Call Me! We'll Do Lunch!

It seems that folks in Hollywood are paying attention to the manosphere, as well they should: A person couldn't find a richer vein of dramatic inspiration to tap. Talk about the dark underbelly of the American psyche! Simmering resentments, mysteries, feuds, fascinating back stories, loads of sexual shame and fantasy, and a pervading sense that at any moment all hell will break loose. You couldn't dream up a crazier cast of characters, and they write their own dialogue, so think what producers will save on screenwriters. 

Sunshine Mary and her husband the Holy Hand Grenade could carry an entire weekly sitcom by themselves. (Some episodes they would have two daughters; some episodes they would have five; audiences love "inside" jokes.) The ladies from Return of Queens could play SSM's trailer trash cousins, popping in to deliver casseroles and pious homilies at crucially inopportune moments. Dalrock is the minister of SSM's congregation, of course, but he's got some dark secrets, not least of which nobody has actually seen his wife in years, although he continually refers to her in the most exalting terms.  

Paul Elam (AVFM) is the corrupt mayor who rules the town with an iron fist. Those who cross him tend to disappear mysteriously. Citing his "compassion for men and boys," he insists on leading the Boy Scout troop; the residents are bullied into signing up their sons despite their apprehensions. Dean Esmay is his bumbling, sycophantic police chief who claims to have been abducted by aliens and is secretly in love with his AA sponsor. Karen Straughan is his tough-talking deputy and minder. Janet Bloomfield is Elam's PR Chief, the villainous who lords it over the other Honey Badgers at City Hall and has half the menfolk in her thrall. She's also a loose cannon. She butts heads with the town librarian (a bluestocking post-marital spinster, of course), and scandalizes everyone by calling all the high school teachers, regardless of gender or girth, "fat feminist whores." What transpires when one of the PUAs seduces her teenage daughter will be the first season cliff-hanger.

Danger & Play is the athletic club. The manager supplements his income selling testosterone under the counter. A lot of the town lotharios hang out there, sometimes pumping iron, but more often gathering at the juice bar, swapping tips on how to "bang" the local hotties. (When one intrepid girl has the gumption to challenge the "no ladies hours" policy, she is threatened with rape; fortunately, a chivalrous beta comes to her rescue, and their ensuing tender romance becomes one of the ongoing subplots.) We get to follow the "game boys" on some of their club adventures; lots of humor and pathos to be found in the way they spin the reality of their various encounters or their lives at home in their moms' basements.

Well, you get the picture. There's a reason series like "Peyton Place" and "Desperate Housewives" ran so long. There's a reason some people are "hooked" on the manosphere. People love these kinds of melodramas. There is nothing more entertaining, or reassuring, than watching people whose lives are even more dysfunctional than our own. In fact, this idea is such a winner I'm almost reluctant to share it. But I'm totally cool with collaborating with others in the anti-anti-feminist community.

The question is casting. Who to cast in these meaty roles?

We will need strong character actors the likes of the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jon Lovitz, who played passive-aggressive misogynists so brilliantly in Todd Solondz's "Happiness," a movie I positively loved, and most of my friends positively loathed. (Warning: extremely dark humor and definitely NSFW!)

The End of the Manosphere?

I think Bodycrimes called it last week when she announced that "the manosphere is cooked."  Certainly, the manosphere is becoming a sadder and much more self-pitying place based on my random forays into it recently.  It's been one calamity after another.

First, Dean Esmay used a rare opportunity for mainstream media exposure of Men's Rights issues to complain about his missing tooth.  Then A Voice for Men announced that the First Annual (International) Conference on Men's Issues had been moved from the downtown Detroit Doubletree Inn to a suburban VFW Hall where they will be less "threatened" by feminist protestors, but will now have to fight the bingo crowd for tables.  Matt Forney is off to the Philippines next month.  Ever the hustler, he also announced he will be available for online "consultations" (at $60/hour) while he basks on the beach.  (Nice work if you can get it.)  Naughty Nomad was doxed by a "vindictive stalker" who had taken a leaf out of the Matt Forney playbook by using facial recognition software and Facebook to reveal the Nomad's identity (like anyone cares).  And poor old Roosh (has everyone forgotten about him?) is languishing in a cheap furnished flat in Siberia, where he assures us in a Youtube dispatch there are girls in Siberia, too -- but then pretty much convinces us that he couldn't care less.  And so it seems to be ending: not with a bang, but a hundred whimpers.  

Meanwhile, men who are credible masculine role models are stepping forth and publicly denouncing misogyny, not only because it's bad for women, but because it's so damaging to the angry young guys who get caught up in it. Comedians are starting to have their way with "dude bro culture." And the New Misogynists themselves are quickly going from total obscurity to being a joke that even your Fox-watching grandma can laugh at.

Roosh ‏@rooshv

Since when did @collegehumor start hiring faggots like @caldy? http://www.collegehumor.com/post/6973833/7-things-only-guys-will-get … Feminist bullshit everywhere you turn!

A Brilliant Piece by Caitlin Dewey

Matt Forney tries to smear another female journalist, and not only does hilarity fail to ensue*, only his fan boys are apt to notice.

I am heartened to see mainstream media is picking up on the story of how online misogyny not only reflects, but also generates, the toxic undercurrents of misogyny that persist in our culture.

Caitlin Dewey of The Washington Post has written an excellent report "inside the manosphere," with particular attention to some of its most odious and notorious players.  Their response has been to resurrect their favorite form of retaliation, a Google-able character assassination in which Forney has the gall to accuse Dewey of "libel" because she identifies Forney as a "professional Internet troll" and compares Roosh and Forney to Fred Phelps. (Actually, the WBC arguably had more integrity than the New Misogynists since they were at least willing to challenge their opponents face-to-face.  Forney or Roosh, on the other hand, would probably wet their pants if they ran into me in a hotel lobby.)

"This is despite the fact that neither Roosh nor I engage in illegal activity, encourage others to break the law, or write about anything other than masculine self-improvement."

Actually, I am pretty sure that soliciting speed on twitter or teaching men how to get away with rape might fall into the category of "illegal activity."  Oops, am I being libelous?  See you in court, baby! 

Anyway, trying to destroy a woman's reputation online only "works" if the woman you are attacking has no online presence or professional reputation to speak of... and even then, it doesn't really work, does it?  (After all, I'm still here, and the only thing it succeeded in doing was to triple my readership and (gasp!) increase my self-esteem.)

Meanwhile, I'm feeling in very good company...  Thanks, Caitlin! 

* Forney just loves this tagline, which he shamelessly stole from Tucker Max -- whom he then rags on about for being a "plagiarist."  

Manosphere Back Pedals Furiously

This evening, in response to the Santa Barbara shootings, the sages of the manosphere are offering up their little turds of "wisdom" and "insight":

A♠ ‏@whiskeyandashes 30m

It would appear that men aren't entitled to sex; women aren't entitled to safety. One might be led to believe that fact brought us together.

No one, regardless of gender, is "entitled" to sex however much we may desire it; yet all people have the right to safety.  Now go back to nursing your whisky and mourning your childless, uncoupled state, sir...
 
If one positive thing comes of the unfolding tragedy in Santa Barbara, it may be that the manosphere is subjected to more public scrutiny and widespread social condemnation.  In the wake of the news that UCSB student Elliot Roger participated in the forum puahate, other New Misogynists have scurried to deflect negative attention onto that site.  One blogger has even pondered if puahate and manboobz are somehow in cahoots with one another to bring the manosphere down.  Or with the Southern Poverty Law Center. As if. 

He talks of keeping the "haters" out, as if their network of angry blogs were some sort of gated community.  In fact, while the accessibility and anonymity of the internet has allowed the "manosphere" to blossom, it also works against it, by effectively rendering the "movement" it claims to represent transparent and its "leaders" accountable for the ideas they promulgate. 

From my point of view, there is little difference between puahate and any number of other misogynistic watering holes.  All of these sites are social cesspools that are brewing the same poison, whether it is Roosh ("Women are lubricated holes for my pleasure") and Return of Kings, Paul Elam ("I want to fuck their shit up" or "Bash A Bitch Week"), Bill Price or Vox Day ("Rape is our marital right"), or Matt Forney, who famously wrote that women needed to be beaten because "it's the only way to make them behave better than chimps," and who posted a piece about how men could get away with rape by murdering their victims and dismembering their bodies (oops, that was "satire," wasn't it?).

The manosphere is an aggregator of isolated, angry, socially maladjusted and mentally disturbed men -- and the (handful of) women who love them.  It creates an echo chamber that allows these men to delude themselves into blaming women and minorities for their own inability to adapt to a changing world of greater diversity, social inclusion and economic competition.  It breeds real, physical violence by promoting violent language and violent fantasies of retribution. Their impotent dreams of achieving dominance will inevitably end in the deaths of others; the blood will be on their hands.  And the world will keep turning.

Put That In Your Funk & Wagnells!

If you aspire to become a serious scholar of the manosphere, like me, you've got to learn the lingo.

Yes, like any subculture, the manosphere has its own specialized jargon.  You may not find these terms in your standard dictionary, so here are a couple of links to consult when you run across a cryptic reference to, say, "hypergamy" "gynocentrism" or "pussification."

David Futrelle has put together a glossary at his website.  The webmistress of Bodycrimes has also compiled a helpful "Dictionary of Misogyny."

Thanks for Noticing

Bonald at Throne and Altar posted thoughtfully about the "catfight" between Sunshine Mary, Lena, and Laura that has got half the manosphere chirping like an aviary full of parakeets.  (See also Jim's Blog for a measured response to SSM's "doxing" and manospherean reaction.)

Identifying "The Real Danger to Pseudonymous Bloggers," Bonald concludes:

So anyway, if you’re writing an anti-feminist blog, your main danger of being outed or made the target of hostile internet campaigns comes from the lunatic wing of the manosphere, not from actual feminists.

True, and thanks for acknowledging it.  Whether a female blogger is a "feminist" or an "anti-feminist," the real danger (of being doxxed, maligned and harassed) is from the manosphereans.  Blogging-while-female is asking for trouble, regardless of which team you're playing on.

What is "the real danger" of being doxxed and maligned, even libeled online?  The potential consequences are widely acknowledged to be so severe that most people consider doxxing their ideological opponents beyond the moral pale. The intersection between one's "online persona" and one's public face is a fragile membrane; in some cases, it is a horrific car crash just waiting to happen.

Being doxxed online is, in a way, to suffer the exposure of celebrity with none of its perks.  It's disconcerting, at least, to know that thousands of people can identify you, while you have no way of knowing who they are.  (Of course, I am not suggesting that thousands of people care who I am; in fact, it's obvious that they do not.)

The greatest threat to the victim is the possibility of suffering bodily harm or exposing one's children to physical harm (or humiliation).  The fact that it is statistically unlikely does not lessen the psychological impact of the threat.   

If you're blogging under a pseudonym, you'd better be prepared to be identified with the material you post in your personal and professional life, and be willing for your family members to be identified with it as well, because you are just one "Matt Forney" away from having to slap your John Hancock on it forever.

Being doxxed and my name linked to a "character assassination" was a personal violation that I would not wish on anyone, no matter how abhorrent I found his or her opinions.  But I'm also very fortunate.

I'm fortunate in that there is little that I have posted here that could ruin my professional or personal reputation.  Indeed, I live so transparently that there is little here that would surprise anyone who knows me.  That's probably why my blog is kind of boring...

Don't Let the Door Hit You in the Ass

Although Matt Forney has taken his leave of the "manosphere" by slamming the metaphorical door in the faces of his former chums, he still has a few words to say on "the futility of online communities."

He first explains that he recently deleted a sure-fire winner of a post because it wasn't up to his own quality standards, and he "realized that writing filler pieces like that would dilute the quality of my brand."

Yes, Matt Forney has a marketable identity that he must protect!

"Excessively writing/reading about politics or feminism or current events is the intellectual equivalent of slicing your dick with a penknife while you jerk off."   

My goodness, that does sound unpleasant.

"Furthermore, sticking around in the same stagnant ideological pool warps you mentally. The water becomes dirty with feces and piss. The normal people [like Matt Forney?] slowly edge away, leaving behind the weirdos, who further retreat into their weirdness."

This all sounds so... so familiar somehow.  I didn't follow Ferdinand Bardemu (Matt's former incarnation) In Male Fide, being blissfully unaware of his / its presence at the time, but didn't Matt quit that blog too because he had grown to detest his bottom-feeding followers?  I am beginning to detect a pattern here...

According to the new'n'improved Matt Forney, continuing to read blogs that reinforce one's already entrenched political or social position is "just masturbation."

That's probably true, but so what?  If the $4 billionish porn industry proves anything, it's that people really enjoy masturbating.

"Online communities are useful for two purposes: learning and making connections with like-minded guys in the real world." 

And, I may add, for wasting an idle twenty minutes making fun of little twerps whose intellectual pretensions are only exceeded by their malice.

It's the Economy, I Tell You

In case you didn't see this excerpt from the upcoming book Marriage Markets: How Inequality Is Remaking the American Family, authors Naomi Cahn and June Carbone find that working class women (in contrast to upper middle class women) do better economically as single moms.  I didn't find the authors' conclusion in the least bit surprising: I see evidence of it all around me, every day.  

In today's economy, many working class guys can't get or maintain jobs that allow them to contribute much in the way of financial support.  Marrying such a man makes the woman responsible not only for providing for the child, but also her partner, and gives the man parental rights (i.e., shared custody) or control over her life that he wouldn't easily enjoy if she did not marry him.

Under these circumstances, choosing not to marry the father of her child is kind of a "no-brainer," especially if a woman has parents or other family members willing to help out with child care. 

Is it possible this phenomenon is fueling the backlash that the "manosphereans" represent?  Their fear of obsolescence is, after all, not unfounded.  As the middle class continues to erode, and the former working class slip into chronic, inescapable poverty, the trend of mothers unwed by choice is unlikely to reverse itself, however much they are berated by the religious right wing.  And the impotent efforts of the New Misogynists to shame these women are less menacing than pathetic, for they know and we know that those women they call "sluts" or "feminists" not only don't want them, they are better off without them.

They Walk Amongst Us

I've spent some time musing over whether certain prominent "manospherians" are psychopaths or sociopaths.  I was recently referred to this link which distinguishes the two conditions. 

One of the differences appears to be that sociopaths tend to act out in controlled, premeditated ways, to indulge in "calculated or opportunistic violence," and are "often social predators."  Psychopaths, on the other hand, tend to be impulsive, and more likely to run afoul of law enforcement.  So I will continue to use the term "sociopathic" to describe many of the behaviors I have observed by reading the manosphere.

We are learning that sociopaths are more common than previously acknowledged, and they often function at very high levels.  I've read several articles or books in the past year written by people who identify as sociopaths.  There is even considerable interest in whether, and in what ways, sociopaths serve society or whether sociopathy is an evolutionarily advantageous trait.  It's a topic that the manosphereans themselves occasionally discuss, often with some anxiety.

Personally, I have known two people in my life that I suspect were sociopaths, one a (now deceased) member of my own family.  Intelligent sociopaths perform "normalcy" so well that in the context of superficial relationships, their sociopathy is not detectable.  So it is reasonable to assume that most of them walk amongst us unrecognized.

And that's probably true of many of the "manospherian" bloggers themselves. Some of the manospherian bloggers and their commentators make such chilling pronouncements, evince such utter lack of empathy and such endless wells of rage, that it's hard to deny they exhibit sociopathic tendencies.  Of course, they're doing so, in most cases, under the cloak of anonymity.  Part of the threat of being "doxxed" in this 'sphere is that the disparity between their online and offline personas is so great that they have much to lose by being attached to the opinions they fearlessly share online.  They are well aware that by being doxxed, they will be exposed as freaks, objects of scorn, pity, and fear, to the very people they depend on most.

Of course, despite the handles they hide behind, the active participants inevitably drop clues when they refer to their "real" lives, and from these scattered crumbs it's clear that some of them occupy positions of considerable authority and public trust.  (It's enough to keep a person up at night!)

On the other hand, the same anti-social traits that make them "scary" (or at least damned peculiar) as individuals also keep them immobilized as a social or political group.  As the recent frenzy of doxxing and smearing proves, the most popular bloggers, despite being charismatic enough to generate followers, cannot form the kinds of strong alliances that would allow them to organize an effective campaign or exert much influence on society in general.  They can only wreak havoc on each other, the unfortunate people in their immediate circle (i.e., spouses and children), or upon targets that they perceive are lone, weak, and unable to retaliate (although I think Paul Elam of AVfM may have seriously miscalculated when he decided to take on Prof. Mercier).

Is it possible that the "manosphere" is a symptom, not of some broad-seated social malaise, but of the internet giving the sociopaths who have always existed a loud (albeit rather impotent) "voice?" 

Note bene: Now I am in no way suggesting that everyone who has taken "the Red Pill" is sociopathic.  In fact, most of the traffic on those sites is probably coming from very young disaffected youth who are looking for answers, an outlet to safely vent their frustrations, or a forum in which to entertain their fantasies of dominance.  A recent reddit survey indicates that the majority of respondents who characterized themselves as MRAs are between the ages of 17-20, white, and, while politically "extremely conservative," are not religious. Is it overly optimistic to trust that as they gain experience, intelligence, and find their paths in life, they will wander away from these dark recesses and integrate themselves into the mainstream?

See also Is Roosh a Sociopath?

April Fools

It's April 1, in case you forgot, so Matt Forney has announced to the world he will commit suicide. Ha ha!  

It's obviously a joke.  Except that it isn't, really. Such a jest rings hollow when it's coming from a young man every cell of whose body is infused with self-loathing.  

It throws into sharp relief what a toxic stew the "manosphere" really is.  It's a place of darkness, delusion, and despair, of impotent rage, insatiable yearning, and misplaced aggression.  Anyone intent on exploring its depths for any period of time should be required to don full haz-mat protection. And then undergo several rounds of antibiotics afterwards. The scientist who discovers an antidote to the "red pill" should win the Nobel Prize.

Step Away From the Keyboard

A few days ago, Roosh V wrote an ostensibly serious piece, "The Internet Is Doing You More Harm Than Good" in which he points out that "The internet has solved the cost barrier to idea distribution... [but]... This ability, upon closer inspection, is actually causing us harm. We would all better off limiting our internet usage than expanding it further."  

He goes on to say, "There used to be a dearth of reading material for humans but now there is too much, and we are wasting time on content that we shouldn’t just to be entertained, just to feel a little emotional rush that we may not be getting through our normal lives. Consider that people now purposefully read content they hate just to stir their emotions. They do this as part of their daily routine."

This is an excellent point, one which even I have addressed.  We won't point out the irony that Roosh has made his living by publishing provocative material on his blogs, has crowed with delight when a particularly vile post goes "viral", and retweets every tweet that references himself (positively or negatively).  Let's not look at the way his example has inspired hundreds of men to beg for donations on their own little blogs.  Perhaps what he is really saying is "Quit talking and listen to me."

I will also refrain from pointing out that long before the days of "yellow journalism," much less the internet, the public managed to waste a lot of time on idle entertainments that included dog fighting, gambling, public executions, and mystery plays.  

A couple of days later, Matt Forney announced he was "unfollowing" people on Twitter in preparation for a social media blackout.  The "addiction" was too much and was interfering with his "productivity."  I think this is a good step for Forney.  Like Roosh, he wants more than anything to be taken seriously as a writer and an intellectual, an aim that is incompatible with "click-baiting."

It occurs to me that, besides being hypocritical to the nth degree, Roosh misunderstands the nature of the manosphere.  It is not a place to exchange ideas, obtain information, or engage in serious debate.  It is a place where disaffected men go to experience a sense of community and belonging.  The element they have in common is their hatred & desire for women; bashing "feminism" is just a pretext for bonding with one another.

And to be honest, the same could be said for the "anti-anti-feminist" bloggers like myself.  It's a place where we go to be reassured that we are not alone;  we have "friends" out there in cyberspace.  Of course these are not "friends" in a conventional sense.  We might find, as Eseld Bosustow has mused, that we actually have little in common besides a shared disdain for misogyny, bigotry, and ignorance.  And yet that is not an insignificant basis for friendship either, as it suggests a number of shared core values, a certain sympathy of perspective.

I have experienced and observed real acts of support -- the sort of reaching out I associate with friendship -- amongst complete strangers on the internet.  The fact that, as of today, Karen Stollznow's legal fund has surpassed its goal by over $10,000 is an example.  (I'll bet she's feeling the love right now!) The fact that a very busy man like P.Z. Myers agreed to help "rescue" my name is another example:  I can never not consider him a good friend although we will always remain "strangers."  And because he inspired others to champion me, I now feel much less alone.  There are a handful of readers here that, should the opportunity ever present itself, I would be delighted to meet in "real life."  Maybe we would find out we didn't really care for one another -- but somehow I doubt that.

Meanwhile, there is no question that when the internet starts interfering with the opportunity to mix and mingle with flesh-and-blood people, it's high time to step away from the keyboard and (in my case) toddle down to the Eagles for a round of bingo.

Mainstream Invading the Manosphere!

Remember Geoffrey Miller?  He's the doorknob evolutionary psychologist and author of The Mating Mind who last year tweeted that fat people lacked sufficient self-discipline to successfully complete doctorate programs.  

Miller, a tenured associate professor at the University of New Mexico, didn't lose his position, but he was formally censured.  Among other punishments, his work must be monitored by his department chair.  Not too tightly though, since he seems to have been given the go-ahead to team up with reformed rake Tucker Max in a joint venture, a men's magazine called "Mating Grounds."  

And this has made manosphere blogger Danger & Play madder than a wet hen.  D & P is accusing Max and Miller of "riding coat tails and pretending to be original when they are copying Danger & Play."  Others in the manosphere are equally incensed.  How dare that has-been former alpha & now hopelessly beta Tucker Max suggest that there is even a need for another site that teaches men how to get laid? Hasn't he checked out their little corner of the internet lately? They are already accusing Miller and Max of stealing their "content."

First the webmaster of "Viva La Manosphere" tries to muscle in on Danger & Play's juicing turf, then this impertinent challenge!  And to add insult to injury, Miller is now pretending he doesn't even know who D & P is!

I've heard academic politics can be brutal, but it's nothing like the dog-eat-dog world of wanna-be masculine lifestyle gurus. I hope Miller and Max appreciate what kind of competition they're up against.

And that concludes the latest episode in the continuing drama that is [cue organ music] the MAN-o-sphere...

But What Would Paul Krugman Say?

The administration has proposed raising the federal minimum wage as a means of stimulating the economy. I happen to live in the state that boasts both the highest minimum wage and the highest job growth in the country. In fact, there is a lot of support in Seattle to push that minimum wage even higher, to $15/hour.  According to Venture Capitalist Nick Hanauer,  "A higher minimum wage is a very simple and elegant solution to the death spiral of falling demand that is the signature feature of our economy." Not to mention just, compassionate, and the all-around Right Thing To Do.

Of course, not everyone is on board.  The Manosphere's own resident economist, Captain Capitalism, proposes an even simpler and more elegant solution:  "I have said before, and I am 100% sincere about this, that if women were to lose weight in America, that would increase economic production... because hot chicks incentive [sic] men...  And men are the primary producers and innovators of society."

Aaron Clarey, is the "super awesome economic genius" behind Captain Capitalism.  His blog represents "some of the finest economic research and philosophy."  He lives in Minneapolis, which he claims is "a leftist shit hole."  I believe he attended community college at some point.

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

So I'm meandering through the Mysterious Forest of Twitter (because I will do anything to avoid marking papers) when I stumble across a tweet by a self-styled, Las Vegas-based playboy (whose first name is probably what he is not practicing, and whose last name is pretty much the epitome of posthumous cool).  This particular specimen of machismo has a manosphere blog, too, of course, where he promotes his e-books and classes.  His latest post teaches men "How To Have A Three Way With Strippers."  I didn't read it since I'm not planning a trip to Sin City anytime soon, but I would hazard to guess that it's all a matter of having the right party favors.

I recognized his moniker because he was one of the boys who was outraged by Roosh's little hoax.  But now he's done an about-face, urging his followers to "Treat Roosh right.  I'd take a bullet for him.  Don't fuck with him or fuck with me. And trust me, you don't want to fuck with him."

Now that got my attention, because I reckon I'm somewhere on Roosh's Shit List.  And at least by his standards, I've already "fucked with him" a bit.  

And "take a bullet for him," isn't that a bit... melodramatic?  I mean, under what circumstances might that be necessary?  Is Roosh a masculine lifestyle guru, or a war lord?

What are these guys so afraid of, I wonder?  That they'll be doxxed and their Google-able identities slimed?

Trust me, fellas, it isn't as bad as you fear.

Oops!  Breaking news!  Looks like the Las Vegas playboy has just been doxxed himself!  And not by some nasty feminist either!

Anyway, poor guy, I'm certainly not going to compound his misery here.  After all, we can all agree that doxxing is a terrible thing to do, a cowardly and despicable action, and as a sympathetic compadre pointed out, [tsk-tsk!] just goes to show how some people have way too much time on their hands!

I don't think this is going to help.

Femitheist Divine Lives On!

A couple of years ago Paul Elam posted rather hysterically about the suicide of a "radical feminist" who had been advocating, among other drastic measures, the castration of men and the worship of the feminine principle, apparently never pausing to consider that her series of Youtube videos might be a blatant and fairly elaborate hoax.
    
It's been a couple of years since she was doxxed and then "faked her own suicide", but Femitheist Divine is still producing Youtube videos and until quite recently, was still engaging with MRAs.  And she is still the "feminist" a lot of gullable manosphereans love to hate.

She was very young when she started to troll the Young Misogynists, BTW -- well under 21 at the time.  I'm not sure if her relative youth says more about her precocity or the dearth of creative outlets available to teenagers in rural Arkansas.

Many of the manospheans have finally figured out they are being royally pranked by this naughty Southern Belle, but they're still pissed off.  They know that the world is divided into two groups, The Players and The Played, and, as the last kerfuffle on Return of Kings demonstrates, they don't like finding themselves in the latter category -- no, not one little bit!  

I've only watched bits and pieces of her oeuvre, but my own distinct impression is that Femitheiste Divine is neither "evil" nor "mentally ill" and that she still finds that making fun of the boys of the manosphere can be pretty diverting.

Who Cares What Women Think?

Not the "manosphere", that's for darn sure!  I mean, do I have to spell it out for you?  "MAN-o-sphere." 

I so wish, like Matt Forney, I could learn to disregard the opinions of people for whom I have no respect.  (Even if, as in this case, that group constitutes 52% of the population.)  I'd definitely be happier and probably a lot more productive.

On the other hand... For a fellow who considers females' opinions of no consequence whatsoever, Matt F. sure does spend a lot of time tracking down any negative reactions to his opinions.  And then declaring those who dare mock him to be his "enemy" and compiling dossiers on them.  And then plotting revenge, pronouncing his sentence, and meting out his own special version of Wild West justice.

For a guy who proudly proclaims himself "the most hated man on the Internet" and who churns out bestsellers like Trolling For A Living, Matt Forney is shockingly thin-skinned.

In the same post, he re-publishes his own tweets explaining whose opinions do matter:

Matthew Forney @realmattforney Follow

The manosphere is for MEN, young men in particular. The opinions of everyone else are irrelevant.

Unfortunately, this particular tweet didn't go down too well with one of his readers, some old geezer who positions himself as a kind of General in the War On Women:

"Ultimately, it’s the old guys who have the political connections and money who hire the young men and provide resources to make things happen. Don’t ignore the old guys. If daddy ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy."

And then of course our favorite ray of "Christian" sunshine jumps in, to blather on about the gender norming of IQ tests, like anyone there gives a hoot that she "administers them as a part of my job" (that is, when she isn't crashing the boys' parties).  

Oh Mary, dear Mary, can't you read?  Even Red Pill girls haz got cooties!

Oh no!

I'll admit that part of the "addictive" quality of following the New Misogynists is that there always seems to be a lot of petty drama going on in their lives.  Really, the "manosphere" (and that especially includes the female bloggers), is like a huge soap opera, full of squabbles, weird sexual fantasies, and the occasional twist and turn in the story lines.  Although I think we could all see this coming.

UPDATE  It was a hoax perpetrated by Il Douche himself.  I wonder how his followers will feel about this.  It's kind of like Fawney calling his readers "retards", isn't it?  Oh these boys, what a merry crew of pranksters they are!

The voice of men, the voices of despair

I spent the sunny afternoon at a public pool near my home.  Not surprisingly, given that it was an exceptionally warm day in Seattle, the pool was filled with families.  The density of splashing, shrieking youngsters frustrated my effort to swim laps, but I enjoyed observing the kids nevertheless.  Although I don't have a family and children myself, I sometimes find a kind of vicarious pleasure in watching other families enjoying themselves together.  I was especially moved by several affectionate, attentive fathers interacting with their little ones.  It gives me a kind of hope.  After all, one does not need to be a biological parent in order to feel invested in the youngest generation.

When I got home, I thought about the men of the manosphere, who are so angry and hateful towards women.  Although I frequent manboobz, the site which delights in mocking misogyny, I sometimes feel at odds with the prevailing tone of dominant commenters.  The more I follow the manosphere (Voice for Men, Heartiste, Roosh), the more compassion I feel for the young misogynists.  It's easy to ridicule them, because most of what they say is ridiculous.  It's easy to be outraged by them, because most of what they say is outrageous.  It's easy to be frightened by them, because they are simmering with anger.  And then it's comforting to reassure myself that their ideas are, well, after all, pretty silly.  They pretend they are a movement, but they spend so much of their energy squabbling with one another that it's evident that they couldn't organize themselves out of a paper bag. 

But more and more, what I hear behind their hateful words, their virulent disdain for all women (and most other men), is despair.  Roosh and his ilk (Matt Forney, Paul Elam, "Roissy," et al.) are men who have pretty much given up on the one thing -- other than engaging work -- which makes life meaningful: intimate, committed relationships with others.

A couple of weeks ago, Roosh was positively distraught when Mark Minter abandoned the manosphere ship to marry a gal he'd met online.  His sense of betrayal was palpable.  Even his followers were a bit baffled that he took it so much to heart.

But someone like Roosh has nothing else except his convictions, as delusional and self-destructive as they are.  He has no relationships beyond his tenuous online connection with the men and boys who echo his nihilistic philosophy.  He is so out of sync with the cultural tide that he must seek refuge in ancient texts, to constantly imagine that the way it was is the way it should be now.  

Today he posted, in his typically self-aggrandizing and melodramatic fashion, that "every man dies by his own ideas."  He views himself as a martyr to his own ideals.  But relentless, inchoate rage is not a "cause."  It is a symptom of a personality disorder. 

I reflect on the mothers and fathers I watched frolicking in the pool today.  Whether they are "happy" in their marriages I have no idea.  I have never been convinced that "happiness" should be a person's primary aim.  I'm not sure even what "happiness" means.  I can say that they all looked thoroughly engaged with one another.  I thought, "This is Real Life."  And by merely observing from the sidelines, I felt myself part of it:  the Family of Man.  And I pity the men of the manosphere, who have learned to hate what they have come to believe they cannot have: intimate connection, a sense of purpose, community membership, an investment in the world around them.

Observe But Don't Engage!

That's the opinion of my partner regarding commenting on manosphere blogs.

She's worried about my safety of course. She also thinks that by engaging with them, I am egging them on.  She thinks I'm on a Joan of Arc trip.  "Don't make yourself bait for a nut case," she pleads.  There is merit to this argument.

She assures me, as does my young male colleague, that the "manosphere" is a tiny group of delusional and paranoid misfits who are mostly all bluff, anyway.   "But there seem to be thousands of them," I protest.  "Maybe, but I doubt it," says my male colleague.  "I'm a guy, and I'm all over the internet, and I've never heard of any of this crap.  Anyway, there are millions of other people."

I know thousands is a lot less than millions, but it still seems like rather a lot.  Of course, if most of these guys were dragged out from behind their computers and exposed to the full light of day, it's likely I'd find them more pitiful than threatening.  Although they fantasize a lot about running away to various poor countries where the living is easy and the girls are cheap, I suspect most of them never go farther than the local convenience store for more beer.

For example, they idealize angry old gasbags like Mark Minter, an MGTOW who brags about living off the local economy in Colombia, and you know what?  I too tried escaping from the U.S. (in my twenties, a lifetime ago), but it got pretty damn old, pretty damn fast.  In the hothouse environment of most expatriate communities, it takes about two weeks to recreate whatever social straight jacket you thought you'd escaped, only now it's even worse because there's no reliable electricity, hot water, or public libraries.  You learn after a while that wherever you go, there you are.  

If it seems like you're an outcast in your own land, and everything and everyone is rubbing you the wrong way all the time, and you are casting about for someone or something to blame, take it from me:  Look in the mirror.

Don't take these buffoons seriously, I think.  And then I remember, wait, Isn't that what a lot of Germans were telling each other in Berlin in 1930?

I've promised my partner to step away from this for the sake of my sanity, but I'm of two minds.  Does one just ignore bullies, hoping they'll get discouraged and go away?   On the other hand, do they "win" if they chill or silence feminists' public voices?  I'm thinking of course of the redheaded protester doxed and harassed by "A Voice for Men" readers this week.   

How can these guys scoff at the existence of "rape culture" when their widespread response to rude or uppity women is to advocate gang-raping, torturing, and murdering them?

The answer is, of course:  They don't care.  They're not looking for truth, or compassion, or mutual understanding.  They are angry white guys who have lost (or never developed) the capacity to engage in rational debate or self-analysis.  That leaves them to spinning fantasies of escape and revenge rather than doing the hard work of engaging in any effective way with the rest of society or taking any positive actions.