Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
- 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 
Autumn Open Thread!
A
by
To ask a question…why would anyone who “genuinely” thinks they’re under attack from the “other”, that they’re persecuting, harming, even murdering the “in-group” also think that something so inane, so puerile as _asking them to stop_ is the most effective strategy? I don’t think employed feminists or traditionalists (of the western variety) actually believe their bull – they just use the hordes of true ideological believers to hide the truth from themselves, as well as build up a sense of contempt towards those true believers. My question is, why would anyone else actually believe this – and so blindly too?.
RC,
” I don’t think employed feminists or traditionalists (of the western variety) actually believe their bull – they just use the hordes of true ideological believers to hide the truth from themselves,”
Their narrative is incoherent, but it is so emotionally satisfying that they can’t stand to have it questioned in any way. That narrative is so central to their self-concept that it feesl like an attack to hear it questioned.
This is exaclty where tradcon men were in the mid-60s, habving thier sexual identity examined and denounced by privielged women calling themselves feminists. These were men who had grown up under the control of women, naturally, so they were used to bowing to this kind of scrutiny. So the tactic worked.
Now it’s women’s turn to have thier gender role held up to the same scrutiny. Why they see as an inherent right they hold by virtue of being femala, the MRM is denouncing as female privilege. Feminsts, it turns out, denounce all the same things as benevolent sexism. They denounce them on the one side and then insist of retaining those privileges on the other and cry “misogyny” if they are questioned.
And that has been the response from most feminists, a lot of other women, and a lot of men, to this scrutinyof the traditional femlae role and female privielge. Equality is misogyny.
I’ve been waiting for an open thread to put a pet theory (more a hypothesis, really) forward. I was thinking several weeks ago about the whole idea of women being treated like property before the advent of feminist influence on our culture. I was putting together something GirlWritesWhat said once with one of Dalrock’s blog posts and perhaps something from Typhon Blue, but I no longer remember what came from whom, nor where the relevant posts or videos are. The gist of it was that it is all projection.
Mothers are more likely to try to prevent their children from doing dangerous things because they are fragile and easily injured, while fathers are more likely to have a higher threshold of danger for their children but enforce their rules much more strictly. Men, I believe, have a higher tolerance for risk in general than women do.
So if a mother loses sight of her children’s humanity/personhood, she is likely to treat them as objects to do with as she pleases, whereas a father is more likely to try to live vicariously through his children, because he will think of them as extensions of himself.
It’s always been pretty important to a woman to have nice things, not just because they’re nice, but because it meant some man valued her enough to give them to her (I am of course referring to the times when women didn’t earn money enough to buy anything significant for themselves…which means most of human history and prehistory). She can show them off to other people (perhaps especially other women) as an indicator of her worth to the man who gave them to her, and thus of her status in society. So children-as-objects remain important to her. They are, in a way, just another thing her man has given her to prove her worth. But if they become more trouble than they are worth to her, then she will have less trouble than a man might in justifying mistreating or (at the extreme) killing them.
A man, on the other hand, will see his children as his legacy. He will probably have tried to make a lasting mark on the world in other ways, but children are for most men the best bet for a certain kind of immortality. Even after he himself is gone, a part of him will live on in his children and grandchildren. This means that he would sooner kill himself than his children, but might have very little patience with their frailty or weakness. This is the kind of father that pushes his kids too hard in sports or school or whatever, and is never satisfied with their achievements. He shows up in stories (books, movies, television) a lot, perhaps because his children are the ones who push themselves to write stories that get published or filmed, in the hopes of finally earning his love.
Anyway, this whole women-as-property thing really comes down to female feminists thinking about what they would do if they had authority over the opposite gender and projecting that onto men, based purely on the kind of abuse of authority women are actually inclined to perpetrate on the people they do have authority over, namely children. It’s certainly not based on any observation of what men actually do.
I haven’t been able to come up with a similar analysis (if what I’ve written deserves that term) of how men actually do treat women or vice versa. I just don’t see any trends strong enough to justify the kind of gross generalizations I’ve indulged in above. I imagine there are good reasons for that. Thoughts?
Theodmann,
That hypothesis makes sense. Tara Palmatier would probably have something
to contribute.
I have a question about recent online-MRA history.
A while back I saw people saying, shocked, that Matt Forney revealed himself to be Ferdinand Bardamu. Which seemed to be some sort of major revelation. But I don’t know who either of those people are, or why it matters.
I gather that Bardamu ran inmalafide, which was gone before I learned about the MRM. I heard that it was taken over by white supremacists, but I don’t know any details.
What was this all about, and what are the ramifications for today’s MRM?
EGR,
I didn’t really follow all of that, but the fallout seems to be that the tradcons, and that includes the white supremacists, basically got booted out of the movement. They carry on but no one calls them MRAs anymore except foam-flecked feminists.
This has been a process. Bernard Chapin and Paul Elam fell out over this issue and Elam, the anti-tradcon, won. The same thing happened a few years earlier at MensNewsDaily with someone guy operating, I forget his name now, out of Missouri, who fancied himslef a great fathers’ rights advocate working off a tradcon memplex.
That’s my take on it.
I haven’t posted in a long time because my translation work (hopefully soon to be published) left me without the time or energy to get involved in lengthy, often emotional debates, but I’ve been reading some pieces of feminist academia for a paper, and I’d like to bring them up with someone who isn’t a feminist academic or an engineer.
More specifically, I just finished Qingyun Wu’s ‘Female Rule in Chinese and English Literary Utopias,’ and I am completely at a loss to understand how anyone could possibly see the attitudes both of the author and of many of the feminist scholars she cites (mostly from either the late 19th/early 20th century or from the 1970s and 80s) as anything other than blatant chauvinism. Actually, the author’s ideological framework appears to cast (even extreme) female chauvinism (although not outright persecution of men) as acceptable, so that may be a moot point.
What really galls me is the constant references to ‘female values,’ ‘female principles,’ and ‘women’s ways of thinking.’ I have yet to see a convincing argument for what these actually are and why they should be considered uniquely ‘female’ beyond the usual hand-washing of all human social history and the attribution of all social ills to masculinity or to a male principle. It also boggles my mind that, even in 1995, anyone could write ‘feminism crosses social divisions to encompass all women in one oppressed class united against patriarchy’ (82) with a straight face.
There’s also the continual conflation of patriarchy with andrarchy, which cannot be conducive to understanding when one writes on a subject also treated of by anthropologists and sociologists, who generally employ the terms ‘patriarchy’ and ‘matriarchy’ in reference to their essential and original definitions relating to customs of inheritance, etc. There’s also a quotation from Steven Goldberg to the effect that it ‘makes no sense’ to explain patriarchy in a given social context in terms of that social context, but I can’t fairly judge that without having read the book it comes from.
On a related note, what do people here think of the purported progressivism/traditionalism of Flowers in the Mirror/Jing Hua Yuan as relates to women in Chinese culture? I personally am of the opinion that it cannot be said to advocate for social change to the extent that critics such as Hu Shi claim, and that its ‘liberation’ smacks of the fleeting, demarcated role-reversal characteristic of the liminal time of the carnivale.
Hey there, HFD! Been missing you!
“What really galls me is the constant references to ‘female values,’ ‘female principles,’ and ‘women’s ways of thinking.’
Poor Qingyun Wu, such pathetically outdated gender essentialism – her work has not stood up to the pasage of time very well. Most Feministe feminists would reject it.
“There’s also the continual conflation of patriarchy with andrarchy,”
Conflating patriarchy with andrarchy is the point of calling traditionalism “patriarchy” in the first place. That’s not some kind of lapse on her part.
” ‘feminism crosses social divisions to encompass all women in one oppressed class united against patriarchy’ (82) with a straight face.”
That’s a retread of Redstockings twaddle. Nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing valid.
Let me go get a little familiar with the other things you mention.
Okay, Flowers in the Mirror. I suppose you can say it’s feminist in its portrayal of a women’s country where women can do everything men do in the real world, a portrayal of egalitarianism, but modern internet feminsts woudl find something to criticize in its accpetance of gender roles as they stand, and just a simple flip=the-genders would not be enough of a reform for them.
Hu Shi lived in a time when feminism was quite primitive, and this vision would have looked progressive.
Ginkgo:
Actually, the ‘country of women’ episode is remembered primarily for its use of gender inversion to critique gender roles in Qing China, and particularly the practice of foot-binding. In a lot of ways, I’d say the country of women in Journey to the West represents a more positive model for what you’re talking about, especially as we might not even consider the rulers of the Country of Women in Flowers in the Mirror to BE women in contemporary gender discourse. Given that all of them we would tend to gender female identify themselves as male in speech, while all those we would tend to gender male refer to themselves as women, it is hard to say whether or not the country can really be considered to be ruled by women at all. Some people now might consider them all trans*, but I don’t think it really fits because this inverted association of sex and gender is normal in their society.
I was thinking more of the novels resolution with respect to the hundred flowers, and the ultimate outcome of the imperial examinations for women (i.e. titles without actual positions or administrative duties attached, followed by death, departure to a foreign land, ascension to a Daoist paradise or a return to idealized Confucian roles). I think Li Ruzhen can be said to sympathize with the situation of women in Qing China, but that those who attribute calls for any kind of real social reform to his work go too far.
Well it ususally takes tow or three times through those novels before all those connections become evident. Journey to the West is like that. Anyway, it’s going on my list.
Hi– since this is an open thread, I got a question about this CNN op-ed piece: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/opinion/chemaly-tech-leaves-out-women/index.html?iref=allsearch
It concludes with: “Twitter is one part of a male dominated social structure, economy and culture, all of which rely on cradle-to-grave sexism to be profitable.”
So if sexism is what “profits” rely upon, if there’s a reduction in sexism does that involve a reduction in profits? If one is making a sales pitch for sex equality to the corporate world, her concluding sentence would seem to be arguing for MORE sexism, not less.
It runs counter to the argument that firms would be MORE profitable if there were more gender parity, which is an argument she makes further up the article.
So I don’t really understand what she’s trying to say here. Companies are profitable BECAUSE OF sexism, but they’d be more profitable if there were LESS sexism? This seems hopelessly confused to me.
Also: Are profits good or are profits bad? Is she pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist? Being a lefty, I think some part of her reflexively wants to bash corporations. But at the same time, she wishes more women to be involved with these awful corporations. So does patriarchy reinforce capitalism or does patriarchy interfere with capitalism?
Sweet Jesus, what IS her argument? Can anyone help me out?
Tat’s written by Soraya “Only men can stop rape” Chemaly. No point in trying to make sense of it.
Tamen: It’s been put-out by CNN. That means it’s taken seriously.
And that’s a reason to question it.
I can’t dismiss it. It’s made my head spin.
I saw that on CNN, winced, but then the comments made me feel a bit better.
“It concludes with: “Twitter is one part of a male dominated social structure, economy and culture, all of which rely on cradle-to-grave sexism to be profitable.”
Soraya the Whiner. she is a ball of perpetually frail, dainty, whiny toxic femininity.
If Twitter is so sexist, why then don’t feminists boycott it?
It reminds me of the radfem academic who called language a “phallocratic construct”. Well if it’s so phallocratic, why don’t you boycott it and SHUT THE FUCK UP?
How is twitter sexist?
Because there are men on it?
Basically. Same goes for the whole damned planet. Why don’t they boycott that too?
Speaking of which, don’t miss “Gravity”. We went and saw it last night. It’ll be on Netflix before long. It has a really good man-saves-women sequence in which the only reason it’s the man saving the woman rather than the other way around is that she’s the one likeliest to survive, a simple utitlitarain decision. The rest of it is good too, a triumphant survival/rebirth theme without a bunch of heavyhanded you-go-grrl BS.
typhon: her gripe in her op-ed piece is that Twitter doesn’t have any women on their board of directors.
And my problem was that I didn’t see how her concluding line fits-in logically with the rest of her argument: that profits depend upon sexism while arguing further up the page that reduced sexism supposedly increases profits.
I also can’t tell if the author is pro-capitalist or anti-capitalist or an incoherent mix of both based upon the convenience of the argument du jour.
Aych; I think you do know which of the options apply.
Tamen: I certainly have my suspicions, but I sometimes need to bounce my ideas off of other people before I’m certain about my conclusions.
For the life of me, I honestly think that feminists fail to grasp the nature of business organizations on a very fundamental level. Not the least of which is the utter fallacy that male-dominated organizations necessarily favor the men inside and/or outside of them. Furthermore, they have a weird attitude: they instinctively distrust corporate types, but have an almost naive trust that female corporate officers will always do the Right Thing.
Does Twitter function due to sexism (male dominated board! Profits depend on sexism!) or is it dysfunctional due to sexism (fewer women = fewer profits!)? I honestly can’t tell.
And check this out: “Gender diversity at Twitter, as elsewhere, isn’t a priority because people make reasonable decisions about what they believe will be profitable and successful…” she says.
But she earlier says:
“Venture capitalists are less likely to invest in startups if there are women involved in their management; investors actively reduce holdings in companies that appoint female directors. These are particular ironies since women-run startups use 40% less capital to launch…”
Oho, so the distribution of capital is a bunch of unreasonable, sexist, discrimination-based decisions and not “reasonable” ones driven by concern for profit. Which is it?
I really like this piece by Rachel Haywire, which criticizes the ‘women in tech’ narrative in the blogosphere.
https://t.co/69Q71aqu6e
First of all, it meant that Forney/Bardamu became a joke for a lot of people because he made a such a big deal about how he was leaving the man-0-sphere.
For the MRM, it was just the final nail in the coffin for the separation of the man-0-sphere and the MRM. By the time of the reveal, the MRM and the man-0-sphere hated each other. The MRM wanted nothing to do with the conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, traditionalists, and PUAs that made up the man-0-sphere. The man-0-sphere considered MRAs losers who were permanently virgins. Even Paul Elam had long since said Adios to the man-0-sphere which probably goes double now since Elam had defended Bardamu while Bardamu/Forney was attacking Elam under his Forney ID.
It’s a good thing for the MRM since all the sane men are the MRM, and all the kooks are in the man-0-sphere. The problem is that it’s convenient for the enemies of the MRM to smear the MRM and the man-0-sphere together. Recently, I have read articles where Return of Kings, a man-0-sphere website run by RooshV (who has written that MRAs are losers who can’t get laid) is a MRA website and that Forney (who has called MRAs “permavirgins”) is a MRM writer. The MRM still has to deal with the man-0-sphere’s stink.
Twitter was founded by men and all the early investors were men. That’s why there are no women on the board. It’s really that simple. Asking for a woman to be put on the board is basically saying that women should get all benefits such a position brings without any of the risks.
A much more logical campaign would be to encourage women to invest more in startups.
P.S and that stat regarding women startups having less capital is a prime example of selective evidence and “conspiracy theory thinking”. A more sensible explanation is that a new cupcake business needs less startup capital than a tech company with massive overheads like servers etc.
Why do those with influence (mainstream media, the government etc) take feminists seriously when they come out with crap like this?
Aych,
“For the life of me, I honestly think that feminists fail to grasp the nature of business organizations on a very fundamental level.”
Most of them have no experience with business. Most of them are either academics or students or perma-students, or they are activist organzers whose whole experience of finance is wangling for grant money. They are as clueless about business as busieness people are of governance. When you put a businessman in charge of a war, or two, you get the Cheney farce. Same thing with these feminists.
Black Pill, welcome! And thanks for that very insightful post on the MRM-Manosphere dynamic.
Lol, speaking of cupcakes the guardian has an article on how sexist cupcakes are:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/18/trouble-with-cupcakes
from article: “They’re not just cakes: like any cultural artefact, they have implicit values baked in. And the values I see in cupcakes are of a demeaning, self-trivialising sort of hyper-femininity.”
rofl, you can’t make it up!
I finally girded my loins and wrote about Hugo. I figured it was safe to go back in the water, by this point.
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-aa-ballad-of-hugo-schwyzer.html
I thought about posting this on a feminist open thread, and realized I’d better not. They would consider me too nice to him, probably.
So here it is. Comments welcome, no personal insults (of me) if you please.
Yall gonna do a piece on that ABC 20/20 segment on the manosphere? Has anyone else responded yet? My take: You guys are gonna get to that unpleasant stage wherein purges/excommunications will be necessary; you need to get a serious grip on the men who physically threaten feminist writers. After that happens, all credibility is gone and it hurts your cause. Much of the show’s segment focused on that phenomenon to the exclusion of all else, and downplayed the rest of the movement.
In moderation. Or am I banned? Can’t remember. (I’ll just add it to the list)
If so, sorry I tried to post, it was not an aggressive act.
“Or am I banned?”
No. Welcome back. If I happen to wet you down when a catfight starts, try to remember I was aiming at the cats and not you.
“You guys are gonna get to that unpleasant stage wherein purges/excommunications will be necessary;”
A lot of that has already happened. the breach between the MRM and the manosphere is complete – insults all around, anathemas and denunciatiosn. irrepaable breach. high time too.
“you need to get a serious grip on the men who physically threaten feminist writers”
That has to happen but the subject is bigger than that. The MRM needs to shine a light on false-flaggers calling themselves men threatening feminist writers. All the threatening needs to stop, and that will require EXPOSING them.
I have to run go look at oyur article on Hugo. When I heard he was a narcissist, diagnosed and in therapy, it all fell into place. I still have no use for his man-hating stuff, or for his woman-hating presumption that women need his protection, but I cannot bring myself to hate him personally. What a living hell it is to live as a narcissist.
Gingko, thanks!
Yeah, I actually thought the piece on AVFM (“we hardly knew ye”) about Hugo was one of the fairer ones.
Its interesting that I was skeptical of Hugo from the beginning, not as a feminist per se, but as somebody who knows about recovery… i.e. I knew that all that blabber of his was no good (for him). I knew he was headed for trouble, but as I said in the piece, people in recovery are “not supposed to judge” each other.
Doubtless if I’d written a post titled, “HUGO, YOU ARE GOING TO GET DRUNK, DUDE!” — everybody woulda been mad about that too.
Yay, Daisy’s back!
I think I missed whatever happened to stop you posting, but it’s been too quiet since then.
How’ve you been?
Hi, BP; I follow your stuff, but I don’t always have the background to decipher the inside baseball.
It sounds like the MRM and the man-o-sphere (PUAs?) used to be more friendly, but they’ve since learned that they don’t really have much in common, is that right? And that Bardamu’s inmalafide was one of the last man-o-sphere sites that MRM-types were willing to link to? And now that it comes out that Bardamu is Forney, it’s clear how little love there really was there.
Was there any MRM content at inmalafide, or were they just the (seemingly) least offensive fellow travelers? (This last one is an open question for anyone who went there, not just BP.)
“you need to get a serious grip on the men who physically threaten feminist writers.”
We can’t get a grip on something we’re not doing.
These are allegations with no evidence. In fact the very same trolls who “physically threaten feminists”–actually they aren’t physical threats for the most part unless you consider hyperbolic satire or passive aggressive wishing to be physical threats–troll men’s rights activists and essentially everyone as well.
You’re not banned. But you will be moderated if a fight breaks out.
TB, one of my comments is still in moderation.
Me, fight?
Why whatever do you mean? (comics fans may recognize this as something Veronica used to say to Betty in the Archie comics; later Susan Dey said it to David Cassidy on THE PARTRIDGE FAMILY all the time) Speaking of which, Mr Daisy is watching “Arrow” on DVDs and I looked up that blonde co-star, thinking, where have I seen her before? Good God!!! You want OLD? It’s DAVID CASSIDY’S DAUGHTER! (My teen idols now have daughters as old as mine and that somehow just doesn’t seem right, now does it?) She is his spittin image, as we say in these parts. How odd that she seemed so familiar, but as my husband said, I *did* stare at his face for years, pasted on my wall. 🙂
Hi, Adiabat! I’m pretty good, but I’ve missed the nasty Lenny Bruce-level satire of this place, so I am back. I miss my grandfather! (the satirical one)
Oh, an open thread. I’ll bring this up here then.
There’s an brand of beer in Texas called “Dallas Blonde”. They’ve started marketing it under the slogan “goes down easy”, with a picture of a cartoon blonde girl. Obviously, this is a sexual pun. One might expect this to be criticised for being sexist (assuming a male customer), or the usual guff about sexual imagery dehumanising women. But one feminist blogger says it “fuels the acceptability of rape culture in our society”.
Here’s one example of the story, with a link to the original blog post.
Rape culture. Where is there even any hint of rape in this? Any suggestion of lack of consent, or force, or coercion, or even getting her so drunk you can take advantage of her? The only way you can see rape in this is if you’re so immersed in feminism that everything sexual looks like rape. As I’ve said before, if there is a rape culture, one that normalises and trivialises rape, feminism itself is that culture.
But I’m more and more coming to the conclusion that “rape culture” is simply the latest iteration of the old slogan “all men are rapists”. The message they’re trying to get across is the old Brownmiller one that even those of us who don’t rape are still complicit in and responsible for rape, and they’re desperately searching for a palatable form of words that’ll make that stick. “Schroedinger’s Rapist” didn’t catch on. “Teach men not to rape” is having some traction. But “rape culture” is vague enough, indirect enough and deniable enough that it seems to be the most successful.
Interestingly enough, by the time the story makes it’s way to the Washington Times, the beer has been renamed “Dumb Blonde”. We just have to find that sexism, even if we have to make it up.
@EGR
More or less. The man-0-sphere started out mainly as a PUA phenomenon. MRAs regarded PUA as a personal interest, so to a MRA there were no automatic reason to oppose the PUAs. It’s not like MRAs were against the idea of guys getting laid (although the PUAs of the man-0-sphere are getting laid less than I am) even though that charge is leveled against MRAs on a regular basis. The MRAs didn’t care about PUA one way or another. When the PUAs realized this, they started attacking the MRAs because the PUAs were only in MRM spaces to look for new customers for their books, DVDs, and other products they were selling.
While this was happening the PUA side was attracting the conspiracy theorists, white supremacists, traditionalists, etc. The PUAs in the man-0-sphere aren’t regular PUAs. They’re the rejects of the PUA world, the racist PUAs, traditionalist PUAs (yes, that actually exists), etc. I have actually had regular PUAs come to my blog and support me because despite my opposition to PUA/game, they want nothing to do with the man-0-sphere variant of PUA even more.
All of this continued to push both sides apart until we have the complete separation we have now.
Truthfully, there was probably very little MRM content at inmalafide. What happened with inmalafide was that it started as Bardamu/Forney’s personal blog which wasn’t that offensive at the beginning. He also made inmalafide popular by link whoring which made him a nexus between MRM, PUA, etc. Any MRAs that were linking to him were probably doing it more as reciprocal efforts to promote their respective blogs. (At one point Bardamu/Forney was even promoting my blog.) It was really the link whoring that kept MRAs linking to him, not any shared beliefs.
Then Bardamu/Forney changed inmalafide over to a multi-author website. That’s when it started going really down hill, and he eventually pulled the plug.
Do you actually have any proof that this is happening? No police reports have ever been filed about these things so it’s impossible to investigate them.
If this is actually happening, then the only people with information are the perps and the feminists, neither of which are going to provide MRAs or anyone with information. The perps wouldn’t obviously, but the feminists aren’t going to provide evidence that destroys their narrative about the MRM making death threats against them.
If there are death threats going on, the likely culprit is 4chan or some group like it. I suspect the feminists are aware of this but would never reveal it because, like I said, it destroys their narrative about the MRM.
@Patrick Brown, beer goggles let men rape with their eyes. http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22397085
It seems like a surprisingly number of femiinists are perfectly OK with online vigilantism outing/dox-ing people as long as it’s for a cause they approve of: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2013/10/18/is-anonymous-good-for-maryville/
(The comments, not the post where Filipovic argues against Anonymous’ hactivism)
DaisyDeadhead:
You speak of the segment as if it has been aired, has it? My understanding was that it was scheduled to air last Friday, but for some reason it got postponed/cancelled – I think it was on Reddit I saw this link: http://www.avoiceformen.com/allnews/abcs-2020-fails-to-broadcast-story-on-avfm/
Patrick,
“Rape culture. Where is there even any hint of rape in this? ”
They see phalluses everywhere. They are obsessed with the phallus. Shall we do a kickstarter to buy them a supply of dildoes so they can just be done with it?
Black Pill, I would very much like to look in at your blog. Send me the URL.
DDH,
Thanks for the headsup on the snagged comment. Going to check right now.
All – if ooyu see that show on the manosphere is going to be aired, let me know.
In the interest of disclosure, it should be pointed out that “The Black Pill” used to be known as “Omega Virgin Revolt”.
You might want to check his history. It’s not good. One could quibble whether he is misogynist(in my opinion he is), and he also has a history of accusing people of being part of a conspiracy all the while he rails against ‘conspiracy theorists’ in the manosphere.
DDH, I went and checked on your lost post and I can’t find it. Can you please re-post it maybe? I would count it as a favor.
@ Gingko
I got it out of the spam filter.
@ Clarence
Regardless of his previous history, he’ll be judged by his contributions/behaviour here.
Yeah, but Typhon:
I only brought up his background because Gingko didn’t seem to know who he was and I certainly didn’t call for censorship. Personally, I rather like ‘free for alls’.
And thanks, Clarence. I looked at his site and what was up there was fine by me. If the past is past, then it doesn’t matter. It’s the past that is still present that presents problems.
Ginkgo:
Well, it’s a blowjob pun, so there’s an implied phallus there. It’s the rush past “phallus” straight to “rape” that’s the problem.
It’s like that story about the Tufts university rowing team who got suspended for wearing t-shirts that said “check out our cox”, and the dean said the shorts “promoted aggression and rape”.
Again, a phallic pun. But somehow, reminding people of the existence of penises is equivalent to rape. The penis as a symbol of evil, basically.
patrick, that’s a good refinement on that point.
Hey, all – I saw last night on TV, can’t remember where, but aparently the Equal rights Amendment is back in play. Kee an eye out.
The first question is if this is the Equal Rights Amendment that came out in the 70s or the Unequal Rights Amendment that NOW put out a few years ago.
The second is, if it is in fact the actual Equal Rights Amendment, how much and how well can gender egalitarians push its accpetanace.
Tamen, the linkage is up, and I always choose to go the ABC website to read 20/20 instead of watch it (due to schedule conflict):
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/women-battle-online-anti-women-hate-manosphere/story?id=20579038
Its ALL a one-note piece. If it wasn’t aired, its a good thing. I mean, a piece that starts out “Deep in the underbelly of the Internet is a hidden corner known as the “Manosphere”— a collection of websites, Facebook pages and chat rooms where men vent their rage and spew anti-women rhetoric.” … I would consider too biased even for MY radio show, you know?!
Did I get moderated or did I close my browser window out before hitting submit? Its late so either is possible.
I’m guessing I closed the window. Silly me.
I crossed paths with Peter Nolan last night at my place.
http://dannyscorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/2013/10/to-my-fellow-mras-justice-not-revenge.html
I think a couple of my comments got stuck in the spam filter. Can you dig them out?
Black Pill:
Anyone referring to 4chan as ‘a group’ clearly needs to lurk more. /b/ goes in for DDS attacks and mountains of spam sometimes, but a campaign of open threats wouldn’t strike them as humorous enough to garner support as a raid, and they aren’t politically active/unified enough when it comes to anything that doesn’t affect the status of the internet itself to do it for ideology. /v/ might have the unity of opinion to get behind some kind of action, since most of them hate internet feminism for reasons related to video games, but they’re also fairly vocal in thinking anyone who makes physical threats is a counterproductive idiot; suspect them if feminists start reporting people emailing them lots of images of Descartes. The only board that might actually go in for something like what you’re talking about is /pol/, but they’re too busy feuding with the whole rest of the site and would would pull a stunt related to race before one related to gender.
Patrick:
Zardoz governs public gender discourse. No one has a silly enough diaper to stop him.
Also, that ad thing reminds me of the crazy woman who comments on XSEED Games’ Twitter. When they announced they were translating Senran Kagura (a game about schoolgirl ninjas with enormous breasts created by a man who famously wrote ‘Tits are life, ass is hometown’), she kept posting messages saying that the game was supporting rape culture, despite containing no rape, no sex, and pretty much no men. When asked to explain, her only response was a link to Anita Sarkeesian’s Twitter feed. This is odd, because to my knowledge not even Sarkeesian has made any public statement to similar effect.
DaisyDeadHead:
I saw that it was a 1 minute clip on the page you linked to and I assumed that was a teaser for a upcoming show based on the length of the clip and not the actual show. The article read as an article on the general ABC website and not as a transcript of a show and it’s not located on the 20/20 shows webpages – hence why I asked.The 20/20 webpage (http://abcnews.go.com/2020) on ABC has no mention of this segment or this subject (MRAs, manosphere etc.) as far as I could see:
Black Pill thanks for the MRM history you gave in your comments above. That’s an awful like of internal conflict that separates the various types that feminists love lumping altogether at MRAs. Funny how they ask where the internal conflict is but when it happens they are nowhere to be found.
Well now we can all just say “You can’t generalize about the MRM” and “That’s not my MRM”
Well Ginkgo that would work if it weren’t for a little thing called hypocrisy.
Feminists have really shown how they are more than happy to hold MRAs to a standard that they wouldn’t stand for if done to them. They call for MRAs to speak out against the vile of AVfM (which by the way seems to be the only MRA site they can ever think of) but when we do they are nowhere to be found.
I would disagree in one sense. When it comes to internal disagreement in feminism, all factions of feminism involved in such a disagreement identify themselves as feminist. The man-0-sphere OTOH does not identify itself as being part of the MRM. In fact, the man-0-sphere has a very strong stance against the MRM.
Lou is gone, yall… been crying all day long. 🙁
http://daisysdeadair.blogspot.com/2013/10/lou-reed-1942-2013.html
Here is one for the MRM.
All your two-bit psychiatrists
are giving you electroshock
They said, they’d let you live at home with mom and dad
instead of mental hospitals
But every time you tried to read a book
you couldn’t get to page 17
Cause you forgot where you were
so you couldn’t even read
Don’t you know they’re gonna
kill your sons
don’t you know gonna kill,
kill your sons
They’re gonna kill,
kill your sons
until they run, run, run, run, run, run, run, run away
Mom informed me on the phone
she didn’t know what to do about dad
Took an axe and broke the table
aren’t you glad you’re married?
And sister, she got married on the island
and her husband takes the train
He’s big and he’s fat
and he doesn’t even have a brain
They’re gonna kill your sons
don’t you know they’re gonna kill, kill your sons
Don’t you know they’re gonna kill, kill your sons
until they run away
Creedmore treated me very good
but Paine Whitney was even better
And when I flipped out on PHC
I was so sad, I didn’t even get a letter
All of the drugs, that we took
it really was lots of fun
But when they shoot you up with thorazine on crystal smoke
you choke like a son of a gun
Don’t you know they’re gonna
kill your sons
don’t you know they’re gonna kill,
kill your sons
Don’t you know they’re gonna kill,
kill your sons
until they run, run, run, run, run, run, run away
PS: I always heard the line as “he’s big and he’s flash/and he doesn’t even have a brain”… however, my ex husband thought it was “he’s big and he’s fast/and he doesn’t even have a brain”… you can decide for yourselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6NIu-pPcks
Black PIll:
I would disagree in one sense. When it comes to internal disagreement in feminism, all factions of feminism involved in such a disagreement identify themselves as feminist. The man-0-sphere OTOH does not identify itself as being part of the MRM. In fact, the man-0-sphere has a very strong stance against the MRM.
I should have been more clear.
What I was trying to say is that feminists are quick to point out that there is conflict amongst themselves but somehow when it comes to those they lump together as MRAs (even if they themselves don’t ID as such) they ignore any internal conflict.
In other words how can you say that Forney, RooshV, Elam, TyphonBlue, Dean Esmay, Warren Farrell, GirlWritesWhat, Peter Nolan, Angry Harry all MRA but then ignore the fact that some of these people often have knock down drag out disagreements with each other and say that they never criticize each other?
Especially when RooshV says that MRAs are all sexual losers, and Peter Nolan says MRAs are secretly working for the government and the Illuminati. On top of that there is additional conflict between the MRM and the man-0-sphere because in many ways the man-0-sphere is a marketing scam to sell useless junk.
It’s a well known fact that women who speak out about gender issues on the internet will receive a wave of hate comments. There have been a number of cases where people have suspected that the target has invited the flood of shit on purpose. There have been a few incidents where this has been confirmed.
Is anyone keeping track of these sorts of things? Like when people say “there are no false rape accusations”, people just point them to the Duke Lacrosse team (or a few others) and force them to revise back to “very rare.” It would be nice to have some canonical incidents of feminists providing their own abusive comments. (or other false flag behaviors.)
@EGR: not specifically the internet, but there’s http://ioncehadafeministtellme.tumblr.com/ on the sidebar of GendErratic’s homepage.
EvilGreenRanger:
I know there’s at least an infographic in circulation about the Meg Lanker-Simons University of Wyoming thing where a woman posted anonymous rape threats against herself and then made a big fuss about it in order to make the administration do what she wanted.
Hiding:
I heard about that one. I also heard about a gay rights activist who beat herself up and tried to claim it was a hate crime, for the purpose of drawing sympathy to her cause. (With friends like these, who needs enemies.)
Basically, it’s not unheard of for social justice warriors to invent violent opposition whole cloth if it suits their purposes. I’m wondering 1) How common that is, and 2) Is there some way we can capture that to deflate the argument every time someone claims the internet/world is full of rape and death threats?
(And, I guess if people had links to reporting on these incidents from sources that wouldn’t immediately be discounted as MRA-tainted sources.)
EGR: You could try an analysis of the ‘everyday sexism’ site. As far as I can tell for every genuinely shocking entry there’re a hundred that are basically teenage girls moaning about how a boy was mean to them.
” As far as I can tell for every genuinely shocking entry there’re a hundred that are basically teenage girls moaning about how a boy was mean to them.”
The Ophelia Complex. In this narcissisitic age, it’s a common afflcition.
EGR,
” I also heard about a gay rights activist who beat herself up and tried to claim it was a hate crime, for the purpose of drawing sympathy to her cause. (With friends like these, who needs enemies.)”
That’s not uncommon either. we had a case like that a few years ago here in Tacoma. A couple of lesbians and their male roommate staged some vandalism on their place and called it a hate crime. The motivation was quite vague – i.e. not for the insurance pay-out. So not so vague after all. Victim cred is a pearl beyond price.
Oh Hai Open Thread. I saw this:
(Now you can find that and triangulate my real identity. have fun, if you’re into that sort of thing.)
We talk a lot about how men are locked in a social box, and part of that box is “be stoic”. Has there been an opening of the box? Slow, perhaps, but is it real? (And can we expect Feminists to crow about how they supported this change, so they really do work for mens’ benefit?)
I’m too young to say. But it’s an interesting question. Can those who are old enough to remember JFK speak to this change?