Woud-be auteur Davis Aurini of StaresattheWorld is seeking your support in bringing his vision of the "casual cruelty" of modern life to cinematic fruition. Mr. Aurini's vision is as dark, potent, and singular as the man himself -- and it promises to "revolutionize" the contemporary narrative.
Friends, if you have ever dreamed of getting into an indie film production on the ground floor, this is your opportunity.
"Lust in the Time of Heartache" is a dark meditation on the state of our culture and our love lives, combining elements of Film Noire with marital arts action sequences."
Watch the clip for lulz. Try to ignore the way the microphone neatly obscures the ever-natty Mr. Aurini as he swings a pair of nunchucks in a deserted parking garage, or the near inaudibility of the innocent bystanders "colleagues" who are endorsing Dr. Demento's Mr. Aurini's latest project. And who's the jarringly-loud Slavic chick with the manic gleam in her eye at the end? So many intriguing mysteries here, and this is only the pitch! The theme of the proposed film is "man against himself" -- which pretty much sums up the nutty manospherean philosophy in a nutshell. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Speaking of Dr. Demento, remember "They're Coming To Take Me Away?" I remember hearing this on the radio as a kid and responding with a queasy admixture of humor and horror -- which also pretty much sums up my reaction to the nutty manospherean "philosophy."
If you're an Incel / would-be player who is planning to be in Washington, DC on April 30, Roosh will be hosting an opportunity for "intimate conversations" with the Game Master himself (at a location TBA on his Facebook page and twitter feed).
There's even a secret handshake and greeting so that the boys will be able to identify one another, just like the underworld conspirators they aspire to be. No mention of secret decoder rings, but maybe those will be in the goodie bags. "Non-obese" (fat-free?) women are invited to attend, but only provided they agree in advance to "fornicate" at least one of the lads that evening. Don't plan on winning brownie points with Roosh by buying him drinks, however: "For such an event, I have to maintain my mental faculties at the highest level of sobriety for the philosophical and metaphysical conversations that are likely to take place."
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...
A lot of stuff on Return of Queens makes me laugh, but in a way that probably does not reflect well upon my own character. The writers on ROQ make a fetish of their femininity and constantly admonish their readers to be "lady-like", but their blatant bigotry makes a mockery of their class airs.
You see a true "lady" (or anyone born of the professional or upper middle class in the past fifty years) may be as racist as they come, but she would rather die than admit to it. So that's what I laugh about: the ladies at ROQ are hicks, and -- sorry to say it -- white trash to the core. Their attempts to pretend otherwise are what make me laugh.
What's different about this ROQ post, "a cutting edge documentary of the MGTOW movement," is that is is supposed to be funny. Kudos to Meredith Knight, the contributor who posted it.
In fact, all of Meredith Knight's posts so far are decent, and show a degree of wit and humor noticeably lacking in most of the anti-feminist female bloggers. Not surprising, perhaps, if she is a Registered Nurse (they're usually pretty smart people). I wish I could persuade her to switch teams. I'd leave a comment on the site about how tickled I was, but I am sadly not welcome there, since according to their policy, "No hybrids of either are welcome, especially feminists. Included in the
list of excluded are trans-gender [pre AND post op], gender fluid
[whatever the hell that means], gay men, lesbians, male feminists [yes
they do exist], and any combination of those previously listed."
I just hope Knight, with all the biology classes she's surely taken, does not seriously believe that "human hybrids" exist.
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 enjoymasturbating.
"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.
When George W. Bush was re-elected, some people in the Pacific Northwest expressed a longing to secede from the Union, perhaps incorporate with British Columbia and form a new state: Call it "Cascadia." We were joking. Kind of. A recent post by The Practical Conservative reminded me that the impulse to break away from the mainstream and form utopian communities is an enduring theme in American history. My mother's family were Mormons, my father's were Anabaptists, so I come from a long line of people on both sides who were utterly convinced that there was "one correct way" to live, and I was weaned on tales of the hardships they endured, the sacrifices made, to achieve their utopian visions. I am the offspring of two people who escaped from religious-based communities governed by rigid patriarchal ideals, and who never looked back. And I don't want to go back either. In fact, I would be willing to sacrifice everything to maintain my individualism. And if I had to be dependent on a community where people like SSM or the Queens set the standards of socially acceptable behavior, I'd take my chances on surviving in the wilderness. This I believe: There is more than one way to be a human being on this earth. There is no one "correct way" to live.
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) dobetter 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.
