Skip to content

Lubricated Holes and Mangina Attack Dogs: A Glimpse At The MRA Abyss

September 28, 2010

I don’t exactly frequent MRA websites — “men’s rights activists,” though I suspect almost all my readers know who I’m talking about. But every once in a while I stumble across something and see them, not as they want to be seen by outsiders, but in the spaces where they talk to each other. There’s a latin term lawyers use, res ipsa loquitur: “the thing speaks for itself.” Below are comments left at dub dub dub — I’m not linking them — the (dash) spearhead dot com, in a post from September 20 of this years discussing Christine O’Donnell’s antimasturbation remarks. The post is titled, “they’re afraid of men masturbating.” One thing I want to make clear: these are not aberrant comments in that space. They have a comment rating system. The text of low-rated comments is hidden until clicked. I’m quoting here only comments rated “Well Loved.”
[Trigger warning. After reading, some viewers may get very angry, and stay that way for a long time.]

Bold below is mine.

I think you guys are truely on to something. It is fear of men losing sexual interest of women. Women hate prostitutes, sluts,and foreign women. They especially hate foriegn women simply because of the way men speak of them. Wome have reduce them selves to just pussy and that is it. Listen to any women brag about how strong and independent she is and she will tell you herself she is only good for sex. women are a legal,financial, spiritual or what have you burden on every one they come in contact with. Think about the idea of shaming somebody that is masterbating to come buy this pussy. All for the “right” to take his kids,his house and to say he raped you.
This article is why all MRA’s need to join the tea parties and direct the agenda. They are conservative so we can have a chance at rule of law. They are outside of the ruling elite for now. And if we sit back and talk shit we get what we just read about here today.

On that I disagree, friend. The Tea Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, and the feminist Sarah Palin is their Queen.

Will someone please ask her what she thinks of Democrat-sponsored attempts to prevent American men from traveling abroad to find wives?

There really is no fucking hope for men, is there?

We vote Democrat, we get the feminists and their mangina attack dogs. We vote Republican, we get the feminists and their mangina attack dogs. We vote for the Green Party, we get the feminists and their mangina attack dogs.

And now, if we vote for the Tea Party we get the feminists and their mangina attack dogs.

God help us all!!

Basically a walking talking lubricated hole. Congratulations girls, that is how you are viewed, and only you can change it.

They are starting to see the ramifications that often come from knocking up some toilet of a woman. It’s fun, but boy do you end up paying, either for the “accidental” pregnancy, the STD, and the emotional terrorism. Men need to protect themselves against predators, and don’t be fooled into thinking that there aren’t that many out there; that’s what “female empowerment” has created, and a lot more buy into that than not.

And that’s what we’re really talking about here. Masturbation shaming in the western femocracies. This stupid broad asks “What am I good for if he can pleasure himself?” Obvious answer is that you should help him do it.

I wonder if a single woman realizes that if she gave up her power and came home, she would live an even more privileged life than she does now?

I wonder if a single man realizes that if he treated women as men, they would all give up their power, come back home, and do as they were asked?

Reminds me of the line from The Color of Money, where Tom Cruise’s girlfriend threatens him with:
“You win one more game, you’re gonna be humping your fist for a long time. Got that, Vincent?”
Of course he obeyed her and let her win the next game.
I never understood why. I mean, is her vagina meant to be that far above a “fist” that it can be used to manipulate a man?

This is something I’ve thought about a lot, and it explains a great deal about the character of girls by and large today. If they have nothing to offer but sex, they’ll become obsessed with the value of that sex and impressing it on you. (This is also why ladies of late so frequently resort to “You can’t get laid”/”You’re just not ‘getting any’” as the go-to insult in any argument.) Few women offer an engaging friendship; fewer still a spiritually satisfying companionship (in fact I can think of none, at least in my few years on Earth.) Charges that game is dehumanizing just totally crack me up: I mean, what else am I supposed to judge these women on? They don’t give a crap about anything besides what’s between their legs, so why should I?

A little something: Is not about sexual control or whatever, is the whole fucking system designed to dupe a man in the deathtrap called Marriage 2.0 with an used-up cunt just for bleeding him dry.

Notice how O’Donnell’s statement (“If he already knows what pleases him, and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?”) frames masturbation in regards to it’s effect on the woman. Just like everything else feminist: another woman twisting it around to make it all about her. She’s probably right – any woman with an attitude like that probably just lies there like a dead fish during sex anyways, so why is she in the picture?

Great article. And a sign of just how low and despicable women have become in this country.

Attention to all men-
“Conservative” women are not your friend. That is a lesson you can take from the story above. A wise man in the MRA blogosphere (I don’t remember who) said once that the main differences between conservative women and liberal women are 1. Abortion and 2. Debates over the best methods to enslave men. I don’t even know if Abortion is the #1 issue anymore, considering most “Conservative Establishment” women are pro-choice.

If women think that masturbation is wrong, then I take it as proof positive that masturbation is the best way to go.

Trust the feminists to always promote things that are bad for men and to put to shame that which is good for men.

Viewing things that way allow you to find the best route for you: what they say is bad for you is, in reality, good for you and vice-versa.

This is a good way to use feminism for your own benefit.

War is deception…

Great point. Apparently, women are unwilling or unable to provide any other value to a man other than a penis-massaging device. Therefore, other penis-massaging devices are “the enemy” in their mind. And these pathetic lowlifes are supposed to be “strong and independent?” Give me a break.

Okay here is the deal. Pussy is easy to get.

Women open their legs for dinner these days. If you enter into a relationship with them afterwards the day will come when the other guys you entered into the relationship will be introduced. These guys were suits and ties, costumes and badges, and some even wear your clothes, sleep in your bed, and have sex with your wife.

NAWALT doesn’t mean shit, when any NAWALT can have a bad and call the cops. That is when men learn about the unseen part of their relationship with the vaginal carrier.

Until the third party exits the relationship more and more men will wake up, including the violent ones, and when the good ones don’t care, you ladies will be left in their harems.

See, the problem is that it is impossible to tell “the sluts” apart from any other woman. A lot of the sluts also tend to say that they aren’t like that, but big surprise!… Look at those paternity testing statistics for how often men aren’t the father.

It’s the same reason men are wary of marriage. You can’t tell whether a woman is going to just decide to send you to the poor house later on down the road by taking your home, money, and then getting a bunch of monthly payments from you.

For a feminist, any expression of male sexuality is a bad thing. The idea of rape culture is based on this premise. Men use sex to control women where sex becomes defined as rape. Therefore male sexuality must be condemned and controlled. since masturbation is a expression of male sexuality, that must be condemned and controlled as well.

Thag, the problem is that 99% of “intellectual” women are hardened Leftist
Feminists.
They use whatever brainpower they have to directly or indirectly facilitate female supremacy.

Due to this, I have declared my expectations of a woman to be “for fun & for fucking.” I believe it to be an advantageous position in today’s society.

I’d rather masturbate than get involved with an unstable woman. And I’m the classic beta. A guy who has gained financial stability, can afford to support a family on my own yet does not date and is pretty much isolated from the dating scene. A guy who looks around and sees what’s happening, repeatedly told I’m a loser and I NEED TO CHANGE BECAUSE SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH ME. No, something is wrong with the slut culture.

Whether it’s to be done by women, or by the state, hopeless “pussy-beggars” are simply more easily controlled than are men who take charge over any and all aspects of their lives.

Many women (subconsciously) realize that they bring very little value to the relationship other than sex. It is akin to a wealthy man who lavishes gifts on a girl to get her into bed. Women use their pussy (at least in the initial phase of the relationship) to artificially create a bond (and get the guy to commit)… This is why many women fear male sexual independence, because they realize that other than sex, they can not a mate, because they have no other value. In addition, this is why men should never start a relationship in the “provider” role, as you should be secure enough in your value to not resort to bribes.

