 |
| Judy Chicago brings vagina to the table. Via lolvantgarde |
American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children. ...
American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.
So yeah, it's pretty much the standard-issue anti-American woman crap. And for the most part the posts so far -- little missives (allegedly) from different guys explaining why they hate American gals -- haven't been terribly imaginative.
But there are occasional sparks of wonderful nutbaggery. Like the little word-portrait evoked here by John from USA:
So many American woman seem to think that all they need to do is bring their vagina to the table and that I will just give them whatever they want
Vagina? Table? Paging Judy Chicago!
In case you were wondering, ladies, John assures us all that he does "not have a small penis!" But too bad, ladies, he's taken.
A post from someone named James laments that American women have become
a spoiled, non compassionate sex that I have seen de masculinate their spouses
Mark from the USA, meanwhile, seems to have something of a hair fetish:
Many foreign women have much nicer body shapes, more feminine traits and a lot still have nice long hair, opposed to the boyish low-maintenance short cuts that most American women get by their mid to late teens and never grow back.
Damn those hair-cutting sluts! Also, Mark seems like he's really not into the whole "communication" thing.
I'm looking for a foreign spouse too, and would NEVER accept an American woman. I don't even care what country she's from or if we speak a mutual language. In fact, I'd probably be happier with her if we couldn't even understand each other, than some American bitch constantly nagging and ragging at me in English.
I don't think I'll be boycotting American women any time soon. But I'll be coming back to this blog for sure.
Speaking of fetishes, David... From my perspective, your affinity for actively seeking out what you consider to be misogynistic filth -- while ostensibly intended to combat misogyny by exposing it -- seems itself to be a fetish of yours, like you're fascinated by it, even attracted to it. I know you've expressed disgust against some of the posts that you've criticized, for example saying that you need to wash your brain with mind bleach. But you keep coming back and seeking it out. Then you project judgment onto others, associating their political beliefs with the misogyny that has so thoroughly transfixed and captivated you. Captivated... what an appropriate word.
ReplyDeleteAre you really on a mission to rid the blogosphere of misogyny, or are you slowly becoming more infected by it?
You can be interested in something without wanting to become that something. Some people spend their lives studying slime molds. That doesn't mean they want to become slime molds. At least not usually.
ReplyDeleteAlso: MRAs spend a LOT of time obsessing about feminism (without actually knowing anything about it). But I don't think that mean's they're secretly feminists.
I like the long hair comment. It reveals his mind set that the only wants are his wants, and any woman who does something against his wants does so in deliberate defiance of his wants.
ReplyDelete@David:
ReplyDeleteThe word in the "manosphere" is that BoycottAmericanWomen is a feminist farce...
Notice its initials are "BAW" - i.e. crying...
Also notice that the names seem to be very unimaginative
Bob, John, Sam, Doug, James, Mark - they are all male names - but excessively "typical" - which lends their credibility to some scrutiny.
You could pick 6 random people from where I work - and the only typical name you might come up with is well - David - no pun intended - he sits across from me...
Notice the horrid spelling on the site as well - was it written by a 12 year old? Somebody who is mentally ill?
hmmm...
I question the credibility of that entire blog.
The thing about "BAW" is that it sounds no different from real comments I've seen on MRA sites over the years. I mean maybe it's a feminist farce, as they've been promoting the site on comments on feminist blogs, but maybe they're just trying to get attention and think they're brave and never-heard-before stance will just automatically enrage feminists. Most of the responses I've seen to it on feminist blogs have been laughter and variations of "thank you, boycotters, one less douche in the dating poo!" with a smattering of mentions that is this attitude is about "importing" spouses from poor countries it can pose a real danger for the "imported" in that the entire relationship begins on a massive power imbalance both legally and culturally.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that someone ("Mark") would want a partner they can't even communicate with is just too childish for words. If you find hetero relationships so fantastically difficult that you would rather marry someone you can't communicate with, the problem is *absolutely* on your end. I mean...really?
their brave! multitasking makes for poor grammar and weird sentences
ReplyDeleteScarecrow: You know, I saw a few comments to that effect somewhere. The fact is that everything posted on that site is pretty much identical to things being said on MGTOW sites every day. If anything, the comments are LESS crazy than much of the stuff I find on MGTOW sites.
ReplyDeleteThe names aren't really a red flag to me; I assume that he just gave them fake names to protect anonymity. (Somehow I doubt you're really named Scarecrow either.)
But I do wonder where exactly he's getting these statements, which is why I put the word "allegedly" in my post. They may be fake. He may be writing them. Though they aren't all written in the same style, which makes me think there's a good chance they're real.
That said, I think there's precisely zero chance the site is being put up by feminists to make MGTOWs etc look bad. There would be no reason for it. As anyone reading my blog knows already, there's stuff that is much much worse on many MGTOW sites, much of it written by people with such long track records of comments and posts that they couldn't possibly be feminist shills.
There was actually a discussion on a feminist blog I read sometimes about how the comments from the Marina are a huge fake red flag. One of the women commenting on the blog -- I think it was Feministe -- is married to or in a partnership with a Marine and immediately called foul on a Marine calling himself a "soldier" rather than a Marine.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, I've read these kinds of comments on MRA/MGTOW sites plenty of times. It's probably just one weirdo who's made up comments to make it seem like the site is more than just him airing his grievances.
Is this person the same one who's behind the Blogspot site "I Hate White Women"?
Marine! Not Marina! Yeegad I am going to have another coffee before I comment again.
ReplyDeleteMy real name is ScareCrow.
ReplyDeleteMy real name is Richard - I use it on the SpearHead.
Yup - that's right "Richard" on "The Spearhead". Troll away David.
You could also get this info from my blog - I mention my name several times - and some comments do as well.
@M:
I think that in the future, MARINA might actually apply - aren't they gonna let gays in?
Would a gay Marine be called a MARINA?
Do you know the muffin man?
Most people only fake it at hating. I mean, just look at me. I built a whole internet machine to house my hatred.
ReplyDeleteOh hey, I noticed your site's not giving me CAPTCHAs anymore. Did you set up a filter or something so that trusted users don't have to put them in or something, David? If so, nifty.
ReplyDelete1)MRA or feminist agent provocateur is a false dichotomy. He might simply be an attention-starved moron with a sock-fetish
ReplyDelete2)Sorry to inform you scarecrow, but there's already gays in the Marines. They're called Marines.
Deezee, since posters here need to be registered, I figure the captcha isn't really necessary, so I've turned it off.
ReplyDelete@David Futrelle:
ReplyDelete"You can be interested in something without wanting to become that something. Some people spend their lives studying slime molds. That doesn't mean they want to become slime molds."
But an idea is far different from a physical substance. For example, a fungus that you were studying could be harmful if it escaped its petri dish and entered your lungs. But an idea can leap right off the page of a book or a Web site and travel straight into your mind -- infecting it instantly but undetectably.
Recently I watched a video on National Geographic about a psychological experiment that was designed to study the effects of prison confinement. It was known as the Zimbardo experiment (see video or Wikipedia article). The test subjects consisted of volunteers who allowed themselves to be incarcerated, and volunteers to acted as guards. During the experiment the "guards" became abusive toward the "inmates," and the inmates became aggressive and disrespectful toward the guards. Even the director of the study found himself strolling through the jail with his hands folded behind his back as he walked, which he later realized was his own unconscious way of projecting authority. His curiosity and thirst for knowledge had become eclipsed by his own psychological vulnerability, and the experiment had sucked in even him.
You too can be infected by all of these Web sites and blog comments that you are seeking out. Your own mind can be more vulnerable to the power of a corrosive idea compared to a corrosive substance, precisely because you think that the idea is harmless to you.
You being infected by an idea is bad enough. But the worst part of it all is that you might take the infestation that you invited into your own mind, and turn it around in the form of an accusation against others as though they somehow personify the filth that became your fetish. How could you have sufficient perspective to know for sure that this hasn't already happened to you?
"I think that in the future, MARINA might actually apply - aren't they gonna let gays in?
ReplyDeleteWould a gay Marine be called a MARINA?
Do you know the muffin man? "
Scarecrow, you disgust me.
Speaking as a Marine, we generally just call gay Marines, you know, gay. The "less tolerant" redneck types use more colorful terms. I'm sure your imagination can provide them.
ReplyDeleteCome on David, this is hardly representative of MRA's Why don't you ever have anything to say about the majority of MRA articles.
ReplyDeleteEvery movement has its extreme ends. Even I express anger sometimes. Try finding some on my blog REBUKINGFEMINISM.BLOGSPOT.COM.
Can you find anything?
Hmmm I also wonder why you focus on specific people and comments and not the message of Men's and Father's Rights itself.
ReplyDeleteYour blog is entertaining but I get the distinct impression that you are trying to discredit the issues and concerns that men and boys face. Is this true? I would like to see you engage these issues directly.
There's been a few times where he has engaged major MRA sites directly. It's been about October, I think, since the last time he did though.
ReplyDeleteI've broadened the focus of this blog to misogyny in general. That's what I'm interested in writing about, and so that's what I write about. Sometimes the people I write about are MRAs, sometimes they aren't -- or at least I have no way of knowing whether they consider themselves MRAs or not.
ReplyDeleteThat's the case with the guy I'm writing about here, and because of that you'll notice that I don't refer to him as an MRA and there is no MRA tag at the end of the post.
I have taken on MR issues directly in the past, and will continue to do so, on my own schedule. But, you know, it's my blog, and I write about what I want to write about, not what MRAs want me to write about. You are free to ignore the blog if you.
If you look in the "further reading" list in the sidebar, you will see some guides to some major MR issues and links to people who have written about them in more detail.
M said: I've read these kinds of comments on MRA/MGTOW sites plenty of times.
ReplyDeletehttp://boycottamericanwomen.blogspot.com/
This blog has nothing to do with the MRAs.
It's likely related to these many US-men/foreign women internet dating websites.
Its content is like a copy/paste of (edited) comments from members introducing themselves when signing up with international dating websites. I do not think, they are fakes.
M said: "importing" spouses from poor countries
Many foreign spouses are not poor. And I would be careful to consider USA as a 'rich' country for everybody.
Plenty of US-citizens are living on social welfare, are jobless, homeless or in jail etc.
M said: Is this person the same one who's behind the Blogspot site "I Hate White Women"?
Not sure.
Not all American women are 'white women'.
Foreign spouses are not necessarily 'Asians' either.
I said nothing about America being a country in which all people are rich, nor did I imply that all American women are white. The two websites had similar language. You seem to be a master at drawing baseless conclusions from comments--it's actually almost impressive!
ReplyDeleteMy comments about foreign spouses and power iniquity were specifically about the phenomenon of men seeking spouses from *relatively* disadvantaged regions, spouses who are seeking to find greater opportunity in the *relatively* advantaged West, and I thought that was pretty clear. I am not talking about all instances of people marrying across nationality, obviously.
David Futrelle said...
ReplyDeleteI've broadened the focus of this blog to misogyny in general. That's what I'm interested in writing about, and so that's what I write about.
It would be interesting to hear your definition of 'misogyny'.
As far as I understand the meaning of this word, misogyny means to hate ALL females.
However to say, foreign women only, this is not misogyny.
To be against feminism is NOT misogyny either.
Somehow I think that someone hating every natural born woman in his country and in the whole English speaking world still counts as misogyny.
ReplyDelete"However to say, foreign women only, this is not misogyny."
ReplyDeleteAhahaha to say you hate American or Western women because they aren't servile enough and all the other reasons listed in that blog, and in the things I have seen you say on this website, is pretty much textbook misogyny. "I don't hate all women, just the ones who behave and think in ways that I don't want them to!" Yeah, good luck with that.
There is actually quite a lot of misogyny in being "against" feminism from what I've seen of your comments here. And considering that feminism's primary goal is the socioeconomic and political equality of women, I'd say blanket opposition to the entirety of the movement for womens human rights is pretty misogynistic.
I have problems with some aspects of feminism, with some individual feminist thinkers and/or their arguments and conclusions. But to be against the whole movement of human rights for half the planet's population? Yeah, outright misogyny.
http://omg.yahoo.com/news/hugh-hefner-84-engaged-to-playmate-24/53006?nc
ReplyDeleteHugh Hefner, 84, Engaged to Playmate, 24
(and no feminist will ever call her a loser...)
...considering that feminism's primary goal is the socioeconomic and political equality of women...
This is a joke, right?
Oh I'm sorry, was I supposed to cite the imaginary feminism you find it useful to rail against rather than the things I actually believe?
ReplyDeleteDavid Futrelle said...
ReplyDeleteSomehow I think that someone hating every natural born woman in his country and in the whole English speaking world still counts as misogyny.
Do you have any reliable source for that what you say?
You are writing about misogyny, and you do not know what this is and 'somehow you think...'?
Sounds somewhat childish to me to claim that a man who dislikes English speaking women is a misogynist. And what about a man who dislikes only French speaking women he is not a misogynist?
Or how else can I understand your comment about the 'whole English speaking world'?
from wikipedia:
According to sociologist Allan G. Johnson, misogyny is a cultural attitude of hatred for females because they are female
Michael Flood defines misogyny as the hatred of women and notes:
"Though most common in men, misogyny also exists in and is practiced by women against other women or even themselves.
Nowhere I see that the definition of misogyny applies to a man, who dislikes only women from his own country.
You are also missing the point as you obviously believe wrongly in the following feminist statements:
1 -
Complaining against unfair legal treatment of men in Western countries = hating Western women
2 -
Any statement against feminism, whatever = misogyny
----
Again, what is your definition of 'misogyny'?
Do you even have a clear opinion about what is misogyny and what is not?
Please redefine!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesaid...
ReplyDelete... the imaginary feminism ...
Feminism is the reality in our life, it is not imaginary, if you are in jail for false rape allegations or if you pay alimony 40 years after divorce to your ex-wife.
It's also not imaginary in my country to see women retired when they are less than 60 years old, and men have to work at least up to 65 years of age. 65 less 60 = 5 years difference, if you like math or not does not matter. And when I mention this difference I am a misogynist?
Ahaha god if you "dislike women from your own country", all women, you are a total misogynist. Do you know how many individual women that its you are saying you actively dislike, just by virtue of their...I don't even know how to finish this sentence, as there is no one way to categorize that many people, at all.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the general idea of not liking wide swaths of women because they do not behave the way *you* want them to behave is misogyny, is misogyny blinking in thousand-foot-high letters. Women are individuals and the fact that you do not like them unless they act in a way that pleases your expectations is as misogynistic as it gets.
If a person is in prison for false rape allegations that person is in prison because of a flawed justice system, not "feminism." Sorry to inform you but feminism is not what you think it is. Alimony is a court matter and again, is not "feminism." You keep talking about evil feminist countries with feminist laws, and yet...do you know how many women are in the US Senate? Like 17. There have been less than 40 in the entire history of the *nation.*
As for your retirement matter, I have been reading comments on this thread and people have argued that with you before and countered your arguments with logic that you completely ignored, so you can revisit those if you want my answer. You also, oddly, brought up life expectancy as if nature itself is a feminist plot.
Yohan:
ReplyDeleteReading your comments is like watching someone try to make toast with a curling iron. There's a certain avant-garde sort of artistry to it... and yet the entire thing is absurd and meaningless.
men like this don't just "hate the men from their own countries", or whatever. I'm not American, and neither are plenty of other feminists I know, but something tells me that dude won't like us, either.
ReplyDeleteYohan said...
ReplyDeletehttp://omg.yahoo.com/news/hugh-hefner-84-engaged-to-playmate-24/53006?nc
Hugh Hefner, 84, Engaged to Playmate, 24
(and no feminist will ever call her a loser...)
Wrong again Yohan. SHE IS A LOSER. There, I said it. If she's already going to pose naked for money she could probably make a decent living and get in a position to meet a man in the entertainment industry to marry for money that is not 84. So she is also stupid and lowest of the low. I'd rather go on welfare than be anywhere near his 84 year old, saggy, liver spotted balzack. Most women would say the same. Powder probably comes out when he ejaculates. Yep, she's a loser.
Great. Now I've got the image of Hugh Hefner shooting little puffs of powder out of his dick stuck in my head.
ReplyDeleteAlso, yeah, his new bride is a loser.
FWIW, I suspect that Hugh has about as much real interest in her as she has in him, which is to say none. He's 84. Even with Viagra, is he even interested in sex at this point? I think he's probably doing it for the publicity, to try to prop up his sagging image as a swinging playboy.
I'm amused by the idea of a "boycott". As if American women would react with anything other than relief to the news that these men were ignoring them.
ReplyDeleteAmerican women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don't know how to cook or clean, don't want to have children.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, "American women won't be perpetually beautiful slaves who will stay with me no matter how terrible I am! These bitches suck!"
I love how easy they've made it for us. The more of these assholes we have out of the general dating pool, the better.
Yohan, I have to say that hating on one group of women while holding up other women as exemplars certainly counts as misogyny. Particularly when the dream girl outlined on the site seems to be one who is less individualistic, more servile and who knows their place.
ReplyDeleteAs an Englishman, I have a soft spot for American women. I dated several and it was their smarts, their individualism, their assertiveness and self-confidence that attracted me. I suspect that these boycott losers would be horrified at the prospect of dates who would expect to be respected as equals.
I pity them.
So manginas and feminists, hows that racism and xenophobia going for yah?
ReplyDeletepercyprune said...
ReplyDeleteYohan, I have to say that hating on one group of women while holding up other women as exemplars certainly counts as misogyny.
Do you have any reliable source to support this statement or is this merely your own definition?
In general, misogyny is considered to be a dislike/hate against ALL females regardless their nationality, race or age, wealth or religion etc...
To prefer one woman to another, or to prefer a certain group of women to another cannot be seen as 'hate against all women'. Just my opinion.
Following your logic, misandry refers to a woman who prefers rich men to poor men, or a woman who rejects honest men with a regular job and prefers a life among thugs and drugs.
-----
A major concern for many Western men are less the women themselves, but existing pro-feminist laws of some certain countries.
To be concerned about a certain legal situation for sure cannot be classified as misogyny.
Any marriage/divorce in US/UK could be the financial out for a man over decades even in case of severe wrongdoings by a malicious woman.
MRAs recommend young men in these countries to remain single under any circumstances due to high risk.
About foreign women, all of them are exposed by feminists to be poor, submissive etc. by derogatory comments.
However, women living beyond the borders of Northern America and Europe are not all poor and submissive. That's for sure.
What I do not really understand when reading your comment is how you define poor, servile or less individualistic.
I suspect that these boycott losers would be horrified at the prospect of dates who would expect to be respected as equals. I pity them.
Why are they losers? Because they prefer to remain single?
A woman in USA/UK is NOT your equal. She is superior to you because you are only a man.
She has the legal power to harm you anytime, to ask for your arrest, to take away your property, or to spit in your face or punch you in the stomach, whatever she wants to do with you...all depends on her good or bad mood.
She can kick you out of your house and claiming alimony 30 years after divorce...
This is an equal?
AAAHAAHAAAHAHAAAAAA! This blog- and the recurring morons that comment- hilarious!
ReplyDeletedoctressjulia said...
ReplyDeleteAAAHAAHAAAHAHAAAAAA! This blog- and the recurring morons that comment- hilarious!
Is this your picture in this avatar?
Now I know why I prefer Asian women...
The boycott american women guys are ridiculous. They seem to be throwing a tantrum just because they've had bad experiences with a few women in the past.
ReplyDeleteBut really, other than being ridiculous and possibly misogynist, they're not much else. If some women said that all men are pigs, I wouldn't take them seriously for a moment. This is the same kind of pedestrian "I hate women" or "I hate men" crap that you find everyday.
What I do find more concerning though, is the shaming of individual's choices in the realm of sexuality (in this thread). I don't find the need to talk about older women as dried up, and I think doing the same thing to older men is equally insulting. Maybe at some point people will realize that cynicism and hypocrisy is out of style - and that being positive about other people - even people we don't like is much more productive.