Scott Adams' Imaginary Friend

Scott Adams, meet Scott Adams.

Oh Scott Adams, why must you be so delightfully mockable? Regular readers may well remember the Dilbert dude writing a really douchey misogynistic blog post, and then defending that blog post in a highly patronizing and completely unconvincing way.

Now it turns out that everybody’s favorite misogynist cartoonist has apparently been posting pro-Scott-Adams comments on Metafilter and Reddit under the super seekret alias PlannedChaos. Today, on Metafilter, PlannedChaos fessed up to the sockpuppetry, admitting that he was Adams; according to Gawker, Adams has also confessed directly to MetaFilter founder Matt Haughey. 

In light of this revelation, I would encourage everyone to poke through PlannedChaos’ comment histories on both MetaFilter and Reddit. They are, of course, quite (unintentionally) hilarious.

On MetaFilter, Adams' sockpuppet praises Adams (that is, himself) as someone with "a certified genius I.Q., and that's hard to hide." He also boasts that Adams (that is, himself): 

turned a failing comic into a household word by transforming it from a generic comic into a workplace comic. He wrote a number of best selling books. He was one of the top paid public speakers for a decade. His website has earned him millions while no other comic property has done the same. One of his two restaurants was solidly successful. And now he's one of the most popular writers in the Wall Street Journal. 

Wait, what was that right before the Wall Street Journal bit? "One of his two restaurants?" Boy, now I want to find out the history of that second, non-successful restaurant.  What went wrong? Did people not hunger for Ratbert’s Ratburgers? Did it have a rotating floor like Hank’s Look-Around Café?

Also, in what can only be described as GIGANTIC FUCKING IRONY, PlannedChaos also mocked another commenter for allegedly having an "imaginary friend."

On Reddit, PlannedChaos was similarly sycophantic towards, er, himself: 

If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is wrong. He also has lots of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That's how the idiot mind is wired.

It's fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can't rule out the hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand what he's saying.

And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but apparently not enough of a genius -- "certified" or no -- to engage in sockpuppetry without totally giving himself away. Just sayin’.

If you have even the slightest doubt that PlannedChaos is indeed Adams himself, this comment on Reddit from a year ago should lay those doubts to rest immediately:

The people here who are objecting to Adams' fiction about evolution clearly have some reading comprehension problems. A careful reading of the actual book will give you a different opinion.

By the way, Adams has said the book was designed using hypnotic methods (he's a trained hypnotist) and it is intended to generate strong opinions, and even some weird amnesia about the content itself. You can see the amnesia and cognitive dissonance in full display in these comments.

Hmm. Reading comprehension problems. The people who disagree with Adams don’t understand him. Where on earth have I heard that before?

Oh yeah.

Oh, and in his final comment on Metafilter, Adams suggests that his sockpuppetry was all a bit of fun. In other words, like Pee-Wee Herman falling of his bike, he meant to do it. I think I may have heard that somewhere before, 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.

Sex-ed for assholes. And non-assholes, too.

Note: Girlfriend pillows are not actual girlfriends.

Men Going Their Own Way have some problems with sex. One of the biggest? Despite their best efforts to totally and completely avoid women -- which some reason always seems to involve spending hours online every day talking about women -- sometimes it will somehow come to pass that hapless MGTOWers will find themselves actually having sex with a woman. As you might imagine, this experience may not be altogether pleasant for either party involved.  Indeed, in my most recent post, I quoted one poor non-virgin MGTOWer who declared that “having sex with a woman is like humping a moist pillow: It doesn't join in and you can hardly tell the difference.”

What this young man has described is not “sex” so much as “really, really bad sex.” Fortunately, it can be prevented! The most obvious way, already hit upon by many MGTOWers, is to not have sex with women at all. If you despise and resent the entire female gender, it is probably best to not get naked with individual members of that gender. The women of the world will be happy to go along with you on this point, trust me.

But on the off chance that some MGTOWers might be willing to dial down their woman-hatred enough to actually contemplate sex with women, I would like to offer some tips on how to improve the experience for everyone.

First, to make absolutely sure that sex won’t come to resemble “humping a moist pillow,” make sure that your sexual partner is not, in fact, a moist pillow. 

This is a simple fix, and one that is often overlooked. 

If your partner is not actually a pillow but a live human woman, well, I will now give the floor to Ozymandias, who recently posted an extremely helpful list of suggestions in the comments here. Here it is again for anyone who might have missed it::

OZYMANDIAS SEX EDUCATION TIEMZ GO!

So all the sex you've had with women, Zaku, has vaguely resembled fucking a moist pillow. I understand and empathize with your sadness about your sex life. However, young padawan, there are methods of solving this.

*Are all of your partners virgins or in high school? Virgins and high schoolers are terrible at sex, particularly if both are inexperienced. I personally was on my third partner before I was any good in bed.

FIX: Find your local cougar, slut or sexually assertive woman.

*Was your partner someone with sexual hang-ups? Slut-shaming often makes women think that enthusiasm makes them "bad girls", and ideas of men-earning-sex often make women think that lying there is their contribution to sex.

FIX: Have sex with feminists.

*Are you simply not that good in bed? This is a common problem among inexperienced men, and can lead to women not enjoying sex because it is not that enjoyable.

FIX: Learn the location of the clit (with an anatomy chart, if necessary). Listen to her instructions about sex. If she's moaning, KEEP DOING THAT. Try to give her at least one orgasm before you stick your dick in (be reasonable, if she's begging "stick it in me", go ahead, but it's a good guideline). Suck it up about the taste and learn to love eating pussy. Make sure you give her adequate foreplay (AT LEAST five minutes). Touch and kiss parts of her besides her breasts and pussy. Most of all, confidence and joy, confidence and joy.  [Editor’s Note: As briget has noted in the comments, if you really, really don’t like the taste of pussy, you can always use a dental dam; google the term if you don’t know what that is.]

*Was your partner very, very drunk? Bad sign. Sober people participate more.

FIX: If she's passed out or puking, don't fuck her.

*Was your partner freezing up, softly repeating "no, no, no", or otherwise clearly not enjoying herself? Then you may have had what is technically referred to as "nonconsensual sex," or by us Femicunt Queens of Nofunnington, "rape."

FIX: Seek affirmative, enthusiastic consent. This is shown by her, for example, ripping off your clothes, chanting "yes", sucking your cock without being asked, etc. If you are confused if she is consenting, feel free to ask "do you want to (have sex, make out, have me suck your tits, etc.)?" If you hear words like "no" and "stop," STOP IMMEDIATELY.

OZYMANDIAS SEX EDUCATION TIEMZ OVER.

Generally speaking, this is good advice for all inexperienced hetero dudes interested in improving their sex lives and the sex lives of their partners. (PROTIP: Improving the sex life of your partner will dramatically improve your sex life too.) With a few changes in wording to reflect different anatomies, as Oz herself points out, this is also good advice for straight women, gay women, gay men, trans men and women, bisexuals, and everyone else who is interested in having sex with some subset of their fellow human beings.

Just to reiterate one point: no one is a sexual expert from the get-go. There’s no shame in sexual inexperience. But it is sort of a douchebag move to blame the entire opposite sex for bad sex if you don’t know what the fuck you are doing in bed.  It takes some time, and some actual giving-a-shit-about-what-the-other-person-likes in order to get good at it. Generally speaking, if you like and respect your sexual partners, gaining this experience and expertise should be a highly enjoyable endeavor. Even if you don’t yet have much in the way of skills, a little bit of enthusiasm can go a long way. Also: you’re allowed to actually ask the other person what he or she likes and doesn’t like. This can prevent all sorts of awkwardness and encourage all sorts of fun sexy times.

Which brings us to another point worth reiterating: if there’s no shame in sexual inexperience, there’s no shame in sexual experience either. Sexually inexperienced women don’t know what they’re doing any more than sexually inexperienced guys do. So, guys, if you want to get with women who actually do know what they are doing, don’t look down on women for having sexual experience. If you’re a slut shamer, you basically have no right to complain if your partners are bad in bed. If you’re one of those dickheads who thinks women all become hags the instant they hit 25, or 30, guess what: you’ve ruled out having sex with the overwhelming majority of the women who are actually really really good at it. 

And while we’re at it: Taking the time to sit down and read about sexual techniques can speed up the process of getting good at sex enormously. If you don’t know how to find the g-spot, well, here you go.  You’re welcome. Lots more useful shit here and here, along with plenty of suggestions for awesome sexy-time book learnin. If you think you’re somehow above reading about sex, well, too bad: that’s what you’ve just been doing! 

If after all this you find that your partner is still lying there like a moist pillow, and you’ve ruled out sexual hangups, sexual inexperience and/or less-than-enthusiastic consent, there are a few other possibilities to look at: 

      1) She (or he) might be having libido problems because of depression – or due to side effects of depression meds – or for some other medical or biological reason. Time to see a doctor.

      2) She (or he) might be asexual. Some people just aren’t into sex. You’ll have to figure out yourselves what this means for your relationship. And that might mean: no more relationship. If you’re really into sex, and partner isn't, neither one of you is doing the other a favor by sticking around. 

3) She (or he) might actually be a selfish asshole. Selfish assholes tend to suck at sex. Try not to have sex with them. And don’t blame their entire gender for it. And if you're a selfish asshole, try not to have sex with anyone yourself.

Feel free to share your own tips (and links) in the comments. Learning more about sex and sexuality = good for everybody.

-- 

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.

A New Low in Victim-Blaming, Part 2: In Mala Fide on Lara Logan

From In Mala Fide

The reaction of the "manosphere" to Lara Logan's reported sexual assault in Cairo has been highly revealing, to put it mildly. And what it reveals about the assorted Men's Rightsers, Men Going Their Own Way, pickup artists, and others who make up the manosphere is pretty ugly.

Take, for example, Ferdinand Bardamu's posts on the subject. On Tuesday, Bardamu, whose antifeminist blog In Mala Fide is widely linked to in the manosphere, spat forth a snide, sarcastic rant that attacked Logan for having the temerity to even set foot in Egypt. He started out dismissive:

Apparently, a CBS lady reporter got raped while covering the revolution in Egypt. For some reason, we’re expected to feel sorry for her.

Then turned up the sarcasm:

Oh, what a symbol of courage Miss Logan is! What a beacon of determination and grit and…no, seriously. I can’t go on.

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. ...

Of course, Bardamu ignores the simple  fact that is is dangerous to send ANY reporter, male or female, into the midst of a revolution -- indeed, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 140 attacks on journalists in the Egyptian unrest so far; one journalist was shot and killed. Despite this fact, it is an undeniably good thing that some reporters (male and female both) are willing to risk their lives to cover wars and revolutions and other dramatic, dangerous, and important events. No one has suggested that the attacks on male journalists mean that men should not be covering these events. No one is mocking the male journalists who were attacked. (Well, almost no one. Bardamu refers in passing to CNN's Anderson Cooper, also famously attacked while covering the events of Egypt, as a "twinkle-toed pansy [who] couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo.")

For Bardamu, though, Logan's story is one of a woman foolishly trying to make her way in a man's world:

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. ...

Sucks that Lara got raped, but she had it coming. [Emphasis in original]

To Bardamu, this case is evidence not only that women journalists should not be sent to cover the Egyptian revolution but that they should not be allowed to leave their home country at all:

[O]f COURSE Lara shouldn’t be sent on another foreign assignment again! She, nor any other women should be allowed to be a foreign correspondent for their own safety.

And then, after arguing that Logan "had it coming,"and that any western woman who has the temerity to leave her hotel room and step out into the streets of Cairo should expect herself to get raped sooner or later, Bardamu then suggests that Logan may be making it all up:

There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. ...

I have no evidence that she’s not telling the truth, only a tiny feeling in the pit of my stomach that’s been growing year by year, with every venal vixen who falsely accuses a man of rape because she wants fame, or she feels like a slut after sleeping with the guy, or she’s mad that he slept with her best friend the day after, or whatever else.

Naturally, in the comments, many of Bardamu's fans agreed that women women who trespass into male spaces deserve whatever happens to them. According to "John":

Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms, Mike Tysons apartment at 2:00 a.m., drunk in a bar bathroom with the Steelers quarterback, and they sure as hell don’t belong “reporting” in the middle of a revolution. Women should not go to Frat Parties dressed like sluts and get drunk with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” ...

This woman, Laura Logan, is not just an idiot – she is an adulterous whore. She shares this unfortunate circumstance with tens of millions of others of her sex, and deserves no pity whatsoever.

For some, the case was not just another excuse for "slut shaming" but evidence that the very notion of equality between the sexes is wrong. As Brett Stevens put it:

American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure? ... We take these girls from comfy suburbs and send them into war zones and riots and wonder why they get gang raped. Amazing cluelessness, arising from our insane idea of “equality.”

There were other comments even worse than these -- e.g., this one -- but I don't have the heart to post them here.

But Bardamu's retrograde notions were also challenged in the comments -- mostly from those who saw his noxious post linked to on feminist sites and on Twitter, but also in a few cases from actual fans of his blog.

This reaction inspired Bardamu to post a second piece on the Logan story, one even more narcissistic and self-righteous than the first. After taking on some of his critics (most notably Molly of Progressive Blogic, whom he labeled a "premenstrual whiner"), and casually referring to Logan as "an unwilling cum dumpster," Bardamu tried to pretend that it was him, and not the feminists, who had the best interests of women at heart.

Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter. All of you leftie feminist tossers screeching about “rape culture” have her blood on your hands. How many more have to suffer before your lies are discredited?

Sorry, but a guy who refers to any women, much less a woman who has been raped, as a "cum dumpster" pretty much forfeits any right to be taken seriously on the subject of what is best for women.

About a week ago, Bardamu reported that he'd taken a Psychopathy Test on OkCupid, and had scored an impressive 31 points, which put him in the ranks of the "True Psychopaths."  His posts on Logan -- full of narcissistic rage and utterly lacking in basic human empathy -- seem to bear out this diagnoses all too well.

--

If you liked 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.

Taking victim-blaming to new lows: The Spearhead on Lara Logan

Lara Logan, shortly before the attack

There has been an astounding amount of vile shit posted on the internet about the reported sexual assault and beating of CBS reporter Lara Logan in Cairo's Tahir Square. I spent a depressing hour or so the other night looking through hundreds of comments on the Yahoo news message boards; it was a virtual festival of misogyny, racism, victim-blaming and simple nastiness. A sample (each quote is from a different comment):

don't put some nice white pu55y near crazy @#$% arabs. it's like goddamn king kong

Kinda' like sending a woman reporter into a locker room? Don't ask me to feel any kind of remorse for her. Equal rights demands equal responsibility

it started as a revolution and turned in a black spring break! mwaa ha ha

She loved every minute of it.

I could multiply examples ad infinitum; the last I checked there were more than 1500 comments on the one Yahoo news story I looked at, and most were of this sort. The only slightly encouraging sign? Most of these vile comments have more downvotes from readers than upvotes.

You expect this kind of behavior from the Yahoo message board crowd, which has never been very big on civility, or even basic human decency. Typical anonymous internet assholery.

Leave it to the readers of The Spearhead, though, to take commentary on this sad case to an even lower low. Yesterday, Spearhead head honcho W.F. Price published his own, predictably victim-blaming, take on the subject -- essentially blaming feminists for encouraging women to report the news in the same dangerous places that male reporters go. (When Anderson Cooper was attacked, you didn't hear anyone suggesting that men shouldn't be covering the events in Cairo.)

I think that's a supremely tasteless way to use this tragedy to push an antifeminist agenda. But the comments to his article, roughly 270 of them at last count, are far worse -- rarely bothering with even a pro-forma expression of basic human sympathy, some blaming and even mocking the victim, and most using the case to crudely push an assortment of their own misogynist agendas.  Here are some of the worst; I present them without comment, as they pretty much speak for themselves. I have edited some for space reasons; you can follow the links to read them in their entirety.

Alucin explained about how rape allegedly benefits its victims:

When I studied in university a woman claimed to have been gang-raped. After telling the story, she acquired a certain authority. She was at the top of the feminist hierarchy .... Her word was gold because of her rape.

It was never even verified if she had in fact been raped.

It’s a harsh thing to say, but the woman at university gained immensely from the rape, or her rape story-telling, with this increased stature. She probably wouldn’t have gotten into that very small degree program without the rape story to tell to the admissions committee.

At school, no one, especially a man, could ever challenge her about any subject, however remotely related to rape. ...

Rape against men or women is a tragedy, but I also find it sickening how “survivors” or their “friends and supporters” often use their status for personal gain. ... It’s the same thing when feminists politicize breast cancer. 

Opus added:

I agree with Alcuin: In my experience women wear RAPE like a badge of honour or military medal (as I presume Ms Logan will now do). I, of course, never believe word of it, and I notice most guys these days are equally sceptical. There may be an increasing Rape epidemic but no one I know is a Rapist. Funny.

Confused declared that he didn't give a shit:

No group on earth is more privileged that American/western women.
I won’t waste my time any more worrying about their safety, or lack thereof, due to their choices.

intp took it a step further:

Don’t believe her. Don’t care. I hope the Arab guys didn’t catch anything from her.

That is what the non-stop lie called feminism has done to me. Vive la nihilism.

Rebel offered this highly original take on rape:

I don’t see the point here..

According to feminist orthodoxy, humpteen gazillion women are raped every day. This one is the humpteen gazillionth plus one for that day.

Women are raped if you have sex with them, women are raped if you don’t have sex with them, women are raped even if there are no men around. ...

Every time two animals are copulating, a woman feels raped. There are more rapes on earth than there are hydrogen molecules in the universe.

To women of today, rape seems to be the highest achievement, the Royal Road to Success.

I’m laughing so much I might get a hernia, my belly is aching from the laughter.

Papa Smurf suggested the reported rape was a great career move, and ended his comment with a smiley:

she’ll be a CBS news anchor in no time. great way to get promoted.

I dont know if she genuinely didnt want what just happend or maybe feminism has affectivly blinded her and rendered her stupid. Blonde western women in the arab world are like all you can eat restraunts to fat people. Just help yourselves ;)

Troll King posted a long rambling diatribe against "western women" in the Middle East, of which these remarks are only a small portion:

*yawn*

Typical feminist/western woman(as if there is a difference) acts like her typical bitchy self in a place that won’t tolerate it. ....

The fact is that women, western cunts, think they can go into a culture and act how they want and treat the poorest of the poor not just like “help” or a but like a slave that should be lashed for simply flirting. I bet these rapists look who do this probably thought she would act towards them the same way white women act towards brown and black men on western tv. Like he was a stud....

But, umm, like yeah dude. That is so hurrible I might go and cry a river.

The Contrarian Expatriate took victim-blaming to a new low:

Sounds like she got what she set herself up for. You can yell, “I am woman, hear me roar!” all you want in the Anglosphere, but step into the 3rd world behaving that way and they will pound you (no pun intended) back into your place.

Again, as is generally the case with the comments from The Spearhead that I quote here on my blog, these are not weird outliers in the discussion there. Unlike the comments from Yahoo I quoted above, all of the comments I quoted from The Spearhead got multiple upvotes from readers there, in most cases several dozen; none had more than a handful of downvotes. Alucin's comment about the benefits of rape -- a comment surprisingly similar in spirit to an infamous quote on false rape accusations from Catherine Comins, an assistant dean at Vassar, that still raises hackles from antifeminists two decades after it was uttered to a Time magazine writer --  got more than 80 upvotes. There is more than a little irony here.

--

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.

Now I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger

Manosphere men often complain about evil women attempting to drain them of their money. To which there really is a very simple solution: If you don't want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don't seek out women who expect you to support them.

This seems like a  fairly common-sense strategy, and one that would simple enough for even the dullest of man boobz to remember. But apparently it has proved a little hard to put into practice.

For evidence of this, let's return to our good friend Nightstorm -- you know, the mousetrap-vagina, leech-women in the food court of doom guy on NiceGuy's MGTOW forum. He's back with another posting called "The List,"which is a list -- naturally -- of

the soul draining demands a woman puts on a man once their together. He MUST do these things to "make the relationship work"

The list is long, loopy, whiny, and filled with ridiculous things that MGTOWs and many MRAs tend to imagine that all women demand of all men ("Open all doors before and after for her"), but which have not actually been a part of any relationship I've ever been in. Aside from some complaints that are ridiculously petty ("Go to borning [sic] family out-goings") and some that are weird paranoid fantasies ("You get your penis size and bed performance revealed to the sisterhood. Oh yes, their not laughing with you!"),  the complaints come back, again and again, to money:

Pay for dinner ...
Buying her yet another useless item she doesn't need, like shoes or a brand new car ....
You get to pay for the privledge of being with this woman. ...
You get to work while she lays around the house doing nothing. ...
She can have the government garnish your wages to pay her just for being the female spouse. ...  You get to feel like the worthless scum you are and pay her for telling you that you are.

I'm not even sure what the fuck he's even talking about with half of this shit.

But, again, there really is a simple solution to all these money issues. I'll say it again, in bold  this time: If you don't want a girlfriend or wife who expects you to support her, don't seek out women who expect you to support them.

This, evidently, is where Nightstorm's grand strategy has gone a bit awry.

For, as I discovered from another posting of his from a few days back, it turns out that Nightstorm's plan to totally avoid evil leech-like women apparently entails spending many hours flirting with women online. Indeed, he included a long transcript of an online chat he'd recently had with an (alleged) 18-year-old (alleged)  girl who'd evidently decided after a couple of online chats that she wanted to be his girlfriend, despite the fact that the two of them have never actually met and in fact live in different states. (Hey, women can be idiots too.)

Nightstorm (posting as "shawnz") decided they needed to set down the terms of their relationship, and began by asking her what she thought she brought to the relationship. She jokingly suggested: herself, her "sexy hair," and her vagina.

[20:54] shawnz: if you become my GF..
[20:54] shawnz: I will get you, your sexy hair, and your vagina
[20:55] shawnz: and what do you expect out of me ...
[20:55] [name redacted]: ur penis ur cuddles and ur texting/calling/being on cam and coming to visit!
[20:55] shawnz: ok, anything else
[20:56] [name redacted]: nope

That seems pretty straightforward. No mention of "family out-goings" or even paying for dinner.

Nightstorm then set out his terms for the relationship:

[20:58] shawnz: First, I want a girl who cooks and cleans the house, I want someone who doesn't nag, cripe
[20:58] shawnz: bitch, or complain, someone who cuddles and anytime I want sex
[20:58] shawnz: someone who has ambition
[20:58] [name redacted]: demanding arent we lol
[20:58] shawnz: and someone who wants more than just love in the relationship, after all its hard work

Demanding, to be sure, lol, but he offers some things in return:

[20:59] shawnz: and what I offer is romance, a good paying salary for provision, and intimacy
[20:59] shawnz: I also offer you good self-esteem and reliability and faithfulness

Let's pause for a moment to consider that bit in the middle after "romance": "a good paying salary for provision."

The two haven't even met, and he's already offering to support her financially.

It appears Nightstorm not only has not only bungled the whole "don't pursue women who expect you to support them" strategy I have outlined above. He's actually OFFERING TO SUPPORT A WOMAN WHO DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXPECT HIM TO SUPPORT HER.

It seems to me that if you want a woman who is financially dependent on you -- you provide the money, she provides "anytime [you] want sex" -- you pretty much forfeit your right to complain about her being financially dependent on you.

Fortunately for Nightstorm, [name redacted], and the rest of us on this planet, he decided that [name redacted] wasn't serious enough to be his girlfriend. So, crisis averted. For now.

--

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.

Women Are ... Part 6: Herd of Hens Edition

We all agree that ladies are too conformist.

Another installment of our popular "Women Are ..." series, in which I collect examples of manosphere misogynists rudely generalizing about women like there's no tomorrow. I'll let you figure out the theme this time. It's not herd, er, hard.

Women are: A herd of hens

All women constitute one huge herd. They are a uniform group, and their thinking always falls into line. I've actually had women make that "I'm so shocked noise" and then ask, "you don't really think that do you?" Yeah, I do. I have a mind of my own.

They don't search for facts, reality, or truth. They search for consensus and emotional validation. They are cackling hens. Cackle cackle cackle :)

Women are: Herd creatures who won't date you.

Most women in a culture are nearly psychologically identical. So ... if you arent successful with the first 25 women, chances are you wont be successful with any of women within that same subset, cause they are herd creatures and take cues from the environment rather than having any real personalities of their own.

Women are: Bleating, uncritical sheep

Women are like herd animals and desperately desire to belong.

Men on the other hand are critical and won't blindly follow someone if they don't merit our approval. This is the difference in critical, mature thinking, and sheep bleating.

Women are: A herd of orgasmic voters

Women love to vote (group herd orgasm with her sisters). ... In fact, women love any group activity. Men largely want to be left alone to live their lives in freedom. ... That is why men do not really care about government. Men do not need it. So men do [not] vote that much. Women love government so women love to vote.

Women are: A herd of Facebook cunts

The problem is Ameriskank mindsets, they are close minded and stereotype every strange man as a pedophile, creepy, or a loser....

You need INTELLIGENCE & an OPEN MIND to meet & understand NEW people and Ameriskanks have none of the above.

Ameriskanks are the ultimate HERD animal. I can not stand these fucking cunts from Junior High & High School messaging me on Fucking Facebook (all single moms) wanting to start a "friendship" aka "find a sucker to take care of my bastard children".

Women are: Matrimony-minded herd creatures who hate doing chores

Women ARE herd creatures - the mentality of the group is more important than the self realized truth brought by evidence. However woman also demand products to do every chore for them, and ask the government to freely provide money to they can live without working either from government handouts or by getting government to enforce draconian laws that allow women to rip men off with the lie of 'holy matrimony'.

Women are: Hormonal herd creatures unchecked by patriarchy

The problem is, too many women allow their emotions, their hormones, their herd instinct, and the media to run their lives. Again, in past eras, these were all checked by patriarchal institutions, but these have long since disintegrated.

Women are: Herd beasts who don't want anyone to see them naked. 

An ancient king was once faced with a rash of suicides of young women.

He ordered that the body if any woman who killed herself would be displayed naked in the public square.

The suicides stopped.

Shame works better on women than on men because women are herd beasts. Women care more about the opinion of the group than their own thoughts or even their own lives.

You know what's ironic? Groups of like-minded lady-hating men gathering together online to talk endlessly about what herd creatures women are.

Love-shyness and the perpetual resentment machine

She's so smug, that Mona Lisa!

Reading Love-shy.com, a forum for self-described incels (that is, the "involuntarily celibate") and other "love-shy" guys, is a depressing experience. On the one hand, there are a lot of guys there who are genuinely hurting due to social awkwardness, depression, and other serious maladies that would be better treated by a psychiatrist and/or a good therapist than by talking to other equally miserable guys on an online forum.

And on the other hand, there is so much seething resentment among the regulars, not only of those women who have rejected them but women in general. The complaint is always the same: women only like "bad boys" and thugs, and refuse to date "nice guys." That is, guys like those who post on Love-Shy.com.

In one recent, fairly typical, thread, an unhappy "nice guy" reports that a girl he had a crush on (and who, a year ago, had turned him down) is now pregnant:

And she lists herself as single [on Facebook], which means that she was knocked up by some loser. That could have been MY kid; instead, I'm left here wondering why she followed the stereotype, when I thought she was so different.

I swear, all women are the same. They ALL follow the same patterns. Even someone who considers themselves an outcast or eccentric themselves, they ALL follow the same patterns. Her boyfriends were always extremely good looking, too.

This is another example of a woman who is nerdy/geeky, and doesn't like the nice guys. Pathetic, really pathetic.

So her crime is that ... she is attracted to guys that she thinks are, er, attractive? Instead of a self-described "nice guy" who seems to think she has a duty to be attracted to him, and who is obsessive enough to still be nursing a grudge about her rejection of him a year earlier?

Others pipe up with their support:

This should be of no surprise to you. She clearly is a quasi-eugenicist that deemed your genes unworthy of propagation. She subsequently mated with another guy who had desirable genes so that she could have the best possible offspring. Classic eugenics, classic female hypergamy.

Yep. Women who are attracted to the attractive are "eugenicists," essentially little Hitlers at heart. "Classic female hypergamy," by the way, is basically a fancy way of suggesting that all women are essentially gold-diggers and/or alpha-dog seekers, going for men who are older and richer than they are or otherwise at the top of the heap. Get used to the term: MRAs, MGTOWs, and Incels use it constantly. (I should probably add it to my post on the lingo of the "manosphere.")

Another commenter picks up on the "women are eugenicists" theme:

If a woman is ever talking to you and the words "nice" or "sweet" comes out of her mouth, you then know that she would rather see you hanging dead from a rope before dating/sleeping with you. She wouldn't give you 2 dollars to save your life.

Women are not just turned off by nice, sweet guys. Women hate and despise them. They want them dead, they cannot stand undesirable genes.

A third puts it equally bluntly:

If you're ugly, women want you to die of a horribly painful death, and she would LOVE to torture you so that you suffer as much as possible.

Still another pipes up with a story of being similarly "victimized" by his "oneitis" -- that is, the girl he's completely obsessed with:

She always says I'm a lovely sweet guy. We also have loads in common, in terms of values, interests, etc. Now I know these are all the kiss of death. Girls don't really want these things (sweetness, kindness, loveliness). They want to spread the alpha male genes. ... I am the victim of classic female hypergamy too. She's with a doctor!

Meanwhile, another suggests that the OP is probably better off on his own, given that most women are lying, cheating whores:

you are used for attention whoring when the bad boy did all the fucking. Just get over asap man, can you imagine what would happen if she were your wife? More than likely she will cheat. Todays sad reality is if you are a shy, introverted guy you will always feel the threat of cheating even with your wife every fucking day of your life.

The only healthy thing in the whole thread? The OP reports that he's deleted the pregnant ex-crush from his Facebook friends list.

You know what? Life is unfair. Love is tough. Some people are better looking than other people. How many guys want to be Don Draper, minus, perhaps, the constant boozing and fairly regular assholism? Probably every man who watches Mad Men, and then some. How many look like Don Draper? A tiny fraction of a percent of the former group. There's a hilarious eposide of Between Two Ferns, Zach Galifianakis' fake chat show, in which Zach confronts Jon Hamm, the actor who plays Don Draper, with the fact of his astounding handsomeness:

Zach: "Does it make you sick when you look in the mirror to see how handsome you are and to know that people are disfigured? And don't you think you should think that?"

Jon: "I ... I've really never thought of it that way."

Zach: "You never thought, hey, uh, why is Jesus so cruel?"

Jon: "Well, I've thought that."

If it's any consolation, she can't really act.

So, yeah, some people have advantages in the world of love and sex. Attractive, outgoing, happy people generally fare better than unattractive, shy and unhappy people. (And it's not like the guys on Love-shy.com are all unattractive -- or that they have any great sympathy for women who aren't hotties.)  But even the beautiful people get their hearts broken sometimes. No one can simply have whoever they want. No one is entitled to have another person fall in love with them, or even just into bed. That is up to the other person. (See Hugo Schwytzer's recent post "the right to pursue, not the right to have," for more on this.) 

Yes, there's a difference between being rejected once in a while and being rejected all the time, or being simply so terrified by rejection you never even try to approach anyone. If you're depressed, desperate, awkward and needy, as many of the "love-shy" seem to be, you're going to repel most if not all of those you're attracted to. This fucking sucks. But it's life. The solution? Get some help, and get your shit together. Get your depression treated. (I've been on antidepressants for years; it's changed my fucking life.) Get your social anxiety treated. Talk to therapists abut your issues. Get lots of exercise. See a sex surrogate if necessary. I'm not saying any of these things to be insulting. I'm saying them because they will actually help.

Some things you shouldn't do? Embrace your (hopefully temporary) datelessness as a fucking IDENTITY. Spend all your time on a message board with others who've done the same thing. Cultivate your resentment of women for rejecting you, and receive validation from other guys for doing this. (Guess what? Just as most women can sniff out your desperation, they can also sniff out your resentment, and it's not an attractive quality.)

Or, finally, to assume that things are oh-so-easy for women seeking love and sex. If you're not aware of the problems women face in the world of dating, you're just not paying attention. Are there women who are always (whether they like it or not) followed by a small herd of lovesick men? Yes. Are there women who are 30-year-old virgins? Yes to that as well. Love is tough, but demonizing the opposite sex isn't good for anyone: you're creating a perpetual resentment machine.

And it won't get you laid.

False (rape) assumptions

If you want to get downvoted on the Men's Rights subreddit on Reddit, just post something about how you were actually raped in a discussion of "The Campus Rape Myth." You'll get a batch of instant downvotes, and a bunch of Men's Rightsers questioning whether or not you're telling the truth, and demanding that you answer all of their questions.

Contrast this to what happens when a guy posts something on that subreddit about being falsely accused of rape or child abduction. No scrutiny, no downvotes. It's simply assumed to be true.

This is the internet, and it's pretty hard to know who is and who isn't telling the truth. But this is a pretty clear double standard, on the part of people who claim to hate double standards.

Paul Elam's Vanishing Post: Blaming and Mocking Rape Victims

Well, this is interesting. Last night, idly perusing the latest posts by blogs on my Enemies List I noticed a new post by Paul Elam. It was a doozy, and I don't mean that in a good way. Under the seemingly innocuous title "Challenging the Etiology of Rape," the post mocked and blamed rape victims for the crime of getting raped. I copied the most obnoxious bits onto my computer, planning to write a post about it.

Now it appears Elam has deleted the post, and the comments associated with it. [NOTE: Apparently the vanishing post was actually the result of an issue with the web host. It's now up again. On to the content of his post.]

Here, minus a little of his rhetorical huffing and puffing, is the basic thesis of his post: 

I have ideas about women who spend evenings in bars hustling men for drinks, playing on their sexual desires so they can get shit faced on the beta dole; paying their bar tab with the pussy pass. And the women who drink and make out, doing everything short of sex with men all evening, and then go to his apartment at 2:00 a.m..  Sometimes ... these women end up being the "victims" of rape.

But are these women asking to get raped?...

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it. ...

[T]here are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.

What's there to say to that? It's odious, simply odious. Anyone who makes such an argument thereby destroys whatever tiny bit of credibility, whatever moral authority, they once might have had to speak about rape, domestic violence, or, really any violence at all against women or men. Anyone who makes such an argument forfeits the right to be taken seriously on the issue of rape, or, really, on any issue at all.

By Elam's logic, any man who gets drunk and hooks up with a woman he's only recently met is "damn near demanding" to be falsely accused of rape, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE [ACCUSE] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head."

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam's logic, any man who gets himself sent to prison through an act of his own is "damn near demanding" to be raped, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head."

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam's logic, any man who works in a profession where occupational injuries are relatively more common is "damn near demanding" to be injured or killed, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH ... neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head."

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam's logic, any man who joins the Armed Forces is "damn near demanding" to be killed, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE [KILL ME] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head."

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam's logic, any man who crosses a busy street without waiting for the "walk" sign is "damn near demanding" to be hit by a car, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE [RUN ME OVER] neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head."

Hey, he should have known better, right?

By Elam's logic, any man who does anything at all that might possibly increase the odds of anything bad happening to him is "damn near demanding" to face horrific consequences, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE [HARM] ME neon sign glowing above [his] empty little narcissistic head."

By Elam's logic, neither men nor women should ever leave the house.

Oh, but wait, most accidents happen at home (just as most rapes involve people already known to the victim, not random strangers at bars). So anyone staying at home is "damn near demanding" to trip and fall down the stairs, is "walk[ing] though life with the equivalent of a I'M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH - PLEASE [INJURE] ME neon sign glowing above [his or her] empty little narcissistic head."

I guess we're all empty-headed conniving bitches. Each and every one of us on planet earth. But the only people Elam thinks to apply his logic to are female rape victims. That says a lot, and none of it good.

NOTE: Elam has (among other things) banned me from commenting on his site, and relagates all critical comments on his website to a special board for "feminists and manginas," so any comments he makes here will be deleted.

NOTE #2: Just to forestall what could become an endless and pointless debate in the comments: Elam is not saying, as he puts it, that women "are literally asking men to rape them" -- that is, walking up and saying "rape me please." That would be absurd. He is speaking more colloquially, as am I.

Anglo-haters gonna Anglo-hate

Bill O'Reilly secretly spreading Feminazi man-hate.

The fellow behind the charmingly named Anglobitch blog -- devoted to the notion that "Anglo-American Women Suck!" -- has delivered up a rambling, loopy rant about hate crime legislation, which essentially suggests that the very existence of such legislation reflects an "inherent, all-pervasive hatred of men" in the "Anglosphere."

For while Hate Crime is prohibited by each Anglo-American national state, pan-anglosphere misandry is actively promoted by each state against its male citizens.

His first example of this is ... Rupert Murdoch's media empire. I'm not sure exactly when Murdoch was promoted from media mogul to head of state, but never mind. Our Anglo-blogger is off and running: 

The Murdochratic media ceaseless vilifies men as outcasts, misfits and sexual deviants while exalting women as paragons of virtue, beauty and intellect. This anti-male propaganda is at least as relentless as the Nazi media campaign against the Jews -- but even more insidious, since its agendas are covert and unstated. ... And, as in the Third Reich, hatred of the outcast group (in this case, men) has been fully normalized since the rise of gender-feminism in the late sixties.

Uh, yeah, that agenda is pretty ... covert. I don't remember there being a lot of Jews at the top of the Nazi party. But it seems like every time I turn on Fox News I see someone from "the outcast group (in this case, men)" spewing what to the untrained ear sounds like reactionary nonsense. (I mean, there's Gretchen Carlson, but she's got to share the set with Steve Doocy and that other dude.) But apparently I can't see Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck for what they are: footsoldiers of our feminazi overlords. Er, overladies? Overwomyn?

Our Anglobitcher then moves from the anti-male evils of Murdoch to the anti-male evils of the law. Apparently divorce law is so biased towards women that

many Anglo-American women consciously plan for a 'starter marriage' to fleece some unsuspecting male [which] proves that malicious misandry is rapidly becoming a female lifestyle-choice.

After a brief denunciation of the welfare state -- men pay the taxes and women benefit! -- Anglobitcher comes to the US military draft, for which only males have to register "despite them being tacitly viewed as Untermenschen by law, government and the media." Hey, I didn't like having to register, and I don't think any one of either sex should have to, but, uh, no one has been drafted in the US since the Vietnam war. 

So the first of his examples of state oppression is based on the idea that Rupert Murdoch is The State, not to mention some sort of feminazi. And his last is based on guys having to sign what is for all practical purposes a meaningless scrap of paper. The Anglobitcher nevertheless concludes "that males represent the primary victims of 'hate crime' across the Anglosphere."

Oh, but he's not quite done. For what angry denunciation of hate crime laws is complete without, you know, some good old-fashioned homophobia, served with a side order of transsexual-bashing:

It is also telling that the only male groups effectively protected by pan-Anglosphere hate-crime laws are gays and transsexuals. This is entirely to be expected: such males simulate the female role which, as we have endlessly observed, is routinely and blindly exalted by Anglo-Saxon culture. When the only way for men to achieve protection from 'hate crime' is to adopt homosexuality (or female genitalia) the true nature of Anglo 'patriarchy' reveals itself. Only women and their mincing mimics can enter that charmed circle; the healthy, potent male never can.

Dude, you're an Anglodouche.

EDIT: Mr. Anglobitch has responded to this post. His response is actually a bit more coherent than the original post, though, admittedly, that's not much of an accomplishment.
 

Conned by a young rake? It's all feminism's fault.

Oops. Wrong picture.

A fiftysomething British woman is seduced and abandoned (and ripped off to the tune of £40,000) by a twentysomething con man, and it's all the fault of ... feminism? The Elusive Wapiti, a right-wing Men's-Rightsy blog, writes about the case of one British woman let herself be charmed by a sweet-talking young fellow on Match.com and, despite an endless stream of obvious lies from him which should have kept the alarm bells in her head ringing continuously, agreed to meet him in South Africa, and ultimately hand over a huge chunk of her life's savings to him. Her actions were incredibly stupid; the story is pathetic and sad.

And according to The Elusive Wapiti, feminism is to blame. And it actually kind of is. But not for the reason Wapiti thinks: 

Today's exhibit is a Brit named Caroline Gates-Fleming, a twice-divorced middle-aged woman desperate to maintain her relevance in a culture that, thank you feminism, shackles feminine worth to her ability to attract a man.

Huh? Apparently I'm not up-to-date on the latest anti-feminist stereotypes. I thought feminists were all supposed to be man-hating lesbians, living alone with their cats and their "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" posters. But apparently it's feminism -- not, say, our sexist society -- that makes women feel like they're nothing without a man. Wapiti continues:

Hilarity ensues when a being that is accustomed to easy-come-easy-go male attention since the age of 15 experiences the shock of watching her attractiveness slowly die, after decades of taking it for granted and kicking perfectly good men to the curb.

The "perfectly good men" are her ex-husbands, though I'm not sure how Wapiti has determined that she cast them off for no good reason. No matter, Wapiti is just warming up. He returns to his main theme: Feminism bad!

[T]hanks to feminism, the old morality that once protected women from the siren song of their gonads has been stripped away. Used to be that women in their late 40s / early 50s were respectable housewives and grandmothers in stable if somewhat less than satisfying marriages, and slut-shaming and other social conventions kept them there, safely ensconced.

Ah, the good old days, when women stayed married, no matter how miserable they were, and gave up their sexual desires once they hit, say, the age of 47.

Now we discover that supposedly mature women instantly morph into priapic young boys--subbing vulvas for penises of course--given the right stimulation to their egos and hopes of emotional intimacy long since gone.

Damn you, evil feminism, for convincing women they might possibly have sex in their late 40s or -- gasp! -- older! Quite possibly with younger men! I mean, it's not like men in their late 40s ever want to have sex with women younger than they are. I have never, ever heard of that happening, ever.

EDIT: Added a sentence in the second paragraph to make my point clearer. 

Debate Drama: Dalrock is a Lying Liar

Debating Men's Rights Activists can be a lot like arguing with a kid who puts his hands over his ears and shouts "la la la I can't hear you!"

During my abortive debate with Paul Elam on Domestic Violence, I had a hard time getting him to respond to my arguments; instead, he devoted much of his energy to arguing against experts I never cited and arguments I never made.(EDIT: See all my debate posts and some commentary here.)

Now the blogger "Dalrock" has decided to weigh in on the debate -- despite the fact that by his own admission he didn't actually read the whole thing. Not surprisingly, he completely misrepresents my argument:

His argument was that since he could point to more studies showing the orthodox feminist view, his perspective must be right.

Either he didn't read more than a paragraph or two of what I wrote, or he's incapable of understanding logic, or, well, he's a lying liar.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the first explanation; I'm being generous here.

But it's hard to see the next bit as anything but, well, that lying liar thing.

Mentioning my post responding to Elam's disgraceful "Bash a Violent Bitch Month" post, which was not even part of the debate proper, Dalrock ignores Elam's obnoxious provocation and brings up a similarly obnoxious, similarly disgraceful Jezebel post from several years back, in which several Jezebel staffers and a host of commenters there gleefully admitted to beating up boyfriends. (Elam and I both mentioned it in our posts; it was Elam's excuse for writing his post in the first place.)

According to Dalrock, my response to the Jezebel post went roughly as follows:

The feminist looked like he might come to just in time to avoid the count.  He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends.  Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.  And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

Even aside from the dopey boxing metaphor, this is simply fiction. Let's break it down.

He started mumbling incoherently that the link didn’t prove anything, and there weren’t that many women eagerly recounting tales of abusing their boyfriends. 

I didn't say that.

Besides, the women were probably lying and had really just been defending themselves.

I didn't say that.

And none of the comments looked that bad to him anyway.  Most of those guys probably eventually recovered with proper medical treatment.

I didn't say that. He's simply making shit up. Or, as some might put it, lying.

If you want to know what I did say, you can see it here.

When I pointed all this out in Dalrock's comments, he responded with:

You mean you weren't really unconscious in a boxing ring knocked out by a commenter, and came to just before the final count?

Yeah, the fact that you made a dumb boxing joke means it's totally ok to lie about what I said.

To my regular readers: Sorry about all the drama here. To paraphrase Bob Dole, I'm just trying to get these guys to "stop lying about my record."

Also: Elam himself poked his head up in the comments to Dalrock's post to offer a response of sorts to my final debate post; needless to say, it's pretty feeble. You can read it here, and if you skip down a few posts you should be able to read my response to it; I will also be appending it to my original post.

Paul Elam's hypocrisy and douchebaggery bring the Not-So-Great Debate to a crashing close

Paul Elam's massive hypocrisy, combined with a bit of douchebaggery, has brought the Not-So-Great Debate to an early end. (Though not before I got in one final post since the last time I mentioned the debate here.) (See here for all my posts in the debate.)

Long story short: He threatened to ban someone who posted a comment supportive of me. I reminded him he'd promised not to do that. He refused to retract the warning. I said, I'm out. Then he changed his mind and retracted the warning. I told him I was back in, if he didn''t pull any more shit. He pulled more shit. I'm out. 

Long story long: When I agreed to debate him on his blog, it was on the condition that the discussion in his comment section would be free and open, and that people supportive of my point of view would not face any special restrictions -- normally, Paul confines opposing opinions to a special page for, as he puts it "feminists and manginas." (I know. He's a grown man, and this is how he handles people who disagree with him.) But he promised, in writing:

With respect to any people who may wish to support your POV in the debate, I am suspending the rules for post transfer to the feminist/mangina page. All comments, short of threats or advocacy for violence, will remain in the thread permanently.

Paul evidently has some trouble remembering his promises. Earlier tonight, Chris -- one of a tiny number of non-MRAs who've actually waded into the snake-pit that is his comments section to post dissenting opinions -- posted this comment:

Excellent points from David. Still, Elam will spin this in the way he believes will best move his own agenda to demonize women and restore the patriarchy (among other nonsense) forward. Most people know the truth though. A group of male supremacists is the last place most people will look to for the truth about women or domestic violence. Especially since their propaganda is so easily refuted as David has proved. And the crap spewed about women as a whole is just plain nonsense. It’s easy to see why the majority of men shun the MRM, and why NOMAS doesn’t want to be connected to it.

As anyone who has been on the Internet for more than about half an hour will tell you, this is not what you'd call an outrageous flame. It's pretty restrained, actually. It was not a threat. It did not advocate violence. But for Paul it was evidently too much to handle, so he promptly responded with this:

You get a warning now Chris. And one only. I agreed with David, offered actually, that dissenters would be welcome to this debate rather than the area I have set up for them at the FAM page.

I do want David to have the opportunity for supporters in the comment area to refute posts made by regular readers of this site.

But this is not a place where you are allowed to come in and make personal insults about me or others. Make your points about the debate. Argue the facts presented all you want.

But making generic, personal insults to MRA’s, simply for being MRA’s, is not allowed here. You have the rest of western culture for that, including the Feminist/Mangina page here.

Can it or see yourself out.

Yes, that's right, the guy who normally consigns those he disagrees with to a "Feminist/Mangina" page is complaining about insults.

This isn't the first bit of bullshit Paul has pulled during the debate. Originally, we had agreed to post two posts apiece; he changed this to five. (I went along with this, but he didn't discuss this with me before announcing it to the world.) Then he decided that he could post two responses in a row over the course of 48 hours without giving me a chance to respond. (Huh?) I challenged him on this, and he relented, but his continual changing of the terms of the debate bugged the hell out of me.

And then of course there was his post calling Domestic Violence Awareness Month nothing more than a "month long national circle jerk" and suggesting, as a "joke," that October should instead be declared "Bash a Violent Bitch Month." He helpfully illustrated the post with pictures of women with black eyes, with the caption to one of the pics reading "Maybe she DID have it coming." I'm still not quite sure why I agreed to debate anything with this guy.

Then came his "warning." Now, such a warning might make sense if Paul normally enforced a regime of general politeness in his comments section. But of course he doesn't. For proof of this, let's see some other comments that appeared in the very same thread. Remember, this is the sort of speech that he considers acceptable.

This Futrelle guy is like a pile of dogshit. Dogshit sits all by itself, fetid and foul. Dogshit’s greatest wish is to become a mess on your shoe because then you have to deal with dogshit. “Finally, somebody is paying attention to dogshit!” Even if it’s only for the amount of time it takes to scrape dogshit off your shoe.

I hope that when this exchange is over, we will not pay Futrelle any more attention. We should do what anyone else does when they see a pile of dogshit. Step around it and not give it another thought.

On Elam's blog you can vote comments up or down. That one got 8 thumbs up and 3 thumbs down from the peanut gallery. Then there was this, from a familar name, evilwhitemaleempire:

At the end of the day manboobs is just another mangina who wants to get laid at the expense of the rights and dignity of all men including himself.

That one got 17 thumbs up. Then there was this one. (I've edited out some of the more rambling bits.) You'll notice that it also contains a number of generalizations about women, not to mention boys raised by single moms:

This manboobs really hates men. I wonder if he sat at his mothers knee taking in all her version of events. I think all the worst men I have ever met, have all had one thing in common, no father. ...  Like illegitimate boys, the female roll-model-men – are always first to defend a woman’s honor against men with violence or treacherous deceit. I consider men without male roll models as illegitimate. Woman-made-men. They hate themselves as males but hate the rest of men even more. Woman love these arseholes, because they do their bidding. Feminist doctrine and female narcissistic malice are the base for manboobs attitude’s towards men.... I still have nightmares about what I went through as a boy, at the hands of a feminist bitch, who continues to be rewarded and admired to this day by woman and cowering manginas.

Then there were a number of posts that accused me of being a woman, or a group of women. Which is just, uh, weird. Of course, this is only an insult if you think that women are bad, but somehow I get the impression that Paul might possibly just have a couple of readers who do think this.

On top of this pile of crap we can place what Paul has said of me and of feminists in general in his latest contribution to the debate:

The important thing in my mind at this point is to identify and explain what is really happening with these activists, people like Futrelle, who can look at all this information and dismiss it in favor of maintaining a false set of beliefs.

We need to ask why, when male victims of DV are a well documented fact of life, would these people seek to deny they exist and even take whatever action necessary to ensure that help is unavailable to them or to their chidren.

The answer to that, at least in my opinion, is groupthink.  Futrelle and the others have had their capacity for critical thought, their human compassion and indeed their personal integrity compromised because rather than exercise common scrutiny when examining information, they have become a part of a collective of non thinkers with tunnel vision; a simple cell in a groupthink brain. It is a seriously debilitating condition with significant individual and far reaching social implications.

It is the same phenomena that allowed masses of people to justify slavery in their minds, countless wars, the collective festering and mindless hatred in 1936 Berlin, and many other forms of social malady.

Yep. Pointing out that women suffer more from Domestic Violence than men makes me a person without integrity or compassion, a "non-thinker with tunnel vision," the sort of person who in an earlier age would have argued for slavery, and yes, a Nazi.

Really, Paul? Really?

Anyway, so earlier tonight Chris alerted me to Paul's "warning," and I posted a comment that said, in part:

Paul, you get a warning from me. When I agreed to this debate is was under the condition that the discussion here would be fair and open. If you are giving Chris a warning for making generalizations about MRAs that you don't like, then I suggest you give warnings to each and every person here who has made similar generalizations about feminists. That would include you as well.

You should also give warnings to the fellow who referred to me as a "pile of dogshit," those who suggest I "hate men" and the like. Oh, and the one who suggested that I and other feminists are like Nazis. Oh, that was you again.

Either retract your warning to Chris, or give yourself and all of these other people public warnings as well, or I am out of this debate.

What followed was a weird little drama that I can only describe as "Paul Elam-esque." First he posted a comment full of Elam-esque posturing and bluster:

You were out of this debate before it started. So I really don’t blame you. If I were you I would be tempted to find something, anything to hide behind so I didn’t have to bear the continued public humiliation.

But you are a little late. You have already served the only real purpose you ever had here to begin with, which was to openly present the bigotry, intellectual cowardice, ignorance and moral bankruptcy that characterizes modern gender ideologues- yourself included.

Your giving me an ultimatum that I have to allow unprovoked ad hominem from your supporters, or you will leave, is just one more example--- a kind of bonus.

Just the same, you are free to change your mind. I am going to put up my response to your latest tomorrow, and this time I get to pull out all the stops because that porous, completely obtuse offering of drivel demands to be completely destroyed with dispassionate reason and truth. ... .

I responded with a comment saying I was out, and reminded him that he had actually promised to allow pretty much anything from commenters supportive of me short of violence and threats. I ended it by saying: "This doesn't make you look good, trust me."

Apparently me offering him proof -- in black and white, in his own words -- that he was being a massive hypocrite convinced him to change his mind. Or maybe he just felt bad that I wouldn't be around to respond to the masterpiece he is apparently now crafting.

So he relented, and retracted his "warning" to Chris. I said I would continue the debate, just so long as he didn't pull any more shit like the shit he has been pulling.

Unable to restrain himself, he responded again in typical Elam fashion:

[J]just for the record, I changed my position to honor my word, not because you hold one bit of sway or force. You are not running anything here. So I am sure you can imagine a good place to store your warning for me not to “pull any more shit.”

Now, this is settled. Get out of my comment area.

Fuck it. I have been extraordinarily patient with this guy, but I have my limits. And he's just gone beyond them. I'm not going to debate with someone who talks to me like that. I'm out.

If I respond to his next post, it will be here. And I may not even bother.