Thursday, January 6, 2011

Trogdor005 goes ghost

My new favorite commenter on the Happy Bachelors Forum is a fellow calling himself trogdor005, who pretty much lives up to his name, offering blunt misogynist rants with all the subtlety of a caveman. A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts. So here is the first in a new series, "The Wit and Wisdom of Trogdor005."

Today's topic: "Going ghost." For those not conversant with the latest in angry-man slang, this is a term adopted by the manosphere that's basically a variant on Men Going Their Own Way -- that is, disengaging from women and as much as possible from society itself. A man who goes ghost is, of course, a ghost.  Here's how you use it in a sentence: 

That creepy douchebag who lives alone in the basement apartment and scowls every time a women walks by is a ghost.

Recently, one of the Happy Bachelors ran across a blog post by a woman who mocked the whole "ghost" notion:

I admit it, every time I read about some guy in the manosphere declaring that he or other men are going to go ghost, I laugh. I laugh real hard. When I have nothing else to laugh about because it feels as if nothing is going my way I think of those men, I laugh, and I am instantaneously cheered up.

The bulk of men are not willing to go ghost–no matter how bad things in the sexual and economic marketplace skew in favor of women–and even if large numbers of them did, most of those men would not be missed and eventually they would return to society, chastened by their transgression at acting on such a foolish endeavor.

This post MAKE TROGDOR MAD! So he banged out a response.  He began by showing off his hard-won font-size-modification and smiley skills:



Then he moved into the meat of his argument:

The bottom line is men can avoid women entirely and there is NO FORCE on Earth that can force us into "marriage" or even a "relationship" with a woman minus a gun to the head. Even if the Guv'ment succeeds in somehow "forcing" men to get married, we as ghosts know what makes you bitches tick and can simply become unemployed intentionally, become fat stinky slobs, treat you very nicely/well, or more devastatingly effective, say the words "I love you" and cause you to instantly lose ALL attraction for us and be miserable in your Guv'ment arranged "marriages" ;D ... The icing on the cake is that, when you inevitably file for "divorce" after years of unhappiness/New Cock Urge it is YOU who will pay US men "alimony" and "child support" since we were unemployed during the "marriage" hahahahhahaha ;D

Yes, you heard it right ladies, even if the government gives in to your dastardly desires and actually forces men to marry you, they can defeat you without lifting a finger, literally, except when their fingers are needed to shove food into their mouths.

Trogdoor005 then rallied the troops with some stirring rhetoric:

Men are winning the "gender war" and there is NOTHING the wimminz can do about it ... The matriarchy needs a steady supply of manginas/husbands to feed the system and keep it running, a ghost is the anti-thesis of the mangina/husband and therefore MUST be discredited, silenced, and destroyed.

Many of us men will go on to lead happy, fulfilling lives, meanwhile many of these same Femini-nazi bitches will end up with cats and vibrators in their old age.

Here's where Trogdor005 went wrong: plenty of non-elderly women have cats and vibrators already.

110 comments:

  1. Wait, their solution is to drop out of society . .. but it is their enemies who will end up alone as a result?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I want to party with that dude, and his fonts and faces and social graces. I'm good at lifting the spirits of the recluse, "who you gonna call?"

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Recently, one of the Happy Bachelors ran across a blog post by a women who mocked the whole "ghost" notion"

    Rut roh David, you spelled the singular "woman" as "women".

    You're going native.

    ReplyDelete
  4. hmm, I'm in a relationship with a man, I own cats, and two vibrators. I'm a feminist (I guess he would call me a feminazi bitch) and my guy would find the mangina comment insulting, mostly because it mocks vaginas which according to him is the altar at which he worships (his words not mine). Oh I'm also 20. What does caveman speak with his childish emoticons have to say about that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Technically, if a dude had to get married because someone was holding a gun to his head, that's pretty good grounds for annulment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I don't know about saying he lives up to his name, man. Trogdor was a pretty cool dragon, and probably more intelligent/socially conscious too.

    Also, "going ghost"? Wtf? That is just stupid. How could you hate women so much that you want to force yourself into a life of isolation?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Let's see how this going ghost works:

    A life of subjugation at the alter of rebekah's vagina

    or

    Freedom

    Shit, I hate when choices are so difficult! I guess I'd have to flip a coin on this one!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Men need women like we need fish scales all over our bicycles.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "but it is their enemies who will end up alone as a result?"

    They should, so they can deal with their issues on their own and not bother anyone parasite-like for help.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shorter Trogdor005: "I hate you!! I'm going to my ROOM!!" *slam*

    Oh, no, please don't... *snicker*

    ReplyDelete
  11. "The bulk of men are not willing to go ghost–no matter how bad things in the sexual and economic marketplace skew in favor of women–and even if large numbers of them did, most of those men would not be missed and eventually they would return to society, chastened by their transgression at acting on such a foolish endeavor."

    Gross assumption. If most men did go ghost "society" as we know it would certainly not look the same, if not stagnate and die.

    They would be missed alright---after all, who is going to take out the garbage and be walking ATMs for Ameriskanks? Can't have that . . .

    ReplyDelete
  12. Imagine if a bunch of men like me went ghost and the gov (i.e. Feminists) lost the 15-30K in tax revenue from each?

    Men have an right to be seen as individuals (with rights) and when you step on those rights, we might just stop financing our own obsolescence.

    You're already shocked and dismayed that we see through your drink flirting behaviors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This seems a lot like the "Going Galt" rhetoric the Ayn Rand types crow about.

    To it, I say the same thing I say to them. Go ahead, go, please. Please.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Imagine if a bunch of men like me went ghost and the gov (i.e. Feminists) lost the 15-30K in tax revenue from each?"

    *Shrug* "Going ghost" sounds a lot like "going Galt" -- just as likely, and oh, the irony of having borrowed that from a woman. As for the substance -- so what? You wouldn't pay taxes, but you'd lose the income. There would be a period of adjustment, but ultimately, the market and the government would balance themselves out. I suppose you'd get your welfare check and your minimal medical care, if that's what you are getting at. Nothing new there -- lots of men already live this way. All because them women took "their" jobs away.

    Men have an right to be seen as individuals (with rights) and when you step on those rights, we might just stop financing our own obsolescence.

    Let's get one thing straight, Witman -- with your 15-30K in taxes, you don't "finance" me. People like me pay more in taxes than you and men like you earn in gross. Apart from that, the overwhelming majority of women work, so you don't "finance" women with your taxes. Next: your rights don't include a right to someone else's body. And: "obsolescence", really? In what way are you useful to society? You barely even pay anything in taxes, and I don't know whether that $15-30K is even sufficient to cover your consumption of public services. The world doesn't revolve around you. You don't get to decide who is "obsolete" based on some medieval notion that your natural "right" is to consume, while others' obligation is to serve your wants.

    You're already shocked and dismayed that we see through your drink flirting behaviors.

    Yeah, we are busted. Although, I never flirt with a man for anything less than actual protection. You know, from all the usual dangers that men fearlessly face every day, shielding us ungrateful women with their rock-hard muscular bodies, such as: raining meteorites, invading Mongols, rapey aliens, magic flesh-eating turtles, volcanic eruptions, evil birds and Godzilla. Because why in the world would any woman be nice to you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Imagine if a bunch of men like me went ghost and the gov (i.e. Feminists) lost the 15-30K in tax revenue from each?"

    Exactly how does "going ghost" relieve you of tax liability?

    I'm guessing that the manospheroids proposing this are neither independently wealthy, nor have access to a secret compound where the IRS can't find them.

    Any more than the liberal tax evaders who don't like paying for war, or the conservative tax evaders who think the federal income tax is unconstitutional. The IRS doesn't care what your political beliefs are when it seizes your assets to recover back taxes.

    I'm with John Taylor. Go right on ahead and go ghost, Galt, whatever form of getting the fuck out of my life agrees with your particular strain of irritating self-importance.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Witman, I know this may be hard to believe, you being such an incredible catch and all... but Rebekah's comment was not, in fact, an invitation for you to worship at her altar.

    No worries! Your freedom will continue to be unencumbered by Rebekah's vagina. Whether you want it to or not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have some questions David:

    Did you read the blog post from the woman? Do you approve of the biologistic argumentation? Do you approve of her heteronormative thinking? Doesn't it feel kind of stupid to attack an angry rant of a guy, who is obviously on bad terms with himself and the world, if you could instead attack a pseudo scientific blog post?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Let's get one thing straight, Witman -- with your 15-30K in taxes, you don't "finance" me. People like me pay more in taxes than you and men like you earn in gross.

    So, amused, you're saying you pay, at the bare minimum, $2,160,000 in taxes? Doesn't a bigshot millionaire like you have better things to do than pick on MRAs and mock them for not being as rich as you? Oh yes, and "going ghost" is not intended to relieve one of tax liability except by virtue of the fact that the ghost lifestyle is inexpensive and therefore does not require spending a lot of time in a soul-destroying job to earn the kind of income on which one would incur taxes of 15-30k. Whatever you do to earn those millions of dollars per year, is clearly must not involve a lot of brain power.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Incidentally, if by "gross" you meant net income instead of a quantity of 144, my point still stands.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It must be my privilege to earn as much as she pays in taxes.

    Note that women cannot do my job. Maybe on some level with the appropriate training they might be able to muddle through, but it is a man's job. I work on a team of men and have interviewed several men for further positions and there are NO women willing to do the shit I do for a living. They don't even apply. The work sucks, the hours are long and gruelling and you get stressed out quite a bit. It's the BEST job I have ever had!

    Then we go out on Fridays and get the bar wenches to serve us beer and wings. What a life!

    I may not pay a lot in taxes, but there are a lot of us and it adds up quickly.

    BTW, if you're paying over 100K in taxes, then you're being paid too much spending time on this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @SallyStrange,

    Worshiping at the altar rebekah's vagina is a metaphor. It's OK, you stay right there in that box and I'll go out and fetch relevant facts for you. You need the box like ... you know a retarded kid needs a red helmet.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Haha Witman. "Women cannot handle my job because they are women! Women bring me food!"

    Hahaha. It is like you are doing an impression of a crazy misogynist.

    And no, the point is not that women work in your industry or that they do not, in fact, bring you your hot wings. The point is that you interpret these facts to mean that you are superior.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hmmm...the only jobs I have ever heard a legitimate reason the woman could not do was due to a lack of muscle mass or the fact women apparently (I never verified this so no idea if it is true or not) women lose muscle mass faster.

    So unless you have a job where muscle mass is key and retaining that muscle mass...it could very well be that all the women are off taking the high paying jobs instead.

    And yes, that was a sarcastic statement regarding taking all the high paying jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Awesome, go ghost. It's a time for bemused pause when people you don't want to deal with make the effort to disappear.

    witman - "Then we go out on Fridays and get the bar wenches to serve us beer and wings. What a life!"

    Arrrrrr, matey!

    "Worshiping at the altar rebekah's vagina is a metaphor."

    'Cause that's what the issue is, that it was taken literally. That's just melodramatic!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Really, the woman quoted bewilders me nearly as much as Trogdor and his type do.

    She seems so very invested in believing that the ghost men or whatever will come crawling back to society -- almost as if she's afraid that they won't. I wonder why. Who on earth would want such people to "come back?"

    Really, if bitter misogynist men want to withdraw from society altogether, that's A-OK with me. Ditto the people who fancy themselves "Galts." Or any other embittered separatists with an inflated sense of their own importance.

    I'd rather live in a society with people who have the sense of perspective to realize that they're not, in the wider view of things, really all that important to the rest of the world.

    ReplyDelete
  26. And then Sandy does that crazy thing of putting quotes around her crazy paraphrase to make it look like that is what I said. Crazy, crazy lady! It's like every argument I've ever been in with a woman. Might as well try to get the dog to understand logic.

    So much inanity I don't even know where to start.

    No, my job does not require muscle mass. It requires technical acumen, high stress and long hours. Women might be able to do it, but they ain't beating down the door to apply! Like I said, the work sucks and the hours are long and it's the best God Damned Job I've ever had!

    I did like the Arrrr, matey! That was a good one and I do feel liberated and pirate like when wenches server me beers. I've walked out of bars that tried to give me a male server (it just isn't natural)

    Later folks!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh, wait, I missed Crazy Sandy's last point:

    "The point is that you interpret these facts to mean that you are superior."

    And where did I say men were superior? Nowhere! This is another crazy cat lady ploy of reading into what was said rather than just taking it at face value. It's like trying to reason with a child.

    My point is that men have rights! The same rights as every other human on this planet. I will not only fight for those rights, but I will do everything to liberate every man that I come into contact with.

    God, I am such a sucker. I wish I could be like the trolls on the MRA sites. They are experts in that all they do is ask a completely irrelevant question and derail a discussion. Being male, I stupidly resort to logic and appeal to a greater sense of good which nobody here seems to have.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "Really, if bitter misogynist men want to withdraw from society altogether, that's A-OK with me. Ditto the people who fancy themselves "Galts." Or any other embittered separatists with an inflated sense of their own importance."

    Elkins is incorrect. It is actually many good men (MGTOW or even those never even heard of the acronym) that are being pushed away, adapting by doing different tactics with women and culture, or avoiding situations and people that would be deleterious to their person and way of life.

    They are important, and important to society and the mechanisms of civilization. Your lack of concern is a problem. One part of it is this: what other men will be interacting with you when the good men are not actively participating (or not willing to put with misandry and drift away?)

    A portion of them are the men you complain about. You are creating an environment you probably think you are circumventing.

    ReplyDelete
  29. “And then Sandy does that crazy thing of putting quotes around her crazy paraphrase to make it look like that is what I said.”

    It’s very obvious she did it in the context of a paraphrase, actually. The additional content made it even more obvious. You're deliberately ignoring that she called out you're hilariously cartoon misogynyst cliche's, which is fine, but pirates are generally straight to the point.

    “Crazy, crazy lady! It's like every argument I've ever been in with a woman. Might as well try to get the dog to understand logic.”

    Since you’re disingenuous to every woman with whom you speak and then attempt to twist it around to make her appear crazy, I can see where you’d have trouble...

    “Women might be able to do it, but they ain't beating down the door to apply!”

    With you there? Get out of here!

    “I've walked out of bars that tried to give me a male server (it just isn't natural)”

    Let me guess: the male servers are being flirty for free drinks.

    “I will not only fight for those rights, but I will do everything to liberate every man that I come into contact with.”

    Even male servers that like pirates and free drinks?

    “Being male, I stupidly resort to logic and appeal to a greater sense of good which nobody here seems to have.”

    I think you’d like to believe that, but it’s okay. Only because you’re a pirate and I think that’s cute.

    ReplyDelete
  30. hi witman,
    just wanted to let you know that I don't actually subjugate my bf. In fact most people would call our relationship extremely traditional and old fashioned. By his choice he is the one who leads our relationship, not me. I don't demand a damn thing from him other than for him to respect me as a human being. He, who btw does not self identify as a feminist, has no problem with treating me with said respect.
    Oh and you wouldn't be welcome to worship at the altar of my vagina. I only let men who respect women go there

    ReplyDelete
  31. wytch, could you point me to some MGTOW online who are neither bitter nor misogynist? I have yet to find any.

    This is a serious question. URLs?

    ReplyDelete
  32. So, let me get this straight.

    A bunch of men are so angry at women for rejecting them, that they're threatening to just stop talking to women altogether.

    And this is a threat to those women...how?

    The phrase that comes to my mind is, "Oh, no, br'er fox! Please don't throw me in that briar patch!"

    ReplyDelete
  33. "It is actually many good men (MGTOW or even those never even heard of the acronym) that are being pushed away, adapting by doing different tactics with women and culture, or avoiding situations and people that would be deleterious to their person and way of life."

    wytchfinde555, I think that nearly everyone I know -- and certainly everyone I consider a friend -- does this to a certain extent. There are certainly situations and people that I avoid because I believe that contact with them or with their toxic ideas is deleterious to my person and way of life. There are certainly ways of interacting with people and culture that I have adopted as an adaptation strategy - as a way of adapting to a culture that I believe is in many ways very, very sick. That's part of how subcultures come about, isn't it?

    I think, though, that there's a big difference in emphasis between "this aspect of the culture is so sick and so toxic to me that I must avoid it or adapt new ways of dealing with it for my own protection" or "I prefer to limit my social circle to people I don't believe to be adherents to seriously toxic ideas about gender" and "When I withdraw from society, EVERYONE WILL BE SORRY AND THAT'LL LEARN THEM!"

    It could be that you are right in (what I'm reading to be) your implication that these statements are really reflecting the same reality, and that the latter statement is just coming from someone who is feeling more hurt, or more injured, or more angry. But I can't help but perceive a difference there beyond one of mere tone.

    ReplyDelete
  34. glennsacks.com
    fathersandfamilies.com

    It's a start.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Elkins:

    "I prefer to limit my social circle to people who agree with me"

    ^^ Fixed it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I see that Witman is still intellectually incapable of exploring the world outside his own experiences or the things that affect him personally in some way. Posting in the comments of this site went from entertaining to exhausting quickly due to such proud ignorance. It's all logical fallacies, resentment and a continuous misrepresentation of what the rest of us stand for even when we say outright again and again what we stand for.

    Debate is only fun when one's opponent is halfway capable.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I don't know many people whose intimates -- their closest personal friends or their spouses -- hold philosophies of life utterly antithetical to their own, whitman. Do you?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Witman: I don't give a flying rat's ass about what you do for a living, why you do it, how you feel about it, what you like to do for fun, how awesome you think it is to have beer and wings, or how "manly" it makes you and your neanderthal buddies feel to ogle the waitress who can't do anything about customers' porcine behavior. I gather you are a blue-collar guy who works in a job that has a significant physical component, and outside of which, you have interests which revolve around junk food, ass-grabbing, and feeling sorry for yourself -- but again, I don't care. I would only note three things:

    First, as I previously said, whatever you do for a living, don't flatter yourself by pretending that your taxes support me.

    Second, you should lay off grandiose pronouncements about how you supposedly adhere to logic, since your oscillations between beating yourself in the chest about how awesome your life is and tearful exposes of how you are constantly mistreated and oppressed by the matriarchy are anything but logical.

    Third, love as you may your job and your gourmet nights of Purdue wings 'n swill, none of it matters -- because you are "going ghost" remember? That means, quitting your job, dumping your wife, dumping your girlfriends and staying in the basement until such time as the world comes to be sorry.

    Cold: As a rich person, I do whatever the fuck I want. Capisce?

    ReplyDelete
  39. @M,

    And I see that you have offered a great ad hominem attack. Well played, I bow to your excellence.

    @Amused,

    My life is awesome because I made it that way. I wasn't born rich (or married into it) like some. I've done this in spite of the ill will and mistreatment by the likes of you. Imagine a poor little white boy struggling up through the ranks to middle-middle class and all it's bounty and entitlement!

    I am an entitled man (born with privilege) so I can ogle whomever I wish and this is especially pleasant when they have an incentive to be nice. Porcine though it may be, you seem angry that you don't qualify for my ogling.

    You got me on the basement part! I have a man cave in the basement of my home. Women are only allowed here by invitation so don't embarrass yourself by asking. I only let nice women in here. :)


    "Cold: As a rich person (with a vagina), I do whatever the fuck I want. Capisce?"
    ^^ I fixed that for you too.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Amused:

    I have to admit that I felt a smidgen or amusement at your Blue Collar comment. This coming from an over-privileged princess such as yourself. I'm sure the lowly ranks of the middle class here will not feel slighted as you only snub your nose at middle-classed men and not them.

    You know what would be really funny? Tell me I'm privileged. It gets me aroused.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Witman, if those URLs were meant for me, Glenn Sacks is not a MGHOW. He's a father's rights activist. I don't agree with him, but he's not saying "fuck you I'm taking my ball and going home," he's engaging with society and involved in political activism.

    I'm asking specifically if there are "ghosts" and/or MGTOW online who aren't bitter and/or misogynist.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Crap, I misread that.

    I don't know if any offhand. I'll keep my eyes peeled though.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You have to admit David that the biggest recruiter for the MRA is divorce courts.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cold: As a rich person, I do whatever the fuck I want. Capisce?

    As a person who makes a tidy sum off of people like you who have more (claimed)money than sense, and who does so 100% legally, I hope you keep on doing whatever the fuck you want so that my savings account keeps growing.

    ReplyDelete
  45. I'm asking specifically if there are "ghosts" and/or MGTOW online who aren't bitter and/or misogynist.

    Yohan is neither bitter nor misogynist, nor is MarkyMark who you put in your enemies list, nor is yours truly (ok I'm a little bitter sometimes, but it's not a significant aspect of my personality). Of course I'm going by the dictionary definitions of those words; your mileage may vary.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yohan is ... Yohan. True, he doesn't seem bitter, really. But he's also married with kids, so he's not exactly a ghost.

    I don't know about bitter, but MarkyMark seems pretty misogynistic to me.

    http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/08/women-are-children-by-mulhollanddrive.html?showComment=1251305199568#c2911153637812629161

    And maybe a little gullible:

    http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2009/06/american-women-fed-in-head-exhibit.html?showComment=1244836950486#c4016200437802629619

    ReplyDelete
  47. Going 'ghost', or whatever you want to call it, is happening in Japan right now.
    They are having a devastating effect on that countries birth rate and it's economy.
    You don't think that kind of shit can't happen here?

    ReplyDelete
  48. You said "'ghosts' and/or MGTOW". Yohan qualifies as a MGTOW because he travelled far from his country of birth to get married in a society that he finds more agreeable, rather than conforming to the expectations of his original country.

    If you're going to claim that MarkyMark hates women(that's the dictionary definition of misogynist) then maybe you should use his own words to back it up instead of words he quoted from someone else without expressing full agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  49. If you post a piece of writing whose basic thesis is that women are children and preface it with "listen and learn, grasshopper," I think you pretty much count as a misogynist. And he's posted tons of misogynist shit; that was just the first thing that popped up in my history when I typed marky into my address bar.

    ReplyDelete
  50. rebekah said:

    ". . .and my guy would find the mangina comment insulting, mostly because it mocks vaginas which according to him is the altar at which he worships (his words not mine)."

    If your guy actually said this then he is the biggest pussy ever. No wonder you need vibrators.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  51. @ David


    David asked: "wytch, could you point me to some MGTOW online who are neither bitter nor misogynist? I have yet to find any.

    This is a serious question. URLs? "

    Men have a right to be bitter when they're treated poorly. Just because slave mistress central declares any male right a privilege doesn't make it so.

    Women don't worry about misandrist statements when they discuss something that upsets them, so why should men give a shit if someone hateful feminazi thinks men are bitter?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  52. "A caveman who has figured out how to change font size and add animated smileys to his posts."

    Better a caveman with limited computer skills than a runt male git who thinks he can get laid by throwing pro-fem/anti-male grenades at better men. Oblivious/indifferent to the fact that the blast radius of such bombs far exceeds the throw radius.

    ReplyDelete
  53. For all your name-calling, Witman, I didn't grow up middle-class in a liberal Western democracy. I grew up in dire poverty in a totalitarian state -- and I didn't marry into money, either. Rather, I graduated at the top of my (very large) class, beating people who never had to contend with poverty or the language barrier. So, your tale of supposedly overcoming adversity just isn't impressive to someone like me. You, unlike me, grew up in an environment where you had free education, free healthcare, easy access to books, and basically all opportunities at your fingertips. From what I can tell, you've done precious little with them, but I suppose it's easy to just blame your mediocrity on the "feminist bias".

    Also, twist my words all you want, I said nothing that would be offensive to blue-collar people. Rather, my comment was addressed to your preposterous claim that civilization itself hinges on your continued willingness to participate in it. Let's be frank here -- it's not like you are designing space ships, inventing a cure for cancer, developing new agricultural methods that will solve poverty and hunger, or creating masterpieces of art or literature. This is not to say that your job isn't valuable, or that it doesn't require competence -- it's just that you aren't exactly the irreplaceable genius you claim to be. Neither am I; but then, I'm not the one here claiming that civilization will come to a grinding halt if I quit my job and become a hermit. Let's see: your job entails operating machinery that you did not invent, performing processes that were designed by others (who, incidentally, made your job necessary in the first place). Even when you make something of your own, most likely you just copy what others have invented, from its appearance right down to manufacturing methods. You don't create civilization -- you only consume its fruits. Civilization doesn't exist because of people like you -- it exists in spite of you and your admittedly pedestrian ways. You are not the Atlas supporting the world on your shoulders -- you stand on the shoulders of others and support no one. Many of those others have penises, but that alone doesn't make you qualified to speak for them or to claim credit for their accomplishments. This is not a disparagement of blue-collar or middle-class people; it's a statement of facts that are self-evident.

    It goes without saying, of course, that most people are consumers of civilization. But civilization needs a lot fewer consumers to sustain itself than there are in existence, and if you, embittered sexless dunces, remove yourselves from it, this won't make a dent. You won't be missed, I guarantee you. You WILL be forgotten, and the world will go on just fine.

    As for your assumption that your opinion of my ass or my lack of fitness to enter your "man cave" should actually matter to me -- that too, is an example of entitlement that is in no way, shape or form justified by reality. Along with your claim that you have a right to act like a pig.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "You have to admit David that the biggest recruiter for the MRA is divorce courts."

    You mean it's not the ads above urinals?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Wow, you certainly read a lot that I didn't write! That's some good deductions that you made there!

    Everyone works with machines they didn't create. That's including you Rich Girl. We travel in cars, on trains, in planes. We work in buildings that we didn't create and we use all sorts of communications equipment that we didn't create.

    I don't cure cancer but I work in the free market doing things that people willingly pay money for. The work that I do caters to mass consumerism which brings down the cost of the "machines" people use. Because of work like mine, the graphics cards the cancer centers use in their computers cost $500 instead of $1M.

    The government could take the $1M at gunpoint but I prefer that people willingly pay for what they use thus driving the prices down. The equipment that saves lives is a fraction of the cost because our customers are the R&D of the real world. My company is a knowledge based company.

    It appears as though our experiences are very similar except for your disadvantage of being born a woman. A woman mind you, who snubs her nose at the plebs. That's why you're not allowed in the man cave, because you are not nice. Some fat chicks are allowed in here.

    ReplyDelete
  56. If you post a piece of writing whose basic thesis is that women are children and preface it with "listen and learn, grasshopper," I think you pretty much count as a misogynist.

    Again, by the dictionary definition of misogyny, it has to be HATRED of women. Legitimate observations are not hatred, nor are faulty observations if it was an honest error, perhaps because for that specific observer the pattern held true. Speaking the truth or what one honestly thinks is the truth in descriptive language should never be regarded as hatred.

    I love dogs, but that hasn't stopped me from noticing numerous negative things about them. Some people, noticing those same things, make a different evaluation and decide that they never want to be around dogs, yet we don't call them dog-haters. Indeed, hating anyone for their biological programming is quite petty.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Sam's comment was really funny. Just wanted to point that out.

    Witman-basically it sounds like the job you have is not something women cannot do, just that they choose not to.
    You also assert that you have the right to ogle anyone you choose to-where is that in the classical tradition of rights?

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ richard,
    the vibrators are there because he has to travel for his job. A job which does not qualify him as a pussy. You know those fast cars that you idiots like to drool over all day? Yeah he designs those.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Cold: http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Misogyny

    ReplyDelete
  60. Well if you want to use such a broad definition of misogyny then you are yourself a misogynist for calling some anti-feminist women morons because they don't fall into your acceptable category. That's the problem with broad definitions; they make a word apply to just about everything to the point that it becomes trite and meaningless. This is why I prefer the dictionary definition.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Saying "women are children" = misogyny.

    Saying that a particular woman is a moron because she said something moronic = not misogyny.

    I really suggest you reread what I linked to if this is not clear to you.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Not by the dictionary definition; one can observe a tendency among women to behave like children without hating them for it. Perhaps they only behave that way because our society allows them to do so even after reaching physical adulthood. It's pretty rare for children to start acting like adults without being subject to any external discipline.

    The ridiculously broad definition to which you linked says:

    Other forms of misogyny may be more subtle. Some misogynists may simply hold all women under suspicion, or may hate women who don't fall into one or more acceptable categories.

    Not being a moron would be an "acceptable category" would it not? You put her in your enemies list for not falling into it, ergo you are a misogynist by that extremely broad definition.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Men have a right to be bitter when they're treated poorly. Just because slave mistress central declares any male right a privilege doesn't make it so."

    I would argue that bitterness is not a productive or adult reaction to being "treated poorly." And I would counter that the poor treatment you guys are pointing to is one corner of the social system that you cannot focus on exclusively with any intellectual honesty. If you want to change the status quo you have to examine more than just a handful of things--you have to examine the system as a whole, and the system as a whole does not exclusively favor women while disfavoring men.

    This is why I find most MRAs to have a very weak argument. If they are for gender equity, why is their focus so narrow? There is a *lot* to be done on gender equity, and yet again and again I hear complaints about this very small collection of grievances, often taken out of context or argued disingenuously. I actually think there are areas in which MRAs have a point but their entire approach, and their recruitment of aggrieved people who can't get outside of themselves in order to examine things on a systemic level, just devalues anything they might have to say. No one but MRAs themselves are making the whole movement a joke.

    Cold, "hatred of women" is not even the strict dictionary definition; you can't say words only mean what their roots indicate or we're going to have to radically reinvent our language, starting with excising all "philosophy" that isn't literally about loving wisdom.

    ReplyDelete
  64. The meanings of words are determined by social convention, and the purpose of a dictionary is to observe those meanings through the use of usage panels and then report them. So, while "misogyny" doesn't HAVE to mean hatred of women, that IS the currently accepted meaning. You can stipulate an extended definition written by a single person like David tried to do, but I don't have to accept it and I'm not about to accept a definition that is so ridiculously broad that it applies to just about everyone. A definition has to be reasonably narrow in order to be useful.

    You have a point that bitterness isn't a productive reaction to being treated poorly, but it is nonetheless a perfectly understandable reaction and one that should be expected. Same with hatred; it's unproductive to hate someone because their biological programming isn't what one wished it to be but it's still understandable. I find it highly amusing when women claim to be the more empathetic gender but are unable to grasp how the way they treat men fosters bitterness and hatred.

    The system as a whole generally favors women to the extent that men kill themselves about four times as often as women. The focus of MRAs is broad and covers many issues; if you think otherwise then you haven't spent enough time reading our arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Wait how is suicide the ultimate indicator of systemic bias? You can't throw social sciences completely out the window and argue only according to what favors your arguments and your personal experiences. There is not one measure that determines how a system works. Also, I'm just going from memory here but don't more women *attempt* suicide and more men actually *succeed*? I have read about this in the past in psychology contexts (because that's where such a thing belongs, not in an argument about who has it worst in the world) and the issue is much more complex than you would like it to be.

    The system as a whole does *not* generally favor women. This is not an oppression olympics in which we all have to list all the ways *our* side has it worse. There is more complexity and give and take to the world.

    And on misogyny: the very first *dictionary* result I get in a web search for the word defines it more broadly than as the literal sum of its roots. You can argue all you want but that does not erase hundreds of years of scholarship or make words only mean what you want them to mean.

    As far as bitterness and hatred go: no one can *foster* bitterness and hatred in another person without that person being complicit. A movement built on bitterness and hatred cannot survive and will never be taken seriously because it is not an intellectual enterprise.

    And this "biological programming" argument is daft.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Elizabeth,

    "You also assert that you have the right to ogle anyone you choose to-where is that in the classical tradition of rights?"

    I don't mind being ogled. It's not touching or assaulting. It's quite flattering also. Or do you mean that women only want to be ogled (legitimized) by handsome men? If so, I think I qualify for that. I've been ogled by some ugly women and homosexual men. Although I am not attracted to them, I don't feel like passing laws stopping or criminalizing such behavior. You're putting some pretty strict rules on a natural mating ritual that is many thousands of year older than feminism or even the patriarchy.

    @M

    "And I would counter that the poor treatment you guys are pointing to is one corner of the social system that you cannot focus on exclusively with any intellectual honesty. "

    Really? We just need to suck it up so others can be granted privileges over our human and constitutional rights? I ain't sucking up shit sister and it don't matter if you tell me it's maple syrup. It smells like shit and it tastes like shit so I ain't sucking PC pipe no more. NB: The hillbilly grammar was intended although we like to be referred to as Appalachian Americans for political correctness. :)

    You cannot make me drink your Misandric Kool-Aid!

    ReplyDelete
  67. Yeah, Witman, I'm an "Appalachian American" too, and yet I don't feel the need to reinforce the idiotic redneck stereotypes. However, your tendency to prefer assertions over evidence doesn't really help our case either. Note to world: not all Southerns are sexist hicks.

    ReplyDelete
  68. It might not be the ultimate indicator but it's a pretty good one; why would an advantaged group kill themselves four times more often than a disadvantaged one? As for attempts, suicide is kind of difficult to screw up so it's reasonable to conclude that attempts are cries for attention, not serious efforts to die. As someone who has actually been suicidal I know that a serious effort involves the use of a quick method that is unlikely to fail, such as a gunshot to the head, a 100 meter fall, or the ingestion of a lethal dose of potassium cyanide. Standing on a bridge holding up traffic for a few hours or popping some pills after advertising the fact on Facebook are not serious suicide attempts, even though the latter one did end up resulting in a likely unintentional death. Also, 100 successful suicides always means 100 unique individuals while 100 suicide attempts could only involve 20 or 30 unique individuals, some of whom attempted multiple times.

    The system as a whole *does* generally favor women; the only way that one could look at all the evidence and not reach this conclusion is if one is willfully ignorant or intentionally dishonest.

    Try using a real dictionary; the good ones are all available online. The Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and American Heritage dictionaries all concur with me.

    Scholarship is not always intellectually honest, and even honest scholarship often relies on stipulative definitions that are explicitly acknowledged as having a different meaning in that field of study then they do in general conversation. For example, in mathematics the word "proof" means something that establishes the truth of a proposition with absolute certainty, which is different from the generally accepted meaning of the word.

    Arguing that nobody can foster bitterness or hatred without the other person being complicit is incredibly daft and conflicts with much of modern law. For example, if sued for causing emotional distress the defendant cannot win the case by arguing that the plaintiff was complicit in that distress simply because he/she felt it as a result of the defandant's conduct, but according to your argument this should be a valid defense.

    Ignoring all the evidence of biological programming is even more daft.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "No one but MRAs themselves are making the whole movement a joke."---M

    Apparently, you don't really believe that, since you are so vociferous about arguing semantics here (among other things, including MRA issues that you think have little weight). Not to mention certain posters who somehow believe there are MRAs that constitute a threat.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Cold, if I recall correctly the general psychology-world take on suicide and gender is that men have more social pressure to "suck it up" and not reach out for help. Men generally are more likely to suffer silently and then end it all. This is not to say that all men experience depression in this way, of course, but the reading I did about this subject, from psychology sources, talked quite a bit about how gender roles play into suicide rates. Suicide is absolutely *not* a good indicator of who has it best and worst in this society. Depression can be genetic as much as it can be experiential. Depression and suicidal ideation are tremendously complex subjects and you are doing a disservice to pretty much *everybody* to co-opt the matter so simplistically and for your own ideological purposes. There are no answers to be found by boiling things down to simple talking points in order to prove that your prejudices are justified.

    Also aggressively oversimplified: your arguments about word meanings.

    Invoking an argument about modern law with regard to what you were saying before about bitterness is so fantastically silly I have no idea what to say. There is a reason no one takes your "movement" seriously.

    Witman, I maintain that focusing selfishly on one small corner of a complex issue because it's something you personally experience while ignoring the whole of social interactions and the complexity of the issues at hand are the opposite of seriousness and are why this grievance-driven fringe fantasy you guys have going is not working. Serious people are already working on the issues you keep bringing up in simplistic and narrow fashion; when they are resolved, and I certainly hope that the legitimate issues I agree with you on to some extent *are* resolved, it will not be thanks to a reactionary fringe with a microscopic focus and a refusal to examine the world in full.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Wytch, no, I actually have the same SIWOTI Syndrome several other commenters have said they have. I absolutely believe that MRAs themselves are responsible for their movement being a joke.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Witman-I did not say it does not happen, I said there is no history of it being a right. So you are asserting a right that does not in fact exist.

    Or if you do want to insist it exists-the right to call you a sexist pig for doing so equally exists.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Cold, I think you're being much too literal minded about the definition of misogyny. I also think that guys who are constantly making derogatory remarks about women (or "western women"), and who basically organize their lives to avoid women, and spend a lot of time online discussing this, do in fact hate women. This hatred may be tinged with ambivalence, as hatred often is, but it is still hatred.

    You, for example, found out about this blog on a forum linked to a site premised on putting American women down -- Nice Guy's American Women Suck site -- and you've posted thousands of comments on the forum. Many of those posting there are in fact rabid misogynists.

    I hate to break it to you, but you may just sort of kind of be a little bit of a misogynist yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  74. "I absolutely believe that MRAs themselves are responsible for their movement being a joke."--M

    MRAs take many of their issues seriously. Perhaps if you had read more forums and blogs you would realize that instead of making a superficial judgment value.

    I could state that feminists are responsible for their movement for being a joke, but I know better. They have more power and impact than the MRM at this time, and even deny this power and clout despite of all of this. Many feminists make absurdist commments and strawmen, but I would not say the that feminism is a joke considering the damage that it has caused.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @Elizabeth,

    I will not call myself a sexist pig (you can do that for me). I will say that I enjoy a pleasant female and I don not mind being pleasant to a female. That is not sexist! Isn't that how the whole thing works?

    You ignore history and your own gender by labeling men sexist for finding the female form enticing. That, my dear is sexist!

    You are a chauvinist PIG!

    ReplyDelete
  76. That is, of course, unless you get to define ogling when you do it.

    ReplyDelete
  77. "MRAs take many of their issues seriously. Perhaps if you had read more forums and blogs you would realize that instead of making a superficial judgment value."

    I have read forums and blogs. I maintain that the MRM is a grievance-driven joke and that all the meaningful issues that a venn diagram might show MRAs sharing with serious activists will be much better addressed in those other hands.

    ReplyDelete
  78. "I have read forums and blogs. I maintain that the MRM is a grievance-driven joke . . ."---M

    So why should they take feminist issues seriously if you don't take MRAs seriously? You just being dismissive because they have grievances? That's an opinion which offers no solutions, just a hypocritical condemnation that fuels their agendas even moreso.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Ogling goes beyond a glance at an attractive person. This is not a "oh look at that lovely woman" it is "oh stare at that lovely woman."

    So to claim you have a right to stare at a woman just because she is pretty is presuming a right you do not have. You can certainly look at her briefly in admiration but ogling is a different story.

    If you said "I have the right to look at a pretty woman" you certainly would be correct but you did not. You went beyond that.

    ReplyDelete
  80. M, you are absolutely right. There are a few MRAs who, however wrong they may be, actually do care deeply about some of the issues in the MRM. There are some Father's Rights activists who (again, however wrong I think they are) do actually engage in activism.

    But the more I read of MRA sites and forums the more it becomes clear that the majority of MRAs, at least online, don't really give a shit about the issues, and use them as an excuse to air their generalized hatred of and "grievances" towards women, mixing real issues with really petty complaints and generalized woman-bashing. Hence, for example, the number of posts highlighting "women behaving badly" on mra/mgtow message boards.

    And take the issue of rape. What affects more men -- prison rape or being falsely convicted of rape? Prison rape, by a long shot. Even if this weren't the case, though women are as likely to be raped in prison as men, this is an issue that mostly affects men. While "false rape accusations" are talked about endlessly on MRM message boards, and while MRAs may talk a bit about the evils of prison rape, it's usually as a way to score point at all the feminists who supposedly make jokes about prison rape.

    What do they do about it? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I searched the internet to find MRAs actually talking substantively about the issue, and actually found that far more feminists than MRAs were talking about it. (See the "further reading" thing in the sidebar for the link).

    The closest thing to activism I've seen from MRAs in a long time is the urinal poster idea. And even that seems more focused on the airing of grievances than anything else. Notice that the main issue MRAs wanted to talk about here in relation to the urinal poster idea was the evils of women getting their drinks paid for at bars even though they don't want to have sex with the guys paying for the drinks.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @David,

    You completely ignore Fathers and Families which do something (squash unfair bills), and Fathers 4 Justice that do the same in Canada (in a different way).

    @M,

    "I have read forums and blogs. I maintain that the MRM is a grievance-driven joke . . ."---M

    Wouldn't Feminism be a grievance-driven joke?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Silly women!

    ReplyDelete
  82. witman, please reread the first paragraph of my comment, and take note of the word "fathers."

    ReplyDelete
  83. Yes, I see that. Thank you for acknowledging Fathers' grievances David. Sometimes I feel like I'm talking to a wall so I assume (ass-u-me). My bad!

    ReplyDelete
  84. Now let's talk about men accused (note ACCUSED) of sexual assault and see the damage that can be done on a mere accusation.

    How about the campaign to dehumanize our sons "Awaiting Instructions".

    Can we actually address some legitimate concerns of men without somebody exclaiming [Get over the fact that she "took your baby in court!"] <-paraphrase

    My baby is the most important thing in the world to me and the family court system and all its biases are the worst thing to happen to humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "So why should they take feminist issues seriously if you don't take MRAs seriously? You just being dismissive because they have grievances? That's an opinion which offers no solutions, just a hypocritical condemnation that fuels their agendas even moreso."

    Actually, no, I am not being dismissive *because* of grievances. I mention grievances as the primary motivator not because there's something wrong with having grievances but because a serious movement for socioeconomic change cannot be built on a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger. It's one thing to be angry; it's another thing entirely to focus exclusively on only the parts of life that make you angry and declare that to be the system under which we all live.

    Witman, modern feminism is about socioeconomic frameworks and not about all the ways one has been wronged. It's part of an intersecting complex of anti-oppression and human rights movements. And because it's about the whole and not a handful of parts, feminism incorporates concern for the rights of men and the way men are diminished by the forces and frameworks feminism criticizes and opposes--often the same things that hurt women hurt men in different, and sometimes parallel, ways.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "My baby is the most important thing in the world to me and the family court system and all its biases are the worst thing to happen to humanity."

    The worst thing to happen to humanity? All of humanity? In history? Okay then, prove my point for me!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Also I don't know how many times people can say "It is not feminism taking your kids away from you; feminism opposes this" before you'll hear us, but FEMINISM DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS.

    You are getting bad info if you really think feminism is about stacking the courts against fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "I mention grievances as the primary motivator not because there's something wrong with having grievances but because a serious movement for socioeconomic change cannot be built on a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger."--- M

    Well, that anger is often propelled because socioeconomic change often doesn't pan out despite effort. Look at visitation rights and custody with children for example. Are you saying that MRMs are based on anger as a base? I realize you aren't dismissing grievances but even as a reaction there is often a reason, and when social change doesn't occur for men's rights that resentment can continue.

    What is "selfish anger?" Is it caused by the fact that rational self-interest is being diminished or even punished by misandry and compounding that anger? Just saying.

    BTW, I don't think that all of MRM are reactionary, although it often starts off that way, it can be force for greater things.

    ReplyDelete
  89. David: What do they do about it? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    I would not call it 'NOTHING' because it seems, feminists worldwide feel deeply disturbed by the Men's Rights Movement and try everything to slander and to silence it.

    It takes a while, many years, to feel the presence of the Men's Rights Movement.

    There is now among men a stong tendency for foreign wives, a strong tendency to remain single and to reject family and children.

    There is a strong movement among men to relocate to other countries, especially for retirement.

    The best argument, coming up more and more, is about financial aspects of feminism. As a fact, feminism is expensive, is non-productive and we do not have money anymore in Western countries to pay for it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "David Futrelle said...
    Saying "women are children" = misogyny."

    David hates children. HA! HA! HA!

    ReplyDelete
  91. "Elizabeth said...
    Ogling goes beyond a glance at an attractive person. This is not a "oh look at that lovely woman" it is "oh stare at that lovely woman."

    So to claim you have a right to stare at a woman just because she is pretty is presuming a right you do not have. You can certainly look at her briefly in admiration but ogling is a different story."

    Don't presume to tell me my rights.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Amused wrote
    "It goes without saying, of course, that most people are consumers of civilization. But civilization needs a lot fewer consumers to sustain itself than there are in existence, and if you, embittered sexless dunces, remove yourselves from it, this won't make a dent. You won't be missed, I guarantee you. You WILL be forgotten, and the world will go on just fine."

    So then how long until you feminist types finally go extinct?

    ReplyDelete
  93. @M

    "I mention grievances as the primary motivator not because there's something wrong with having grievances but because a serious movement for socioeconomic change cannot be built on a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger."--- M

    So a grievance is only a grievance if you deem it so; otherwise it is just a selective reading of social realities propelled by selfish anger? I see. What about the black people M, do they have your blessing (Bring it to me Sista)? Hispanics (vamos Senorita)? Jews (Oy Veh)? Muslims (Allah Akbar)? Whites (fuck no!), Christians (fuck no!), Men (fuck no!), Children (please don't kill me!)

    What (pray tell) is the difference in your eyes. It seems all you can do is recite rhetoric but you've failed to even answer the question of my privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  94. @Amused:

    "But civilization needs a lot fewer consumers to sustain itself than there are in existence,"

    A few less "Useless Eaters"? Are you a Eugenicist or are you just talking about the money sucking, self propagating feminist movement?

    @David, please excuse the double post.

    ReplyDelete
  95. whitman,

    As a fellow male, your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty ashames me. Please remove yourself from the gender.

    Thanks,

    A concerned male

    ReplyDelete
  96. Evilwhitemaleempire,
    Ironically my job entails telling people their rights.

    And that is not one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  97. "Please remove yourself from the gender." ---Jpeg.Arjoon

    Which could be construted as a call for suicide to whitman. Explain yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  98. David Futrelle said...
    Saying "women are children" = misogyny.


    I do not say that. But I say, some certain laws in some certain feminist countries are treating women like children.

    A good example is the UK domestic violence law
    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/4827/
    Treating women like children
    The proposed changes to the law on domestic violence are degrading

    Article was written by a woman, a barrister btw...


    Another good example is the Swedish prostitution law, which says to sell sex is fine, but to pay for sex is a crime. And - interesting - see this situation, only the man will be charged with a crime...

    These women - adults - were not charged with theft, robbery and false allegations...because they are 'victims' and the law is treating them as 'women like children'.
    Link below...

    http://www.thelocal.se/24244/20100107/

    ReplyDelete
  99. @ Elizabeth:

    So can Elizabeth or any feminut here tell me exaclty (in seconds, minutes or hours) how long is a glance and how long is an ogle?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  100. . . .should be spelled "exactly."

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  101. jpeg.arjoon said:

    "whitman,

    As a fellow male, your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty ashames me. Please remove yourself from the gender.

    Thanks,

    A concerned male"

    They should take your post and save it so that whenever someone asks what a mangina or a pussy is they have a reference.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  102. David Futrelle said...
    Cold,
    ..... I also think that guys who are constantly making derogatory remarks about women (or "western women"), and who basically organize their lives to avoid women, and spend a lot of time online discussing this, do in fact hate women.

    ..... You, for example, found out about this blog on a forum linked to a site premised on putting American women down -- Nice Guy's American Women Suck site -- and you've posted thousands of comments on the forum...


    David, and who are you? You are simply said, a misandrist, spending many hours online, you hate everything male and obviously you even hate yourself. You are totally psycho, if you ask me.

    About the Niceguy Forum, you should ask yourself, why it does exist.

    Stories over there by members are not written out of their fantasy, but out of personal experience.

    NiceGuy's Members rarely hate all women - many of them had bad experiences in the past, were badly cheated and ripped off by Western women and now they are disappointed and are mistrusting.

    They cannot expect any help under the present legal situation and they cannot even expect any understanding for their bad situation when telling their stories to man-haters like you and other radical supporters of feminism.

    But why should all these many men remain silent?
    Why should they not be allowed to say openly what they feel?

    ReplyDelete
  103. jpeg.arjoon said:
    "whitman,
    As a fellow male, your lack of logic and intellectual dishonesty ashames me. Please remove yourself from the gender.
    Thanks,
    A concerned male"


    This is the only posting I noticed so far from you. I would not call it to be an intelligent contribution to this thread however.

    Btw, next time please sign with your name.

    Thanks,
    A concerned male (FYI, a concerned male is a male, who is concerned about males..)

    ReplyDelete
  104. I hate to break it to you, but you may just sort of kind of be a little bit of a misogynist yourself.

    I have unfettered access to my own mind, so I know better than anyone else, including you, whether or not I hate women. There are numerous individual men and women who I have good reason to hate, but I harbor no collective hatred towards women.

    For your information, I discovered this site through your "advertisement" on The Spearhead before the thread on Mancoat dedicated to you was started.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Witman, if the civil rights movement or movements led by any of those groups you mentioned focused on a small handful of cherrypicked areas while ignoring other realities, they would not have succeeded. Anger at injustice is not the same thing as selective complaints used to further a largely selfish agenda.

    Also, I am not speaking from some feminist rhetoric. I am speaking for myself and as someone who has not read a bunch of theory or any of that stuff.

    There is no point in engaging in a discussion of privilege with you because when I have attempted before you and others have refused to listen, have employed circular arguments, and have basically refused a good faith engagement. Which is actually...privilege, you know, in that the privileged classes have the option to opt out of noticing or caring about things that don't impact them directly.

    If you are seriously interested in what people mean by privilege, I have previously provided links and you are welcome to read about it and educate yourself. I am not going to waste time trying to get through to someone who is clearly not interested in listening, however.

    And you know, just because you personally do not observe male privilege in your day to day life it does not mean it doesn't exist. Stop defining the world only as it looks to you--you certainly don't like it when others do that. Yet you seem to reserve the right to do it yourself. The world does not look the same to everyone. And the world as *women* experience it is not something you have any kind of experiential authority to define. If you want me to accept that there are areas you experience as injustice you have to grant me the same courtesy and accept that as a woman I *have* experienced oppression *because of my gender*.

    Do you not see how you're refusing to see the world except as through your eyes? And refusing to allow anyone else's perspectives as legitimate?

    Funnily enough, that's privilege too, but that's not why I mentioned it.

    Anyway I'm done with these comments sections now because talking to you guys is a net waste of time for me. Adios.

    ReplyDelete
  106. @M,

    That is because your definition of male privilege is that because I am a male I am born with privilege. This kind of circular argument may work in your circles, but I'm not buying that.

    Perhaps if you could point out one specific thing in my life that was granted to me by my "privilege", I might listen to your circular logic, but until that time, let's just say I didn't have any privilege. If anything, my gender (and race) was a disadvantage in my childhood and my career.

    And you know, just because you personally do not observe (fe)male privilege in your day to day life it does not mean it doesn't exist. Stop defining the world only as it looks to you--you certainly don't like it when others do that. Yet you seem to reserve the right to do it yourself. The world does not look the same to everyone. And the world as *men* experience it is not something you have any kind of experiential authority to define. If you want me to accept that there are areas you experience as injustice you have to grant me the same courtesy and accept that as a man I *have* experienced oppression *because of my gender*.

    There, right back at you.

    ReplyDelete
  107. witman said...
    @M,.....
    .....Perhaps if you could point out one specific thing in my life that was granted to me by my "privilege"

    ..... If anything, my gender (..snip..) was a disadvantage in my childhood and my career.


    Very very true.

    I was cutting out 'race', as I am a simple white man born in Central Europe in poverty after WWII..

    Otherwise the sentence above by 'witman' could be written by myself.

    I never had any privilege because of my male gender in my life, that's for sure. More the opposite I would say.

    I never met a feminist who could explain me my privileges - because there are none.

    All this talk about male privileges is nothing else but feminist BS, shaming language, scorn...

    ReplyDelete
  108. Whitman, Yohan, and ignorant lurkers as well, you know there is a feminism 101 blog out there. It has brief responses, suggested beginner reading (with links), and clarifications of commonly used terms. Here's the one for male privilege http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/11/faq-what-is-male-privilege/ You say you want to learn the basics? There you go, get cracking.

    Damn people too lazy to do even a basic google search about a topic beforehand should avoid talking about it.

    ReplyDelete
  109. It's alarming to see some of the men in the comments here who speak of hate speech and violence toward women as something to be excused by those males so long as they had been "cheated on" or "divorced" by a woman. As if that's a good reason.

    So then, I assume any and all violence and hate against men that a woman perpetuates is completely acceptable as long as some guy, somewhere, cheated on her once or twice? Or she had some bad experiences with men?

    Why can't some of these posters make a logical argument?

    In one breath they discount every female victim, every feminist, everything that could possibly make "men" look bad/guilty of anything (such as historical fact and proven criminal statistics)....while excusing each and every action, word, and crime committed by men as long as he had a "good reason" to be pissed.

    It's strange that they see these arguments as anything but emotional, illogical, astoundingly hypocritical, and hysterical.

    It's sad to see that some modern men still haven't learned where these sorts of attitudes will get them.

    They are only making more trouble for their own gender and more discord amongst the genders themselves.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis