Thursday, March 10, 2011

If you don't agree with me, angry dudes will kick your ass

Anyone who's seen Taxi Driver will remember Travis Bickle's late night soliloquy on the "whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, [and] junkies" he saw every night driving his cab. "Someday," he told himself, "a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."

Of course -- SPOILER ALERT! -- what he really meant by "a real rain" coming was that he, Travis Bickle, would lose his shit and start shooting people.

Bickle wasn't the only one to mix his predictions with a heaping helping of threat. Those who predict the end of the world at the hand of gods or men or some vague terrible cataclysm are all too often rooting (secretly or openly) for the civilization-destroyers they are ostensibly warning against. We saw this the other day amongst those MGTOWers who are now talking giddily about how complete economic collapse will serve to put foolish women and their "mangina" pals in their proper place.

And we see it again and again in the Men's Rights movement, when MRAs sternly warn their detractors that if people don't start listening to them, and pronto, the men of the world will rise up and, well,  kick the shit out of everyone who opposes them. This is a warning only in the sense that a mafioso telling someone that, if he doesn't pay what he owes, his legs just might possibly get broken, is a warning; by all reasonable definitions, it is a threat. As opposed to the leg-breaking, the threats of these MRAS aren't very specific threats, but they're threats of violence nonetheless.

I ran across one recent example of this sort of "warning" in the comments to Paul Elam's piece on misandry -- or at least what he labels misandry -- in the Good Men Project's package on the Men's Rights movement. (My own contribution to the debate is here.) Here's "Factory," responding to another commenter who pointed out that some of his wording in an earlier comment had been awfully violent:

Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?

In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.

And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.

Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.

We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.

And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.

And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.

Just like people like you are doing right now.

Notice the not-so-subtle, and rather thoroughly bungled, rhetorical sleight of hand here. Factory paints the violence as something he won't indulge in (but won't stop) -- forgetting that in the very first sentence he admitted that he was himself violent. He refers to MRAs as little more than a "weather vane" for male emotion -- but somehow later in the paragraph they are leading things. He claims that he will "feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done," but this is only after stating in no uncertain terms that he thinks "society ... flat out DESERVES whatever is coming."

So, yeah, this is as much a "warning" as the hypothetical mafioso's reference to broken legs.

Naturally, Elam himself stepped up to second Factory's emotion, declaring that "[m]en, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent."

On his own site, Elam has been much more frankly threatening. Recently, telling off one commenter who had the temerity to actually question the gospel according to Elam, he finished off a long rant about male anger with this:

I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.

Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go.

This kind of logic might best be called the Appeal to an Ass-kicking. The structure of this argument could be broken down as follows:

1) Source A says that p is true
2) If you don't agree that p is true, Source A (or perhaps some other dudes) will do you bodily harm.
3) Therefore, you'd better fucking agree that p is true.

This is probably the oldest and crudest form of logic there is, and one that is popular amongst many animals as well. (My cat is a master of it, at least when p = "you will give me treats now.")

Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project:

You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.

I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.

MRAs sure are misandrist.

I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.

Me too.


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

109 comments:

  1. And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins.

    Also, gotta dig how the Middle East is about Men's Rights. Keep thinking that, guys.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project

    I enjoyed Elam's response to the above... here is a portion of that brief response:

    "And Annie, you might want to consult at least one history book. Men, when disenfranchised and pushed to the edge, have frequently become violent."

    First, he has to address her by a name other than the name that she has chosen (wow, what a needling he's giving her!).

    Then he comes up with a very good reason why we really should question why the majority of positions of authority are given to men ... if they don't get their own way, they will resort to violence.

    And what, when women are disenfranchised and pushed to the edge we should just roll over and take it as the "natural order of things"? Oh, that's right, women have NEVER been disenfranchised, marginalized and pushed to the edge, we just got caught in the grips of some kind of mass hysteria that made us believe that we haven't always been hyperprivileged.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh my fucking science, you are really grasping at straws now. While your general description of argumentum ad bacculum is correct, "p" is supposed to be some kind of assertion like "the sun is bigger than the moon".

    This is argumentum ad bacculum:

    1) Biff says that the sun is bigger than the moon.
    2) If you don't agree that the sun is bigger than the moon, Biff will kick your ass.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking agree that the sun is bigger than the moon.

    This, however, is NOT argumentum ad bacculum:

    1) MRAs want you to stop treating men as second-class citizens.
    2) If you don't stop, a bunch of MRAs will make you stop through the use of violent force.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop treating men as second-class citizens.

    Notice that the "p" is not an assertion at all; it's a demand. Really, I shouldn't even have to explain this to someone who graduated from college. You should go back to your alma mater and demand a refund. Unless, of course, you already knew this and were being deliberately dishonest, which wouldn't surprise me at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Note the pervasive sense of victimization, the scapegoating of a particular (historically oppressed) group, and the belief in the regenerative powers of violence.

    Sorry for the Godwin, but they would resemble brownshirts if they, you know, actually did anything.

    Inb4 some clever person types "Oh yeah? Well, that's what feminists do!"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Inb4 X has no bearing on the truth of X.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oh, that's right, women have NEVER been disenfranchised, marginalized and pushed to the edge, we just got caught in the grips of some kind of mass hysteria that made us believe that we haven't always been hyperprivileged.

    Pam, I think that's a fair summation, non-ironically, of what they believe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evidence has a bearing on the truth of X, and evidence is what I've never seen satisfactorily presented to back up outrageous claims like "men are treated like second class citizens."

    ReplyDelete
  8. BTW, since most people here are Americans, what makes the brownshirts different from the Continental Army and the supporting militias? Is it their methods or is it the ends they sought(independence from the UK vs. punishing Jews for imagined malfeasance)?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Inb4 is not evidence. It can be accompanied by evidence, but you provided none and appeal to ignorance does not qualify as evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did you just try to conflate the founding fathers (who were indeed rebelling against people who would not listen to them) with people who were slaughtering others for their religious beliefs?

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, what I did was ask a question for the sake of clarification, but I can see how to your feeble mind it looked like I was trying to conflate the two.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why on earth would you even think of such a thing if you were not trying to get us to view one as the other?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I believe that the brownshirts imagined themselves to be liberators of their Fatherland. This does not, however, make them any less the pawns of fascism.

    FWIW, I believe aims and methods both matter--and so does context. It's a complicated business comparing American Revolutionaries with Brown Shirts. For one thing, the Brown Shirts, like the MRAs of today, had access to democratic institutions--and indeed they used thuggish methods to attain power through nominally democratic means. The MRAs of today haven't been able to gain much through the democratic process, so some are advocating the use of violence in preference to democracy. Sorry, but that sets off some alarm bells for me...or it would, if I thought that many of you would act on it.

    As for the Continental Army and militias, I'm not inclined to defend their methods or their commitment to democracy, as both were highly questionable, in my understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Inb4 is an internet meme used to signify: I have anticipated your response, so don't imagine that it's the least bit original or clever. It proves nothing, of course, nor was it intended to prove anything. It's intent is to deflect wise guys who think they're pulling a big "gotcha!" when in fact they're being boring and predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Cold, you do know that the appeal to force doesn't make a demand much more legitimate than an assertion, right? Take this historical example, for instance:

    1) KKKers demand non-whites to stop voting, swimming in our swimming pools, and generally acting like they're our equals.
    2) If you don't stop, a bunch of sheetheads will make you stop through the use of violent force.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop acting as if you're equal to whites.

    As you know, this sort of thing didn't really work out too well for the cross-burners. What makes you think you MRAs will do better?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hmmm, I think some movement needs to re-watch Disney's The Sword in the Stone. There is some moral which can be applied here to everyone's edification . . .

    ReplyDelete
  17. I love Travis Bickle. Very complex character. Is he a former Marine suffering from PTSD? Is the last scene a dream sequence as he lay dying? He is a nobody that wants to be somebody. And there are a lot of nobodies in this world.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Factory and other MRAs like him,
    We do not negotiate with terrorists.
    Love,
    Feminism

    P.S. Cut it out with the passive-aggressive crap, you're not fooling anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "
    1) MRAs want you to stop treating men as second-class citizens.
    2) If you don't stop, a bunch of MRAs will make you stop through the use of violent force.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking stop treating men as second-class citizens.
    "

    Second-class citizens implies that some are first class citizens. If the men are second class, the women are first class, no? So why is it that men earn more, are less likely to be raped, etc?
    That's the thing, MRAs. You're imagining a problem that isn't there. Yes, some men are subject to rape and violence, and yes there have been cases of discrimination. But to pretend that men as an entire group are somehow oppressed is just ludicrous and beneath contempt.

    ReplyDelete
  20. A threat is still a threat, no matter how justified you feel in making it.

    I am curious, exactly how would this violence be implemented? Would you start shooting up aerobics classes or college classes? Would you shoot doctors who primarily treat women? Would you firebomb women's clinics? Would you shoot female politicians? Would you just load up a truck full of explosives and detonate it outside government buildings?

    Or would it be more personal - just beating up or raping the women closest to you or her children? Or targeting women like sex workers for violence and murder?

    Considering that all of this has already happened, and that women and feminists aren't yet cowed (and in fact, are even more angry), I'd have to say your strategy sucks.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Captain Bathrobe,

    That truly is my impression of what they believe to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Pam,

    Yeah, it reads like hyperbole, but it's actually no exaggeration, as many here have said exactly that, almost verbatim.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lady Victoria von Syrus, you just broke the Golden Rule again, as well as your own advice on how to be liked and how to be a "good person", by making baseless strawman arguments against MRAs. I KNOW you wouldn't want MRAs doing the same to you. I'm not even going to address those strawmen, I'm just going to tell you that they are a big part of why we don't like you. Moving on...

    ReplyDelete
  24. Obvious troll is obvious. Don't feed the trolls people. Their minds aren't complex enough to listen to any sort of reasoning. They're a waste of your time.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Some of you seem to be in the dark about the fundamental basis for law and government, so I'm going to generously give you a crash course in it. Consider the following argument:

    1) We want you to do X.
    2) If you don't do X, we will do violent action Y against you.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking do X.

    You can make up your own mind about how "legitimate" this argument is, but if you are intellectually honest then you must regard it as being equally legitimate no matter what gets plugged in for X and Y.

    Now, consider the following permutation of the above:

    1) We want you to not steal from others.
    2) If you steal from others, we will throw you into a dungeon where you will languish for a set period of time. If you are a man, you may be raped and possible contract HIV and die, and this will happen while prison guards turn their backs and smirk.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking not steal from others.

    As far as I know every country's government makes this argument and we all take it for granted. Note that the concusion is "you'd better fucking not steal from others", not "you'd better fucking agree with us that stealing is wrong. The latter would be a logical fallacy, but the former is simply a demand backed by force. ALL governments operate like this, although the manner in which they are organized and the number of people who get a say in how the force is used varies greatly.

    Furthermore, all laws that you feminists like are backed by this same argument. You cannot defend the legitimacy of those laws while simultaneously condemning the MRAs for demanding changes under threat of possible violence down the road without being a complete hypocrite.

    Inb4 any inane arguments about how democracy makes the argument more legitimate, if you are an American then your very democratic system of government derives itself from the following argument made by the founding fathers to the UK:

    1) We want you to fuck off and let us institute our own system of government.
    2) If you don't fuck off and let us institute our own system of government, then the Continental Army and supporting militia will fucking slaughter you.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking let us institute our own system of government.

    If you are not an American, well, the story of how your own country's democratic system came about probably isn't that different.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Perhaps you're right, Cold. In that case, though, it seems to me the people on the feminist side are the ones who have more force at their disposal. The most folks like Cold or MRAs like him will be able to do is shoot up a few people (inb4 "LIBEL!" "LIIIIBEEEEELLLLL"), like Sodini and Lepine did. On the other hand, the feminists and the government they supposedly control have the police, the army, etc. etc. etc. at their beck and call. If I had to choose one or the other I'd be pretty dumb to choose the underdog.

    So really, why should the threat of violence from you people be that much of a deterrent for the feminists? Considering all the resources they have at their disposal, if it came to blows they'd be the ones who'd probably win.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cold, men are not second-class citizens, except in your imagination and the fevered minds of your cohorts. An assertion that men are second-class is a reactionary response to some loss of male privilege. These sorts of things reinforce my view that MRAs/MGTOW is a reactionary movement.

    As with many reactionary movements of the past, it is not hard to find members making threats of violence in defence of privilege. David has highlighted some intimidatory statements that MRAs will stop feminism through violence. They are, boiled down to their essence, terrorism.

    I do not think that serves your cause in the slightest.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sounds like Cold is getting a little heated up.

    The US started out a bit on the dubious side (whoever heard of declaring independence and that whole taxation without representation? Since when?!) However-the retaliation was not "we will slaughter you." If that was the case, every person who supported the British government would have been slaughtered. They were not so the idea that the Continental Congress was bucking to slaughter everyone who opposed them is a logical fail based on what happened.

    There were retaliatory actions before, during and after the war but no wholesale or even moderate slaughter. According to this the highest number of British casualties for any battle was 600 out of 6,000. That is 10% and so hardly the number of deaths one would expect from a "slaughter."

    As examples go, yours is not great Cold.

    ReplyDelete
  29. If that was the case, every person who supported the British government would have been slaughtered.

    I was obviously talking about British soldiers, not civilian loyalists. I'm used to talking to people of a much higher intellectual caliber than you so I apologize for not being sufficiently specific.

    @Captain Bathrobe

    I hate to break it to you, but "What a silly argument" does absolutely nothing to refute anything I said. I realize this is troubling news for you since you clearly lack the ability to offer anything better, but it is nonetheless a wholly inadequate response.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Cold, men are not second-class citizens, except in your imagination and the fevered minds of your cohorts. An assertion that men are second-class is a reactionary response to some loss of male privilege. These sorts of things reinforce my view that MRAs/MGTOW is a reactionary movement.

    Save your progressive/reactionary dichotomy for you fellow brainwashed simpletons; it will gain you no traction with me. Whether or not men actually are second class citizens isn't even germane to the discussion at hand since it is about the logical structure of an argument, not the acceptability of the premises used in said argument.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I dunno, there may be something in what Cold says. By his logic, if I rob a bank tomorrow, I can inform the teller that my use of violence is legitimate--after all, the founding fathers did it! The government does it all the time! All violence is the same, right? I'm sure the FBI will understand.

    All governments--democracy or dictatorship--use the threat of violence to enforce laws and maintain order. That's what us grown-ups call "self-evident." Unlike a dictatorship, however, any democratic government worth the name derives its powers, however imperfectly, from the consent of the governed. Any use of violence in overthrowing a democratic government must therefore meet a very high standard to be considered at all legitimate. The vast majority of the time, this standard is not met; yet every terrorist, every tinhorn dictator, every military junta claims their actions are justified by some higher purpose, even the preservation of democracy itself. It's all bullshit, and threats of violence by certain elements of the MRM are in a similar vein: self serving and ultimately self-defeating.

    Seriously, Cold, this is high school civics here! I mean, I'm just embarrassed for you at this point. The fact that you seem to think you've schooled us all...well, it would be kinder just to leave it there.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As I said, yours is a very, very silly argument.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Actually, Cold is partially right.

    Part of the basis of government is a monopoly on force. Police officers and military personnel are granted the ability to use force to achieve their ends (though, of course, only to certain degrees - police brutality, the excessive use of force, is still illegal). Dispensations on using force are also given private citizens - such as in self defense. But by and large, the government doesn't want you using force to get your way - that's their purview. It's also not the *only* goal or aim of government, but there you go.

    Regarding the assertion that my argument is strawman - it's actually not. Many MRAs, including Paul Elam, have indirectly or directly threatened violence and force as a backlash against feminism. I put forth several instances of violence which have already occurred. Sodini and Lepine are the most direct examples, but, if as MRAs claim, the government is also run by feminists, then I feel I can include the Oklahoma City bombing and the Giffords shooting as government targets. And many women are abused or raped by relatives or intimate partners - if it's not to keep them in line and drive the point home that their body does not really belong to them, then please, Cold, enlighten me- what's the real reason behind domestic assault, child abuse, molestation and rape? To say nothing of the violence against sex workers, which largely goes unreported until they find her bruised body in a shallow grave somewhere.

    But, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that none of the violence I reference in my earlier comment was part of Elam's predicted backlash. In that case, what form *will* this violence against feminism take?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Perhaps you're right, Cold. In that case, though, it seems to me the people on the feminist side are the ones who have more force at their disposal.

    Who make up most of the police and military personnel, not to mention 100% of the ones who get sent into bullet hell? I consider each male police officer and soldier to be a potential ally, and I treat them as such unless given good reason not to.

    ReplyDelete
  35. As I said, yours is a very, very silly argument.

    As I said, that does absolutely nothing to refute anything I say. All you are doing is demonstrating your vapidity.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wait, Cold, do you actually think that things are going to come down to some sort of actual, literal gender war? Would you support male policemen and military personnel in shooting feminists, or women, or "manginas" or whoever it is you see as your enemy?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Many MRAs, including Paul Elam, have indirectly or directly threatened violence and force as a backlash against feminism.

    I don't believe Paul Elam did so; you will have to use quotations from him to convince me of that. Even if he did, so what? How does that make him any worse than the government and the feminist efforts to influence the government? Whether you shoot someone yourself or get a police officer or soldier to do it for you, you are still responsible for that bullet.

    The specific acts of violence you described in your loaded questions are strawmen unless you can prove that real MRAs advocated them.

    I put forth several instances of violence which have already occurred. Sodini and Lepine are the most direct examples

    Sodini and Lepine are not MRAs and never identified as such. Sodini didn't even identify himself as being anti-feminist. You are grasping at straws again. I might as well use Valerie Solanas as a direct example of feminist violence, and unlike Sodini and Lepine she is lionized by many feminists.

    Cold, enlighten me- what's the real reason behind domestic assault, child abuse, molestation and rape?

    Maybe you should ask that question of domestic assaulters, child abusers, molesters, and rapists. I am none of those things and I lack both the power to read minds and the intellectual dishonestly to pretend that I have that power, so I can't help you.

    But, for the sake of this argument, let's assume that none of the violence I reference in my earlier comment was part of Elam's predicted backlash. In that case, what form *will* this violence against feminism take?

    It wouldn't be violence against feminism; it would be violence against the agents of male oppression. Even if I knew exactly what form it would take, I wouldn't tell you for the same reason that the US military doesn't disclose its battle plans to its enemies.

    One other thing, do you know which violent reactionary said the following?

    Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

    HINT: He was the 35th president of the United States.

    ReplyDelete
  38. @Cold: Except that during work hours, police officers are supposed to uphold the law, not their penis.

    ReplyDelete
  39. No, I don't think it will come down to a literal gender war. I think, if pushed to do it, MRAs will collapse the economy through deliberate refusal to contribute to it and then push for a favorable change of government in the ensuing chaos. My only point about the police and military is that I regard most individual officers and soldiers as potential allies.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @girlscientist:

    You're twisted.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I dunno, there may be something in what Cold says. By his logic, if I rob a bank tomorrow, I can inform the teller that my use of violence is legitimate--after all, the founding fathers did it! The government does it all the time! All violence is the same, right? I'm sure the FBI will understand.

    The point went over your head. If you rob a bank tomorrow, you will be presenting the following argument to the bank teller:

    1) I want you to hand over all the money.
    2) If you don't hand over all the money, I will kill you with this gun.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking hand over the money.

    The US government, which includes the FBI, uses this argument against you:

    1) We don't want you robbing banks.
    2) If you rob a bank then we will throw you in jail where the prison guards will turn their backs and smirk while you get raped, contract HIV, and die.
    3) Therefore, you'd better fucking not rob any banks.

    Now, pay really close attention here and grind what few brain cells you have really hard, because here comes the point that you missed the first time:

    Both of those arguments use the same logical structure and are therefore equally legitimate. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

    ReplyDelete
  42. As I said, yours is a very, very silly argument.

    As I said, that does absolutely nothing to refute anything I say. All you are doing is demonstrating your vapidity.


    And you continue to demonstrate your silliness by cherry picking that comment and acting as if that's all I had to say on the subject.

    Whatever; I suppose that's all you've got, and I shouldn't expect any better. You disappoint me, Cold. I was hoping for something a bit more challenging. Oh well, free entertainment is never a bad thing.

    Well, the kids get up early, so it's off to bed for me. I'll check back tomorrow to see if you deign to respond in good faith to what I actually wrote. I won't get my hopes up, though.

    ReplyDelete
  43. And you continue to demonstrate your silliness by cherry picking that comment and acting as if that's all I had to say on the subject.

    Your other comment showed up first in my browser for some reason.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Both of those arguments use the same logical structure and are therefore equally legitimate. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

    Ah, we cross posted. Standing alone, they are equivalent. But you ignore staggering amounts of context--namely, that the FBI derives its legitimacy from upholding the laws of a democratically elected civilian government, whereas a bank robber does not. To ignore this context is asinine--and very, very, very silly. You miss the forest for the trees here, my dear Cold.

    And now, truly, to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  45. No, I didn't ignore that context, it simply isn't germane to the argument in question. Do you think the bank robber cares whether that argument is made by an elected government, an unelected dictatorship, or an organized crime syndicate to whom the bank paid protection money? The argument works the same no matter who makes it as long as the threat of force is credible.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Who make up most of the police and military personnel, not to mention 100% of the ones who get sent into bullet hell? I consider each male police officer and soldier to be a potential ally, and I treat them as such unless given good reason not to.

    Spoilers: "potential allies" aren't quite the same thing as "actual allies." Until masses of cops and Marines join the Men's Rights Movement (they obviously haven't---if they had, you people would have won already), it's safe to say that if you want to threaten the rest of us into acceding to your demands, we'd be better served to stand with the side that actually has the guns behind them (i.e the feminists and their government) as opposed to the side that just says they'll have them someday.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Unlike a dictatorship, however, any democratic government worth the name derives its powers, however imperfectly, from the consent of the governed.

    The "however imperfectly" makes this statement true, but also rather pointless. By your argument the Democratic People's Republic of Korea lives up to its name because it has the consent of the governed. Specifically, it has the consent of the communist party and of the military who express their consent by using their guns to keep that government in power instead of overthrowing it. Sure, this is just a tiny slice of the total number of people governed, the bulk of whom might resent their government if allowed to speak freely about it, but they nonetheless have the consent of the governed, however imperfectly.

    Any use of violence in overthrowing a democratic government must therefore meet a very high standard to be considered at all legitimate.

    No, it only has to be successful in order to be legitimate. Iran used to have a democratic government and it was violently overthrown. I don't recall anyone who ran afoul of the new regime managing to get out of trouble by saying "actually the law I broke isn't legitimate because the 1953 coup wasn't up to my high standards." In the real world, might makes right.

    every terrorist, every tinhorn dictator, every military junta claims their actions are justified by some higher purpose, even the preservation of democracy itself.

    Most people don't abide by the laws of their government because they buy whatever line the government uses to claim legitimacy. They abide by them because that argument I pointed out earlier is an incredibly convincing one. It's also probably one of the oldest arguments in human history. That argument is the real source of legitimacy no matter how many lofty, subjective ideals anyone uses to dress it up.

    threats of violence by certain elements of the MRM are in a similar vein: self serving and ultimately self-defeating.

    Yes, they are self-serving just as much as the threats used by feminists("promote more women or we will sic the government on you" is a violent threat). Only time will tell if it ends up being self-defeating.

    ReplyDelete
  48. VagrantsVoice, do you actually have anything substantial to say, or are you only interested in making snide remarks on other people's points?

    ReplyDelete
  49. This blog of your's is like a guy roaming about the pre civil war southern countryside warning black plantation workers of the evils of abolitionism. You approach these men, their backs permanently bent from years of picking cotton, their hands blistered and bruised, scars on their backs, many with families torn from them at auction, and you say to them.

    "Listen to me! Those abolitionists are TERRIBLE people who do the work of Satan!

    And the WORST part is.... (gasp) (gasp).....

    (pant) (pant).....Oh it's so terrible I feel I'm going to faint just telling!....

    (gasp) (pant).... Here is the WORST of it!

    They... (gasp) (pant)... advocate....(gasp)... the murder.... of .....

    YOUR MASTERS!!!!!

    "Isn't that just terrible?"

    -silence from the crowd-

    "WELL?!"

    "ISN'T IT?!?!?!"

    Is this blog of yours a warning to men to stay away from MRA/anti-fems ('cause we all low life scum) or an advertisement?

    ReplyDelete
  50. evil, you have hit a new low in offensive stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I think, if pushed to do it, MRAs will collapse the economy through deliberate refusal to contribute to it and then push for a favorable change of government in the ensuing chaos.

    A threat to go Galt! Ha! When I saw the "having to obey laws is VIOLENCE!" argument, I knew it was only a matter of time. I say go for it, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  52. you only interested in making snide remarks on other people's points?

    Yeah, I guess that about sums it up. I've already got a feminist calling me a troll (Triplanetary) and I wanted an MRA to balance it out. Thanks bro!

    Still, if you looked a little harder--just a wee bit, mind you--you might see something a *bit* more substantive in my posts. You were kind enough to note it yourself--might makes right. However, it seems the feminists and their government have a lot more "might" than you MRAs do at the moment. You're shooting your own position in the foot--why should anyone who's not an MRA side with you? You're weaker, you don't have the guns on your side. Hell, why shouldn't your fellow MRAs defect and sell out their brothers to the feminists? Even if the only reason you're here is either to amuse yourself, "sharpen your rhetorical skills," or cheer on your fellow MRAs, the whole "might makes right" schtick you're on isn't really conducive to any of those goals.


    Is this blog of yours a warning to men to stay away from MRA/anti-fems ('cause we all low life scum) or an advertisement?


    Why can't it be both? If someone wanted to end up hating both feminism *and* the Men's Rights Movement, this blog would be one of the first things I'd recommend to them.

    ReplyDelete
  53. David Futrelle said...
    "Wait, Cold, do you actually think that things are going to come down to some sort of actual, literal gender war?"

    -lol-
    You probably imagine a bunch of camo wearing rednecks roaming Manhattan shooting it out with a bunch of dykes that look like Aeon Flux.
    -lol-

    Nope! No MRA's are going to duke it out with no Spice Girls.

    The way it'll work is this.
    More white men do the MGTOW thing.
    The white population continues to decline and the Muslims move in and take over just like they are doing right now in THIS model feminist utopia.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56ZGe75udM4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=am3vndwjmDg
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeJPx-jHhtU&feature=related
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaPz7p-1-bk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ6VI_bc1j4&feature=related

    You see the political left only protects women from WHITE male patriarchs. NOT black or brown ones.
    And judging from some of these vids I'd say the Muslims put us evil white male patriarchs to considerable shame.
    (This is what I meant when I once wrote that there would be plenty of evil in the future. Just not MY evil.)

    Maybe they can design one of those beekeeper outfits for career grrrrrls?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Right so...men are like black slaves and women are like slave owners...

    The racism and false analogy really add to your cause. Can I legally own a man?

    Nm, once the revolution goes down I'll just use my 'government pimp daddies' and 'manginas' to defend me. Because I'm a woman. Lol.

    Also 'the immigrants are taking over', keepin' the white man down, 'feminist utopia'. I may as well just go and read the Daily Mail, it will keep me about as well informed!

    ReplyDelete
  55. The racism and false analogy really add to your cause. Can I legally own a man?

    It's a rather extreme analogy, but it's not false. If you can put a man in a situation where he must fork over a large amount of money to you every month, even if he loses his job and is unable to find another one that pays enough, on pain of being sent to prison and possibly raped if he fails to pay, then I'd say that's pretty damn close to legally owning him.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Speaking of Muslims, I have a difficult question for you, David:

    If this blog is really about mocking misogyny and not MRAs, then how come there isn't a single post about Islamic misogyny? MRAs like me practically look like feminists compared to what Islamic fundamentalists have to say about women. For example, I want an end to affirmative action and all other special treatment for women in post-secondary institutions while many Islamic fundamentalists believe that women simply shouldn't be allowed to attend them at all.

    I have another difficult question:

    You make reference to "Paul Elam's piece on misandry -- or at least what he labels misandry", implying that there is something wrong with his definition, perhaps that you consider it too broad. Yet, when I criticized your definition of misogyny on the same grounds, you said "I'm not even going to bother with rese of the bullshit you posted". Hypocritical much?

    Are you going to answer these difficult questions or are you going to stay true to form and run?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yeah, I guess that about sums it up. I've already got a feminist calling me a troll (Triplanetary) and I wanted an MRA to balance it out. Thanks bro!

    I didn't call you a troll, but I find it annoying that you never seem to be 0% point and 100% counterpoint.

    You're shooting your own position in the foot--why should anyone who's not an MRA side with you?

    Why should anyone ever take the side of anyone other than the ruling class? Hmm, maybe because the ruling class makes someone's life miserable, while the underdog is fighting for equality and a fair shake in life? Could that possibly be reason enough? Again, I'm not calling you a troll yet but you sure do ask a lot of inane questions and make a lot of baseless attacks on my character. I have good reason to wonder what your real modus operandi is.

    ReplyDelete
  58. > I think, if pushed to do it, MRAs will collapse the economy through deliberate refusal to contribute to it.

    An empty threat--the MRM is not big enough to accomplish this, and doesn't seem to have a political strategy for growing, except to assume that the MRM ideology is self-evident. That doesn't work for liberals (a standard liberal fallacy is that if people knew what liberals know, said people would somehow thereby become liberals), and it won't work for the MRM.

    And it begs the question--if things are as bad as many MRA's claim they are, then why not start refusing to contribute to the economy now? Is this process underway? Who's organizing it? How many people are participating, and what impact have they had? How many people would have to participate in order to "collapse" the economy? If the economy collapses, how would that result in MRM concerns being addressed?

    I haven't seen any serious answers to any of these questions yet. If you have some, I'll be surprised. If you don't, then you're bluffing.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It wouldn't just be MRAs, MGTOW would be the main crushing blow. Every MRA knows he is an MRA, but most MGTOW have never even heard the term, they are just doing it and the results are already being felt and reported by the likes of Kay Hymowitz. No formal organization is required here. Oh, and economies don't collapse overnight, but you can see the writing on the wall if you look closely.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Cold-I posted the statistics for the battle casualties. IF your premise was correct, the battles that were won by the American rebels would have turned into bloodbaths. They did not so obviously it was not "we will slaughter you."

    There was no wholesale slaughter of anyone during the American Revolution. Those who were captured after battle were imprisoned like usual and then handed over in prisoner exchanges. Your premise fails again.

    ReplyDelete
  61. A threat to go Galt! Ha! When I saw the "having to obey laws is VIOLENCE!" argument, I knew it was only a matter of time. I say go for it, dude.

    Laws are backed by the threat of violent force and only an idiot would have trouble recognizing this fact.

    As for going Galt, I've been doing so since 2009. I earn about half my income under the table and so I pay no tax on it, I am not reproducing and thereby not providing more fodder for the system, and I have modified my consumer behavior to deprive western corporations of as much of my money as possible. I still contribute something to the economy, but it's a small fraction of what I could be contributing if I wasn't going out of my way to try and be economic deadweight. My country can only support so many men living the way I live, and our numbers are only growing. So there.

    ReplyDelete
  62. The only thing that continually fails, Elizabeth, is your reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The only thing that would make watching cold flail about in hypocrisy and delusions of oppression better is a bucket of popcorn and a beer. Anyone got any craft beer?

    But, wait a second, I thought women were so powerful that they get all the jobs and education, leaving the poor poor boyz in the dust. If that's the case, how is the poor poor boyz' refusing to work going to hurt anything? The country already doesn't need you. You're already obsolete. Please feel free to stop working. It'll free up the job for someone who deserves it.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Its very telling, isn’t it, that MRAs and other cowards, always resort to threats of violence, rape, murder, etc., and feminists don’t?

    Actually, in a way, I have to thank MRAs. I almost ended up as one of them during and just after my divorce. If it wasn’t for their need to troll feminist websites,, I would never have been exposed to feminist blogs, or their actual arguments and would have ended up a bitter, broken, terrified MRA like our bitter, broken terrified MRA buddies here.

    Men are better than the overly-emotional, irrational, violent, hate-mongering douchebags that Elam et al think we all are. That MRAs clearly don’t think so is very tragic; that they blame feminists for that is cowardice and an inability to be acountable for their own lives and behavior.

    I’m glad I encountered them at such a low point in my life. I’m even more glad I saw through them and didn’t become one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Cold-you used a bad example. My reading comprehension was fine because I saw that your claims were completely false and proved it.

    ReplyDelete
  66. > It wouldn't just be MRAs, MGTOW would be the main crushing blow. Every MRA knows he is an MRA, but most MGTOW have never even heard the term, they are just doing it and the results are already being felt and reported by the likes of Kay Hymowitz. No formal organization is required here. Oh, and economies don't collapse overnight, but you can see the writing on the wall if you look closely.

    "The results are already being felt"?

    Seriously? Your credibility on economics just dropped to zero (hint: Kay Hymowitz is not an economist).

    Can you cite a credible economic analysis that supports your absurd thesis that MGTOW are having a measurable effect on the economy; i.e., one that's not dwarfed by the financial crisis of 2008, and the rise of China and India running up commodities prices, both of which have not caused the nations of the world to accede to MRM demands.

    No. You can't. If you think that men will spontaneously become MGTOW in such great numbers that they can cause an *even greater* economic catastrophe, and further that it'll lead to people adopting MRM ideology, then you're being about as ridiculous as a socialist thinking that the crisis of late capitalism will spontaneously bring about a popular socialist revolution. Back in the real world, revolutions require organization, mobilization, and political legitimacy, and they don't succeed without all of these factors. The armchair revolutionaries who sit back and wait for it to happen--are neither organized or mobilized, and after crying wolf enough times, lose any political legitimacy they might have had.

    ReplyDelete
  67. @Cold

    You do realize that Ayn Rand's books are fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Well, I do not consider myself to be an MRA - however, If you do not do what I say and suggest -

    I WILL CURSE YOU ALL WITH DIARRHEA!!!

    HA HAAAAA!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Oh, my poor old sides!

    Judging by his mitherings about 'MGTOW collapsing the economy' I don't believe Cold lives in the reality-based community.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Counter with lopermide! And Bismuth subsalicylate!

    ScareCrow becomes a sticky pink mess!

    ReplyDelete
  71. As for going Galt, I've been doing so since 2009. I earn about half my income under the table and so I pay no tax on it, I am not reproducing and thereby not providing more fodder for the system, and I have modified my consumer behavior to deprive western corporations of as much of my money as possible.

    In a previous thread, you said you have a real job, at an office and everything. (I have to admit I remember this because you bragged about enjoying a refreshing Pepsi on your break, which I found strangely charming.) Why don't you quit it? Wouldn't that make a bolder statement than doing occasional freelance work, not having kids, and buying shoes from Hong Kong sweatshops? Sheesh, I do all those things and I'm not even trying to bring down the government. I do pay my taxes, though.

    Look, let's move out of the realm of ego-stroking Randian fantasy for a moment. Successful boycotts require three things: a large committed base, a specific target, and a specific message. The classic example is the Montgomery bus boycott. The organizers were able to get a large chunk of the city's population organized against a single, specific target: a bus company that segregated black passengers. By boycotting the company, they hurt it financially while sending a clear, prepared message to the public: segregation is unfair, and African-Americans would no longer tolerate it at the businesses they patronized.

    What you've got is twelve guys on the Internet (and, yes, a million billion imaginary men who will totally join you once they hear your inspiring message) threatening to boycott EVERYTHING IN THE ENTIRETY OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION because, um, WOMEN! And then not actually boycotting anything.

    I feel kind of dumb wasting space explaining these basic concepts, but there are people of all political stripes who think "boycotting" something by just personally avoiding it will accomplish stuff, so I might as well try to clear that up. I mean, if you want to claim you're cheating on your taxes as a courageous if convoluted move to stick it to the Woman, I guess that's you're prerogative. I'm just trying to explain why people here are chuckling indulgently at your threats instead of shaking in our hopefully non-sweatshop-made boots.

    ReplyDelete
  72. OK, Cold, so your argument does in fact come down to Might Makes Right. I guess there's really nothing more to be said, then, since argument and ideas are therefore obsolete. I will refrain from engaging with you in the future and instead concentrate my efforts on those who are amenable to reason, or at least fun to mock. Sadly, you are neither.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Sometimes I wonder if the 'going Galt' idea is just sour grapes or a coping mechanism for being unemployed/underemployed. "I COULD find a better job if I wanted to, but I'm not because fuck women. But seriously, I could totes get an awesome job and the economy is going to be ruined because not only am I not working, I'm also growing my own food, sewing my own clothes and bartering carpentry for my neighbor's biodiesel."

    ReplyDelete
  74. As an aside, Vagrant, you've long since proven you're not a troll--at least to my satisfaction. Continuing to reference triplanetary's accusation long after most of us would have otherwise forgotten about it seems a bit, well, churlish (though I appreciate its place in the present context). I mean that in all friendliness, as I usually find your comments to be argued in good faith, even if I don't always agree. Just sayin'.

    FWIW, I completely agree that most cops wouldn't touch the coming MRA Takeover of the World without a long nightstick. Cops like their jobs, generally speaking; many of them even like women in their lives. The idea that they would put that all at risk for the MRA bill of goods is a bit far-fetched. They are too invested in the status quo, and the current system still probably has too much--oh, I don't know--legitimacy in their eyes to warrant violent overthrow. Which is not to say that individual police officers might not support the MRA agenda or their political aims.

    But, as I suppose the MRAs would say, "tomorrow the world."

    ReplyDelete
  75. Cold, a couple of things:

    1) Religion: There are Christian patriarchs too. I have generally avoided writing about religion. I may write more about it in the future. Generally speaking, those who advocate traditionalist religion do it in a way that is not as completely batshit, and thus entertaining, as MRAs and, especially, MGTOWs.

    2) So you're a tax cheat? Setting aside for the moment your seekret plan to bring down the world economy by being a tax cheat, the practical effect of you not paying taxes means that you are taking advantage of govt. services (roads, fire departments, safe food and water, national defense, etc etc) without paying for them. Doesn't that make you a leech?

    ReplyDelete
  76. walkertall said...
    "Its very telling, isn’t it, that MRAs and other cowards, always resort to threats of violence, rape, murder, etc., and feminists don’t?"

    They don't, correct? Here's the first post:

    Alex_P said...
    "And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins."

    ReplyDelete
  77. 1) Religion: There are Christian patriarchs too. I have generally avoided writing about religion. I may write more about it in the future. Generally speaking, those who advocate traditionalist religion do it in a way that is not as completely batshit, and thus entertaining, as MRAs and, especially, MGTOWs.

    Like Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement? Though, in my opinion, they ARE completely batshit, they're not as entertaining as MGTOWs.

    ReplyDelete
  78. @Cold
    This economic collapse you hope to bring about by you and all of your friends "going Galt" is not what you think it is going to be. Let me give you some insight, oh urban dwelling, apartment person.

    Economy collapses, militia is called out, chaos in the streets. Three things happen at once -- power goes off, phone lines go out, roads are blocked by people trying to leave the city. Gasoline and water are quickly going to dry up when people try to get ahead of looters.

    And that is only the beginning. How many of your Galt going friends knows basic first aid and has an appropriate first aid kit? How many maintain a garden? Somewhere to live with access to fresh running water and animal life?

    How many of these friends live in the country? How far away are they? Can you walk there? Do you have a go bag in you are evacuated? In case you have to evacuate yourself? What is in your go bag? Do you have a good map? Can you use a map and compass?

    Don't tell me your big plan is to sit in your apartment drinking energy drink and WOW. That is not reality. Reality says that you are going to very quickly need to make sure you have the necessities of life.

    Can you do that?

    ReplyDelete
  79. The hippies who decided to go farm had a very difficult time doing so because so few of them had done anything remotely resembling farming.

    After a long period of time, they were able to start producing good quality food but it was not as simple as they assume it is.

    ReplyDelete
  80. walkertall said...
    "Its very telling, isn’t it, that MRAs and other cowards, always resort to threats of violence, rape, murder, etc., and feminists don’t?"

    They don't, correct? Here's the first post:

    Alex_P said...
    "And what makes them think that men would take their side? I'm a weight-lifting feminist male, and chances are good I could kick the shit out of these shut-ins."


    Promising to defend yourself is very different from threatening violence if you don't get your way (not you specifically). Alex wasn't threatening violence to achieve a political goal, but rather stating his ability to respond with violence if attacked with violence. There's a big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Pam, yeah Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement are pretty out there, but my limited forays into that whole area haven't netted me much in the way of blatant, over-the-top misogyny. If you have any suggestions of places to look, let me know. It's something I will continue to look into, though I may not end up posting about it for awhile.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Elizabeth, exactly. Back in my younger days I was sort of fascinated by communes (I later realized I'm really not a commune person at heart). I remember reading something about the psychologist BF Skinner visiting a commune based on his ideas (which sounds a lot scarier to me now than it did at the time). He was sort of bemused by it, and wondered why all the college-educated commune members had decided to forgo jobs they were well-suited for to take up farming, which they didn't know jack shit about.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Hah, hah, thanks, Captain Bathrobe. I know, I'm just needling cold, lol.

    In any case, back to what he said, in response to this:

    Why should anyone ever take the side of anyone other than the ruling class? Hmm, maybe because the ruling class makes someone's life miserable, while the underdog is fighting for equality and a fair shake in life?

    But as you said yourself, might makes right, doesn't it? And since right now the feminists and their government have the preponderance of military power (a situation which is unlikely to change, as Bathrobe pointed out), they have the might, so they're right, which means the "oppressed" men out there deserve their subservient lot. Not only that, but the ruling class can treat "underdogs" who suck up to it quite well--for instance, prosecutors can make lots of money sending innocent men to jail on false charges of rape, people who work in media can make a lot of money off negative depictions of men (the popularity of characters like Homer Simpson attests to this), and so on. If might really did make right, one would expect the weaker underdog to either just roll over for the "mightier" feminists or try to make as much money as he could off of them rather than stand up for himself.

    Still, in any case, perhaps all this is merely addressing a misunderstanding--though I don't think you quoted my original post directly, looking at your comments you seem to be referring to what I said about "legitimacy." Perhaps that was a poor/confusing choice of words on my part. How to make it more clear...hmm. How's this: An appeal to force, at least from people in a position of weakness does not make the stronger party more likely to accede to their demands. We didn't accede to the demands of the KKK, various Neo-Nazi organizations, or a wide variety of other fanatical hate groups whose murders, bombings, and other acts of violence merely resulted in their getting crushed. All these groups told us, "do X or we'll fucking kill you" (where X was "deny non-whites their rights" or something similar). In response, we essentially fucking killed them. When you tell the feminists and their government "do X or we'll fucking kill you," what makes you think they won't simply ignore your demands and crush you like they did the KKK?

    ReplyDelete
  84. @David, it's slightly off topic, but if you want info about Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement that includes blatant examples of misogyny, please contact me. I grew up in fundamentalist Christianity and have done extensive research into the movement. I'd planned to eventually run a series about it on my own blog but I would really happy be work with anyone on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  85. "Promising to defend yourself is very different from threatening violence if you don't get your way (not you specifically)."---CB

    What makes you think that's what I was saying---just defending himself? Funny.

    ReplyDelete
  86. " Both of those arguments use the same logical structure and are therefore equally legitimate. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
    March 11, 2011 2:01 AM "

    No, because the unstated premiss is

    P: I have the right to tell you what to do, based on laws given to me to uphold by our legally elected government.

    In the case of the police, it is generally true. In the case of MRAs, it is decidedly not.

    ReplyDelete
  87. @David,

    Although I think that they are completely batshit, they don't engage in the same type of 'so off-the-wall that it's f'ing hilarious' misogyny that you showcase on this blog; in fact, I do not find them entertaining at all.
    If you are serious about looking further into the misogyny and extreme male supremacist ideology of that movement and perhaps showcasing it, I would recommend writing about it in a different venue.

    I rarely refer to my religious beliefs in my comments, but it was my research into varying Christian beliefs about men's and women's "ordained" roles that led to my discovery of the MRM and MRAs.

    @anthonybsusan,

    Visited your blog after reading your comment, and as a Christian (converted from Buddhism) feminist, I am interested in what you have to say and will continue to visit your blog as time permits.

    ReplyDelete
  88. wytch wrote:

    "Promising to defend yourself is very different from threatening violence if you don't get your way (not you specifically)."---CB

    What makes you think that's what I was saying---just defending himself? Funny.


    Actually, I have no idea what you're trying to say here. I believe that Alex was stating his intention to fight back if attacked, which makes sense in context. You were attempting to conflate that statement with MRA threats of violence if they don't get their way in terms of...well, whatever they it is they want. Threatening violence to achieve political or social aims is generally considered a form a terrorism, whereas threatening violence if personally, physically attacked is generally not.

    ReplyDelete
  89. @Captain Bathrobe

    Exactly. I don't advocate or perform violence. I do believe in self-defense, though. I wouldn't kill you just because you're spouting inanities, but I would use any means necessary to incapacitate them if they tried to hurt my mom. I am responding to a threat of violence by scoffing. I strongly doubt these Internet trolls form the strongest part of the population, and they shouldn't assume that men would ever join in their supposed revolution.

    Also, I think it's spelled "Witchfynde", not "Wytchfinde". I'm going by band names.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hah, hah, thanks, Captain Bathrobe. I know, I'm just needling cold, lol.

    No worries. It's all good.

    ReplyDelete
  91. walkershort
    "Men are better than the overly-emotional, irrational, violent, hate-mongering douchebags that Elam et al think we all are. That MRAs clearly don’t think so is very tragic; that they blame feminists for that is cowardice and an inability to be acountable for their own lives and behavior.

    I’m glad I encountered them at such a low point in my life. I’m even more glad I saw through them and didn’t become one of them."

    Bet your also glad your new girlfriend is reading this ain't ya?

    ReplyDelete
  92. jupiter9
    "I have the right to tell you what to do, based on laws given to me to uphold by our legally elected government."

    You have the right to have your 'make me feew eeemportant button pushed' by using the law as an excuse to boss people around.
    Men ignore you all da time?
    Aww poor wittle baby don't get no attention!

    ReplyDelete
  93. "And since right now the feminists and their government have the preponderance of military power"

    Um, is this not a line pregnant with false assumption?

    The last I saw the feminists do not own or control the government. Rather, women have won some fragile and incomplete concessions over issues such as discrimination. Insofar that those concessions are backed by the apparatus of law, women have some degree of protection. But to frame this as 'feminists and their government, backed by a preponderance of military power' sounds as absurd as the formulation 'muslims and their government' when talking about religious discrimination, or 'the gays and their government' when it comes to the repeal of DADT.

    Or does this not simply become a lame way of saying 'a government of the people', the 'people' in this instance including feminists, as well as MRAs?

    ReplyDelete
  94. Well, percyprune, it's a common MRA meme (I'm not sure whether or not Cold subscribes to it; I assume he does) that the US government (as well as any 'big government' in general) is, if not "anti-male" and "pro-feminist," at least not working for his bests interests and, if not his enemy, at least not his friend. The "feminists and their government" line was just playing off that--if one really does believe, as many MRAs do, that the feminists have that much political power, then they, with the army and cops at their disposal, are the "mighty" ones if might makes right. :p

    ReplyDelete
  95. "Also, I think it's spelled "Witchfynde", not "Wytchfinde". I'm going by band names."---Alex

    Actually, you are correct if you are referring to the British band. Mine is simply a play on spelling. "Cloak and Dagger" is a good album, btw. If you like that sort of thing.

    "I don't advocate or perform violence. I do believe in self-defense, though. I wouldn't kill you just because you're spouting inanities, but I would use any means necessary to incapacitate them if they tried to hurt my mom."

    I understand that, so we are in agreement here.

    "I strongly doubt these Internet trolls form the strongest part of the population, and they shouldn't assume that men would ever join in their supposed revolution."

    You underestimate the movement (which is not surprising considering the nature of this blog), but my 2 cents is thus: I honestly think men don't even need to know about MGTOW as a train of thought to have its influence spread. I read blurbs online and talk to men in person about how they are being mistreated and how it effects them personally, socially, and even politically and legally some times. They may not have the depth as MGTOW blogs, but they know on some level they are getting the run around even if they don't know the ingrained misandry in this culture. I also think that these men will create change over time, reactionary or not, and don't have to claim to be MRAs but have things in common with the basic themes.

    Captain Bathrobe, if you are reading this, it should answer a couple of things. I got cut off as a posted a response to you and was multi-tasking in a way---not the best thing to do before hurrying before work.

    ReplyDelete
  96. How to treat an mra like a second class citizen(in their eyes)----women:don't be a house servant fuck toy and let them have total control over your life. Men:hold the belief that women should have some rights.

    ReplyDelete
  97. This isn't quite what you're thinking of when it comes to "angry dudes will kick your ass", but it's close. Be sure to scroll down for all the comments about how fathers should kick the asses of guys who have sex with their daughters. If that's not bad enough the original comment was talking about an ADULT woman having sex.

    The worst part is that a lot of the commentors that want fathers to beat up guys who have sex with their adult daughters are women. I guess they view themselves as their husbands' property. So it's no surprise that they view adult women as their fathers' property until they get married and become their husbands' property.

    This is "angry father dudes will kick your ass".

    ReplyDelete
  98. Wow, Steve, that link started off strange and then took a turn into Bizarre Tautology Theatre. Who knew that if, as an adult woman, you have sex, you are "trashing your father's genetic legacy" and wasting all that money he spent sending you to school?

    ReplyDelete
  99. I really have little interest into responding to comments that attribute belief to me that I don't actually hold("fuck women" for example) or that refute points that I never even made("I am an authority on economics" for example). Same for ones that accuse me of hypocrisy without providing evidence. If you can't be bothered to carefully read what I write before responding, or can't be bothered to do copy/paste a few relevant quotes from me to back up a charge of hypocrisy, then I probably can't be bothered to respond.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @thevagrantsvoice

    "Just needling" someone with no intention of actually making a point is considered to be trolling, as is the use of intentional logical fallacies. Unless you are so ignorant that you had no idea that the "right" in "might makes right" refers to political/legal rights(the right to rule in particular) and not to any kind of moral sense of "right", you deliberately committed the fallacy of equivocation for laughs and that makes you a troll by definition. I'm just going to ignore if you're not going to bother actually saying anything of substance.

    ReplyDelete
  101. No, because the unstated premiss is

    P: I have the right to tell you what to do, based on laws given to me to uphold by our legally elected government.


    This is what I mean when I talk about using lofty, subjective ideals to dress up the "might makes right" argument. That unstated premise has no impact on the power of the argument unless the recipient recognizes that claim to legitimacy, and if everyone recognized the claim then we wouldn't even need law enforcement.

    OK, Cold, so your argument does in fact come down to Might Makes Right. I guess there's really nothing more to be said, then, since argument and ideas are therefore obsolete. I will refrain from engaging with you in the future and instead concentrate my efforts on those who are amenable to reason, or at least fun to mock. Sadly, you are neither.

    Translation: Waaah! How dare you not regard my subjective ideas of morality and legitimacy as objective truths! Don't you know that without those, I am unable to establish any meaningful difference between the violent threats made by the government on behalf of feminists and the violent threats made by some revolution-minded MRAs? You're not being anenable to reason if you don't recognize me as a moral authority! Screw you, Cold, I'm taking my ball and going home!

    ReplyDelete
  102. the practical effect of you not paying taxes means that you are taking advantage of govt. services (roads, fire departments, safe food and water, national defense, etc etc) without paying for them. Doesn't that make you a leech?

    So what if it does? Am I supposed to feel a sense of investment in a society that treats me as a disposable, second-class citizen because I don't have a vagina?

    ReplyDelete
  103. “Vision Forum and the Quiverful movement are pretty out there, but my limited forays into that whole area haven't netted me much in the way of blatant, over-the-top misogyny”

    The brand of religion these movements are based on are blatantly over-the-top misogynistic.

    “Bet your also glad your new girlfriend is reading this ain't ya?”

    She introduced me to this site. See, I do this thing called "talking to her". She knows all about my misguided foray into the He-Man Womun Haterz Klub. Thanks for playing.

    “Am I supposed to feel a sense of investment in a society that treats me as a disposable, second-class citizen because I don't have a vagina?”

    Wow. Cold, have you ever considered psychotherapy? There’s got to be a sufficiently manly male therapist you can go see to help you with these intense delusions you’re having. Or is therapy also a feminist conspiracy?

    ReplyDelete
  104. @Elizabeth, on the Revolutionary War issue, many of the soliders fighting for the British were not British, but rather paid German mercenaries. The exact number of Hessian mercenaries is disputed, but it is generally put somewhere between 16 and 30 thousand. The revolutionary war was not actually very popular in England, where majority sentiment tended towards reconciliation and concession of demands, but a tiny but powerful rich minority opposed it. This made recruitment of actual British soliders rather difficult, as the House of Commons was not playing along well. So, killing the "British" military prisoners often would have just meant slaughtering a bunch of random Germans rather than actual British loyalists. Not inconsiderable amounts of Hessians defected and remained in the US after the end of the war and brought their families over to live with them. This large, often solely or primarily German speaking, population was a source of a lot of political and ethocentric angest in early America. There were isolated incidences of murders of civilian loyalists. However, these were relatively rare and would not be aptly described as "wholesale slaughter".

    On another note, I fail to see why I should be concerned about this panic about the "fall of western civilization"!!! First of all, wouldn't that leave me with all of the other civilizations, such as Eastern or Indigenous ones? I live in an area that used to be ruled by the Iroquois, I fail to see why women should think such a system would be to their loss rather than their benefit. White supremicist patriarchy holds little appeal to me. But what the MRA seperatists here are advocating is not actually letting the rest of us free of colonial patriarchy and moving out of our socieites, but rather leaching on our societies as much as possible while trying to impose colonial patriarchy as much as possible. On that note, the fact that EWME invokes slavery, claiming all women are the masters and all (especially white) men the slaves (while ignoring the fact that black women and children picked cotton as well) and then turns right around and fearmongers about the power of black and brown men should win some sort of irony award.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Cold mistakes what feminists try to do with what men (and the support of women like Michelle Bachman) actually do do.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Unless you are so ignorant that you had no idea that the "right" in "might makes right" refers to political/legal rights(the right to rule in particular) and not to any kind of moral sense of "right",

    The problem is, my point applies to this as well. The feminists, in your view, are "ruling" because they're backed up by the guns to do so and that will likely remain the case for the foreseeable future. They have the right to rule and kick you around because they have the power, and as I mentioned above, even "second-class citizens" can profit more by sucking up to the rulers than opposing them.

    Still, though, given how you've already ignored much of what I've said (still waiting for a response to my question of why we should regard MRAs like you much differently than groups like the KKK), I suppose if you simply ignore me entirely it will be neither unexpected nor that much of a loss. Now, if you could only ignore everyone else and Go Your Own Way back to whichever MRA/MGTOW site you originally came from rather than bother with the hoi polloi like us, so mired in our logical fallacies and unable to grok your superior intellect, that would be even better. Please leave, we're not worthy of your presence :'(

    Still, so long as our host tolerates, it's not as if we can do anything about it--his blog, not ours. Thus, we'll be relying on you to exercise your better judgment and leave this moteley collection of trolls, ignoramii, and people who "don't say anything substantive" to stew in our own misfortune. :'(

    ReplyDelete
  107. MGTOW ought to expand their acronym to MELIGNATOW:
    Men Endlessly Lobbing Invective Going Not Actually Their Own Way.

    Best part is the name honors a very clever misogynist, one who killed several women and got off on technicalities.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Correction: Mel Ignatow, of Louisville, KY, only killed one woman but got off on lack of evidence.

    His last laugh: he'd kept that evidence as a cherished memento - hidden in his house, which he sold after his acquittal, to see it discovered and made public.

    Musta hated that biatch.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis