I’m not quite sure what this comment from S.T.A.L.K.E.R over on MGTOWforums.com is supposed to be. Some sort of experimental free-verse poetry? It’s definitely not a limerick. (Doesn’t rhyme or involve anyone from Nantucket). Or a haiku. (Way too many syllables.)
Basically, it’s the sort of thing you might expect to hear from the angry drunk guy sitting on the barstool next to you in a dive bar at 2 AM. Or from the angry drunk guy sitting across from you on the subway at 4 AM. (The exact time or location isn’t quite as important as the whole “angry drunk” thing.)
Now, with the help of the technological marvel known as the internet, you get to enjoy all of the insights you expect to hear, whether you like it or not, from angry drunk dudes without actually having to deal with them in person. The internet is wonderful.
So without further ado, here’s the prose poem/rant/whatever the fuck it is that I'd like to call “Twats Know It.”
A bachelor guy is a happy guy, and the world hates him. specially women.
also its a common understanding in every society that women need men for their survival. women are kids in adult bodies.
No matter how loudly these brainless feminists shout, but the truth is well known... You know it, I know it... twats know it.
if they are left alone, women automatically lead to the path of self destruction and will die... so according to society's rule ... you should man up and save a twat ( kid in adult body) and if you do that it means, they can depend on you for their survival so you are a responsible guy ( A good sucker).
Unlike women we men generate our strength from inside. we dont need the constant approval of 12 cunt friends to " FEEEEEEEEEEEEL GOOD" . they simply hate us because we are men with unlimited potential, that's the heart of misandry. Y chromosome makes all the difference.
Shine on, you crazy bachelor!
--
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.
Anyone who's seen Taxi Driver will remember Travis Bickle's late night soliloquy on the "whores, skunk pussies, buggers, queens, fairies, dopers, [and] junkies" he saw every night driving his cab. "Someday," he told himself, "a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the streets."
Of course -- SPOILER ALERT! -- what he really meant by "a real rain" coming was that he, Travis Bickle, would lose his shit and start shooting people.
Bickle wasn't the only one to mix his predictions with a heaping helping of threat. Those who predict the end of the world at the hand of gods or men or some vague terrible cataclysm are all too often rooting (secretly or openly) for the civilization-destroyers they are ostensibly warning against. We saw this the other day amongst those MGTOWers who are now talking giddily about how complete economic collapse will serve to put foolish women and their "mangina" pals in their proper place.
And we see it again and again in the Men's Rights movement, when MRAs sternly warn their detractors that if people don't start listening to them, and pronto, the men of the world will rise up and, well, kick the shit out of everyone who opposes them. This is a warning only in the sense that a mafioso telling someone that, if he doesn't pay what he owes, his legs just might possibly get broken, is a warning; by all reasonable definitions, it is a threat. As opposed to the leg-breaking, the threats of these MRAS aren't very specific threats, but they're threats of violence nonetheless.
I ran across one recent example of this sort of "warning" in the comments to Paul Elam's piece on misandry -- or at least what he labels misandry -- in the Good Men Project's package on the Men's Rights movement. (My own contribution to the debate is here.) Here's "Factory," responding to another commenter who pointed out that some of his wording in an earlier comment had been awfully violent:
Who said I was interested in proving I wasn’t violent?
In point of fact, I continually warn people that if these issues are not MEANINGFULLY addressed, and soon, there will be a LOT of violence (see: Middle East) that we MRAs won’t be able to stop.
And frankly, if it comes to that, society (and all the women in it along with the men) flat out DESERVES whatever is coming.
Your hubris as a movement is causing a lot of men to be angry. You all vastly underestimate both the anger, and the ubiquitous nature of this anger.
We MRAs do nothing except act as weather vane and map. That’s why we have no central authority, or funding, or organization of any kind. We are average guys mad enough to stand up like we do. There are a LOT more guys that are just as mad, but content to let others lead.
And there are a growing number of men that take Feminist (and ‘official’) dismissal of mens issues as indication that ONLY violent revolution will lead to change.
And speaking for myself, if it ever comes to violence, I will stand aside, and feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done…but I won’t lift a FINGER to stop it.
Just like people like you are doing right now.
Notice the not-so-subtle, and rather thoroughly bungled, rhetorical sleight of hand here. Factory paints the violence as something he won't indulge in (but won't stop) -- forgetting that in the very first sentence he admitted that he was himself violent. He refers to MRAs as little more than a "weather vane" for male emotion -- but somehow later in the paragraph they are leading things. He claims that he will "feel bad while all manner of nasty things are done," but this is only after stating in no uncertain terms that he thinks "society ... flat out DESERVES whatever is coming."
So, yeah, this is as much a "warning" as the hypothetical mafioso's reference to broken legs.
On his own site, Elam has been much more frankly threatening. Recently, telling off one commenter who had the temerity to actually question the gospel according to Elam, he finished off a long rant about male anger with this:
I would not suggest that treating half the population, the stronger half at that, with too much continuing disregard is a very good idea.
Thinking they will never come out swinging is a stupid, stupid way to go.
This kind of logic might best be called the Appeal to an Ass-kicking. The structure of this argument could be broken down as follows:
1) Source A says that p is true
2) If you don't agree that p is true, Source A (or perhaps some other dudes) will do you bodily harm.
3) Therefore, you'd better fucking agree that p is true.
This is probably the oldest and crudest form of logic there is, and one that is popular amongst many animals as well. (My cat is a master of it, at least when p = "you will give me treats now.")
Perhaps the best way to respond to it is the way that the commenter calling herself fannie responded to Factory on the Good Men Project:
You’re arguing that men are going to be so angry they’re not going to be able to control their rage and are therefore going to start inflicting mass amounts of violence upon others.
I’m not sure a feminist could be more defamatory of men than you are being.
MRAs sure are misandrist.
I, and feminists like me, think men are better than that.
Me too.
--
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
The manosphere is in an uproar about a public service TV ad from an anti-violence group that portrays a baby boy as a future rapist. Some MRAs are attempting to refute the ad's implication that improperly socialized men are prone to violence by posting and upvoting ... violent comments and veiled threats online. And apparently some non-veiled death threats as well.
A few days ago, you see, W.F. Price, head honcho at The Spearhead, wrote a critical piece about the endeavors of one Josh Jasper to draw attention to sexism in Super Bowl commercials; Price also pointed out that Jasper, CEO of the Riverview Center, a nonprofit serving domestic violence and sexual assault victims in Illinois and Iowa, had put out an earlier commercial that, in Price's words, "impl[ied] that baby boys are all potential rapists."
Despite the source, that's actually a more or less accurate description of the ad, which depicts a happy little baby boy as a future rapist. I'm just not quite sure why that's so objectionable; after all, every baby, male or female, is a bundle of possibilities, some good, some bad. (Hitler was once a happy, gurgling baby.) The point of the ad is that parents can have an effect on how their kids turn out; if you raise your son to be a violent, misogynist asshole, he may well end up a rapist.
As much as I agree with this basic sentiment, I'm not going to defend the ad. It's terrible. Generally, I'm not a fan of using babies to make political points -- it's trite and manipulative, to begin with. And in this case, it's worse than that: portraying a baby as a future rapist seems rather hamfisted, given that babies are often victims of abuse themselves.
Judge for yourself; here's the ad.
All this said, the flaws of the "rapist baby" ad in no way excuse the response it's gotten from some of the more hotheaded in the Men's Rights Movement and the manosphere in general. On his website, Peter Nolan declares that the ad "promote[s] hatred of male babies"; on The Spearhead, Poester99 goes even further, accusing Riverview Center of "promoting violence against baby boys." Which is, of course, completely absurd. (Even besides that, as Jasper has pointed out on his blog, the Riverview Center serves male victims as well as female ones.) It's hard to know if the people spouting this nonsense honestly believe it, or if they are using the baby in the ad even more cynically and opportunistically than Jasper is.
Unfortunately, the MRA reaction has gone well beyond simple rhetorical overkill. A number of comments on The Spearhead, many of them with dozens of upvotes, are essentially threats -- some vague, some not-so-vague -- against Jasper himself. duke writes that:
Mangina creeps like Josh Jasper should suffer the same fate as Nazi sympathizers after WWII-taken out and shot after a five minute trial.
If men really were as violent as he claims they would have shut him up long ago. One good beating and this mangina would never open his mouth again.
Firepower, meanwhile, goes after Jasper's ... first name:
So long as males tolerate sissified males named “Josh” – pissing even on our SuperBowl – these gender traitors will only feel encouraged to increase their anti-male slurs.
Over on A Voice For Men, meanwhile, MRA elder Paul Elam insinuates that Jasper, far from being a sissy, is a violent "alpha puke" -- and calls on his fans to dig up dirt on him:
This man deserves consequences for his actions.
Some history on Josh is known. We know he was a marine and we also know that he was a Los Angeles police officer. Two areas for sure where the capacity for violence is a plus. Add to that the fact that he was on a Domestic Violence task force and this bad apple starts to stink a little more. ...
Anyone want to take any bets on whether this alpha puke ever busted heads as a cop, simply because he could? It leaves one to wonder - especially given the intellectual violence he is so obviously willing to inflict on male children - just what sort of skeletons are in this douche bag's closet.
If they are there, I would love to get my hands on them and rattle them together for the world to hear.
And on Men-Factor, antifeminist blogger ScareCrow (who used to regularly post comments here) posts the email addresses of The Riverview Center's mostly female board of directors, urging readers to "vent your anger" on this "bitch-hive," adding "I aim to destroy it."
I don't have the patience or the stomach to sort through the comments on the YouTube page for the ad to see what other vile shit has been posted there.
I can only hope that most of this violent language is just standard internet tough guy talk, and won't result in real violence in the real world. Even if you believe that Jasper's ad commits a sort of rhetorical violence against male babies -- which I think is a ridiculous reading of the admittedly idiotic ad -- it does not justify actual violence against anybody.
EDIT: I should have let this one sit a little before putting it up. I've made various changes to strengthen and clarify my argument.
--
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.
Well, here's a new one. Apparently rapists are being oppressed by the evil misandrist term ... rapist. Or so says a poster calling himself ReluctantNihilist in the upstart MENSRIGHTSMOVEMENT subreddit on Reddit, a tiny little discussion forum (with 12 subscribers) for those who think the regular Men's Rights subreddit has become a hotbed of radical feminism. Here's his argument:
The prefix "-ist" means "one who believes in". ... It is a belief system. A misandrist demonstrates a pattern of behaviors that exemplify misandry.
Does a person who commits a rape necessarily believe and engage in a pattern of behavior of rape?
No.
There are a couple of problems with this analysis, starting with the fact that "ist" is, uh, not actually a prefix but a suffix. And that it can simply mean "one that performs a specified action." Believing may not have anything to do with it: a "typist," for example, types; he or she doesn't believe in an ideology of typing. Nor does an "ist" have to do something repeatedly: an "arsonist" is someone who burns shit up, whether that's once or a hundred times. Our ReluctantlNihilist is evidently not much of a linguist. But let's set aside these little qualms and continue with his post:
The proper term for someone who commits a rape, or even several, is a raper. "-er" means "one who takes part in". Determination of whether that person would qualify as a rapist is another matter.
The use of the word "rapist" rather than "raper" is misandrist doublespeak, because even though women rape, too, we know that the term "rapist" is only applied to males.
Uh, I think the term is used for female rapists also. There just aren't that many of them.
This misandrist doublespeak is subtle but effective. Calling someone a rapist insinuates they have committed multiple rapes and, if set free, they'll do it again and again. This only fuels rape hysteria.
The more accurate and less emotionally-charged term is:
Raper.
Actually, it's a fair bet that someone who rapes once will rape again; one study of "undetected rapists" -- that is, rapists who hadn't been caught, which is to say the overwhelming majority of rapists -- found that they admitted to having assaulted, on average, roughly 6 victims each.
But let's set this aside and ask the big question: why exactly should we give a fuck about hurting the feelings of people who rape other people? If "ist" is good enough for Stalinists, philanthropists, proctologists, and, yes, even nihilists, it's certainly good enough for rapists.
ReluctantNihilist, I am demoting you to a ReluctantNihiler.
