weeding the rapists out of society so that the rest of us can be safe. Evolution is all about who lives and who dies. So, clearly evopsych argle bargle makes it fine.

Drezden
Drezden
5 years ago

Attack purely based on vitriol and passion, and I will merely sigh: I wish I could say it was different, but it is in essence, no different from the very people you claim to condemn.

Dear Pseudonymous Digital Entity:

We note that you have some sort of degree in marketing. Would it be safe to assume, then, that you are familiar with the concept of playing to your audience? We ask because frankly you suck at it.

In the post that kicked off this recent spate of activity, you were repeatedly condescending. What thought process lead you to believe that would be an effective way of stimulating any sort of productive conversation? What sort of faulty reasoning makes you feel that condescension wouldn’t be met with a negative response?

Might we suggest you contact your alma mater regarding a potential refund? And please, be condescending to them as well, because obviously that work so well.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

This douche is defending rape and PUA.
You know what kind of dude needs advice from PUAs? Guys who cannot get women to willingly fuck them.

Hey, douche? Lemme save you some time. You can’t get laid because you are an utter shitlord, rapist, piece of garbage. You don’t deserve sexual pleasure or companionship and frankly, you should probably be kept in a small room with no windows for the rest of your days to prevent you raping again (I assume from your adamant defense of rapists, typical abuser behavior and obvious misogyny.)

You’re not smart. You do not have things figured out. You’re just a pitiful loser trying to find excuses for his own personal nastiness.

PUA has not made you irresistible. It’s made you contemptible. I’ve scraped more attractive stuff off my shoes.

The “Oh, you only think you wouldn;t fuck me if I …” shit is ridiculous. That has never worked for you. Maybe you managed to rape some poor women or it got late at the bar so some horny chick settled for you but you never seduced anyone. You lack the charm, the wit and if you’re relying on PUA to get you some, everything else.

You aren’t fooling anyone. Even you know better. These smarmy walls of text you’re typing out are the only way you’ve gotten attention from women in what? 6 months?

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

Let me evopsych something for you:

Men who need to rape to get laid don’t have the proper genes to pass on because they would find a mate if they had the right attributes to attract one.

Men who rape are trying to force their subpar genes into a genetic pool that doesn’t want them.

So, rapist are ruining humanity. You’re ruining humanity.

Bye now.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/hi.gif

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

#find a willing mate, I should say

shonpan
5 years ago

To be honest, I’m posting being I found it interesting to see such emotions evoked by what is effectively a relatively placid and neutral observation. Being bored at work and getting to work from home means I get to drop in now and then. I really had expected more from you all, so I’m pretty disappointed. Just such anger and fury; its not even a question of whether something is reasonable, the anger involved would make it minimally.

So yes, it is amusing – much like religious fanatics are amusing. And are the attacks, but I do find it concerning, because ultimately, its the same kind of mentality that drives the MRA, and much worse.

The bear is cute, btw.

PS: The idea to attack me about my presumed lack of company with women is actually one of the more mystifying notions here. Isn’t that giving credence to the MRA idea that the company of one gender or another is fundamentally a statement of “good?” Its so weird.

I do find it additionally amusing because for what it is worth, I have a pair of girls who wanted this experiment in polygamy(one is my legal wife). But by your statement, this could be impossible, since evidently you speak for all women – surely much like I can speak for all men, and all mammals and all warm-blooded beings…

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

We did say if someone asks as many women as they can, they’ll eventually find someone who will sleep with them. We didn’t say the women that finally say yes would have decent taste in men or good judgement.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

What in the holy hell is shonpan on about? Is he actually trying to defend PUA on a site dedicated to mockery of misogyny (and on the FAQ page rather than any current thread, no less), demanding we take him and his many words seriously, then sniffing contemptuously when he gets mocked?

Cool.

Whereas, you and your “ilk” have just kept throwing insults.

I welcome you to dispute the logic, and I may very well be wrong on anything. I’ll probably learn something from that. I’m always open to consideration.

Looking back a little, I’m counting 8 comments posted today that substantively address what I assume is your argument. The meta garbage is what happens when sea-lions like you whinge about tone rather than dealing with the substance of your critics.

Here’s a couple fun things. 1) You’ve nearly quoted word-for-word the sea-lion in this comic that illustrates your strategy here. That’s pretty impressive. 2) That little trick where you pretend your opponents have done absolutely nothing to counter your argument where in reality you simply haven’t acknowledged them is a fun little debate tactic that is nearly the epitome of slime. It’s a personal pet peeve of mine, it’s terribly obnoxious for someone so apparently interested in tone, and all it does is provoke exasperation in others. If you want people to argue with you, then address them; don’t pretend they don’t exist.

Also, if you want people to argue with you, you have to accept that you don’t get to set the frame of the debate. We aren’t here at your beck and call whenever you feel like a little verbal banter. You don’t get to waltz in here with what we consider a horrendous belief and expect us to deal with you seriously on your terms, and you don’t get to act all snooty when we don’t.

If you truly cared about considering your opinions, you would treat us like equals rather than peasents dancing (and debating) for your amusement. Demanding people change your mind is pure entitlement.

Its amusing and sad, but I’ve yet to hear you name a single source. For me, this is an interesting example of what is effectively fanaticism being exhibited here, but its still very sad from the concept of overall logic.

Attack purely based on vitriol and passion, and I will merely sigh: I wish I could say it was different, but it is in essence, no different from the very people you claim to condemn.

Sources are fun, but linking them is not the one true mark of a response to your claims. This isn’t “fanaticism,” this is you failing to convince us that you’re worth talking to. Learn the difference.

I’ve yet to see you offer any of the same courtesy to folks here that you expect to have given to you. Calling people fanatics and labeling their arguments as “forthing insanity?” Snide insults. The constant whinging about tone inbetween your “substantive” arguments? Perhaps not borne of passion and vitriol, but the lack of strong emotion doesn’t make it any less aggravating.

&lt/meta&gt

Now… what was your point?

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Shonpan:

Here’s a little tip: if you see people that are clam at first, but soon grow irritated and then begin shouting in anger, unplug your god-damned ears and actually listen to the words they say. Talking to someone who doesn’t listen will bring out anger in anyone.

shonpan
5 years ago

My original post was just to note that PUA is not entirely something that doesn’t have scientific backing for at least some of the specific methods I indicated, and then sourced why. I thought it was interesting, and it seemed internally consistent.

Accusations of promoting rape followed, at which point, reason diminished substantially.

And really, the answer is – yes, I do get to have an opinion. Likewise, you get to ignore my opinion. I’m ultimately a Stoic – how much I affect you is a choice that you allow yourself, in this case of text. The same goes for myself, which is why I am relatively impassive.

Frothing insanity only was noted after the posts more or less had degenerated into such. Tragic, but ah well.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Shonpan:

Your original post (as arkenstone on June 20th) was a rambling screed conflating general sales tactics with specific PUA methodology. PUA is not equivalent to selling; that’s just a metaphor. When you look at the details of PUA, they are rapey as fuck. The parts that aren’t rapey as fuck are pretty much bog-standard human interaction principles.

If you’re framing your discussion as a defense of PUA specifically, then of course people are going to accuse you of promoting rape. PUA is the promotion of rape; that’s what makes it PUA rather than something else. Your apparent refusal to acknowledge this is what causes you to not understand our rebuttles, and your ego is what makes you think your failure to understand is our failure to reason.

You of course get to have an opinion. So do we. So what? If you believe we should just ignore you if we don’t like what you’re saying, then show some consistency and do the same for us. Don’t like the mockery? Don’t respond to it, rather than sprinkle all your subsequent posts with passive-agressive tone trolling.

As for you being “impassive,” emotion is not the antithesis of rationality. Moreover, you’re trying to defend PUA, a misogynistic worldview that directly treats women here like idiots, children, or subhumans. Expecting people to remain “impassive” when defending an ideology that attacks them is ridiculous, and the mark of a weak thinker (or an asshole, or both).

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

As for the “frothing insanity,” point out one comment you think I would agree could be labeled as such. You can even start from just after your June 20th comment. I’ll bet one whole internet that it’s just a comment you don’t understand, rather than one which has no meaning.

shonpan
5 years ago

I have never felt that PUA is, in and of itself, a “rape” philosophy and for me, that’s an interesting “othering” perspective; as I mentioned, I was part of the community before and it has its community of scary and disturbed people, but in and of itself, it is a method of framing to gain an objective. Ultimately, it doesn’t seem all that different from selling.

As for the “mocking?” I would think that mocking entails finding flaws in something and then ridiculing it; as it is, well, its not really different than any other fanatical screeching. Its like calling me a thug if I am black, or that I advocate human extinction if I promote automation – its a credence of an extremism that’s almost hilarious in its stupidity.

Should people be emotional when speaking of something that affects them? Certainly. But feeling and reason are, more or less, opposed if not exactly antithetical. Feeling comes from the limbic system while reason is associated with neocortex; the limbic system activates in a way that “lights up” in the MRI, overwhelming the brain. In extreme cases, it causes the “amygdala hijack” where someone is acting in a way with no conscious effort at all.

So yes. When reason – even poor or faulty reason – I give you that maybe, is reacted with screeching, it does make certain people look very much like children in ways that has nothing at all to do with their gender, and everything to do with their actions.

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

TIL: Rape as a “biological action” is “effectively a relatively placid and neutral observation”.

As for you being “impassive,” emotion is not the antithesis of rationality. Moreover, you’re trying to defend PUA, a misogynistic worldview that directly treats women here like idiots, children, or subhumans. Expecting people to remain “impassive” when defending an ideology that attacks them is ridiculous, and the mark of a weak thinker (or an asshole, or both).

Seconding Kirby on this point.

Expecting us to not get angry when you try to mansplain how rape is a good thing from a “rational” point of view, especially when some of us here (myself included) have been victims of rape is really, really, irrational of you. That’s like trying to explain to someone who had their house broken into and burglarized how burglary isn’t really all that bad. It’s going to go over like the Hindenburg.

Telling women that “Hey, this is a good lifestyle that treats you and sex with you like a transaction!” isn’t going to make us less impassioned about calling you out for having a terrible worldview, especially when that lifestyle incentives violence against women.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

I have never felt that PUA is, in and of itself, a “rape” philosophy and for me, that’s an interesting “othering” perspective; as I mentioned, I was part of the community before and it has its community of scary and disturbed people, but in and of itself, it is a method of framing to gain an objective. Ultimately, it doesn’t seem all that different from selling.

This is where you can carve off a nice little slice of the PUA mindset, one devoid of all the nasty “no doesn’t mean no” “keep pushing till she says yes” bits, and claim that therefore PUA is not a rapey philosophy.

Sorry, there’s years worth of evidence right here on this very site that begs to disagree.

If you want to talk about fundamentals, let’s talk about your “objective.” Your objective in PUA is sex with a specific woman. What she feels is treated as an obstacle; your goal is to turn her no into a yes through any means necessary, even through things like “kino escalation” (physical contact that may be unwanted) and various ways to apply psychological pressure.

That. Is. Rapey. As fuck. PUA doesn’t have to directly promote rape to be rapey; the fact that it treats intimate human interactions as “selling” rather than “negotiating” should be your biggest clue that something is fundamentally wrong with it.

And, side note, “selling” is not inherently neuteral. “Putting the foot in the door” and doing a “hard sell” by talking rapidly to prevent people from thinking clearly and forcing them to agree to something they may not actually want isn’t exactly the image you want to have for your dating advice.

Should people be emotional when speaking of something that affects them? Certainly. But feeling and reason are, more or less, opposed if not exactly antithetical. Feeling comes from the limbic system…

Nope, sorry. Sure, strong emotion can interfere with logical thought. Strong emotion can also be the result of logical thought. Speak to any real human rights activist to get a sense for how justified anger can be, or tell a man like MLK that anger is a sign of irrationality. This is just you again refusing to empathize with the person you are speaking to, and a practical refusal to understand why the people you are talking to are angry.

You want an example of irrationality? How about claiming logical victory when you’ve annoyed someone to the point of frustration?

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

shonpan | June 23, 2015 at 5:58 pm
I have never felt that PUA is, in and of itself, a “rape” philosophy and for me, that’s an interesting “othering” perspective; as I mentioned, I was part of the community before and it has its community of scary and disturbed people, but in and of itself, it is a method of framing to gain an objective. Ultimately, it doesn’t seem all that different from selling.

Does it really matter if PUA felt like a rape philosophy to you? No. Because it doesn’t effect you. It’s not threatening you. It’s attempting to give you a dangerous “advantage” over women.

Women are NOT an “objective”, nor should we ever be. We’re human beings who want to get into relationships because a significant other wants to be with us, not because they’re completing a checklist or some kind of quest to get laid.

As for the “mocking?” I would think that mocking entails finding flaws in something and then ridiculing it; as it is, well, its not really different than any other fanatical screeching. Its like calling me a thug if I am black, or that I advocate human extinction if I promote automation – its a credence of an extremism that’s almost hilarious in its stupidity.

“You saying that I’m wrong is exactly like being racist! How very dare you, you extremists!”

You have got to be joking me. How is this even a comparison? What wires are crossed in your brain to make you think that that’s somehow equivalent?

Us saying “Hey, rape isn’t cool, could you not try to advocate for it in any way?” =/= “Black people are all thugs!”

Mostly because the first is women saying “Hey, could you not do things that violate my bodily autonomy?” and the second is white people being prejudiced.

I can’t believe I’ve had to explain that.

Should people be emotional when speaking of something that affects them? Certainly. But feeling and reason are, more or less, opposed if not exactly antithetical. Feeling comes from the limbic system while reason is associated with neocortex; the limbic system activates in a way that “lights up” in the MRI, overwhelming the brain. In extreme cases, it causes the “amygdala hijack” where someone is acting in a way with no conscious effort at all.

Thank you for mansplaining emotions to us. I’m sure we were all so stupid with our feeble lady brains (and Kirby with his feeble man brain) needed this explanation as to why we shouldn’t be able to be emotional about people saying they want to rape us.

[/sarcasm]

So yes. When reason – even poor or faulty reason – I give you that maybe, is reacted with screeching, it does make certain people look very much like children in ways that has nothing at all to do with their gender, and everything to do with their actions.

Uh huh. I’m sure you think we’re all “screeching” solely because we’re letting our widdle lady emotions get in the way of us saying you’re full of shit. I’m sure that’s the only reason. Not like you’re sexist or anything!

[/sarcasm]

Has someone emailed David yet? This guy’s gross.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@Paradoxical Intention:

You have got to be joking me. How is this even a comparison? What wires are crossed in your brain to make you think that that’s somehow equivalent?

Us saying “Hey, rape isn’t cool, could you not try to advocate for it in any way?” =/= “Black people are all thugs!”

Mostly because the first is women saying “Hey, could you not do things that violate my bodily autonomy?” and the second is white people being prejudiced.

I can’t believe I’ve had to explain that.

No no, see, one is “you’re calling me wrong” and the other is “you’re calling black people thugs.” They’re both calling people something! It’s basically the same thing, if you look at it rationologically!

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

This troll is gaslighty as fuck.

But feeling and reason are, more or less, opposed if not exactly antithetical.

No, they fucking are not. This is Gaslighting 101 right here: telling people that if they feel upset, they aren’t being rational because being upset and being rational at the same time is impossible.

Besides a formal education in Anthropology where I accumulated the initial concepts from

I call bullshit on this. You’ve demonstrated absolutely no conception of anthropology beyond what you read in a single book. Taking one class as a undergraduate does not constitute “a formal education” in anything. That’s called “fulfilling a general education requirement.”

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

I can’t believe I’ve had to explain that.

I’m honestly so impressed with those of you who try to explain anything to these misogynist asshats. They know nothing and think their white cocks make them the smartest people anywhere at all times. They’re devoid of honesty or morality, yet think themselves the arbiters of civility. I just want to turn the hose on them like dogs pissing on a flowerbed.
The sheer fucking gall of, “All I did was come in here, lie from the get go, vomit rape apology, talk down to everyone here though I hadn’t clue as to what I was on about, use ablist terms, pout-flounce-return-repeat and gaslight the lot of you and you were mean to me! How could you? YOU must be so much less intelligent and informed than I am. Allow me to continue sea lioning ad nauseam…”

How the fuck do people get to be like that?

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Besides a formal education in Anthropology where I accumulated the initial concepts from

Yeah. No.
That’s the sort of lie that reveals itself. Did you really think you were so clever that you could fake it and we’d never notice?

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Where the fuck did troll get his information about neuroscience? No. An active limbic system does not shut your whole brain down. Being annoyed with misogynistic trolling does not mean my pfc stopped working.

I’m sitting in my work break room. Talking with and listening to coworkers while I read and type here. I’m not having a nervous breakdown.

There’s no indication anyone else is either.

Trolls always have such an over inflated sense of their. I’m rolling my eyes at how gross he is. I’m laughing at his pomposity. Get over yourself, troll. I’m not losing sleep over you.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

POM and Lea,
I clearly remember him saying he studied business and marketing. Nothing about anthropology. Maybe he took one class in college and read a book or two.

Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
Pandapool -- The Species that Endangers YOU (aka Banana Jackie Cake, for those who still want to call me "Banana", "Jackie" or whatever)
5 years ago

I’m enjoying a bowl of gumbo with some cider while laughing at this asshole. I’m sure as hell not breaking down either.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

@WWTH

I’m being immensely charitable and presuming it’s a wild exaggeration, puffing a general-ed level, introductory undergraduate class into “a formal education,” rather than an out-and-out lie. Given how little understanding the troll has demonstrated (on the same level as his University-of-Wikipedia-grade education in formal logic), an out-and-out lie is not out of the question. But I do like to think the best possible of everyone.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Got up from a nap after spending most of the day at the pool with my kids. Got an ice pack on my neck and dogs snoring at my feet. (Fuck this headache.) Gonna go shopping with the hubster shortly and have some laughs like we always do. I might even treat myself to a cherry cola. Thus will my wild fit of rage go.
So wild.
Much rage.
Being completely over (So very over) some smarmy asshole is hardly a full on come apart. Telling said asshole exactly what’s what and where he can stick his uninformed bullflop, is just what people do when they’ve had enough willful, unrepentant stupid for one day.

shonpan
5 years ago

fwiw, that’s correct, Policy. It was actually three classes so a bit more than “General Ed” but I opted to go into Business for the obvious reasons of muniez are a natural and self-evident good. I would say it is formal – certainly more than what’s being claimed here by others. I realize that might lead to flaws in my understanding, but this is why I’m open to divergent considerations.

Not much else to say except the posts remain adorable. I would say something about insults and cowardice, but that’s just repetition at this point.

Keep up the self-congratulations. You all win all internets.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

It was actually three classes so a bit more than “General Ed”

Oh, my mistake, clearly you are the expert. FFS by your standards I have a double formal education in economics, and a triple formal education in philosophy. I don’t actually claim that, because I’m not a pretentious wanker drunk on my own self-importance.

muniez are a natural and self-evident good

LOL definitely not a philosophy major here.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

Wouldn’t implicitly calling people cowards be an insult? What’s that saying about insults and cowardice, shonpan?

http://1wdojq181if3tdg01yomaof86.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/stewart_gif4-300×214.gif

Paradoxical Intention
5 years ago

shonpan | June 23, 2015 at 7:53 pm
fwiw, that’s correct, Policy. It was actually three classes so a bit more than “General Ed” but I opted to go into Business for the obvious reasons of muniez are a natural and self-evident good. I would say it is formal – certainly more than what’s being claimed here by others. I realize that might lead to flaws in my understanding, but this is why I’m open to divergent considerations.

Not much else to say except the posts remain adorable. I would say something about insults and cowardice, but that’s just repetition at this point.

Keep up the self-congratulations. You all win all internets.

“I only took three classes, so that means I’m capable of being wrong, but I still obviously know so much more than all of you! And I’m so open-minded! Look at me considering all you have to say and still finding you all to be silly feeble-brained ladies who think with their feelings!

You’re all so adorable when I’m condescending to you! You’re all being silly-billys by insulting me and my grand intelligence, which, when you disagree with that, you’re akin to racists, just saying.

You guys keep trying to explain to me how “PUA is based upon a rapey ideology” and “women aren’t objects to be bartered for”, while I sit here and denounce you because white penis.”

Whelp, the Asshole-to-WHTM translator seems to still be working, so at least we have that going for us.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

Why do all these “logical” trolls always think you can separate emotion when judging human behavior in any way? Humans are driven by our emotions in SO. MANY. WAYS. Even when we try to be driven only by logic, we end up becoming arrogant, holier-than-thou shitstains who feel better than everyone else.

isidore13
isidore13
5 years ago

who feel they are better*

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
5 years ago

“Contempt” is an emotion, so I guess it’s consistent with the “emotions and reason are mutually exclusive” dogma that the troll expresses high levels of contempt but virtually no reason.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
5 years ago

@isidore13:

Anything to feel superior, I guess. Lord knows they aren’t going to get that superiority from actually trying to convince people of anything or demonstrating any real knowledge or skill. Plus, that type of personality is endlessly aggravating, so if that frustration adds to their sense of superiority, even better!

It’s like natural selection. With douchebags.

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

Come on Kirbywrap, I’m sure our troll read Ayn Rand at some point, so he’s definitely a philosopher.

I think I’m going to apply for some English professor jobs. I took two English literature and two English writing courses in college. Expert, here!

weirwoodtreehugger
5 years ago

We haven’t even name called very much. Unless you count troll. Nobody used an ad hominem at all. So what’s the problem? Did he seriously expect any pro PUA and rape apologia to fly?

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

Empathy is something you feel and all pro-social behavior is based on it. It is what makes it possible for crows, wolves, killer whales and humans to work together to achieve a common goal. Without it there is no morality and no civilization. One thing humans are specialized to do that has ensured our survival is feel empathy.

Rape is an act devoid of empathy. It is not a pro-social behavior. It does not strengthen community bonds. It weakens members of society whose contributions are desperately needed. It is the antithesis of what makes our species as successful as it is and should we ever rise above the little tricks we use to short circuit our empathy, like bigotry and mindless patriotism we will be far more successful than we’ve been so far. If we do not manage to shake off erroneous ideas that allow us to dehumanize and commodify other humans we will die out. It will be ugly and it will be soon. Those are our choices.

Btw troll, the same “logic” you are attempting to use to defend rape has also been used to defend slavery and genocide. You are mistaking things that profit the oppressor class with things that profit humanity. That’s mighty white of you.

Lea
Lea
5 years ago

WWTH,
They never understand what an ad hom attack is.

They can’t see the difference between:
“You are wrong because you are and asshole.”
and
“You are wrong and you are an asshole.”

mildlymagnificent
5 years ago

Oh, my word.

May I congratulate all the wonderful wimminz dealing with a paradigm case of the WHTM troll despite the drawbacks of relying on their fluffy pink ladybrainz.

EJ and kirby also deserve a mention for their stalwart manly forbearance despite being hampered by their alliance with the aforesaid fluffy pink ladybrainz operators.

As for ye olde wikipedia expert, you came here to argue with women. Referring to adult women as “girl/s” — as you’ve done at least twice — indicates to me that you need to get a better handle on this treating-people-with-appropriate-respect angle. And then there’s all the PUA-rapey shit on top of that.

You appear to have flounced. That’s a good thing. Stay away.

NothingClever
NothingClever
5 years ago

Comment: “PUA is kinda rapey and makes women feel uncomfortable.”

Shonpan: “That’s adorable.”

Comment: “Now you’re starting to make all of us here feel uncomfortable.”

Shonpan: “Awww, that’s so adorable. You’re all so adorable.”

Not condescending at all. Nope.