Today, some Deep Thoughts about men, women, children, empathy, mini-vans, and patriarchy, from the inimitable Men’s Rights activist and proud misogynist Rob Fedders, whom I found being quoted with approval and even some relish by MGTOWer elder MarkyMark on his little blog today.
Mr. Fedders starts off with a classic misogynist trope: women are like children.
Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults.
This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to “explain things” to women.
Women just don’t care. We are here for their purposes, not ours. …
Women will never “care” about men in the same way that men “care” about the wellbeing of women. …
We are designed like this by nature … .
Mr. Fedders offers proof of this evolutionary design by considering a dilemma that preoccupied our ancient ancestors on the African savannah. Namely: who gets the minivan?
You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to “protect them” etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work… when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, “We had to get Joe a new truck… because the last one wasn’t safe and we don’t know what we would do if something happened to him.
That’s the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be.
Apparently, men hunted the mammoth in crappy old pickup trucks.
Fedders returns to his main theme:
Men are a tool to women… a “business.” And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don’t cry don’t get milk… and women who don’t get attention don’t get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, women have ruled the world from time immemorial.
Women do control society’s values and mores… they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.
And, oh, women invented patriarchy as well.
Women “are” society. What women’s wants are is what society’s want’s are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded “patriarchy.” The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally – causing the men to follow suit.
Turns out that patriarchy is basically just a way to make all men slaves to their women:
This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women… it is going to be between women who want a “traditional man” and those who want a collective “government husband.” In both cases, the women are advocating for men to take care of women – with little concern for the man’s wants and needs – one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.
It’s the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same.
I knew women were sneaky, but I had no idea they were this sneaky.
Shhhh, Quackers! You’ll alert the Blockquote Monster saying that, and then you’ll find your entire comments will be in blockquotes. 😉
Thanks Marie!! 🙂
Eeep! I take it back! I take it back! xD
“Speaking of lactose intolerant, I really should have checked to make sure I had Lactaid before eating the 4 (delicious) pieces of pizza.”
Seem things are worth suffering for! …I had three slices earlier myself…
Marie — meep, my mistake! And I’ll find a better break down of that bullshit rape “prevention” argument in a moment.
Clearly I am not very Blockquote Monster savvy 😉
Ah. A person of the “Negative things are only negative when they happen to me, and the goal must be to strategize around the pitfall for myself, not remove it for everyone.” Camp.
I’m done. I’ve got nothing. I could write arguments and slightly mocking script all day, but end all be all, there’d be no point. We operate in separate cognitive universes, Mr. Minter, we expound different models for interacting with reality, the very basic building blocks that make up the way we think are apparently engaged in some animosity. If you’re willing to concede that misery is only bad when it happens to you, and not because misery, in and of itself is a negative thing, then we have little to talk about. All there’s lift is the mocking and the misunderstanding.
But that’s your issue, anyway. You want to be paternalistic and protective, and keep your men happy and safe. I’m a fan of the father-to-his-men, kind-old-sergeant approach to some things myself. I agree, even, to a degree – it’d be a better world if everyone was safer. But instead of dealing with the things that make the world worse, you just blame it all on women. Mark Prescott is a man. He literally says that the only reason men do better, think better, work hard, acquire things, is to get laid. That women should use their bodies to shape men into the things they want, as if, on their own, no person defined as male would accomplish anything. The phrasing you quoted is “She has not only a right, but a duty, to use access to sex to entice, and yes, even coerce the man into being a better man than he would if it were not for her.”
As I said. Mark Prescott is a man. And who do you then blame for this absurdity? The person saying it, the twisted ideas exposed there, the notions nicely slumped under the banner of glory be to God to add some nice joy to it all?
Nah, it’s the women’s fault. Men. Telling other men. That the only reason they do anything. Is to get laid. Is women’s fault. Seriously, mate? Get a grip.
Now, we could argue the role of biochemical in relation to human behavior for a long time. I’m just going to point out here that the concept of a cortisol gun is, while evocative, at odds with reality. Your evolutionary understanding is somewhat flawed. Your crusade raging against the wrong target. And all it really does it make me sad. Because you clearly want to help people live a better life. It’d almost be… charming, in its absurd misguided factually void nega-space if it was not because the things you advocate are utterly, entirely and completely without base in reality and based on some sort of quagmire of misery. And that just makes it all the worse.
<blockquoteThat’s the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be.
He spoketh on the first of Days!
As the walls of the city of Uruk were raised high:
“Behold, these my walls and this my city
Greatest City in all the world
For within lies the comfortable SUV with Hybrid motors,
FOREVER granted by the GODS above to the Women of Mankind
To see them safe from the ravages of mammoth, maiming, misery and long distance travel
While we, upon our brows, take this burden: The driving of the lesser vehicle
The Pick-Up Truck, That Most Foul Mechanical Automobile
To cruise forever
At the backroads of reality
And down those dry, dirty dust roads that weave within our cobwebbed minds!”
Is fine 😀 I’m all…tone weird today, I feel. Not very clear.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: I found the Lactaid. *Beams some to Argenti.*
Marie — probably the best source for the latest stream of this stupidity is what Zerlina Maxwell said. There’s videos and transcript here — http://feministing.com/2013/03/07/telling-women-to-get-a-gun-is-not-rape-prevention/ (transcript is in the comments)
And the internet doesn’t convey snark well, not your fault we need a sarcasm tag!
Viscaria — congrats and thanks!
Fibinachi wins the thread!
(Though not without taking a hit from the Blockquote Monster along the way.)
There’s something extra creepy about the way he says “offspring” and not “children”. It’s like saying “females” rather than “women”. Also interesting that they’re specifically her offspring (conceived via parthenogenesis, I assume).
Wow somehow I missed that ^_^ Need to pay more attention…I guess. I mean, I actually read his posts, didn’t skim, and still missed it 😉
and its so damn offensive to both sexes. I really don’t understand how these guys can think this way, it’s like they have no concept of people as individuals who make choices to live their lives in ways that make them feel happy and productive. To them, relationships between men and women is a way for the one to manipulate the other into getting shit from them. Now I’m no optimist, I know there are people like this out there, but I really don’t think they define relationships between men and women.
My brother is an engineer and I guarantee you he did not go in the field to acquire women. He went in it because he’s smart and has always liked to tinker with things….its funny that people like my brother is who MRAs claim to represent.
And of course this course this will be completely discounted by MRAs because its coming from a lying liar woman, but I have not once used sex to get anything from men. I don’t view men as tools to get shit I want done, because funnily enough the way I grew up to understand feminism is that I can get shit I want myself, and in the times I do need someone else to help, be they man or woman, I reimburse them when they need something done. No, not with sex, but with favors, time, skills, etc. This is how healthy, non-asshole people operate. MRAs ought to try it sometime.
“Also interesting that they’re specifically her offspring (conceived via parthenogenesis, I assume).”
I’d hope so. The thought of that guy’s genetic input … urgh, who’d want to inflict that on a kid? That’s on top of the “who’d actually want to fuck a creep like that” part.
Quackers – a mighty THIS to your last paragraph. And even without feminism, women have always had to do that, because the men go out to work/women stay at home stuff is just 19th century middle-class notions being splashed around as if they applied to all history. They didn’t – they didn’t even apply to the whole of that one class in that one century. There’s also the little matter of not all women having a man around to support them, even if that had been the norm forever and ever. It’s simply not reality.
A recurring theme in MRA rants about marriage, divorce, and children is an apparent conviction that if a man doesn’t have 100% control over his wife and children and the terms of the marriage, then he has no input at all and is completely at the mercy of the fickle, coldblooded harpy.
*waves at cloudiah*
I’ve been reading all along, but more conferences than usual (four this spring), plus my sf student con (they did not do what they said they’d do, and it opens next week and OMG), and well stuff has made it hard to comment.
Haz missed talking to you all!
Serial dating is dating one person at a time. It’s what most people have done for years (esp. since the rise of the automobile).
