>
Note: This post is about a blog post on the Men-Factor blog that has already inspired some discussions in the comments here.
One of the most disturbing pieces of writing I’ve seen in the manosphere in recent days was actually written by someone who regularly posts comments here — an engineer in Reno who calls himself Scarecrow, and who runs a blog called Men-Factor. (You may have noticed it in my “Enemies List” in the sidebar.) His blog posts are typically puerile “humor” pieces — deliberately crude, and festooned with “wacky” pictures — directed at feminists and the like: here’s one example, a puzzling bit of japery entitled “Woman Purposely does Crossword Wrong; Hailed as Big Step for Women’s Rights!”
But earlier this week, he posted something that left me simply appalled, a weird and angry attack on what he called in the post’s title a “Dirty Skanky Whore with no Brains Who ‘Puts Out’ for Physically Abusive Men” — and who “is Missing and Probably Dead.” Unlike the fictional crossword-puzzle bungler, the women in this post is a real person, a Las Vegas dancer named Deborah Flores-Narvaez, who in fact has been missing since December 12 and who may well have been murdered.
This post comes complete with wacky pictures and all, but it’s essentially a rant celebrating the probable murder of Flores-Narvaez and the murder of “skanks” generally. Why? Because Flores-Narvaez was hot, was dating a man who may well have abused her, and because
she reminds me of those women who would brutally reject men … when being approached. You know – the woman who makes a total scene and makes heads turn – but not at me of course.
Scarecrow puts these words in the mouth of a fictional commenter, but it is clear this is his feeling towards her as well.
Then, rehashing the tired mansophere myth that women only like dating thugs, he writes:
Most American woman are now happy that another psychotic man has once again joined the singles scene and could make them a potential mate and possibly as an extra bonus – a murderer too!
He ends the piece with the phrase “live and let SKANKS die” in big red letters, a twisted reference to the Paul McCartney song with a similar title.
There is of course no possible justification for any of this, but Scarecrow, having been told by some of his friends he’d shown the post to that he’d gone too far, tries to offer one anyway:
I was raised to have respect for all life. … Perhaps I am turning into a sour old fart – but – I have seen crap like this way too often in my life – and it has actually bled over into my life on a few occasions …
I have met too many women like this – and – yes – been treated with hostility by them (or seen them treat other men like me with hostility) when no hostility was called for. Later of course – I hear stories about them getting beaten or killed by some psychotic dick-weed.
Do I still care?
NOPE.
 |
| From Men-Factor, Scarecrow’s blog. |
For the rest of this part of his rant, see the graphic on the right here, taken from his post.
Scarecrow then links to three blog posts relating events from his life that he says justify his attitude towards Flores-Narvaez and other so-called “skanks.”
The first link recounts what he rightly calls a “whale of a tale.” In brief: One late night about a decade ago, Scarecrow was waiting in line at a grocery store when he noticed that the “incredibly beautiful … busty brunette” in front of him in the line was buying the same odd assortment of items that he was. He made a remark to her about this, and, instead of laughing, as he had hoped, she snapped, and yelled at him. Which is, yes, one of the more likely outcomes you’ll get when you try chatting up a young woman who likely gets hit on all the time when she is shopping by herself late at night.
All of which would be an unremarkable tale had it not been for what happened next: the woman was murdered, her head bashed in with a cinder block, later that night. The police, having heard from a witness who happened to know Scarecrow that he had been “arguing” with her in the grocery store shortly before she was killed, questioned Scarecrow about the incident. Naturally, this freaked him the fuck out, as it would anyone who found themselves facing questioning from cops in a murder case. Having heard his story, they assured him he wasn’t the real suspect — her boyfriend was — and moved on.
Remarkably, instead of feeling sympathy for the murdered woman, Scarecrow instead blamed her, and all women like her, for making his life more difficult:
Why is it that a guy like me gets yelled and barked at by an incredibly beautiful woman like this – and a guy that ends up bashing her face in with a cinder block gets laid – lord only knows how many times – or what kind of fun and exciting sex acts she performed on him? …
This incident was a crucial turning point in my life. Not only was I not getting laid by these “mega-hottie” women, but they would go to extremes to be rude to me. And now, their f*cked up lives were seeping over into my own life. This pissed me off to no end. …
Clearly, something is wrong with some modern western females. SERIOUSLY WRONG!
That’s the conclusion he draws from all this?
The other stories Scarecrow cites as reasons for his rage against “skanks” are equally puzzling. One involves a male co-worker who sort-of-accused him of murdering a young woman named Brianna Denison. Though the “accuser” here was male (as was, it turns out, the actual murderer), Scarecrow directs much of the anger in his post at, again, the murdered woman, whom he describes as a “f*cked up b*tch, who was too good to talk to any ‘nice-guys.'” He also manages to work in a shot at the “heavy-set women” he saw in the TV coverage of a candle-light vigil for Denison:
Funny – since when do fat women care if a tiny woman drops off the face of the planet?
Oh wait – that’s right – silly me. There’s an awful lot of male-hatred that can be spread at such a thing, and of course – lots of money money money to be made. You can show everybody how much you cared about Brianna by donating money to various charities (CHA-CHING!), and remind everybody how ALL men are just beasts that want to rape and kill young women. HIP HIP HOORAY!
The other story involves — long story short — two Nazi skinheads he’d never even met who tried to blame him for drugs and weapons violations they’d committed. Seeing the skinheads for the first time at a pre-trial hearing, he directs his ire not at them but at their girlfriends:
The thing that pissed me off:
They [the skinheads] had their girlfriends with them: Two super-mega-hot women, a brunette and a blond. Both were busty, thin, and extraordinarily pretty in the face. … I wondered: Why do … losers get totally hot women, and men who are better off and “square” do not get the time of day from such women?
Once again: men commit a crime, and Scarecrow directs his anger at women, random women he doesn’t know — for being, in his mind, the type of women who would probably turn him down.
To restate an obvious point I’ve made in other posts: no one (male or female) has the right to sex and/or a relationship with the hottie of their choice, and anyone who walks around hating not only those women who’ve rejected them, but also all the other women who remind him of these women, is going to have that hate curdle inside of him. Everyone gets rejected. Some more than others, but that’s life. Life’s unfair. Yeah, some women go for assholes over “nice guys.” That’s their business, not yours.
But let’s pause for a moment on the issue of the “nice guy” — as in, for example, the “nice guys” who Scarecrow imagines were being cruelly rejected by the murdered Brianna Denison. How “nice,” exactly, is a guy who seethes with hatred of women because a relative handful of said women have responded negatively to his advances? If you blame and resent murdered women for inconveniencing your life, and celebrate the death of “skanks,” here’s the thing, and I shouldn’t really need to say this: you are not actually “nice.” You’re a creepy, angry, misogynistic asshole. And most women can sense that a mile away.
NOTE: I have not decided what I should ultimately do about the issue of Scarecrow posting comments here. Anyone — male or female, MRA or feminist — who posts comments celebrating the death of innocent people will have these comments deleted and will likely be quickly banned. But Scarecrow has not posted any comments like that here, and I am inclined, at least for now, to allow him to continue to comment here and, in particular, to respond to this post.
![Incels hail Toronto van driver who killed 10 as a new Elliot Rodger, talk of future acid attacks and mass rapes [UPDATED]](https://i2.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/dtyfrutyiuol_phi600xr.png?resize=50%2C50)
>As you have so elegantly pointed out Raul, anecdotal evidence not only doesn't prove causality, it also does not prove a system of abuse.I apologize for using statistics that are not backed up (80/20 rule). I do believe such a rule exists, but I don't have exact numbers.
>Witman:"My Karate Sensei taught me a very valuable lesson pertaining to muggings. "If a man threatens you violently and demands your wallet what is the best thing to do? Give him your wallet!" Anything less than full compliance is provocative."I agree with compliance in order to prevent escalation in such cases. And since we're agreed on this, will you please, please, PLEASE tell your cohorts in the MRA movement to PLEASE consider this kind of thing next time they pick apart an alleged rape of a woman and declare that it wasn't rape because the woman didn't fight back enough? I see this kind of thing all the time and hope that if we agree on the reasonableness of self-protection we can agree that "Why did she jut give in?" with regard to a sexual assault is illogical and unfair. This is not particularly on topic but since it might be common ground I thought it might be worth mentioning. One of the real hurdles women have to deal with when it comes to reporting a sexual assault is that suddenly the idea of self-preservation that everyone agrees is important in robberies or other crimes of violence becomes a reason to doubt the alleged victim."That vibe you're feeling off the guy, that's the beta vibe. That's the creeper beta vibe. You will not get that vibe from an alpha and that is why 80% of women will choose 20% of men to mate with. The rest of the men are just beta creepers."The "creepy" vibe has nothing to do with any of this alpha or beta stuff; guys you would classify as "alpha" are often the creepiest. Creepy is just this feeling that someone sees you as a piece of meat. "Alpha" guys — I don't actually classify people this way but am going with your classifications here for clarity's sake — are truly, truly creepy to me. You might not like this whole idea of "creepy" but it's shorthand for the innate sense of self-preservation you've been extolling in this very thread. If you get a sense that someone is bad news, you act on that. Alternately, if you don't want women to think of you as "creepy," all you really have to do is think of women as human beings. I don't particularly like getting hit on, ever, as it's usually an interruption for me and I'm not out there actively looking for someone, but if someone approaches me in a respectful, open manner, I will not get a bad feeling about that person. PUAs and guys who approach you like you have to be wheedled or tricked, or like you're some completely different species from them, or like you owe them something, just give off this unmistakable creep vibe. Doesn't matter what they look like, doesn't matter whether or not they "seem" wealthy or middle-class or poor–sorry Yohan, it's true–doesn't matter what kind of "game" they're running. It's totally obvious. It's not a simple thing to figure out why some women end up with abusive assholes, but I think some part of it has to do with ignoring this inherent warning signal–the reasons for doing that are as varied as are people themselves."It is fully a woman's right to choose who she mates with and when. I have never and will never dispute that. What I say is that converse to 80% of men being left mateless (a bad thing in any society), the other 20% have no reason to be faithful or nice. They have no reason to value women."What about valuing women as people just because they are human, just like you? All people have inherent human rights and value. Having no reason to value women because they won't give you what you want is a very selfish and poisonous way to look at humanity.
>"Of course, it's a one-way street, as MONEY is always moving from the man to the woman, regardless the circumstances.It's the feminist, who is ripping off the honest man financially, is fabricating false accusations for a lucrative divorce, is demanding money for HER children despite paternity fraud etc. and not vice versa."Odd, I have made anywhere from double to triple what my gentleman callers make for the past four years. In fact, I have never had a gentleman caller who made anywhere more than a few thousand more than I do. So based on my own personal experience Yohan, you are full of stinky. I usually insist (and had a guy tell me off for doing so) on paying for the date if I am the one who did the asking. Are there women out there who are taking men for a ride? Yes. However it is not a feminist who is doing that since the ones I know tend to believe in making their own money.
>Seriously, Yohan just classifies any behavior he doesn't like as feminism at work.
>Sounds like it based on the other posts I am now reading.
>Witman:Can you think of any evidence that could exist that would disabuse you of your belief that society is slanted against men?
>Raul, No I could not. I have been alive for 41 years and have been a second class to women the entire time. I was told to never hit a girl but they were never told to not hit boys.I see special funding and laws that help women of a higher station than mine. I've been harassed in the workplace but have never seen the contrary.Even when I had a child, I knew for a fact that I would lose custody to the mother if she chose to leave. Luckily she abandoned the baby with me and I still had to go to court six times to get custody. The only reason I won hands down was the fact that the mother didn't show up on the last two court dates (yes, they gave her another chance)I've seen men lose custody and become indentured servants in one court date. I've seen a man with testicular cancer and unable to work have his license taken away because he couldn't pay child support.In my entire life, I've personally seen a father awarded custody two times (one was me).You can provide all the statistical evidence you want, but you will never convince me that I have an advantage because I am a man. I never had an advantage.
>But thanks for asking.
>M,Can I please please please ask you a very serious question. Why is a woman allowed to kill her husband if he abused her (battered spouse syndrome), but the man has no defense against such abuse? She can mentally, physically and emotionally abuse him for years and if he lays a hand on her, he is part of a systemic problem of abuse.Many times a man cannot leave an abusive relationship because part of that abuse is using his children against him. I was told by my ex that she was going to take my baby away and I would never see her again … and welfare would give her more money than I could ever earn (was she wrong!). Luckily I have the patience of a saint and never raised a hand to her even though that was VERY provocative. She eventually got annoyed and took off.************question ends rant begins******************In talking with my Lawyer about this I was told point blank that there was nothing I could do about any of this in court. Unless I could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she was a bad mother, nothing else would stop her getting custody.I've seen men systematically stripped of their rights, dignity, children and hard earned wealth in the name of social justice. I've been told by police that all my girlfriend had to do was say I hit her and they had a mandate to take me to jail. I am so glad they didn't tell her this.I shit you not, I saw a woman beating a man up in the street screaming for help. Upon further inspection, he took her car keys away because she was drunk. Some white knights were about to "Help" her in this assault but I stopped them.I guess I just grew up in the shittiest, most sexist part of Canada where the overwhelming statistics never reached me. I guess the Ontario Family Court system just hasn't caught on.
>And M,If you actually read the articles at the False Rape Society you will see that it is not questioning why she didn't fight. They are addressing proven false allegations. They are pointing out how the life of a man can be destroyed the instant he is accused of a rape and that he cannot clear his name even if he is vindicated.There are some MRAs who think like you mentioned above, but I'll rest assured that most do not feel that way. We know that rape is rape. What people question is retroactive removal of consent where even though consent was given, she felt bad later and decided it was rape. People question the standard that between two drunk individuals who have consensual sex, the man is now legally a rapist.MRAs tend to question rape shield laws that will go so far as to hide the fact that a woman may be a serial accuser. She can make as many claims against as many men as she wishes from behind the shroud of anonymity.I have personally never seen an MRA (that I associate with) claim that a rape didn't happen because She didn't fight back hard enough.
>Witman: "MRAs tend to question rape shield laws that will go so far as to hide the fact that a woman may be a serial accuser."I don't know about Canada, but perhaps you'll take comfort in the fact that in the US at least, the laws also go so far as to hide the fact that the accused may be a serial rapist. Evidence of prior criminal convictions, even of the same type of crime, is virtually never admissible in a criminal prosecution, including a rape prosecution. So there.What you mentioned above isn't a rape shield law. It's a general rule of evidence that governs the question of relevancy. Evidence 101: you can't prove that a person acted in a certain manner on a specific occasion simply by showing that she acted in that manner on some other occasion. That's the rule in all criminal and civil cases, and there is no reason why an exception should be made for rape prosecutions.
>Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (those rules are not necessarily going to be the same for each state nor does that mean that a state legislature could have passed laws specifically barring prior convictions from being brought up) character traits and prior convictions can be admitted.http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule404"It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident…"http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule413Rule 413. Evidence of Similar Crimes in Sexual Assault CasesFor the MRA who are now completely upset over this-yes, there are specific instances where an alleged victim's behavior is admissible. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule412 Rule 412. Sex Offense Cases; Relevance of Alleged Victim's Past Sexual Behavior or Alleged Sexual PredispositionAnd I hope the fact that someone has accused someone previously falsely does not automatically mean in your mind Witman that the woman is permanently barred from being taken seriously when she is raped and goes to the police about it. Also, based on the stats AND the caselaw, it seems odd that you would be told that by your attorney unless you were demanding sole custody, in which case, duh, of course she would have the right to have access to her children and it would be REALLY hard to block her access. Not only that but the courts may be more inclined to grant joint custody if they perceive one parent to be trying to marginalize the access to the child of the other parent. (Patterson v. Patterson, [2006] O.J. No. 5454 (S.C.J.)
>Re. witman's link to the study that "proves" his statement that "People who are murdered generally have irritating and/or provocative personalities":The study actually defines "provoked" as "caused"–as does the British law the study discusses. So, the study says, "[T]he conduct said by the defendant to have 'provoked' his or her response of killing the victim might be entirely lawful and morally blameless. As aresult, there have been cases involving an official enforcing a court order … , or a baby crying … or a person denying having stolen another's tools."I have problems with nearly everything you've typed, but let's start here: How on earth did you come to believe that particular study says what you think it said?
>Witman, I have to grab some sleep and don't have time to address your points specifically but I have to say that looking around the world and seeing only the injustices that affect you is an anti-intellectual and largely juvenile enterprise. There *are* advantages to being a man, and the disadvantages do not make the advantages imaginary. The world is more complicated than you are insisting it is, and it's very telling that the simplifications you are making run along the lines of refusing to acknowledge disadvantages that you have not experienced personally. I subscribe to a feminism–and I'm sorry that you don't like the term, but it's not changing soon over surface-level semantic concerns, though I do like "anti-oppressionist" quite a lot–that sees the world through a rational and intersectional lens in which we are all both beneficiaries of, and disadvantaged by, socioeconomic realities and structures. It does not mean that any one person of any one class will always be privileged above others in all situations, nor that any one class of people will always be victims. It is about complicated interrelations, and it requires that I understand and seek to end the ways men are treated unfairly. It requires that I not just see the world through my own experiences–that I not deny things that I don't affect me personally.Honestly, as someone who has not been through the court system and has chosen a long-term domestic partnership over marriage, I have not experienced many of the things MRAs talk about. This doesn't mean I think there's nothing to absolutely every issue they raise. And yet MRAs will not grant a second to consider that perhaps there are real disadvantages to being female. That there are real advantages to being male. Doing so is not ceding ground–it is rationally viewing the world from as neutral a viewpoint as possible.I recognize the problems men face, and I've lived for about 15 years with a man who helps me see those problems through his experiences and who is interested in understanding what women face by understanding my experiences. A man who cannot even *see* the disadvantages that women face is viewing the world selfishly.
>They verbally abuse the sh*t out of women(wh*re, cumslut, toilet, idiot, etc.,etc.)They objectify women to an extreme (Women good for f*cking, nothing else…) They are hypocritical in the extreme (Women who sleep around are wh*res, yet women aren't good for anything else, etc., etc.)They deflect, deflect, deflect ("Well, yeah, maybe I did say that, but what about what feminism did to me blahblahblah…")They blame women for the mistreatment and hatred that they subject them to ("If all those hot chicks had f*cked me like they were supposed to when I wanted it I wouldn't hate all women right now…")They want total control over women.They are incapable of debate or resolving any differences, because they use circular logic to keep the conversation in a tailspin.Their sense of entitlement is through the freaking roof.They frequently fantasize about killing women.This sums up the MRA. This is also a tidy little list of warning signs of abusive assholes. Coincidence? I don't believe so.
>Actually before I go to sleep I want to post this great link, which David has posted in prior entries:http://www.xyonline.net/content/responding-mens-rights-groups
>David, thank you for posting this and for treating it with the seriousness it deserves (although few of us would've expected anything less of you). I am sick of conversing with them. In this thread alone, it is evident that they have no desire to debate. All they do is deflect and blame. From this point on, I will treat them as I treat my abusive ex. I will ignore them. Sometimes debate and argument is good. With narcissistic sociopaths, it is a waste of time.To you guys regarding why women enter into abusive relationships, I can only speak for myself and the (many) other women I know who have shared my experience. No, we did not WANT an abuser. No, we are not defective, nor are we co-dependent, nor any other silly tripe which attempts to place the blame for their actions on our shoulders. We simply did not know. Abusers are charming manipulators. Much as my ex is still charming that pants off our friends and family, he once was able to do to me. The difference was that I was the one he was intimate with, therefore I was the threat to him. I was the one who would get close enough to see the shortcomings that he tried to hide to the world, and he needed to do anything in his power to prevent that from happening. Because of his need to present a false self to the world, and because of the vulnerability that my presence represented, I was the only one who saw this side of him. The rage fueled rants about what a whore I was did not begin until after we were married. They got worse from there, and I finally got away from him. NO, I DO NOT jump from psycho to psycho. I was terrified of dating again because I was so fearful of falling into another relationship like the one I had with him. The sad dichotomy in my case is that as sure as I am that I can now spot an abusive sociopath from a hundred yards away (and I am always SPOT ON…it's kind of crazy), I question myself when entering a relationship. Red flags might be legitimate….or they might be me just being hyper sensitive to abusive asshole behavior. So no, we are NOT TO BLAME FOR THE ABUSES OF SOCIOPATHS. And we are not defective little idiots who enjoy getting beaten on. That's idiotic in the extreme. And no, we are not all mousy little things who suffer from self esteem issues. I'm quite strong, confident and full of myself, thankyouverymuch.Everytime I've attempted to take on an MRAer, I always hear the same thing. "Well, I didn't say that. We are not all like that". Well, guess what. Ya kinda are. Because you all hide. No one knows your real identity, which makes it that much easier for your hate-filled rants to clog up the hate-o-sphere with no claim of responsibility. Sorry, but even you guys have an acronym for that, don't you? And hey, from where I sit, you ARE ALL LIKE THAT.
>witman said… …..I have been alive for 41 years and have been a second class to women the entire time. ….. Even when I had a child, I knew for a fact that I would lose custody to the mother if she chose to leave. Luckily she abandoned the baby with me ….. I've seen a man with testicular cancer and unable to work have his license taken away because he couldn't pay child support…… but you will never convince me that I have an advantage because I am a man. I never had an advantage. @witmanThanks for posting your story, which is very typical for 10000s of men from Northern America and all Europe.Well, I do not think you will find much compassion or consideration on this blog however. More the opposite, some scornful remarks, maybe or even not that, just total ignorance.My story is a bit different as I was able to move out from the feminist region and could start an entire new life. About myself, I was badly treated by Western women until my final departure.I has always been a second class person for any Western woman since I remember back, maybe as young as 4 year old. Well, we cannot choose our parents, neighbours, teachers, class-mates etc. for our future when we are born.Privileges, advantages for me because I am a man? Which privileges? What a nonsense. Only an ignorant idiot far away from daily real life can say that.
>"Well, I do not think you will find much compassion or consideration on this blog however. More the opposite, some scornful remarks, maybe or even not that, just total ignorance."Well, he just told me his mind is closed on the matter, based on his own experience and nothing else. Seems that's the case for you as well. So why are you here? You're not contributing anything useful.
>What's so infuriating about these people is that half the time they complain about the same thing that feminists do. But they can't grasp that feminists aren't Evil Grasping Bitches who want the freedom to punch any man in the face. You dumbasses, feminism calls bullshit on this stuff too, dammit!No one should be hitting anyone! Can you really not get that it's part of the whole fucked up crap we all get fed about women being weak crazy emotional little dopes and men being strong emotionless providers? Gawwwwd, jesus, fuck. Look a little damn deeper than "women steal my baybees in court, therefore women are MONSTERS".
>Yes, exactly.Also, a good comment:http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2009/08/06/mens-rights-activists-anti-feminists-and-other-misogynists-comment-on-george-sodini/#comment-392153
>The problem is, if your approach assumes that women are silly and venal and easily manipulated, you will wind up with a lot of silly, venal, easy manipulated women. They exist!Exactly, Raul, it's like they're caught up in a self-fulfilling prophecy, and one where their needs/wants render the disadvantages of their strategy indiscernable. Take witman's story of being mugged in Cuba and apply a similar principle, being (knowingly, in this example) provocative by advertising or giving the appearance of having, say, wealth, will probably attract the interest of those who are seeking wealth. Is it a strategy that works? Sure it is! And the women for whom that strategy won't work? Well, they're probably feminists who are known to be lesbian man-haters, anyway, that's why it doesn't work on them.I obviously pulled those statistics out of my ass.No, they weren't pulled out of your ass, those statistics were mentioned in a thread on this very blog (though I do believe it was 80/40 split, not 80/20). The statistics quoted are, apparently, the historical rate of reproductive success (females having 80% rate of reproductive success while males had only 40%), which was used as proof that 80% of the female population chooses to mate with only 40% of the male population. One of the problems with taking those statistics and applying it to modern, Western society is that it's only very recently that females (and males, for that matter) have been allowed to choose with whom they mate. This was often a choice either made or coerced by their family. And I daresay that the coercion method is probably still very much in play, especially in the "upper crust". Our idea of romantic love and that love leading to marriage is all very recent in the history of the world.
>@Yohan"Well, I do not think you will find much compassion or consideration on this blog however. More the opposite, some scornful remarks"How true that is:Raul: "Well, he just told me his mind is closed on the matter, based on his own experience and nothing else. Seems that's the case for you as well. "You see? I've never denied that women are abused or that rapes happen but when I tell my experience I get told I have a closed mind. Open your eyes Raul. Women do not and cannot respect house husbands. You're powerful wife will seek out a more powerful male for her feral sexual enjoyment. She will also take your kids and you can cry a river about how it's OK because she's a women and they are discriminated against.When you come back here to tell everyone the Emperor has no clothes, your allies here will kick the shit out of you. How dare you complain about unfair treatment and try to say everyone deserves rights when it is the women who are abused. Be thankful you were born with a penis so you can be so easily abused.
>Should be your, not you're I should learn to spell write.
>@The Apprentice:"Look a little damn deeper than "women steal my baybees in court, therefore women are MONSTERS""Never once did I say women are monsters because they steal babies. I offer this as proof that males are disadvantaged in this particular area of life. The system is a monster and the women who are enabling it to take away the rights of other human beings are simply being useful idiots.
>Much ground has been covered since I last looked at the comments here, but there is one small issue that I would like to address — and that is the recurring complaint that boys suffer because they are told they can't hit girls.First of all, people, including boys, don't always do as they are told. Boys may be told not to hit girls, but some of them hit girls nonetheless.Second, while the general principle is that boys shouldn't hit girls, it is almost completely swallowed by the exception that for a boy to physically harass a girl, taunt her, subject her to physical pranks, damage her property and sabotage or destroy her school work is merely charming boyish behavior, or an acceptable expression of liking that particular girl. So yes, if a boy straight punches a girl in the mouth, there will be consequences. But short of that, boys are given a lot of leeway in assaulting and harassing girls "for fun", and both school administrations and parents go out of their way to characterize such behavior as "just a joke".There was a time in elementary school when my hair was cropped short, because boys in my class kept tugging at my pig tails. No, it's not "charming", and it's not "funny" when you are the one trying to do work in class and flinching at the slightest movement behind you, wondering when your hair is going to be yanked. Imagine if someone pulled YOUR hair on a regular basis. Or your son's hair (rather than your daughter's) — would you laugh? In fact, I submit that hair-pulling is where it all starts: by treating such behavior by boys as "normal" and "funny", adults send the message that women lack bodily autonomy and that men therefore are entitled to touch women's bodies if they feel the urge to do so; and when the problem is addressed by cutting off the girl's hair — rather than by forcing her tormentors to stop their behavior — that message is reinforced in that women are deemed to be uniquely responsible for physical harassment at the hands of men.There are other forms of physical harassment by boys against girls that are perfectly tolerated by schools and parents, including vandalism, destruction of school work, bra-snapping, sticking gum in hair, etc. And in all such situations, the victim is left with the choice of whether to change schools — in other words, endure tremendous inconveniences just because it would be too much to expect a boy to stop harassing her — or act "ladylike", which is to say, suck it up and be grateful someone likes her enough to break into her locker and deface it.
>Open your eyes Raul. Women do not and cannot respect house husbands. You're powerful wife will seek out a more powerful male for her feral sexual enjoyment. She will also take your kids and you can cry a river about how it's OK because she's a women and they are discriminated against.Sorry, but what a load of crap. "Feral sexual enjoyment"? Please. Powerful men who can't fuck provide exactly ZERO physical enjoyment. And narcissists (which includes men who are obsessed with "power" and masculinity) are lousy in bed, not the least because they are incapable of intimacy. However, I can understand how men who have problems in that department console themselves with the illusion that their pretense of "power" acts as compensation for their lack of sexual prowess.And by the way, I can and do respect househusbands — men who are secure enough in their sexuality and in their relationships that they can follow their inclinations without fear that child care will somehow emasculate them.
>@Amused. You got me! Women do not have Female Feral Sexual Cycles because you said it was so. Seems to me that 2/3 of female initiated divorce must mean that 2/3 of men are just dicks. Yes, you respect house husbands. I see. Now you're just speculating that you could continue to respect an emasculated man for more than four years. Raul, get a good lawyer because your wife will be banging a CEO or VIP within the next four years.BTW, as for your previous post, I too was chased and sexually harassed by girls in school and guess what, there was NO RECOURSE for me! I've had my hair pulled by girls and been picked on by them in school so cry me a river and suck it up princess. Start supporting laws and customs that say person/people instead of male/female and you'll have 100% support from me.Feminism cannot be about equal rights if it pushes a female agenda. It is pure and simple female domination of males that they want and it cannot stop until they get it. Even then, where is their motivation to stop when it is such a big industry? They'll need to make up more and more statistics and make the plight of girls worse than boys through dehumanization of the male.
>Witman your ideas about the nature of women are just baffling. And paranoid. Also your acceptance of the idea of "emasculation" is really sad to me. Stop making essentialist arguments about what I am and what I am not, that I am driven by biology to find "alpha males" or such nonsense. I am a multi-faceted human being, not a she-wolf. Thanks.
>"You got me! Women do not have Female Feral Sexual Cycles because you said it was so."Oh? Women have "female feral sexual cycles" because YOU said so? Your words have more validity than mine because … because you are male?Seems to me that 2/3 of female initiated divorce must mean that 2/3 of men are just dicks.Seems to me that just because the wife initiates the divorce, that doesn't mean she initiated the breakup of the marriage.Yes, you respect house husbands. I see. Now you're just speculating that you could continue to respect an emasculated man for more than four years.First of all, I don't consider a man who stays home to take care of the house and the kids emasculated. Second, my speculations about how I feel are certainly more likely to be accurate than your speculations about how I feel. You don't get to invalidate my experiences and dictate to me what I should think just because you are a guy.BTW, as for your previous post, I too was chased and sexually harassed by girls in school and guess what, there was NO RECOURSE for me!So what? Is your bodily autonomy somehow more precious than mine, that you consider your experiences tragic and mine nonsense? In any event, the point was that your statement that violence by boys against girls isn't tolerated is flat-out wrong.I've had my hair pulled by girls and been picked on by them in school so cry me a river and suck it up princess. Telling me to suck it up doesn't make you original. Girls are constantly told to suck it up, and so are women. Save the lectures for your daughter, though I'm sure she gets an earful already about how her brother is the important one. And — "princess"? Who the hell do you think you are? What do you know about my life? Based on your tale of woe, your life has been a cakewalk compared to mine and that of women in my family. You grew up middle class in one of the wealthiest and most liberal countries in the world — and we all should feel sorry for you? You think, that just because your first wife dumped you, you know hardship? That because you had to go to court a few times for custody, you know the true meaning of irrecoverable loss? That because someone made an unwanted pass at you, YOU are the authority on what it's like to be dehumanized? That because someone made you feel like you arent' the center of the universe by heaping praise on you for the accomplishments of other men, you know the dark side of life? My God, it's a regular Auschwitz, your existence! You poor dear, it's a shame you apparently haven't experienced much to put things in perspective for you. So methinks it's you who should suck it up, you whiny baby. Oh, noes, your hair got pulled! Omygod, how could they do this, that's only supposed to happen to broads — right?Start supporting laws and customs that say person/people instead of male/female and you'll have 100% support from me.Stop making gratuitous insinuations (so obviously wish-fulfillment, btw) about people's spouses, construing "female" things as insulting and degrading, and talking out of both sides of your mouth — then maybe your words will have some credibility with me, even when I disagree.They'll need to make up more and more statistics and make the plight of girls worse than boys through dehumanization of the male.This is another curious phenomenon that I noticed on the part of MRA's who claim they are all for equality. They perceive women as a narrow special interest despite the fact that women comprise half of humanity. Thus any discussion of problems faced by women is automatically "dehumanizing" to men, because men are the default people! And of course, there is no such thing as dehumanization when it comes to women, because women aren't human to begin with. Right?
>@witman: "You're powerful wife will seek out a more powerful male for her feral sexual enjoyment. She will also take your kids"This is one of the strangest arguments you've made yet. A woman DOESN'T do what you claim women do, so you basically declare her guilty anyway because you somehow know that she WILL do those things.If women are guilty not only for what they do but for what you hypothetically imagine they WILL do, no wonder you're angry at women. What if I were to say "I'm not going to listen to a word you say, witman, because you're a serial killer." You would reply that you hadn't killed anyone. Then I could say, "well, you WILL." Wouldn't that be, er, an incredibly stupid argument? Well, you're doing the exact same thing.
>Miranda: Well, guess what. Ya kinda are. Because you all hide. No one knows your real identity, which makes it that much easier for your hate-filled rants to clog up the hate-o-sphere with no claim of responsibility. Sorry, but even you guys have an acronym for that, don't you? And hey, from where I sit, you ARE ALL LIKE THAT. Ridiculous argument!Just checking out your empty profil.Isn't it you who is anonymous on the internet slandering the MRAs with your hateful drivel?it is you who is in hiding. Who are you?
>Raul Groom said… @YohanSo why are you here? You're not contributing anything useful. And who are you, Mr. Raul Groom?Do you consider yourself as a special kind of intelligent human or what?And do you really think, your comments are *useful*?All opinions which do not fit your narrow mindset … Well many do not agree with you and you will have to live with that… sorry, Sir…
>Yohan, the fact that Amptoon happens to buy its web hosting services from a company that also sells web hosting services to porn sites does not in any way mean that he has sold his web site to pornographers. I have taken down your slanderous comment. You, for example, have a blog up on blogger, right? Well, guess what, some people put up adult content on blogger. That doesn't make you a pornographer does it?
>@witman: "so cry me a river and suck it up princess."Uh, yeah. That might be considered a powerful argument on MRA web sites but in the real world, it's generally regarded as a sign that you're out of arguments, and kind of a dick.
>Yohan, if you have specific proof that what you are saying about amptoons is true, I will let you post it. Otherwise I will delete your comments.
>David: You, for example, have a blog up on blogger, right? Well, guess what, some people put up adult content on blogger. That doesn't make you a pornographer does it? You are grossly misinformed, David.Do you not read feminist websites?OK, so I give you now some links…http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/10/11/bad-ideas/http://witchywoo.wordpress.com/2006/10/10/fuckery-and-betrayal/http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/04/26/i-went-to-the-stumptown-comics-fest-and-all-i-got-was-this-awesome-book-about-an-11-year-old-troll-fighting-orthodox-jewish-girl/http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/10/11/i-sold-amptoonscom-comments-are-now-open/http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2007/10/22/update-on-the-amptoonscom-domain-sale/
>Yohan, since you provided the links, your comment is now up. FWIW, while my understanding of what Barry had done wasn't correct, I think your comments oversimplfied what was going on as well.
>To a lot of you guys: Uh, 80% of women are totally invisible to you. If we're not blonde, not noticably busty, and fat, you'd walk right by us. So, a lot of it is that you're after the western ideal of beauty, and said Western ideal would rather go about her day. Being noticed by guys is so rare to me that I'd hit '91' on my phone because I'd take his interest as pretty sinister. I don't even talk to guys on my daily rounds because I really really hate the idea of being raped/murdered. As a kid, I wanted to be beautiful and blonde. As an adult, I am so glad that I'm not either of those things.
>ohhhhh christ."I'm a nice guy! I never beat up or murdered a woman! (I might have THOUGHT about it-hey, who doesn't, those bitches? but I never did.) But hot women end up murdered by Bad Guys all the time! Fuck it; if the only reason for *not* murdering or raping women-i.e. the reward of a hot woman-isn't coming to me, I might as well join their ranks, am I right? What other *possible* reason could there be? for being a Nice i.e. Not Murdering or Rapist Guy?"brrrrrrrrrrr
[…] host of misogynist blogs that, among other things, routinely joke about female victims of rape and murder, that urge men on juries in rape trials to vote to acquit the accused even when he’s clearly […]