Here is a very interesting article from someone in an interesting demographic. This is the same demographic that is plastering Vancouver with MRM posters and provoking and exposing a very nasty, violent backlash – anarchist men and “goth punks”.
A structure crumbles before it collapses and this is true of beliefs too. The structure of beliefs we call a worldview is as vulnerable as any other. That’s Limeywestlake’s tale of the red pill.
Read the whole thing, if only for the music of the language, but please pay attention to some really interesting points he makes.
He analyzes that iconic Occupy poster of the young woman standing in a ballet pose on the statue of the bull on Wall Street. He points out that the hazy figures of men around the statue are of real people, men down in the dust and muck and danger of actually facing the police, and that they are blurred out and effaced. Meanwhile the young women, who can stand on that statue in that pose only because of the efforts of the men below her, is centered, celebrated and focused on. It is an iconic image of male disposability.
But he sees none of this when he first sees that poster; all this comes to him only after he sees how feminists treat another man. They treat him with the same hostility and contempt he had been getting form them for years and blaming himself for. But finally when it was aimed at some other person, someone he respected and cared about, it suddenly all became clear to him.
Something else – he comes to this from a left-wing background. The MRM gets smeared as a right-wing sump of biter men fearful of losing their male privilege. Well, the man who wrote this article is no tradcon.
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016
by 
this sums up allot of why I am not a political progressive….
also for someone to march/occupy-they’ve gotta have a bit of “privilege”-they aren’t working two jobs just to survive…
They’re either students, got a cushy job, living off of someone else’s money or whatnot….
“Something else – he comes to this from a left-wing background. The MRM gets smeared as a right-wing sump of biter men fearful of losing their male privilege. Well, the man who wrote this article is no tradcon.”
I’m guessing part of the MRA’s being seen as “right wing” has to do with guys like Bernard Chapin….
Also, allot of manosphere guys identify as “alt-right.”
another thing, I’ve noticed allot of male feminists can be really “macho” in their bullying, just look at some of Hugo Skeezer’s blog entries where he braga about banging students on the desk-sounds more like a PUA lay report than anything else….
and that Manboobz bigot is making fun of a guy for supposedly being a virgin, then accusing him of being “rapey.” First there was the virgin mary, now there’s the virgin rapey-WTF… only in feminazi land…. …or I’m just not smart enough to understand such a jump in logic…
https://omegavirginrevolt.wordpress.com/why-is-female-approval-needed-for-dating-advice/
I totally get where that guy is coming from, since I’m also cut from the cloth of leftism. Among the left there is an aura of wanting to make life better for everyone, to fight against the privilaged minority while the rest suffer, and then I’ll see feminism painted in a positive light among the left and it’s a slap in the face. Whenever you see it, you can’t help but ask “will I really make the world a better place for everyone if our objectives are met?” Or will it be man hating women who antagonize men to no end, as men who suck up to them step on other men for the amusement of those women? That doesn’t sound much different than the system the left is already fighting against.
Limeywestlake’s piece is quite good, though rather cis-essentialist:
Every step of the way I sought to find excuses for my very being; at every crossroad I felt compelled to downplay my innate flaw, the ostensible privilege of being born with a piece tumescent tissue between my thighs. In the final analysis, I felt just as disempowered now as I did on my first anti-apartheid march, way back in ’83.
The tissue in question would be between his ears, though that might not have been the dynamic at play in Vancouver, which is, of course, the transmisogynistic-feminist capital of Canada.
Gingko: Here’s something I don’t get, from a quote of Jill F on this guy’s page:
“May he never get laid again.”
I’d always been led to believe that feminists primarily say that women ought to obtain “power” via things like education, careerism, achievement, and so on. Or, at least, that’s the line they repeat the loudest. But once in a while, I see a feminist let-slip something to the effect that it’s acceptable for women to deny sex (or threaten to deny sex) to men as a means of punishment or, at the very least, as a means of obtaining men’s compliance. This is not an isolated thing; a few years back, I saw a lot of stuff at Feministing about how the denizens there would never sleep with Republicans and how “women” ought to hold some kind of mass-Lysistrata thing with regard to Republican men.
It seems to be not very far away from the conniving wife who refuses to put-out until hubby buys her the fur coat she wants. Doesn’t this sort of statement seem a little un-feminist to you? I find something utterly repellent.about their mentality but I can’t quite put my finger on it.
Aych: What bugs me about it is the assumption she makes that she speaks for women, that all women share her beliefs rather than just the few dozen posters on her site. In my experience in rl virtually No woman agrees with the things you see said on feminist sites. They generally believe in equality and want things to be fair for men as well. Unlike feminists, they genuinely feel empathy for situations that are shitty for men. It’s generally the politicians and various organisations and institutions that bend over for feminists.
PS: Wasn’t there something floating around the interwebs showing that more women vote Republican in the US?
I liked that article (read it a little while ago) but it could have gone a little further. The first time I ever saw that poster, the first thought that jumped out at me was, “They’re using sexist stereotypes to promote anti-intellectualism.” And that’s pretty much what the whole entire Occupy movement boils down to. Because there aren’t enough WTO summits to go to and smash Starbucks windows for not recycling enough…
The poster wasn’t just a woman, it was a ballerina. She evokes not only femininity, but also art. Both are symbols for their anti-rational, emphatic, counter-enlightenment Romanticism. The bull, as a symbol of the financial industry, evokes masculinity and rationality. This poster could pretty much be used to symbolize the triumph of feminism over man and everything that it represents to those who believe in it. But to me it just represents idiocy. Pure, unadulterated, idiocy. And it’s an insult to women. It puts them into the same old box – the one where they suck at math and science, the one where they break down in fits of hysteria, the one where they are the nurturing bambi’s mothers who are the perpetual victims of this world.
About Feministe’s Jill comment on “Hot chicks of Occupy Wall Street”:
Jill says:
My question is: why “gross”? Could someone give me an explanation which doesn’t involve the assumption that male sexuality is disgusting?
Aych,
“Gingko: Here’s something I don’t get, from a quote of Jill F on this guy’s page:
“May he never get laid again.”
I’d always been led to believe that feminists primarily say that women ought to obtain “power” via things like education, careerism, achievement, and so on.”
Yeah. That’s the prostitution socialization – sex with a woman as some kind of reward. And you see how deep it goes, even in a mainstream, widely popular feminist.
Valerie,
“The tissue in question would be between his ears,”
Yes and the rest of your comment is right, but he’s talking about shame he’d been indoctrinated into, and that was based on what his indoctrinators could see and what they considered pertinent.
As for Vancouver being the cis-sexist capitol of Canada, that fits too; that might explain the intensity and self-righteousnes of the hate groups attacking MRAs there.
“I totally get where that guy is coming from, since I’m also cut from the cloth of leftism. Among the left there is an aura of wanting to make life better for everyone, to fight against the privilaged minority while the rest suffer, and then I’ll see feminism painted in a positive light among the left and it’s a slap in the face. ”
OO, this goes to the basic dishonesty of the “women and monrities” formulation, as if a (self-defined) demographic that in almost every population in every age is a majority could ever be a minority or have minority status. If a majority is in the ohne-down position, there is always some other explanation and it always tends ot come down to a rejection of power in exchange for some kind of protection or provision.
those statements just show their “sex positivitey” really ain’t positive-well maybe their std test (haha couldn’t resist that cheapo shot 😉 )
I’m starting to see why MGTOW is so threatening, you can’t control a man who has voluntarily opted out and probably had options….
More and more it seems Mr. Manboobz schtick is make fun of incel men/late virgins etc. Get really mad when he gets “fat shamed”-but after all wasn’t it his choice to eat all those donuts? I don’t think the “patriarchy” forced them down his throat. Then vaguely gloat how “men” like him and Hugo Skeezer have sexual experience therefore they must be soooooo much more superior than men who don’t have female approval and are far more superior to men who could get female approval but opt out of a losing game.
I’d love to see more from leftist MRAs, being one myself. I’m aware of all the hostility and pent-up resentment being expressed on many MRM forums, and I wish they could get past it and move on to productive, reasoned discussion… but the prevalence of truly creepy ‘tradcon’ misogyny is far more troubling to me.
“Getcherself an Asian woman, they know their place” is not what I want to see in men’s rights discussions.
“Get really mad when he gets “fat shamed”-but after all wasn’t it his choice to eat all those donuts? ”
I’ll go with the first part. I don’t like the fat-shaming he gets because it distracts from the misandry-shaming he ought to be getting.
i have a theory and I am going to work it up inot a post – a lot of the ecxplixcitly man-hating men we hear form grew up marginal in some way – either fat or clumsy, or else too academically oriented. And I think they experienced so much grief at the hands of male peers that they came to hate all men.
Now if they happened to be socially inept, they retreated into geekdom. Geeks may uncomfrortable around women, but that does not mean they get on well around meanstream men either. But if they were socially competent, they evolved into ladies men , a la Noah Brand, with a really nasty retaliatory streak of man-hatred. And they turn around and presume to lecture the socially incompetent men, a la Dr. Nerdlove.
Ginkgo: I don’t really see it as ‘sex as reward’, so much as ‘withholding sex as punishment’. It’s like no one explained to them that Lysistrata was a comedy rather than a guide to political action.
I was in Kronborg Castle in Denmark not long ago, it was built in the 1600s. There is a long, airy hallway connecting the queen’s chambers with the dining hall. The story is that when the castle was designed, there was no way for the queen to go from the dining hall to her chambers without going up and down stairs and across the courtyard. She did not want to do that, so she wrote her husband a letter in which she said she would not perform her wifely duties until such a hallway was put-in to the design. Apparently, the ploy worked.
The funny thing is that threatening to withhold sex doesn’t work on me. At ALL. If any woman attempted to play such a game, I’d laugh in her face and walk away from her. Do women really not know how pathetic this ploy is?
Of course, Lysistrata is a work of fiction written by a man. In the real world, women are more likely to deny sex to a man they deem a coward than to a warmonger, and the white feather movement shows that men can be manipulated into hell by the denial of mere approval by women we don’t know. I think the biggest thing the men’s rights movement could possible do is to convince men to stop externalising validation onto women.
wasn’t the actual point of Lysistrata the fact that it was the *WOMEN* who couldn’t “hold the line” on the sex strike? (hence why it’s a comedy, I guess)
I think the funniest example of the “sex strike” that I’ve ever seen was that one a few months ago, where a bunch of liberal women were (or at least claimed they were) going on strike to protest the “war on women”
Noticeably absent from the list of women strikers was the SO of ANY of the legislators that the women were pissed off at.
Makes sense. Punish your husband for something he had nothing to do with and no ability to change.
Lysistrata is a comedy because in ancient times it was women that the horndog stereotype was applied to. Ceasar’s political opponents spread rumours about how many women he was having sex with to make him appear weak and feminine. To an ancient audience the idea that women (the horny gender) could use sex denial as a weapon against men (the chaste gender) was hilarious.
If the folk of the eighteen hundreds could view the behaviour and dress of today’s women I suspect their view might parallel that of the Romans.
@Gingko: “a lot of the ecxplixcitly man-hating men we hear form grew up marginal in some way – either fat or clumsy, or else too academically oriented. And I think they experienced so much grief at the hands of male peers that they came to hate all men.”
I definitely grew up in the fat/clumsy/socially awkward demo and was on the receiving end of lots of grief from both male and female peers. Once I was out of high school, though, my relationships with male peers smoothed out once I was in a better position to avoid the obnoxious alpha-types that had sneered and jeered throughout my high school years. Even still, among the men I have selected to associate with (most of whom are still close friends), “drink yer whiskey and STFU” seems to be the common socialization theme.
As to women…growing up in the 80s and having been fed a steady diet of blame and shame ever since for something as innocent and natural as appreciation for feminine beauty (not to mention the constant underlying narrative of everything wrong with the world being the fault of Dickie and the Twins), I long ago decided that it wasn’t worth my time or effort to even attempt to compliment a women; I have no desire to see the flash of trapped animal in her eyes as she gazes upon what she presumes to be an attempted suitor that bears no resemblance to the finely coiffed metrosexual that she has been socialized to see as desirable.
Though no longer fat/clumsy/socially awkward, some things never change; I am still most definitely a misfit. I still find “alpha-dogs” obnoxious and distasteful and, when it comes to women, I have found that neither feminists nor traditionalists have anything to offer me (except, maybe, a recognition of and/or superficial appreciation for masculinity and male disposability — but no less expectation of it — on the part of the latter) so it’s much better to simply drink my whiskey and STFU.
@Paul
I think the funniest example of the “sex strike” that I’ve ever seen was that one a few months ago, where a bunch of liberal women were (or at least claimed they were) going on strike to protest the “war on women”
Noticeably absent from the list of women strikers was the SO of ANY of the legislators that the women were pissed off at.
Let me just say in solidarity with my cis feminist friends, that I hearby refuse to lick, suck, fuck, finger, kiss, or otherwise have sex with: Nancy Barto, Kimberly Yee, Jan Brewer, or Michelle Bachmann, to name a few until such time as these restrictive laws are repealed.
http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/pregnancy-begins-2-weeks-before-conception-now-the-law-in-arizona/politics/2012/04/13/37993
http://rt.com/usa/news/arizona-bill-conception-abortion-387/
I came across this article a few days ago, myself, and I finally thought that I found something that resonated with me as to why I find Feminism troubling. I’m about as far left as you can go, and grew up in radical communities that were directly made possible by the cooperation of those with “privilege” and those without, because we all worked together toward a non-derisive goal.
It is problematic when dogma gets in the way of progress. The current Occupy/leftist movements are shooting themselves in the foot due to their exclusionary dogma purity tests. It is a requirement in many progressive spaces for men to accept and cheer their own harassment and silence in the name of “equality”. I’ve been driven toward accepting and trying to understand the MRM as a movement that roughly gives voice to important issues that Feminists are declaring to be nonexistent. Like the other side, there exist negative voices and those who are easily made fodder for others, but the inherent question of “do we value men as human beings?” is something that I never thought our culture would honestly have to tackle.
But, even more important is the fact that the disconnect between the culture as a whole and those who hold political power within government and movement where the latter are going full-tilt toward a model which insists on the silencing and denigration of male voices because they’re male voices. I can’t help but consider that we’d all be better off if we stopped attacking each other– but that’s hardly a common-sense approach, it seems.
JE, that is a very important point. Sexual license was considered a weakness – that’s the etymological menaing of vice – and virtue – literally :manliness” – was the opposite. And the romans probably inherited that attitude from the Greeks, and so we misread the context of Lysistrata when he see it as anything other than comical.
Valerie, we all deeply aprreciate your sacrifice.
Crow, look up Typhonblue’s post on men silencing men. She calls the gender dynamic “apexuality”.
Ajax, thank you for that personal history. I was only guessing, but you confirm my guess to a degree.
Stoner with a boner: also for someone to march/occupy-they’ve gotta have a bit of “privilege”-they aren’t working two jobs just to survive…
They’re either students, got a cushy job, living off of someone else’s money or whatnot….
I have marched and occupied, and none of the above applies to me and never has. Sounds like bullshit excuses.
I could just as easily say: for someone to be a “stoner” they must be students, have a cushy job, live off someone else… etc.. Don’t they have to take random drug tests like the rest of us do? How do they avoid that? Inherited money or are they professionals who don’t get drug tested? How did they get two jobs as a “stoner”? They must live in a pretty “progressive” place, in that case, since we are all randomly drug tested here in the south, to a fucking fare-thee-well. I call being a ‘stoner’ some cool privilege too!
PS: Moral of the story, we can all play that, and it solves nothing. Victim chic sucks.
Aych: Doesn’t this sort of statement seem a little un-feminist to you?
During the 60s anti-war movement it was codified as “Girls say yes to boys who say no”–all kinds of stuff going on in that phrase and none of it good. Even after feminists duly deconstructed it, this whole thought-process had a helluva half-life.
Speaking of Jill: her Anthony-Bourdainish piece today at Feministe has left me speechless. She seems intent on letting us know just how many exotic species she has eaten. I am rather… well, speechless.
Thinking of ditching leftism and feminism entirely and becoming one of those old nutty animal rights biddies. I certainly understand where they get it! Ah, if only I wasn’t married to a southerner who still eats barbecue.
The current Occupy/leftist movements are shooting themselves in the foot due to their exclusionary dogma purity tests.
You mean the yankees? They are not the entirety of the movement.
(It seems I say this about everything, don’t I? Well, maybe my job is to repeat this phrase until the end of time… or until people stop generalizing and erasing those of us who are not lionized in the mass media.)
Al Jazeera, no less, wrote an article about South Carolina Occupy. Luckily, I copied it for all of you to read and be edified: http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2012/01/al-jazeera-challenges-of-occupying.html
We ain’t Vancouver, New York, Atlanta or any of those places. We have forged an amazing, strong network. I am so proud of us. We are ordinary folks. (((sings 2nd verse of The Internationale))) All Occupiers are not the same. Some of us are in the most conservative county in the USA (according to Rick Santorum’s campaign manager, who should know) and we still managed to have a progressive film series, several strong rallies, three candidates, create a thriving social network and radio show. It may seem like nothing if you are in the big cities, but please, do not erase us.
“I could just as easily say: for someone to be a “stoner” they must be students, have a cushy job, live off someone else… etc.. Don’t they have to take random drug tests like the rest of us do? How do they avoid that? Inherited money or are they professionals who don’t get drug tested? How did they get two jobs as a “stoner”? They must live in a pretty “progressive” place, in that case, since we are all randomly drug tested here in the south, to a fucking fare-thee-well. I call being a ‘stoner’ some cool privilege too!”
haha, fair enough…
my situation is, ahem… complex-well not really….
I don’t work full time, don’t have health insurance, pay my own taxes…
if I had to pee in a cup, I’d probably come out clean….
