On a fairly regular basis, Man Boobz is visited by commenters of an MRAish disposition. There are many varieties. Some start off by trying to post rape threats and other such unpleasantness, and their comments never see the light of day. Some leave a few irritated comments and head off, never to be seen again. Some manage to stick around long enough to become Man Boobz institutions.
One interesting variety: the ones who come here, they claim, to discuss the issues with us in good faith. In most cases it becomes quickly evident that they are not interested in real discussion at all, as they ignore what most of the commenters here say to them to instead argue with the straw feminists who live in their heads.
Soon many of these alleged good-faith arguers drop the pretense entirely and lash out with nasty personal attacks. At this point they go on moderation, or find themselves banned entirely.
The latest such meltdown was a fairly quick one. For those who don’t regularly read the comments, here’s a brief history of John Anderson’s brief career (so far) as an unofficial goodwill ambassador to Man Boobz from planet Good Men Project.
An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project, Mr. Anderson arrived at Man Boobz Prime on July 2nd, bright-eyed and bushy tailed, eager to learn from and about the feminist commenters here, and to convince some of us to join him and the other commenters at the GMP in healthy and fruitful dialogue.
In one of his first comments here, he explained the reason for his coming here:
I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.
In a further comment he explained that he was trying to do his part to save the Men’s Rights movement from the angry ideologues:
I was on a voice for men a while back. They had nothing but contempt for the GMPers. I’m certain that I’ll cross paths with them. It is my heartfelt intent to reclaim my movement from people who would disgrace it.
Five minutes later, alas, we learned that he had determined we were all a bunch of misandrists after all.
I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.
Oh, wait, not all of us. But we are a bunch of meanies:
I don’t think all the commentators hate men or are necessarily closed minded to other view points. I actually stepped away from a safe space to engage people who don’t see things the way I do. The feeling that I get is that there is great hostility to anyone who may consider men to be victims under any circumstance….
I’ve quoted DOJ and CDC statistics and included page numbers or links on an article that says that we shouldn’t be angry over truthful statistics. I’ve been told that the statistics have been spun. Maybe I should have refrained from that SHOCKED bit. I probably should have considered the feelings of the people on this site. I’d consider apologizing, but too many people here seem mean.
As far as I can tell, he determined that I was a misandrist because I downplayed the fact that more men are murdered than women by writing the following sentence in the OP:
While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”
I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women. You can go read the whole discussion yourself and see if you can figure it out.
The meltdown followed not long afterwards. In one comment, Mr. Anderson suggested, as far as I can figure it, that [TW: RAPE APOLOGETICS] women regularly decide whether or not to charge a man with rape after they determine how good their rapist is in bed:
When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.
But he still hoped to lure some of us over to the Good Man Project for more scintillating discussion about how feminists are evil and mean and how dudes like him think women think about rape. Oh, and that movie about the stripper dudes.
Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.
Then, for some reason, he decided to bring up his cock:
Kyrie says,
“Fuck. You.”
No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. 🙂
At this point, I put Mr. Anderson on permanent moderation.
Or tried to anyway. Due to a little glitch, it didn’t take, so Mr. Anderson was able to post freely for a while. Among other things, he tried to explain away that previous comment with this:
David says,
“And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”
You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic.
Not so much.
Then he whined about being moderated:
Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.
The only record set was for how quickly Mr. Anderson devolved from an earnest man of alleged good faith to a cock-talking troll.
The general atmosphere. The posts were not and are not anti-feminist (though I think some people have an understandable almost Pavlovian* reaction to overtly pro-male blogging) but the general atmosphere has come off that way.
*i.e., meringue-like
I warranted a whole article. Dude I’m touched figuratively speaking. Most have touched a nerve. I guess the saying is right the truth hurts especially about the misandry that I found objectionable.
“An anti-feminist dude who generally hangs out at the Good Men Project,”
Dude, I identify as MRA. I’ve said that many times. Anti-feminists are not the same. Want to slander me some more I guess. There are people on GMP who identify as anti-feminists. Many seem (in my opinion) to have been former feminists based on what I know of their stories. I was an almost feminist. I looked at the ideology and rejected it. I resent the implication that I was ever a feminist.
“I remain a bit baffled as to how a sentence that starts by noting that four times as many men are murdered than women is downplaying the fact that, well, four times as many men are murdered than women.”
Never said you downplayed that. I said you downplayed the fact that nearly as many men are killed by intimates as women. You’ve avoided answering. You’ve avoided explaining why you used the minimizing term ONLY. I’ve allowed opportunity for clarification or retraction. I can only assume that you feel that this is not just an appropriate word choice, but one that best communicates your intended meaning.
“While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”
My last post tried to explain how and why MRAs will see misandry on feminists posts. My assessment should have been MRAs see misandry in these posts because it is there. That would have been simpler.
BTW, your cat is cuter. Why’d you pick a black one? I’d tell you why I think, but then you’ll cry I slandered you and use it as an excuse not to post this.
‘You have to admit that was a classic’- Anyone else hear that so many times after some asshole says something absolutely hateful or demeaning about you as a woman? Like demeaning stuff is funny in and of itself? And somehow they don’t realize this sentiment is a pretty clear indicator of some nasty misogyny.
Cliff, on a different thread:
This is related to why I think pro-male blogs so often become anti-feminist: in addition to the feminist meringue, there are a number of highly vocal people who do think (e.g.) catcalling is innate to manhood. So even if you start out trying, like Ozy and Noah seem to have been, to create and discuss a masculinity that is explicitly not misogynist and free from patriarchy, you quickly get a bunch of MRAs who want freedom for misogyny unless you’re willing to take a stand against it.
@John Anderson: Wow, you make up some weird meanings for words.
Anti-feminist means, well, against feminisms.
It doesn’t mean ex-feminist.
There probably are ex-feminists who are anti-feminist, but not all anti-feminists are therefore ex-feminists.
Though I comment frequently on GMP, I am not officially affiliated with the site. I’m not even a volunteer moderator. If you have beef with me, you have it with me. I shouldn’t expect feminists to be honest, but that doesn’t mean that I should allow their dishonesty to stand. To suggest that I’m an ambassador for that site is dishonest.
I feel I needed to have this corrected.
Well, that’s why I called you an UNOFFICIAL goodwill ambassador in the post. Not sure what’s “dishonest” about that.
Now I put “unofficial” in the title too. Ta da!
John Anderson (My Jo): I warranted a whole article. Dude I’m touched figuratively speaking. Most have touched a nerve. I guess the saying is right the truth hurts especially about the misandry that I found objectionable.
Again with the English. The purpose of this blog isn’t, “to counter the truth”. It’s to make fun of misogynists*.
As to “the truth”. Ok, if you have so much of it, come on back to the post you started in, and refute the evidence presented to you, because you’ve dropped the ball on lots of it.
Dude, I identify as MRA. I’ve said that many times. Anti-feminists are not the same.
This is true. The second group is larger than the first. Not least because (in my experience) all of the former are inside the latter (but not vice versa, see Venn Diagrams).
Never said you downplayed that
Not quite true. What you argued for was the comparison being neither fair, nor valid. You said he overplayed the relative percentages because in a discussion of IPV, he didn’t talk about non-IPV.
*Though I do have to say, there was a moment when my sides hurt from laughing at this idea that your truthiness was scaring Dave so much he had to mock you in self-defense. It’s so cute when MRAs are that aggrandising.
Maybe I shouldn’t have put this on my things to do because once something is there, it starts to feel like work and then you don’t want to do it, but this is too ironic to not do. Sorry Fembot, I almost have to release this into the manosphere. Maybe I’ll create a blog on blogger or just a web page, but this is special.
We know what I said to Kyrie. I don’t know if David will let me quote myself so I won’t. Here is some of the back and forth after that.
Snowy | July 4, 2012 at 1:13 pm
“Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this: ”
To which I respond.
John Anderson | July 4, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Snowy says,
“Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:”
It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.
Basically, I said that I’m treating people the way they treated me. In response to this, pecunium says.
pecunium | July 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm
It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.
Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?
So a man not wanting to have sex with a woman is sexually assaulting her. We know that women don’t need to tell the truth for it to be rape (that is for a man to be convicted of rape). The Innocence Project proved a man doesn’t need to have sex with a woman to rape her. Now feminists are saying that if a man doesn’t want to have sex with a woman and declines it, it is the same as sexually assaulting her. Is that because men are always supposed to want sex? Watch out guys, if you don’t agree to be women’s sexual slaves, you should be imprisoned.
I haven’t even gotten to comparing Ruby’s treatment to mine or the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.
@John Anderson
Of course you can quote yourself, you just chose not to because it would make you look bad and you know it. Here’s the thing that you originally said:
It’s a disgusting piece of victim blaming, to which Kyrie responded with:
The obvious meaning of which is that you should go fuck yourself. You disingenuously replied with:
When Snowy was asked you why you would say something like that, you replied:
So, it was not until after you spat out your rape-apologist crap that you were cursed at by Kyrie, and after that, you replied with insulting sexual innuendo.
Only then did Pecunium reply to your “courtesy begets courtesy” crap with:
It was not because you “refused to have sex with a woman”, it’s because you posted a piece of rape-apologist victim-blaming, and used the resulting anger from Kyrie to make insulting sexual comments. So fuck off with your martyr act, all of these thing are written down where people can see them, you asshole.
“I haven’t even gotten to comparing Ruby’s treatment to mine or the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.”
It’s amusing how much this one overestimates himself.
Why don’t you? No seriously, start your own blog that no one will ever read. If it will stop you from wasting people’s time here it can’t be a bad thing.
Feminist’s what?
OK, bring it.
Anderson, are you claiming to be responsible for her dislike of Ruby? 0_o Unless you made her wrote that rape is sometimes funny, I don’t see how.
But go on, pit us against each other! Make Ozy hate Cliff, David hate Ami, Argenti hate Pecunium! I want to see duels, fight, blood! Show us, share the fun.
John Troll: First, your idea that you cannot quote yourself but can quote others because DAVID: ahahahahahahah.
Second, you really ought to supply links (*points up to what David does as best practice) because a quote without a link is fairly meaningless on the internet.
And, big surprise asshat, you can quote and link to your posts as well.
Third: FEMINISTS plural, FEMINIST’S singular possessive, FEMINISTS’ plural possessive.
Speedlines gave you a handy tip: feminist’s what? (meaning what do feminists possess).
What did apostrophes ever do to you to so abuse them?
Fourth: PLease, with antimanboobz giving up in despair over his sockpuppeting being found, the internet clearly needs another blog by a troll who got his toes stepped on at Manboobz!
PLEASE POST ALL ABOUT YOUR HORRIBLE TREATMENT.
Then we can come laff.
@Kyrie, even if he succeeds in unleashing this hate plague, I’m not sure how he’ll make us actually fight rather than be adults about it.
Yes, and please don’t forget to include all those threats of castration or death (that didn’t actually happen) that we lobbed at you.
Bring it, asshole. If you think Ruby’s a feminist, I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell you.
I’d really like it if you could tell me why you jags can never punctuate properly.
John, you said horrible things about rape victims (if you can’t quote, I can do it for you, it’s really not that hard), I said “Fuck you”. (meaning go fuck yourself, idiot). Which I maintain, was deserved given wgat you wrote. To that you answered a sexually graphic comment directed to me.
Obviously, MY behavior on this blog is the problem, here.
Hershele: Well, you’re obvioulsy right but… Urgh. youre a poopyhead i hate you and all of you filthy feminists i wish i never discovered manboobz!!!eleven!!
…
Oh my god, he’s doing it! Get out of my head, John Anderson!
Jo: It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.
So you are complaining that you managed to reap what you had sown (see the parent thread on the tone and tenor of your comments; also be so kind as to answer my question about the use of the word fuck, and the number of teenagers who seem to be propositioning their parents for sex).
The Innocence Project proved a man doesn’t need to have sex with a woman to rape her.
More problems with English. The Innocence project continues to prove that the court system in the US convicts people falsely.
Watch out guys, if you don’t agree to be women’s sexual slaves, you should be imprisoned.
The problems in that sentence… you don’t believe what you are writing; you can’t. If you did you’d never have dared (no matter how professional you think sexual attacks on others may be) to have typed what you wrote. If you believed it you’d be terrified that you’d end up in prison for it.
So you are a liar, as well as a poor user of English.
I haven’t even gotten to…the fun I’ll have pitting feminist’s against each other.
They way they have taken to vicious intrafeminist fighting here, in response to your jibes and barbs? Do you really think you’ll have feminists beating down the doors to come to your blog to savage each other for your entertainment?
Do you think your writing can pull that off?
Guys, the Farce is strong with this one.
This thread would be a good review for my fifteen-year-old son. I’d have him read it through, and then ask him, ‘can you imagine any situation in which John Anderson would be a pleasant person to be with? How about Steele/Skylar, the Doublemint Twins? Can you think of any ways to avoid being perceived as like them?’
Seriously, how hard does someone have to work at it to become THAT screwed up? We’re almost in Jack Donavan territory here.
And we see, from his lack of presence elsewhere. why Dave said it was a brief career.
David Futrelle | July 9, 2012 at 12:13 am
“Well, that’s why I called you an UNOFFICIAL goodwill ambassador in the post. Not sure what’s “dishonest” about that.
Now I put “unofficial” in the title too. Ta da!”
And yet ONLY is still in the original post. More evidence that the use of the MINIMIZING term to describe the MURDER OF MEN BY WOMEN was INTENTIONAL.
cloudiah | July 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
“John, why don’t MRAs run a positive educational campaign for divorcing fathers, telling them that if they petition for custody they have a decent chance of getting at least shared custody, and often primary custody? Is it because the actual reality on the ground takes away one of the MRM’s most cherished grievances? Because honestly, that is what it looks like.”
What do you think the father’s rights movement is a part of? It’s considered part of the MRM, which specifically focuses on fathers rights. In Michigan the father’s rights movement fought for a change in the law that would allow men who fathered children with another man’s wife to establish paternity. Why was this fought by the feminist lobby in Michigan? They fought criminalization of visitation interference. It appears that feminists want to perpetuate the illusion that men simply don’t want their children.