Translate

Sunday, October 26, 2014

What A Feminist Looks Like


Sure, he knows his way around a thesaurus. 
But what's his T level?
 


In a hilarious, furious rant laced with creative profanity, former NFL punter and dedicated gamer Chris Kluwe had (what should be) the final word on GamerGate. If winning arguments on the internet really is a matter of shouting the loudest, Kluwe is clearly the victor in the eyes of this (Seahawks) fan. Meanwhile, manosphere consigliore Mike Cernovich has been manically provoking Kluwe and many other critics of #gamergate as he manufactures amasses twitter "evidence" of harassment and threats against himself. (You don't want to mess with Mike, bro. When he's not threatening to sue people, he's challenging them to boxing matches.)

Otherwise, the New Misogynists haven't been calling much attention to Kluwe's post. And I think I know why: This, ladies and gentlemen, is what a feminist looks like.





103 comments:

  1. (Babs says)

    Hubba hubba.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That was epic.

    Well done, Mr. Kluwes, sir.

    (Cue in MRA / ilk throwing mangina / white knight accusations at Da Man.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He does self-describe as "a good beta husband" who vacuums the stairs and brings his wife drinks. As if looking like the cover of a romance novel isn't enough.

      Delete
  3. Check out his twitter feed. He's awesome. https://twitter.com/ChrisWarcraft

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. He is awesome.

      I see that Vox Day weighed in. Surely now it must be about ethics in journalism. / sarcasm

      Delete
  4. That's what a mangina looks like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Babs says)
      Your defensiveness is unbecoming, but understandable.

      Delete
    2. Pretty eyes, muscly and fresh out of the shower. lawd have mercy

      Delete
    3. IOW, more manginas, please. :)

      Delete
    4. ...he said, jealously.

      Delete
  5. good looking fella, didnt like this post

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry to read that. Perhaps you would care to elaborate? I'm always open to constructive criticism.

      Delete
    2. long story short he's insulting more than talking

      Delete
    3. No doubt. He's positively eviscerating. He's a master of the scatological and the scathing. He takes "insulting" to a new level. He makes profanity an art form.

      Delete
    4. if you put it that way, his post is masterfully done

      Delete
    5. Nobody takes the manurespherians in their various forms seriously, Yohami.

      At best, you are seen as the fodder for ridicule and pity by rational people everywhere. At best. Your views and existence are noted for their entertainment value, as in "Look at how ignorant and vilely entitled some people can be. Can you believe it? lolololol"

      Things become more serious when you let your hatred and anger turn into actionable threats against others -- that's the only way the ignorant with aggrieved entitlement complexes can gain serious attention in the world -- but then of course you reveal the full extent of your moral corruption and create an appropriate blowback.

      Enjoy it while it lasts, because you are destined to end up on a trash heap of history.

      Delete
  6. what a feminist I like looks like
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVlCvBd21w&index=1&list=PLytTJqkSQqtr7BqC1Jf4nv3g2yDfu7Xmd

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is what a spherian alpha I most like looks like:
      http://www.fredrogers.org/img/fred-rogers.png

      And this is what you need to hear (although you won't):
      http://bravelucky.wordpress.com/2011/03/20/the-alpha-rapist-in-popular-culture/

      Delete
    2. Thanks for visiting! Your blog looks very interesting and I will be reading it.

      Delete
    3. brave, I left you a juicy comment, but here's its better and edited
      http://yohami.com/blog/2014/10/29/a-tale-of-alpha-beta-omega-and-the-temible-alpha-rapist/

      Delete
    4. Yohami, I'm not being sarcastic when I say I appreciate the effort you've put into your theory, but I have, like zero interest. Let's just say that people are so incredibly complex and diverse that to try to boil down social roles to "alpha" "beta" "omega" is... well, to impose a really simplistic schemata on things. It's hard to take it seriously. But let's imagine for a moment that you're right. So what? Do you think "alpha males" are happier? We can observe in nature that the "alpha" leaders of packs generally lead lives that are relatively nasty, brutish, and short. We can see that among humans, the relentless quest for dominance over others leads to war, misery, and heart disease. I'm not an enemy of men because I mock the manosphere. I actually feel a lot of compassion for the guys who are engaged in it. Your pain is real: your analysis of the causes of your pain are completely wrong-headed.

      Delete
    5. Perspective: are alphas happier - happier than whom? who's happier, the driver or the passenger? Vanilla or BDSM? fat people or thin people?

      Happiness is in the choice. Did you make the choice, or was it imposed? are you where you want to be, are you being yourself, are you getting your needs met, are you having good relationships, are you enjoying life?

      People have to find themselves and be free to be what they are and do what they are and have their needs met.

      In my case, I had a shitload of shame coming from a society that taught me that my natural way of being, and all the things I wanted to do or aspire to do were bad, shameful, ridicule, obsolete, etc, and that my role was to be subservient, submissive, fragile, sensitive, and if I did all that I'd get appreciation and love. Which never came, and only came when I trashed all the instructions and went for what I wanted. So In my particular case, never been happier.

      But a man can be happy being subservient and submissive if it fits his character. A man can be a nurturer and be happier than obama. A fat man can be happy than a thin one, and then there are shades and variations on what happiness means. Some people are happy when they are sad, when they are in pain, when they are in drama. There's diversity.

      So who is "happier?" I dont care. I care that if people are unhappy they are able to find a way to make themselves happy.

      There are forces in our society pushing people down and Im against them. Being against them and fighting them makes me happy, mind you. And when somebody finds a way to be happier, that makes me happy too.

      In a culture where blond people are segregated, blond people must fight back. Same for races, for sexes, etc.

      "your analysis of the causes of your pain are completely wrong-headed."

      If you think this you require more than one one liner.

      What you dont seem to grasp so far is that Feminism created a narrative that pushes natural men down and punishes men for being men. You do grasp it when its about transgendered not being able to express themselves, you dont grasp it when it's about men not being able to express themselves without been seen as something to be fixed. Maybe you'll get there.

      Delete
    6. Better and edited http://yohami.com/blog/2014/10/30/are-alphas-happier/

      Delete
    7. "Feminism created a narrative that pushes natural men down and punishes men for being men."

      I have no idea what a "natural man" is. What does it mean to be "natural?" You mean free and unrestrained by social norms to behave like a completely natural ass hat? Seriously, how are you being held down by women, specifically? Convince me you're being oppressed in some real and systemic way and I'll be the first to spring to your defense.

      You came here, I believe, from Just4Guys, a blog that I never read because it's boring to me. If I wanted to listen to a bunch of the angry guys chewing the same old fat for hours, I'd be a bartender down at the Eagles..

      Anyway, you're wasting your time engaging with me on this topic. You probably know more about feminism than I do. I have little interest in feminist theory and I only identify as "feminist" in the sense that I think all genders should share equal rights and responsibilities.

      Delete
    8. "You mean free and unrestrained by social norms to behave like a completely natural ass hat?"

      No, but see? natural man = ass hat. Are natural women ass hats, or just men? When you have the time, ponder about where you got that stereotype, and challenge it.

      "Anyway, you're wasting your time engaging with me on this topic."

      I'll let you be.

      Delete
    9. If "natural manhood" is defined as "dudes defining themselves by their legal and social entitlement to subordinate women" then yeah, I think "natural men" are asshats in a way that "natural women" are not. Personally I think "natural" is the wrong word here-- I don't think it's possible to separate "culture" from "nature" when we are talking about human beings. But that's what the manosphere seems to think "masculinity" is at its core: the right to shit on women. Anything that threatens this is a threat to untrammeled masculinity.

      (Sure, sure, they'll say, if you make our boners and egos happy enough then maybe we'll throw you a few scraps once in awhile, purely as we see fit. But we have the RIGHT to shit on you whenever we want, so remember that when making your decisions!)

      What the hell? Why would any sane woman not be a feminist after absorbing that info? I'm a married housewife with four kids and had thought my own feminist days were basically behind me... til I started trawling y'all's psychological bowels. If that's natural manhood, then at the very least, it does not deserve any encouragement.

      Delete
    10. If "natural manhood" is defined as "dudes defining themselves by their legal and social entitlement to subordinate women", you make my case so easy.

      Delete
    11. Everywhere I go in the manosphere, this is the case. From Athol Kay's more benevolent vision to Roissy's disgusting one: men in the sphere universally define "masculinity" as authority over women. It's the exact same dynamic as in my church growing up. I asked my mom once why men were always in charge, even though a lot of the time they weren't as devoted or hardworking as the women we said had to be subordinate and she said, "Honey, if they weren't in charge they wouldn't participate at all."

      That's just sad. That's manhood? The pinnacle of humanity, the font of moral reasoning, the thing that women are but a pale and inferior vessel/reflection of?

      Delete
    12. Interesting comment, I dont want to derail Cinzia's post too much though. Care to comment at my blog instead? http://yohami.com/blog/2014/10/30/are-alphas-happier/

      My short answer is that no, that's not manhood, manhood is not defined against womanhood, and what you're talking about sounds more like feminist theory than what's going on in the manosphere, which by the way is far from reaching any consensus, certainly not one of "authority over women".

      But "manhood is authority over women" sounds the same as "manhood is oppressive" which is a feminist talking point, the kind of point I find toxic, and why I brought up the issue at my blog.

      Delete
    13. I mean, my God: they bitch about "career sluts" (which weirdly, refers not to women who are sluts as an actual paying career, but ordinary women with ordinary jobs who have sex recreationally) and they long for the day that women will SOMEHOW (they don't care how!) be stopped from getting jobs or educations or divorces, which will surely in turn force them to get married at 16 or 19 or whatever to the first guy who's stable enough to put half a roof over her head..

      and then never, ever leave, no matter HOW much it sucks.

      Men, of course, will still be cool and not homeless freaks on the margins of society if they choose to be bachelors or get divorced. Anything less is misandry. ALL the desperation to get and stay married will be on women. Muahahahahaha

      There's a word for that kind of situation... I learned this in college... oh yeah, "slavery!"

      Oh, but that's not a big deal because "we all know" that slavery is what makes women happy anyway. And if they SAY they're "not haaaappy" it's just hypergamy, feminine imperative, whatever, so we don't care, women not being quite human and all.

      Guys at Dalrock's are even mad at girls who stay single longer than five minutes and don't even HAVE sex: they're "carousel watchers" instead of "carousel riders" and OBVIOUSLY they are just as bad and evil and disgusting, the way their lives don't seem to revolve around making some particular man's dick and tummy and ego happy.

      At some level I don't think it's really about sex, it's about being mad that their masculinity-- their natural-right-to-be-boss-of-womanness, is under siege.

      That's what being a man is to these guys!

      Delete
    14. Masculinity: the right to be the boss of women. Like I said, you made my case. Next.

      Delete
    15. No, thanks, I prefer to stay off of MRA/manosphere blogs. They're not good for my mental health, frankly, even the "good" ones. I had a weird fundy childhood and it stirs a bunch of old damage up for me.

      Delete
    16. No prob, sorry for your childhood - I meant that.

      Delete
    17. Thanks. I mean that, too.

      Delete
    18. @ Anonymous 10:48 AM

      Re: "carousel watchers"

      Seriously? Wow, that's a new level of stupidly hilarious, even for Dalrock. I stopped reading his and his fellow commenters' sexual revenge fantasies a while ago, so I did not realize how low they have stooped. To be sure, there is no bottom to their depravity. Christianity at its finest, alright.

      You're absolutely right that this is 100% about controlling women and their sexuality.

      And that agenda is most forcefully pushed forward by men who are filled with fear and contempt for women (misogyny) and either are failures at relationships (go figure, right ;)) or feel like ones.

      Some of the married ones there or those who'd like to be are so repulsive to their own wives that they are being rightly rejected by them. Which of course makes them yearn for those good ol' days when women had to be submissive (or so they believe) and there was no such thing as marital rape.

      When you hear the crap about women's submissiveness being a good thing, you can be 100% certain that it is being spouted by a guy who is repulsive to women and grandly unsuccessful with them because of his repulsive character.

      If married by some chance, he repulses his wife, who does not want to have anything to do with him, sexually and otherwise.

      So the obscene notion of wifely submission is these guys' pipe dream of getting at least some sex and a modicum of respect, neither of which they deserve on their own merits.

      Delete
    19. YES! lmao!!! Google "Dalrock carousel watcher" to see the idiocy in action. Dalrock appears to have invented that load of dumbassery all by his widdle self.

      Seriously, those guys can go shit a brick. I'd tell them they should go to Afghanistan to do it but that place sucks enough already. No self-respecting woman should fuck them and they have zero business reproducing: if you're a manosphere whiner who's not getting laid that says something GOOD about women; you are just too stupid to know it yet.

      I'm struck by the fact that most of the nastiest of them lot don't put their own faces and bodies up for critique, but they're sure happy to criticize women's bodies and faces! As the great Carrie Fisher once tenderly inquired, "What the fuck do YOU look like?" Can you guys believe Matt Forney wrote screeds about fat women, got outed as a fat man himself, and didn't have the decency or sense to die of embarrassment on the spot?

      Of course they conveniently rationalize this away by saying it matters not what a man looks like; women should judge them on their (awful) personalities and (unimpressive) careers.

      Again... barring some kind of severe emotional damage: what woman is going to look at this sideshow and go, "Wow, you know, maybe these guys are right! I should definitely drop out of college, quit my job, get married next week and spend most of the rest of my life placating some unremarkable asshole's ego?"

      Delete
    20. "if you're a manosphere whiner who's not getting laid that says something GOOD about women; you are just too stupid to know it yet."

      Pure gold.

      That should be the take-home message for any and all manospherians. Yohami, please feel free to share it widely with your brethren.

      "women should judge them on their (awful) personalities"

      And (be careful what you ask for) we do -- that's why we reject them. (lol)

      BTW, Dalrock and his cohort, who are known here (as part of) the American Taliban, were told numerous times, right on his forum, to go to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they would find social customs more to their liking. When that happened, they felt unfairly singled out and prosecuted, because, you know, they are only about spreading the word of Christ and love of puppies.

      I personally always thought this was deeply unfair to people of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, because, as you said and I agree, those places suck enough already and do not need an extra influx of religiously-flavored sociopathy from overseas.

      Delete
    21. Yohami,
      your anti-feminist paranoia blinds to you reality. Again, you imagine feminism to be something it isn't and you become fearful and angry, not because of anything that feminism has done, but because of your wrong beliefs about it.

      "What you dont seem to grasp so far is that Feminism created a narrative that pushes natural men down and punishes men for being men"

      Please explain what a "natural man" is and how "feminism" pushes him down and punishes him. Please show concrete examples to illustrate your beliefs. This should be interesting.

      Mind you, like Cinzia, I don't have a bone in this fight and could really care less about what some guy on the internet wrongly believes feminism is -- God knows there is no shortage of those everywhere. I also don't give a damn about defending feminism, if only because it needs no defense. Like abolitionism, feminism is a natural expression of the human beings' striving for equality and justice; and, like abolitionism, its proper gains are here to stay.

      That some men feel robbed of their privilege as a result of having to share human rights with women who were unjustly oppressed for centuries is no more surprising than Whites feeling "oppressed" by the abolishment of slavery. Parting with one's unearned privilege can be very hard for some. Boo-frekkin'-hoo.

      Delete
    22. "you become fearful and angry"

      you have a very bad radar for detecting tone, if I sound to you fearful and angry at all.

      "wrongly believes feminism is" & "abolishment of slavery."

      Here's what I wrote in my blog, please defend your statement and point at the misconception:

      Feminism rests on the premise that the patriarchy, a structure maintained for the profit of men, oppresses women. In this structure men hold all the power, the unit of this power is the family, and the women are mere possessions, objects to be used and abused.

      On this premise, you can explore every facet of the life of a woman and describe how she is a victim of the patriarchy, and by extension, a victim of men. You can also explore every facet of the life of a man and describe how he is an agent of the patriarchy, and by extension, an oppressor of women. On this premise, a man is always an abuser, and a woman is always a victim. When conflict of interests arises between men and women, or between a man and a woman, the man is always at fault, and the woman always in the good and needs support and contentment.

      http://yohami.com/blog/2014/10/29/a-tale-of-alpha-beta-omega-and-the-temible-alpha-rapist/

      Delete
    23. Re: "you have a very bad radar for detecting tone, if I sound to you fearful and angry at all"

      Right, because spouting rhetoric, by a man, about men being pushed down and punished by women and/or feminism comes from a place of love and relaxation, and is typically accompanied by feelings of such, heh.

      "Feminism rests on the premise that the patriarchy, a structure maintained for the profit of men, oppresses women."

      That's correct.

      "In this structure men hold all the power, the unit of this power is the family, and the women are mere possessions, objects to be used and abused."

      That's not quite correct, not without qualifications. Family is a basic unit of social organization in all human societies. If we had any matriarchal ones, they too would have families in them.

      Also, women are not necessarily possessions under patriarchy in general as much as beings with lesser power and rights, the way Blacks were considered to be 3/5 of a white man in the not too distant past.

      "On this premise, you can explore every facet of the life of a woman and describe how she is a victim of the patriarchy, and by extension, a victim of men."

      You could, but that would be a stretch.

      "You can also explore every facet of the life of a man and describe how he is an agent of the patriarchy, and by extension, an oppressor of women."

      As above.

      "On this premise, a man is always an abuser, and a woman is always a victim."

      Well, no. You took two not-entirely-correct premises and overgeneralized a conclusion drawn from them to an illogical and irrational, totally incorrect level. Such poor thinking skills, in addition to a host of emotional reasons, is what feeds the anti-feminist paranoia of yours and manospherians in general.

      "When conflict of interests arises between men and women, or between a man and a woman, the man is always at fault, and the woman always in the good and needs support and contentment."

      As above.

      Yohami, you are or were unhappy because you had a shitty life andor you are/were a mess, but instead of facing the truth about the real reasons behind it, you choose to blame it on some grand outside forces (feminism, in this case). It makes as much sense and is as useful as blaming your weight on gravity. I mean, if that helps you live another day, go for it; but don't think others (the rational ones) will share your strange and self-serving beliefs.

      Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the "natural man" being pushed down and punished by "feminism", i.e. what I asked you to expand on above? Are you trying to not answer my questions?

      Delete
    24. "Well, no." "Such poor thinking skills" "paranoia"

      If men are like whites and women are like blacks, and whites oppress blacks, then most disputes will involve a white oppressing a black, and the solution will be, more likely than not, to empower the black and to contraint the white. If you think this is poor thinking skills or paranoia, you better revise every time there's a feminist speech and how the sole angle talked about is victimization. Where there's a victim, there's an oppressor, and the cards fall in the usual places: men are oppressors, women are oppressed. The premise becomes the conclusion, usually without any further thought.

      I'll make you a list, in my blog, of a dozen examples where for the same actions and in the same situations, from rape to domestic violence to pay gap to education to cat calling to abortion to workforce to spending power, the man is seen as an abuser and the woman is seeing as a victim; the man is seen as something toxic to be contained, while the woman is seen as something beautiful to be empowered . This inequality in perception is a maybe unwanted, but a necessary extension of the premise of the oppressive patriarchy and all these broad strokes, and it results in these designates roles, unfortunately, and with very little movement outside these boxes:

      The man is an abuser, the woman is a victim.

      "Are you trying to not answer my questions?"

      Chill out. This is a subject for several posts.

      The natural male impulses are being vilified by feminism. What are the natural male impulses? things like strength, will to power, competition, aggressiveness, sexual assertivity, workaholism, jealousy, you name it. This happens in every area, subject, subtext, where masculinity is seen by feminism. It doesnt happen when feminism looks at the same very things in women, if it bothers to look at all. There are books and books about male toxicity phenom. I wonder if you ask because you dont know, or because you're into waste time. Consult your own bibliography, look up for toxic masculinity, testosterone poisoning, men are obsolete, men are unneded (and why), how women are better at everything, look out for the several feminist voices calling for the extermination or neutering of males, calling all men rapists, etc. Then look out to the non-extremist feminists and notice how even the more moderate voices they talk about men. Here right now on this blog. Even just mentioning "natural man" brings up defensiveness and name calling, "ass hat", "authority over women (abuse)", etc.

      If you think that is "poor thinking skills" to point that a philosophy that views men aligned evil force is necessarily going to view men in general under a negative light, then you're probably too far gone.

      When feminism talks equality, they dont ask:

      There are two people, are we treating them the same?

      It asks, instead:

      How is the woman being exploited?

      And then magic happens.









      Delete
    25. "Yohami, you are or were unhappy because you had a shitty life andor you are/were a mess, but instead of facing the truth about the real reasons behind it, you choose to blame it on some grand outside forces (feminism, in this case)."

      As usual you attempt to diagnose and predict without knowing what you're talking about. My personal story is none of your business, and I didnt invite you in. If you want to discuss subjects then engage in the subject. If you want to talk about our intimate inner worlds, you're going to have to come forward behind your anonymity and become a real person. Until then, stay away.


      Delete
    26. "If men are like whites and women are like blacks, and whites oppress blacks, then most disputes will involve a white oppressing a black, and the solution will be, more likely than not, to empower the black and to contraint the white."

      The solution would be to accord *equal rights* to Blacks, to even their playing field with Whites.

      Human rights are not a zero sum game. The privileged group does not become disenfranchised just because the formerly oppressed group gets equal rights. Your inability to grasp that, and your seeing equality for all as oppression for some, is your mistake (and evidence of poor thinking skills, I'm sorry).

      "The natural male impulses are being vilified by feminism. What are the natural male impulses? things like strength, will to power, competition, aggressiveness, sexual assertivity, workaholism, jealousy, you name it. This happens in every area, subject, subtext, where masculinity is seen by feminism."

      Well, that's just nonsense. None of those things -- strength, etc. -- are vilified, by feminism or anything / anyone else.

      What's being rightfully constrained -- and always has been, in every civilized society, including those that have not known to be feminist and/or prior to the advent of feminism in the course of human events -- are extreme and harmful manifestations of those traits you listed here as masculine (even though they really are not): sexual aggressiveness that seeks to harm, competitiveness that leads to violence or disorder, etc.

      Again, none of the constraints imposed on the most primitive expressions of the animalistic human nature have to do with feminism or the imaginary "oppression" of men.

      It sounds to me as though you equate "natural man" with that animalistic aspect of the human nature, which embodies its worst characteristics. If so, then you are doing disservice to men, by painting them with a broad negative brush, as well as to women, by overidealizing them and purifying them of those very same impulses which they too, after all, possess.

      Either way, your grievance-filled thinking is leading you astray.

      However, if you don't like living in a civilized society that's governed by law and rules of moral conduct, you may want to consider moving to places that are more to your liking, since they don't "oppress" what you see as "natural" masculinity. Somalia is one such place. Joining ISIS also may help you realize that "natural man" in you that you seem to miss so.

      cont.

      Delete
    27. contd.

      "Consult your own bibliography, look up for toxic masculinity, testosterone poisoning, men are obsolete, men are unneded (and why), how women are better at everything, look out for the several feminist voices calling for the extermination or neutering of males, calling all men rapists, etc."

      I'm sorry, but you are veering into a cray-cray area now. (And I don't have a "bibliography" -- you must be confusing me with someone else.)

      Show me one mainstream feminist anywhere -- not a loonytoon on some obscure blog -- calling for extermination of men. Please. You can't because they don't exist. You should not rely on manosphere to learn about feminism (or anything else) any more than you should trust KKK to explain the Black culture and mores to you.

      "Then look out to the non-extremist feminists and notice how even the more moderate voices they talk about men. Here right now on this blog. Even just mentioning "natural man" brings up defensiveness and name calling, "ass hat", "authority over women (abuse)", etc."

      Missing and re-gaining authority over women is a frequent theme of manosphere, so it is a very legit observation. If it does not apply to you personally, fine; but you cannot deny with a straight face that the theme is common as every manospheric blog is awash in it.

      "When feminism talks equality"

      Feminism does not talk. Feminism is not a person, you realize that, right? Individual feminists talk, and if you want to be taken seriously, you need to focus your thinking on what's real, and not what your feverish imagination tells you is happening.

      To that effect, you need to bring up specific examples of concrete feminists saying exact things, rather than make silly and frightful generalizations like "feminism talks."

      I'm sorry, but this is as stupid as the frequently-heard in manosphere mantra "hypergamy does not care!" or "Feminine Imperative forbids!" etc. You fetishize biological and social forces, and turn them into some omniscient entities with personalized power, a la personified God figure, to destroy human (male, in this case) lives.

      I hope you can see how silly it looks and sounds. The oppression you imagine is not real, and neither are the powerful and personalized forces that you believe are behind it. It is as simple as that. Arguing otherwise is indeed a waste of time, akin to debating the religious about the existence of God: they believe in it, while the rational among us show that there is no evidence of it. And that's where the debate should stop, as this one does, for me at least.

      Delete
    28. "As usual you attempt to diagnose and predict without knowing what you're talking about. My personal story is none of your business, and I didnt invite you in. If you want to discuss subjects then engage in the subject."

      Huh? You yourself brought up your unhappy life story. I go only by what you said.

      To wit:

      Yohami
      October 30, 2014 at 1:18 AM

      "In my case, I had a shitload of shame coming from a society that taught me that my natural way of being, and all the things I wanted to do or aspire to do were bad, shameful, ridicule, obsolete, etc, and that my role was to be subservient, submissive, fragile, sensitive, and if I did all that I'd get appreciation and love. Which never came (...)."

      (smh) Seriously.

      Chill and take a break, or, better yet, let's drop this silly exercise in offended futility.

      Delete
    29. "Huh? You yourself brought up your unhappy life story. "

      I didnt bring it up with you. If you want to have a chat with my about my life, level the field and stop hiding behind anonymity. Until then, stay away.

      Delete
    30. Anon, your long comment falls in a triple fold of denial, obfuscation, and repeating the premises like a religious person would do. What seems to escape you is that the premise you keep repeating is the proof you claim doesnt exist.

      You're not an enemy of the idea of vilification of men, and you shouldnt be trying to deny it or ask for proof, when in the same comment you assert that men are to woman what KKK are to blacks, and then make a summation that the "natural man" must be a recollection of the worst and most dangerous animalistic aspects of nature.

      Im disgusted by talking to you.

      Delete
    31. "Show me one mainstream feminist anywhere [...] calling for extermination of men. "

      No true scottman fallacy.

      Why are you inserting the "mainstream" modificator, which I didnt include? I didnt say "mainstream" feminists calling for the extermination of men, I clearly stated that his happens towards the radical spectrum. Is this "mainstream" modificator something you add because you KNOW that this happens within feminism but you're ready to distance from it by saying its not really feminism (no true scottman fallacy), or are you asking because you really dont know the ideology you're parroting, and cant bother to google yourself?

      I asked you to consult your own bibliography. Aw you dont have one? never heard of any book or author or speech under the field of feminism? you dont know there are gender studies and lots of everything written about it? want me to look it up for you? want to read some hateful shit?

      Start with Solanas. Is she mainstream enough for you? not a real feminist you say? no? try Dworkin. Not a real feminist by your standards? dang. How about Marcotte? No? Robin Morgan. No? rings a bell? is a youtube blogger who gets interviewed by VICE mainstream enough? ah she may be too young. someone older? Linda Gordon? Susan Brownmiller? is anyone really a feminist? no? they just parrot hate speech and get cheered by feminist but nobody is really one?

      Do your homework, stand up for your ideology, know what you're talking about. And please dont say batshit crazy stuff like men are KKK and THEN say nobody is vilifying men. Own your shit.

      Go read your bibliography. If it doesnt change your mind, at least it'll give you ammunition.

      Delete
    32. Yohami, feminism is not one ideology. You're the only person I know who has actually read Valerie Solanis or Andrea Dworkin and believe they represent mainstream feminists. That's as nutty as my reading Return of Kings or Matt Forney or AVfM and assuming they represent typical American men. My best advice? Quit brooding about radical feminist ideology and nurturing your false sense of victimization. Just go outside and have some conversations with some real, live women, invite them to share their experiences and then try to LISTEN to them without getting defensive.

      Delete
    33. Hi Cinzia, I didnt say these were mainstreams, but at the same time these are not from some obscure blog nor they come from misinterpretations of the manosphere. Also they are not alone.

      I dont know what you would consider mainstream, and I dont know why "mainstream" is being used her to be honest. I can go and find the books they use in gender studies at college, which should be mainstream, or the works of respectable college professors and lawyers and visible authorities in feminism, and the message wont fall far from what Im pointing out, because the premise of patriarchy/men oppressing women wont change, therefore the conclusions wont change.

      "nurturing your false sense of victimization"

      Im not being victimized by feminism. The only involvement I have with feminism is by choice.

      "have some conversations with some real, live women"

      This conversation has nothing to do with women, there's plenty of women in my life. One just kissed my head.

      Delete
    34. Mainstream - Let's do this. You or anon or whoever wants to keep having this conversation, point me to ONE well respected mainstream source of feminist thought that you think is doing the good fight.

      Not all feminist voices are Forney, right? this should be easy then.

      Delete
    35. I like you Cin (cant say the same for some of your commenters), that's what I wander around here. Though, your blog tends to be more commentary than production of "feminist thought" like, Jezebel or Brave's for example. Also not sure if your blog is mainstream or not :-)

      Delete
    36. @Yohami

      "You or anon or whoever wants to keep having this conversation, point me to ONE well respected mainstream source of feminist thought that you think is doing the good fight."

      You are deflecting from your failure in addressing the previous Anon's points.

      You are also projecting your obsession with feminism on Cinzia and her commenters. I'm quite certain none of us is as well misinformed about feminism or as paranoid about its influences as you are. For some reason, you are fighting scary figments of your own imagination. If that works for you, that's great. But don't expect others to join you in your paranoia.

      Cinzia's advice to get away from the computer and get a glimpse of real life around you is good. You should take it.

      Delete
    37. Anon, the only failure here is the previous Anon's by making the conversation personal and deflecting the obvious observation that a philosophy who sees men aligned with an evil force that oppresses women will also see men in a negative light.

      "none of us is as well misinformed about feminism "

      If you're better informed, go back to my comments and debunk them. What do you have to offer?

      Delete
    38. *a philosophy which sees...

      Delete
    39. Re: "making the conversation personal"

      LOL, you're always the victim, Yohami, aren't you.

      Here is a helpful tip: If you don't want people to bring up your personal life, don't talk about it on the very public forum where you insist on debate about "subjects."

      It's elemental.

      Delete
    40. "LOL, you're always the victim, Yohami, aren't you."

      Personalizing the conversation is a technique to avoid talking the subjects, goes on hand with demonizing your adversary. It has nothing to do with me being a victim (stupid try), it has everything to do with you being unable or unwilling to address subjects.

      "It's elemental."

      Ditto.

      Delete
    41. "you insist on debate about "subjects.""

      I wonder why you put "subjects" with quotes. Does it mean the "subjects" are not "subjects" for you? and you'd rather talk about how "defective" somebody must "be" to even want to talk about "something" in "particular"?

      Lol you.

      Delete
    42. When you talk about your life on a public forum, Yohami, it too becomes a legitimate subject of discussion.

      What's more, it is so by your own desire, even though you deny it, because, simply put, if you did not want strangers to know and talk about your private life, you'd keep it private and not share it with the world.

      Delete
    43. Once again, I'm reminded -- as if one could forget -- how fearful, angry, and misguided are men who subscribe to TRP.

      They have started fearful, angry, and misguided, obviously, due to a variety of genetic and environmental factors; but latching on to TRP only deepened their anger and paranoia, while "justifying" (rationalizing) both at the same time as appropriate reactions to life.

      Their fears and their subsequent rationalizations have twisted their views of reality beyond recognition. The world they live in does not resemble anything the rest of us know.

      This makes it impossible for rational people anywhere to communicate with the victims of Red Pill poisoning. It is as effective as talking to a Scientologist, or any other person who subscribes to a warped, by fear-based cultish beliefs, vision of reality. Without a serious and prolonged detox, away from the clutches of their cult, they are too far gone for any meaningful contact.

      Delete
    44. Aight, I'll address this.

      Cinzia asked if Alphas were happier. I offered part of my story, which is, when people and society force you into a role you're likely to be less happy than when you assume who you are. In this context, it's fine, anyone can join and talk about it, it's interesting conversation.

      What Anon did and keeps doing is different. He/she picks up facts and mix them up with his/her own narrative in order to

      1) Ad hominem (what you say its invalid because you are X)
      2) Strawman (make a parallel, easy to win argument, and deviate from the subject. If this argument is won then the subject is also won, stupid shit but this usually works if people are not aware)
      3) Personal attack. Similar to Ad Hominem but gratuitious, probably for the sake of it, I suspect Anon is a Bully in real life

      The reason why I just push Anon back is because following this rabbit hole is counter productive. Why start defending myself from random accusations and out of context, made up crap? why would I justify myself to an annonymous with malicious intent? to what end? I pass.

      So, here's what I wrote in the context of AIMING FOR HAPPINESS and SELF IDENTITY

      "In my case, I had a shitload of shame coming from a society that taught me that my natural way of being, and all the things I wanted to do or aspire to do were bad, shameful, ridicule, obsolete, etc, and that my role was to be subservient, submissive, fragile, sensitive, and if I did all that I'd get appreciation and love. Which never came (...)."

      If you notice, this is genderless, this is not related to feminism, and this isnt assigning blame. I'd say that the majority of people face shame when trying to conform to society determined stereotypes - isnt this at the core of feminism anyway? For a while when I was a kid and growing up, I ceded to social pressure. It was later that I decided to rebel and embrace who I was. In my case "Alpha frame" is part of it. This doesnt mean that "Alpha" men are "happier". This is just part of my story, and it's about happiness.

      Cont.

      Delete
    45. ..Cont.

      Later we were talking about feminism and what I perceive as FEMINISM VILIFING MASCULINITY. Anon interjected and came up with this jewel. I'll brea it apart:

      "Yohami, you are or were unhappy "

      Here's where the ad hominem starts. My critique of feminism is addressed by talking about me and my emotional state. I said in that comment that I am happier than I've ever been, but she's saying that Im probably unhappy. What? let's follow.

      "because you had a shitty life andor you are/were a mess"

      Yup. In the past. This is unrelated to the subject we're talking about.

      "but instead of facing the truth about the real reasons behind it, you choose to blame it on some grand outside forces (feminism, in this case)."

      And this is a complete made up story. It invents a narrative where I am a victim, which I never stated (succumbing to social pressure doesnt make you a "victim"), and appearently too coward, too stupid or too blind to face the truth, which Anon seems knows, or she/he wouldnt be able to tell me that I didnt face it. But how can he\she know the truth based on the information that I provided? he/she doesnt know me.

      "It makes as much sense and is as useful as blaming your weight on gravity."

      Anon seems to have a veredict that I blamed something on somebody and that it makes sense. Alright, continue blabbing:

      "I mean, if that helps you live another day, go for it"

      And this completes the adhominem into a strawmen. I mean, its OBVIOUS that somebody who's just blaming their victimhood in external powerful forces and is refusing to face the truth, is probably wrong in what they are saying.

      The funny note though, isnt every feminist out there blaming multiple things on the powerful external forces of the patriarchy, while refusing to face the truth?

      LOL, sorry, couldnt resist. Too easy. Lets continue:

      "but don't think others (the rational ones) will share your strange and self-serving beliefs."

      And that's the personal attack. Im not a rational person, because of the made up story of the blame that I never assigned, plus I have self serving beliefs. Beautiful! clap clap dear Anon!

      So this Anon, which is nothing other than a Troll, instead of addressing the subject in, decided to address me personally, took personal information that I volunteered in good faith in a forum of strangers, mixed it up with random bullshit, tried to nullify my voice by saying that Im too coward to face the truth, did a strawman, and then insulted me. All in four or five lines and with the grace of a swan.

      What a nightmare of a person.

      So, AnonTroll, fuck off.

      Delete
    46. AnonymousNovember 1, 2014 at 12:09 PM

      You're begging the question while kissing your own ass. Enjoy.

      Delete
    47. "Alpha frame" is like the dorkiest imaginable way to go about saying, "At some point I decided to take responsibility for living my live on my own terms, instead of bending over backward to please other people all the time." Can you guys ever just say things plainly? Nooooo: apparently you have to swallow and regurgitate ten tons of shit to come up with a few basically unremarkable nuggets of decent advice.

      There IS "good" information embedded in the manosphere but for no logical reason I can make out, they had to concoct some really lame jargon to describe wildly uncontroversial ideas that already existed elsewhere. Take care of your body! Take initiative in your career! Develop hobbies! Get a social life! Figure out the mechanics of flirtatious jesting through trial, error, and observation! Don't take it too personally when someone's not feeling your particular vibe! Avoid codependence in relationships! Don't just throw yourself into a relationship with the first semi-sentient person of the opposite sex who'll have you! Find healthy boundaries and maintain them! omg!

      None of that is rocket science!

      For the bad parts, it's self-consciously, determinedly toxic, though. "Go out of your way to be shitty to fat women! We shoulda never let you whores voooote! Paternity fraud is rampant (even though studies show it's not) becoz AF/BB assfax lolz! Women will divorce you for 'cash and prizes!' (ie... she will eventually take her half of the marital assets and leave, if you ignore your festering marital issues for years on end... oh the injustice!) Single women who older than 25 are just wasting their lives(!) 'Gina tingles: gross and stupid! (but updates from your boners are clearly missives of extreme importance that should be broadcast as widely as possible and having them disregarded is an affront to natural masculinity, obviously)

      Frankly, I probably wouldn't have described myself as a feminist three or four years ago-- it all seemed far, far removed from my life as a working-class wife and mom-- the province of youngish over-educated single Jezebel readers in big North American coastal cities, basically. What did feminists really have to say to me?!

      But you guys reminded me that weapons-grade misogyny is still a real, living thing, that there are still people who would genuinely really like to reduce us to complete economic dependence and shut us out of public places and discourse, all for their own horrible selfish ends.

      Suddenly all that stuff about patriarchy and privilege and misogyny strikes me as current and relevant in a way it hadn't in years.

      So... thanks, guys!

      Delete
    48. When I say "not rocket science" I don't mean "easy." I also think part of the manosphere is a reaction to the fact that men now have to put some of the emotional work into maintaining their relationships, and it's difficult! That kind of adjustment, readjustment, reading of the tea leaves, gathering background info type stuff used to be the realm of women, since they depended so much more on the success of the marriage than their husbands did.

      Even now, who buys the relationship books, seeks out the therapists, etc? Rollo Tomassi was wailing that Athol Kay had sold out and gone soft... because he needs to sell his books... to THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BUY RELATIONSHIP BOOKS AND COUNSELING SESSIONS

      Spoiler alert: that's still women. lol

      It really is hard work, though. There's not one instruction sheet handed down from on high that will work in every situation, either, so it's not even just blindly doing the work itself, but the fact that you have to figure out what the work even is before doing it... and also deal with the fact that it tends to change over time.

      Guys who expected not to have to deal with any of this tedious relational emotional-temperature monitoring probably do find it an unpleasant shock that they can't just get hitched and then never have to think about any of it again... but in 2014?! c'mon!

      Delete
    49. Cosign most of whar ceebarks said

      Delete
    50. That was well said, Ceebarks. I think many of the participants observe this as well.
      The reason for so many of the imbrosions and exbrosions within the manosphere.

      Delete
    51. Re: "Find healthy boundaries and maintain them! omg!"

      If only that were the "true alpha" as imagined by the sphere. If that were the case, no one -- not a soul -- would object, since all those attributes describe an emotionally healthy person (of either gender).

      But that's not what manospheric alpha means.

      In truth, the spherians themselves are not clear on the concept (surprise, that), but their most prevalent idea of alpha, shaped by their ignorant and seething sexual jealousy, is "simply" a guy who is sexually desired by women. Allegedly those "true alphas" are serviced by women, sexually and otherwise, in every way imaginable -- reality, as always in the sphere, be damned.

      But it's not enough for the spherians to acknowledge the existence of men who, for many reasons, are attractive to women.

      Driven by their jealousy and frustration, and simultaneous desires to emulate those "natural alphas" and punish women for choosing them, they also have to imbue the idea with the darker, more vengeful tones. So both in theory and practice (or what passes for it in the sphere), an alpha becomes an abusive prick who uses women as he sees fit, and abuses them in various ways as a payback for all those betas / alpha-wannabes' sexual frustrations.

      The spherians, none of whom obviously is a "natural alpha," remain oblivious to the fact that abusive pricks are not particularly, if at all, successful IRL when it comes to relationships. But they (those spherian alpha-wannabes) don't give a damn about relationships -- sexual contest for the benefit of impressing other (emotionally impaired) men and gaining status among them is all that matters.

      The manospherian alpha is sociopathic to the core and, sadly, has very little to do with all those great socio-emotional skills that ceebarks so well described in the second paragraph of her comment.

      Delete
    52. Of particular LOL-worthiness are the laments of manurespheric alpha-wannabes, who use and abuse women for sex (i.e., have indiscriminate sex with multiple women whose names they cannot even recall and/or manipulate women for sexual / ego-gratification thrills), that women, unlike men (!), cannot love idealistically.

      It is almost amusing when sociopaths set themselves up as the arbiters of moral values and human ideals. Behold the massive mind-warp known as the Red Pill (= Human Psychopathology 101).

      Delete
    53. Ha, yes, they are completely ridiculous on that front. Frankly I think a lot of the ones who wax poetic about how they (and only they) love idealistically AND claim that they are total one-night-standing alpha-studs are lying... about both things. lol

      I think some of them are legit sociopaths: Roissy, Elam, and possibly Roosh, too. I think others of them have some kind of sad story behind their descent into the scrotosphere (which of course they believe is pure rationality at work, not emotional overreaction to their own personal issues.) As I recall, Kay had some near-misses with infidelity at work when he was a nurse, (not that that stopped him from bleating about "hamsters and hypergamy" in subsequent years!) and Tomassi's haunted by the suicide of his extremely possessive ex-brother-in-law, (whose late-thirties wife had left him for another man: interesting in light of that embarrassing homemade chart that he continues to compulsively splash all over the internet, isn't it?! Maybe he thinks it is a magical incantation.)

      I don't read Roosh or Roissy or Dalrock enough to know what their particular demons are: in Elam's case I kind of think the psychotherapy thing just wasn't paying the bills and he figured out how to make money on other people's misery in an alternative form.

      But there's clearly something deeply wrong with all of them them that no amount of sex or ego-stroking or woman-bashing is everrrrrrr going to fix.

      Anyway, enough of the stupid manosphere. Today I read Dworkin's Right Wing Women. I honestly don't know why Dworkin gets such a bad rap. Some of RWW is a bit dense so I'm not sure if I agree or not, simply because I'm not sure I understand, but there are certainly a lot of illuminating points there. The concept that women are thought of, and described, and rewarded or punished, in terms of their sexual/reproductive function, is still unfortunately pretty true! You can't really play that game to win in the long run, though.

      I was reading something Phyllis Schlafly wrote the other day, though, and I just felt sorry for her. I'd rather be Dworkin-- not that I'm smart or brave enough-- than Schlafly, any day of the week.

      Delete
    54. I haven't read Dworkin in any depth. I only associate her with her theory that penetrative intercourse = rape, which is pretty whacked in my opinion, but I should actually read some of this stuff so I can keep up with the boys at CAFE (and Yohami of course).

      Delete
    55. I did not know the back stories of Kay and Tomassi. They don't explain their sociopathy (Tomassi's, to be specific; I'm not familiar with Kay to opine), though.

      All of us deal with sh!t in our lives, some worse than others, and most of us do not turn into contemptuous bastards who hate whole groups of people and blame them for our misery. It takes a 'special' person to do so -- one already predisposed to hatred and externalizing blame. IOW, a psychopath (sociopath) / narcissist.

      You are right that there is no amount of sex or ego-stroking, much less love (ha), that would fix their dysfunction. It has to be acknowledged that these men are broken beyond repair, and any efforts directed at it, no matter how noble or loving, will be met with more contempt and hatred because these are their main, if not only, modes of relating to others unlike themselves.

      Sociopaths are incapable of love or of grasping other higher feelings and values / ideals (as evidenced by their obsession with sex, power, and status, and sex as a means of boosting power and status, to the exclusion of almost everything else in life), so hearing them pontificate about it as if they had a clue is kinda priceless.

      Dworkin gets a bad rap because she is a feminist. No other reason. Any woman who cogently and convincingly exposes the patriarchal subjugation of women is going to be despised, derided, and demonized. It is as simple as that, unfortunately.

      See our poor Yohami, above, straining to show his "equalist" bona fides by naming Sommers as his "favorite feminist." Sommers is as much a feminist as Schlafly, which means not at all (well, she's a tad less anti-feminist than Schlafly); but this is the nonsensical crap the anti-feminist paranoiacs rely on to keep their fears and prejudices going, while denying them at the same time.

      It is sad that seeing and treating women as persons, rather than sexual and reproductive devices / ego props, is still considered subversive in large swaths of our 21st c. humanity.

      LOL @ "embarrassing homemade chart that he continues to compulsively splash all over the internet" -- whatever helps him get through the day, I guess. :)

      Delete
    56. @ Cinzia,
      see this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin#Intercourse

      Delete
    57. I mean, Dworkin!!

      In analyzing the sex-class system, feminists are accused of inventing or perpetuating it. Calling attention to it, we are told, insults women by suggesting the are victims (stupid enough to allow themselves to be victimized). Feminists are accused of being the agents of degradation by postulating that such degradation exists. This is a little like considering abolitionists responsible for slavery but all is fair when love is war

      *DEAD*

      Delete
    58. Great quote, ceebarks.

      Delete
  7. This is what a douche looks like: https://www.youtube.com/user/yohami

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now, now children! No more of that or I'll send you to your rooms without supper.

      Delete
  8. A chacun son gout!

    Or as they say in the manosphere, "A chacun son goat!" Or is it sheep?

    Perhaps Yohami will help us out. He appears to know his livestock.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Re: OT. Hilarious. I love an articulate rant.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cinzia,
    you must see this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr2JPjhtGZA

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is dedicated to all Red Pill and other manospherians out there:

    "I Don’t Support Feminism If It Means Murdering All Men

    COMMENTARY • Opinion • Gender • ISSUE 50•43 • Oct 28, 2014
    By Katherine Adams


    Like any other socially conscious woman, I am a firm believer in gender equality. Ending workplace discrimination, making reproductive health care affordable—I’ve championed these goals my whole life. They’re important to me, and that’s why the feminist movement frustrates me so much. I’m sorry, but I simply cannot and will not support feminism if it means murdering all men.

    I understand why some people might believe the only way to advance women’s rights is to slaughter every man on the planet, but that sort of radical, explicitly homicidal position, which for all I know is a fundamental aspect of feminism, is exactly what makes me hesitate to call myself a feminist.

    Do I agree with closing the pay gap, ensuring universal access to birth control, and ending the objectification of women? Absolutely, and if that’s all feminism were about, I would get on board without any hesitation. Assuming feminists start advocating that we hunt down all the world’s men and boys, load them onto trains bound for death camps, and systematically massacre them solely on the basis of their sex, then that’s where I draw the line.

    Of course, I don’t deny there are some misogynists out there whose behavior needs to be stopped. But I can’t help but think there has to be a better way to nurture the cause of social justice than, conceivably, having feminists instruct women to obtain assault weapons and drive to the nearest populated area so they can begin gunning down every human male they see.

    Am I alone in thinking that would be an overreaction?

    Consider the men in your own life. How would you feel if they were murdered? I have a loving father, two brothers, and a wonderful fiancĂ©, not to mention countless male friends—each of whom I know for a fact respects women. I don’t want to kill them with my bare hands! I don’t care how noble the goals of the feminist movement are; should joining that cause require me to strangle every man I care about until the life slowly drains from his body, I just don’t want to be a part of it.

    And just to be perfectly clear, we’re not talking about eliminating a few specific men on a case-by-case basis; we’re talking about the annihilation of roughly half the human population, presumably! To be sure, there are probably thousands of women-haters in the world who deserve to be locked up, but what feminists may be contemplating here is a program that would condemn approximately 3.6 billion people to immediate and extremely gruesome deaths just for being male, and that, to me at least, is going too far. Even if they were to do it painlessly by gassing or poisoning all the men, in my opinion it’s all part of the same arbitrary, hypothetical man-killing agenda that I won’t support.

    Call me old-fashioned, but I don’t think all men should be exterminated! This is something I fundamentally believe, and nothing is going to convince me otherwise.

    While some of my friends identify as feminists, and I respect their right to do so, I don’t have to agree with everything they say just because I too am a woman. If, for example, they were to enact a policy of eradicating the male threat at its source by mandating the forced abortion of every male fetus the moment its sex is determined, I am under no obligation to condone this practice, even if its implementation would further women’s rights."

    contd:
    http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-dont-support-feminism-if-it-means-murdering-all,37301/

    Before irony-challenged TRP afficionados start high-fiving this awesome opinion piece, it should be mentioned that it comes, most appropriately, from "The Onion."

    In a similar vein, you may enjoy delightful "Confused Cats Against Feminism" on David Futrelle's blog.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What are the natural male impulses? things like strength, will to power, competition, aggressiveness, sexual assertivity, workaholism, jealousy, you name it.

    None of those qualities are exclusively male, though. I'd argue none of them is really "more" male: we just come down harder on women for a whole lot of it. Most of it isn't inherently bad, either, but it can all be taken much too far, if there are no checks on the right to display all this "natural masculinity" /snort/ at someone else's expense.

    For instance, sexual assertiveness is great! I think it is admirable to be upfront with partners and potential partners about one's interest, in the appropriate situations and with full, respectful acknowledgement of their free will.

    But... sexual harassment is NOT great. Catcalling people is not great. Sending unsolicited pictures of your genitals is not great. Date rape is not great.

    I think that culturally, at least in the US, we have a long, LONG history of excusing and justifying and even glorifying a certain amount of bad male behavior, while harping on women endlessly about relatively minor infractions. A lot of that legacy is still part of the culture today. Granted, things have mercifully changed (for the better!) but I think it's ridiculous to claim we don't today still live in a somewhat patriarchal society. Most of our lawmakers and judges and business leaders and media moguls are still male, the leaders of the big religious and financial and educational and military institutions and are still male... do you really think that doesn't flavor how we all think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "None of those qualities are exclusively male, though."

      It's not about what's exclusively male and female. The point is that when men do any of these things they get punished and labeled as pigs / toxic beings / criminals / problems to be fixed / oppressors, and when women do them they are cheered and supported. The qualities that are "more" male like physical dominance and aggression (example, sports, videogames) get "extra" vilified than the attributes that are "more" feminine. But if a man takes on usually feminine attributes he also gets vilified for them.

      Whichever the case, the constant, on every point, on every dispute, on every examination on this version of feminist equality, is that men are abusers and women are victims, so actions are taken to push men down and push women up. Why? because that is the premise, and every observation is only made to confirm the premise.

      "For instance, sexual assertiveness is great! I think it is admirable to be upfront with partners and potential partners about one's interest, in the appropriate situations and with full, respectful acknowledgement of their free will. "

      Yes. Perfect example. It's great when you're a woman, its not great if you're a man (under feminism). I wrote you a post.

      http://yohami.com/blog/2014/11/02/feminist-equality-sexual-assertiveness-is-great/

      Enjoy.

      Delete
    2. I have no idea where you've picked this up from, because in my experience women are quick to cut down and/or shun *other women* for being overly sexually assertive. Shrug. If there's a feminist conspiracy there to promote female sexual assertiveness at the expense of male assertiveness, it's doing a shit job.

      Personally I think it's unacceptable for either sex to physically escalate with someone who's not clearly into it; granted I do think it's more threatening for the average man to grope the average woman than vice versa (because most men are significantly larger than most women) so a woman doing it to a man is likelier to read as "trashy and out of control" and a man is likelier to read as "a clear and present danger." Either way it's NOT ok, though-- getting into someone's personal space w/o permission is pretty violating and to continue doing it when you aren't getting enthusiastic feedback and reciprocation is a sign that something is profoundly wrong with you!

      when I say "sexually assertive" I don't mean groping people-- but I do mean going up to someone and saying, "I just wanted to let you know I think you're gorgeous and I'd like to get to know you better! Are you available next week?" It doesn't have to be crude. It shouldn't be threatening. That doesn't mean you get to throw a massive public fit if they say, "thanks, but no." You DEFINITELY do not get to continue pushing the issue after that. Gosh. That, imo, is where a lot of men get into trouble. A nonnegligible minority of them have absorbed the idea that if they just.keep.pushing eventually she will or should cave in and you'll ride off into the sunset together like a cheesy movie. You can understand why the word "creep" starts coming out at that point.

      I'm sure there are women who also don't know how to take "no" for an answer. I've not seen this play out IRL, though. A woman who gets shot down for sex or a date usually seems pretty embarrassed to have read the situation so poorly, makes an unconvincing attempt to play the whole thing off, and moves along, in the interest of salvaging her own ego.

      I don't think it's ridiculous at all to think that men benefit from privilege in the workplace. Far as I know, this is pretty well documented in the social sciences-- identical resumes with male names get a better hearing than the ones with female names: men are viewed as assertive when they try to improve processes or their compensation, whereas the same behavior is labeled as "pushy" or "bitchy" when a woman does it, etc. Shrug. That's not even to get into the broader social issues where women are expected to be the "default parent" when work and family issues clash, particularly in a country where we don't provide much institutional support for resolving those issues. So yeah, at some level many people do expect that men will accomplish more in their careers, unhindered usually by childcare issues or the expectation that they'll quit or curtail those careers mid-stride to concentrate on their families instead.

      Mostly you're just bringing hyperbolic handwringing to the table here, though. Men aren't walking around constantly being called rapists or rapey: in my view, they get a LOT of leeway and boys-will-be-boys mulligans before people start wondering what, exactly, the hell is wrong with them. Maybe this is 'cause I live in the middle of No Where, USA, but I doubt it.

      Delete
    3. @Anon 10:44am

      Anonymous, as much as I appreciate everything you say (or type, rather!) I believe you're wasting your virtual breath with Yohami. This guys is INCREDIBLY invested in his beliefs (which tend to be all about Yohami soaking in self-pity). I mentioned earlier that his comments serve a useful purpose as gaining insight into the false constructions that Manospherians depend on to rationalize their beliefs. (Note how often he will project by accusing others of being "professional victims;" it appears to be a specialty of his.)

      He is not going to listen to anything you say in good faith. As you continue to accurately assess him closer and closer to the mark, he will only get angrier and more belligerent. This guy is way too invested in blaming others instead of taking accountability for his own issues, unfortunately.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous November 2, 2014 at 9:36 PM

      Lol.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous November 2, 2014 at 10:44 AM

      Good message.

      "I have no idea where you've picked this up from"

      Mainstream culture mostly.

      "because in my experience women are quick to cut down and/or shun *other women* for being overly sexually assertive."

      Yes, due to intrasexual competition. Women dont like other women changing the rules of the mating dance. Similarly in a group where most women are sexually assertive, the most celibe ones are the ones shamed into putting it out.

      "If there's a feminist conspiracy there to promote female sexual assertiveness at the expense of male assertiveness, it's doing a shit job."

      Its not a conspiracy, it's been clearly stated since the beginning. I agree it's a shitty job, or a messy job.

      "Personally I think it's unacceptable for either sex to physically escalate with someone who's not clearly into it"

      I agree. "clearly" though can be a murky word due to mixed signals.

      "granted I do think it's more threatening for the average man to grope the average woman than vice versa (because most men are significantly larger than most women) so a woman doing it to a man is likelier to read as "trashy and out of control" and a man is likelier to read as "a clear and present danger."

      There you go, like I said it's not a conspiracy but in plain sight. You'll see feminism pushing to get rid of "clear and present dangers" while at the same time embracing "trashy" female behavior so it loses the stigma. In short the same behavior gets vilified, or promoted, depending on sex.

      "Either way it's NOT ok, though"

      Agree. Either both are not ok or both are ok. In my opinion they are not ok.

      "-- getting into someone's personal space w/o permission is pretty violating and to continue doing it when you aren't getting enthusiastic feedback and reciprocation is a sign that something is profoundly wrong with you!"

      Cosign.

      "I just wanted to let you know I think you're gorgeous and I'd like to get to know you better! Are you available next week?"

      Under feminism this can constitute harassment is an unattractive man does it. Which is part of the biased BS Im talking about. Its not the how, it's the who, which determines "harassment".

      "You DEFINITELY do not get to continue pushing the issue after that. "

      Agreed, neediness is a mood killer.

      cont...

      Delete
    6. ...cont

      "Gosh. That, imo, is where a lot of men get into trouble. A nonnegligible minority of them have absorbed the idea that if they just.keep.pushing eventually she will or should cave in and you'll ride off into the sunset together like a cheesy movie."

      True, yet a lot of the times the girl does want the guy to push through obstacles. How do you reconcile this?

      "I'm sure there are women who also don't know how to take "no" for an answer."

      I've seen them. You have a troll here that's into that too.

      "A woman who gets shot down for sex or a date usually seems pretty embarrassed to have read the situation so poorly, makes an unconvincing attempt to play the whole thing off, and moves along, in the interest of salvaging her own ego."

      Yes. Usually it's not about a the woman inviting you to a date.... I dont think I have seen that. But the woman showing signs of interest so you ask her out, and putting herself all in your face, etc, till you make a move, and get very dramatic if you dont.

      "I don't think it's ridiculous at all to think that men benefit from privilege in the workplace."

      Difference doesnt mean "privilege".

      "Far as I know, this is pretty well documented in the social sciences-- identical resumes with male names get a better hearing than the ones with female names"

      I read about it, I was not convinced, but it was interesting. It's far from "well documented" though, as in, this is illegal, and if it happens its enforceable by law. If you could replicate this you'd be able to mess up with their recruiting departments, which are usually female. That and, in the academic world I remember seeing the opposite, female students getting better grades with the same exams. So I'd like to get more information before settling that case for myself.

      "men are viewed as assertive when they try to improve processes or their compensation, whereas the same behavior is labeled as "pushy" or "bitchy" when a woman does it, etc."

      Men are also seen as pushy, jerks, dickheads, I dont think feminism got this one right. A balanced "assertive manliness" is very hard to pull off, or everyone would be a loved leader. Most men are just dickheads and get treated, and labeled as such.

      "Shrug. That's not even to get into the broader social issues where women are expected to be the "default parent" when work and family issues clash, particularly in a country where we don't provide much institutional support for resolving those issues."

      What do women generally want, to be the default parent or not? whatever the majority wants is going to become the default, and the institution will support it.

      cont

      Delete
    7. ...cont

      "So yeah, at some level many people do expect that men will accomplish more in their careers, unhindered usually by childcare issues or the expectation that they'll quit or curtail those careers mid-stride to concentrate on their families instead. "

      The "expectation" is double fold. In one hand if the man doesnt perform as "expected" he becomes a loser. On the other hand performing as expected has a cost, which usually means sacrificing family time. And men doing this expected behavior are "concentrating on their families" by fulfilling the provider role. Things are not as clear cut.

      "Mostly you're just bringing hyperbolic handwringing to the table here, though."

      Satire, I laughed. My GF did too when I was reading it to her.

      "Men aren't walking around constantly being called rapists or rapey:"

      They do under feminism. I take that you're out of the loop, which is probably healthier than what I've been doing by going deeper.

      "in my view, they get a LOT of leeway and boys-will-be-boys mulligans before people start wondering what, exactly, the hell is wrong with them. Maybe this is 'cause I live in the middle of No Where, USA, but I doubt it."

      Probably the middle of nowhere USA is not a very feminist location. I wonder if that's better, or worse.

      Delete
    8. "If there's a feminist conspiracy there to promote female sexual assertiveness at the expense of male assertiveness, it's doing a shit job."

      Give it some though

      http://mashable.com/2014/11/04/pick-up-artist-julien-blanc-dumped/

      Delete
  13. I, for one, sympathize with Yohami.

    In my case, I too had a shitload of shame coming from a society that taught me that my natural way of being, and all the things I wanted to do or aspire to do were bad, shameful, ridiculous, undoable, etc, and that my role was to be subservient, submissive, fragile, sensitive, and if I did all that I'd get appreciation and love. Which never came, and only came when I trashed all the patriarchal instructions and, thanks to feminism, went for what I wanted. So in my particular case, I also have never been happier.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Didnt I tell you to fuck off?

      Delete
    2. Ah, that must be how Natural Man (TM) reacts to having a mirror turned upon him. (lol).

      You are doing your best to prove Anonymous at 9:36 PM assessment of you, Y: "As you continue to accurately assess him closer and closer to the mark, he will only get angrier and more belligerent. This guy is way too invested in blaming others instead of taking accountability for his own issues, unfortunately."

      Keep at it. It's instructive.

      Delete
    3. Kafkatrapping, no thanks, and go fuck yourself too.

      Delete
  14. "Sure, he knows his way around a thesaurus.
    But what's his T level?"

    LMAO!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. P.S. Kluwe's opening paragraph sums up not just GamersGaters, but the entire manosphere:

      "(...) you’re lazy. You’re ignorant. You are a blithering collection of wannabe Wikipedia philosophers, drunk on your own buzzwords, incapable of forming an original thought. You display a lack of knowledge stunning in its scope, a fundamental disregard of history and human nature so pronounced that makes me wonder if lead paint is a key component of your diet. You think you’re making piercing arguments when, in actuality, you’re throwing a temper tantrum that would embarrass a three-year-old."

      Doesn't it just read like a dead-on description of manurespherians? (lol)

      It is encouraging to see men speak out so decisively against misogyny.

      Delete

Thanks for commenting!