Women know where their powerbase lies. So long as men where willing to kowtow for sex, they ‘had us’ in additional to the power they have acquired politically. However, the more alternatives men have to sex, the lower men’s tolerance to women’s unreasonable and demanding behavior. Women know this, and this is the main reason why any alternative is a legitimate threat to a woman’s stranglehold on men and therefore their resources.

Empowering women to have unbridled sex through lowered moral standards and birth control, has reduced the vagina to a commodity product.

They’ve been slowly losing their allure over the last 40 years. It’s so common and easy to come by that it has lost it’s “specialness”. It’s everywhere and its free. Gone is female modesty and restraint. The porn star is idolized.

Any “celebration” of male sexuality by feminists is only in as much as it can be exploited, i.e. controlled. I’m sure you might find a handful of exceptions, but certainly this is not the case in general. The successes of the feminist movement have been based on the concept “men=evil/women=good” and male sexuality is the primary source of evil.

A married woman does not stop trying to catch the eye of other men. This isn’t harmless fun. This is, when you get down to it, sick shit. Men have the emotional desire to love and to be loved; women have these emotional desires too, but they also have the burning need to be loved by men whom they do not love. We’re not talking about backup plans in case their husbands ditch them. We’re talking about men they want nothing to do with, but still demand that they be desired by them.

They become furious when they do not have this. One woman is enough for a man; one man is never enough for a woman, even if she is chaste and only romantically involved with him. She will want more men to be chasing her, and she never intends to reciprocate. Fury is the result when she does not have this.

@Skadi,

In a previous post, you said that women are going their own way.

Maybe. And if so, it’s a good thing.

But WHY DON’T YOU GO YOUR OWN WAY???

Why do you keep on posting here?

Can’t you see you’re NOT WANTED HERE?

Nobody, repeat: NOBODY cares about you.

Be a fly on the wall if you can’t help but listen but PLEASE quit posting.

I hate it when there’s a speck of shit in my dish.

Feminism is all about female sexuality and its gratification. The permission to flaunt it in order to satisfy the female ego; and to do so without any repercussions or being subjected to advances from men lower on the hierarchy; the ability to go for the best men and not to be called sluts even after taking a mutlitude of cocks in different orifices; wearing rags that leave their asses and bosoms hanging out, but “hey don’t objectify me bro”.

On “sex positive” feminists-

To be fair, it is very true that some fems celebrate male sexuality. Young women seem to have a different attitude on some male sexuality than their older, more militant counterparts. However, their refreshing tolerance comes to a screeching halt when it comes to things like foreign brides, sex robots, or prostitution.

A young feminist will watch porn with you, go to a strip club with you, and buy you a “fleshlight.” What she will never do is tolerate a long-term replacement strategy for her company.

Women aren’t interested in ‘quality men’ at the moment due to the fact that even if they choose poorly, their needs are taken care of by and through the government. Understand, in the past making a good and educated choice in a mate was a very important matter for women, there was no social assistance or alimony so essentially, there where no other choices. As a woman, you chose well, and you chose as early as you could before your appearance dwindled and compromised your choices and there was no one to come to your rescue if you screwed things up.

Their little feminism experiment to give less and less to men and to demand more and more of them has not ended with the better bigger deal they wanted. It has ended with men concluding that women are a bad deal and leaving them alone. They have priced out of the marked.

Now they are bewildered. They don’t know what to do. Let’s forbid porn, let’s forbid masturbation, let’s forbid prostitution, let’s forbid videogames (not yet but I don’t think it is impossible in the future). Let’s forbid anything different than being a woman’s slave.

They are delusional. Nothing will work. The only thing that would work is to give a better deal to men. But they are not interested in that. In their magical thinking world, they think that they can make men love them only by forbidding things and shaming them.

Haha. They have what they deserve. After millenia of being supported and adored by men (who often died by them), they decided to bite the hand who feeds them. Now, enjoy the world you have created.

btw, I notice that a lot of females here think the clitoris is what makes a female orgasm. You hear all of this feminist propaganda about how superior the clitoris is to the penis blah blah blah but if that were so than all females would have orgasm every time they had sex. Few do.The females who can orgasm like deep penetration. Feminists like the clit idea because most of them are lesbians but it’s funny because even lesbians resort to dildoes, sometimes double headed ones so the instinct to be penetrated must be deep rooted when even man hating dykes want something in them.

Re: A women’s body being her own.

Yes, it is, until she stands up at an alter in front of witnesses and she vows to “combine my body and soul as one with my spouse until death do us part”, then it seems a bit of an encumbrance attaches. If she wants to re-assert unilateral atonomy over her body, I guess that would be a repudiation of her marriage vows, freeing her husband of his maritial obligations.

Women can be replaced for OUR needs. Yes, us guys need women if we want to have babies…..however…..who wants to have those babies….oh yeah, that’s right…THEY DO. WE can live without them, get it? See how this situation begins to really undermine a woman’s interest’s long term? How much wealth does the Black Community produce in comparison to other communities? How successful is the Black Community as a whole? All one has to do is imagine the whole country resembling the black community and that should go a far way in quelling some doubts about the longevity of The Gynocracy. Hanna Rosin is only right about the end of men if men continue to get married and produce, which men aren’t.

F*ck the tolerance. Feminists have all the mass media (radio, TV, press) and ten websites for each MRA website. They have the control of most Universities and great influence about politics and marketing. And they don’t have the slightest tolerance for dissenting voices.

What do we have? A handful of minority websites, viewed only by a handful of men who are surrounded by manginas and white knights. They cannot speak about their ideas even with their most intimate friends and family, lest they are stigmatized. They come to these few websites to vent.

I could discuss the themes — the hate, the resentment, the women-as-deceivers trope, the Commodity Model, the references to foreign brides, the poor spelling, grammar, and logic. I’ll leave all that to others. I’ll just let this stand as a look into that abyss.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

About these ads
72 Comments leave one →
  1. September 28, 2010 4:26 pm

    Wow. See, I can’t get angry at this because it is just so absurd. Their understanding of reality is warped and bizarre.

  2. September 28, 2010 5:49 pm

    Although they’re extraordinarily hostile, and although it’s a laugh-out-loud joke that they put O’Donnell or even the possibly-arguably-feminist Palin on the feminist side of the ledger, they’re correct that O’Donnell was saying exactly what they claim she was saying. According to O’Donnell masturbation is bad because she appears to think there really isn’t any non-sex-provider utility for women!

    What’s unfortunate, and I mean that sincerely, is that if MRAs ever got that feminism isn’t the problem it’s the solution then they could channel that anger in highly productive directions. I mean… I mean… it’s pretty obvious that they both identify and deeply resent that anti-feminists directly manipulate sexual scarcity with the intention of simultaneously modeling and managing male behavior. That they think feminists want to perpetuate that, or, more laughably, that the use of women as objects to control men that O’Donnell endorses is a feminist idea just shows how very, very far they are from getting what feminism is about, let alone getting them on board with it.

    I mean, seriously! It’s like that old Far Side cartoon where the other bulls in a bullfight are encouraging the bull in the ring to “go for the cape, Earnie, go for the cape!” MRAs carp so bitterly about the cape of women and feminism instead of going for the anti-feminist matadors that torment them to such towering (yet compliant!) rages.

    Pretty frustrating.

    figleaf

    • September 29, 2010 8:40 am

      It would be easier to laugh at it, Figleaf, if my daughter were not the cape.

      • Jim permalink
        September 29, 2010 1:18 pm

        Do you have a son?

    • Jim permalink
      September 29, 2010 1:21 pm

      “What’s unfortunate, and I mean that sincerely, is that if MRAs ever got that feminism isn’t the problem it’s the solution then ….”

      The probelm with believing that feminism is the solution is:

    • Jim permalink
      September 29, 2010 1:24 pm

      “What’s unfortunate, and I mean that sincerely, is that if MRAs ever got that feminism isn’t the problem it’s the solution then….”

      Problems with that saying that feminism is the solution:

      1. Can a man ever be a “real” feminist or at best a feminist ally or at worst just a rapist waiting to happen?

      2. “Can’t they realize is just isn’t about teh menz?”

      • September 29, 2010 3:02 pm

        Actually, it’s primarily antiporn/anti-sex-work radfems who believe that men can’t be feminists. There’s a huge division in feminism between those folks and everyone else. Feminists, excluding specifically the antiporn radfems, generally don’t exclude men and don’t have a problem discussing men’s issues, as long as men don’t show up with an entitled attitude acting like they own the joint and telling all the ladies what they ought to be talking about.

        I’ve been participating in Feministing basically from its inception, I guest post not infrequently at Feministe, I have an essay in a book of feminist essays that appears on syllabi for women’s studies classes nationwide and maybe around the world, and I’m a het, cis guy. It’s not like I don’t talk about my sexuality (I’m a BDSMer, for which the antiporn radfems generally revile me, but that sexual identification is generally understood and accepted in most feminist spaces), and I certainly don’t apologize for it, nor has anyone asked me to.

        I have kids. I don’t specify the number and sexes or ages on the internet, but I don’t only have daughters. I don’t believe I have to teach my son not to be sexual, or to be ashamed to be sexual. I believe that we should raise our sons to believe that it’s only fun if it’s fun for everyone, and that enthusiastic participation from a partner (whether a man or a woman or somebody off the binary) is normal and healthy and what they ought to expect, and that pressure and coercion and trickery are aberrant and wrong.

        That sentiment is anathema, not just to the commenters on Spearhead, but to the original poster — and to O’Donnell, a sex-hating religious radical. O’Donnell and the men I quote basically are on the same page about sexuality — that it’s a bargaining chip — they just see themselves as on opposite sides of the transaction. But the feminist consensus is something else. The feminist consensus is that their whole worldview is wrong, and that sex ought to be collaborative, and produce more joy that the sum of its parts.

        If you’re on board with that, you and your children have more to gain with us than against us.

      • Sam permalink
        September 29, 2010 8:12 pm

        Thomas,

        I’m not sure what your point is with those quotes. There are less than reasonable people on all sides of all debates, and they usually get the most attention. That’s the case in feminism, whether you think it’s right or wrong, there’s a reason the public equates radical manhating feminists with “feminism”, and there’s probably also a reason why MRAs are seen that way. Reason is all too easy to crowd out of any debate, unfortunately. So, yeah, people commenting at that site are trying to tell other people that they are unreasonable misogynists… fair enough.

        I’m more interested in this –

        “I don’t believe I have to teach my son not to be sexual, or to be ashamed to be sexual. I believe that we should raise our sons to believe that it’s only fun if it’s fun for everyone, and that enthusiastic participation from a partner (whether a man or a woman or somebody off the binary) is normal and healthy and what they ought to expect, and that pressure and coercion and trickery are aberrant and wrong.”

        This is off-topic, so sorry for that, but still. I do find this to be an important aspect. I have been shamed about my sexuality by feminists (but that was not the only reason) and it has taken years to get past that – check Clarisse’s manliness-followup thread for a bit more about my personal story, if you want. I don’t know if you want to tell more about how you talk/ed to your son about this. I was told that my sexuality was/is always at least latently toxic. That by doing what I would like to do I would be causing harm to the woman I certainly didn’t want to cause harm. I heard “don’t ever push a woman” and I understood “don’t be sexual” because, well, the girls just waited for us to push them to make out. Feminism taught me to see women half as authoriatrian mother-figures and half as endangered flowers who cannot be trusted to take care of themselves, who cannot be trusted to say no if they don’t want something but still expect the man, me, to magically know their boundaries and never cross them while figuring out where they are.

        Clarisse’s thread has been invaluable to me in understanding that feminsit rhethoric is often just that – but that different sets of implicit assumptions about what is said create problems, or differences, in perception.

        I think there is a huge audience mismatch for feminism. Think of that computer game, “hey baby”. It’s not going to stop actual street harrassers, but it is probably going to keep shy guys from saying hi to a woman they like while they’re both waiting at the bus stop. Think of the Schrödinger’s piece – it’s good advice if you *want it to be good advice*. But it’s also insulting.

        So – again, I know this is off-topic, but, well, maybe not *that* off-topic – how do you teach your son/s to be ok with their sexuality when I assume they are also reading this blog (click on masculinity and you’ll pretty much only get a lot of problems). How do you teach them their sexuality is something women may actually like – I never got that feeling from the feminists in charge of my education.

        Feel free not to answer, or not to answer here, but this question just came up naturally reading your reply.

      • September 29, 2010 9:36 pm

        @Sam:
        I’ve had similar issues as you.

        I chalk it up to a couple of different things:

        1. Humans are suckers for narrative. Feminism has a lot of very positive theory (positive even about men), but the the personal stories, news stories, and narratives in general are almost universally about men doing bad things. Add to that that our culture at large generally portrays men’s sexuality in a fairly negative light, and that’s a lot of negative narrative that you get swamped by. If you hear/read/see a lot of that, you start to get a pretty good idea that this is “what men are”, including yourself. And likewise, you start to get the idea that proto-victims is “what women are”, including the women you might be interested.

        2. IIRC from psychology, if you get treated as being a certain way–say, irresponsible–you tend to start feeling like that’s what you are. So if at your job your boss is constantly reminding you to do things that you’ve clearly demonstrated many times that you know to do, you tend to either get resentful that he thinks so lowly of you, or you start to internalize that view of yourself, or both. And I think exactly the same phenomenon happens with “don’t rape”, “you have to get consent”, “don’t pressure”, etc. being repeated over and over to you. Even if it’s depersonalized on the web, it’s still directed at men, so it influences what you think of men and–thus–yourself. And when it is directed specifically at you, it’s worse.

        It’s not entirely clear how to avoid either of these in our culture. Parents can only do so much. But certainly finding a way to communicate about sexual responsibility in a way that doesn’t build up as in #2 would be good. In Thomas’ case, since he has both boys and girls, perhaps speaking to his male and female children at the same time about it, in a non-gendered way, could help. But dunno.

      • September 30, 2010 1:46 am

        I’ve had the same experience as Sam and Cessen.

        Sam said:

        I’m not sure what your point is with those quotes. There are less than reasonable people on all sides of all debates, and they usually get the most attention.

        Yup. That’s why I prefer to engage the more intelligent and articulate folks in movements I have a disagreement with. There is a bit of muck-raking in the original post. It seems more designed to instill horror at MRAs based on the behavior of a subset of them and “poison the well,” rather than engage with the substantive theories of MRAs and gain a complete understanding of what they believe. I would find it very interesting to see Thomas discuss the work of someone more reasonable like Glenn Sacks or Warren Farrell.

        Sam said:

        I heard “don’t ever push a woman” and I understood “don’t be sexual” because, well, the girls just waited for us to push them to make out.

        It seems common for mainstream straight women to want guys to initiate in ways that fall somewhat short of feminist ethics. For example, many women don’t like being asked for consent for a kiss. Does this mean that those women want men to just grab them whenever? Of course not. Instead, they want men to read their nonverbal signals. The problem is, as feminist advocates of explicit verbal consent have argued, body language can be ambiguous.

        So these women want men to initiate based on a belief in consent that is weaker than what feminists require. By the standards of feminist ethics, men who initiate in this manner are “pushing” women, or something like that, even if those women prefer men to initiate in that manner.

        Julia Serano has an excellent discussion of this problem in her chapter of Yes Means Yes (p. 237):

        Any attempt to critique men for being sexually aggressive, or to critique women for fulfilling the role of sexual object, will have a very limited effect. These tactics, after all, fail to address the crucial issue of demand. So long as heterosexual women are attracted to men who act like aggressors, and heterosexual men are attracted to women who act like objects, people will continue to fulfill those roles. In contrast, critiques that challenge why individuals desires stereotypical “sex objects” and “sexual aggressors” seem to me to get closer to the root of the problem.

        See also radical pro-feminist Allan Hunter, who says:

        Sexually assertive behaviors which would not be considered oppressive otherwise are open to being interpreted that way precisely because other men, in general, have behaved as they have. Nowhere does this have greater impact than in the matter of the simple, honest declaration of sexual attraction. Surrounded by females complaining of the exploitative, insensitive nature of men’s raw sexuality, and often confronted head-on with the generic automatic female response to all male expressions of immediate sexual interest, the sensitive young male who identifies with and respects women is likely to be rapidly polarized. He ends up being driven towards a masculinizing track of ceasing to feel hurt by such interpretations of his sexuality, or else towards complete (or nearly complete) cessation of expressing appetite for women in order to avoid being accused of, to put it tritely, “being only after one thing.”

        Sam said:

        I think there is a huge audience mismatch for feminism.

        I agree. There really are guys in our culture who need respect for consent and boundaries to be hammered into them; perhaps even most gender-typical guys. But if you give those same messages to guys who a little shy or anxious, or who already hold these ethics, then “preaching to the choir” too much can be harmful.

        Cessen said:

        Even if it’s depersonalized on the web, it’s still directed at men, so it influences what you think of men and–thus–yourself. And when it is directed specifically at you, it’s worse.

        The implication seems to be that men don’t give a crap about mutuality and are just looking for a chance to get it on with women regardless of whether the women want to. Sure, the reflects the psychology of some men, but I think it’s more common that men do care about mutuality. They cut corners on consent not because they don’t care about what women want, but because they do care… they just believe that women don’t particularly want communication over consent (at least, not for some activities) and find it wimpy and unattractive. If their perception is wrong, it needs to be corrected; if there is some truth in it, then we are going to have to take Serano’s advice and start looking at the demand side of the equation.

        Thomas, I wish you luck in teaching your son to navigate consent without paralyzing him and destroying his attractiveness to women. I’m quite sure that it’s possible; it’s just not going to be easy (though if he inherits the level of assertiveness that your blogging persona displays, it will help). Because when dealing with women who subscribe to traditional gender roles (i.e. probably most women outside of nerdy/kinky/feminist ghettos), and initiating in ways that they seem to prefer, consent and communication is not “simple” and involves a bunch of weird double-binds and corrupt incentives.

      • ginmar permalink
        October 4, 2010 9:03 am

        Nice straw feminist there, Jim. Good to know we’re dealing with somebody who really understands those feminazis.

        I have no idea why that ‘1’ showed up there on one of my replies.

  3. September 28, 2010 6:06 pm

    These comments are pretty typical for The Spearhead.

    I actually wrote a piece for my new anti-MRA blog lambasting the “They’re Afraid of Men Masturbating” article. It’s here:

    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/09/first-they-came-for-fleshlights.html

    It inspired some truly filthy and obnoxious and NSFW comments from MRAs on my blog.

    And the guy who wrote The Spearhead piece wrote two pieces on his own blog in response as well. His complaint?

    That I was using “shaming language” to mock him. Yep, the people who use words like “mangina” and “cunt” think it’s unfair for anyone to suggest, as I did, that anyone with such a low opinion of women as him might have a hard time getting a date.

    I wrote a response to his pieces that talked more broadly about the MRAs’ completely hypocritical complaints about being “shamed.”

    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/09/aint-that-shaming-tactic.html

    Feel free to wade in and make comments. Just be warned: MRAs have been posting some really crude comments to both articles. I keep them up there because, well, anti-MRAs should see what these guys are really like.

    Also, I put Yes Means Yes on my “friends list” blogroll. Keep up the good work!

    • Sam permalink
      September 29, 2010 8:17 pm

      manboobz,

      “That I was using “shaming language” to mock him. Yep, the people who use words like “mangina” and “cunt” think it’s unfair for anyone to suggest, as I did, that anyone with such a low opinion of women as him might have a hard time getting a date.”

      To be honest, I don’t think that their politics has anything to do with their ability to attract women or not. Saying this is the direct equivalent of saying that feminists are only feminists because they are ugly and can’t get a man. It *is* shaming language, and if you don’t think that such attacks are ok with respect to feminists then you should not use them yourself.

      • September 30, 2010 3:07 am

        It’s hardly the same as saying that feminists won’t get men because they’re ugly. I said nothing about his looks, nor was I really talking about his politics in general.

        What I did say is that anyone who really has such a low opinion of women that he thinks women are inferior to his hand might have a hard time getting dates. Similarly, a woman who thinks men are inferior to dildoes might also have trouble getting dates.

        The question isn’t one of politics so much as basic respect and appreciation for the opposite sex, which to me at least is kind of essential for a healthy and happy heterosexual relationship.

      • marissa permalink
        October 1, 2010 12:30 pm

        Assuming something about a person’s appearance because they espouse certain ideals IS different than assuming something about a person’s behavior because they espouse certain ideals.

        I think it’s quite ignorant to assume that only ugly women would want to be treated fairly. But assuming that a person who espouses obviously intolerant, hateful attitudes about women would likely have difficulties interacting with women… well…

      • October 3, 2010 11:29 pm

        Misogyny isn’t just a political ideology. If you view women as less than human, women are likely to pick up on your contempt and avoid you.

      • ginmar permalink
        October 4, 2010 9:06 am

        Oh, hell, yes, it does. They long for the good old days when women had to have a man, and therefore had to appease men, to survive. This placed women at the mercy of merciless men.

  4. September 28, 2010 9:49 pm

    Ugh. I keep looking for good in the MRA movement, and keep finding… well, what you’ve posted. A lot of horrifying statements against women and any man who doesn’t think they way they do. If you want to look at another awful site, theantifeminist dot com has a lot of awful stuff, and links to my blog with what is allegedly the picture of an aborted fetus, calling me a “typical sexual trade union feminist” because he thinks the only goal of feminism is to control male sexuality, and I once called his site out as being hateful and full of lies.

    • September 28, 2010 9:55 pm

      Amanda — I don’t know how much you looked around that guy’s site, but he also seems really, really, really invested in the idea of lowering or getting rid of the age of consent. Very creepy.

      • Alex permalink
        February 6, 2011 3:36 am

        What the hell? Do you have a link? I’ll post that shit to facebook for all to see what fucknuts MRA are.

    • MertvayaRuka permalink
      September 29, 2010 4:26 am

      You will find no good in the MRA movement, ever. These are the people who applauded George Sodini and other murderers of women. Why? Because they believe women should be in a constant state of fear that prevents them from refusing male advances, no matter how odious. These weak little cowards want to take by force, deception and fear what can only be given willingly. Sorry, boys, what you want is earned and you just don’t have what it takes.

      • Jim permalink
        September 30, 2010 10:33 am

        Thatb is the exact equivalent of smearing all feminists with mary Daly and Valery Solanas. if it’s fair to say “That’s Nnot my feminism”, how is that any diffenrne tform saying “That’s not my MRM”?

    • September 30, 2010 3:30 am

      You will never find any good. Men’s rights is basically used as an excuse to protect abusers and to allow abusers and batterers to keep abusing their wives and children. Full stop.

      • September 30, 2010 6:31 am

        Cosign this. “MRA” is a sinkhole of hate. Guys I know that want to talk about gender, and who are not seething with misogyny; even if they are critical of feminism, avoid that label.

      • ginmar permalink
        October 4, 2010 9:09 am

        Thatb is the exact equivalent of smearing all feminists with mary Daly and Valery Solanas. if it’s fair to say “That’s Nnot my feminism”, how is that any diffenrne tform saying “That’s not my MRM”?

        You’re comparing the NAACP to the KKK. By all means, knock yourself out. It just makes it very clear how very understated are the criticisms of the s0-called Mens’ Rights Movement. Tell me, what rights do men lack in a world where men make up the overwhelming majority of those controlling the law, justice, power, culture, and wealth?

  5. EmpressJudge13 permalink
    September 28, 2010 10:37 pm

    This make me vomit in the back of my throat. No, really. Not even kidding.

  6. September 29, 2010 1:54 am

    Ah yes, the Spearhead. I once got called a “gender traitor” there for making efforts to communicate with feminists. I think many of the articles there make good points, but I generally don’t find the comments to be good quality. Being able to have feminist-critical discourse that stays out of the mud (or at least, doesn’t spend most of its time there) was one of the main reasons we started our blog.

    • Jim permalink
      September 29, 2010 1:20 pm

      The comments are generally impotent rage – they are crap. The articles are generally pretty good.

    • marissa permalink
      October 1, 2010 12:45 pm

      “Being able to have feminist-critical discourse that stays out of the mud (or at least, doesn’t spend most of its time there) was one of the main reasons we started our blog.”

      I agree that THIS should be the point of any real productive discourse. I research gender issues in body image, eating, and sexuality and I am equally concerned with men’s experiences as I am women’s. I hold rather egalitarian attitudes toward most things in life and I even agree with some of the issues the MRM movement brings up (e.g., the disgrace of the current broken child support system). I know plenty of feminists that think this way too.

      However… so long as the vocal element of that movement is a bunch of whiny misogynists… well I won’t be deigning to waste my time building any bridges. Assholes like that can do the world a favor and take a long walk off a short pier. :)

  7. k not K permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:05 am

    I can’t stay angry at anyone who thinks Christine O’Donnell is an evil member of the feminist-media-industrial complex. Shine on, you crazy, misogynistic diamonds!

  8. EmilyBites permalink
    September 29, 2010 11:58 am

    I think my temperature has risen. I don’t think I’ve ever had such a physical reaction from reading. Avoiding MRA websites has always been totally natural to me – I can see from trolls on feminist sites and mainstream newspaper comments what the mild end of the spectrum is, but I had no idea it could be so much more frightening.

    They are just so, so, backwards. This is so, so terrifying. They have got it so wrong it’s just unbelievable. And they are so ANGRY with women.
    “Basically a walking talking lubricated hole. Congratulations girls, that is how you are viewed, and only you can change it.”

    Oh my god, I need to go and hide forever.

  9. Jim permalink
    September 29, 2010 4:24 pm

    “That sentiment is anathema, not just to the commenters on Spearhead, but to the original poster — and to O’Donnell, a sex-hating religious radical. O’Donnell and the men I quote basically are on the same page about sexuality — ”

    Yes, yes, yes. This same point was made over at Hugo’s blog WRT to readfems and fundamentalists. I think there is a psychology common to all these people. Glenden Brown expanded on this at his blog, One Utah, calling it the Strict Father something or other.

    Speaking of Hugo and my other point, he is a prime example of what I am talking about. He routinely gets called anti-feminist, and I don’t know if it always only rad fems doing it. He gets called mangina too, a lot, and in truth he can be quite the White Knight and pedestalizer. But he doesn’t deserve the vitriol he gets even so. But feminists like you and him and April and Daisy Deadhead are indeed part of the solution.

    This however is a totalizing and inaccurate statement:

    “That sentiment is anathema, not just to the commenters on Spearhead, ”

    Not only is his is borgification, but I don’t recall the subject of sexual mutuality coming up much. I do recall them chasing out most of the traditionalist MRA types (barefoot and pregnant) to the point of banning some.

    I agree about the level of misogyny there. But you have to expect people who have had their children taken away from them to the point of being denied all contact, or raised by ostensibly feminist mothers to be ashamed of being male, to be at least a little hateful. Their real mistake is in blaming women when they should be blaming the male-dominated power structure that enabled these specific women.

    • ginmar permalink
      October 4, 2010 9:12 am

      So you’re taking what these guys say about women as totally 100 % pure? Without hearing from the woman? Funny how all MRAs seem to have married the same woman: bitch, whore, kid-stealing, PAS-using harpy who takes all their money and leaves them living in a trailer.

  10. Jen permalink
    September 29, 2010 8:59 pm

    Wait, what? I literally cannot make sense of all this nonsense.

    I guess all I can say is this: these guys seem to be seriously confused about what a feminist is, if they think Christine O’Donnell is one.

    • Jim permalink
      September 30, 2010 10:40 am

      But I thought there were many feminisms. If she calls herself a feminist, who is anyone to deny her that? /sarcasm off

      But the “feminism is not a monolith” goes all kinds of ways. The real problem is that she and Sarah Palin may actually be able to appropriate the label. Then the fun will really start.

      • Jen permalink
        October 1, 2010 1:34 pm

        I hear you on the Palin/O’Donnell thing. Trying to look at the silver lining, it is certainly going to make us reexamine what feminism is all about. Is any conviction held by a woman “feminist”? Or are there certain convictions/values that are common to the feminist movement, diverse as it is?

    • snobographer permalink
      October 9, 2010 12:26 am

      Palin wants to take feminism back to the suffrage movement, you know, when feminism meant something, and women’s right to wear pants was about as controversial as gay marriage is now. She just attaches the label to herself, but it means nothing to her. She doesn’t advocate for women as a class, she advocates for herself.

  11. Quinc permalink
    September 30, 2010 3:13 am

    Sometimes I feel like I could be a MRA, but then I am reminded of what 99% of MRAs are like. Not only are these comments misogynistic, but nonsensical.

    They’ve clearly grouped all their enemies into some sort of monolith, and refuse to see the difference between any two groups that are not them, i.e. an intense “Us vs. Them” ideology.

    I think there are a lot of women who might use their sexuality to manipulate men, more than feminists are willing to imagine. But they only exist because of the ancient view where female sexuality is a commodity. They seem to hate the commodification, but fail to realize that just because it was especially valuable back when, and more often in the control of men, it was still a commodity, with a lot of the same problems.

    They hate this old ideology, but as far as I can tell, they can’t really break free of it either.

    Another MRA going by Ryan often derails the comments at a site called “fbomb”. He seems to believe women are actively limiting his options, they give him no choice supposedly. He doesn’t explain how this really works. He also cites “female privilege” without always explaining it. Which is astonishing considering how long his comments are. He basically recites what amounts to a description of what’s wrong with male-female relations, many things even a feminist wouldn’t disagree with. I tell him he can change these things with enough strength, and faith in the feminist movement, but I’m not sure he is listening.

    • ginmar permalink
      October 4, 2010 9:39 am

      Yeah, well, I think you’d use your sexuality, too, if you repeatedly have the experience that men are actively hostile to you trying to just wanting to being treated like a human being How many times do men ignore what a woman says? How often do men think that a woman just can’t do the job—-because she’s a woman? But that doesn’t say anything about them as men, oh no!

  12. EmilyBites permalink
    September 30, 2010 6:02 am

    I was wrong: what’s even more scary is the rationalisation of the rabid, nonsensical misogyny in the comments.

    ‘I agree about the level of misogyny there. But you have to expect people who have had their children taken away from them to the point of being denied all contact, or raised by ostensibly feminist mothers to be ashamed of being male, to be at least a little hateful. Their real mistake is in blaming women when they should be blaming the male-dominated power structure that enabled these specific women.’

    We have to expect men who have ‘had their children taken away from them’ to hate all women because the bitch that done them wrong was a woman? Don’t we want them to rethink their misogynistic and irrational mindset because of…how that makes no sense?

    ‘Raised by ostensibly feminist mothers to be ashamed of being male’? I have never known a feminist to try and make a man ‘ashamed of being male’. Make him feel like an arsehole for being an arsehole, sure. Lambast the toxic concept of masculinity, yes. That is classic MRA rhetoric.

    You think ‘a psychology common to…readfems'(sic) is ‘sex-hating’? Maybe it’s just the kind of sexual model you espouse?

    • Jim permalink
      September 30, 2010 10:37 am

      “Don’t we want them to rethink their misogynistic and irrational mindset because of…how that makes no sense? ”

      You don’t expect a wounded animal to be vicious? OK then.

      “You think ‘a psychology common to…readfems’(sic) is ‘sex-hating’? Maybe it’s just the kind of sexual model you espouse?”

      Oh, right it’s just me that has made that has called radfems “sex-negative”. OK then

      • MertvayaRuka permalink
        September 30, 2010 7:31 pm

        “You don’t expect a wounded animal to be vicious? OK then.”

        They’re not animals. They’re human beings. Capable of abstract and deductive reasoning and a whole lot of other things animals have no capacity for. I am a man. I am not an animal, some dumb brute ruled by chemical impulses and genetic programming. I am self-aware and capable of seeing the consequences of my actions and words, just like every other man out there. They’re not wolves caught in leg-hold traps irrationally (to us humans anyway) chewing their own legs off to get free no matter the cost. They have the choice and capacity NOT to behave viciously and irrationally. They also have the choice and capacity to correct the situation if they do behave viciously and irrationally. If they choose to be vicious and irrational and not make things right afterwards? That’s on them and no one else.

        This is one of the big problems I have with the MRA movement. Even when they’re wrong, they’re still right for being wrong. They can’t help it. It’s their nature. You can’t expect them to behave otherwise. All of which, of course, is bullshit.

  13. September 30, 2010 9:23 am

    Seriously, guys — and I do mean “guys”, the MRAs are so full of misogynist hate that Hugh’s blog has to post separate threads for discussion among reasonable people, and white-knuckled impotent rage at women. But here, on my blog, I get, “well, they kind of have a point, you really should read Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell”?

    I’ll pass.

    • September 30, 2010 9:41 pm

      Thomas, your post sounds like I believe that MRAs are rabid animals who need to be contained on my blog, but sing a different tune on your blog.

      Actually, the main function of our dual-thread system is to separate (a) non-feminist posters who want to seek common ground with feminists and have discussions involving charity and good faith, from (b) people who want to be snarky about feminism. We see benefit for both sorts of discourse, but it wasn’t working to do both in the same thread. We don’t keep our regular sort of thread for people like posters on the Spearhead, because we simply don’t get many people like that on FeministCritics. Sometimes we see generalized anger at feminists, but misogyny like in the Spearhead comments would get people banned at FC.

      (We do, however, sometimes permit misandry at FC from feminists if they are intellectually interesting. We once had a poster who believed that men were so monolithically violent and crappy that she advocated separatism. We invited her to do a guest post.)

      But here, on my blog, I get, “well, they kind of have a point, you really should read Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell”?

      Yes, because MRAs are not a monolith. There are MRAs like the posters at the Spearhead. There are MRAs like Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell.

      If you want to focus on unintelligent hateful MRAs, there’s nothing wrong with that. But you are misleading your readers if you don’t provide some context to judge how typical these comments are of MRAs. Not all MRA communities are like the Spearhead; see Stand Your Ground for instance.

      Who is the typical MRA? Is it a guy from the Spearhead? Angry Harry? Is it someone from Stand Your Ground, or Men’s News Daily? How about Glenn Sacks, or Warren Farrell, both extremely respected figures by MRAs? I don’t know, and the original post isn’t going to help anymore figure it out.

      And don’t forget that people in the feminist movement have said similar hateful things about men (if not so much nowadays, they definitely did when the feminist movement was in the growing stages that the Men’s Rights Movement is in now). It’s not required to acknowledge the hate coming from one group in order to criticize the hate from another. Yet in this case, the groups are related, and we should consider the possibility that MRAs have learned some of their hatefulness by watching feminism.

      Your original post reminds me of the muck-raking lists of hateful feminist quotes floating around. Such lists serve to create horror better than they create understanding of feminism, even critical understanding. In reading criticism of feminism, I would be much more interested in a critique of someone like Michael Kimmel, bell hooks, or Allan Johnson (see The Gender Knot)… rather than yet another list of MacKinnon and Dworkin quotes.

      Similarly, I’d prefer to see you engage the work of someone like Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell (especially old-school Warren Farrell of Why Men Are The Way They Are), rather than drivel from the Spearhead. If you’d prefer to focus on the troglodyte MRAs, that’s your call, but please don’t poison the well by acting like MRAs are a monolith and that non-hateful MRAs with reasonable views don’t exist.

      • ginmar permalink
        October 3, 2010 3:43 pm

        You respect Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell? Seriously?

        “”…millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.”

        December 1977 article with Warren Farrell.

        Glenn Sacks blamed ‘the system’ for when Darren Mack stabbed his wife to death and then tried to shoot the judge in his divorce. He tried to fool people about automatically awarding joint custody, even in cases of abuses. He supports crap like “Parential Alienation Syndrome” which strangely enough, only wives of MRAs suffer from. He also likes to do what some of the commenters are doing here—-ignore what women actually say for what what they want to hear.

        Here’s MRAs, uncensored:

        http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/fathers/fathers.htm#tong

      • October 3, 2010 5:03 pm

        To amplify and perhaps clarify some of my coblogger’s remarks:

        Actually, the main function of our dual-thread system is to separate (a) non-feminist posters who want to seek common ground with feminists and have discussions involving charity and good faith, from (b) people who want to be snarky about feminism.

        I would say rather that it is to separate the comments which seek common ground and exhibit charity, good-faith, and lack-of-snark from those which exhibit the opposite qualities, but which nevertheless make substantive points. While we have on occasion restricted some of our guests to the “snarky” threads, in general the decision to consign comments to those threads is based upon the content of the particular comment, not the identity of the commenter.

        We see benefit for both sorts of discourse,

        While there can be personal benefit in getting feelings of anger, frustration, what-have-you of one’s chest, it’s a benefit that conflicts with our goals. From our perspective “snark” is always a negative*. Nevertheless, a comment might be “snarky” and still make substantive points. We see benefit in allowing these comments space on our blog.

        *Being human, therefore imperfect, we sometimes succumb to it ourselves.

        Responding to Thomas’ original point, we really don’t see much hostility, still less “white-knuckled impotent rage” directed at women*. We do not appear to attract that kind of guest. Rather most of the hostility is directed at feminists.

        We once had a poster who believed that men were so monolithically violent and crappy that she advocated separatism. We invited her to do a guest post.)

        Actually she asked us to allow her a guest post, and we, somewhat reluctantly agreed.

    • September 30, 2010 9:42 pm

      Reply stuck in spam trap due to multiple links. Help!

  14. Lady Raine permalink
    September 30, 2010 7:58 pm

    Those men at the Spearhead are hateful psychopaths.

    They constantly want to “shame” women for being sexual…..then for NOT giving up sex…..then for “tricking men into marriage 2.0″ (imaginary)….then for NOT marrying….then for talking to/dating any man without regard….then for NOT wanting to talk to men and doing their own thing.

    It’s simple. They hate women. But they hate themselves more.

    They call women “nothing but fuckholes”, but the truth is that no matter how much they whine and cry…..the human race perishes without women and their mutual agreement to have sex/not have sex.

    That’s clearly what enrages them.

    They know they have every right to “go ghost” and stay away from women altogether. They also have the right to go-gay. Women have those same rights.

    And yet, they HATE those women who don’t conform to ridiculous sexual double standards, dive into marriage and throw away their youth, who don’t bow to men for no apparent reason……they hate them all.

    But they think they have MORE right to basically do those very same things AND be angry at women for their personal choice to do them.

    *And what planet do they live on where women are upset about sexbots, hookers, or porn?? We are THRILLED to have men leave us the hell alone! As for foreign brides…..bye, assholes! If you hate American Women, you shouldn’t be here dating/sexing/complaining anyhow!*

    Women have always deserved equal rights and we are still fighting to get them (look at our ridiculously unequal pay even though we are the majority of College Graduates).

    I guess the Spearhead loonies don’t realize that men like them just make all women realize that there is always more work to be done and that we have to fight much harder to keep men like them from trying to take away or shame the rights we earned honestly (unlike them) and deserve to keep.

    The part I understand the least is: Why is it any of their business whether or not women are “slutty” or not if they’re staying away from women altogether? Why can’t they just not date or go buy a mail order bride? Why spread their hate and poison into the minds of American boys/men?

    Feminism happened for a very valid reason. Women WERE legally and socially oppressed and enslaved. Patriarchy never had a “reason” and men never “earned” the right to treat women the way they did. So why are they angry about it now that there’s an equal playing field? They can compete with women in every way, every day. Yet they refuse to do so and want to just have everything handed to them whether they deserve it or not.

    Lol. I think not. Maybe they should stop being so lazy and actually contribute all the things women have been contributing and busting our asses for. They aren’t “oppressed” or enslaved by law/society as second class citizens to women. So what’s their excuse?

    God, I wish they’d expatriate and go live on some shitty island “Lord Of The Flies” style.

  15. ginmar1 permalink
    October 3, 2010 3:26 pm

    Anybody who cites both Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell as more reasonable MRAs and then compares feminists to MRAs is either stupid or dishonest. Warren Farrell is famous for this quote: “Before we called it date rape we called it a good time.” Glenn Sacks ia an apologist for all manner of woman-hating. Both of them blame mens’ actions on women, so they’re good representatives of the MRA movement.
    You can’t compare a movement like feminism—which rebels against the powerful—with a reactionary movement like MRAs—which is all about returning women to their cowed state under men. There are no reasonable factions in MRA-hood—scratch them a bit, and it’s all about how men should be in control, how women are just lying, entrapping sluts, and how domestic violence is just what that bitch deserved for pissing him off. When they’re not trying to fool people, that’s how they talk on their message boards.

    • MertvayaRuka permalink
      October 4, 2010 3:36 am

      “There are no reasonable factions in MRA-hood—scratch them a bit, and it’s all about how men should be in control, how women are just lying, entrapping sluts, and how domestic violence is just what that bitch deserved for pissing him off. When they’re not trying to fool people, that’s how they talk on their message boards.”

      It’s odd how often that kind of behavior overlaps similar “oppressed majority” groups: militia types, Dominionist Christians, “Defenders of Marriage”, white supremacists, et cetera. In the public eye, they try to put on their best, most rational face. “We’re just trying to protect our way of life”, “What about our rights?”, “Where’s our tolerance?”. But in private, whether it’s a password-protected forum, anonymous posting, or a real-world gathering, that’s when the talk swings around to bloodshed both metaphorical and actual. This is when they talk about incarceration or executions, about acceptable numbers of their fellow citizens that will have to die for their vision for America, about how those bitches need to be scared to even think about turning down a man’s unwelcome advances, about what they’d be doing to the people they see as “the problem” if they were not restrained from doing so by societal disapproval or legal consequences. However, they’re not really very good at reining in that kind of talk because in their heart of hearts they feel that the subjugation, the fear, the violence they want is right. So, it’s not really that tough to catch them at it, as per the examples given by Ginmar. Unfortunately it’s also not that tough to find people willing to obfuscate for them, examples of which can also be seen in this thread.

  16. October 4, 2010 11:52 am

    I’m back from a few days away. Ginmar knows Glenn Sacks’s deal better than I do, but Warren Farrell has said some deeply creepy things, particularly in a Playboy interview in the late 70’s, that I complained about once when I saw the NY Times boosting his signal. He sounds kind of like a closet pedophile — not a guy who wants to have sex with post-pubescent teens, which is sort of how the word is most used now but isn’t its technical meaning, but like an actual pedophile, advocating parents touching their prepubescent children in sexual ways. That, and his belief that women have all the power in society because, um, something about controlling the pussy supply (which matches exactly what the Spearhead OP and several commenters said in content, though not in tone) mean he’s someone I have really no common ground with.

    Just to be clear: anyone who thinks of pussy as a commodity is not going to have much in common with me. That view is the problem, and the solution cannot flow from it. Stating it nastily can be more offputting, but stating it politely cannot make it palatable.

    • Sam permalink
      October 4, 2010 7:59 pm

      Thomas,

      sorry, this is off-topic again, like the comment above – not sure you’ve seen it – but you keep mentioning interesting aspects that make me want to jump in –

      “belief that women have all the power in society because, um, something about controlling the pussy supply”

      well, this is old, very old – remember Lysistrata. Now the problem here is assumed asymmetry of sexual desire, an asymmetry that gives the value to the scarce sexuality and thus power over the abundant sexuality. See, I’m all for what you call performance model, although I’m not sure the terminology is perfect. But here’s the thing – I think your model has a tacit assumption: that male and female sexuality are equally scarce, that mutual desire is at least on average equivalent, and I don’t think that is the case – although I’m not sure it could not be the case, we just don’t know enough about the interrelation of biology and culture with respect to the construction of sexual desire (yet). So, equivalence may be achievable, but I don’t think there is this equivalence at the moment – which, on the other hand, implies “value differences” caused by asymmetric desires at least for the time being. How do you deal with that problem in the performance model?

      • October 4, 2010 8:04 pm

        The short answer is that the Performance Model dispenses with scarcity economics as applicable to sexuality.

      • Sam permalink
        October 4, 2010 11:17 pm

        Hmm. Would be glad to hear the longer answer at some point/if you find the time. Because merely saying something doesn’t exist will not make it go away if it actually does exist, so I’d be interested in your arguments about why sexuality should be about the only aspect of human existence that can not be analytically captured using economic modeling (I’m very critical of most mainstream economic micro-models for using wrong and simplistic behavioural assumptions, but relative scarcity will always create powerful tensions, regardless of the dimension you look at).

      • October 7, 2010 9:37 pm

        I’ll put in another vote for Thomas expanding on that post when he as the chance.

        Sam said:

        but relative scarcity will always create powerful tensions, regardless of the dimension you look at

        Exactly. I’m not sure what Thomas’ position is:

        Does he believe that women and men are equally selective about partners? Or does he agree that women are more selective and men less selective, but that this gender difference has no effect on male-female interaction… or that following his performance model will erase the effects of gender disparities in selectivity?

    • October 7, 2010 9:26 pm

      When I recommended Warren Farrell, I didn’t recommend everything he’s written, and I suggested one book in particular:

      Similarly, I’d prefer to see you engage the work of someone like Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell (especially old-school Warren Farrell of Why Men Are The Way They Are)

      I agree he’s said some weird and busted stuff. He has attempted to distance himself from some things he said in the Playboy interview, which could suggest that he doesn’t believe it anymore. He sometimes uses sweeping language, makes a big deal out of stats that turn out to be wrong, and gets himself confused. When he gets confused about controversial topics, he evidently hasn’t had the sense to keep his mouth shut until he can think them through better.

      Why Men Are The Way They Are is Farrell at his best. The tone, ideas, and attitudes towards women are massively different from the Spearhead.

      If you want to focus on the worst MRAs, and the worst things said by the better MRAs, then go ahead. That’s exactly how many MRAs treat feminists. I would be much more interested to see you address (relatively) sophisticated MRA thinking.

      • ginmar permalink
        October 7, 2010 10:05 pm

        YOu don’t get it, Hugh, but that’s no surprise. You can’t claim he’s done some good things when the whole of his work is denialism. He’s like a white racist whining that there’s no NAAWP.

        If his best book is “Why Men Are The Way They Are”—hint; it’s all womens’ fault—then your movement has a serious problem. Stop blaming women for your bull. This is exactly what I’m talking about with the MRAs blaming everything on women.

  17. ginmar permalink
    October 4, 2010 8:10 pm

    Maybe women don’t have any desire for sex around MRAs. And by the way? You’re not helping your case when you cite a play that’s thousands of years old and was written by a man. At a time when people felt that a woman’s uterus would wander around her body if the poor dear didn’t fulfill her destiny and pump out the babies.

    Yeah, that’s helpful.

    I love it when men blithely ignore centuries of slut-shaming—including some of the very people doing the shaming—and then whine about how those hoes won’t put out for them and use the only power that men give them to their own advantage. If they’re not putting out, at the very least, they’re not hoes. You’d think people would get that gap in their logic.

  18. ginmar permalink
    October 4, 2010 11:53 pm

    Isn’t it funny how Sam refuses to reply to women who’ve pointed out the holes in his arguments?

    • Sam permalink
      October 5, 2010 1:01 am

      Ginmar,

      sorry, I can’t follow. What are you talking about? Which arguments?

  19. ginmar permalink
    October 5, 2010 3:33 pm

    I love disingenuous MRAs. For starters, there’s your lie that feminsts are to blame for the sexist stereotypes about feminists—‘man haters.’ You can chalk that one up to woman-hating men, thanks. Do you blame black people for racist stereotypes? That’s what you’re doing. Then you compare that to MRAs—who have a documented history of sexism, misogyny, and sometimes actual crime. Feminism is a response to bigotry. MRA-dom is the bigotry that feminists are responding to, even before these losers united and made a movement out of misogyny.

  20. October 9, 2010 6:52 pm

    Don’t we want them to rethink their misogynistic and irrational mindset because of…how that makes no sense?

    Most comments made in anger make no sense, which is one reason why I do not read many feminist blogs. However, just because an argument lacks basic logic does not mean the anger driving it is unjustified, nor does it mean the anger is misdirected. That said, I think you have as much chance of changing the mindset of the men on Spearhead as I do of changing the mindset of the women on Shakesville. They are true-believers, and no amount of evidence will sway them.

    I have never known a feminist to try and make a man ‘ashamed of being male’.

    That is classic feminist rhetoric. That you never personally witness something does not mean it never occurs. Thomas mentioned that even people who criticize feminism do not call themselves MRAs. I do not call myself a MRA because I dislike labels and I do not agree with many of their positions. I do not call myself a feminist in part because of statements like the above quote (and the dozens of others on this thread). Why would I join people who openly mock or deny my experiences? I very much appreciate that I do not have choose between the two groups.

    • ginmar permalink
      October 9, 2010 7:22 pm

      You’re the same ‘toysoldier’ who peddles the same anti-feminist, Warren-Farrellesque rhetoric over at (anti)feminist critics, aren’t you? So, yeah, you ARE an MRA, and nothing you say about feminists can be trusted or taken seriously. You are a member of a powerful group—white men–and you’re complaining that a group you had utter control over of for centuries rebelled. You can’t compare the two. You’re like the KKK complaining about black people.

      Of course you don’t like the label MRA, as well as the fact that people are logically dismissing anybody who wears it. MRAs can protest all they want, but the shit they say about women belies their protestations. Yeah, dude, there’s a big old comspiracy to shame men. Sure. Maybe that’s the femnants of your conscience recognizing that what you say about women is utter lies and bigotry.

      • October 12, 2010 10:04 am

        Considering that I have never mentioned my race, it is unwise to accuse me of being a powerful white man or of being like the KKK. For all you know, I might be a person of color. I understand that you harbor an impressive amount of contempt, but perhaps you should not let your conceit get the better your conscience. That said, kudos on not violating Godwin’s Law.

        As for people “logically dismissing” MRAs, there has been nothing logical about the dismissal. Feminists tend to find MRA’ concerns — such as male sexual and domestic victimization, father’s rights, prison rape, boys’ education, false accusations and wrongful imprisonment — silly, trivial, or evidence of men whining about nothing. They simply look for a handful of unrepresentative comments like the ones from Spearhead to trash people whose political concerns they find stupid. That is not logic; it is pure animus.

  21. October 12, 2010 10:56 am

    TS, feminists don’t dismiss legitimate concerns like prison rape. In another forum as recently as this morning, on a feminist board, several feminists (men and women, and including me) called out someone both for trivializing prison rape and for trivializing violence against men. If one posts about prison rape in a feminist space these days, one can expect someone to saying that prison rape is part of rape culture and needs to be stopped almost immediately, often a moderator.

    Nor do feminists generally dismiss the false accusations that arise from the racist operation of the criminal justice system — for example black men falsely accused of rape as an excuse for lynching, and those freed after exoneration by The Innocense Project run by professors Sheck and Neufeld and similar programs.

    But some of what you say is bullshit, either an invented problem or one where the MRA concern — that the scary feminists have taken over — is not real and therefore all the MRA policy proposals are hopelessly wrongheaded from the start.

    The comments at Spearhead are not unrepresentative of Spearhead — they are almost the entirety of the “well loved” comments on that thread, so they are necessarily those most popular among that blog’s readership. If you want to disown Spearhead as an embarrassment to the movement, go ahead.

    • October 12, 2010 11:57 pm

      Thomas, if you want to disown the feminists who trivialize men’s issues, go ahead. However, as you noted, the feminist concern for prison rape stems from the notion that prison rape is an extension of “rape culture,” so the concern is not for male victims, but for the political leverage feigning concern provides feminists. As for your vulgar opinion about men’s issues like preventing sexual and domestic violence against males, that is regrettable and ironic (given how much you object to people denying female victimization), but not unexpected.

      The comments from Spearhead may be representative of the comments on that blog. However, that was not your argument. Your argument was that the comments from Spearhead are representative of all MRAs. That argument is just as hopelessly wrongheaded as when MRAs make the same argument about feminists using lists of egregious feminist comments like ginmar’s.

      Ginmar, I accept your apology.

  22. ginmar permalink
    October 12, 2010 1:10 pm

    I have no problem dismissing the KKK, Toysoldier, and so therefore I have no problem dismissing your group, another reactionary bunch of men who are trying to take back what they were never entitled to in the first place. Whine and whimper and pick at technicalities all you want—you’re an MRA, and I notice that while you dodged the issue of skin color, you didn’t deny it. That kind of waffling and bobbing and weaving is typical. And Godwin doesn’t apply to this conversation, you ignorant twerp.

    One thing that ALWAYS amuses me tremendously about MRAs is that while they’re always claiming that women lie—and making up spurious psychological ailments that apply to women—-they do nothing but tell lies about women themselves. The truth is your enemy. You MRAs do nothing but lie about women. You fear lies so much because you never tell the truth.

    Thanks for stepping up to the plate and proving feminists right by your little exhibition here.

  23. ginmar permalink
    October 13, 2010 12:05 am

    I didn’t apologize, and I don’t have anything to apologize for.

    It’s always amazing to me that MRAs–in a rape culture where one of their goals is to intimidate women out of pressing rape charges—-never seem to realize just how very bad it is when they put words in womens’ mouths. Blatantly, incredibly, words that were not even hinted at—-like TS did just now. They really do live in a fantasy world populated by Gorean slave girls and Ann Coulter clones.

  24. CoronerCountess permalink
    November 16, 2010 10:15 pm

    When I first became aware that there was such a thing as a “men’s rights movement” and “MRAs” many years ago, I gave it the benefit of the doubt. After all I was (and still am) a feminist and was very aware that men have their own gender binds and issues to work out. I felt that feminism addressed these issues, but didn’t see any harm in men having their own movement.

    Well, after reading up on MRAs and the “movement”, I soon came to the following conclusion: Feminism was formed and operates in opposition to misogyny/the patriarchy; MRAs operate in opposition to … feminism.

    I don’t believe that it’s wrong to critique and/or disagree with individual feminists or to question the methods of feminism; this is essential to ANY movement. But MRAs tend to the cross the line by putting down all feminists as man-hating beasts of burden and all women as … I shudder to even think. Reading this was painful, but I was not shocked.

Trackbacks

  1. You mad? Stay mad. « failure is impossible!
  2. Haters Gonna Hate « Female Gazing

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,022 other followers

%d bloggers like this: