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.
It’s what I said.
Sorry, both of those comments were directed at Guit. This conversation is moving too fast for my little thumbs on my little screen!
…then what’s the problem here? We don’t support castration jokes, or violence in general, but if we had the sort of up voting system reddit and AVfM do, and such things were well liked, then yes, calling that shit out would be perfectly appropriate. As for —
“What I mean is that if I wanted to attack you, I could use things out of their context, quoting just a bunch of words out of a discussion containing some one hundred comments.”
We aren’t taking the posts out of context, except when the context is even more revolting, and even then, it’s with a “go read it if you really want” link. I mean, have you actually read any of the posts here? Pick one, follow the link to the source, see the context.
In italy some MRAs have started a dialogue with feminists. It was a good experience for both. MRAs stopped thinking they were speaking out just for misandry, and feminists stopped thinking MRAs were speaking out just for mysoginy.
It might be even better if MRAs worked out that misandry isn’t actually real.
I believe that both misandry and mysogyny can exist.
What MRAs? What feminists? Where have members of either group said that it was a positive experience? Why should we believe any of the vague, unverifiable things you say?
Misandry is a made-up word, very recent, and deliberately picked by misogynists (that turd Warren Farrell was an early user, I think) to pretend there is systemic and systematic prejudice against men.
There is not.
It was a progressive MRA group. We also have left-wing MRAs. If you are interested I’ll expose you better what happened. This is probably not in topic here in the FAQ’s thread, and my watch says 4:38 am … Good night.
I’ve not said *systematic*, I’ve just said that it can exist. Good night again.
Then stop applying a word to something it doesn’t mean. In fact, stop wasting your time and ours in a language you don’t comprehend. Alternatively, stop trolling.
A recent word: “… The word Misandry can be traced back to at least 1871, when it was used in The Spectator magazine.[3][4] It appeared in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) in 1952. Misandry is formed from the Greek misos (μῖσος, “hatred”) and anēr, andros (ἀνήρ, gen. ἀνδρός; “man”)” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry
Every 5 posts you write ‘troll’.
*bangs head on wall* and it was totally racism when I told my father’s lily white ass that ribs and watermelon are not “porch monkey” food (note, I actually said it to my mother, since he was on the phone and I just end up in a screaming match, but point stands)
Point? “Lily white ass” is not racism because systematic oppression of white people does not exist.
It’s just called “being an asshole” when you hate people. And sometimes? Hating people in power is called revolution.
Wait *checks* thought so. The Spectator is a very right wing publication that’s apparently a stepping stone in Tory politics. So um, your argument is about as valid as saying that Stormfront says whites are oppressed.
It’s not so much that I’m interested, more that I don’t trust your interpretation in the slightest. So yes, please, if you insist on hanging around do actually drop some links to what you’re referencing. Once you’ve slept.
Also?
“misogynist (n.)
1610s, from Greek misogynes “woman-hater” (see misogyny).”
So yep, new in comparison.
Yeah I have no idea what Guit’s point is here… He hasn’t made sense to me, but idk if that’s his English or something.
It’s italian links. If you can read it tomorrow I’ll post.
By the way, I don’t believe withes are oppressed.
whites
But you’re yapping about misandry, which is used to imply men are oppressed. That’s the point. They aren’t.
If you’ve bothered to read ANY threads on this site, you’d know why people are wonderinf if you’re a troll. You’d have seen the halfwits who come in with the “what about the menz” bullshit, who ignore what MRAs say and what they want, and who, not infrequently, pretend to be non-English speakers (with strangely inconsistent mistakes) or doctors or lawyers or academics.
You’re fitting the MO of quite a few trolls here, sonny Jim, so don’t whine if the word gets applied to you.
Oh yes, I’m stupid. I’m stupid enough not to understand I’m stupid.
There not exists in human kind a single category that can’t become oppressed by definition. This is a postulate.
So what? We’re talking about reality here, if you hadn’t noticed. Men as a class are not oppressed, so stop carrying on as if they are.