Saturday, January 1, 2011

Murder and male resentment

Note: This post is about a blog post on the Men-Factor blog that has already inspired some discussions in the comments here

One of the most disturbing pieces of writing I've seen in the manosphere in recent days was actually written by someone who regularly posts comments here -- an engineer in Reno who calls himself Scarecrow, and who runs a blog called Men-Factor. (You may have noticed it in my "Enemies List" in the sidebar.) His blog posts are typically puerile "humor" pieces -- deliberately crude, and festooned with "wacky" pictures -- directed at feminists and the like: here's one example, a puzzling bit of japery entitled "Woman Purposely does Crossword Wrong; Hailed as Big Step for Women's Rights!"

But earlier this week, he posted something that left me simply appalled, a weird and angry attack on what he called in the post's title a "Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who 'Puts Out' for Physically Abusive Men" -- and who "is Missing and Probably Dead." Unlike the fictional crossword-puzzle bungler, the women in this post is a real person, a Las Vegas dancer named Deborah Flores-Narvaez, who in fact has been missing since December 12 and who may well have been murdered.

This post comes complete with wacky pictures and all, but it's essentially a rant celebrating the probable murder of Flores-Narvaez and the murder of "skanks" generally. Why? Because Flores-Narvaez was hot, was dating a man who may well have abused her, and because

she reminds me of those women who would brutally reject men ... when being approached. You know - the woman who makes a total scene and makes heads turn - but not at me of course.

Scarecrow puts these words in the mouth of a fictional commenter, but it is clear this is his feeling towards her as well.

Then, rehashing the tired mansophere myth that women only like dating thugs, he writes:

Most American woman are now happy that another psychotic man has once again joined the singles scene and could make them a potential mate and possibly as an extra bonus - a murderer too!

He ends the piece with the phrase "live and let SKANKS die" in big red letters, a twisted reference to the Paul McCartney song with a similar title.

There is of course no possible justification for any of this, but Scarecrow, having been told by some of his friends he'd shown the post to that he'd gone too far, tries to offer one anyway:

I was raised to have respect for all life. ... Perhaps I am turning into a sour old fart - but - I have seen crap like this way too often in my life - and it has actually bled over into my life on a few occasions  ...

I have met too many women like this - and - yes - been treated with hostility by them (or seen them treat other men like me with hostility) when no hostility was called for. Later of course - I hear stories about them getting beaten or killed by some psychotic dick-weed.

Do I still care?

NOPE.

From Men-Factor, Scarecrow's blog.
For the rest of this part of his rant, see the graphic on the right here, taken from his post.

Scarecrow then links to three blog posts relating events from his life that he says justify his attitude towards Flores-Narvaez  and other so-called "skanks."

The first link recounts what he rightly calls a "whale of a tale." In brief: One late night about a decade ago, Scarecrow was waiting in line at a grocery store when he noticed that the "incredibly beautiful ... busty brunette" in front of him in the line was buying the same odd assortment of items that he was. He made a remark to her about this, and, instead of laughing, as he had hoped, she snapped, and yelled at him. Which is, yes, one of the more likely outcomes you'll get when you try chatting up a young woman who likely gets hit on all the time when she is shopping by herself late at night.

All of which would be an unremarkable tale had it not been for what happened next: the woman was murdered, her head bashed in with a cinder block, later that night. The police, having heard from a witness who happened to know Scarecrow that he had been "arguing" with her in the grocery store shortly before she was killed, questioned Scarecrow about the incident. Naturally, this freaked him the fuck out, as it would anyone who found themselves facing questioning from cops in a murder case.  Having heard his story, they assured him he wasn't the real suspect -- her boyfriend was -- and moved on.

Remarkably, instead of feeling sympathy for the murdered woman, Scarecrow instead blamed her, and all women like her, for making his life more difficult:

Why is it that a guy like me gets yelled and barked at by an incredibly beautiful woman like this - and a guy that ends up bashing her face in with a cinder block gets laid - lord only knows how many times - or what kind of fun and exciting sex acts she performed on him? ...

This incident was a crucial turning point in my life. Not only was I not getting laid by these "mega-hottie" women, but they would go to extremes to be rude to me. And now, their f*cked up lives were seeping over into my own life. This pissed me off to no end. ...

Clearly, something is wrong with some modern western females. SERIOUSLY WRONG!

That's the conclusion he draws from all this?

The other stories Scarecrow cites as reasons for his rage against "skanks" are equally puzzling. One involves a male co-worker who sort-of-accused him of murdering a young woman named Brianna Denison.  Though the "accuser" here was male (as was, it turns out, the actual murderer), Scarecrow directs much of the anger in his post at, again, the murdered woman, whom he describes as a "f*cked up b*tch, who was too good to talk to any 'nice-guys.'" He also manages to work in a shot at the "heavy-set women" he saw in the TV coverage of a candle-light vigil for Denison:

Funny - since when do fat women care if a tiny woman drops off the face of the planet?

Oh wait - that's right - silly me. There's an awful lot of male-hatred that can be spread at such a thing, and of course - lots of money money money to be made. You can show everybody how much you cared about Brianna by donating money to various charities (CHA-CHING!), and remind everybody how ALL men are just beasts that want to rape and kill young women. HIP HIP HOORAY!

The other story involves -- long story short -- two Nazi skinheads he'd never even met who tried to blame him for drugs and weapons violations they'd committed. Seeing the skinheads for the first time at a pre-trial hearing, he directs his ire not at them but at their girlfriends:

The thing that pissed me off:

They [the skinheads] had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. ... I wondered: Why do ... losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and "square" do not get the time of day from such women?

Once again: men commit a crime, and Scarecrow directs his anger at women, random women he doesn't know -- for being, in his mind, the type of women who would probably turn him down.

To restate an obvious point I've made in other posts: no one (male or female) has the right to sex and/or a relationship with the hottie of their choice, and anyone who walks around hating not only those women who've rejected them, but also all the other women who remind him of these women, is going to have that hate curdle inside of him. Everyone gets rejected. Some more than others, but that's life. Life's unfair. Yeah, some women go for assholes over "nice guys." That's their business, not yours.

But let's pause for a moment on the issue of the "nice guy" -- as in, for example, the "nice guys" who Scarecrow imagines were being cruelly rejected by the murdered Brianna Denison. How "nice," exactly, is a guy who seethes with hatred of women because a relative handful of said women have responded negatively to his advances? If you blame and resent murdered women for inconveniencing your life, and celebrate the death of "skanks," here's the thing, and I shouldn't really need to say this: you are not actually "nice." You're a creepy, angry, misogynistic asshole. And most women can sense that a mile away.

NOTE: I have not decided what I should ultimately do about the issue of Scarecrow posting comments here. Anyone -- male or female, MRA or feminist -- who posts comments celebrating the death of innocent people will have these comments deleted and will likely be quickly banned. But Scarecrow has not posted any comments like that here, and I am inclined, at least for now, to allow him to continue to comment here and, in particular, to respond to this post.

142 comments:

  1. The truth is; if it was a male who went missing, Scarecrow and most people who are aware of this case would most probably not hear about Joe Blow who disappeared off the face of the planet.

    Just because she's a woman with good looks, it gets loads of attention. So much for the so called under privileged gender *cough*

    Are you familiar with the phrase "Missing white woman syndrome", David?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_white_woman_syndrome

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't apologize for keeping him around. I blogged about this when I saw Christine's comment yesterday, my first mra blog post, inspired by this blog. I'll be back later...to interject in the comments, there was so much to say about this guy's stupid post and sociopath reasoning, that I was overwhelmed. The bottom line is, he says his anger is based on the fact that he's a "nice guy"? Er, whut? Fail.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nick I found out about this from that dude's blog. But seriously how is that the point of this? Also do you have any links to stats of the missing and murdered men versus women in Nevada? Can you back up any implied claims here? It's very important that we have violence against sex workers on our national consciousness. It teaches us loads of lessons if thought about on any deep level, mainly how objectifying that type of work is, not to excuse male sociopath violence, but these women are susceptible to sociopath crime.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The truth is; if it was a male who went missing, Scarecrow and most people who are aware of this case would most probably not hear about Joe Blow who disappeared off the face of the planet.

    This doesn't really justify celebrating a pretty white woman's death. Blame the media for their morbid, sensational fascination with these kinds of cases, sure--I would agree with you. But don't blame the women themselves, especially in the case of Ms. Denison, who, as it turned out, was murdered by someone NOT her boyfriend, putting something of a chink in Mr. Scarecrow's worldview, it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It seems clear to me that if women are avoiding him, this is evidence against his theory that women seek abusive men. On the contrary, the hate and violence in his post is a big red flag, and I imagine women avoid him out of a desire for self-preservation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just because she's a woman with good looks, it gets loads of attention. So much for the so called under privileged gender *cough*

    So under-privileged, in fact, that she's DEAD. Remember? I'm fairly certain that all of the money donated by whomever isn't doing her any good.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ....so the thought that maybe she snapped at him because her boyfriend was a psycho and her life might not have been in a good place and she was just...wound fucking tight and he had nothing to do with her reaction or her death -never occurred to him?-

    Right.

    Let me let you all in on a little secret boys. Those of you who find the fact that a woman died and you had to deal with it in any way shape or form resentful, or rant worthy, or make up posts like this when women are missing..or any of the other creepy and flat out disgusting things that you say..

    Those are the reason women don't want you.

    Beyond that fact?

    No one is required to want you back. No one is required to take your proposal graciously, no one is required to be kind to you. You are not a special snowflake.

    There have been times, reading this blog that I am struck by the realization that these men...all these angry and pissy and stuck up asshole men..are furious at women, at -anyone- treating them like they treat others.

    Beautiful women turn them down. What about overweight? how about homely? I hazard a guess that you guys would be derisive if a fat woman hit on you.

    Bitches and Nags too much...but there are blogs..groups, forums..pages and -pages- bitching and ranting and gossiping about women and what they need to change.

    I seriously suspect, that if any of these men sat down and thought 'why does this -seriously- bother me' they would find at the root of it, an expectation of privilege unfulfilled.

    Too fucking bad.

    Just because you're a man white or not doesn't mean you are entitled to anything. Just like you are so quick to point out in others, you hold the same expectations and bad traits.

    You do not get a free pass. Grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  8. But April! the fact that she picked someone who would kill her over the creepy guy who writes scathing woman hating posts on the internet about those skanky whores who need to die...means she's privileged!

    wait....huh?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I used to walk in the woods a lot where Chandra Levy was eventually found. I probably passed within just a few dozen yards of her body at one point.

    I imagine if I had dropped a receipt or something, the police likely would have questioned me. This would have been awful, and potentially damaging to me. Worse still would have been the fact that, completely by coincidence, my wife was in preschool with her years ago, and completely by coincidence, I lived about two blocks from her gym, one of the last places she was seen alive.

    If police had found this stuff out, and concluded I was possibly involved, it would have been horrible, and wrong, and potentially could have led to a great injustice against me.

    But for me to have any animus toward Chandra Levy as a result of any of that would have been really, really bizarre. Wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  10. ....so two wrongs make a right? Only in Math Eoghan.

    You are only responsible for yourself. Just like each of us. We are the only people we have to answer to ultimately.

    I personally like having ethics and principles and not crowing at the misfortune and degradation of others. Perhaps it is your enjoyment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Eoghan (who keeps posting here): What about "you have been banned on this blog" do you not get? I even gave you yet another chance the other day and you abused it. Every comment you post here will be deleted as soon as I see it.

    Everyone else: Please ignore Eoghan.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eoghan, I don't think you're so bad as MRAs go, but seriously, you're making yourself look bad by continuing to post here. I personally wouldn't have banned you, but this is David's blog, not ours. If some MRA place banned me, I wouldn't keep hanging around like some sort of stalker. Just leave, man. I mean, it's not like David's gonna listen to you, right? Spend your time someplace else where it'll be more productive, seriously. There are better things you could be doing.

    ReplyDelete
  13. For those who haven't been posting here for awhile: Eoghan was banned here for repeatedly lying/misrepresenting what others had said, for endlessly posting the same things over and over (spamming), for derailing discussions with off-topic stuff, and generally disrupting discussions.

    Because I really don't like banning comments or people, I let him get away with this stuff for a long time. Before he was banned here he made literally hundreds of comments, more than any other commenter here in fact, even more than pretty prolific commenters like Yohan. Those comments still remain, if you want to go back and look at them in virtually any topic in the first couple of months of this blog. In other words, he's had plenty of opportunities to express himself on this blog.

    After seeing too many topics derailed by his antics, and after warning him several times that unless he shaped up he would be banned altogether, I banned him.

    Since Blogger doesn't allow blog owners to actually ban individual commenters, I simply delete his posts as I see them. Yet he continues to post here. I actually gave him another chance a little while ago, but he abused it, posting a really nasty attack, and so he is banned again.

    Please do not respond to his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  14. nicko81m, you realize that only a tiny percentage of women are young, beautiful, rich, and white enough for the media to salaciously report on (such a privilege) when they disappear, right?

    It seems like MRAs are absolutely obsessed with hot women and their supposed cruelty towards ordinary men. Do regular, everyday women (i.e. most women) even exist to these guys? Or do they just not count, since they're deemed insufficiently fuckable?