I don’t know if psylocibin shows up and really, at this point it’s just beer and shrooms, I’m basically straight edge if you look past that….
also, don’t have a family to take care of so low overhead.
hahaha, I’m butting allot of heads on allot of different sides lately….
if I am privliged…
http://stonerwithaboner.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/i-already-got-in-abunch-of-pointless-arguments-with-the-feminasties-am-i-also-gonna-do-this-with-all-the-uptighty-alter-righties/
nope I won’t be voting for O’Bummer and RMoney can fuck off too…
The closest I fit into any movements would be MGTOW/Grasseater….
“Speaking of Jill: her Anthony-Bourdainish piece today at Feministe has left me speechless. She seems intent on letting us know just how many exotic species she has eaten. I am rather… well, speechless.”
haha, she said bull penis, one has to think that maybe it is PUA speak for going down on an “alpha male”….
Warning:
Partial nudity and a very crude bit of mutilation.
http://femen.org/en/news/id/89
Gingko, please feel free to move this to any thread where you think it makes sense to highlight misandry. I don’t read the language , but I think this is that group “Femen”‘s website. Apparently, they’ve recently moved to open a chapter in France.
Now about Femen: I don’t disagree with everything they do, but they seem to be very amenable to propagandistic agitators, they have no compunction about using their sexuality as both a political statement and a weapon, and they do seem to have some misandric elements among them.
Meanwhile, A MRM chapter has opened in London.
Want to bet which new organization gets both more attention and more help?
also as far as eating animals, I find this interesting….
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-eater
Did anyone see that awful “merman” in “Cabin in the Woods”? Arggghhhh! Not as romantic as Jimi Hendrix’s, thats for sure.
Not sure why Stoner’s wikipedia entry made me think of that, but it did.
Daisy,
I remember watching Vietnam the 10,000 War and it showed a section where many soldiers were getting high and said there were more casualties to drugs than combat at one point.
I found a nice video on youtube but was unable to copy the link, but since you know your history I’m sure I don’t have to tell you….
It struck me that those guys were “opting out” of a fucked up situation. Many drafted by Selective Service were more like slaves who broke their “master’s” plow….
Looks like MGTOW has existed for a long time….
So, no, I’ve never “served” in the military, but yes, I did sign up for Selective Service. I didn’t face the drafty but when I heard about the repeal of DADT, I thought, damn, either showing up to a physical high or saying I was gay-those would’ve been my two outs.
and as to why I’m distrustful of feminists and the “left”
http://manboobz.com/2012/06/01/mras-would-rather-complain-about-male-disposibility-than-work-to-enable-women-to-serve-in-combat/
that seems to be their thinking, I won’t be adding blood, sweat or tears to their movements….
and you may have seen this excellent response in regards to the draft…
http://salientsight.com/gww/why-do-mras-bring-up-the-draft-an-open-letter-to-thetruepooka/
and kind of random, but since you mentioned Jimi Hendrix, I understand he was a paratrooper who never saw combat, but then you’ve got The Nuge who evaded the draft and talks all macho now…
Hendrix claimed to be homosexual to get out of the military. This was not known until fairly recently. (He was famous for um, NOT being homosexual, so that was interesting.)
He frequently counseled GIs to give it a shot, if they wanted out.
Ted Nugent claimed to be crazy and never went at all. I think that was probably the truth.
nope I won’t be voting for O’Bummer and RMoney can fuck off too…
Me neither. Vote for a girl! 🙂
http://www.jillstein.org/
Then you can say, forever after: “I voted for a woman for president, did you?” Feminist cred forever, any time they say anything impolite about you. HAHAA!
haha,
I could hold that against Jill F. and Amanda Marcotte when they presumably vote for O’Bummer….
Then I can also refuse them oral sex, A Lysistrata sex strike in reverse and voice this growing health concern for young men….
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-03/oral-sex-may-cause-virus-linked-throat-cancer-in-men-study.html
Daisy: Even after feminists duly deconstructed it, this whole thought-process had a helluva half-life.
And why do you suppose that is?
I mean, I would imagine that women– and all women are feminists at heart, right?– would be totally unwilling to trade their vaginas for something so petty as personal gain. Am I right?
Because, after all, if any woman IS trading her vagina for personal gain, then it was men who surely made her act that way, rather than any self-made calculation that she arrived-at by herself. Correct?
Because all we need to do is get women into schools and train them in job skills, and they’ll all eagerly take-up the role of happily cubicle-dwelling, status-obsessed corporate careerists rather than, say, loathesome disgusting lower-than-dirt housewives who fail to become cubicle-dwelling, status-obsessed corporate careerists. Right?