Janet Bloomfield’s agent exits, pursued by feminism. (Artist’s conception.)

UPDATE: Oh, the drama! Bloomfield now says her agent is back on board. Gosh, maybe she should have waited a few days before posting about how evil feminists scared him off? Nah. Much better to stir up a lot of shit about nothing, huh? Wow. Such public relations. So integrity.

Ah, sweet schadenfreude! Janet “Judgy Bitch” Bloomfield — A Voice for Men’s lying, harassing PR maven — has evidently been dumped by her literary agent.

According to Bloomfield, the agent she’d been working with for more than a year on a novel of some sort has decided to wash his hands of her. “Sadly,” she writes on her blog,

something has happened (I don’t know what) and my agent has decided to drop me as a client and forego any and all income the book might potentially generate. He does not wish to be named or acknowledged in any way.

Bloomfield, naturally, blames feminists. While admitting she actually has “no idea what spooked my agent,” the headline of her blog post declares that “a man decides feminists can ruin him and wisely opts to not engage.”

In her post, she expounds on this theory:

I do not question his decision at all. No one should have to sacrifice their career and livelihood.  I have always known resisting the tyranny of feminism would come with a price, but this is my battle and I do not require civilians to go down with me.

Huh. Bloomfield notes at the outset of her post that her agent was aware of her, er, “online activism” and had no issue with it. So what could have sent him scurrying off in another direction?

I mean, what on earth could it be?

Let’s look at some possibilities:

1. Her novel is fucking awful.
2. She’s a pain in the ass to work with.
3. Her agent has discovered that her “activism” consists of gleefully libeling and harassing her opponents and has decided that just maybe he doesn’t want his name associated with such a terrible person.
4. Her agent has read some of her blog posts — possibly including her multiple posts attacking rape victims, including the underage victims of Jimmy Savile, as “whores” — and has decided he doesn’t want his name associated with such a terrible person.
5. Evil feminists have ordered the agent to stop representing her, even though she is a wonderful human being and her novel is totally awesome and a friend of hers has already created some “beautiful cover art.”
6. All of the above, except that last one, because seriously.

I leave you to decide which of these options makes the most sense.

Oh, and while we’re talking schadenfreude, did I mention that my little blog gets more traffic than A Voice for Men?

H/T – r/againstmensrights

Paul Elam: “Dworkin’s problem wasn’t that she was raped. Her problem, and I mean all along, was that she wasn’t.”

There’s a post on the AgainstMensRights subreddit today highlighting a comment from a  Men’s Rights Redditor that offers some, well, interesting theories about why feminists are “obsessed” with rape and abortion, even though he thinks they are very ugly.

Actually, in his mind, it’s because they are very ugly, and secretly wish someone would be attracted enough to them to rape them.

I’m sure there are MRAs out there who would like to dismiss his posting as the ravings of a random Redditor. Sadly, it’s not. Despite the terribleness of his “explanation,” or perhaps because of it,  it seems to be a common one amongst Manosphereians and Men’s Rightsers.

Indeed, in one notorious post a couple of years ago, A Voice for Men founder and all-around garbage human Paul Elam — probably the most important person in the Men’s Rights movement today — offered a much cruder version of this argument. [TRIGGER WARNING for some primo rape apologism. I have bolded the worst bits, and archived the post here in case Elam decides to take it down, as he has been doing with some of his more repellant posts].

.

.

.

Isn’t it more than just a little fascinating that underneath all this hoopla about rape is a whole lot of women who, when thinking about some guy pinning them down in a kitchen and forcing a hand up their blouse, generally tend to do so with their own hand or a vibrator between their legs? …

And isn’t it also interesting that the most rape obsessive morons on the planet also happen to be some of the ugliest morons on the planet?

Consider this. If rape awareness was a religion, Andrea Dworkin was The Fucking Pope. The 300+ lb. basilisk of man-hate had a face big enough and pockmarked enough to be used to fake a lunar landing. Her body was roughly the size and shape of a small sperm whale.

And she thought of little else in her life other than rape. The subject drove almost everything she said and did.

She even claimed to have been drugged and raped in 1999 in Paris, an accusation that was never proven and which came under a great deal of scrutiny, apparently for damned good reason.

C’mon people, Dworkin’s problem wasn’t that she was raped. Her problem, and I mean all along, was that she wasn’t.

Oh, it gets worse:

Like a corrupt televangelist who only shuts up about sexual purity and morality long enough to secure the services of a five dollar hooker, Dworkin was the poster child for “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”

Or, in other words, she was obsessed with rape, quite possibly even creating the illusion it happened to her, precisely because her worth on the sexual market was measured in pesos.

Dworkin wanted to be raped, which in her mind meant being sexually desired, but didn’t have the goods to make that happen so she made a career of hating both the source of her rejection, men, and the source of her competition, attractive women.

In the end, the most narcissistic of all Men’s Rightsers concludes that rape is all about female narcissism:

The concept of rape has a lot of utility for women. One, it feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. Two, if feeds their narcissistic need to feel irresistible. That level of irresistibility is the pinnacle of a woman’s sexual viability and worth. And for a whole lot of women, sexual worth is the only self-worth they know.

A Voice for Men’s domestic violence mascot Erin Pizzey seconded Elam’s argument during an appearance of hers last year on Reddit.

If you’re referring to Paul’s statement that many or most women fantasize about being taken, I’m sorry but that’s the truth. That doesn’t mean they want to be raped, but it’s a fantasy I think almost all women have. And I think he went on to say that feminists like Andrea Dworkin who were and are so obsessed with rape are really projecting their own unconscious sexual frustration because men don’t give them enough attention. Andrea was a very sad lonely woman like this

This is an “insight” that many other manosphereians keep reinventing and announcing to the world. In a 2013 post, for example, the “Red Pill” blogger and sometime Return of Kings contributor who calls himself TheMaskAndRose offered a very similar take on the subject.

Feminists are ugly women. They are fat, old, masculine, aggressive, hateful, sociopathic, unattractive, or any combination of those things. Attractive women tend not to be Feminists, so I encourage you to think about why that’s the case. So keeping in mind that they’re not the type of women who normal men desire or pay any attention to, here’s my theory:

Rape culture is the ugly woman’s rape fantasy. …

I think the true heart of a rape fantasy is narcissism.

I think it’s about the idea of saying NO to a man, over and over, but he throws caution to the wind and gives into the animal instinct to just overtake you–because you’re so attractive, so beautiful, so alluring, so irresistible that he just can’t help himself.

It’s about being wanted, more than anything else. Wanted so badly that a man would risk throwing his whole life away just for the chance to put his penis in you.

So, since Feminists and unattractive women generally don’t have men paying any attention to them at all–at least not the sexual kind of attention they crave but won’t admit to … they instead cast themselves in the role of heroine in a cultural narrative whereby men think they’re just so fucking deliciously hot that they can’t wait for the chance to rape them.

They project that insanity onto the world around them, and voila–“rape culture.” A world full of scary men so overtaken with lust and desire for these fat, ugly, manly cow-beasts that you never know when one of them is going to risk his career, family, money, and life outside of prison just to have sex with you.

There is, of course, a much simpler explanation for why feminists tend to be “obsessed” with rape: because it happens all the fucking time.

Ben Moynihan, adapted from the photo he sent police, and which led to his arrest

[CONTENT WARNING: Misogynistic violence, rape apologia]

His complaint was a familiar one:

I think every girl is a type of slut, they are fussy with men nowadays, they do not give boys like us a chance.

You can find nearly identical laments in the profiles of self-described “nice guys” on OkCupid, on Men’s Rights blogs, and on forums for self-described “Incels” comisserating about their “involuntary celibacy” and what they see as the shallowness of young women.

But these words actually come from a video filmed by Ben Moynihan, a British teenager who was convicted of attempted murder earlier this week after stabbing three women in an attempt to take a sort of revenge upon the “weaker” gender he felt had made his life miserable by denying him sex. Another young man trying to punish women with violence for the “crime” of not dating him.

“I am still a virgin,” he wrote in one note. “Everyone is losing it before me, that’s why you are my chosen target.” In another note, he declared that “all women needs to die and hopefully next time I can gauge [sic] their eyes out.”

Moynihan’s twisted logic is of course eerily similar to that of Elliot Rodger, who went on a shooting spree in Isla Vista last spring in an attempt to “punish” women for their lack of interest in dating him, which he declared to be “a crime that can never be forgiven.”

Thankfully, Moynihan, unlike Rodger, was captured by police before he actually succeeded in killing anyone.

Not so thankfully, both of these men have their fans, including some amongst the usual suspects I write about on this blog. On the incel hangout slutHATE – the successor to PUAhate, on which Elliot Rodger was an occasional commenter – both Rodger and Moynihan have become heroes of a sort to some of the more bitter commenters. Or at least the source of much amusement.

In response to news about Moynihan’s trial, one slutHATEr posted a thread asking “Okay, which one of you did this?” “A new supreme gentleman rises,” wrote another in a different thread devoted to the would-be killer.

A third commenter, going by the name Homesick Alien, asked the question “Are Females days numbered?” listing an assortment of incels who’d killed “females” in an act of twisted “revenge” for their lackluster or nonexistent dating lives. In the comments, Homesick Alien chillingly wrote that

I’m sure someone somehow is rightfully very rageful currently planning the next shooting spree . We can only hope it’ll be more elaborate. Female entitlement is off the charts now, they are out of control,. It’s about time they are put in their fucking place.

Another posted a link to Rodger’s 150-page manifesto, suggesting that “it has the potential to motivate incels to damage the females.”

In a thread from several months ago, a slutHATEr calling himselt NewGenious119 went after fellow incels for not supporting shooting sprees enthusiastically enough.

Seriously, is there something mentally wrong with you? Thinking that a school full of sluts and frat stars getting slain by an incel is a bad thing is characteristic of a normalfag mindset. Our ONLY hope for ever getting to fuck multiple hot sluts is if there are enough incels in the western world who snap and cause bloodshed. It’s the only way that sluts and alphas will realize and accept that there are serious consequences for allowing so many males to live their lives in misery.

Emphasis mine.

As it turned out, there was no need for him to worry that other incels didn’t support spree killngs aimed at “sluts,” as assorted commenters soon let him know.

The rogue MRA and American-Women-Boycotter who calls himself John Rambo seconded his sentiment, writing

I wouldn’t do one myself. But I wouldn’t prevent one from happening if I knew it would as long as I wouldn’t die or a girl that willing to fuck me would. …

Honestly, I truly have very little sympathy for the victims.

A commenter calling himself Worthless Trash only had one complaint: that the death tolls weren’t higher.

I just wish these guys would make better plans and kill their targets and more of them, but sadly most of them have a weakened will-power after all the years of rejections and maybe bullying.

Also i don’t care if it will solve the problem or not, i just feel better hearing this, it’s like divine justice, they feel so superior but in the end they die like worms, just like they treat other guys, like worms, so in the end we are all equal.

Still others offered their assent:

I personally rejoice whenever I hear news of a school shooting.

The higher the death count, the better

i like their kill count high, because it’s always satisfying seeing someone arrogant going from rich to poor, beautiful too ugly from popular to dead

While a few commenters spoke out against the idea of mass murder as a reasonable response to a lack of dates, they were in the distinct minority.

And then there was this guy:

i support ERism [Elliot Rodgerism], but I would never do it myself, my brother is a doctor and his career would be ruined if our family name ever got tarnished

It would be a little easier to dismiss all this as merely internet dumbassery, were it not for the fact that Rodger went out and killed 6 people after posting similar comments on the message board that later became slutHATE.

While commenters like these are a distinct minority even in the sordid world of the manosphere, the sad and scary fact is that there are a frightening number of young and not-so-young men who have embraced one of the central assumptions of the murder-spree-supporting incels of slutHATE – the notion that women who put “nice guys” in the “friend zone” are committing some kind of crime against them, and deserve to be punished for it, individually or collectively.

You can see variations on this in assorted memes attacking women – much as Moynihan and Rodgers did – for supposedly preferring “bad boys” and assholes over the “nice guys” of the world.

Other “friend zone” memes are a bit darker.

And darker still:

And somehow even darker than that:

And we’re just begun to scratch the surface here.

In a followup post, I will look at the ways in which the rampant “slutbashing” of Men’s Rights Activists and other manosphere denizens helps to feed the toxic culture of aggrieved sexual entitlement that has contributed to violence against women.

Found on Roosh V’s blog. Click for larger version.

If you have something terrible to say, say it with a meme!

That, at least, seems to be the consensus of some of the worst people on the internet. So I’m starting a little occasional series called “memesplaining” in which I’ll highlight some of the most nonsensical and/or horrific memes I run across on the internet. Today’s is both.

I found the lovely meme above pasted into the comments on the blog of everyone’s favorite rapey, racist “pickup artist” Roosh Valizadeh. I don’t know where it originated, but a quick image search reveals that it’s been making the rounds on 4chan and Reddit.

Here’s the text at a more readable size . I highlighted the worst bits, but then again pretty much the entire thing could be classified as “the worst bits.”

And gosh, it turns out that whoever made this awful meme is as dismissive of the female rape of men as he is of the male rape of women.

Somehow I imagine he’s not quite so keen on rape when men are raped by other men — even though by his logic it’s also “objectively … merely inserting an object into [his] body.”

I feel bad for the people who model for stock photos. I’m sure most of them have no idea that they’ll end up getting used to illustrate crap like this.

Roosh V: End rape by legalizing it

“Game” guru Roosh Valizadeh is tired of hearing that “men can stop rape.”

As far as he’s concerned, the problem isn’t men — who already know that rape is bad. No, it’s women.

Looking back on his own life, he wrote in a blog post yesterday (archived here),

I saw women wholly unconcerned with their own safety and the character of men they developed intimate relationships with. I saw women who voluntarily numbed themselves with alcohol and other drugs in social settings before letting the direction of the night’s wind determine who they would follow into a private room. I saw women who, once feeling awkward, sad, or guilty for a sexual encounter they didn’t fully remember, call upon an authority figure to resolve the problem by locking up her previous night’s lover in prison or ejecting him from school.

Evidently, in Roosh”s view, women are at fault when they enter a bedroom with the wrong man, but men aren’t at fault for being this wrong man. It’s a convenient argument for Roosh, who by all accounts including his own is one of these wrong men. Indeed, in his e-book Bang Iceland he admitted, rather nonchalantly, that he once raped a woman who was too drunk to consent.  As he described the events of that evening:

While walking to my place, I realized how drunk she was. In America, having sex with her would have been rape, since she legally couldn’t give her consent. It didn’t help matters that I was relatively sober, but I can’t say I cared or even hesitated. I won’t rationalize my actions, but having sex is what I do.

Now back to the rapist’s proposal to end rape:

By attempting to teach men not to rape, what we have actually done is teach women not to care about being raped, not to protect themselves from easily preventable acts, and not to take responsibility for their actions. At the same time, we don’t hesitate to blame men for bad things that happen to them (if right now you walked into a dangerous ghetto and got robbed, you would be called an idiot and no one would say “teach ghetto kids not to steal”).

I’m pretty sure that we already do teach “ghetto kids” — and non-“ghetto” kids — not to steal. And we put adults in prison for it.

It was obvious to me that the advice of our esteemed establishment writers and critics wasn’t stopping the problem, and since rape was already on the law books with severe penalties, additional laws or flyers posted on dormitory doors won’t stop this rape culture either.

Well, it didn’t stop Roosh. But it does stop others. While still horrifyingly common, rape rates have dropped considerably over the past several decades, helped by laws like VAWA and the sort of rape awareness campaigns that MRAs and other misogynists have always railed against.

But never mind, because Roosh has figured out what he thinks is a much better solution:

make rape legal if done on private property. I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds.

What!?

While Roosh thinks that “those seedy and deranged men who randomly select their rape victims on alleys and jogging trails” should still be jailed, if only to keep them off the street, he argues that “on private property, any and all rape that happens should be completely legal.”So how would this, er, solution end rape?

If rape becomes legal under my proposal, a girl will protect her body in the same manner that she protects her purse and smartphone.

Apparently in Roosh’s imaginary world, women are more concerned about the well-being of their iPhones than their own bodily integrity.

If rape becomes legal, a girl will not enter an impaired state of mind where she can’t resist being dragged off to a bedroom with a man who she is unsure of—she’ll scream, yell, or kick at his attempt while bystanders are still around. If rape becomes legal, she will never be unchaperoned with a man she doesn’t want to sleep with.

I was going to ask “what if her ‘chaperone’ decides to rape her,” but there’s no point in trying to address any of Roosh’s argument here logically.

After several months of advertising this law throughout the land, rape would be virtually eliminated on the first day it is applied.

Uh, how?

Without daddy government to protect her, a girl would absolutely not enter a private room with a man she doesn’t know or trust unless she is absolutely sure she is ready to sleep with him. Consent is now achieved when she passes underneath the room’s door frame, because she knows that that man can legally do anything he wants to her when it comes to sex.

Roosh seems to think that rape only happens when drunk women invite strangers wearing “I HEART Raping Women” t-shirts into their apartments. In fact, as RAINN points out, only about a quarter of all rapists are strangers. Roughly 40% are friends or acquaintances; another 30% are in a relationship with the victim, and 7% are family members. In other words, most rapes are committed by people that the victim knows and trusts.

Bad encounters are sure to occur, but these can be learning experiences for the poorly trained woman so she can better identify in the future the type of good man who will treat her like the delicate flower that she believes she is. After only one such sour experience, she will actually want to get fully acquainted with a man for longer than two hours—perhaps even demanding to meet his parents—instead of letting a beer chug prevent her from making the correct decisions to protect her body.

I don’t even know what to say to this. It’s not just that Roosh seems almost inhuman in his utter lack of empathy. It’s that the women he has the most contempt for are the very women he targets as a “pickup artist,” women at bars who are open to the possibility of casual sex.

Because women will never enter a man’s apartment without accepting that sex will happen, he can escort her to his bedroom and romantically consummate a relationship after it was certain he proved himself to be a good and decent man the woman fully trusted.

Does Roosh actually think he comes even remotely close to being a good man who is worthy of any woman’s trust?

It turns out that we don’t need more laws, policies, and university propaganda that treat every man like a criminal and every woman like a mild retardate—we need more common sense that can only come from making rape legal.

Yes, dear reader, you did just read a sentence in which the idea of making rape legal is described as “common sense.”

Such a change will provide a mature jolt to American women who have been babied for too long, who are protected and coddled as if they have no agency or intellect of their own. If a woman is indeed a child then maybe we really need to keep promoting “rape culture” as a way to keep them safe, but if they are actual adults, which is often claimed, then we can start treating them like adults by allowing them to take responsibility for the things that happen to them which are easily preventable with barely a strain of cognitive thought, awareness, and self control.

Huh. Earlier, Roosh compared rape to property theft. If the two are analogous, why isn’t Roosh advocating that we get rid of the laws that make theft illegal. By Roosh’s logic, don’t laws against theft “coddle” property owners and deny them “agency and intellect?”

Let’s make rape legal. Less women will be raped because they won’t voluntarily drug themselves with booze and follow a strange man into a bedroom, and less men will be unfairly jailed for what was anything but a maniacal alley rape. Until then, this devastating rape culture will continue, and women who we treat as children will continue to act like children.

Roosh seems a little confused as to who is acting like a child here.

So is Roosh being facetious here? Is this just a Swiftian “Modest Proposal?”

Certainly, Roosh is being deliberately provocative — no doubt hoping to generate as many pageviews as possible from whatever controversy ensues.

And I’m fairly certain that he is not altogether serious about his proposal, which would effectively mean that no woman would ever go home with him or any of his readers ever again.

But I don’t see a Swiftian satire here.  Roosh’s “argument” here, such as it is, repeats “arguments” he’s made in earnest many times before. He may be taking these arguments to their logical extreme, but he doesn’t seem to be doing so in an attempt to refute them. He clearly doesn’t give a shit about actually preventing rape. His absurdist “proposal” seems mostly to be an excuse to express his contempt for feminists and his hatred of women in general.

Roosh’s fans, for the most part, don’t seem to see the post as satire. Some echo his contemptuous attacks on women.

Others second his Men’s Rightsy attack on feminism as something that “infantalizes” women.

A few bring up the name of Jonathan Swift.  LoftBoy thinks Roosh’s proposal is “rediculous” enough to be satire, but thinks it just might work.

But the smartest take on the satire question comes from a commenter who is no fan of Roosh.

Paul Elam: The ladies want summa dis

A couple of days ago, A Voice for Men posted the first half of what will evidently be a nine-zillion-word interview with none other than Roosh Valizadeh — you know, the far-right racist shithead who just semi-seriously proposed legalizing rape as a way, he says, to end it. Oh, and he also once admitted to raping a woman.

While AVFM is pretty hateful itself, some MRAs were a bit nonplussed to see a post on the most influential Men’s Rights site on the internet describing Roosh, who’s also repeatedly attacked the Men’s Rights movement, as “a layered, tempered and earnest guy, who truly wants to help other men in their most basic and primal of life goals; a deep thinker, a powerful communicator … I got nothing but respect for the guy.”

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, a couple of commenters raked AVFM and its Maximum Leader over the coals for opening his site up to a dude whose ideology is hard to distinguish from actual fascism.  Lauzon, a feminism-hating subreddit regular, wrote:

Even as MRA’s take pains explaining to critics that the Men’s Rights Movement has nothing to do with Pick Up Artists, A Voice for Men has just published a fawning interview with Roosh V. …

For those unawares, Roosh is a far (FAR) right wing ideologue who considers gays “deviants,” rejects female suffrage, publishes articles advocating a return to monarchy, and is more or less openly misogynist.

I think it’s safe to say that the incompetent leadership at AVFM has just screwed the pooch. I defended Elam when he became the target of a smear campaign based on his personal life, but this is beyond the pale.

In a followup comment, he added:

I certainly won’t be donating to them again.

Well, that got Elam’s attention! Never one to take a threat to the flow of donations to him lightly, Elam posted a response on AVFM today.

Ignoring Roosh’s racism, homophobia, transphobia and open misogyny, Elam assured his readers that he, Paul Elam, knows how to make the ladies tingle without any of that PUA bullshit.

No, really.

As Elam tells it, his life became what Roosh might call a “Poosy Paradise” after he stopped being a “nice guy” to women.

The minute I figured out that my problem was not having a set of personal values strongly enough held that no woman could make me budge from them was the same minute I found a path to attract women, cull out the trash without drama or expense and to maintain a relationship with no pussy passes or princess bullshit. It is not that I never have to deal with that stuff from time to time, but I never, ever let it slide. My dick has not been the worse for it.

That’s right, folks: we’re getting an update live and direct from the ultimate authority on all things heterosexual: Paul Elam’s dick.

When I got to the point that I could look at woman in the eye and tell her I was not interested in being anyone’s knight in shining armor and that dinner with me meant finding your purse when the check came — and not give a single fuck about the women who could not handle it — I cleared the way for one who could.

Yep. Paul Elam would like the world to know that he has actually done the sex with a lady. And possibly even seen her naked.

This isn’t the first time Elam has celebrated his amazing ability to have sex with women without paying for dinner (or much of anything, apparently).

In a debate, of sorts, with a PUA going by the name Frost several years ago, Elam boasted that his non-dinner-buying approach to the ladies had “yielded a glut of butt” for him.

No, that’s a real quote. As is this

[D]oing what I did resulted in a whole slew of women lining up for summa dis. It was as easy as not giving a shit.  I didn’t need lines or come on’s or a fucking book of tactics. All I needed to do was choose one if I liked her.

I’m apologize if any of you were reading this over breakfast.

But rest assured: Paul Elam’s penis is doing a-ok!

A Voice for Men’s Paul Elam: Still not ready for his closeup

A few days before alleged “men’s human rights” website A Voice for Men held its first convention last summer, the site’s founder and head boy Paul Elam put up a post imploring the alleged human rights activists planning to attend the event not to go around calling women bitches and whores and cunts, because the news media would be there, and this might make his little human rights movement look bad.

I’m paraphrasing here; Elam was a teensy bit more euphemistic, telling his followers that anyone caught “trash-talking women, men, making violent statements … anything that can be used against us” would get a very stern talking-to and, if they persisted, would be asked to leave.

Elam’s warning didn’t stick. Indeed, the woman in charge of publicity for the event – you may know her as JudgyBitch or Janet Bloomfield, neither of which is her real name – went on a bit of a Twitter rampage, happily denouncing critics of the group as, yep, “whores.”

As GQ magazine’s long-awaited, finally published account of the conference makes abundantly clear, JB wasn’t the only one who broke Elam’s rule. Elam himself broke it, as did, apparently, almost everyone who came within shouting distance of GQ correspondent Jeff Sharlet, and the infractions went well beyond slurs and “bitch make me a sammich” jokes.

So I present to you The 5 Creepiest Details from  GQ’s Account of AVFM’s Conference Last Summer

1) The Men’s Rights Activist who boasted that he would have disowned his daughter if she had pressed charges against the man she said raped her.

Af a convention afterparty, the man in question told this little story to Sharlet, Elam, and a few others:

When one of his daughters came home one night and said she’d been raped, he said, “Are you fucking kidding me?” Sitting with us, he hikes his voice up to a falsetto in imitation: ” ‘Oh, I just got raped.’ ” He laughs. There’s a moment of silence. A bridge too far? “I told her if she pressed charges, I’d disown her.”

Elam, whose attention has drifted, grins through his beard. “That’s good fathering,” he says.

2) The presentation on male suicide in which the presenter referred to a woman’s alleged propensity for “cocoa penis puffs,” by which he evidently meant black penises.

Speaking about male suicide and the troubles faced by returning veterans, conference speaker Terrence Popp asked the men in the room to

“imagine coming back from war to find out your wife, I’m trying to think of a good way to say this, but, uh, you know, went cuckoo for cocoa penis puffs.” I think Popp, who is white, means the wife in question had sex with a black man. “Crazy for some Rice Krispies treats,” he continues, “and a couple Polish sausages thrown in there.”

3) The Men’s Rights Activist/sex offender who thinks the age of consent should be 12, because “I would rather err on the side of 12-year-olds having sex than on the side of ruining men’s lives.”

4) Sage Gerard’s “unconsensual hug.”

GQ’s Sharlet brought his friend Blair along with him to the convention, where the 26-year old evidently attracted a good deal of attention from the men there, receiving, Sharlet says, “several marriage proposals” (presumably unserious) and some hands-on attention from AVFM’s “Collegiate Activism Director” Sage Gerard, including what Blair later described as “the most unconsensual hug I have ever known.”

If Blair’s account of her encounter with Gerard is any indication, the AVFM collegiate organizer has been reading up on pickup artistry; in addition to a good deal of touching – what PUAs call “kino” – he tried to “isolate” her by drawing her away from the crowd to … write a poem. (His idea.)

Here’s how Sharlet, relying on Blair’s notes, described what happened after their awkward hug:

Sage loosens his grip. “I apologize for dragging you away,” he says. “I wasn’t going to feel okay until I talked to you.” He warns her not to send mixed messages. For instance, she shouldn’t put her hand on a man’s knee if she doesn’t want to have sex with him. Sage puts his hand on Blair’s knee. This is not a mixed message, he wants her to understand. She’s here, in the VFW. She’s taken the red pill. She needs another hug. He needs to give it to her.

Blair, I should note, is not the only one to report creepy, predatory behavior on the part of conference attendees.

5) Rape jokes, rape jokes, and more rape jokes.

I’ll just mention this one. When Sharlet arrived at the conference afterparty with Blair, who had successfully managed to escape Gerard’s unconsensual embraces, Elam asked her a question:

“I’m curious,” Elam says. “What did your friends think when you told them you were coming here?”

“To be honest?” Blair asks. Elam nods. She says, “I had friends who said I’d get raped.”

Blink. You can almost see the struggle in Elam’s bones: Play the nice guy? Or the perv? No question. “All right!” he booms, swinging his arms together. “Let’s get started!”

Jazz winces.

“Get the video camera!” Factory yells at his girlfriend, who giggles weakly.

I should be very clear here: At no point does it seem like Elam or Factory is actually going to rape Blair. We know they’re joking. Just a couple of middle-aged guys joking around about rape with a young woman they’ve never met before in a hotel room at one in the morning.

You can read the rest of Sharlet’s account of this groudbreaking human rights conference here. And you should.

Roosh V: One Giant Warning Sign

The We Hunted the Mammoth Pledge Drive continues! If you haven’t already, please consider sending some bucks my way. (The PayPal page will say you are donating to Man Boobz.) Thanks!

The lovely piece of human garbage that is Roosh Valizadeh recently posted a helpful little list of “6 Warning Signs A Girl Isn’t Worth A Relationship.”

It’s a bit of an ironic list, in that Roosh, a self-described expat “love tourist” who makes his living giving men terrible dating advice, inadvertently provides any “girls” reading his list 6 Clear Warning Signs That Roosh is an Angry Sexual Predator Who Should Be Avoided at All Costs.

Roosh starts by warning his readers about the terrible plague of the music changers.

The first thing I do when get a girl over to my shack is put on some music. Depending on the mood I’m trying to set, I’ll go with something like The Weeknd, Vanessa da Mata, or Michael Jackson. As I’m making drinks, if she goes to the laptop, cuts off my music, then pulls up her own music on YouTube, she’s only getting fucked that night and never again. Even though she wants to play “this one song,” I cut her crap off and put mine back on. I say, “If you wanted to listen to your music you should’ve invited me to your place.”

Anyone that touchy about someone changing his music is not exactly great boyfriend material.

Several more items reveal Roosh to be someone who bristles with rage whenever a woman, in his mind, disrespects him. If a woman texts someone while on a date and doesn’t apologize for it, for example, Roosh feels that “you might as well hand her your balls.”

And then his list gets very dark indeed. TRIGGER WARNING for rape apologia dark.

.

.

.

The Fifth Horseman of the Warning Sign Apocalypse is this: “Asking you to postpone your orgasm so she can gain more pleasure.”

As Roosh sees it,

If you’re about to bust your nut and a girl does tells you “No” or “Wait,” she’s an inconsiderate slut who is now causing you direct harm.

Wat.

A man’s nut is sacred, and for her to impede that should be criminal. I’m serious.

Backing away now.

One time a girl postponed my nut and then I lost it completely. I couldn’t get it back and I was left with minor groin pain. I never contacted her again.

What a terrible assault on Roosh’s manhood. He once experienced MINOR GROIN PAIN. That evil harlot should be locked up for life for the crime of a dude not having an orgasm once.

If all this seems a bit rapey, well, it gets worse with item #6: “Not urging you to continue pumping even if it’s starting to cause her discomfort,” in which Roosh explains that girlfriend-quality “girls” shouldn’t be permitted to say “stop” after agreeing to let a dude’s penis in.

I’ll tell you what love is: when a girl begs you to keep going even though you know she already came, even though she’s drying up, and even though you know it’s causing her pain.

I suppose it could be “love.” It could also be a rather different emotion known as “fear.” Fear that the angry, woman-hating asshole fucking you, who seems to erupt in rage whenever a woman disagrees with him, will flip out if you ask him to stop. And will keep going regardless.

If she tells you to stop the millisecond after she gets her nut, without you getting yours, I want you to tell her that the point of having sex with women is so a man doesn’t have to use his hand, and that she has performed below the hand.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

That’s why we do all this shit to bang women—to get our nut. If she can’t do that for us, then she’s useless as a living being.

If anyone tries to tell you that the “red pill” is really just about self-improvement for men, ask them to explain this.

If someone shows you an article from A Voice for Men arguing that “rape culture isn’t real,” show them this, and ask why they ran a long-two part interview with Roosh in which the interviewer wrote that Roosh was “a deep thinker,” and “a layered, tempered and earnest guy, who truly wants to help other men in their most basic and primal of life goals,” adding “I got nothing but respect for the guy.”

Roosh, you may recall, has also proposed legalizing rape on private property, which he bizarrely claims will bring an end to rape. I think it’s fairly clear that Roosh has no interest in ending rape. What he wants is for people to stop calling it rape. As he sees it, women saying “no” or “stop” or “get off me” are all an affront to the “sacred nut.” And we can’t have that.

EDIT: Minor edits to clarify a point.

Vox Day: “I’m smarter than practically everyone else out there.”

Earlier today, several readers alerted me to a new video out with an alarming title: Vox Day Admits to Sex with Women Without Consent, Says Gay is a Birth Defect.

The video, a 46-minute interview of Science Fiction’s biggest asshole conducted by YouTuber David Pakman, doesn’t quite live up to its sensational title (which I now see Pakman has changed).

While Day — real name Theodore Beale — does indeed say that gayness is a birth defect, he’s evasive when Pakman asks him point-blank about some of the more amazingly wrong and creepy things he’s written about rape. Indeed, he’s so evasive in his answers it’s easy to lose track of what exactly Pakman is trying to get him to clarify.

So let’s look at the actual quotes that Pakman was asking him about. In a 2005 blog post (archived here), Day wrote:

If the definition of rape is stretched so far to include women who have not given consent, then I am absolutely a serial rapist. So, too, is every man I know.

Pakman is of course correct to see this as a rather startling admission. Because the very definition of rape is sex without consent; there is no stretching going on here.

In the interview, Vox doesn’t repudiate these comments, but he doesn’t exactly affirm them either; he tells Pakman that he has indeed had sex with women without first obtaining explicit written consent, introducing a qualifier that was not there in the original. He goes on to say that he’s had sex without getting explicit verbal consent for each and every sexual act, a la the famous Antioch College rules. Again, that wasn’t the question. Pakman makes a valiant effort to pin Day down on this, but he wriggles away every time.

If you look at some of the other things Day was writing about rape around the same time of that 2005 post, you can see that he’s been using the “written permission” nonsense to muddle the issue for a very long time.

Less than a week before his “serial rape” comment, Day posted a long, victim-blamey disquisition on rape (archived here), in which he drew a distinction between “genuine rape” and date rape, saying that

most so-called “date rape” is not rape nor a crime of any kind, because he said-she said is no basis for a system of justice. If sex without written permission is a crime, then all sex is rape and all men are unrepentant criminals.

Never mind that “written permission” is never the issue in rape cases.

In another post from around the same time (archived here), he seems to suggest that the difficulty in proving date rape in court means that it doesn’t really exist:

“Date rape” is distinguished from real rape as it involves inherently sexual situations where there is seldom any possibility of obtaining evidence of either criminal activity or criminal intent, both of which are necessary to demonstrate in the conviction of real crimes.

Back to the present. Pakman asks Day about another kind of rape that he thinks doesn’t exist: rape in marriage. In a blog post last year, as you may recall, Day wrote that

The concept of marital rape is not merely an oxymoron, it is an attack on the institution of marriage, on the concept of objective law, and indeed, on the core foundation of human civilization itself.

So why isn’t marital rape rape? As Day sees it, “marriage grants consent on an ongoing basis.” So once a woman says “I do” on her wedding day, he believes, she can no longer say no to sex with her husband, as sex is part of her marital duty.

In his interview with Pakman, Day reiterates this basic argument, though he is notably elusive about just which sexual acts a married woman has intrinsically said yes to when she agrees to be married. Pakman asks Day if he believes married men should go ahead and force their wives to have sex when they’ve explicitly said no; Day allows that this might not be such a good idea.

Pakman devotes a decent portion of the interview to the troubling things Day has said about rape; he could easily have devoted an entire hour or two to Day’s odious opinions on the subject. Pakman, for example, doesn’t ask Day about his bizarre assertion, in a blog post last December, that any woman who says a white man raped her is lying. No, really. This is what he wrote:

White American men simply don’t rape these days. At this point, unless a womann claims it was committed by a black or Hispanic man she didn’t previously know, all claims of rape, especially by a college woman, have to be considered intrinsically suspect.

Even though Pakman is unable to get straight answers from Day on most of the questions he asks, the interview is well worth watching. No, scratch that: It is largely because he is unable to get straight answers from Day that the interview is so compelling.

Day is weirdly and floridly evasive on virtually every topic Pakman brings up, from rape to the intentions of #Gamergate, and while he’s never willing to say outright that he was wrong about anything Pakman puts before him, he’s remarkably unwilling to take responsibility for the words he’s written, sounding very little like the “alpha male” he so often proclaims himself to be.

Here’s the video, if you have 45 minutes to spare:

H/T — @laughnwitch on Twitter, the first of several people who alerted me to this video

EDIT: I noted that Pakman has changed the title of his video.

Protesters at an anti-rape demonstration in India

A Voice for Men seems to joining the ranks of the marital rape deniers. In a post on the site today (archived here), AVFM contributor Amartya Talukdar attacks proposed laws to criminalize marital rape in India as part of an evil feminist plot to “criminalize marriage” itself. Because, in his mind, there is no such thing as marital rape.

In the post, he offers a muddled assortment of “arguments” against the very idea of marital rape. Echoing the, er, logic of sci-fi author and far-right crank Vox Day, Talukdar explains that once a woman marries a man she gives up her right to say “no” to sex with her husband.

The concept of marital rape is an oxymoron. Marriage is a licence for sex. A woman who does not want to have sex with her husband should separate from him and file for divorce.

Indeed, as he sees it, saying “no” to a spouse’s demands for sex is the real crime.

[M]arriage is where both partners should seek sexual fulfillment. Denying each other sex is a crime except in exceptional circumstances. This applies to both man and woman. In respecting mutual duties and responsibilities lies the successful marital relationship.

As long as a husband isn’t literally beating his wife, Talukdar suggests, she should simply submit to his demands — and shouldn’t even think about calling the cops on him.

Marriage is a partnership of trust. If a man should not subject his wife to physical pain, the wife should not subject him to the rigors of the criminal justice system.

Denying a husband sex is an evil act, because it might force the poor fellow to resort to masturbation — or worse!

What should a man do if he is regularly denied sex by his wife? Should he masturbate, visit brothels or should be commit adultery?

I’m going to take door number one here, and say, yes, it would be better for a man to masturbate than for him to RAPE HIS WIFE. (Having an affair or going to a brothel are also much better options than RAPING SOMEONE.)

But as Talukdar sees it, married men are essentially paying for a lifetime of sex-on-demand, and it’s a woman’s duty to live up to her side of this supposed bargain.

Rights come with duties. A woman in India has a right to maintenance even when husband is sick, and incapable of earning or is unemployed. He is duty bound to pay his wife alimony even after divorce. The Indian Courts have held that a man must “beg, borrow or steal” but he must maintain his wife. Then why shouldn’t a man have right to have coitus with his wife if he is duty bound to maintain her?

By this logic, divorced men paying alimony to their ex-wives should also have the right to demand sex from them, but never mind.

Since marital rape, in his mind, doesn’t exist, Talukdar resorts to conspiracy theory to explain why anyone would want to pass laws criminalizing marital rape in India. In his mind, it’s part of a longstanding plot by feminists to “criminalize” marriage and thus destroy it once and for all.

In India marriage is a sacrament. However, feminists have always viewed marriage as an institution that enslaves women. Hence they want this institution to be destroyed. …

Laws like no fault divorce, domestic violence, marital rape, alimony and child support have already made marriage an extinct institution in many countries. Hence caution must be exercised before Indian Law makers copy such laws.

In the world you and I live in, marriage is “extinct” in precisely zero countries. Talukdar, like most AVFMers, seems to live in a world of his own imagining.

Talukdar’s post is another new low in a long history of new lows from AVFM.

That is a lot of tweeting.

So have you been following this whole #HowToSpotAFeminist thing on the Tweeter? The hashtag was started a couple of days ago by some right-wing radio dudes as an excuse to say mean things about feminism. By yesterday it had turned into a monster, with some feminists jumping in to try to combat the forces of darkness; as I write this at 7:28 AM Wednesday it’s still going strong.

Happily, the hashtag is proving to be very educational. So I would like to share with you The top 10 shocking “truths” about feminism I’ve learned from #HowToSpotAFeminist. You may want to take notes, as some of them are truly shocking indeed.

1) Feminists are fat and ugly with stinky, hairy armpits and no one likes them

Oh, wait, I think that last one is a ringer.

2) Feminists have smelly vaginas that may contain sand, cobwebs

3) These ugly, fat, hairy, feminists with stinky armpits and cobweb-filled vaginas sometimes resort to ad hominem instead of serious man logic

4) Feminists are Jews, or they’re controlled by Jews, or, I dunno, something to do with Jews

5) Feminists don’t know what “real feminism” is, and need to have some doofus on the internet who refers to women as “cumsluts” explain it to them

6) Feminists think they are equal to men, even though they sometimes need to have things repaired

7) Feminists for some weird reason think that rape is bad even though they’re so ugly no one would even want to rape them

8) Feminists aren’t real women, possibly because they don’t like Hitler enough

9) They have kept alive by men for all of human life and still are with male taxes.In 40years of feminism only assault men

10) Whatever the hell is going on here

Rape survivor advocate Nayreen Daruwalla speaks to Indian women. Click on pic to see her on CNN

So I was wondering if any of A Voice for Men’s readers had spoken up in the comments there about a rather sensitive subject: the fact that the supposed “human rights” site recently published a post that was not only 1) an apologia for marital rape but also, 2) written by a Holocaust denier and Hitler fan.

When I took at look at the comments there this morning, the answer was (of course) no: there was no mention of AVFM contributor Amartya Talukdar’s numerous Tweets describing the Holocaust as a hoax, Hitler as a great man, and Hillary Clinton as a “Jewess.”

Instead, I found that those who challenged Talukdar’s post (archived here) — which defended the Indian government’s refusal to see marital rape as rape — got harsh rebukes from other AVFM commenters and the site’s moderators, who went so far as to actually ban two commenters unhappy with Talukdar’s rape apologia.

No, really.

Take a look at the response one Donald J. Kingsbury got when he challenged Talukdar’s post.

It didn’t take long for Kingsbury’s prediction to come true.

This is what happens if you challenge the consensus at AVFM. Even if what you are challenging is an article by a Holocaust denier arguing that marital rape doesn’t exist because “marriage is consent.”

One commenter was unhappy with Grumpy Old Man’s response:

His candid comment earned him this rebuke from AVFM’s top mod:

Never mind that the article in question defended the “right” of men to sex-on-demand from their wives by lamenting that if women in India were allowed to say no to their husbands, these poor fellows might have to resort to masturbation. Because in Talukdar’s view, evidently, it’s better for men to rape their wives than for them to be “forced” to masturbate.

There’s a lot more terribleness in the comments there, but to me the worst comes from a regular AVFM commenter who calls himself Shrek6, who has evidently convinced himself that “rape is not that bad a crime against a woman or human being.”

“A woman or human being.” That’s actually what he wrote.

Heck, he explains in another comment, vaginas are tough, so most women don’t really suffer all that much from rape. As he sees it, most women can get over rape pretty easily if they can be convinced to forgive their rapists.

No, that’s what he really thinks:

These two comments are considered acceptable discourse at AVFM. Comments bluntly challenging an apologia for marital rape aren’t.

Hey, Dean Esmay — are these really the guys you want on your side?

The not-so-good folks at A Voice for Men are still so steamed about the Southern Poverty Law Center calling them out on their misogyny that they can’t think straight. Consider the unhinged anti-SPLC rant AVFM’s “chief operations officer” Dean Esmay posted on the site after the SPLC’s Mark Potok appeared on David Pakman’s internet show last week.

In his interview with Pakman, posted below, Potok acknowledged once again that the SPLC had not named any Men’s Rights website a “hate group.” But he also made clear that the SPLC doesn’t list any website as a “hate group” — not even the viciously racist and anti-Semitic Stormfront — because to be a hate group you need to be, well, a group, and not a website.

In fact, as Potok told Pakman, he’s seen “an incredible amount of misogyny, an incredible amount of defamation of women” in the Manosphere. “The websites are filled with incredible vitriol,” he added.

Just to give an example to our listeners, Paul Elam, the guy who runs A Voice for Men, and who is considered in many ways the leader of this anti-woman movement, for a long time had a website called Register-Her.com … [which] was a vile site that put up pictures, sometimes personal information … of various enemies of the Men’s Rights movement.

Some of those people are feminists, some of those people are women [like] Lorena Bobbitt — ok, she wasn’t very friendly to men — but an enormous number are simply women who in some way identify as feminist, who some way have offended the men in the Men’s Rights movement, women who are guilty of no crime, and yet this website said these women should be prosecuted, they should be in jail.

And there’s a huge amount of harassment, internet harassment of women who … say something publicly about feminism or sexism or misogyny. 

He’s not quite right on one detail here; AVFM didn’t actually end up putting any personal information — at least in the form of addresses, phone numbers and the like — on Register-Her. Elam just threatened to, repeatedly, and offered thousand-dollar bounties to those who were able to deliver the personal info of some women the AVFMers were unable to track down. But the rest is of course correct.

Potok noted that in his view “there are absolutely legitimate beefs that men have,” including bias towards women in family courts. “That said,” he continued,

I would say that legitimate complaints are very much the minority of what you see on these websites. Most of it is just untrammeled hatred directed at women.

He also brought up the Philosophy of Rape subreddit, devoted to the “corrective rape” of “harlots” (I wrote about it here) and the rabidly antifeminist and anti-woman mass murderers Marc Lepine and Elliot Rodger.

Well, Potok’s appearance on the show seems to have sent Esmay over the edge. In his AVFM post, he declared Potok, a “sociopathic, reactionary bigot,” a “rich fatcat tool of the corporate establishment,” and (somewhat redundantly) “a fatcat corporate weasel who just happens to dress a little like an old hippie.” He also described Potok as a “snake … in Dockers,” which is odd, because neither snakes nor old hippies are known to favor khakis.

Esmay wants the world to know (he’s got to let it show):

I want the world to know I have said this, and I mean it: the Southern Poverty Law Center is a multimillion $$ fraud organization that makes its money by spreading fear and hate and ignorance – mostly in the form of slanted half-truths- about innocent people who can’t fight back.

This is a rather, well, interesting take on the noted civil rights organization. If you look on the SPLC website, to be sure, you will find quite a number of “innocent people who can’t fight back,” among them:

Migrant farmworker Victor Marquez [who] was traveling to his hometown in Querétero, Mexico, to pay for his new home, only to have his life savings seized by police who alleged it was drug money.

Guest workers from India, lured by false promises of permanent U.S. residency, paid tens of thousands of dollars each to obtain temporary jobs at Gulf Coast shipyards only to find themselves forced into involuntary servitude and living in overcrowded, guarded labor camps.

There’s just one problem with Esmay’s analysis: the SPLC didn’t spread “fear and hate and ignorance” and/or “slanted half-truths” about these men. It filed lawsuits on their behalf.

The SPLC got the State of Alabama to return the $19,000 that Victor Marquez has earned not from selling drugs but from picking beans. In the case of the Indian guest workers, SPLC’s federal lawsuit forced Signal International to cough up $14 million in damages to five men the company had duped and exploited.

Indeed, if you look through the lawsuits listed on the SPLC website, you will see example after example of the group working on behalf of, well, “innocent people who can’t fight back,” from trans men facing discrimination on the job to prisoners (adult and juvenile) enduring horrific conditions and abuse to guest workers getting ripped off by their employers to immigrants denied marriage licenses to lesbian, gay and transgender youth facing bullying at school.

The SPLC has been famously successful in a number of cases, not only providing justice to people who wouldn’t have otherwise had the resources to bring cases on their own but also helping to eradicate unjust and illegal practices. In Austin V. Jones and  Hope v. Pelzer, for example, the SPLC not only assisted abused prisoners seeking redress but brought the end of “hitching posts” and chain gangs in the Alabama prison system.

The SPLC has also, as an article on the site points out,

crippled some of the nation’s largest and most violent hate groups by helping victims of racial violence sue for monetary damages. Its victories include a $7 million verdict against the United Klans of America in 1987 for the lynching of Michael Donald in Mobile, Ala.; a $12.4 million verdict against the White Aryan Resistance in 1990 for the brutal murder of an Ethiopian student in Portland; and a $6.3 million verdict against the Aryan Nations in 2000 that forced the organization to give up its 20-acre compound in Idaho.

And in Macedonia v. Christian Knights of the Ku Klux Klan,

The Christian Knights of the KKK, its state leader, and four other Klansmen were ordered to pay $37.8 million, later reduced by a judge to $21.5 million, for their conspiracy to burn a black church.

The civil judgment forced the Klan to give up its land and headquarters. When the property was sold, the deed included a restriction that the land never be used for white supremacist activities.

The judgment in this case transformed the Christian Knights from one of the most active Klan groups in the nation to a defunct organization.

So who exactly are these “innocent people” who Esmay thinks the SPLC is tarring with “slanted half-truths?” Esmay gets a little more specific later on in his rant, accusing the SPLC of

instigating spin and slander indiscriminately against anyone who might deviate somewhat from mainstream opinion (or just opinions not liked by the elites who rule us).

Esmay doesn’t provide any actual examples of these allegedly “slandered” people he thinks have been unfairly targeted by the SPLC because their thoughts “deviate somewhat from mainstream opinion”  — perhaps because, if he were to actually start listing any of the extremists that the SPLC tracks, it would quickly become obvious that their opinions are, not to put to fine a point on it, hateful as shit.

Here’s a list of the various kinds of hate groups and individuals that the SPLC tracks:

• Anti-Immigrant
• Anti-LGBT
• Anti-Muslim
• Black Separatist
• Christian Identity
• Holocaust Denial
• Ku Klux Klan
• Neo-Confederate
• Neo-Nazi
• Patriot Movement
• Phineas Priesthood
• Racist Music
• Racist Skinhead
• Radical Traditional Catholicism
• Sovereign Citizens Movement
• White Nationalist

Most of these categories are pretty self-explanatory. But in case you haven’t been following the ins and the outs of the American far right over the past several decades: “Christian Identity” is a violently racist, anti-Semitic and only “nominally Christian” ideology that arose in the 1980s; “Neo-Confederates” are fans of the old south, slavery and all, and not big fans of democracy or gay people; the “Patriot Movement” is an antigovernment movement of mostly white dudes suffused with racism, nativism and a love of guns; “Radical Traditional Catholicism” is a rabidly anti-Semitic splinter sect “rejected by the Vatican and some 70 million mainstream American Catholics” but embraced by Mel Gibson and his dad. “Sovereign Citizens” are a sort of Time-Cubed band of tax protesters, some of whom are white and racist as fuck, and some whom are black and “unaware of their beliefs’ origins.”

Yeah, the Sovereign Citizen thing is weird.

I hadn’t heard of the Phineas Priesthood myself. Evidently it’s a term white supremacists use to describe those who’ve murdered interracial couples or otherwise violently attacked “Jews, non-whites, multiculturalists and others seen as enemies.”

Huh. It’s funny, but I’m not seeing a lot of good-but-misunderstood souls on this list.

Now remember: Esmay doesn’t just think that the SPLC has wrongly included a few non-hateful folks (like, presumably, him) alongside real extremists in its “extremist files.”

Esmay, as he so proudly “want[s] the world to know I have said,” is accusing the SPLC of being “a multimillion $$ fraud organization that makes its money by spreading fear and hate and ignorance.” And he thinks that most of this alleged “fear and hate and ignorance” comes “in the form of slanted half-truths- about innocent people who can’t fight back.”

So either Esmay honestly thinks that most of those on the SPLC’s big list of bigots aren’t actually bigots at all — thus aligning himself with some of the most hateful shits in the known universe — or he’s deliberately lying about an organization that has done more to help “innocent people who can’t fight back” than his foul website could do in a million billion years (and that’s only if we ignore all the bad that the website does that puts its moral balance sheet perpetually in the red).

Actually, that’s not really fair to Esmay. It’s possible that he’s neither a secret Nazi nor a compulsive liar but rather an over-excitable ideological hack who simply has no fucking idea what he’s talking about.

This is hardly the end of Esmay’s false accusations against the SPLC. He continues his absurdities by claiming that the SPLC is a “contemptible terrorist-inspiring organization” that “has helped incite murder.” Esmay’s “evidence” for this assertion?  A blog post by a right-wing ideologue that links to a story in the right-wing Weekly Standard that sort of half-suggests that the SPLC may have half-inspired the murder of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina … because the accused killer “liked” the SPLC on Facebook.

Esmay might have had a point here if the SPLC were, you know, an organization that devoted all of its energy to inciting hate and violence against Muslims.

Trouble is, as you may recall from earlier, the SPLC is quite explicitly opposed to anti-Muslim bigotry; indeed, the group has profiled a number of prominent Muslim-haters and includes some two dozen “Active Anti-Muslim Groups” in its database of hate groups. Wherever the accused killer in Chapel Hill learned his anti-Muslim hate — and there is certainly no shortage of places he could have — it wasn’t on the SPLC Facebook page.

Should I bother to point out that the misogynistic mass murderer Elliot Rodger was a regular commenter on PUAhate, a site soaked in misogyny — and whose most famous moderator at the time was a fellow who goes by the name of Aaron Sleazy? You know, the same Aaron Sleazy who, under his real name Jalon Cain, wrote 10 articles for A Voice for Men? (His final article there: a bizarre attempt to blame Rodger’s killings on “gynocentrism” that somehow neglects to mention his own role at PUAhate.)

Esmay is not only dead wrong about the big issues; he throws in some little white lies as well. Upset that Pakman didn’t hit him up for the alleged truth about the SPLC before bringing Potok on his show, Esmay complains that

Pakman has not so much as approached us to comment before allowing the odious hate group known as the SPLC bash the innocent men and women of the Men’s Human Rights Movement, who are incredibly easy to find and talk to (me and Paul can be reached right here).

Well, there are few lies there, but it’s the last one that gets me. You know, the one about Esmay and his boss Paul Elam being “incredibly easy to find and talk to.”

The other day, as some of you may know, I tried to contact Elam and Esmay to point out that they had published a number of posts by a literal Holocaust denier and Hitler fan on AVFM and ask them what they intended to do about this.

Elam blocked me on Twitter, making clear he wasn’t taking any questions from me. And the “incredibly easy to … talk to” Esmay sent me this nice note:

At the time I assumed that Esmay was playing a bit of the old “kill the messenger” game in an attempt to avoid dealing with the fact that the site he’s the “managing editor” of had, you know, published a number of posts by a literal Holocaust denier and Hitler fan.

But maybe I was too kind. Could it be that Esmay thinks that Holocaust-denial and Hitler-love are just examples of slight “deviat[ions] … from mainstream opinion (or just opinions not liked by the elites who rule us)” that are so unfairly judged by big meanies like the SPLC?

Mr. Esmay, on the off-chance you are still open to questions: Is Holocaust denial one of those “Men’ Human Rights” that AVFM likes to talk so much about?

And if I may be allowed a followup: What do you have against Dockers, anyway?

I guess we’ll never know, because the chance that Esmay will respond to these questions or this post, if he does at all, with anything even approaching honesty or logic or even correct grammar is pretty damn slim.

Here’s the Pakman interview with Potok:

Oh, wait, that was actually a Dockers commercial from 1988. Here’s the real interview.

The Red Pill: A Choking Hazard

A lot of Men’s Rights Activists, would-be pickup artists, and other so-called “Red Pillers” like to complain that feminists have so muddied up the issue of sexual consent that men today can never really be sure if the sex they’re having is actual consensual sex or some newfangled variety of rape.

But in fact the ones doing most of the muddying are them — in some cases because they would like to roll back the progress we’ve made on the issue of consent over the last several decades and return to a world in which pressuring and manipulating and even directly coercing a woman into saying “yes” to sex they don’t want was considered an appropriate “technique” in a man’s dating playbook. 

Most of them would prefer not to state this outright, and instead talk endlessly about the evils of “regret rape” and an alleged epidemic of “false rape accusations.” But once in a while they let slip what they really mean.

Case in point: a highly revealing, and heavily upvoted, post from the Red Pill subreddit in which one aspiring “game” master calling himself Archwinger expresses his dismay that so many people think “any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically ‘abuse.'”

He goes on to argue, remarkably, that his refusal to see coerced sex as rape or even abuse is a sign of just how deeply Red Pillers like him respect women.

Our detractors assume women are idiots, and therefore, it should be a federal offence to ever attempt to coerce a woman into sex, because women that agree to be with such men are apparently, by definition, mentally impaired. 

In his mind, caring about abused women, and trying to understand the many complicated reasons they may choose to stay with abusers, is a sign that feminists “assume women are idiots.”

The occasion for Archwinger’s little rant was a post elsewhere on Reddit — he doesn’t link to it —

telling the tale of a 17-year-old girl and her controlling, manipulative, abusive 23-year-old boyfriend who took great pains to isolate her from her friends and family, demand sex on every occasion they would meet (and threaten to dump her or kick her out of his house if she didn’t comply), and some other really shitty behaviors, like physical violence and driving off and leaving her in another state.  

The kicker: the abusive boyfriend in the story was said to be a big fan of, you guessed it, The Red Pill subreddit.

Archwinger quickly tries to distance The Red Pill from this douchebag, declaring him to be

a sniveling loser who had to resort to insecure, jealous, and controlling behavior because he didn’t have options with other women, wasn’t an attractive or valuable man, and was desperately afraid of losing this girl.

In other words, as Archwinger writes, “this guy isn’t the ‘alpha male’ a Red Pill guy strives to be.”

Archwinger seems to have forgotten that various “Red Pill” and “game” gurus regularly recommend “gaslighting” and other forms of emotional abuse in order to keep wives and girlfriends, as they see it, in line. Indeed, you may recall the time that the repellent “pickup guru” Heartiste actually suggested that a number of the abusive behaviors listed on the Duluth “Power and Control Wheel” — a tool used by anti-domestic violence counselors — were great ways to get the upper hand with women.

Even more ironically, after dismissing the “sniveling loser” of a boyfriend who is so un-alpha he regularly threatened to break up with his girlfriend if she wouldn’t have sex with him right then and there, Archwinger turns around and suggests that this kind of manipulative abuse isn’t abuse at all.

Assuming there’s “no perceived power disparity or significant age difference or anything like that,” Archwinger argues, telling a woman to “[h]ave sex with me or we’re through” isn’t abusive; it’s just a simple question a woman can say “yes” or “no” to. He complains that

The modern, anti-Red-Pill viewpoint is that no woman would ever put up with that garbage. The only correct choice is for that woman to dump the “abusive” shithead she’s dating (because any attempt to coerce a woman into sex is automatically “abuse.” You’re supposed to buy her jewelry every weekend, not say a word about sex, and hope she fucks you out of the goodness of her heart).

Well, no. No one needs to buy anyone any jewelry. And no one is required to pity-fuck anyone “out of the goodness of [their] heart[s].” If your girlfriend has sex with you, it should be because she wants to have sex with you (as you do, with her).

It’s kind of amazing that Archwinger — at least as he frames things here — seems to see no third option between a direct demand for sex in the form of manipulative ultimatum and a creepy, passively aggressive “Nice Guy” attempt to guilt trip women into having sex by buying them expensive presents.

There is another way, guys: you could just fucking ask her. Not out of the blue with someone you don’t know, and not rudely, but in some appropriate manner, at an appropriate time and place when there’s some evidence that she might be interested in having sex with you as well. The exact wording of your question isn’t really terribly important; just ask.

Naturally, the assembled Red Pillers largely agreed with Archwinger’s creepy, rapey analysis.

A few had quibbles. Redpillschool, a moderator of the subreddit, argued —  in a comment that won more than a hundred upvotes — that Archwinger was too quick to assume that older men have more power in relationships with younger women. Because women have tits, and tits are power. No, really:

[W]omen are naturally turned on by and attracted to older, established, successful men. But if a man takes advantage of this — he’s wrong. He’s bad.

It becomes politically incorrect to use your advantages to attract women. You should date somebody your own age.

What about beauty? If age and status boost men’s SMV, then beauty and youth are women’s equivalent. Feminists don’t seem to care that a young beautiful woman has such an enormous amount of power, they can make a living off of just having tits, control men, get men to buy them things, and a variety of other things.

This is what Warren Farrell infamously (and a little anachronistically) has called women’s “miniskirt power.”

Another commenter had a more, well, fundamental issue with Archwinger’s analysis.

One issue I have with this post that is causing some dissonance within me is your assumption that women are logical and can think with reason. Though often written with snark, many posts here assume exactly the opposite. Therefore it is often suggested that men treat women as they would children (amused mastery) and take the lead in making final decisions.

Archwinger — you know, the great respecter of women — replied that women aren’t inherently stupid and illogical; society makes them that way.

Women aren’t stupid or incapable of reason. We just happen to live in a society where narcissistic bitches are lavished with attention and praised, and women never have to grow up, so the odds are that one or more women you date during your lifetime will behave in a manner that’s frankly kind of childish, and that you don’t want to validate. (insert obligatory “not all women” and “men too sometimes” language here so that nobody bothers replying with that idiocy)

Contrast that with feminism, which is advocating for a complete removal of all agency and responsibility from women, just not using those words because then it sounds stupid. …

Feminism seeks laws that remove agency from women. Did she have any alcohol in her system, then later regret sex? Rape. Man’s fault. Did she say yes, but not clearly and enthusiastically? Rape. Man’s fault. In a few years, you’ll probably see them push for expanding the definition of statutory rape to include an age difference of more than a certain amount (because a 35 year old man with a steady job dating a 21-year-old in college is clearly all about power and manipulation, because young women definitely aren’t attracted to good looks and social status and financial stability.)

There’s a lot of nonsense in his reply, but it’s that last bit that’s the most revealing: Archwinger understands perfectly that there’s a power differential between a thirtysomething man and a college-aged woman; he just wants to pretend it doesn’t matter.

Archwinger’s post, and the responses it generated, suggest that most Red Pillers are aware, as well, that when women end up “regretting” a sexual encounter that the man allegedly thought was consensual, it’s not because women are flighty and irresponsible and vindictive monsters out to punish innocent men. It’s because the woman in question was being coerced into it. And that isn’t “regret rape.” It’s just plain rape.

Red Pillers, or at least a significant number of them, are well aware that coerced sexual consent is no more valid than a “forced confession.” They just don’t want to remove coercion from their “seduction” toolkit.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

EDIT: A few additions and changes in the penultimate paragraph  to make the point clearer.

Every Red Piller’s fantasy

So I was reading through a rant on the Red Pill subreddit that’s so over-the-top ridiculous that it got downvoted to zero by the Red Pill masses. (Or maybe they voted it down because it wasn’t woman-hating enough? Hard to tell, where the Red Pill is concerned.)

Regardless, the rant inspired some, well, revealing commentary from other Red Pillers. Like this creepy and amazing mini-masterpiece of misogyny, from a comment by beerthroway that actually got some upvotes from the Red Pill masses. I’ve bolded some of the best –by which I mean the worst — bits.

[W]omen enjoy being forced to do things, just like children. …

Feminism has only concealed the nature of women. It is traditionalism that addresses the nature of women correctly, as deviant sexual beings that have an insatiable sex appetite and will manipulate everyone around them given the chance. Why do you think traditional values always restrict sex? Because it is a basic requirement of civilization and patriarchy. It allows for the advancement of civilization, so that everyone isn’t stuck in a hedonistic orgy (sexual or other pleasures).

You’re right that men don’t want a war. You’re wrong that we are not at war. Like the “men don’t hate women” post, we don’t try to oppress women. We understand that by maintaining power, women feel more secure. We should embrace hierarchy and accept that men are better and therefore, more rights = more responsibility. Sure give women the opportunity to have the same responsibility and earn the right. But don’t freely assume there is no war and give them the benefits, rights, and joy of being taken care of and made to smile if she won’t accept the responsibility of accepting her place underneath me as the women she is. Women want to be with a winner, not be the winner.

Well, that last bit is definitely wrong, if this scene from Stranger Than Paradise is any indication. (You really only need to watch the first 30 seconds to get the general gist of it.)

Actually, I’m pretty sure every word in that comment is wrong. Probably every letter.

The post that inspired beerthroway’s comment, a weird manifesto from some dude called Modern__Day__Pricus, is also sort of a masterpiece. Some highlights, with commentary:

We are not trying to “Put women back in the kitchen” or say they are only good for “Sucking dick and washing dishes”.

Unnecessary capitalization aside, so far so good.

Granted, it is fun to joke about these things and, even to an extent some would argue that is all they are good for …

And Modern__Day__Pricus has driven right into a ditch.

… but on a bigger picture level men after they have had their fill of pussy that are looking to achieve Mastery level in life will find these jokes and ways of expressing anger to be limited.

We are not against women. We, the people on this site and many other sites are not trying to go to war with women.

Wait, he seems to have gotten back on the road again.

It is much, much deeper than that. Woman’s ego’s from the outside perspective only view it as us hating on them and wanting to go back to caveman days, but that is only because women are more naturally solipsism than men. Its something they can’t help like pissing, shitting, eating, blinking, and watching bad movies due to being hyped by the movie trailers.

… and there he goes right back into the ditch.

Shocking as this may seem to ladies it is not all about them. Once a man gets through the clutter of pussy we look to seek something DEEPER than the Grand Canyon that has become their pussy pass the age of 23.

Er, I think you meant “past,” as in “something DEEPER than the Grand Canyon that has become their pussy PAST the age of 23.” You’re welcome!

This site and many others really have nothing to do with them as crazy as it may look. We on this site are seeking more from life than being trapped in the pink web of nonsense that women place us in. 

I don’t think that’s a web. I think what you’re seeing is women’s vaginas literally sewing themselves shut at the thought of you.

We are not are war trying to force women to do what they don’t want to do (Expect when it comes to their rape fantasies in bed but, anyway)

Uh, this is kind of basic, but I think this dude needs a refresher on the basics: If it’s really her fantasy, and she tells you she wants you to act it out with her in the context of consensual sex, you’re not actually forcing her to do something that she doesn’t want to do. 

If you are literally forcing her to do something she doesn’t want to do because you think all women have rape fantasies involving you, that’s not a rape fantasy, that’s rape.

Feminism may have ruined shit but it has helped men realize the truth and help us see that there is more out there than just pussy and having kids. … we only have one life to live. Make sure you don’t fall victim to a trap door that the “script” of the world gives and shoves down your throat porn style.

There’s a trap door in someone’s throat now?

We are men that have woken up and see that we only have one life to live, and its best to seek from it purpose, Mastery, and Greatness that can be looked back on 50 years from now and give men and even women inspiration to move onward towards their own greatness as well.

Who do you think the world will remember more? Michael Jordan shooting his last shot against The Utah Jazz in 1998, or the person he crossed over to shoot that shot over in 1998? Can you remember his name without using Google?

No, I can’t. I also can barely remember your Reddit handle even though I pasted it in twice earlier in this post. I hate to have to break this to you, Dude, but you’re no Michael Jordan, basketball-wise or even being-a-decent-person-wise.

Don’t fall into a trap door. ALWAYS seek more than what is given to you.

Actually, dude, I’m thinking that the trap door is the best option for you.

Proper response to virtually all Return of Kings posts

I suppose I should mention the latest attempt at viral outrage from the always terrible Return of Kings boys: A post by B.R. Crumb with the deliberately offensive title “Why You Should Avoid Dating Girls Who Claim They Were Raped.”

The trolly Crumb is so unashamed of his trolliness that he actually devotes a chunk of his post to imagining an outraged reaction from me (“already I can see David Futrelle’s fourth chin trembling as he stammers his rebuttal in a fit of pique”).

So I might as well give him what he wants, a reaction, though it’s one of weariness rather than “pique.” 

Crumb’s “argument” is that, while men shouldn’t necessarily “forego banging a raped chick (after getting her written consent, notarized and in triplicate)” they shouldn’t enter into relationships with them, because a dating strike against “chicks” who claim to have been raped will, as he puts it, undercut the appeal of rape. No, really.

Girls are fond of falsely crying rape because in the sexually liberated West, being known as a rape victim is all upside, no downside. Raped chicks are praised for heroism and bravery. Other people lavish attention on them, and ask them to speak about themselves at length, which for chicks is like crack cocaine.

In extreme cases, raped chicks have leveraged their purported suffering into international acclaim and seven-figure book deals. …

If men once again refuse to date raped chicks, rape will become once more an infrequent source of private and passing pain, and not an indelible merit badge to be trumpeted across all the media outlets in the land.

As you can see, his infallible plan to reduce the alleged appeal of rape is not actually a plan to reduce rape itself; it’s just a plan to try to get women to shut up about being raped.

In case this argument isn’t offensive enough for you, Crumb throws in a remark about raped women “orgasm[ing] underneath [their] alluring, bad-boy attacker[s].”

Crumb confesses that he doesn’t actually care much if men date “raped chicks”; they just need to announce publicly that they won’t.

What matters is that you say you won’t date raped chicks, and thus encourage girls to think that crying rape will hurt their romantic prospects.

Realize that we are fighting a war of disinformation, against an unprincipled enemy that is openly contemptuous of the truth. Nothing could be more tediously unproductive than arguing over facts with an opponent who has chosen to forego them. To win this fight, you have to hit the bitches where it hurts.

And for most chicks, that means attacking their romantic prospects—or, more fundamentally, their attractiveness. Even the most manjawed cunt secretly harbors fantasies of locking down a good man, marrying him, and thereby trebling her disposable income. Chicks will cry rape if it means endless, adoring attention with zero associated cost. But they won’t if they think getting raped renders them unattractive in the eyes of men.

Though Crumb’s headline refers to “Girls Who Claim They Were Raped” (emphasis mine), he quickly forgets about including this qualifier in the text itself, referring repeatedly to “raped chicks” — as if, on some level, he recognizes that the overwhelming majority of rape claims are indeed true.

Towards the end of the post, he seems to suddenly remember that he’s supposed to pretend that rape accusations are all a bunch of lies.

[I]f we band together in this effort, then someday, in the not-so-distant future, a 6.5 will find herself in her dorm room, regretfully recalling the night she got pounded out by the captain of her college’s club soccer team… and she’ll idly contemplate crying rape.

But then she’ll remember how much she likes the captain of the club swim team, and she’ll consider the impact crying rape would have on his opinion of her. And she’ll think better of her little lie.

And when she does, it will be because together, we took a stand against ever dating raped chicks.

He couldn’t even keep up the facade for more than two paragraphs; in the final paragraph of that quote, he has returned to talking about women that even he would acknowledge have really been raped.

And that, of course, is the whole point of his screed. His “plan,” of course, is really no more than a fantasy — a fantasy, not of a world free of rape but one free of all talk of rape.

He’s not really interested in shutting up women who lie about rape; he’s interested in shutting up those who tell the truth. 

But there is a silver lining here: If the terrible men who make up the bulk of the Return of Kings demographic actually do refuse to date rape survivors, well, they won’t be dating rape survivors. Return of Kings has already declared dating strikes against fat women, women with short hair and probably a number of other kinds of women that I can’t remember at the moment. Ultimately, one can only hope, they’ll end up boycotting all possible categories of human women and settle into long-term and hopefully more-or-less sanitary relationships with their Fleshlights.

I’ll be keeping my fingers crossed.

(I’m sure the comments to Crumb’s post are even worse than anything he’s written; I just don’t have the energy to wander into them today.)

Karen “GirlWritesWhat” Straughan: Everything she says is “true”

Karen Straughan, the soporific, pseudoscientific YouTube antifeminist, doesn’t seem on the surface much like a “Red Pill Woman.” She’s a single mother with short hair, well past “the wall,” who makes a point of not wearing makeup in her videos.

But she’s got one quality that apparently makes up for all of her other defects as a Red Pill gal: she tells the Red Pill guys exactly what they want to hear, defending their noxious views, feeding their sense of victimhood, and hand-waving away their blatant misogyny.

So it’s hardly a surprise that she got a warm welcome when she showed up yesterday in the Red Pill subreddit to do an “ask me anything.” Today, I girded my loins and popped a caffeine pill and read through her answers. Well, skimmed them, anyway; I’m no masochist.

I learned a lot. Unfortunately, most of what I learned was not true. 

So let me present the Top Ten Completely Untrue Things I Learned from GirlWritesWhat’s Red Pill AMA, and One Thing That Might Possibly Be True. 

All quotes are straight from Straughan’s AMA. I’ve bolded some of the most-untrue bits.

1) Roosh V isn’t a bad person for wanting to legalize rape

“One commenter expressed a wish that I’d learn to speak more wisely and circumspectly on topics like RooshV’s suggestion to make rape legal on private property (all I said was that however stupid or unfeasible or offensive his idea was, his stated intention was to prevent rape, so I wasn’t going to call him a bad person for it).”

2) Red Pill dudes only say terrible things about women because they love them so much

“It’s not misogynistic. Some of the rhetoric here is very angry, and very generalized. A lot of that is from a sense of betrayal–I was taught women are wonderful and believed it, and then the shit hit the fan. There’s a point, though, if the journey isn’t suppressed through punishment and shaming, where these men tend to realize it’s the false paradigm they’re angry with, not women. … If these men didn’t love women in the first place, they wouldn’t be able to be hurt by their failure to live up to the unrealistic expectations society has encouraged them to have.”

3) When men rape women, it’s probably some woman’s fault, if you think about it

“A rapist is a very damaged man (usually damaged by women) or a man who really really really wants sex but can’t convince a woman to willingly lie down with him.”

4) Women might look cute, but GWW can see the total-not-cuteness of their souls

“Neoteny. It’s important. The cuter someone is, the nicer we assume they are. For women, that cuteness is also associated with attractiveness to the opposite sex. So everyone thinks cute women are automatically nice, and men also find them sexually appealing.”

5) I’m a fatty who might possibly be wearing a fedora. No, really, for some reason my weight and possible hat choices came up

“Have you guys seen David Futrelle? Or “Angry Aussie”? Or any number of other hipster douchebag male feminists who are fat, have neckbeards, wear fedoras, have difficulty getting laid, etc?

A lot of the men I’ve met in my travels through the MRM are awkward or otherwise don’t remind women of Matthew McConaughey. But a lot of them are quite presentable. Confident, attractive, fit, and definitely not virgins.”

NOTE: I have doublechecked and I am definitely not wearing a fedora.

6) “Most feminists” probably have Borderline Personality Disorder or something similar

7) Red Pillers are the Malcolm X to the Men’s Rights Movement’s Martin Luther King

“If you rebelled without disseminating a message, you’d be a hindrance. But doing what you’re doing, you’re helping, even if you’re just presenting a Malcolm X for MRAs to juxtapose against MLK.“

8) Black activists only protested the shootings of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown in order to get white people mad and make money for themselves, probably

“When you try to cast blame over all whites for perpetuating a racist culture in a Martin or Brown case, whites don’t like that. They get pissed. It gets the animosity stirred up on both sides of the racial divide much more effectively than if the shooting was 100% unjustifiable. And it stirs up white resentment of blacks.

It’s like these particular people (activist leaders) are invested in racism, and they (maybe subconsciously) go out of their way to perpetuate the conditions that keep them in paychecks and justify their existence.

If racism ended, they’d be out of a job. The last three generations are the least racist, sexist, homophobic in history. Where’s the money and status in that, for your average Sharpton?”

9) There’s no epidemic of rape in India because half of all rape cases there are total bullshit

“[T]here’s significant evidence that about half of rape reports in India derive from consensual sex between unmarried persons, but which fall under statutory definitions of rape that are being questioned within the system as to their moral basis in a changing social landscape.” 

10) Women are less stable than men because science?

“A woman has to be more emotionally stable than 85% of women to be as emotionally stable as the average man. A man has to be more sensitive than 85% of men to be as sensitive as the average woman.”

11) Chimp dudes don’t have wingmen. (Wing-chimps?)

“Human males are more cooperative with each other than males of almost any other species, really. The phenomenon of guys trying to get other guys laid just isn’t a thing in chimpanzee society.“

That last one might be true, I guess. What the hell do I know about chimps?

EDIT: I have been informed that chimp dudes sort of do have wingmen, but in a horrible way.

Last year, I wrote about a repellant little “community” on Reddit: the PhilosophyofRape subreddit, devoted to promoting what it called the corrective rape of “filthy, unmitigated, sluts … [t]hat badly need to be punished. Badly.”

Reddit being what it is, the subreddit remains up to this day. And now the folks behind it have taken their repugnant “philosophy” to the web. Earlier this week, one of the subreddit’s numerous moderators, a veritable cauldron of bigotries who calls himself European88, announced the grand opening of a new Philosophy of Rape website. He urged his fellow “philosophers” to “[s]ubscribe and submit your rape tips … !” 

Like the subreddit before it, the site declares war on “harpies,” “hussies,” “[d]ecrepid filth, dressed like hookers and reaking like vodka” and “Belligerent. Entitled. Selfie taking, Tindr-whoring, Teenage-walking-herpes-sores.”

The “philosophers” also take aim at “vain, vile, venemous, femenist, filth,” particularly

[t]he kind who get conferences to talk about mens suicide rates shut down. The type of hussies who have lobbied effectively to remove due process from proceedings against men on college campuses.

In  a post titled “Why is Rape Necessary,” the site sets forth its case for “correction.” (I’ve bolded the worst bits.)

1) Rape did serve important, healthy, and natural biological purposes historically in limiting the extent to which female bad behavior can go.

2. Women in many ways are like children, and most can not self-regulate very well, so in the absence of something like parents or a natural limiting force like rape, they just run amok and destroy their selves and everything they touch.

3. Because rape is so completely arm-barred back by the state, and feminism has grown to be this infestation that caused even the social consequences for female behavior to dissappear, we find ourselves in a precarious situation. Unbridled female sluttishness, entitlement, narcissism, vileness and destruction gone viral.

4. Such women need to be Corrected. Humbled. Brought back down to a healthy place and realistic mindset. For their own good as well as that of those around them. That particular corrective action is quite clear, the one that used to naturally limit the behavior: rape.

5. We are here to provide encouragement and advice how to do that and do it safely. Regression analysis to find out which variables make it less likely to get into legal trouble. Very few women report the rapes, what can you do to make it even less likely? Example: remind the victim that “no one will believe them”. When they orgasm (which is actually very common during rape, Google it) speak up and let them know that you are aware of it and that it will come out during trial if they reported it.

Yes, that’s right. After complaining that the feminist “infestation” has enabled “unbridled” female awfulness by drastically reducing the “natural limiting force [of] rape,” the rape “philosophers” acknowledge that most men who rape women face zero consequences for their action. Indeed, in another post, one “philosopher” declares that

We want to teach men that although it may be easier than ever for an innocent man to be convicted of rape when a consensual partner has buyers remorse, it’s also easier than ever for a guilty man to get away Scott free – so long as it’s done the way we advocate: actual rape-rape, as in dark-alley, ski mask, stranger rape.

Emphasis mine. Some of the rape “tips” offered on the site are wholly unoriginal:

Tell the harlot that you come from a rich family and that she will never successfully convict you of raping her in court.  Tell her that, if she tries to sue you, you will counter-sue for a huge amount of money that will bankrupt her.

Pretty sure that one’s been used before.

Tell the harlot that, if she tells the police about the rape, you will kill her entire family.  If she has children, tell her that you will rape her children before killing them.

That one too.

Other tips are little more than sadistic fantasies:

Put sugar into the harlot’s vagina to give her a yeast infection.  This will be a mark of shame on her that she will be unable to forget, and she will have to relive the rape every time she seeks treatment for it. …

After raping the harlot, steal her clothes and write “WHORE” on her chest with a red marker.  She will be forced to walk around naked with “WHORE” written on her chest, and it will be extremely humiliating for her.

Whether these rape “philosophers” are actually living out their repellant philosophy, I couldn’t tell you. They insist that they’re quite sincere.

Indeed, in a posting on slutHATE, one rape “philosopher” assured skeptics that

The Philosophy of Rape is as serious as a heart attack. We are a movement of angry, fed-up men – much like you – who have decided to take matters into our own hands. The simple fact of the matter is, simply sitting around and complaining about sluts on the Internet isn’t going to change anything. We need real-world action to correct the slut problem. That’s why The Philosophy of Rape was created. Sluts need real-world punishment, and we want to train an army of holy warriors to dish out that punishment. Your chances of getting caught are already slim, and we will teach you how to make 100% sure that you don’t get caught. 

In another comment, he reported that while

I can’t openly admit to how many harlots I’ve corrected, but let’s just say that I do indeed practice what I preach.

He offered this lovely bit of advice to anyone thinking of following in his (alleged) footsteps:

It definitely helps if you build up to the act. Keep edging closer and closer to rape until you’re finally ready to do the deed. For example, send a harlot an anonymous message telling her you’re gonna rape her, then write “HARLOT” on her car, then finally rape her when the moment is right. Build up your courage by first committing smaller acts.

He urged others to take up his peculiar fight for, er, justice:

We are going to build an army of holy warriors to correct harlots and feminazi whores around the world. All it takes is a few Elliot Rodger types to get the ball rolling. What do you have to lose? Enlist in our rape army today, and we will teach you how to correct a new harlot a week and get away with it.

Apparently unafraid of legal consequences, the person posting all this gave what he said was his real name, claiming to be “Brother” Dean Saxton, a campus “activist” of sorts who several years ago caused a stir after holding a one-man protest at the University of Arizona, holding a sign reading “You Deserve Rape.”

In another thread, “Brother Dean” explained why he felt this slogan was so effective in angering feminists: .

NOTHING pisses off feminazis more than reminding them that they are filthy harlots who desperately need to be – and, deep down, WANT TO BE – raped.

He went on to explain why the kind of rape he advocates is the most public-spirited of all the different varieties of rape:

N*ggers rape because they are feral animals who cannot control their primitive biological urges. We rape because we are holy warriors on a mission to correct harlots and purge society of unmitigated female entitlement. The Philosophy of Rape is, ultimately, about fixing society. The only way to correct harlots and feminazis is by raping them.

If “Brother Dean” is European88, he’s kept himself busy since his college protest as a moderator of 157 of Reddit’s most loathsome subreddits, including /r/CoonTown, /r/WhiteRights,  /r/nazi, /r/GasTheKikes, /r/Chimpout, /r/StormfrontForums and the lovely /r/N*ggerSafari.

Some of the slutHATE regulars dismissed “Brother Dean” as “disinfo” and “just another frustrated virgin in his basement spreading shit.” frenchy91, for his part, noted that

while i really don’t give a shit who you could rape as long as it’s not my girlfriend, nor familly member, i think you op should get raped by a group of n*ggers, just to know how it feels, then you could objectively speak about who diserve it or not. for now, you just sound like a desperate mysogincel

This is apparently what passes for a “moderate” position on slutHATE. Others there found Brother Dean’s message inspirational. A commenter calling himself mvp wrote that

i definitely support this movement

its time to fight back

“Fuck it,” wrote another. “I’ll rape a bitch for you.”

It would be easy enough to dismiss all of this as nothing more than the ridiculous fantasies of “frustrated virgin[s]” or the work of trolls. I really hope that’s all it is.

But we should remember that slutHATE is essentially a reincarnation of PUAhate, an online forum that was frequented by a young man named, yes, Elliot Rodger, who posted similarly hateful and similarly implausible-sounding comments there before setting out one evening a little over a year ago, intending to “slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up, blonde slut” in a popular sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

H/T — MoonMetropolis

Dylann Storm Roof’s Facebook profile picture; the patches on his jacket depict the flags of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa

Less than 24 hours after an apparent white supremacist murdered nine black churchgoers in cold blood during a prayer meeting in a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, one prominent MRA is trying to put the blame on feminism, because of a remark the killer reportedly made about rape.

One of the survivors of the church killings reported that, before he began shooting, the killer told those in the prayer group that “you rape our women and you’re taking over our country. And you have to go.” 

Dylann Storm Roof, the accused killer, wore his racism on his sleeve, almost literally: a former classmate tells the press that Roof “made a lot of racist jokes”; his license plate featured the Confederate flag; his Facebook profile picture shows him in a jacket with patches representing the flags of Rhodesia and apartheid-era South Africa.

But Dean Esmay, the second-in-command at A Voice for Men, probably the most influential Men’s Rights site, thinks that Roof’s killing spree may be the result of too much feminism. Earlier today, he posted a link to an article on the shooting to the Men’s Rights subreddit with this headline:

To their credit, the Men’s Rights subreddit regulars voted his comment down; one told him “[n]ot everything is about us, man. This is distasteful.”

Two hours later, apparently undaunted by the criticism and oblivious to irony, Esmay returned to the Men’s Rights subreddit to make another accusation:

No one has declared the shooter to be an MRA. The little we know about Roof right now suggests that he was a garden-variety old-school racist. The paranoid notion of black men raping “our” white women is one of the oldest racist tropes out there; as Jessica Valenti noted on Twitter, Roof’s language is “the language of white supremacist patriarchy.”

The alleged threat to “our women” was used for generations as an excuse to lynch black men and terrorize the black community as a whole. In the case of Roof’s shootings, it’s an even more transparent ruse. As Rebecca Carroll notes in The Guardian, it’s hard to argue that these killings had anything to do with real fears or even paranoid fantasies about the rape of white women when most of the victims were not black men — the symbolic “rapists” in the equation — but black women:

There is something inconsistent with the Charleston shooter’s alleged evocation of the historical myth of black man as beast and rapist of white women, and the fact that he killed mostly black women. Did he only shoot black women because there were no more black men to kill? Because black women birth, care for and love black men? Or because he didn’t see black women as women at all … 

The idea that white women’s bodies represent that which is inviolable while black women’s are disposable hasn’t changed enough since it was first articulated by white men; but again, aimed at black men on Wednesday night, it was predominately black women who suffered by their invocation.

We will find out more about Root’s twisted beliefs in days to come. But it is clear already that they had nothing whatsoever to do with feminism.

H/T — r/againstmensrights

EDIT: I’m making this a NO TROLL, no-derailing-with-idiotic-MRA-or-incel-talking-points thread.

It’s amazing just how quickly a visit to 4chan’s /pol/ board can strip you of any lingering faith in humanity.

Consider the following 4chan “infographic” posted recently on Twitter:

A quick Google search of the language in this graphic led me to an archived 4chan thread, where this particular “argument,” and the graphic itself, seem to have originated, making it exceedingly unlikely that (as per the small print on the graphic) “Prof. Owl” is actually a “married father of four daughters and three sons” and exceedingly likely that he is instead an overgrown adolescent nursing a giant grudge against women.

The good news is that not everyone in /pol/ agreed with Prof. Owl’s reprehensible views; the not-so-good news is that their views on rape were often just as reprehensible.

So let’s take a look at some of the, er, highlights of /pol/’s debate on the proposition that rape is “nowhere near as bad as people make it out to be.”

1) Prof. Owl’s contribution

2) “The true male equivalent of rape is not rape, but rather paternity fraud.”

3) “We live in a cunt overglorification culture thus it’s blown completely out of proportion.”

In case you’re wondering, here’s what this fella’s graphic says:

4) “It is actually more traumatic for men … Getting forced to accept a dick in the anus shows that that man is not able to protect anything. Which makes him unqualified for mating.”

5) “Rape is significantly less traumatic than being jumped by a gang of nigs.”

6) “The violence should be punished of course. But the heterosexual rape itself only minimally.”

7) “If people just stopped their victim privilege and lend a help to someone who is raping them and just went with the flow. There wouldn’t be any rape incidents.”

(I’m really hoping that this guy is being sarcastic, but sadly I think he probably isn’t.)

8) “My female friend told me it was a complete turn off for her if someone asked her directly if she wanted to have sex, which … feminazis completely ignore.”

9) “Maybe I’m just an old fashioned guy with a sense of historical perspective. Rape may not be so bad.”

10) “I was raped once, and it was really unpleasant when it started. But then after I let myself go and loosened up it actually felt quite good.”

11) “There is no such thing as rape. … There is only the fair and equal redistribution of pussy.”

12) “I’d be mad if I were raped, but as long as I wasn’t injured or infected I’d get over it pretty quick”

13) “When a woman is raped her entire identity (her vagina) is being stolen for free, when usually you’d have to buy her shit, date her, marry her or whatever.”

14) “It undercuts their princess status.”

15) “Who /rapist/ here? I’ve raped 7 girls”

Please, please, please let this asshole be trolling.

H/T — r/againstmensrights