Minter: Friendzone. Good as long as those men stay in it, learn their place, and never never never actually insist on reciprocation to the friendship.
Reciprocity… a balanced relationship.
So if he’s her friend, and she’s his friend, all is good.
What’s the reciprocity you think is being denied… oh! He has boner thoughts and she doesn’t want to fuck him. That’s called life. I have boner toughts about lots of women who don’t want to fuck me. There are women who have boner thoughts about me, and I don’t want to fuck them.
Am I being cruel to them? If they are friendly to me do I have to move them from the, “friend zone” to the, “fuck zone” to avoid being a worthless human being they have every right to hate?
What did I say above that was actually untrue?
Pretty much most of what he says is common belief and knowledge among men
That is one of those things. I’ve been polling my male friends about the beliefs of the MRM. When they got done looking at me as if I were making shit up, and realised you were trying to present this as true, they laughed. The sample isn’t legitimately random, but at this point it’s about 150 people. 100 percent of them think you are full of shit.
So it may be a common belief among the small group (in relative terms) of men in, “The ‘Sphere”, but it’s far from representative. If it were representative, then your idea about how oppressed men are, would be differently absurd. If so many men agreed with you, then (looking at the men in office) VAWA would never pass.
Spousal support laws wouldn’t be the evil you think them to be. (from back in the day. I am old enough to remember when alimony was standard; because wmoen weren’t really able to work. Then again, that was the same time that a married woman wasn’t allowed to open a credit card without her husband’s signature and permission)
“Paper Abortions” would be legal (the way that “walking away” was, way back in the day). Spousal rape would still be legal. Date rape would never be a thing.
In short, that you have any, “movement” at all is because most men don’t agree with you.
*waves at hellkell*
It’s better this month than the last two months—especially all the weird cold and icky weather (this is TEXAS, dangit, I expect).
Two new doggies settling in.
Am behind with grading, but what else is new!
How is it where you are?
The most ALPHA cereal is STEEL cut oats.
Cereal of Steel.
This oatmeal is CUT, woot.
Our recipe from EATING WELL WITH DIABETES: two cups steel cut oats, 2/3 cup dried fruit (we vary it), 8 cups water. Cook in slow cooker for eight hours on low.
Creamy, full-bodied, sensuous, and KICKING ASS for health.
(Cannot remember if I told you all that I got diagnoses of diabetes TII last fall, so we’ve been working on living a healthier lifestyle–glycemic index meal planning, portion control, exercises–mostly walking new doggies!–and it’s working well, but wow, takes a lot of time and energy.)
It’s the OATS OF STEEL, superhero among cereals!
Sorry to hear you’ve got diabetes, Ithiliana, but glad the diet control seems to be working. Mate of mine controls hers the same way, and yeah, bloody lot of work.
How’re the doggies? All happy and settled in and growing up? 🙂
This is another example of how some people can’t fathom a system where nobody is oppressing anyone else; the only change they can imagine is the same thing, but flipped around.
And of course the oppression is only oppression if it happens to them. Everything else is the Nat’ral Order.
14th-century Europe: Arranged marriages for all. If you lived under a lord your lord had the right to pick your partner. You could bribe you way out and take your chances in another town.
This is news to me. First, I’d say that, “Europe” is pretty broad. Second what I know from studying England is that villeins and serfs had to get permission/pay a fee to marry. One of the requirements of the Church was that marriage had to be entered into freely; a woman could (legally) refuse at the altar.
In Ireland the right to permit/refuse marriage wasn’t a thing (until the English/ Scots-Irish arrived and imposed their rules in the Pale of Settlement).
In Russia, in the 14th Century most of the county was still under the Rule of the various Khans of the Tatar arms of the Mongols. That wasn’t completely reversed until 1758 when Russia overthrew the last of the local Khans (in the Crimea).
Steel cut oats of decadence.
1 cup oats.
1/2 cup maple syrup.
2 cups cream
2 cups water.
Dash of salt (to taste, about 1 1/2 teaspoon is my norm).
Put all into pot, over a moderate flame. Stir until done (about forty minutes).