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I will never understand the complete lack of understanding of basic human nature that leads some guys to think women being short with them as a response to being hit on is some assholish, entitled, hateful behavior. If you find a woman attractive enough to hit on her while she's just going about her business at a laundromat or a grocery store or any of the places where *the business of life* gets done, imagine how often she is approached and how often this encroaches on her personal business, her personal time, her internal thoughts, her just going about her day. If you can't imagine what that feels like, imagine if every time you stopped for gas or popped into the grocery store or took your dirty underwear to the laundromat somebody nosily intruded on your life to demand things of you.

    The rest of this guy's post is just heinous and sickening.

    Nick, I hope you aren't attributing "missing white woman syndrome" to feminism because that would be the nuttiest thing I've read yet on this blog. That is the *opposite* of what feminists want to see in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  17. OK, look, no righteous minded MRA will ever say that woman deserved to die at the hands of anybody. Some might state (and rightly so) that she may have had some hand in her undoing and that there may have been things she said (in the heat of the moment) that likely should have been phoned in but she did not deserve to die.

    ReplyDelete
  18. People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities. This does not mean they deserve to die, but it is a message to those with personality traits that might get them killed (by anyone including the PO lice)

    ReplyDelete
  19. People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities.

    [citation needed]

    ReplyDelete
  20. One thing I hope this forum/community can accomplish is prizing apart the MRA/PUA guys who really do have fundamental unresolved anger toward women for their own reasons, and other guys who see a certain very simplistic approach to male/female relationships as having the power to save them from a world of awkwardness that has started to wear them down and make them think they will never have a fulfilling sex life.

    It would be fun to see a feminist man (PUAmangina.blogspot.com, anyone?) work out his own PUA system based on compassion and respect for women as people. There's nothing wrong with wanting to have sex with lots of different women. Sounds like a bit of a timesuck to me, honestly, but if that's your thing you should go for it! Women are great. Lots of them are really sexy.

    The problem is, if your approach assumes that women are silly and venal and easily manipulated, you will wind up with a lot of silly, venal, easy manipulated women. They exist! Human beings have their problems. But if you assume women are self-possessed and compassionate and interesting, those women are out there too. When you find one, you'll want to make your life intertwine with hers. It's a great journey! But you have to choose to begin that journey. No dream girl is going to suddenly appear and fulfill your fantasies.

    That's your job.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Any person who has been punched in the face for saying the wrong thing (me) knows that you can be harmed at any moment for saying or doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @iodineshuffle

    I apologize as I do not have the reference. I was told this by my sociology professor at the University of Western Ontario. I do not remember his name at this time but he told the class that it was his research and that he conducted it on men who were convicted of spousal homicide. He also told us that his findings were very controversial because they were perceived to find the victim at fault.

    Believe it or not, but I was actually there.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Raul,

    I got me one of those "self-possessed and compassionate and interesting" women. She's a PhD and a professor at a major Canadian University.

    So what say you now?? Am I wrong for being pro men's rights? Is my wife wrong for supporting me in these reflections on "feminism"?

    This woman did not deserve to die if she did (she may just be off enjoying a tryst!). I do not condone domestic violence of any sort!

    ReplyDelete
  24. One study you vaguely remember hearing about from one professor on one type of murderer? I'm sorry, Witman, but that is pretty poor evidence.

    However, this is getting off-track from the posting, so believe what you like.

    ReplyDelete
  25. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CBwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawcom.gov.uk%2Fdocs%2Fcp173.pdf&ei=xQcgTa6XGsWAlAe78v3dDA&usg=AFQjCNFeAtAyDlRHVf-upbIYwrMwl5HxHw

    Associate Professor Dale E Ives, University of Western Ontario, Canada ..... there had to have been provocative conduct by the deceased


    I think this is the study. I cannot be 100% sure as it has been many years since my University tour.

    One of his studies(as I remember) involve a man many years married whose wife was knowingly unfaithful. He stayed in the marriage for some time due to his devotion to his daughter. One day he came home, hugged/kissed his daughter to be met with his vehement wife who hissed "Why do you even bother, she's not your daughter anyway" (or something like that). The next thing he remembered was being in a police car and his wife was dead at his hand.

    I do not agree that she should have died at his hand, but the paternity of his daughter (whom he lived for) should have been phoned in ... really! You can be dead and right or you can be alive and right ... which do you think you should be?

    ReplyDelete
  26. And this is nowhere off topic. Feminism nor "male privilege" does not excuse you from the consequences of your ill conduct. You may be right but you may also be dead!

    I will state again that I do not condone domestic violence in any form. I also do not provoke brutes (for my own safety).

    ReplyDelete
  27. @witman:

    It's funny, you actually remind me of a friend of mine who's married to a Canadian PhD. He's a great guy, but I imagine he wouldn't come off as such in a forum like this one.

    Honestly, no, you're not wrong to hold the beliefs you hold. I assume you're a guy who's bitter than women tend to find him creepy. Far be it from me to tell you how to deal with that.

    I personally have been punched in the face a few times. Usually it was just a bully. It wasn't my fault. Probably wasn't your fault either. No one deserves to be punched in the face for "saying something wrong." But women didn't punch you in the face en masse. One person punched you in the face. Dick move! But not a blanket indictment of femininity.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I'll check if my previous post made it when I return in the morning.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities."

    This may be the weirdest thing I've ever read on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  30. ScareCrow's comment on his blog about Deborah Flores-Narvaez is badly worded.

    More than 2000+ people are missing in USA alone and she is not more or less important than all these other missing people.

    What is so special about her disappearance?

    She was a stripper and had a relationship with several violent boyfriends. Her decision, her risk to adore such a life-style.


    http://www.nowpublic.com/world/body-found-lake-mead-could-be-deborah-flores-narvaez-2741220.html

    In April, Flores-Narvaez won a $250,000 civil judgment against McGee, whom she accused of beating her, according to court records.


    Nobody deserves to become a victim of a crime, but I am not surprised she is obviously in trouble again, kidnapped, even maybe murdered.

    M said...
    I will never understand the complete lack of understanding of basic human nature that leads some guys to think women being short with them as a response to being hit on is some assholish, entitled, hateful behavior.


    Many ordinary men joining the MRAs are angry. Out of good reason.

    The problem is about the life-style of many Western women - he is rich and old, say yes, he is just an ordinary young man with a basic income, say no.

    He is a gangster and offers a violent exciting way of life, say yes - he is just an average man without any criminal record doing a regular job, so he is boring, say no.

    And as next step, we have to listen to all these whiny feminist drivel complaining how bad and violent ALL men are. And what losers they are being single or looking for a foreign wife.

    Feminists fail totally to instruct women to choose their men more carefully instead of blaming ALL men, when something is going wrong.

    MRAs do not encourage women to socialize with violent thugs or to be active in the sex-business.

    But that's feminism - it's the fault of the man, and never the fault of the woman.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Raul,

    You live a very sheltered existence if you've never been punched in the face. Women do not find me creepy. In fact, my marriageability due to my career, wife and her great looks/career makes me less creepy than your average individual, self proclaimed feminist man. Believe it or not, I'm actually short and overweight as well.

    You guys just go ahead and cater to your feminist overlords while the rest of us bang the eligible women folk.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Sorry M,

    I did post a link to the study but it seems to have been caught by the spam filter. I will repost in the morning if it doesn't show.

    Imagine what irritating and/or provocative means. Now imagine a gun at your head and genuflect what those words mean again.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Sorry, spell check. Genuflect should read reflect.

    ReplyDelete
  34. So are the men who are the majority of violent crime victims all irritating and provocative? That hardly seems fair to the victims of crime.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @witman:

    For someone who's obviously intelligent, it's strange to see you have trouble comprehending plain english when it doesn't fit your expectations.

    I'm not sure how my previous comment led you to your response. It's essentially impossible to proceed with the discussion at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Raul Groom said...
    ..... I personally have been punched in the face a few times. Usually it was just a bully. It wasn't my fault.
    .....
    No one deserves to be punched in the face for "saying something wrong."


    And what did you do AFTER these women were punching you in your face? And you said, this happened a few times?

    Did you hit back? Or did you call the police? Did you file a lawsuit against her?

    Or did you find it so funny, that you said, that's fine what she did to me?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Raul Groom said...
    ...I hope this forum/community can accomplish is prizing apart the MRA/PUA guys who really do have fundamental unresolved anger toward women ...


    You are wrong 2 times with this short comment:

    1 -
    Without comments from MRAs this ridiculous blog of David would be empty and forgotten. Data-garbage of the internet...

    2 -
    We MRAs offer solutions for angry men who were badly treated by women in the past.

    We do not belittle such men and we do not make fun out of them with arrogant replies as you and other feminists do. We listen to them. We listen to the other side of the story.

    Yes, we offer alternate solutions to these cheated men and ask them to reconsider their actions BEFORE they are getting wild and out of control.

    What's wrong with that?

    fundamental unresolved anger toward women...

    You should ask WHY ordinary men do have fundamental unresolved anger toward CERTAIN women.

    What's the reason for that 'anger'?

    Do you really think, this 'anger' is coming out of 'nothing'?

    ReplyDelete
  38. "fundamental unresolved anger toward women."

    Funny that is said. To think that the feminist movement constantly shows anger and resentment towards men 24/7 365 days a year, are feminists male or female too dumb to actually acknowledge this?

    This unresolved anger against men goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on about how we are supposedly privileged, we are rapists, we are abusers etc etc etc. This is 60 odd years and still going!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It's so ironic how a feminist says that a MRA has unresolved anger towards women when the feminist movement is all about having unresolved anger issues towards the opposite gender. There is not one day that it lays to rest.

    I am sick of the blatant shameless hypocrisy that comes from feminists. They need to stop thinking they are the gender police.

    ReplyDelete
  39. nicko81m said...
    "fundamental unresolved anger toward women."

    ....they are the gender police.


    I always consider USA as the sex-prison for all honest ordinary men. Nowhere else worldwide, feminism is so hateful against all men, regardless the age even against small boys or old men.

    Most sex-crimes, like pissing behind a tree, are no sex-crimes anywhere else.

    The problem is feminism which is following you even around the world.
    If you move away, you are a loser, your foreign wife is a doormat, your children are halfbreeds looking like whores (because of the white father splitting the condom) and finally, as a feminist told me, you are only good when you are dead.

    And now? Feminists and their manginas are astonished, why I consider myself as an MRA.

    How come these feminists have a right to criticize my way of life? Who are these women teaching me a lesson?

    In their narrow typical American feminist mindset, men should pay for everything because women are poor, father's rights do not exist neither for the unborn, nor for the newborn nor for children who are teenagers, because this would mean children are paternal property.

    Sex is free to sell, but buying sex makes you a criminal in Sweden, sleeping with a 84 old rich guy is ok, but a poor man 24 with a girl 17 is a pedophile or rapist...and finally I have all these privileges and nobody can tell me what these privileges should be except long working hours, late retirement and limited health care.

    So what? I am the bad guy, because I reject feminism and such women who never did anything nice or good to me, even not when I was still a child.

    I am the misogynist, fundamental unreselved anger toward women....?

    This makes me laughing, what a BS is that? I am married since 34 years, never divorced, 2 daughters grown up university-educated, and still I take care for a Filipina fostergirl and also for her almost blind sister... (no feminist will help these really poor women and girls in the 3rd world out of their own wallet btw.)

    I was sharing with my Asian mother-in-law over 20 years the same rooms until she died never had any problems with her and this is a profil of a women-hater?

    I think, feminists, especially male feminists, must be very sad people, and their only pleasure is to envy and to disturb other men with their families.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Yohan said:

    "How come these feminists have a right to criticize my way of life?"

    Because the gender police believe they have the right to tell men how to live and not to mention, to tell men how their sexuality should be. With the objectifying card, feminism attempts to regiment male sexuality while on the other hand it's oppression and against female liberation to tell women how they should operate their sexuality. It's also oppression and patriarchy to tell women who and what men they should be with but its all fine for feminists to tell men they are wrong for choosing Asian women because it's ummm the choice the men made.

    They are no better than the cave men they complain about as they attempt to make the rules of how men should function in relationships and how they should view their sexuality.

    ReplyDelete
  41. 'People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities.'

    I'm flabbergasted. I don't even know where to begin with this unpleasant piece of victim-blaming.

    ReplyDelete
  42. 'ScareCrow's comment on his blog about Deborah Flores-Narvaez is badly worded.'

    No it's not Yohan. It is offensive in the extreme and crosses a line of common decency. It speaks volumes about the man who Scarecrow is.

    He is, in short, a vicious toad. A poisonous man spewing toxic filth. He is not a person with whom I would ever want to have commerce. I am unsurprised if women give him the bum's rush. This is not the kind of behaviour that should be tolerated in polite society.

    ReplyDelete
  43. 'its all fine for feminists to tell men they are wrong for choosing Asian women because it's ummm the choice the men made.

    I think you'll find that feminists have no problem with men choosing Asian partners. However, they will call out those men who choose Asian partners because they want a willing and servile helpmeet.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 'Nobody deserves to become a victim of a crime, but I am not surprised she is obviously in trouble again, kidnapped, even maybe murdered.'

    Yohan, you send mixed messages. You say that no one deserves to be a victim yet you build a case that she deserved it. You are 'not surprised' she is in trouble, you rattle on disapprovingly about 'the life-style of many western women', and it seems to you that violence is the fault of women making poor choices. It all adds up to a mean-spirited piece of victim-blaming.

    Its one thing to say that a woman might be in part responsible for her predicament. But the tone of your post seems to try and deflect responsibility away from all but a handful of men.

    One critique of the problem of violence against women is that victim-blaming and 'she deserved it' is part of the problem. It sets up an environment where convictions are hard to secure, weakening the deterrent effect on would-be perpetrators. It discourages complaints by forcing victims into an unpleasantly adversarial situation. In other words, victim-blaming enables the violent.

    Both men and women contribute to victim-blaming. However, neither should be excused. By victim-blaming, and by lightly excusing vicious victim-blamers like Scarecrow, you are contributing to the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  45. 'How come these feminists have a right to criticize my way of life?'

    How come you have a right to criticize Western women for their way of life?

    Or to put it another way: surely this is not a one-way street where only you have the privilege to thumb your nose at the behaviour of others?

    ReplyDelete
  46. percyprune: No it's not Yohan. It is offensive in the extreme and crosses a line of common decency.

    This is why I said, ScareCrow's comment is badly worded.

    He is missing clearly the point where he should mention that NOBODY deserves to become the victim of a crime.

    However the victim decided herself to choose a questionable risky life-style related to sex-business and accepted violent boyfriends. Highly possible, she was close to drugs, alcohol and criminals.

    This was HER decision, she is an adult, 31 year old, and nobody else can be made responsible for her bad choice of her risky life-style - except herself.

    She was choosing the wrong friends and job and I am not surprised at all, that she is now in serious troubles, even might be dead.

    Now, after she disappeared (we do not know what really happened yet) and might be a victim of a crime, feminists expect obviously ALL ordinary men to feel guilty, to feel 'especially' sorry for her, because it's all the fault of violent men around her.

    Many MRAs, who had formerly good intention with women next to them were rejected often in a very rude way as not being good or rich enough.

    Even convicted thugs in jail are receiving tons of love-letters, while ordinary men are merely the target of scorn for many highly materialistic orientated Western women misguided by feminist ideals.

    These men are truly bitter about such a feminist attitude.

    Feminists should - instead blaming ALL ordinary men as rapists or losers - strongly discourage women to socialize with violent thugs.

    Women have to learn to choose their male partner more carefully by using better criteria than 'rich and old' or 'not boring'.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Yohan, you send mixed messages.

    .....it seems to you that violence is the fault of women making poor choices. It all adds up to a mean-spirited piece of victim-blaming.


    Yes, of course, a person who makes a bad choice is responsible for his/her bad choice.

    I am talking here clearly about PREVENTION of crimes.

    About victim-blaming, insurance companies are very good with that.

    If you get out of your car in a busy street, door open, key inside and you come back after some hours and your car is stolen, insurance companies will give you a hard time and might refuse to pay.
    Such behavior is called negligence.

    Same with your house, if you go out for holidays and don't lock the door and come back after a few weeks, how can you be surprised your furniture is gone?

    Of course, nobody has the right to steal your car or to take your furniture away, but such arguments will not be helpful for you and bring you to nowhere.

    Same is with this woman, I am not surprised at all, that something happened to her. She decided by herself to enter the sex-business and to live with several violent men.

    This was her decision.
    How can you say now, this is not a bad choice?

    What you are trying here to do is simple blaming men for all and everything. The woman is not responsible, whatever she is doing. Is a woman an adult or a child?

    If you are a woman (or a man, gender does not matter) and you decide to make a living out of sex and share your room with violent thugs, how can you be surprised, if you become a thug yourself - or a victim of those thugs living with you?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Percyprune: How come you have a right to criticize Western women for their way of life?
    Or to put it another way: surely this is not a one-way street where only you have the privilege to thumb your nose at the behaviour of others?

    Is this a joke or a serious question?

    Of course, it's a one-way street, as MONEY is always moving from the man to the woman, regardless the circumstances.

    It's the feminist, who is ripping off the honest man financially, is fabricating false accusations for a lucrative divorce, is demanding money for HER children despite paternity fraud etc. and not vice versa.

    It's the feminist who is blaming ALL straight men for any form of violence or rape.

    What can I really do, if a woman decides herself to offer her body for money and to live with thugs?

    She will just tell me to shut up and to piss off, punch me or spit in my face and laugh, or report me to police for sexual harassment.

    You want to keep me, an ordinary straight man ridiculed by feminists and manginas, responsible for women and their bad choices? Are you crazy?

    ReplyDelete
  49. 'This is why I said, ScareCrow's comment is badly worded.

    No Yohan. 'Badly worded' suggests an unfortunate turn of phrase, a mild faux pas. That was not what we read here, which was a hateful, venomous screed aimed at this woman and by extension others like her.

    'However the victim decided herself to choose a questionable risky life-style related to sex-business and accepted violent boyfriends. Highly possible, she was close to drugs, alcohol and criminals.'

    You seem to be very good at making this risk-assessment for her. However, I somehow doubt that is how she assessed the risk. On the whole, women tend not to choose boyfriends who represent a threat to them. Indeed most folks avoid uncontrollably threatening situations if they have a choice. (Notice the qualifying word 'uncontrollably'.) A boyfriend might become a threat later in a relationship, but I doubt this figures into the initial decision.

    'She was choosing the wrong friends and job and I am not surprised at all, that she is now in serious troubles, even might be dead.'

    Again, you seem to be good at judging others' choices, morals and lifestyles though I doubt those people would view those choices the same as you. I would be surprised if it turned out that Flores-Narvaez thought she was putting herself in harm's way.

    So your judgement does come out as an attempt to turn the blame on a victim who may well have been making rational and measured assessments of risk.

    'Many MRAs, who had formerly good intention with women next to them were rejected often in a very rude way as not being good or rich enough.'

    'Even convicted thugs in jail are receiving tons of love-letters, while ordinary men are merely the target of scorn for many highly materialistic orientated Western women misguided by feminist ideals.'


    And here you reveal yourself and we get to the heart of the matter, Yours is a complaint similar to that of many MRAs: that hot women didn't put out for them, so any who ran into trouble had it coming to them. Cry me a river, Yohan. It is this sort of unsympathetic attitude that I find so contemptuous and ugly. Your cup of bitterness overfloweth and will find no words of comfort from me.

    ReplyDelete
  50. M,

    My Karate Sensei taught me a very valuable lesson pertaining to muggings. "If a man threatens you violently and demands your wallet what is the best thing to do? Give him your wallet!" Anything less than full compliance is provocative.

    I was mugged in Cuba and I understand that I was very provocative wearing a gold necklace in a country with so many poor people. Hell, I can't even find it in my heart to be angry with the mugger. I'm still pretty angry with myself for being in that situation.

    I will say this again "People who are murdered tend to have irritating and/or provocative personalities." and nobody deserves to be murdered. Violence rarely happens in a vacuum for no reason at all.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Yohan,

    I finally figure out what our male privilege is.

    We get the privilege of taking full and complete responsibility for our life choices. We do not get to hold anyone responsible for their choices. You cannot even suggest that a poor decision could get somebody harmed without being accused of victim blaming.

    If I say something irritating or provocative and I get punched in the face for it, I reflect on what I have done. I know that this threat exists in the world I live in and I try to be as polite and courteous as possible.

    ReplyDelete
  52. percyprune:
    So your judgement does come out as an attempt to turn the blame on a victim who may well have been making rational and measured assessments of risk.

    You seem to be very good at making this risk-assessment for her. However, I somehow doubt that is how she assessed the risk. On the whole, women tend not to choose boyfriends who represent a threat to them.


    What you are telling is nonsense or you are grossly misinformed.

    Do you not know that this women was filing lawsuits against her ex-boyfriend for serious violence against her? And also has reported violence issues with her present boyfriend?

    It's everywhere out in the news. She filed lawsuits and you are telling me she is not aware of it?

    In April, Flores-Narvaez won a $250,000 civil judgment against McGee, whom she accused of beating her, according to court records. Court records do not indicate that she has received any money from the judgment.

    Flores-Narvaez filed a lawsuit against McGee in August 2009. According to court documents, Flores-Narvaez alleged she suffered scarring as a result of a June 2009 assault by McGee in which he kicked her stomach, dragged her from her car and held her "hostage in his apartment while continuing to beat (her)."

    Damages were awarded to Flores-Narvaez because the scars cost her modeling jobs, leaving her with only a steady income of $40,000 per year from dancing part-time in a local show, according to court documents.


    Anyway, if you are living with violent men and you are a stripper you cannot be surprised that something is going wrong. Either you will become a thug or you will become a victim of thugs. Not the first time.

    We are all responsible to choose our own life-style. Even women.

    You cannot blame ordinary men without criminal record, if women choose to go with thugs....

    ReplyDelete
  53. @percyprune

    Yohan did not "build a case that she deserved it". Yohan clearly pointed out that HER decisions and HER life choices led HER to where SHE was and placed HER in harm's way. Suggesting that somebody be responsible for their life choices is very different from blaming the victim (if she is in fact a victim).

    You then go on to use shaming language on Yohan. What makes you think he doesn't get laid and what makes you think that he finds a skanky stripper hot? Women like her are the very bottom of the barrel and just looking at her picture makes me feel like I need a shower.

    ReplyDelete
  54. witman: mugged in Cuba and I understand that I was very provocative wearing a gold necklace in a country with so many poor people.

    I'm still pretty angry with myself for being in that situation.


    That's exactly I explained to this stupid person called percyprune.

    Nobody has the right to mug you or beat you up, but such legal talk will not help you much in your real life.

    The solution is CRIME PREVENTION, easy, don't carry the gold necklace around in a country with poor people. It could be still yours.

    -----
    http://www.lvrj.com/news/lake-mead-visitors-find-body-near-kingman-wash-112402284.html

    Same with this woman: She was filing lawsuits against a violent thug - her former boyfriend, had a new boyfriend who is also violent and still continues her questionable job as a stripper and still is meeting these guys in the SAME CITY. Can you believe that?

    CRIME PREVENTION means in her case to RUN, far away, never come back, and this advice is not only the best for a woman, but also for a man in the same situation in every crime-city worldwide.

    You blame yourself for the missing gold necklace, that's fine.

    But in case of this woman, percyprune is blaming ALL straight men, MRAs and me personally, who have nothing to do with these thugs at all, for victim-blaming.

    It was HER choice to work as a stripper, to live with violent boyfriends, to file lawsuits against her violent former boyfriend and still continue to live and work with them.

    A very very bad and very DANGEROUS choice!

    It's impossible with legal BS-talk to prevent a crime. Especially in such a situation.
    Police cannot protect every stripper in the USA against violence.

    What an unrealistic dreamer is this percyprune.
    Crime prevention = Victim blaming

    OK, percyprune, up to you, but keep in mind it's NOT my problem if your property is stolen, or you are in a hospital or even in a coffin.

    ReplyDelete
  55. 'Do you not know that this women was filing lawsuits against her ex-boyfriend for serious violence against her? And also has reported violence issues with her present boyfriend?'

    Yohan, read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. I was talking about the assessments women make when they choose boyfriends, not what those partners turn out into later.

    Clearly, Flores-Narvaez dumped her ex-boyfriend after he had become violent, which is why he became an 'ex-'. Kindly follow the chain of causality. I very much doubt that she chose to hook up with him because he was manifestly violent towards his girlfriends. I would be surprised if that turns out to be the case.

    I would put it to you that it is uncommon for women to start dating men who have a known history of violence towards women. It happens, but it is rare.

    There is a separate issue of women who find themselves living with a violent man who might not be willing or able to extricate themselves, but that's another thread for another time.

    So Yohan, give me your honest view: how many women who date or marry violent men know of that man's violence before dating/marrying? And do you think they would enter into a relationship with them if they did know?

    A finger-in-the-air estimate would do fine.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 'You then go on to use shaming language on Yohan. What makes you think he doesn't get laid and what makes you think that he finds a skanky stripper hot? Women like her are the very bottom of the barrel and just looking at her picture makes me feel like I need a shower.

    Yohan writes about rejection by women employing the same shameful, whiny tone that other MRAs use when complaining about their treatment at the hands of women. Tied up in this bundle of angst are the assumptions that the MRAs attentions deserve to be reciprocated (newsflash: they do not) and that it is because women are drawn only to the successful and rich and violent (this is manifest nonsense on so many levels it would take an entire post to debunk).

    So yes, I use shaming language. Yohan should be ashamed, in my view.

    And while we are about it, way to go on the judgmentalism, Witman. 'Skanky stripper?' and 'bottom of the barrel'? Yes, what a vile way to speak about a woman in peril. And you wonder why folks like me come out and tell you that you are blaming the victim?

    ReplyDelete
  57. @percyprune,

    Why do a lot of abused women pick one abuser after another? How is it possible that she can be so unlucky as to pick one loser after another without any warning signs whatsoever? Isn't it odd how rare a one-off abusive relationship is?

    I used to know an abused woman and was very attracted to her. My Dad warned me about dating said woman because she had a very provocative nature. I doubt I would have hit her like her ex or her subsequent boyfriends, but I'm quite certain I would have been in a bad situation. I'm glad I had my father's advice on her because a lot of lesser men do not have the filter weed out this type of woman and steer clear.

    I know the type and I stay away from them. She does not deserve to be abused, but she will invariably be abused by any man she dates.

    ReplyDelete
  58. CRIME PREVENTION means in her case to RUN, far away, never come back, and this advice is not only the best for a woman, but also for a man in the same situation in every crime-city worldwide.

    Except that it's not as simple as that, is it Yohan? I've lived in violent cities. I've lived in cities that were regularly being bombed. To up sticks and move is not easy nor even desirable. There are many reasons why people will stay rather than go, some rational and some not. I'm sure you could make a list of your own if you put your mind to it.

    For a young women to get up and flee a place, leaving her friends and social circles behind, might not be practical or desirable. Flores-Narvaez clearly had a sense of self-preservation strong enough to dump a violent man, sue him and win. Seems to me she was making rational choices in managing this one threat.Furthermore, I get the impression she felt she was preventing a further crime through her actions.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'm just curious, if people who are murdered have irritating personalities...

    What does that say about the infants killed? children? Men or women who get involved with sociopaths who have reams of people testifying to their genial nature and good will?

    That study is such bullshit and you know it. Quoting it like that is absolutely propogating stupidity and your sociology professor should be taken out and shown exactly how ridiculous that assumption is.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yohan:

    I've never been punched by a woman. I was punched by a bully on the bus in middle school, by a bully friend in high school, then by a bully in the parking lot of the mall when I was nineteen, and then I was "rolled" by a group of drunk guys walking home from a friend's house when I was 22 or so.

    I have to ask, because the experience of having a conversation with you guys is so unusual... have any of you ever been told you have a social development disorder? I don't ask this to belittle or mock anyone, but there's only one other place I've ever read comment threads like these and it was a support website for social development problems.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Why do a lot of abused women pick one abuser after another? How is it possible that she can be so unlucky as to pick one loser after another without any warning signs whatsoever? Isn't it odd how rare a one-off abusive relationship is?

    Is it that rare?

    Erin Pizzey in Prone to Violence estimated that some two-thirds of women in her refuge system were disposed to seek abusive relationships. Now this figure has been disputed by some as being on the high side. But even if we took it at face value it suggests that one-third of the refuge women did not seek out abusive relationships. That is not 'rare' in my book.

    One psychological theory that also applies to other forms of abuse is that some abused can be caught in the grip of repetition compulsion. They repeat patterns of behaviour in order to try and master it or cope with the trauma.

    Then for some women it can be low self-esteem, a demand for attention, that leads them into relationships where they are controlled by an abuser.

    There are lots of other pathologies I am sure. We know that many women return to an abusive relationship many times before they finally decide to leave. There are many ways an abuser can manipulate a person and the lack of support for the victim can be a big factor in them staying in such a relationship. Many of these same rationales may also apply to those in serial abusive relationships.

    But whatever the causes, women who fall into repeat patterns of behaviour with abusers really deserve our sympathy and help, not sneering from the MRA peanut gallery.

    ReplyDelete
  62. You all are just..ridiculous.

    Why is it that a woman rejecting you is cause for all women to be condemned? Witman you speak of your marriage..so why are you so mad at women? You're 'banging' the eligible women....so where's the problem for you?

    why such vitriol and resentment? Is it because your privilege is being threatened?

    Here's the kick, the gender police? holds us accountable too Lads. We can't wear short skirts, we can't drink too much, we must watch every aspect of everything and everyone that comes near us. If the rape wasn't violent enough? we didn't fight hard or it wasn't rape. If we wore something that was 'provocative' which is at best a HUGE divide of opinions on what constitutes provocative or not, we were asking for it.

    We are sluts who are after nothing but money, but if we go after jobs we're hard ball busting bitches who don't know our places. We're supposed to be mothers and house cleaners and domestic duty minded, but we're not supposed to want to have money for our self or any say in our family's fiances.

    We're supposed to look good! But we can't say no to anyone who approaches us, or be angry or irritated, we must always be grateful that anyone wants us because that is our purpose in this world.

    To be wanted.

    The biggest insult is to be fat and ugly, to be unfuckable, to have someone say that no one in their right mind would want to rape us. Because we are here solely for that purpose, to excite and entice and if we do not fulfill that grateful, pretty, quiet, demure, mold that you all want us in

    We are ball busting feminazi bitches who are out to take your money and cut off your cocks.

    Do you all even -read the shit you're putting out there-?! You know what's really amazing? is that you guys are just fucking outraged and shocked. SHOCKED I SAY that someone wants to hold you to the same standards you have held us to for the near -entirity- of recorded history. That we refuse to sit in those roles and demand you to give up your privilege and start treating us as you demand to be treated.

    So you all have to congregate and bitch about how you are being thwarted, how you are being treated unjustly, how terrible we are for daring to stand up.

    Gentlemen? You are not victims. You are not being victimized. You are not being oppressed.

    You are being forced to stop oppressing.

    I don't think you are all racists. But I think that each one of you who have posted your shit here today are victim blaming patriarchal privileged misogynists. Start internally looking at why it is you are so angry and what it is you are truly loosing.

    ReplyDelete
  63. people accusing each other of being the peanut gallery in a comment thread is always funny

    ReplyDelete
  64. 'Is this a joke or a serious question?'

    It is serious. And your answer was telling.

    You characterize things as a one-way street in which the women (in particular the demon feminists) have complete control. I view that as bearing little relationship to the way the real world works. But it says a lot about you that you earnestly believe this.

    ReplyDelete
  65. You are a dreamer, percyprune, and I cannot even be angry with you for so much ignorance. You really do not know it better.

    It seems you have no idea about criminality in the USA.

    Again:

    If you are a stripper, 30+, working for a cheap sex-show (entrance fee USD 39,-), you can be sure in USA, that various *boyfriends* will show up and will talk to you.

    You must be pretty naive, if you presume, such low-life *boyfriends* are not violent.

    Such guys will not listen, if percyprune or Debbie Flores are telling them, you cannot do this or that because it is against the law, and police cannot protect every stripper who has trouble with her boyfriend.

    For a young women to get up and flee a place, leaving her friends and social circles behind, might not be practical or desirable.

    As you see yourself, your advice is worthless.
    Do you still not understand this?

    Young woman or whoever, this is irrelevant. It's better to disappear (like a coward, but who cares) by your own decision than to be reported as missing. No question about it.

    -----

    I am convinced, with a different life-style, with different people around her and a different job, this woman would not be missing.

    Her questionable life-style however is her decision and I, the MRAs, or otherwise straight men are not responsible for what she is doing or what happened to her.

    Finally, let me say, USA is a very wide country, with many opportunities and it is definitely possible for a 31 y.o. woman to start a new life away from sex and criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  66. percyprune said...
    You characterize things as a one-way street in which the women (in particular the demon feminists) have complete control.


    I said, in Western countries money is moving from the men to the women, and you cannot deny that.

    Therefore this is a one-way route. In general it is the Western woman who is financially ripping off the man during divorce procedures.

    The reason for that situation are various laws offering legal loopholes and biased law execution.

    It is therefore very important for young men before signing a marriage contract to study the laws to avoid a bad surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Raul Groom: I have to ask, because the experience of having a conversation with you guys is so unusual... have any of you ever been told you have a social development disorder?

    Unusual conversation sound interesting, what's wrong with that, if other people do not share your opinion? What's so unusual with that?

    About myself, no, I have no health problems so far, and no financial problems, no problems with my job and no problems with my family.

    About getting psycho you might ask male feminists for further advice.

    There is one male feminist out on the internet who openly admits, that he was kept for a while in a closed mental ward.

    Another one sold his feminist webpages to a pornographer because he was out of money.
    He has no family life.

    Another male feminist I heard was convicted for rape and another one takes heavy medication for ADHD, he is a poor guy and has various serious medical problems.

    About David Futrelle, I do not consider him as a male feminist, so far I have no idea what is the purpose of this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Ted Bundy was the epitome of the "Nice Guy Next Door". He lured his victims by pretending to be injured and needing help -- in other words, he appealed to their decency and sense of compassion. Many self-described "nice guys" in the manosphere display the same lack of empathy and a relentless drive for dehumanization of women that makes the thrill-killing of women possible. They may not actually kill themselves -- not willing to take the risk of getting in trouble with the law, so thoroughly dominated by evil feminists, you can't even murder a stripper without going to jail anymore -- but they certainly experience a vicarious thrill from the brutalization of women, and high-five the murderers after half-hearted disclaimers to the effect that "it's wrong to kill, BUT".

    To say that if a woman is kidnapped and murdered, there must be something about her lifestyle that justifies it -- because, had she been a "nice girl", then there is no way something like that could happen to her -- is a prime example of casual misogyny. A couple of years ago, several women in New York City were kidnapped and tortured to death by a bar tender (or bouncer, I don't remember). I suppose according to MRA's, those women's lifestyles were "wrong" in that they went to a bar to have a drink and maybe had a conversation with a male not their relative. Last year, a female Yale graduate student was beaten to death by a lab technician; I suppose HER great moral wrong was pursuing a career in science. And all those victims of Ted Bundy are, of course, guilty of moral turpitude for being outside their homes, where serial killers are known to roam. Right, Yohan? Anytime a woman is brutalized or murdered, we get this sanctimonious nonsense about how she is to blame for what happened to her, that if only she hadn't gone out / gone to school / worked late / been outside/ worn a short skirt/ lived this wouldn't have happened to her. Take heed, ladies: put on a burqua, board up the windows and stay indoors -- otherwise you will be blamed for whatever happens to you.

    So, Yohan, no, MRA's and "otherwise straight men" who didn't murder the victim aren't legally responsible for her murder -- but you ARE responsible for fostering a culture that celebrates such murders and emboldens the perpetrators to go on.

    As for why women attach themselves to abusive men -- there are multiple reasons. One scenario that's been known to happen is an abuser telling his new girlfriend that all those women he's been with before were nasty, evil feminist bitches who had it coming to them -- but it's different with HER.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Amused:

    I think this is taking it a bit far. There are definitely guys on the MRA boards who seem like they might be dangerous, but serial killers are a rare and specific form of person; it's not really that there are tons of Ted Bundy's but most of them don't want to get in trouble.

    Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if many of the MRA guys who comment here are perfectly nice IRL. I've known guys with these kinds of attitudes; hell, I used to share some of these attitudes myself once upon a time (along with confederate sympathies and a whole host of antisocial ideas common to young Southern guys.)

    Most people grow out of this immature conception of women and relationships. Some don't. I think it's best to show compassion to people and not smear others, no matter how disgusting their ideas seem.

    ReplyDelete
  70. OK, now it is the posters who are innumerate. You are taking the small percentage of people who were killed at random or by sociopaths to dispute the claim that people who are murdered USUALLY have irritating and/or provocative personalities.

    I never blamed the victim and I hold that abuse of any sort is unacceptable. Why can't you just see that a survival skill learned long ago was that there are certain actions and words that can enrage another person. Certain things should be phoned in.

    @Amused,

    I am amused with your hyperbole. To you, if somebody says "don't get fall down drunk around people you're unfamiliar with and act like a drunken slut", that translates to "we are fostering a culture of abuse and you deserved what you got because you didn't wear a burqua." Why do we draw a line with burquas on one side and outright hedonism on the other?

    Likewise, holding people to account for their actions in NO WAY absolves the criminality of what occurred. If you fail to see causality then you are prone to repeated injustices.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Raul: I specifically said that people like Scarecrow aren't necessarily serial killers themselves, primarily because they don't want to get in trouble with the law. Or maybe they don't have what it takes to actually kill in real life. Rather, they experience a thrill from killing done by others, something that is apparent from their comments. I was talking specifically about their mentality and culture. Perhaps I did not make it clear enough. I will confess I have a hard time mustering compassion for men like Scarecrow; at the same time, I don't think anything I've said smears these men's reputations to nearly the same extent as their own words.

    Lastly, I have no doubt that some of these guys act like "nice guys" in real life. I wouldn't be surprised if they appreciate, to some extent, their mothers, female relatives, and girlfriends. It's very, very hard to adopt a violent attitude towards someone you know by name; it's hard to dehumanize a human being with whom one has had enough contact to make one FEEL that this is, actually, a human being who can suffer and experience pain. It's much easier to vilify and dehumanize faceless, anonymous "Western women" and to celebrate the murder of a stripper one didn't know in real life. There is very often this duality to people who carry around bottled up hatred, but who nevertheless feel a need for human interaction. Their "niceness" may be a result of simple cowardice, or this separation between the real world and the world of abstractions. Whatever the case, however, their real-life niceness does not negate the fact that they hate women, and their attitudes serve to normalize violence towards women.

    ReplyDelete
  72. How does telling people to make wise choices in life and be safe translate to emboldening criminals?

    ReplyDelete
  73. @Amused:

    " I will confess I have a hard time mustering compassion for men like Scarecrow"

    So would you say his personality is irritating and/or provocative? If you heard that his words enraged somebody to murderous intent, would that surprise you?

    Your attitude fosters a culture of Laissez-fair view of women's safety. You put no onus on the individual for their own safety. Mentioning random killings by psychopaths (minority) removes the burden of survival from life choices. Bringing to light unwise choices and lifestyles does not blame to victim so much as it makes other women safer by pointing out the elephant in the room.

    ScareCrow's message however poorly worded basically states that if you poke a gorilla with a sharp stick after seeing it rip somebody's arm off, I'm not going to feel badly for you.

    ReplyDelete
  74. @Amused:

    I see what you're saying, I just think going to Ted Bundy to make that point is not likely to illuminate anything.

    The whole Scarecrow thing is hard for me to comment on as I think he may have a serious personality problem. Whatever the wider consequences of his words and actions, I'm staying out of it because I'm not interested in getting on his enemies list.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Witman: because holding women who are murdered "accountable" for putting themselves in danger seems unique to this kind of violence. Women aren't the only ones who engage in hedonism or live their lives in a way that expose them to danger -- yet if a man has his head bashed in and his valuables taken outside a seedy dive, there won't be this immediate reaction that the crime is "understandable" given his "hedonism".

    Furthermore, Yohan specifically argued that women who don't live dangerous lifestyles don't get murdered. That would support an inference that if a woman is murdered, then she must have lived a dangerous lifestyle. That's not hyperbole -- that's what he actually argued. I don't know what YOU define as hedonism, but I certainly have seen violence against women being excused not solely on the ground that the woman in question was "easy" -- rape and murder have been deemed just deserts for anything from her not being a virgin to walking alone on the street at night.

    ReplyDelete
  76. One thing that's really amazing to me about these MRA dudes is how completely and amazingly blind they are to their own faults. If I, a lady, approach a guy and attempt to flirt with him and am rebuffed, I'll assume that I came on too strong, that I was too aggressive, that he just didn't like me, that he didn't find me attractive, that he had a lot on his mind, and lastly, maybe, I might entertain briefly that he might be a jerk. It's possible! But my first instinct is to consider what I did wrong, and to be embarrassed that I made somebody uncomfortable. It's so fucking sad that MRA dudes would rather invent insane theories and completely malign half the human race, rather than examine their own shortcomings. And here's the thing, MRA dudes, you have shortcomings. You are poorly socialized, you are rude, you hate women, and it's obvious to us and we avoid you like crazy because of that, not because we'd rather go find a bad boy on a motorcycle who ejaculates thousand dollar bills. We avoid you because you are creepy, you have a big chip on your shoulder, and it's obvious. I know people like you, in real life, and no matter how deeply invested you become in this PUA crap, you'll never reliably have sex/relationships with women, because your creepy, distorted worldview and hatred and anger of all women is a major ladyboner killer.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @Witman:

    "So would you say his personality is irritating and/or provocative? If you heard that his words enraged somebody to murderous intent, would that surprise you?"

    As a matter of fact yes, it would surprise me. And, though I consider his views to be beneath contempt, I wouldn't celebrate his murder.

    Your attitude fosters a culture of Laissez-fair view of women's safety. You put no onus on the individual for their own safety. Mentioning random killings by psychopaths (minority) removes the burden of survival from life choices. Bringing to light unwise choices and lifestyles does not blame to victim so much as it makes other women safer by pointing out the elephant in the room.

    I don't adopt a "culture of laissez-faire" -- rather, I hold women's safety to be a red herring in this particular instance. Men like Scarecrow don't give a rat's ass about women's safety -- and I don't think they would like it one bit if the shoe was on the other foot.

    It goes without saying that women should avoid psychopaths, but alas, women get brutalized while simply going about their ordinary lives, not necessarily as strippers or partners of men who advertise their abusiveness. Stating that a woman's murder by a man is a consequence of her poor choices first and foremost, and of the perpetrator's brutality second doesn't express a concern for women's safety -- it is an attempt at rationalization.

    ScareCrow's message however poorly worded basically states that if you poke a gorilla with a sharp stick after seeing it rip somebody's arm off, I'm not going to feel badly for you.

    I am certain that Scarecrow's message conveys precisely what he meant. It's not "poorly worded" -- there isn't a shade of inadvertence in it. And it doesn't state that he doesn't feel bad for the victim; rather, it expresses joy and satisfaction about her probable fate. It this happened to a man, I somehow doubt Scarecrow would "poorly word" his message in these terms.

    ReplyDelete
  78. The thing that I, as a woman, have learned, is that when a dude who I think is a creeper approaches me, to just rebuff him, and sternly. If I try to be polite, someone, somewhere will accuse me of "leading him on." If I am very curt, he thinks that I, and probably all women, are evil bitches, but hey, he was gonna think that anyway! I know it'd be crazy to hope for MRA dudes to actually have any sympathy for anyone who's not a sad dude who doesn't have a submissive "non-Western" ladygirl attached to his dick all the time, but as a woman who has been groped, harassed, and otherwise abused by more than one so-called "nice guy", I am afraid. I know that you think you are all nice guys, and it is amazing to me that you all think that celebrating the deaths of women who you deem too hot to want to fuck you is just something that nice guys do, but the truth is, you are really, really mean. You go around complaining all the time that there are no good women anywhere and than you are shocked that no women want to fuck you. No women want to fuck you because you are awful!

    The author of this blog is the most patient person in the history of people. That he has taken it upon himself to carefully and kindly attempt to set you insane fucks straight in his comments is startling and touching. He is providing a real public service. What I hope he is able to make clear to you guys is this: you are not unlike the guy who likely murdered this poor woman. His murder of his girlfriend is your ideology, taken to its natural conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Amused: So, Yohan, no, MRA's and "otherwise straight men" who didn't murder the victim aren't legally responsible for her murder -- but you ARE responsible for fostering a culture that celebrates such murders and emboldens the perpetrators to go on.

    What a lie! Are you not ashamed?

    It's the feminist who encourages women to do with their bodies whatever they want to do.

    It's the feminist, claiming female empowerment which is causing young women shameless to sign up as nude dancers for cheap sex-shows.

    MRAs advice all honest and straight men to stay away from such questionable entertainments, pornography businesses and similar places.

    We always recommend men not to socialize with sex-workers, as they are frequently controlled by gangsters.

    If women take the risk and sign up for sex-business and live together with thugs, then blame feminism for that.

    There is nothing, what MRAs can do against it.

    It's your own stupid decision as a 'strong independent woman' if you agree to live with thugs, as adult you are responsible for your own stupid decision if something goes wrong, don't blame others.

    MRAs do not foster a culture with whores and thugs.

    We encourage women to marry and to make us a sandwich, in our own homes, free of crime. LOL

    As a feminist you should know that. That's exactly what you do not want to hear from us.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Jenny,

    I am not poorly socialized, I do not hate women and I am an MRA. I believe that everyone should be accountable for their actions and everyone should be treated with respect. I am not going to walk through the ghetto with $100 bills falling out of my pocket asking the "homies" where a good place is to spend it.

    You talk about getting rebuffed yet you go on to use the words Creepy, rude and unsocialized. Have you been called creepy for trying to get a date? That male hatred you have is a total downer! You might even have the audacity to think you're marriageable.

    Think of the last guy you called creepy and ask yourself if he did anything different than a non-creepy male except have the audacity to talk to you when he should know he is well out of your league. Creepy, creepy men and their delusional ambitions of passing on their alleles to the next generation. What nerve! God! I just want to go out and beat up a creep for his nerve to even think he could mate with a human!

    ReplyDelete
  81. @Amused:

    "And, though I consider his views to be beneath contempt, I wouldn't celebrate his murder."

    I didn't ask if you'd celebrate his murder, I asked if you'd be surprised if he got somebody's ire up and was murdered for saying what he said. Those are two completely different things.

    Thank you for taking the time to answer that you would indeed be surprised. This is that bubble that a lot of people live in. Feminism and the police do not follow people around and protect them. The police will only find the killer (maybe) but they will not prevent the death. Personal safety is a personal choice and if you fail to protect yourself then you just become another statistic for more funding.

    I am aware that women are killed when they are not being provocative. Men are actually more likely to be killed violently, mugged, raped, etc than women, but I still think we should take a holistic approach to violence without tagging one gender as perpetrator and one as victim.

    Before you get your dander up over the statement that more men are raped than women, you need to realize that rape statistics do not include male inmates in prison.

    ReplyDelete
  82. The last dude who approached me in a manner I'd call "creepy" put his arms around my waist as I browsed the catalog in the juke box. He then started criticizing all of my selections. Other than that, I would describe all the men who yell at me from their cars as creepy. But oh no, I'm oppressing the poor men who slink their arms around the waist of a woman they do not know or yell about her "nice ass" from their speeding vehicles!

    ReplyDelete
  83. Amused: Yohan specifically argued that women who don't live dangerous lifestyles don't get murdered.

    Where did I say that?

    Read back before putting words in my mouth I never used.

    That's my posting, the original text, copy/paste

    I am convinced, with a different life-style, with different people around her and a different job, this woman would not be missing.

    I said, THIS woman, with a different life-style etc..., would not be missing.

    This is my original comment above, what's wrong with that?

    I also mentioned CRIME PREVENTION, and again I see nothing wrong with it.

    If you prefer to be beaten up by thugs, go ahead, live with them, but do not blame me or the MRAs.

    ReplyDelete

  84. witman said...
    @Amused:

    Feminism and the police do not follow people around and protect them. The police will only find the killer (maybe) but they will not prevent the death. Personal safety is a personal choice and if you fail to protect yourself then you just become another statistic for more funding.


    It's about the same conclusion I have, it's about crime prevention.

    Everybody has to look about his/her own security.

    You cannot exclude a crime, but you can make it rather difficult for criminals to choose you, your family members and your property as their victim.

    That's something *Amused* seems not to understand.
    In case a woman is in trouble, for her it's always the fault of the men.
    That's feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Now Jenny,

    For clarity, are you saying the all MRAs approach women in this fashion and/or yell crude comments about their asses from moving cars? Even the sliest of PUAs couldn't pull that off.

    Most MRAs I know are decent hard working men who believe that every should have all rights AND RESPONSIBILITES deserving of humans. They believe in equal pay for equal work. Men's Rights Advocates do not advocate the right of a man to belittle, demean, harm or control another person.

    Men's Rights Advocates advocate rights for men. We do not want the preamble to the VAWA to say that men commit more violence against women and then have to fall back on tired old laws about assault when we are harmed by women. We do not want to be accused of fostering a culture of rape/violence because we tell our daughters to behave in a safe and secure manner.

    Men's Rights Advocates do not want the sexist airline policies that prohibit us from sitting next to unaccompanied minors, singling all men out as possible abusers of children. There has never been a case of on board abuse of a child let alone the fact that women harm children at a higher rate than men.

    Men's Rights Advocates want the ability to go to school and get a job based on our merit. We do not want to be excluded from a course or a job because AA says there are too many qualified males already working there.

    Men's Rights Advocates to not want to be held personally responsible for any injustice by our forefathers against OUR foremothers!

    ReplyDelete
  86. Witman: What I take issue with isn't your statement that more men are killed than women (mostly by other men, incidentally), but rather this reflexive reaction that if a woman is murdered, it must be because she did not take proper precautions for her safety or didn't lead a sufficiently modest or self-effacing lifestyle. Prison rape is a huge problem, yet I have never seen anyone suggest that prison rape victims are to blame for being "provocative", and attitudes that prison rape is merely occupational hazard that comes with being a criminal are as rare as they are disgusting. And if you would find it disgusting, then why is it so easy to dismiss a murdered stripper as someone who brought it on herself by being a stripper?

    That women get killed "when they are not being provocative" -- that's just it. Where do you draw the line between non-provocative conduct and conduct or appearance that's reasonably expected to provoke kidnapping and murder? Is having big boobs provocative enough? Is being young and attractive provocative enough? Is going on a date provocative enough? Most women are too keenly aware of how tenuous our safety is by virtue of our usually smaller size and weaker muscles, and certain social attitudes that makes our bodies fair game merely for being attractive and visible. But we try to balance our need for safety with a desire to live an active, interesting, fulfilling life without having it construed as asking to be put in our place. After all, the only way to be absolutely safe is to board up one's windows and doors and never venture out. And that very desire to live an active, interesting and fulfilling life -- with (oh, the horror!) occasional fun in it -- is deemed healthy and natural for men, yet somehow immoral when pursued by women.

    It's not that long ago that we had a discussion here about whether women have a moral right to reject certain men who come on to them for being "creepy". It was explained again and again -- to no avail -- that the word is used to describe a certain vibe that certain men give off; like this man might, MIGHT, be a violent psychopath trying to masquerade as a "nice guy". That feeling isn't always right -- but BECAUSE of this concern for our own safety, our sensors for weird and possibly threatening behavior are finely tuned. After all, violent men who rape or murder women don't exactly advertise who they really are. But Heavens to Betsy, do MRA's get offended by this! It's noteworthy how in the manosphere, statements to the effect that women "provoke" their own rape and/or murder by not being careful enough as to who they associate with, alternate with complaints that women are being evil harpies by "assuming" that someone is a sex criminal without having any legally admissible proof, and not giving slightly weird guys a chance. Nevermind that from a woman's standpoint, the price for giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who might be a psychopath, may be her very life. And so, we have a fundamental contradiction here: on the one hand, a woman should give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who doesn't admit to being a violent criminal or who hasn't been convicted and welcome any man's advances against her better judgment; on the other, if she ends up dismembered in a ditch somewhere, it's her own fault for going out with the wrong man. That is the very contradiction that leads me to believe that for purposes of this particular discussion, the issue of women's need to be more vigilant is a red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Yohan: Most feminists abhor the sex industry, and you misstate the feminist position on doing "whatever you want with your body". Rather, the position of most feminists is that YOU have no right to do whatever you want with someone else's body. That position is about women having autonomy over their own bodies, as opposed to men having authority over them.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Nobody said it was her fault. Nobody deserves to be the victim of a crime. I've said that several times now and I believe it.

