My Secret Life as a Group of Women

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

One of the weirder pleasures of writing this blog is that, from time to time, as I wend my way across the assorted gathering holes of the manosphere, I discover the natives chattering candidly about little old me, apparently forgetting that I actually read the forums they hang out on. These conversations tend to be a little, well, surreal.

You may vaguely remember The Troll King from a post of mine a couple of weeks back on his brief career as a faux-feminist calling herself the Feminist Troll Queen. I recently found him in the Men’s Rights subreddit on Reddit, trying to defend himself against charges of, well, trolling, and suggesting that some of the subreddit’s resident trolls are “manboobz followers and probably feminists from feministe.” (Not that I know of.) But the strangest thing was this reference to me as a person of indeterminate gender:

I saw him talking about not being able to become pregnant on one of his posts recently about gangbangs and MGTOW and I wouldn't be surprised if it is a female with a male internet persona or maybe a FTM transperson??

Whaaaa? It took me a little while to figure out that he was referring to a dumb joke I made at the tail end of my post about MGTOWers speculating on why some women like porn. Here’s the joke, such as it was:

Now, I’m no evolutionary psych expert, but, er, what exactly is the evolutionary advantage of facials? I’m pretty sure you can’t get pregnant from semen on your forehead, in your eyes  or, say, up your nose. (At least I never have.)

Hey, I didn’t claim it was a good joke. In any case, for anyone confused by it, the idea was to humorously suggest that I was such a frenzied masturbator that I regularly shot semen up my own nose. And that this had never made me pregnant. Not only because the semen was in my nose rather than my vagina but because, you know, I’m a non-transgender dude, and non-trans dudes can't get pregnant. (Also, even if the semen were to get in my vagina I wouldn't get pregnant, because I DON'T HAVE A VAGINA.) (Some trans men can get pregnant, but THEY CAN'T GET PREGNANT FROM SEMEN UP THE NOSE either. NO ONE CAN.)

For the record, I would also like to point out that have never actually shot semen up my nose – or, for that matter, on my forehead or in my eyes.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

In any case, Troll King’s confusion about my gender – especially strange, given that he himself had just engaged in a bit of internet cross-dressing by posing as the Feminist Troll Queen -- got me thinking back on one of the more surreal aspects of my domestic violence debate with Paul Elam last fall, which was the assumption on the part of a group of his followers that I was not just a woman, but a whole group of them.

As “Frank” put it:

“David Futrelle” argues like a provocative feminist woman, or perhaps I should put a group of feminist women. 

Note the personal abuse, the petty point scoring, the personalised arguments, and the lack of any real evidence or examination of the issues under discussion.

There is also the (supposedly) witty sarcasms, and the (supposedly) funny rudeness while ignoring hard points backed up real evidence. So typical of the misandrist feminist woman.

“Roderick” concurred:

I suspect the the sarcastically named Manboobz is a group of young ‘educated’ woman.

– note: {Often I have found that mediocre woman always work in groups. Woman who have higher abilities tend to work independently from the protective huddle.} (Who bravely hide from accountability or challenge)

“Alphabeta,” meanwhile, has a slightly different take on it:

I wonder if Futrelle is a woman disguised as a man or perhaps a woman in the making. His/her words have the whirr of the hamster wheel about them.

Remember this?

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/04/22/mens-studies-foremost-authority-opts-for-castration-literally/

What right-thinking man advertises his intellectual wares as ‘manboobz’? Sounds like wishful thinking at the very least.

Yes, he's arguing that this blog is called "Man Boobz" because I want some.

I don't, actually.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

So, once again, to clarify: misogynist dudes, when I refer to “boobz” in the title of this blog I am referring to you. It’s a double entendre. “Boobs,” yes, can refer to breasts. But “boob” can also mean “an ignorant or foolish person.” Do you see where I’m going with this? YOU GUYS ARE MEN, AND YOU ALSO ARE BOOBS. The “Boobz” in “Man Boobz” ARE YOU.

She's my sister... She's my daughter... My sister, my daughter.  She's my sister AND my daughter!

Oh dear. I got carried away.

I should probably explain that the last bit there was from Chinatown. I do not have a sister who is also a daughter. Evelyn Mulwray does. But she’s not a real person.



--

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.

Girlz in the Hood

Goddesses, or whores?

A very peculiar ideological battle has broken out on The Spearhead between some of the resident misogynist douchebags and a group of “white nationalists” who have in recent days descended on the site. The Spearheaders’ main beef with these upstanding fellows? Not that they’re hateful racist dicks – sorry, “ethnically conscious.” No, the problem is that they don’t hate white women enough. According to some of the critics on The Spearhead , these guys are apparently “White Knight Nationalists” in thrall to white womanhood.

Spearhead big cheese W. F. Price recently highlighted one anti-White-Knight-Nationalist rant on his site as the “comment of the week.” It’s an interesting, by which I mean appalling, read. “John” makes clear at the outset that he has no real problem with “white nationalism” as such, and indeed complains that

because of “political correctness” it is almost impossible to express pride in the white race without being instantaneously labeled a racist. Nothing like a pejorative to end an intelligent discussion.

No, the problem he has is with white nationalist women and the men who love them too much. These guys, he sneers, are

likely bunion-rubbers, drink the cheapest of beer, fondle their Chinese SKS nightly, and do whatever the “Old Lady” tells them to do while they strut around in front of their friends and the mountain of aluminum empties like little Bantam roosters. Almost as a universal, they hold up the WN females as godesses in spite of the fact that 99% of those “ladies” have had their holes punched and left full of biological waste by more men than there are oil companies that have ever drilled wells in Texas. Frankly, it’s pathetic.

But these supposed “White Goddesses” are not only sluts; John has convinced himself that they are also evil, ugly, hairy feminists too – which would make them honest-to-goodness feminazis, I suppose, though John seems to have less of a problem with the “nazi” half of the equation than he does with the “femi.”

The “female” commentators on WN sites are at least as shaming and self-righteous as those on lefty-feminist sites, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if half of them had some sort of moustache getting a bit out of control on the upper lip and hairy armpits. …

You may as well go over and hang out at feministing. For a good time call 1-800-BITCH. As a rule they are disgusting hypocrites and beyond disappointing. Hell, the best description is repellent. Yes, repellent.

Of course neo-Nazi women bear about as much resemblance to feminists as, well, the Spearhead does to Feministing. John is making the mistake that seems to be almost universal amongst internet anti-feminists, assuming that any time a woman asserts herself in any way, even if she is doing so within the confines of traditionalist, authoritarian and, yes, patriarchal ideology, she’s a feminist. Nope. Feminists don’t ask to be treated as “ladies”; traditionalist women do. Feminist men don’t put women on a pedestal; traditionalist men do. And white supremacists are about as traditional as they come, in all the worst senses of the term.

John seemed particularly incensed that one woman on a white nationalist website had suggested that her white brethren needed to step up their game, romance wise, claiming that “Ghetto Negroes have better wooing, and flirtation skills, than so many White males.” How dare she!

Here we have a supposed W.N. self-imagined “White Goddess” who has experience with being wooed by “Ghetto Negroes” and she expresses admiration for their flirtation skills. Got her thing tingling, I see. Maybe that “tingling” was satiated a few times by one or more of those “Ghetto Blacks”, yet some “Bush” swilling W.N. “White Knight” will draw his sword and proclaim, “I will defend this sluts honor to my death!”

Some Spearheaders greeted John’s post with bravos; others sniffed that he was being too hard on the poor white supremacists, and using “shaming language” like the evil feminists do. Very few seemed to have a problem with the bigotry of the white pride crowd, just their alleged white knightery. As one commenter, calling himself Reality, reported with astonishment:

I’ve tried to get on those White Pride Sites and immediately started discussing how fucked up the modern white female is and was INSTANTLY banned! I was actually shocked. I thought it would be a no brainer that WN types would (OF COURSE) not want white women to be complete parasitical whores roaming the landscape spreading VD like Johnny Appleseed and fucking men over- I mean how you hope for the white race to make a ‘comeback’ if the white family is falling apart?!? One of the very reasons whites are so demoralized and broken politically and culturally is EXACTLY because of the modern American female. It’s just bizarre- these guys really are idiots (at least in this regard).

Watching this unfolding fight between male supremacists and white supremacists is really something of a treat for those of us not into the whole supremacy thing. I can only hope both sides lose, and as humiliatingly as possible.

--

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.

Alone Again, Naturally

Choose "none of the above."

The blog A(n)nals of Online Dating is, like a lot of things involving online dating, both hilarious and horrifying at the same time. The blog catalogs the highly ineffective habits of the most clueless and/or offensive would-be romancers online. I’m sure there are terrible female daters out there as well, but the blog mostly focuses on the dudes, many of whom are not entirely dissimilar from the sorts of guys I write about here all the time: angry, undersocialized misogynists who desire women (or at least their vaginas) as much as they hate and fear them. Luckily for the women of the online dating world, most of these men make their odiousness so plain that it is unlikely they will ever score even a single date.

Here are a few of my recent favorites.

Bachelor Number One I’ll call the Master Debater. He sent the following missive to at least one woman online, hoping, apparently, to spark a little discussion, and perhaps a little romance: 

I love to debate. I feel that Im very good at it. I see the Feminist Movement as a CIA funded political agitation mechanism. Many men feel that the Feminist Movement is anti-male, but I feel that its anti everybody. It hurts everyone that comes into contact with it.

My question to you is, would you be able to offer a rebuttal to what I just asserted without resorting to personal attack 

Able, or willing? I think any number of potential respondents would be more than able to offer a critique without resorting to namecalling. But what would be the fun of that?

Let’s move on to Bachelor Number Two, a guy I’ll call Mr. Optimistic, a fellow who actually thinks he can cajole twentysomething women into having hot sex with him by, among other things, suggesting that women over 31 are unfuckable monsters. (Hint: With  few exceptions, women under 31 will eventually be women over 31.) In his dating profile, Mr. O explains that ladies messaging him should be: 

reasonably tall …  passionate and intelligent so as to be good company, sexually liberated, and attractive - really attractive, fat chics need not apply (hehe, I’m so self-amusing). 

Evidently they need not be sticklers for correct spelling or grammar. Mr. O goes on to explain that he wants a woman who earns her own living, but doesn’t mind him bossing her around. As he puts it, he wants someone: 

Capable of holding a steady job but without making it your #1 priority - since it could interfere with our sexual activities. …  If you can accept that I’m responsible for taking charge and my decisions will be final, don’t take yourself too seriously and thinks the world of me.

He wants a gal who is family oriented, but open to threesomes:

Family oriented but not anytime soon … open to spontaneous sexual activities (you know, outdoors sex, the odd 3-some with a cutie we pick up somewhere or one of your girlfriends), likes the outdoors (nudity optional), and doesn’t complain when I go fishing with the guys.

And she can’t be in a hurry about the whole family thing. After all, he wants a few good years of fucking before his wife hits the age of 31 – what he says is “the expiration date for most women anyway.”  She should be: 

ready to have children only after 30 and proving yourself to be a faithful wife and a loving woman, prepared for the duties of a good mother, have class and know when it’s time to speak up and when it’s NOT the time to do so, instead of a stuck-up naggy b!tch who can’t shut up, sociable, know how to please the sexual drive of your partner (little things such as giving me a call when you’ve gotten a new set of sexy lingerie to surprise me), and know that gifts are little treats and rewards, and not a never-ending desire to be pampered.

 '

Interesting how quickly his disquisition on family values turns into kvetching about "naggy b!tch[es]" and then, just as quickly, into the tritest of sexual fantasies. In any case, he explains, while she should be willing to spend money on lingerie, she should otherwise be a thrifty sort with

good spending habits, no ridiculous credit card debts and a sense of home economy; I’m not planning on changing my excellent lifestyle, and I plant to eventually be able to give my children an excellent education - and that’s not possible without good savings and planning. This will also help teaching them to earn their own achievements, respect their parents, and not be spoiled brats.

Also, no pets:

You should also understand that pets are simple money pits that only serve as something lonely women occupy themselves with so that they don’t have to connect with their husbands.

But hey, he’s not picky:

I’m attracted to all kinds of women, redheads, brunettes, black, white, latinas, you name it, as long as they’re attractive. Not attracted to fat women, and that includes the infamous “curvy” (a word that used to mean actual curves, not fat), and “a few extra pounds,” regardless of your supposed “inner beauty.” Sorry :)

The final smiley really nails it for me. If I were a woman – and a few years younger, and not so fat, and bisexual, and into outdoor sex, and both debt- and pet-free, and willing to put my life into the hands of a guy who can’t spell the word “chick” -- I’m sure I’d be begging the guy for a date.

No mystery, these guys.

It’s hard to compete with Mr. Optimistic here, but Bachelor Number Three, the guy I’ll call No Beefcake, comes pretty close. His strategy for winning over the ladies? Ranting about how women on Plenty of Fish are a bunch of delusional fatties.  

I can honestly say the selection on here is mostly scary to me. I have no problem with single moms or girls that are other than stick thin. But for real, if you are gargantuan and just gross … please don’t waste your time with me. 

I'm no beefcake but I am healthy and I am getting tired of creepy girls wondering “where all the good men are” when its clear that they have either been eaten by those same girls, or are in hiding for fear of being mistaken for a 7-11 corndog. I am not Arnie, nor would I want to be but I do have biceps and a fairly flat stomach, if you have a massive muffin-top and can’t take care of yourself why set yourself up by hiding behind deceptive photo angles? Just because you have cleavage does not mean you have nice boobs. We’re gonna find out eventually, why lie now? Every woman’s profile says they demand “honesty”, how many actually offer it? Self delusion is not attractive, except to the worst quality guys.

Biceps, a “fairly flat stomach,” a raging hostility towards women. Is that all this fellow has to offer? Not by a long shot! Did we mention that he owns his own home?

I am a homeowner with a couple of promising careers, a well developed intellect, a decent body and a serious disdain for drama, game playing and bullshit. Therefore I do not feel the need to “capture your attention” with something artificially witty and intriguing. How about you show me that you have what it takes to hold an intelligent conversation for ten minutes, or that you actually care about your future, and could be entertaining and fun for me as well?

So, do you have what it takes to hold an interesting conversation with No Beefcake? Possible topics include: 

1) home ownership and why it is the backbone of the American Dream 

2) why so many women are fat fatties. 

The ball’s in your court, ladies.

PS: Here's the Gilbert O'Sullivan song that I stole my title from.

-- 

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.

OkCupid can read your mind

From OkCupid

Antifeminists regularly charge feminists like me with assuming men and women are the same. Which is a bit silly. I don’t know any feminist who assumes men and women are the same, whether the differences are due to biology (I can’t grow a baby in my belly) or culture (women are far more likely to while away their evenings reading or writing fanfic about Sam and Dean). I think the confusion amongst the antifeminists on this point stems from the fact that the specific things they think are different between men and women are often nothing more than sexist nonsense, and feminists can’t help but point this out.

No, if you want to see the ways men and women really are different, it helps to start with actual data rather than a bunch of retrograde sexist assumptions you pull out of your ass. The folks behind the OkCupid dating site have lots of data – users of the site fill out detailed profiles and answer countless questions about themselves in order to find others like them – and they know how to crunch it. Which means they can tell you with a great deal of precision what the men and women who use their site think about all sorts of things. Which is why OkCupid’s blog is so often a source of wonderment.

Take the latest post – thanks to Feministe for alerting me to it – which presents an assortment of creative charts -- like the one above, depicting some of the actual differences between men and women on the site.

Who knew that men who mention “poetry” in their profiles were more likely to be into rough sex than dudes who talk about “boating?"

And what about guys who are into both poetry and boating? There must be some. I mean, many of my favorite poems involve Nantucket, a small island reachable only by boat.

Most of the rest of the charts in the latest post don't specifically contrast men and women, but are interesting in all sorts of other ways. (You may have to change some of your assumptions about vegetarians.) If you want more on gender differences (not to mention intersting stuff on race), I'd suggest looking back through the OkCupid blog's back catalogue. Here's an interesting post on The Mathematics of Beauty. And then there's this classic, which is probably a big part of why the fortysomething women I know who've used the site have gotten so, so many messages from horny guys half their age.

Roses are red

Violets are blue

I love the OkCupid blog

And so, I think, will you

--

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 Ladies Auxiliary of the Ladyhaters Club

Women in groups: Always trouble.

One of the strangest places in the burly world of Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers is The Spearhead’s Shieldmaidens forum. And no, I am not making that name up. It’s a forum, essentially, for women interested in being a sort of Women’s Auxiliary to a bunch of guys who are all about hating women.

Given that such a role – trying to help dudes who don’t much like you or your whole gender -- is a bit of a tricky one, the forum moderator Hestia has written a long introductory post explaining just what new gals should and shouldn’t do to support their menfolk. It’s kind of a masterpiece of doublespeak.  Let’s look at some of its highlights.

Hestia starts out by warning the ladies that these rough men sometimes talk in a rough manner:

As this is a male environment, us girls can expect styles of communication that we might not use ourselves or readily relate to. For the purpose of this post, I will call all of this "locker room talk". … Topics and expressions women may find crude are likely to occur and generalizations about women (or white, western, whatever) used to adequately get a point across. These differences, while bothersome to some women, are not wrong in and of themselves and are not reason to shame men into expressing themselves differently. As women in the locker room, we are the ones who need to look the other [way] and make accommodations; not the men for whom this website is for.

In other words: the guys here may call you sluts and whores and worse, but really, that’s your fault for being here in the first place, so don’t complain.

Welcome aboard!

Hestia continues:

We must also respect this place as one of the few politically incorrect sanctuaries that men have in today's misandrist world. … We should not be bullying men into saying, "yes, indeed not all women are like that!" to appease our own egos. … This is sacred male friendly ground and should be treated as such. … We are but guests on this website and must know our place and respect certain boundaries for the sake of the men here and for the work towards gender peace.

Hard to be more abject than this. So how have the menfolk responded?

It appears that not too many men actually read the Shieldmaidens forum, but among those who do, the reaction has been a little less than enthusiastic. Our friend GlobalMan, one of the more excitable Spearhead regulars, basically tells her (and all women) to fuck off entirely:

I have voiced my opinion many times women should be banned all together from here. They are contributing nothing and they are taking up a lot of time and energy of the stupid young men who do not realise that women are just attention whores who won't actually do anything at the end of the day. ….

You women pretty much fuck up everything you stick your nose into. And you never, ever tire of fucking things up for men under the delusion you have 'something to contribute'. You don't. Get over it. You pop out babies. That is your one and only 'claim to fame' and it used to be enough for a man to love a woman for her whole life and to provide for her and the kids. Now it is not. So you women need to 'act like men' and suck it up.

Indeed. If women had any class at all you would leave of your own accord and let the men sort out what you refused to. The only posts from women here should be 'Men, please tell us what to do'.

A fellow calling himself Diogenes offers his two cents:

That Hestia has to write this thread proves that indeed women who come to this board do exactly that which she complains against. They have such a cozy and male-coddled life that they are shocked when some men rightly express their scorn and foul language towards their attitudes and manipulative behaviour. Women BREED misogyny because all they do is constantly manipulate and get the attention and protection of men by trying to look sexy all the time. Every time a man turns his head towards a pretty lady, she knows she is being looked after and will be rescued by a man if ever her poor little ass does something stupid. They are CHILDREN at heart. One female college student mentioned to me how according to her "every girl" has gone on dates just to get free dinners. How much more proof do we need that women are NO GOOD WHORES?

I guess that’s some of the "locker room talk" Hestia was warning the ladies about.

Granted, it's been awhile since I've seen the inside of a locker room, but I don't remember much of the talk in the locker rooms I've been in revolving around the no-good whorishness of all women. I think that might be because most men are not in fact hateful assholes who think all women are NO GOOD WHORES.That's just a theory though.

--

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

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

Something Awful visits The Spearhead Forum

 

This weekend, Something Awful gives its readers a little tour of The Spearhead Forum and some of its more colorful fauna. I've borrowed the screenshot above from them. Hagslave entrainment! Yeasty oblivion!

The Spearhead Forum is if anything a little weirder than The Spearhead itself. It is also the main stomping ground of a fellow named Zebert, who has many, well, innovative ideas about how to solve all the problems of the world (e.g. forbidding education for women, prohibiting gatherings of more than four women at a time, removing the voiceboxes from baby girls at birth).

The Something Awful folks have gathered up quite a few of his most intriguing posts, and many others of equal value. Head over there now and enjoy. 

Imaginary Feminism

An Imaginary Feminist in action.

There’s a great post up on The Pervocracy inspired by, well, some of the more lovable characters who frequent the comments section on this little blog – our resident antifeminists. As  Holly notes, the feminists posting here devote much of their time (naturally enough) to arguing for feminism, while the MRA types, by contrast, tend to argue against an imaginary enemy that only bears a vague passing resemblance to actual feminism. Holly sets forth the tenets of this imaginary feminism, or IF, as she’s managed to glean them from the comments by MRA types here.

IF, she notes, is monolithic:

Anything said by anyone calling themselves a feminist can be assumed to be true of anyone else calling themselves a feminist. Some random thing Andrea Dworkin said in 1973 is tattooed on all IF's chests backward so they can read it in the mirror. All IFs simultaneously subscribe to the beliefs of Valerie Solanas, Catharine McKinnon, Betty Dodson, Phyllis Schlafly, Twisty Faster, and that person who wrote those weird articles about Firefly. 

Imaginary Feminists have no real grievances, are eager to take rights away from men, love shaming men, and are simultaneously sex-hating puritans and sex-obsessed sluts.

In other words, they are dastardly creatures indeed. If they really existed, I would oppose them too.

The post is hilarious and spot-on in its critiques. Well worth reading.

EDIT: Link fixed. 

--
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 Brief Reign of the Feminist Troll Queen

Who died and made you Queen of the trolls?

So the MRA who calls himself Troll King – but who is not actually a troll – recently decided he would create some lulz by trolling Reddit’s Mens Rights subreddit as a pretend feminist calling “herself” feministtrollqueen. What followed was perhaps the worst impersonation of a feminist the world has seen since, well, Sarah Palin called herself one. But the whole embarrassing spectacle is worth looking at, as it reveals a great deal, not about feminism, but about some of the strange things rattling around in the heads of some of feminism’s most ardent and addled critics.

During her brief reign, feministtrollqueen posted a series of long rambling comments filled with what “she” evidently thought was a highly witty parody of feminist-speak, but which bears about as much relationship to feminism as what’s inside Glenn Beck’s head does to reality. Here's a chunk of her first post::

WHY can't us feminsits and mens misogynists get along? ...

I LOVE men so much that I want to help you "nice guys" and I want you to become real men so that women, like me, will want to have crazy and hot and slutty sex with you. Don't be losers and creeps….

Us feminists, we don't want to hurt you...we probably want to suck your dick, 'cause we LOVE men and their dicks...Just because you have unjust privilege doesn't mean you are evil or bad...it just means you need to lose your patriarchal privilege and become feminist men....then you will be good men. Then you won't be virginal losers, once you except and deny your privilege you will get SEX and be valuable

Naturally, some of the locals assumed that this was a real feminist talking – all but one of those who commented on this post seemed to think it was real -- and set out to school her on a thing or two. One wrote a lengthy point-by-point "rebuttal," ending it with:

[S]ince you are female (presumably), don't presume to tell men what a "real man" is. …  [W]hile you claim to "love men", you're posting shows you are actually closer to a misandrist who thinks the only good man is the one beneath her feet.

Feministtrollqueen then  began posting even more obviously loopy comments. Far from being the sex-negative Dworkin-ite  stereotype of yesteryear, she seemed, if anything, rather obsessed with sex and how much she loved it:

OMG!!! You guys are such misogynists. You need to realize that I am a feminist and I know what feminism is cause I am a feminist. HOW dare you talk about such a movement in such a bad way, you are evil penis wearing misogynists! Those evil penises of yours cause RAAAAPPPEEEEE and that is all men's fault.

Those testicles of yours create woman hating, aka misogynistic, thoughts. NOW, understand that I LOOOVE men.... I just think you misogynists need to understand that you can be better, real men. Until you step up and be real men, you will always be manchildren.

Now, I love men. I really do. I have sexes with many, many men. I luvs casual sexes with men. I do it all the time. I just don't like it when you men make me feel bad by exercising your own sexual rights and opinions and call me fat. I am not fat, I AM BIG AND BEAUTIFUL!....

Warming to her subject, she continued: 

You pathetic virgins in the MRM are just bitter and lonely and can't get any pussy cause you live in yo mommas basement. How pathetic.

I read all of your posts and I still won't have nasty and sexy butts sexts with you. I am simply too sexy for you and even if you wanted it you couldn't get it. I am that much bettar than you but unlike you I actually believe in equality.

You little boys need to grow up and become real men and learn about feminism and how us women will actually help you and solve your problems for you. I am for equality! I want men to be free and feminine like me, you little boys just want to whine and moan and need to call a waahhbulance

Even at this point there were some who thought it was still possible that this was a real feminist. Presumably, even these gullible souls realized something was afoot when feministtrollqueen started going on about how much she liked “casual sexes with da manchilds!! I like their pee pees” while also claiming that men “want to rape you and kill you and eat your dead pussy.”

The brief and insignificant reign of the feministtrollqueen is in many ways instructive. 

Given the obsessive discussion of sex, and feminsittrollqueen’s endless nattering about how she doesn’t want to have sex with non-feminist non-real-men, Troll King seems to conflate “feminists” with “women who don’t want to have sex with him.” While I can’t imagine that many feminists do want to have sex with him, I can’t believe they are the only ones. (A Venn diagram of the two groups would consist of two concentric circles, with the “feminist” circle entirely within the larger group of “women who don’t want to have sex with Troll King.)

Like many MRAs and MGTOWers. Troll King seems to spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about, and getting angry about, women having sex, particularly those having sex with people other than him. As we’ve seen again and again, manosphere men seem to take it personally when women fuck anyone but them. When attractive women have sex with confident, attractive men, they’re denounced as hypergamous, gold-digging and/or thug-loving sluts. But manosphere dudes’  hatred of women having sex goes well beyond sour grapes, as they also tend to be furious when women they consider unattractive have sex. If any woman out there is having sex with anyone who is not them, it is somehow a personal affront to all men who aren’t having sex at that very moment.

If that woman is also a feminist, well, their heads nearly explode. Forget the old stereotype of feminists as dour, hairy-legged, man-hating, cat-owning lesbian bluestockings. Troll King is obsessed with what seems to be the new stereotype: the sex-positive feminist as wanton slut. And he’s not the only one. Manosphere dudes regularly attack prominent feminist bloggers as “sluts” and “whores” and worse. Sometimes their minds become so addled by it all that they get the old and new stereotypes mixed up into one weird misogynist soufflé --- like the commenter on Antimisandry.com who denounced one famous feminist blogger as both a “super slut” and a “worthless, dried up, spinster whore.”

One commenter on Hooking Up Smart set forth what seems to be the general manosphere “theory” about feminist sluthood:

they want to suppress male “patriarchal” mating preferences

they want to have their cake and eat it too, i.e. want the option to be as slutty as they want but also want the respect and social status that was never given to such women

they want to neuter men because they only want the biggest alpha assholes to initiate sex, since these are the only type of men they are attracted to

 

As you may have noticed, this theory makes no fucking sense at all: feminists criticize asshole guys because they only want to have sex with the most assholish of men? Yet I’ve seen variants of this "argument" all over the mansophere. 

Troll King also seems to conflate feminists with all women who ever criticize men for any reason. His faux feminist creation continually refers to men as “manchildren,” an obvious reference to the arguments set forth recently by cultural critic Kay Hymowitz, who has denounced young men today as perpetual adolescents obsessed with video games and pop culture, while celebrating the supposedly more masculine men of yore. Trouble is, as I've pointed out before, Hymowitz isn’t a feminist at all; she’s an anti-feminist, and some of the most pointed critiques of her retrograde ideas have come from feminists. (Here’s one recent example.)

There’s really no way around it: the obsessions of the Troll King’s faux feminist identity seem to be driven mainly by masculine insecurity and sexual jealousy – and rage at women displaying autonomy or in any way challenging male prerogatives: How dare women refuse to have sex with us! How dare they call our masculinity into question! It’s no wonder his feminist parody reveals so much more about himself than it does about feminism.  

--

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

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.