a voice for men antifeminism antifeminst women bullying creepy evil women misogyny MRA oppressed men paul elam rape rapey the enigma that is ladies threats violence against men/women white knights

MRA: Making women suffer is a highly ineffective way to put them in their place

Making women cry: Highly ineffective.

Given the enmity towards women in general, and feminists in particular, that’s omnipresent in the manosphere, it seems logical to assume that most of the dudes lingering around MRA, PUA and MGTOW sites online would take a certain secret pleasure in seeing women suffer.

As regular readers of this blog know all too well, oftentimes the desire to see women suffer is not so secret: some MRAs and others of their ilk  literally laugh at women getting cancer, declare that rapists should be given medals, openly fantasize about “beat[ing] the living shit” out of women,  and tell feminists who complain about this sort of shit that they’re “so pernicious and repugnant that the idea of fucking your shit up gives me an erection.” (Those last two examples come from Paul Elam, one of the MRM’s most influential bloggers.) Still others send rape and death threats to outspoken women online.

But good news, folks! It turns out that not all manosphere misogynists want women to suffer. Why? Because suffering is an ineffective way to put women in their place. That, at least, is the argument of a fellow calling himself Höllenhund. In a comment on Susan Walsh’s Hooking Up Smart blog, he offered this argument:

Making women suffer wouldn’t achieve anything in itself – I’m pretty sure the overwhelming majority of the Manosphere would agree. Women are normally solipsistic and they fail to understand their own urges and don’t comprehend the connection between cause and effect. They’d never understand why they’re suffering in the first place.

So, basically, in his mind, women are dumber than dogs and thus harder to train. Even worse, the suffering women can sit down in the street and cry, and countless “white knights,” hoping to win their approval (and get in their pants) will rush to their aid:

Suffering only motivates them to fish for male sympathy (and thus investment) through crying and whining, to blame ‘ bad men’ for their ‘misfortune’ and thus play the game of ‘let’s you and him fight’. That’s how it has always been.

So making women suffer is largely pointless. I’d go further and say it’d actually be detrimental to men because it encourages white-knighting and intra-male competition. …

And some of the ladies even seem to sort of like it:

Not to mention the fact that many women actually seem to find some sort of twisted pleasure in suffering, that all this’d simply serve to justify more anti-male legislation and whatnot.

Poor Höllenhund doesn’t have much hope that women will ever see how totally terrible they really are

[T]he notion of making women ‘admit their faults’ is pie-in-the-sky as well. Again, I’m sure pretty much everyone in the Manosphere would agree. You have a bigger chance of seeing pigs fly.

If women are to recognize their faults in this SMP [Sexual Marketplace], they need to have a realistic picture of both their own sexuality and the SMP in the first place, plus they need to have empathy for beta males …

Er, you’re lecturing us about empathy?

Sorry, on with the rest of the sentence:

plus they need to be imbued with the sense of morality without which the very concept of ‘fault’ is meaningless.

And lecturing us about morality too?

I think we’ll sooner see Haiti become a dreaded military superpower.

I’d rather see that than live in a world in which women were so self-hating that they actually believed they were guilty of whatever unnamed sins Höllenhund attributes to them.

NOTE: I found Höllenhund’s comment because the blogger at Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology cited it as a prime example of the sort of brave “truth telling” that will get you banned “on feminist sites that supposedly support men.” And yes, it apparently did get poor Höllenhund  banned from Hooking Up Smart. I’m not quite sure how Susan Walsh, a traditionalist  devoted to slut shaming in a thousand different flavors, counts as feminist, but that’s not the point. The point is: I’m regularly accused of “cherry picking” comments from MRAs. In this case, Mr. PMAFT picked the comment for me.

485 replies on “MRA: Making women suffer is a highly ineffective way to put them in their place”

As for “more than enough financial resources,” lots of existing shelters have had to close altogether at least in my state and I’m quite sure we’re far from alone; there is this thing called the recession? and guess where the state budget axe tends to fall first.

hey belledame, i hear ya…i loved Duke Roscoe P Hazard characterisation of DV accommodation being like some first class hotel booking site that is prejudiced against men. having worked on a DV advice line for a women’s refuge many moons ago (and gone on from there to other types of accomm) i can fully relate to your experience

and also i see hostels/shelters being closed down in the UK and Oz and guess which ones go first? Hmmmm.

Roscoe P. Coltrane

Try not to take their misandry too hard! Being feminists, they consider the very possibiliity of the need for men’s only shelters for CV and/or spousal abuse to be something of an embarassment. it cramps their style, and focuses attention (and possibly even resources) away from the REAL VICTIMS, and we all know who they are, don’t we?

Look at their responses to fellow men’s advocates, from “NWO Slave”, to “Brandon” to “David K. Meller”, et al. They are long on name calling, even longer on non-sequitors, as long as they can look good and you look bad, and longest of all on distortion and defamation! They will cite the most unimportant tidbit out of post of several thousand words to make you (and your fellow men’s advocates) to be villains, while ignoring everything else that you have said for the past several weeks or months.

Look at these feminists (and modern women) this way: If they are hostile and bitter toward you, you must be saying something RIGHT!

A better name for (and other feminist blogs and websites) would probably be,

So, Roscoe is a lying lair? Queue surprise.

Seriously, the way people like him and the MRM mess with issues like this is…just sickening.

Yeah Mellertoad, no matter how hard you try we’re never going to forget that you think women getting cancer is funny. Whine all you want to about how unfair it is to judge you by your words.


Oh, please, Meller. We all know your stance on DV and how you pretzel yourself to justify it.


Tell you what Meller. We’ll stop bringing up the cancer thing if you say “I was wrong to have posted that. I should never have posted it, it was extremely inconsiderate of me and I apologize for all the hurt I caused.”

P.S. It doesn’t count if you follow it with “but I was totally justified in doing it because FEMINISM”

DKM: I have saved the text of the last comment that got you banned, and I will post it every time I see you in a thread. You have no right to characterize anybody else as saying hateful things, and you really have no fucking right to say anything about domestic violence and abuse (unless you want to tell me whether men who are abused by women DESERVE IT the same way you say women abused, even murdered by men, deserve it).

Ithiliana–February 12, 2012 @2:31pm

“graduate student “murdered” by ex-husband”

Take post cited above. Could woman who talks like that (over the ‘net) have such an unpleasant, unfeminine, and just plain horrid personality that she could say something that MAY provoke an unpleasant response from a nearby man who may already be troubled about something else. Look at all of the cases you read about where a murder or vicious assault or rape was committed by a man whose entire life was coming apart, and the very person—his wife–whom he was relying upon to keep what was left of his sanity was turning on him…

Did graduate student take her “how to handle men” or something like that from YOU?

I was explaining that a man who loved his nearest and dearest would do anything to avoid the spousal abuse so often cited on feminuttery websites and blogs like this, because it wouldn’t get him what he wanted! I would rather be kind, gentle, and loving to a woman than beat,rape, or kill her, and so would most men, for obvious reasons!

Gee, Ithiliana, for an intelligent woman, you sure have a lot of trouble understanding ordinary common sense, don’t you?

Crumb: Roscoe P. Coltrane was the sidekick of the corrupt political figure on the car-chase sitcom, “The Dukes of Hazzard”. The present iteration seems to be trying to live up to the standards of probity and wit exemplified by Roscoe.

Meller is his own brand of evil, and I don’t think he’s faking it. He’s a frustrated Dom, who doesn’t seem to be able to deal with the real people who are in the other half of a relationship. His ideal world, is Gor. The problem is, Earth isn’t Gor, and even the people who want to play Gor, are just playing.

But he’s in deadly earnest, that or he’s been trolling the entire internet for years. The net is the last great place of self-creation, you are whom you pretend to be. So even if he’s faking, he is what he is.

And what he is, is evil.

Meller, the DV apologist returns. DV is bad… because there are better ways to train your slave than beating her, but “some, perhaps even most,claims of abuse or DV deserve to be taken with considerably more skepticism and reserve than has been the case” because pets are so prone to “testing boundaries,” and demanding discipline.

It’s not as if the abuser is actually responsible. More to be pitied than hated.

Female perpetrated violence by proxy… right. Pull the other one, it has bells on.

Because that’s not what the OP was about. It’s also got nothing to do with your hobby horse that DV shelters are evil because they don’t let men and women in willy-nilly.

The simple fact, which you don’t want to admit, is you have an obsession. The weakest reed is enough for you to justify going off the rails and dragging conversation to it.

It’s a powerful obsession, and facts; in direct reply to questions, which contradict your beliefs are either ignored, or twisted.

And this is what you call arguing in good faith.

It’s not. It’s soapboxing.

More attempts at gaslighting. We are discussing the attempts of FF to hide himself as IR, and this I got David to release my hidden info, which may be against the WordPress TOS (I’ll have to check). It was fun, but it isn’t really relevant to what we’re talking about. is his response.

So we have a verification of FF=IR, and an attempt to pretend a conversation in which he says he’s not, isn’t actually a conversation about the sock-puppetry he’s engaged in.

Weak sauce.

Ah, the posturing, I’ll be the judge of a conversation is civil enough for me to engage in. Not you.

Which is a tautology. The thing is, my little chickadee, you are engaging in the discussion. You are pretending you aren’t, but you are. It’s a classic derail (note how this has moved the discussion from your shifting goalposts, refusal to deal with facts that proved your assertions wrong, and the simple truth that while the conversation you got started may be interesting [or would be if you were so lacking rhetorical skills that you can’t argue your way out of a paper sack with with a firehose], is for whatever merit it [or the pleasures of practicing decent argument on you] has, is plainly OT. Not that OT is horrid, per se, but you have made a fetish of trying to rationalise the on topicality of a blatantly OT subject; which is where the deserve of derision enters the equation, but I digress).

So a 4.5 from the American Judge, because it wasn’t that difficult. Pretty much anyone can pull a tone-troll, and getting huffed at a “fuck off” is weak sauce. A pearl-clutching set of the vapors over something which wasn’t quite understood; with the imputation of your being denigrated for your taking the time to tease out the parts of our philosophies which are noble, but lacking in completion, that would have been worth full marks; and you had promise in that direction, but you let your emotional response take over. That pesky amygdala will get in the way.

On the other hand, the, “I won’t stand for this treatment” is pathetic. You have to stand for it. If you don’t, you can’t get all shirty about how Meany McMeanery has been mean to you. Better to just declare your offense, and drive on, ignoring it after pointing out the banality of the attacker as someone who can’t come up with a clever bon mot. This, of course is open to the riposte of that person saying you aren’t worth the time, and energy, to engage in a tailored response, you being bog-standard in technique, and somewhat staid in style, but someone with a real gift can surmount that; rise to the challenge and get the lurkers to rally in email.

But you didn’t. You ceded the field with the nonsensensical assertion that you have some sort of control over others’ discourses. You are an island, and on the internet, where each of us is an autonomous actor, capable of speaking, or not, as we see fit (if not in one forum, then in another, as those who leave here to post about how horridly they were handled by the nasty harpies and pathetic manginas of Manboobz make perfectly plain).

Keep on trying my little buckaroo. Use this as a lesson for the future, when you can enter the lists with a full panoply of tools, turns of phrase and the calm demeanor required to field them when required, and the wisdom to only deploy those which are best suited to shaming the villains who refuse to admit your all-knowing grasp of whatever it is you are pulling out of your ass today.

pillowinhell: Some of it I learnt from Rostand, the rest… well I’ve had lots of practice. I used to do debate, and I wrote opinion columns for newspapers, back in the days I pondered making my career in newsprint.

Pecunium, tis a shame…you could make a fortune selling your technique!

My only experience with formal debates was high school club and it quickly devolved into boys are superior to girls. At which point I opted to leave, because the jeering got so bad I couldn’t get a word in edgewise. So, instead people will just have to put up with my run of the mill opinions.

pillowinhell: Much of it is spotting the stylistic quirks of the offender. Then you look at the technical quirks. Then you analyse them, and treat the subject as a student.

A student one is giving a dose of tough, and scathing, but fair, critique to. I think some of the rhetorical devices I use these days come from 15 years of teaching in the Army. There are moments when, “what were you thinking, Hero!?” is the only appropriate response. That, or a goggle-eyed incredulity that someone who can walk, talk, and eat, can so completely fail to understand something as simple as, “pull the pin, throw the grenade.”

I have been lurking for a while so I thought I’d leave a comment; I’m trying to understand something and maybe the readers here can help me.

How are MRAs any different from radical feminists or female separatists, most of whom believe things like these:

“The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations. He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming. He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings — hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt — and moreover, he is aware of what he is and what he isn’t.”

Some interpret the SCUM manifesto written by Valerie Solanas to be a satire of misogynistic ideas, but it is clear from her actions (she attempted to kill Andy Warhol) that she had a boiling hatred for all men. Try reading some of the radical feminist blogs and they believe EXACTLY the same things that are written on these MRA websites, only changing the gender of the object of their contempt and hatred. It, somehow seems like radical feminist thought has more legitimacy than what MRAs are saying.

Personally, I don’t care much because its just another form of extreme human behavior and creates a lot of drama and lulz. But I would like to know what the readers here think of the SCUM manifesto and other such pieces of literature that call out for extinction of the male sex and such. Do you think misandry actually exists or just a figment of an MRA’s imagination?

BTW, I think that bit about men being trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes is something only Rod Serling should be allowed to say.

I’m going to pretend you’re not here for the lulz and answer. This really isn’t a radical space, and Solanas is not exactly a feminist leader. No one here is calling for the extinction of men.

Misandry is not a thing, except in the fevered brains of our trolls.

How about we stop pretending that Solanas matters to feminists and that maybe, just maybe, she killed Warhol not because she hated all men but because she hated Warhol?

I think I speak for all the straight and bi women in manboobz when I say that we definitely don’t want the extinction of men.

Not that it’s even relevant, but yeah, Solanos shot Warhol over a personal grievance, not because she wanted to exterminate all men.

MRAs consistently gloss over or ignore the fact that SCUM’s name was given to it by the publisher, not Solanas, since it was published posthumously.

@ObserverTroll: Another difference is that you have Solanis as an example.

She’s dead.

David has numerous living misogynists who post often and harass women often on a daily basis (register.her).

There are radical feminists blogging, but their stuff is nothing like what routinely gets posted by misogynists (nor, in fact, do many call for the extermination of men).

So, troll ploy is obvious (do you really think you’re the first to come up with this disingenuous little question? Really? Because you’re not, not even the fifteenth).

Seriously, who gives a shit about Valerie Solanas? She seems to have had greater influence over anti-feminists than anyone else.

Got any more recent quotations than that one?

Got a list of influential feminists who are approbatory of the message in the Manifesto?

Care to show us the feminsts who say men ought to be stripped of rights and treated as slaves and children?

When you have those, get back to us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.