    That vibe you're feeling off the guy, that's the beta vibe. That's the creeper beta vibe. You will not get that vibe from an alpha and that is why 80% of women will choose 20% of men to mate with. The rest of the men are just beta creepers.

    It is fully a woman's right to choose who she mates with and when. I have never and will never dispute that. What I say is that converse to 80% of men being left mateless (a bad thing in any society), the other 20% have no reason to be faithful or nice. They have no reason to value women.

    You can find nice guys in the alpha tier, but odds are that there will be many more nice guys in the beta tier. Some stragglers will be in the omega tier and I cry for them but they will never have babies.

    The beta tier has more than it's share of jilted men, but there is a large population that is highly marriageable except for the fact that they are creepers (betas) and make women feel icky.

    Personally, I like to date beta females and turn them into alphas with constant love and affection. The problem is that more and more women are looking to that top 20% thinking that they are even in the running.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Amused, you know, we can't win. If we reject a guy as being creepy, we're man-haters. If we give the creepy guy a chance and end up dead, we were asking for it by being silly little girls.

    Nothing we do can be right. Every choice will be criticized. Girl who doesn't have sex is an uptight prude. Girl who does have sex is a slut. Just the other day I saw in the same forum one guy bitching about women wearing makeup to look better ... and another man bitching that when women get married, they stop wearing makeup!

    You're either too skinny or too fat. You're too smart or you're too dumb. Be accomplished, but OH GOD, DON'T BE TOO ACCOMPLISHED OR MY BALLS WILL FALL OFF!

    ReplyDelete
  90. Here's what's weird about you guys. Some of you seem basically reasonable. But the vast majority of depredations you claim you are fighting against are imaginary.

    The claim that "all airlines have rules prohibiting men from sitting next to UM's" is false. A cursory - VERY cursory - google search will reveal that the story behind this is that British Airways asked a man to move away from an unaccompanied minor because their policy was that adult men can't sit next to UM's.

    The man felt his rights were violated. A court agreed, awarding him modest monetary damages. The airline changed its policy. The system worked in the way you say you want it to work. Yet instead of noticing that and celebrating it, you rail against this imaginary repression.

    It's weird. There's no other word for it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Some comments here got caught in the spam filter, but I unfiltered them and they're up now.

    If you've been following the discussion up to this point I recommend scrolling up to see what you missed, because a number of the filtered comments were long and substantive.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Raul,

    You seem rational so you can point out where I said "all airlines have rules prohibiting men from sitting next to UM's" FFS you even put quotes around it AND misquoted it. I said "Men's Rights Advocates do not want the sexist airline policies that prohibit us from sitting next to unaccompanied minors, singling all men out as possible abusers of children." It doesn't matter if they all do it. It is the fact that people like you think this is not something we should fight against. If just one company treats women poorly or as a potential threat, then is that OK? Maybe if just one guy punched out his wife. Is that OK? Where is the line that separates OK sexism from Bad sexism?

    Air New Zealand still has this rule. It is not this rule in particular that is offensive so much as the idea of being against such a rule leads people like you, Raul to think that we are irrational. People like you, Raul are what is fostering a culture of fear toward men. You are just sucking it up and going along with it like sexism can only happen toward women. What about the fact that the rule was allowed to be in place and not just that he was offended, won and they changed it?

    The system works every time a woman is raped and her assailant is jailed. The system works every time a wife beater is sent to prison. But still, there is a "Rape Culture" and "Abuse Culture"

    There are no laws and rules that prohibit women from partaking in society the same as a man but there is systemic discrimination yet a rule that specifically targets all men is not.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @Magnolia,
    "Why is it that a woman rejecting you is cause for all women to be condemned? Witman you speak of your marriage..so why are you so mad at women? You're 'banging' the eligible women....so where's the problem for you?"

    I have a son and a daughter. I have a father and a brother. I am a man who has never oppressed or harmed another individual let alone a woman. I take the rights that I enjoy seriously and I will not see them stripped from me or my loved ones. We don't shit in the ocean because we want to leave a clean planet for our children. I am also concerned about the socio-political climate I am leaving for my children.

    I want my daughter to act and stay as safe as possible. I have to teach my son that there is such a thing as a false accusation and that he could wind up on the wrong side of a false accusation. I also have to teach my son how to not put himself in a situation that sexist laws and unfair family courts can treat him like a second class citizen that is forced to finance the destruction of his family and have his children stripped from him.

    I have to tell my son that he is SOL if he thinks he will ever be treated equally. That he will have to work harder than female candidates to pass a physical exam. That he has to do Male Pushups because for some reason it is important for him to be able to do them in a fitness exam but girls can do girl pushups because upper body strength becomes unimportant if your gender is different.

    What do I have to worry about? Nothing! I am privileged.

    ReplyDelete
  94. And I am not angry with women. Women are only using the tools provided to them. You never hate the player. It's the game you have to worry about.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "The sexist policy of commercial airlines prohibiting men, but not women, from sitting next to unaccompanied minors to prevent child abuse hurts both men and women."

    So when you wrote that, you were speaking of Air New Zealand? Because it seems like you were talking about airlines generally. Or, just a guess, did you actually have no idea how many airlines do or do not prohibit this, because you aren't really concerned about this issue at all except as a way of attacking feminism?

    Also, the idea that I think there is no sexism against men is very humorous to me as a Stay at Home Dad. I deal with sexism on a daily basis from people who are shocked that I can change a diaper, much less take care of my kids all day, every day.

    You know what, though? That sexism isn't really that big a deal. It's a natural consequence of cultural factors that are, thankfully, changing.

    If you had any perspective you would see that Air New Zealand's UM policy really isn't that big a deal either. You bring it up as if it's emblematic of some great repression. But it isn't! You've added all these imaginary repressions together to create, in your mind, a giant machine of anti-male repression.

    That machine does not exist. If it did, your response might be appropriate! But every time you make factual assertions about the repression of men, they are distorted or made up. When you find that out, you don't change your perspective.

    One day, you may, and you will be happier. Until then you will see the world as a terrible place for me. Too bad! The world I live in is actually pretty great. I'm living in a golden age. You're missing it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. It's OK Raul. I still know that not only did you misquote me, you put quotes around it to make it look like I said it. Now you just brush it off like it is nothing.

    I was recently reading a story about a stay at home dad who's wife divorced him. Do you think he got the kids or alimony? Nope, the kids went to the mother and he was forced into the job market to pay child support.

    Your biggest problem Raul is that since you are not a wife beater or a rapist, you firmly believe that these laws cannot be used against you. I am trying to inform you that you are being willfully ignorant and you won't see it until it happens to somebody you love.

    How many legs does a sheep have if you call the tail a leg? The answer is four because the tail will not become a leg just because you called it one.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @witman:

    "that is why 80% of women will choose 20% of men to mate with."

    "80% of men being left mateless"

    So you still believe this nonsense? Could you offer even a teensy shred of proof that 80% of men are "mateless?"

    Well, actually, I know you can't, because it's not true. How onearth do you manage to convince yourself of this stuff?

    Also, I think you made some remark earlier about men being the majority of rape victims, if you count prison rape. That's simply not true.

    Those I've seen making this argument typically compare the number of rapes ESTIMATED to have taken place in prison to the number of rapes REPORTED TO POLICE outside of prison. Since the overwhelming majority of rapes (both inside and outside of prison) are not reported, this is comparing apples and oranges. To accurately compare the figures you need to either compare estimates to estimates, or officially reported rapes to officially reported rapes. See here for a better comparison of estimates:

    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/11/further-reading-prison-rape.html

    Also, the idea that we shouldn't consider violence through the lens of gender because both men and women commit violence and are victims of violence is ridiculous, and does a disservice to both women AND men:

    Men commit the vast majority (90%) of violent crimes and all but a tiny percentage of rapes.

    Women are victims of the overwhelming majority of rapes.

    Men are the victims of the overwhelming majority of violent crimes besides rape.

    If we ignore these realities we cannot understand violence or work effectively to try to reduce the violence.

    There is a lot more to respond to in these comments but these were a couple of things that stood out.

    ReplyDelete
  98. I've very sorry I misquoted you. I actually thought that factoid was originally posted by Yohan, but it was a mistake as it doesn't seem that's the case. If I find where I first saw that assertion I will point it out.

    The quotes were meant as scare quotes, not to imply you had said that specific thing. It was a mistake, though. Sorry.

    Do you want to deal with the underlying assertion I made, though? That perhaps you should be more specific when you make sweeping allegations of anti-male bias, that you are talking about one airline in a tiny country?

    If, for example, it were the case that "developed countries prohibit women from wearing headscarves" that would be a very serious endemic case of anti-Muslim bias.

    Since in fact there is one country that prohibits this, and it's super-controversial, it would probably be really idiotic of me to assert that. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I obviously pulled those statistics out of my ass.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Oh, and as I said of Yohan's example before, if the facts of your SAHD case are as you describe, that sounds like a real injustice.

    I had a friend whose husband came out of the closet and divorced her and she wound up with a much lower income and expenses far above the cost of raising her children. That was unjust!

    I had another friend whose husband cheated on her and left her for the other woman, and became a scientologist and she wound up with nothing while he is a wealthy scientology hustler in the American Southwest.

    This must be evidence of extreme pro-scientology, anti-straight bias!

    ReplyDelete
  101. "It's the feminist, who is ripping off the honest man financially, is fabricating false accusations for a lucrative divorce, is demanding money for HER children despite paternity fraud etc. and not vice versa."

    For the last time, Yohan, this has nothing to do with feminism. You are so up the ass of ideology you are not even talking about real life anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  102. As you have so elegantly pointed out Raul, anecdotal evidence not only doesn't prove causality, it also does not prove a system of abuse.

    I apologize for using statistics that are not backed up (80/20 rule). I do believe such a rule exists, but I don't have exact numbers.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Witman:

    "My Karate Sensei taught me a very valuable lesson pertaining to muggings. "If a man threatens you violently and demands your wallet what is the best thing to do? Give him your wallet!" Anything less than full compliance is provocative."

    I agree with compliance in order to prevent escalation in such cases. And since we're agreed on this, will you please, please, PLEASE tell your cohorts in the MRA movement to PLEASE consider this kind of thing next time they pick apart an alleged rape of a woman and declare that it wasn't rape because the woman didn't fight back enough? I see this kind of thing all the time and hope that if we agree on the reasonableness of self-protection we can agree that "Why did she jut give in?" with regard to a sexual assault is illogical and unfair.

    This is not particularly on topic but since it might be common ground I thought it might be worth mentioning. One of the real hurdles women have to deal with when it comes to reporting a sexual assault is that suddenly the idea of self-preservation that everyone agrees is important in robberies or other crimes of violence becomes a reason to doubt the alleged victim.

    "That vibe you're feeling off the guy, that's the beta vibe. That's the creeper beta vibe. You will not get that vibe from an alpha and that is why 80% of women will choose 20% of men to mate with. The rest of the men are just beta creepers."

    The "creepy" vibe has nothing to do with any of this alpha or beta stuff; guys you would classify as "alpha" are often the creepiest. Creepy is just this feeling that someone sees you as a piece of meat. "Alpha" guys -- I don't actually classify people this way but am going with your classifications here for clarity's sake -- are truly, truly creepy to me.

    You might not like this whole idea of "creepy" but it's shorthand for the innate sense of self-preservation you've been extolling in this very thread. If you get a sense that someone is bad news, you act on that.

    Alternately, if you don't want women to think of you as "creepy," all you really have to do is think of women as human beings. I don't particularly like getting hit on, ever, as it's usually an interruption for me and I'm not out there actively looking for someone, but if someone approaches me in a respectful, open manner, I will not get a bad feeling about that person. PUAs and guys who approach you like you have to be wheedled or tricked, or like you're some completely different species from them, or like you owe them something, just give off this unmistakable creep vibe. Doesn't matter what they look like, doesn't matter whether or not they "seem" wealthy or middle-class or poor--sorry Yohan, it's true--doesn't matter what kind of "game" they're running. It's totally obvious.

    It's not a simple thing to figure out why some women end up with abusive assholes, but I think some part of it has to do with ignoring this inherent warning signal--the reasons for doing that are as varied as are people themselves.

    "It is fully a woman's right to choose who she mates with and when. I have never and will never dispute that. What I say is that converse to 80% of men being left mateless (a bad thing in any society), the other 20% have no reason to be faithful or nice. They have no reason to value women."

    What about valuing women as people just because they are human, just like you? All people have inherent human rights and value. Having no reason to value women because they won't give you what you want is a very selfish and poisonous way to look at humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  104. "Of course, it's a one-way street, as MONEY is always moving from the man to the woman, regardless the circumstances.

    It's the feminist, who is ripping off the honest man financially, is fabricating false accusations for a lucrative divorce, is demanding money for HER children despite paternity fraud etc. and not vice versa."

    Odd, I have made anywhere from double to triple what my gentleman callers make for the past four years. In fact, I have never had a gentleman caller who made anywhere more than a few thousand more than I do. So based on my own personal experience Yohan, you are full of stinky. I usually insist (and had a guy tell me off for doing so) on paying for the date if I am the one who did the asking.

    Are there women out there who are taking men for a ride? Yes. However it is not a feminist who is doing that since the ones I know tend to believe in making their own money.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Seriously, Yohan just classifies any behavior he doesn't like as feminism at work.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Sounds like it based on the other posts I am now reading.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Witman:

    Can you think of any evidence that could exist that would disabuse you of your belief that society is slanted against men?

    ReplyDelete
  108. Raul,

    No I could not. I have been alive for 41 years and have been a second class to women the entire time. I was told to never hit a girl but they were never told to not hit boys.

    I see special funding and laws that help women of a higher station than mine. I've been harassed in the workplace but have never seen the contrary.

    Even when I had a child, I knew for a fact that I would lose custody to the mother if she chose to leave. Luckily she abandoned the baby with me and I still had to go to court six times to get custody. The only reason I won hands down was the fact that the mother didn't show up on the last two court dates (yes, they gave her another chance)

    I've seen men lose custody and become indentured servants in one court date. I've seen a man with testicular cancer and unable to work have his license taken away because he couldn't pay child support.

    In my entire life, I've personally seen a father awarded custody two times (one was me).

    You can provide all the statistical evidence you want, but you will never convince me that I have an advantage because I am a man. I never had an advantage.

    ReplyDelete
  109. M,

    Can I please please please ask you a very serious question. Why is a woman allowed to kill her husband if he abused her (battered spouse syndrome), but the man has no defense against such abuse? She can mentally, physically and emotionally abuse him for years and if he lays a hand on her, he is part of a systemic problem of abuse.

    Many times a man cannot leave an abusive relationship because part of that abuse is using his children against him. I was told by my ex that she was going to take my baby away and I would never see her again ... and welfare would give her more money than I could ever earn (was she wrong!). Luckily I have the patience of a saint and never raised a hand to her even though that was VERY provocative. She eventually got annoyed and took off.

    ************question ends rant begins******************

    In talking with my Lawyer about this I was told point blank that there was nothing I could do about any of this in court. Unless I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was a bad mother, nothing else would stop her getting custody.

    I've seen men systematically stripped of their rights, dignity, children and hard earned wealth in the name of social justice. I've been told by police that all my girlfriend had to do was say I hit her and they had a mandate to take me to jail. I am so glad they didn't tell her this.

    I shit you not, I saw a woman beating a man up in the street screaming for help. Upon further inspection, he took her car keys away because she was drunk. Some white knights were about to "Help" her in this assault but I stopped them.

    I guess I just grew up in the shittiest, most sexist part of Canada where the overwhelming statistics never reached me. I guess the Ontario Family Court system just hasn't caught on.

    ReplyDelete
  110. And M,

    If you actually read the articles at the False Rape Society you will see that it is not questioning why she didn't fight. They are addressing proven false allegations. They are pointing out how the life of a man can be destroyed the instant he is accused of a rape and that he cannot clear his name even if he is vindicated.

    There are some MRAs who think like you mentioned above, but I'll rest assured that most do not feel that way. We know that rape is rape. What people question is retroactive removal of consent where even though consent was given, she felt bad later and decided it was rape. People question the standard that between two drunk individuals who have consensual sex, the man is now legally a rapist.

    MRAs tend to question rape shield laws that will go so far as to hide the fact that a woman may be a serial accuser. She can make as many claims against as many men as she wishes from behind the shroud of anonymity.

    I have personally never seen an MRA (that I associate with) claim that a rape didn't happen because She didn't fight back hard enough.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Witman: "MRAs tend to question rape shield laws that will go so far as to hide the fact that a woman may be a serial accuser."

    I don't know about Canada, but perhaps you'll take comfort in the fact that in the US at least, the laws also go so far as to hide the fact that the accused may be a serial rapist. Evidence of prior criminal convictions, even of the same type of crime, is virtually never admissible in a criminal prosecution, including a rape prosecution. So there.

    What you mentioned above isn't a rape shield law. It's a general rule of evidence that governs the question of relevancy. Evidence 101: you can't prove that a person acted in a certain manner on a specific occasion simply by showing that she acted in that manner on some other occasion. That's the rule in all criminal and civil cases, and there is no reason why an exception should be made for rape prosecutions.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (those rules are not necessarily going to be the same for each state nor does that mean that a state legislature could have passed laws specifically barring prior convictions from being brought up) character traits and prior convictions can be admitted.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule404

    "It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident..."

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule413
    Rule 413. Evidence of Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault Cases

    For the MRA who are now completely upset over this-yes, there are specific instances where an alleged victim's behavior is admissible. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule412 Rule 412. Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual Predisposition

    And I hope the fact that someone has accused someone previously falsely does not automatically mean in your mind Witman that the woman is permanently barred from being taken seriously when she is raped and goes to the police about it.

    Also, based on the stats AND the caselaw, it seems odd that you would be told that by your attorney unless you were demanding sole custody, in which case, duh, of course she would have the right to have access to her children and it would be REALLY hard to block her access. Not only that but the courts may be more inclined to grant joint custody if they perceive one parent to be trying to marginalize the access to the child of the other parent. (Patterson v. Patterson, [2006] O.J. No. 5454 (S.C.J.)

    ReplyDelete
  113. Re. witman's link to the study that "proves" his statement that "People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities":

    The study actually defines "provoked" as "caused"--as does the British law the study discusses. So, the study says, "[T]he conduct said by the defendant to have 'provoked' his or her response of killing the victim might be entirely lawful and morally blameless. As a
    result, there have been cases involving an official enforcing a court order ... , or a baby crying ... or a person denying having stolen another's tools."

    I have problems with nearly everything you've typed, but let's start here: How on earth did you come to believe that particular study says what you think it said?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Witman, I have to grab some sleep and don't have time to address your points specifically but I have to say that looking around the world and seeing only the injustices that affect you is an anti-intellectual and largely juvenile enterprise.

    There *are* advantages to being a man, and the disadvantages do not make the advantages imaginary. The world is more complicated than you are insisting it is, and it's very telling that the simplifications you are making run along the lines of refusing to acknowledge disadvantages that you have not experienced personally.

    I subscribe to a feminism--and I'm sorry that you don't like the term, but it's not changing soon over surface-level semantic concerns, though I do like "anti-oppressionist" quite a lot--that sees the world through a rational and intersectional lens in which we are all both beneficiaries of, and disadvantaged by, socioeconomic realities and structures. It does not mean that any one person of any one class will always be privileged above others in all situations, nor that any one class of people will always be victims. It is about complicated interrelations, and it requires that I understand and seek to end the ways men are treated unfairly. It requires that I not just see the world through my own experiences--that I not deny things that I don't affect me personally.

    Honestly, as someone who has not been through the court system and has chosen a long-term domestic partnership over marriage, I have not experienced many of the things MRAs talk about. This doesn't mean I think there's nothing to absolutely every issue they raise.

    And yet MRAs will not grant a second to consider that perhaps there are real disadvantages to being female. That there are real advantages to being male. Doing so is not ceding ground--it is rationally viewing the world from as neutral a viewpoint as possible.

    I recognize the problems men face, and I've lived for about 15 years with a man who helps me see those problems through his experiences and who is interested in understanding what women face by understanding my experiences.

    A man who cannot even *see* the disadvantages that women face is viewing the world selfishly.

    ReplyDelete
  115. They verbally abuse the sh*t out of women(wh*re, cumslut, toilet, idiot, etc.,etc.)

    They objectify women to an extreme (Women good for f*cking, nothing else...)

    They are hypocritical in the extreme (Women who sleep around are wh*res, yet women aren't good for anything else, etc., etc.)

    They deflect, deflect, deflect ("Well, yeah, maybe I did say that, but what about what feminism did to me blahblahblah...")

    They blame women for the mistreatment and hatred that they subject them to ("If all those hot chicks had f*cked me like they were supposed to when I wanted it I wouldn't hate all women right now...")

    They want total control over women.

    They are incapable of debate or resolving any differences, because they use circular logic to keep the conversation in a tailspin.

    Their sense of entitlement is through the freaking roof.

    They frequently fantasize about killing women.

    This sums up the MRA. This is also a tidy little list of warning signs of abusive assholes. Coincidence? I don't believe so.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Actually before I go to sleep I want to post this great link, which David has posted in prior entries:

    http://www.xyonline.net/content/responding-mens-rights-groups

    ReplyDelete
  117. David, thank you for posting this and for treating it with the seriousness it deserves (although few of us would've expected anything less of you).

    I am sick of conversing with them. In this thread alone, it is evident that they have no desire to debate. All they do is deflect and blame. From this point on, I will treat them as I treat my abusive ex. I will ignore them. Sometimes debate and argument is good. With narcissistic sociopaths, it is a waste of time.

    To you guys regarding why women enter into abusive relationships, I can only speak for myself and the (many) other women I know who have shared my experience. No, we did not WANT an abuser. No, we are not defective, nor are we co-dependent, nor any other silly tripe which attempts to place the blame for their actions on our shoulders. We simply did not know. Abusers are charming manipulators. Much as my ex is still charming that pants off our friends and family, he once was able to do to me. The difference was that I was the one he was intimate with, therefore I was the threat to him. I was the one who would get close enough to see the shortcomings that he tried to hide to the world, and he needed to do anything in his power to prevent that from happening. Because of his need to present a false self to the world, and because of the vulnerability that my presence represented, I was the only one who saw this side of him. The rage fueled rants about what a whore I was did not begin until after we were married. They got worse from there, and I finally got away from him.

    NO, I DO NOT jump from psycho to psycho. I was terrified of dating again because I was so fearful of falling into another relationship like the one I had with him. The sad dichotomy in my case is that as sure as I am that I can now spot an abusive sociopath from a hundred yards away (and I am always SPOT ON...it's kind of crazy), I question myself when entering a relationship. Red flags might be legitimate....or they might be me just being hyper sensitive to abusive asshole behavior. So no, we are NOT TO BLAME FOR THE ABUSES OF SOCIOPATHS. And we are not defective little idiots who enjoy getting beaten on. That's idiotic in the extreme. And no, we are not all mousy little things who suffer from self esteem issues. I'm quite strong, confident and full of myself, thankyouverymuch.

    Everytime I've attempted to take on an MRAer, I always hear the same thing. "Well, I didn't say that. We are not all like that". Well, guess what. Ya kinda are. Because you all hide. No one knows your real identity, which makes it that much easier for your hate-filled rants to clog up the hate-o-sphere with no claim of responsibility. Sorry, but even you guys have an acronym for that, don't you? And hey, from where I sit, you ARE ALL LIKE THAT.

    ReplyDelete
  118. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  119. witman said...
    .....I have been alive for 41 years and have been a second class to women the entire time.

    ..... Even when I had a child, I knew for a fact that I would lose custody to the mother if she chose to leave. Luckily she abandoned the baby with me

    ..... I've seen a man with testicular cancer and unable to work have his license taken away because he couldn't pay child support.

    ..... but you will never convince me that I have an advantage because I am a man. I never had an advantage.


    @witman

    Thanks for posting your story, which is very typical for 10000s of men from Northern America and all Europe.

    Well, I do not think you will find much compassion or consideration on this blog however. More the opposite, some scornful remarks, maybe or even not that, just total ignorance.

    My story is a bit different as I was able to move out from the feminist region and could start an entire new life.

    About myself, I was badly treated by Western women until my final departure.

    I has always been a second class person for any Western woman since I remember back, maybe as young as 4 year old. Well, we cannot choose our parents, neighbours, teachers, class-mates etc. for our future when we are born.

    Privileges, advantages for me because I am a man? Which privileges? What a nonsense. Only an ignorant idiot far away from daily real life can say that.

    ReplyDelete
  120. "Well, I do not think you will find much compassion or consideration on this blog however. More the opposite, some scornful remarks, maybe or even not that, just total ignorance."

    Well, he just told me his mind is closed on the matter, based on his own experience and nothing else. Seems that's the case for you as well.

    So why are you here? You're not contributing anything useful.

    ReplyDelete
  121. What's so infuriating about these people is that half the time they complain about the same thing that feminists do. But they can't grasp that feminists aren't Evil Grasping Bitches who want the freedom to punch any man in the face. You dumbasses, feminism calls bullshit on this stuff too, dammit!

    No one should be hitting anyone! Can you really not get that it's part of the whole fucked up crap we all get fed about women being weak crazy emotional little dopes and men being strong emotionless providers? Gawwwwd, jesus, fuck. Look a little damn deeper than "women steal my baybees in court, therefore women are MONSTERS".

    ReplyDelete
  122. Yes, exactly.

    Also, a good comment:

    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/08/06/mens-rights-activists-anti-feminists-and-other-misogynists-comment-on-george-sodini/#comment-392153

    ReplyDelete
  123. The problem is, if your approach assumes that women are silly and venal and easily manipulated, you will wind up with a lot of silly, venal, easy manipulated women. They exist!
    Exactly, Raul, it's like they're caught up in a self-fulfilling prophecy, and one where their needs/wants render the disadvantages of their strategy indiscernable. Take witman's story of being mugged in Cuba and apply a similar principle, being (knowingly, in this example) provocative by advertising or giving the appearance of having, say, wealth, will probably attract the interest of those who are seeking wealth. Is it a strategy that works? Sure it is! And the women for whom that strategy won't work? Well, they're probably feminists who are known to be lesbian man-haters, anyway, that's why it doesn't work on them.

    I obviously pulled those statistics out of my ass.
    No, they weren't pulled out of your ass, those statistics were mentioned in a thread on this very blog (though I do believe it was 80/40 split, not 80/20). The statistics quoted are, apparently, the historical rate of reproductive success (females having 80% rate of reproductive success while males had only 40%), which was used as proof that 80% of the female population chooses to mate with only 40% of the male population. One of the problems with taking those statistics and applying it to modern, Western society is that it's only very recently that females (and males, for that matter) have been allowed to choose with whom they mate. This was often a choice either made or coerced by their family. And I daresay that the coercion method is probably still very much in play, especially in the "upper crust". Our idea of romantic love and that love leading to marriage is all very recent in the history of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  124. @Yohan

    "Well, I do not think you will find much compassion or consideration on this blog however. More the opposite, some scornful remarks"

    How true that is:

    Raul: "Well, he just told me his mind is closed on the matter, based on his own experience and nothing else. Seems that's the case for you as well. "

    You see? I've never denied that women are abused or that rapes happen but when I tell my experience I get told I have a closed mind.

    Open your eyes Raul. Women do not and cannot respect house husbands. You're powerful wife will seek out a more powerful male for her feral sexual enjoyment. She will also take your kids and you can cry a river about how it's OK because she's a women and they are discriminated against.

    When you come back here to tell everyone the Emperor has no clothes, your allies here will kick the shit out of you. How dare you complain about unfair treatment and try to say everyone deserves rights when it is the women who are abused. Be thankful you were born with a penis so you can be so easily abused.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Should be your, not you're I should learn to spell write.

    ReplyDelete
  126. @The Apprentice:
    "Look a little damn deeper than "women steal my baybees in court, therefore women are MONSTERS""

    Never once did I say women are monsters because they steal babies. I offer this as proof that males are disadvantaged in this particular area of life. The system is a monster and the women who are enabling it to take away the rights of other human beings are simply being useful idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Much ground has been covered since I last looked at the comments here, but there is one small issue that I would like to address -- and that is the recurring complaint that boys suffer because they are told they can't hit girls.

    First of all, people, including boys, don't always do as they are told. Boys may be told not to hit girls, but some of them hit girls nonetheless.

    Second, while the general principle is that boys shouldn't hit girls, it is almost completely swallowed by the exception that for a boy to physically harass a girl, taunt her, subject her to physical pranks, damage her property and sabotage or destroy her school work is merely charming boyish behavior, or an acceptable expression of liking that particular girl. So yes, if a boy straight punches a girl in the mouth, there will be consequences. But short of that, boys are given a lot of leeway in assaulting and harassing girls "for fun", and both school administrations and parents go out of their way to characterize such behavior as "just a joke".

    There was a time in elementary school when my hair was cropped short, because boys in my class kept tugging at my pig tails. No, it's not "charming", and it's not "funny" when you are the one trying to do work in class and flinching at the slightest movement behind you, wondering when your hair is going to be yanked. Imagine if someone pulled YOUR hair on a regular basis. Or your son's hair (rather than your daughter's) -- would you laugh? In fact, I submit that hair-pulling is where it all starts: by treating such behavior by boys as "normal" and "funny", adults send the message that women lack bodily autonomy and that men therefore are entitled to touch women's bodies if they feel the urge to do so; and when the problem is addressed by cutting off the girl's hair -- rather than by forcing her tormentors to stop their behavior -- that message is reinforced in that women are deemed to be uniquely responsible for physical harassment at the hands of men.

    There are other forms of physical harassment by boys against girls that are perfectly tolerated by schools and parents, including vandalism, destruction of school work, bra-snapping, sticking gum in hair, etc. And in all such situations, the victim is left with the choice of whether to change schools -- in other words, endure tremendous inconveniences just because it would be too much to expect a boy to stop harassing her -- or act "ladylike", which is to say, suck it up and be grateful someone likes her enough to break into her locker and deface it.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Open your eyes Raul. Women do not and cannot respect house husbands. You're powerful wife will seek out a more powerful male for her feral sexual enjoyment. She will also take your kids and you can cry a river about how it's OK because she's a women and they are discriminated against.

    Sorry, but what a load of crap. "Feral sexual enjoyment"? Please. Powerful men who can't fuck provide exactly ZERO physical enjoyment. And narcissists (which includes men who are obsessed with "power" and masculinity) are lousy in bed, not the least because they are incapable of intimacy. However, I can understand how men who have problems in that department console themselves with the illusion that their pretense of "power" acts as compensation for their lack of sexual prowess.

    And by the way, I can and do respect househusbands -- men who are secure enough in their sexuality and in their relationships that they can follow their inclinations without fear that child care will somehow emasculate them.

    ReplyDelete
  129. @Amused.

    You got me! Women do not have Female Feral Sexual Cycles because you said it was so. Seems to me that 2/3 of female initiated divorce must mean that 2/3 of men are just dicks. Yes, you respect house husbands. I see. Now you're just speculating that you could continue to respect an emasculated man for more than four years. Raul, get a good lawyer because your wife will be banging a CEO or VIP within the next four years.

    BTW, as for your previous post, I too was chased and sexually harassed by girls in school and guess what, there was NO RECOURSE for me! I've had my hair pulled by girls and been picked on by them in school so cry me a river and suck it up princess. Start supporting laws and customs that say person/people instead of male/female and you'll have 100% support from me.

    Feminism cannot be about equal rights if it pushes a female agenda. It is pure and simple female domination of males that they want and it cannot stop until they get it. Even then, where is their motivation to stop when it is such a big industry? They'll need to make up more and more statistics and make the plight of girls worse than boys through dehumanization of the male.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Witman your ideas about the nature of women are just baffling. And paranoid. Also your acceptance of the idea of "emasculation" is really sad to me.

    Stop making essentialist arguments about what I am and what I am not, that I am driven by biology to find "alpha males" or such nonsense. I am a multi-faceted human being, not a she-wolf. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  131. "You got me! Women do not have Female Feral Sexual Cycles because you said it was so."

    Oh? Women have "female feral sexual cycles" because YOU said so? Your words have more validity than mine because ... because you are male?

    Seems to me that 2/3 of female initiated divorce must mean that 2/3 of men are just dicks.

    Seems to me that just because the wife initiates the divorce, that doesn't mean she initiated the breakup of the marriage.

    Yes, you respect house husbands. I see. Now you're just speculating that you could continue to respect an emasculated man for more than four years.

    First of all, I don't consider a man who stays home to take care of the house and the kids emasculated. Second, my speculations about how I feel are certainly more likely to be accurate than your speculations about how I feel. You don't get to invalidate my experiences and dictate to me what I should think just because you are a guy.

    BTW, as for your previous post, I too was chased and sexually harassed by girls in school and guess what, there was NO RECOURSE for me!

    So what? Is your bodily autonomy somehow more precious than mine, that you consider your experiences tragic and mine nonsense? In any event, the point was that your statement that violence by boys against girls isn't tolerated is flat-out wrong.

    I've had my hair pulled by girls and been picked on by them in school so cry me a river and suck it up princess.

    Telling me to suck it up doesn't make you original. Girls are constantly told to suck it up, and so are women. Save the lectures for your daughter, though I'm sure she gets an earful already about how her brother is the important one. And -- "princess"? Who the hell do you think you are? What do you know about my life? Based on your tale of woe, your life has been a cakewalk compared to mine and that of women in my family. You grew up middle class in one of the wealthiest and most liberal countries in the world -- and we all should feel sorry for you? You think, that just because your first wife dumped you, you know hardship? That because you had to go to court a few times for custody, you know the true meaning of irrecoverable loss? That because someone made an unwanted pass at you, YOU are the authority on what it's like to be dehumanized? That because someone made you feel like you arent' the center of the universe by heaping praise on you for the accomplishments of other men, you know the dark side of life? My God, it's a regular Auschwitz, your existence! You poor dear, it's a shame you apparently haven't experienced much to put things in perspective for you. So methinks it's you who should suck it up, you whiny baby. Oh, noes, your hair got pulled! Omygod, how could they do this, that's only supposed to happen to broads -- right?

    Start supporting laws and customs that say person/people instead of male/female and you'll have 100% support from me.

    Stop making gratuitous insinuations (so obviously wish-fulfillment, btw) about people's spouses, construing "female" things as insulting and degrading, and talking out of both sides of your mouth -- then maybe your words will have some credibility with me, even when I disagree.

    They'll need to make up more and more statistics and make the plight of girls worse than boys through dehumanization of the male.

    This is another curious phenomenon that I noticed on the part of MRA's who claim they are all for equality. They perceive women as a narrow special interest despite the fact that women comprise half of humanity. Thus any discussion of problems faced by women is automatically "dehumanizing" to men, because men are the default people! And of course, there is no such thing as dehumanization when it comes to women, because women aren't human to begin with. Right?

    ReplyDelete
  132. @witman: "You're powerful wife will seek out a more powerful male for her feral sexual enjoyment. She will also take your kids"

    This is one of the strangest arguments you've made yet. A woman DOESN'T do what you claim women do, so you basically declare her guilty anyway because you somehow know that she WILL do those things.

    If women are guilty not only for what they do but for what you hypothetically imagine they WILL do, no wonder you're angry at women.

    What if I were to say "I'm not going to listen to a word you say, witman, because you're a serial killer." You would reply that you hadn't killed anyone. Then I could say, "well, you WILL."

    Wouldn't that be, er, an incredibly stupid argument? Well, you're doing the exact same thing.

    ReplyDelete

  133. Miranda: Well, guess what. Ya kinda are. Because you all hide. No one knows your real identity, which makes it that much easier for your hate-filled rants to clog up the hate-o-sphere with no claim of responsibility. Sorry, but even you guys have an acronym for that, don't you? And hey, from where I sit, you ARE ALL LIKE THAT.

    Ridiculous argument!

    Just checking out your empty profil.

    Isn't it you who is anonymous on the internet slandering the MRAs with your hateful drivel?

    it is you who is in hiding. Who are you?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Raul Groom said...
    @Yohan
    So why are you here? You're not contributing anything useful.


    And who are you, Mr. Raul Groom?

    Do you consider yourself as a special kind of intelligent human or what?

    And do you really think, your comments are *useful*?

    All opinions which do not fit your narrow mindset ... Well many do not agree with you and you will have to live with that... sorry, Sir...

    ReplyDelete
  135. Yohan, the fact that Amptoon happens to buy its web hosting services from a company that also sells web hosting services to porn sites does not in any way mean that he has sold his web site to pornographers. I have taken down your slanderous comment.

    You, for example, have a blog up on blogger, right? Well, guess what, some people put up adult content on blogger. That doesn't make you a pornographer does it?

    ReplyDelete
  136. @witman: "so cry me a river and suck it up princess."

    Uh, yeah. That might be considered a powerful argument on MRA web sites but in the real world, it's generally regarded as a sign that you're out of arguments, and kind of a dick.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Yohan, if you have specific proof that what you are saying about amptoons is true, I will let you post it. Otherwise I will delete your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  138. David: You, for example, have a blog up on blogger, right? Well, guess what, some people put up adult content on blogger. That doesn't make you a pornographer does it?

    You are grossly misinformed, David.

    Do you not read feminist websites?
    OK, so I give you now some links...

    http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/10/11/bad-ideas/

    http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/fuckery-and-betrayal/

    http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/04/26/i-went-to-the-stumptown-comics-fest-and-all-i-got-was-this-awesome-book-about-an-11-year-old-troll-fighting-orthodox-jewish-girl/

    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/11/i-sold-amptoonscom-comments-are-now-open/

    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/22/update-on-the-amptoonscom-domain-sale/

    ReplyDelete
  139. Yohan, since you provided the links, your comment is now up. FWIW, while my understanding of what Barry had done wasn't correct, I think your comments oversimplfied what was going on as well.

    ReplyDelete
  140. PoliticalguineapigJanuary 9, 2011 at 10:43 PM

    To a lot of you guys: Uh, 80% of women are totally invisible to you. If we're not blonde, not noticably busty, and fat, you'd walk right by us. So, a lot of it is that you're after the western ideal of beauty, and said Western ideal would rather go about her day. Being noticed by guys is so rare to me that I'd hit '91' on my phone because I'd take his interest as pretty sinister. I don't even talk to guys on my daily rounds because I really really hate the idea of being raped/murdered.
    As a kid, I wanted to be beautiful and blonde. As an adult, I am so glad that I'm not either of those things.

    ReplyDelete
  141. ohhhhh christ.

    "I'm a nice guy! I never beat up or murdered a woman! (I might have THOUGHT about it-hey, who doesn't, those bitches? but I never did.) But hot women end up murdered by Bad Guys all the time! Fuck it; if the only reason for *not* murdering or raping women-i.e. the reward of a hot woman-isn't coming to me, I might as well join their ranks, am I right? What other *possible* reason could there be? for being a Nice i.e. Not Murdering or Rapist Guy?"

    brrrrrrrrrrr

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis