Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Drama Queen for a Day


MRAs: Bigger Drama Queens than Batman
Drama queens: so annoying, but so, so entertaining. Tammy Wynette, singing about failing marriages with that little choked-up quiver in her voice. Chris Crocker, begging us to “leave Britney alone!”  Emo kids whining about whatever it is they’re always whining about. Cats, being cats. 

And, of course, Men’s Rights activists, seriously in the running for  biggest drama queens of all. 
  
Over on A Voice For Men, guest blogger “Tom Snark” recently wrote about a little incident in his life in which he heard the woman who lived next door to him yell at her husband because she didn’t like the way he was trimming some branches.


Not much of a story, you’d think. But Snark, showing considerable ingenuity, stretched it out into a 1200 word post. The woman didn’t just yell; she “yapp[ed] at him like a menopausal Chihuahua.” The man wasn’t just embarrassed to have a neighbor overhear the exchange; he

know[s] that their facade of marital bliss was now forever shattered in my mind. … Is this his terrible secret, hidden from the world: that he is continually disrespected behind closed doors, by the very woman who said to him “I do”? 

Needless to say, Snark answered this question with a resounding “yes.” And then decided that all marriages are like this -- ultimately concluding that the women of the world are quite literally nagging their hubbies to death: 

One needlessly stressful incident after another is sure to raise the blood pressure. But actually living with a person who does this, combined with the stress of full-time work five days a week? The origin of the life expectancy gap [between men and women] becomes clear. 

Never mind that married men actually live longer than unmarried men, as approximately two seconds of Googling will show. Snark was just getting going:


marriage has no benefit at all for men. It is not even a stretch to say that, in this day and age, marriage is systematically abusive for men. While women can up and leave at any time they like, with minimal resistance from the law, family courts, or society as a whole (we continue to suffer from Eat, Prey, Love syndrome) – men cannot leave women without paying the price. 

Yes, he did say “prey,” not “pray.” But wait, there’s more: 

Married men are literally trapped, stuck supporting the poisonous predators that will eventually kill them. Plenty of women know this; perhaps this is why they are so keen on the idea. A little legal tweaking was all it took for feminists to remake marriage in their own image: men are now the dehumanised tools for women’s personal use. Sex roles have not simply been reversed, because men continue to do most of the work. What has changed is that the paycheque is now handed directly over to the wife, and his time at home will be spent completing endless ‘honey-do’ lists. 

Oh, the terrible tyranny of the “honey-do” list! Hitler had nothing on these foul shrews and their endless branch-trimming demands!

Now, I don’t mean to make light of verbal abuse. It happens, and it’s real abuse. I once had a neighbor, an elderly Italian man, who was continually yelling at his wife. Most of it was in Italian, so I don’t know exactly what he was saying, but every sentence or two was punctuated by what was evidently his favorite English word, “asshole,” a word he delivered with so much contempt it was chilling. In between these verbal barrages, I could hear his wife softly responding, trying to placate him. I don’t think he physically abused her – he was in a wheelchair – but this verbal abuse was constant. I doubt there was a single day I didn’t hear it. Had I known then what I know now, I would have called the police.

But not every overheard argument is a sign of abuse. Snark has heard one nasty exchange in the ten years he’s lived next to this couple – and he’s concluded from this one data point not only that his neighbor is being abused but that virtually all married men are prisoners to “poisonous predators [who] will eventually kill them.” 

Naturally, the regular commenters on A Voice For Men found this conclusion eminently reasonable. Indeed, in one heavily upvoted comment, Barbarossaaa managed to out-queen Snark’s already impressive drama queenery:

All one has to do is to observe these married men, i mean really look at them… dont let them catch you looking, observe the married man is his natural habitat, and if you look close you can see the dulled eyes of a man simply waiting to die. 
he is the fly caught in the spider web, that has accepted its fate and stopped struggling. he now waits for the black widow to climb down and consume him slowly but surely… 

this is not freedom it’s subtle servitude … you are dancing her dance, she is the initiator you are the reactor, and SHE decides whether you pass or fail she is in complete control. 

Yes, married men are all dead-eyed puppets in the hands of their evil wives. When I read this last bit, I couldn’t help but think of this little scene in Ed Wood’s perplexing bad-movie masterpiece Glen or Glenda, in which Bela Lugosi, himself a drama queen of considerable ability, shouts out “pull the string!” for no apparent reason:





-- 

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.

151 comments:

  1. Golly, can't imagine why Mr. Snark is still single - and I doubt it's because he truly believes all women are harpies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A friend of mine (well really a colleague) got a divorce after 30 years of marriage from a woman who was and is unfortunately mentally ill. He was devastated by the divorce (and not too happy with her attorney for driving up fees) and yet, he is not bitter about all women. Just the ex-wife's attorney, and even then he acknowledges she was just doing her job.

    I guess that is what we call "maturity" and "common sense."

    ReplyDelete
  3. observe the married man is his natural habitat, and if you look close you can see the dulled eyes of a man simply waiting to die.

    Reminds me of a Sunday School teacher I had as a kid. He said something like, "Ever see someone who isn't Christian? They're always angry and depressed."

    And I thought, "Uh... no, not really."

    But I guess some people will accept even easily falsifiable descriptions of reality if it supports their ideology.

    ReplyDelete
  4. and yet, he is not bitter about all women ...
    I guess that is what we call "maturity" and "common sense."


    nb4 an MRA calls you a hypocrite because feminists are totally bitter about all men.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "marriage has no benefit at all for men. It is not even a stretch to say that, in this day and age, marriage is systematically abusive for men. While women can up and leave at any time"

    You would think that more men would have discovered this universal truth! And yet what I personally have observed is that many men HATE being alone and will jump into another relationship immediately as soon as the old one is over.

    "men cannot leave women without paying the price."

    Smart enough to write such entertaining purple prose, but baffled by the idea of a prenup.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not really Eat, Pray, Love for us married seahags –
    it's BEAT, PREY, LEAVE!

    We had a funny old couple for neighbors once; my husband was
    talking to the husband and his wife stuck her head out the window
    and yelled, "Hey asshole! Your movie's on!" The old guy just laughed
    and laughed, but I'll but he was sobbing on the inside!

    Yeah, right.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And yet what I personally have observed is that many men HATE being alone and will jump into another relationship immediately as soon as the old one is over.

    Actually a lot of serial husbands are conmen who get married over and over in order to rip off the women in question.

    It's yet another one of those things that MRAs pretend women are constantly doing but is actually more common with men.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's yet another one of those things that MRAs pretend women are constantly doing but is actually more common with men.

    Projection: it's not just a river in Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Golly, can't imagine why Mr. Snark is still single - and I doubt it's because he truly believes all women are harpies."

    You don't understand, it does not matter if women what a woman's character is. Marriage is not about men it is about commitment and bearing liability to a woman and her children. By law men are not members of the matriarchal family. This is why women passed no-fault divorce law because they wanted access to men's resources after they initiate 70% of all divorce.

    Older men who are from the post feminist generation have warned me. "You want my advice..never get married" Men know...men know how independent women are.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Feminism was never about women's "independence" it is about diverting resources to women in both the public and private realms of society. Look at all the laws women advocate for including ones they have passed such as "women first" Affirmative Action policy etc etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Go your own way ladies...go enjoy yourselves. Get a sperm donor or something. Get your male genes from a male gene farming facility. You can even select your male specimen by what Hollywood celebrity he looks like.

    Human genes are sold through the mail.
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/Sp4hZFh26dI/AAAAAAAAAQ0/7VS50L6EIPM/s1600-h/ScreenShot022.jpg

    Want your own Brad Pitt?: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/Stj4D_yVsZI/AAAAAAAAARU/zU6OtfvY3GQ/s1600-h/ScreenShot003.jpg

    Go..have fun...
    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQsU8ZTuT4I/AAAAAAAAAfw/5bhYbzlmpHM/s1600/ScreenShot032.jpg

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQncO8NIqBI/AAAAAAAAAfQ/aXNTNOxfshs/s1600/ScreenShot027.jpg

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IU3iQnIt6Nc/TQndY7MWVKI/AAAAAAAAAfY/SpRFZAl1C88/s1600/ScreenShot028.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  12. These self-made losers are convinced that all married men are miserable because they need to believe it. Otherwise they'd have to start looking in the mirror for the source of their problems.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. No fault divorce is shown to reduce spousal abuse by 30% (because women just leave their abusive husbands) and a drop in the suicide rate of women by a good 8 - 16% depending on nation.

    2. Fault driven divorce is the reason for courtroom shenanigans.

    3. What you are complaining about is Alimony. Alimony rules have changed, if you and your wife are both earn roughly the same amount of money then your wife does not receive alimony. I find it's good reason to marry someone equally intelligent so that if divorce occurs I keep my money.

    4. I agree child support is biased in favour of women. I agree that child support should be placed in relation to visitation rights unless in cases of abuse and crime, as currently even if granted visitation rights the woman can simply prevent you from physically seeing your children with no recourse to the law bar another custody hearing.

    5. Divorce rates go down if Joint Custody is utilised allowing both parents equal access to the children. This means that you usually don't have to pay child support since you are still bearing the child support load physically.

    6. 95% of divorces are mediated. Only 5% reach the stage. I am pretty sure if you have been sensible you can mediate a divorce.

    7. If you are so scared sign a pre-nup. There is an option. I would intend to use one myself.

    8. Yes there is a bias to women in custody battles, but MRAs aren't arguing for equal custody, they are arguing that you do not want to pay child support. Here's a hint. Date smart intelligent women who have careers. They are less likely to be in it for the money (Yes I have dated someone who has pulled that "stunt" on me. I had a metric tonne of hang ups about women after that. I was 18 and she said I got her pregnant. The child was born white with blonde hair. I am tamil.)

    I am no stranger to such shennanigans, but the response is common sense rather than all women are evil. There are crazy people in both genders and inbetween. I cannot judge all women by the actions of my second girlfriend, that would be insane.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Why not simply divorce and take care of yourself and your newly bastard fatherless children. Why have men support independent women?

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Avicenna I like your points. You sound reasonable. This is the first time I have heard such things from a woman. However I disagree with:

    #1 No fault divorce is shown to reduce spousal abuse by 30% (because women just leave their abusive husbands) and a drop in the suicide rate of women by a good 8 - 16% depending on nation.

    Where did you get these statistics? What variables were measured. This must have been hosted on a feminist site.

    "but MRAs aren't arguing for equal custody, they are arguing that you do not want to pay child support."

    Not trying to sound angry because I feel you are trying to be reasonable here but this is an outright lie. I spend time in men's circles, men's forums and with male family and friends who want nothing more than to be with their children. Feminists will tell you that men only want "control". This is filthy and disgusting. MEN LOVE OUR CHILDREN AND WANT TO BE A PART OF THEIR LIVES.

    I've seen the sleepless nights, the lost weight, the inability to eat, the tears and sorrow. Feminists officially do not support shared custody. This is the official stance of mainstream feminists organizations.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Lol ok....just reviewed the last lines...you are a man...lol now your reasonable tone makes sense.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I am a guy. Avicenna is the latin for Ibn Sina a famous classical doctor and the father of the clinical trial. If I was a woman and was accused of getting someone else pregnant I would be extremely stupid to wait till the end.

    1. The figures are from the University of Pennsylvania. It's an actual paper of the business and public policy department.

    2. None of the MRA's have argued for custody, they have argued against payment of child support. Joint custody invalidates the payment of child support as long as both sides agree to pay 50% of the child's bills and share in the rearing of the child.

    3. Feminists do support shared custody. Which is why 95% of divorces tend to have joint custody. No seriously. The American Law association states that only 5% of divorces are contested by court. The remainder are solved by mediation. Most courts actually enforce joint custodies unless there is gross negligence on the part of one parent. The issue being that there is no follow up resulting in cases where the mother can terminate visitation rights without the father having any recourse to the law. Simply not paying child support after that results in the father being jailed. Hence I feel visitation rights should be linked to payment (If not once a week then the child should atleast be sent over for school holidays of an equal time period.)

    4. Divorce has dropped a fair bit due to fewer people marrying and a lot more cohabiting. Not gone up. No fault divorce has dropped the rate of divorce simply because a lot of divorces actually occur in the first 5 years of marriage where annulments are easy to get.

    5. The stance of feminists is for men to do their share of the parenting. Joint custody is what they want in cases of mutual divorce. Not in cases of faulted divorce (divorce does occur with fault. AKA someone cheating or abuse).

    ReplyDelete
  18. "None of the MRA's have argued for custody, they have argued against payment of child support."

    I'm not sure if you are serious or not but you are obviously not an MRA or have lost your children. Go to ACFC.org and sign the shared parenting petition or take part in a shared custody protest. They take place every year at state legislatures. MRA lobbyists, many of them women are in Washington D.C.

    Women are overwhelmingly opposed to fatherhood and shared custody. It's sad what they have done.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You are confusing father's rights advocacy for Men's Rights Movement. Father's advocacy is a minefield since there is a huge grey area to overcome. Men's rights? Less so.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Which is why 95% of divorces tend to have joint custody."

    I can't find this information anywhere. Every man I know has lost his children and the rights to his own body and thus the fruits of its labor. Please help me find out what you are talking about. Joint custody is something new. The idea is that women will have some sort of obligation, liability, responsibility and some sort of commitment in a marriage. Currently the legal status of women is that of children. 90-95% of cases the woman is granted the status of dependent upon men and also given primary custody.

    Father's groups are desperately lobbying for the ability to have more time with their children and to be a father. Again, please go to ACFC.org and sign the shared parenting petition.

    "When women anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody, they expect to be the primary residential parent for the children and recipient of the resulting financial child support, maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property, and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships. In their detailed analysis of divorce rates, Kuhn and Guidubaldi conclude that acceptance of joint physical custody may reduce divorce. States whose family law policies, statutes, or judicial practice encourage joint custody have shown a greater decline in their divorce rates than those that favor sole custody."

    "The stance of feminists is for men to do their share of the parenting. Joint custody is what they want in cases of mutual divorce."

    Where are you getting this??? I follow all the feminist news feeds and they are definitively against men and children having fathers.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "When women anticipate a clear gender bias in the courts regarding custody, they expect to be the primary residential parent for the children and recipient of the resulting financial child support, maintaining the marital residence, receiving half of all marital property, and gaining total freedom to establish new social relationships." (with their last male provider slave sending them what money is left over so that men can never again form another family nor be a father to their children).

    You are saying this is changing and maybe it has but only in some areas. Considering men as human beings is not yet the norm. It is a new idea. I've spoken about this topic many times and women laugh in my face. They think the pain and suffering is funny. Do you understand?

    I know a man personally who could not eat, could not sleep and he lost so much weight I was worried about him. All he could think and talk about was his baby and I mean ALL he could think and talk about was his baby. Men don't want "control" like women's groups say, men want the person they care about most in the world in their life. The person they would die for without a second thought. That's all men want.

    My own father was taken from me. He would drive an hour and a half many a day to see me in the summers. It felt special because I knew my father was not supposed to see me during other than 4 days a month.

    My brother was accused of sexual molestation of his new born infant, his son kidnapped and after emptying HIS LIFE SAVINGS OF $120,000 he was granted 51% custody but still has to pay child support, back payments of alimony when he was out of work WITH INTEREST while his ex takes European vacations and gets her nails done at the spa.

    In my experience and that of many if not most men they have been hurt beyond words, they suffer and some commit suicide. Women will take everything that means anything to you. This is the story men tell if you pay attention. Spend more time...talk to them.

    According to Los Angeles divorce consultant Jayne Major: "Divorced men are often devastated by the loss of their children. It's a little known fact that in the United States men initiate only a small number of the divorces involving children."

    I know feminists will tell you that men don't want shared custody they want control and to hurt people but please understand that this is a lie.

    Men know what happens if they divorce. The feminist revolution has removed men's rights and done tremendous damage to men, children, the prospect of family and marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Avicenna, I disagree with 4 and 8. Child support does not go to women, it goes to children. Child support goes from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent to support the child. Women who are non-custodial parents actually tend to be treated far more harshly in regards to child support than men if the issue goes before a court. On a related note, if the person paying can genuinely prove that the other parent is improperly using the support before a court, they can get a guardian ad lidem appointed controller of the child's financial interests. Actually proving their claim instead of just saying "all those bitches who recieve an average of less than $5000 a year to feed, house, and raise a kid are fucking living it up" does result in an actionable legal issue. And, it is as a matter of fact virtually impossible to deny visitation where support is paid due to court order. Violating a court ordered vistitation order is a crime that, if brought before a court, is often punished with far higher penalties than failure to pay support. The issue is that most people have an out of court agreement, so when one stops paying or stops allowing visitation, the other party has to start at the beginning with a court procedure to get an official order. As to 8, there is actually no reliable statistics on disputed custody results cross states (on a national level). People who work in the field in some states and areas report that courts almost never fail to give joint custody, some report a bias in favor of women, some report a bias in favor of men. The best evidence we have suggests that this is an issue that varies wildly across states and even across areas within some states.

    On the second number 5, avicenna, I do not consider fault divorce alone to be a factor in who should have custody unless the fault involved some factor of violence or some issue which would cause a danger (violence against spouse or child, conviction or commission of a violent felony, certian drug abuses, etc). Then again, I am from a state where women (but not men) who had affairs were affirmitively barred from being granted custody in a custody dispute until the mid-70s. If you look at it from a best interest of the child standpoint, the fact that the mom or dad had an affair is not overly relevant to the parent's skill or safety. Also, people who technically have no fault divorces can have severe problems in the marriage, including drug abuse and violence. In states that have no fault divorce, the fact that such divorces tend to happen more quickly and the fact that the victim does not have to deal with police and community involvement often makes these highly appealing to those who are in fact in dangerous situations. A large portion of no fault divorces factually qualify for fault divorces, but are more convienent.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Discount: I'm glad you know everything about how EVERY man feels. Saying they just want to be with their children. My parents divorced when I was small, and my sister and I would visit our dad every other weekend and alternating holidays. Do you think he really wanted to be a father to us when he would just go upstairs and be on the computer all weekend while we were playing by ourselves downstairs? (he has gotten more interacting with us, which leads me to believe he didn't really want kids, but now that we're adults, it's different).

    And did my cousin's dad want to see her and be a part of her life when he gave up all rights (and thus didn't have to pay child support)? "MEN LOVE OUR CHILDREN AND WANT TO BE A PART OF THEIR LIVES." Do you think this applies?

    I'm not saying ALL men are like this; I realize many do want to be fathers for their children, but you're acting like every single woman is out to get money from a man via divorce and that is just not true; my parents divorced because my dad was abusive towards my mom.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I know that the money is meant to go to the child's well being in order to "maintain the child's lifestyle at the same level as pre-divorce".

    Even on an equal basis courts tend to rule more in favour of women because of the assumption that single fathers are worse at child rearing than single mothers. The number of children with their mothers rather than their fathers seems to be in excess of what it should statistically be. Surely if we are for equality men would also take an equal share in the child rearing?

    The issue being that a lot of the data is compiled by father's justice movements (and I am too lazy to trawl for an unbiased source).

    Faulted Divorce is a terrible procedure. It's extremely difficult for women to go through. The idea of no fault is that this saves abused women the horrific nature of going through the trial (which often scared them off) as the end result is usually the same. However there aren't many provisions for men being the one initiating the divorces.

    The issue with custody seems to be that the parent with the dominant share of custody can shaft the one without since custody is poorly enforced. My big gripe with the system is that custody is not linked to visitation rights and to child support.

    A lot of cases exist where the parent with dominant custody simply bars the other from contacting the child. Very little is done to police this because no one figured it was an issue (IMHO).

    Visitations need to be treated in the same way that child support is. That the agreed time tables are binding within reason. Obviously saying "I am going on a vacation, I am not taking the kids this week" is acceptable. Saying "I am moving to Paris, good luck!" is rather unacceptable.

    You wouldn't enjoy having to pay for your children who you almost never see to live away from you. You stopped being a parent and started being just a source of income. I suppose something can be worked out like "holidays are with the parent with the minority visitation" but again that would require a legal pressure on visitation rights to be enforced appropriately.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I think it's so weird to see men gripe and moan about "honey do" lists while their wives are busy grocery shopping, cooking meals, vacuuming, changing the baby's diapers, and folding laundry after working all day. Maybe some women nag because they are angry to have so much work to do and too little help from their husbands.

    I learned one way to deal with this issue is to hire someone to help you with those honey do lists, like a handyman or a landscaper. If the wife is lazy, the man could hire a maid or nanny. Then the unhelpful spouse will learn that if they want to save money, they need to pitch in and do their fair share. Hopefully you have married a reasonable person that doesn't want to lay around watching TV while the other person never gets a break.

    It's a good issue for a couple to discuss before getting married. If your fiance wants to spend all of his or her free time on video games while you do all the work, you should reconsider if you really want to get married.

    My grandma waited on my grandpa hand and foot while he spent all of his time watching baseball on TV. Anytime she was sick, he was helpless and couldn't take care of himself. I saw an episode of Hoarders where a widower let his house become a squalid pit because he didn't know how to pick up or clean his home after his wife passed away. I would think most people would want to know how to run a home and be independent.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "You're a man? Now your reasonable tone makes sense."

    Yeah, MRAs don't hate women at all. Why don't you guys just fuck each other? I mean, for all the bitching that these assholes do about women, it's clear marriage is no bargain for women----waste your life on some asshole who expects you to cook, clean up after his hateful ass, have kids, wait on them, while he belches on the couch and bitches to his buddies, then claims he did fifty of the child care during the divorce? Divorced MRAs act like they fired the ex and kids so why in hell are they asking for money now? In their little pea brains, women have obligations to men, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  27. men are now the dehumanised tools for women’s personal use

    Yet another installment in Projection: Not Just a Technology For Mass Viewing of Visual Art

    ReplyDelete
  28. I missed out on that little statement. And apparently I wasn't being very reasonable either.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This is the first time I have heard such things from a woman.

    Translation: Discount hasn't been paying attention. Like, AT ALL.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I just saw an article in the NYTimes about how women in China refuse to marry a guy without his own home.

    I expect that will cause a few rants over in MRA land.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just saw an article in the NYTimes about how women in China refuse to marry a guy without his own home.

    I expect that will cause a few rants over in MRA land.

    ReplyDelete
  32. No doubt, Elizabeth, without any discussion of sex-specific abortion in China leading to a surplus of men relative to women, which is of course related not so much to Chinese 1-child policy but to sexist cultural values that lead families to prefer sons over daughters.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I just saw an article in the NYTimes about how women in China refuse to marry a guy without his own home.

    Absent any considerations of Chinese cultural issues, this isn't a totally unreasonable position to take. It's not something *I* consider a priority, but it's hard to blame someone who does.

    But more relevantly, what SallyStrange said.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Discount is like the "not even wrong" category of arguments, personified. Men are just now beginning to be considered as human beings? Gosh, what were they before--demigods? It'd be hilarious if it weren't so infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Men are just now beginning to be considered as human beings?

    The majority of monarchs in human history have been male, but that's just another example of how men are oppressed... somehow...

    ReplyDelete
  36. Indeed Trip.

    And I don't suppose we should mention the laws of primogeniture which assured succession to the firstborn male and transference of inherited wealth and property to same.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ain't it great how Discount can say to people, "I can't find this information anywhere." but he has no problem tossing out shit like, "Considering men as human beings is not yet the norm." and "I follow all the feminist news feeds and they are definitively against men and children having fathers." without a single shred of information to back it up. We're supposed to accept all of his horror-story anecdotes as chiseled-in-stone truth, but anything that contradicts him is either instantly suspect or outright false. Because he says so. This is what happens when you've all ready decided on a conclusion; you just exclude anything that disproves it and twist what you can to support it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. No of course not, because they have yet to consider the context of why women act in anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Considering men as human beings is not yet the norm. It is a new idea.

    Is that what's causing MRAs to get their panties in a bunch, that as feminists have fought to raise the status of women to that of human being the status of men is now starting to be lowered to that of human being?

    ReplyDelete
  40. I follow all the feminist news feeds

    This just strikes me as being exactly like Sarah Palin's comment about how she reads all the newspapers.

    I don't follow all the feminist news feeds, and I'm a feminist. Who has that much time in their day?

    ReplyDelete
  41. "The majority of monarchs in human history have been male, but that's just another example of how men are oppressed... somehow..."

    Take a look below the glass floor it might cause an uncomfortable crick in your neck but its worth a shot.

    Men have bared the worst aspect of the toils and suffering of the human condition which women have been largely spared from. Men have been treated as the disposable workhorses of civilization. Our welfare, feelings, safety, health and our very lives not valued as much as yours and you know it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "And I don't suppose we should mention the laws of primogeniture which assured succession to the firstborn male and transference of inherited wealth and property to same."

    All to be ever more worthy of you. Men know what women require in order to be loved. Unlike you we are not attractive nor desired by the opposite sex for the simple fact that we exist. Giving your wealth and resources to your son will give him a fighting chance to be worthy of women. How's that for oppression.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Men have bared the worst aspect of the toils and suffering of the human condition which women have been largely spared from. Men have been treated as the disposable workhorses of civilization. Our welfare, feelings, safety, health and our very lives not valued as much as yours and you know it.

    Translation: "I am in denial about the fact that every economic class has both women and men in it."

    ReplyDelete
  44. I don't follow all the feminist news feeds, and I'm a feminist. Who has that much time in their day?

    Try an RSS reader..it will save you the time.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Translation: "I am in denial about the fact that every economic class has both women and men in it.""

    Translation, I am unaware that my very comfort and standard of living is due to men toiling to keep my home warm, build my house, lay my roads and suffered in shit filled filth holes in the ground to gather the materials that built the computer I am using. I am unaware that it is male toil and suffering to allow us all to live in comfort that lead to the invention of the internet itself.

    ReplyDelete
  46. All to be ever more worthy of you.

    Translation: "I am in denial about the fact that women were not permitted to earn money for themselves for millennia."

    Men know what women require in order to be loved.

    Translation: "I have no idea what it is like to be loved."

    Unlike you we are not attractive nor desired by the opposite sex for the simple fact that we exist.

    Translation: "I have been told that women don't like sex with men, and I believe this. Also, because I do not regard pregnancy, childbirth, and childraising as valuable things, I am incapable of recognizing that women were not valued, historically speaking, for existing, but rather for providing reproductive services--that is, being baby factories."

    Giving your wealth and resources to your son will give him a fighting chance to be worthy of women. How's that for oppression.

    Translation: "I have no idea what I'm talking about. Argle bargle blargh blargh. I'm oppressed. Men are more oppressed than women. Why? Because I said so."

    Well, I did my best folks, but really, speaking "Discount" is very difficult, mostly because of that basic problem with incoherence--i.e. the "not even wrong" problem I mentioned before. In order for an argument to be wrong, it has to first make a modicum of sense. Discount's blather fails at even that.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "All to be ever more worthy of you."

    -"Translation: "I am in denial about the fact that women were not permitted to earn money for themselves for millennia."

    Translation, no matter how much women have I am unaware that it does not preclude us from looking for the same driving forces in men we have always looked for and lead to their obsession over territory and resources to begin with for which as a woman I am the only gender who is able to freely benefit by for the simple fact that I am a woman and I exist.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "Translation: "I have been told that women don't like sex with men, and I believe this. Also, because I do not regard pregnancy, childbirth, and childraising as valuable things, I am incapable of recognizing that women were not valued, historically speaking, for existing, but rather for providing reproductive services--that is, being baby factories."

    Get out of here. You know our roles WERE complimentary and necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Translation, I am unaware that my very comfort and standard of living is due to men toiling to keep my home warm, build my house, lay my roads and suffered in shit filled filth holes in the ground to gather the materials that built the computer I am using. I am unaware that it is male toil and suffering to allow us all to live in comfort that lead to the invention of the internet itself.

    First of all, the translation schtick is my thing. You need translating because you can't write coherently.

    Second, how did you find out that there were no women whatsoever involved in building the roads I drive on, the computer I work on, and the houses I've lived in? Was it through that magical feminist RSS feed? Clearly, in the modern era, there are SOME women involved in those industries. Previously, they were banned from participating. Since the ban has been lifted, more and more women are participating. I myself have built several houses as part of a carpentry team, and roofed a few more.

    So my question to you, Discount (not that I anticipate you'll even understand anything that's going on here, much less try to answer honestly), is: aren't you GLAD that women are working more now? It means that they don't need men to provide them with money, so no more wage slavery for the poor men who need money in order to persuade sex-hating women to have sex with them. That's a good thing right? I mean, assuming you don't like sex. I suppose, if you think that women all hate sex, but you still like sex, and the only way to get to have sex with a woman is to bribe her with the means of physical survival and be the only bulwark between her and starvation, that might be a bad thing. But you don't seem like the type who particularly enjoys sex.

    ReplyDelete
  50. But of course at a societal scale they are now in bitter conflict and the results are evident. Go your own way..have fun..men are. Don't hate it, embrace it. Men need women like a fish needs a bicycle. Isn't that how it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  51. no matter how much women have I am unaware that it does not preclude us from looking for the same driving forces in men we have always looked for and lead to their obsession over territory and resources to begin with for which as a woman I am the only gender who is able to freely benefit by for the simple fact that I am a woman and I exist.

    I can't really make any sense of this. Wait, no, I'm getting it--I just had to reference hundreds of other conversations that went down the same path. It's women's fault that men want to gain territory and riches because women will only have sex with rich guys who have lots of territory (because women hate sex and have to be bribed into having it).

    Again, I have to ask: aren't you glad that women are achieving economic independence now? Logically (I know, I know--don't laugh), according to your own premises, women's economic independence should lead to a reduction or even cessation of territorial and resource-driven conflict.

    ReplyDelete
  52. But of course at a societal scale they are now in bitter conflict and the results are evident.

    Yeah, they are--I can vote, and I have a job that pays me enough money to buy my own food and pay for an apartment. I don't have to trade access to my vagina to a man in order to avoid poverty.

    Go your own way..have fun..men are.

    Well, some of them. At least they say they are. We're still waiting to see if they're actually going to do it.

    Don't hate it, embrace it.

    I'll embrace as soon as you actually Go Your Own Way--still waiting, you see!

    Men need women like a fish needs a bicycle. Isn't that how it goes.

    Of course! And I don't "need" a man--which allows me to better enjoy the company of a man. I'm making money, he's making money. We don't need each other, we just get together because it's fun.

    ReplyDelete
  53. In agricultural societies, everyone works--men, women, and children. Historically there haven't been many women of leisure among the peasant class pretty much anywhere.

    In early industrial societies, poor women generally worked as well--either in factories or at home doing piece work.

    The idea of middle-class women staying at home not working is largely a Victorian innovation, though their days were often filled with drudgery nevertheless. Also, until very recently, childbirth was a very dangerous undertaking, with death in childbirth commonplace.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Second, how did you find out that there were no women whatsoever involved in building the roads I drive on, the computer I work on, and the houses I've lived in?"

    lol uh huh sure thing. You don't have to feel inferior or less valued because of it. Women do other things. "I myself have built several houses as part of a carpentry team, and roofed a few more."

    Uh huh and I think it's wonderful that women spend their efforts volunteering their spare time in their lives of comfort rather than competing for status and resources to be worthy of the opposite sex and use that time to help others. It's very nurturing of you. I like that.

    "aren't you GLAD that women are working more now? It means that they don't need men to provide them with money, so no more wage slavery for the poor men who need money in order to persuade sex-hating women to have sex with them."

    Not really, as far as providing money or having less responsibility toward and for women nothing has changed. You know... having to court women because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males it simply makes it more difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Go your own way..have fun..men are. Don't hate it, embrace it. Men need women like a fish needs a bicycle. Isn't that how it goes.

    Speak for yourself, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Oh if only he would just speak for himself.

    ReplyDelete
  57. I'm relatively new to this blog and the one thing that really stands out to me in MRA's attempts to make themselves seem like the exact opposites of feminists--MRAs talk about women a lot. (Women as a massed collective, obviously, because 3 billion of us aren't different from each other.) About men and their issues, not nearly as much. It's women this and feminists that.

    And most feminist spaces really aren't that way about men. They mostly talk about women and women's issues. To the extent there's an "enemy," it's more like society as a whole, or specific groups working against women's interests. But there really aren't many feminists who'd call "men" their opposition. Moreover, there just plain aren't many feminists who talk about men, positively or negatively, that MUCH.

    Maybe because a lot of us have gotten to the point where we realize that "men" aren't one thing, any more than "women" are, so saying that "men do this" or "men are like this" is patently absurd if you end the sentence with almost ANYTHING other than "identify as men, yep."

    "Convert oxygen and nutrients to energy and carbon dioxide," I guess. Men all do that. Sheesh, MEN.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Second, how did you find out that there were no women whatsoever involved in building the roads I drive on, the computer I work on, and the houses I've lived in?"

    lol uh huh sure thing. You don't have to feel inferior or less valued because of it. Women do other things.


    Idiot child, I am asking you a direct question: how do you know for sure that no women were involved in building roads, etc. Your response reveals that you don't know, you are just making things up, and would prefer to insult women rather than acknowledge that once they were given the opportunity to join the workforce, women did so with gusto.

    "I myself have built several houses as part of a carpentry team, and roofed a few more."

    Uh huh and I think it's wonderful that women spend their efforts volunteering their spare time in their lives of comfort rather than competing for status and resources to be worthy of the opposite sex and use that time to help others. It's very nurturing of you. I like that.


    More transparent insults from the insecure idiot child. No, I wasn't volunteering. I was getting paid. Not a whole lot, but it was how I survived for about three years. Again, your writing is so incoherent it's difficult to parse, but it seems you think I was helping relieve the competitive economic pressure on men to impress women or something? It doesn't really follow--just another demonstration of how "not even wrong" you are.

    "aren't you GLAD that women are working more now? It means that they don't need men to provide them with money, so no more wage slavery for the poor men who need money in order to persuade sex-hating women to have sex with them."

    Not really, as far as providing money or having less responsibility toward and for women nothing has changed.


    Ah, so it seems as if you're saying that the feminist movement hasn't gone far enough then, because women still can't make enough money to survive by themselves and still rely on trading access to vagina for their means of survival.

    You know... having to court women because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males it simply makes it more difficult.

    I had heard that men court women because they desire sex and like to spend time with women, certain of them anyway.

    Now I learn, to my surprise, that men court women "because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males". So, your low social status, relative to that of women, forces you to make money in order to court women in order to... do what exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  59. @Captain... It doesn't necessarily mean you have to avoid women. You simply don't have to commit to them or have a family which is entirely understandable now a days. If you do have children it is wise not to get emotionally close to them or make any type of paternal investment lest your heart get torn out when women take their property away and your money. Marriage is obsolete.

    The tech is there. More and more women are going to fertility clinics for IVF treatment and also using sperm donors. You can even purchase your human genes through the mail according to what hollywood celebrity your male specimine looks like. Heck I don't think artificial wombs are to far around the corner. We may soon be able to purchase female eggs and grow life in the comfort of our own homes.

    Many women agree that it is a good idea to freeze their eggs now a days and somehow find a way to artificially make their womb gestate life in some way. Anyway..Just live your life for yourself like women do. There is no need to commit to one.

    I've posted the single woman birth rate before on here. Understand that women have their own families now. As long as men don't fight it and go along with it we can use it for what it is. Take whats left of the wreckage and improve our lives. Some of these aspects are a part of MGTOW. The MRM is growing for a reason. We can adapt to the new order and can support each other in doing so.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "We may soon be able to purchase female eggs and grow life in the comfort of our own homes."

    Okay, who besides me instantly thought of the patriarch of the Tessier-Ashpool family in William Gibson's Neuromancer? And then was instantly squicked out by the reference and the thought process probably going on in Discount's melon?

    ReplyDelete
  61. I don't look down upon women what so ever.

    "I'm totally not racist!"

    "I'm not bluffing."

    "The check is in the mail."

    "I was at a business meeting, honey."

    File under: Things people feel compelled to say because they actually mean the exact opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  62. "I had heard that men court women because they desire sex and like to spend time with women"

    Yes, somehow we have to find a way to remove female privilege.


    Ahah, so finally it is revealed, the true nature of "female privilege": it consists entirely of the ability to give men boners.

    Seems like hormonal therapy may be the best option for combating the pernicious influence of female privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "Now I learn, to my surprise, that men court women "because how much more valuable and worthy they are than us lowly males". So, your low social status, relative to that of women, forces you to make money in order to court women in order to... do what exactly?"

    More like lower biological status.


    Ahahahahh

    I have joked in the past about a lot of MRA doodz being motivated by uterus envy, but I've never had one come right out and say it before.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Shit, man, what if the baby's a GIRL?

    Or for that matter, what if the baby's a boy? Are you really that thrilled about bringing him into the world just to tell him "no one will ever really love ya, son, so if you turn out heterosexual I'm so sorry and here's the machine you'll use when it's time for grandkids"?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Discount said...

    @Captain... It doesn't necessarily mean you have to avoid women. You simply don't have to commit to them or have a family which is entirely understandable now a days. If you do have children it is wise not to get emotionally close to them or make any type of paternal investment lest your heart get torn out when women take their property away and your money. Marriage is obsolete.

    Again, I say: speak for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  66. At this point I'm just asking questions about Discount's weird parallel universe out of sheer curiosity--this isn't a "debate" in the sense of anybody ever changing their mind about anything--but if a woman isn't sexy, does she still have female privilege? Say a woman is fat and butch and old (and say these aren't sexy to you), does she still have this "privilege" to control men at her whim?

    Is she an honorary man at that point or is she just a total non-entity in this equation?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Seriously, Discount, what are you smoking?

    ReplyDelete
  68. "What??? Like women men may soon have the technology to cut women out of the process of reproduction, harvest their genes and even select women based on how hot they are online, in the comfort of our home and have their eggs sent to us by mail with a simple doctors note. What is the difference?"

    Congratulations, now I'm more skeeved out by you than I was a few minutes ago.

    ReplyDelete
  69. @Holly:

    "Is she an honorary man at that point or is she just a total non-entity in this equation? "

    I'm sure if I put some thought towards it I could probably figure out how folks like Discount rationalize it. But to be perfectly honest, I don't really feel like being any more disgusted than I all ready am.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Wait... if you're only getting the eggs, why do you need the women to be hot?

    I mean, is it just the principle of the thing, or do you want a daughter after all... augh... I'm sure it's not that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. MertvayaRuka - I'm thinking Discount's opinion on that doesn't go much beyond "well, then she's icky, ha ha," and obviously the discussion ends there, because anything else would require viewing people--male or female--as fully rounded people rather than purely sexual actors, and I don't think that's in the cards.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @MertvayaRuka

    On top of that, he assumes other men would want this. I guess this is what happens when you spend all your time on MGTOW and MRA forums. You start to really believe their "tomorrow the world" brand of propaganda.

    I wonder if he's eagerly anticipating the sexy robot women.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Woop, no, I was wrong, he just didn't make any sense at all.

    Discount - Look, our hypothetical woman here is post-menopausal, and by any standard you're likely to hold, she's UGLY. Does she have female privilege by still being female, or what?



    ...God, I can't even remember what we were talking about originally. It all mushes into one giant rambling "Resolved: Women are horrible monsters--pro or con?" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  74. What's really weird about this (besides the way Discount posts completely random pictures), is that while this thread is going on, I'm IMing my boyfriend in another window. And it's... it's just not this big hairy power dynamic. We're talking to each other, the way people do. Jokes, common interests, making plans, that kind of stuff. I'm not making any demands on him and he's not supplicating to me (nor dominating me). We're just talking like friends. This isn't weird. This is how a whole lot of couples I know are.

    It seems like another universe from this one.

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ Avicenna,

    A lot of cases exist where the parent with dominant custody simply bars the other from contacting the child. Very little is done to police this because no one figured it was an issue (IMHO).

    That may be, but there are legal remedies for parent when the other parent violates a visitation order. These remedies aren't easy or cheap, but they do exist. I've known a woman who had her son taken away by police because she refused visitation. The father got a court order, and she had to hand the son over. Not the best of all possible outcomes, to be sure, but it isn't as if it's not considered a problem by the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Discount - I am. I'm in a big picture where men and women are capable of happy sexual relationships and happily doing things that have nothing whatsoever to do with sex or gender. Obviously not everyone is happy-happy, but some people are, and definitely not everyone is caught up in all-consuming gender-based power struggles. It's kind of a nice place to be.

    'Cept there are some assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Generally this involves bludgening each others heads in, tearing each other into tiny pieces, shooting each other and the like.

    Wow...I guess I've been doing it all wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Discount is basically an embodiment of all the jokes we've made about MRAs. "You just resent women because you desire them and can't always have them," we say, never dreaming they'd just respond, "Well, yes," as Discount has here. "You just wish YOU could have a uterus," we say. "Indeed," says Discount.

    I am so bookmarking this page. You know, for the next time some asshole says, "Oh you're just exaggerating about MRAs."

    ReplyDelete
  79. And I really do think, as long as we're talking fantastical dystopian (or utopian, if you share Discount's perspective) scenarios, that if female privilege truly consists of sex appeal, then the only true way to achieve equality would be to force the entire male population to endure chemical castration. Once they no longer desire sex with women, they will no longer be at the mercy of those heartless harridans. Très simple, non?

    ReplyDelete
  80. I am still stuck on "just order and a hot woman will send you her eggs." He has no idea how hard it is to harvest human eggs nor how difficult replacing the human placenta is.

    And I also think that Discount is several different people satirizing MRAs lack of logic, coherency and lunacy.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Elizabeth, I think it might be a bit like Poe's Law. There's a certain point where you just can't tell the parody from the real without someone just telling you "yeah, I'm pulling your leg".

    "On top of that, he assumes other men would want this. I guess this is what happens when you spend all your time on MGTOW and MRA forums. You start to really believe their "tomorrow the world" brand of propaganda."

    Captain Bathrobe, I'm sure it's that plus the "married people are miserable because I NEED them to be miserable!" thing I mentioned earlier. I could honestly believe that seeing happy couples would either cause him to deny that they were REALLY happy or fling him directly into a teeth-grinding rage.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Come on, ladies, don't you feel sorry for the horrible burden men bear? Historically, they've been forced to take everything in the world--all the land, all the money, all the freedom and human rights--just to impress us! They hate owning all that stuff, but they HAVE to, because if they let us have just a tiny bit, they'd have no way of purchasing sex from us! And that's what makes modern society so hard for men: they still have most of the stuff, which is just so very painful, but they don't have ALL the stuff, so they can't force us to bang them on command! It's the worst of both worlds!

    Meanwhile, it's great being a woman, because all women are gorgeous 18-year-old blonde millionaires with huge tits who can easily manipulate men into giving them stuff (and obviously the person who can sometimes convince a guy to give her stuff is richer than the guy who OWNS THE STUFF), and none of us are old or ugly or gay or unfeminine or socially awkward EVER.

    I'm sorry; I was out of the country for a week*, and getting back to this site and the bizarre alternate realities presented therein is always something of a culture shock. How do you live in America in the 21st century and claim not to know any women with jobs? Aside from moms who are taking time off to raise kids, does anyone here know any women who *don't* have jobs?


    *And in an economically depressed country, which is, I'm given to understand, where all the hottest women live. I apologize for not bringing back a shipment of subservient, exotic, stupendously feminine concubines skilled in secret sexual techniques, since every woman I met was of exactly this description, and they talked of nothing but how much they hate equality (but only briefly, and then apologized for wasting time when men could have been talking). I had some room in my suitcase, but I filled it with retsina instead.

    ReplyDelete
  83. After this thread, I could use a little retsina. Care to share?

    ReplyDelete
  84. Wow. Discount. It sounds like you've completely lost control of what you're saying, to the point where you no longer have any point at all to prove except "GRRR WOMEN," to which I admit I have no rebuttal.

    ...and no explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Well we can always simply overpower and rape this cunt of yours you seem to prize so much.

    "We"? Discount: no longer Schrodinger's rapist.

    Call it envy or what have you it doesn't matter.

    ...because it's true. You said so yourself.

    By the way, I deleted my comments.

    This seems to imply that you agree with my assessment that other people would view your comments as reflecting negatively on the MRA movement. Why? What's wrong with what you said?

    No way in hell would I let a bitter and disgusting cunt use anything I said to boost the ego of other cunts. It's back to offensive mode for you cunt.

    As if you have some other mode. It is to laugh.

    ReplyDelete
  86. And now Discount has gone into full melt-down mode.

    Observe, my friends: the Pharyngula-patented method of dealing with Troll infestations: feed them until they explode like that guy in Monty Python's "Meaning of Life.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Discount, you're not even saying anything any more. You've completely sunk to the level of "WOMEN ARE BAD THINGS OF A BADNESS AND THEY MAKE BAD." It's a little frightening, but it's not meaningful. It's not something up for debate between adults.



    It's a whoooole long way from here to fathers' custody rights and scholarships for boys, isn't it.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Hey, Discount, guess what? The power to give men boners isn't all it's cracked up to be, you need not covet it.

    And stop being such a douchebag, a troll, and/or a spambot.

    ReplyDelete
  89. @Captain Bathrobe

    That seems to be a case of a complete breakdown in the visitation rights, in that he challenged her legally. The issue is that all that wastes a lot of time and money. There is no "Visitation Police" like there are "Child Support Police" (If your payments are late you get chased up, if your visitations are not allowed there is little recourse but to lawyer up and hope you get the decision to go your way). It's a big waste of time and a big waste of money for something that could have been simply policed as a phone call telling the misbehaving parent to "knock it off".

    @Discount

    Traditionally women were expected in the west to not do those jobs because they are weak fragile flowers.

    In a lot of the east, roads and buildings are built by female labourers and brick layers.

    How come you didn't say nurses? That is an area of work where men aren't provided as many opportunities as women and where there is active gender bias for women. That would be a great campaign. If you wanted to fight for "Men's Rights" dress up as nurses and march! Fight for the right for men to be nurses on an equal stage as women. Affirmative action CAN BE YOURS.

    Oh wait, you won't. Because you think that is a "woman's job"

    ReplyDelete
  90. Eh, Avicenna, I think you're being a bit generous when you refer to what goes in inside Discount's head as "thinking."

    ReplyDelete
  91. "This seems to imply that you agree with my assessment that other people would view your comments as reflecting negatively on the MRA movement. Why? What's wrong with what you said?"

    Nope. There was nothing negative in my comment. I was speaking about male feelings, vulnerability and female privilege and as you said so your self, you plan to use this to harm myself and men. It won't happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oh, it was your precious, sensitive, vulnerable fee-fees that made you threaten me with rape? Uh huh.

    "WHAT WHAT?? I NEVER THREATENED YOU WITH RAPE! HOW DARE YOU--"

    You did. You said, "We (you have a rapist mouse in your pocket?) can always simply overpower and rape this cunt of yours you seem to prize so much."

    I'm not interested in considering the precious fee-fees of a would-be rapist.

    If you prefer not being considered as a potential rapist then I would suggest not making such comments in the future.

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

    ReplyDelete
  94. @Sally

    Fine... The wheels are spinning but the hamster is dead!

    You aren't speaking for men Discount. You are speaking for a subsect of men who believe that women are the source of their bad fortune. I admit I have had bad experiences with women too. I ended up supporting a woman who I thought was pregnant with my kid when I was in pre-med. She quickly realised what "being a medical studnet wannabe" means (Hint, your family comes second) and only managed to leave after the baby was born (Not mine. I was so angry I handed the kid over to the nurse. Swore at the woman in question, swore at my friend who set us up and stormed off. I was insanely angry. As I should be.

    No woman or feminist will state that I was wrong to leave her. I had every right to be angry.

    I have supported a few of your view points particularly the ones that state that there is an issue with the lack of visitations linked to child support and custody rights, however most of your points are madness and about the superiority of men. We live in a world where brain and skill with your hands matters. And women are quickly catching up in that aspect.

    Your major gripe with women is that you are incapable of treating them as equals.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Avicenna, in my experience as someone who works in a court-judges get really really annoyed with someone disobeying an order they have issued.

    And they may order the mother to not only comply but toss her butt in jail if she fails to do so (that happened in this one epic case of a guy who knocked up one lady who was, shall we say, disturbed? and knocked up that lady's cousin, and married a third.) None of the people involved even really considered what this was doing to the child and that was more aggravating then anything else. The disturbed lady tried to play all of the tricks but since the family court judges get to know pretty well the people involved, she was getting away with none of it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. We live in a world where brain and skill with your hands matters.

    The world has always been thus, otherwise we would not have brains so large that giving birth is a major cause of mortality for women.

    And women are quickly catching up in that aspect.

    Excuse me, catching up? I think you may want to rephrase that.

    ReplyDelete
  97. In the sense that women are finally catching up in realising that they too can use their hands rather than having to sit at home and do the house work.

    You have to realise that where I currently live the biggest oppressors of women are the older generation of women courtesy of an ingrained culture of both men and women stating that women cannot be the same things that men are. Catching up in this case implies that women are realising that they can do the same things as men as a whole. Not as a handful of women who achieve things while the rest quietly nod and go back to the old ways like in India or China. Hell they had a female Prime Minister and they still think that women cannot achieve anything.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Your major gripe with women is that you are incapable of treating them as equals.

    Avi, you have succeeded in distilling the MRA worldview into fifteen simple words. My hat is off to you.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @Avicenna, you are wrong that police do not deal with this, denial of a court ordered visitation order can legally constitute, not just contempt like failue to pay support (though it can be that), but kidnapping in some jurisdictions. So, yes, the potential penalties for denial of court ordered visitation are every bit as high, and sometimes much higher, than refusal to pay support. Where there is a court order, denial of visitation cases have an incredibly high success rate in regards to equities (such as obtaining primary custody or a contempt charge against the other party). Captain Bathrobe is actually citing a rather typical case. On the other hand, child support cases, where the party seeking the support is the one acting, have an incredibly poor sucess rate in regards to timely relief. It is usually cases of state mandated payments in regards to welfare where actual incarceration and high penalties cases occur.

    The issue is that many parents do not seek custody and that many parties have private agreements rather than court orders. If there is no court order, the means of action against the person who refuses visitation is far more limited. However, this is also the case where there is no court order for support. Many states will allow no collection of back child support at all if there was no court order (or, in some jurisdictions, a written contract between the parties outlining support).

    While you are right that women are primary caretakers are much, much higher rates, women tend to be the caretakers in non-disputed custody arrangements in extremely high numbers (estimates of the amount of divorce with agreed custody rather than disputed is above 90%). There really is no good evidence of a consistent favoritism towards women in disputed custody cases across regions.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Yeah, Sally, how dare you threaten to quote Discount in context! The threat of rape is as nothing to the threat of being exposed as a colossal douche bag. HOW DARE YOU, I say.

    Seriously, though, guys like Discount are reason enough for decent men to shun the MRM. Virtually all of the MRAs I've interacted with on this site are just ever-so-slightly toned down versions of Discount. The only difference is that his rage is closer to the surface.

    To paraphrase the inimitable Helen Hunt: Go sell crazy somewhere else, Discount. We're all stocked up here.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Discount, explain why when women could work outside the home back in the ancient world, they worked at jobs like plumber which with sixty pound lead pipes to move around was not easy to do.
    Their names are found all over Rome and other Italian cities' lead pipe network.

    ReplyDelete
  102. So explain their being plumbers.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Nope, this took place over centuries, men could not have had centuries of other commitments. This was backbreaking, difficult and required a lot of technical skill since they were laying pipes to have the water reach private homes. Skill that required knowing math and other hard science things like physics.

    In other words Discount, you are unable to explain why women could do difficult, physically taxing work then (as they do now) because you lack the intelligence to understand this simple fact of life.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Discount, you're banned, for obvious reasons. You can come back in a week and try to convince me I should let you post again but frankly that may take a but of persuasion. If you try to post anything before then, well, then you're banned forever.

    I've deleted the comments of yours that led to this ban, and some others.

    Sorry, folks, would have done it earlier but I was away from the internet for most of the evening.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Damn it, it's really hard for me to piece together what was going on in this thread now.

    Could somebody tell me the gist of what was deleted? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  106. That's a pity, I had a question for Discount. Not that he would have answered it.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Sam, the gist of it is that Discount had a ragegasm and showed himself for the vomit-inducing creep that he is.

    ReplyDelete
  108. @Sam
    Discount threw a tantrum because someone said that this thread was a good example of how nuts MRAs are.

    Discount started deleting posts (to avoid being that example of a nutty MRA) and saying "cunt" a lot.

    Discount threatened rape while using the royal "we" (while still saying "cunt" a lot).

    And then some other stuff I must have missed ...

    ReplyDelete
  109. @Darkside Cat (I am a brit...)

    Maybe but it's a lot less strictly controlled than child support. Miss a single payment and you are in breach, you need to really screw up visitations as a dominant parent in order to get hit with a permanent change in visitations.

    Apparently the agreement of child support is a legal binding document but the arranged visitations are not.

    Look, I am not a lawyer but if so many people are complaining and the main complaint from the Father's Rights movment is that they routinely lose touch with their kids because the assumption is that in a mediated divorce the visitation rights are equally enshrined as the child support.

    And I am sure more than 10% of men want to have custody. Do you really think men are so unwilling to care for their kids that just 10% want custody or do you think it's one of those things that no one bothers arguing?

    ReplyDelete
  110. If Discount was a parody troll, he was a brilliant one. Very realistic meltdown.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Gotta love the smug, dismissive language here, so typical of feminists. Whenever a man has a concern, he's "whining" or is a "drama queen". But when a woman says something? Ohh, you better believe it's important. There's some real nutjobs among the MRAs, sure, but some of the folks here are no slouches either. At least you acknowledge that verbal/emotional abuse is something that should be taken seriously and not made light of.

    ReplyDelete
  112. And yet study after study shows that married men are healthier and happier, and that MEN are more eager to get married than are women.

    I suppose MRAs will argue that all those men are just stupid dupes. And then they'll tell us about how FEMINISTS are the ones who hold men in contempt. :D

    ReplyDelete
  113. Ion, if we seem dismissive of MRAs, it's often because we've heard their arguments before.

    That men are just naturally stronger and smarter than women in all (or just most) areas, that women don't want to do hard work, that women are just too 'emotional' to understand men's presumably logical brains, that all women secretly want to be raped, that men just can't stop themselves from sexually assaulting women in short skirts/low-cut tops...

    We call those kind of arguments BS because they are BS. It's like they're trying to explain to an engineer how a computer works when they can't even figure out how to open Microsoft Word, and expecting the engineer to take them seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Avi @ Discount::: Your major gripe with women is that you are incapable of treating them as equals. :::

    I think this could be tweaked slightly. To wit:

    Your major gripe with women is that they expect you to treat them as equals.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Gotta love the smug, dismissive language here, so typical of feminists.

    It would be a crime if we were speaking to people whose ideas are worthy of being taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Ion, I think it is important to know the difference between nagging and verbal abuse. I see verbal abuse as being insulting, demeaning to the other person, and raising your tone and showing too much anger. When I get mad, I try to get away from a situation and calm down until I can talk in a calm manner. As a mom with rowdy kids, that is very important. I think yelling at kids is both abusive and counterproductive.

    If either my husband or I get mad, one of us will go on a car ride to cool our tempers before discussing the issue again. Once we talk in a calm manner, giving each other turns to talk and actually listening, we usually come to a mutual understanding.

    Then it's time for the fun part, making up, which makes us feel closer than even before the fight. If my husband is more snippy than usual, I stop and wonder if we've not had enough alone time lately. That can cause people to get a little agitated. If you see a married couple with kids arguing, it may be because they really badly need a date night.

    Here is what I consider nagging. It is when a person, usually the wife but sometimes the husband, repeatedly whines at the other for not doing a specific job. The other person might be playing video games and tuning the other person out as annoying background noise.

    I can be guilty of nagging about the yard needing to be mowed. I would do it myself but I can't leave the kids alone in the house to do it. I don't think it's safe to mow if they're in the yard either, because they're too small to know to stay away from the mower. Given a choice, my husband prefers to mow rather than watch the kids. Nagging never works to motivate my husband, so if our yard looks too bad, I will hire some guys to come do our yard for $50. Since we're on a budget, that is a last resort. I just don't want to get a citation from the city for letting our yard become a jungle. I have also just went outside and started mowing without a word, so my husband had no choice but to take care of the kids inside while I mow outside. I change the baby's diapers and make sure everyone's fed before, though, to make it easier on my husband.

    Sorry to write such a windy response. I just have a lot of feelings on nagging. I hate to be nagged and I hate to nag, but sometimes I do it out of desperation. I mostly wanted people to understand that nagging is something many wives do only as a last resort.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Kendra, verbal abuse isn't "showing anger." A person is allowed to express feelings, even extreme anger. We don't need to talk to each other like muppets on Sesame Street to avoid being abusive.

    Verbal abuse is when words are used to injure rather than communicate. There is a line between communicating "I am really angry and frustrated that you cheated on me and lied about it" and hurting the cheater with a verbal barrage in order to extract some measure of revenge.

    ReplyDelete
  118. I'm glad my experience with sexual assault occurred later in life, and was relatively mild compared to some, so Discount's threatening language was not overwhelmingly triggering for me. It's sad that many women cannot say the same thing--hell, it's sad that I feel HAPPY about experiencing a sexual assault that was only mildly traumatizing.

    Discount's language towards me when I stated my harmless intent to use his language to demonstrate the hatefulness of the MRA movement definitely qualifies as verbal abuse. Had I been a survivor of a more serious sexual assault or rape, his verbal abuse would have been even more hurtful and frightening than it was. You never know where a person is coming from.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Ion probably goes to NAACP meetings, shoulders his way to the front of the line, and says, "Whenever a white person has a concern, he's "whining" or is a "drama queen". But when a black person says something? Ohh, you better believe it's important."

    Ion doesn't deserve consideration. In the action movie heroine thread, he's accused women of being drunk, liars, frothing nut jobs because they called him on his bullshit. He's shocked, shocked! that calling women names is not getting him love and attention.

    ReplyDelete
  120. If a black guy accused white people of "whining" every time they had a concern, sure I'd say that. And I don't see where I would be wrong. Anyway, Ginny, I know you love me, but let's keep our sordid affair confined to one thread, shall we?

    Kendra: That's a good point. I see nagging as a failure in communication, which can be anyone's fault. Someone wants something to be done but can't communicate it effectively, or the other person doesn't understand - or care. Rather than nag repeatedly, it's always better to try to explain to the other person why it's important to you that this or that be done. As you observed, nagging is rarely an effective motivator.

    Verbal abuse on the other hand is malicious, designed to hurt the target, to lower their self-esteem. This is how I believe the MRAs interpreted it in the original article: the wife yelling at the husband because he wasn't doing a good enough job, the implication being that *he* wasn't good enough. They went overboard with it, I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  121. "Katz said...
    It's not really Eat, Pray, Love for us married seahags –
    it's BEAT, PREY, LEAVE!"

    For us single-ish pandas it's EATS, SHOOTS AND LEAVES

    ReplyDelete
  122. Discount should have explained that his comments were not intended to be factual statements.

    ReplyDelete
  123. @Avicenna, ah, you are british. Well, it could be the case that such a discrepancy happens in the UK or it could not, I don't know British law and courts as well as US ones. However, in the US, where many of these MRAs are, it actually is the case that very few men ask for primary custody. It is a cultural default where women are the vast majority of primary caretakers before divorce and generally just remain so after divorce, not a legal one. As to mediation, this is a relatively new field in the US. As I understand it, European countries are more likely to have legally binding mediation agreements than US jurisdictions. The few districts in the US that like legally binding mediation often treat it as a type of out of court settlement or require a final approval by the family court judge. US legally binding mediations involve lawyers, courts, and the whole mess usually (the mediator is often yet another lawyer).

    ReplyDelete
  124. @Sandy

    Verbal abuse is when words are used to injure rather than communicate. There is a line between communicating "I am really angry and frustrated that you cheated on me and lied about it" and hurting the cheater with a verbal barrage in order to extract some measure of revenge.

    This is along the lines of marriage researcher John Gottman's distinction between a complaint and criticism. A complaint is a statement that addresses the person's behavior (i.e., "I don't like it when you forget to do the dishes. Please try to remember to do them in the future"). A criticism, on the other hand, is an attack on the person's character ("you forgot to do the dishes AGAIN! What is wrong with you? Were you raised by wolves?). Needless to say, complaint-based conversations tend to be more productive than those based on criticism, which are very damaging to a relationship.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Truly this thread is a surreal read with Discount's posts deleted. (But I get the idea.)

    ReplyDelete
  126. Sandy, you have a good point. I know that anger is a normal human emotion, and that it is unhealthy to suppress it. I like how you differentiate between expressing anger from verbal abuse.

    I think it all depends on the situation of the disagreement. I think a person usually communicates better when they express ideas calmly rather than in a raging mad outburst. Likewise, if someone makes spiteful insults in a gentle, meek tone they being verbally abusive. Sorry I'm probably rambling but I think there is a gray area overlapping angry arguments and verbal abuse.

    Captain Bathrobe also made some excellent points. Thank you for putting it so well. Criticize the action, not the person.

    ReplyDelete
  127. "Ion said...
    Gotta love the smug, dismissive language here, so typical of feminists. Whenever a man has a concern, he's "whining" or is a "drama queen"."

    Hurray! And another MRA pick up the torch to continue the Douche Olympics marathon!

    ReplyDelete
  128. I got a little giggle out of asking Discount if he had a rapist mouse in his pocket. Still do, now, thinking back on it...

    For Ion: anti-racist activists and POC often do accuse white people of whining about being accused of racism. And the fact is that we pale-faces do tend to whine a lot when racism is brought up. And the whining sounds very similar to the MRAs. "Oh, but racism is in the past, there's no more legal discrimination, and anyway it's not MY fault, and how come YOU get to have all that awesome affirmative action??"

    So, what now?

    And why come you qualified your state with "A black guy" as in one SINGLE black guy, whereas you're perfectly content generalizing about a whole mass of unrelated people who happen to share an interest in feminism? Don't answer, it's a rhetorical question.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Cynickal: Too bad you and your friends have grabbed all the gold medals so far :)

    SallyStrange: I honestly didn't even think about that. If I could edit posts, I would change it to "black people" because I care deeply for your happiness, but I can't. And isn't affirmative action just reverse discrimination anyway? Or are you one of those self-flagellating liberals endlessly bemoaning the evils of the white man (and woman) and wallowing in guilt over what your ancestors did a couple of hundred years ago?

    As for "generalizing about a whole mass of unrelated people who happen to share an interest in feminism", here's the thing: when you all act the same, speak the same, use the same lame insults and shaming language, have the same attitude, and show the same confounding lack of even the merest glimmer of intelligence, wit or originality, I'm gonna treat you all the same. So that's that.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Hey, I told you it was a fucking rhetorical question! Yes, obviously you'd be perfectly willing to jump down the throat of any given person of color, or generalize about black people, if you thought they were being too loud or annoying in complaining about racism. You're just one of those guys--inveterate racist, sexist, stuck in the old way of thinking, has a sort of subconscious awareness of being a dinosaur but doesn't really understand why, and lashes out at people who should be his allies because he doesn't understand who his true enemies are.

    It's not like that was in question, but your comments about affirmative action and reverse racism just confirmed it even more. (I mean, for one thing, there's plenty of guilt-wallowing to be done about what happened a mere 40-50 years ago, let alone 200 years ago.)

    ReplyDelete
  131. To be honest, I haven't yet heard a coherent argument against my position, just insults and vague accusations. Seems like that's what you do best, eh? I didn't even want to bring race into the discussion, it was you and ginmar who did that, and made a big deal out of it. But as long as you did, thank you for proving my suspicion of your naive, simplistic world views. Given that the IQs of all the so-called feminists I've seen here so far don't quite add up to room temperature, I can't say it surprises me.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Against what position, exactly? What argument are you making? So far it's mostly been that feminists suck. That's not a position, it's a petulant kid throwing a tantrum. You present a cogent argument for a coherent position, along with evidence, and I'll be happy to evaluate it, disagree or agree with it, and provide reasons for my agreement or disagreement, AND provide some evidence for those reasons.

    Until then, it's insults for you. People who barge into a room, insult people, and fail to make cogent arguments don't deserve anything more.

    ReplyDelete
  133. OK, so his position is:

    when you all act the same, speak the same, use the same lame insults and shaming language, have the same attitude, and show the same confounding lack of even the merest glimmer of intelligence, wit or originality, I'm gonna treat you all the same.

    ...and he's wondering why we aren't rebutting it. Admittedly "You guys are all the same" is a hard thing to rebut, since I think only agreeing with him would convince him that we were in fact distinct entities.

    ReplyDelete
  134. @ Cboye -

    Yeah, that can all be summarized as "You guys all SUCK!" There's no "there" there.

    ReplyDelete
  135. @Ion

    "Gotta love the smug, dismissive language here, so typical of feminists."

    Hard not to be smug when your life rocks.

    Of course verbal abuse is bad, but it's not as bad as physical abuse is it not? And when MRAs are making out male abuse to be on the same level as female abuse, alarm bells ring. In quantity alone women are subjected to a whole level of different abuse. In return most cases of violence back at men are from abused women in self defence. The few that aren't are not treated well admittedly, HOWEVER the MRAs are not arguing for the 5-10% who need it but the remainder.

    Nagging is a failure of communication and a sign that there are unresolved issues. Nagging rarely occurs in a balanced relationship where men do their share of the heavy lifting. The MRAs actively think of going back to the "good olde days" as seen in many blogs where the epitomise culture of the early 20s and 30s where women were more subservient. To them sinking with the titanic was brave and a symbol of manliness not a symbol of someone not bringing enough life jackets. And in any case their statements of chivalry are similar to the anti liberal stance of "If there was a war on, I would be out there with the rest of the lads". Usually it's just a statement with no way to back it up.

    As for glimmer's of intelligence. Hey it's your movement that has a deep streak of racism. The MRAs strongly link immigration and miscegenation as to the cause of their lack of skills with the ladies. Not the fact that they are giant racists.

    A lot of the attitude to women in the movement is that nothing is the MRA's fault. It's a highly delusional state. They wish to go back to the days women would be impressed by slick cars and muscles rather than us having to do any real work on having a personality.

    Hence they have the Pick Up Artist ideology. The so called "Scientific Method of Convincing Women to Sleep With You". It's less work than trying to develop a personality with any meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I can't believe Ion wants to play oppression Oympics about racism. There you have it, folks: the MRA in full bloom.

    ReplyDelete
  137. "I can't believe Ion wants to play oppression Oympics about racism."

    I don't even know what that means, you dingbat. Spare me your feminist buzzwords. I'm also not an MRA, and have never been one. I'm more of an outside observer. :)

    Avicenna: Here's something I've been wondering. The pickup artist community (PUA) gets a lot of flak in feminist circles for being dishonest, being a way to 'trick' women into having sex, and so on. "Those guys are losers!" the feminists yell. "Those tricks would never work on me or my smarty-brain friends!" they smugly crow. But then, why all the concern? If they're losers and their tricks don't work anyway, why bother about them at all? It sounds to me like people are trying to convince themselves that those guys are ineffectual fools, despite evidence to the contrary. Because if you claim their techniques don't work, and yet you see evidence of them working on quite a lot of women, maybe it just means that quite a lot of women aren't as smart as you think... something to ponder, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  138. It demeans the rest of us men and gives the rest of us a bad name. It encourages young children to treat women like vaginas not individuals. And quite frankly it's insulting to men.

    There are incredibly insecure women out there and this methodology merely encourages them to be incredibly insecure about men.

    The reason the MRAs and PUAs are miserable is due to The Game. It attracts specifically one kind of woman. And results in specifically one kind of outcome. The one where you guys complain about women. You aren't attracting emotionally mature people, you are attracting damaged goods.

    A

    ReplyDelete
  139. But then, why all the concern? If they're losers and their tricks don't work anyway, why bother about them at all?

    Because there's some "tricks" that are actually harassment. Take the concept of "negs", for example. Few women like to insulted outright. And it's creepy to trade verbal barbs "in jest" with someone you hardly know - the person that is doing that is faking an intimacy that doesn't currently exist. People with those kind of boundary issues are not charming.

    and yet you see evidence of them working on quite a lot of women, maybe it just means that quite a lot of women aren't as smart as you think

    Just because someone has low self-esteem, doesn't mean that they are not smart. I've known plenty of brilliant people who have low self-esteem. Many of the "tricks" involve preying upon people with low self-esteem - someone who is desperate for attention will take any attention, even it's negative. That's a recipe for disaster.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Absinthe:

    In addition, when PUAs like Roissy offer advice on how to treat your actual girlfriend, the advice basically boils down to "be abusive." So yeah, it seems clear to me that PUAs are deliberately encouraging men to be abusers, but dressing it up in "but we're the victims here!" language. Disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Trip...

    It's because being abusive works. The ultimate joke in responding to a case of abuse is to watch the abused individual (they often get more violent than the abuser) because at heart the abuser is an individual who dominates by violence because they have no redeeming qualities and often has poor self esteem. When you show up you are in a state of power over the abuser since you are appearing with the auspice of the law.

    However the abusee thinks that if you don't save them that the abuser will teach them a lesson. One of my friends got a knife through her arm while responding to a case of domestic abuse because she turned away from the woman to talk to the man and the woman just lashed out.

    It's really pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  142. They often get more violent than the abuser? Bullshit. Somebody's buying into MRA bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Yeah, Ion keeps proving me right over and over and over again. It's not even funny any more.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Were you spraying spittle at your monitor while typing that?

    ReplyDelete
  145. Ginmar, they don't want to be helped in case you fail and the abuse will get worse. They would rather fight 3 cops than get beaten by their abusive spouse. It's why women often defend their abusers.

    It's also why the often completely snap and simply kill the douchebag using whatever comes to hand. It's normal human behaviour. Think of it as being similar to slavery where quite a few slaves "were happy" with being slaves because not being happy meant more beatings.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Pull the string! Pull the string!

    ReplyDelete
  147. Avicenna, then why didn't you state that instead of the MRA-style sentence you used? Battered women have to face the fact that the cops who respond to any 911 call might be wife-abusers themselves, protected by that thick blue line that protects cops. Even if they're not, cops often have the same mythical 'good victim' in their head that the general population does, and a battered woman who's not neat, who may be angry and upset, crying in a way the cop doesn't like...he's not going to be sympathetic. Neither are judges, who are often conservative older white guys.

    Ask Tracy Thurman, for example, how well the cops protected her.

    Cops often say that DV cases are the most dangerous calls they take. Well, then, if they're so dangerous to cops, how dangerous are they to women? And cops seem to take a certain glee in arresting women, often on the say so of the guy who just punched his aggression out on her. Bros before hos, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  148. It's true that abuse victims will often side with their abusers. Many times, if a neighbor made the call rather than the victim, the victim will defend the abuser to the police.

    It's not just because of the fear of more violence if the police don't arrest the abuser (though that's no doubt part of it). It's because the abuser has worn down the victim to the point that s/he feels like s/he deserves the abuse. Abusers don't just abuse physically, they destroy the victim's self-esteem and self-worth.

    ReplyDelete
  149. So yeah, I mean, abuse works in that sense. PUAs, or more accurately the dupes who listen to them, look up to abusers. They all want to be that (supposedly) strong, powerful man who commands respect from "his" woman. They're assholes who want to feel the thrill of wielding total power over another human being.

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis