>
Don’t let it be said that the dudes of the manosphere aren’t ready for Valentine’s Day. Oh, they haven’t been ordering little teddy bears and giant bouquets of flowers for their sweeties. They’ve been getting ready to throw a fit at the very notion of the ersatz holiday.
Marc Rudov, a self-described MRA, “relationship expert” and all-around asshole, has been trying to organize a boycott of VD for several years now. “There’s nothing romantic about coercing men to oblige female entitlement,” Rudov recently told AOL News. “Valentine’s Day artificially and unilaterally caters to women. It’s the media’s annual male-bashing fest.”
Over on The Spearhead, grizzled MRA veteran Zed has written not one but two articles attacking VD, which he describes as “Extortion of Insincere Materialistic Tokens of Affection Under Threat of Emotional Violence Day.” Meanwhile, Paul Elam — never one for subtlety — has one-upped old Zed, denouncing the holiday as “a socially coerced day of hyper-entitlement for a generation of princess leeches.” Endorsing Rudov’s boycott, Elam seems especially incensed by the omnipresent “Every Kiss Begins With Kay” ads that clutter the airwaves every year as VD approaches.
One commenter at The Spearhead summons up his inner comedian:
There’ two types of VD. One is a potentially serious affliction that can be caught from sexual relations with a woman. Symptoms include tiredness, lack of sex drive, acute pain in the groin region and loss of work productivity. It’s difficult to treat as the parasite responsible is very demanding and difficult to get rid of.
The other is a bacterial infection treatable with antibiotics and rest.
 |
| Marc Rudov: Trying to hypnotize you with his teeth. |
It’s almost cute, all this energy and anger. These guys seem to really think that they’re the first people to ever have an issue with Valentine’s day, the first people to ever get irritated by “every kiss begins with Kay.”
But, guess what? Lots of people hate Valentine’s day. I generally find it pretty annoying myself, and the Kay commercials, which basically suggest that the women of America are jewel-hungry prostitutes and the men their johns, set my teeth a-grinding. Granted, I’m generally been most hostile to VD when I’ve been single, but when a couple of years ago I discovered that my then-girlfriend was a really really really big fan of the holiday (and not a fan of my more laid-back approach to it) it was actually one of the things that led me to break up with her a few weeks later.
You know who else hates Valentine’s day and the blizzard of retrograde sexist advertising that accompanies it? Lots and lots of women, especially those of the feminist persuasion, who generally don’t take kindly to the insinuation that women are diamond whores. Indeed, a couple of weeks back, hundreds of the mostly women of Reddit’s TwoXChromosomes subreddit happily upvoted a topic with the title “If I see one more freakin’ “Every Kiss Begins with Kay” commercial I am going to find whoever is responsible for that nonsense and take a big fat poop on his face. “
Hell, Valentine’s Day hatred is everywhere. In the London Times, Helen McNutt — a woman, if her first name is any indication — spelled out “20 reasons it’s okay to hate Valentine’s Day.” Meanwhile, the Onion News Network ran a hilarious piece on the “Annual Valentine’s Day Stoning Of a Happy Couple .”
And if you want your VD hatred live and direct, you can always monitor Twitter for bitter anti-VD tweets.
Indeed, VD hatred has become so omnipresent that the folks at Slate, hoping to gin up some pageviews with some well-timed contrarianism, ran a piece — get this — actually defending the holiday. “I’m almost afraid to say it,” the piece began, “I have plans for Valentine’s Day. … If I’m lucky, there may even be chocolate and flowers involved.”
Like a lot of VD haters, I have plans for February 15th. They definitely involve chocolate, bought at a steep discount.
—
If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the “Share This” or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.
*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.
>Wytch, bad example. Ms Strange was referring to a specific male in her comments. She holds contempt for you the singular, not you the member of the male gender.So please find some actual sites that show routine contempt for men, not a specific person such as yourself.
>Oh Witchy. I’m starting to see why you are incapable of letting go of the misperceptions about feminism you so doggedly cling to. It must be very useful to you to be able to pass any hostility directed towards you, the individual person, as hostility directed towards men in general. If a woman is hostile towards you, you can pretend that her hostility is due to her feminism, which in your mind is synonymous with hatred of ALL men. If I call you a coward, you can pretend that I must think ALL men are cowards and therefore you are safe in ignoring my criticism. You see, this is why I went out of my way to explain to you that I regard you as an individual, not a representative of the male gender. Happily, my experience with the male gender is that most men are not as cowardly and dishonest as you are. I am calling you a cowardly loser because you claim to have tons of evidence regarding this alleged widespread trend of generalized man-hating by feminists, but every time you are pressed to provide this evidence, you refuse to provide it because you are, in your own words, convinced that your evidence will be “dismissed”. This should not be an obstacle to providing evidence unless you are a coward who can’t stand criticism, or unless you are actually lying about the existence of this evidence. To make it perfectly clear: the fact that you are a cowardly loser with a fragile ego has absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero to do with the fact that you have a penis. Your attempts to pass your own personal failings off as failings possessed by all men is noted and recorded as further evidence to file under “Support that Witchy is actually very sexist towards men as well as women.”
>Er, "support FOR THE HYPOTHESIS that Witchy is actually very sexist towards men as well as women."Left out a few crucial words.
>"So please find some actual sites that show routine contempt for men, not a specific person such as yourself."–ElizabethThis isn't an actual site? Please.BTW, SS is projecting. She can bite me—pathetic feminist loser. I fight against cowards like her. She's not even worth contempt.
>" . . . but every time you are pressed to provide this evidence, you refuse to provide it because you are, in your own words, convinced that your evidence will be “dismissed”."—SSBecause that is exactly what you will do. You ARE that evidence I need—you contemptuous feminist. So, what is it like to be the topic I'm talking to task? Still in denial?
>"taking to task"
>"This should not be an obstacle to providing evidence unless you are a coward who can’t stand criticism, or unless you are actually lying about the existence of this evidence."—SSAre you honestly that fucking stupid? The resounding answer is "yes."
>Wytch-no. The reason this website is not an example of misandry is due to the fact that it is aimed at a subset of males. Not the gender itself. Just as when Ms Strange was criticizing the specific person of you for failure to provide links or comments from feminist websites showing they routinely claim all men are evil or bad or whatever negative claim du jour, so does this blog criticize these specific males for doing that against all women.You apparently are unable to distinguish between the contempt that is directed at a very specific person or group and the entire gender. Might want to work on that.
>"You apparently are unable to distinguish between the contempt that is directed at a very specific person or group and the entire gender. Might want to work on that."—SSSS is projecting her cowardice and weakness on me, and YOU are in denial about it.Deal with it. I never obligated myself to links—you provide all the ammo I need. Again, she is not even worth contempt. And you defending her is suspect, isn't it?
>"The reason this website is not an example of misandry" It is. And so is SS.
>"Just as when Ms Strange was criticizing the specific person of you for failure to provide links or comments from feminist websites showing they routinely claim all men are evil or bad or whatever negative claim du jour . . ." Bullshit. I said that the stigma of being single and a man in the 30/40 range can come from feminists. Not that feminists claimed all men are evil (although some believe this).Strawman.
>"I said that the stigma of being single and a man in the 30/40 range can come from feminists."Yes you did say that. And when asked for the evidence that led you to believe that, you refused to provide it. So we can reasonably conclude that one of the two following options is true:1. You are a coward who, for some reason, is comfortable making generalizations about feminists, but is unwilling to share the specific evidence that led you to form those generalizations because your ego is too fragile to bear having your evidence "dismissed," or2. You are flat out lying about the existence of this evidence. Either way, your personal failures are on you, not on your sex generally. Though, as I said, your repeated attempts to deflect criticisms of you personally onto criticism of men generally are noted. And it looks like your opinion of men is barely higher than your opinion of women.
>Since you have accused me of misandry, Witchy, you have now obligated yourself to substantiate your accusation. Please point me a specific thing I said–using quotes–that demonstrates my hatred towards men generally. Provide a quote that illustrates my hatred of men in general, not my contempt for you, the individual. Witchy =/= all men. Try to remember that. Provide the quotes, and I will apologize. Fail to provide the quotes, and you have two options: first, apologize and retract the statement. Second, fail to apologize and be known as a cowardly liar.
>"You are a coward who, for some reason, is comfortable making generalizations about feminists, but is unwilling to share the specific evidence that led you to form those generalizations because your ego is too fragile to bear having your evidence "dismissed," or"You're the coward—you keep projecting and lying about me."You are flat out lying about the existence of this evidence."It's all over the 'Net. "And it looks like your opinion of men is barely higher than your opinion of women."That's the most idiotic thing you've said yet.
>http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_single_young_men.html
>http://forums.plentyoffish.com/datingPosts11167189.aspx
>http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss/entry/is-it-really-true-that-95-percent-of-single-men-are-undateable-what-are-your-tips-for-avoiding-the-bottom-95
>"http://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_archive.html"
>See, now that really wasn't so hard, now was it? There was no need for the preemptive kicking and screaming and whining about being dismissed. I may or may not regard your evidence as convincing, Witchy, but if you refuse to provide it, I have no choice but to dismiss YOU.That's how this whole debating thing works. Glad to see you're slowly picking up on it.
>"http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,908975,00.html"
>wytch, so you're using an article by a conservative non-feminist as an example of feminists being critical of men? And if you think this site is misandric, please cite specific examples of me or any of my commenters posting things that are contemptuous of men as a whole. Examples of people being critical of individual men, or of men with a specific set of beliefs (MRAs, MGTOW) are not examples of misandry. Sally, could you cool it with the "cowardly loser" stuff and stick to the substance of your criticism?
>http://hugoschwyzer.net/2009/05/27/feminism-made-women-too-picky-more-on-male-rage-sexual-entitlement-and-backlash/
>"wytch, so you're using an article by a conservative non-feminist as an example of feminists being critical of men?"—DavidYou are right about one thing—Kay H. considers herself a social conservative. Although she mirrors the "man up" attitude I've seen and read from feminists as well."And if you think this site is misandric, please cite specific examples of me or any of my commenters posting things that are contemptuous of men as a whole."That would take half an evening. The motif is there—so is the denial
>"Second, fail to apologize and be known as a cowardly liar."—SSI apologize to no feminist. Consider yourself an attention whore and a troll.
>wytch, my last comment was in response to your comment linking to the city journal article.I haven't looked at the rest in detail, but afew thoughts:the rebuking feminism link: I'm really not sure how a diatribe by a strident anti-feminist is proof of feminists being misandrist. He offers no evidence for any of his assertions.I've only skimmed the others, but the 95% of men are undatable woman also says that 95% of women are undatable, and I didn't see any evidence she was a feminist either.Could you point out some of the specific comments in these threads you think are misandrist, and the evidence that the people beiing misandrist are actually feminist?
>"I may or may not regard your evidence as convincing."—SSI.e., "Anything I don't like/agree with is not substantial evidence . . ."Speaking of evasiveness and cowardice. Wow. Your arrogance is stunning.I'm done with you. You're out. You've lost this debate.Go look in the mirror for your own weakness and lies. Like a true feminist should. Adios.
>wytch, as for this site, let's make it simple: find ONE quote from me that is misandrist. No need to spend all night researching. Just ONE post or comment from me that's misandrist. Cite the specific remark by me that's msandrist, and link to it. All I'm asking for is ONE specific example here.
>"Could you point out some of the specific comments in these threads you think are misandrist, and the evidence that the people beiing misandrist are actually feminist?"Is it that difficult to read any of them? Please.
>"wytch, as for this site, let's make it simple: find ONE quote from me that is misandrist."You don't have to be direct to be misandrist—you claimed MRAs are the enemy—what other proof do I need?
>Hey, person makes an assertion and refuses to provide evidence –> person is either a coward or lying about the evidence. It's an observation, not an accusation. Note that once the evidence was offered, I ceased pointing out the cowardliness of Witchy's stance.I read the article by Kay Hymowitz. I saw criticism of cultural forces that lead young men to delay taking on adult responsibilities, including marriage and family. The author regards this is a negative for both society and the young men in question. I suppose calling the young men in delayed adolescence "man-children" and stating that many young women laugh at these young men and bemoan their lack of maturity could be read as "shaming" these men. Particularly if you're a man who shares those characteristics and is feeling a tad sensitive about the whole thing. I wonder about the author's implication that women are not going through a similar delayed adolescence, though. I've seen plenty of women (myself included) that have gone through a similar path to delayed adulthood.I've heard of this author before–her book, "Marriage and Caste in America" makes the case for why divorce and single parenthood lead to bad educational outcomes for children, and why this is particularly endemic among poor black families. Are feminists generally known for criticizing single parenthood? Witchy, the considerate thing to do is to pick a couple of choice quotes from your articles so that it's less work for your readers to figure out what you're getting at. A link to Plenty of Fish is simply not going to get any clicks from me, unless you make it clear that the link is to an article by a person generally regarded as a feminist.
>MRAs =/= all men. Disliking the MRA mindset =/= disliking all men. Try again.
>wytch — How is my criticism of the MRM evidence of misandry? As I've said again and again, I think the MRM is not only bad for women but bad FOR MEN. That's one of the main reasons I oppose it. Also, I'm not going to read through ten long threads in search of what you've decided is misandrist. When I cite example of misogyny, I cite specific statements; I don't make people read through hundreds and thousands of words to find it themselves. All I'm asking for is a few specific examples. Again, if you've already gone through these threads and found misandrist statements, it should be trivial to cut and paste them into the comments here.
>Also, just looked at your Time magazine link. How is a profile of an antifeminist (George Gilder) from 1974 proof of feminists hating men?You can't prove a claim that x=y by simply finding someone else also asserting the same claim without evidence.
>Wytch-you have provided some links for your claim that feminists are misandrist.I have reviewed a few of them and they strike me as…well not feminist (a dating site? Really?) or not showing misandry. The one about the impact of feminism on men, that actually is not a "men suck!" but a reasonable discussion of what makes conservative men angry about feminism. And the Time magazine article is from 1974, how is that showing misandry now? The author is blaming women for the fact that men do XYZ when single. If the women would marry men, then there would be less social problems.So far, not seeing these as examples of misandry. Do you have any examples that are actually misandrist and showing that feminist hate all men equality or even come close to a MarkyMark?
>Wytch -Or maybe I've missed your point on Gilder. Are you saying that GEORGE FUCKING GILDER's critiques of unmarried men are an example of a FEMINIST criticising unmarried men? Because George Gilder is about as far from a feminist as you can get.
>This whole discussion is bizarre to me. Instead of showing us specific examples of misandry from feminists, many of your links are from people who AREN'T feminists.What this suggests to me is that you actually know very little about feminism and so have no idea even where to look for feminist misandry. To be perfectly honest, wytch, there ARE feminists who have said misandrist things. I could probably find you a half dozen examples within a few minutes. But they would be from radical feminists, a specific brand of feminism that had its heydey in the 1970s, which has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of feminists today.I don't link to rad fems in the "good stuff" links here because, er, I don't think they are good stuff. But within mainstream feminism — not radical feminism — there is very little misandry. Which is why I challenged you to find examples from me or from the mainstream feminist blogs I linked to. Which you still haven't done.
>Seriously, Wytch, I read the article at the first link that you posted, and read through 3 or 4 pages at the POF comment thread and haven't yet come across anything that I would construe as showing utter hatred and contempt for men.I would be interested in knowing what it is in that first article that you believe to be misandrist, and if you could post or somehow direct me towards which posts in the POF comment thread that you believe to be misandrist I'd appreciate that as then I could focus on those posts rather than try to figure out which of the many posts there you think display misandry.
>Although she mirrors the "man up" attitude I've seen and read from feminists as well.Is it the "man up" attitude that you find misandrist? Personally, I don't like the "man up" phrase, either, but maybe for a different reason… to me, it is actually meaning for one to "grow up", and I don't think that growing up and becoming an adult is a sex-specific thing, but that's just the feminist in me shining through. But having said that, I still fail to see how telling someone to "grow up" is misandrist.
>"As I've said again and again, I think the MRM is not only bad for women but bad FOR MEN. That's one of the main reasons I oppose it."—DavidIf anything, MGTOW has helped me through bad times and anger—you clearly don't know much about the subject you talk about, you only are here to mock and paste examples of certain men venting and not any real issues (accept for showing "misogynists" and imply that the MRM have that largely via guilt by association)."Which is why I challenged you to find examples from me or from the mainstream feminist blogs I linked to. Which you still haven't done."Don't you have posters that are free here to judge men as whiners, hotheads, and losers on your site? They are doing exactly what I'm talking about and you can't even acknowledge that? What more proof do I need? I honestly question your mechanisms of denial here—look at misandrists like SallyStrange—why would I bother associating with such hatred and negativity like that? If feminists like her rule the roost, you got your work cut out for you. You have crank cases that blast any man here that disagrees with feminism as mentally ill, angry, "can't get laid," "cowardly losers" and other slags that demonstrate to me that feminism is filled with smugly righteous jerks that are unsympathetic to men that take them to task.That's why feminists don't get a free pass with me.
>"Also, just looked at your Time magazine link. How is a profile of an antifeminist (George Gilder) from 1974 proof of feminists hating men?"—DavidWell, I'll be damned. You actually looked into that.I didn't mean to be insidious with my bait there, but at least you took the time to look.
>We certainly judge MGTOW/MRA men as losers, cowardly jerks, whiners, etc but how is that viewing the entire sex such?It is not. It is viewing, like Ms Strange, a specific group as such. What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend?Now I am mocking a 34 year old male for being single but that is because this particular man was incredibly vicious during the last local campaign here to perfectly nice woman. So his trying to find a woman after his behavior is very funny to me and I plan on laughing for quite some time at him. However, that does not mean all men are as much of an ass as he is. Or even that most men are. Not even you Wytch are like him. Do you see the difference now? *figures no*
>"So his trying to find a woman after his behavior is very funny to me and I plan on laughing for quite some time at him."—ElizabethApparently, many of you don't know much about human nature. A constant stream of vitriol, shame, and mockery often not only serves to heighten the beliefs of those being mistreated and abused (yes, I said abused, and SallyStrange is abusive), but solidify them. It's a tactic bound to backfire. "It is viewing, like Ms Strange, a specific group as such. What part of that is so hard for you to comprehend?"You don't get it.Because she's a misandrist and has nothing else to come up with than slags based on her own personal weakness. It's really as simple as that despite your own denial (and herd-like defense) of it. It's an tenuous belief system based on her hatred of men that don't agree with her. "So his trying to find a woman after his behavior is very funny to me and I plan on laughing for quite some time at him."What purpose does this serve? It makes you look like an obnoxious asshat more than anything else and that any "argument" you come up with is based on your own sense of entitlement and smugness. Again, it isn't very wise to provoke someone who is already convinced you are an activist not in his best interest and has an overheated response to it. In fact, I would say you are begging for some reaction to prove he is a "misogynist" while not being responsible for adding fuel to the fire.Stupid move.
>I was correct in your utter lack of comprehension.Now read this very slowly-HE IS NOT A MISOGYNIST. HE IS AN ASS.I mock HIM specifically for being so. NOT you, NOT Cold, NOT my colleagues who are male, NOT ANY MALE OUTSIDE OF HIM. HIM AND HIM ALONE IS THE ASS BEING MOCKED.Do you comprehend now? No? What a shock.
>I also do not need his reaction for him to prove himself an ass, he already did it in the last campaign.
>"Do you comprehend now? No? What a shock."—ElizabethYou called him an ass, but you also implied that he might be a misogynist by implication. It is disingenuous in the way you framed the beginning your post with:"We certainly judge MGTOW/MRA men as losers, cowardly jerks, whiners, etc but how is that viewing the entire sex such?"Either you are being deceptive or you should practice conveying your examples better. My reading comprehension has nothing to do with it.
>Yep-you certainly did not get it.You are being purposely obtuse and refusing to use your own common sense-so why should I bother trying to explain any further?
>What is there to get? That you messed up and won't own up to the fact you implied something that you now are retracting? BTW, by employing caps lock many would agree you are doing a text version of yelling online.You have a hard time admitting you are wrong, making yourself clear, or are deliberating being obscurant. Give it up or confess you made a mistake.
>"deliberately"
>I did not make a mistake-you read something that simply was not there.I was pointing out again and again that talking about one specific person or group does not indicate all of one gender and yet you consistently claim that it I am referring to the entire gender which I am most clearly am not. You are the one who is purposely ignoring the plain meaning and I am saying enough-you want to remain ignorant by choice, fine by me.